Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “household interactions”

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.

41 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Renewable Energy and Efficiency Technologies in Scenarios of U.S. Decarbonization in Two Types of Models: Comparison of GCAM Modeling and Sector-Specific Modeling

Energy system projections from quantitative models inform actions ranging from short-term and local decisions, such as those about technology and infrastructure deployment, and global and long-term negotiations and targets. Computational limits require model designers to balance coverage and resolution (i.e., breadth versus depth). Some models, such as the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), represent all energy sources and uses with less resolution than models that focus on a single sector's energy use. GCAM balances global supply and demand of all energy carriers projecting prices using internal calculations for energy sources and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation while capturing interlinkages between the energy system, water, agriculture and land use, the economy, and the climate. This globally comprehensive model was used to frame the Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050, which the White House released in 2021 and has been used to inform national and global economy-wide climate change mitigation discussions and strategy development for decades. Unlike GCAM, sectoral models focus on a portion of the energy sector and with greater detail and resolution. The Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) electricity-sector model, for example, projects electricity system capacity expansion and operation with high-fidelity representation of emerging technologies for deep decarbonization, such as variable renewable energy and energy storage, and integration of these technologies into the electric grid. The Transportation Energy and Mobility Pathway Options (TEMPO) transportation-sector model enables analysis of household choices, with a focus on adoption, charging, and use of electric vehicles. The Scout buildings-sector model supports detailed consideration of the policies and markets that can accelerate the adoption of electrification and energy conservation measures in buildings. Such sector-specific models are instrumental in informing technology research, sectoral planning strategies, and sector-specific aspects of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies in the United States. The integrated multisector and sector-specific modeling approaches represented by GCAM and these sectoral models are complementary. The integrated multisector approach calculates energy pricing and resource allocation within the model, which is important for consistency when future conditions substantially diverge from current conditions in transformative scenarios. The sector-specific approach facilitates representation of granular details across spatial, temporal, technological, and market dimensions that enable exploration of particular interactions and trade-offs. This report presents the results of recent work to explore the differences and trade-offs between these approaches by comparing GCAM with the sector-specific ReEDS, TEMPO, and Scout models. The report compares both model structures and results, and it addresses their potential relevance and applications.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Low-Income Energy Affordability Data - LEAD Tool - 2018 Update

The Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool was created by the Better Building's Clean Energy for Low Income Communities Accelerator (CELICA) to help state and local partners understand housing and energy characteristics for the low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities they serve. The LEAD Tool provides estimated LMI household energy data based on income, energy expenditures, fuel type, housing type, and geography, which stakeholders can use to make data-driven decisions when planning for their energy goals. From the LEAD Tool website, users can also create and download customized heat-maps and charts for various geographies, housing, and energy characteristics. Datasets are available for 50 states plus Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., along with their cities, counties, and census tracts. The file below, "1. Description of Files," provides a list of all files included in this dataset. A description of the abbreviations and units used in the LEAD Tool data can be found in the file below titled "2. Data Dictionary 2018". The Low-Income Energy Affordability Data comes primarily from the 2018 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Public Use Microdata Samples and is calibrated to 2018 U.S. Energy Information Administration electric utility (Survey Form-861) and natural gas utility (Survey Form-176) data. The methodology for the LEAD Tool can viewed below (3. Methodology Document). For more information, and to access the interactive LEAD Tool platform, please visit: https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/low-income-energy-affordability-data-lead-tool For more information on the Better Building's Clean Energy for Low Income Communities Accelerator (CELICA), visit: https://betterbuildingsinitiative.energy.gov/accelerators/clean-energy-low-income-communities

affordability↗
DOE OSTI2024

Low-Income Energy Affordability Data - LEAD Tool - 2022 Update

The Low-Income Energy Affordability Data (LEAD) Tool was created by the Better Building's Clean Energy for Low Income Communities Accelerator (CELICA) to help state and local partners understand housing and energy characteristics for the low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities they serve. The LEAD Tool provides estimated LMI household energy data based on income, energy expenditures, fuel type, housing type, and geography, which stakeholders can use to make data-driven decisions when planning for their energy goals. From the LEAD Tool website, users can also create and download customized heat-maps and charts for various geographies, housing, energy characteristics, and population demographics and educational attainment. Datasets are available for 50 states plus Puerto Rico and Washington D.C., along with their cities, counties, and census tracts, as well as tribal areas. The file below, "01. Description of Files," provides a list of all files included in this dataset. A description of the abbreviations and units used in the LEAD Tool data can be found in the file below titled "02. Data Dictionary 2022". A list of geographic regions used in the LEAD Tool can be found in files 04-11. The Low-Income Energy Affordability Data comes primarily from the 2022 U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Public Use Microdata Samples and is calibrated to 2022 U.S. Energy Information Administration electric utility (Survey Form-861) and natural gas utility (Survey Form-176) data. The methodology for the LEAD Tool can viewed below (3. Methodology Document). For more information, and to access the interactive LEAD Tool platform, please visit the "10. LEAD Tool Platform" resource link below. For more information on the Better Building's Clean Energy for Low Income Communities Accelerator (CELICA), please visit the "11. CELICA Website" resource below.

AMI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Human behavior determinants of exposure to Anopheles vectors of malaria in Sumba, Indonesia

Malaria vector control interventions in Sumba, Indonesia, have not been able to eliminate malaria. Human drivers of exposure to Anopheles bites were investigated as part of a larger clinical trial evaluating the impact of a spatial repellent product on malaria incidence. Human behavioral observations (HBOs) evaluating temporal and spatial presence, sleeping behaviors, and insecticide treated net (ITN) use, were collected parallel to entomological collections—indoor and outdoor human landing catches (HLCs), and house hold surveys. Data demonstrates that mosquito access to humans, enabled by structurally open houses, is evident by the similar entomological landing rates both inside and outside households. The presence of animals inside houses was associated with increased mosquito entry–however, the number of humans present inside houses was not related to increased mosquito landing. Analyzing mosquito landing rates with human behavior data enables the spatial and temporal estimation of exposure to Anopheles bites, accounting for intervention (ITN) presence and usage. Human behavior adjusted exposure to Anopheles bites was found to be highest in the early in the evening, but continued at lower levels throughout the night. Over the night, most exposure (53%) occurred when people were indoors and not under the protection of nets (asleep or awake) followed by exposure outside (44%). Characterized gaps in protection are outdoor exposure as well as exposure indoors–when awake, and when asleep and not using ITNs. Interestingly, in the primary trial, even though there was not a significant impact of the spatial repellent on vector biting rates by themselves (16%), when factoring in human behavior, there was approximately 28% less exposure in the intervention arm than in the placebo arm. The treated arm had less human behavior adjusted bites in all spaces evaluated though there was proportionally higher exposure indoors. This analysis points to the importance of using HBOs both towards understanding gaps in protection as well as how interventions are evaluated. To mitigate ongoing transmission, understanding context specific spatial and temporal exposure based on the interactions of vectors, humans and interventions would be vital for a directed evidence-based control or elimination strategy.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluating Energy Efficiency Opportunities from Connected and Automated Vehicle Deployments Coupled with Shared Mobility in California

Connected and Automated Vehicles (CAVs) can be considered to be a disruptive transportation technology, with the potential to significantly improve overall transportation system efficiency; however, CAVs may increase induce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and bring on greater energy consumption. Further, shared mobility is another disruptive transportation event that is reshaping our travel patterns. The primary goal of this project was to extensively collect data from vehicles and associated infrastructure equipped with CAV technologies from both real-world experiments and simulation studies mainly deployed in California, and develop a comprehensive framework for evaluating energy efficiency opportunities from large-scale (e.g., statewide) introduction of CAVs and a wide deployment of shared mobility systems in a variety of scenarios. To quantify the combined impact of CAV and shared mobility on travel behavior, traffic performance, and energy efficiency, a unique mesoscopic simulation-based model was developed for mobility and energy efficiency evaluation considering these disruptive transportation technologies. As a complement to existing studies on nationwide evaluation of CAVs’ energy impacts, this project was focused on data collection efforts and CAV applications under congested traffic environments that are frequently experienced on a massive scale across the major metropolitan areas in California. Extensive real-world data collection supplemented with simulation studies were conducted to cover a variety of CAV and shared mobility scenarios, particularly on scenarios less-explored in the existing research. Another key component of this project was to consider the interaction between different CAV technologies and shared mobility models, and the compound effect on energy efficiency. A comprehensive modeling suite was developed to quantify the impact of new mobility technologies on travel behavior and traffic performance. The developed modeling framework includes an energy intensity module, mode choice module and activity generation module that are integrated into an agent-based BEAM simulation platform to perform impact analysis based on a variety of scenarios. In addition, the RouteE model has been upgraded to incorporate the impact of CAVs on traffic flow, VMT and energy intensity, using micro-simulation data collected from both freeways and urban arterials. A novel fundamental influencing factor (FIF) mode choice model was developed to link CAV and shared mobility components with travel behaviors, and adapted into the BEAM-centered model framework. A statewide energy inventory was constructed under various CAV technology deployment scenarios by incorporating datasets and models for predicting vehicle market share and vehicle usage, which are tightly associated with the penetration of shared mobility systems. Based applying this modeling suite to a calibrated network in Riverside California, it was found that cooperative automated driving in general will improve mobility, but automated vehicles, even when deployed in a shared autonomous fleet, will likely bring an increase of VMT (up to 36%) due to mode shifts and deadheading. Ride-hailing vehicles typically have better energy efficiency and a higher share of electric vehicles, which helps offset the negative impact from VMT increases when estimating the system-level energy consumption. In general, simulation results show a 6% increase in energy consumption for the scenarios with an increasing shift to ride-hailing modes. The statewide analysis based on the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) sample data is consistent with the findings from the Riverside network and validate the developed clustering-prediction modeling methodology. The outcomes from this project will help close the knowledge gap on recognizing the potential performance and energy impacts of a broad deployment of CAV and shared mobility technologies across a wide range of roadway infrastructure with varying levels of congestion. Results from this project: 1) will support policymakers in steering CAV development and deployment towards an energy favorable direction; 2) reduce uncertainties in estimating energy saving opportunities from new mobility technologies and services; 3) increase the confidence of CAV technology investors both on the infrastructure side (i.e., transportation agencies) and on the vehicle side (i.e., OEMs); and 4) expedite the deployment of energy-efficient CAV and shared mobility applications.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗