U.S. Hydropower Supply Chain Manufacturing Locations Map, 2025
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Schmidt, Erik [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “location map”
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.
Validation of Innovative Exploration Technologies for Newberry Volcano: Drill Site Location Map
Newberry seeks to explore "blind" (no surface evidence) convective hydrothermal systems associated with a young silicic pluton on the flanks of Newberry Volcano. This project will employ a combination of innovative and conventional techniques to identify the location of subsurface geothermal fluids associated with the hot pluton. Newberry project drill site location map 2010. This submission contains a topographic drill site location map.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Seismic Line Location Map Hot Pot Project, Humboldt County, Nevada 2010
Location of seismic lines carried out under DOE funded project Advanced Seismic Data Analysis Program (The Hot Pot Project).
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Location Map
Map file package containing shaded relief base with Hot Pot project area, major roads, railroads, and rivers. The inset map shows regional Paleozoic structural elements.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Validation of Innovative Exploration Technologies for Newberry Volcano: Map showing location of wells permitted, drilled and seismic test 2012
Innovative Exploration Technologies for Newberry Volcano: Map showing location of wells permitted, drilled & seismic test, 2012
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Hot Pot Mercury Concentration Map
Location of sample points and analytical results for mercury concentrations from a soil survey.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
Geospatial Characterization of Low-Temperature Heating and Cooling Demand in the United States: Preprint
Geothermal resources at temperatures below 150 degrees C have great potential as energy sources for various direct-use applications including heating and cooling in residential and commercial buildings. This study geospatially quantifies U.S. heating and cooling demand in residential, commercial, and manufacturing sectors; heating demand in the agricultural sector; and cooling demand in data centers at the county level through end-use energy consumption, expenditure, and commissioned power analyses. Heating and cooling demand in the residential sector was estimated using energy consumption data obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration accounting for different U.S. climate zones. For commercial sector analysis, the end-use major fuel energy intensity at the census division level was disaggregated to the county level with respect to principal building activities. Heating and cooling demand analysis for the manufacturing sector was based on end-use energy consumption for direct-use total process categorized by the North America Industry Classification System. Fuel expenditures in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Expenditures were examined for heating demand analysis in the agricultural sector, particularly for the greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production category. Lastly, commissioned power for data centers in the United States were explored for cooling demand analysis. Results indicated a significant fraction of U.S. primary energy consumption is used for low-temperature heating and cooling applications. Heating and cooling demand in residential and commercial sectors is significantly affected by the number of housing units and climate zone designations, while heating and cooling demand in manufacturing and agricultural sectors and data centers are mainly dependent on the number of facilities and their locations. Maps were generated visualizing where heating and cooling demand is high and, overlain with geothermal resource maps, can indicate locations where geothermal energy can supply this heating and cooling demand.
cooling demand↗
Geospatial Characterization of Low-Temperature Heating and Cooling Demand in the United States
Geothermal resources at temperatures below 150 degrees C have great potential as energy sources for various direct-use applications including heating and cooling in residential and commercial buildings. This study geospatially quantifies U.S. heating and cooling demand in residential, commercial, and manufacturing sectors; heating demand in the agricultural sector; and cooling demand in data centers at the county level through end-use energy consumption, expenditure, and commissioned power analyses. Heating and cooling demand in the residential sector was estimated using energy consumption data obtained from the U.S. Energy Information Administration accounting for different U.S. climate zones. For commercial sector analysis, the end-use major fuel energy intensity at the census division level was disaggregated to the county level with respect to principal building activities. Heating and cooling demand analysis for the manufacturing sector was based on end-use energy consumption for direct-use total process categorized by the North America Industry Classification System. Fuel expenditures in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Production Expenditures were examined for heating demand analysis in the agricultural sector, particularly for the greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production category. Lastly, commissioned power for data centers in the United States were explored for cooling demand analysis. Results indicated a significant fraction of U.S. primary energy consumption is used for low-temperature heating and cooling applications. Heating and cooling demand in residential and commercial sectors is significantly affected by the number of housing units and climate zone designations, while heating and cooling demand in manufacturing and agricultural sectors and data centers are mainly dependent on the number of facilities and their locations. Maps were generated visualizing where heating and cooling demand is high and, overlain with geothermal resource maps, can indicate locations where geothermal energy can supply this heating and cooling demand.
cooling demand↗
Probabilistic Modeling of Commercial Building Occupancy Patterns Using Location-Based Map Data: Preprint
Considering occupancy patterns is crucial to simulate buildings' energy use. Current energy models use inputs that simplify the actual diversity in occupancy into static occupancy patterns and are not able to represent the numerous variations in occupancy patterns between buildings and across different locations. Recently, inferring occupancy schedules from metered electricity consumption data was used to model occupancy in commercial buildings. However, the translation from metered data to occupancy schedules requires many assumptions that might not capture the reality, and the process is hindered by the availability of data from advanced metering infrastructure. With the development of information technologies, occupancy modeling should not be limited to traditional approaches. The prevalence of social networks and location services with real-time user feedback provides publicly accessible data via Maps Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) such as Google Maps, SafeGraph, Mapbox, Foursquare, etc. This paper presents an automated framework for modeling parametric occupancy patterns using such APIs to calibrate commercial district buildings' energy models. This process includes three main steps: data extraction and processing, parametric schedules generation, and schedules integration. We demonstrated this framework in districts where we used maps API to generate more accurate behavioral patterns for operations and electric vehicle charging events. We used these patterns to determine differences in energy use across key sociodemographic and spatial parameters. The presented method has the potential for worldwide applications. Users can utilize this framework to extract data for selected locations of interest to create more realistic behavioral patterns for commercial facilities across different districts.
building energy modeling↗
2020 Idaho National Laboratory Water Use Report and Comprehensive Well Inventory (Rev. 29)
This 2020 Idaho National Laboratory Water Use Report and Comprehensive Well Inventory (Revision 29) provides water use information for production and potable water wells at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site for calendar year 2020. It also provides detailed information for new, modified, and decommissioned wells Two new wells (TRA-2317 and USGS-150) were drilled in 2019 and are included in this report. One well (USGS-147) was modified in 2020. The location maps and detailed construction diagrams are provided.in the appendix. Fifty-six monitoring wells and boreholes were abandoned (decommissioned) in calendar year 2020. The location maps and construction diagrams, if available, for the decommissioned monitoring wells and boreholes are provided in the appendix. This report is being submitted in accordance with the Water Rights Agreement between the State of Idaho and the United States, for the United States Department of Energy (dated 1990), the subsequent Partial Decree for Water Right 34-10901 issued June 20, 2003, and the Final Unified Decree issued August 26, 2014.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Secure Storage: Historical Documentation of TA-08-0032, TA-11-0036, TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, TA-22-0035, TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020
The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA), is pursuing the decommissioning and demolition (D&D) of facilities contaminated with high-explosives residues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Laboratory or LANL). This effort affects nine facilities associated with high-explosives and detonator research, development, and storage: Technical Area (TA) 8 Facility 32 (TA-08-0032), TA-11-0036, TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, TA-22-0035, TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020. All nine facilities proposed for D&D have been evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and determined eligible. NA-LA previously requested the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to concur with the NRHP-eligibility determinations of these nine properties presented in four reports: (1) TA-08-0032 was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, From Ranching to Radiography: An Assessment of Historic Buildings at Anchor West Site (TA-8), Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2008a). The SHPO concurred with this eligibility determination on November 26, 2008. (2) TA-11-0036 was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, ESA Division’s Five-Year Plan: Consolidation and Revitalization at Technical Areas 3, 8, 11, and 16, Vol. 1) (McGehee et al. 2003). The SHPO concurred with this eligibility assessment on June 22, 2003. (3) TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, and TA-22-0035 were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, DX Division’s Facility Strategic Plan: Consolidation and Revitalization at Technical Areas 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 22, 36, 39, 40, 60, and 69, Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2005a). The SHPO concurred with these eligibility determinations on April 18, 2006. (4) TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020 were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, High Explosives and the Nuclear Stockpile: An Assessment of Historic Buildings at Magazine Area C (TA-37), Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2008b). The SHPO concurred with these eligibility determinations on April 17, 2008. In a letter dated January 24, 2020, NA-LA acknowledged that the D&D of these nine NRHP-eligible facilities was an adverse effect that requires resolution through mitigation. NA-LA proposed the use of standard mitigation practices as defined in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concerning Management of the Historic Properties at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The PA states that adverse effects to NRHP-eligible buildings and structures will be resolved according to the standard practices defined in Part II, Section 10, of the Laboratory’s Cultural Resources Management Plan, A Plan for the Management of the Cultural Heritage at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (Purtzer et al. 2019), and Section 2.B of Appendix D of the PA itself. The standard practice documentation package includes the following components: (1) Interior and exterior photography and production of archival-quality digital photographs; (2) Documentation and curation of historically significant equipment and artifacts; (3) A list of all known drawings for the property; (4) Reduced-scale reproductions of selected drawings for the property; (5) A location map that shows the location of the property relative to the entire Laboratory property; (6) Reproduction of historical TA maps; (7) A TA map that depicts the footprint of each eligible and non-eligible facility; and (8) An expanded historic context that uses oral-history interviews, if available. On March 3, 2020, the SHPO concurred with the adverse effect determination and the mitigation plan. The documentation package, as previously described, is provided in Volumes 1 and 2 of this report.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Co-located contemporaneous mapping of morphological, hydrological, chemical, and biological conditions in a 5th-order mountain stream network, Oregon, USA
A comprehensive set of measurements and calculated metrics describing physical, chemical, and biological conditions in the river corridor is presented. These data were collected in a catchment-wide, synoptic campaign in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (Cascade Mountains, Oregon, USA) in summer 2016 during low-discharge conditions. Extensive characterization of 62 sites including surface water, hyporheic water, and streambed sediment was conducted spanning 1st- through 5th-order reaches in the river network. The objective of the sample design and data acquisition was to generate a novel data set to support scaling of river corridor processes across varying flows and morphologic forms present in a river network. The data are available at https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.f4484e0703f743c696c2e1f209abb842 (Ward, 2019).
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
GrayQb: A Radiological Contamination Locating and Mapping Tool
Benefits Technology Overview Easy to operate • Self-contained unit for imaging – no special power, cooling or handling requirements • Standard color camera, easy to use gamma camera and reader • Software automatically processes images, sliders to adjust intensity display • Lightweight – less than 5 lbs. without additional background shielding
Timmons, Daren↗
Data and scripts associated with “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments”
This data package is associated with the publication “Moisture content modulates DOM thermodynamic regulation of oxygen consumption in drying streambed sediments” published in Scientific Reports (Garayburu-Caruso et al., 2026). The package contains processed data products and scripts used to quantify how drying and re-inundation of riverbed sediments influence dissolved organic matter (DOM) thermodynamic properties and their relationship with sediment oxygen (O₂) consumption across 33 stream sites in the contiguous United States. The data package contains DOM thermodynamic metrics (e.g., Gibbs free energy of carbon oxidation and thermodynamic efficiency), and O₂ consumption along with watershed-scale climate and land-cover metrics used as explanatory variables in the analyses. Underlying unprocessed and processed ultrahigh-resolution mass spectrometry data, oxygen consumption rates from laboratory moisture-manipulation experiments, within-sample environmental properties, sediment moisture content and contextual field measurements are archived separately at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2428003 (Laan et al., 2024) and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1923689 (Forbes et al.,2023). A preliminary version of this data package was published in February 2026 at the time of manuscript submission. It was updated in June 2026, at the time of manuscript acceptance, to include the finalized data and additional metadata (readme, data dictionary, and file level metadata). For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. At the top level, the data package is organized into five main folders: (1) Data, (2)Figures, (3) Map, (4) GAM_Reulsts, and (5) src. The Data folder contains analysis-ready tabular files with oxygen consumption rates, DOM thermodynamic properties by site and treatment, site-level environmental variables, watershed-scale metrics, and other derived variables referenced in the manuscript. The Figures folder contains static image files associated with the main text and supplemental figures, while the Map folder includes spatial data and map-layer files used to create the sampling-location map. The GAM results folder contains the results for each of the general additive model (GAM).The src folder contains R scripts used to perform data processing, statistical analyses (including clustering, generalized additive models, and threshold analysis), and figure generation. This data package is associated with a GitHub repository found at https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/ECA_DOM_Thermodynamics.
Dissolved organic matter↗
Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)
This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.
2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
Characterization of Hot Workability of 5052 Aluminum Alloy Based on Activation Energy-Processing Map
In the design of hot forming processes for aluminum alloys, hot processing maps are usually used as a powerful tool for processing parameters optimizations. Although the stability of deformation is considered in conventional hot processing (CHP) maps, the difficulty of deformation, i.e., whether deformation is easy to occur, is not taken into account. Therefore, it is difficult for CHP maps to efficiently and accurately obtain the optimal processing parameters and achieve satisfying hot workability. Hence, in this study, thermal compression tests were performed to investigate the hot forming behavior of 5052 aluminum alloy in the deformation temperature range of 553-733 K and strain rate range of 0.001-1 s{sup −1}. We proposed an activation energy-processing (AEP) map by coupling the CHP map and the activation energy value, and thereby applied it to evaluate the hot workability of 5052 aluminum alloy. In CHP maps, the region with the highest power dissipation efficiency is generally considered to be the best processing region. However, the AEP map shows that materials with satisfying hot workability not only depends on high power dissipation efficiency, but also on low activation energy values. At the strain of 0.7, the optimal hot processing region predicted by the CHP map lies in the temperature range of 583-673 K and strain rate range of 0.001-0.1 s{sup −1}, but that predicted by AEP map locates in the temperature range of 643-733 K and strain rate range of 0.001-0.1 s{sup −1}. Microstructure characterization implies that the optimal processing region predicted by the CHP map presents necklace-like structures, which are non-uniform and unbeneficial for deformation, while that predicted by the AEP map consists of fine, uniform and equiaxed grains. Thus, it is implied that the processing regions predicted by the AEP map are more suitable for forming, i.e., the reasonability of the AEP map is verified.
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021
The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report is distributed electronically and is available at https://saer.llnl.gov/, the website for the LLNL annual environmental report. Previous LLNL annual environmental reports beginning with 1994 are also on the website. Some references in the electronic report text are underlined, which indicates that they are clickable links. Clicking on one of these links will open the related document, data workbook, or website. Sampling location maps throughout this report were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2021: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A. The report uses Système International units, consistent with the federal Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12770, “Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs” (1991). For ease of comparison to environmental reports issued prior to 1991, dose values and many radiological measurements are given in both metric and U.S. customary units. A conversion table is provided in the glossary. The report is the responsibility of LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Monitoring data were obtained through the combined efforts of the Environmental Functional Area; Environmental Restoration Department; Physical and Life Sciences Environmental Monitoring Radiological Laboratory; and the Radiation Protection Functional Area.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Map of Validation of Innovative Exploration Technologies for Newberry Volcano
A map showing location of wells permitted, drilled and seismic test, as part of validation of innovative exploration technologies done for the Newberry Volcano project in 2012.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗