Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “software infrastructure”

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.

459 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

A Scalable Quantum Cryptography Network for Protected Automation Communication (Final Report)

This is the final report for a CEDS-funded project aimed at developing a new quantum technology for securing utility communication networks used to control and monitor electrical grid equipment. Securing these control networks represents a unique challenge as the performance of the security solution has a direct impact on the stability and reliability of the electrical grid. Traditional, software-based solutions - developed for information networks - are not suitable for utility control networks because they introduce latency, require burdensome maintenance and upgrades, are often incompatible with legacy equipment, and introduce operational complexity that reduces grid reliability. Consequently, many U.S. utilities do not use existing solutions and, instead, protect their critical control networks through the careful isolation and obscuration of their networked equipment. With more utilities embracing grid automation, the attack surface that utilities must defend from hackers has grown to an unmanageable size. To address this situation, Qubitekk and its partners proposed and developed a hardware-based solution that can secure critical control networks without negatively impacting grid performance. This new solution is based on quantum key distribution (QKD) techniques that guarantee secure key generation and distribution across a utility control network. Through deployment and field testing of a prototype QKD system, we have shown that this solution delivers long-term network security, is technically feasible to implement and maintain on a utility’s distribution substation network and does not negatively impact grid operations. In addition, the project has identified and solved key challenges associated with generating, transmitting, and measuring coherent photonic quantum states on a real-world fiber optic network. These additional findings are playing a critical role in advancing quantum networks for quantum computing applications. An overview of the QKD prototype development effort, field testing activities and results, and additional findings relevant to emerging quantum networks are presented in this report.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP): A Metadata Framework for Advancing Interoperability and AI Readiness Across Scientific Repositories

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a diverse and distributed ecosystem of repositories that steward scientific data, publications, and software across its research programs, user facilities, and national laboratories. While significant progress has been made in standardizing dataset-level metadata, the metadata describing repositories themselves (their identity, governance, access interfaces, policies, and technical capabilities) remains inconsistent and fragmented across DOE-funded systems. This variability limits discoverability, interoperability, automated validation, and AI-driven analysis, all of which are increasingly essential for modern scientific workflows. To address this gap, the DOE Data Curation Working Group (DCWG) developed the DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP). The DRMP is a practical, community-driven framework that defines how repositories can describe themselves in a consistent, machine-actionable, and scalable manner. The DRMP is not a new metadata schema. Instead, it is a mapping profile and structured element set capturing the essential characteristics of DOE repositories. It harmonizes repository-level metadata across six widely adopted community schemas: RE3Data; DCAT-US v3; Schema.org; Dublin Core; DataCite 4.6; and PREMIS 3.0. This harmonization eliminates reinvention and enables interoperability within DOE and across the broader scientific ecosystem. A core objective of the DRMP is to reduce burden on repositories by allowing them to reuse their existing metadata through a Rosetta-style crosswalk rather than redesigning local implementations. The profile introduces a three-level conformance model that supports incremental adoption: • Level 1 – Minimum Viable Record (MVR): foundational identification elements required for workflows, project registration, and basic repository presence. • Level 2 – Interoperable: structured metadata enabling alignment with national and international discovery systems. • Level 3 – AI-Ready: enhanced provenance, policy transparency, fixity, semantic context, and capabilities that support automated reasoning, model training governance, and machine-assisted curation. To support implementation, the DRMP includes JSON Schema definitions, OpenAPI patterns, and MCP templates that allow repositories to publish machine-readable metadata directly within existing platforms. These resources are modular and lightweight, enabling adoption without major architectural change. Adopting the DRMP enables repositories to: • Enhance discoverability and interoperability by aligning identifiers, classifications, and descriptive elements across widely used schema standards. • Support federated discovery and cross-registration across DOE systems, Data.gov, and international catalogs. • Enable AI agents and workflow orchestration systems to interpret repository-level metadata within the American Science Cloud (AmSC) through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based context publication. • Demonstrate alignment with DOE’s open science, stewardship, and FAIR data priorities. This guidance represents a community-driven step forward. Through voluntary adoption and continued feedback, the DRMP advances a cohesive, machine-actionable description of DOE repositories that supports FAIR data practices, preparing the infrastructure for AI-enabled research, and strengthening the discoverability and reuse of DOE’s scientific outputs.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Ocean & Geohazard Analysis Tool

The Ocean & Geohazard Analysis (OGA) software tool is designed to summarize insights into key offshore hazards drawing from a diverse set of approaches, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, probabilistic and statistical, and offshore data sources. The offshore hazards that can be analyzed include submarine landslides, extreme wind/wave/current event probabilities, earthquakes, and metocean pathways (CIAM Climatological Isolation and Attraction Model–Climatological Lagrangian Coherent Structures - Submissions - EDX (doe.gov)). Currently, the tool is developed for use in the Gulf of Mexico. The data underlying the offshore hazard analyses can be found here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/gulf-of-mexico-risk-analysis-database-gomrad This work was conducted under the Advanced Offshore Research Portfolio, FWP Number 1022409 at National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Energy. Disclaimer This project was funded by the United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, in part, through a site support contract. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor the support contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

AIML↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogeological assessment of CO2 containment assurance and wellbore integrity at a Gulf Coast storage site

Abstract A large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative on the Texas Gulf Coast serves as a premier demonstration of the U.S. Department of Energy’s CarbonSAFE program. Targeting deep saline formations, specifically Oligo-Miocene deltaic sequences, the project aims to establish technical and commercial viability for geologic CO2 storage within a major industrial corridor. This study provides a rigorous hydrogeological assessment to support Class VI permitting by quantifying the high degree of containment security. Utilizing a compositional reservoir simulator, we developed a suite of 27 distinct simulation cases to evaluate vertical plume dynamics near both planned injection wells and proximal legacy infrastructure. To ensure numerical accuracy near wellbores, we implemented a refined mesh strategy, determining that a 5.6 ft × 5.6 ft grid refinement offered the optimal balance between computational efficiency and descriptive precision. The modeling framework utilized a systematic sensitivity-based approach to evaluate the mechanical redundancy of the subsurface system by performing a bounding analysis of wellbore interfaces against hypothetical high-permeability microannuli. By systematically isolating competing physical drivers, including permeability, porosity, gas hysteresis, thermal gradients, salinity, and solubility trapping (quantified via Henry’s law with dynamically adjusted coefficients), this work moves beyond binary assessments to establish a nuanced hierarchy of containment factors. The results confirm that primary trapping mechanisms (e.g., gas hysteresis and solubility), combined with the site's unique geomechanical stratigraphy, significantly restrict vertical mobility and reinforce the robust containment security of the reservoir. Baseline results demonstrate substantial vertical separation between the CO2 plume and the upper confining system, ensuring robust containment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that even under highly conservative bounding scenarios—assuming theoretical 10-Darcy pathways at specific wellbore locations—the 2,900-ft thick multi-layered confining zone remains a reliable barrier. In these hypothetical upper-bound cases, peak upward fluxes of CO2 and saltwater after 15 years of injection remain localized and dissipate rapidly within the lower sections of the confining interval, leaving the integrity of the seal uncompromised. Furthermore, the study identifies that while localized wellbore pathways define theoretical upper bounds of vertical migration, the Area of Review (AoR) is primarily sensitive to regional thermal gradients and hysteresis, which can influence the AoR by over 3,000 acres in pessimistic configurations. Also, primary trapping mechanisms, specifically gas hysteresis and solubility, work in tandem with the Gulf Coast’s unique geomechanical stratigraphy to significantly restrict vertical mobility. Ductile, smectite-rich mudstones facilitate natural borehole convergence and the self-healing of potential conduits, creating a natural geomechanical bridge that effectively mitigates migration potential at both current injection points and legacy-well locations. This comprehensive modeling effort demonstrates that the integration of high-resolution wellbore simulations and regional geomechanical observations confirms the long-term storage security of the studied site, providing a physics-based foundation for industrial-scale CCS deployments. This modeling framework establishes a baseline for future research into coupled geomechanical effects, such as time-dependent borehole convergence, to further refine long-term containment projections. Acknowledgements We thank the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) at the Bureau of Economic Geology for foundational research support. We appreciate Alex Bump for technical guidance and David Hoffman for model mesh generation. This work used TACC’s Frontera cluster for simulations and CMG Ltd. software licenses provided to UT-Austin. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0032338. Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office under the CarbonSAFE program, award Number DE-FE0032338. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogeological assessment of CO2 containment assurance and wellbore integrity at a Gulf Coast storage site

Abstract A large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative on the Texas Gulf Coast serves as a premier demonstration of the U.S. Department of Energy’s CarbonSAFE program. Targeting deep saline formations, specifically Oligo-Miocene deltaic sequences, the project aims to establish technical and commercial viability for geologic CO2 storage within a major industrial corridor. This study provides a rigorous hydrogeological assessment to support Class VI permitting by quantifying the high degree of containment security. Utilizing a compositional reservoir simulator, we developed a suite of 27 distinct simulation cases to evaluate vertical plume dynamics near both planned injection wells and proximal legacy infrastructure. To ensure numerical accuracy near wellbores, we implemented a refined mesh strategy, determining that a 5.6 ft × 5.6 ft grid refinement offered the optimal balance between computational efficiency and descriptive precision. The modeling framework utilized a systematic sensitivity-based approach to evaluate the mechanical redundancy of the subsurface system by performing a bounding analysis of wellbore interfaces against hypothetical high-permeability microannuli. By systematically isolating competing physical drivers, including permeability, porosity, gas hysteresis, thermal gradients, salinity, and solubility trapping (quantified via Henry’s law with dynamically adjusted coefficients), this work moves beyond binary assessments to establish a nuanced hierarchy of containment factors. The results confirm that primary trapping mechanisms (e.g., gas hysteresis and solubility), combined with the site's unique geomechanical stratigraphy, significantly restrict vertical mobility and reinforce the robust containment security of the reservoir. Baseline results demonstrate substantial vertical separation between the CO2 plume and the upper confining system, ensuring robust containment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that even under highly conservative bounding scenarios—assuming theoretical 10-Darcy pathways at specific wellbore locations—the 2,900-ft thick multi-layered confining zone remains a reliable barrier. In these hypothetical upper-bound cases, peak upward fluxes of CO2 and saltwater after 15 years of injection remain localized and dissipate rapidly within the lower sections of the confining interval, leaving the integrity of the seal uncompromised. Furthermore, the study identifies that while localized wellbore pathways define theoretical upper bounds of vertical migration, the Area of Review (AoR) is primarily sensitive to regional thermal gradients and hysteresis, which can influence the AoR by over 3,000 acres in pessimistic configurations. Also, primary trapping mechanisms, specifically gas hysteresis and solubility, work in tandem with the Gulf Coast’s unique geomechanical stratigraphy to significantly restrict vertical mobility. Ductile, smectite-rich mudstones facilitate natural borehole convergence and the self-healing of potential conduits, creating a natural geomechanical bridge that effectively mitigates migration potential at both current injection points and legacy-well locations. This comprehensive modeling effort demonstrates that the integration of high-resolution wellbore simulations and regional geomechanical observations confirms the long-term storage security of the studied site, providing a physics-based foundation for industrial-scale CCS deployments. This modeling framework establishes a baseline for future research into coupled geomechanical effects, such as time-dependent borehole convergence, to further refine long-term containment projections. Acknowledgements We thank the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) at the Bureau of Economic Geology for foundational research support. We appreciate Alex Bump for technical guidance and David Hoffman for model mesh generation. This work used TACC’s Frontera cluster for simulations and CMG Ltd. software licenses provided to UT-Austin. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0032338. Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office under the CarbonSAFE program, award Number DE-FE0032338. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent in Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities

This project was designed to use thermal video cameras and fatality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of an ultrasonic acoustic deterrent (UAD) on bat activity and mortality, respectively. Our goals were to redesign the UAD device and installation infrastructure, determine the placement on wind turbines to optimize safety, compatibility and functionality, and to compare the mortality among the following conditions: Control (deterrents off and turbines feathered up to the manufacturer’s cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s), Deterrent (deterrents on and turbines feathered up to the manufacturer’s cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s), Curtailment (deterrents off and turbines feathered up to 5/ m/s), and combination (deterrents on and turbines feathered up to 5 m/s). The project was divided into a Feasibility Study and Comparative Study. The objectives for the Feasibility Study were to develop an installation strategy, redesign a previous iteration of a UAD to improve performance and weatherization, and test the effectiveness of the deterrents on bat activity. The Feasibility Study was intended to work out potential issues using a relatively small number of devices prior to manufacturing and installing numerous devices for a larger-scale comparative study. The division of the project into these separate studies was based on previous experience and the challenges of assessing the capabilities of an untested UAD. During the initial development and manufacturing of the UAD, NRG Systems decided to use a piezoelectric transducer rather than an electrostatic transducer, which was used by a previous device (i.e. Deaton UAD). NRG Systems conducted lab testing (i.e., IP67 or Ingress Protection) to ensure no water or dust ingress. In addition, shock/drop trials and variations in temperature exposure were conducted as part of the reliability testing. NRG Systems also developed a communications system to allow for continuous performance monitoring of the UADs. For the Feasibility Study, we installed 6 UADs on each of 2 Gamesa G90 2-MW wind turbines (Turbine 14 and 8) at the South Chestnut Wind Energy Facility, Pennsylvania and monitored activity under control and treatment (i.e. Deterrent) conditions using thermal video monitoring. There are two major sources of variation in bat activity (beyond the anticipated treatment effect): 1) environment around the turbines might inherently favor more activity at one than the other; 2) weather conditions on any given night or within season difference (e.g., migration later during the study period) might favor more activity on some nights than on other nights. Because we could only monitor two turbines on any night, we sought to control the potential influences of these two sources by alternating the turbine on which deterrents were activated each night. If there were no loss of data due to technical failures, this design would result in an equal number of deterrent and control nights at each turbine through the monitoring period, balancing the effects of both sources of variation. We compared the time bats spent and the number of events that occurred in overlapping cameras FOV as an indicator of risk, since 80% of the overlapping FOV of the cameras was in the RSA. Equipment failures, majority due to lightning, resulted in only 17 nights with useable data, with unbalanced treatment assignment within turbines and uneven distribution of treatment assignment throughout the observational period. This resulted in a confounding of treatment assignment and seasonal change. Deterrent treatment was measured at Turbine 14 on only 2 of the first 8 usable nights (spanning the period from 8/18-9/17), whereas 6 times on Turbine 8. From 9/18-927, deterrent was on at Turbine 14 on 6 of the remaining 10 nights, and 4 on Turbine 8. We recorded a total of 1,057 bats and observed a reduction in number of events and duration of events at the UAD-activated turbine when it was Turbine 14. When Turbine 8 had the UAD activated, we observed no difference in number or duration of events. Variation between turbines is not unusual and can cause issues when study designs have no true replication, i.e., multiple turbines per treatment. Within-turbine differences suggested a trend for reduced activity when UADs were activated, particularly for Turbine 14. These results may be caused by the overall higher bat activity at Turbine 8 and confounding of treatment assignment and seasonal trends. We mapped 58 bat events in 3-dimensional space (3D), 30 and 28 events during control and treatment conditions, respectively. We observed bats crossing the rotor plane under both control and treatment conditions and observed a total of 40 confirmed or near-collisions (i.e., target close to blade but no visual confirmation of a strike) out of a total of 1,491 medium and high confidence bat observations (880 control, 611 at treatment). Twice as many collisions/possible collisions were observed during control conditions. Given the challenges with the equipment and potential confounding of the data (i.e., different activity levels at the two wind turbines), we were unable to determine whether this initial turbine placement and orientation was optimal. Given no new information on how best to install the devices, we elected to use the same placement and orientation for the comparative study. For the Comparative Study, the objectives were to investigate the relative mortality rates among 4 treatments. We searched the area within 90 m of each turbine daily to recover the highest number of fresh fatalities possible. We were unable to detect a clear reduction in mortality from deterrents alone for any individual species. Surprisingly, mortality rate of the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) was estimated to be 1.3–4.2 times as much when turbines were operating normally and UADs were on than when UADs were off. Reduction in mortality of all bat species combined due to curtailment of turbines was estimated to be between 0%–38%. This effect was nullified when, in addition to curtailment, UADs were on, with 95% confidence interval ranging from a 45% reduction to a 36% increase in mortality. This was likely due to the large proportion of eastern red bats in the total carcass population. Mortality of all low-frequency echolocating bats combined (i.e. hoary bat [L. cinereus], big brown bat [Eptesicus fuscus], silver-haired bat [Lasionycteris noctivagans]) relative to control was lower when curtailed (95% CI: 0%–74%), but the addition of UADs had no detectable effect (95%CI: 13%–79%). The combined treatment reduced mortality in silver-haired bats relative to control by 11%–99%, compared to curtailment (81% reduction–67% increase) or deterrent (82% reduction–67% increase) alone. Because silver-haired bats comprised a large proportion of low-frequency calling bats found during this study, a similar effect was seen for that group. The higher mortality observed for eastern red bats at UAD compared to control could have been caused by several factors, such as the effective range of the UAD, particularly at higher frequencies, behavior, positioning of the devices on the nacelle, or a combination of these. We used 3D thermal videography to compare control and UAD bat behavior from two turbines using a total of 203 3D bat-tracks across 34 nights. We recorded a similar number of bat-tracks between treatment groups, with 51% and 49% for control and UAD, respectively. Due to potential differences in bat behavior around spinning vs stationary turbine blades, we examined UAD effectiveness separately for non-operating turbines (feathered below cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s) and operating (normal operation above wind speed of 3.5 m/s). We found a higher proportion of bat-tracks at operating turbines (82%) compared to non-operating turbines (18%), although this does not account for overall time turbines were operating versus not. At non-operating turbines the UAD appears to be effective at reducing the amount of time, flight length, and number of passes through the rotor plane, compared to control. In addition, we found bats approached turbines similarly between control and treatment turbines, with 61% of control and 63% of UAD bat-tracks originating leeward of the hub. In contrast, at operating turbines, we saw little change in bat behavior in response to UADs. For example, we found an increase in the average duration of bat-tracks between non-operating and operating turbines for UAD but at control turbines we found average duration decreased once turbines became operational. Both control and UAD had a high proportion of bat-tracks that crossed the rotor plane (i.e., collision risk) originate from the windward side when turbines were operational 65% to 92%, respectively. Given that the UAD devices closest to the blades were orientated parallel to the blades, its possible bats were not exposed to the signal until they were close to the turbine blades, as suggested by the slightly higher mean duration within 5 meters of the blades for UAD turbines. Future research should consider concentrating UAD intensity on the areas of risk (i.e. blades) with enough buffer to allow bats to react to the sound before entering the rotor-swept area (RSA). In addition, investigating the potential of installing UAD units windward of the turbine blades (e.g. a hub-mounted UAD), particularly since even under control conditions, a relatively high proportion (65%) of crosses through the blade plane originated windward. 3D thermal videography provided valuable information on future testing strategies (e.g. device placement, UAD orientation) to improve UAD effectiveness when bats are at risk (i.e., operating wind turbines). Across the entire project we experienced issues with the operation and communication with the UADs. Most of the issues occurred during the Feasibility Study and were resolved prior to the Comparability Study. Additional challenges surfaced during the Comparability Study but were remedied immediately and are thought to have little impact on the results. We had logistical constraints at the project that limited our ability use traditional methods in our camera calibration. Several calibrations showed inaccurate scales, which may have been related to inadequate spatial coverage of “points” in the camera calibration volume. Because we were using actual video recordings of bats at a wind turbine, the behavior of bats could have concentrated “points” in specific areas of the turbine (i.e. leeward of nacelle), and limited “points” in other areas, resulting in camera calibration issues. We have plans to address these inconsistencies and improving the software and related methodologies by early 2020.

17 WIND ENERGY↗