Analysis of Cloud-Free Line-of-Sight Probability Calculations

Cloud-free line-of-sight probabilities were calculated using two separate methods. The first was a variation of a method developed by the Rand Corporation in 1972. In it, CFLOS probabilities were calculated using empirical data based on five years of photograms taken over Columbia, Missouri and forecasted cloud amounts rather than climatological values. The second was a new approach using the Cloud Scene Simulation Model developed by Phillips Laboratory. Cloud scenes were generated using forecasted cloud fields, meteorological inputs, and thirty random numbers. Water content files were produced and processed through a follow-on program to determine the extinction coefficients at each grid point in the working domain. A reiterative routine was written to integrate the extinction coefficients along a view angle from the top of the domain down to the surface at separate points within the horizontal domain. The values of each point were summed and averaged over the working domain to determine the CFLOS probability for the target area. The nadir look angle was then examined for both methods. Stratus, stratocumulus, cumulus, and altocumulus cloud types were independently examined with the CSSM generated cloud scenes. Each method and cloud type were compared against the known CFLOS probability for nadir. Results indicate the method developed in 1972 underestimates CFLOS probabilities by as much as twelve per cent with horizontal cloud coverage ranging from 30 to 80 per cent. CSSM generated cloud scenes varied depending on the cloud type analyzed, with stratocumulus clouds measuring up the best against the known probabilities

Profiling of Genes Related to Cross Protection and Competition for NbTOM1 by HLSV and TMV

10.1371/journal.pone.0073725PLoS ONE89-POLN

Growth, physiology, and [delta] 13C of loblolly and shortleaf pine as affected by ozone and soil water deficit

Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to [email protected], referencing the URI of the item.Includes bibliographical references.Not availabl

Growth, physiology, and [delta] 13C of loblolly and shortleaf pine as affected by ozone and soil water deficit

Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to [email protected], referencing the URI of the item.Includes bibliographical references.Not availabl

Review of Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Approaches Used to Estimate the Load Impacts and Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency Programs

Public and private funding for end-use energy efficiency actions is expected to increase significantly in the United States over the next decade. For example, Barbose et al (2009) estimate that spending on ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in the U.S. could increase from $3.1 billion in 2008 to$7.5 and 12.4 billion by 2020 under their medium and high scenarios. This increase in spending could yield annual electric energy savings ranging from 0.58% - 0.93% of total U.S. retail sales in 2020, up from 0.34% of retail sales in 2008. Interest in and support for energy efficiency has broadened among national and state policymakers. Prominent examples include {approx}$18 billion in new funding for energy efficiency programs (e.g., State Energy Program, Weatherization, and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants) in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Increased funding for energy efficiency should result in more benefits as well as more scrutiny of these results. As energy efficiency becomes a more prominent component of the U.S. national energy strategy and policies, assessing the effectiveness and energy saving impacts of energy efficiency programs is likely to become increasingly important for policymakers and private and public funders of efficiency actions. Thus, it is critical that evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) is carried out effectively and efficiently, which implies that: (1) Effective program evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) methodologies and tools are available to key stakeholders (e.g., regulatory agencies, program administrators, consumers, and evaluation consultants); and (2) Capacity (people and infrastructure resources) is available to conduct EM&V activities and report results in ways that support program improvement and provide data that reliably compares achieved results against goals and similar programs in other jurisdictions (benchmarking). The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007) presented commonly used definitions for EM&V in the context of energy efficiency programs: (1) Evaluation (E) - The performance of studies and activities aimed at determining the effects and effectiveness of EE programs; (2) Measurement and Verification (M&V) - Data collection, monitoring, and analysis associated with the calculation of gross energy and demand savings from individual measures, sites or projects. M&V can be a subset of program evaluation; and (3) Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) - This term is frequently seen in evaluation literature. EM&V is a catchall acronym for determining both the effectiveness of program designs and estimates of load impacts at the portfolio, program and project level. This report is a scoping study that assesses current practices and methods in the evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs, with a focus on methods and practices currently used for determining whether projected (ex-ante) energy and demand savings have been achieved (ex-post). M&V practices for privately-funded energy efficiency projects (e.g., ESCO projects) or programs where the primary focus is greenhouse gas reductions were not part of the scope of this study. We identify and discuss key purposes and uses of current evaluations of end-use energy efficiency programs, methods used to evaluate these programs, processes used to determine those methods; and key issues that need to be addressed now and in the future, based on discussions with regulatory agencies, policymakers, program administrators, and evaluation practitioners in 14 states and national experts in the evaluation field. We also explore how EM&V may evolve in a future in which efficiency funding increases significantly, innovative mechanisms for rewarding program performance are adopted, the role of efficiency in greenhouse gas mitigation is more closely linked, and programs are increasingly funded from multiple sources often with multiple program administrators and intended to meet multiple purposes