Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “infrastructure programs office”

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.

125 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Hydrogeological assessment of CO2 containment assurance and wellbore integrity at a Gulf Coast storage site

Abstract A large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) initiative on the Texas Gulf Coast serves as a premier demonstration of the U.S. Department of Energy’s CarbonSAFE program. Targeting deep saline formations, specifically Oligo-Miocene deltaic sequences, the project aims to establish technical and commercial viability for geologic CO2 storage within a major industrial corridor. This study provides a rigorous hydrogeological assessment to support Class VI permitting by quantifying the high degree of containment security. Utilizing a compositional reservoir simulator, we developed a suite of 27 distinct simulation cases to evaluate vertical plume dynamics near both planned injection wells and proximal legacy infrastructure. To ensure numerical accuracy near wellbores, we implemented a refined mesh strategy, determining that a 5.6 ft × 5.6 ft grid refinement offered the optimal balance between computational efficiency and descriptive precision. The modeling framework utilized a systematic sensitivity-based approach to evaluate the mechanical redundancy of the subsurface system by performing a bounding analysis of wellbore interfaces against hypothetical high-permeability microannuli. By systematically isolating competing physical drivers, including permeability, porosity, gas hysteresis, thermal gradients, salinity, and solubility trapping (quantified via Henry’s law with dynamically adjusted coefficients), this work moves beyond binary assessments to establish a nuanced hierarchy of containment factors. The results confirm that primary trapping mechanisms (e.g., gas hysteresis and solubility), combined with the site's unique geomechanical stratigraphy, significantly restrict vertical mobility and reinforce the robust containment security of the reservoir. Baseline results demonstrate substantial vertical separation between the CO2 plume and the upper confining system, ensuring robust containment. Sensitivity analysis reveals that even under highly conservative bounding scenarios—assuming theoretical 10-Darcy pathways at specific wellbore locations—the 2,900-ft thick multi-layered confining zone remains a reliable barrier. In these hypothetical upper-bound cases, peak upward fluxes of CO2 and saltwater after 15 years of injection remain localized and dissipate rapidly within the lower sections of the confining interval, leaving the integrity of the seal uncompromised. Furthermore, the study identifies that while localized wellbore pathways define theoretical upper bounds of vertical migration, the Area of Review (AoR) is primarily sensitive to regional thermal gradients and hysteresis, which can influence the AoR by over 3,000 acres in pessimistic configurations. Also, primary trapping mechanisms, specifically gas hysteresis and solubility, work in tandem with the Gulf Coast’s unique geomechanical stratigraphy to significantly restrict vertical mobility. Ductile, smectite-rich mudstones facilitate natural borehole convergence and the self-healing of potential conduits, creating a natural geomechanical bridge that effectively mitigates migration potential at both current injection points and legacy-well locations. This comprehensive modeling effort demonstrates that the integration of high-resolution wellbore simulations and regional geomechanical observations confirms the long-term storage security of the studied site, providing a physics-based foundation for industrial-scale CCS deployments. This modeling framework establishes a baseline for future research into coupled geomechanical effects, such as time-dependent borehole convergence, to further refine long-term containment projections. Acknowledgements We thank the Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) at the Bureau of Economic Geology for foundational research support. We appreciate Alex Bump for technical guidance and David Hoffman for model mesh generation. This work used TACC’s Frontera cluster for simulations and CMG Ltd. software licenses provided to UT-Austin. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award Number DE-FE0032338. Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Office under the CarbonSAFE program, award Number DE-FE0032338. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Energy or the United States Government.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

SMART Mobility. Urban Science Capstone Report

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Systems and Modeling for Accelerated Research in Transportation (SMART) Mobility Consortium is a multiyear, multi-laboratory collaborative, managed by the Energy Efficient Mobility Systems Program of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office, dedicated to further understanding the energy implications and opportunities of advanced mobility technologies and services. The Urban Science (US) Pillar focuses on maximum-mobility and minimum-energy opportunities associated with emerging transportation and transportation-related technologies specifically within the urban context. Such technologies, often referred to as automated, connected, efficient (or electrified), and shared (ACES), have the potential to greatly improve mobility and related quality of life in urban areas. Although all the SMART Mobility research pillars share some commonalities, Urban Science strives to model, analyze, and gain insights from the perspective of human settlements (the “city”) as a living organism. This is especially critical as the United States is one of the most urbanized countries, and as more and more of the global population migrates to urban areas.1 The urban mobility system consists of a complex network that reaches well beyond roads and vehicles and includes significant investments in public transit, private mobility services (such as taxis and transportation network companies, or TNCs), significant parking reserves, and curb management practices, not to mention the abundance of emerging on-demand micromobility services for the movement of people and goods such as e-bikes and scooters, which make the urban space a dynamic laboratory for mobility. Urban spaces also concentrate employment, markets, services, and attractions, which are the destinations for most trips. The concentration of human activities and ensuing density also creates the need and emphasis for space efficiency in urban environments, which is often less of a constraint in suburban or rural contexts. This mixture of transportation and mobility infrastructure and practice, combined with global urbanization trends, make urban spaces a critical focus of research for developing energy-efficient mobility systems (EEMS).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of Data Catalog Software for Hanford Site Environmental Datasets

Environmental information and data underpin achievement of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) mission at the Hanford Site. The Hanford Environmental Data Management (HEDM) Program is the DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) approach to develop and implement a formal program for managing environmental data and the associated records, materials, and systems at the Hanford Site. The current project, contract, organization, and contractor-specific efforts at managing environmental data sets are insufficient to provide orderly, long-term, site-wide access. A vital element to be created within the HEDM program plan is a catalog of data sources, called the Hanford Environmental Information and Data Index (HEIDI), that will enable long-term access and retrievability for the multiple independent sources of data that might otherwise be difficult to discover. This report compares leading open source and commercial data catalog platforms using criteria to assess the functionality needed to develop the HEIDI catalog of Hanford data sources that connects and exchanges data with established Hanford Local Area Network (HLAN) enterprise information technology systems. Proprietary platforms evaluated included ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, Junar, OpenDataSoft, and Socrata, and non-proprietary platforms included Energy Data eXchange (EDX), Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN), and DKAN (a Drupal-based open data portal based on CKAN). Capabilities supporting data discoverability, retrieval, and archival, as well as metadata standard requirements and integration into the HLAN were rated as either failing to meet requirements (F), meeting requirements (M), or exceeding requirements by delivering additional desired features (E). The lowest rating for any capability area was assigned as the overall rating for the platform. These findings enable DOE-RL and the contractors implementing the HEDM plan to focus on candidate tools likely to meet the requirements for implementing HEIDI. All of the platforms receiving an overall rating of ‘F’ were unable to be deployed on Hanford infrastructure or within dedicated cloud resources. A propriety software-as-a-service (SaaS) model of delivering a data catalog (e.g., found in software such as Junar and OpenDataSoft) favors consistency across customers at the expense of customization and configurable roles that are needed for Hanford work. Hosting data on a shared commercial platform places limits on dataset size (maximum of 240 Mb for OpenDataSoft), a significant limitation for HEIDI implementation. EDX, a government data catalog based on CKAN, received the ‘F’ rating due to an inability to incorporate authentication from HLAN into the system. Among platforms rated ‘M’ or ‘E’, only the Socrata platform had a SaaS delivery model. In contrast to other SaaS platforms, Socrata provided custom roles and gateways that allow local datasets to be incorporated into an online catalog. Socrata also complies with the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, a significant benefit for cloud-based management of Hanford data. The other platforms rated ‘M’ or ‘E’, ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, CKAN, and DKAN, provide fully self-hosted options, allowing for greater control and flexibility with the HEIDI catalog. These widely used tools have supportive communities of practice, extensive customization options, and demonstrated deployments that provide evidence that they can meet requirements, often deliver additional desired features, and work well with federal government systems. Completely customized alternatives built on a collection of applications were not evaluated because achieving similar performance to CKAN or DKAN requires substantial resources, especially in the absence of the active communities that have grown to support these tools. ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, Socrata, CKAN, and DKAN were evaluated as strong candidates for successful implementation with HEIDI.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

ARM Lead Mentor Selection Process

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop several highly instrumented ground stations to study cloud-formation processes and their influence on radiative transfer. This scientific infrastructure provides for fixed sites, mobile facilities, an aerial facility, and a data archive available for use by scientists worldwide through the ARM Climate Research Facility—a scientific user facility. The ARM Climate Research Facility currently operates more than 300 instrument systems that provide ground-based observations of the atmospheric column. To keep ARM at the forefront of climate observations, the ARM infrastructure depends heavily on instrument scientists and engineers, known as Mentors. Mentors must have an excellent understanding of instrumentation theory and operation for their instrument areas and have comprehensive knowledge of critical scale-dependent atmospheric processes. They must also possess the technical and analytical skills to develop new data retrievals that provide innovative approaches for creating research-quality data sets. The ARM Facility seeks the best overall qualified candidate, or team when appropriate, that can fulfill Mentor requirements in a timely manner. The roles and responsibilities of the ARM Instrument Operations Manager are provided in Appendix A. The key role and responsibilities and detailed responsibilities of ARM Lead Mentors are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2022

US Department of Energy, Office of Science High Performance Computing Facility Operational Assessment 2021: Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility

Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL’s) Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) continues to surpass its operational target goals of supporting users; delivering fast, reliable computational ecosystems; creating innovative solutions for high-performance computing (HPC) needs; contributing to the community to build the next generation HPC workforce, and managing risks, safety, and security associated with operating some of the most powerful computers in the world. The results can be seen in the cutting-edge science conducted by users and the praise from the research community. Calendar year (CY) 2021 saw continued excellence in research supported by the OLCF’s leadership-class computing resources, including Summit (the nation’s most powerful supercomputer), the global scratch file system Alpine, the Scalable Protected Infrastructure (SPI), the Exploratory Visualization Environment for Research in Science and Technology (EVEREST), and the archival mass-storage resource High-Performance Storage System (HPSS). While maintaining access and exceptional user support for Summit, the OLCF continued to make progress on the installation and deployment of Frontier, which will be the nation’s first exascale system when it comes online at the start of CY 2023. Users have already begun running and optimizing scientific codes on Crusher, the OLCF test and development system equipped with Frontier’s architecture. Throughout the year, the OLCF maintained a strong culture of operational excellence, including risk management, workplace safety, and cybersecurity. The OLCF’s rigorous risk management strategy anticipated and mitigated risks, and at this time there are no high-priority operational risks. Similarly, ORNL and the OLCF were committed to operating under the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) safety regulations that ensure a safe workplace. Technical staff tracked and monitored existing threats and vulnerabilities within the OLCF while continually developing tools and practices to enhance operations without increasing the facility’s risk. CY 2021 was filled with outstanding results and accomplishments, including a very high rating from users on overall satisfaction for the eighth consecutive year; a tremendous number of node hours delivered to 1,671 researchers on Summit; and the successful delivery of the allocation split of roughly 60%, 20%, and 20% of core-hours offered for the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE), Advanced Scientific Computing Research Leadership Computing Challenge (ALCC), and Director’s Discretionary (DD) programs, respectively (Section 2). COVID-19 research remained a focus in 2021, and the ALCC and DD programs allocated over 1 million Summit hours to the COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium. These accomplishments, coupled with the high utilization rates (i.e., overall and capability usage), represent the fulfillment of the promise of leadership class machines: efficient facilitation of leadership-class computational applications.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Report on the Creation and Progress of the Hydrogen Regulatory Research Review Group

The current U.S. nuclear generation fleet is increasingly recognized by governmental, scientific, public policy, and industrial communities as having a strategic role in support of the ongoing national transition to a clean energy future. Federal incentives and actions are aligning to expand the role of nuclear power as a viable and more flexible contributor to the evolving national clean energy mix through programs and initiatives such as nuclear power loan guarantees; the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) clean nuclear electrical, steam, and hydrogen incentives; the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act or BIL); and near term Department of Energy (DOE) funding opportunities related to nuclear based hydrogen hubs and nuclear integrated hydrogen demonstration projects. . Additionally, leveraging clean nuclear electricity and steam is being explored by industries desiring to transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources. Even with all these emerging enablers, notable barriers remain for the widespread adoption of these opportunities within the U.S. nuclear fleet, including the following: • Assurance of the markets for alternate products needed to support decision-making for large capital modification investments • Electric utility mindset and business history centered solely on producing electricity • Design change complexity and regulatory uncertainty associated with plant modifications needed to support alternate product streams The DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Flexible Plant Operations and Generation (FPOG) Pathway is developing options to help U.S. nuclear power plants (NPP) in all these areas to enable NPPs designed for steady baseload operation to integrate with intermittent wind and solar capacity to assure reliable clean energy for the nation. Current and near-term laboratory research is focusing on the technical, regulatory, safety, demonstration, and economic elements in support of improving nuclear plant flexibility through hybrid production of electricity and other non-electric products such as hydrogen and energy arbitrage.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

A System Approach to Deep Heating Savings Through Measurement, Management, and Motivation

Across multi-tenant commercial office and multifamily buildings, centrally metered fuel use represents a substantial fraction of whole-building energy use. Energy audit practitioners understand that improving heating distribution efficiency is typically more of an opportunity than combustion efficiency and that differing thermal comfort preferences between tenants are the bane of operators across these building typologies. There is an unmet market need for retrofit technologies that allow for the delivery of the right amount of heat to the right spaces, at the right time. The Energy Management and Information System (EMIS) package fills this gap through enhanced controls and metering, incorporating low-cost sensors and wireless communication infrastructure to provide a platform for ongoing commissioning and tenant feedback, including heat cost allocation. With support from the US DOE Building Technologies Office, Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA) partnered with Sentient Buildings, E Source, building owners, and utility and policy stakeholders, to demonstrate a market viable EMIS that achieves a reduction in space heating energy use by reducing heating load, improving control, and positively impacting behavior while providing an acceptable financial return. In this study, EMIS packages were implemented in two New York City multifamily rental buildings. Both buildings conducted basic mechanical work (e.g., repairing steam traps) to ensure the heating system was operating well before any tenant feedback was layered in. Heating Energy Use Reports (HEUR) were created to provide tenants with social comparisons and energy savings tips to influence their behavior; these were provided monthly to all tenants in both buildings. Additionally, one building allocated heating costs to a portion of the tenants. Heat cost allocation (HCA) has a long history in the European Union (EU), although it is not common in the US or in steam-heated buildings. SWA leveraged existing EU best practices and stakeholder feedback to develop a Heat Cost Allocation algorithm that was considered equitable and intuitive. Energy use and tenant behavior impacts were tracked throughout the study. The basic mechanical repair work saved between 11-20% of heating energy. Those savings rose to 17-24% with the addition of tenant feedback. While it may not be possible to precisely determine the impact of COVID-19 on research studies like this, there may have been additional savings realized had the study taken place in a period of normal occupancy patterns. These types of central heating systems have been a blind spot for utilities, who have traditionally had little visibility into detailed behind-the-meter gas usage. Heating energy savings stayed consistent during the coldest months, indicating the potential for utilities to utilize EMIS packages for peak gas demand reductions or demand response programs. Tenant comfort was also improved. Post installation, room temperatures more closely matched thermostat set points. Perhaps due to this greater level of control, the vast majority of tenants being billed for heating were accepting of the allocation costs. And tenants receiving heat cost allocations were more likely to reduce their thermostat setpoints than tenants receiving behavioral feedback without financial impacts were. Variation in building specifics makes it difficult to provide precise energy and financial savings estimates. But within the range of expected conditions, the study identified a few key variables that can have the greatest impact on financial returns: the cost of fuel, the ability and willingness to allocate heating costs to tenants, and a well-functioning heating system as a starting point. This study focused on two multifamily buildings, but additional use cases, such as commercial buildings and affordable housing, should be explored to better understand the full market potential. While this type of upgrade has the potential for deep energy reductions and cost savings, future projects should take into account the balance of costs and benefits between owners and tenants, especially in the affordable, regulated, or other low-to-moderate income (LMI) segments of the market. Rent credits, utility allowances, or a shared savings program are possible options to accelerate adoption of this strategy in these market segments.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Perspectives on AI Architectures and Codesign for Earth System Predictability

Abstract Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) programs organized and held the Artificial Intelligence for Earth System Predictability (AI4ESP) workshop series. From this workshop, a critical conclusion that the DOE BER and ASCR community came to is the requirement to develop a new paradigm for Earth system predictability focused on enabling artificial intelligence (AI) across the field, laboratory, modeling, and analysis activities, called model experimentation (ModEx). BER’s ModEx is an iterative approach that enables process models to generate hypotheses. The developed hypotheses inform field and laboratory efforts to collect measurement and observation data, which are subsequently used to parameterize, drive, and test model (e.g., process based) predictions. A total of 17 technical sessions were held in this AI4ESP workshop series. This paper discusses the topic of the AI Architectures and Codesign session and associated outcomes. The AI Architectures and Codesign session included two invited talks, two plenary discussion panels, and three breakout rooms that covered specific topics, including 1) DOE high-performance computing (HPC) systems, 2) cloud HPC systems, and 3) edge computing and Internet of Things (IoT). We also provide forward-looking ideas and perspectives on potential research in this codesign area that can be achieved by synergies with the other 16 session topics. These ideas include topics such as 1) reimagining codesign, 2) data acquisition to distribution, 3) heterogeneous HPC solutions for integration of AI/ML and other data analytics like uncertainty quantification with Earth system modeling and simulation, and 4) AI-enabled sensor integration into Earth system measurements and observations. Such perspectives are a distinguishing aspect of this paper. Significance Statement This study aims to provide perspectives on AI architectures and codesign approaches for Earth system predictability. Such visionary perspectives are essential because AI-enabled model-data integration has shown promise in improving predictions associated with climate change, perturbations, and extreme events. Our forward-looking ideas guide what is next in codesign to enhance Earth system models, observations, and theory using state-of-the-art and futuristic computational infrastructure.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transportation and Systems Analysis Collaborations in Support of a Federal Consolidated Interim Storage Facility

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Integrated Waste Management (IWM) program under the Office of Nuclear Energy is planning for the future transportation, storage, and eventual disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear power plant sites across the United States. To better enable informed decision-making regarding the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the IWM program has been sponsoring the development and application of system analysis tools capable of analyzing various options for managing SNF and HLW. With these tools, integrated waste management system (IWMS) architecture analyses are being conducted to support the future deployment of a comprehensive nuclear waste management system that considers all major back-end aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., transportation, storage, and disposal). System analyses and assessments typically use these modeling and simulation tools to investigate implications of changes in various assumptions and parameters such as acceptance rates, receipt logic, facility capacities and capabilities, use of standardized canisters, start and stop dates of facilities, etc. The Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM) is an agent-based simulation toolkit that is used for a system-level simulation and analysis focused on SNF management in the United States. An analyst using NGSAM has the ability to define several factors like the number of storage facilities, capacity at each facility, transportation schedules, shipment rates, and other conditions. NGSAM’s primary purpose is to provide a system analyst with capabilities to model the IWMS and gain insights into SNF and HLW management alternatives including the impact of system choices, associated cost estimates, and development of integrated yet flexible approaches. IWM is also developing the Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START). START is a web-based geospatial tool developed to provide visualization and initial evaluation of transportation options associated with future SNF and HLW shipment planning and operations. This includes characterizing safety, economic, and environmental conditions on and in proximity to shipment origins as well as along prospective transportation routes. Information from the START tool can be presented/shared as maps, graphics, geospatial files, and tabular form to enable easy data representation and export functionality. The system analysis, NGSAM, and START teams had been working closely for several years before formalizing this collaboration. START provides the SNF routing information for use in NGSAM. System analysts use the NGSAM tool to generate results (schedule, costs, infrastructure acquisitions, shipment rates, etc.). Subject-matter experts and system analysts work together to inform how NGSAM should model the waste management system. Specifically, this paper discusses the collaborations between the system analysis, NGSAM, and START teams and their accomplishments over the past year. Some examples of these efforts include calibrating and adding data to the START output files to meet NGSAM needs, gaining a better understanding of START data used in NGSAM, as well as how updates in START data could result in an improved NGSAM analysis. Detailed examples of various tasks that have been performed by the team will be discussed in the full paper. Continued efforts in this direction are expected in the coming years.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transportation and System Analysis Collaborations in Support of a Federal Consolidated Interim Storage Facility

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Integrated Waste Management (IWM) program under the Office of Nuclear Energy is planning for the future transportation, storage, and eventual disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear power plant and waste custodian sites across the United States. To better enable informed decision-making regarding the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, the IWM program has been sponsoring the development and application of system analysis tools capable of analyzing various options for managing SNF and HLW. With these tools, integrated waste management system (IWMS) architecture analyses are being conducted to support the future deployment of a comprehensive nuclear waste management system that considers all major back-end aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., transportation, storage, and disposal). System analyses and assessments typically use these modeling and simulation tools to investigate implications of changes in various assumptions and parameters such as acceptance rates, receipt logic, facility capacities and capabilities, use of standardized canisters, start and stop dates of facilities, etc. The Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM) is an agent-based simulation toolkit that is used for a system-level simulation and analysis focused on SNF management in the United States. NGSAM’s primary purpose is to provide a system analyst with capabilities to model the IWMS and gain insights into SNF and HLW management alternatives including the impact of system choices, associated cost estimates, and development of integrated yet flexible approaches. An analyst using NGSAM can define several factors like the number of storage facilities, capacity at each facility, transportation schedules, shipment rates, and other conditions. IWM is also developing the Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START). START is a web-based geospatial tool developed to provide the visualization and initial evaluation of transportation options associated with future SNF and HLW shipment planning and operations. This includes characterizing safety, economic, and environmental conditions at and in proximity to shipment origins as well as along prospective transportation routes. Information from the START tool can be presented/shared as maps, graphics, geospatial files, and tabular form to enable easy data representation and export functionality. The system analysis, NGSAM, and START teams have been working closely for several years before formalizing this collaboration. START provides the SNF transportation routing information for use in NGSAM. System analysts use the NGSAM tool to generate results (schedule, costs, infrastructure acquisitions, shipment rates, etc.). Subject-matter experts and system analysts work together to inform how NGSAM should model the waste management system. Specifically, this paper discusses the collaborations between the system analysis, NGSAM, and START teams and their accomplishments over the past year. Some examples of these efforts include calibrating and adding data to the START output files to meet NGSAM needs, gaining a better understanding of START data used in NGSAM as well as how updates in START data could result in an improved NGSAM analysis. Detailed examples of various tasks that have been performed by the team will be discussed in the full paper. Continued efforts in this direction are expected in the coming years.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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 OSTI2025

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection

Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection Description This dataset contains input and output data for the manuscript Mongird, K. et al. (under review) titled "Energy Infrastructure Futures: A Multiscale Evaluation of Projected Power Plant Siting Across the Western Interconnection". Input data corresponds to gridded spatial siting attributes that are necessary to conduct a random forest machine learning analysis of siting feature importance. Output data includes SHAP feature analysis outputs, and classification report values. For data on power plant siting results referred to in the manuscript, please refer to the CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations data download page. The downloadable data includes values for eight different future scenarios for the Western US. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 Technical Information The dataset includes two sets of data files: (1) CERF gridded siting parameters and (2) Feature analysis outputs and classification reports. All downloadable data is in csv file format. Files with x/y coordinate information use the Albers Equal Area Conic projection (ESRI:102003). 1. CERF Gridded Siting Parameters This directory provides a balanced sample of gridded CERF siting parameters data for eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055, seven different technologies, and eight timesteps. This data serves as input to the feature analysis. It contains the following parameters. region_name - name of region (i.e., state) sited - binary value representing whether the grid cell received a siting of that technology type (1=True) rcp - binary value representing scenario resource concentration pathway (0 = RCP4.5, 1 = RCP8.5) ssp - binary value representing scenario shared socioeconomic pathway (0 = SSP3, 1 = SSP5) climate - binary value representing cooler (0) or hotter (1) GCM forcing tech_name - generation technology name sited_year - year that values correspond to transmission_cost - cost of transmission interconnection pipeline_cost - cost of natural gas pipeline interconnection interconnection_cost - total interconnection cost (sum of transmission cost and gas pipeline cost) lmp - associated locational marginal value ($/MWh) associated with the grid cell, timestep, scenario, and technology xcoord - x-coordinate of location ycoord - y-coordinate of location 2a. Feature Analysis Output The dataset includes the feature analysis shap output for locational marginal price and interconnection cost. It contains the following parameters. technology - generator technology name scenario - name of scenario feature - name of feature, either locational_marginal_price or interconnection_cost value - the mean of absolute value of SHAP values for given feature 2b. Feature Analysis Classification Report This download includes the classification report associated with each random forest model. The dataset contains the following parameters. technology - generation technology name scenario - name of scenario test - one of precision (the proportion of predicted positives that are actually correct), recall (the proportion of actual positives that were correctly identified), f1-score (the harmonic mean of precision and recall) 0.0 - value of test for classification of 0 (grid cell not chosen for siting) 1.0 - value of test for classification of 1 (grid cell chosen for siting) accuracy - accuracy of model (i.e., fraction of all predictions that were right) macro avg - Simple average of test values for all classes weighted avg - Weighted average of test values for all classes, weighted based on Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [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 OSTI2022

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP): A Metadata Framework for Advancing Interoperability and AI Readiness Across Scientific Repositories

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a diverse and distributed ecosystem of repositories that steward scientific data, publications, and software across its research programs, user facilities, and national laboratories. While significant progress has been made in standardizing dataset-level metadata, the metadata describing repositories themselves (their identity, governance, access interfaces, policies, and technical capabilities) remains inconsistent and fragmented across DOE-funded systems. This variability limits discoverability, interoperability, automated validation, and AI-driven analysis, all of which are increasingly essential for modern scientific workflows. To address this gap, the DOE Data Curation Working Group (DCWG) developed the DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP). The DRMP is a practical, community-driven framework that defines how repositories can describe themselves in a consistent, machine-actionable, and scalable manner. The DRMP is not a new metadata schema. Instead, it is a mapping profile and structured element set capturing the essential characteristics of DOE repositories. It harmonizes repository-level metadata across six widely adopted community schemas: RE3Data; DCAT-US v3; Schema.org; Dublin Core; DataCite 4.6; and PREMIS 3.0. This harmonization eliminates reinvention and enables interoperability within DOE and across the broader scientific ecosystem. A core objective of the DRMP is to reduce burden on repositories by allowing them to reuse their existing metadata through a Rosetta-style crosswalk rather than redesigning local implementations. The profile introduces a three-level conformance model that supports incremental adoption: • Level 1 – Minimum Viable Record (MVR): foundational identification elements required for workflows, project registration, and basic repository presence. • Level 2 – Interoperable: structured metadata enabling alignment with national and international discovery systems. • Level 3 – AI-Ready: enhanced provenance, policy transparency, fixity, semantic context, and capabilities that support automated reasoning, model training governance, and machine-assisted curation. To support implementation, the DRMP includes JSON Schema definitions, OpenAPI patterns, and MCP templates that allow repositories to publish machine-readable metadata directly within existing platforms. These resources are modular and lightweight, enabling adoption without major architectural change. Adopting the DRMP enables repositories to: • Enhance discoverability and interoperability by aligning identifiers, classifications, and descriptive elements across widely used schema standards. • Support federated discovery and cross-registration across DOE systems, Data.gov, and international catalogs. • Enable AI agents and workflow orchestration systems to interpret repository-level metadata within the American Science Cloud (AmSC) through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based context publication. • Demonstrate alignment with DOE’s open science, stewardship, and FAIR data priorities. This guidance represents a community-driven step forward. Through voluntary adoption and continued feedback, the DRMP advances a cohesive, machine-actionable description of DOE repositories that supports FAIR data practices, preparing the infrastructure for AI-enabled research, and strengthening the discoverability and reuse of DOE’s scientific outputs.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) 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.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advancing ocean monitoring and knowledge for societal benefit: the urgency to expand Argo to OneArgo by 2030

The ocean plays an essential role in regulating Earth’s climate, influencing weather conditions, providing sustenance for large populations, moderating anthropogenic climate change, encompassing massive biodiversity, and sustaining the global economy. Human activities are changing the oceans, stressing ocean health, threatening the critical services the ocean provides to society, with significant consequences for human well-being and safety, and economic prosperity. Effective and sustainable monitoring of the physical, biogeochemical state and ecosystem structure of the ocean, to enable climate adaptation, carbon management and sustainable marine resource management is urgently needed. The Argo program, a cornerstone of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), has revolutionized ocean observation by providing real-time, freely accessible global temperature and salinity data of the upper 2,000m of the ocean (Core Argo) using cost-effective simple robotics. For the past 25 years, Argo data have underpinned many ocean, climate and weather forecasting services, playing a fundamental role in safeguarding goods and lives. Argo data have enabled clearer assessments of ocean warming, sea level change and underlying driving processes, as well as scientific breakthroughs while supporting public awareness and education. Building on Argo’s success, OneArgo aims to greatly expand Argo’s capabilities by 2030, expanding to full-ocean depth, collecting biogeochemical parameters, and observing the rapidly changing polar regions. Providing a synergistic subsurface and global extension to several key space-based Earth Observation missions and GOOS components, OneArgo will enable biogeochemical and ecosystem forecasting and new long-term climate predictions for which the deep ocean is a key component. Driving forward a revolution in our understanding of marine ecosystems and the poorly-measured polar and deep oceans, OneArgo will be instrumental to assess sea level change, ocean carbon fluxes, acidification and deoxygenation. Emerging OneArgo applications include new views of ocean mixing, ocean bathymetry and sediment transport, and ecosystem resilience assessment. Implementing OneArgo requires about $100 million annually, a significant increase compared to present Argo funding. OneArgo is a strategic and cost-effective investment which will provide decision-makers, in both government and industry, with the critical knowledge needed to navigate the present and future environmental challenges, and safeguard both the ocean and human wellbeing for generations to come.

ARGO↗