SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This Solar Decathlon will offer collegiate teams a unique experience to develop critical career skills, learn from both national experts and peers, and gain valuable insights from world-class thought leaders. This document details the Rules for the Design Challenge and Build Challenge.
Handbook is a highly-regarded engineers reference book for heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and energy engineers. Building energy and water use metrics were developed for 53 commercial and residential building types. Supporting narrative was drafted and provided along with multiple tables of building performance metrics for publication in this ASHRAE handbook. ORNL (T. Sharp) developed the building performance metrics in Tables 2, 3, and 4 and authored the narrative about them. T. Sharp also authored the section on "Benchmarking Water Use" and developed building water use metrics published in Table 5.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Green power refers to renewable electricity voluntarily purchased by retail electricity customers. Renewable energy sources for green power include solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and small-scale hydropower. This report summarizes data on the various ways in which voluntary purchasers - including residential, commercial, and institutional customers - purchase green power. We summarize key historic trends in U.S. voluntary green power markets and the current status of green power sales through seven products: utility green pricing programs, utility renewable contracts, competitive suppliers, unbundled renewable energy certificates, community choice aggregations, power purchase agreements, and community solar.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Annual report required by DOE Order 435.1
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Abstract not provided.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Nuclear Science User Facilities (NSUF) is one of a diverse group of DOE user facilities. It is focused on advancing the understanding of radiation effects in nuclear fuels and materials in support of nuclear energy applications. The NSUF has been operating since 2007 and has developed a significant portfolio of supported research. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider its achievements and to determine its successes and shortfalls. As part of this analysis of the NSUF research program, the NSUF has developed a novel and elegant formalism for assessing the current level of understanding of nuclear fuels and materials for use in nuclear environments: the NSUF Fuels and Materials Understanding Scale (FaMUS). The FaMUS methodology is being applied to the NSUF portfolio on an ongoing basis to quantify the progress made. This report summarizes the status of the assessment exercise and highlights general lessons learned. This examination will facilitate capability balancing of future research by identifying gaps in knowledge, understanding, testing, and demonstration allowing the NSUF program office in conjunction with DOE-NE to direct resources to important aspects of the DOE-NE mission using “emphasize & enhance”, “maintain”, and “encourage excellence” classifications as well as providing increased transparency to researchers.
For the first time, a public debate has preceded the preparation of the National Radioactive Materials and Waste Management Plan (PNGMDR). This debate, which took place over 5 months from 17 April to 25 September, was held by decision of the French National Public Debate Commission (CNDP), an independent administrative authority responsible for public participation in major projects and plans/programmes with environmental impacts. To organise and lead the debate, the CNDP appointed a Special Commission. (authors)
In cases of complex but only partially known geology and a lack of spatial control in observation well locations, water table elevation estimation is very challenging. In some cases, auxiliary information, such as observations of the movement of tracers, operation of injection and extraction wells, and calibration of groundwater models against the historical elevation data, can be combined with expert judgement to estimate flow directions in areas of sparse data and to aid in the production of more reliable contour maps (and associated rasters) than could be produced by relying on sparse well elevation data alone. Given a historical sequence of these raster maps, the question arises how to automate, to the extent possible, the process of producing new raster maps to reflect data from previous times, the current data and the operation of expert judgement. One solution is to adopt a Bayesian point of view and to regard the historical well elevation data, auxiliary information and historical raster maps as prior information. The well elevations for water table wells, as well as those for injection/extraction wells and the data associated with other relevant variables, can be viewed as predictors for the raster surface. From this prior information, we can, conditional on the values of these predictors for a new time period, compute an expected value map and a standard deviation map for the new raster. These then can be taken to specify a prior predictive distribution for the pixels in the new raster map. Then we condition the pixels, corresponding to water level observation wells within the raster, on the observed values in those wells (which in general will differ from the regression estimate) for the new time period. Given the smoothness of the water table surface, we then smooth the surface of deviations from the mean surface, based on the variograms of the historical rasters, and add this smoothed surface to the regression mean surface. The error structure of the produced raster map is defined by the regression error structure and the error due to smoothing based on the estimated variograms. This methodology has been developed and is being further refined for groundwater monitoring and remediation at LANL. It is a very flexible method that can also be applied with a variety of other predictors applied to model the water level wells in the area of interest over the historical record. The smoothness of the spatial process and its possible evolution over time can then be estimated from the residuals from this regression. This can be augmented by expert hydrogeological opinion based on site topography and hydrogeology. (authors)
Federal Guidance Report No. 15 (FGR 15), External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil, published in 2019 and referred to below as FGR 2019, provides age-specific effective dose rate coefficients for reference persons externally exposed to each of 1252 radionuclides homogenously distributed in environmental media. Soon after completion of FGR 2019, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published a similar report (ICRP Publication 144, 2020) addressing the same radionuclides and many of the external exposure scenarios addressed in FGR 2019. In 2023 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) published a review of dose coefficients in FGR 2019, concluding that “The external effective dose from beta radiation is not appropriately accounted for in FGR 15 for both low- and high-energy beta emitters in air, in soil, and on soil surfaces.” That conclusion was based largely on comparisons of dose coefficients in FGR 2019 with values in ICRP Publication 144 but also on consideration of some unexpected patterns of equivalent dose rate coefficients across tissues and of effective dose rate coefficients across different soil depths, for a selected set of low-energy beta emitters. In response to the ANL report, the Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge (CRPK) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed an extensive reexamination of the methods and published values of FGR 2019. CRPK found that coding errors had resulted in inaccurate estimates, primarily overestimates, in many of the dose coefficients tabulated in FGR 2019 but that many of the differences between results in FGR 2019 and ICRP Publication 144 could be traced to differences in methodology. CRPK has corrected all errors in FGR 2019 associated with the coding errors and has taken the opportunity to improve a major portion of the remaining dose coefficients in FGR 2019, primarily through additional Monte Carlo calculations resulting in improved statistics for tissue equivalent dose rate coefficients for exposure to monoenergetic sources. This has eliminated the need for extrapolation of results from high and medium energies to low energies, as was done in FGR 2019. In addition, inconsistencies in the methodology identified in the review, such as computational representation of the adult female, were eliminated. The revised effective dose rate coefficients are consistent with values in ICRP Publication 144 except for differences in values clearly arising from differences in methodology; and differences in values for a relatively small set of very low-energy radionuclides with highly uncertain dose coefficients regardless of methodology.
Desert Research Institute (DRI) conducted a field assessment of the potential for radionuclide-contaminated soil to be transported from the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Contamination Area (CA) because of both wind and storm water runoff. This activity supported U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management Nevada Program (EM NV) efforts to establish post-closure monitoring plans for the Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 366. The DRI task was intended to identify the likely mechanism(s) of transport and determine the meteorological conditions that might cause the movement of radionuclide-contaminated soils. The emphasis of the work was on collecting sediment transported by channelized storm runoff and measuring airborne dust concentrations and associated wind conditions. These data will facilitate an appropriate post-closure monitoring program. In 2011, DRI installed meteorological monitoring stations north and south of the Plutonium Valley CA—known as Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South, respectively—as well as a fluvial sediment sampling station within the CA. Since installation, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, precipitation, solar radiation, barometric pressure, soil temperature, volumetric soil moisture content, and airborne particulate concentrations have been collected at both meteorological stations. The maximum, minimum, and average or total (as appropriate) for each of these parameters were recorded for each 10-minute interval. The sediment sampling station included an automatically activated sampling pump with collection bottles for suspended sediment, which was activated when sufficient flow was present in the channel, and passive traps for bedload material that was transported down the channel during runoff events. This report presents data collected from these stations during fiscal year (FY) 2019. During the FY2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019) reporting period, the warmest month was July and the coldest month was February. Monthly total solar radiation was highest in June or July (depending on the station) and lowest in December. Monthly mean wind speeds were highest during February. At the Pu Valley North station, winds were commonly northerly, northwesterly, and southerly. At the Pu Valley South station, the wind direction was more variable and winds frequently came from most directions, excluding westerly and northwesterly winds. Winds above 15.0 miles per hour (mph) (24.1 kilometers per hour [km/hr]) were frequently southerly at both stations, and less-frequent strong winds were northerly (at the Pu Valley South station) or northwesterly (at the Pu Valley North station). Monthly average relative humidity ranged from 18 percent in August to 62 percent in January and February. Monthly total precipitation ranged from zero at both stations in September to 2.23 inches (in) (56.6 millimeters [mm]) during February at the Pu Valley South station and 2.09 in (53.1 mm) during March at the Pu Valley North station. From October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019, the total precipitation was 8.23 in (209 mm) and 8.15 in (207 mm) at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively. The largest daily precipitation totals of 1.46 in (37.1 mm) and 1.14 in (29.0 mm) occurred at the Pu Valley South and Pu Valley North stations, respectively, on March 6, 2019. However, the ISCO autosampler was not activated during any storm event in FY2019 because the channel water depth measurements were insufficient for suspended sediment sample collection. Additionally, because no significant flow through the channel was indicated, no bedload samples were collected. Light breezes of 0.0 mph to 5.0 mph (0.0 km/hr to 8.0 km/hr) occurred most frequently (approximately 55 percent to 57 percent of the time). The frequency of occurrence diminished exponentially as the wind speed increased such that winds in excess of 25.0 mph (40.2 km/hr) occurred less than 0.01 percent of the time. Winds in excess of 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) were most commonly southerly, which is likely controlled by the topography of the valley because topographic highs define the east and west sides of the valley and converge toward the north.The concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 micrometers [μm]) and PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm) in the air generally increase as wind speed increases. However, the particle profiler at the Pu Valley South station regularly malfunctioned, which resulted in poor data quality and a limited period of record within FY2019. Therefore, discussion of the annual dust observations is mostly limited to the Pu Valley North station. At the Pu Valley North station, significant increases in windblown dust concentrations were observed when wind speeds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr), especially during southerly winds. When all wind speeds were considered, high dust concentrations at the Pu Valley North station were frequently associated with northerly, northwesterly, or southerly winds. The majority of PM10 transport at the Pu Valley North station occurred when winds were blowing northerly and northwesterly because of the high frequency of winds up to 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). The ratio of PM10 to PM2.5 is a qualitative indicator of the proximity of dust sources to the observation point and the values of the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio tend to be higher nearer to the source. The PM10 to PM2.5 ratio increased from 1.2 to 2.8 with higher wind speeds at the Pu Valley North station. This increase suggests that some locally sourced PM10 was present in the air when local winds exceeded 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr). Local dust suspension is interpreted during major dust events when peaks in the PM10 to PM2.5 ratio occur simultaneously with the maximum wind speed and the peak PM10 concentration. Analysis of the five major dust events in FY2019 revealed that northerly winds were dominant in three events and southerly winds were dominant in two events. Local suspension of dust within Plutonium Valley is suspected to have occurred during two of the five major events (April 9, 2019, and September 28 to 29, 2019), and a nonlocal source of dust is presumed for the three other major dust events (October 14, 2018; May 16, 2019; and September 2, 2019). The three suspected regional dust transport events exhibited winds that typically did not exceed the 15.0 mph (24.1 km/hr) wind speed threshold for local dust transport and featured PM10 to PM2.5 ratios that indicate large-scale regional dust transport. Similar event characteristics (e.g., wind speed and PM10 concentration) were observed at air monitoring stations approximately 70 mi (113 km) to the northwest within the Tonopah Test Range (TTR). Therefore, these three regional events may not reflect transport from the Plutonium Valley CA. Routine monitoring of meteorological and hydrologic parameters at Plutonium Valley has been discontinued at the request of EM NV, effective at the conclusion of FY2019. Environmental data acquisition has been completed, and both Pu Valley North and Pu Valley South meteorological stations within Plutonium Valley as well as the ISCO autosampler station within the CA were removed on October 14, 2019.
As large-format battery energy storage (BES) capacity increases in the United States, so will the volume of spent lithium-ion batteries (LiBs) (Bade 2019). Estimates based on a 10-year lifetime assumption found that the volume of LiBs that have reached the end of their utility for electric vehicle (EV) applications could total two million units (four million metric tons) annually by 2040 in the United States (Richa et al. 2014; Ai and Borucki 2018). Although there is currently no publicly available decommissioning or end-of-life (EoL) projection for stationary BES systems, the U.S. energy storage market is expected to grow from an annual deployment of 523 megawatts in 2013 to 7.3 gigawatts in 2025 (Wood MacKenzie and ESA 2020; Wesoff 2020). Despite potential secondary market opportunities and the potential benefits associated with the reuse/recovery of LiB material, anecdotal evidence suggests that in the United States most decommissioned LiBs from EVs are landfilled or otherwise disposed of (Steward et al. 2019; Salim et al. 2019; CPUC 2019; DTSC 2019d; NREL 2019b; Jacoby 2019; DOE 2019). The reuse of large-format LiBs is not at commercial scale and to date consists of only a handful of U.S.-led pilot projects. Similarly, less than 5% of LiBs from EVs are sent to recycling facilities in the United States (Steward et al. 2019; Jacoby 2019; America Made 2019; Patel 2017). As awareness of current practices grows, and the demand for critical LiB materials increases, U.S. industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers are starting to (1) consider solutions to drive and enable environmentally sustainable materials management decisions and behaviors and (2) identify barriers to a circular economy for LiBs (Figure 1). Circular economy principles (Figure 1) attempt to transition from a “take-make-consume-dispose” linear economic system to a circular system that allows for the long life, high performance, and the reuse/recovery of products and materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016). We begin this report by summarizing drivers, barriers, and enablers to a circular economy for LiBs used in mobile and stationary BES systems in the United States. We then report on our analysis of federal and state regulatory considerations that may impact the reuse/recovery and disposal of LiBs, and potential civil and criminal liabilities associated with noncompliance. We conclude by highlighting state policies and initiatives in the United States that expressly address reuse/recovery and disposal of large-format LiBs. Our results are based on legal and literature-based research and interviews with mobile and stationary BES industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers. While this report addresses stationary BES, as well as mobile BES, much of the information and experience with LiB decommissioning and EoL material management is derived from the increasing management of spent EV LiBs in the United States.
Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022
Berkeley Lab’s 2020 update of utility-scale solar data and trends provides an overview of key trends in the U.S. market, with a focus on 2019. Highlights of this year’s update include: More than 4.5 GWAC of utility-scale solar (i.e., ground-mounted solar projects larger than 5 MWAC) achieved commercial operations in 2019, bringing cumulative capacity to 29 GWAC. Projects are spread across all 10 regions that we track, though more heavily concentrated in the sunniest regions. The median installed cost of projects that came online in 2019 fell to $\$$1.4/WAC ($\$$1.2/WDC), down 20% from 2018 and down by more than 70% from 2010. 77% of projects and 88% of capacity added in 2019 used single-axis tracking. Average capacity factors range from 17% in the least-sunny regions to 30% where it is sunniest. Single-axis tracking adds roughly five percentage points to capacity factor in the regions with the strongest solar resource. Nationwide average levelized power purchase agreement (PPA) prices fell to $\$$24/MWh in 2019, down 17% from 2018 and more than 80% since 2010. Thirty-nine projects (totaling 4.2 GWAC) in our PPA price sample include battery storage (totaling 2.3 GWAC and 9.5 GWh). In the “lower 48” states, a number of these recent PV+battery PPAs have been inked in the mid-$\$$20/MWh range (levelized in 2019 dollars).Not including the 30% investment tax credit (ITC), the median levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from utility-scale PV has declined by 85% since 2010, to $\$$40/MWh in 2019. When the 30% ITC is included within the LCOE calculation, the median LCOE closely tracks the median PPA price over time. In higher-penetration markets like CAISO, the value of solar has been declining, but falling PPA prices have largely kept pace, preserving solar's net value. At the end of 2019, there were nearly 370 GW of solar in interconnection queues from all 7 ISOs and 30 additional utilities across the country. Nearly a third of this proposed solar capacity is paired with battery storage.
Spanning the US states of Texas and New Mexico, the Permian Basin has been a hotspot of methane emissions from oil and natural gas activity 1–4, although studies disagree over the magnitude of these emissions. The most comprehensive measurement campaigns published were conducted in 2019 1–5 .There have been large changes in the energy industry since then, including in the prices of oil and gas, both state and federal regulatory environments, investor and activist pressure over methane emissions, and the adoption of new technologies and policies by energy operators. Understanding how any or all of these might influence methane emissions is important for policy makers, oil and gas operators, and other stakeholders. We characterize the time evolution of Permian Basin methane emissions using a series of comprehensive aerial surveys conducted every year from 2020-2023 and compare them to the 2019 results cited above. To maintain comparability, all the data sets are from surveys using Insight M point source methane sensing technology. The scope of these surveys expanded over time: from 33-46% of wells, oil production, and gas production in 2020 to 60-65% in 2021, to 84% of wells and over 90% of both oil and gas production in 2023. These surveys by Insight M also include hundreds of gas processing plants and compressor stations as well as 1000s of km of gathering and transmission pipelines. Considering only the aerially detected portion of emissions (typically the majority of the total in such surveys 4), we find reductions of more than 70% in methane emissions intensity compared to the 2019 New Mexico-only Insight M survey, with variation depending on the year 3,4. Notably, although sources below 100 kg/hr contributed less than 10% of aerially measured emissions the 2019 New Mexico survey 3, these smaller sources constitute a larger proportion of total aerially measured emissions (although not the majority) in 2020-2023. Production facilities and gathering pipelines are responsible for the larges shares of total emissions, followed by compressor stations and gas processing plants. Permian methane emissions were also measured in a comprehensive 2019 Permian-wide survey by the Carbon Mapper team 2. That analysis led to a lower total emissions estimate at the time 4. These new Insight M-based emission rates are still roughly 30-70% lower than the aerially measured portion of the 2019 Carbon Mapper-based estimates 4. Further work is needed to harmonize these surveys in space and time to create the most intercomparable numbers possible 5. Additional analysis is needed to compare our findings to the more spatially constrained 2020, 2021, and 2023 Carbon Mapper surveys in the Permian 4,6. The evidence is strong from these two survey teams that emissions intensity has declined significantly since 2019. Reasons for this trend are currently unclear but point to possible success of emissions control programs. Future work investigating frequency, source, and operator-specific intensities could provide insights into the causes of this promising trend.