SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “wave resource assessment”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

98 records · Page 6

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

Oregon Roadway CSZ Liquefaction and Landslide Impact Screening Analysis

The roadway transportation routes and the surrounding environments in Oregon will be subject to ground acceleration and potential associated deformation due to the propagation of waves of energy during a Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake. Linear features such as highways may be subject to partial or complete disruption of their function resulting from ground deformations at and along the roadway. A potential source of these disruptions associated with a CSZ event are landslides and liquefaction in the soils along and beneath the highways and local roadways. The construction of the Oregon roadway system and urban development have occurred largely along the banks of the rivers—those along the Pacific coast, and along the valleys throughout the Oregon Coast Range and Cascade Mountains. These locations also represent areas where landslides and liquefaction have occurred historically, or may potentially occur in the future, presenting a significant vulnerability for the roadway system and dependent post-CSZ earthquake emergency response and recovery effort. Many of the Oregon areas with landslide- and liquefaction-prone soils have the potential to impact roadway transportation routes after a major earthquake causing delays in establishing routes to transport emergency response personnel and resources to impacted areas and communities. This report presents methods used to project the impacts that CSZ earthquake-induced landslides and liquefaction may have on roadways across Oregon. First, this report presents an approach for estimating the risk of landslides to Oregon roadways, and determining approximate reopening times. Second, this report presents a similar approach for estimating the risk of liquefaction-induced ground displacements to roadway pavements, also resulting in approximate reopening times for roadway segments. The outcomes of these two ground failure analyses serve as inputs to a broader analysis of CSZ earthquake impacts to Oregon’s surface transportation system and its ability to support post-disaster response and recovery activities, as part of the Oregon Transportation Systems Regional Resiliency Assessment Program project (CISA 2021).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

RAFT: Reconfigurable Array of High-Efficiency Ducted Turbines for Hydrokinetic Energy Harvesting

Diversifying the energy harvesting portfolio is crucial to achieving the ambitious goal of transitioning to clean energy by 2030. Marine hydrokinetic energy has garnered renewed interest due to its high harvesting potential in the U.S., and the resource's reliability and predictability—remaining relatively constant on a daily basis and available 24/7. However, there are currently few commercial devices capable of harnessing the energy from flowing water. This project aims to bridge that gap by designing and evaluating a novel hydrokinetic turbine concept that can efficiently harvest energy from both rivers and tidal streams. The RAFT (Reconfigurable Array of High-Efficiency Ducted Turbines) concept introduces a duct surrounding the turbine rotor and creates an array of small 5-kW units. The duct serves two primary purposes: (1) it enhances hydrodynamic efficiency by accelerating flow to the rotor, and (2) it functions as a structural component, facilitating the formation of modular arrays that lower costs. This project focuses on demonstrating this concept and validating these benefits through simulations and scaled prototype testing. The project team includes 8 faculty members and over 20 students from 3 universities, organized into three core areas: hydrodynamics, electrical systems, and structural analysis, with additional teams dedicated to system integration, environmental assessment and risk management, and tech-to-market strategy. The team successfully demonstrated the increased hydrodynamic efficiency of a ducted turbine compared to an unducted version using high-fidelity simulations and prototype tests. Moreover, design optimization efforts led to surpassing the SHARKS program's goal of 60% reduction of the levelized cost of energy with a significant margin.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Spatially varying seasonal modulation to tidal stream energy potential due to mixed tidal regimes in the Aleutian Islands, AK

We provide an assessment of the tidal stream energy resource of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska via a validated barotropic tidal numerical model of the region. Eight island passes are identified as energy “hotspots”. The annual mean kinetic energy fluxes, KEF , calculated at each pass vary from 1000 to 11,000 MW, while the annual available energy, AAE , varies from 5 to 42 MWh m −2 . Notable seasonal modulation to monthly power density averages and ranges are noted at some passes and not others. Seasonal adjustment is linked to the semi-annual solar declination cycle which enhances (dampens) diurnal (D 1 ) tidal amplitudes in summer/winter (spring/fall) as well as the time-varying phase lag between D 1 and semidiurnal (D 2 ) fortnightly tidal cycles. Annual variability in monthly mean power density scales with the tidal current form factor, F u , with the largest seasonal change occurring for F u > 1 (D 1 dominated tide). The spread in power density over a month is on average smaller for passes with mixed tides (F u = 1 ) than those with D 1 or D 2 dominance, as changes to fortnightly phase lag become influential to net power density ranges when tides are mixed. This study outlines overlooked, but relevant, long-term modulation to tidal streams in regions with mixed tides.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2020

General Analysis of Data Collected from DOE Lidar Buoy Deployments Off Virginia and New Jersey

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates two AXYS WindSentinel lidar buoys for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies. The purpose of these buoys is to collect hub-height winds and supporting meteorological and oceanographic information to facilitate the development of offshore wind energy in the U.S. In general, each buoy is deployed for a year or more at a given location in order to capture at least a full annual cycle of weather conditions. The initial deployment for one buoy was off the coast of Virginia beginning in 2015, and the other buoy was first deployed off the coast of New Jersey beginning in 2016. Over the last two years, PNNL has had an opportunity to analyze the data collected during these first two deployments. This report describes a substantial analysis of data collected by the two lidar buoys operated off the coasts of Virginia and New Jersey. The centerpiece instrument for each buoy as deployed off Virginia and New Jersey is a lidar system, which is designed to measure the horizontal wind vector from approximately 40 m to 200 m above the sea surface with vertical resolution of 40 m. Since the initial deployments, the original lidars have been replaced with more powerful Leosphere 866 v2 systems. The analyses in this report will apply to the original Vindicator systems. In addition to the wind profiles from the lidars, the buoys collect near-surface measurements of wind speed and direction, air temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, and solar irradiance. Oceanographic variables measured include the two-dimensional wave spectrum, water temperature and conductivity, and ocean current vectors to a depth of 90 m. An assessment of overall data recovery and a basic analysis of the data collected was provided in a previous report This report substantially extends that analysis. The various sections describe the development and application of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) data recovery scheme for the New Jersey deployment; a climatological analysis of winds at hub height and at the surface together with thermodynamic variables measured at the surface for the full deployment periods; an analysis of oceanographic observations describe sea state; the development of a refinement for NOAA’s WaveWatch III model to allow its application to near-shore areas; a basic climatology of ocean currents observed from the buoys; an analysis of observed winds in the framework of Monin-Obukhov Similarity Theory; and the development and evaluation of techniques to extract turbulence intensity and turbulence kinetic energy from the lidars. The analyses contained in this report provide a great deal of new information about offshore conditions on the U.S. East Coast. In addition, the experience gained will inform both configurations and analysis of data from future deployments of these lidar buoy systems.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Harnessing Ocean Thermal Gradients Using Thermoelectric Based Submersibles for Ocean Power Applications

The urgent need for energy solutions in marine environments has accelerated the development of innovative technologies capable of leveraging natural resources for power generation. This study introduces a buoyancy-driven submersible system designed to harness ocean thermal gradients using thermoelectric generators (TEGs) and phase change materials (PCMs). The technology aims to provide autonomous power to offshore aquaculture farms, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), offshore platform illumination, and ocean sensors, significantly reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Ocean thermal gradients, especially prevalent in mid-latitude regions, exhibit temperature differences between surface and deep waters ranging from 7 degrees Celsius to 30 degrees Celsius depending on seasonal variations. The proposed submersible technology utilizes TEGs to convert thermal energy from these gradients into electrical power, generating between 0.2 and 0.5 watts, while PCMs are employed to store and regulate this energy, ensuring a stable and continuous power supply. The buoyancy-driven mechanism of the submersible enhances its capability to navigate through varying depths, optimizing its exposure to different thermal gradients and maximizing energy harvesting. The performance of this submersible system is analyzed through detailed thermodynamic assessments and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling focused on heat transfer. These analyzes consider real-world ocean temperature profiles and seek to refine the interaction between TEGs and PCMs to optimize energy extraction. The evaluation encompasses several key performance metrics, including power output and energy efficiency. Results confirm the potential of this innovative technology to provide a continuous and reliable power source for marine applications. By demonstrating the feasibility of using ocean thermal gradients for energy generation, this study contributes to the broader efforts of innovation in energy technologies for harsh, remote marine environments. The implementation of such promises is significant advancements in the autonomy of marine operations. The ongoing research will further investigate scalability ensuring that the system can be effectively adapted to various marine settings and operational demands.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2026

Comprehensive earthquake catalogue update and spatiotemporal distribution analysis for Iraq and surrounding regions, northeastern Arabian Plate

The updated earthquake catalogue for Iraq covers the period from 1900 to the end of 2021 and includes over 37 000 recorded earthquakes. To create this comprehensive catalogue, five key steps were taken: compiling bulletins, calculating moment magnitudes, harmonizing magnitudes, establishing empirical conversion relations and evaluating the completeness of the catalogue. A notable enhancement in this update is the direct calculation of moment magnitudes for approximately 2800 earthquakes, achieved through the coda envelope technique and waveform data from the Mesopotamian Seismological Network (MPSN) in Iraq. This updated catalogue serves as a valuable resource for examining the spatiotemporal distribution of earthquakes, with respect to earthquake density, maximum moment magnitude and seismogenic depths. Additionally, the Gutenberg–Richter relationship was applied to calculate the a- and b-values specific to Iraq. The findings show that the Zagros Fold-Thrust Belt has a seismogenic layer (source) that ranges from 2 to 33 km deep and experiences high seismic activity. In contrast, the Mesopotamian Foredeep has a seismogenic layer ranging from 1 to 25 km deep and has lower seismic activity. The greatest seismic activity is concentrated around the Mandili-Badra-Teeb fault, which has experienced significant ruptures over time. The Outer Arabian Platform is identified as the main area of seismic activity, while additional activity occurs on the Inner Arabian Platform. Three major tectonic boundaries define the distribution of earthquakes in the northeastern Arabian Plate. These boundaries are defined by the Main Zagros Reverse Fault, the Zagros Foredeep Fault and the Anah Graben and Abu Jir-Euphrates Fault Zone. These boundaries highlight variations in seismicity levels and the spatial distribution of deformation in the region. The updated earthquake catalogue presented in this study is expected to play a vital role in regional seismicity assessments and seismic hazard analyses for Iraq and its surrounding areas.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Added Value for Integrated Marine Energy Data Systems (February 2021)

Launched in 2019, the Portal and Repository for Information on Marine Renewable Energy (PRIMRE) provides centralized access, standardization, community building, and integration of United States (U.S.) databases, tools and codes, and other resources that cover a range of marine energy information. The PRIMRE universe contains a series of Knowledge Hubs that represent data and information on testing of marine energy devices (MHKDR); environmental effects (Tethys); engineering and technical papers (Tethys Engineering); descriptions of marine energy companies and technologies (Marine Energy Projects Database); codes and models (Marine Energy Software); and guidance on testing and measurements (Telesto). Content is added to PRIMRE by applying a set of Guidelines and Best Practices (PRIMRE Guidelines). An aggregate search across the PRIMRE site enables users to find data and information from all the PRIMRE Knowledge Hubs simultaneously, using a single entry-point (PRIMRE Search). In addition to providing access to a range of data and information on marine energy development, testing, and effects, PRIMRE allows for the development of valueadded products and processes that will help move the marine energy industry forward. The PRIMRE team has recently launched two key initiatives in the U.S.-Signature Projects and Lessons Learned. Outputs and outcomes from these two initiatives will be highlighted in this paper. The Signature Projects initiative is intended to bring focus to a selection of ongoing and completed marine energy projects funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), and to inform the marine energy community of what investigations have been undertaken, what tools are available, and where gaps in information persist. Each Signature Project tags papers, reports, and data from large marine energy research projects, providing easy access and attention to all the output and associated products from each project. The Lessons Learned initiative is intended to ensure that hard-won achievements are recognized and available for those who come later, that missteps and unfortunate outcomes can be prevented in future, and that efficiencies and effective shortcuts can be publicized and used as the marine energy industry moves forward. This initiative builds off the Knowledge Hubs and reaches out to members of the marine energy community, particularly technology developers and researchers, to integrate experience in the development, deployment, assessment, success, challenges while creating this new industry and field of study.

data sharing↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗