Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “STORAGE FACILITIES”

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 145 records · Page 8

Characterization of Infrequent Samples from the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facility: H-Area Diversion Box 1 (HDB-1) Sump Sample: January 25, 2022 Sample

Savannah River Remediation Engineering (SRR-E) requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyze the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facility (CSTF) samples from the following Tank Farm areas: the sump encasement, catch tank, drain cell, and waste tank annulus. In general, these CSTF samples will be analyzed on an infrequent basis and analyses will include detection for total beta/gamma, total alpha activities, density, free hydroxide, and pH measurements. This report presents characterization results for the H-Area diversion box 1 sump (HDB-1) January 2022 sample. The sample was slightly brown with a small amount of suspended fine particulates visually estimated to be less than 1% by volume. The results are measurements for total gamma, total alpha, total beta, density, free hydroxide, and pH.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Lessons Learned from the Clean Energy to Communities (C2C) Peer-Learning Cohort Enhancing Resilience at Critical Facilities through Solar, Storage, and Microgrids

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), with support from World Resources Institute (WRI), designed and led a six-month peer-learning cohort from January through July 2024 on "Enhancing Resilience at Critical Facilities through Solar, Storage, and Microgrids" as part of the U.S Department of Energy's Clean Energy to Communities (nrel.gov/c2c) (C2C) program. Representatives from 15 municipalities, municipal utilities, colleges, and Tribes from across the United States participated in monthly workshops covering best practices for planning and deploying local resilience projects. This document shares key takeaways, lessons learned, and resources from the cohort including considerations for planning, proposing, designing, procuring, and funding microgrid projects for resilience.

C2C↗

Hillsborough County Clear Sky Assessment Process: Prioritizing Solar + Storage for Resilient Facilities & Communities

The Clear Sky Tampa Bay project was a 15-month collaborative research effort to support solar + storage deployment for community resilience in Florida. The Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit is a collection of resources designed to support users in conducting solar + storage prioritization and feasibility screening assessments at critical facilities. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council worked with four local governments in the region to test and apply the Toolkit. This case study series describes how each partner government used the Toolkit and highlights key insights and lessons learned that other users could follow to replicate the process. Hillsborough County used the Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit to analyze solar + storage as an additional resiliency feature at its Brandon Support Operation Complex (BSOC). During normal operations, the BSOC houses water utility administration services and workspaces for water and wastewater engineers, facilities maintenance, and environmental management staff. During emergency management activation, the BSOC serves as an emergency hub for Emergency Support Function 3 (ESF-3), which includes public utilities, public works, and engineering staff support members. The BSOC is designated as a critical facility by the County.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

City of Largo Clear Sky Assessment Process: Prioritizing Solar + Storage for Resilient Facilities & Communities

The Clear Sky Tampa Bay project was a 15-month collaborative research effort to support solar + storage deployment for community resilience in Florida. The Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit is a collection of resources designed to support users in conducting solar + storage prioritization and feasibility screening assessments at critical facilities. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council worked with four local governments in the region to test and apply the Toolkit. This case study series describes how each partner government used the Toolkit and highlights key insights and lessons learned that other users could follow to replicate the process. The City of Largo used the Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit to advance community solar + storage resilience goals by collaborating with staff across departments and disciplines and engaging with utility stakeholders. The City of Largo conducted an analysis of its Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), which processes an average of 43 million gallons of wastewater daily. Water treatment operations are both critical and energy intensive, requiring sustained energy throughout the day.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Manatee County Clear Sky Assessment Process: Prioritizing Solar + Storage for Resilient Facilities & Communities

The Clear Sky Tampa Bay project was a 15-month collaborative research effort to support solar + storage deployment for community resilience in Florida. The Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit is a collection of resources designed to support users in conducting solar + storage prioritization and feasibility screening assessments at critical facilities. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council worked with four local governments in the region to test and apply the Toolkit. This case study series describes how each partner government used the Toolkit and highlights key insights and lessons learned that other users could follow to replicate the process. Manatee County applied the Clear Sky Decision Support Toolkit to two of the county's critical facilities: Nolan Middle School, which serves as a special needs emergency shelter, and its Public Safety Complex (PSC), which houses critical services including emergency management, communications, and medical services, traffic control, and more. The PSC serves as the Emergency Operations Center during activation events. The Clear Sky assessment process improved interagency communication and coordination and informed siting decisions for a potential solar + storage system for the Manatee County PSC.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Clear Sky Tampa Bay: Project and Toolkit Overview - Resilience-Based Resources for Assessing Solar + Storage on Critical Facilities

The Clear Sky Tampa Bay Team, convened by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) and composed of county and city partners, private and public sector stakeholders, solar energy experts, and academic partners, collaboratively developed a set of resources to support the expanded use of solar + storage in the context of community resilience in Florida. Key questions guiding the project included: (1) What types of buildings and systems provide the maximum resilience benefits? (2) Where within our communities should we prioritize future solar + storage analysis or investment to mitigate the impacts of disasters? (3) How might other societal variables be incorporated into a site assessment when considering solar + storage for resilience? (4) Can a standardized process be developed that leverages existing resources to assist local governments with solar + storage for resilience research and decision-making?

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

Evaluation of Thermolytic Hydrogen Generation Rate Models at High-Temperature/High-Hydroxide Regimes

This report describes the results of testing performed to extend the applicable ranges of temperature and hydroxide concentration for use within the Glycolate and Global Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Hydrogen Generation Rate (HGR) expressions. Seven experimental conditions (six simulants of the 242-25H Evaporator system chosen as a D-optimal set of experiments and a single test conducted at an elevated boiling point of 170 °C) were investigated in the presence of sodium glycolate and Xiameter TM AFE-1010. Glycolate was employed to study the extension of the Glycolate Thermolytic HGR expression while Xiameter TM AFE-1010 was employed to study the extension of the Global TOC Thermolytic HGR expression. The following conclusions were derived from this testing: The Glycolate Thermolytic HGR expression may be confidently used to predict thermolytic HGRs from glycolate at temperatures as high as 170 °C and hydroxide concentrations as high as 23 M.; The hydroxide and temperature-dependence predicted by the Global TOC Thermolytic HGR expression has been confirmed at temperatures as high as 170 °C and hydroxide concentrations as high as 23 M, suggesting that the Global TOC Thermolytic HGR expression may be used at these ranges.; Methane was observed from tests with Xiameter TM AFE-1010 at production rates higher than those observed for hydrogen. These rates were observed at temperatures higher than 100 °C.; Preliminary models suggest that increasing hydroxide/temperature causes an increase in Methane Generation Rate (MGR) from Xiameter TM AFE-1010. The following recommendations are based on this testing: The existing equations for thermolytic HGR from glycolate and non-glycolate organics should be used at Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF) storage and evaporation conditions, including temperatures and hydroxide concentrations exhibited in the 242-25H Evaporator.; Further investigation should be made into the influence of methylsilanes on CSTF flammability. This investigation should include: determination of the types of methylsilanes historically added to the CSTF, determination of methane formation rates from each type of methylsilane, and determination of the extent of degradation of methylsilanes in CSTF waste.; Characterization techniques should be developed by Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to assist in the speciation of methylsilane-containing waste in the CSTF.; Additional testing with radioactive waste should be performed to determine the MGRs possible in radioactive waste and better inform model predictions made from testing with simulants.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Characterization of Infrequent Samples from the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facility: F-Area Pump Pit 3 (FPP-3) Sump Sample: December 2021 Sample

In December 2021, SRR-E sent an ~185 mL sample identified as FPP-3 from a F-Area pump pit sump to SRNL for analysis. The sample was pale yellow in color and contained a small amount of suspended solids visually estimated to be less than 1% by volume. SRNL analysis indicated that the sample contained 4.4 E+05 dpm/mL Cs-137, 6.2 E+05 dpm/mL total beta activity, 9.3 E+02 dpm/mL beta activity following cesium removal, and below detectable levels of alpha activity following cesium removal. In addition, the sample contained 0.015 M free OH- and 947 μg total organic carbon/mL.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Characterization of Infrequent Samples from the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facility: H-Area Diversion Box 7 (HDB-7) Sump Sample: December 2021 Sample

In December 2021, SRR-E sent an ~250 mL sample identified as HDB-7 from an H-Area diversion box sump to SRNL for analysis. The sample was clear and colorless and free from any solids. SRNL analysis indicated that the sample contained 2.97E+05 dpm/mL Cs-137, 3.74E+05 dpm/mL total beta activity, 1.04E+03 dpm/mL beta activity following cesium removal, and below detectable levels of alpha activity and alpha activity following cesium removal. In addition, the pH of the sample was 7.32, free hydroxide concentration was 2.09E-07 M, and the density was 0.991 g/mL.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Uranium Solubility and Supernate Enrichment Testing for Accelerated Basin De-Inventory Discards to Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities

After future Accelerated Basin De-inventory (ABD) enriched uranium discards into sludge batches (SB), portions of supernate decants during SB preparation will be blended into salt batches (StB) and the resulting feeds must meet the nuclear safety requirements for the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). During previous SB10 sampling and testing, which involved H-Canyon material containing enriched uranium being mixed with Tank 51 sludge shortly after the H-Canyon stream was neutralized, it was identified that the uranium isotopic enrichment in the supernate deviated from the uranium isotopic enrichment in the slurry. The higher uranium isotopic enrichment in the supernate introduced the risk of challenging the feed requirements of SWPF. The ABD material added to SB11 was isotopically diluted with depleted uranium, mitigating any downstream impacts. However, H-Canyon desires to eliminate or minimize future depleted uranium additions in order to meet the mission schedule.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Prefeasibility Assessment for Solar PV and Storage for Critical Community Facilities in Chernihiv, Ukraine [Slides]

A prefeasibility analysis is performed for integrating solar photovoltaics and battery energy storage at four critical facilities in Chernihiv, Ukraine. The facilities were identified by Chernihiv city officials and include Hospital No. 2, the Maternity Hospital, Secondary School No. 11, and Preschool No. 4. The analyses were performed using NREL's REopt decision-support software tool. The analysis identifies potential capacities for PV and battery energy storage to provide both economic and resilience benefits. The conceptual architecture and estimates of key summary financial and performance metrics are presented.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

An energy storage dispatch optimization for demand-side management in industrial facilities

An energy storage (ES) dispatch optimization was implemented to test lithium-ion battery ES, supercapacitor ES, and compressed air ES on two different industrial facilities – one intermittent process facility and one continuous process facility. The model first shows the capability of optimizing the size of a single technology on a single industrial facility to maximize the return on investment. Then, for the same profile, the model identifies significant differences in the optimal size for different technologies based on their performance parameters. Third, the model identifies differences in the optimal size for each technology based on the facilities profile. Here the results show compressed air ES yields the highest return on investment for both facilities and provides insight for future development of ES systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Potential for Combined Heat and Power with Carbon Capture and Storage at U.S. Ethanol Facilities

Conference paper presented at 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-17), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, October 20–24, 2024. Economic conditions in the United States have positioned ethanol producers as early adopters of industrial CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) from fermentation processes, creating an opportunity to further reduce emissions. Replacing fossil fired energy with biogenic combined heat and power (CHP) coupled with CCS could enable ethanol production to achieve net negative CO 2 emissions, with gasification based CHP better matching ethanol facilities’ heat and power needs than combustion based systems. Pilot scale testing showed that while 100% biomass gasification increased tar formation, cofeeding corn stover with coal and optimizing gasifier configurations offered promising pathways to reduce tar and improve operational performance.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

AquaPV: Regulatory and Environmental Considerations for Floating Photovoltaic Projects Located on Federally Controlled Reservoirs in the United States

To meet the nation's decarbonization goals, the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Futures study forecasts that installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity must increase nearly tenfold, from 80 gigawatts (GW) in 2020 to approximately 760 GW cumulative installed capacity by 2035. Ground-mounted PV is expected to dominate future solar deployment and will require more than 3.5 million acres of land to meet annual demand projections (of nearly 45 GW) by 2030. However, various competing demands for land (e.g., agricultural production, conservation) and high land acquisition costs in specific locations could be challenges to meeting future PV demand solely with ground-mounted PV deployment. Floating photovoltaics (FPV) may be an alternative in locations where ground-mounted PV is not feasible and aid in reaching the nation's PV deployment and decarbonization goals. FPV is a newer siting approach in which a PV array is affixed to a floating apparatus and sited on a water body like a reservoir behind a dam. FPV systems may be stand-alone or co-located at new or existing hydroelectric facilities or pumped storage hydropower (PSH) facility reservoirs. Co-located FPV systems may or may not be operationally paired and work in tandem with the hydroelectric or PSH facility. This report provides novel analysis to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with developing stand-alone and co-located FPV projects on reservoirs in the United States. Specifically, the report explores potential environmental and energy benefits and environmental impacts associated with the siting, construction, and operation of FPV projects. The report also identifies and analyzes U.S. federal- and state-issued permits and authorizations required by federal laws to understand the licensing pathways and regulatory requirements for FPV projects sited on reservoirs licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on powered and non-powered reservoirs owned by the Bureau of Reclamation or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

AquaPV: Regulatory and Environmental Considerations for Floating Photovoltaic Projects Located on Federally Controlled Reservoirs in the United States

To meet the nation's decarbonization goals, the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Futures study forecasts that installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity must increase nearly tenfold, from 80 gigawatts (GW) in 2020 to approximately 760 GW cumulative installed capacity by 2035. Ground-mounted PV is expected to dominate future solar deployment and will require more than 3.5 million acres of land to meet annual demand projections (of nearly 45 GW) by 2030. However, various competing demands for land (e.g., agricultural production, conservation) and high land acquisition costs in specific locations could be challenges to meeting future PV demand solely with ground-mounted PV deployment. Floating photovoltaics (FPV) may be an alternative in locations where ground-mounted PV is not feasible and aid in reaching the nation's PV deployment and decarbonization goals. FPV is a newer siting approach in which a PV array is affixed to a floating apparatus and sited on a water body like a reservoir behind a dam. FPV systems may be stand-alone or co-located at new or existing hydroelectric facilities or pumped storage hydropower (PSH) facility reservoirs. Co-located FPV systems may or may not be operationally paired and work in tandem with the hydroelectric or PSH facility. This report provides novel analysis to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with developing stand-alone and co-located FPV projects on reservoirs in the United States. Specifically, the report explores potential environmental and energy benefits and environmental impacts associated with the siting, construction, and operation of FPV projects. The report also identifies and analyzes U.S. federal- and state-issued permits and authorizations required by federal laws to understand the licensing pathways and regulatory requirements for FPV projects sited on reservoirs licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on powered and non-powered reservoirs owned by the Bureau of Reclamation or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,SOLAR ENERGY↗

AquaPV: Regulatory and Environmental Considerations for Floating Photovoltaic Projects Located on Federally Controlled Reservoirs in the United States

To meet the nation's decarbonization goals, the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Futures study forecasts that installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity must increase nearly tenfold, from 80 gigawatts (GW) in 2020 to approximately 760 GW cumulative installed capacity by 2035. Ground-mounted PV is expected to dominate future solar deployment and will require more than 3.5 million acres of land to meet annual demand projections (of nearly 45 GW) by 2030. However, various competing demands for land (e.g., agricultural production, conservation) and high land acquisition costs in specific locations could be challenges to meeting future PV demand solely with ground-mounted PV deployment. Floating photovoltaics (FPV) may be an alternative in locations where ground-mounted PV is not feasible and aid in reaching the nation's PV deployment and decarbonization goals. FPV is a newer siting approach in which a PV array is affixed to a floating apparatus and sited on a water body like a reservoir behind a dam. FPV systems may be stand-alone or co-located at new or existing hydroelectric facilities or pumped storage hydropower (PSH) facility reservoirs. Co-located FPV systems may or may not be operationally paired and work in tandem with the hydroelectric or PSH facility. This report provides novel analysis to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with developing stand-alone and co-located FPV projects on reservoirs in the United States. Specifically, the report explores potential environmental and energy benefits and environmental impacts associated with the siting, construction, and operation of FPV projects. The report also identifies and analyzes U.S. federal- and state-issued permits and authorizations required by federal laws to understand the licensing pathways and regulatory requirements for FPV projects sited on reservoirs licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on powered and non-powered reservoirs owned by the Bureau of Reclamation or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,SOLAR ENERGY↗