Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOE contractors”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 2: Hot Topics in US DOE Environmental Management

The well-attended Panel Session was chaired by Martin Schneider. The four panelists did not provide presentations. Rather the session was a discussion focusing on pressing issues facing US DOE Environmental Management (EM) sites and how the program is moving forward. The session began by momentarily reflecting on a success: the three Tank Waste Treatment Facilities will soon be coming online. These three facilities will treat as much waste in two years as was treated in the past 30 years. That is a significant milestone in progress. Also, safety enhancements at WIPP are a big success. The panelists noted that there will be challenges with the victories of the startup of the Waste Treatment Facilities. Treating tank waste is the last EM mission and will help with the relationships with the stakeholders, regulators and Congress. One of the biggest challenges will be moving back to full operation mode. Although the operation will increase productivity of reducing/managing the tank waste, it will decrease life cycle cost and lessen years of cleanup. The challenge will be having people understand that EM will be operating 24/7 and that maintenance will be key in keeping the operations. EM will be working together with the regulators to show tangible progress that will be effective and efficient. By working together, they can find opportunities/technologies for streamlining and accelerating cleanup. Recent changes to the regulatory framework between DOE-EM Los Alamos Field Office and New Mexico Environmental Department have helped cleanup in Los Alamos. Every year EM and the agencies review progress and come to agreements on the next work priorities. At Savannah River Site, the Federal Facility Agreement among EM, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a small core team that work are shared by together in resolving issues that come up. The discussion moved on to how progress can be made by sharing lessons learned among the contractors. An example of how these learned lessons can be shared is that key representatives from projects across the EM sites participate in various forums to review/contribute to the work planned. Other opportunities can be by temporary assignments of DOE staff to gain experience and by monthly EM Headquarters report that provide the lessons learned across the EM sites. The panelists discussed how skyline changes are the best examples of tangible progress. Decontamination and Demolition (D and D) of structures are the easiest tangible progress that can be seen. Whereas tank waste cleanup is the hardest to see. Disposal of waste onsite versus offsite is another challenge, and timely discussions are necessary to get to the best value to the government.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Key Design Trades for a Near-term Lunar Fission Surface Power System

NASA and DOE have been developing concepts for lunar and Mars Fission Surface Power (FSP) systems for decades and have considered many different technologies and system variations. In 2023, three contractor teams completed Phase 1 conceptual design studies on a 40 kWe lunar FSP system in response to a modest set of NASA requirements and goals. A government team consisting of NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was formed to develop an independent design approach that adhered to the same requirements and goals posed to the contractor teams. GRC provided expertise, analysis, and design decisions for the power conversion, heat rejection, power management & distribution (PMAD), and mission integration. LANL and INL provided expertise, analysis, and design decisions for the reactor and shielding. The goal of the government study was to develop representative concepts that could be used in NASA architecture studies, guide government technology investments, and inform Phase 2 requirements definition. This paper provides a summary of the key technology options, system-level trades, and mission-level concept-of-operations.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

LLNS Request for Variance from 10 CFR 851 for Construction of LLNL Digital Infrastructure Capabilities Expansion Project

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) requests variance to 10 CFR 851 (the Rule) for the construction of the Digital Infrastructure Capabilities Expansion (DICE) project. The request isin continued support of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) “pilot” to streamline the delivery of commercial-like line-item construction projects under $50 million. This pilot is aligned with the approved NA-50 safety approach. Experience gained in the construction of the new Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Emergency Operations Facility (EOC) under the variance granted in June 2020 is very encouraging. While detailed analysis will be forthcoming after that project is completed, there are strong indicators that a benefit has been realized by the subcontractors executing the work. The variance has permitted local/regional construction businesses contracted to Management & Operation contractor operated facilities and lower tier subcontractors to bid, operate, execute, and comply with safety and health standards they utilize in their business outside of the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex. While compliance to standards that are as safe and healthful as those in 10 CFR 851: confusion, additional cost, and inefficiencies associated with the burden of compliance to an unfamiliar regulatory spectrum has been avoided. Safety and health performance on the EOC construction project including the number of inspection and surveillance issues is comparable to other subcontractors and projects at LLNL executed under 10 CFR 851.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

LLNS Request for Permanent Variance from 10 CFR 851 for Construction

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) requests variance from 10 CFR 851 (the Rule) for construction work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The request is based upon successful application of similar variances granted to LLNS in continued support of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiative to streamline the delivery of line-item construction projects under $50 million. This request is aligned with the approved NA 50 safety approach. Experience gained in the construction of the new LLNL Emergency Operations Center (EOC) under the variance granted in June 2020 and construction preparations to date on the Digital Infrastructure Capabilities Expansion (DICE) under the variance granted April 2022 is very encouraging. There are strong indicators that a benefit has been realized by both the subcontractors executing the work and the Laboratory. The variance has permitted local/regional construction businesses contracted to Management & Operation Contractor operated facilities and lower tier subcontractors to bid, operate, execute, and comply with safety and health standards they utilize in their business outside of the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex. While compliance to standards that are as safe and healthful as those in 10 CFR 851: confusion, additional cost, and inefficiencies associated with the burden of compliance to an unfamiliar regulatory spectrum has been avoided. Safety and health performance on the construction project including the number of inspection and surveillance issues is comparable to other subcontractors and projects at LLNL executed under 10 CFR 851. This variance application was prepared according to the requirements in 10 CFR 851, Subpart D – Variances, § 851.31 Variance Process. This request is limited to subcontractor executed construction at LLNL.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

FY 2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2021 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in August 2020. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move INL toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into the INL Annual Laboratory Plan Fiscal Year 2020 (INL/LTD-20-59747), and operations and acquisition systems.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS1995

Bibliography of NASA-related publications on wind turbine technology 1973-1995

A major program of research and development projects on wind turbines for generating electricity was conducted at the NASA Lewis Research Center from 1973 to 1988. Most of these projects were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as a major element of its Federal Wind Energy Program. One other large-scale wind turbine project was sponsored by the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of Interior (DOI). The peak years for wind energy work at Lewis were 1979-80, when almost 100 engineers, technicians, and administrative personnel were involved. From 1988 their conclusion in 1995, NASA wind energy activities have been directed toward the transfer of technology to commercial and academic organizations. Wind energy activities at NASA can be divided into two broad categories which are closely related and often overlapping: (1) Designing, building, and testing a series of 12 large-scale, experimental, horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT's); and (2) conducting supporting research and technology (SR&T) projects. The purpose of this bibliography is to assist those active in the field of wind energy in locating the technical information they need on wind power planning, wind loads, turbine design and analysis, fabrication and installation, laboratory and field testing, and operations and maintenance. This bibliography contains approximately 620 citations of publications by over 520 authors and co-authors. Sources are: (1) NASA reports authored by government grantee, and contractor personnel, (2) papers presented by attendees at NASA-sponsored workshops and conferences, (3) papers presented by NASA personnel at outside workshops and conferences, and (4) outside publications related to research performed at NASA/ DOE wind turbine sites.

Spera, David A.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation: U.S. 2020 Emissions Profile

This work summarizes the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) recent life cycle analysis (LCA) study of the U.S. natural gas supply chain. In recent years, there has been growing interest in accurate accounting of methane emissions, with a specific focus on those from natural gas infrastructure, due to its much higher global warming potential as compared to carbon dioxide.

Khutal, Harshvardhan [NETL Site Support Contractor↗
DOE OSTI2021

FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

FY 2023 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan

The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. This FY 2022 Idaho National Laboratory Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) was developed to enable and sustain Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) mission to discover, demonstrate, and secure innovative nuclear solutions, clean energy options, and critical infrastructure. DOE Order 436.1, “Departmental Sustainability,” provides requirements and assigns responsibilities for managing sustainability within DOE to ensure that DOE missions are carried out in a sustainable manner, to institute wholesale cultural change to factor sustainability into all DOE decisions, and to ensure DOE achieves sustainability goals. DOE Order 436.1 also requires DOE sites to commit appropriate personnel resources, establish a financing plan that prioritizes the use of life-cycle cost effective private-sector financing, optimize the application of appropriations and budgeted funds, and establish specific performance measures and deliverables designed to achieve the listed requirements. The SSP was developed according to the narrative requirements from the “FY 2022 DOE Site Sustainability Plan Guidance” document issued in September 2021. The SSP contains strategies and activities that will lead to continual energy, water, and waste reductions that move the INL site toward meeting DOE sustainability goals and requirements. The SSP summarizes energy and available fuel use reporting requirements and references criteria for instituting sustainable design. SSP requirements are integrated into each INL site contractor’s Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System (EMS). Finally, the Sustainability Program directives, based on this SSP, are integrated into INL/LTD-21-62463, Annual Laboratory Plan 2021, and operations and acquisition systems.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

From Bricks to Clicks: Mapping the White Space in Building Innovation

It is a critical national imperative to transform the buildings sector, yet innovation is impeded by deployment failures that leave promising technologies stranded. Conventional market reports and techno-economic analysis provide an insufficient understanding of markets and resource allocation for emerging building technologies. They omit crucial commercialization factors such as ecosystem maturity and adoption friction, where the coordinated participation of a network of suppliers, contractors, financiers, regulators, and integrators is required to scale solutions. This study addresses these gaps by introducing an evaluation framework grounded in front-line data from six years of the DOE's IMPEL incubator, comprising experience from 300 building-sector innovators and the adjacent, complex ecosystem. Our methodology synthesizes top-down market analysis with bottom-up, practitioner-level data across five megatrends: (M1) Affordable materials and industrialized construction; (M2) Healthy and efficient mechanical systems; (M3) Intelligent building operations; (M4) Buildings as grid assets; and (M5) High-density power and cooling for data centers and therein identify twelve "white space" technology opportunities. Next, we develop a multi-criteria scoring rubric to rank these opportunities based on parameters, i.e., Affordability, Quality of Life, Reliability, and Security, yielding composite ‘Demand’ and ‘Maturity’ indices. Our results indicate that the most significant white spaces may not be incremental products but a new class of ‘Ecosystem Enablers’, such as logistics platforms, orchestration layers, and automated compliance software that solve structural deployment gaps. This paper summarizes this transparent, evidence-based, practitioner-informed evaluation framework for policymakers and investors to re-evaluate policy and resource allocation and unlock scalable market transformation.

Singh, Reshma↗
DOE OSTI2020

Infrastructure and DFLAW Support at Hanford - 20443

Manhattan Project era infrastructure systems are degrading at an accelerated pace across the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management complex. Revitalizing, rejuvenating and right-sizing these systems to ensure reliability for ongoing cleanup missions is a major focus at the 580-square- mile Hanford Site in southeast Washington State. The push to complete construction, commissioning, startup, and operation of facilities and systems in the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) program at Hanford by 2023 requires considerable coordination among site contractors and a significant investment in infrastructure. The passage of time also poses a challenge. It has been about 75 years since facilities were first operated at the site, and approximately 40 years of plutonium production created a legacy of unidentified active and abandoned underground obstacles and waste sites that must be avoided when building and upgrading the infrastructure. Converting infrastructure systems originally built to support plutonium production from the 1940's to the 1980's and upgrading those systems to optimize technology is an ever-changing balance of funding profiles, available resources and execution strategies. The DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) has long recognized the need for increased investment in Hanford Site infrastructure to support the future processing of approximately 56 million gallons of waste currently stored in large underground tanks. When DFLAW is fully operational, safe and reliable infrastructure systems will be needed to ensure continuity of operations around the clock, 365 days a year. These include roadways, water, power, sewer, information technology systems and facilities. To ensure the readiness of Hanford's infrastructure to support treating tank waste in the next three years, 15 projects were identified with a combined value of $133.8 million. Through calendar year 2019, 7 infrastructure projects have been substantially completed and the remaining 8 projects, with a remaining value of $103.8 million, are scheduled to be completed by December 2023. RL and its site services/infrastructure contractor, Mission Support Alliance (MSA), regularly evaluate the needs of the DFLAW program and other Hanford Site missions to ensure the highest priority systems are addressed. In addition to a fast-approaching deadline for round-the-clock treatment operations, RL and MSA face another significant infrastructure challenge. As cleanup is being completed in a 220-square-mile area called the River Corridor, most of the cleanup operations going forward will occur in a 20-square-mile area in the center of the Hanford Site, known as the Central Plateau. Infrastructure systems are becoming more congested in an already overcrowded area. This paper/presentation will outline some of the challenges Hanford faces while executing infrastructure reliability projects. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

DOE Deep Energy Retrofit Cost Survey

A survey was conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on deep energy retrofit (DER) market drivers, opportunities, and challenges. The survey was part a research study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy to gather information on the costs of DER from home performance contractors and stakeholders. Cost data was gathered from DER projects that use a comprehensive, whole-home approach to drastically reduce energy use and improve performance. DER projects often aim at reducing energy use by 50% or more. In addition, these projects can improve home comfort and potentially benefiting occupant health. Yet, market adoption of DER has been limited. Major limiting factors include complex projects, high costs, perceived risks, extensive disruption, and unfamiliar work scopes to some contractors. In order to better understand what motivates and deters DER projects in today’s market, a survey was conducted to gather this information, and to learn about promising approaches and technologies from the industry perspective. Past surveys on homeowners and home energy performance professionals have studied the motivations and barriers of energy efficiency retrofits. Two surveys of home energy performance professionals were conducted in recent years. The Resources for the Future (RFF) Home Energy Audit and Retrofit Survey was conducted in 2011 by recruiting energy auditors and retrofit installers through members of Efficiency First and Building Performance Institute (BPI) accredited contractors. The survey asked about the business and services that respondents provide, how often homeowners follow their recommendations to retrofit their homes, and the respondents’ opinion on barriers faced by the industry. The survey found that not enough homeowners know about energy audits, but more importantly, it is the high cost of retrofits compared to low energy prices that is responsible for few energy audits and retrofits being completed. The RESNET Deep Retrofit Industry Stakeholder Survey was conducted shortly after launching of the EnergySmart Home Performance Team program. The EnergySmart Team program involves a formal agreement among allied contractors who are engaged in high performance retrofits. Using this allied team approach, teams can pool their expertise and provide each other with customer referrals. The survey asked EnergySmart Team members and outside stakeholders on questions about market and technical barriers in performing home energy retrofits. Survey respondents identified lack of consumer awareness and lack of affordable financing for consumers as the leading market barriers to home energy retrofits. In their written comments, many survey respondents also echoed that the high costs of retrofit compared to low energy prices is a market barrier. Respondents found “certain housing characteristics that prevent effective retrofit” and “energy analysis software inaccuracy or limitations” are the two leading technical barriers. Their choices for technical barriers were reflective of the energy rater/auditor role played by the majority (78%) of the survey respondents. In comparison to past surveys, this work aimed to gather inputs from a broader segment of the home performance industry to identify the opportunities and barriers faced by DERs from all perspectives. The survey asks for project costs to help breakdown the high costs of DERs. This survey is also motivated by a need to better understand the role of DERs in reducing energy use by the residential sectors and meeting climate goals. The survey is designed towards obtaining more substantive inputs from survey respondents by encouraging written comments, rather than setting the goal to reach a large number of respondents. We took this approach because DER is currently still a niche market, so it is more valuable to gather in-depth inputs from individuals who are performing this work rather than getting to the masses.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Nevada National Security Site Radiological Control Manual

Please have this STIP assigned, documented, and recorded in OSTI as Report Number DOE/NV/03624--0257 Revision 1 and Author as Radiological Control Managers' Council. This manual contains the radiological control requirements to be used for all radiological activities conducted by programs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO). (Activities conducted under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Nevada[(EM Nevada] may require additional approval authorities as described in the EM Nevada Prime Contractor’s implementation plan.) Compliance with these requirements will ensure compliance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection.” This manual represents policies, guidelines, and best practices for implementing the DOE/NV/03624--0082, “Nevada National Security Site Radiation Protection Program,” (NNSS RPP) according to the requirements of 10 CFR 835.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Installer Badges Toolkit

As the focus on home energy efficiency grows, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) are collaborating with the home energy retrofit industry to support the development of skilled workers. The Installer Badges Toolkit provides a flexible, customizable, and voluntary approach to training and skills recognition for WAP implementers, utility programs, private sector workers, and contractors.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Summary of Analytical Services for the Hanford Site Radionuclide NESHAP Program

This document is a summary of the point source analytical requirements used to demonstrate compliance for the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site operations with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (NESHAP) Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,” and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247, “Radiation Protection – Air Emissions.” This reference collects information from multiple source documents and is not intended to create, supersede, replace or over-ride any existing contractual, DOE, federal or state statutes, regulations, compliance agreements, orders, permits, licenses or other requirements. The requirement source document governs where any difference may exist. The Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) Environmental organization has been contracted by DOE to manage and report data collected from the sampling and monitoring of radioactive air emissions point sources, colloquially called stacks. The Environmental organization coordinates the analyses and reporting of samples collected at various facilities across the Hanford Site. These facilities operate approximately 52 stacks that require sampling, monitoring or estimating radioactive air emissions. The stacks are operated by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), Central Plateau Cleanup Company (CPCCo), Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure (H2C), Hanford Laboratory Management and Integration (HLMI), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Stack samples from CPCCo, HLMI and H2C facilities are collected by the operating contractor staff, delivered to HMIS, and then shipped to an offsite contracted laboratory for analyses. The field and laboratory sample data uploaded into the Sample Management and Analytical Results Tracking (SMART) database are used to calculate sample volumes and concentrations. Sample concentrations are evaluated for compliance with federal and state regulations, permits, and license requirements. The SMART database also calculates total curies released for sampled point sources and stacks. Point source effluent concentrations and releases are published annually in publicly available reports. The BNI and PNNL operate several DOE-Hanford Field Office (HFO) stacks subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 61, Subpart H and WAC 246-247. The concentrations, curies released and dose modeling evaluation for these stacks are included in the DOE-HFO annual radionuclide NESHAP report. The sample collection, analyses and emissions estimates for these stacks are outside the scope of HMIS contracted responsibilities and not addressed further in this document.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Retrofitting Holcim Ste. Genevieve Cement Plant with CO2 Capture Plant Using Air Liquide Cryocap™ FG Technology

The global cement manufacturing industry is a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The International Energy Agency's "Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario" identifies CCS as a major strategy for meeting that goal. This project is among the first attempts to transfer capture technology developed at coal-fired power plants to the cement industry. The main objective of the project is to execute and complete a front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies for commercial-scale, carbon capture projects that separates 95% of the total CO2 emissions at the Holcim (US) Ste. Genevieve cement manufacturing facility using Air Liquide’s Pressure Swing Adsorption system (PSA) assisted Cryocap™ technology. The Holcim Ste. Genevieve cement plant in Missouri, US, boasts one of the largest single cement production lines in the world, with a capacity of approximately 12,000 t/day. The plant currently uses traditional fuels, namely coal and petcoke. The captured CO2 will be pipeline and geological storage grade. The industrial host site emits approximately 3.0 million tonne CO2/yr. Air Liquide’s Cryocap™ technology has been developed over the last 18+ years for CO2 capture applications. It has been shown to be applicable to a variety of industrial applications (e.g., steel, cement, SMR, Fluidized Catalytic Crackers (FCCs)). Cryocap™ FG consists of a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) unit coupled with a Cryogenic System. The PSA pre-concentrates the CO2 from the flue gas, while the cryogenic unit enables the CO2 purity to be increased to the desired level. The project team is led by the Prairie Research Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The tasks include: complete FEED study for retrofitting the industrial facility with a carbon capture system to support developing a detailed cost estimate; business case analysis outlining the anticipated revenue and credits if projects was built and operated; technoeconomic analysis (TEA) outlining how capture system achieves DOE capture goals; and life cycle (LCA) analysis demonstrating zero net carbon emissions. The FEED study was successfully completed. This includes completing the process basis of design; preliminary engineering; outside battery limits (OSBL) detailed engineering including a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) wastewater treatment system; inside battery limits (ISBL) detailed engineering [1]. An overall project capital cost estimate within a -20%/+30% accuracy was developed. The major contributors to the Total Plant Cost (TPC), by system, are the costs associated with the Outside Battery Limit (OSBL) section of the plant which includes a new river water intake structure and a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. By cost category, the major contributors to the TPC are equipment and subcontractor costs, followed closely by engineering, construction management, home office and contractor fees. The TEA has been created to reflect the findings of the project. It analyzes the economic performance of the Cryocap™ technology by reviewing the estimated capital costs, operating cost, and revenue. The Cost of Capture (COC) associated with the Cryocap™ technology for 95% CO2 capture, when considering NETL 2018 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 5.15% interest on debt and 1.42% return on equity in real dollars) and 2022 economic assumptions (42/58 debt/equity ratio, 8.82% interest on debt and 4.90% return on equity in real dollars) was found to be much lower than that for the DOE-NETL’s base-line cases. The highest contributors to the COC are annualized capital expenditures (CAPEX) and electricity consumption which can be offset by using lower cost renewable sources. The LCA was conducted using OpenLCA which is an open-source software that is recommended by NETL. The database utilized for this study was a modified version of TRACI 2.1 (developed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and modified by NETL). The Cryocap™ FG technology does not consume fuels in significant quantities and does not utilize specialized chemical solvents subject to decomposition, such as those utilized in amine-based carbon capture systems. The Cryocap™ FG technology mainly utilizes electricity as its energy input; hence, its calculated emissions are mainly associated with the generation of electricity offsite and are dependent on the energy matrix of the grid at the time of project implementation. The water consumption impact of the Cryocap™ FG is mostly for makeup of the water lost by evaporation in the cooling tower; however, the carbon capture plant will be equipped with a ZLD system to avoid effluent streams and minimize water consumption. The successful construction and operation of this plant based on this study results will provide a means to demonstrate an economically attractive and transformational capture technology that can be used to retrofit existing plants and be deployed at new plants.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cost details from front-end engineering design of piperazine with the advanced stripper

This Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to estimate the cost to capture and compress 90% of the CO 2 from an existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) in Denver City, Texas, USA. The FEED used the PZAS (Piperazine with the Advanced Stripper) 2G amine scrubbing technology developed and modeled by The University of Texas at Austin. This FEED is unique in providing more public cost details than other FEEDs funded by DOE. The primary objective of the FEED was to provide a comprehensive estimate for the total installed cost of the capture plant. The estimated capital cost of NGCC at the Mustang Station is $\$727$ million for a capacity of 460 MW and 1.6 million tonnes CO 2 /yr. This includes a contingency of $\$104.6$ million and a contractor’s profit of $\$60.1$ million. The total direct field cost is $\$384.1$ million. With an optimistic fuel value of $\$3$/MMBtu, the estimated cost of capture varies from $\$85$/t at 4% IRR/85% load to $\$170$/t at 10% IRR/52% load. Air cooling is technically feasible but expensive. The air cooling systems for the water wash and pump-around intercooling account for 23.4% of the direct cost. The gas-fired boilers represent only 4% of the direct costs, but steam extraction would reduce energy cost, free up cooling water, and reduce the direct costs of processing additional flue gas and CO 2 from the boilers. The absorbers represent 9.6% of the direct cost in this FEED with no direct contact cooler and only 7.6 m of packing. Furthermore, the solvent cross exchangers are less expensive than expected (2.5% of direct costs). Doubling the number of these exchangers could reduce the heat duty from 3.0 to 2.5 GJ/t CO 2 .

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗