When assessing water resources changes, simulated natural flow is usually bias corrected before forcing operational water management models (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation 2016). Understanding simulation errors in integrated water modeling (i.e., regulated flow, stream temperature, and the development of associated postprocessing for application in sectoral models) is an area of future research. In our approach, hydropower generation and thermoelectric capacity are not directly estimated by using the reservoir models or by looking at water availability and stream temperature constraints. Instead, we rescale the baseline boundary conditions, that is, the 2010 hydropower potential generation obtained from the electricity model database used as a reference. For each hydrologic region, for all hydropower plants, the relative departure from the annual regulated flow from the 2010 reference, weighted by the plant generating capacity, is used to derive a regional adjustment. The regional adjustment is used as an energy constraint, or boundary condition, for the potential hydropower generation in the production cost model (Voisin et al. 2016). The potential hydropower generation at each power plant is adjusted with respect to 2010 annual regulated flow. For thermoelectric plants, the same approach is used but the adjustment at each plant is limited to 100%. The maximum generating capacity is assigned for the water availability condition in 2010. Thermoelectric capacity is derated less than 43% of the years in the 55-yr-long simulation. The adjustment and derating are further detailed in Voisin et al. (2016) and discussed in the first section of the online supplemental material ( -D-16-0253.2).
energy management by w r murphy full
Electricity billing, Electrical load management and maximum demand Control, Maximum demand controllers; Power factor improvement, Automatic power factor controllers, efficient operation of transformers, energy efficient motors, Soft starters, Variable speed drives; Performance evaluation of fans and pumps, Flow control strategies and energy conservation opportunities in fans and pumps, Electronic ballast, Energy efficient lighting and measures of energy efficiency in lighting system.
As MET estimation is not yet common in energy conservation, the biggest indicators for monitoring these strategies tend to be pain/fatigue symptoms, present in a range of health alterations that admittedly interfere with occupational participation (Farragher et al., 2020) and life quality (Mahoney et al., 2020) as well as compromise the full execution of occupational tasks (Vendrusculo-Fangel et al., 2019), ADL (Morgan & DiZazzo-Miller, 2018), work (De Bloom et al., 2015), leisure (Lemoignan et al., 2010), and social interaction (Crowe et al., 2014). Regarding these symptoms and related consequences, despite the underlying disease, advising energy conservation procedures becomes an alternative when associated with other practices and approaches to support the treatment, such as Client-Centered Approach (Norberg et al., 2017), Task-Oriented Training (Hsieh et al., 2018), Occupation-Based Practice (Morgan & DiZazzo-Miller, 2018), Training of ADL (Mahoney et al., 2020), behavioral change strategy (Mallik et al., 2005), and participation and self-management (Wolf et al., 2017).
More recently, among the diseases found, Multiple Sclerosis (MS) has received the majority of interventions based on energy conservation principles. The literature confirms that MS has been treated with such therapeutic approach for at least 20 years (Mathiowetz et al., 2001). Combined with the other involvements found, it is possible to infer that a significant part of the interventions was indicated to favor the management of fatigue (Tur, 2016) and pain (Racine et al., 2020) symptoms. This notation is well represented in the specialized literature and highlights energy conservation techniques oriented both to fatigue management (Grill & Cole, 2021) and to pain management strategies (Racine et al., 2020), or even approaches with treatment focused on both symptoms (Murphy et al., 2011).
Abstract:Marine energy devices are installed in highly dynamic environments and have the potential to affect the benthic and pelagic habitats around them. Regulatory bodies often require baseline characterization and/or post-installation monitoring to determine whether changes in these habitats are being observed. However, a great diversity of technologies is available for surveying and sampling marine habitats, and selecting the most suitable instrument to identify and measure changes in habitats at marine energy sites can become a daunting task. We conducted a thorough review of journal articles, survey reports, and grey literature to extract information about the technologies used, the data collection and processing methods, and the performance and effectiveness of these instruments. We examined documents related to marine energy development, offshore wind farms, oil and gas offshore sites, and other marine industries around the world over the last 20 years. A total of 120 different technologies were identified across six main habitat categories: seafloor, sediment, infauna, epifauna, pelagic, and biofouling. The technologies were organized into 12 broad technology classes: acoustic, corer, dredge, grab, hook and line, net and trawl, plate, remote sensing, scrape samples, trap, visual, and others. Visual was the most common and the most diverse technology class, with applications across all six habitat categories. Technologies and sampling methods that are designed for working efficiently in energetic environments have greater success at marine energy sites. In addition, sampling designs and statistical analyses should be carefully thought through to identify differences in faunal assemblages and spatiotemporal changes in habitats.Keywords: biofouling; epifauna; habitat; infauna; marine energy; pelagic; sampling; seafloor; sediment; technologies
*Some trees are sensitive to horticultural spray oil.Note: This is a guide for when to use management tactics to manage SLF. Read each label carefully and apply according to the label directions. These are our current best recommendations for management tactic timing, but not all combinations of active ingredient, timing, application methods, and tree species have been tested. 2ff7e9595c
Comments