Facility siting and infrastructure | Knowledge Hub

Before you begin

The question

Which site survives all necessary layers—not just the cheapest one?

Learning objectives

01Distinguish site screening from site selection and permitting.
02Build exclusion, suitability and network criteria transparently.
03Include community and cumulative-impact evidence alongside engineering data.

Core explanation

Siting is a multi-layer decision. Resource proximity matters, but so do electricity, heat, water, hydrogen, pipelines, roads, rail, ports, storage, workforce, product markets and residual outlets. Some layers exclude sites; others rank them; others require negotiation. Combining them into one score without explanation can hide decisive constraints.

A screening tool such as BioSiting can reveal resources and infrastructure around candidate locations and support early TEA/LCA framing. It cannot establish land control, permits, interconnection, contracts, local acceptance or construction feasibility. Those require project-specific evidence and engagement.

Environmental justice and cumulative impacts are not optional map decorations. Existing pollution, traffic, water stress, employment quality, benefit distribution and community priorities can change both suitability and project design. Spatial data should support engagement, not substitute for it.

CONCEPTS

Key concepts

Site screening

Early elimination or ranking using documented spatial criteria.

Exclusion criterion

A condition that makes a site unacceptable rather than merely less preferred.

Infrastructure readiness

Availability, capacity, timing and contractual access to required networks and utilities.

Cumulative impact

Combined burden of the proposed project with existing and foreseeable stressors.

MODEL

Visual explanation

Which candidate site remains attractive when supply, infrastructure, water and community readiness are weighted together? — **Siting combines hard exclusions, network access, ranked preferences and evidence that cannot be reduced to pixels.**Conceptual teaching visual — use it to orient the interaction below, not as measured evidence.

Explore · layered site explorer

Screen candidate sites with exclusion, resource, logistics, utility and community layers.

Toggle layers and compare which candidate remains admissible under the full stack.

Illustrative

iIllustrative learning model — values are not scientific results or forecasts.

layered site explorer5 layers active

Site A: central

Strong logistics but conflicts with an exclusion layer.

Feasibility: Hold
Missing: Permitting

EXAMPLE

Worked example

Illustrative worked case

Three candidate biorefinery sites

One is closest to feedstock, one to utilities and one to market and transport infrastructure.

01
Apply legal, environmental and physical exclusions before scoring.
02
Score network capacity and timing, not presence alone.
03
Keep community evidence and unresolved contracts visible as separate decision gates.

Key takeaway

The nearest-resource site may fail an exclusion or infrastructure gate; the highest weighted score still needs project evidence.

CASE FILE

Case file

Classic case1996

GIS-based biomass resource assessment with BRAVO

Why it is here: BRAVO is a foundational example of connecting GIS resource data to siting decisions.
What to inspect: Inspect how spatial resolution and transport assumptions shape candidate regions.
Limitation: Modern siting also needs permitting, equity and current infrastructure data.

DOI: 10.1016/0961-9534(95)00065-8 ↗

TOOLS

Tool in context

Core · LBNL / JBEI

BioSiting

Use it for this task: Explore how public resource and infrastructure layers support national-scale screening.
Limitation: A screening map is not a permit, supply contract or deployability decision.

Inputs, outputs & scope

What it is: A geospatial platform for exploring U.S. bioeconomy resources, infrastructure and candidate sites.
Problem it addresses: What resources and infrastructure surround a candidate facility location?
Inputs: Location, buffer radius, resource layers, infrastructure and pathway choices.
Outputs: Mapped inventories, buffer summaries and downloadable spatial data.
Typical applications: Facility screening, resource context and early TEA/LCA framing.

Explore the official tool ↗

EVIDENCE

Core references

Noon and Daly (1996). GIS-based biomass resource assessment with BRAVO.https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(95)00065-8 ↗
Hamid Ghaderi, Mir Saman Pishvaee and Alireza Moini (2017). Biomass supply chain network design: An optimization-oriented review and analysis.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.027 ↗

Knowledge check

0 / 3

01Which statement best captures the central idea?A single laboratory yield is sufficient for every system decision.A map can screen sites; deployment requires land, capacity, permission, contracts and legitimacy.The largest theoretical value should always be selected.

02Which statement is the misconception to avoid?The location with the shortest average feedstock distance is the optimal and deployable site.A map can screen sites; deployment requires land, capacity, permission, contracts and legitimacy.A single laboratory yield is sufficient for every system decision.

03What evidence should be checked before making a decision?Only the technology nameOnly the best-case headlineExclusions, utility capacities, network access, land and permits, cumulative impacts, community priorities and contract status.

→

Key takeaway

A map can screen sites; deployment requires land, capacity, permission, contracts and legitimacy.

Common misconception

The location with the shortest average feedstock distance is the optimal and deployable site.

Evidence check

Exclusions, utility capacities, network access, land and permits, cumulative impacts, community priorities and contract status.

GLOSSARY

Vocabulary in this lesson

Facility siting Infrastructure