Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reference site conditions”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

One Earth Energy FEED Process Design Basis

This report establishes the process design basis for the front-end engineering design (FEED) of a carbon capture and injection facility at One Earth Energy's (OEE) ethanol production plant in Gibson City, Illinois, developed as part of the Illinois Storage Corridor CarbonSAFE Phase III project. The facility is designed to compress and dehydrate up to approximately 458,000 metric tonnes of CO 2 per year, sourced directly from OEE's ethanol fermenters, for permanent injection into a saline aquifer approximately four miles from the plant. At normal operating conditions, the system will process 1,290 metric tonnes of CO 2 per day, assuming 355 operating days per year and an ethanol production rate of 160 million gallons per year. The proposed process trains a multistage centrifugal blower with a five-stage reciprocating compressor, delivering CO 2 to the injection wellhead at up to 1,500 psig. Triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration, applied after the fourth compression stage, reduces water content to a target of 10 lb/MMscf, well within the 30 lb/MMscf injection limit. Beyond dehydration, no additional treatment is required; trace impurities including oxygen and nitrogen will remain in the injected stream. Key design considerations include the absence of spare cooling tower capacity at the site, necessitating new cooling infrastructure, and the need for a new electrical substation to support large motor loads. The facility is designed for continuous, largely unattended operation, monitored around the clock by existing OEE operations staff. This document serves as the foundational reference for all subsequent detailed engineering activities associated with the OEE CO 2 injection facility.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2023

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat Recovery and Dedicated Outdoor Air System

Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy's ResStock™ and ComStock™ models over the past 3 years, the objective of this work is to produce national data sets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover a majority of the high-impact, market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. "Measures" refers to energy efficiency variables that can be applied to buildings during modeling. An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied. It results in a time-series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each time step. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology and results of the baseline model are discussed in the final technical report of the End-Use Load Profiles project. This documentation focuses on a single heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) end-use savings shape measure - a variable refrigerant flow with heat recovery (VRF HR) heating and cooling system coupled with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) for ventilation. This measure replaces existing multi-zone variable air volume (VAV) systems or single-zone rooftop units (RTU) with a VRF HR system coupled with a DOAS that includes an energy/heat recovery ventilator (E/HRV). The measure covers 53% of exisiting building stock's floor area and is not applicable to HVAC system types using district heating or cooling or buildings/spaces that include high-ventilation spaces such as kitchens where the amount of exhaust air is large. A DOAS with E/HRV is used to provide required outdoor ventilation air to spaces since ventilation air is generally not supplied by a VRF HR system. An exhaust air energy recovery ventilator (ERV ) with sensible and latent heat exchange is added to humid climate zones while a heat recovery ventilator (HRV ) with sensible only exchange is added to drier climate zones. The ERV is modeled as a fixed membrane plate counterflow heat exchanger, while the HRV is modeled as a sensible-only fixed aluminum plate counterflow heat exchanger. Both systems include a bypass (for temperature control and economizer lockout) and minimum exhaust temperature control for frost prevention.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

EERC Final Topical Report – Findings on Subtask 3.2 – Produced Water Management Through Geologic Homogenization, Conditions, and Reuse

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was awarded a contract by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil and Gas Research Program (NDIC No. G-051-101) to conduct a study on the recycling of water used in oil and gas operations, also known as produced water, from oil- and gas-producing regions of North Dakota as directed by Section 19 of North Dakota House Bill 1014. This final report provides a compilation of results of the study, which include regulatory, scientific, technological, and feasibility methods and considerations associated with North Dakota produced water management. The report provides a synopsis of this project’s previously submitted produced water assessment report entitled “Produced Water Management and Recycling Options in North Dakota” (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020), with updated values provided as appropriate. The report provides the results from the investigation of a novel produced water management strategy, referred to as geologic homogenization, conditioning, and reuse (GHCR), which aims to use a subsurface geologic formation as a natural medium for managing produced water recycling and reuse. Water management is a significant technical and economic challenge for sustainable oil and gas production, and water volumes are intrinsically linked to oil production volumes. North Dakota oil production rose to over 1.5 million barrels (MMbbl)/day in 2019, and despite a downturn in oil price in early 2020, North Dakota oil production has recovered to 1.1 MMbbl/day as of August 2021. Bakken petroleum system development between 2008 and 2020 has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in produced water volumes to 642 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after peaking at 740 MMbbl/yr in 2019 and a fivefold increase in saltwater disposal (SWD) volumes to 565 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after a peak of 682 MMbbl/yr in 2019. Produced water and SWD volumes are forecasted to double by 2030. SWD is the primary method of produced water management used in North Dakota, with approximately 95% of the SWD volume occurring through subsurface injection into sandstones of the Dakota Group (Dakota). Localized pressurization of the Dakota resulting from SWD and projected increases in produced water volumes could impact the economics of North Dakota oil production. As a result, there is an emerging need to pursue alternative produced water management approaches, including recycling and reuse. While produced water recycling is not yet widespread, commercial operators are making strides in overcoming the technical challenges of using high salinity produced water in completion operations (Marathon Oil, 2020). As water management continues to be a key focal point in companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, focus on water management, including recycling, will likely continue to increase. Laboratory column testing, field sample collection, geologic modeling and numerical simulation, and techno-economic analysis all indicate that GHCR could feasibly be implemented as a potential water management option. Laboratory column testing and field sample collection indicate that the Inyan Kara sandstone and native formation fluid are capable of homogenizing with the Bakken produced water to a point where the fluid composition appears to stabilize. Extracting that stabilized fluid could be considered homogeneous and capable of providing individual batches of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Numerical simulation results indicate that extraction of fluids from the Inyan Kara in a GHCR implementation scenario is capable of reducing formation pressure, which would help ease localized pressurization of the Inyan Kara and extend the available capacity for nearby existing SWD wells. Economic analysis indicates that there are scenarios where GHCR implementation can be a competitive or even lower-cost option than a conventional water management approach. Site-specific conditions will dictate the economic potential of GHCR, but potentially attractive sites for GHCR implementation will be those that are located above a pressurized zone of the Inyan Kara, need six or more Bakken infill wells, and face high costs for conventional SWD and/or freshwater. Based on the regulatory review, drilling into the Inyan Kara for SWD and to harness as a source water for industrial use have precedent in North Dakota, and a workable regulatory solution for GHCR seems likely. However, restrictions in the state regarding surface storage and transport of produced fluids may limit some activities, which will affect how GHCR could ultimately be implemented. In summary, this study reveals pursuing GHCR can be a viable approach to water management in North Dakota. The GHCR concept addresses some of the challenges that hinder the more traditional approaches to recycling in the industry. Furthermore, an assessment of the current landscape of water management within the state reveals the ongoing trend of increasing volumes of produced water and SWD. Projections reveal that the volumes of produced water that need to be managed are expected to double over the next decade (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020). With the continued development of the Bakken and continuing driving factors related to ESG initiatives, implementing a practice such as GHCR is a feasible approach to adding recycling of produced water to industry within the state. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil and Gas Research Program. References Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020, Produced water management and recycling options in North Dakota: Final Report for North Dakota Legislative Management Energy Development and Transmission Committee and North Dakota Industrial Commission. Marathon Oil, 2020, Sustainability report: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ghcnw9z2/website/ 91744eb6ef8fbe59505a911c6b8d2e8dd9a537fa.pdf?dl (accessed November 2021).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2024

DRDMannTurb: A Python package for scalable, data-driven synthetic turbulence

Synthetic turbulence models (STMs) are used in wind engineering to generate realistic flow fields and are employed as inputs to industrial wind simulations. Examples include prescribing inlet conditions in large eddy simulations that model loads on wind turbines and tall buildings. We are interested in STMs capable of generating fluctuations based on prescribed second-moment statistics since such models can simulate environmental conditions that closely resemble on-site observations. To this end, the widely used Mann model (see Mann, 1994, 1998) is the inspiration for DRDMannTurb. The Mann model is described by three physical parameters: a magnitude parameter influencing the global variance of the wind field and corresponding to the Kolmogorov constant multiplied by the rate of viscous dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy to the two-thirds, αϵ 2/3 , a turbulence length scale parameter L, and a nondimensional parameter Γ related to the lifetime of the eddies. A number of studies, as well as international standards (e.g., those by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)), include recommended values for these three parameters with the goal of standardizing wind simulations according to observed energy spectra. Yet, having only three parameters, the Mann model faces limitations in accurately representing the diversity of observable spectra. This Python package enables users to extend the Mann model and more accurately fit field measurements through flexible neural network models of the eddy lifetime function. Following Keith et al. (2021), we refer to this class of models as Deep Rapid Distortion (DRD) models. DRDMannTurb also includes a general module implementing an efficient method for synthetic turbulence generation based on a domain decomposition technique. This technique is also described in Keith et al. (2021).

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A minor respiratory process with major global implications: is atmospheric methane oxidation in tree stems driven by stem respiration rather than microbial methanotrophy?

Tree stem surfaces are widely recognized as sites of carbon dioxide (CO₂) efflux and oxygen (O₂) influx, reflecting the dynamics of aerobic respiration of photosynthate substrates, such as sugars, delivered via the phloem. Stems are also largely considered passive conduits for methane (CH₄) produced in anoxic soils via microbial methanogenesis, where CH₄ is thought to be transported upward through the transpiration stream and/or diffusion and emitted through stem surfaces and the canopy. However, recent observations from dynamic stem chambers suggest that stems may also act as active sinks for atmospheric CH₄. Despite these findings, the extent and drivers of stem CH₄ consumption remain poorly characterized across biomes, species, and environmental gradients, and its quantitative relationship to stem respiration has not been established. Moreover, previous studies captured only snapshot fluxes, leaving diurnal patterns of CH₄ exchange uncharacterized. Here, we address these limitations by combining real-time measurements of stem CH₄ and O₂ uptake under ambient conditions in a California cherry tree, using a dynamic stem gas exchange system with three chambers receiving a continuous flow of ambient air and automated chamber and reference air sampling every 10 min. Our results confirm that stems of upland trees can actively consume both atmospheric CH₄ and O₂, but with decreasing temperature sensitivity as daily temperatures increase. Early mornings were marked by rapid influxes of both gases, followed by declining uptake as temperatures rose further. Methane uptake was tightly coupled with O₂ influx and represented a minor (0.012% ± 0.002%) fraction of stem respiratory activity, as determined by concurrent O₂ uptake. These findings suggest that while atmospheric CH₄ oxidation is a minor respiratory process in stems, it is strongly linked with stem physiological activity. This challenges the current assumption that terrestrial CH₄ uptake is driven solely by microbial methanotrophy and raises the possibility that living stem tissues may contribute to CH₄ oxidation through an as-yet-unidentified plant-based mechanism.

Atmospheric greenhouse gases↗
DOE OSTI2021

A novel approach to mitigating the potential release of radioisotopes under fire conditions - enhancing fire resiliency of radiological contamination fixatives during deactivation & decommissioning activities

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), in close collaboration with the Florida International University Applied Research Center (FIU ARC), successfully executed a technology development activity on behalf of the Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management (DOE EM). The purpose of the activity was to improve the capability of fixative technologies in immobilizing residual contamination when exposed to thermal stressors as postulated in accident scenarios in Basis for Interim Operations (BIO) documents across the DOE EM complex. The effort resulted in the test and evaluation of a down-selected, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) intumescent technology in a radioactive environment at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Building 235-F Plutonium Fuel Form (PuFF) Facility and highlighted the potential use of this technology as a stand-alone, fire retardant fixative. Furthermore, this activity highlighted significant shortfalls in common fixatives currently used to support decommissioning activities and brought to the forefront the need for a methodical, uniformed approach to certifying fixative technologies for operational use in Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) activities. An essential component of this research was to evaluate the state of industry fixatives currently in use and set the foundation for comparison to alternative technological solutions. A baseline of five (5) commonly used fixatives and decontamination gels (hereafter collectively referred to as fixatives) was conducted, and notable shortfalls and deficiencies were revealed, particularly when exposed to thermal, water, and other environmental stressors. At temperatures as low as 300 °F - 400 °F (148.89 °C – 204.44 °C), all commonly used fixatives melted from the substrates within 3-5 minutes of exposure, resulting in contaminant transport. Significant degradation in terms of mass loss, desiccation, and off-gassing occurred, and the chemical breakdown of the polymer was so complete researchers assessed there would likely have been a release of residual contamination. Additional vulnerabilities became evident when exposed to water immersion and high humidity; existing fixatives took up water, swelling and frequently delaminating from the substrate, once again increasing the likelihood of a contaminant release.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Vitrification of Hanford Tank Wastes for Condensate Recycle and Feed Composition Changeover Testing

During the vitrification of Hanford Site nuclear waste at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which is a part of the safe and efficient retrieval, treatment, and disposal mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection, the offgas condensate generated from the waste-to-glass conversion is currently planned to be concentrated by evaporation in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This concentrated condensate can then be recycled back to the incoming waste and vitrified. To test the recycle process, an apparatus was designed and built to mimic the EMF evaporator and was then used to concentrate a volume of condensate produced during the vitrification of a sample of Hanford tank 241-AP-107 (referred to herein as AP-107) waste in a continuous laboratory-scale melter (CLSM). The concentrated condensate was added to an additional sample of AP-107 waste, to mimic one round of the recycle process, and the combined solution was vitrified, producing a second round of recycle condensate. In the current study, the EMF test apparatus was used to concentrate the second-round recycle condensate under evaporation conditions (at 45 °C and 1.4 psia) designed to emulate EMF operation. The condensate was successfully concentrated by a factor of ~10 while retaining over 95 % of the technetium-99 ( 99 Tc), Cs, and I inventories in the concentrate. Another portion of AP-107 waste was retrieved by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) and transferred to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where it was pretreated and then combined with the second-round recycle AP-107 condensate concentrate and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) to form the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed, approximating a second round to the recycling action to be performed at the WTP. A portion of AP-105 waste was also retrieved by WRPS and provided to PNNL for pretreatment and combining with GFCs to form AP-105 melter feed. The two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 melter feeds were processed consecutively in the CLSM. The CLSM run proceeded for 13.63 hours, producing 9.70 kg of glass for an average glass production rate of 1464 kg m 2 d -1 during the two-time recycle AP-107 feed charging and 1568 kg m 2 d -1 during the AP-105 feed charging. The rate during AP-107 charging was essentially equivalent to the rate when processing no-recycle AP-107 feed and lower than that achieved when processing one-time recycle AP-107 feed. However, all rates were within the potential range of variability when processing melter feeds with similar composition in the CLSM. Likewise, the rate during AP-105 charging was higher than the previous rate processing AP-105, but within the potential CLSM range. The cold-cap characteristics changed from the typically thin AP-107 cold cap to a foamy-edged cold cap as previously seen with AP-105 shortly after transitioning to the AP-105 melter feed. The glass produced during the CLSM run was within 10 % of its target composition for the primary glass components. The CaO and Li 2 O targets varied by more than 1 wt% between the two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 glass targets and it took about 2 turnovers of the CLSM glass inventory to reach a relative chemical steady state in the glass for CaO and Li 2 O after the melter feed inputs were switched. The 99 Tc and total cesium content in the melter feeds were maintained at concentrations expected to be experienced at the WTP. During the CLSM run, while processing the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed at a relative chemical steady state, the 99 Tc/Cs ratio was 10, and 34% of 99 Tc and 74% of Cs were retained in the glass. These values were higher than those measured in the CLSM run with one-time recycle AP-107 melter feed. After the transition to processing the AP-105 melter feed, when the production reached a relative chemical steady state, the 99 Tc/Cs ratio was 77 while 44% of 99 Tc was retained in the glass. The C's retention during this time frame reached 200% due to the excess C's in the glass after the target content decreased to 15% of its initial level in the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed to the lower target in the Ap-105 melter feed. While iodine was below inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry analytical reporting limits in the melter feed and glass samples, it was detected in quantities above the analytical reporting limits in the liquid and filter samples collected from the CLSM offgas treatment system. The behavior of iodine in the CLSM offgas treatment system followed a similar pattern to those of 99 Tc and Cs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Vitrification of Hanford Tank Wastes for Condensate Recycle and Feed Composition Changeover Testing (Rev. 1)

During the vitrification of Hanford Site nuclear waste at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which is a part of the safe and efficient retrieval, treatment, and disposal mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection, the offgas condensate generated from the waste-to-glass conversion is currently planned to be concentrated by evaporation in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This concentrated condensate can then be recycled back to the incoming waste and vitrified. To test the recycle process, an apparatus was designed and built to mimic the EMF evaporator and was then used to concentrate a volume of condensate produced during the vitrification of a sample of Hanford tank 241-AP-107 (referred to herein as AP-107) waste in a continuous laboratory-scale melter (CLSM). The concentrated condensate was added to an additional sample of AP-107 waste, to mimic one round of the recycle process, and the combined solution was vitrified, producing a second round of recycle condensate. In the current study, the EMF test apparatus was used to concentrate the second-round recycle condensate under evaporation conditions (at 45 °C and 1.4 psia) designed to emulate EMF operation. The condensate was successfully concentrated by a factor of ~10 while retaining over 95 % of the technetium-99 (99Tc), Cs, and I inventories in the concentrate. Another portion of AP-107 waste was retrieved by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) and transferred to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where it was pretreated and then combined with the second-round recycle AP-107 condensate concentrate and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) to form the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed, approximating a second round to the recycling action to be performed at the WTP. A portion of AP-105 waste was also retrieved by WRPS and provided to PNNL for pretreatment and combining with GFCs to form AP-105 melter feed. The two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 melter feeds were processed consecutively in the CLSM. The CLSM run proceeded for 13.63 hours, producing 9.70 kg of glass for an average glass production rate of 1464 kg m 2 d -1 during the two-time recycle AP-107 feed charging and 1568 kg m 2 d -1 during the AP-105 feed charging. The rate during AP-107 charging was essentially equivalent to the rate when processing no-recycle AP-107 feed and lower than that achieved when processing one-time recycle AP-107 feed. However, all rates were within the potential range of variability when processing melter feeds with similar composition in the CLSM. Likewise, the rate during AP-105 charging was higher than the previous rate processing AP-105, but within the potential CLSM range. The cold-cap characteristics changed from the typically thin AP-107 cold cap to a foamy-edged cold cap as previously seen with AP-105 shortly after transitioning to the AP-105 melter feed. The glass produced during the CLSM run was within 10 % of its target composition for the primary glass components. The CaO and Li 2 O targets varied by more than 1 wt% between the two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 glass targets and it took about 2 turnovers of the CLSM glass inventory to reach a relative chemical steady state in the glass for CaO and Li 2 O after the melter feed inputs were switched.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design of Nuclear Criticality Safety Framework for Hands-on Construction of Fast Systems Over Ranges of Multiplication

Since 1945, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has performed critical experiments, primarily at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF) at Technical Area 18 (TA-18). Since 2011, these experiments have been conducted by the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC), operated by LANL, at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) in the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). These experiments utilize various types of Special Nuclear Material (SNM). Some of these experiments utilize what is referred to as the Rocky Flat Shells, which are called such as they came from the Rocky Flats Plant. These concentric hemi-shells are made of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), which is 93 w/o 235U. Fig. 1. Subset of the Rocky Flat Shells LANL is designing a new subcritical hands-on experiment with the goal of achieving a neutron multiplication in the range of 50 to 200, which correlates to Keff values of 0.98 to 0.995. ANSI/ANS-1 is the standard for Conduct of Critical Experiments which governs critical operations at NCERC. Section 3.9 of ANSI/ANS-1 states that when manipulating a critical assembly by hand, the predicted k eff of a known configuration should not exceed 0.95 (a neutron multiplication of 20). This presents a challenge, as this system would have a higher multiplication than 20 and the assembly would have to remain subcritical in normal and credible accident scenarios. To ensure the safety of such an assembly, the different normal and abnormal conditions that could alter the criticality 1 MCNP® and Monte Carlo N-Particle® are registered trademarks owned by Triad National Security, LLC, manager and operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Any third party use of such registered marks should be properly of the system must be considered and analyzed. If such a condition is deemed to be credible, it will be further investigated using the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code. If the results of these simulations show that a k eff larger than one could be possible, modifications to the assembly will be made until such an event is deemed no longer possible.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Console Water-to-Air Geothermal Heat Pump

Executive Summary Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy’s ResStock™ and ComStock™ models over the past several years, the objective of this work is to produce national datasets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover most of the high-impact, market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied. It results in a time series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each time step. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual sub-hourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. This measure models the conversion of an existing heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system to a series of “console” water-to-air heat pumps served by a ground heat exchanger. Console water-to-air geothermal heat pumps (GHP) are all-in-one packages that have no or minimal ductwork and serve individual spaces. Properly designed ground heat exchanger-coupled systems can offer benefits in energy efficiency relative to “conventional” HVAC systems, as well as facilitating beneficial electrification. Console GHPs can be coupled to a ground loop on the source side and can directly replace electric baseboard heaters or air-source packaged terminal heat pumps. Console GHPs can also bring in outdoor air for ventilation. This measure will be referred to throughout the document as the “Console GHP” upgrade.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Transient hydroperoxyalkyl intermediates (•QOOH) in isopentane oxidation. II. Isomer-resolved unimolecular dynamics

Transient carbon-centered hydroperoxyalkyl intermediates (•QOOH) in isopentane oxidation are characterized by their time- and energy-resolved unimolecular dissociation dynamics to hydroxyl (OH) and cyclic ether products. Two distinct •QOOH isomers are examined with radical sites at a primary carbon of one of the methyl groups (β-Me) or a secondary carbon (β-Et) of the ethyl group. Energy-dependent unimolecular rates are obtained from the time-dependent appearance of OH products for the two isomers and compared with statistical microcanonical rates computed using RRKM theory, including heavy-atom tunneling, based on high-level theoretical calculations. A benchmark-corrected approach is utilized to compute high-accuracy stationary-point energies, most importantly, transition-state barriers, for the •QOOH_Me and •QOOH_Et isomers in isopentane oxidation, building on higher-level reference calculations for the oxidation of ethane (C 2 H 5 O 2 ) and propane (C 3 H 7 O 2 ), respectively. Here, the measured rates are compared with RRKM calculations incorporating the benchmark-corrected transition-state parameters, a vibrationally adiabatic multidimensional hindered-rotor treatment of key torsions, and quantum tunneling. Agreement between experiment and theory validates the statistical description and shows faster decay for •QOOH_Et due to its lower barrier. Both β-QOOH isomers decay almost exclusively to OH + cyclic ether products under the conditions studied.

Oxidation processes↗
DOE OSTI2022

Applying 3D Geologic Modeling Workflows to the Argillite Reference Case (Rev. 1)

The objective of this short report is to document the application of our 3D geologic modeling workflow to an argillite (shale) host rock. Over the past four years, our team at Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a geologic modeling workflow that can be applied to generic alluvial basins such as those found in the western United States. In “frontier” or “exploratory” basins where data are sparse, the first steps are to collect, evaluate and integrate available subsurface data into conceptual geologic models. Those models form the basis for constructing the geologic framework model, a 3D geocellular model ideally constrained by seismic and borehole data. To date we have constructed our models using “synthetic” well data derived from conceptual models, without the prospect of validating our workflow using “real” subsurface data. We were tasked to investigate whether our workflow designed for alluvial basin sediments could be applied to other potential repository host rocks. This task also provided the opportunity to work with high-quality subsurface data collected specifically for siting and evaluating a nuclear waste repository. Nagra, the Swiss governmental agency responsible for the disposal of the nation’s radioactive waste, generously provided us with data from two deep boreholes drilled through their argillaceous target formation. The aim of our proof-of-concept demonstration is to evaluate whether geostatistical methods offer a viable approach to property modeling in argillaceous rocks. Nagra provided us with the well data on the condition that we maintain confidentiality with all transferred information and results. Fortunately, Nagra posts numerous technical reports on its public website that describe the subsurface geology in great detail. All of the information and illustrations in this report related to the Swiss repository enterprise are taken from the Nagra public website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Performance Assurance Planning Guide for Utility Energy Service Contracts: 2025 Edition

Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Utility Program has fostered collaboration among federal agencies and their serving utilities for more than 25 years. The Utility Program supports agencies using Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), a well-developed, effective contracting vehicle that enable the latest approaches to cost-effective energy management at federal sites. Federal agencies have successfully used UESCs to award over 2,000 energy and water efficiency and renewable energy projects, investing approximately $\$$2.8 billion in furthering the Federal Government's efforts to reduce energy intensity. Authorized by 42 U.S. Code section 8256 (10 U.S. Code section 2913 for the Department of Defense), a UESC is a limited-source acquisition between a federal agency and an eligible serving utility for energy management services that generate savings from the implementation of energy- and water -conservation measures (collectively referred to as ECMs), with 42 U.S. Code section 8287 (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 241), providing the term of a UESC, which may extend up to 25 years. Through a UESC, the utility partner assesses designs, and implements the desired ECMs - which can range from lighting retrofits and renewable energy systems, to combined heat and power plants or other technologies and strategies, and may provide financing for the project. The agency may use any combination of appropriations and third-party financing to pay for the project, providing useful flexibility. There is no limit to the project size, big or small, that can be implemented using a UESC. To assist agencies implementing a UESC, FEMP has developed a Utility Energy Service Contract Guide and this companion guidance document to help agencies and their utility partners better understand the best practices for to ensure UESCs continue to perform and generate savings throughout their performance period. These best practices utilize a combination of effective project management, communication, documentation, and a detailed Performance Assurance Plan. This plan is a project specific set of actionable protocols that define important tasks and responsibilities throughout the contract term and reflects the site conditions, complexities, agency capabilities, and operating and maintaining planned ECMs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Boiler Replacement with Air-Source Heat Pump Boiler and Natural Gas Boiler Backup

Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy's ResStock (™) and ComStock (™) models over the past three years, the objective of this work is to produce national data sets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover a majority of the high-impact, market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. "Measures" refers to energy efficiency variables that can be applied to buildings during modeling. An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied. It results in a time-series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each timestep. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology and results of the baseline model are discussed in the final technical report of the End-Use Load Profiles project. This documentation focuses on a single end-use savings shape measure - boiler replacement with air-source heat pump boiler with natural gas boiler backup. This measure replaces natural gas boilers for HVAC application by air-source heat pump boilers when applicable and use natural gas boiler backup when the heat pump boiler could not operate due to outdoor air conditions which are below its cutoff temperature. This measure helps to quantify the decarbonization as well as the energy savings potential from the replacement. The measure resulted higher savings in natural gas consumption compared to the increase in electricity consumption, with a ratio of 3. The total natural gas energy consumption was reduced by 41%, whereas the total electricity consumption was increased by 5.3%.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Identifying the Best High‐Biomass Sorghum Hybrids Based on Biomass Yield Potential and Feedstock Quality Affected by Nitrogen Fertility Management Under Various Environments

The growing interest in high-biomass sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), hereafter referred to as sorghum, as a bioenergy feedstock in the United States requires an understanding of geographical adaptation to identify the most suitable hybrids for the Midwest. In this study, 13 sorghum hybrids (H1–H13) were evaluated for biomass yield potential in central and southern IL over two growing seasons (2022 and 2023). In addition to biomass yield, the effects of nitrogen (N) fertilization on yield, nutrient removal (N, P, and K), and feedstock composition (cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and soluble fractions) were determined to identify the best-performing sorghum hybrid across environmental gradients. The experimental design was a split-plot arrangement within a randomized complete block design with four replications at each of two locations: N rates (0 and 112 kg-N ha −1 ) as a whole plot factor and 13 sorghum hybrids as a subplot factor. As a result, complex genotypes (13 hybrids) by environment (2 sites and 2 years) and management (2 N rates) interactions were observed in biomass yield. The best hybrids at both sites were H1 (ATx2932/F10702_PSL) and H13 (TX08001), which were very photoperiod sensitive (PS). These hybrids produced superior biomass yield, and they also exhibited less nutrient removal and high energy-rich feedstock compositions (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin). Biomass yield potential was associated with morphological and phenological traits according to environmental conditions. Low-yielding hybrids were short-stature (H5 and H6) with pollinators (F10801_PSL-3dw and F10805_PSL-3dw) that are recessive at the Dw3 locus. Moderate PS hybrids (H7, H8, H11, and H12) that produced grain panicles at harvest showed high biomass yield plasticity and excessive nutrient removal as they accumulated high K concentrations in biomass tissues and high N and P in grain panicles.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗