Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “below water”

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 613 records · Page 34
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Systems and methods for determining ground water-surface water interactions

Systems for determining GW/SW interaction are provided. The systems can include: a sensing assembly comprising sensors for pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, and transfer resistance; processing circuitry operatively coupled to the sensing assembly and configured to receive data from the sensing assembly and process the data to provide a GW/SW interaction, wherein the data includes pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, transfer resistance data. Methods for determining GW/SW interaction are provided. The methods can include: receiving real time data including pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, and transfer resistance; from at least some of the data received simulating the SW/GW interaction; and fitting the real time data with the simulated data to provide actual SW/GW interaction.

Johnson, Timothy C.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Systems and methods for determining ground water-surface water interactions

Systems for determining GW/SW interaction are provided. The systems can include: a sensing assembly comprising sensors for pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, and transfer resistance; processing circuitry operatively coupled to the sensing assembly and configured to receive data from the sensing assembly and process the data to provide a GW/SW interaction, wherein the data includes pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, transfer resistance data. Methods for determining GW/SW interaction are provided. The methods can include: receiving real time data including pressure, fluid conductivity, temperature, and transfer resistance; from at least some of the data received simulating the SW/GW interaction; and fitting the real time data with the simulated data to provide actual SW/GW interaction.

Johnson, Timothy C.↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluating How Climate Adaptation Measures Affect the Interconnected Water‐Energy Resource Systems of the Western United States

Abstract The Western US faces increasing water stress from the impacts of climate change, making it difficult to meet water demands for the region's cities, agriculture, and hydropower generators. Existing literature suggests that climate adaptation measures such as water conservation, cropland retirement, wastewater recycling, and managed aquifer recharge can alleviate some of these challenges. Few analyses, however, compare the relative efficacy and system‐wide effects of these adaptations under different climate projections across the entire Western United States. Here we use a Western US‐wide water systems model to evaluate, by sector and sub‐region, how the widespread implementation of these adaptive measures impacts water demands, water deliveries, and electricity use related to the water system for three different climate projections. We find that wastewater recycling has greater potential to lower unmet indoor water demands than urban indoor water conservation measures. However, when implemented at scale, indoor water conservation reduces electricity use by an average of 683 Terawatt hours while wastewater recycling increases energy use by an average of 721 Terawatt hours, cumulatively from 2020 to 2070. Cropland retirement and aquifer recharge adaptations increase the ability to meet agricultural water demand, increase groundwater storage, and reduce summertime electricity use. While most of these findings are consistent across different climate projections, the benefits of aquifer recharge are sensitive to spatial variation of precipitation. Given the limitations and tradeoffs of each individually, the results suggest that a portfolio of adaptation measures will be needed for a climate‐resilient water and energy future in the Western US. Plain Language Summary The Western US faces increased water stress from the impacts of climate change, making it difficult to meet demands for cities, agriculture, and hydropower facilities. Adaptation measures like water conservation, retiring agricultural lands, recycling wastewater, and storing water underground can address these challenges. However, there is little modeling to understand the impact of these adaptations if they were implemented across the entire Western US while also considering climate change. We use a Western US‐wide water systems model to evaluate how implementing adaptation measures impacts groundwater levels, the ability to meet water demands, and electricity use related to water in three different possible climate futures. We find that recycling wastewater to drinking water standards does a better job of meeting urban water demands than water conservation measures. However, indoor water conservation reduces energy use for water while recycling wastewater increases energy use for water. Retiring agricultural lands and storing water underground both increase the ability to meet agricultural water demands, increase underground water storage, and reduce summertime energy use. No adaptation measures provides benefits across every metric we track. Therefore, multiple adaptation measures will likely be needed to achieve a climate‐resilient future for energy and water in the Western US. Key Points Water‐related climate change adaptations have different benefits and tradeoffs for interconnected water‐energy systems in the Western U.S. Wastewater recycling most increases urban water coverage, but has a significant tradeoff in the form of greater electricity use Cropland retirement and aquifer recharge benefit water and electricity systems most in the summer when those systems are most stressed

Singhal, A↗
DOE OSTI2021

State Insights On The Water-Energy Nexus And Policy Ideas To Achieve Greater Savings

Governors, state policymakers, utilities and other stakeholders across the country are increasingly aware of the connection between energy and water production and use, and the need to conserve both resources to meet economic and environmental goals. It requires substantial amounts of water to produce energy and considerable amounts of energy to treat and deliver water. The critical interdependence between energy and water was clearly illustrated during the recent winter storm in Texas and other parts of the South in February 2021. Initial power outages contributed to a longer-term water crisis. Power outages led to water pump failures while water demand increased from frozen water pipes that burst. This caused low water pressure that can lead to harmful bacteria growth in the water. The power outages also prevented water treatment plants from properly treating the water for several days, thereby leaving many residents without clean drinking water and worsening the storm’s impacts. The National Governors Association has been working with states on this connection between water and energy and strategies for conserving those resources for several years. NGA held a Water-Energy Nexus Learning Lab in September 2020. This event invited two leading states in the water-energy nexus space, Arizona and Wisconsin, to showcase some of their model policies and programs to other states, Maryland, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Washington, looking for greater savings opportunities. This paper provides an overview of challenges that states are facing in developing integrated water and energy conservation policies; provides background on Arizona and Wisconsin’s innovative water-energy policies and programs; and summarizes action items the participating state teams identified for their respective states. The main categories of policy solutions identified by states at NGA’s Water-Energy Nexus Learning Lab were: Funding & Financing – providing financial incentives for water efficiency modeled after established energy efficiency programs, and an emphasis on financial support for small water and energy utilities. Education & Technical Assistance – providing more education and training opportunities about ways to achieve cost-effective energy and water savings, and the needs of resource-constrained small and medium utilities for training and other assistance. Structural Changes to Encourage Conservation – developing ways to incentivize agricultural conservation such as through water allocation strategies; adopting water reuse or water loss standards; and requiring electric utilities to consider water impacts as part of their integrated resource planning process. Communications & Data – conducting energy audits, reviewing water data provided to state agencies, and developing data benchmarking tools to measure and better manage energy and water use. Climate Strategy – establishing a multi-agency working group or other collaborative approach to determine ways to integrate energy and water savings in state policies and help meet the state climate objectives.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗