Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “availability”

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 865 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Least-Cost Pathways for India's Electric Power Sector

The Government of India has a target of deploying 175 GW from renewable energy by 2022 and 40% of electricity capacity from renewable energy by 2030 and has indicated that ambitions for 2030 could be higher. Rapid changes in technology costs and performance could drive further deployment of wind and solar capacity beyond these policy targets. Increased deployment of variable renewable energy (VRE) raises new questions for power system planning regarding the optimal siting of generation capacity, trade-offs between generation and transmission infrastructure, and system flexibility needs. This study aims to evaluate least-cost pathways for India's electric power system over the period 2017-2047. Uniquely, this work considers an expanded planning horizon and range of scenarios not previously analyzed in national planning studies in India. The data collection and model design processes undertaken for this study provides a framework for recurring planning studies. This study finds anticipated changes in electricity demand and component costs can drive a significant shift in India's future electricity supply and how this system will be operated. In the Base scenario, the share of generation from VRE reaches 54% by 2047. Reducing the capital cost of wind has a larger impact on VRE penetration than reducing the capital cost of solar PV or battery storage. In the lowest wind cost scenario (40% capital cost decline by 2047 relative to the Base scenario), the penetration of VRE in the generation mix reaches 722%, exceeding the penetration levels achieved when the cost of battery storage or solar PV are reduced by an even greater 50%. In a future system with high penetrations of RE, capacity additions are driven by the coincidence of demand and RE generation rather than peak demand alone. This study finds the system could have surplus capacity during the peak demand months of July–September because this period corresponds to periods with high wind speeds and more wind generation available to meet peak demand. By contrast, new capacity is needed to meet demand during moderate demand months of October–November when output from wind plants falls more than 75% nationally compared to the previous two months. Finally, the success for gas for electricity production may depend on cost competitiveness rather than fuel availability. Increasing the amount of gas available for electricity production had no significant impact on the capacity or generation mix by 2047, as determined from a scenario that significantly increases fuel availability throughout the planning horizon. In fact, over 80% of new gas fuel available for the power sector remains unused. This suggests the high cost of gas plant operations relative to other technologies may constrain the expansion of gas generation in India more than fuel availability.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

AGGREGATE: dAta-driven modelinG preservinG contRollable dEr for outaGe mAnagemenT and rEsiliency (Final Report)

The AGGREGATE project team successfully developed and validated various modules for outage management. Brief summaries of each module are provided to showcase their strength for outage management and restoration for a distribution system with a high penetration of connected distribution energy resources (DERs). In recent years, inverter-based DERs have been widely deployed in distribution system. A most of behind-the-meter (BTM) solar power generation is not visible to the utility. The data-driven DER and load estimation modules are using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to manage this issue, which provides an opportunity for distribution system operators (DSOs) to operate systems and make decisions in real-time for a distribution system with a high penetration of DERs deployed. Also, the estimated DER and true load can be further leveraged in network aggregation and cold-load pick up estimation for reducing the computing complexity and providing for fast restoration. After load demand and DER power generations have been estimated, the information will support topology and state estimation (SE). The topology estimation module demonstrated the viability of mixed integer linear programming (MILP) formulation to estimate the most likely operational radial topology and outage sections using power flow measurements, historical/estimated load and DERs data and smart meter ping measurements. Formulation includes continuous (power flow, load and DERs data) and binary measurements (smart meter ping measurements) in a single formulation. Errors in continuous data and binary data are modeled as normal distribution and Bernoulli distribution, respectively. In the future distribution grid, the power injection from controllable DERs will be essential for efficient and resilient grid operation. However, determining the optimal DER injections and restoration actions is dependent on knowledge of the system states. State estimation (SE), already the cornerstone of transmission energy management systems, will become commonplace in distribution management systems as more measurements become available from deployment of automated metering infrastructure (AMI). Observability analysis is the first step in SE, as it determines the sufficiency of the available measurements for accurately estimating the current system states. A new type of pseudo-measurement called a Correlational Measurement (CM) is introduced in this module, to enhance the observability of the system to enable more accurate SE. CMs encapsulate knowledge of correlation between demand patterns for similar classes of loads as well as injection patterns for same-technology renewable DERs. During grid contingency scenarios, DERs have been traditionally disconnected, without any fault ride-through capabilities. However, with new regulations and better technology, it is feasible for these resources to contribute to the grid’s restoration after an adverse event and hence enhance resilience. The controllability module proposes a two-step restoration scheme for the power system restoration process by leveraging additional degrees of freedom in power electronics interfaced DERs for mitigating voltage problems. In a resilience mode without the utility system, the distribution grid relies on DERs to serve critical load. In such a severe event with multiple faults on the distribution feeders, actuation of various protective devices (PDs) divides the distribution system into electrical islands. The undetected actuated PDs due to fault current contributions from DERs can delay the restoration process, thereby reducing the system resilience. The Advanced Outage Management (AOM) and the Advanced Feeder Restoration (AFR) modules developed in this project provide improved system resilience with multiple DERs. AOM identifies the faulted sections and actuated PDs in a distribution system with DERs by incorporating smart meter data. The most credible outage scenario including fault locations, PD actuations, and fault indicator (FI) failures is identified by a set of binary integer linear programming incorporating hypotheses. The AFR module serves to restore a distribution system with available energy resources taking into consideration the availability of utility sources and DERs. By partitioning the system into islands, critical load will be served with the available generation resources within islands based on the solution of a MILP. When the utility systems become available, the optimal path will be determined by a spanning tree search algorithm that reconnects these islands back to substations and restores the remaining load. The transmission and distribution (T&D) co-simulation module was used to validate the effect of a control action performed on the distribution side assets as it propagates to the transmission side. This ensures that the control action performed results in a feasible operating point on both the transmission and the distribution system. In addition to validation, the team used the T&D co-simulation module to demonstrate how distribution system assets can be used to mitigate issues on the transmission system. Specifically, the team demonstrated that appropriate switching operations on the distribution side can alleviate the line overload condition on the transmission side without causing new operational constraint violations.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Durability of Piston Seals in Hydraulic Power Take-off Systems in Wave Energy Converters

Hydraulic cylinder seals are a critical component of hydraulic power take-off (PTO) systems in wave energy converters (WECs). Primary hydraulic piston seal wear is a major concern for the longevity of hydraulic PTOs, especially in the context of the effort and expense associated with seal replacement. Piston seals, made from polymeric elastomers, are used to contain and isolate high pressure fluids within PTO systems. A specific challenge for WEC designers is knowing, with confidence, the relative expected lifetimes of commercially available seals and seal materials for the unique long travel and continuous use case of WEC hydraulic systems. This information is critical to accurately determine operating expense (OPEX) and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). If failures of seals occur earlier than their designed lifetime, the estimated operations, and maintenance (O&M) and LCOE costs may double based on estimation. Unfortunately, information from seal manufacturers on longevity in these applications is not generally available and quantitative performance comparison between different manufacturers is not available, creating significant uncertainty on use of hydraulic PTO system in wave power generation. In this project, PNNL, with advice from different WEC device and seal manufacturers, has created a framework to address the industry need for available, dependable and comparative data for seals and seals materials for WEC hydraulic applications including piston seals, glide rings, and shaft seals. Commonly used and candidate seal materials were identified and available information on the materials such as mechanical and fatigue performance, chemical (fluid) compatibility, and cost has been compiled. Hardware and strategy for bench scale measurement of key materials and seal performance and pathway for publicly available library of hydraulic seal materials, properties, suppliers, and options have also been identified for future implementation. The results of this project were presented at WPTO Seedling Symposium 2023 and OCEANS 2023. The results of the literature review including identified polymer seals and ideal operating conditions were summaried and compiled to a database WEC-SealsDB hosted locally at PNNL.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. 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, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. 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. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. 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." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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 The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. 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 [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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 The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. 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 [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

Guideline for Characterizing and Evaluating a Candidate Project Site for Solar Thermal Applications

This document presents a structured procedure for characterizing and evaluating candidate project sites for concentrating solar power (CSP) and solar heat for industrial processes (SHIP) applications. The objective is to provide project developers, researchers, and other stakeholders with a consistent, technology-agnostic framework for early-stage site assessment, enabling informed decision-making prior to significant investment in project development. Site selection is a critical factor in project success or failure for both CSP and SHIP projects. Key factors such as solar resource availability, land characteristics, environmental and regulatory constraints, infrastructure availability, and community context are determined by the choice of project site and can materially impact project performance, cost, schedule, and overall viability. This procedure is designed to systematically evaluate these factors, identify potential fatal flaws, and prioritize the most favorable candidate sites for further development. The process begins with rapid screening-level evaluation, using publicly available data to assess solar resource, land availability and suitability, zoning and land-use compatibility, and exclusion zones such as protected lands or sensitive habitats. Sites that meet the minimum screening criteria advance to a more detailed characterization. Subsequent sections of this report provide guidance for a next-level assessment of the most important technical and environmental parameters, including: 1) Solar resource quality, variability, and uncertainty using multiyear datasets and, where appropriate, on-site measurement campaigns; 2) Meteorological conditions such as wind, temperature, extreme weather events, and soiling impacts; 3) Land characteristics including slope, shading, and geotechnical conditions; and 4) Environmental and regulatory considerations, including permitting processes, endangered species, cultural resources, and visual impacts. The procedure also addresses infrastructure and integration considerations, including: 1) Grid interconnection requirements for CSP power generation projects; 2) Electrical and operational integration for SHIP facilities; 3) Water availability, quality, and permitting constraints, which are particularly critical for CSP in arid regions; and 4) Site access, construction logistics, and availability of workforce and supporting services. Recognizing the importance of social and economic context, the procedure includes evaluation of community engagement factors, such as stakeholder sentiment, proximity to sensitive visual receptors, workforce development opportunities, and local economic incentives. The outputs of these assessments are synthesized in a cost and risk evaluation, translating site characteristics into expected impacts on capital cost, operating cost, schedule, and technical risk. This is complemented by screening-level performance modeling, including 8760 simulations and long-term projections, to quantify expected energy or thermal output, assess variability thereof, and support comparison between candidate sites. Finally, the procedure provides high-level guidance on a structured go/no-go decision framework, categorizing sites based on identified risks and constraints, and outlining a clear path forward to feasibility studies and front-end engineering design for viable projects. By standardizing the site characterization process across both CSP and SHIP applications, this guideline aims to: 1) Improve consistency and transparency in early-stage project evaluation; 2) Reduce development risk and avoid investment in nonviable project sites; 3) Support collaboration between developers, researchers, and public agencies; and 4) Accelerate successful deployment of concentrating solar technologies for both power generation and industrial process heat.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

The Urban Energy-Water Nexus: Utility-Level Water Flows and Embedded Energy

There are limited open source data available for determining water production/treatment and required energy for cities across the United States. This database represents the culmination of a two-year effort to obtain data from cities across the United States via open records requests in order to determine the state of the U.S. urban energy-water nexus. Data were requested at the daily or monthly scale when available for 127 cities across the United States, represented by 253 distinct water and sewer districts. Data were requested from cities larger than 100,000 people and from each state. In the case of states that did not have cities that met these criteria, the largest cities in those states were selected. The resulting database represents a drinking water service population of 81.4 million and a wastewater service population of 86.2 million people. Average daily demands for the United States were calculated to be 560 liters per capita for drinking water and 500 liters per capita of wastewater. The embedded energy within each of these resources is 340 kWh/1000 m3 and 430 kWh/1000 m3, respectively. Drinking water data at the annual scale are available for production volume (89 cities) and for embedded energy (73 cities). Annual wastewater data are available for treated volume (104 cities) and embedded energy (90 cities). Monthly data are available for drinking water volume and embedded energy (73 and 56 cities) and wastewater volume and embedded energy (88 and 70 cities). Please see the two related papers for this metadata are included with this submission. Each folder name is a city that contributed data to the collection effort (City+State Abbreviation). Within each folder is a .csv file with drinking water and wastewater volume and energy data. A READ-ME file within each folder details the contents of the folder within any relevant information pertaining to data collection. Data are on the order of a monthly timescale when available, and yearly if not. Please cite the following papers when using the database: Chini, C.M. and Stillwell, A.S. (2017). The State of U.S. Urban Water: Data and the Energy-Water Nexus. Water Resources Research. 54(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022265 Chini, C.M., and Stillwell, A. (2016). Where are all the data? The case for a comprehensive water and wastewater utility database. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. 143(3). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000739

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Hydropower Operations in the Colorado River Basin: Institutional Analysis of Opportunities and Constraints

The Colorado River Basin is facing an unprecedented drought. In ongoing drought management efforts, limited attention has been paid to hydropower generation. While some studies do exist on hydropower, they are quantitative in nature and focus on calculating the reduction in megawatts generated at dams in the Basin with declining water availability. These studies simplify the complex process of hydropower generation; water availability is but one factor that impacts hydropower generation. At a more fundamental level, formal institutional arrangements, that is, laws, policies, and rules create the framework within which dams are operated and hydropower is generated. This paper conducts a comparative institutional analysis of water, environment, and energy laws and policies and changes therein to understand the constraints and opportunities faced by hydropower generation in the Colorado River Basin. To tease out the nuances in how institutional arrangements affect dam operations and hydropower generation, the comparative analysis focuses on the two largest and strategically important dams in the Basin: Hoover and Glen Canyon. This paper uses Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework to analyze laws and policies at three levels: constitutional-choice, collective-choice, and operational levels. Constitutional-choice level laws and policies apply to the entire Basin, whereas collective-choice level and operational level laws and policies are dam specific. Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams face similar biophysical challenges by the virtue of their location in the same river basin. Yet, despite the similarity in the biophysical setting, the analysis in this study finds that the differences in the applicability of constitutional-choice level laws along with the differences in dam specific collective-choice and operational level institutional arrangements produce a distinct set of constraints for hydropower generation at Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams. Even without a drought, water and environmental laws at both the constitutionalchoice and collective-choice levels as well as power contracts constrain hydropower generation and limit the flexibility with which Glen Canyon Dam can be operated. Water and environmental laws also impose specific water release requirements that, at times, require off-peak power generation at Glen Canyon Dam. On the other hand, even with a drought, Hoover Dam faces limited hydropower generation constraints and can operate flexibly. This is because constitutional-choice level laws and dam-specific collective-choice and operational level laws pose limited constraints for flexible daily operations at Hoover. The result is that Hoover Dam can generate hydropower at the same level as it did three decades ago and operate flexibly to provide ancillary services and peaking generation. While water and environmental laws and policies pose constraints for hydropower generation, the analysis in this study further finds that specific historic provisions within energyrelated institutional arrangements and recent changes within power contracts have maintained and even enhanced the value of hydropower to power customers. Historic institutional provisions ensure that hydropower is sold ‘at cost’ making this resource economically competitive with wholesale electricity market rates. Recent power contract modifications have resulted in the amendment of an older resale prohibition clause to expand the flexibility available to power customers in using their capacity and/or energy allocation in RTOs, ISOs, and bulk power markets. This amendment has opened up an opportunity for customers, especially Hoover power customers, to use flexible generation and ancillary services in a market environment. In addition, the extension of power contract duration to the legally maximum term has enhanced the reliability and stability of this resource for customers. In the Colorado River Basin, despite the enduring economic responsibility of power customers—where laws require customers to pay for a large portion of construction and O&M costs whether or not they actually receive hydropower— the persistent threat of a drought-induced water shortage, and constraints imposed by water and environmental laws and policies, power customers continue to invest in this resource as energy-related institutional arrangements and power contract provisions protect the reasons why they value hydropower. Lastly, the analysis in this study finds that the consequences of changes in hydropower generation for energy users, irrigators, and environmental programs in the Basin depend on how specific institutional arrangements tie electricity revenues to irrigation aid and environmental programs, and how the power contracts themselves are set up. Collective-choice level institutional arrangements create a higher level of financial dependency of irrigation aid and environmental programs on electricity revenues in the Upper Basin—the legal subdivision of Colorado River where Glen Canyon Dam is located—compared to the Lower Basin—the legal subdivision of Colorado River where Hoover Dam is located. Therefore, changes in hydropower generation or the way its revenue is collected and used will have far reacting detrimental consequences for the Upper Basin. Likewise, differences in the nature of power contracts for Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams also creates differences in the financial impact incurred by energy users when there is a reduction in hydropower generation. While this study identifies the types of impacts on resource users as a result of specific institutional arrangements, the calculation of extent of impact warrants further attention. Hydropower in the United States is in a unique position today. The strategic importance of this resource for the nation’s electricity sector is rapidly growing even as its contribution to overall electricity generation remains fairly small. This strategic importance, however, is built hydropower’s ability to operate flexibly in order to support the integration of intermittent renewable generating sources and the expansion of electricity markets. As this study shows, such flexibility may not be available at certain plants not due to the lack of water availability but because of institutional constraints. Institutional arrangements may also require dam operators to first consider high priority water uses (such as irrigation or environmental needs), which in turn may limit the ability to generate hydropower when it is most valuable or useful. Engineering and quantitative models, such as production cost models, recognize policy constraints for hydropower operations but often inadequately capture or assume away such constraints in the models. A failure to account for policy constraints in these models runs the risk of inaccurate representation of the operational flexibility and capacity available at specific hydropower plants, which can result in over/underestimation of hydropower’s ability to support the integration of variable renewable resources and address grid reliability concerns. Against this background, this paper and the analysis herein serves as an example of how we can systematically identify institutional constraints (and opportunities) that influence the flexibility in not only generating electricity at specific dams but also using this hydropower once it is generated.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Anticipating Change - A Means to Save Time and Rethink the Implementation of the 10 Code of Federal Regulations 770 Real Property Transfer Process - 15662

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 770 in 2000 for the 'Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for Economic Development'. The rule was issued in order to 'offset negative impacts on communities caused by unemployment from related DOE down-sizing, facility close-outs and workforce restructuring'. There is a sense of urgency implied in efforts designed to address economic conditions, especially in communities that have hosted DOE facilities and are experiencing negative impacts of mission changes. Despite the urgency, the transfer of real property from DOE or any federal agency is a lengthy, complex, iterative, but necessarily diligent effort. After all, the aim of the process is to be able to demonstrate that the property proposed for transfer is protective of human health and the environment for the intended use. Notwithstanding the efforts of the economic development organization to market, recruit, and prepare a robust proposal to request property, and the efforts of DOE to perform the many due diligence activities in response to that request, the actual results of the evaluations are an unknown until a major portion of the process is completed. Will the property be determined to be suitable for transfer? Will there be deed restrictions? Is indemnification available? Has a mission need for the property arisen while working through the reviews? There are many points along the way that can sidetrack or delay progress and, in the interim, the economic viability of the proposal can collapse. Even without the unforeseen events, the process in and of itself is lengthy. It is often heard (loudly) that it takes far too long to obtain a piece of property once a request is made; that observation/criticism is worthy of serious attention. Rather than revisit old debates, why not learn from them? Why not look at the transfer process from a different point of view and ameliorate it so it can be more responsive to community needs? Why not anticipate change, anticipate requests, and make property available before a request as well as responding to requests to make property available? There are several ways to rethink and modify the way the transfer process is implemented to reduce the time following a request. The modifications would arise from both internal information sharing, integrated and timely up-front planning and, in particular, by varying how and when certain elements of the process to enable transfer are performed. This paper will address: 1. How a unified overall vision can be created from the cleanup input of Site-Specific Advisory Boards with the Community Reuse Organizations' planning for economic development and can help inform site cleanup to end state to future use; 2. Why DOE is in the best position to know its site conditions and could determine ahead of a transfer request what property is indeed available and notify of that determination; 3. How a range of disposition paths for real property are available to DOE; and 4. Why broadening the understanding of 'best interest of the government' to one that is clearly able to recognize non-monetary benefits is in the best interest of the government. Anticipating change helps prepare DOE and their host communities for the future. It creates opportunities for flexibility and time savings. The sooner DOE's unneeded and under-utilized real property can be made available to the communities that need it most, the sooner those communities can work to moderate the adverse effects of DOE mission changes. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Factors affecting breeding season survival of Red-Headed Woodpeckers in South Carolina.

Red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) populations have declined in the United States and Canada over the past 40 years. However, few demographic studies have been published on the species and none have addressed adult survival. During 2006-2007, we estimated survival probabilities of 80 radio-tagged red-headed woodpeckers during the breeding season in mature loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forests in South Carolina. We used known-fate models in Program MARK to estimate survival within and between years and to evaluate the effects of foliar cover (number of available cover patches), snag density treatment (high density vs. low density), and sex and age of woodpeckers. Weekly survival probabilities followed a quadratic time trend, being lowest during mid-summer, which coincided with the late nestling and fledgling period. Avian predation, particularly by Cooper's (Accipiter cooperii) and sharp-shinned hawks (A. striatus), accounted for 85% of all mortalities. Our best-supported model estimated an 18-week breeding season survival probability of 0.72 (95% CI = 0.54-0.85) and indicated that the number of cover patches interacted with sex of woodpeckers to affect survival; females with few available cover patches had a lower probability of survival than either males or females with more cover patches. At the median number of cover patches available (n = 6), breeding season survival of females was 0.82 (95% CI = 0.54-0.94) and of males was 0.60 (95% CI = 0.42-0.76). The number of cover patches available to woodpeckers appeared in all 3 of our top models predicting weekly survival, providing further evidence that woodpecker survival was positively associated with availability of cover. Woodpecker survival was not associated with snag density. Our results suggest that protection of {ge}0.7 cover patches per ha during vegetation control activities in mature pine forests will benefit survival of this Partners In Flight Watch List species.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Final Technical Report on Quantifying Dependability Attributes of Software Based Safety Critical Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants

With the current transition from analog to digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear power plants, the number and variety of software-based systems have significantly increased. The sophisticated nature and increasing complexity of software raises trust in these systems as a significant challenge. The trust placed in a software system is typically termed software dependability. Software dependability analysis faces uncommon challenges since software systems’ characteristics differ from those of hardware systems. The lack of systematic science-based methods for quantifying the dependability attributes in software-based instrumentation as well as control systems in safety critical applications has proved itself to be a significant inhibitor to the expanded use of modern digital technology in the nuclear industry. Dependability refers to the ability of a system to deliver a service that can be trusted. Dependability is commonly considered as a general concept that encompasses different attributes, e.g., reliability, safety, security, availability and maintainability. Dependability research has progressed significantly over the last few decades. For example, various assessment models and/or design approaches have been proposed for software reliability, software availability and software maintainability. Advances have also been made to integrate multiple dependability attributes, e.g., integrating security with other dependability attributes, measuring availability and maintainability, modeling reliability and availability, quantifying reliability and security, exploring the dependencies between security and safety and developing integrated analysis models. However, there is still a lack of understanding of the dependencies between various dependability attributes as a whole and of how such dependencies are formed. To address the need for quantification and give a more objective basis to the review process -- therefore reducing regulatory uncertainty -- measures and methods are needed to assess dependability attributes early on, as well as throughout the life-cycle process of software development. In this research, extensive expert opinion elicitation is used to identify the measures and methods for assessing software dependability. Semi-structured questionnaires were designed to elicit expert knowledge. A new notation system, Causal Mechanism Graphing, was developed to extract and represent such knowledge. The Causal Mechanism Graphs were merged, thus, obtaining the consensus knowledge shared by the domain experts. In this report, we focus on how software contributes to dependability. However, software dependability is not discussed separately from the context of systems or socio-technical systems. Specifically, this report focuses on software dependability, reliability, safety, security, availability, and maintainability. Our research was conducted in the sequence of stages found below. Each stage is further examined in its corresponding chapter. Stage 1 (Chapter 2): Elicitation of causal maps describing the dependencies between dependability attributes. These causal maps were constructed using expert opinion elicitation. This chapter describes the expert opinion elicitation process, the questionnaire design, the causal map construction method and the causal maps obtained. Stage 2 (Chapter 3): Elicitation of the causal map describing the occurrence of the event of interest for each dependability attribute. The causal mechanisms for the “event of interest” were extracted for each of the software dependability attributes. The “event of interest” for a dependability attribute is generally considered to be the “attribute failure”, e.g. security failure. The extraction was based on the analysis of expert elicitation results obtained in Stage 1. Stage 3 (Chapter 4): Identification of relevant measurements. Measures for the “events of interest” and their causal mechanisms were obtained from expert opinion elicitation for each of the software dependability attributes. The measures extracted are presented in this chapter. Stage 4 (Chapter 5): Assessment of the coverage of the causal maps via measures. Coverage was assessed to determine whether the measures obtained were sufficient to quantify software dependability, and what measures are further required. Stage 5 (Chapter 6): Identification of “missing” measures and measurement approaches for concepts not covered. New measures, for concepts that had not been covered sufficiently as determined in Stage 4, were identified using supplementary expert opinion elicitation as well as literature reviews. Stage 6 (Chapter 7): Building of a detailed quantification model based on the causal maps and measurements obtained. Ability to derive such a quantification model shows that the causal models and measurements derived from the previous stages (Stage 1 to Stage 5) can form the technical basis for developing dependability quantification models. Scope restrictions have led us to prioritize this demonstration effort. The demonstration was focused on a critical system, i.e. the reactor protection system. For this system, a ranking of the software dependability attributes by nuclear stakeholders was developed. As expected for this application, the stakeholder ranking identified safety as the most critical attribute to be quantified. A safety quantification model limited to the requirements phase of development was built. Two case studies were conducted for verification. A preliminary control gate for software safety for the requirements stage was proposed and applied to the first case study. The control gate allows a cost effective selection of the duration of the requirements phase.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2018

The Ability of Soil Pore Network Metrics to Predict Redox Dynamics Is Scale Dependent

Variations in microbial community structure and metabolic efficiency are governed in part by oxygen availability, which is a function of water content, diffusion distance, and oxygen demand; for this reason, the volume, connectivity, and geometry of soil pores may exert primary controls on spatial metabolic diversity in soil. Here, we combine quantitative pore network metrics derived from X-ray computed tomography (XCT) with measurements of electromotive potentials to assess how the metabolic status of soil depends on variations of the overall pore network architecture. Contrasting pore network architectures were generated using a Mollisol—A horizon, and compared to intact control samples from the same soil. Mesocosms from each structural treatment were instrumented with Pt-electrodes to record available energy dynamics during a regimen of varying moisture conditions. We found that volume-based XCT-metrics were more frequently correlated with metrics describing changes in available energy than medial-axis XCT-metrics. An abundance of significant correlations between pore network metrics and available energy parameters was not only a function of pore architecture, but also of the dimensions of the sub-sample chosen for XCT analysis. Pore network metrics had the greatest power to statistically explain changes in available energy in the smallest volumes analyzed. Our work underscores the importance of scale in observations of natural systems.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Improving landscape-level environmental impact evaluations.

New spatial data and advancements in GIS tools allow much more comprehensive and quantitative analyses of the large datasets required when making programmatic evaluations of the ecological effects of proposed activities that cover a large area or region. Understanding the environmental impacts of proposed human developments is critical to making appropriate siting decisions and designing mitigation strategies to reduce impacts on important resources. Impact analyses conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) or Environmental Assessments (EAs) are intended to determine the resource-specific impacts of proposed activities of federal agencies and their alternatives using the best available information. Impacts to ecological resources are often a primary focus of these analyses. Information used in NEPA analyses include some measure of the known or probable presence of plants and wildlife in the project area, with special emphasis placed on threatened, endangered, and other special-status species. Site-specific information pertaining to ecological resources is usually easier to obtain for small-scale activities such as a local facility, road, or transmission upgrade project, where the ability to conduct fieldwork is more often feasible. However, site-specific data is more difficult-and sometimes impossible-to obtain for proposed activities that could affect a large area or region. These types of analyses often are considered in programmatic NEPA documents, in which a federal agency evaluates the implementation of a broad program or plan. Under these programmatic evaluations, the exact location and size of developments are often not known. Because obtaining quantitative information for ecological resources at such large spatial scales is difficult, programmatic impact evaluations typically rely on sketchy or partial information such as recorded species occurrences, species ranges, and general habitat descriptions. However, new spatial data and improved GIS tools allow much more comprehensive and quantitative analyses using large, readily available datasets. The availability of large-scale regional data such as GAP land-cover models or species habitat suitability models, combined with more robust spatial analysis procedures available through ArcGIS for Desktop software, allowed the analysis of multiple datasets at large spatial scales. This enabled researchers to surpass previous qualitative evaluations by developing a more accurate and quantitative approach for determining the environmental impacts of human activities at larger spatial scales. These approaches, combined with the utility of ModelBuilder and operability of Python scripts in ArcGIS, allow a more timely and cost-effective synthesis of available spatial data for programmatic evaluations and add a quantitative basis to environmental decision making.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

TropiRoot 1.0: Database of tropical root characteristics across environments

Tropical ecosystems contain the world's largest biodiversity of vascular plants. Yet, our understanding of tropical functional diversity and its contribution to global diversity patterns is constrained by data availability. This discrepancy underscores an urgent need to bridge data gaps by incorporating comprehensive tropical root data into global datasets. Here, we provide a database of tropical root characteristics. This new database, TropiRoot 1.0, will be instrumental in evaluating an array of hypotheses pertaining to root functional ecology and plant biogeography, both within the tropics and relative to other global biomes. The data compilation was conducted by the TropiRoot Initiative, in partnership with the Fine-Root Ecology Database (FRED) and the Global Root Trait (GRooT) database, Colorado State University (CSU) and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI). Literature search and data extraction were conducted between 2020 and 2024. Literature was identified using Web of Science, Scopus, and complemented using the expert knowledge of members of TropiRoot. To provide broad environmental and geographical distributions, literature searches included root characteristics (traits) across global change drivers, natural gradients, and from different continents. We adopted FRED standardized data columns and streamlined the format to enhance accessibility for data extraction across various user groups. This optimized framework resulted in a smaller, yet comprehensive datasheet. To make the database compatible with other global root trait initiatives, column identification was standardized following the codes provided by FRED. These efforts culminated in data extracted from 104 new sources, resulting in more than 8000 rows of data (either species or community data). Most of the data in TropiRoot 1.0 include root characteristics such as root biomass, morphology, root dynamics, mass fraction, architecture, anatomy, physiology, and root chemistry. This initiative represents a 30% increase in the currently available data for tropical roots in FRED. TropiRoot 1.0 contains root characteristics from 25 different countries, where seven are located in Asia, six in South America, five in Central America and the Caribbean, four in Africa, two in North America, and 1 in Oceania. Due to the volume of data, when ancillary data were available, including soil data, these data were either extracted and included in the database or its availability was recorded in an additional column. Multiple contributors checked the entries for outliers during the collation process to ensure data quality. For text-based observations, we examined all cells to ensure that their content relates to their specific categories. For numerical observations, we ordered each numerical value from least to greatest and plotted the values, checking apparent outliers against the data in their respective sources and correcting or removing incorrect or impossible values. Some data (soil and aboveground) have different columns for the same variable presented in different units, including originally published units, but root characteristics data had units converted to match those reported in FRED. By filling a gap from global databases, TropiRoot 1.0 expands our knowledge of otherwise so far underrepresented regions and our ability to assess global trends. This advancement can be used to improve tropical forest representation in vegetation models. The data are freely available and should be cited when used.

FRED↗
DOE OSTI2022

Trace metal contents of autotrophic flagellates from contrasting open‐ocean ecosystems

Abstract Nano‐ and picophytoplankton are a major component of open‐ocean ecosystems and one of the main plankton functional types in biogeochemical models, yet little is known about their trace metal contents. In cultures of the picoeukaryote Ostreococcus lucimarinus , iron limitation reduced iron quotas by 68%, a fraction of the plasticity known in diatoms. In contrast, a commonly co‐occurring cyanobacterium, Prochlorococcus , showed variable iron contents with iron availability in culture. Synchrotron X‐ray fluorescence was used to measure single‐cell metal (Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Zn) quotas of autotrophic flagellates (1.4–16.8‐ μ m diameter) collected from four ocean regions. Iron quotas were tightly constrained and showed little response to iron availability, similar to cultured Ostreococcus . Zinc quotas also did not vary with zinc availability but appeared to vary with phosphorus availability. These results suggest that macronutrient and metal availability may be equally important for controlling metal contents of small eukaryotic open‐ocean phytoplankton.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Overview of systemic treatment in recurrent and advanced cervical cancer: a primer for radiologists

Imaging has a central role in surveillance of cervical cancer, guiding decision on when to initiate treatment for recurrent disease and to guide management in advanced cervical cancer. Due to the increased availability of pelvic radiation therapy, the rate of atypical presentation of recurrent disease has increased. Simultaneously, the array of systemic therapies now available for advanced cervical cancer has considerably expanded in the last few years, with therapies now available in mid and low-income countries. While pelvic recurrences are amenable of loco-regional treatment, recurrent disease may present with metastases to the thoracoabdominal organs, lymph nodes, bones, skin and brain, for which systemic treatment represent the standard of care. Besides combined chemotherapy regimens, alternative chemotherapies, biosimilars and immune checkpoint inhibitors are now available, each associated with a definite pattern of response and toxicity. In this review, after describing the typical and atypical presentations of recurrent and advanced cervical carcinoma on cross-sectional imaging, we will discuss systemic treatment for recurrent or advanced disease and their associated radiographic sequelae, in light of the newly available therapies.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2018

Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison

We present an overview of results from 11 integrated assessment models (IAMs) that participated in the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum (EMF-33) on the viability of large-scale deployment of bioenergy for achieving long-run climate goals. The study explores future bioenergy use across models under harmonized scenarios for future climate policies, availability of bioenergy technologies, and constraints on biomass supply. This paper provides a more transparent description of IAMs that span a broad range of assumptions regarding model structures, energy sectors, and bioenergy conversion chains. Without emission constraints, we find vastly different CO 2 emission and bioenergy deployment patterns across models due to differences in competition with fossil fuels, the possibility to produce large-scale bio-liquids, and the flexibility of energy systems. Imposing increasingly stringent carbon budgets mostly increases bioenergy use. A diverse set of available bioenergy technology portfolios provides flexibility to allocate bioenergy to supply different final energy as well as remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by combining bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS). Sector and regional bioenergy allocation varies dramatically across models mainly due to bioenergy technology availability and costs, final energy patterns, and availability of alternative decarbonization options. Although much bioenergy is used in combination with CCS, BECCS is not necessarily the driver of bioenergy use. We find that the flexibility to use biomass feedstocks in different energy sub-sectors makes large-scale bioenergy deployment a robust strategy in mitigation scenarios that is surprisingly insensitive with respect to reduced technology availability. However, the achievability of stringent carbon budgets and associated carbon prices is sensitive. Constraints on biomass feedstock supply increase the carbon price less significantly than excluding BECCS because carbon removals are still realized and valued. Incremental sensitivity tests find that delayed readiness of bioenergy technologies until 2050 is more important than potentially higher investment costs.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗