SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Clean room”

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.

384 records · Page 22

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

Nuclear Decontamination Evolution and Revolution - 20349

Decontamination, one of the oldest practices in the nuclear industry, is about to change. While no single approach to decontamination is appropriate in all situations, decontamination of highly contaminated surfaces is historically viewed as difficult and/or marginally effective and fixatives and strippable coatings are often called on to manage time sensitive contamination control issues. The deferral of proper decontamination can lead to accumulated concentrations of radioactive material increasing the risk of cross-contamination of workers and equipment while also increasing radiation levels, which further discourages decontamination. The results of the subject testing demonstrate that superior decontamination factors are readily achievable and the ALARA benefit of decontamination is viable through advanced decontamination technologies in conjunction with innovative application techniques. The collateral benefits will save countless radiological man-hours and personnel radiological exposure. The appropriate use of radiological decontamination techniques can prevent or limit the adverse effects of highly radioactive contamination in the work area. High levels of radiological contamination are typically associated with some of the most physically demanding work in the nuclear industry. Additionally, working in highly contaminated environments increases the risk of exposure to elevated levels of airborne radioactivity and radiation from the source term of the contamination, particularly in hard to reach areas or complex equipment. Veolia's Alaron Nuclear Services (Alaron), a fully integrated nuclear facility, has provided the nuclear industry waste treatment, consolidation, repackaging, and broad decontamination services for almost 35 years. In looking at solutions for its customers, as well as for their own facility, Alaron has recently collaborated with Environmental Alternatives, Inc. (EAI), which has provided innovative solutions addressing difficult nuclear decontamination and industrial cleaning challenges since 1989. This broad range of experience along with the products to support the work created an ideal partner for Alaron's needs at their facility. The benefits of collaboration were immediately recognizable to the management of both companies although the decontamination challenge was significant. Due to the nature of the services offered, contamination at the Alaron facility is routine. The recent decontamination experience at Alaron utilized an innovative surfactant process that quickly produces remarkably higher decontamination factors for both removable surface contamination and fixed contamination. Considering the time to decontaminate areas historically designated for high radiological hazard work, the results from this decontamination effort not only reduced contamination levels but also significantly lowered exposure rates in the working environment. The relative ease with which the surfactant is applied, combined with extraordinary decontamination test results, indicates the potential to alter current radiological work processes in a way that improves worker comfort, and removes radiological engineering barriers, allowing Alaron to complete complex radiological tasks more efficiently and effectively. In a series of two simple applications of the decontamination agent to contaminated high bay vertical surfaces, as well as a variety of horizontal and vertical surfaces with variable porousness and surface sealants, there was an overall reduction in removable contamination of approximately 73% with a reduction in area dose of approximately 93%. The results indicate additional reduction in fixed contamination with application of the surfactant. These values are much higher than experienced with more traditional decontamination agents. In conjunction with demonstrating EAI's surfactant on room surfaces, additional studies were conducted on complex geometry equipment including waste processing equipment, tools, and heavily contaminated parts normally handled from Alaron's customers. Evaluations were made with straight application of EAI's surfactant as well as adding additional techniques to the treatment which afforded revolutionary improvements in the levels of contamination removed. Successful decontamination with up to 95% reduction in removable contamination with just one application were demonstrated in several of the trials. This paper outlines the planned approach to use this technology, the variety of surfaces and equipment treated, and the results of the decontamination efforts. Furthermore, this paper discusses options for pretreatment of certain heavily contaminated equipment prior to employees handling and/or working with the equipment. The potential for dose saving and the reduced risk of cross-contamination with the added benefit of lower PPE requirements, produces an enormous potential for cost and time savings. Attendees will benefit from Alaron's experiences and more fully understand the capabilities of EAI's decontamination process. With the variety of contamination agents, forms and surfaces on which the technology was demonstrated, the information will be valuable to a broad cross-section of industry users. The significance of this report demonstrates superior decontamination factors are achievable utilizing the next evolution of decontamination technology and that the ALARA benefits of decontamination are available through advanced and modern decontamination efforts. The collateral benefits will save countless radiological man-hours and valuable personnel radiological exposure. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Development of High-efficiency and Cost-effective Forged Ingot Niobium Technology for Science Frontiers and Accelerator Applications

Development of Forged Ingot Niobium Technology: Worlds science frontier programs and SRF accelerator applications demand high performance and cost-effective SRF accelerator technology [1-8]. Fine-grain (FG) and Large-grain (LG) ingot niobium technologies have been very well developed and implemented in all the present-day accelerator projects. However, forged ingot niobium technology which is the focus of this development proposal will be much more cost-effective and expected to have several technical advantages. FG niobium sheet production is very complex involving more than ten processing steps making them prone to contamination. As a result, they are very expensive to produce and require stringent QA procedure to be ready for SRF cavity production. The accelerating cavity process steps are also numerous and require strict procedures in order to achieve high accelerating gradients and quality factors needed for science frontier programs. LG niobium disc production, directly sliced from the ingot, is relatively simple and straight forward to keep surface cleanness. The disc production cost is significantly low compared to FG niobium sheet production. However, there are (some) draw backs due to non-homogeneity of the grain boundary distribution, resulting in non-uniform mechanical properties and complex cavity fabrication, although the LG cavities achieve the expected high-gradient performance goals with lower cost. Medium-grain (MG) niobium disk production may be realized with a new approach/process, the disc directly sliced from the forged ingot, involves a simpler process steps contributing major production cost reduction [9]. These discs are expected to be superior as they tend to be homogenous with uniform sub millimeter grains and mechanical properties. We are eagerly looking forward to developing the forged ingot niobium SRF accelerator technology for the benefit of the world-wide science frontier programs, green energy subcritical nuclear energy systems and a wide variety of industrial applications including the production of radio isotopes and nuclear transmutation applications. Measurement of thermal characteristics of the forged ingot niobium: Measurement of the thermal diffusivity, D, of superconducting MG niobium is important to be understood in comparison with FG sheet and LG disc, as well as that of advanced composite material of Nb3Sn film sputtered on forged ingot Nb, which will be determined using transient pump-probe thermo-modulation [10,11]. Transient thermo-modulation is based on using an ultrafast laser pulse to heat the superconducting materials by a few K, then a synchronized laser pulse probes the reflectance of the heated material. For thin films on a substrate (e.g, 100-nm Nb3Sn on Nb), it takes <100 ps for the heat to reach the substrate by diffusion. Therefore, an ultrafast method is needed to probe D of the studied material. D will be measured from room temperature to liquid helium temperatures. Fundamental Research: The increase of rf loss in SRF cavities is related to trapping of residual magnetic field during the cavity cool-down. The study suggested that the micro structure plays the role in flux trapping sensitivity. The research includes the flux trapping and expulsion study as forged ingot niobium goes through several mechanical deformations, crystallization leading to the optimal SRF cavity performance. Furthermore, the cavity made from FG, MG, and LG sheet/disc will be compared to understand the optimal re-crystallization temperature that cavity needed to be heat treated which minimize the flux trapping and increase SRF cavity performance. References: 1. S. Belomestnykh, Overview of recent SRF developments for ERLs, presented at the SRF 2015, Whistler, BC, Canada (2015). 2. A. Yamamoto, M. Yamanaka and G. Myneni, Ingot Nb based SRF Technology for the International Linear Collider, in Science and Technology of Ingot Niobium for Superconducting Radio Frequency Applications, AIP Conf. Proc. 1687, 030005-1 ? 03005-6, 2015 3. Report of the Workshop on Energy and Environmental Applications of Accelerators, DOE Workshop Report. https://science.osti.gov/-/media/hep/pdf/Reports/2020/CASM_WorkshopReport.pdf? la=en&hash=AEB0B318ED0436B1C5FF4EE0FDD6DEB84C2F15B2 4. G. Ciovati, et al., Design of a cw, low-energy, high-power superconducting linac for environmental applications, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 091601 (2018). 5. P. Dhakal, et al., Effect of high temperature heat treatments on the quality factor of a large-grain superconducting radio-frequency niobium cavity, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 16, 042001 (2013). 6. P. Kneisel et al., Review of ingot niobium as a material for superconducting radio frequency accelerating cavities, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 774, 133 (2015). 7. G. Ciovati, P. Dhakal, and G. R, Myneni, Superconducting radio-frequency cavities made from medium and low-purity niobium ingots, Supercond. Sci. Technol. 29, 064002 (2016). 8. M. Drury et al., commissioning of the prototype C75 cavities in a CEBAF cryomodule, in Proc. of IPAC 2018, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2018) 9. Feasibility of forged-ingot niobium disc and SRF cavity fabrication technology recently demonstrated in cooperation of ATI, BSCE, and KEK (2020). 10. Hani E. Elsayed-Ali, ?Measurements of heat transport in thin films by ultrafast laser-based techniques,? 3rd International Conference on Thermal Issues in Emerging Technologies Theory and Applications, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 347 ? 350 (2010). DOI: 10.1109/ThETA17616.2010 11. W. M. G. Ibrahim, H. E. Elsayed-Ali, M. Schinn, and C. A. Bonner, Jr., ?Ultrafast investigation of electron dynamics in multilayer metals,? Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer, 47(10?11), 2261?2268 (2004).

Myneni, G.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Testing Fundamental Properties of Ionic Liquids for Colloid Microthruster Applications

NASA's New Millennium Program is scheduled to test a Disturbance Reduction System (DRS) on Space Technology 7 (ST7) as part of the European Space Agency's (ESA's) LISA Pathfinder Mission in late 2009. Colloid Micronewton Thrusters (CMNTs) will be used to counteract forces, mainly solar photon pressure, that could disturb gravitational reference sensors as part of the DRS. The micronewton thrusters use an ionic liquid, a room temperature molten salt, as propellant. The ionic liquid has a number of unusual properties that have a direct impact on thruster design. One of the most important issues is bubble formation before and during operation, especially during rapid pressure transitions from atmospheric to vacuum conditions. Bubbles have been observed in the feed system causing variations in propellant flow rate that can adversely affect thruster control. Bubbles in the feed system can also increase the likelihood that propellant will spray onto surfaces that can eventually lead to shorting high voltage electrodes. Two approaches, reducing the probability of bubble formation and removing bubbles with a new bubble eliminator device in the flow system, were investigated at Busek Co., Inc. and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to determine the effectiveness of both approaches. Results show that bubble formation is mainly caused by operation at low pressure and volatile contaminants in the propellant coming out of solution. A specification for the maximum tolerable level of contamination has been developed, and procedures for providing system cleanliness have been tested and implemented. The bubble eliminator device has also been tested successfully and has been implemented in recent thruster designs at Busek. This paper focuses on the propellant testing work at JPL, including testing of a breadboard level bubble eliminator device.

bubble formation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Optimization Approach to Support Science Decision Making for Lunar Surface Exploration

Introduction: Scientific exploration is one of the three pillars of NASA’s Moon2Mars architecture, with crew surface extra vehicular activities (EVA) serving a critical enabling function. Development of surface EVA operational planning and execution, specifically integrating science and flight control teams (FCT), is currently being explored through analog scenarios. This integration, exercised, for example, through the Joint EVA and Hu-man Surface Mobility Test Team (JETT), allows for science input on EVA activities in near real-time through a Science Evaluation Room (SER), or Arte-mis science backroom, which integrates with the broader FCT through the Science Officer. The SER works within the FCT to support dynamic EVA planning in response to changes in operational constraints as well as science opportunities and re-prioritization, increasing the mission science return and accelerating the accomplishment of the Moon2Mars science objectives. The SER works within the FCT to provide recommendations to traverse execution in near real-time. One challenge is the requirement to deliver SER inputs to the FCT on operationally relevant timelines. Failure to do so may result in suboptimal execution of science exploration EVAs or even loss of key science objectives. To close this gap, we present a network optimization tool to allow the SER to provide rapid input to the FCT in response to changes in operational constraints or science opportunities. Inputs are predicated on approved science objectives, and clear rationale must be provided to the FCT for any requested change. Accordingly, this tool incorporates the Science Traceability Matrix (STM), SER prioritization scheme, and station characterization and action planning with operational constraints such as duration, traverse speed, and distance to maximize science objectives based on SER priorities, consistent with FCT operational requirements. Method: As a proof of concept, we used an existing linear programing software package used to simulate optimal routes through cellular metabolism. We built a Demonstrative Model with three STM objectives and four stations on a region of the Moon. The objectives were given an arbitrary prioritization and mapped to the stations through four possible crew actions. (Figs. 1 and 2). This station to STM mapping is consistent with the method used by the JETT5 Science Team to develop analog surface EVA science planning. We used a grid system with the landing site at the origin and the four stations placed across the positive x,y quadrant. Actions were assigned to each station and the accomplishment of those actions resulted in a numerical “reward” based on the ability of that action to achieve science objectives. The aggregate reward from each individual STM objective contributes to a global score (Science Yield), weighted by its priority. Operational constraints included a requirement to start and end at the landing site, 5 minutes each for initial station characterization and “clean up,” and variable total EVA time, traverse rate (fixed to 0.5 meters per second in our example), and time to perform each action (10, 5, 7, and 15 min for actions 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). Additional constraints and variables will be added in the future (e.g., sample mass, number of stations, traverse route constraints, illumination). Optimization. We converted the connections (arcs) between these stations (nodes) into a mixed integer linear programming optimization problem (arcs = constraints, nodes = variables) with the objective to maximize Science Yield. For any action, the Science Yield is equal to the relevance of that action to an STM objective [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low relevance, respectively], multiplied by the STM Objective Priority [3, 2, and 1 point(s) for High, Med., and Low priority, respectively]. This resulted in a model that computes the optimal station and action combination to maximize the Science Yield. These weightings can be adjusted by the SER as desired. Results: We explored three test cases for the Demonstrative Model. First, we set the maximum EVA duration to 120 minutes and computed the optimal route (Fig. 3A). The model suggested per-forming Actions 1 and 2 at Station P01, followed by Actions 1 and 2 at Station P02, and finally Actions 1 and 3 at Station P04 before returning to the Landing Site. Second, we adjusted the STM Objective Priori-ty order and computed the new optimal route (Fig. 3B). Under this situation, the model suggested per-forming all Actions at Station P02 followed by all Actions at Station P03. The previous test cases were relevant to SER planning activities. Next, we explored providing mid-EVA replanning input to the FCT. Scenario: While executing the Route in Fig. 3A the crew finishes at Station P01 and FCT decides that the EVA needs to finish in 45 minutes back at the Landing Site. FCT asks SER to recommend changes to the plan to accommodate this operation-al change. Using the model and incorporating these new constraints (start at Station P01, max. time of 45 min), the model suggested performing Actions 2 and 4 at Station P03 (Fig. 4), requiring 41 minutes to complete and return to the Landing Site. Interestingly, Station 3 was not part of the original route. Using the model, we determined the EVA would need 66 minutes, instead of 45, in order for the original Station P04 to yield a larger Science Yield than Station P03. The parametrization and simulation was per-formed in less than a minute, demonstrating the operational relevance of the approach. Future Efforts: The results from the Demonstrative Model suggest this tool can accelerate SER decision making on operationally relevant timelines. Use in analog activities, such as JETT5 or follow-ons, which have over a dozen stations for a crew to explore and over a dozen actions per station, will provide needed validation of the utility of this tool for planning EVAs, replanning mid-EVA, or planning follow-on EVAs based on previous results. Further integration with FCT execution monitoring tools may provide additional efficiency gains, al-lowing rapid and iterative exploration of operation-al and science decision space by the FCT and SER.

Science Operations↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A METHOD TO REDUCE BIOBURDEN IN ASTROMATERIALS CURATION FACILITIES WITHOUT INTRODUCING UNWANTED CONTAMINATION

Introduction: NASA curates its Astromaterials collections in cleanrooms that are carefully monitored for particulate, inorganic and trace metal contamination. Current sample collections are not particularly susceptible to organic contamination or biological alteration. However, new collections like those from the OSIRIS-REx and Hayabusa2 missions will have organic contamination requirements and are susceptible to biodegradation. It will be necessary sterilize or at least disinfect curation labs, as well as tools and equipment in a manner that does not introduce additional contamination and does not affect the samples 1. Current curation cleaning procedures utilize isopropyl alcohol which offers some bioburden reduction, but is not effective against spore-forming bacteria or fungal spores 2. We present a modified disinfection method that uses ultrapure hydrogen peroxide to reduce bioburden inside curation labs and glove boxes without introducing contamination or damaging curation equipment. We tested this method in the meteorite processing lab as well as on a glovebox being cleaned for use in processing ANGSA (Apollo Next Generation Sample Analysis) samples and present the results of those tests. We discuss the limitations of this method and describe potential situations in which it will not be applicable. The CDC guidelines for disinfection andsterilization in healthcare facilities discusses over 15different methods for reducing bioburden in hospitalsettings 3. The most common method, steamsterilization, is well suited to sterilizing curationprocessing tools but cannot easily be used to sterilizecleanroom surfaces or large equipment likegloveboxes. Chemical sterilization with bleach(NaOCl) is also a common strategy in healthcare andpharmaceutical settings that presents materialcompatibility issues as well as serious inorganiccontamination concerns for curation facilities.Introducing a new source of Na and Cl into curationlabs is not acceptable. Other chemical methods likeethylene oxide, formaldehyde, iodophors andquaternary ammonium compounds could introduceorganic and inorganic contamination. We chose tofocus on hydrogen peroxide because it is generallycompatible with commonly used curation materialslike stainless steel, aluminum and Teflon and becauseit decomposes to oxygen and water. The CDCguidelines for hydrogen peroxide specify using a 7.5wt% solution at 25 ̊C with a contact time of 30 minutesfor high level disinfection and 6 hours for sterilization.High level disinfection is defined as a technique thatwill kill all microorganisms except large numbers ofbacterial spores 3. Methods: We prepared a solution of 7.5 wt%hydrogen peroxide from a stock solution of ultrapure30 wt% peroxide (JT Baker) and curation gradeultrapure water. This ultrapure water is already used incuration cleaning procedures and thus is not consideredand additional source of contamination. We conducteda materials compatibility test by exposing unanodizedand anodized 6061 T6 Al alloy to the peroxide solutionfor up to six hours and periodically inspecting thesurfaces for visible defects. We used this peroxide todisinfect the floor of the meteorite processing lab andthe interior of a curation glovebox by exposing thesesurfaces to the peroxide solution for 30 min. Thesurfaces were swabbed with a dry macrofoam swabbefore (Puritan Brand 2518051PFRNDFD) and afterperoxide treatment to collect microbes present on thesurfaces. Microbes were extracted by sonication fromthe swab into 15 ml of PBS (phosphate buffered saline)and inoculated onto the following media: TSA (trypticsoy agar) BA (blood agar), R2A (Reasoners 2 agar),Potato Dextrose Agar, Saboraud Dextrose Agar andSaboraud Dextrose Agar with 0.1 mg/ mlchloramphenicol. Four TSA plates and two BA plateswere inoculated with 0.1 ml of PBS each andincubated at 35 and 37 for 48 hours. Two R2A°C°Cplates (0.1 ml of PBS each) were incubated at 25 .°CThe remaining plates were inoculated with 0.2ml ofPBS and incubated at 30 ̊C for seven days. Afterincubation bacterial and fungal isolates were countedand transferred to new plates for identification usingthe VITEK24 automated system or by sequencing aportion of the barcode gene (16S rRNA for bacteria,small subunit gene for fungi) on an ABI 3500 Sangersequencer. Negative controls consisted of swabs thatwere opened in the sampling environment andanalyzed alongside the experimental samples.Results: A 6 hour exposure to hydrogen peroxideresulted in visible pitting on un-anodized 6061 Al, butnot on anodized surfaces. No visible pitting occurredafter a 30 minute exposure. Therefore, we decided tolimit our experimental tests to 30 min. exposures. 17bacterial CFU (colony forming units) representing 4distinct organisms were isolated from the meteorite processing lab floor prior to hydrogen peroxidetreatment. We were unable culture any organisms afterperoxide treatment. In the glovebox we were able toculture three bacterial CFU representing three distinctspecies, including a spore forming bacterium prior todisinfection with peroxide. After the peroxidetreatment we were unable to culture any organisms.Routine monitoring of the meteorite processing lab andthe glovebox did not indicate any increase in unwantedinorganic contamination after these peroxidetreatments. Discussion: A 30 minute treatment with 7.5 wt%peroxide appears to be an effective method forreducing bioburden on typical cleanroom surfaces. Themethod does not introduce unwanted organic orinorganic contamination and is compatible withcommonly used curation materials like stainless steel,Teflon and anodized aluminum alloys. Special careshould be taken with un-anodized aluminum.Prolonged exposure to hydrogen peroxide can causepitting on this material. We recommend using thismethod to disinfect curation labs and equipment whenbiological alteration is a concern. This method iseffective at room temperature and cannot be used todisinfect labs and equipment where the ambienttemperature is < 0 ̊C. Astromaterials samples shouldbe removed from the area where disinfection is tooccur. Hydrogen peroxide is a powerful oxidizingagent and will react with any organic carbon present inthe sample. References: [1.] Mccubbin, F. M. et al.Sp. Sci Rev(2019) doi:10.1007/s11214-019-0615-9. [2.] Mogul, R.et al.Astrobiology 18, ast.2017.1814 (2018). [3.]Rutala, W. A. & Weber, D. J. Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, 2008. [4.] Pincus, D. H. in Encyclopedia of Rapid Microbiological Methods (2005).

A. B. Regberg↗

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↗