Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Advocacy”

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.

94 records · Page 6

Wabash CarbonSAFE Subtask 4.1 - Application of Policy Frameworks for Improved Carbon Capture and Storage Social Site Characterization & Stakeholder Engagement

Anthropogenic climate change threatens environmental and human health globally. Limiting these threats requires large-scale and innovative greenhouse gas mitigation responses across carbon-intensive energy and industrial sectors. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies present potential opportunities for mitigating climate change while maintaining a diverse energy resource portfolio. Successful development of CCS physical sites requires effective and efficient project management solutions that elicit and incorporate the concerns and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Due to the urgency of climate change mitigation technology implementation and the costs of CCS development, CCS project developers cannot risk setbacks by poor stakeholder assessment that concern management processes. Thus, this report presents four prominent policy frameworks and associated case studies as opportunities to improve CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement. After comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiencies of each framework with regard to CCS, this report concludes that the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework, and Policy Conflict Framework can improve the CCS social site characterization process, while the Collaborative Governance Framework paired with the Q-Methodology provides an ideal framework for direct stakeholder engagement. Overall, this report finds that the Narrative Policy Framework and the Collaborative Governance Framework are most ideally suited for the purposes of CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Carbon Storage and Utilization: Perspective on Water Usage and Opportunities

Disseminate technical and non-technical perspective on the opportunities for water recovery from produced water and CO2 storage in the I-WEST region. Concerned citizens and advocacy groups; farmers and ranchers; tribal, state, city, and county leaders; and project leaders working on water-related initiatives are all encouraged to participate in the workshop. This workshop is an opportunity for regional stakeholders to join the conversation about the challenges and opportunities water presents for energy transition in the Inter- Mountain West.

Vikara, Derek↗

Snowmass '21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Non-Congressional Government Engagement

This document has been prepared as a Snowmass contributed paper by the Public Policy & Government Engagement topical group (CEF06) within the Community Engagement Frontier. The charge of CEF06 is to review all aspects of how the High Energy Physics (HEP) community engages with government at all levels and how public policy impacts members of the community and the community at large, and to assess and raise awareness within the community of direct community-driven engagement of the US federal government (i.e. advocacy). The focus of this paper is HEP community engagement of government entities other than the U.S. federal legislature (i.e. Congress).

Diurba, Richie↗

Program Promotion Can Distort Space Systems Engineering and Deny Risk

NASA's spectacular success in the Apollo moon landings was achieved against the odds by an obsessive dedication to reducing the great risk. But risk analysis predicted so many astronaut fatalities that it was thought to be unreasonably pessimistic and potentially damaging to the Apollo program. Risk analysis was discontinued, risk was neglected in space shuttle engineering, and so the space shuttle design was unnecessarily dangerous. Since the Apollo era it has been understood that long human space missions would recycle oxygen and water to avoid the very high launch cost of directly supplying them. The development of recycling systems was justified by the need to increase material closure and reduce launch mass. When it was recognized that increasing closure leads to rapidly diminishing returns, the program goal was changed to reducing launch mass and reliability, cost, and risk were considered irrelevant. Systems engineering and especially the discouraging problems of risk and cost have been deliberately ignored because they detract from program promotion, with unfortunate results. Current human launch system design does account for risk and the result strongly resembles Apollo. Current life support design continues to assume recycling, even though the recent great reduction in launch cost now allows direct supply of oxygen and water with significantly better quality, reliability, cost, and risk.

Advocacy↗