Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Ellett, Kevin M.

Publications and source records attributed to Ellett, Kevin M..

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

The Importance of Modeling Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Geologic Storage in Energy System Planning Tools

Energy system planning tools suggest that the cost and feasibility of climate-stabilizing energy transitions are sensitive to the cost of CO 2 capture and storage processes (CCS), but the representation of CO 2 transportation and geologic storage in these tools is often simple or non-existent. We develop the capability of producing dynamic-reservoir-simulation-based geologic CO 2 storage supply curves with the Sequestration of CO 2 Tool (SCO 2 T) and use it with the ReEDS electric sector planning model to investigate the effects of CO 2 transportation and geologic storage representation on energy system planning tool results. We use a locational case study of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) region. Our results suggest that the cost of geologic CO 2 storage may be as low as $3/tCO 2 and that site-level assumptions may affect this cost by several dollars per tonne. At the grid level, the cost of geologic CO 2 storage has generally smaller effects compared to other assumptions (e.g., natural gas price), but small variations in this cost can change results (e.g., capacity deployment decisions) when policy renders CCS marginally competitive. The cost of CO 2 transportation generally affects the location of geologic CO 2 storage investment more than the quantity of CO 2 captured or the location of electricity generation investment. We conclude with a few recommendations for future energy system researchers when modeling CCS. For example, assuming a cost for geologic CO 2 storage (e.g., $5/tCO 2 ) may be less consequential compared to assuming free storage by excluding it from the model.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

A Hierarchical Framework for CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifer Formations

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage in deep saline aquifers is a vital option for CO 2 mitigation at a large scale. Determining storage capacity is one of the crucial steps toward large-scale deployment of CO 2 storage. Results of capacity assessments tend toward a consensus that sufficient resources are available in saline aquifers in many parts of the world. However, current CO 2 capacity assessments involve significant inconsistencies and uncertainties caused by various technical assumptions, storage mechanisms considered, algorithms, and data types and resolutions. Furthermore, other constraint factors (such as techno-economic features, site suitability, risk, regulation, social-economic situation, and policies) significantly affect the storage capacity assessment results. Consequently, a consensus capacity classification system and assessment method should be capable of classifying the capacity type or even more related uncertainties. We present a hierarchical framework of CO 2 capacity to define the capacity types based on the various factors, algorithms, and datasets. Finally, a review of onshore CO 2 aquifer storage capacity assessments in China is presented as examples to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed hierarchical framework.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Identifying geologic characteristics and operational decisions to meet global carbon sequestration goals

Geologic carbon sequestration is the process of injecting and storing CO 2 in subsurface reservoirs and is an essential technology for global environmental security (e.g., climate change mitigation) and economic security (e.g., CO 2 tax credits). To meet energy, economic, and environmental goals, society will have to identify vast volumes of high-capacity, low-cost, and viable storage reservoirs for sequestering CO 2 . In turn, this requires understanding how major geologic characteristics (such as reservoir depth, thickness, permeability, porosity, and temperature) and design and operational decisions (such as injection well spacing) impact CO 2 injection rates, storage capacity, and economics. Although many numerical simulation tools exist, they cannot repeat the required thousands or millions of simulations to identify ideal reservoir properties and the sensitivity and interaction between geologic parameters and operational decisions. Here, we use SCO 2 T—a fast-running, reduced-order modeling framework—to explore the sensitivity of major geologic parameters and operational decisions to engineering (CO 2 injection rates, plume dimensions, and storage capacities and effectiveness) and costs. Our results show, for the first time, benefits and impacts such as allowing CO 2 plumes to overlap, how different well spacing patterns affect CO 2 sequestration, the effects on costs of including brine treatment and disposal, and the effect of restricting injection rates to 1 MtCO 2 per y based on well limitations. We reveal multiple novel and unintuitive findings including: (i) deeper reservoirs have reduced carbon sequestration costs until injection rates reach 1 MtCO 2 per y, at which point deeper reservoirs become more expensive, (ii) thicker formations allow for increased injection rates and storage capacity, but thickness barely impacts plume areas, (iii) higher geothermal gradients result in reduced sequestration costs, unless brine treatment/disposal costs are included, at which point reservoirs having lower geothermal gradients are more economical because they produce less brine for each unit of injected CO 2 , and (iv) allowing plumes to overlap has a significantly positive impact of increasing storage capacities but has only a small influence on reducing sequestration costs. Altogether, our results illustrate new scientific conclusions to help identify suitable sites to inject and store CO 2 , to help understand the complex interaction between geology and resulting costs, and to help support the pursuit of meeting global sequestration targets.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Ordovician-Cambrian Units: Hierarchical Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Storage Resource Estimates

The Indiana Geological and Water Survey (IGWS) led subtask 1.1 to assess the regional distribution and estimate the storage capacity of Ordovician-Cambrian stratigraphic units located within the partnership region. A comprehensive data set of wireline logs and petrophysical information was used to generate these interpretations. These data include core analysis for porosity and permeability, mercury injection capillary pressure (MICP), and existing well data including location and stratigraphic information. This report includes storage resource estimates (SREs) for three potential storage reservoirs(limestone and dolostone from the Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone/Black River Group and equivalent units, the Middle Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, and primary target reservoir rocks of the Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Knox Supergroup and equivalent units) calculated using six methodologies: (1) a fixed value of porosity of 10 percent in all units evaluated; (2) a unique average porosity (per well) from wireline-derived porosity (neutron, sonic, and/or density porosity for each unit); (3) porosity values from core analysis; (4) a depth-dependent porosity model (Knox Supergroup only); (5) porosity based on a model based on petrophysical facies; and (6) SREs using National Energy Technology Laboratory’s CO2 Storage prospeCtive Resource Estimation Excel aNalysis (CO2-SCREEN beta V2). All methods used the same values for thickness for each unit. However, the areal extent of each assessment was limited by the data available for each method. Estimated volumes were calculated in 1-by-1 kilometer grid cells and summarized as county and total stratigraphic unit volumes. The resultant SREs mass are displayed using boxplots, which allow for comparing data statistics (mean values and variability) between methods. Differences observed in SRE results from the six methods are mainly attributable to differences in the data and conceptual models used to interpret or estimate porosity in each method. Based on this systematic variability between methods, it is inferred that methods 1, 4, and 6 are best used for regional-scale reconnaissance estimates of storage capacity while methods 2, 3, and 5 are more appropriate for local scales where more data is required. All estimates are data-density dependent and different methods require different amounts of data for reasonable assessments. 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↗