Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CO2 data collection”

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.

363 records · Page 21

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗

Emissions mitigation technology for advanced water-lean solvent-based CO 2 capture processes

This technical final report submitted to DOE/NETL presents all the research activities performed during the entirety of DE-FE0031660 project-Emissions Mitigation Technology for Advanced Water-Lean Solvent-Based CO 2 Capture Processes which spans from October 2018 through March 2022. RTI International has been conducting studies from fundamental and operational aspects to reduce the overall amine emissions from the advanced Water-Lean Solvent (WLS) systems, specifically RTI’s Non-Aqueous Solvent (NAS). This technical final report will highlight the key findings from project which align closely to the project objectives which are: Identify the contribution of vapor loss, entrainment, and aerosols to the overall emissions of water-lean systems; Determine the significance of CO 2 capture system operating parameters to the amine emissions; Develop an emissions model based on critical operating parameters; Evaluate the effectiveness of emissions mitigation devices to reduce the amine emissions to <1 ppm under flue coal-fired flue gas; and, Determine the contribution of the ECTs to the overall CO 2 capture cost. The following are the key findings based on numerous tests using both lab-scale setups and parametric testing performed at RTI’s Bench-scale Gas Absorption System (BsGAS). During the BP1, the aerosol generation system and monitoring equipment were installed at BsGAS to produce and determine the aerosol characteristics during the NAS CO 2 capture process. The aerosol produced by this setup produced aerosols with the peak diameter and concentration of 50 micron and 1.2E10 7 cm -3 , respectively. These particle sizes and concentrations are matched to those observed in the actual coal-fired power plant flue gases and expected to be found at the absorber inlet of the CO 2 capture system. Over 1,300 hours of parametric testing have been conducted to evaluate the impact of the aerosols and operating conditions during the CO 2 capture with NAS on the overall amine emissions in the treated flue gas. At the worse condition tested, the presence of the aerosols in the flue gas could increase the overall emissions by 10X compared to the baseline emissions from NAS’s vapor pressure. CO 2 capture rate was found to be a main factor impacting the overall emissions as well as aerosol size and concentrations in the absorber off-gas. The higher CO 2 capture rate, the higher amine emissions in the treated gas. The temperature difference between the temperature bulge seen in the absorber and the water wash temperature also impacts the particle growth where the larger the temperature difference, the more amine emissions from aerosols in the treated gas. The majority of the aerosols did not grow substantially in the system, and the particle concentrations remained nearly constant between the absorber inlet and wash outlet. Only a small portion of the particles were found to grow significantly. The high efficiency demister with mesh size of 5-10 micron can be installed to remove a portion of the aerosols from the gas stream leaving the water wash. Overall, these results from parametric testing have established the emission baseline and validate our assumption on the need of emission control technologies (ECT) in order to minimize the emissions from the baseline NAS CO 2 capture process. Over 2,000 of BsGAS operating hours was used to investigate a handful of process improvements which led to a selection of the vital few changes that effectively control the amine emissions. These process improvements are lime-coated-filters for absorber gas inlet, advanced demister at the top of the absorber, a second water wash with amine recovery unit were designed, installed, and tested at BsGAS at the end of BP1. The result showed that the NAS CO 2 capture process with these additional emission control devices could lower the amine emission in the treated gas to about 1 ppm using a simulated coal-fire flue gas stream. The main contributor in lowering the amine emission came from the second water wash with amine recovery unit where the amine concentration in the scrubbing water was kept below 2 wt% through a continuous amine removal via an adsorbent bed, resulting in a low amine vapor pressure. The adsorbent bed was regenerated via a direct steam regeneration and the recover amine was returned to the absorber to minimize wastewater and makeup amine. A flue gas generation system was designed and installed during the first half of BP2 to support the emission testing using a real coal-derived flue gas. The system is capable of generating both coal- and natural gas- derived flue gases with the composition of the gaseous species highly resemble to that of the power plant flue gases. The particulates detected in the coal-derived flue gas showed the mean diameter of 1 micron. The CO 2 capture operating was then proceed using the real coal-derived flue gas where the amine emission was controlled to be about 0-3 ppm for the total run time of about 200 hours. Similar testing was conducted with natural gas-derived flue gas and the result showed a highly amine emission of 30 ppm under the total run time of 200 hours. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the Partial Least Squares Projection to Latent Structures (PLS) techniques were applied to the parametric testing data to derive a multivariate statistical model. The model was validated and trained with half of the data collected, and the predictive ability of the model was evaluated using the remaining half of the data. The resulting empirical model was capable of predicting the overall emissions from the NAS process without the ECTs with ±15% accuracy (average absolute deviation, AAD) in BP1. As more emission data were obtained under the real coal-flue gas in the BP2, the model incorporated these new set of data to reflect the final process configuration, operating parameters, and amine emission. This results in the updated empirical model predicting the amine emission from the NAS CO 2 capture process with 84% goodness-of-fit (R 2 ), 85% predictability (Q 2 ), and 15% AAD. The study evaluates the use of RTI’s Non-Aqueous Solvent technology for 90% CO 2 capture from a net 650 MWe pulverized coal power plant, downstream of the flue-gas desulfurization unit. The captured CO 2 has a purity of > 95% CO 2 , and is dried, compressed to 15.3 MPa (2,215 psia), ready for sequestration. The analysis uses Case B12B from the DOE Baseline study on Bituminous Coal, Revision 4 where the Cansolv CO 2 capture plant is replaced by the RTI CO 2 Capture plant. The CO 2 capture plant has been sized to capture >90% CO 2 from flue gas derived from a net 650 MWe supercritical pulverized coal power plant. The CO 2 capture plant is equipped with emission control technologies that limits the amine emissions to < 1 ppm. Two different cases were evaluated for the technoeconomic study. The key difference between the two cases is the regenerator pressure. In Case 1, the regenerator operates at 0.195 MPa (28.3 psia), whereas in Case 2, the regenerator pressure is 0.44 MPa (64 psia) thus removing the need for the first stage of compression of the eight-stage compression train. Results from the TEA are compared against the DOE reference cases for SCPC plant with and without CO 2 Capture (Case B12A and Case B12B of the DOE Baseline study, respectively). Case 2 with CO 2 regeneration at higher pressure results in the lower cost of CO 2 capture. The total capital cost of the capture process has been estimated using 2018 dollars in Aspen Process Economic Analyzer and was estimated to be $579 MM. The capture plant operation leads to a total parasitic power loss rate of 96 MWe, resulting in a decrease in pulverized coal power plant efficiency of 7.8% points. The resulting cost of electric power increases from 64.4 mills/kWh, for no capture, to 97.5 mills/kWh, with 90% capture, an increase of 51% in the COE. The cost of capturing 90% CO 2 was estimated to be $38.2/tonne-CO 2 , and meets the DOE target of $40/t-CO 2 . Emission control technologies (ECT) investigated in this project includes a second water wash with use of activated carbon beds for removal of amine from the wash water prior to recirculation in the water wash. These ECT allow operation of the CO 2 capture plant with < 1 ppm amine emissions with the treated flue gas and contributes to $2.4/t-CO 2 captured. Amine emissions derived from thermal and oxidative degradations were investigated under this project along with the emissions derived from aerosols for the NAS system. The thermally degraded of the lean NAS showed less than 4% decreased of the original total amine content in the NAS at 150 °C while the result obtained at 120 °C showed no drop in total amine content, suggesting that thermal degradation of the NAS is minimal. These results also suggested that the thermally degraded species are not likely formed and contributed to the emissions due to the low regeneration temperature of the NAS at 90-105 °C. The oxidative degradation, on the other hand, could become problematic as some of these oxidative degraded species were observed during the NAS-5 testing at National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC) and SINTEF in our previous project. The rapid screening of selected inhibitors suggested that oxidative degradation of NAS can be suppressed using thiol containing compounds in amounts of at least 1 mol%. The detailed mechanistic degradation pathway was conceived for a specific amine used in NAS formulation during BP2. he reduction of the nitrosamines caused by the NO x present in the flue gas was also examined. The study suggested that the thermo-chemical treatment of the NAS solvent would be a more effective and economically viable compared to removing NO x at the DCC.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗