SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
The power production data from FY19 is provided for U.S. geothermal power plants. The spreadsheet includes the plant name and type, nameplate capacity, summer capacity, winter capacity, and net generation for each power plant.
Motor systems are an integral part of our industrial and commercial facilities. They provide the motive force behind the fans, pumps, compressors, chillers, and conveyors in these facilities. Given their centrality to any facility’s operations, they are a critical energy end use to understand, particularly when developing technologies and policies to meet sustainability goals, improve productivity, and enhance resilience. In the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted two seminal studies to better understand the installed stock and energy savings opportunities of industrial and commercial motor systems. In the industrial sector, The United States Industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities Assessment used primary data collected through onsite assessments and led to a greater understanding of the installed base of motor systems, their characteristics, and the opportunities for energy savings (U.S. Department of Energy, 2002). Notable findings included the following: Industrial motor systems consumed 679 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in 1994, representing 23 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures could result in 62-104 billion kWh of energy savings annually. Sixty-two percent of the energy savings potential was from fan, pump, and compressor end use equipment. Nearly half of motor system electricity consumption was attributable to approximately 3,500 facilities, or 1.5 percent of U.S. manufacturing facilities. Opportunities for Energy Savings in the Residential and Commercial Sectors with High Efficiency Electric Motors provided an evaluation of the installed stock of motor driven equipment in U.S. commercial and residential buildings and opportunities for utilization of high efficiency motors and variable speed technologies (Arthur D. Little, 1999). Notable findings included the following: Commercial motor systems consumed 343 billion kWh in 1995, with refrigeration and space conditioning constituting 93 percent of the total. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures could result in 51 billion kWh of energy savings annually. Due in no small part to these seminal studies, motor system technologies and usage characteristics have changed drastically since the late 1990s. Greater awareness of cost-effective strategies for reducing motor system electricity consumption have been developed and deployed. This includes several software tools, literature, and utility and government programs promoting energy efficiency improvements in motor driven systems. Additionally, several rounds of energy efficiency standards have been enacted, resulting in improved installed motor efficiency. The cost of variable speed drives has dropped substantially, and combined with utility rebate programs, has led to their greater adoption. Further, since these results were published, the U.S. manufacturing sector has undergone a massive transformation. Due to global competition, some sectors have relocated operations overseas. Others have brought operations onshore to avail low cost and abundant natural gas. Additionally, automation and robotics have pervaded the entire sector. Consequently, these two reports likely do not represent the current state of motor driven systems in U.S. industrial and commercial facilities. As cited in recent studies, the lack of current information on motor system electricity consumption and use characteristics limits the ability to conduct analysis on energy savings potential, develop technologies to address energy and productivity gaps, and develop programs to promote energy efficiency practices and technologies for motor systems (International Energy Agency, 2007; UNIDO, 2010; McKane and Hasanbeigi, 2011; Waide and Brunner, 2011). Specifically, the lack of information affects a range of stakeholders: Governments must rely on outdated information when setting research agendas, developing policies, and designing energy efficiency programs and offerings. Utilities and energy efficiency programs cannot identify the current market needs or potential impact when designing rebate and energy efficiency programs. Electric grid planners cannot identify motor system usage characteristics when developing plans to support the resilience of the electric grid. Manufacturers of motors, motor driven equipment, and drives are hampered when developing technologies to meet the needs of their market. Motor system end users are limited in their ability to identify energy saving opportunities within their own facilities because they do not have reliable benchmark information. In response to the lack of current information and analysis on industrial and commercial motor systems, the DOE initiated an update to these two studies. Launched in 2016 and led by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), the Motor System Market Assessment (MSMA) provides an updated, more comprehensive assessment of the installed stock of motor systems in both the industrial and commercial sectors, a review of the supply chains supporting motor and drives in the U.S., and the performance improvement opportunity available from using best available technologies and maintenance and operation practices. The outcomes of the MSMA are documented in three U.S. Industrial and Commercial Motor System Market Assessment reports, with this report being the first listed: 1. Volume 1: Characteristics of the Installed Base (this report) documents the findings on the installed base of motor systems in the U.S. industrial and commercial sectors. Quantification of energy savings potential is not documented in this report but in Volume 3. 2. Volume 2: Motors and Drives Supply Chain Review reviews the state of supply chains for motors and drives installed in U.S. industrial and commercial facilities, focusing on advanced motor and drive technologies and their constituent materials. 3. Volume 3: Energy Savings Opportunity analyzes the energy performance improvement opportunity for the installed base of U.S. industrial and commercial motor systems. This report has been prepared as a reference for motor system stakeholders. It provides factual information as could be best determined by the assessment results and avoids speculating on any findings.
Ramping products have been introduced or proposed in several U.S. power markets to mitigate the impact of load and renewable uncertainties on market efficiency and reliability. Current methods often rely on historical data to estimate the requirements of ramping products and fail to take into account the effects of the latest weather conditions and their uncertainties, which could lead to overly conservative or insufficient requirements. This study proposes a k-nearest-neighbor-based method to give weather-informed estimates of ramping needs based on short-term probabilistic solar irradiance forecasts. Forecasts from multiple sites are employed in conjunction with principal component analysis to derive numerical classifiers to characterize system-level weather conditions. In addition, we develop a data-driven method to optimize the model parameters in a rolling-forward manner. By using real-world data from the California Independent System Operator, we design two metrics to evaluate method performance: 1) frequency of shortage and 2) oversupply of ramping product. Our proposed method presents advantages in comparison with the baseline and a set of benchmark methods: without compromising system reliability, it reduces system ramping requirements by up to 25%, therefore improving both system reliability and economics.
The United States is embarking on an ambitious transition to a 100% clean energy economy by 2050, which will require improving the flexibility of electric grids. One way to achieve grid flexibility is to shed or shift demand to align with changing grid needs. To facilitate this, it is critical to understand how and when energy is used. High- quality end-use load profiles (EULPs) provide this information, and can help cities, states, and utilities understand the time-sensitive value of energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed energy resources. Publicly available EULPs have traditionally had limited application because of age and incomplete geographic representation (Frick, Eckman, and Goldman 2017; Frick 2019). To help fill this gap, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funded a three-year project - End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock - that culminated in the release of a publicly available dataset1 of simulated EULPs representing residential and commercial buildings across the contiguous United States. The motivation for this work is further detailed in a November 2019 report: Market Needs, Use Cases, and Data Gaps (Mims Frick et al. 2019). This Methodology and Results report provides detailed descriptions of how the dataset was developed, intended for an audience of dataset and model users interested in the technical details. These details include descriptions of all of the model improvements made for calibration and the final comparisons to empirical data sources. A companion report, End-Use Load Profiles for the U.S. Building Stock: Applications and Opportunities, will be published subsequently and will describe example applications and considerations for using the dataset, intended for an audience of general dataset users.
This project laid the foundation to include a security constrained economic dispatch (SCED) within one of the leading simulators which is used to train system operators who keep the lights on for over 150 million people in USA. The SCED is designed to handle very high penetrations of renewable generation as well as battery storage. As a follow on the this project, a Trusted Source Model of the North American Electric Interconnections will be built from public GIS data. The various North American Markets will be emulated. This Trusted Source Model will grow the software developers for the next generation of power applications that are needed to transition to all green generation while everything is electrified.
Most U.S. residential rooftop solar customers finance their solar purchases through loans or by buying power from third-party owned systems. Prior research demonstrates how third-party ownership (TPO) models such as leases emerged in the early 2010s and accelerated solar adoption by low- and moderate-income households while driving market concentration in the installation industry. Since 2015, loans have emerged as a prevalent financing alternative, but the potential effects of loans on the customer base and industry remain understudied. Here, we fill that research gap by developing a methodology to identify loan-financed and third-party owned systems in a household-level solar adopter data set. The data suggest that loans accounted for increasing solar market shares from 2017 until reaching as high as 70% in 2022, but that the market has since shifted back to TPO. The data show that TPO adopters in our sample earned about 16%–18% less and loan recipients earned 3%–7% less, at the median, than customers who self-financed systems. These results reaffirm prior research showing that TPO has accelerated low- and moderate-income adoption and that loans have likewise expanded the customer base to a lesser extent. The results suggest that loan-financed systems entail around a 16%–26% price premium that is only partly explained by loan fees. Finally, the data suggest that the emergence of loans has likely reduced market concentration in the rooftop solar industry.
Here, this paper seeks to improve theoretical and empirical understanding of supplier dynamics in wholesale markets for operating reserves, which have been understudied compared to energy markets. We begin by identifying several economic factors that unit owners may consider when submitting offers into operating reserves auctions in two-stage, co-optimized markets common across much of North America. Next, we analyze historical offer data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) market to assess whether actual reserve market behavior aligns with expectations based on economic theory, as well as with commonly used assumptions in electricity market modeling efforts. We find that the aggregate supply of operating reserves in ERCOT varies meaningfully over time, becoming more expensive during summer afternoons, which is consistent with theoretical expectations but contradicts the typical modeling assumption of temporally invariant reserve offers. Analysis of offers made by individual units uncovers additional insights, such as the existence of large offer pattern differences by unit owner and the tendency of battery storage units to submit very low offer prices. We conclude by discussing how our findings can be integrated into electricity market modeling assumptions to improve alignment with observed operating reserve offer inputs and pricing outcomes.
Here, in this paper, the privacy and security issues associated with the transactive energy system (TES) deployment over insecure communication links are addressed. In particular, it is ensured that 1) individual agents’ bidding information is kept private throughout hierarchical market-based interactions; and 2) any extraneous data injection attack can be quickly and easily detected. An implementation framework is proposed to enable the cryptography-based enhancement of privacy and security for the deployment of any general hierarchical systems including TESs. Under the proposed framework, a unified cryptography-based approach is developed to achieve both privacy and security simultaneously. Specifically, privacy preservation is realized by an enhanced Paillier encryption scheme, where a block design is proposed to significantly improve computational efficiency. Attack detection is further achieved by an enhanced Paillier digital signature scheme, where a stamp-concatenation mechanism is proposed to enable detection of data replace and reorder attacks. Simulation results verify the effectiveness of the proposed cyber-resilient design for transactive energy systems. Note to Practitioners—This paper is motivated by addressing the issues of cyber resiliency for practically deploying transactive energy system (TES) but it is also applicable to the problem of enhancing the privacy and security for any general hierarchical control systems. TES is an emerging control approach that engages energy suppliers and customers through market operations and uses the price to optimally allocate energy resources. While it has been shown to be promising for power system applications, the underlying market-based interactions raise significant concerns of privacy (data leakage) and security (data tampering). However, existing TES works only focus on the coordination mechanism instead of privacy and security issues. This paper proposes a new cryptography-based TES design for practical deployment. Specifically, to protect privacy, individual supply and demand amounts to be exchanged are all encrypted in a particular way such that the original amounts cannot be inferred from the encrypted amounts, while the desired computation for setting the market clearing price can be carried out over the encrypted amounts, thus generating an encrypted result which, when decrypted, matches that of the same computation over the original amounts. To achieve security, for each exchanged data, its sender generates a particular digital signature which is exchanged together with the data. This enables the receiver to automatically detect the integrity by checking whether a mathematical relationship holds for the pair of data and signature. In our future research, we will investigate more challenging scenarios where some suppliers and customers themselves could be corrupted and purposely submit distorted amounts.
This dataset contains data on agricultural crop and residue production by county from 2022 to 2041. The agricultural crop in this dataset includes barley, biomass sorghum, corn, cotton, energy cane, eucalyptus, grain sorghum, hay, miscanthus, oats, pine, poplar, rice, soybean, switchgrass, wheat, and willow, and the agricultural residue includes barley straw, corn stover, oats straw, sorghum stubble, and wheat straw. The dataset was obtained from the database of the BT23 (Davis et al., 2024) for the mature-market medium scenario with biomass market prices of up to $70 per dry ton.
Berkeley Labs "Utility-Scale Solar", 2024 Edition presents analysis of empirical plant-level data from the U.S. fleet of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV), PV+battery, and concentrating solar-thermal power (CSP) plants with capacities exceeding 5 MWAC. While focused on key developments in 2023, this report explores trends in deployment, technology, capital and operating costs, capacity factors, the levelized cost of solar energy (LCOE), power purchase agreement (PPA) prices, wholesale market value, net value, and interconnection queue data.
Material databases are important tools to provide and store information from material research. Rising concerns about supply-chain risks to raw materials presents a need to incorporate raw-material market and end-use application data, beyond basic chemical and physical properties, into a material database. One key challenge for researchers working on critical materials is information scarcity and inconsistency. This paper introduces, as a result of a two-year project, a critical-material commodity database (CMCD) incorporated with a low-code web-based platform that allows easy access for users and simple updates for the authors. The main goal of this project was to educate material scientists on the applications having the most impact on the supply chain and current industrial specifications/markets for each application. The objective was to provide material researchers with harmonized information so that they could gain a better understanding of the market, focus their technologies on an application with a high potential for commercialization, and better contribute to supply-chain risk reduction. While the goal was met with high receptivity, several limitations stemmed from query design, distribution platform, and quality of data source. To overcome some of these limitations and expand on CMCD's potential, we are building a public webpage with an improved interface, better data organization, and higher extensibility.
Each year renewable energy generation increases notably with solar panel installations, but these panels have a limited lifespan and will produce between 2 and 4 million metric tons of waste by 2040. Similarly, there are currently between 20 to 70 million hard-disk drives (HDDs) reaching end-of-life (EOL) annually. The circular economy (CE) strives to recycle and reuse materials that are rare and expensive to obtain, minimizing waste. However, studying the potential circularity of photovoltaics (PV) and HDDs requires various data, for instance, on the maturity of the secondhand markets. In this context, the objective of the present study is to identify the current state of secondhand PV and HDD markets. After conducting a literature review, an automated data collection process was set up for that purpose. The analysis of the literature and collected data assess the maturity of the secondhand PV modules and HDDs markets and highlight differences between them.
The value of probabilistic forecasts in electricity market operations is being increasingly recognized lately, however, the use is still limited. This study demonstrates two cases of using probabilistic forecasts in scheduling and operations of the California electricity market. We first develop a data-driven method to give weather-informed estimates of ramping reserves based on short-term probabilistic solar irradiance forecasts. By using forecasts across multiple sites, our proposed method presents advantages over the real-world baseline in terms of system reliability and economics. Our second case uses probabilistic hydro power forecasts in the scheduling of a hydro power plant under economic and environmental constraints. By optimizing the bids into both the day-ahead and real-time markets, our results demonstrate considerable economic benefits.
The 2019 Offshore Wind Technology Data Update compiles information from peer-reviewed literature, market reports, press releases, industry news reports, manufacturer specification sheets, and offshore wind project announcements to provide a comprehensive snapshot of the state of the global wind industry in 2019. These data, including capacity projections, project characteristics, technology trends, and cost estimates, are categorized, tabulated, and plotted to provide easily recognizable and understandable summaries. A particular focus is given to the United States offshore wind project pipeline, including project announcements, state procurements, deployment timelines, infrastructure investments, grid interconnections, and other related developments. The update is intended to be used as a reference document by researchers, analysts, industry practitioners, and government officials.
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.
As part of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Storage Grand Challenge (ESGC), DOE intends to synthesize and disseminate best available energy storage data, information, and analysis to inform decision-making and accelerate technology adoption. The ESGC Roadmap provides options for addressing technology development, commercialization, manufacturing, valuation, and workforce challenges to position the United States for global leadership in the energy storage technologies of the future. This report provides a baseline understanding of the numerous, dynamic energy storage markets that fall within the scope of the ESGC via an integrated presentation of deployment, investment, and manufacturing data from the best, publicly-available sources. This report covers the following energy storage technologies: lithium ion batteries, lead acid batteries, pumped storage hydropower, comrpessed air energy storage, redox flow batteries, hydrogen, building thermal energy storage, and select long duration energy storage technologies. Not all energy storage technologies and markets could be addressed in this report. Due to the wide array of energy technologies, market niches, and data availability issues, this market report only included a select group of technologies. For example, thermal energy storage technologies are very broadly defined and cover a wide range of potential markets, technology readiness levels, and primary energy sources. In other areas, data scarcity necessitates a greater understanding of future applications and emerging science. Future efforts will update data presented in this report and be expanded to include other energy storage technologies. This data-driven assessment of the current status of energy storage markets is essential to track progress toward the goals described in the Energy Storage Grand Challenge and inform the decision-making of a broad range of stakeholders. At the same time, gaps identified through the development of this report can point to areas where further data collection and analysis could provide an even greater level of understanding of the full range of markets and technologies. Finally, numerous complementary analyses are planned, underway, or completed that will provide a deeper understanding of the specific technologies and markets covered at a high-level in this report.