Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Resource Size”

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.

776 records · Page 44

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Multi-Sourced Collaboration for the Production and Refining of Rare Elements and Critical Metals (Final Technical Report)

The project objective was to develop a feasible and cost-effective method for recovering rare earth elements (REEs) and critical materials (CMs) from coal and coal byproducts, resulting in high-purity individually separated REEs and CMs. The targeted REEs included Y, Pr, Nd, Gd, Dy, and Sm, with a purity of over 99.5%, while the CMs included Co, Mn, Ga, Sr, Li, Ni, Zn, and Ge, with a purity of over 90%. The project aimed to design a prototype facility capable of producing 1-3 tonnes/day of high-purity REO mixes. The work was divided into four designated circuits: 1) REE extraction and concentration, 2) REE separation and purification, 3) RE metal production, and 4) CM production. To achieve these goals, the project involved 11 tasks, including technology reviews, research, process flow diagram development, mass balance estimation, and preliminary technical-economic analysis. The project team included researchers from the University of Kentucky, University of Alabama and Virginia Tech as well as process specialists from Argonne National Laboratory. MP Materials provided technical support regarding rare earth markets and processing while Alliance Coal performed resource assessment. The project included a market analysis for Nd/Pr, Tb, Dy, Gd, Y, Co, Mn, Li, Sr, Ga, Ni, Zn, and Ge. These analyses provided insights into the supply and demand trends as well as historic and future projections of market price relative to purity requirements for these elements. Two coal resources were selected for the project: the West Kentucky No. 13 (Baker) Seam and an undisclosed lignite resource in the Illinois coal basin. The estimated quantities of REEs in these resources were calculated based on production samples and drilling data. It was estimated that there is adequate supply for an operation producing one metric ton daily of higher purity mixed rare earth oxides (MREO) for approximately 20 years at a site located in western Kentucky. In Circuit 1, project data was obtained from a pilot heap leach and REE concentration facility. It was concluded that the existing circuit, which generated a MREO concentrate, two types of CM mixed products, and Li- and Sr-containing waters, would be suitable feed for circuits 2-4. Data from the first-of-its-kind coal coarse refuse heap leach pilot pad played a crucial role in estimating reliable elemental concentrations of the pregnant leaching solution (PLS). The average total REE concentration in the PLS was found to be 28.6 ppm. In Circuit 2, several concepts were explored including a novel process referred to as solvent-assisted chromatography (SAC). This concept involved a novel columnar reactor that incorporated multiple mixer/settlers, thereby enabling the operation of counter-flowing aqueous and organic phases. Unfortunately, due to project time constraints, a complete fundamental modeling analysis could not be completed to fully evaluate the technology. Molten salt electrowinning was considered as an alternative for circuit 3 following circuit 2 purification circuit utilizing the novel SAC process. A mass and energy balance of Nd reduction to metal in a fluoride containing molten salt electrolyte was conducted. Comparisons were made with the current state of Asian molten salt electrorefining, and potential improvements in siphoning rare earth metals (REM) from the reactor were presented. A cost estimate was performed for the production of 1 tonne per day, which yielded a total of $2.29 million for the nine electrowinning (EW) cells required. The selected option for circuits 2 and 3 was a plasma distillation process, which initially separates rare earth elements (REEs) from other elements. This is followed by selective electrowinning in various ionic liquids. The selection was made on the basis of thermodynamic modeling and experimental data previously published by a project partner. The combination offers an innovative approach to integrated refining and RE metal production. For Circuit 4, an extensive literature review was conducted for the processing of the CMs. The ultimate decision was to utilize a combined plasma and ionic liquid process as well to produce individual high-purity concentrates of Zn, Ni, Co, Mn, and Mg. A separate flowsheet for Li and Sr was recommended, which would yield carbonates of these elements. Due to the lack of suitable experimental data at this time, a process recommendation could not be provided but several methods have been proposed for consideration. Lastly, a techno-economic analysis (TEA) was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the proposed process for further investigation. The TEA results revealed a capital expense (CapEx) of $737 million and an annual operational expense (OpEx) of $220 million. Due to the selected elements, the hypothetical heap leach pad can produce 1 metric tonne per day of REO equivalent, but a conscious decision was made to only treat targeted REEs, resulting in the production of 0.4 metric tonne of REM. An estimated annual revenue of $90.87 million was projected based on standard market pricing information provided by the funding agency. During the TEA, ten different modules were evaluated for costing purposes. The precipitation circuit was identified as the largest single operational expense, followed by the Mg/Mn process due to the amount of treated metal. In terms of capital expenditures, the heap leach process incurred the highest cost, followed by the Mg/Mn process. The scalability of the plasma process is a crucial consideration since the reactors cannot be scaled beyond the largest demonstrated size due to their reliance on surface area of the slag and vapor phase. The purity estimate for the REEs are generally 98%±2% to produce a metal. The purity level being lower than the project objective was due to the lack of specific experimental data needed to tighten the tolerance of the estimates. Based on literature and previous experience, the CMs are estimated as follows; Ga (95%+, metal), Sr (95%+, carbonate), Li (95%+, carbonate), Ni (98%±2%, metal), Zn (95%+, metal sponge), Ge (95%+, metal), Co (98%±2%, metal), and Mn (98%±2%, metal).

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗