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 577 records · Page 32
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Exploring Future Storage Options for ATLAS at the BNL/SDCC facility

The ATLAS experiment is expected to deliver an unprecedented amount of scientific data in the High Luminosity(HL-LHC) era. As the demand for disk storage capacity in ATLAS continues to rise steadily, the BNL Scientific Data and Computing Center (SDCC) faces challenges in terms of cost implications for maintaining multiple disk copies and adapting to the coming ATLAS storage requirements. To address these challenges, the SDCC Storage team has undertaken a thorough analysis of the ATLAS experiment's requirements, matching them to suitable storage options and strategies, and has explored alternatives to enhance or replace the current storage solution. This paper aims to present the main challenges encountered while supporting big data experiments such as ATLAS. We describe the experiment's specific requirements and priorities, particularly focusing on the critical storage system characteristics of the high-luminosity run and how the key storage components provided by the Storage team work together: the dCache disk storage system; its archival back-end, HPSS; and its OS-level backend Storage. Specifically, we investigate a novel approach to integrate Lustre and XRootD. In this setup, Lustre serves as backend storage and XRootD acts as an access layer frontend, supporting various grid access protocols. Additionally, we also describe the validation and commissioning tests, including the performance comparison between dCache and XRootd. Furthermore, we provide a performance and cost analysis comparing OpenZFS and LINUX MD RAID, evaluate different storage software stacks, and showcase stress tests conducted to validate Third Party Copy (TPC) functionality.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Nebraska Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Pre-Feasibility Study

In collaboration with the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has conducted a pre-feasibility study for a commercial-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) geologic storage complex in western Nebraska integrated with potential CO 2 capture at Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS). GGS is the largest coal-fired electricity-generating station in Nebraska, emitting 8.5 million metric tons (Mt) of CO 2 annually, and is located near the town of Sutherland. This pre-feasibility (Phase 1) project has been executed as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) CarbonSAFE program, a multiphase initiative to support the deployment of large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. Each CarbonSAFE project is required to demonstrate the potential to capture and store at least 50 million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 over a 25-year operational period. The EERC and NPPD established a coordination team to identify challenges to a potential Nebraska CCS project, comprising local stakeholder organizations, which met twice in Lincoln and via several Webinars, providing feedback and guidance throughout the pre-feasibility study. The EERC also secured the technical support of Schlumberger Carbon Services and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG). The project comprised four technical themes, all using published information sources. Regional and stakeholder analysis, including identification of sensitive environmental areas, potential resource conflicts, and strategies for public outreach. A review of geographic and socioeconomic characteristics, in combination with geologic characterization in the subbasinal analysis described below, identified an area to the southwest and within a 75-mile radius of GGS as the most prospective for development of a storage site. This area largely avoided lands with protected status such as wetlands. A public outreach plan has also been developed for implementation in any further phases of CCS assessment in western Nebraska, for example a CarbonSAFE Phase 2 feasibility study. Scenario analysis, addressing economic and regulatory factors. GGS is the only single major source of CO 2 emissions capable of satisfying the CarbonSAFE 50-Mt scale requirement within the study region. Chemical absorption using amines was identified as the most viable technology for postcombustion CO 2 capture at GGS. The total cost of a CCS project at GGS was estimated to be between $67/tonne CO 2 for capture and auxiliary boiler to minimize parasitic load and $70/tonne CO 2 avoided cost, using the Carnegie-Mellon University Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM). The total avoided cost included the capture facility and parasitic load, a flue gas desulfurization plant required for the use of amine solvent technology, transport via pipeline, and dedicated storage infrastructure. Nebraska has no legislation in place to address typical CCS-specific issues, for example pore space ownership for storage. Long-term liability, therefore, falls under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class 6 program regulations. Subbasinal analysis, addressing the potential for a dedicated subsurface “container” to store the required 50-Mt quantity of CO 2 . Modeling and simulation studies identified an area to the southwest of GGS with the potential for storage of 50 Mt CO 2 in the Cloverly Formation, comprising sandstones with interbedded and intermingled shales. The area of review (AOR) that would be required for monitoring under a Class VI operating permit was estimated to be as high as 400–700 square miles, due to uncertain pressure effects. The viability of this storage option is subject to significant uncertainty due to the relatively limited amount of existing characterization data available to the pre-feasibility study; for example, dynamic simulation indicated that the proposed storage rate might require as little as two or as many as 14 injection wells. A key uncertainty is the relative proportion and distribution of sandstone and shale within the Cloverly Formation. A preliminary, semiquantitative risk assessment also suggested uncertainty over storage capacity and injectivity constitute the most significant project risks at this pre-feasibility stage. No assessed risks were considered to rule out the possibility of a project moving to deployment. National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) validation, using software tools developed by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess risks associated with the potential 50-Mt CO 2 storage complex. NRAP tools were used to assess hypothetical leakage scenarios. Results broadly supported the conclusion of the semiquantitative risk analysis – for example, even worst-case analysis of theoretical leakage scenarios found limited migration rates and impacts. In summary, the work undertaken in this Phase 1 pre-feasibility study has shown that western Nebraska has potential to host a commercial-scale CCS project, including a dedicated storage “container” for 50 Mt of CO 2 . However, the following key challenges would need to be overcome: The business case for deploying CCS projects is uncertain; recently announced federal tax credits and sales of CO 2 for enhanced oil recovery may not cover the full costs of a CCS project at GGS, as estimated by this pre-feasibility study. The potential 50-Mt CO 2 dedicated storage container defined in this pre-feasibility study should be regarded as having a relatively low level of readiness to support a CCS project. Public outreach would be a vital element in western Nebraska, where sensitivities around such environmental issues as water resource protection and pipeline construction would need to be carefully addressed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Dry Storage Cask Inventory Assessment

The report, Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Inventory Report [FCRDNFST-2013-000263, Vinson/Metzger/Carter 2017], provides information on the inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) as well as Government-owned SNF and High Level Waste (HLW) in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex. Inventory forecasts for commercial SNF were made for a few selected scenarios of future commercial nuclear power generation involving the existing reactor fleet including one scenario involving reactors under construction. This Dry Storage Cask Inventory Assessment report uses the data contained in FCRD-NFST-2013- 000263 to define the existing inventory of SNF in dry storage. This information is integrated with data on dry storage canisters and casks from the report, Storage and Transport Cask Data for Used Commercial Nuclear Fuel, 2013 U. S. Edition [ATI-TR-13047 2013] in a Microsoft Access database (hereinafter referred to as the Dry Storage Cask/Inventory Database). The Dry Storage Cask/Inventory Database is used to produce queries for assessing the various systems used for the existing inventory of dry storage casks. The database and this report will be revised in the future as the inventory of fuel in dry storage changes and as additional information becomes available. Both bare fuel and canistered dry storage casks are currently used to dry store SNF. Only 4 utilities currently use bare fuel storage systems for dry storage at 5 reactor sites. Seven unique bare fuel storage cask systems are used to store a total of 9,694 spent fuel assemblies in 212 total casks.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Mitigation for Removal of Building 01-202681 in the Main Storage Yard of the Area 1 Subdock, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The Main Storage Yard was originally recorded as SHPO Resource No. S2772 in 2020 during an architectural survey of the Area 1 Subdock (Collins et al. 2022). It was recommended individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C and as contributing to the significance of the potential Area 1 Subdock Historic District. The SHPO concurred with these determinations in a letter dated April 29, 2022 (Reed). The Main Storage Yard retains all seven aspects of integrity. The location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association have not changed since the original construction. Since the purpose of the yard is to maintain storage equipment that is actively being used, the design and feeling will change each time equipment is moved. Such actions reinforce the integrity of design and feeling. Buildings 01-101 and 01-102 were removed (Collins and Menocal 2020), but the other buildings and storage yard remain. Therefore, the setting has been changed, but not to the degree that the Main Storage Yard no longer conveys its significance (see Figures 4 and 5 for comparison). The Main Storage Yard was designed to facilitate the relocation of the Area 3 Subdock to Area 1 in 1985. The design for the overall Subdock provided a centralized cluster of buildings surrounded by two large storage yards. While the North Storage Yard largely serves as overflow storage, the Main Storage Yard holds the majority of drill rigs and drilling equipment needed to support big hole drilling. The Main Storage Yard and its contents were essential elements of the nuclear testing drilling program on the NNSS thus making it eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its contribution to broad patterns of history by storing specially designed equipment for underground nuclear testing at the NNSS. It is also eligible under Criterion C as it is an engineered landscape that now serves as an open-air repository of drilling technology and nuclear testing. In addition to its individual significance, the Main Storage Yard also contributes to the significance of the Area 1 Subdock Historic District as it showcases a variety of big-hole drilling equipment, support facilities, and warehouses that were specially designed for nuclear testing at the NNSS. Despite the demolition of two contributing elements to date, the district still contains numerous examples of other facilities with the purpose of supporting big-hole drilling; therefore, the district still remains eligible under Criteria A and C.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1980

The SERI solar energy storage program

In support of the DOE thermal and chemical energy storage program, the solar energy storage program (SERI) provides research on advanced technologies, systems analyses, and assessments of thermal energy storage for solar applications in support of the Thermal and Chemical Energy Storage Program of the DOE Division of Energy Storage Systems. Currently, research is in progress on direct contact latent heat storage and thermochemical energy storage and transport. Systems analyses are being performed of thermal energy storage for solar thermal applications, and surveys and assessments are being prepared of thermal energy storage in solar applications. A ranking methodology for comparing thermal storage systems (performance and cost) is presented. Research in latent heat storage and thermochemical storage and transport is reported.

Copeland, R. J.↗
DOE OSTI2014

Geological Carbon Sequestration Storage Resource Estimates for the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, Illinois and Michigan Basins, USA

The Cambro-Ordovician strata of the Midwest of the United States is a primary target for potential geological storage of CO2 in deep saline formations. The objective of this project is to develop a comprehensive evaluation of the Cambro-Ordovician strata in the Illinois and Michigan Basins above the basal Mount Simon Sandstone since the Mount Simon is the subject of other investigations including a demonstration-scale injection at the Illinois Basin Decatur Project. The primary reservoir targets investigated in this study are the middle Ordovician St Peter Sandstone and the late Cambrian to early Ordovician Knox Group carbonates. The topic of this report is a regional-scale evaluation of the geologic storage resource potential of the St Peter Sandstone in both the Illinois and Michigan Basins. Multiple deterministic-based approaches were used in conjunction with the probabilistic-based storage efficiency factors published in the DOE methodology to estimate the carbon storage resource of the formation. Extensive data sets of core analyses and wireline logs were compiled to develop the necessary inputs for volumetric calculations. Results demonstrate how the range in uncertainty of storage resource estimates varies as a function of data availability and quality, and the underlying assumptions used in the different approaches. In the simplest approach, storage resource estimates were calculated from mapping the gross thickness of the formation and applying a single estimate of the effective mean porosity of the formation. Results from this approach led to storage resource estimates ranging from 3.3 to 35.1 Gt in the Michigan Basin, and 1.0 to 11.0 Gt in the Illinois Basin at the P10 and P90 probability level, respectively. The second approach involved consideration of the diagenetic history of the formation throughout the two basins and used depth-dependent functions of porosity to derive a more realistic spatially variable model of porosity rather than applying a single estimate of porosity throughout the entire potential reservoir domains. The second approach resulted in storage resource estimates of 3.0 to 31.6 Gt in the Michigan Basin, and 0.6 to 6.1 Gt in the Illinois Basin. The third approach attempted to account for the local-scale variability in reservoir quality as a function of both porosity and permeability by using core and log analyses to calculate explicitly the net effective porosity at multiple well locations, and interpolate those results throughout the two basins. This approach resulted in storage resource estimates of 10.7 to 34.7 Gt in the Michigan Basin, and 11.2 to 36.4 Gt in the Illinois Basin. A final approach used advanced reservoir characterization as the most sophisticated means to estimating storage resource by defining reservoir properties for multiple facies within the St Peter formation. This approach was limited to the Michigan Basin since the Illinois Basin data set did not have the requisite level of data quality and sampling density to support such an analysis. Results from this approach led to storage resource estimates of 15.4 Gt to 50.1 Gt for the Michigan Basin. The observed variability in results from the four different approaches is evaluated in the context of data and methodological constraints, leading to the conclusion that the storage resource estimates from the first two approaches may be conservative, whereas the net porosity based approaches may over-estimate the resource.

Barnes, David↗
DOE OSTI2015

Advancement of Systems Designs and Key Engineering Technologies for Materials Based Hydrogen Storage

UTRC lead the development of the Simulink Framework model that enables a comparison of different hydrogen storage systems on a common basis. The Simulink Framework model was disseminated on the www.HSECoE.org website that is hosted by NREL. UTRC contributed to a better understanding of the safety aspects of the proposed hydrogen storage systems. UTRC also participated in the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis of both the chemical- and the adsorbent-based hydrogen storage system during Phase 2 of the Hydrogen Storage Engineering Center of Excellence. UTRC designed a hydrogen storage system with a reversible metal hydride material in a compacted form for light-duty vehicles with a 5.6 kg H2 storage capacity, giving it a 300 miles range. It contains a heat exchanger that enables efficient cooling of the metal hydride material during hydrogen absorption in order to meet the 3.3 minute refueling time target. It has been shown through computation that the kinetics of hydrogen absorption of Ti-catalyzed NaAlH4 was ultimately limiting the rate of hydrogen absorption to 85% of the material capacity in 3.3 minutes. An inverse analysis was performed in order to determine the material property requirements in order for a metal hydride based hydrogen storage system to meet the DOE targets. Work on metal hydride storage systems was halted after the Phase 1 to Phase 2 review due to the lack of metal hydride materials with the required material properties. UTRC contributed to the design of a chemical hydrogen storage system by developing an adsorbent for removing the impurity ammonia from the hydrogen gas, by developing a system to meter the transport of Ammonia Borane (AB) powder to a thermolysis reactor, and by developing a gas-liquid-separator (GLS) for the separation of hydrogen gas from AB slurry in silicone oil. Stripping impurities from hydrogen gas is essential for a long life of the fuel cell system on board of a vehicle. Work on solid transport of AB was halted after the Phase 1 to Phase 2 review in favor of studying the slurry-form of AB as it appeared to be difficult to transport a solid form of AB through the thermolysis reactor. UTRC demonstrated the operation of a compact GLS in the laboratory at a scale that would be required for the actual automotive application. The GLS met the targets for weight and volume. UTRC also reported about the unresolved issue associated with the high vapor pressure of fluids that could be used for making a slurry-form of AB. Work on the GLS was halted after the Phase 2 to Phase 3 review as the off-board regeneration efficiency of the spent AB was below the DOE target of 60%. UTRC contributed to the design of an adsorbent-based hydrogen storage system through measurements of the thermal conductivity of a compacted form of Metal Organic Framework (MOF) number 5 and through the development and sizing of a particulate filter. Thermal conductivity is important for the design of the modular adsorbent tank insert (MATI), as developed by Oregon State University (OSU), in order to enable a rapid refueling process. Stringent hydrogen quality requirements can only be met with an efficient particulate filtration system. UTRC developed a method to size the particulate filter by taking into account the effect of the pressure drop on the hydrogen adsorption process in the tank. UTRC raised awareness about the potential use of materials-based H2 storage systems in applications outside the traditional light-duty vehicle market segment by presenting at several conferences about niche application opportunities in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV), portable power and others.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Austin Sustainable and Holistic Integration of Energy Storage and Solar PV [Austin SHINES]. Final Report, Version 2

The Austin SHINES project and solution is a software management platform, for an electric grid with a high penetration of dispersed photovoltaic (PV) solar generation sites, which maintains the traditional power quality and reliability associated with grid service. This project developed and deployed the platform as a Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), engaging multiple advanced controls, to evaluate operation and optimization of a fleet of diverse DER assets, installed at several locations among Austin Energy’s customers and distribution system. The project also produced a methodology to create a replicable DERMS template, adaptable to other regions and market structures. Last, Austin SHINES aimed to demonstrate the solution’s methodology would enable the DER grid ecosystem to serve load at a technical cost (System Levelized Cost of Electricity, or System LCOE) of less than the U.S. Department of Energy SHINES program metric of $0.14/kWh, in a defined boundary, while enabling a high penetration of distributed PV. Research was categorized in 6 reports (Final Deliverables = FD) listed below, with titles and descriptions indicating which area of understanding was investigated: FD-1: System Levelized Cost of Electricity (System LCOE) Methodology The creation and use of the System LCOE to Serve Load metric that encompasses the holistic, system-level costs and benefits of all resources, and enables them to be evaluated based on their ability to support an efficient and low-cost integrated grid ecosystem. FD-2: Software Platform Product Description The creation of new DER control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform that enable DER's to maximize their benefit within a grid, that is capable of serving load enabling a high penetration of distributed PV generation. FD-3: Optimal Design Methodology Optimal design methodologies for individual DER installations that enable utilities to determine the optimal combinations and sizing for individual DER sites. FD-4: Austin SHINES Ownership and Operation Models for DER System Performance A comparison of multiple DER aggregation and ownership methodologies including direct utility control, third-party aggregator, and autonomous. FD-5: Economic Modeling & Optimization A comparison of multiple DER technology mixes and configurations within the distribution system, providing insight into an optimal blend of technologies that best enable the distribution system to serve load at the lowest cost at high penetrations of solar. FD-6: Fielded Assets Deployed DER assets within the Austin Energy SHINES circuits. Austin SHINES provided an opening for state-of-the-art technology products to be deployed, providing a rich opportunity for improving how each of the products perform as stand-alone products, and in concert with other complementary products. The Austin SHINES project comprised of two key metrics for System LCOE: SystemLCOE_SHINES<$0.14/kWh Modeled ΔSystemLCOE_SHINES/ΔSystemLCOE_Base≥20% at same solar penetration The System LCOE calculation uses the costs of the utility-owned infrastructure as it exists today, the cost of the DERs that exist in the system today, and the cost of the purchase of energy from ERCOT wholesale markets over the course of the calendar year. All costs are on an annualized basis. The capital and operating costs are derived from the rate case, which produces a yearly cost. The net cost of energy and services imported to the system is integrated over the test year, as is the load served and solar penetration. The first metric was easily achieved by every scenario considered. The goal was set when the Department of Energy’s SHINES Funding Opportunity Announcement was written in 2015 and was a more difficult target at the time. Due mostly to rapidly declining costs for DERs and the significant decrease in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) energy market prices, which results in lower net cost of energy purchases, the System LCOE is well below this target for all scenarios considered. A fleet of DERs can assume different mixtures, each of which serves the load at a different LCOE. The optimal mixture of DERs serves load at the smallest System LCOE. The second metric (hereinafter %delta metric) asks that the holistic DERMS controls reduce the incremental cost above the baseline of going to a high solar penetration future by at least 20% as compared to the case of a DER deployment with no sophisticated controls (autonomous). Many comparison sets were created throughout this project. Physical technology was installed for informing utility engineering and testing several types of operational control schemes, through the DERMS. The types of operational control which were compared for valuation of the System LCOE Metric were: Holistic control = using the full suite of the DERMS platform to decide and optimize how/why the systems operate depending on weather, market, and reliability signal input. Autonomous control = a local mode at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only No control = the baseline for comparing value against the other two types of control The types of ownership control included: Direct Utility control = the utility dispatches a signal to each asset Third-Party Aggregator = a third party aggregates a fleet of assets and the utility dispatches one signal for all Autonomous = a local mode is set for operation at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only The types of control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform included: Utility Peak Load Reduction = Lower transmission cost obligation Day-Ahead Energy Arbitrage = Realize economic value through price differential Real-Time Price Dispatch = Realize economic value from real-time price spikes Voltage support = Reduce losses and increase solar generation Distribution Congestion Management = Increase local grid reliability Demand Charge Reduction = Lower customer bills and realize system benefit The fielded assets deployed for the project were: Utility Scale Kingsbery Energy Storage System: 1.5 MW / 3 MWh Li-Ion battery storage Mueller Energy Storage System: 1.75 MW / 3.2 MWh Li-Ion battery storage, 7 Energy Storage Units (250 kW each) La Loma Community Solar: 2.6 MW Commercial Scale Aggregated storage installations at 3 sites, with existing solar (300+ kW): One 18 kW / 36 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Two 72 kW / 144 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Residential Scale Aggregated storage installations: -Six stationary battery storage systems (10 kWh each) at homes with existing solar -One Electric Vehicle installed as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Utility-Controlled Solar via Smart Inverters at 12 homes Autonomously-Controlled Smart Inverters at 6 homes Over the course of the project, Austin SHINES undertook installing more than 3 MW of distributed battery energy storage, smart PV inverters, a DER control platform, and other enabling technologies utilizing customer and utility locations and aggregation models. All of these resources were to be integrated and optimized at the utility level. DER assets and control methodologies were designed to achieve a credible pathway to a System LCOE for energy delivered to load of $0.14//kWh or less by 2020, while maximizing distributed solar generation and maintaining acceptable standards of power quality. The project also established a template for other regions to follow, to maximize the adoption of distributed solar PV in support of an economic and efficient grid. In total, the Austin SHINES project added value to the DER subject area in each layer of integration. From utility, to commercial to residential scales, the sheer hierarchy of communication and coordination was a significant accomplishment in addition to learnings from what these communications revealed was unique to each. Economically, the most effective method demonstrated was the criticality of planning phases. Contingencies and multiple projection scenarios helped guide the project to deploy optimal design as close as feasible, in real world conditions. The project and reports will serve public benefit by outlining specific areas of DER strategy and installation where many stakeholders and needs can be addressed with improved efficiency. Overall, communities and utilities should use the results to guide the increasing options available for powering the grid with DER, renewables, and carbon considerate energy.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

PCOR Partnership Best Practices Manual for Subsurface Technical Risk Assessment of Geologic CO 2 Storage Projects

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Energy established the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Initiative to help develop technology, infrastructure, and regulations needed to facilitate large-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) geologic storage (herein “storage”) and support deployment of commercial carbon capture and storage projects. The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership, led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), is one of seven partnerships created by this program. The PCOR Partnership is publishing a series of best practices manuals for each of the four PCOR Partnership-defined primary technical elements of a storage site: site characterization; modeling and simulation; risk assessment; and monitoring, verification, and accounting. This document describes the risk assessment process for evaluating subsurface technical risks associated with a CO 2 storage project. This best practices manual identifies the key elements comprising a risk assessment for a CO 2 storage complex and defines important risk management terminology and technical factors that are unique to the geologic storage of CO 2 . It also provides best practices for implementing a risk assessment based on lessons learned from conducting risk assessments for storage complexes within the PCOR Partnership region. Case studies of these real-world examples, which highlight key aspects of applying the risk assessment process to storage projects, are provided to support the proposed best practices. The development of a best practice requires the execution of multiple projects where the knowledge gained and lessons learned are accumulated over time and integrated to yield a best practice. This development progression is an adaptive management process whereby best practices constantly evolve over time in response to knowledge gained and lessons learned. This document encompasses the current body-of-knowledge and best practices for applying a standardized risk assessment approach within risk management for storage projects. Application of these best practices will provide reliable and consistent standards for identifying project-related risks, analyzing the probabilities and potential impacts of these risks, evaluating which risks require treatment, and determining priority for treatment implementation. These best practices will continue to evolve and be refined over time as commercialization of the CO 2 storage industry proceeds.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reservoir Thermal Energy Storage Benchmarking (Rev. 3)

A benchmarking analysis of RTES research funded by GTO through the Beyond Batteries projects was conducted against the ESGC to see where they fit within the identified ESGC Use Cases. The projects were found to advance knowledge in multiple ESGC use cases, either directly or in some cases, indirectly as enabling technologies. This analysis is helpful to understand where RTES and associated research fits into the larger discussion around energy storage technologies. Also, a retrospective analysis of the Beyond Batteries projects was conducted to evaluate what the projects learned and how the results can be applied to advance the value of RTES. Major results of each of the studies are summarized in Table 2. Additionally, a comparative metrics analysis for RTES was completed to understand where RTES lies within the energy storage industry. Metrics for evaluation of RTES and its comparison to other storage technologies were selected and ranges of their values compiled. The selected metrics – LCOE (levelized cost of energy), capital costs, roundtrip efficiency, energy storage capacity, and storage time – were chosen based on data availability and have a particularly strong influence on the potential deployment of a storage technology. Charts which compare the metrics are presented in section 4.3 and show ranges for each of the 10 selected technologies. However, due to a lack of domestic operational facilities, values for RTES and for portions of the remaining technologies are based on theoretical modeling and studies of best-case scenarios. LCOE estimates for RTES fall within the lower reaches of Figure 15, but nevertheless amount to 2 – 5 times the ESGC Roadmap goal for LCOE, for example in the Facilitating and Evolving Grid Use Case. Capital costs for RTES sit on the higher end (Figure 16) but are expected to decrease as new projects are developed and the technology is refined. The theoretical roundtrip efficiency reported for RTES varies from mid to high percentages (Figure 17) with efficiencies upwards of 93% in modeled scenarios in the Portland Basin (Bershaw et al.,2020). RTES is also expected to have the largest energy storage capacities and longest storage times, likely matched only by lower efficiency hydrogen storage. To better assess the role that RTES could play in energy storage we examined it’s potential in the U.S. The potential depends on many factors. Recently, many researchers have started looking at deep sedimentary basins, depleted oil and gas fields, and basalt formations as potential targets for RTES development. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has analyzed various cities and shown substantial RTES potential in the cooling sector (Pepin et al., 2021). By modeling RTES in low-quality groundwater (e.g., brackish), it is shown to be favorable across the U.S. with particular suitability in the Illinois Basin, Coastal Plains, and Basin and Range regions. Seasonal RTES operations have also been modeled in the Portland Basin by those at the USGS and Portland State University to simulate an RTES system supplying heating loads needed for the Oregon Health and Science University. Simulations suggest that high conductive heat loss in the initial years exists but tends to decrease with increasing time and development of the resource due to self-insulating nature of the basalts (Burns et al., 2020). Other national laboratory efforts are taking a close look at many of the technical issues involved with RTES (McLing et al., 2019, McLing et al., 2022). These include difficulties in understanding geochemical, hydrogeological, mechanical, and microbiological changes at such elevated temperatures and operational scenarios. Major gaps in research are identified and suggested for future work. With this increased focus to understand how to make RTES successful in the U.S., this technology could be a potential solution to many of the nation’s energy storage problems. For the energy independence of this country, the DOE should prioritize de-risking this technology by making future investments in pilot-scale demonstrations to attract potential investors.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Energy Storage Analysis

This study presents a comprehensive techno-economic characterization of energy storage and exible low carbon power generation technologies that can shift energy across days, weeks, or months to balance daily, weekly, and seasonal disparities in supply and demand. Energy storage technologies evaluated here include pumped hydropower storage (PHS), adiabatic and diabatic compressed air energy storage (CAES), vanadium redox flow batteries (VRBs), pumped thermal energy storage (P-TES), and renewably produced hydrogen stored in either geologic formations or underground pipes with re-electrification via combustion turbines in combined cycles, stationary proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, or the novel use of PEM fuel cells designed for heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs) which are expected to have shorter lives but also lower capital costs. We also evaluate flexible low-carbon power generation systems, including ethanol combustion in gas turbines and natural gas combustion with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). We estimate current costs with literature data, use learning rates to characterize future costs, and develop capacity factors calibrated to an 85% renewables grid to calculate the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of each technology. Results illustrate that at the 12-hour storage duration, PHS and CAES have the lowest LCOE with current costs, and VRBs become competitive if future costs are achieved. At the 120-hour storage duration, hydrogen systems with geologic storage and natural gas with CCS achieve the lowest LCOE in both current and future capital cost scenarios. In particular, the new configuration of HDV-PEM fuel cells with hydrogen storage in geologic formations evaluated here could lower the LCOE by 22-27% compared to stationary fuel cell systems typically evaluated and might help enable very high (>80%) renewable energy electric power systems. P-TES and hydrogen stored in underground pipes are the least-cost options at the 120-hour storage duration rating that do not require some form of geologic storage. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis illustrate that the general trends seen in this study are valid for a wide range of capacity factors and future cost scenarios. The study also illustrates that coproducing and selling hydrogen to other markets could reduce the LCOE of hydrogen systems by up to 39%.

carbon capture and sequestration↗
DOE OSTI2019

Aluminum Clad SNF: Technical Considerations and Challenges for Extended (>50 years) Dry Storage - 1900y

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manages a significant inventory (>13 MTHM) of aluminum clad spent nuclear fuel (ASNF) using a combination of wet and dry storage at three primary sites; Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Savannah River Site (SRS). The majority of this ASNF is generated from U.S. and international research test reactors (RTR), examples include Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at INL and High-Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The Obama Administration suspension of the Yucca Mountain repository, issuance of the January 2013 DOE 'Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste,' delays in implementing the 'regionalization' SNF approach recommended in the 1995 'Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement,' and limited ASNF processing capability at SRS H-Canyon means that interim storage has become the de-facto strategy for managing ASNF. The 1995 Idaho Settlement Agreement requires the DOE to transfer all SNF stored at INL to interim dry storage prior to December 31, 2023 and wet storage capacity at the SRS is nearing capacity. This situation was recognized by the DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel Working Group (SNFWG) and at its June 2016 meeting formed a ASNF sub-working group comprised subject matter experts to evaluate this area and provide a report of findings. The ASNF sub-working group met many times over several month period to review the engineering and technical basis of existing and planned DOE ASNF dry storage facilities and additional studies on the behavior of ASNF under different conditions, including during reactor service. The ASNF sub-working group focused its review on RTR SNF. Based on these reviews, the ASNF sub-working group identified five knowledge gaps and technical data needs that should be addressed to ensure viability and safety of extended, greater than 50 years, sealed or vented interim dry storage of ASNF. These five areas include; behavior/chemistry of aluminum oxyhydroxide layer in dry storage, radiolytic gas generation properties of aluminum oxyhydroxide layers, effect of episodic breathing and radiolytic generation of corrosive gases during storage, performance of ASNF in existing dry storage systems, and effects of high temperature (>1000 C) drying on chemistry and behavior of aluminum oxyhydroxide layers. The ASNF sub-working group also recommended development of an action plan to identify technical and engineering activities needed to address the knowledge gaps and technical data needs. Results of the ASNF sub-working group are documented in 2017 report 'Aluminum Clad Spent Nuclear Fuel: Technical Considerations and Challenges for Extended (>50 years) Dry Storage,' DOE-ID/RPT-1575. The INL assembled a team comprised of twenty INL and Savannah River National Laboratory SNF management and subject matter experts to develop this action plan. Over the course of 2 months the team worked to develop the action plan. The plan identified and recommended six technical and engineering tasks needed to address the previously identified knowledge gaps and technical data needs. DOE Environmental Management Office of Technology Development is providing funding to the INL to execute these tasks. This paper will present and discuss the results of the ASNF sub-working group, tasks identified in the action plan, and experimental activities underway at INL and SRNL to address the action plan. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Simulated CO 2 storage efficiency factors for saline formations of various lithologies and depositional environments using new experimental relative permeability data

Saline formations are attractive geologic reservoirs for permanent carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage. Here, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) has worked to develop and refine methods and tools for the calculation of CO 2 storage potential in subsurface reservoirs. DOE-NETL's CO 2 -SCREEN provides an online tool for executing these storage methods. CO 2 storage efficiency terms are input parameters in DOE-NETL's methods and equations embedded in the CO 2 -SCREEN, which assesses pore space available for CO 2 storage. In this work, a modeling workflow was initiated to refine two CO 2 storage efficiency terms - volumetric displacement (E V ) and microscopic displacement (E d ). The models are based on new experimental relative permeability data that are specific to homogenous lithology and depositional environments of key subsurface saline formations targeted for CO 2 storage. In future work, heterogenous features will be added to this initial modeling effort to update efficiency factors as described in DOE-NETL's methods and CO 2 -SCREEN tool. E V accounts for the volume utilized in the reservoir under the areal plume, while E d accounts for saturation values in the plume to assess efficiency of CO 2 storage at the pore scale. The results of this work are significant in that prior values were based on a limited geologically non-specific relative permeability data set that were collected prior to 2009. Specifically, we applied numerical simulations using TOUGH3 models to update CO 2 storage efficiency values for supercritical CO 2 injection into brine-saturated reservoirs for three lithologies (clastics, limestone, dolomite) and six depositional environments (Marginal Marine, Strand Plain, Deltaic Complex Fluvial, Aeolian, Shallow Marine, and Reef) that have a high potential for geologic CO 2 storage. Experimental relative permeability data in cores from these environments were utilized in the models with corresponding rock type/sedimentary environment. Results of this study showed that dolomite followed by limestone generated higher ranges of storage efficiency compared to clastics. The updated values provided a tighter efficiency range for clastics, lower P 10 but higher P 90 range for limestone, and higher P 10 and P 90 for dolomite. In general, tighter reservoirs with relatively low permeability and porosity were associated with higher E V and E d , showing efficient reservoir and pore utilization in these scenarios. High reservoir pressure and temperature associated with increasing depth increased the E V , and high CO 2 injection rates resulted in increases in E V and E d , while the impact of permeability anisotropy was minimal after the 30-year injection period.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data-driven offshore CO 2 saline storage assessment methodology

The world produces approximately 50 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. This is measured in CO 2 -equivalents, and geologic CO 2 storage has the potential to advance decarbonization and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies to assess offshore carbon storage are needed to address resource, regulatory, and commercial needs. Although most efforts to assess storage resources focus on onshore criteria, offshore reservoirs offer significant storage potential and distinct development challenges. Potential advantages of offshore carbon storage include being further from human population centers and less potential to interact with groundwater. The U.S. Department of Energy's method for evaluating storage capacity in non-oil-bearing saline reservoirs has been enhanced to support assessments for offshore environments in the Offshore CO 2 Saline Storage methodology (OCSS). This methodology applies data-driven capabilities to estimate saline storage capacity while accounting for features specific to offshore reservoirs. Features include changes in CO 2 density and sedimentary differences that impact estimates of permanence and capacity. The Offshore CO 2 Saline Storage Calculator mechanizes OCSS to estimate storage capacity. This paper presents the methodology and estimates for 18 geologic domains in the Gulf of Mexico. Potential storage distributions, sensitivity analyses, and the incorporation of spatial data and tools to support safe site selection are also discussed.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Giant energy storage and power density negative capacitance superlattices

Dielectric electrostatic capacitors, because of their ultrafast charge-discharge, are desirable for high-power energy storage applications. Along with ultrafast operation, on-chip integration can enable miniaturized energy storage devices for emerging autonomous microelectronics and microsystems. Moreover, state-of-the-art miniaturized electrochemical energy storage systems-microsupercapacitors and microbatteries-currently face safety, packaging, materials and microfabrication challenges preventing on-chip technological readiness, leaving an opportunity for electrostatic microcapacitors. Here, in this study, we report record-high electrostatic energy storage density (ESD) and power density, to our knowledge, in HfO 2 -ZrO 2 -based thin film microcapacitors integrated into silicon, through a three-pronged approach. First, to increase intrinsic energy storage, atomic-layer-deposited antiferroelectric HfO 2 -ZrO 2 films are engineered near a field-driven ferroelectric phase transition to exhibit amplified charge storage by the negative capacitance effect, which enhances volumetric ESD beyond the best-known back-end-of-the-line-compatible dielectrics (115 J cm -3 ). Second, to increase total energy storage, antiferroelectric superlattice engineering scales the energy storage performance beyond the conventional thickness limitations of HfO 2 -ZrO 2 -based (anti)ferroelectricity (100-nm regime). Third, to increase the storage per footprint, the superlattices are conformally integrated into three-dimensional capacitors, which boosts the areal ESD nine times and the areal power density 170 times that of the best-known electrostatic capacitors: 80 mJ cm -2 and 300 kW cm -2 , respectively. This simultaneous demonstration of ultrahigh energy density and power density overcomes the traditional capacity-speed trade-off across the electrostatic-electrochemical energy storage hierarchy. Furthermore, the integration of ultrahigh-density and ultrafast-charging thin films within a back-end-of-the-line-compatible process enables monolithic integration of on-chip microcapacitors, which can unlock substantial energy storage and power delivery performance for electronic microsystems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2018

Final Report UCLA-Thermochemical Storage with Anhydrous Ammonia

In ammonia-based thermochemical energy storage (TCES), ammonia is dissociated endothermically as it absorbs solar energy during the daytime. When energy is required, the reverse reaction releases energy to heat a working fluid such as steam, to produce electricity. Ammonia-based TCES has great advantages of simplicity, low cost reactants, and a strong industrial base in the conventional ammonia industry. The concept has been demonstrated over three decades of research at Australian National University, achieving a 24-hour demonstration of a complete system. At the start of this project, three challenges were identified that would have to be addressed to show that the system is technically and economically viable for incorporation into a CSP plant with an advanced, high temperature power block. All three of these challenges have now been addressed: 1. The ammonia synthesis reaction had not, to our knowledge, been carried out at temperatures consistent with modern power blocks (i.e., ~650°C). The technical feasibility of operating a reactor under high-temperature, near-equilibrium conditions was an unknown, and was therefore a technical risk. The project has successfully demonstrated steam heating to 650°C and energy recovery to steam at the 5 kWt level. 2. The ammonia system has a relatively low enthalpy of reaction combined with gas phase reactants. This is not a direct disadvantage since the reactants themselves are low cost. The challenge lies in storing the required volume of reactants cost effectively. Therefore, a second key goal was to show, through techno-economic analysis, that underground storage technologies can be used to store the energy-rich gas at a cost that is consistent with the SunShot cost goal. We have identified two promising technologies for gas storage: storage in salt caverns has an estimated cost of 1(USD)/kWht and storage in drilled shafts could be on the order of 7(USD)/kWht. Together these two options answer the technical challenge associated with storage of gas phase components. 3. While this project is primarily concerned with high-temperature heat recovery and methods to store the gaseous components, it is also important to consider the feasibility of the entire system. Consequently, an additional goal was to perform analysis to show the feasibility of integrating endothermic reactors within a tower receiver. A conceptual design of an ammonia dissociation receiver/reactor has been developed that fits into the same size cylindrical envelope as the molten salt receiver in SAM, and has the same design thermal capacity. The calculated thermal efficiency of this receiver is 94.6%. Thus, this investigation has established the technical feasibility of a surround field tower system using ammonia dissociation. With these challenges addressed, we proceeded to design a full-scale synthesis and heat recovery system. A model was developed and validated by comparison with our experimental data. A parametric study showed, among other things, the importance of using small tube diameters and spacing to enhance heat transfer. Multi-parameter optimization was used to find a design that minimizes the wall material volume. Finally, cost estimation shows that the ammonia system has good prospects of meeting the Sunshot 15(USD)/kWht target: estimated costs of the entire synthesis system for the 220 MWt plant with 6 hours of storage are 13(USD)/kWht using salt cavern storage and 18(USD)/kWht using shaft drilling. Costs per kWht are even lower with more hours of storage. With the established technology of ammonia synthesis as a starting point, the successes of the project have mitigated technical risks associated with high-temperature synthesis reaction, underground storage, and tower receiver design. Estimated costs are less than 15(USD)/kWht with salt cavern storage. It is now possible to map a time line to commercial deployment that is likely to be shorter and less risky than other thermochemical cycles under active investigation. UCLA has filed a patent that protects the new ideas developed during this project. Discussions are ongoing with potential investors with the aim of partnering for further work. As well as immediate improvements and extra work with the existing experimental system, a key goal is to extend it to a small solar-driven project at an early opportunity.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Offshore Storage Resource Assessment - Final Scientific/Technical Report

The DOE developed volumetric equation for estimating Prospective Resources (CO 2 storage) in oil and gas reservoirs was utilized on each depleted field in the Federal GOM. This required assessment of the in-situ hydrocarbon fluid volumes for the fields under evaluation in order to apply the DOE equation. This project utilized public data from the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Reserves database and from a well reputed, large database (250,000+ wells) of GOM well and production data marketed by IHS, Inc. IHS interpreted structure map files were also accessed for a limited number of fields. The databases were used along with geological and petrophysical software to identify depleted oil and gas fields in the Federal GOM region. BOEM arranged for access by the project team to proprietary reservoir level maps under an NDA. Review of the BOEM’s Reserves database as of December 31, 2013 indicated that 675 fields in the region were depleted. NITEC identified and rank these 675 fields containing 3,514 individual reservoirs based on BOEM’s estimated OOIP or OGIP values available in the Reserves database. The estimated BOEM OOIP or OGIP values for five fields were validated by an independent evaluation using available petrophysical, geologic and engineering data in the databases. Once this validation was successfully completed, the BOEM ranked list was used to calculate the estimated CO 2 storage volume for each field/reservoir using the DOE CO 2 Resource Estimate Equation. This calculation assumed a range for the CO 2 efficiency factor in the equation, as it was not known at that point in time. NITEC then utilize reservoir simulation to further enhance and refine the DOE equation estimated range of CO 2 storage volumes. NITEC used a purpose built, publically available, 4-component, compositional reservoir simulator developed under funding from DOE (DE-FE0006015) to assess CO 2 -EOR and CO 2 storage in 73 fields/461 reservoirs. This simulator was fast and easy to utilize and provided a valuable enhanced assessment and refinement of the estimated CO 2 storage volume for each reservoir simulated. The user interface was expanded to allow for calculation of a probability based assessment of the CO 2 storage volume based on typical uncertainties in operating conditions and reservoir properties during the CO 2 injection period. This modeling of the CO 2 storage estimates for the simulated reservoirs resulted in definition of correlations applicable to all reservoir types (a refined DOE equation) which can be used for predictive purposes using available public data. Application of the correlations to the 675 depleted fields yielded a total CO 2 storage capacity of 4,748 MM tons. The CO 2 storage assessments were supplemented with simulation modeling of eleven (11) oil reservoirs that quantified the change in the stored CO 2 storage volume with the addition of CO 2 -EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) production. Application of CO 2 -EOR to oil reservoirs resulted in higher volumes of CO 2 storage.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2019

2018 Energy Storage Pricing Survey

Since grid energy storage is still a nascent industry, it is often difficult to obtain capital costs for various energy storage technologies. This type of information is required to perform an initial cost-benefit analysis related to a potential energy storage deployment, as well as to compare different energy storage technology options. The goal of this report is to summarize energy storage capital costs that were obtained from industry pricing surveys. The methodology breaks down the cost of an energy storage system into the following categories: the storage module; the balance of system; the power conversion system; the energy management system; and the engineering, procurement, and construction costs. Pricing data is presented for the following technologies: pumped hydro storage; compressed air energy storage; sodium battery storage; zinc battery storage; long duration flywheels; short duration flywheels; vanadium flow batteries; zinc bromide flow batteries; iron flow batteries; nickel batteries; lithium ion energy batteries; lithium ion power batteries; lead acid batteries; and advanced lead carbon batteries.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗