Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Point Source Carbon Capture”

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.

42 records · Page 3

Compact Absorber Technology Leads to Significant Reduction in the Cost of Point Source CO 2 Capture

The size of columns in traditional absorption-based processes for CO 2 capture contributes significantly to the overall capital cost. A demonstrated method to reduce the cost of point source CO 2 capture, focusing on reducing the absorber height by increasing the liquid-to-gas reaction contact area and decreasing the CO 2 diffusion resistance without increasing gas-side pressure drop is presented along with techno-economic analysis results. Bench-scale tests on the unique Compact Absorber showed overall CO 2 mass transfer enhancement of varying degrees compared to a traditional packed column for similar process conditions, demonstrating that a 60+% reduction in size of a typical post-combustion absorber with a packing height of 70-100 ft and total height of 150-180 ft can be achieved. The techno-economic analysis showed significant cost reductions when the Compact Absorber is combined with other transformative aspects of the University of Kentucky Institute for Decarbonization and Energy Advancement point source CO 2 capture process compared to the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory pertinent reference case for pulverized coal plants with CO 2 capture. Here, a levelized cost of electricity excluding CO 2 transportation and storage of $\$95.6$/MWh was estimated, which is a 9% reduction, with a total capital cost contribution of $45/MWh, which is a 12% reduction. Additionally, a breakeven CO 2 sales price also referred to as the cost of CO 2 capture, of $36.70/tonne was estimated when the UK hindered primary amine solvent is used, which is a 20% reduction compared to the reference case.

CO2 capture↗

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in a Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

Abstract The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (∼1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DeFault: DEep‐Learning‐Based FAULT Delineation Using the IBDP Passive Seismic Data at the Decatur CO2 Storage Site

Abstract The carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) framework is an essential component in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with its success hinging on the comprehensive knowledge of subsurface geology and geomechanics. Passive seismic event relocation and fault detection offer vital insights into subsurface structures and the ability to monitor fluid migration pathways. Accurate identification and localization of seismic events, however, face significant challenges, including the necessity for high‐quality seismic data and advanced computational methods. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel deep learning method, , specifically designed for passive seismic source relocation and fault delineating for passive seismic monitoring projects. By leveraging data domain‐adaptation, allows us to train a neural network with labeled synthetic data and apply it directly to field data. Using , the passive seismic sources are automatically clustered based on their recording time and spatial locations, and subsequently, faults and fractures are delineated accordingly. We demonstrate the efficacy of on a field case study involving injection related microseismic data from Decatur, Illinois area. Our approach accurately and efficiently relocated passive seismic events, identified faults and could aid in potential damage induced by seismicity. Our results highlight the potential of as a valuable tool for passive seismic monitoring, emphasizing its role in ensuring CCUS project safety. This research bolsters the understanding of subsurface characterization in CCUS, illustrating machine learning’s capacity to refine these methods. Ultimately, our work has significant implications for CCUS technology deployment, an essential strategy in combating climate change. Plain Language Summary In our quest to tackle climate change, we use a strategy known as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) to keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. This strategy relies heavily on our ability to understand what's happening deep under the earth's surface. To make sure we store super critical safely, we need to accurately map out the geological structure, especially faults, but this is tough without high‐quality data and complex computer programs. We've developed a new tool called “DeFault,” which uses advanced machine learning to improve how we find and map these underground features. “DeFault” is smart enough to learn from numerically simulated data and then apply what it’s learned to real‐world situations. It groups together seismic activity—tiny tremors and shifts in the earth—based on when and where they happen, which helps us spot where there might be cracks or faults. We tested “DeFault” in Illinois, where CO 2 is injected underground, and it successfully pinpointed where these tremors occurred and mapped out the faults, helping to prevent accidents accurately in the future. Our study shows that “DeFault” will be a powerful ally in making CCUS safer and more effective, especially for the Illinois Basin Decatur Project. Key Points Faults and fractures introduced by carbon storage can be monitored by passive seismicity DeFault algorithm enables an automatic process for accurate and efficient passive seismic event locating and clustering

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

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↗

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗

Field Validation of Thermoelectric Generation System at Holcim Cement Plant in Alpena, Michigan

Executive Summary Project Background The Industrial Technology Validation (ITV) program aims to identify and demonstrate the performance of new, emerging, and underutilized energy-saving technologies in the industrial sector to help inform decisions to help accelerate their commercialization and deployment, as well as to help make industries more competitive. This ITV demonstration evaluated a thermoelectric generation (TEG) technology at a cement plant, aiming to reduce energy demand in the cement industry. A median cement plant consumes 5.73 million British thermal units per ton of clinker production (resulting in 0.838 metric tons of carbon dioxide [CO₂] emissions per ton of clinker) (Boyd and Zhang 2011, EPA 2021), equivalent to approximately 6.9 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) per year in energy consumption at a cement plant producing 3,300 tons of clinker per day.¹ Collaborating with Holcim, Advanced Thermovoltaic Systems (ATS) developed and deployed a pilot-scale thermoelectric power system to efficiently capture and convert waste heat to electricity. The system leverages the Seebeck effect to convert temperature differences on two sides of semiconductor cartridges into electrical power (ScienceDirect, n.d.). This generation is realized with minimal moving parts compared to existing waste-heat-to-generation solutions and allows capture from heat sources with temperatures as low as 150°C. This project aimed to validate a scalable solution applicable for capturing medium-temperature waste heat, including ambient losses from other high-temperature processes, and high-temperature sources less suitable for other waste-heat-to-power solutions. By recovering this otherwise wasted heat, this project intends to validate improvements to overall process efficiency through reduction in purchased electricity, thereby reducing operational costs while enhancing resiliency and competitiveness. Description and Scope This study evaluated the performance of a TEG system from ATS as a solution to convert waste heat into useful power at a Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan. This plant is a fully integrated cement plant that has been operating since 1907. The facility operates continuously (24/7/365) with approximately 250 employees and five long dry kilns, yielding a total production capacity of 7,852 tons of cement per day (EPA 2023). Currently, the Alpena plant uses waste heat boilers to convert waste heat from the exhaust of each kiln into steam, which drives steam turbine generators. The ATS TEG is being evaluated for its potential to supplement the steam turbines by capturing the remaining lower grade heat. This technology is also being considered for other Holcim plants where steam turbines are not a viable option. ATS installed a pilot-scale TEG unit with an array of 582 individual thermoelectric semiconductor cartridges, of which 573 were operational. The cartridges are sandwiched between 48 hot plates and 49 cold plates. Each cartridge is designed to generate 20 watts (W) of gross power at a hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. As such, the total gross generation capacity of the installed system is 11.5 kilowatts (kW) at design conditions. The system configuration for the evaluation was designed to prioritize convenience of installation and minimize disruption to production at the site, while ensuring that the heat required can be obtained for evaluating the TEG system at various operational conditions. To accomplish this, a portion of the steam supplied to Alpena’s steam turbine generation system was diverted to be used as the heat source for the TEG system, while water was supplied to the cold side of the system from nearby Lake Huron. This configuration was designed for the evaluation of the pilot-scale system to assess the performance at different conditions. A commercial-scale system will likely vary from the pilot system depending on typical configurations, including both scale and application. Future commercial applications of the ATS system would involve integrating the system into the exhaust from kiln preheaters, clinker coolers, or radiant heat capture from kiln shells for the heat source. For the cold source, a range of cooling solutions can be considered, including a mechanical cooling system, depending on the location and the application. To increase the generation capacity for commercial applications, the technology provider is working toward developing a commercial-scale TEG system, which would combine multiple TEG units (each similar in design to the pilot system) together. The scope of this evaluation includes the pilot-scale TEG system and all impacted equipment including pumps, controllers, and power handling equipment. Study Objectives The evaluation's goal was to assess the potential of the ATS TEG system to generate useful electrical power by capturing waste heat from cement production kilns. The objectives of this study are to evaluate and verify the following claims made by ATS regarding the pilot-scale system installed at the Holcim Alpena plant. The following design parameters and claims are also outlined in Table ES- 1 and Table ES- 2: • Gross Power: The thermoelectric system converts heat into power to create gross power, the total measured power generated by the system. The 573 active cartridge pilot-scale system is expected to generate 11.5 kW of gross power at the designed hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. Power production is dependent on the temperature difference between the heat source (ultimately from the waste heat) and cold temperature supply source. • Net Power: The net power is the total usable power provided to the site by the TEG system after deducting parasitic power loads from the gross generated power. Supplementary equipment is required to operate the TEG system including pumps, controllers, and, in certain anticipated applications, mechanical cooling, which introduce parasitic loads to system operation. After deducting the parasitic loads from the gross power generation, ATS anticipates achieving a net power generation of 7.5 kW from the pilot-scale system. • Thermal Efficiency: The thermal efficiency is the percent of the total heat transferred to the TEG system that is converted to gross power. Historically, TEGs have a thermal efficiency of 2%–5% (DOE 2008). Prior industrial-scale TEG systems, such as the E1 TEG offered by Alphabet Energy, operated at an efficiency of 2.5% (Lamonica, 2014). ATS anticipates achieving an average efficiency of 4.8% or higher in converting heat energy to usable electricity. • Cartridge Performance: The TEG system comprises 573 active individual semiconductor cartridges, each of which generates a portion of the total power. Cartridge optimization and selection is an important design consideration for potential future TEG system design performance. Therefore, understanding the distribution of gross power and efficiency within the pilot system is vital to understanding what is achievable. At a design hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C, ATS anticipates a cartridge performance of 20 W of gross power per cartridge at an efficiency of 4.8% per cartridge. In addition to evaluating the claimed performance of the TEG pilot-scale unit, the study estimated the potential annual impacts of a scaled-up commercial system used to capture kiln waste heat over annual operations. The evaluation estimated the gross and net annual electric generation achievable by capturing heat from the two proposed tap-in points: the kiln exhaust and the clinker cooler exhaust; see Section 2.1 for details. Two use cases were examined: • Holcim Alpena: The Holcim Alpena site consists of long dry kilns with superheater boilers, which differs from the rest of Holcim’s cement plant portfolio and results in lower waste heat temperatures. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the superheater boiler exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, based on 2023 operational data. • Typical Installation: Common cement plants have preheater kilns with higher exhaust temperatures than Holcim Alpena across a range of production rates. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, with a sensitivity analysis to account for the typical range of preheater exhaust temperatures, clinker cooler exhaust temperatures, and clinker production rates. Methodology The evaluation methodology followed a measurement and verification (M&V) strategy based on the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol Option B through comprehensive measurements and analyses of the affected systems. Evaluation data was collected from March 9 to March 11, 2024, the test period of the pilot TEG system. During the test period, in coordination with the ITV team, the ATS team adjusted system operations to capture the range of variability expected for each of the variables pertinent to performance of the system. The methodology consisted of two parts: evaluating the performance of the pilot unit's TEG system and estimating the annual TEG impact in terms of gross and net power based on a given waste heat profile. First, the evaluation of the thermoelectric generation performance of the pilot unit relative to the claims was performed by analyzing the collected test data. Gross power of the pilot TEG system was directly measured. Net power was determined by deducting the measured parasitic power from the gross power. The gross power generation was compared to heat transferred to the system by the working fluid (which was heated by steam generated from the kiln waste heat) to calculate the thermal efficiency achieved by the system. Performance of individual semiconductor cartridges within the pilot array was also assessed in terms of measured gross cartridge power and calculated cartridge thermal efficiency. The second part of the evaluation estimated the annual TEG impacts in terms of gross power and net power (calculated from the difference between gross power and parasitic power). This analysis comprised development of mathematical regression models for gross power and parasitic power, with assessment of each model’s goodness-of-fit characteristics to ensure satisfaction of statistical requirements. The models predicted the gross power generation, the parasitic load based on the temperature difference between the hot working fluid and the cold-side fluid (cold water from Lake Huron) entering the system, the volumetric flow rate of the cold-side fluid at the inlet, and the volumetric flow rate of the hot working fluid at the inlet. The annual impact analysis considered a theoretical commercial-scale system sized to capture the available waste heat at a cement plant, consisting of linked pilot-scale units that receive heat from a theoretical gas-to-working-fluid heat exchanger. To estimate annual impacts at the Alpena plant, the gross power and parasitic power regression models were applied to the arrays in the theoretical commercial-scale system. The heat supplied to the unit was calculated based on the kiln run time, annual production, kiln exhaust waste heat, and clinker cooler waste heat derived from 2023 Holcim Alpena kiln operational data. Net power impacts were calculated by deducting the resulting parasitic power from the estimated gross power. Inputs for the model were generated from a combination of hourly data, assumed design considerations for TEG system scale-up from the pilot-scale unit, and assumptions regarding TEG system operations. This analysis was then used as the basis for estimating annual impacts of typical TEG installation at cement plants, by applying sensitivity analyses to key kiln operational characteristics including kiln preheater exhaust temperatures, cooler clinker exhaust temperatures, and plant daily production rates across a range of expected values. Project Results/Findings Table ES- 2 and Table ES- 2 provide a summary of the operating conditions and evaluation results compared to the stated claims from the technology provider. Key takeaways include: • Gross Power: The peak gross power achieved during the testing period was 10.0 kW, compared to the 11.5 kW expected for 573 active cartridges. The claimed gross power was associated with a target hot side of 240°C; however, the system only received a maximum hot-side mean plate temperature of 212°C during the testing period. • Net Power: The pilot-scale unit exceeded the claims for net power, achieving a peak of 7.7 kW net compared to a claim of 7.5 kW. One factor contributing to the higher achieved net power is the relatively high water pressure available through Lake Huron. The pilot TEG system did not require cold-side pumps during the test, whereas most installations would. This reduced the parasitic loads on the system, ultimately contributing to higher net power relative to the gross power. • Thermal Efficiency: The pilot-scale unit outperformed the claimed efficiency, achieving a peak system efficiency of 5.0% thermal efficiency compared to the stated 4.8%. • Cartridge Performance: To compare cartridge performance against claims, the study focused on the third day of testing, which aimed for conditions closest to the design specifications, with a hot side of 240°C and cold-side exit temperature of 6.4°–30°C. On this day, the mean gross power observed in the cartridges within the TEG array was 18.1 W/cartridge, and the peak performance was 34.7 W/cartridge. The estimated mean cartridge efficiency was 5.2%, and the estimated efficiency at peak gross cartridge power was 10%. The regression models developed for gross power generation and parasitic loads were used to estimate the generation impact for given heat input to the TEG from the working fluid (captured from the waste heat) and from the cold loop (Lake Huron) on an hourly basis for a year of operation. Based on this analysis, installation of a commercial-scale TEG system at the Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan, with a waste heat exchanger of 0.85 effectiveness, would generate up to 391 kW of net power, translating to between 920,000 and 1,800,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in net electricity per year. Based on typical grid emissions for Alpena, this would avoid estimated net emissions by 752 metric tons of CO₂ annually.² The sensitivity analysis estimated that typical TEG system installations at cement plants could generate an average of 56–1,040 kW of net power, or between 488,000 and 9,110,000 kWh of net energy. This generation potential is most significantly affected by plant production rates and also influenced by preheater and clinker cooler exhaust temperatures. Applying the national average emission rate, typical commercial-scale installations at Holcim plants are projected to avoid between 182 and 3,401 metric tons of CO₂ annually per site. Table ES- 3 shows a summary of the estimated annual impacts.³ While parasitic loads are significant and vary by application, this analysis assumed the use of heating loop pumps and access to Lake Huron as a cold sink. This setup assumed no need for cooling loop pumps due to the available water pressure at the test site. Applications that require cooling towers or additional equipment are likely to experience higher parasitic loads. Therefore, the study’s estimates are most applicable to scenarios with similar parasitic load configurations—namely, access to a high-pressure cold sink. Applicability to other locations may be limited, as differing conditions could necessitate additional pumps and cooling systems, potentially impacting performance significantly.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗