Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “LOCAL AREA NETWORKS”

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.

562 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

CORE-CM in The Greater Green River and Wind River Basins: Transforming and Advancing a National Coal Asset (Final Report)

The following document summarizes project results from “CORE-CM in the Greater Green River and Wind River Basins: Transforming and Advancing a National Coal Asset”. This project is part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (“DOE”) National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (“NETL”) Carbon Ore, Rare Earth Elements, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) Initiative. This report concludes that the Greater Green River and Wind River Basins (GGRB-WRB) Area-of-Interest (AOI 9) is the ideal region for continued research and development in progressing the broader CORE-CM goals outlined by the DOE. Based upon the extensive analyses of technical, social, and community criteria, this report illustrates that the GGRB-WRB hosts numerous potential CORE-CM feedstocks (both coal- and non-coal based), diverse opportunities for utilizing existing industrial waste streams, ample infrastructure and industry to support new CORE-CM-focused technologies, and a highly motivated, well educated, and adaptable workforce to further develop the regional and national CORE-CM supply chain. Additionally, some potential solutions for technological gaps suggest that the GGRB-WRB's diverse resources can play a significant role in achieving the national goal of critical materials independence. With full community participation, meaningful involvement of regional Tribal Nations, and building upon the stakeholder engagement demonstrated here, the GGRB-WRB region presents a unique opportunity for advancing the CORE-CM Initiative. This project was designed to bring together coal-based communities and stakeholders from across the GGRB-WRB to advance new industries for CORE-CM resources. The University of Wyoming (UWyo) School of Energy Resources (SER) led a project team of experts from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), Colorado School of Mines (CSM), Los Alamos National Lab (LANL), and local community colleges. Input from basinal, regional, and national experts bolstered the coalition in order to advance the mission of DOE’s CORE-CM initiative and develop the domestic CORE-CM supply chain. Phase I of this project was designed to address the goal of developing and catalyzing economic growth, job creation, and technology innovation in the GGRB-WRB of Wyoming and Colorado, by increasing the supply of CORE-CM to manufacturers of non-fuel Carbon Based Products (CBP) and products reliant upon CM. The GGRB-WRB CORE-CM project worked toward providing benefit through several avenues of performance and research. • Develop a coalition team to achieve project objectives • Complete detailed assessments, including State-of-the-Art (SOTA) Data acquisition of potential CORE-CM materials across the AOI, and meaningfully contributes to DOE’s CORE-CM goals nationally. • Strategic planning for regional economic growth, job creation, and associated technology innovation around coal materials, including plans to maximize the development of potential CORE-CM resources and technology by creating regional public-private partnerships. • Define regional economic growth potential around existing strengths, energy infrastructure, business and industry, including planning for the leveraging of highly trained workforces, existing and novel coal technologies, and energy infrastructure in development of CORE-CM supply chains. • Develop a preliminary strategic plan for increasing the supply of CORE-CM materials to manufacturers of non-fuel Carbon Based Products (CBP) and products reliant upon CM, focusing on regional strengths that result in an emerging diversified CORE-CM economy. • Assemble a committed network of stakeholders and communities that learn about, accept, and grow new energy technologies within coal regions. Additionally, the project team significantly contributed to the CORE-CM Initiative’s national goals, through cross-regional scoping, collaborating with CORE-CM projects in other AOIs, and including parallel regional project experts. In addition to active inclusion and meaningful engagement and contribution to DOE-led working groups, the project team focused on engaging with regional communities including Tribal Nations, economic development groups, and regional government organizations. The project’s CORE-CM development and commercialization plan identified diverse CORECM feedstocks, potential routes towards integration with existing industries, methods for supply-chain development that leverage existing infrastructure and businesses considering the regional economy, identified entry barriers for incorporating traditional and new technologies in those supply chains, recognized opportunities for public-private partnerships to develop technology innovation centers, identified diverse workforces, and conducted stakeholder outreach and education to build a community of understanding on CORE-CM potential in the GGRB-WRB region. Detailed task descriptions can be found in each chapter.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

Continuous snow depth and temperature measurements from dense network of above-ground distributed temperature profiling systems from 2021-09-23 to 2024-08-23, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

The dataset contains temperature measurements from distributed temperature profiling (DTP) systems (Dafflon et al., 2022; Wielandt et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2024a; Fiolleau et al., 2024) deployed vertically above the ground surface at a large number of locations from 2021 to 2024. The research is designed to improve understanding of the local heterogeneity in snow depth and snow thermal insulation dynamics, as well as their interactions in a discontinuous permafrost region (Wang et al., 2025). The DTP systems were deployed at 96 locations in a watershed along the Nome-Teller road at mile marker 27 (T27) and at 54 locations on a hillslope along the Kougarok road at mile marker 64 (K64) in the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. The probe location information is stored in Probe_locations_T27.csv and Probe_locations_K64.csv. Temperature measurements were recorded at 15-minute intervals using high-precision digital sensors (accuracy: ±0.1°C, resolution: 0.0078°C). The temperature probes, either 1.4 m or 1.6 m long, contain sensors spaced every 5 cm or 10 cm along their length. The temperature data are stored in compressed files following the format: DTP_snow_air_temperature_(site)_(start)_(end).zip, where site is either T27 or K64, and start and end represent the time series period. Within each ZIP file, individual CSV files are named by probe ID and contain temperature records at different heights above the ground surface.This dataset also includes derived snow depth time series over three snow seasons, estimated from temperature measurements. Snow depth was estimated by identifying the consecutive sensor pair that exhibited the largest drop in high-frequency temperature fluctuations (detailed in the methods). These data are stored in: Snow_depths_flags_(site)_(start)_(end).csv, which includes snow depth time series and corresponding quality flags (defined in the methods) from different probes. Additionally, the dataset includes derived metrics and supporting measurements at selected locations over two snow seasons, contributing to the manuscript of Wang et al., 2025. These locations were chosen based on the availability of high-quality snow depth time series during both seasons. The additional data include: (1) Air temperature proxies measured from the top sensors on the pole when they were not buried by snow, stored in Air_temperature_proxies_(site)_(start)_(end).csv (2) Ground interface temperature, recorded at 3 cm above the ground, stored in Ground_interface_temperature_(site)_(start)_(end).csv (3) Site characteristics, including vegetation height, elevation, and the topographic position index (TPI) within a 50 m radius, stored in Selected_probe_locations_gps_vegheight_tpi_elevation_(site).csv. These metrics were derived from 1 m resolution summer LiDAR-based digital elevation models and digital surface models from Singhania et al., 2023, DOI:10.5440/1832016. Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data. All included files are listed and described in xxxx_flmd.csv.This dataset is an updated version of a previous archive (Wang et al., 2024b, DOI: 10.15485/2475020), incorporating multiple seasons and improved snow depth estimation. Please note that due to large amount of information present in this dataset, many specificities associated with the acquisition of snow temperature, air temperature proxy and estimation of snow depth, and the future archiving of additional datasets on the soil temperature, thaw depth and soil characteristics at these locations, the author would welcome being contacted by people planning to use this dataset.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Mid-Century Net-Zero Scenario for the State of Wyoming and its Economic Impacts

Clean hydrogen has the potential to help achieve 10% economy-wide emissions reductions by 2050 relative to 2005, promote energy security and resilience, and develop a new economy in the United States. In 2030, the hydrogen economy could create about 100,000 new jobs to build new capital projects and clean hydrogen infrastructure. The Wyoming Energy Authority recently announced the state’s energy strategy, which establishes a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Under all likely scenarios, achieving a mid-century net-zero target will pose challenges and create opportunities for Wyoming’s energy sector. If executed properly, the transition could favorably affect the state’s economy overall in the long term. This research program examines the economic impact of fossil energy production in Wyoming and provides various predictions for future energy mixes to achieve net-zero emissions. Preliminary work suggests that Wyoming-based hydrogen production could have significant economic benefits and job creation implications for Wyoming. This study further assesses Wyoming’s opportunities to create hydrogen-based industries, assess economic impacts, identify knowledge gaps and research needs, and create a Hydrogen Center of Excellence to accelerate commercialization and deployment. This project helped to understand Wyoming's areas of focus for research and development and identified its areas of strength and potential challenges in creating a hydrogen ecosystem. As a result of this study, we estimate that for blue hydrogen produced from coal and gas resources, the overall cost reduction will be driven mainly by the carbon-sequestration tax credit and the improvement in carbon capture. Mature technologies, like SMR and PSA, will make limited contributions. They have no or limited reductions from an additional capacity deployment in future costs. We also understand the importance of continued support from public and private sectors for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)-related research, development, and demonstration programs at federal and state levels. The successful and efficient production of blue hydrogen requires a unique blend of energy resources, geology, regulation, law, and infrastructure. Wyoming has the distinction of meeting all these demands. The team also estimates that the availability and command of water resources accessible for hydrogen production are crucial for developing new projects. Water treatment, use, and disposal after treatment will also make projects possible. Primarily, this is relevant for hydrogen made using renewable energy. Wyoming has one of the best wind resource capacity in the nation. Harnessing this resource is challenging due to limited transmission line availability. Hydrogen could become one of the solutions to the stranded resource problem, primarily if the water availability challenge is addressed. Using produced oil & gas water could help to solve the problem. A commonly cited barrier to the expansion of hydrogen markets is the cost associated with constructing new pipelines, which typically require large amounts of capital to develop. Wyoming already possesses much of the export infrastructure needed to connect Wyoming’s hydrogen production with major markets across the West Coast, Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Front Range regions of the United States, where a large portion of Wyoming’s natural gas is already transported. In addition to transportation by pipeline, rail transportation of hydrogen has also proven feasible. Wyoming uses its extensive railway system to transport large amounts of coal to its export partners across the United States. By using cryogenic or compressed-gas cars, Wyoming has the potential to add hydrogen to its existing network of railroad energy exports. The same technology may also be applied to hydrogen transport via trucks traveling interstate highways. Wyoming’s workforce is ready to meet the demands of clean hydrogen development. Many of the skills and training needed for hydrogen production are the same skills already possessed by Wyoming’s oil & gas and coal workforce. Many government and industry leaders expect clean hydrogen and other low-carbon energy projects to generate significant job growth and to recruit many already-trained oil & gas and coal workers whose jobs may be displaced. As energy companies seek to penetrate the markets for Wyoming hydrogen production, there is a natural mutual benefit to Wyoming’s workers and companies seeking to launch projects with the assistance of a trained workforce. Wyoming’s university and community college system have adopted several programs to ensure that highly qualified engineers and other technically skilled employees continue to graduate with skills to support the development of hydrogen and other innovative energy projects moving forward. Throughout the project, stakeholder outreach and education took many forms, including meetings with several major companies in the industry, collaborating with local government organizations, educational organizations, and national laboratories, tribal outreach and engagement, the sponsoring of several hydrogen-focused projects in many departments throughout the University of Wyoming, and developing a collaboration with international universities. The products of these collaborations consist of working relationships with several companies in the industry, educational institutions, national labs, and local government, as well as strong connections with individuals who will play an essential role in the success of the Hydrogen Energy Research Center.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗