Engineering PapersSearch

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Steam compression”

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.

41 records · Page 3

Leveraging Existing Assets for Long Duration Energy Storage

Increased renewables penetration to electrical grid is necessary to reduce overall emissions from the electrical power generation sector. Nonetheless, its integration creates challenges to grid operators who must match the power being generated by intermittent renewables and other traditional energy sources with the demand from consumers, while ensuring the reliability and power quality for the entire system. Energy storage has been proposed as an alternative to natural gas peaking plants and a form to deliver excess renewable energy generation at times of peak demand. For energy storage to provide benefits to end customers (energy consumers), it must be reliable, efficient, and cost effective. The Illinois Sustainable Technology Center (ISTC), one of the surveys that integrate the Prairie Research Institute (PRI), aims to develop a Center for Energy Storage at Existing Assets (CESEA) at UIUC with the participation of Waste Pressure Corp and Ecotek Engineering USA LLC. CESEA will focus on LDES systems that can integrate to existing infrastructure in a manner that reduces the initial capital expenditure and demonstrates the ability to repurpose fossil assets that would otherwise become stranded, to serve the energy transition. CESEA aims to leverage UIUC’s unique facilities to validate LDES systems performance at a relevant operating environment. UIUC’s facilities include a 85-MW combined heat and power (CHP) power plant, two (2) solar PV plants totaling over 18 MWdc of installed capacity, an electrical grid along with a substation at transmission and distribution voltages, a 22-mile gas pipeline network operating at two pressure levels, along with steam and chilled water distribution networks. The new LDES systems will connect to the existing UIUC grid through a new test electrical station, which will have the capacity to accommodate additional connections to test new devices and technologies as part of future CESEA R&D activities. The test electrical station will contain meters, instrumentation, and controls to accurately capture data and allow optimization of control algorithms. CESEA will initially focus on technologies that: i) utilize existing equipment or facilities to perform at least one of the process steps in LDES (charging, storage, or discharging), ii) leverage mature or commercially available components or controls, iii) show potential for cost-leadership in 10+ hour storage at a commercial scale. Initial technologies that were identified to meet these criteria include Compressed Gas Energy Storage (CGES), and TES. CGES stores electricity by raising the pressure of a compressible gas inside a control volume and converting the stored energy to electricity via expansion-generation. CGES is a generalization of CAES that covers any working gas (not just air). A successful CGES demo will help to circumvent many challenges faced by CAES (long development times due to site prospecting, high cost of compression and storage, heat recovery management, etc.) by: 1) utilizing existing infrastructure (compressors, pipelines, underground storage or pressure vessels) used in the transportation and storage of industrial gases for LDES charging and storage; 2) deploying over sites already-developed for industrial applications with minor additional work; 3) leveraging the price structure of commercial industrial gas to cover the costs of electricity used during charging. A previous DOE-sponsored conceptual study (DE-FE-0032018) estimated the levelized cost of energy of a 1.1 MW / 17 MWh CGES system at $0.08/kWh, with a commercial 10x scale system cost estimated at <$0.04/kWh (Giardinella, 2022). The pilot-sized system was estimated to avoid up to 2693 tons of CO2/year.

25 ENERGY STORAGE

Improved Thermal-Insulation Systems for Low Temperatures

Improved thermal-insulation materials and structures and the techniques for manufacturing them are undergoing development for use in low-temperature applications. Examples of low-temperature equipment for which these thermal insulation systems could provide improved energy efficiency include storage tanks for cryogens, superconducting electric-power-transmission equipment, containers for transport of food and other perishable commodities, and cold boxes for low-temperature industrial processes. These systems could also be used to insulate piping used to transfer cryogens and other fluids, such as liquefied natural gas, refrigerants, chilled water, crude oil, or low-pressure steam. The present thermal-insulation systems are layer composites based partly on the older class of thermal-insulation systems denoted generally as multilayer insulation (MLI). A typical MLI structure includes an evacuated jacket, within which many layers of radiation shields are stacked or wrapped close together. Low-thermal-conductivity spacers are typically placed between the reflection layers to keep them from touching. MLI can work very well when a high vacuum level (less than 10(exp-4) torr) is maintained and utmost care is taken during installation, but its thermal performance deteriorates sharply as the pressure in the evacuated space rises into the soft vacuum range [pressures greater than 0.1 torr (greater than 13 Pa)]. In addition, the thermal performance of MLI is extremely sensitive to mechanical compression and edge effects and can easily decrease from one to two orders of magnitude from its ideal value even when the MLI is kept under high vacuum condition. The present thermal-insulation systems are designed to perform well under soft vacuum level, in particular the range of 1 to 10 torr. They are also designed with larger interlayer spacings to reduce vulnerability to compression (and consequent heat leak) caused by installation and use. The superiority of these systems is the synergistic effect of improvements in materials, design, and manufacture.

Fesmire, James E.

Methanol from Integrated Direct Air Capture and Ceramic Electrolysis (MIDACE)

The Methanol from Integrated Direct Air Capture and Ceramic Electrolysis (MIDACE) project advanced a novel system concept for integrating pressurized co-electrolysis of steam and crude carbon dioxide captured directly from ambient air using a sorbent technology. The co-electrolysis produced syngas provides feedstock for a gas-to-liquid methanol synthesis reactor. The system recovers waste heat from the reactor and electrolyzer into regenerating the direct air capture sorbent. The purpose of the project was to demonstrate critical integration elements of the design and perform a technical study illustrating how a large-scale installation could achieve the $800/ton program target for green methanol production. The concept addresses the program objective to consolidate operations by combining crude CO 2 cleanup, hydrogen production, and partial CO 2 reduction steps within a carbon tolerant high temperature electrolyzer. The design lowers costs by simplifying the methanol recovery cycle, reducing carbon losses from venting, reducing sensitivity to catalyst selectivity, and avoiding syngas compression.

10 SYNTHETIC FUELS

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

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

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 (GH 2 ) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH 2 ) 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 m 2 /g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH 2 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 GH 2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH 2 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 GH 2 . 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 GH 2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH 2 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.

Joshua Schmitt