Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “carbon storage”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

A review of risk and uncertainty assessment for geologic carbon storage

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in geological formations play a key role in mitigating anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and achieving the aggressive goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Risk and uncertainty assessment is crucial for ensuring the safety and reliability of geologic carbon storage (GCS) by evaluating CO 2 migration in subsurface, forecasting potential leakage and induced seismicity risks, and optimizing operational and monitoring plans. In this review, the use and progress of risk assessment for GCS over the last few decades are examined. Here, we use the Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP), which is one of the seven regional partnerships supported by the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE), as an example of large-scale CCUS projects in North America. Additionally, future trends and requirements for risk assessment in GCS are discussed. The information provided in this review can help readers understand the significance of risk and uncertainty assessment and apply it effectively in large-scale GCS projects.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Thermal and solubility effects on fault leakage during geologic carbon storage

Geologic carbon storage (GCS) is a promising method for reducing anthropogenic CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere. To safely deploy GCS in the field, it is necessary to assess risks and the effect of uncertainty on safe storage. The effect of uncertainty can be quantified using batches of simulations, but the high computational costs of high-resolution simulations necessitate use of reduced-order models (ROMs). Previous work involves ROMs for quantifying the risk of different potential leakage paths from storage reservoirs to shallow formations. However, previous studies on development of fault-leakage ROMs have limited numbers of uncertain parameters and do not explicitly examine impacts of CO 2 solubility and thermal stresses on fault reactivation, which can generate high-permeability pathways and compromise CO 2 storage. Here, we analyze an ensemble of simulations considering CO 2 leakage from a storage reservoir to a shallow aquifer through a fault while varying a number of uncertain parameters related to thermo-hydro-mechanical properties and CO 2 injection. We show the effects of solubility on: free-phase CO 2 -leakage rates, brine-leakage rates, and poroelastic fault destabilization. We find that CO 2 solubility is more important for estimating free-phase CO 2 -leakage rates compared to brine-leakage rates or poroelastic fault destabilization. We also find that thermal stresses and overpressures have different spatial distributions within the fault, indicating that the spatial variability of overpressures due to variation in flow parameters does not necessarily make the spatial variability of thermal stresses negligible. We suggest the use of the CO 2 phase-change path as a variable in future fault-leakage ROMs.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Exploring Offshore Regional Atlantic Carbon Storage and Infrastructure for Eastern USA (Supporting Communities and Industry for Mid-Atlantic Offshore Carbon Storage Hub)

This final technical report presents a summary of work completed for the project Supporting Communities and Industry for Mid-Atlantic Offshore Carbon Storage Hub (FE0032407), which has been designated EXPLORE-ACS (Exploring Potential Long-Term Offshore Regional Atlantic Carbon Storage). The project is part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) funding opportunity announcement 2799 for Regional Initiatives to Accelerate Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Deployment. The objective of the DOE 2799 program is to identify and address the challenges facing commercial deployment of carbon capture, transport, and storage in specific regions of the United States.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

New Matrix Framework to Determine Carbon Storage Technical Viability

Carbon storage is an integral component of reducing CO2 emissions. Research over the past two decades has developed workflows for volume assessments and economic project feasibility, providing necessary and useful tools to progress geologic carbon storage (GCS) projects. These workflows and assessments have focused primarily on determining the in-situ storage resource based on geologic and engineering parameters and do not integrate subsurface characterization with surface conditions, social factors, and environmental factors that may pose a benefit or impediment to the implementation of GCS. Furthermore, the data required to assess the technical viability of GCS are myriad and disparate. There is no current methodology that identifies technical viability criteria and systematically informs how to aggregate these factors for spatial assessments. To address this gap, the National Energy Technology Laboratory has developed a Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach (CS TVA) Matrix that incorporates a wide variety of factors to inform and accelerate screening for GCS site selection in the United States.

Mulhern, Julia↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for The Value of Reversible Carbon Storage in a Zero-Emissions World

Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is required to stabilize global temperature. CDR can be achieved via ecosystem-based approaches that are cost-effective but reversible (e.g., soil and forest management) or by more durable but expensive approaches (e.g., direct air capture coupled with geologic storage). Here, we examine trade-offs between these approaches, focusing on timing, climate impacts, and cost. We simulated reversible carbon accrual for a range of CDR contract structures using a general minimalist model of ecosystem carbon cycling, and parameterized it to simulate US agricultural soil management─specifically cover cropping─as a case study. We then quantified the resulting impact on atmospheric carbon and global temperature using a climate model emulator. We find that maintaining a patchwork of reversible CDR projects by replacing lapsed projects with new projects can reduce warming by 22–195 μ°C in 2100 and that the magnitude of this cooling effect depends on how effectively the patchwork is maintained. Long-term maintenance of reversible CDR projects requires institutional stability that cannot be guaranteed over multiple decades. Consequently, effective CDR ultimately requires replacing reversible projects with durable projects. To address this problem, we modeled the cost of replacing reversible agricultural soil CDR with geologic CDR. We found that using reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR is potentially more cost-effective as a global cooling strategy (0.20–0.81 billion USD per μ°C avoided) than perpetual maintenance of reversible CDR (0.32–1.31 billion USD per μ°C avoided) or an immediate transition to durable CDR (1.37–2.19 billion USD per μ°C avoided). However, we emphasize that institutional commitments to maintain reversible CDR projects cannot be guaranteed. Reliance on reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR therefore carries an unknown amount of risk and will only function if efforts to maintain reversible CDR are robust.

Carbon↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Project Lifetime Approach to the Management of Induced Seismicity Risk at Geologic Carbon Storage Sites

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method that can help reduce atmospheric CO 2 by sequestering it into the subsurface. Large-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage, however, may be accompanied by induced seismicity. We present a project lifetime approach to address the induced seismicity risk at these geologic storage sites. This approach encompasses both technical and nontechnical stakeholder issues related to induced seismicity and spans the time period from the initial consideration phase to postclosure. These recommendations are envisioned to serve as general guidelines, setting expectations for operators, regulators, and the public. They contain a set of seven actionable focus areas, the purpose of which are to deal proactively with induced seismicity issues. Although each geologic carbon storage site will be unique and will require a custom approach, these general best practice recommendations can be used as a starting point to any site-specific plan for how to systematically evaluate, communicate about, and mitigate induced seismicity at a particular reservoir.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Carbon Storage Open Database

The Carbon Storage Open Database is a collection of spatial data obtained from publicly available sources published by several NATCARB Partnerships and other organizations. The carbon storage open database was collected from open-source data on ArcREST servers and websites in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. The original database was published on the former GeoCube, which is now EDX Spatial, in July 2020, and has since been updated with additional data resources from the Energy Data eXchange (EDX) and external public data resources. The shapefile geodatabase is available in total, and has also been split up into multiple databases based on the maps produced for EDX spatial. These are topical map categories that describe the type of data, and sometimes the region for which the data relates. The data is separated in case there is only a specific area or data type that is of interest for download. In addition to the geodatabases, this submission contains: 1. A ReadMe file describing the processing steps completed to collect and curate the data. 2. A data catalog of all feature layers within the database. Additional published resources are available that describe the work done to produce the geodatabase: Morkner, P., Bauer, J., Creason, C., Sabbatino, M., Wingo, P., Greenburg, R., Walker, S., Yeates, D., Rose, K. 2022. Distilling Data to Drive Carbon Storage Insights. Computers & Geosciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2021.104945 Morkner, P., Bauer, J., Shay, J., Sabbatino, M., and Rose, K. An Updated Carbon Storage Open Database - Geospatial Data Aggregation to Support Scaling -Up Carbon Capture and Storage. United States: N. p., 2022. Web. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1890730 Morkner, P., Rose, K., Bauer, J., Rowan, C., Barkhurst, A., Baker, D.V., Sabbatino, M., Bean, A., Creason, C.G., Wingo, P., and Greenburg, R. Tools for Data Collection, Curation, and Discovery to Support Carbon Sequestration Insights. United States: N. p., 2020. Web. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1777195 Disclaimer: This project was funded by the United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, in part, through a site support contract. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor the support contractor, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

carbon storage↗
DOE OSTI2025

Recent Collaborations and Innovations to Demonstrate Next-Generation Techniques for Monitoring Subsurface Carbon Storage

World Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Conference, Bergen, Norway, September 1–4, 2025. This talk provides a high-level overview of many novel and sustainable carbon storage-monitoring methods to accelerate the deployment of CCUS technologies at future CCUS sites across the United States. The Energy & Environmental Research Center’s work impacts the general CCUS industry by providing novel low-impact methods for tracking the injected plume’s migration and more autonomous data collection and processing techniques for performing assurance monitoring. Specifically, the results benefit 1) CCUS community members through knowledge sharing of lessons learned; 2) CCUS operators through commercialization of additional methods, including improvements to workflows and simplification of fieldwork; and 3) CCUS project stakeholders through implementation of low-impact and more autonomous monitoring solutions.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2024

Mycorrhizal associations of temperate forest seedlings mediate rhizodeposition, but not soil carbon storage, under elevated nitrogen availability

Abstract Tree‐mycorrhizal associations are associated with patterns in nitrogen (N) availability and soil organic matter storage; however, we still lack a mechanistic understanding of what tree and fungal traits drive these patterns and how they will respond to global changes in soil N availability. To address this knowledge gap, we investigated how arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM)‐ and ectomycorrhizal (EcM)‐associated seedlings alter rhizodeposition in response to increased seedling inorganic N acquisition. We grew four species each of EcM and AM seedlings from forests of the eastern United States in a continuously 13 C‐labeled atmosphere within an environmentally controlled chamber and subjected to three levels of 15 N‐labeled fertilizer. We traced seedling 15 N uptake from, and 13 C‐labeled inputs (net rhizodeposition) into, root‐excluded or ‐included soil over a 5‐month growing season. N uptake by seedlings was positively related to rhizodeposition for EcM‐ but not AM‐associated seedlings in root‐included soils. Despite this contrast in rhizodeposition, there was no difference in soil C storage between mycorrhizal types over the course of the experiment. Instead root‐inclusive soils lost C, while root‐exclusive soils gained C. Our findings suggest that mycorrhizal associations mediate tree belowground C investment in response to inorganic N availability, but these differences do not affect C storage. Continued soil warming and N deposition under global change will increase soil inorganic N availability and our seedling results indicate this could lead to greater belowground C investment by EcM‐associated trees. This potential for less efficient N uptake by EcM‐trees could contribute to AM‐tree success and a shift toward more AM‐dominated temperate forests.

Fitch, Amelia A.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Offshore Geologic Carbon Storage (GCS) Inventory

The Offshore Geological Carbon Storage Inventory Web Map is an online web mapping application designed to help users explore and visualize the Offshore Geologic Carbon Storage Inventory. This dataset is an inventory of offshore geologic carbon storage (GCS) projects and studies, gathered to summarize ongoing GCS efforts taking place offshore globally. This inventory includes both actualized projects as well as characterization studies and aggregates a variety of attribute fields for each project / study. It is intended to be used for research and comparison purposes, see full disclaimer and credits.

Assessment↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach and National Data Assessment

Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach is a comprehensive evaluation of potential geologic carbon storage sites that includes classic subsurface resource assessment components such as reservoir suitability in addition to hazard, environmental, social, regulatory, and jurisdiction components that may enhance or hinder successful carbon storage. Data for assessments of technically viable carbon storage span many categories, types; are disparate and numerous. Variables and types of data required to support CS assessments were previously not clearly defined and documented. Contextualizing available data indicates their utility, potential uncertainty, and gaps. This presentation details the Carbon Storage Technical Viability Approach, the associated matrix and database, and initial results from a portion of the national data availability assessment that contextualizes the data available to support carbon storage projects. Presented at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (SPE-AAPG-SEG CCUS 2024) conference in Houston, TX, March 11-13, 2024.

Mark-Moser, Mackenzie K.↗