Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SUSAN”

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 1,279 records · Page 71
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Application of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Systems for Powering Safety Monitoring Systems of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations, OESI 2.0 M-1 T-1-P1.1 – Objective 3 Report: Collocation of OTEC with Offshore Oil and Gas Activities

This report is a component of a comprehensive research initiative aimed at evaluating the technoeconomic feasibility of deploying Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) systems to power safety monitoring systems for offshore oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America (GOA). The overarching study has three primary objectives: summarizing existing oil and gas equipment monitoring systems, modeling OTEC as a renewable marine energy source, and exploring the collocation of OTEC power sources with offshore oil and gas activities to offset power demand. This report specifically addresses Objective 3, focusing on the integration of OTEC systems with floating oil and gas facilities.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

Application of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Systems for Powering Safety Monitoring Systems of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. OESI 2.0 M-1 T-1-P1.1 – Objective 1 Interim Report: Summary of Offshore Oil and Gas Well Monitoring Systems and Process Power Requirements

This report is part of a comprehensive research initiative aimed at evaluating the technoeconomic feasibility of deploying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions monitoring systems powered by small-scale renewable energy sources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The study has three primary objectives: summarizing available GHG monitoring systems for the OCS, modeling a renewable marine energy source (specifically ocean thermal energy conversion, or OTEC), and modeling the collocation of OTEC power sources with offshore oil and gas activities to offset power demand.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

FY24 Task 5: Leachate Disposition

Directly feeding sludge solids to the high-level waste (HLW) Waste Treatment Plant represents an alternative flowsheet seeking to initiate sludge processing as soon as possible. Key processing functions previously captured during baseline pretreatment operations include leaching and washing prior to solids concentration. These operations should be considered in the potential direct feed flowsheets to maximize waste feed loading, minimize HLW volume, and mitigate corrosion challenges associated with vitrification of high phosphate and fluoride concentrations. Additionally, single-shell tank (SST) retrievals and waste transfers to double-shell tanks (DSTs) in a direct feed flowsheet would likely also benefit from some level of leaching, washing, and solids concentration in order to reduce DST space and mission duration. These operations could occur in a new facility or potentially in available DSTs. If washing and leaching are utilized, an effective disposition pathway for the wash water and leachate solutions are needed. Three target species that benefit significantly from leaching and washing are phosphate, fluoride and aluminum. Phosphate (PO 4 3- ) and fluoride (F - ) can contribute substantially to the amount of carrier fluid needed for dissolution, and the resulting volume of liquid generated. Disposition of this retrieval solution should be evaluated in order to prevent crystallization of these anions throughout system processing. Since there is a high probability that any retrieval solutions will be at or near their PO 4 3- and F - solubility limits, evaporation or blending with a high Na supernate (>3.5 M) is not recommended for the wash water streams without a method to remove precipitants prior to solution disposal. Additionally, aluminum present in the southeast quadrant of the Hanford site represents roughly 60% of the waste solids in the initial processing tanks. These aluminum solids are in the form of gibbsite (Al(OH) 3 ) and can pose significant challenges for processing due to the fast-settling times and high solids loading associated with these materials. Easily remediated by caustic addition to the solids, these wash solutions could be processed through crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange columns to prepare the supernate solutions for disposition. The current target for feed conditions to the Low Activity Waste (LAW) melter are waste streams that contain nominally 5-6 M Na. Fractions within the tanks contain upwards of 0.2 M phosphate and fluoride in solution at 3.5 M Na. Concentrating these solutions above 5 M Na would result in an exceedance of the solubility limits, and potential for uncontrolled precipitation of the phosphate and fluoride crystal material. The resulting crystalline salt material is typically sodium fluoride phosphate, also referred to as natrophosphate (Na 7 FPO 4 ·19H 2 O). Salt phases are of importance in tank waste due to their chemical reactivity, which can result in precipitation, dissolution, or transformation, impacting any downstream processes (Bolling et al. 2020, Russell, Snow, and Peterson 2010). Salt generation and precipitation could pose challenges by causing system plugging and melter corrosion if left in the supernate stream, or limit sodium molarity of the supernate that would be accepted without incident in waste operations. To understand the impact of this salt generation, the crystallization of natrophosphate in multiple simulant feed matrices was studied to understand the implications of various tank waste supernate chemistries. Three matrices were examined: high PO 4 3- /low F - , low PO 4 3- /high F - , and an average matrix. Subsequent testing was performed with the average matrix with the inclusion of CsNO 3 , and a final run with the average matrix including CsNO 3 and a 137 Cs spike for tracer purposes.

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

R-Value Measurements Performed on Actinide Targets Irradiated using the GODIVA IV Critical Assembly in FY22

The separation and characterization of two irradiated uranium targets, a depleted uranium (DU) and a highly enriched uranium (HEU) target as well as a plutonium (Pu) target, was conducted in April of 2022. The three targets were assembled at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and irradiated using the GODIVA critical assembly at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC). Splits of the dissolved targets were received by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) after which the PNNL and LANL teams chemically separated the solutions using independent separation schemes and analyzed the separated fractions for short lived actinides and fission products. Chemical separations were traced with stable or radioactive tracers to allow for the determination of chemical yields, analyzing using either inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES), inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) or gamma emission analysis (GEA) depending on the nature of the tracer. The Pu target solution was traced with stable elements at LANL to follow elemental fractionation during a Pu removal step. Many analytical techniques were used by PNNL including kinetic phosphorescence analysis (KPA), ICP-OES, ICP-MS, GEA, and thermal ionization mass spectrometry (TIMS) depending on the analyte’s need.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Southeast Regional CO 2 Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership (SECARB-USA): Needs Assessment Framework

The goal of this task is to develop an assessment to identify data needed to advance geologic storage projects, with a focus on the SECARB region. The GCCC team considers the needs of CO 2 source, storage, and utilization operators and stakeholders, finance and insurance institutions, state and local government relators and agencies, property owners, local stakeholders at prospective storage complexes, and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Many of these needs are spelled out in the requirements of the Class VI permit. However, at the initial stages of project development, the workflow will not start with permit writing. A number of other factors must be evaluated prior to this major investment. The team’s goal in this report is to inventory the range of typical needs of for a wide variety of projects. For subsequent tasks, the team will consider how these needs vary among projects and through the stages of investment, so that project developers can plan the early stages of capitalization.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Southeast Regional CO 2 Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership (SECARB-USA): Needs Assessment Framework for Storage Complexes

A team of SECARB storage experts examined 63 formations at 39 sites that were selected to represent the range of diversity of newly assessed, as well as well-advanced, storage prospects in the SECARB region. We inventoried the data needs triggered by the requirements to obtain a Class VI UIC storage permit, the data needs that results from the requirement to create geocellular fluid flow models to support that permit, and by pragmatic and best practice inputs such as public acceptance, regulatory readiness, and pore space leasing. We anchored both the needs inventory and the processes for and cost of meeting the needs with data from 9 sites in in the SECARB area that have advanced far in characterization.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Southeast Regional CO 2 Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership (SECARB-USA): A Sub-Basin Framework for Future CO 2 Infrastructure Development (Task 4.1.a)

The “Southeast Regional CO 2 Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership” (SECARB-USA) project supports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy's (FE) mission to help the United States meet its need for secure, affordable, and environmentally sound fossil energy supplies by utilizing the advancements made since 2003 by the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) Initiative to continue to identify and address knowledge gaps. The SECARB-USA regional initiative encompasses the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and portions of Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia as noted in Figure 1.1. The primary objective of the project is to identify and address regional onshore storage and transport challenges facing commercial deployment of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Southeast Regional CO 2 Utilization and Storage Acceleration Partnership (SECARB-USA): Data Quality Methodology (4.2.1)

SECARB-USA Deliverable 4.2.1 utilizes the outputs from the Needs Assessment (Subtask 2.1) to develop a data quality methodology. Many types of data are needed to evaluate a site for technical and financial viability. Several inventories of data types have been produced (for example NETL, 2010). The objective here is to organize the data types so that the needs met are specified. From this cross index (Table 1 in the Appendix), it will be possible in future tasks to (1) determine, on a site-specific basis, how much of each data type is required at each stage of a project to meet the need, and conversely (2) to further specify and define the data collection methods applied such that the data are tailored to fit that need. Derivative tables can then be developed to semi-quantitively evaluate the extent to which need is critical for early go/no decision points, or if it is more important than average, requiring faster or larger capitalization and spend to meet the need. In an additional step, the current availability of data for a site can be semi-quantitively assessed. From the table of data criticality and the table of data availability, site-specific cost for meeting the data needs can be determined, and allow a pre-permit spend estimated for a portfolio of projects. All of the data needs to evaluate a site are somewhat interconnected. We used criterion (2) above to determine if the data collection design would have to be modified to meet the need; if this was commonly true a linkage was shown. The application of this cross index to sites in the subsequent tasks will demonstrate that the demand for data types varies site-to-site and project-to-project. Examples of factors to be considered are the complexity of the geology, the injection goals such as rate and duration of the injection, and the types of risk and risk tolerance of key stakeholders. In future tasks the team will compare the demand for data with existing data availability. This will, in turn, determine when data needs to be acquired to support project development. For example, in a project area with complex structure, 3-D seismic data may be needed earlier and more urgently than in an area with simple rock body geometries. In some locations, a 3-D seismic survey has already been collected and can be purchased. In other locations the project developer will need to collect these data. For another example, a project near an urban area or near to a park may generate earlier and more substantive public concern than a site that is developed in mined lands. A calculation using the derivative from table 1 will show the different investment needs. Project cost will vary corresponding to data criticality and data availability.

42 ENGINEERING↗