Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Geographic region”

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.

425 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Geographic Information System Mapping Tool for Rainwater Harvesting in the United States

The Rainwater Harvesting Tool is a publicly available web-based geographic information system tool developed using geospatial analysis in combination with historic ZIP Code level monthly average precipitation and evapotranspiration data across the United States to help select potential locations for harvesting rainwater. Rainwater harvesting can provide a key source of alternative water for a variety of uses including landscape irrigation, vehicle wash, cooling tower makeup, dust suppression, and toilet flushing. Rainwater harvesting can help support institutional, commercial, and residential buildings in diversifying water sources and offset the use of freshwater. This tool aims to help organizations strategically target locations to implement rainwater harvesting systems. The metric used in the tool is called the rainwater harvesting potential, which is a normalized metric, measured in inches per year. The rainwater harvesting potential describes the amount of rainwater that can be reasonably collected and stored at a specific location. This metric was used to rank areas delineated by ZIP Codes across the US, from lowest to highest to show the relative availability of rainwater for harvesting. Two mapping layers are included in the tool that show the general rainwater harvesting potential for all applications and a layer that specifically shows the potential for harvesting rainwater to supply irrigation The Rainwater Harvesting Tool allows users to view overall trends across the United States, while also allowing the user to zoom in to a scale where ZIP Code boundaries are clearly delineated. The tool can be used to help organizations with buildings located in multiple regions to strategically identify where to install rainwater harvesting systems and prioritize locations that may be optimal for rainwater harvesting.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2022

The ABCflux database: Arctic–boreal CO 2 flux observations and ancillary information aggregated to monthly time steps across terrestrial ecosystems

Past efforts to synthesize and quantify the magnitude and change in carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems across the rapidly warming Arctic–boreal zone (ABZ) have provided valuable information but were limited in their geographical and temporal coverage. Furthermore, these efforts have been based on data aggregated over varying time periods, often with only minimal site ancillary data, thus limiting their potential to be used in large-scale carbon budget assessments. To bridge these gaps, we developed a standardized monthly database of Arctic–boreal CO 2 fluxes (ABCflux) that aggregates in situ measurements of terrestrial net ecosystem CO 2 exchange and its derived partitioned component fluxes: gross primary productivity and ecosystem respiration. The data span from 1989 to 2020 with over 70 supporting variables that describe key site conditions (e.g., vegetation and disturbance type), micrometeorological and environmental measurements (e.g., air and soil temperatures), and flux measurement techniques. Here, we describe these variables, the spatial and temporal distribution of observations, the main strengths and limitations of the database, and the potential research opportunities it enables. In total, ABCflux includes 244 sites and 6309 monthly observations; 136 sites and 2217 monthly observations represent tundra, and 108 sites and 4092 observations represent the boreal biome. The database includes fluxes estimated with chamber (19 % of the monthly observations), snow diffusion (3 %) and eddy covariance (78 %) techniques. The largest number of observations were collected during the climatological summer (June–August; 32 %), and fewer observations were available for autumn (September–October; 25 %), winter (December–February; 18 %), and spring (March–May; 25 %). ABCflux can be used in a wide array of empirical, remote sensing and modeling studies to improve understanding of the regional and temporal variability in CO 2 fluxes and to better estimate the terrestrial ABZ CO 2 budget.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Google Health Trends performance reflecting dengue incidence for the Brazilian states

Abstract Background Dengue fever is a mosquito-borne infection transmitted by Aedes aegypti and mainly found in tropical and subtropical regions worldwide. Since its re-introduction in 1986, Brazil has become a hotspot for dengue and has experienced yearly epidemics. As a notifiable infectious disease, Brazil uses a passive epidemiological surveillance system to collect and report cases; however, dengue burden is underestimated. Thus, Internet data streams may complement surveillance activities by providing real-time information in the face of reporting lags. Methods We analyzed 19 terms related to dengue using Google Health Trends (GHT), a free-Internet data-source, and compared it with weekly dengue incidence between 2011 to 2016. We correlated GHT data with dengue incidence at the national and state-level for Brazil while using the adjusted R squared statistic as primary outcome measure (0/1). We used survey data on Internet access and variables from the official census of 2010 to identify where GHT could be useful in tracking dengue dynamics. Finally, we used a standardized volatility index on dengue incidence and developed models with different variables with the same objective. Results From the 19 terms explored with GHT, only seven were able to consistently track dengue. From the 27 states, only 12 reported an adjusted R squared higher than 0.8; these states were distributed mainly in the Northeast, Southeast, and South of Brazil. The usefulness of GHT was explained by the logarithm of the number of Internet users in the last 3 months, the total population per state, and the standardized volatility index. Conclusions The potential contribution of GHT in complementing traditional established surveillance strategies should be analyzed in the context of geographical resolutions smaller than countries. For Brazil, GHT implementation should be analyzed in a case-by-case basis. State variables including total population, Internet usage in the last 3 months, and the standardized volatility index could serve as indicators determining when GHT could complement dengue state level surveillance in other countries.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HERO CarbonSAFE Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Basalt CO2 storage has several advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. Associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. Reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. Widespread geographic distribution and, 5. Large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. And for locations such as the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, basalts may offer the only economically feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt, and current carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) permitting and regulatory frameworks were developed for conventional saline reservoirs. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts. The HERO CarbonSAFE project will assess feasibility of developing a commercial-scale (50+ million metric tons of CO2) geological storage complex within the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a layered continental flood basalt complex that underlies Calpine’s natural gas-fired Hermiston Power Project (HPP) in Hermiston, OR (Figure 1). Under this 2-year CarbonSAFE Phase II project, the HERO team will conduct a data acquisition campaign that includes drilling a stratigraphic well to a total depth of ~1,500 m into the thick layered basalts proximal to HPP. A comprehensive well logging and hydrologic testing program will be augmented with new core collected from flow zones and sealing units, and comprehensive laboratory testing to help refine the kinetic rates of mineralization. The newly acquired information will be integrated with existing data from regional wells to correlate basalt injection zone properties to develop storage hub/commercial-scale models. Using these models, the project team will evaluate injection scenarios to define the technical and economic potential for storing a minimum of 50 million metric tons of CO2 over a 30-year period, along with a robust sensitivity analysis on key parameters governing reservoir viability for sustainable injection over a commercial project lifetime. Specific technical objectives of HERO are: (1) assessing the reservoir response of a series of stacked layered reservoir flowtop sequences occurring in this area of the CRBG to commercial-scale injection volumes; (2) extending prior efforts by the project team to characterize the deep layered basalts encountered in regional studies, to leverage prior investments by U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage program; (3) leveraging DOE’s mineralization characterization efforts to advance model parametrization for commercial scale injection of CO2 in basalts; (4) conducting risk assessments associated with scaling up to commercial storage hub injection goals, while validating DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) tools, to identify potential constraints that would prevent the CRBG from serving as a commercial-scale storage complex; (5) developing mitigation plans to address identified risks; (6) developing a commercial-scale injection and monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) strategy; (7) utilizing computational models to define and minimize, if possible, the Area of Review (AoR) under Class VI regulations; and (8) developing a robust CO2 management strategy for CRBG that also considers a regional source/sink approach that is responsive to stakeholder needs and industrial demand. Specific institutional objectives are: (1) identifying and developing plans to mitigate the nontechnical challenges associated with the build-out of a commercial-scale storage complex within the CRBG with integrated CO2 sources; (2) implementing the community outreach plan; (3) conducting regulatory research, including a survey of issues related to pore space ownership, MVA and long-term assurance of mineralization-based storage, to support an eventual application for a UIC Class VI permit; (4) advancing the project’s plan for CO2 liability management; and (5) continuing to refine and update the project’s economic model. The final objective is the preparation of a comprehensive Site Characterization Plan that draws upon the technical and institutional feasibility assessments to prepare the project for future commercialization efforts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Assessing dynamic vegetation model parameter uncertainty across Alaskan arctic tundra plant communities

Abstract As the Arctic region moves into uncharted territory under a warming climate, it is important to refine the terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) that help us understand and predict change. One fundamental uncertainty in TBMs relates to model parameters, configuration variables internal to the model whose value can be estimated from data. We incorporate a version of the Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (TEM) developed for arctic ecosystems into the Predictive Ecosystem Analyzer (PEcAn) framework. PEcAn treats model parameters as probability distributions, estimates parameters based on a synthesis of available field data, and then quantifies both model sensitivity and uncertainty to a given parameter or suite of parameters. We examined how variation in 21 parameters in the equation for gross primary production influenced model sensitivity and uncertainty in terms of two carbon fluxes (net primary productivity and heterotrophic respiration) and two carbon (C) pools (vegetation C and soil C). We set up different parameterizations of TEM across a range of tundra types (tussock tundra, heath tundra, wet sedge tundra, and shrub tundra) in northern Alaska, along a latitudinal transect extending from the coastal plain near Utqiaġvik to the southern foothills of the Brooks Range, to the Seward Peninsula. TEM was most sensitive to parameters related to the temperature regulation of photosynthesis. Model uncertainty was mostly due to parameters related to leaf area, temperature regulation of photosynthesis, and the stomatal responses to ambient light conditions. Our analysis also showed that sensitivity and uncertainty to a given parameter varied spatially. At some sites, model sensitivity and uncertainty tended to be connected to a wider range of parameters, underlining the importance of assessing tundra community processes across environmental gradients or geographic locations. Generally, across sites, the flux of net primary productivity (NPP) and pool of vegetation C had about equal uncertainty, while heterotrophic respiration had higher uncertainty than the pool of soil C. Our study illustrates the complexity inherent in evaluating parameter uncertainty across highly heterogeneous arctic tundra plant communities. It also provides a framework for iteratively testing how newly collected field data related to key parameters may result in more effective forecasting of Arctic change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

TropiRoot 1.0: Database of tropical root characteristics across environments

Tropical ecosystems contain the world's largest biodiversity of vascular plants. Yet, our understanding of tropical functional diversity and its contribution to global diversity patterns is constrained by data availability. This discrepancy underscores an urgent need to bridge data gaps by incorporating comprehensive tropical root data into global datasets. Here, we provide a database of tropical root characteristics. This new database, TropiRoot 1.0, will be instrumental in evaluating an array of hypotheses pertaining to root functional ecology and plant biogeography, both within the tropics and relative to other global biomes. The data compilation was conducted by the TropiRoot Initiative, in partnership with the Fine-Root Ecology Database (FRED) and the Global Root Trait (GRooT) database, Colorado State University (CSU) and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Literature search and data extraction were conducted between 2020 and 2024. Literature was identified using Web of Science, Scopus, and complemented using the expert knowledge of members of TropiRoot. To provide broad environmental and geographical distributions, literature searches included root characteristics (traits) across global change drivers, natural gradients, and from different continents. We adopted FRED standardized data columns and streamlined the format to enhance accessibility for data extraction across various user groups. This optimized framework resulted in a smaller, yet comprehensive datasheet. To make the database compatible with other global root trait initiatives, column identification was standardized following the codes provided by FRED. These efforts culminated in data extracted from 104 new sources, resulting in more than 8000 rows of data (either species or community data). Most of the data in TropiRoot 1.0 include root characteristics such as root biomass, morphology, root dynamics, mass fraction, architecture, anatomy, physiology, and root chemistry. This initiative represents a 30% increase in the currently available data for tropical roots in FRED. TropiRoot 1.0 contains root characteristics from 25 different countries, where seven are located in Asia, six in South America, five in Central America and the Caribbean, four in Africa, two in North America, and 1 in Oceania. Due to the volume of data, when ancillary data were available, including soil data, these data were either extracted and included in the database or its availability was recorded in an additional column. Multiple contributors checked the entries for outliers during the collation process to ensure data quality. For text-based observations, we examined all cells to ensure that their content relates to their specific categories. For numerical observations, we ordered each numerical value from least to greatest and plotted the values, checking apparent outliers against the data in their respective sources and correcting or removing incorrect or impossible values. Some data (soil and aboveground) have different columns for the same variable presented in different units, including originally published units, but root characteristics data had units converted to match those reported in FRED. By filling a gap from global databases, TropiRoot 1.0 expands our knowledge of otherwise so far underrepresented regions and our ability to assess global trends. This advancement can be used to improve tropical forest representation in vegetation models. The data are freely available and should be cited when used.

FRED↗
DOE OSTI2025

Global Methane Budget 2000–2020

Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH4 emissions compared to those of CO2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH4 yr−1). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH4 yr−1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH4 yr−1) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH4 yr−1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH4 yr−1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty (∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH4 yr−1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH4 yr−1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GKQ9-2RHT (Martinez et al., 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

INSIGHTS INTO MARINE UNICELLULAR CYANOBACTERIAL AND NON-CYANOBACTERIAL DIAZOTROPHS THROUGH SINGLE-CELL ANALYSES

Nutrient availability affects primary productivity, and nitrogen (N) is the limiting nutrient over large regions of the ocean. Biological N fixation (BNF) is the conversion of atmospheric dinitrogen (N2) to bioavailable forms of N (ammonium and amino acids). A select group of Bacteria and Archaea, known as diazotrophs, are the only organisms capable of this conversion. BNF is a critical source of N in nutrient-depleted (oligotrophic) marine waters. As such, BNF studies are a fundamental component for better understanding primary productivity and carbon cycling, as well as parameterizing predictive future global ocean models. Unicellular diazotrophs are widespread in marine systems and, in some cases, important contributors of BNF. This dissertation investigates unicellular diazotrophs at the single-cell level, including: UCYN-A, a cyanobacterial diazotroph that lives in symbiosis with an algal host, non-cyanobacterial diazotrophs (NCDs), which are putative heterotrophs, as well as a specific NCD known as Gamma A, a commonly occurring organism throughout the tropics and subtropics that belongs to the class Gammaproteobacteria. The single-cell investigations used in these studies can provide high-resolution insights that are not possible from community-level analyses of BNF, such as the N2 fixation rate of individual cells and cell morphology. Singlecell nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (nanoSIMS) analyses were used in chapter 2 and 3 to investigate the cell-specific N2 fixation rates of (2) UCYN-A in the viii cold waters of the Bering and Arctic Seas where N2 fixation was not previously believed to be possible, and (3) NCDs in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre where we demonstrated the first direct evidence of NCD N2 fixation on open ocean particles. Chapter 4 focused on the uncultivated NCD, Gamma A, using geneFISH to visualize single cells in natural seawater samples. We successfully identified Gamma A by developing a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) probe targeting the diazotrophic functional marker gene nifH, revealing Gamma A cells are most often attached to particles. Together these studies provide new insights into the distributions, activities, and physiologies of geographically widespread, unicellular diazotrophs, thus improving our understanding of their roles as sources of fixed N in the surface ocean.

Harding, K.↗
DOE OSTI2024

c-HAND: near real-time coastal flood mapping

The Texas Gulf Coast region contains significant centers of population, infrastructure, and economy and is threatened by intensifying tropical storms. The flooding from these tropical storms often has multiple compounding drivers. This characteristic presents a complex numerical problem where a simulation must consider multiple hydrologic forcings. While several procedures exist for addressing this problem numerically, they tend to be resource-intensive and cannot be conducted in near real-time. We extend GeoFlood, a reduced physics approach for fluvial flood forecasting, to rapidly predict coastal and compound fluvial-coastal inundation. This method is validated against a numerical ocean circulation model (ADCIRC) simulation of Hurricane Ike, a major coastal flooding event that happened on the Texas Gulf Coast in 2008. We show that the inundation map generated by coastal HAND (c-HAND) has reasonable agreement with the ADCIRC simulation while taking about 1.7% of the time currently needed to run ADCIRC on a supercomputer. While our model correctly predicts 99% of ADCIRC-inundated DEM cells, it also overpredicts inundated area by a factor of approximately 27%. We combine c-HAND with the GeoFlood framework for fluvial flood forecasting to create a compound fluvial-coastal inundation mapping workflow that can be run in near real-time. c-HAND's fast wall-clock time and low CPU requirements can support decision making by first response personnel. The method provides timely and convenient access to crucial information, such as the locations of flooded roads and inundated coastal areas.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Systems Analysis of Biomass and Coal Co-firing Power Plants with Deep Carbon Capture Toward Net-zero Emissions

Achieving a net-zero emission economy in the United States requires integrating diverse low-carbon and negative-emission technologies into the existing fossil fuel-dominant power fleet. Potential technologies from the low-carbon portfolio include renewable power, fossil power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and direct air capture (DAC). Renewable power is a clean energy source but has to pair with costly battery storage to provide dispatchable electricity. Fossil power with CCS offers dispatchable electricity yet still relies on DAC to offset residual emissions, even when deploying deep CCS with more than 90% CO2 capture. Coal-biomass co-firing with CCS, a subset of BECCS, is a reliable energy production technology that can be retrofitted from existing electricity generation units (EGUs). Power plant retrofit maximizes the use of the current U.S. coal power fleet without the need for large-scale deployment of new renewable power, battery storage, or DAC. Retrofitting coal-biomass co-firing with deep CCS in EGUs is a promising option, but not a universal solution. Biomass co-firing at a power plant introduces economic challenges and indirectly poses pressure on land and water resources. Meanwhile, retrofitting deep CCS affects plant efficiency and raises electricity generation costs. Overall, the technical feasibility and economic viability of plant retrofits vary across EGUs, as they are contingent upon the regional availability of biomass, unit-specific characteristics, site-specific fuel supply costs, and adjacent CO2 storage potential. Government incentives like 45Q can improve the retrofit viability, though the impact requires further quantification. A comprehensive analysis at the unit level is essential to address the question regarding the fate of the U.S. coal-fired electricity generation fleet toward the net-zero emission goal. This study conducts a systematic techno-economic-environmental assessment of EGUs to identify the viability of biomass co-firing and deep CCS retrofits in the U.S. coal-fired power fleet. Specifically, it characterizes the techno-economic performance of deep carbon capture, estimates life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and conducts a fleet-level assessment on retrofit viability. The key objectives are (1) to estimate the unit-specific performance and retrofitted cost under various biomass co-firing levels and CO2 capture rates; (2) to determine the possibility of reaching net-zero emission at the fleet level; (3) to quantify the cumulative capacities that are suitable for plant retrofits under current and future biomass supply scenarios; and (4) to improve the understanding of policy impacts on such retrofits to help the power sector’s transition to a net-zero economy. Techno-economic Model of Deep Carbon Capture. This study develops the performance and economic models for Monoethanolamine-based post-combustion CO2 capture at 95–99% capture rates. The process is simulated in Aspen Plus, analyzing the performance of carbon capture technology by varying the plant sizes, solvent lean loading, CO2 concentrations, and flue gas inlet temperature. Based on the key inputs and output parameters of CO2 capture, a reduced-order performance model of deep carbon capture is formulated. In addition, an engineering-economic model integrating the performance metrics is developed to estimate the capital as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital cost estimations follow the framework of the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) and incorporate data regressions from three technical reports by IECM, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The O&M cost estimation utilizes the actual inventory consumption rate and labor requirements. Both performance and cost models are embedded into IECM v13.0-beta, a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. Life Cycle Assessment of Power Plants. This study estimates the GHG emissions of power plants through life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA scope includes fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. The fuel-based life cycle module is designed following the framework of the NETL Unit Process Library and CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit. The module is then incorporated into IECM v13.0-beta. The process-based LCA is applied to estimate the GHG emissions of coal and biomass supply, coal- and coal-biomass co-firing power plant operation, as well as CO2 pipeline transport and geographical sequestration. An uncertainty analysis is conducted to quantify the variability and uncertainty associated with the LCA using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method. Fleet-level Assessment. This study evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of selected coal-fired EGUs, examines the role of tax credits in retrofit viability, and assesses the competitiveness of retrofitted units against other low-carbon options. Unit screening identifies EGUs for the study, focusing on new, efficient baseload units with air pollution controls. The power plant databases are then established to organize unit-specific information on performance and operating conditions from the relevant public databases. Biomass for co-firing retrofits is selected based on home and neighboring county availability, ensuring sustained operation with at least a 5% co-firing level. The CO2 storage site is determined by state-level storage potential, with ArcGIS Pro and NETL CO2 Saline Storage Cost Model used to identify the optimal balance between the nearest transport distances and affordable storage costs. The latest IECM v13.0-beta is then employed to configure and evaluate the eligible EGUs with or without the deployment of deep CCS and biomass co-firing. A supply curve is established to illustrate the cumulative installed capacity suitable for retrofits at different cost levels. A sensitivity analysis on tax credits for carbon sequestration is performed. Finally, a unit-level cost comparison is conducted among retrofitted plants, renewable power with battery storage, and abated fossil fuels with DAC. Expected Results. This study evaluates the technical, economic, and environmental metrics of each EGU across an array of CO2 capture rates and biomass co-firing level scenarios. Unit-level comparisons will identify critical factors influencing technical performance. The supply curves with and without tax incentives will provide insights into the impact of tax credits on biomass co-firing and CCS deployment. The cost comparisons with renewables and DAC-retrofit will assess the competitiveness of the retrofitted units. Life cycle emissions from each unit will be assessed to identify the scenarios under which net-zero emissions can be achieved. These analyses are expected to determine the total coal-fired capacity suitable for serving as a low-carbon energy source with or without tax incentives. The study results are novel in identifying optimal unit-specific strategies for producing carbon-neutral power, whether through retrofitting EGUs with deep CCS, biomass co-firing, DAC, or installing renewable power with battery. The findings will provide insight into nationwide efforts to ensure reliable, affordable, and low-carbon electricity. It also will inform investment decisions and policies in the deployment of deep carbon capture and negative emission technologies for a net-zero energy future.

Biomass Co-firing↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗