SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Coal Power Generator”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

362 records · Page 21

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗