Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “WMA”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

24 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Vadose Zone Model for SALDS for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP) is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain. The Hanford Site Central Plateau was subdivided into 26 individual vadose zone models, with 13 in the 200 East Area and 13 in the 200 West Area. Waste sites that have a completed performance assessment (PA) or past-leak analysis were not included as sources of radionuclides. Instead the vadose zone to groundwater transfer rates of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Integrated Disposal Facility, US Ecology, and Waste Management Area C (WMA C) PAs and the past-leak analysis for WMA C were used as direct input to the P2R model. Each of the vadose zone models is documented in separate environmental calculation files (ECFs). This ECF describes the State-Approved Land Disposal Site (SALDS) model. The scope of this ECF is to document the development and results of the SALDS vadose zone model. CP-63515, Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models, describes the approach, assumptions, process of determining the number of models required and domain of each model, input data, and processing common to all the models.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

ELM-Wet: Inclusion of a wetland landunit with sub-grid representation of eco-hydrological patches and hydrological forcing in E3SM Land Model (ELM)

Wetlands emit the most biogenic methane (CH4) and present the greatest uncertainty in the global CH4 budget. Modeling these emissions is challenging due to the temporal and spatial variability in wetland structure and CH4 flux rates, along with complex interactions among hydrological, ecological, meteorological, and microbial processes that govern CH4 dynamics. To address these issues, we aim to enhance the accuracy of wetland representation in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model, ELM. This effort led to the development of ELM-Wet, which incorporates a dedicated wetland landunit with subgrid representation of eco-hydrological patch types. We implement wetland-specific hydrology by imposing site-specific constraints on surface water levels, thereby allowing different patches to sustain varying depths of inundation. Additionally, we refined the calculation of aerenchyma transport diffusivity based on observed conductance across different vegetation types. We validated these enhancements through site-specific simulations of a coastal freshwater wetland, the Salvador WMA Freshwater Marsh (Ameriflux, site ID US-LA2), located in the coast of Louisiana (29.85N,90.29W) at an elevation of 0 m. The site was simulated with ELM-Wet and the default version ELMv1. We use Bayesian Optimization to parameterize CO2 and CH4 fluxes. Eddy covariance observations of CO2 and CH4 fluxes from 2012-2013 were used to train the model and data from 2021 were used for validation. In this repository, we include all the output of all the simulations performed using different versions of ELMv1 and ELM-Wet, all input required to the model, and the Matlab scripts we used to processed the output data. ELM-Wet_flmd.csv includes a detailed description of the datasets files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Competitiveness Metrics for Electricity System Technologies

The relative economic competitiveness of power generation technologies is a topic of much interest to diverse electric industry participants. However, assessing competitiveness can be challenging as it requires considering both total costs and total system value of each technology, which are complicated by the (1) numerous and diverse grid services needed to operate a reliable power system; (2) variations in the economic value of the grid services with system state and location, and over multiple timescales, due to the challenges of transporting and storing electricity; and (3) the unique characteristics of different electric system assets. Ideally, metrics designed or used to convey technology competitiveness must consider these complexities, but existing metrics often fall short. For example, the levelized cost of energy does not consider the system economic value of the various technologies nor does it consider services beyond electricity production. Various other metrics have been designed with the purpose of more-accurately communicating the economic viability of electric system technologies. In this report, we summarize the primary sources and components of costs and value and review the known competitiveness metrics by presenting their definitions, applications, advantages, and disadvantages. We also introduce a new set of competitiveness metrics, which we refer to as System Profitability metrics, that more-directly applies the economic principles of return-on-investment to electric system technologies. We use conceptual examples to show how the System Profitability metrics better reflect economic viability and relative technology competitiveness compared with existing metrics. We also describe how competitiveness metrics can be quantified using optimization-based models and demonstrate this capability using a U.S. electric sector capacity expansion model.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗