Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CO2 monitoring”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Forced Diffusion Chamber Monitoring of Soil CO2 Fluxes from 2019 to Present at NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, Alaska

Soil CO2 efflux was monitored at the NGEE Arctic Teller Site, Mile Marker 27, in Alaska. Monitoring was performed beginning in June 2019 using EOSense forced diffusion soil CO2 flux sensors at up to six sites characterized by varying vegetation cover, topographic position, and soil temperature and moisture. Dataset includes measurements of soil CO2 flux and chamber temperature. Time interval between measurements ranges from 5 minutes to 3 hours. Included are EOSense chamber locations as *.kml and *.png files, six *.csv files with measurements, and two *.csv reporting format files.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2012

Monitoring Ocean CO2 Fluxes from Space: GOSAT and OCO-2

The ocean is a major component of the global carbon cycle, emitting over 330 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere each year, or about 10 times that emitted fossil fuel combustion and all other human activities [1, 2]. The ocean reabsorbs a comparable amount of CO2 each year, along with ~25% of the CO2 emitted by these human activities. The nature and geographic distribution of the processes controlling these ocean CO2 fluxes are still poorly constrained by observations. A better understanding of these processes is essential to predict how this important CO2 sink may evolve as the climate changes.While in situ measurements of ocean CO2 fluxes can be very precise, the sampling density is far too sparse to quantify ocean CO2 sources and sinks over much of the globe. One way to improve the spatial resolution, coverage, and sampling frequency is to make observations of the column averaged CO2 dry air mole fraction, XCO2, from space [4, 5, 6]. Such measurements could provide global coverage at high resolution (< 100 km) on monthly time scales. High precision (< 1 part per million, ppm) is essential to resolve the small, near-surface CO2 variations associated with ocean fluxes and to better constrain the CO2 transport over the ocean. The Japanese Greenhouse gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) and the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) were first two space based sensors designed specifically for this task. GOSAT was successfully launched on January 23, 2009, and has been returning measurements of XCO2 since April 2009. The OCO mission was lost in February 2009, when its launch vehicle malfunctioned and failed to reach orbit. In early 2010, NASA authorized a re-flight of OCO, called OCO-2, which is currently under development.

GOSAT↗
NASA NTRS2003

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission

This viewgraph presentation gives a general overview of The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission. The contents include: 1) The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO); 2) Why Measure CO2?; 3) An Uncertain Future; 4) Monitoring CO2 from Space; 5) Validation Program Ensures Accuracy and Minimizes Spatially Coherent Biases; 6) The OCO Instrument; 7) The OCO Spacecraft; 8) Mission Operations and Data Downlink; 9) OCO Data Products; 10) OCO Data Product Summary; 11) OCO in the A-Train; 12) Summary; and 13) Simulated Performance.

Pathfinder Program↗
NASA NTRS2016

Characterization of Carbon Dioxide Washout Measurement Techniques in the Mark-III Space Suit

Providing adequate carbon dioxide (CO2) washout is essential to the reduction of risk in performing suited operations. Long term CO2 exposure can lead to symptoms such as headache, lethargy, dizziness, and in severe cases can lead to unconsciousness and death. Thus maintaining adequate CO2 washout in both ground testing and during in flight EVAs is a requirement of current and future suit designs. It is necessary to understand the inspired CO2 of suit wearers such that future requirements for space suits appropriately address the risk of inadequate washout. Testing conducted by the EVA Physiology Laboratory at the NASA Johnson Space Center aimed to characterize a method for noninvasively measuring inspired oronasal CO2 under pressurized suited conditions in order to better inform requirements definition and verification techniques for future CO2 washout limits in space suits. Prior work conducted by the EPL examined several different wearable, respirator style, masks that could be used to sample air from the vicinity surround the nose and mouth of a suited test subject. Previously published studies utilized these masks, some being commercial products and some novel designs, to monitor CO2 under various exercise and flow conditions with mixed results for repeatability and/or consistency between subjects. Based on a meta-analysis of those studies it was decided to test a nasal cannula as it is a commercially available device that is placed directly in the flow path of the user as they breathe. A nasal cannula was used to sample air inhaled by the test subjects during both rest and exercise conditions. Eight subjects were tasked with walking on a treadmill or operating an arm ergometer to reach target metabolic rates of 1000, 2000, and 3000 BTU/hr. Suit pressure was maintained at 4.3 psid for all tests, with supply flow rates of 6, 4, and 2 actual cubic feet per minute depending on the test condition. Each test configuration was conducted twice with subjects breathing either through their nose only, or however they felt comfortable. By restricting breathing through a single orifice, we are able to more accurately define exactly what flow stream the sampled CO2 is taken from. Oronasal CO2 was monitored using real time infrared gas analyzers fed via sample tubes connected to the nasal cannula within the suit. Two additional sampling tubes were placed at the head and chin of the test subject, in an effort to capture CO2 concentrations across the entire flow stream of the Mark-III vent system (flow path is head to neck). Metabolic rate was calculated via the exhaust CO2 concentration and used to adjust subject workload on either the treadmill or arm ergometer until the target was reached. Forward work will aim to characterize the historically accepted minimum ppCO2 in suit during EVA by repeating this study in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) space suit. This will help to define washout requirements for future suits, be they NASA (e.g. Z-2) or Commercial Crew designed. Additionally it is important to determine the functional consequences of CO2 exposure during EVA. Severe CO2 symptoms are a result of very high concentration, acute exposures. While long term, low concentration exposures have been shown to result in slight cognitive decline, symptoms resolve upon quickly returning to nominal concentrations and it remains unknown the impact that minor deficits in cognitive performance can have on EVA performance.

Norcross, J.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
NASA NTRS2015

Development of Double and Triple-Pulsed 2-micron IPDA Lidars for Column CO2 Measurements

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to the carbon cycle and globalradiation budget on Earth. CO2 role on Earth’s climate is complicated due to different interactions with various climatecomponents that include the atmosphere, the biosphere and the hydrosphere. Although extensive worldwide efforts formonitoring atmospheric CO2 through various techniques, including in-situ and passive sensors, are taking place highuncertainties exist in quantifying CO2 sources and sinks. These uncertainties are mainly due to insufficient spatial andtemporal mapping of the gas. Therefore it is required to have more rapid and accurate CO2 monitoring with higheruniform coverage and higher resolution. CO2 DIAL operating in the 2-μm band offer better near-surface CO2measurement sensitivity due to the intrinsically stronger absorption lines. For more than 15 years, NASA LangleyResearch Center (LaRC) contributed in developing several 2-m CO2 DIAL systems and technologies. This paperfocuses on the current development of the airborne double-pulsed and triple-pulsed 2-m CO2 integrated pathdifferential absorption (IPDA) lidar system at NASA LaRC. This includes the IPDA system development andintegration. Results from ground and airborne CO2 IPDA testing will be presented. The potential of scaling suchtechnology to a space mission will be addressed.

Singh, Upendra N.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Stem CO2 Efflux measurements from Manaus, Brazil, 2017

This data was collected in order to test the effects of temperatures on the autotrophic respiratory process in the tropics. This data package contains raw real-time stem CO2 efflux files during the night and day from 3 different species near the K34 in Manaus during the day and the night. Raw and derived data files are included in the format of .csv and .xlsx and information about the canopy trees and temperatures recorded can be found in the field event log using microsoft excel. The data was collected from three canopy dominant trees in the central Amazon near the K34 tower. Real-time stem CO2 efflux was determined using a Li7000 gas analyzer configured in differential mode and connected to a dynamic stem chamber secured to the stem at breast height using straps to generate a reasonable seal. Ambient air was continuously pumped into the stem chamber and CO2 concentrations of the air entering and exiting the chamber were continuously monitored. CO2 efflux was calculated based on the CO2 concentration difference between ambient and stem chambers, the flow rate of air through the chamber, and the area of the enclosed stem. Additional auxiliary data, including sap flow and crown temperature were also measured. No data processing or QA/QC was done on the raw data packages.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1984

Three dimensional global modeling of atmospheric CO2

The initial attempts to model the atmospheric CO2 distribution, including couplings to the ocean and biosphere as sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2, encourage the notion that this approach will lead to useful quantitative constraints on CO2 fluxes. Realization of this objective will require: (1) continued improvement in the realism of the global transport modeling; (2) extended timeline of atmospheric CO2 monitoring, which improved precision and improved definition of the uncertainties in the measured CO2 amounts; and (3) given an accurate knowledge of model capabilities and limitations and given a good understanding of CO2 observations and their limitations, there is a need for good ideas concerning what quantitative information on the carbon cycle can be inferred from global modeling.

Hanse, J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Acute and Chronic Exposure to CO2 in Space Flight

Spacecraft and space stations, similar to other habitable confined spaces such as submarines, need to provide a breathable atmosphere for their inhabitants. The inevitable production of CO2 during respiration necessitates life support systems that "scrub" the atmosphere and lower CO2 levels. Due to operational limitations associated with space flight (limited mass, volume, power, and consumables) CO2 is not scrubbed down to its terrestrial equivalent of 0.03% CO2 (ppCO2 of 0.23 mmHg), but is kept below 0.7% (ppCO2 of 5.3 mmHg), a level established in NASA s 180-day mission Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentration (SMAC) to be safe and unlikely to cause symptoms. Reports of space flight crewmembers becoming symptomatic with headaches, fatigue, and malaise at levels below those known to cause such symptoms terrestrially has prompted studies measuring the levels of CO2 on both the space shuttle and the space station. Data from cabin atmosphere sampling were collected on space shuttle missions STS-113, STS-122, STS-123, and International Space Station Expeditions 12-15 and 17, and the measured CO2 levels were then correlated to symptoms reported by the crew. The results indicate that a correlation exists between CO2 levels and symptomatology, however causality cannot be established at this time. While the short-term effects of elevated CO2 exposure are well known terrestrially, less is known regarding potential long-term effects of prolonged exposure to a CO2-rich environment or how the physiological changes caused by microgravity may interact with such exposures. Other challenges include limitations in the CO2 monitors used, lack of convection in the microgravity environment, and formation of localized CO2 pockets. As it is unclear if the unique environment of space increases sensitivity to CO2 or if other confounding factors are present, further research is planned to elucidate these points. At the same time, efforts are underway to update the SMAC to a lower level

Alexander, D.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Application of Electromagnetic Methods for Reservoir Monitoring with Emphasis on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage

The Controlled-Source ElectroMagnetic (CSEM) method provides crucial information about reservoir fluids and their spatial distribution. Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal exploration, and lithium exploration are ideal applications for the CSEM method. The versatility of CSEM permits its customization to specific reservoir objectives by selecting the appropriate components of a multi-component system. To effectively tailor the CSEM approach, it is essential to determine whether the primary target reservoir is resistive or conductive. This task is relatively straightforward in CO2 monitoring, where the injected fluid is resistive. However, for scenarios involving brine-saturated (water-wet) or oil-wet (carbon capture, utilization, and storage—CCUS) reservoirs, consideration must also be given to conductive reservoir components. The optimization of data acquisition before the survey involves analyzing target parameters and the sensitivity of multi-component CSEM. This optimization process typically includes on-site noise measurements and 3D anisotropic modeling. Based on our experience, subsequent surveys tend to proceed smoothly, yielding robust measurements that align with scientific objectives. Other critical aspects to be considered are using magnetotelluric (MT) measurements to define the overall background resistivities and integrating real-time quality assurance during data acquisition with 3D modeling. This integration allows the fine tuning of acquisition parameters such as acquisition time and necessary repeats. As a result, data can be examined in real-time to assess subsurface information content while the acquisition is ongoing. Consequently, high-quality data sets are usually obtained for subsequent processing and initial interpretation with minimal user intervention. The implementation of sensitivity analysis during the inversion process plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the acquired data accurately respond to the target reservoirs’ expected depth range. To elucidate these concepts, we present an illustrative example from a CO2 storage site in North Dakota, USA, wherein the long-offset transient electromagnetic method (LOTEM), a variation of the CSEM method, and the MT method were utilized. This example showcases how surface measurements attain appropriately upscaled log-scale sensitivity. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the CSEM and MT methods was examined in other case histories, where the target reservoirs exhibited conductive properties, such as those encountered in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal, and lithium exploration applications. The same equipment specifications were utilized for CSEM and MT surveys across all case studies.

Barajas-Olalde, César↗
NASA NTRS2015

Lidar Measurements of Atmospheric CO2 From Regional to Global Scales

Atmospheric CO2 is a critical forcing for the Earth's climate and the knowledge on its distributions and variations influences predictions of the Earth's future climate. Large uncertainties in the predictions persist due to limited observations. This study uses the airborne Intensity-Modulated Continuous-Wave (IMCW) lidar developed at NASA Langley Research Center to measure regional atmospheric CO2 spatio-temporal variations. Further lidar development and demonstration will provide the capability of global atmospheric CO2 estimations from space, which will significantly advances our knowledge on atmospheric CO2 and reduce the uncertainties in the predictions of future climate. In this presentation, atmospheric CO2 column measurements from airborne flight campaigns and lidar system simulations for space missions will be discussed. A measurement precision of approx.0.3 ppmv for a 10-s average over desert and vegetated surfaces has been achieved. Data analysis also shows that airborne lidar CO2 column measurements over these surfaces agree well with in-situ measurements. Even when thin cirrus clouds present, consistent CO2 column measurements between clear and thin cirrus cloudy skies are obtained. Airborne flight campaigns have demonstrated that precise atmospheric column CO2 values can be measured from current IM-CW lidar systems, which will lead to use this airborne technique in monitoring CO2 sinks and sources in regional and continental scales as proposed by the NASA Atmospheric Carbon and Transport â€" America project. Furthermore, analyses of space CO2 measurements shows that applying the current IM-CW lidar technology and approach to space, the CO2 science goals of space missions will be achieved, and uncertainties in CO2 distributions and variations will be reduced.

Lin, Bing↗
DOE OSTI2020

Towards real-time monitoring: data assimilated time-lapse full waveform inversion for seismic velocity and uncertainty estimation

SUMMARY Rapid development of time-lapse seismic monitoring instrumentations has made it possible to collect dense time-lapse data for tomographically retrieving time-lapse (even continuous) images of subsurface changes. While traditional time-lapse full waveform inversion (TLFWI) algorithms are designed for sparse time-lapse surveys, they lack of effective temporal constraint on time-lapse data, and, more importantly, lack of the uncertainty estimation of the TLFWI results that is critical for further interpretation. Here, we propose a new data assimilation TLFWI method, using hierarchical matrix powered extended Kalman filter (HiEKF) to quantify the image uncertainty. Compared to existing Kalman filter algorithms, HiEKF allows to store and update a data-sparse representation of the cross-covariance matrices and propagate model errors without expensive operations involving covariance matrices. Hence, HiEKF is computationally efficient and applicable to 3-D TLFWI problems. Then, we reformulate TLFWI in the framework of HiEKF (termed hereafter as TLFWI-HiEKF) to predict time-lapse images of subsurface spatiotemporal velocity changes and simultaneously quantify the uncertainty of the inverted velocity changes over time. We demonstrate the validity and applicability of TLFWI–HiEKF with two realistic CO2 monitoring models derived from Frio-II and Cranfield CO2 injection sites, respectively. In both 2-D and 3-D examples, the inverted high-resolution time-lapse velocity results clearly reveal a continuous velocity reduction due to the injection of CO2. Moreover, the accuracy of the model is increasing over time by assimilating more time-lapse data while the standard deviation is decreasing over lapsed time. We expect TLFWI-HiEKF to be equipped with real-time seismic monitoring systems for continuously imaging the distribution of subsurface gas and fluids in the future large-scale CO2 sequestration experiments and reservoir management.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessing the Value of Seismic Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) Attributes for CO2 Storage Project Using a Bayesian Network Model for Decision Support

Attributes versus offset (AVO) are a set of measurements to analyze how the characteristics of reflected seismic waves change as a function of the offset. It can be useful for monitoring CO2 storage sites because the presence of leaked CO2 into the overlying aquifer can change the properties of the rocks and pore fluids composition that can alter the way seismic waves reflect and their amplitudes. The time-lapse changes in AVO attributes derived from repeat seismic surveys can help identify anomalies or shifts in the subsurface that could potentially be used as an indicator for CO2 leak detection. Our study leverages multiple seismic attributes derived from synthetic seismic data and Bayesian network model to quantify the probability of leak detection in the overlying aquifer above the storage reservoir. It helps to quantify the value of individual seismic attributes at multiple monitoring periods based upon their sensitivities.

Kumar, Abhash↗
NASA NTRS2015

Integrated Ultra-Wideband Tracking and Carbon Dioxide Sensing System Design for International Space Station Applications

A three-dimensional (3D) Ultra-Wideband (UWB) Time-of-Arrival (TOA) tracking system has been studied at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) to provide the tracking capability inside the International Space Station (ISS) modules for various applications. One of applications is to locate and report the location where crew experienced possible high level of carbon-dioxide (CO2) and felt upset. Recent findings indicate that frequent, short-term crew exposure to elevated CO2 levels combined with other physiological impacts of microgravity may lead to a number of detrimental effects, including loss of vision. To evaluate the risks associated with transient elevated CO2 levels and design effective countermeasures, doctors must have access to frequent CO2 measurements in the immediate vicinity of individual crew members along with simultaneous measurements of their location in the space environment. To achieve this goal, a small, low-power, wearable system that integrates an accurate CO2 sensor with an ultra-wideband (UWB) radio capable of real-time location estimation and data communication is proposed. This system would be worn by crew members or mounted on a free-flyer and would automatically gather and transmit sampled sensor data tagged with real-time, high-resolution location information. Under the current proposed effort, a breadboard prototype of such a system has been developed. Although the initial effort is targeted to CO2 monitoring, the concept is applicable to other types of sensors. For the initial effort, a micro-controller is leveraged to integrate a low-power CO2 sensor with a commercially available UWB radio system with ranging capability. In order to accurately locate those places in a multipath intensive environment like ISS modules, it requires a robust real-time location system (RTLS) which can provide the required accuracy and update rate. A 3D UWB TOA tracking system with two-way ranging has been proposed and studied. The designed system will be tested in the Wireless Habitat Testbed which simulates the ISS module environment. This report describes the research and development effort for this prototype integrated UWB tracking and CO2 sensing system. The remainder of the report is organized as follows. In Section II, the TOA tracking methodology is introduced and the 3D tracking algorithm is derived. The simulation results are discussed in Section III. In Section VI, prototype system design and field tests are discussed. Some concluding remarks and future works are presented in Section V.

Ni, Jianjun (David)↗