Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “STORAGE”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-Economic Optimization of Advanced Energy Plants with Integrated Thermal, Mechanical, and Electro-Chemical Storage (Final Report)

The increasing use of renewable energy sources is leading to increased cycling of fossil-fueled power plants (FFPP) that are designed to operate at base-loaded conditions. Integrating energy storage facilities with the FFPPs can be helpful in reducing load-following operation of FFPPs. Decentralized deployment of energy storage facilities at the FFPP level has considerable advantages due to possibilities of smaller storage capacities, immediate benefits realized by the host power plant due to the increase in the efficiency, cleaner emission and higher plant life to name a few. Most importantly, deployment at the FFPP level can exploit the existing equipment items and facilities at the host power plant, thus reducing the CAPEX and reducing the storage capacity. However, realization of these benefits will critically depend on novel configuration/integration strategies with the least impact on the power plant operation and its configuration. Furthermore, dynamics of the entire integrated system including both the FFPP and the storage technologies must be taken into account to obtain the cost-optimal solution. With these motivations, the objective of this project was to complete a focused evaluation of decentralized deployments of energy storage facilities at the FFPP level. Promising thermal, chemical, mechanical, and electro-chemical storage technologies were evaluated with due consideration of their transient response to obtain various optimal system concepts that can minimize the levelized cost of storage. For thermal storage, cryogenic energy storage along with high temperature heat storage in molten salt as well as phase change material were evaluated. For mechanical storage, cryogenic air storage and pumped hydro storages were evaluated. For chemical storage, hydrogen storage was evaluated. For electrochemical storage, the team evaluated sodium sulfur, vanadium redox flow battery as well as Li-ion batteries. Integration of these storage technologies with the natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) and supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) plants was considered. Six technologies, namely molten salt, cryogenics, compressed air, pumped hydro, H2 storage and Li-ion battery storage, were downselected based on their levelized cost of storage. It was observed that the ranking of the optimal storage technology can differ based on the host power plant technology even when same demand/supply/price profile for electricity are considered. It was also observed that as the variability in power demand varies, the ranking of the optimal storage technologies vary. However, for the same demand and LMP profile, top six optimal storage technologies for NGCC vs SCPC plants did not differ much even though LCOS for the same technology and optimal size of a given storage technology did differ. Detailed techno-economic assessment of these six technologies was undertaken.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2015

Secure Storage Architectures

The purpose of this report is to clarify the challenges associated with storage for secure enclaves. The major focus areas for the report are: - review of relevant parallel filesystem technologies to identify assets and gaps; - review of filesystem isolation/protection mechanisms, to include native filesystem capabilities and auxiliary/layered techniques; - definition of storage architectures that can be used for customizable compute enclaves (i.e., clarification of use-cases that must be supported for shared storage scenarios); - investigate vendor products related to secure storage. This study provides technical details on the storage and filesystem used for HPC with particular attention on elements that contribute to creating secure storage. We outline the pieces for a a shared storage architecture that balances protection and performance by leveraging the isolation capabilities available in filesystems and virtualization technologies to maintain the integrity of the data. Key Points: There are a few existing and in-progress protection features in Lustre related to secure storage, which are discussed in (Chapter 3.1). These include authentication capabilities like GSSAPI/Kerberos and the in-progress work for GSSAPI/Host-keys. The GPFS filesystem provides native support for encryption, which is not directly available in Lustre. Additionally, GPFS includes authentication/authorization mechanisms for inter-cluster sharing of filesystems (Chapter 3.2). The limitations of key importance for secure storage/filesystems are: (i) restricting sub-tree mounts for parallel filesystem (which is not directly supported in Lustre or GPFS), and (ii) segregation of hosts on the storage network and practical complications with dynamic additions to the storage network, e.g., LNET. A challenge for VM based use cases will be to provide efficient IO forwarding of the parallel filessytem from the host to the guest (VM). There are promising options like para-virtualized filesystems to help with this issue, which are a particular instances of the more general challenge of efficient host/guest IO that is the focus of interfaces like virtio. A collection of bridging technologies have been identified in Chapter 4, which can be helpful to overcome the limitations and challenges of supporting efficient storage for secure enclaves. The synthesis of native filesystem security mechanisms and bridging technologies led to an isolation-centric storage architecture that is proposed in Chapter 5, which leverages isolation mechanisms from different layers to facilitate secure storage for an enclave. Recommendations: The following highlights recommendations from the investigations done thus far. - The Lustre filesystem offers excellent performance but does not support some security related features, e.g., encryption, that are included in GPFS. If encryption is of paramount importance, then GPFS may be a more suitable choice. - There are several possible Lustre related enhancements that may provide functionality of use for secure-enclaves. However, since these features are not currently integrated, the use of Lustre as a secure storage system may require more direct involvement (support). (*The network that connects the storage subsystem and users, e.g., Lustre s LNET.) - The use of OpenStack with GPFS will be more streamlined than with Lustre, as there are available drivers for GPFS. - The Manilla project offers Filesystem as a Service for OpenStack and is worth further investigation. Manilla has some support for GPFS. - The proposed Lustre enhancement of Dynamic-LNET should be further investigated to provide more dynamic changes to the storage network which could be used to isolate hosts and their tenants. - The Linux namespaces offer a good solution for creating efficient restrictions to shared HPC filesystems. However, we still need to conduct a thorough round of storage/filesystem benchmarks. - Vendor products should be more closely reviewed, possibly to include evaluation of performance/protection of select products. (Note, we are investigation the option of evaluating equipment from Seagate/Xyratex.) Outline: The remainder of this report is structured as follows: - Section 1: Describes the growing importance of secure storage architectures and highlights some challenges for HPC. - Section 2: Provides background information on HPC storage architectures, relevant supporting technologies for secure storage and details on OpenStack components related to storage. Note, that background material on HPC storage architectures in this chapter can be skipped if the reader is already familiar with Lustre and GPFS. - Section 3: A review of protection mechanisms in two HPC filesystems; details about available isolation, authentication/authorization and performance capabilities are discussed. - Section 4: Describe technologies that can be used to bridge gaps in HPC storage and filesystems to facilitate...

Aderholdt, Ferrol↗
DOE OSTI2018

Used Fuel Dry Storage Systems and Components for Shutdown Plants to Expedite Defueling of Spent Fuel Pool - 18378

For plants that have announced plans to shut down, their main priority is to off-load the Used Nuclear Fuel from the spent fuel pool to dry storage at an ISFSI so that they can proceed to 'Safe store' or other storage options, and start their decommissioning process as soon as possible. One of the major expenses for a decommissioned plant is the cost of maintenance of the spent fuel pool. Therefore, the ability of the dry storage system to store short cooled fuel is an important aspect of dry storage system for shutdown plants. When a shutdown plant evaluates the dry storage options, total cost of the transferring the fuel from the pool to ISFSI site needs to be evaluated. One of the major costs to the utility for dry storage is the cost of ISFSI pad (basemat) along with the cost of dry storage system hardware. Smaller ISFSI footprint saves utility for the cost of ISFSI site excavation, cost of engineered backfill and cost of ISFSI pad. In order to minimize the cost of dry storage systems, besides the size of the ISFSI pad as described above, other important considerations is to use high capacity systems. The highest capacity systems available in the dry storage market today are with 37 PWR or 89 BWR used fuel assemblies per canister. These dry storage systems are expected to be at the plant sites for extended duration due to the unavailability of Interim Storage Facilities or a permanent disposal sites like Yucca Mountain. Maintaining the integrity of the dry storage systems canisters and storage overpack so that they can safely protect the fuel and integrity of used nuclear fuel is maintained during storage period is of utmost importance. Robust Aging Management Program is an important aspect for dry storage systems not only at the shutdown plants but also at the operating plants. This paper will provide the update of a reduced footprint version of TN Americas NUHOMS{sup R} System with MATRIX HSM and NUHOMS{sup R} EOS Canisters that addresses the need for maximizing safety, ISFSI capacity while optimizing cost. It will provide an update on the current capabilities, design features and current status of the licensing and deployment of NUHOMS{sup R} EOS System. It will provide the current status of the MATRIX HSM along with the significant enhancement included for a robust Canister Evolved Safety Program for Aging Management. It will also describe the construction sequence; loading operations, and inspections during extended storage as a part of aging management program. The compact version of TN Americas NUHOMS{sup R} System with MATRIX HSM offers a 'Universal' Storage Overpack which is designed to accept all different designs dry storage canisters available in the industry. As UNF storage continues to drives the industry towards innovations that address the need for optimized dry storage systems, compact ISFSIs and prudent aging management programs, this new evolution of the TN Americas NUHOMS{sup R} system with MATRIX HSM and EOS Canisters offers a significant leap forward in addressing all of these challenges. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis and Market Potential of Geological Thermal Energy Storage (GeoTES) Charged With Solar Thermal and Heat Pumps

In this project, we developed a techno-economic analysis (TEA) model that can be used to evaluate the viability of a proposed Geological Thermal Energy Storage (GeoTES) design. This MATLAB-based model integrates distinct subsystem models for the reservoir, wells, power cycle, and solar field to capture their distinct characteristics. It applies this approach in simulating GeoTES storage and dispatch operations for durations ranging from hourly to seasonal. Using cases studies based on GeoTES designs provided by industry partners - Premier Resource Management (PRM) and EarthBridge Energy - we validated the TEA model estimations of system performance and costs (such as thermal and electrical power/energy inflow and outflow, capital costs, and levelized costs of energy and storage) for both concentrating solar thermal (CST) and Carnot Battery (CB) pairings with GeoTES (CST-GeoTES and CB-GeoTES). For the CST-GeoTES case, the model was validated against the proposed system designed by PRM. It showed good agreement with PRM's estimations when well and pump costs derived from PRM's estimations were used. When GETEM-based costs were used, there was a slight overprediction due to GETEM's project/site agnostic assumption of these costs. From a sensitivity analysis perspective, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of the CST-GeoTES case was most sensitive to well flow rate and the charging temperature. An optimal design scenario resulted in an LCOE of 0.11 $\$$/kWhe. CST-GeoTES can also provide a source of heat to meet seasonal demands. With 12-hour and 24-hour levelized cost of heat (LCOH) of 0.018 $\$$/kWhth and 0.022 $\$$/kWhth, respectively, CST-GeoTES could be competitive in the California market with an average industrial price of natural gas in California between 0.041-0.047 $\$$/kWhth. The levelized cost of storage (LCOS) for CST-GeoTES depends on the energy storage duration. Although the LCOS is relatively higher for shorter durations (e.g., ~0.50 $\$$/kWhe for 1 hour of storage), it is an order of magnitude lower (0.06 $\$$/kWhe) for longer storage durations and competitive with lithium-ion batteries (beyond 12 hours of storage) and molten-salt thermal energy storage (beyond 32 hours). Energy. Three options were explored and applied to the EarthBridge case study: (1) A Carnot Battery design using R125 working fluid with both hot and cold storage; (2) A Carnot Battery design using R125 working fluid with only hot storage; (3) A Carnot Battery using a commercially available heat pump with carbon dioxide (CO2) working fluid and hot storage only. The CB-GeoTES with cold storage only had a slight (round-trip) efficiency advantage over the system without (43.4% vs. 42.8%). This is because the cold storage is limited by the freezing point of water, so the cold storage is not much colder than the environment. The system using commercially available technologies was the least efficient - partly because different cycles were used in the heat pump (CO2) and heat engine (binary cycle) which leads to some inefficiencies. Using the commercially available design, the levelized cost of energy (LCOS) from the model (0.10 $\$$/kWhe) was higher than that estimated by EarthBridge (0.068 $\$$/kWhe). This is because of the low round-trip (38.7%) efficiency of the commercially available design. Sensitivity analysis reveals that the model is most sensitive to electricity price. Including electricity price in the TEA for CB-GeoTES leads to an increase in LCOS from the base value to 0.25 $\$$/kWhe. To determine storage sites suitable for GeoTES, we gathered and analyzed geological, petrophysical, and geophysical data of oil and gas reservoir and aquifers in California and Texas. We down-selected possible sites based on cut-off values for site characteristics (e.g., reservoir temperature, formation thickness, permeability, porosity, depth, and brine salinity) and preliminary costs. Using this approach, the Carrizo-Wilcox, Yegua-Jackson, and Dockum brackish aquifers in Texas were identified as having the highest suitability. Similarly, in the central California region, the White Wolf, Belridge South Tulare, and Belridge South Reef Ridge were the most suitable. Going further, we assessed the storage potential in the selected sites. To do this we developed distributions of reservoir characteristic data and applied a Monte Carlo-based analysis to account for intrinsic uncertainty in the acquired data. The analysis revealed that the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer had the highest storage potential with a mean capacity of 554 TWhth (i.e., 63 TWhe). The estimated capacity serves as an upper limit of storage potential given that not all fields in the basin will be developed. We participated in multiple outreach activities including conference presentations, panel session discussions, and the facilitation of a GeoTES workshop at the NREL Golden campus.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Reviewing Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Cask Storage Programs to Identify Challenges for an Integrated Waste Management System - 17535

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has responsibility for removing commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from nuclear power plant sites and disposing of the SNF in a deep geologic repository. However, the methods used by commercial nuclear power plants for onsite storage of their SNF define the starting conditions for DOE efforts to develop a waste management system that includes packaging, transportation, storage, and disposal of commercial SNF. The NWPA (as amended) also charges the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) with evaluating the technical and scientific validity of DOE activities related to the management and disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive wastes (HLW). DOE's efforts related to developing an integrated program for storing, transporting, and disposing of SNF and HLW were the focus of a public meeting held by the Board on August 24, 2016, in Washington, D.C. To prepare for the public meeting, the Board's staff compiled information on the dry cask storage systems in service at nuclear power plant sites in order to identify issues that would need to be addressed by DOE in planning to transport SNF away from the sites. This paper is based on a briefing presented to the Board members by the Board's staff before the public meeting. Post-meeting findings and recommendations of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board are documented in the Board letter to the Department of Energy dated December 8, 2016. A note about terminology: in this paper, the phrase 'dry cask storage system' is generic and applies to a complete system used for dry storage of commercial SNF.Within these storage systems, commercial SNF is sealed inside a container called either a cask or a canister depending upon the specific type of storage system used. This distinction is discussed in more detail in the body of this paper. When referring to the containers holding SNF in particular systems, this paper uses the terms 'casks' or 'canisters,' as appropriate. When discussing the collective group of all containers, this paper uses the phrase 'casks and canisters'. Dry cask storage of SNF is a widespread practice throughout the U.S. commercial nuclear industry. As of August 1, 2016, more than 2300 storage casks and canisters were loaded at U.S. commercial nuclear power plant sites. This number is expected to increase by more than 200 casks and canisters annually, reaching a total of approximately 4500 by 2025. Multiple vendors have developed their own unique designs of dry cask storage and transportation systems. The majority of storage system designs (75 percent) feature SNF loaded in welded stainless steel canisters that are stored in ventilated concrete overpacks that allow for convection cooling. Some older dry cask storage system designs do not include a welded stainless steel canister; instead, SNF is loaded directly into a heavily shielded metal cask to minimize radiation exposure to workers and prevent atmospheric release of radionuclides. These types of systems are sealed by O-rings compressed under a bolted lid. After loading, dry cask storage systems are located on concrete pads at Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) at nuclear power plant sites and will remain there until the time when they will be transported to a consolidated interim storage facility or a deep geologic repository. Eventual transportation of canistered SNF will include removing the stainless steel canisters from the concrete overpacks, possibly repackaging the SNF, and loading the canisters into specially designed transportation casks for shipment by truck, rail, or barge. In the case of the non-canistered casks, some are approved for transportation and can be shipped after impact limiters are installed on the casks. SNF will need to be removed from casks not approved for transportation and transferred to transport-approved casks. This paper highlights five issues and challenges presented by the nuclear industry's use of dry cask storage systems that will need to be addressed by DOE in developing an integrated waste management system. One example, among the five, is that several dry-storage casks and canisters have received Nuclear Regulatory Commission certificates of compliance for storage only and do not have certificates of compliance for transportation. This will pose a challenge when the SNF must be moved to a consolidated interim storage facility or a deep geologic repository. Another example is that, when loaded with SNF, the total weight of new, larger transportation cask designs will exceed 142 metric tonnes (156 tons) which, when combined with the weight of the rail-car, will exceed the gross weight limit for unrestricted operation on some rail lines. This will also affect future transportation planning for shipments of SNF. All five issues and challenges are discussed in detail in the body of the paper. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

THESEUS: A techno-economic design, integration and downselection framework for energy storage

Optimal selection of energy storage technologies is critical to ensure reliable integration of intermittent and often uncertain renewable energy in electricity grids. The consideration of a diverse set of energy storage technologies is required for a more sustainable deployment of energy storage. We present THESEUS (TecHno-Economic framework for Systematic Energy storage Utilization and downSelection), which is a comprehensive framework for the optimal selection, design and operation of energy storage systems. THESEUS includes rigorous models of major energy storage technologies at different maturity levels, such as thermal storage using phase-change materials or molten salt, cryogenic storage, mechanical storage in the form of compressed air and pumped hydro storage, chemical storage using hydrogen, and electrochemical storage in the form of lithium-ion, sodium sulfur and vanadium flow batteries. An illustrative case study on state-wide prospective energy storage shows that storage integration with fossil power plants could reduce the cost of meeting the grid energy demand by 20%, with mechanical storage as the best suited technology. Although high-temperature thermal storage has low storage efficiency, it is optimal for integration with renewable energy plants. In addition, Li-ion batteries are optimal for high ramping but low storage duration requirements. Furthermore, such insights can enable the deployment of both existing and emerging energy storage technologies to facilitate a smooth transition to a clean energy future.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2019

Innovative Implementation of Consolidated Dry Fuel Storage at the INL - 19655

An innovative nuclear-fuel storage bucket design provides increased fuel storage capacity at the Irradiated Fuel Storage Facility (IFSF) on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site. The IFSF is a dry storage facility that is at approximately 93% of its fuel storage capacity. This innovative fuel storage bucket provides for higher density packaging, thereby allowing for the receipt of more fuel at the IFSF and subsequent completion of the wet-to-dry fuel transfer scope at the INL's Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC). The subject fuel originates from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at the INL Site. All spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at INTEC is required by the Idaho Settlement Agreement (ISA) to be out of wet storage by December 31, 2023. The ISA is a tri-party agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Navy, and the State of Idaho. Currently, the INTEC CPP-666 pools contain all of the INL's SNF remaining in wet storage, and INTEC's Spent Fuel Project is on schedule to meet the ISA deadline. Interestingly, the INL Site's environmental cleanup contract awarded to Fluor Idaho in 2016 also initially required the Spent Fuel Project to continue SNF receipts from the ATR into wet storage at the CPP-666 pools. The continued receipts of ATR SNF into the CPP-666 basin were able to be redirected to the IFSF because of the new storage package design, enabling the Spent Fuel Project to meet the ISA requirement to have all SNF out of wet storage by 2023. Complicating the need to redirect ATR receipts from wet storage is the lack of interim storage capacity at the ATR site. This lack of ATR storage capacity threatened to terminate reactor operations if the SNF could not be received at INTEC. The contractual requirement for continued ATR SNF receipts to prevent termination of reactor operations is resolved by the implementation of the innovative consolidated dry storage configuration in the IFSF. Consolidated fuel storage at the IFSF provides increased fuel storage capacity to facilitate meeting the ISA and the Fluor Idaho contract requirements. It provides for the completion of the ATR wet-to-dry fuel transfer scope and supports continued operation of the ATR by allowing the receipt of additional ATR SNF directly into IFSF dry storage. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

California CO 2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE): Final Technical Report

The California CO 2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE) project conducted a preliminary study into the feasibility of a commercial-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage complex located in California’s Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV). The work represents the first phase of a multi-phased development approach outlined by the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Carbon Storage Assurance and Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) program meant to develop carbon storage sites capable of permanently storing 50 million metric tonnes of CO 2 , or greater, injected over a typical facility life of 20 to 30 years. This report represents the culmination of work performed under C2SAFE and outlines a phased implementation plan for large-scale, industrial carbon capture and permanent storage in California’s SSJV. The report is meant to be a standalone document and as such provides high-level summaries of all tasks of the project, but is also meant to complement the other three topical reports issued by the project – reports referenced herein. The study considered multiple scenarios including an east-side storage facility, a west-side storage facility, and potential multi-site storage facilities. The east-side storage facility is to be located at Clean Energy Systems, Inc.’s Kimberlina Power Plant, or nearby, and the west-side facility will be located at the California Resources Corporation’s (CRC’s) Elk Hills oil field. The majority of carbon emissions are planned to be captured from existing sources and transported to the selected and verified storage site(s). Capture from the single closest source to the eastern storage facility and the sources within the Elk Hills field would meet the CarbonSAFE storage goal of 50 million tonnes. The study has shown there is sufficient storage capacity to meet this requirement and more; thus, capture from any of the numerous additional large nearby sources would substantially leverage the CarbonSAFE investment. A comparison of preliminary CO 2 capture, transportation, and storage costs to economic value and incentives in the state shows current market conditions make it economically feasible to develop large-scale industrial storage sites in California’s SSJV. The business case for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in California’s SSJV appears economically viable today for large CO 2 point sources involved in the production of transportation fuels, such as oilfield cogeneration units and steam boilers. The overall levelized CCS cost is estimated at roughly 125 per tonne of CO 2 , which includes CO 2 amine-solvent post-combustion capture, transportation, and storage. The levelized CO 2 capture cost is based on today’s technology, with no future cost reduction factored in for technology improvement. The sum of the value of incentives and revenue from California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits (discounted roughly 20% from their current transaction value), sale of California cap-and-trade emission allowances, and Section 45Q tax credits—either for saline storage or the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) credit plus CO 2 sales revenue—is about 165/tonne-CO 2 . The economic viability of CCS for Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants in the SSJV is more site-specific. A plant providing power solely to the electric grid, if it added CCS, should be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and could sell its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances, but it would not generate LCFS credits. Using the cost and incentive values detailed in this report, it would not be economical for such a plant to add CCS today, barring other considerations. An NGCC plant within an oilfield (e.g., CRC Elk Hills and NRG Sunrise) that provides power to the oilfield as well as to the grid should receive “partial credit” in terms of generating LCFS credits if it added CCS (pro-rated for the fraction of power going to the oilfield). Such a plant should also be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and garner revenue from selling its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances. Using the cost and incentive values described in this report, the economic viability of adding CCS today would depend on the relative fractions of electricity supplied to the oilfield and the grid. As the value of cap-and-trade emission allowances grows over time (either by market forces or the escalating floor price), the relative fraction of power needing to remain in the oilfield to achieve “breakeven” would diminish. At some point, even plants providing all their power to the grid would be candidates for economical CCS application. The C2SAFE team has proposed to expand upon the knowledge gained during this study by conducting a detailed feasibility assessment under a follow-on phase of the program, Phase II – Feasibility. This would include detailed data collection at the two sites, analysis, reporting, stakeholder outreach, and risk mitigation activities to support the development of a commercial carbon storage complex in the SSJV.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Energy storage in combined gas-electric energy transitions models: The case of California

California’s vision for a net-zero future by 2045 relies heavily on variable renewable energy systems. Thus, energy storage - particularly long-duration storage - could play a fundamental role in reliably supplying low-carbon electricity. We study energy storage using the BRIDGES model, a combined gas-electric capacity expansion model for California across multiple investment periods (2025-2045), modeled with progressively decreasing carbon emission targets to a zero emissions by 2045. This least-cost optimization model includes renewable gas production via power-to-gas, long-term storage of energy in gaseous form, electric energy storage such as through batteries and hydrogen storage, and renewable energy generation, all with capacity tracking and investment. Multiple scenarios are evaluated to examine the sensitivity of the optimal storage portfolio to system-level and sector-level parameters. The scenario results show that all electric energy storage systems - which vary in storage duration - are deployed and required in a net-zero California in 2045, amounting to around 75 GW of storage capacity. Lithium ion systems make up approximately 80% of this power capacity and supply most short-run storage needs. Hydrogen storage - in the form of a power-to-gas-to-power system - emerges as a replacement to conventional natural gas storage, comprising most of the total energy storage capacity (~ 4 TWh). This capacity is less than 5% of the current natural gas storage capacity (94 TWh), indicating sufficient room for repurposing part of the gas infrastructure. A demand-side sensitivity analysis proves that higher electricity demand correlates with more builds of Li-ion batteries, while higher industrial heat demand leads to more builds of long-duration storage systems in a net-zero economy. Furthermore, power-to-gas systems satisfy part of the industrial heat demand by locally supplying renewable gas, which overtakes the traditional centralized gas storage and transfers through pipelines, casting significant doubts on the future of the large-scale gas infrastructure.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Ford/BASF/UM Activities in Support of the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence

Widespread adoption of hydrogen as a vehicular fuel depends critically on the development of low-cost, on-board hydrogen storage technologies capable of achieving high energy densities and fast kinetics for hydrogen uptake and release. As present-day technologies -- which rely on physical storage methods such as compressed hydrogen -- are incapable of attaining established Department of Energy (DOE) targets, development of materials-based approaches for storing hydrogen have garnered increasing attention. Material-based storage technologies have potential to store hydrogen beyond twice the density of liquid hydrogen. To hasten development of these ‘hydride’ materials, the DOE previously established three centers of excellence for materials storage R&D associated with the key classes of materials: metal hydrides, chemical hydrogen, and adsorbents. While these centers made progress in identifying new storage materials, the challenges associated with the engineering of the system around a candidate storage material are in need of further advancement. In 2009 the DOE established the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence with the objective of developing innovative engineering concepts for materials-based hydrogen storage systems. As a partner in the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence, the Ford-UM-BASF team conducted a multi-faceted research program that addresses key engineering challenges associated with the development of materials-based hydrogen storage systems. First, we developed a novel framework that allowed for a material-based hydrogen storage system to be modeled and operated within a virtual fuel cell vehicle. This effort resulted in the ability to assess dynamic operating parameters and interactions between the storage system and fuel cell power plant, including the evaluation of performance throughout various drive cycles. Second, we engaged in cost modeling of various incarnations of the storage systems. This analysis revealed cost gaps and opportunities that identified a storage system that was lower cost than a 700 bar compressed system. Finally, we led the HSECoE efforts devoted to characterizing and enhancing metal organic framework (MOF) storage materials. This report serves as a final documentation of the Ford-UM-BASF project contributions to the HSECoE during the 6-year timeframe of the Center. The activities of the HSECoE have impacted the broader goals of the DOE-EERE and USDRIVE, leading to improved understanding in the engineering of materials-based hydrogen storage systems. This knowledge is a prerequisite to the development of a commercially-viable hydrogen storage system.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2018

Integrated Pre-Feasibility Assessment for a Northern Michigan Basin CarbonSAFE CO 2 Storage Complex

One of the key gaps in the critical path toward carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment is the development of commercial-scale (50+ million metric tons carbon dioxide [CO2]) geologic storage sites for CO 2 from industrial sources. There has been relatively little effort by the private sector to identify and certify (i.e., regulatory permit) geologic storage sites that are capable of storing commercial-scale volumes of CO 2 , primarily because of the lack of immediate economic incentives. As a result, commercial-scale CO 2 sources that want to develop CCS projects face the risk of not finding a suitable saline storage site for their captured CO 2 . Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored effort to develop an integrated CCS storage complex constructed and permitted for operation in the 2025 timeframe over a series of sequential phases of development: Integrated CCS Pre-Feasibility, Storage Complex Feasibility, Site Characterization, and Permitting and Construction. Subject to availability of funds, a series of funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) are planned to accomplish this mission. This document describes a project that addresses DOE FOA-1584 Phase I: Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Pre-Feasibility. The objective of this project was to take the first step in developing an integrated commercial geologic CO 2 storage complex in the Northern Michigan Basin, herein referred to as the CarbonSAFE – Northern Michigan Basin (CS-NMB) storage complex. This includes demonstrating that the storage sites within the complex have the potential to store more than 50 million metric tons (MMT) of industrially-sourced CO 2 emissions safely, permanently and economically. To achieve the overall objective of the Phase I pre-feasibility study, FOA-1584 required three activities: • Perform a high-level technical sub-basinal evaluation to identify a potential storage complex with storage site(s), including a description of the geology and risks associated with the potential storage site; identify and evaluate potential CO 2 sources. • Develop a plan for the storage complex and storage site(s) including a strategy that would enable an integrated capture and storage project to be economically feasible and publicly acceptable. • Form a CCS coordination team capable of addressing regulatory, legislative, technical, public policy, commercial, financial, etc. challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of the CO 2 storage project.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Williston Basin Resource Study for Commercial-Scale Subsurface Hydrogen Storage

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the EERC’s State Energy Research Center (SERC), MPLX Operations LLC, and TC Energy Development Holdings Inc. (a subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation), studied the potential for subsurface hydrogen storage and recovery in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota. The project’s goal was to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale, secure geologic H 2 storage to support future hydrogen generation, storage, and use. This work included laboratory testing, H 2 –rock–fluid exposure experiments, literature reviews on H 2 embrittlement, and reservoir modeling and simulations. The study included an assessment of storage potential across three types of storage reservoirs using both reservoir simulation and DOE’s web-based tool SHASTA-HELP (Subsurface Hydrogen Assessment, Storage, and Technology Acceleration – Hydrogen Estimator for Logistical Planning), as well as investigation of potential H 2 production and markets for commercial-scale deployment. Building on prior EERC gas storage research, three storage options were selected for detailed evaluation: the Broom Creek Formation (a clastic saline reservoir), the Dickinson Lodgepole Mounds (DLM) complex (carbonate mud mound structures) of the Lodgepole Formation (an active oil and gas producing reservoir), and the Dunham Salt Interval of the Piper Formation (to be used for engineered salt cavern development). These targets were prioritized based on prior EERC research using datasets related to seal capacity, reservoir quality, mechanical integrity, and injectivity. Exposure tests on Broom Creek and DLM samples showed mineral dissolution and precipitation that increased brine salinity and altered reservoir rock surfaces. Although these results provide useful insight, they are limited by small sample sizes and short-term (30-day) exposure, requiring further study to assess long-term storage integrity. Salt formations were not tested because of their known nonreactivity and established mechanical stability. Results of reservoir simulations performed for a single site demonstrated that the Broom Creek Formation may be capable of receiving up to 42,000 tonnes of injected H 2 over 7 months via one well. H 2 recovery took place over 5 months, resulting in approximately 26,000 tonnes (~62% without cushion gas [CG]). This work suggests water production may be important and subsequent cycles of injection and production may perform more efficiently; however, significant site-specific work in the future is needed to assess actual reservoir performance of injection and withdrawal of H 2 storage. For oil reservoir potential, a multiple-well model was used to simulate injection of approximately 32,000 tonnes of H 2 into a single wellbore while simultaneously producing in place reservoir fluids from four offset wells to maintain reservoir pressure. The simulation results suggested a high recovery (~98%); in addition, cost advantages through existing infrastructure could be realized. Challenges in this reservoir include vi managing gas purity and leakage risks. In both scenarios, production of H 2 takes place in a single-well scenario with 10 cycles (7 months of injection and 5 months of production) over 10 years. Finally, the use of engineered caverns in the Dunhan Salt was evaluated, and the results suggest that while they have a smaller capacity (<1000 tonnes per cavern), they exhibit nearly complete gas recovery (>99%), fast response times, and low purity risk. While caverns in North Dakota may be smaller in capacity, fields can be developed in galleries to accommodate the volumetric needs and rapid turnaround times necessary to meet market demands. Geographic limitations and thin salt intervals in North Dakota may represent less total storage potential than salt domes elsewhere, but significant opportunities exist to expand this market for gas storage in North Dakota. A basinwide assessment was performed to estimate a first-of-its-kind value for H 2 storage on a large scale. DOE’s SHASTA-HELP, combined with EERC simulation work, was used to perform the assessment. Estimated H 2 storage potential varied widely for each formation type. The Broom Creek saline formation was estimated to have a storage potential of approximately 1.7–90.5 million tonnes (MMt). The DLM oil reservoirs were estimated to have 0.07–0.19 MMt of capacity. Notably, each of these estimates relies on significant assumptions regarding reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability, and CG needed for operation. Much research is needed to understand the true site-specific storage resource potential of each formation. Using the Dunham Salt Interval for cavern development may result in as much as 4.79 MMt (up to 2.87 MMt working gas) of H 2 storage potential. An important note for consideration is that the values presented here need significantly more geological characterization and engineering assessments prior to gaining confidence in performance. This will be a focal point for future research and development needs. The basinwide evaluation also indicated that North Dakota has significant H 2 generation potential, with estimates up to a possible 13 MMt annually, suggesting a substantial opportunity for H 2 market development and thus the need for commercial-scale H 2 storage to facilitate growth and resilience. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct detailed site characterization (3D seismic, well logs, core sampling) to reduce geologic uncertainty. 2. Perform techno-economic analyses incorporating market, regulatory, and incentive frameworks. 3. Investigate long-term interactions among H 2 , CGs, well materials, and formations to assess risks. 4. Develop pilot- and field-scale demonstrations to validate models and establish best practices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Managing Subsurface Pressure Buildup and Interference in Commercial-Scale CO 2 Storage Project with Proximal Injection Wells

Large-scale decarbonization using carbon capture and storage (CCS) is likely to involve many commercial-scale CO 2 storage projects located in close proximity to each other. This close proximity raises concerns over pressure interference among the storage projects. Pressure interference between injection and storage efforts can reduce the practicable CO 2 storage resource and force wells to inject CO 2 at a lower rate to avoid the fracture pressure thresholds per United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Class VI well regulations to preserve injection and confining zone integrity and potentially mitigate against inducing seismic activity. These analyses employ numerical full-physics reservoir modeling to evaluate how pressure buildup fronts and CO 2 plumes evolve under commercial-scale injection volumes of CO 2 in which multiple storage sites located in close proximity occur in tandem. The simulation models mimic injection at pseudo basin-scale and assume homogeneous saline formation(s) as storage targets with a pair of upper and lower homogeneous seal layer/s. These analyses specifically investigate the efficacy of two basin-wide reservoir pressure management strategies in addressing the technical challenges associated with pressure buildup and CO 2 plume commingling. The strategies explored include: 1) enlarging the area of injection well spacing (WS) and 2) storing CO 2 in a stacked sequence (SSS) of saline formations compared to a single formation. The storage and confining zones properties assumed were held common across the scenarios, unless specified otherwise. Analyses results show that after injecting 4 million tons per year for 30 years using 4 separate wells (each injecting 1 million metric tons per year), the radius of CO 2 plume extends to a mere 3 km or less from injection wells. Meanwhile, the radius of pressure buildup ranges on the order of tens to a few hundreds of kilometers, depending on the magnitude of pressure buildup threshold that one would use to define the front. CO 2 plume commingling from different injection wells appears to occur 50 years post-injection, especially under scenarios with narrowly spaced (i.e., < 5 km apart) injection well locations. Findings from sensitivity cases on the well spacing suggest that storage formations modeled would require different well spacing to avoid fracture pressure thresholds. For instance, modeled storage formations with high fracture gradients (i.e., 0.8 psi/ft) would need less than 5–km well spacing, whereas those with lower fracture gradients (i.e., 0.7 psi/ft) would need approximately 20–km well spacing, based on assumed modeling parameters. Under stacked injection, the pressure challenges (described above) still exist but are more alleviated due to distributing the same injection volume across more available reservoir volume. These analyses demonstrate that stacked-sequence storage can effectively address the challenges, while still providing the same target CO 2 storage volumes and allowing a large number of storage projects to be deployed in the same basin by better utilizing the available storage resource across different reservoir depths. Among cases modeled, the resulting pressure buildup front is most suppressed when each storage project distributes injection volumes over several wells, each of which injects a portion of the total CO 2 across the stacked sequence. This strategy results in the smallest CO 2 aerial footprint amongst scenarios evaluated but also shows the largest reduction in the pressure buildup at the top of perforation at the injection wells (upwards of approximately 42 percent compared to the commercial-scale single-formation storage), the result of which is crucial to maintain caprock integrity. The findings presented by this research draw attention to the importance of greater coordination among storage operators and regulatory stakeholders to foster the upscaling and deployment of CCS. These analyses provide insights into required decision-making when considering multi-project deployment in a shared basin. Because these analyses evaluate a very specific geologic situation, they bear further investigations across other geologic situations.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2017

Developments in the Regulatory Framework of Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) in Germany - 17374

According to article 6 of the German Atomic Energy Act, storage of nuclear fuel requires a license, granted by the competent authority in this field, which has been the Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS) until July 2016 and currently is the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BfE). A first license was granted in 1983 for storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and vitrified high level waste (HAW) at the interim storage facility in Gorleben. This license was reviewed in 1995. Dry Interim storage at the NPP sites in its current form started in 2002 in the interim storage facility next to the NPP Lingen. Since that time at each site of an operational NPP storage facilities were licensed and erected. Thus additionally to the three central storage facilities (Ahaus, Gorleben and Rubenow) there are now 12 storage facilities onsite the NPPs. All of these facilities use dry storage in metallic dual purpose casks (DPCs). The actual storage licenses for SNF and the HAW (which is stored in Gorleben and Rubenow) are limited to 40 years after closing the transport and storage cask. The first license to expire will be the storage license for the interim storage facility in Gorleben in the year 2034. The German 'Programme for the safe and responsible management of spent fuel and radioactive waste' expects to take the disposal facility into operation in the year 2050. Thus necessary preparations for interim storage till that time have to be taken on the side of the regulator. In the German Atomic Energy Act precautions have already been taken and a consulting of the German parliament (Bundestag) is mandatory if inevitable events would require an extension of currently licensed interim storage period. In the year 2016, the regulatory body in Germany was given a new structure. The BfS was formerly competent authority in the field of radiation protection since 1989. It had competencies for ionizing and non-ionizing radiation protection (e.g. mobile phone radiation, high voltage power lines and the effects of electric fields), licensing storage of spent nuclear fuel and as the operator of facilities for final disposal. Now there is a new structure with two Federal Offices (BfS and BfE) and a federal company for final disposal (BGE). The BfE is responsible for regulation in the field of nuclear disposal since 30.07.2016. So the package design approval for DPCs and the storage licenses for SNF are now granted by this office. The search for a repository site will be coordinated there as well. The site selection, construction and operation of the repository will be in the responsibility of BGE. The parts of the former BfS dealing with recovery of the waste from Asse (a former salt mine used for disposal research) and the construction of the repository Konrad (for low and medium level radioactive waste) will be transferred into that company. It is planned to incorporate the German company for construction and management of waste disposal facilities (DBE) which is owned by the German utilities as well. The BfS will focus on the scientific foundations and further advancement of radiation protection. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Technology Development for Dry Storage of Aluminum-Clad Spent Nuclear Fuel - 20490

A candidate disposition pathway for the > 13 MTHM of aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ASNF), owned and managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, is the drying and placement of the SNF into sealed-canister dry storage, with the ASNF-in- canisters 'road-ready' for transportation to and final direct disposal in a repository waste package. Technical information gaps in fuel drying, and fuel dry storage behavior, have previously challenged the declaration of technology readiness for drying and placement of this fuel into the DOE Standard Canister design for > 50 years of safe dry storage. The principal technical information gaps included: i) characterization and thermal dehydration behavior of aluminum (oxy)hydroxide films attendant on the cladding due to film formation during reactor operation and during post-discharge up to long-term wet storage histories; and ii) G-value data to enable estimation of the radiolytic gas generation from the cladding with its (oxy)hydroxide films. Thus, the oxide films on the ASNF challenged the safety of a sealed storage canister with thermal and radiolytic decomposition of the waters on the films that can lead to corrosion, pressurization, and flammability issues. These gaps in the technical information base have largely been closed. This paper discusses the investigations at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the Savannah River National laboratory (SRNL), and outlines the pending technology development work for input to an engineering design to enable a road-ready dry storage system for ASNF. The ASNF inventory considered for road-ready dry storage is stored at the Savannah River Site (SRS) and at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at the INL. The ASNF inventory in the SRS L Basin is from foreign and domestic research reactors (FRR and DRR), and is diverse in terms of design, irradiation, and post-reactor-discharge storage conditions; these factors yield a range of characteristics of cladding oxide films on ASNF. Mixed aluminum (oxy)hydroxide (boehmite and bayerite/gibbsite) films, non-uniform in thicknesses up to a maximum local thickness bounded by 25 μm, were observed on ASNF materials removed from wet storage in the L Basin and in non-sealed dry storage at the SRS following reactor service and a long-term (up to 40+ years) interim storage history. The ASNF inventory at INTEC, in both wet and vented dry storage, is predominantly from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), but it also includes DRR and FRR fuel. To address a profound behavior of these films, radiolysis testing of aluminum specimens with mixed type boehmite/bayerite oxide films was performed to develop basic data on G-values for production of radiolytic hydrogen under dry storage conditions with nominal relative humidity, temperature, and cover gas. Modeling and simulation of canister internal environments with postulated inventories of oxide films provides estimation of the evolution of the conditions of the canister loaded with ASNF. Simultaneous Thermal Analysis (TGA/DSC) of hydrated oxide powders, and laboratory-scale aluminum specimens with a bayerite film (∼10 μm) using TGA methods, inform drying time/temperature conditions to be used for the ASNF. A demonstration project is recommended for Verification and Validation of the drying and storage of the ASNF. Remaining major tasks leading up to the hot demonstration include scale-up radiolysis testing and scale-up drying testing. Engineering design with the information from the technology program will establish the safety basis and enable long-term (> 50 years) dry storage compatibility with ASNF in the DOE Standard Canister pending its transportation to and disposal in a repository. This full capability would show the ASNF-in-canister storage system to be road-ready. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Mid-Continent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub Project Phase II (Final Summary Report)

The Phase II Integrated Midcontinent Stacked Carbon Storage Hub (IMSCS-HUB) is part of the Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) established by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). CarbonSAFE is phased to support the development of commercial-scale (50 million metric tonnes [Mt] over a 30-year period) carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in the United States. The IMSCS-HUB study area comprises carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska (the source corridor), and CO 2 sinks in Kansas and Nebraska (the storage corridor), representing the first large-scale project for the Midcontinent region. The stacked storage corridor is characterized by alternating sequences of deep saline formations, oil-bearing reservoirs, shale, and evaporite units that are conducive to vertically stacked CO 2 injection for geologic storage and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Three sites within the IMSCS-HUB stacked storage corridor were evaluated in Phase II for commercial CCUS feasibility: one in southwest-central Nebraska, Sleepy Hollow Field (SHF), a second in southwestern Nebraska near Madrid (Madrid), and a third in southwestern Kansas, the Patterson Site (composed of the Patterson, Heinitz, Hartland, and Oslo fields). In Phase II, the team assessed the feasibility of storage complexes at the potential storage sites in Nebraska and Kansas to support a commercial-scale storage hub that integrates proven CO 2 capture technology and transport from nearby ethanol sources. Building on lessons learned from the DOE-NETL Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs), the Project Team has identified a clear strategy to meet DOE’s 2025 objective of commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) implementation by developing a CO 2 market and infrastructure that relies on multiple ethanol-based CO 2 sources in the short term and the incorporation of multiple coal-fired power plant CO 2 sources when commercial capture is economically viable. The team also leveraged the updated 45Q tax credit to develop capture and transport infrastructure. Commercial-scale CCUS is feasible at two candidate storage sites studied, the Madrid, Nebraska Site and the Patterson Site in Kearny County, Kansas. The Sleepy Hollow Field in Nebraska was found to be an attractive candidate for stacked storage with CO 2 -EOR (Battelle 2020e). Outreach efforts facilitated engagement from industry, government, and research sectors (Battelle and GPI, 2020) and an outreach plan for future phases of the project was developed to address issues that are of concern in the IMSCS-HUB project area (Battelle, 2020f). All components of a CCUS project were determined to be feasible in the IMSCS-HUB region and Risk Mitigation Plan was developed and includes strategies to mitigate risks associated with each project component (Battelle, 2020j). A roadmap was developed to obtain the required UIC permits for an integrated CCUS project (Battelle, 2020k). The regional storage resource characterization demonstrated significant opportunity for commercial-scale projects in the IMSCS-HUB storage corridor with 577.4 Mt of stacked CO 2 storage capacity and the potential to produce 181.9 MMbbls of oil via EOR across 17 individual storage areas (Battelle and ARI, 2020). The pipeline assessment study found viable pipeline routes that connected 45Q-eligible ethanol plants, coal fired power plants, and other sources in the IMSCS-HUB corridor. The comprehensive results of subsurface characterization, modeling efforts, outreach assessment, and regulatory analysis from were integrated to develop a Detailed Commercial Development Plan for the IMSCS-HUB (Battelle, 2020n). Commercialization efforts will involve obtaining Class VI UIC permits, establishing and finalizing the pipeline route, and evaluating capture projects at participating CO 2 sources. Phases I and II of the IMSCS-HUB CarbonSAFE provide a strong foundation for safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively characterizing and permitting commercial-scale project sites in the region. The plan for implementation of commercial-scale CCUS projects in the IMSCS-HUB is aligned with the objectives of CarbonSAFE Phase III: Site Characterization and CO 2 Capture Assessment.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Economically Viable Intermediate to Long Duration Hydrogen Energy Storage Solutions for Fossil Fueled Assets

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management of U.S. Department of Energy under Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0002332 “Energy Storage for Fossil Power Generation”. The work aimed to explore and advance an innovative hydrogen energy storage system – the synergistically integrated hydrogen energy storage system (SIHES) – that has the following characteristics: • Compatible with existing or new coal and gas fuel electricity generation units, • best suited for intermediate to long duration energy storage, from 12 hours to weeks even months, and • capable of storing energy at the utility scale – hundreds of MWh to GWh energy storage with power output level in tens to hundreds of MW. Preliminary front-end engineering design (Pre-FEED) studies was carried out to develop and refine a site-specific SIHES as peaking power generation units (so named as HyPeaker) as the first market entry point, to demonstrate both the technical feasibility and the economic viability to integrate the HyPeaker “within the fence” of a fossil power plant. This specific site was TVA’s Johnsonville Combustion Turbine Plant. The HyPeaker was designed and engineered to integrate with a 60MW aeroderivative gas turbine unit already available at TVA’s Johnsonville site. This site-specific HyPeaker consists of an alkaline electrolyzer to produce hydrogen from CO 2 free electricity sources, an innovative low-cost high-pressure hydrogen storage system (Big-Ton) and the aero gas turbine to generate electricity using blend of hydrogen and natural gas. A holistic system level technoeconomic analysis tool specific to HyPeaker was developed to optimize the engineering design of the Johnsonville site-specific HyPeaker for cost and performance. The optimal design and specification of the Johnsonville site-specific HyPeaker are the following: • Alkaline electrolyzer: 3MW • Big-Ton storage vessel: 11,000kg H 2 at 3000psi. • 4-stage diaphragm hydrogen compressor: 55kg-H 2 /hr from 150psi to 3000psi. The HyPeaker is designed to provide sufficient hydrogen for 90% continuous operation of the HyPeaker. All major components have design life of 30 years. The capex of HyPeaker is estimated at $\$$7.1M. This included $\$$1.5M for the electrolyzer, $\$$5.6M for the storage vessel and compressor. The cost of aero gas turbine was included as it is already available at the site. Key findings are: • HyPeaker can be designed, manufactured, installed and integrated with the fossil power plants, with sub-systems and components commercially available on the market today, even when it is scaled up to an order of magnitude larger than the one at the Johnsonville site. HyPeaker is a technologically viable solution to cover a wide range of energy storage duration needs, from daily peaking operation to seasonal shifting for fossil fueled assets. • The cost advantage of SCCV based Big-Ton H 2 storage vessel made it possible to “oversize” the H 2 storage subsystem to achieve overall system level cost optimization. The benefits are two-fold. First, it allows to significantly reduce the capacity and cost of electrolyzer by spreading H 2 production over a much longer period of time when the fuel cost for electricity production is low. Second, it allows to balance the hydrogen production and usage shift over weeks to months to meet the peak demands. As such, the capital cost of HyPeaker system using the Big-Ton was less than half of the cost of a system with today’s steel tube based H 2 storage system. The HyPeaker has even better cost advantage Li-ion battery based energy storage system. The estimated capital cost of Li-Ion battery system would be at $\$$38M, under the same projected 20-year electricity generation profile of the Johnsonville site. This is over 5 times more expensive than the HyPeaker system. • Since industry scale energy storage systems do not have 100% energy conversion and storage efficiency, energy storage systems using fossil fuel generated electricity would increase the CO 2 emission. This is particularly the case for HyPeaker due to its low round trip efficiency. Therefore, a more sensible solution would be to the excessive or curtailed electricity from CO 2 emission free sources such as solar farms, wind farms or nuclear power plants, to produce hydrogen, and integrate them with the HyPeaker. Electricity from TVA’s nuclear power plants was used for the Johnsonville HyPeaker. • The economic viability of HyPeaker is expected to be further improved when global supply chains are taken into consideration. For the same Johnsonville site specific HyPeaker, the capex would be reduced to ~$\$$3.6M from ~$\$$7.1M, and the added LCOE is reduced to ~$\$$85/MWh. With the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the cost of domestically produced HyPeaker sub-systems would be at the level of today’s global suppliers. Since the peaking units generally operate at peak usage period, thereby demanding higher price, the projected $\$$85/MWh LCOE would be within the realm of financial viability for utility operators.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2018

Developments in the Regulatory Framework of Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) in Germany - 18137

According to article 6 of the German Atomic Energy Act, storage of nuclear fuel requires a license granted by the competent authority in this field, which is the Federal Office for Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BfE). In 1995, a license for storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and vitrified high level waste (HAW) was granted for the interim storage facility in Gorleben. Dry Interim storage at the NPP sites in its current form started in 2002 in the interim storage facility next to the nuclear power plant NPP Lingen. Since this time twelve NPPs erected their own storage facilities additionally to the three central storage facilities (Ahaus, Gorleben and Rubenow). In all of these facilities the concept of dry storage in metallic dual purpose casks (DPCs) is implemented. The actual storage licenses for SNF and the HAW (which is stored in Gorleben and Rubenow) are limited to 40 years after closing the transport and storage cask. The first license to expire will be the storage license for the interim storage facility in Gorleben in the year 2034. In Germany the decision about a repository site will be taken in the year 2031. To enable the utilities to hand over the SNF and HAW to the repository regime while the current licenses are still valid would require a very fast process licensing and construction of the required facilities at this location. As a delay cannot be excluded, necessary preparations have to be taken on the side of the regulator. In the German Atomic Energy Act precautions have already been taken and consulting the German parliament (Bundestag) is mandatory if inevitable events would require an extension of the currently licensed interim storage period. The new structure with the Federal Office BfE, and two companies for final disposal 'Bundesgesellschaft fuer Endlagerung' (BGE mbH) and interim storage 'Bundesgesellschaft fuer Zwischenlagerung' (BGZmbH) was established in 2017. The Federal Office for Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BfE) is responsible for regulation in the field of nuclear disposal since 30.07.2016. So the package design approval for DPCs and the storage licenses for SNF will be granted by this office. Furthermore, it is the regulator for the repository and will finally grant a license for the German deep geological repository. Site selection and construction and operation of the repository will be the responsibility of BGE. On January 1, 2018, the BGZ will take over all remaining interim storage facilities operating under a license due to article six of the Atomic Energy Act. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗