Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “FOSSIL ENERGY”

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 1,513 records · Page 84

Deriving Osmotic Pressures of Draw Solutes used in Osmotically Driven Membrane Processes

In osmotically driven membrane processes (ODMPs), such as forward osmosis (FO), the concentration of the draw solute and the related osmotic pressure play a critical role in mass transport and overall process performance. Search of the literature reveals that the concentration units used to describe draw solutes vary and the methods of deriving osmotic pressure from those concentrations are often unclear or not discussed. This paper recommends the use of molality and identifies the benefit of experimentally determined van ‘t Hoff indices when calculating osmotic pressures.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Method of CO.sub.2 removal from a gasesous stream at reduced temperature

A method for the removal of H.sub.2O and CO.sub.2 from a gaseous stream comprising H.sub.2O and CO.sub.2, such as a flue gas. The method initially utilizes an H.sub.2O removal sorbent to remove some portion of the H.sub.2O, producing a dry gaseous stream and a wet H.sub.2O removal sorbent. The dry gaseous stream is subsequently contacted with a CO.sub.2 removal sorbent to remove some portion of the CO.sub.2, generating a dry CO.sub.2 reduced stream and a loaded CO.sub.2 removal sorbent. The loaded CO.sub.2 removal sorbent is subsequently heated to produce a heated CO.sub.2 stream. The wet H.sub.2O removal sorbent and the dry CO.sub.2 reduced stream are contacted in a first regeneration stage, generating a partially regenerated H.sub.2O removal sorbent, and the partially regenerated H.sub.2O removal sorbent and the heated CO.sub.2 stream are subsequently contacted in a second regeneration stage. The first and second stage regeneration typically act to retain an initial monolayer of moisture on the various removal sorbents and only remove moisture layers bound to the initial monolayer, allowing for relatively low temperature and pressure operation. Generally the applicable H.sub.2O sorption/desorption processes may be conducted at temperatures less than about 70.degree. C. and pressures less than 1.5 atmospheres, with certain operations conducted at temperatures less than about 50.degree. C.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

Model-free adaptive control of supercritical circulating fluidized-bed boilers

A novel 3-Input-3-Output (3.times.3) Fuel-Air Ratio Model-Free Adaptive (MFA) controller is introduced, which can effectively control key process variables including Bed Temperature, Excess O2, and Furnace Negative Pressure of combustion processes of advanced boilers. A novel 7-input-7-output (7.times.7) MFA control system is also described for controlling a combined 3-Input-3-Output (3.times.3) process of Boiler-Turbine-Generator (BTG) units and a 5.times.5 CFB combustion process of advanced boilers. Those boilers include Circulating Fluidized-Bed (CFB) Boilers and Once-Through Supercritical Circulating Fluidized-Bed (OTSC CFB) Boilers.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

Extruder system and method for treatment of a gaseous medium

A system for treatment of a gaseous medium, comprises an extruder having a barrel. The extruder further comprises a first inlet port, a second inlet port, and a plurality of outlet ports coupled to the barrel. The first inlet port is configured for feeding a lean sorbent, the second inlet port is configured for feeding a gaseous medium, and the plurality of outlet ports are configured for releasing a plurality of components removed from the gaseous medium. Further, the extruder comprises a plurality of helical elements coupled to a plurality of kneading elements, mounted on a shaft, and disposed within the barrel. The barrel and the plurality of helical and kneading elements together form an absorption unit and a desorption unit. The first and second inlet ports are formed in the absorption unit and the plurality of outlet ports are formed in the absorption and desorption units.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗

Summary of Carbon Storage Incentives and Potential Legislation: East Sub-Basin Project Task 3.1 Business and Financial Case Study

The CarbonSAFE Illinois – East Sub-Basin project is conducting a pre-feasibility assessment for commercial-scale CO2 geological storage complexes. The project aims to identify sites capable of storing more than 50 million tons of industrially-sourced CO2. To support the business development assessment of the economic viability of potential sites in the East Sub-Basin and explore conditions under which a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project therein might be revenue positive, this document provides a summary of carbon storage incentives and legislation of potential relevance to the project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Policy, Regulatory, Legal, and Permitting Case Study Subtask 3.2 – Topical Report

This report summarizes the policy, regulatory, legal, and permitting requirements to-date for the siting of a CO 2 injection and storage project in the CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin pre-feasibility study area. Where applicable, the East Sub-Basin case study focuses on a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) site location in West Terre Haute, Indiana. Indiana has established the legal mechanisms to obtain rights to the subsurface mineral estate with the expectation to apply to reservoir pore space for CO 2 storage in an analogous manner to storage of natural gas, which is a common practice in Indiana. There is, however, no precedent in Indiana to take liability for stored CO 2 . There are currently no Indiana State incentives for CCS, but at the Federal level, tax credits for carbon capture and storage under 26. U.S. Code § 45Q constitute the greatest incentive targeted at CCS projects. The amendment to these credits put forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act (the FUTURE Act) of 2018 substantially increases the per-ton incentive for CCS—from $22.66 per ton in tax year 2017 up to $50 per ton in tax year 2027, for CO 2 not used as an injectant (i.e. saline storage). Additional economic opportunities may exist for the provision of CO 2 for potential EOR in the Illinois Basin. Policies that may support the development of CO 2 pipelines and/or CCS projects in Indiana include: 1) Title 41 of the FAST Act (2015), which created a new governance structure, procedures, and funding authorities in order to improve and expedite Federal review and authorization of covered infrastructure projects, including pipelines, and 2) the Eminent Domain for Transportation of Carbon Dioxide by Pipeline (IC 14-39, Indiana State, 2011), which declares pipeline transportation of CO 2 exclusively to a carbon management application, including sequestration, enhanced oil recovery, and deep saline injection as a benefit to the welfare of Indiana and the people. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI rule and permit requirements address all components pertaining to CO 2 injection and monitoring for long-term storage, and outline the minimum technical criteria to protect underground sources of drinking water at, and surrounding, injection well sites. The Class VI requirements also address financial responsibility for corrective action, post-injection site care, and site closure. In addition, UIC Program public notice requirements include that the EPA issue notice of the draft permit preparation to key stakeholders, and open a public comment period of not less than 30 days. A public hearing about the permit would also be held, if specifically requested by the public. A potential Class VI CO 2 injection well permit for the East Sub-Basin case study site would be obtained through the US EPA Region 5, because the State of Indiana does not have UIC Class VI primacy. Although no CO 2 injection wells have been permitted in Indiana, the US EPA Region 5 (which covers Illinois and Indiana) and the East Sub-Basin CarbonSAFE team (via the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium [MGSC]) have Class VI permitting experience from several projects located in Illinois. Based on our experience, applying for a Class VI permit can be an intensive and iterative process requiring clear communication and numerous interactions with EPA staff. In addition to gathering and preparing the data/models and documentation necessary for a permit application’s initial submittal, the subsequent public comments, EPA response and review, and answering of any follow-up questions/requests by the EPA could significantly increase the timeframe of draft permit issuance. The US EPA offers guidance documents regarding the specific Class VI permit requirements, and shows a general permitting timeline example from the FutureGen Alliance 2.0 covering one-and-a-half years from permit submittal to issuance. However, the overall permitting process to-date has a high degree of variability, and in MGSC’s project experience we observed a more extended timeline to receive Class VI permits for each of two CO 2 injection wells.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Storage Resource Estimates (SREs) of Cambrian Ordovician Units within the CarbonSAFE Prefeasibility Study Region Subtasks 4.2 and 4.3 – Topical Report

This report by the Indiana Geological & Water Survey (IGWS) assessed the storage resource estimate (SRE) of Cambrian-Ordovician stratigraphic units located within the CarbonSAFE prefeasibility area within the Illinois Basin. A comprehensive data set of wireline logs and petrophysical information was used. These data include core analysis for porosity and permeability, and existing well data including location and stratigraphic information. This report includes storage resource estimates (SREs) for four potential storage reservoirs (Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone/Black River Group, Middle Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Knox Supergroup, including a separate assessment for the lower Knox Potosi Dolomite. The resultant SREs volumes are displayed using georeferenced maps and boxplots. The latter allow for comparing data statistics (mean values and variability) between five methods employed for the SRE calculations. Differences observed in SRE results from the five methods are mainly attributable to differences in the data used for porosity in each method. ArcMap 10.5.1 software was used to portray SREs to help visualize spatial variance of estimates for each methodology, and more importantly, to highlight those areas having the greatest total storage potential estimates.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗