This content will become publicly available on June 1, 2024
- Award ID(s):
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Among various elements of urban infrastructure, there is significant opportunity to improve existing buildings’ sustainability, considering that approximately 40% of the total primary energy consumption and 72% of electricity consumption in United States is consumed by the building sector. Many different efforts focus on reducing the energy consumption of residential buildings. Data-validated building energy modeling methods serve the role of supporting this effort, by enabling the identification of the potential savings associated with different potential retrofit strategies. However there are many uncertainties that can impact the accuracy of energy model results, one of which is the weather input data. Measured weather data inputs located at each building can help address this concern, however, weather station data collection for each building is also costly and typically not feasible. Some weather station data is already collected, however, these are generally located at airports rather than near buildings, and thus do not capture local, spatially-varying weather conditions which are documented to occur, particularly in urban areas. In this study we address the impact of spatial temperature differences on residential building energy use. An energy model was developed in EnergyPlus for a residential building located in Mueller neighborhood of Austin, TX, and was validated using actual hourly measured electricity consumption. Using the validated model, the impact of measured spatial temperature differences on building energy consumption were investigated using multiple weather stations located throughout the urban area with different urban fractions. The results indicate that energy consumption of a residential building in a city with a 10% higher urban fraction would increase by approximately 10%. This variation in energy consumption is likely due to the impact of UHI effects occurring in urban areas with high densities.more » « less
null (Ed.)The state of New York has ambitious mandates for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing renewable energy generation. Solar energy will play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric energy sector. Concerns over solar installations’ impacts to host communities and the environment have led to growing conflicts over solar energy siting on Long Island, in other parts of New York, and throughout the US. Understanding community members’ perspectives is critical for reducing conflict. Solar energy can be deployed more quickly and at lower cost if projects are structured to address the concerns and meet the needs of the community. This paper presents the results of a survey of residential utility ratepayers that examined their perceptions, preferences, and priorities concerning mid- to large-scale solar development on Long Island (250 kW and larger). The survey asked respondents to consider specific installation types, financial models, and other aspects of solar development. Results indicate that respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of mid- to large-scale solar development in their communities. The most highly supported development types were solar systems on rooftops and solar systems that are co-located with other land uses (mixed use) at a particular site, such as parking canopies, landfills, or integration with agriculture. The most highly supported financial models included privately funded projects by local developers and community solar projects. The largest concern about solar development expressed by respondents did not involve tree removal or visibility (as initially hypothesized to be the most significant considerations) but rather the fairness of the distribution of economic benefits associated with solar development. This paper provides concrete insight into particular models of solar development that may invoke less conflict and more community support.more » « less
Growing global food demands place major strains on water resources, including quality impairments and increased water scarcity. Drawing on the largely separate bodies of literature on externalities and technological innovation, this article develops a dynamic framework to explore the long‐term impacts of alternative policy approaches to the agricultural impacts on water resources. Environmental policies, which focus on correcting environmental externalities, lead to an overall gain because costs to farmers are more than offset by reduced environmental damages. Technology policies, which direct public investments into agricultural eco‐innovations, lead to benefits for farmers as well as the environment. Joint implementation of both types of policies leads to the largest overall gain. In principle, a technology policy alone could have greater environmental benefits than an environmental policy alone. This outcome is most likely in cases where the productivity effect of new technology is large and the cost of research is low.
Recommendations for research managers
As an alternative to traditional environmental policy, investments in research can provide win–win solutions that benefit the environment and agricultural producers.
Conceivably, eco‐innovations could lead to environmental conditions that are better than those achieved by environmental policy alone.
Adding research investments to existing environmental policy would lead to further improvements in environmental quality while also benefitting farmers.
Unlike environmental policies that are perceived to impose costs on agriculture, technology policies impart benefits to farmers and are less likely to face political opposition from industry.
Technology policies are likely to be the most effective when eco‐innovation leads to technologies that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts and also raise farm productivity.
Green wireless networks Wake-up radio Energy harvesting Routing Markov decision process Reinforcement learning 1. Introduction With 14.2 billions of connected things in 2019, over 41.6 billions expected by 2025, and a total spending on endpoints and services that will reach well over $1.1 trillion by the end of 2026, the Internet of Things (IoT) is poised to have a transformative impact on the way we live and on the way we work [1–3]. The vision of this ‘‘connected continuum’’ of objects and people, however, comes with a wide variety of challenges, especially for those IoT networks whose devices rely on some forms of depletable energy support. This has prompted research on hardware and software solutions aimed at decreasing the depen- dence of devices from ‘‘pre-packaged’’ energy provision (e.g., batteries), leading to devices capable of harvesting energy from the environment, and to networks – often called green wireless networks – whose lifetime is virtually infinite. Despite the promising advances of energy harvesting technologies, IoT devices are still doomed to run out of energy due to their inherent constraints on resources such as storage, processing and communica- tion, whose energy requirements often exceed what harvesting can provide. The communication circuitry of prevailing radio technology, especially, consumes relevant amount of energy even when in idle state, i.e., even when no transmissions or receptions occur. Even duty cycling, namely, operating with the radio in low energy consumption ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (G. Koutsandria). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.046 (sleep) mode for pre-set amounts of time, has been shown to only mildly alleviate the problem of making IoT devices durable . An effective answer to eliminate all possible forms of energy consumption that are not directly related to communication (e.g., idle listening) is provided by ultra low power radio triggering techniques, also known as wake-up radios [5,6]. Wake-up radio-based networks allow devices to remain in sleep mode by turning off their main radio when no communication is taking place. Devices continuously listen for a trigger on their wake-up radio, namely, for a wake-up sequence, to activate their main radio and participate to communication tasks. Therefore, devices wake up and turn their main radio on only when data communication is requested by a neighboring device. Further energy savings can be obtained by restricting the number of neighboring devices that wake up when triggered. This is obtained by allowing devices to wake up only when they receive specific wake-up sequences, which correspond to particular protocol requirements, including distance from the destina- tion, current energy status, residual energy, etc. This form of selective awakenings is called semantic addressing . Use of low-power wake-up radio with semantic addressing has been shown to remarkably reduce the dominating energy costs of communication and idle listening of traditional radio networking [7–12]. This paper contributes to the research on enabling green wireless networks for long lasting IoT applications. Specifically, we introduce a ABSTRACT This paper presents G-WHARP, for Green Wake-up and HARvesting-based energy-Predictive forwarding, a wake-up radio-based forwarding strategy for wireless networks equipped with energy harvesting capabilities (green wireless networks). Following a learning-based approach, G-WHARP blends energy harvesting and wake-up radio technology to maximize energy efficiency and obtain superior network performance. Nodes autonomously decide on their forwarding availability based on a Markov Decision Process (MDP) that takes into account a variety of energy-related aspects, including the currently available energy and that harvestable in the foreseeable future. Solution of the MDP is provided by a computationally light heuristic based on a simple threshold policy, thus obtaining further computational energy savings. The performance of G-WHARP is evaluated via GreenCastalia simulations, where we accurately model wake-up radios, harvestable energy, and the computational power needed to solve the MDP. Key network and system parameters are varied, including the source of harvestable energy, the network density, wake-up radio data rate and data traffic. We also compare the performance of G-WHARP to that of two state-of-the-art data forwarding strategies, namely GreenRoutes and CTP-WUR. Results show that G-WHARP limits energy expenditures while achieving low end-to-end latency and high packet delivery ratio. Particularly, it consumes up to 34% and 59% less energy than CTP-WUR and GreenRoutes, respectively.more » « less
Nicewonger, Todd E. ; McNair, Lisa D. ; Fritz, Stacey (Ed.)https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/alaskanative/ At the start of the pandemic, the editors of this annotated bibliography initiated a remote (i.e., largely virtual) ethnographic research project that investigated how COVID-19 was impacting off-site modular construction practices in Alaska Native communities. Many of these communities are located off the road system and thus face not only dramatically higher costs but multiple logistical challenges in securing licensed tradesmen and construction crews and in shipping building supplies and equipment to their communities. These barriers, as well as the region’s long winters and short building seasons, complicate the construction of homes and related infrastructure projects. Historically, these communities have also grappled with inadequate housing, including severe overcrowding and poor-quality building stock that is rarely designed for northern Alaska’s climate (Marino 2015). Moreover, state and federal bureaucracies and their associated funding opportunities often further complicate home building by failing to accommodate the digital divide in rural Alaska and the cultural values and practices of Native communities. It is not surprising, then, that as we were conducting fieldwork for this project, we began hearing stories about these issues and about how the restrictions caused by the pandemic were further exacerbating them. Amidst these stories, we learned about how modular home construction was being imagined as a possible means for addressing both the complications caused by the pandemic and the need for housing in the region (McKinstry 2021). As a result, we began to investigate how modular construction practices were figuring into emergent responses to housing needs in Alaska communities. We soon realized that we needed to broaden our focus to capture a variety of prefabricated building methods that are often colloquially or idiomatically referred to as “modular.” This included a range of prefabricated building systems (e.g., manufactured, volumetric modular, system-built, and Quonset huts and other reused military buildings). Our further questions about prefabricated housing in the region became the basis for this annotated bibliography. Thus, while this bibliography is one of multiple methods used to investigate these issues, it played a significant role in guiding our research and helped us bring together the diverse perspectives we were hearing from our interviews with building experts in the region and the wider debates that were circulating in the media and, to a lesser degree, in academia. The actual research for each of three sections was carried out by graduate students Lauren Criss-Carboy and Laura Supple. They worked with us to identify source materials and their hard work led to the team identifying three themes that cover intersecting topics related to housing security in Alaska during the pandemic. The source materials collected in these sections can be used in a variety of ways depending on what readers are interested in exploring, including insights into debates on housing security in the region as the pandemic was unfolding (2021-2022). The bibliography can also be used as a tool for thinking about the relational aspects of these themes or the diversity of ways in which information on housing was circulating during the pandemic (and the implications that may have had on community well-being and preparedness). That said, this bibliography is not a comprehensive analysis. Instead, by bringing these three sections together with one another to provide a snapshot of what was happening at that time, it provides a critical jumping off point for scholars working on these issues. The first section focuses on how modular housing figured into pandemic responses to housing needs. In exploring this issue, author Laura Supple attends to both state and national perspectives as part of a broader effort to situate Alaska issues with modular housing in relation to wider national trends. This led to the identification of multiple kinds of literature, ranging from published articles to publicly circulated memos, blog posts, and presentations. These materials are important source materials that will likely fade in the vastness of the Internet and thus may help provide researchers with specific insights into how off-site modular construction was used – and perhaps hyped – to address pandemic concerns over housing, which in turn may raise wider questions about how networks, institutions, and historical experiences with modular construction are organized and positioned to respond to major societal disruptions like the pandemic. As Supple pointed out, most of the material identified in this review speaks to national issues and only a scattering of examples was identified that reflect on the Alaskan context. The second section gathers a diverse set of communications exploring housing security and homelessness in the region. The lack of adequate, healthy housing in remote Alaska communities, often referred to as Alaska’s housing crisis, is well-documented and preceded the pandemic (Guy 2020). As the pandemic unfolded, journalists and other writers reported on the immense stress that was placed on already taxed housing resources in these communities (Smith 2020; Lerner 2021). The resulting picture led the editors to describe in their work how housing security in the region exists along a spectrum that includes poor quality housing as well as various forms of houselessness including, particularly relevant for the context, “hidden homelessness” (Hope 2020; Rogers 2020). The term houseless is a revised notion of homelessness because it captures a richer array of both permanent and temporary forms of housing precarity that people may experience in a region (Christensen et al. 2107). By identifying sources that reflect on the multiple forms of housing insecurity that people were facing, this section highlights the forms of disparity that complicated pandemic responses. Moreover, this section underscores ingenuity (Graham 2019; Smith 2020; Jason and Fashant 2021) that people on the ground used to address the needs of their communities. The third section provides a snapshot from the first year of the pandemic into how CARES Act funds were allocated to Native Alaska communities and used to address housing security. This subject was extremely complicated in Alaska due to the existence of for-profit Alaska Native Corporations and disputes over eligibility for the funds impacted disbursements nationwide. The resources in this section cover that dispute, impacts of the pandemic on housing security, and efforts to use the funds for housing as well as barriers Alaska communities faced trying to secure and use the funds. In summary, this annotated bibliography provides an overview of what was happening, in real time, during the pandemic around a specific topic: housing security in largely remote Alaska Native communities. The media used by housing specialists to communicate the issues discussed here are diverse, ranging from news reports to podcasts and from blogs to journal articles. This diversity speaks to the multiple ways in which information was circulating on housing at a time when the nightly news and radio broadcasts focused heavily on national and state health updates and policy developments. Finding these materials took time, and we share them here because they illustrate why attention to housing security issues is critical for addressing crises like the pandemic. For instance, one theme that emerged out of a recent National Science Foundation workshop on COVID research in the North NSF Conference was that Indigenous communities are not only recovering from the pandemic but also evaluating lessons learned to better prepare for the next one, and resilience will depend significantly on more—and more adaptable—infrastructure and greater housing security.more » « less