Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “geospatial database”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

LiAISON (Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models) [SWR-24-01]

We introduce an open source prospective LCA framework, the Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models (LiAISON), to analyze the non-linear relationships between technology foreground and the future energy system background across a series of midpoint and resource use metrics The integration of LCA and IAM data is achieved using prospective environmental Impact assessment (PREMISE)7. We showcase it by assessing two Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2) processes, namely Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis (PEME). We compare the technologies to a baseline of hydrogen production via natural gas-based Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) in a US context of multiple energy system and climate change mitigation futures. Besides providing an analysis that specifies the LCA results ranges with temporal and geospatial explicitness across the two technologies, metrics, and impact assessment methods, this research also aims to establish a base framework that can be expanded to use other IAM generated scenarios and US open-source life cycle inventory (LCI) databases. We find that the temporal environmental performance of either technology or their difference to SMR is directly influenced by the underlying background dynamics. Under baseline projections (i.e., no decarbonization goals), neither process reaches parity with the incumbent technology across several environmental metrics. Under the decarbonization scenarios, the underlying sectoral shifts result in declining impacts over time, compared to 2020 levels, except for metal depletion levels, which increase. The background shifts postulate a heavily decarbonized economy and energy system, which help technologies reach parity with SMR between 2040-2050 (RCP2.6) and 2030-2040 (RCP1.9) for global warming. Despite declines across several other metrics over time, neither PtH2 technology break even with SMR by 2100 besides for global warming. Scientific publication available here: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.2c04246

Ghosh, Tapajyoti↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life-Cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-Source Numerical Models (LiAISON) for Prospective Impact Analysis of Novel Technologies

Decarbonizing the industrial sector is a significant challenge in achieving a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy by 2050 and the Paris Agreement, i.e., a global climate change mitigation target of achieving a maximum average temperature change potential of 1.5 Degrees Celsius or less by 2100 with respect to pre-industrial levels. In the United States (US), the industrial sector accounts for 23% of total GHG emissions and is home to a number of hard-to-electrify activities. The chemicals subsector has the single largest subsector emissions profile after direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion and leakage from fossil fuel distribution systems. Within the chemicals subsector, many processes depend on hydrogen or ammonia precursors. Decarbonizing these two commodities would contribute significantly to decarbonizing the industrial sector as hydrogen could also be used for low carbon steel production (e.g., hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron) and other industrial applications. Emerging technologies require the application of prospective life cycle assessment (LCA), which can account for technology (foreground) scaling and process improvements via learning-by-doing, among others. In many cases, the future system context (background) in which the technologies are assumed to operate in is equally relevant. Background scenarios generated by integrated assessment models (IAM) can coherently incorporate potential future dynamics of the energy-climate-human-land system. Further, IAM scenarios are harmonized across socioeconomic and climate change mitigation pathways, which facilitates the comparability of prospective LCAs using different IAMs. We introduce an open source prospective LCA framework, the Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models (LiAISON), to analyze the non-linear relationships between technology foreground and the future energy system background across a series of midpoint and resource use metrics. The integration of LCA and IAM data is achieved using prospective environmental Impact assessment (PREMISE). We showcase it by assessing two Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2) processes, namely Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis (PEME). We compare the technologies to a baseline of hydrogen production via natural gas-based Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) in a US context of multiple energy system and climate change mitigation futures. Besides providing an analysis that specifies the LCA results ranges with temporal and geospatial explicitness across the two technologies, metrics, and impact assessment methods, this research also aims to establish a base framework that can be expanded to use other IAM generated scenarios and US open-source life cycle inventory (LCI) databases. We find that the temporal environmental performance of either technology or their difference to SMR is directly influenced by the underlying background dynamics. Additionally we compare our results by linking two other prospective models with LiAISON - GCAM (Global Change Assessment Model) and ReEDS (Regional Energy Deployment System) to analyze the effect of changing background scenarios using varying predictions in life cycle analysis.

decarbonizing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life-Cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-Source Numerical Models (LiAISON) for Analyzing Emerging Low-Carbon Technologies

Decarbonizing the industrial sector is a significant challenge in achieving a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy by 2050 and the Paris Agreement, i.e., a global climate change mitigation target of achieving a maximum average temperature change potential of 1.5 degrees Celsius or less by 2100 with respect to pre-industrial levels. In the United States (US), the industrial sector accounts for 23% of total GHG emissions and is home to a number of hard-to-electrify activities. The chemicals subsector has the single largest subsector emissions profile after direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion and leakage from fossil fuel distribution systems. Within the chemicals subsector, many processes depend on hydrogen or ammonia precursors. Decarbonizing these two commodities would contribute significantly to decarbonizing the industrial sector as hydrogen could also be used for low carbon steel production (e.g., hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron) and other industrial applications. Emerging technologies require the application of prospective life cycle assessment (LCA), which can account for technology (foreground) scaling and process improvements via learning-by-doing, among others. In many cases, the future system context (background) in which the technologies are assumed to operate in is equally relevant. Background scenarios generated by integrated assessment models (IAM) can coherently incorporate potential future dynamics of the energy-climate-human-land system. Further, IAM scenarios are harmonized across socioeconomic and climate change mitigation pathways, which facilitates the comparability of prospective LCAs using different IAMs. We introduce an open source prospective LCA framework, the Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models (LiAISON), to analyze the non-linear relationships between technology foreground and the future energy system background across a series of midpoint and resource use metrics. The integration of LCA and IAM data is achieved using prospective environmental Impact assessment (PREMISE). We showcase it by assessing two Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2) processes, namely Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis (PEME). We compare the technologies to a baseline of hydrogen production via natural gas-based Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) in a US context of multiple energy system and climate change mitigation futures. Besides providing an analysis that specifies the LCA results ranges with temporal and geospatial explicitness across the two technologies, metrics, and impact assessment methods, this research also aims to establish a base framework that can be expanded to use other IAM generated scenarios and US open-source life cycle inventory (LCI) databases. We find that the temporal environmental performance of either technology or their difference to SMR is directly influenced by the underlying background dynamics. Under baseline projections (i.e., no decarbonization goals), neither process reaches parity with the incumbent technology across several environmental metrics. Under the decarbonization scenarios, the underlying sectoral shifts result in declining impacts over time, compared to 2020 levels, except for metal depletion levels, which increase. The background shifts postulate a heavily decarbonized economy and energy system, which help technologies reach parity with SMR between 2040-2050 (RCP2.6) and 2030-2040 (RCP1.9) for global warming. Despite declines across several other metrics over time, neither PtH2 technology break even with SMR by 2100 besides for global warming.

decarbonizing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life-Cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-Source Numerical Models (LiAISON) for Analyzing Emerging Low-Carbon Technologies

Decarbonizing the industrial sector is a significant challenge in achieving a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy by 2050 and the Paris Agreement, i.e., a global climate change mitigation target of achieving a maximum average temperature change potential of 1.5 degrees C or less by 2100 with respect to pre-industrial levels. In the United States (US), the industrial sector accounts for 23% of total GHG emissions and is home to a number of hard-to-electrify activities. The chemicals subsector has the single largest subsector emissions profile after direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion and leakage from fossil fuel distribution systems. Within the chemicals subsector, many processes depend on hydrogen or ammonia precursors. Decarbonizing these two commodities would contribute significantly to decarbonizing the industrial sector as hydrogen could also be used for low carbon steel production (e.g., hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron) and other industrial applications. Emerging technologies require the application of prospective life cycle assessment (LCA), which can account for technology (foreground) scaling and process improvements via learning-by-doing, among others. In many cases, the future system context (background) in which the technologies are assumed to operate in is equally relevant. Background scenarios generated by integrated assessment models (IAM) can coherently incorporate potential future dynamics of the energy-climate-human-land system. Further, IAM scenarios are harmonized across socioeconomic and climate change mitigation pathways, which facilitates the comparability of prospective LCAs using different IAMs. We introduce an open source prospective LCA framework, the Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models (LiAISON), to analyze the non-linear relationships between technology foreground and the future energy system background across a series of midpoint and resource use metrics The integration of LCA and IAM data is achieved using prospective environmental Impact assessment (PREMISE). We showcase it by assessing two Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2) processes, namely Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis (PEME). We compare the technologies to a baseline of hydrogen production via natural gas-based Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) in a US context of multiple energy system and climate change mitigation futures. Besides providing an analysis that specifies the LCA results ranges with temporal and geospatial explicitness across the two technologies, metrics, and impact assessment methods, this research also aims to establish a base framework that can be expanded to use other IAM generated scenarios and US open-source life cycle inventory (LCI) databases. We find that the temporal environmental performance of either technology or their difference to SMR is directly influenced by the underlying background dynamics. Under baseline projections (i.e., no decarbonization goals), neither process reaches parity with the incumbent technology across several environmental metrics. Under the decarbonization scenarios, the underlying sectoral shifts result in declining impacts over time, compared to 2020 levels, except for metal depletion levels, which increase. The background shifts postulate a heavily decarbonized economy and energy system, which help technologies reach parity with SMR between 2040-2050 (RCP2.6) and 2030-2040 (RCP1.9) for global warming. Despite declines across several other metrics over time, neither PtH2 technology break even with SMR by 2100 besides for global warming.

decarbonizing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Towards Prospective LCA Using Life-Cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-Source Numerical Models (LiAISON) Framework for Analyzing Emerging Low-Carbon Technologies

Decarbonizing the industrial sector is a significant challenge in achieving a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions economy by 2050 and the Paris Agreement, i.e., a global climate change mitigation target of achieving a maximum average temperature change potential of 1.5 Degrees Celsius or less by 2100 with respect to pre-industrial levels. In the United States (US), the industrial sector accounts for 23% of total GHG emissions and is home to a number of hard-to-electrify activities. The chemicals subsector has the single largest subsector emissions profile after direct emissions from fossil fuel combustion and leakage from fossil fuel distribution systems. Within the chemicals subsector, many processes depend on hydrogen or ammonia precursors. Decarbonizing these two commodities would contribute significantly to decarbonizing the industrial sector as hydrogen could also be used for low carbon steel production (e.g., hydrogen-based direct reduction of iron) and other industrial applications. Emerging technologies require the application of prospective life cycle assessment (LCA), which can account for technology (foreground) scaling and process improvements via learning-by-doing, among others. In many cases, the future system context (background) in which the technologies are assumed to operate in is equally relevant. Background scenarios generated by integrated assessment models (IAM) can coherently incorporate potential future dynamics of the energy-climate-human-land system. Further, IAM scenarios are harmonized across socioeconomic and climate change mitigation pathways, which facilitates the comparability of prospective LCAs using different IAMs. We introduce an open source prospective LCA framework, the Life-cycle Assessment Integration into Scalable Open-source Numerical models (LiAISON), to analyze the non-linear relationships between technology foreground and the future energy system background across a series of midpoint and resource use metrics The integration of LCA and IAM data is achieved using prospective environmental Impact assessment (PREMISE). We showcase it by assessing two Power-to-Hydrogen (PtH2) processes, namely Solid Oxide Electrolysis (SOE) and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis (PEME). We compare the technologies to a baseline of hydrogen production via natural gas-based Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) in a US context of multiple energy system and climate change mitigation futures. Besides providing an analysis that specifies the LCA results ranges with temporal and geospatial explicitness across the two technologies, metrics, and impact assessment methods, this research also aims to establish a base framework that can be expanded to use other IAM generated scenarios and US open-source life cycle inventory (LCI) databases. We find that the temporal environmental performance of either technology or their difference to SMR is directly influenced by the underlying background dynamics. Additionally we compare our results by linking two other prospective models with LiAISON - GCAM(Global Change Assessment Model) and ReEDS (Regional Energy Deployment System) to analyze the effect of changing background scenarios using varying predictions in life cycle analysis.

emissions↗
NASA NTRS2020

TPSAS-NF1676L-35475-DND

This project would identify a methodology and implement a living solution to map, both visually and utilizing some form of database, the complex network of stakeholders that the Disasters Program routinely interacts with to maximize efficiency and minimize confusion and overlapping effort during disaster responses. This project's solution will take into account factors such as stakeholder data production type, geospatial data maturity, geographic areas of interest, federal mandates, type of relationship, national priorities and many additional relevant attributes.

Lauren Cutler↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 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 CCBY4.0 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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 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 CCBY4.0 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↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 CCBY4.0 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Transport and Storage Planning and Viability Support Tools

The EDX disCO2ver Carbon Transport and Storage Planning and Viability Support Tools are made up of the Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool (CS PlanIT, Justman et al. 2024) and the Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach Support Tool (CS TVA). Together, these tools support data access to support understanding data availability to support planning efforts for carbon transport and storage. The Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool (CS PlanIT) is an online web mapping application designed to help users explore, query, and evaluate multiple data layers to support and accelerate carbon storage resource and feasibility assessments and planning efforts. CS PlanIT currently contains a range of datasets associated with geologic, technical, and infrastructure factors. The data sets can be filtered geographically for an area of interest to update statistics and charts within the dashboard. The dashboard is divided into different sections called widgets, relating to different steps in the carbon storage planning process. The resources in this submission include a link to PlanIT, as well as a data catalog and link to user documentation. The original citation for the CS PlanIT tool, which has now been integrated into the toolset here, was: - Devin Justman, Scott Pantaleone, Maneesh Sharma, Lucy Romeo, Paige Morkner, CS PlanIT (Carbon Storage Planning Inquiry Tool) , 6/28/2024, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/cs-planit-carbon-storage-planning-inquiry-tool, DOI: 10.18141/2377953 The Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach Support (CS TVA) Tool displays spatial data availability for the many components of Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) technical viability assessment (Creason al 2025). Identifying sites suitable for GCS requires evaluating the intersection of myriad factors, including reservoir conditions, subsurface and surface hazards, infrastructure requirements, and energy community metrics. The technical viability of a site can only be confirmed for instances where all these factors have data available, and where those data support viability. Additional Resources related to the Technical Viability Assessment Tool: - Julia Mulhern, Casey White, Araceli Lara, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Zachary Jackson, Jacob Shay, Gabriel Creason, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Database, 3/26/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/edx4ccs-carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-database , DOI:10.18141/1984655 - Julia Mulhern, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Gabriel Creason, Casey White, Araceli Lara, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Zach Jackson, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Matrix, 3/27/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-cs-tva-matrix , DOI: 10.18141/2539979 - Gabriel Creason, Zach Jackson, Neyda Cordero Rodriguez, Julia Mulhern, Casey White, Araceli Lara, MacKenzie Mark-Moser, Paige Morkner, Kelly Rose, Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Data Availability Results Database, 3/27/2025, https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/carbon-storage-technical-viability-approach-cs-tva-data-availability-results-database, DOI:10.18141/2538557

Carbon storage↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 CCBY4.0 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
NASA NTRS2009

Land-Use and Land-Cover Change around Mobile Bay, Alabama from 1974-2008

This document summarizes the major findings of a Gulf of Mexico Application Pilot project led by NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) in conjunction with a regional collaboration network of the Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA). NASA researchers processed and analyzed multi-temporal Landsat data to assess land-use and land-cover (LULC) changes in the coastal counties of Mobile and Baldwin, AL between 1974 and 2008. Our goal was to create satellite-based LULC data products using methods that could be transferable to other coastal areas of concern within the Gulf of Mexico. The Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) is the primary end-user, however, several other state and local groups may benefit from the project s data products that will be available through NOAA-NCDDC s Regional Ecosystem Data Management program. Mobile Bay is a critical ecologic and economic region in the Gulf of Mexico and to the entire country. Mobile Bay was designated as an estuary of national significance in 1996. This estuary receives the fourth largest freshwater inflow in the United States. It provides vital nursery habitat for commercially and recreationally important fish species. It has exceptional aquatic and terrestrial bio-diversity, however, its estuary health is influenced by changing LULC patterns, such as urbanization. Mobile and Baldwin counties have experienced a population growth of 1.1% and 20.5% from 2000-2006. Urban expansion and population growth are likely to accelerate with the construction and operation of the ThyssenKrupp steel mill in the northeast portion of Mobile County. Land-use and land-cover change can negatively impact Gulf coast water quality and ecological resources. The conversion of forest to urban cover types impacts the carbon cycle and increases the freshwater and sediment in coastal waters. Increased freshwater runoff decreases salinity and increases the turbidity of coastal waters, thus impacting the growth potential of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which is critical nursing ground for many Gulf fish species. A survey of Mobile Bay SAV showed widespread decreases since the 1940s. Prior to our project, coastal environmental managers in Baldwin and Mobile counties needed more understanding of the historical LULC for properly assessing the impacts of urbanization. In particular, more information on the location and extent of changing urbanization LULC patterns was needed to aid LULC planning and to assess predictions of future LULC patterns. Our products will assist the coastal environmental managers and land-use planners in making better community growth planning decisions. Our project also will help to establish a historical baseline of LULC distributions, which is a fundamental need in any stewardship plan. The primary research objective of our project was to produce historic and current geospatial LULC change products across a 34-year time frame. A multi-decadal coastal LULC change product was the major project deliverable. The geographic extent and nature of change was quantified and assessed for the upland herbaceous, barren, open water, urban, upland forest, woody wetland, and non-woody wetlanddominated land cover types. We focused on regional analyses of decadal-scale urban expansion and watershed-scaled analyses of LULC change for multiple areas of concern to the Mobile Bay NEP (Figure A). We used the following dates to derive LULC classification products from Landsat data: 1974, 1979, 1984, 1988, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2005, and 2008. We assessed the accuracy of our products using randomly sampled locations and digital geospatial reference data including field survey data, high resolution orthorectified aerial photography, high resolution multispectral and panchromatic satellite data displays (from QuickBird and Corona sensors), digital elevation model data, and National Wetlands Inventory wetland cover type data. NOAA s Coastal Change Assessment Program s (C-CAP) and National Land Cover Database (NLCD) procts were used for qualitative comparison in assessing map accuracy. We calculated an average overall classification accuracy of 87% with similar overall accuracies for the older (MSS) and newer (TM and ETM) Landsat LULC products.

Ellis, Jean↗
DOE OSTI2025

Development and Preliminary Analysis of a U.S. Geothermal Heat Pump Installation Database

This paper seeks to addresses the significant gap in the literature regarding the installation and adoption of geothermal heat pump (GHP) systems in the United States. While the "2021 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and District Heating Market Report" published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) focused on direct-use geothermal district heating systems, it did not include an analysis of GHP installations (Robins et al. 2021). To bridge this gap, NREL has compiled a novel database currently containing 70,470 records of GHP installations, primarily sourced from state well permits and small-scale studies. Our methodology emphasizes the collection, cleaning, and standardization of data, addressing challenges such as inconsistent reporting formats and privacy concerns. Despite limitations in data on capacity, costs, and performance, our preliminary geospatial analysis reveals insights into the distribution of GHP systems across urban and rural areas and climate zones. The paper highlights the importance of publicly accessible data for advancing GHP technology adoption with a discussion of existing data sources and their limitations, advocating for improved collaboration between NREL and industry stakeholders.

data collection↗
DOE OSTI2026

Locating Undocumented Wells Using Historical Oil and Gas Exploration Maps: A Case Study in Osage County, Oklahoma

Undocumented oil and gas wells lack reliable information about their locations and characteristics, making them difficult to identify. These wells can result in unanticipated delays and costs in the development of nearby surface and subsurface resources, and, if improperly plugged, can cause contamination. This study leverages historical petroleum exploration maps to locate such wells, focusing on Osage County, Oklahoma. Two sets of early 20th century oil and gas exploration maps by the United States Geological Survey were georeferenced and analyzed using a computer vision model to detect well symbols. The locations of detected wells were compared to the location of known wells in the database from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Osage Agency to identify potential undocumented wells. The analysis yielded over 500 potential undocumented wells, with dry holes constituting the largest fraction. Field verification confirmed the presence of some undocumented wells. Comparison with prior work revealed limited overlap, underscoring the complementary value of historical oil and gas maps for locating undocumented wells. This approach demonstrates the utility of integrating historical cartographic resources with modern geospatial and machine learning techniques to improve the identification and management of undocumented wells.

Energy - Petroleum↗
DOE OSTI2024

A functional microbiome catalogue crowdsourced from North American rivers

Predicting elemental cycles and maintaining water quality under increasing anthropogenic influence requires knowledge of the spatial drivers of river microbiomes. However, understanding of the core microbial processes governing river biogeochemistry is hindered by a lack of genome-resolved functional insights and sampling across multiple rivers. Here we used a community science effort to accelerate the sampling, sequencing and genome-resolved analyses of river microbiomes to create the Genome Resolved Open Watersheds database (GROWdb). GROWdb profiles the identity, distribution, function and expression of microbial genomes across river surface waters covering 90% of United States watersheds. Specifically, GROWdb encompasses microbial lineages from 27 phyla, including novel members from 10 families and 128 genera, and defines the core river microbiome at the genome level. GROWdb analyses coupled to extensive geospatial information reveals local and regional drivers of microbial community structuring, while also presenting foundational hypotheses about ecosystem function. Building on the previously conceived River Continuum Concept, we layer on microbial functional trait expression, which suggests that the structure and function of river microbiomes is predictable. We make GROWdb available through various collaborative cyberinfrastructures, so that it can be widely accessed across disciplines for watershed predictive modelling and microbiome-based management practices.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1998

Locating Biodiversity Data Through The Global Change Master Directory

The Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) presently holds descriptions for almost 7000 data sets held worldwide. The directory's primary purpose is for data discovery. The information provided through the GCMD's Directory Interchange Format (DIF) is the set of information that a researcher would need to determine if a particular data set could be of value. By offering data set descriptions worldwide in many scientific disciplines - including meteorology, oceanography, ecology, geology, hydrology, geophysics, remote sensing, paleoclimate, solar-terrestrial physics, and human dimensions of climate change - the GCMD simplifies the discovery of data sources. Direct linkages to many of the data sets are also provided. In addition, several data set registration tools are offered for populating the directory. To search the directory, one may choose the Guided Search or Free-Text Search. Two experimental interfaces were also made available with the latest software release - one based on a keyword search and another based on a graphical interface. The graphical interface was designed in collaboration with the Human Computer Interaction Laboratory at the University of Maryland. The latest version of the software, Version 6, was released in April, 1998. It features the implementation of a scheme to handle hierarchical data set collections (parent-child relationships); a hierarchical geospatial location search scheme; a Java-based geographic map for conducting geospatial searches; a Related-URL field for project-related data set collections, metadata extensions (such as more detailed inventory information), etc.; a new implementation of the Isite software; a new dataset language field; hyperlinked email addresses, and more. The key to the continued evolution of the GCMD is in the flexibility of the GCMD database, allowing modifications and additions to made relatively easily to maintain currency, thus providing the ability to capitalize on current technology while importing all existing records. Changes are discussed and approved through an online "interoperability" forum. The next major release of the GCMD is scheduled for early 1999 and will include the incorporation of a new matrix-based interface, a rapid valids-based query system; improvement in the operations facility - important for future distributed options; new streamlined code for greater performance and maintainability; improvements in the handling of seven current fields proposed through the interoperability forum (at no expense to the data providers); and the release of DOCmorph, a more robust version of DIFmorph to translate many 'standards' multi-directionally. Issues and actions will also be addressed.

Olsen, Lola M.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), comprises a database of radiation measurements relevant to space biology, and visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation and retrieval of these data. The attributes of data available through RadLab include spacecraft, types of radiation sensing instruments, locations within the spacecraft (e.g. modules of the ISS), associated celestial bodies, trajectories, and spacecraft coordinates. The application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax for retrieval of timestamped data filtered by various combinations of such attributes; the graphical user interface (GUI) extends this functionality with visualizations, such as spacecraft schematics, time series plots, geospatial visualizations, and provides easy means to iteratively refine search parameters, inspect the data on the fly, and download target subsets. The release of RadLab currently available to the public contains datasets provided by US and international collaborators and focuses on data recorded on the ISS. Investigators from multiple countries, including the US, Canada, Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Russia and the Czech Republic, have committed to provide data from their instruments in and beyond low Earth orbit; RadLab will also soon expand to include past (e.g. Shuttle and Mir) and future (e.g. Artemis) data. RadLab will provide a comprehensive, dynamic compendium of space radiation data, enabling the scientific community to perform analyses of data from multiple detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions and experiments. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data harmonization, and to guide the development of the platform, with the goal to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation research and to advance our understanding of the space radiation environment in human habitats.

database↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

RadLab: A Comprehensive Database and Graphical and Programming Interfaces for Biologically Relevant Space Radiation Data

RadLab, a new component of the NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR), is a platform built upon a database of radiation data relevant to space biology. RadLab provides visual and programmatic interfaces for interrogation of its database, as well as a submission process for inclusion of data from investigators. The RadLab application programming interface (API) implements a request syntax enabling users to retrieve data filtered by various combinations of parameters (detector type, location, direction, timespan, etc), which are delivered in machine-readable text formats, ready to be ingested by downstream analysis pipelines; while the graphical user interface (GUI) provides easy means to iteratively modify query parameters and incorporates a number of standard analyses and visualizations (time series plots, geospatial visualizations, detector comparison). Investigators from many countries, including US, Russia, Japan, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, and Italy, have committed to provide data from their instruments located on the ISS; RadLab will also include data from other spacecraft in LEO (e.g., the Space Shuttle, the Mir space station), BLEO (e. g. BioSentinel, Mars Orbiter, among others), and on other celestial bodies (e. g. Chang’e 4, Curiosity). The first release of RadLab has been made available to the public. Once fully operational, RadLab will provide a comprehensive and ever-growing compendium of space radiation data, facilitating straightforward access to multiple types of readings and enabling space biology researchers to perform intercomparisons of detectors and to determine the radiation environment of research missions, both via programmatic retrieval of these data and via the graphical analysis toolkit; as well as a user-friendly submission portal for ingesting data from space agencies and research institutions. Radiation scientists will be able to use RadLab to gain a deeper understanding of the space radiation environment for future human space exploration. The RadLab Working Group has been formed to foster close collaborations among data contributors and users, to identify data sources, to put in place standards for data normalization, to guide the development of features of the analysis toolkit, to establish the use of RadLab in space radiation biology research, and eventually to provide a forum for discussing relevant research issues that can take advantage of RadLab's capabilities.

radiation↗