SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This project has characterized the bulk emission properties of carbon nanotube (CNT) forest cathodes fabricated with varied geometries. The overall goal of the project has been to evaluate CNT forest cathodes as a potential replacement for thermionic cathodes currently used in accelerator systems.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Not provided.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is required to stabilize global temperature. CDR can be achieved via ecosystem-based approaches that are cost-effective but reversible (e.g., soil and forest management) or by more durable but expensive approaches (e.g., direct air capture coupled with geologic storage). Here, we examine trade-offs between these approaches, focusing on timing, climate impacts, and cost. We simulated reversible carbon accrual for a range of CDR contract structures using a general minimalist model of ecosystem carbon cycling, and parameterized it to simulate US agricultural soil management─specifically cover cropping─as a case study. We then quantified the resulting impact on atmospheric carbon and global temperature using a climate model emulator. We find that maintaining a patchwork of reversible CDR projects by replacing lapsed projects with new projects can reduce warming by 22–195 μ°C in 2100 and that the magnitude of this cooling effect depends on how effectively the patchwork is maintained. Long-term maintenance of reversible CDR projects requires institutional stability that cannot be guaranteed over multiple decades. Consequently, effective CDR ultimately requires replacing reversible projects with durable projects. To address this problem, we modeled the cost of replacing reversible agricultural soil CDR with geologic CDR. We found that using reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR is potentially more cost-effective as a global cooling strategy (0.20–0.81 billion USD per μ°C avoided) than perpetual maintenance of reversible CDR (0.32–1.31 billion USD per μ°C avoided) or an immediate transition to durable CDR (1.37–2.19 billion USD per μ°C avoided). However, we emphasize that institutional commitments to maintain reversible CDR projects cannot be guaranteed. Reliance on reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR therefore carries an unknown amount of risk and will only function if efforts to maintain reversible CDR are robust.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Battelle–Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contracts to Battelle at Richland facilities on both the DOE Hanford Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Richland campus. These facilities have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The PNNL contract with DOE also includes operations at the PNNL-Sequim campus in Sequim, where there is also the potential for radionuclide air emissions. This document is a periodic update that describes current PNNL facility emission units and sampling systems. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP [40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart H]) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Emission units are registered with the State of Washington. Potential emissions from emission units are assessed annually by PNNL staff. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based on the potential to-emit dose criteria, a graded approach to facility-identified potential impact categories, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled emission units, the building, exhaust unit, control technologies, and sample extraction details are provided. Additionally, applicable configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are included. For non-sampled emission units, emission estimation and radionuclide source details are provided. Site-wide permits for the lowest potential impact category are described. Deregistered/transitioned emission unit details are also provided as necessary for at least 5 years post-closure/transition. Currently, five emission units are sampled continuously for particulate radionuclides at PNNL managed facilities on the PNNL-Richland campus (3 of the 5) and on the Hanford Site (2 of the 5). Four of these units have sampling systems that comply with the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1–2011 standard for sampling from stacks and ducts of nuclear facilities, and the fifth is grandfathered and compliant with the older ANSI N13.1–1969 standard. In addition, the PNNL-managed Hanford Site 325 Building EP 325-01-S stack is sampled continuously for emissions of tritium. No emissions sampling is required for the single licensed emission unit on the PNNL-Sequim campus.
With changing demands in regulation, understanding methane emissions from offshore oil and gas production infrastructure has become increasingly important. Reported emissions from facilities in the Gulf of Mexico range from zero to thousands of tons of methane per hour, but these is currently no clear understanding of how this range compares to expected emissions from normally operating facilities. To generate realistic emission estimates, we create two bottom-up models that simulate emissions from facilities operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We estimate type 1 prototypical facilities (typically unmanned, older, lower-producing platforms in shallow water with little processing equipment, compressors, or storage tanks) to emit an average of 13 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.7% of the average facility production. Type 2 prototypical facilities (continuously manned, higher production and operate in deeper water with processing equipment, oil storage tanks, compressors and power generation) emit an average of 88 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.5% of production. The average measured emission from type 1 facilities was 18 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 8%. The average measured emission from type 2 facilities was 36 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 2.4%. Using emission factors that consider the long-tail emission distribution partly reconciles the difference between modelled and measured emission estimates, but we suggest the current the fugitive emission estimate may be an underestimate and more data on the number and size of fugitive emissions could explain differences between the modelled and measured emission estimate. We suggest the bottom-up approach described here that uses production data coupled with facility equipment could be used to identify facilities that have abnormally large measured emissions, caused by methodological failure or larger than expected fugitive emissions, which should be targeted for further evaluation resulting in remeasurement or identification of source type so that a more accurate estimates can be made on the absolute emission.
Methane (CH 4 ) is a major component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas. Increasing atmospheric methane concentrations are attributed to emissive anthropogenic activities by an average of 13 ppb per yr since 2020 and are linked to a changing global climate. Mitigating CH 4 emissions from oil and gas production sites has recently become a target to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions; however, monitoring the efficacy of mitigation strategies depends on accurate quantification of CH 4 emissions at the facility-level. Near-field quantification of methane (CH 4 ) emissions from oil and gas (O&G) facilities remains challenging due to the effects of atmospheric variability and sensor configuration on atmospheric dispersion models. This study evaluates the performance of two atmospheric dispersion models, the Gaussian plume (GP) and backward Lagrangian stochastic (bLS), by comparing calculated CH 4 emissions to controlled single-point emissions between 0.4 and 5.2 kg CH 4 h −1 . Emissions were calculated by both models using 121 individual sets of measurements comprising five-minute averaged downwind methane mixing ratios and matching meteorological data. The comparison shows that the bLS approach achieved a higher proportion of emission estimates within a factor of two (FAC2) of the known emission rates compared to the GP approach. The emissions calculated by the bLS model also had a lower multiplicative error and reduced bias relative to GP. Other error-based metrics further confirmed the bLS model performed better, as it yielded lower RMSE and MAE than GP. Statistical analysis of the emission data shows that the lateral and vertical alignment of the source and the sensor plays a critical role in emission estimations, as measurements made closer to the plume centerline and at a distance between 40 and 80 m downwind yielded the best FAC2 agreement. High wind meander degraded the ability of both approaches to generate representative emissions, particularly with the GP approach, as it violates the modeling approach’s assumption of steady-state emissions. Data suggest emissions calculated by the bLS model are comprehensively in better agreement, but the computational demands of the modeling approach and integration into fenceline systems limit real-time applicability. While these results provide insight into model performance under controlled near-field conditions, their applicability to more complex or heterogeneous oil and gas production environments (e.g., the regions Marcellus or Unita Basins) remains limited and uncertain.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas with a 25 times higher 100-year warming potential than carbon dioxide and is a target for mitigation to achieve climate goals. To control and curb methane emissions, estimates are required from the sources and sectors which are typically generated using bottom-up methods. However, recent studies have shown that national and international bottom-up approaches can significantly underestimate emissions. In this study, we present three bottom-up approaches used to estimate methane emissions from all emission sectors in the Denver-Julesburg basin, CO, USA. Our data show emissions generated from all three methods are lower than historic measurements. A Tier 1/2 approach using IPCC emission factors estimated 2022 methane emissions of 358 Gg (0.8% of produced methane lost by the energy sector), while a Tier 3 EPA-based approach estimated emissions of 269 Gg (0.2%). Using emission factors informed by contemporary and region-specific measurement studies, emissions of 212 Gg (0.2%) were calculated. The largest difference in emissions estimates were a result of using the Mechanistic Air Emissions Simulator (MAES) for the production and transport of oil and gas in the DJ basin. The MAES accounts for changes to regulatory practice in the DJ basin, which include comprehensive requirements for compressors, pneumatics, equipment leaks, and fugitive emissions, which were implemented to reduce emissions starting in 2014. The measurement revealed that normalized gas loss is predicted to have been reduced by a factor of 20 when compared to 10-year-old normalization loss measurements and a factor of 10 less than a nearby oil and production area (Delaware basin, TX); however, we suggest that more measurements should be made to ensure that the long-tail emission distribution has been captured by the modeling. This study suggests that regulations implemented by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment could have reduced emissions by a factor of 20, but contemporary regional measurements should be made to ensure these bottom-up calculations are realistic.
Significantly reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector can decrease the rate of climate change over the next two decades, buying critical time for a global energy transition. However, emissions inventories that can be used by oil and gas operators and environmental regulators to identify optimal methane emission mitigation strategies are either based on conservative emission factor methods, or are inconsistent between studies due to differences in sampling strategies or survey technologies. We developed a new approach for methane emissions survey design that yields representative basinwide methane emissions inventories by surveying a subset of total assets in a given oil and gas basin. We identify several sampling and analysis principles, including large sample sizes, balanced sampling across oil and gas production, careful survey area definition, and a unified protocol for analysis, to be vital to producing an unbiased estimate of basin-scale emissions that can be reconciled with future studies. We further present results from deploying this strategy in two oil and gas producing regions in the United States: the Haynesville Basin in Texas and Louisiana, and the Woodford Shale in the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma. Aerial surveys were performed in 2023 using the Insight M LeakSurveyor™ technology. Preliminary results from methane emissions detected by Insight M indicate that aerially detected emissions above roughly 30 kg(CH4)/hr by themselves contribute a fractional loss rate of 1.13% of gross gas production across oil and gas operations in the Haynesville Basin, with aerially detected emissions equivalent to 2.67% of gross gas production in the Woodford Shale. We supplement these aerial estimates with modeled emissions that are below the LeakSurveyor’s survey sensitivity using a recently published inventory-based model of methane emissions, which we update for our survey areas. We then combine our aerial detections with modeled emissions to yield methane emission distributions and inventories that incorporate the full range of potential methane emissions from the smallest to the largest. These results can be used to identify the most effective methane mitigation strategies for our study areas, and can be reconciled with future methane emissions surveys that use different technologies.
Spanning the US states of Texas and New Mexico, the Permian Basin has been a hotspot of methane emissions from oil and natural gas activity 1–4, although studies disagree over the magnitude of these emissions. The most comprehensive measurement campaigns published were conducted in 2019 1–5 .There have been large changes in the energy industry since then, including in the prices of oil and gas, both state and federal regulatory environments, investor and activist pressure over methane emissions, and the adoption of new technologies and policies by energy operators. Understanding how any or all of these might influence methane emissions is important for policy makers, oil and gas operators, and other stakeholders. We characterize the time evolution of Permian Basin methane emissions using a series of comprehensive aerial surveys conducted every year from 2020-2023 and compare them to the 2019 results cited above. To maintain comparability, all the data sets are from surveys using Insight M point source methane sensing technology. The scope of these surveys expanded over time: from 33-46% of wells, oil production, and gas production in 2020 to 60-65% in 2021, to 84% of wells and over 90% of both oil and gas production in 2023. These surveys by Insight M also include hundreds of gas processing plants and compressor stations as well as 1000s of km of gathering and transmission pipelines. Considering only the aerially detected portion of emissions (typically the majority of the total in such surveys 4), we find reductions of more than 70% in methane emissions intensity compared to the 2019 New Mexico-only Insight M survey, with variation depending on the year 3,4. Notably, although sources below 100 kg/hr contributed less than 10% of aerially measured emissions the 2019 New Mexico survey 3, these smaller sources constitute a larger proportion of total aerially measured emissions (although not the majority) in 2020-2023. Production facilities and gathering pipelines are responsible for the larges shares of total emissions, followed by compressor stations and gas processing plants. Permian methane emissions were also measured in a comprehensive 2019 Permian-wide survey by the Carbon Mapper team 2. That analysis led to a lower total emissions estimate at the time 4. These new Insight M-based emission rates are still roughly 30-70% lower than the aerially measured portion of the 2019 Carbon Mapper-based estimates 4. Further work is needed to harmonize these surveys in space and time to create the most intercomparable numbers possible 5. Additional analysis is needed to compare our findings to the more spatially constrained 2020, 2021, and 2023 Carbon Mapper surveys in the Permian 4,6. The evidence is strong from these two survey teams that emissions intensity has declined significantly since 2019. Reasons for this trend are currently unclear but point to possible success of emissions control programs. Future work investigating frequency, source, and operator-specific intensities could provide insights into the causes of this promising trend.
Correction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07117-5 Published online 13 March 2024 In the version of the article initially published, several errors were present and have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article and Supplementary Information. The main results, conclusions, and our interpretations of the data remain unchanged. See the new Supplementary Information Section S15 for a more detailed description of the errors corrected and the resulting effects on the analysis. Data processing and methods corrections Overflight count correction: We previously used pre-computed source coverage data for some Carbon Mapper campaigns that was computed differently than was required for our analysis. We have re-computed Carbon Mapper source coverage based on flightline polygons and source coordinates. Transition point computation, well sites: The updated version now correctly compares the cumulative emissions distribution of simulated well site emissions with that of aerially detected sources (rather than plumes) when computing the transition point. Transition point computation, midstream: Additionally, the transition point calculation has been corrected to exclude aerially detected midstream emissions below the transition point, which was previously leading to double counting of these emissions. This error was not present for upstream (well site) emissions. Calculation errors Unit error: We corrected a specific unit conversion error affecting well site emissions in the Kairos Fort Worth dataset. Across all datasets, we also correct the conversion factor for converting from standard volume to mass for midstream emissions. Sorting error: We correct code that was applying incorrect sorting when computing correction factors to account for partial detection at well sites. Small typographical corrections were made in Fig. 1b and SI Section S4.1. Data processing and methods corrections Overflight count correction: We previously used pre-computed source coverage data for some Carbon Mapper campaigns that was computed differently than was required for our analysis. We have re-computed Carbon Mapper source coverage based on flightline polygons and source coordinates. Transition point computation, well sites: The updated version now correctly compares the cumulative emissions distribution of simulated well site emissions with that of aerially detected sources (rather than plumes) when computing the transition point. Transition point computation, midstream: Additionally, the transition point calculation has been corrected to exclude aerially detected midstream emissions below the transition point, which was previously leading to double counting of these emissions. This error was not present for upstream (well site) emissions. Calculation errors Unit error: We corrected a specific unit conversion error affecting well site emissions in the Kairos Fort Worth dataset. Across all datasets, we also correct the conversion factor for converting from standard volume to mass for midstream emissions. Sorting error: We correct code that was applying incorrect sorting when computing correction factors to account for partial detection at well sites. Small typographical corrections were made in Fig. 1b and SI Section S4.1. The following practices may help researchers conducting similar analyses avoid making similar errors: 1, Clear, accessible documentation explaining the interpretation of all columns in data input tables and all internal variables within the model, 2, Simple cross-check calculations computed before and after unit conversions.
Under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, tax credits of up to $3/kgH 2 are available to hydrogen producers if they generate emissions at levels below 0.45 kgCO 2 e/kgH 2 , spurring producers to explore how hydrogen production via electrolysis using electricity generated by nuclear power may qualify for such tax credits. With uranium as a primary fuel for nuclear power plants (NPPs) and no on-site emissions, the upstream emissions associated with nuclear fuel supply chains largely determine the carbon intensity of nuclear energy. Using the GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies) model, we evaluated the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of uranium production and the use of uranium to generate electricity in light water reactor (LWR) NPPs. We evaluated the process chemicals and energy inputs throughout the nuclear fuel supply chain to identify the major contributors to nuclear fuel cycle GHG emissions. Such emissions are estimated at 3.0 gCO 2 e/kWh at NPPs in the United States. The greatest share of nuclear fuel cycle GHG emissions—comprising 53% of total emissions—are associated with electricity consumption throughout the fuel supply chain. We extended the analysis to include an evaluation of the carbon intensity of H 2 production via electrolysis using nuclear power from LWRs. Finally, we examined the impact of future (2035 and 2050) electricity supply chain scenarios on nuclear fuel cycle GHG emissions. Our analysis revealed a decrease of 33% (2035) and 46% (2050) in the carbon intensity of nuclear electricity relative to current nuclear fuel cycle GHG emissions.
This study presents a cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for U.S. medium- and heavy-duty vehicles across current (2021) and future (2035) technologies using the Greenhouse gas, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model with industry-vetted assumptions. Results vary across vehicle classes but point to common trends: today, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) offer significant (10–60%) GHG emissions reduction compared to diesel internal combustion engine vehicles and are the lowest emissions option per ton-mile of cargo movement, followed by hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) (5–50% emissions reduction). Emissions savings depend largely on the duty cycle and fuel economy of the vehicle type. Future vehicle technology advancements result in comparable emission reductions associated with BEVs and hydrogen FCEVs. Weight-limited BEV trucks see less per-ton-mile emissions reduction due to the impact of battery weight on increased vehicle weight and reduced payload capacity. By 2035, improvements in vehicle efficiency can reduce emissions across all powertrains. However, very low levels of emissions require switching vehicles’ use-phase fuel/energy to low-carbon fuels and electricity. Renewable diesel, e-fuels, hydrogen produced from natural gas with carbon capture and storage or renewables, and use of low-carbon electricity can all achieve over 70% reduction in GHG emissions from the current day diesel-based internal combustion engine vehicle.
Abstract Global production of building materials is a primary contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but the production of these materials is necessary for modern infrastructure and society. Understanding the GHG emissions from building materials production in the context of their function is critical to decarbonizing this important sector. In this work, we present estimates of global production, approximate ranges of GHG emissions, and ranges of material properties of 12 critical building material classes to provide a unified dataset across material types. This dataset drew from industry analyses of production and emissions, ranges of emission factors within a material type, and broad reporting of thermal and mechanical properties to compare both within and between material types. Globally, in 2019, we estimate 42.8 Gt of these 12 materials were produced, with 38.6 Gt used in the building and construction industry. As a result of this production, 9.3 Gt of CO 2 was emitted, or 25% of global fossil GHG emissions, with 5.8 Gt CO 2 (16% of global GHG emissions) due to materials used in construction applications. Both construction material production and emissions are primarily driven by structural materials, such as concrete and steel. Material selection can play a key role in reducing emissions in the context of the function, with variation in emissions of structural materials per unit strength between 0.001–0.1 kg CO 2 /kg/MPa and in insulation materials per R -value/thickness of 0.018–0.14 kg CO 2 /kg/(K⋅m 2 W −1 ))). The developed dataset can play a key role in supporting decision-making in materials by providing a unified source for examining emissions, material properties, and quantity of material produced.
This numerical study explores the optimization of Prechamber Enabled Mixing-Controlled Combustion (PC-MCC) using natural gas in heavy-duty engines, aiming to enhance combustion efficiency to minimize methane slip and NOx emissions. The approach involves a prechamber ignition system, distinct from conventional spark ignition (SI) systems, to initiate combustion of direct injected natural gas. By leveraging the robust ignition characteristics of the prechamber, the PC-MCC method demonstrates significant potential in achieving efficient combustion akin to diesel engines but with lower greenhouse gas emissions. The research evaluates the effects of various geometric and operational parameters on the combustion process and emissions, including prechamber volume, nozzle diameter, direct injector (DI) geometry, and engine operating strategies. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations are utilized, focusing on a heavy-duty, single-cylinder engine modeled after the Caterpillar C9.3B engine. Key findings indicate that a prechamber volume of 3 cc, coupled with a nozzle diameter of 2.75 mm for two prechamber holes, strikes an optimal balance between combustion efficiency and emissions reduction. This configuration ensures robust combustion across a range of operating conditions while maintaining methane slip within targeted limits. Further investigation into DI geometry shows the significance of the injector umbrella angle and nozzle diameter in shaping the fuel-air mixing and combustion dynamics. An umbrella angle of 130° and a nozzle diameter of 300 microns are identified as optimal, promoting rapid and efficient combustion with minimized methane and NOx emissions. The study also investigates the impact of injection timing and pressure, highlighting their roles in controlling combustion timing and influencing emissions levels. Advanced injection timing is found to be crucial in achieving the desired low methane slip, whereas retarded injection timing assists to reduce NOx emissions while having a slight increase in methane emissions. Operating strategies incorporating various levels of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) are assessed for their effectiveness in further reducing emissions. The research demonstrates that a judicious combination of internal hot EGR and careful calibration of DI pressure and SOI timing can achieve significant reductions in NOx emissions while keeping methane slip under control. Specifically, an internal EGR level of 15%–25%, combined with DI pressures of 200–300 bar and injection timings at or after top dead center, is recommended. These findings contribute valuable insights into the development of advanced combustion techniques for natural gas engines, offering a viable pathway to reduce methane slip without compromising engine efficiency or performance. The PC-MCC system presents a promising solution for the future of heavy-duty natural gas engine technology to reduce methane emissions.
The United States has set a target to achieve the net-zero economy by 2050. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) is one of the promising negative-emission routes in the mitigation portfolio to help meet this goal. Coal-biomass co-firing with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key BECCS technology to realize the carbon mitigation at fossil-fuel power plants. The mitigation potential of co-firing option is affected by numerous critical factors, such as biomass properties, co-firing level, and carbon capture rate. The objectives of the study are to characterize and estimate the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and performance of coal-biomass co-firing power plants with CCS, determine the breakeven co-firing level at power plants necessary to achieve net-zero life cycle emissions, and quantify the variabilities and uncertainties in life cycle emissions. The scope of the life cycle assessment includes the fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. A fuel-based life cycle module is developed and embedded in the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. This study then applies the enhanced IECM to conduct the process-based life cycle assessment for an array of biomass co-firing scenarios. Deterministic analysis indicates that reaching net-zero life cycle emissions in a biomass co-firing plant without CCS deployment is challenging. Combining biomass co-firing and CCS deployment can significantly lower the overall life cycle emissions of power plants. Net-zero life cycle emissions can be achieved with a 20 wt.% co-firing level and 90% CCS when the Powder River Basin coal is co-fired with energy crops or forestry residues. However, the breakeven co-firing level for net-zero emissions depend on the selected fuel properties. Fuel supply and plant operation are the critical stages influencing the life cycle emissions of power plants with 90% CCS. Deployment of deep CCS beyond 90% CO2 capture can remarkably reduce operational emissions and the breakeven co-firing level. With 99% CCS, the breakeven co-firing rate can be reduced to 12% on average. These findings highlight the trade-offs between technical performance and environmental impact of biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants and emphasize the role of deep CCS in achieving a net-zero emissions future.