Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “stakeholder workshop”

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.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Large Load Integration - Task List and Overview

Large Load Integration Tasks: Task 1 – Workshops Support stakeholder engagement across industry to promote collaboration and identify solutions to challenges that will guide other work Task 2 – Ancillary Services Characterize different types of large loads to assess under what conditions they may be utilized to provide grid stability services Task 3 – Communications Explore the cybersecurity and communications infrastructure required to enable large loads to interface with grid operations to provide ancillary services Task 4 – Nuclear Integration Explore risks and methods for supporting large load energy needs with SMRs and incorporating them into the wider power system Task 5 – Decision Support and TA Provide support to stakeholders through the creation of planning tools and direct technical assistance.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Lessons Learned from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center’s Product Development Lead Training Schedule and Cost Development Workshop: Continuous Improvement

This presentation provides a status of the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) effort to increase foundational knowledge of Product Development Leads (PDLs) in schedule and cost management including earned value management (EVM). In 2012, GSFC’s Engineering and Technology Directorate (ETD) implemented an in-house training program to prepare PDLs for managing the technical, cost, schedule, and risk aspects of spaceflight systems to meet their subsystem commitments. Developed in-house, the PDL training program provides an integrated approach to requirements development, risk, schedule and cost management, EVM, performance tracking, and other areas. The program has been held twice yearly since its inception with 531 participating and 451 completing the curriculum. In 2017, the program won the Robert H. Goddard award for Quality and Process Improvement. Program development and evolution were presented in the 2018 NASA Schedule and Cost Symposium. The presentation was so well received that this year we focus on one workshop within the program: Schedule and Cost Development, including EVM. We examine the on-going logic modeling process and how participant and stakeholder data influence workshop content and design, and how the disciplines of schedule and cost contribute to mission success. In this presentation we refresh you on how the approach integrates lecture, small group discussion, estimating, case study exercises, and problem solving. We update you on the data collected from participants and stakeholders, and we discuss how we use these data to measure training effectiveness. Specific topics include: • How the logic model is used as the backbone for continuous program improvement, • How feedback influences implementation and curriculum updates, • How data collection and analysis inform workshop content and development, including participant discoveries of EVM data, • How including the resource analyst and planner in the product development team supports project success.

Lessons Learned↗
DOE OSTI2023

United States cool surfaces deployment plan

Solar-reflective building envelope surfaces, such as cool roofs and walls, can be especially helpful in disadvantaged communities that often have poorly insulated older homes, aging or absent air conditioning units, steep utility bills, polluted air, and high vulnerability and exposure to extreme heat. With support from the U.S. Department of Energy, our project seeks to dramatically increase the climate-appropriate deployment of cool surfaces across the United States with an emphasis on their application to disadvantaged communities. First, we sought to identify cool-surface deployment barriers, opportunities, and models by (a) reviewing the history of cool-surface deployment activities, (b) interviewing cool-surface stakeholders, (c) researching successful energy-efficiency/green building deployment models; and (d) interviewing the actors who have implemented these models. Second, we conducted a workshop to engage stakeholders in development of a deployment plan. Third, we asked several U.S. federal agencies (a) how cool surfaces and cool surface stakeholders could support their missions and (b) how agency activities could support cool-surface deployment. Fourth, we identified a set of transformative ideas that form the core of the deployment plan. Transformative ideas include but are not limited to initiatives to (a) launch an educational campaign to make the general public and building professionals aware of how cool roofs and walls exclude unwanted solar heat; (b) create a “Cool Roof Prize” stimulating the development of affordable, high-performance cool asphalt roofing shingles; (c) conduct high-profile, large-scale demonstration programs that bring cool surfaces to disadvantaged heat-vulnerable communities; and (d) support local, regional, and state climate action (heat mitigation) plans with cool surfaces.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Overcoming Challenges for DER Interconnection - Spotlight on Energy Storage

The Distributed Generation Integration Collaborative (DGIC) convened a half-day interactive workshop in Washington, D.C. on July 29, 2019. Organized by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the workshop explored a variety of issues related to the grid interconnection of energy storage and solar+storage systems, primarily on distribution.This document provides the workshop's proceedings as well as stakeholder perspectives, documented during a workshop breakout exercise, on a range of industry actions that can be undertaken to improve energy storage interconnection.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Making a Water Data System Responsive to Information Needs of Decision Makers

Evidence-based environmental management requires data that are sufficient, accessible, useful and used. A mismatch between data, data systems, and data needs for decision making can result in inefficient and inequitable capital investments, resource allocations, environmental protection, hazard mitigation, and quality of life. In this paper, we examine the relationship between data and decision making in environmental management, with a focus on water management. We focus on the concept of decision-driven data systems —data systems that incorporate an assessment of decision-makers' data needs into their design. The aim of the research was to examine the process of translating data into effective decision making by engaging stakeholders in the development of a water data system. Using California's legislative mandate for state agencies to integrate existing water and other environmental data as a case study, we developed and applied a participatory approach to inform data-system design and identify unmet data needs. Using workshops and focused stakeholder meetings, we developed 20 diverse use cases to assess data sources, availability, characteristics, gaps, and other attributes of data used for representative decisions. Federal and state agencies made up about 90% of the data sources, and could readily adapt to a federated data system, our recommended model for the state. The remaining 10% of more-specialized data, central to important decisions across multiple use cases, would require additional investment or incentives to achieve data consistency, interoperability, and compatibility with a federated system. Based on this assessment, we propose a typology of different types of data limitations and gaps described by stakeholders. We also propose technical, governance, and stakeholder engagement evaluation criteria to guide planning and building environmental data systems. Data-system governance involving both producers and users of data was seen as essential to achieving workable standards, stable funding, convenient data availability, resilience to institutional change, and long-term buy-in by stakeholders. Our work provides a replicable lesson for using decision-maker and stakeholder engagement to shape the design of an environmental data system, and inform a technical design that addresses both user and producer needs.

Cantor, Alida↗
DOE OSTI2017

H2@Scale Workshop Report

Final report from the H2@Scale Workshop held November 16-17, 2016, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. The U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory hosted a technology workshop to identify the current barriers and research needs of the H2@Scale concept. H2@Scale is a concept regarding the potential for wide-scale impact of hydrogen produced from diverse domestic resources to enhance U.S. energy security and enable growth of innovative technologies and domestic industries. Feedback received from a diverse set of stakeholders at the workshop will guide the development of an H2@Scale roadmap for research, development, and early stage demonstration activities that can enable hydrogen as an energy carrier at a national scale.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Materials for Harsh Environments

The 2020 Materials for Harsh Service Conditions (M4HSC) Workshop was coordinated by three different U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Offices: the Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), and the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE). The event was held virtually October 27–30, 2020. The workshop brought together stakeholders from academia, industry, national laboratories, and DOE offices to identify the opportunities (paths for obtaining desirable goals), challenges (actionable tasks taken up along these paths), barriers (obstacles impeding advancement along the paths), and research and development (R&D) needs for enabling development of technology readiness level (TRL) 3–6 materials and materials systems, as well as their advancement into widespread commercial application.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2012

Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) Hardware Commonality for Exploration Vehicles

In August 2011, the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) technical community, along with associated stakeholders, held a workshop to review NASA s plans for Exploration missions and vehicles with two objectives: revisit the Exploration Atmospheres Working Group (EAWG) findings from 2006, and discuss preliminary ECLSS architecture concepts and technology choices for Exploration vehicles, identifying areas for potential common hardware or technologies to be utilized. Key considerations for selection of vehicle design total pressure and percent oxygen include operational concepts for extravehicular activity (EVA) and prebreathe protocols, materials flammability, and controllability within pressure and oxygen ranges. New data for these areas since the 2006 study were presented and discussed, and the community reached consensus on conclusions and recommendations for target design pressures for each Exploration vehicle concept. For the commonality study, the workshop identified many areas of potential commonality across the Exploration vehicles as well as with heritage International Space Station (ISS) and Shuttle hardware. Of the 36 ECLSS functions reviewed, 16 were considered to have strong potential for commonality, 13 were considered to have some potential commonality, and 7 were considered to have limited potential for commonality due to unique requirements or lack of sufficient heritage hardware. These findings, which will be utilized in architecture studies and budget exercises going forward, are presented in detail.

Carrasquillo, Robyn↗
DOE OSTI2019

2019 Midwest Medical Device Sterilization Workshop: Summary Report

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory, and industry partners convened a September 18-19, 2019 Midwest Medical Device Sterilization Workshop to collect stakeholder feedback and develop recommendations to advance the adoption of accelerator-based electron beam (E-beam) and X-ray radiation sterilization technology. Medical device sterilization approaches that presently serve 85% of the existing market are considered “at-risk” by the industry, including gamma radiation sterilization. Uncertainties about the future viability of these existing approaches may constrain projected growth in the medical device sterilization industry and affect the near-term availability of safe and sterile products.

Kroc, Thomas↗
DOE OSTI2021

2021 Thermal Energy Storage Systems for Buildings Workshop: Priorities and Pathways to Widespread Deployment of Thermal Energy Storage in Buildings

The 2021 U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) "Thermal Energy Storage Systems for Buildings Workshop: Priorities and Pathways to Widespread Deployment of Thermal Energy Storage in Buildings" was hosted virtually on May 11 and 12, 2021. This report provides an overview of the workshop proceedings. Organized by DOE's Building Technologies Office (BTO), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the workshop convened more than 600 stakeholders from around the world to discuss the need for advancing the deployment of thermal energy storage (TES) in buildings. This workshop was designed to build on BTO's webinar series and 2019 workshop. The goals of this workshop were to promote discussion on TES related to: 1. Market adoption and deployment barriers, 2. Key applications and value drivers, 3. System cost, performance, and market requirements, and 4. End-use specific needs. The workshop took place over two days and consisted of keynote presentations, moderated panels, breakout sessions, and open discussion forums. The keynote presentations introduced opportunities for building TES, barriers to widespread deployment, and future visions. Moderated panel discussions presented diverse perspectives, breakout sessions provided opportunities for more intimate conversations, and open discussions captured feedback from the entire workshop group. Over the course of the two days, attendees exchanged experiences and ideas surrounding multiple aspects of TES in buildings. The first section of this report provides background on the motivations behind advancing TES for residential and commercial buildings and elaborates on the workshop objectives. The second section details the workshop structure and participant demographics. The third section provides key findings of the discussions that took place during the breakout sessions. Finally, this report details recommendations and actions to increase the TES deployment. Several recommendations from workshop attendees are presented in Table ES-1. TES holds significant potential to help increase building efficiency, grid-interactivity, and energy resilience, as well as reduce associated carbon emissions. The outputs generated from this workshop will aid stakeholders in advancing TES in buildings through a deeper understanding of the opportunities and barriers surrounding widespread deployment.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Proceedings of the 2021 Airborne Wind Energy Workshop

On March 2-3, 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a virtual workshop to evaluate the status, potential development, and technical viability of AWE systems as a source of energy in the United States. Stakeholder input provided at the workshop will contribute to the report to Congress. This report summarizes key workshop findings, current technology research and development activities in the United States, and opportunities and potential modes of collaboration and coordination for future technology research and development activities. The workshop focused on U.S. stakeholders in AWE, with approximately 100 experts and industry stakeholders from AWE technology developers, operators, engineering firms, consultants, government, national laboratories, and university researchers. The workshop began with an explanation from DOE's Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) Technology Manager, Ben Hallissy, of the context and purpose of the workshop, including a request from Congress that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) deliver a "report on the potential for, and technical viability of, airborne wind energy systems to provide a significant source of energy in the United States, including a summary of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization needs, including an estimate of Federal funding requirements, to further examine and validate the technical and economic viability of airborne wind energy concepts over the 10-year period." The workshop began with brief introductions from attendees who explained their interest in AWE. Nicolas El Hayek of Planair summarized the proceedings from the AWE workshop held in September 2020 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 11. This was followed by a presentation by Roland Schmehl of TU-Delft summarizing European AWE R&D efforts. Chris Vermillion of North Carolina State University and Jason Jonkman of NREL presented an overview of U.S. R&D efforts. Then five panelists discussed AWE markets, sizes of AWE systems, challenges, and opportunities. Panelists included: Cristina Archer, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment and associate director at the Center for Research in Wind (CReW) at the University of Delaware; Stephan Brabeck, chief technology officer at SkySails; Thierry Delahave, innovation and technology development lead at Saipem; Rob Creighton, founder and chief executive officer at WindLift; and David Schaefer, founder and chief executive officer at eWind Solutions. The second day of the workshop began with a brief overview of five key topics that are crucial to enabling AWE in the United States. These topics range from estimates of the U.S. wind resource, technical generation potential, economic analysis, environmental challenges, status of current technology and R&D activities, and needed activities to enable commercialization of AWE. This set the stage for a robust discussion in breakout groups where individuals could offer their opinions on the potential opportunities for AWE in the United States. The following topics were discussed in the breakout groups: resource potential and energy output, technical potential, social and environmental impacts, and permitting, techno-economic analysis and markets, technology assessment and upscaling and demonstration and commercialization needs. The second day concluded with reports by the NREL research team, communicating the key themes and outcomes from each of the breakout group discussions.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Distributed Wind Research Program Workshop Report

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) Distributed Wind Research Program includes national laboratory projects and partnerships with industry and academia. WETO organized the Distributed Wind Research Program Workshop to facilitate collaboration between laboratory and industry project stakeholders. This report summarizes key workshop findings, current technology research and development collaboration and coordination opportunities, potential modes of collaboration and coordination, and future technology research and development opportunities.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Synopsis of the Oak Ridge Radiation Protection Research Needs Workshop

Radiation protection is foundational to harnessing the societal benefits of radiation in nuclear energy, security, and medicine applications. Significant challenges in radiation protection remain unaddressed for the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear medicine, emergency response, national defense, and space exploration, as the United States is lacking a coherent research strategy prioritizing radiation protection mission needs and gaps in scientific knowledge to meet these needs. Research and development in the field of radiation protection calls for cooperation among governmental agencies, emergency responders, research organizations, and the academic community. Amidst atrophying national expertise in radiation protection, the Radiation Protection Research Needs Workshop was spearheaded by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Health Physics Society. This workshop facilitated critical dialogue among radiation stakeholders in the governmental and scientific communities, including national laboratories, academic institutions, and industry partners. The workshop featured presentations representing 12 federal agencies and breakout sessions involving the identification of scientific drivers by subject matter experts in each of the following areas: new fuel cycles/reactors, dosimetry, medical physics, instrumentation and operations, decontamination and decommissioning, space radiation, national defense, emergency response, environmental modeling, and low-dose effects. The goal of this workshop was to seek stakeholder input toward the development of a national strategic research agenda in the field of radiation protection. Consequently, the Health Physics Society has established a Special Task Force on Health Physics Research Needs, tasked with the prioritization of scientific drivers in radiation protection for the development of a national strategic research agenda.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Materials Scorecards, Phase 2: Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technology

This report presents updated material score cards with detailed justification of the proposed rating provided and quantifies the readiness of the advanced manufacturing of materials for nuclear applications. Based on an expanded literature review of available data, the scores in this report (Phase 2) have either been modified or remained constant as compared with Phase 1 scoring. The rating justification are provided for each scoring criteria whereas the maturity quantification of additively manufactured alloys and the knowledge gaps are discussed with reference traceability. This report focuses on the detailed justification and traceability for the adoption of additively manufactured 316SS, SS304, Alloy 800H, Graphite C/C, Alloy N, Silicon Carbide, HT9, Alloy 617, and Alloy 718. Significant variability in data and knowledge gaps exist among the identified materials. The scorecards are therefore based on published literature data, industry response to a survey, stakeholder input collected at workshops, and expert opinion. The interpretation and assessment were somewhat challenged as experimental process parameters and methodology varied and best judgment was exercised for score quantification. This assessment reflects the overall level of technical maturity for AM materials and their deployment in Gen-VI nuclear systems. These Phase 2 scorecards are likely to be revised based on additional input from stakeholders and as new research results become available.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advancing Urban Water Resilience: Coproducing Knowledge through Civic–Academic Global Partnerships on Water and Climate

As extreme weather events become more pronounced, the vulnerabilities associated with the urban water supply and wastewater systems in megacities are intensified in multiple interconnected dimensions. These multifaceted water challenges can benefit from enhanced cross-sectoral collaboration and sharing of critical knowledge, which are essential for sustainable and adaptive water governance frameworks. In this context, the Megacity Alliance for Water and Climate (MAWAC)–Europe and North America Region (ENAR) Working Group convened a workshop in March 2023, followed by a subsequent workshop in London, United Kingdom, from 11 to 13 September 2024. These workshops aimed to investigate and devise solutions for the cascading hazards with water systems. The solutions examined various aspects focused on climate adaptation and mitigation, stormwater management, and the governance of water and wastewater systems. Additionally, discussions highlighted the importance of community engagement, economic considerations, equity, and effective communication in addressing these pressing challenges. Over the course of 3 days, experts from academia, government agencies, and industry engaged in meaningful discussions on digital modeling for integrated water management, climate-informed urban planning, and public–private–academic partnerships (Fig. 1). Case studies from cities such as New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, and Chicago highlighted innovative governance strategies for managing water and wastewater systems, promoting water reuse, planning infrastructure, and fostering stakeholder-driven and stakeholder-informed adaptation. The workshop participants emphasized the need for data-driven decision-making, scalable governance models, and knowledge-sharing networks to enhance urban water governance for sustainability and resilience. This workshop report presents the key takeaways from the 3-day convening, providing a roadmap for integrating scientific research, policy frameworks, and emerging technologies to address water challenges faced by megacities.

Hydrologic models↗
DOE OSTI2014

Integrated Nuclear-Renewable Energy Systems: Foundational Workshop Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recognizes the need to transform the energy infrastructure of the U.S. and elsewhere to systems that can drastically reduce environmental impacts in an efficient and economically viable manner while utilizing both hydrocarbon resources and clean energy generation sources. Thus, DOE is supporting research and development that could lead to more efficient utilization of clean energy generation sources, including renewable and nuclear options. A concept being advanced by the DOE Offices of Nuclear Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is tighter coupling of nuclear and renewable energy sources in a manner that produces new energy currency for the combined electricity grid, industrial manufacturing, and the transportation energy sectors. This integration concept has been referred to as a “hybrid system” that is capable of providing the right type of energy, at the right time, in the right place. At the direction of DOE-NE and DOE-EERE leadership, project leads at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have identified and engaged stakeholders in discussing integrated energy systems that would optimize renewable and nuclear energy integration on a region-by-region basis. Subsequent work will entail conduct of technical, economic, environmental and socio-political evaluations of the leading integrated system options based on a set of criteria established with stakeholder input. The Foundational Workshop for Integrated Nuclear – Renewable Energy Systems was organized around the following objectives: 1. Identify and refine priority region-specific opportunities for integrated nuclear-renewable energy systems in the U.S.; 2. Select Figures of Merit (FOM) to rank and prioritize candidate systems; 3. Discuss enabling technology development needs; 4. Identify analysis requirements, capabilities and gaps to estimate FOM for integrated system options; 5. Identify experimental needs to develop and demonstrate nuclear-renewable energy systems.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Heat Island Mitigation Assessment and Policy Development for the Kansas City Region

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory partnered with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to quantify the costs and benefits from the adoption of urban heat island (UHI) countermeasures in the Kansas City region (population 1.5 million), and identify the best regional implementation pathway for MARC. The team selected cool (high-albedo) roofs and increased vegetation as the two countermeasures to evaluate. For vegetation, there were two strategies: (1) planting new trees to shade building surfaces, and (2) increasing urban irrigation (a surrogate for the use of vegetation to manage stormwater) to increase evapotranspiration. Using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model we simulated selected weeks during summer time, across five years (2011 2015) representing a range of normal summer conditions. We also simulated six of the most intense heatwaves that occurred between 2004 and 2016. We found under typical summer conditions (non-heatwave) average daytime (07:00 19:00 local standard time) regional near-ground air temperature reductions of 0.08 and 0.28 C for cool roofs and urban irrigation, respectively. We calculated the building electricity, electricity cost, and emission savings that result from the reduction in outdoor air temperature (indirect savings) and found maximum regional annual indirect electricity savings of 42.8 GWh for cool roofs and 85.6 GWh for urban irrigation-yielding maximum regional annual indirect electricity cost savings of $\$ $5.6M ($\$ $0.05/m 2 roof) and $\$ $11.1M ($0.01/m 2 irrigated land), respectively, and maximum regional annual CO 2 savings of 43.4 kt and 80 kt, respectively. We next evaluated the building energy, energy cost, and emission savings from reducing direct absorbed radiation on the building surfaces using cool roofs and shade trees (direct savings). For cool roofs, we found regional annual direct energy cost savings of $\$ $10.9M ($\$ $0.15/m 2 roof) with regional annual CO 2 savings of 66.4 kt. For shade trees, the regional annual direct energy cost savings were $\$ $21M ($\$ $21/tree) with regional annual CO 2 savings of 126 kt. We investigated cool roof cost premiums (the additional cost for selecting a cool roof product in lieu of a conventional roof product, estimated to be zero to $\$ $2.15/m 2 ) and shade tree first costs (assumed to be $\$ $100 per tree). The regional cool roof cost premium was calculated using the regional roof area per roofing material type and the range of cool roof product premiums for each material type. The extra cost of selecting cool roofs across the region ranged from $\$ $4.33M to $\$ $87.1M, while the additional shade trees planted across the region were assumed to cost $\$ $102M. When we compared the regional annual direct cost savings to the regional cool-roof cost premium and the regional shade-tree first cost, we found regional simple payback times up to 8.0 years for cool roofs and 4.9 years for trees, respectively. Since this comprehensive assessment of UHI countermeasures is a valuable methodology for other local governments to apply, we developed a step-by-step guide for others to follow. Based on the benefits and costs of the UHI countermeasures, MARC will pursue the inclusion of these countermeasures in existing regional plans where they can complement other regional priorities for transportation, climate resiliency, clean air, and hazard mitigation. They hosted a local workshop in 2016 for stakeholders to introduce the topic and will continue to share these resources to further appropriate adoption of UHI countermeasures.

urban climate↗