Engineering topics

Neupane, Ghanashyam Hari

Publications and source records attributed to Neupane, Ghanashyam Hari.

6 records

DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis of Greenfield Geothermal Hybrid Power Plants using a Solar or Natural Gas Steam Topping Cycle

The relatively low generation costs associated with wind, solar PV, and natural gas power plants make it challenging for geothermal power plants to produce and sell the power that has the reliability and sustainability characteristics that are greatly needed in US power markets. This is especially true for geothermal resources with low to medium temperatures, which results in relatively low thermal efficiency and generation costs that are higher than those for wind, solar PV, and natural gas. This analysis evaluates solar thermal- and natural gas combustion waste heat recovery-based topping cycle hybridization of geothermal binary power plants. This approach provides several benefits that may allow geothermal power plants to generate power at more competitive costs. First, the addition of solar thermal energy or natural gas combustion waste heat input to a geothermal power plant provides additional heat input that can be converted to electrical power. Second, the temperature level of the heat obtained from concentrating solar collectors or natural gas combustion exhaust is higher than that of geothermal heat, which provides opportunities for improving the efficiency of the conversion of thermal energy to electrical power. Third, the ease with which solar thermal systems integrate with energy storage and the flexibility of natural gas means power generation can occur during peak demand periods.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Dynamic Earth Energy Storage: Terawatt-year, Grid-scale Energy Storage Using Planet Earth as a Thermal Battery (GeoTES): Phase I Project (Final Report)

Grid-scale energy storage has been identified by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Storage Grand Challenge as a necessary technology to support the continued build-out of intermittent renewable energy resources required to attain a carbon-free energy future. To meet this goal, the 2018 Department of Energy Research and Innovation Act mandated the creation of a comprehensive program to accelerate the development and commercialization of next-generation energy storage technologies. One of numerous energy storage technology options is the storage of excess energy as heated geothermal brine in suitable geologic formations. This concept, known as reservoir thermal energy storage (RTES), geologic thermal energy storage (GeoTES), aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES), etc., relies on the storage of thermal energy in geologic formations for recovery and use in large-scale direct use geothermal (e.g., district heating, industrial processes, etc.) and electrical power generation applications. This thermal energy is derived from excess or waste heat from any high-temperature heat source, such as concentrated solar or from conventional thermal/nuclear generation. As such, RTES can potentially play a significant role in meeting the energy storage shortfall in the coming decades. RTES can provide energy arbitrage through both the storage and production of thermal energy stored in geologic formations for direct use applications and can serve as a source of hot fluids that can be used to generate electricity to support peak demand ramping, thus easing stress on transmission and distribution. This energy storage option has geographic benefits in that energy can be stored locally or regionally depending on the various needs/loads. RTES can also be located across an enormous geographic area, without the need for a traditional hydrothermal resource but where thermal gradients and hydrogeology allow economic exploitation of subsurface heat. The work conducted for this project includes (1) a review of lessons learned from past high-temperature RTES international projects; (2) geochemical experimental investigation and numerical simulations of potential domestic sedimentary reservoirs and (3) development of a thermo-hydrological-mechanical (THM) numerical simulation tool for optimizing formation properties and design parameters to maximize thermal energy storage performance.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2019

EGS Collab Earth Modeling: Integrated 3D Model of the Testbed

The EGS Collab project is conducting a series of stimulation and interwell flow tests in an intermediate scale (~10-20 m) testbed located on the 4850 level in the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in Lead, South Dakota. The testbed consists of eight ~200 ft (~60 m) HQ-diameter (9.6 cm) boreholes that are drilled into the Poorman Formation from the western rib of the West Access Drift. Of the eight boreholes, one borehole is used as an injection/stimulation well, another sub-parallel borehole located about 10 m away from the injection well is used as a production well, and rest of the other boreholes are used as monitoring wells. For 3D visualization of the testbed as well as to provide spatially accurate and consistent parameter data for geomechanical and geophysical process modeling tasks, we are using Leapfrog Software (Seequent Limited). For analysis of fractures and creation of conditioned stochastic discrete fracture network (CS-DFN) model of the testbed, we are using FracMan (Golder Associates Inc.). As of mid-May 2019, the EGS Collab Leapfrog database contains the general layout of the drifts/shafts at the 4850 and 4100 levels; generalized geologic framework model of a domain that spans both the 4850 and 4100 levels; the CS-DFN of the testbed; and layouts of the EGS Collab testbed boreholes, kISMET testbed boreholes, and other existing boreholes at the 4850 level. This information has been obtained from the SURF Vulcan database, detailed laser scan and point surveys of borehole collar locations, directional surveys of borehole trajectories, and mapping of features in the drifts, boreholes, and cores. Similarly, other types of data that have been incorporated into the Leapfrog database include static features of the testbed such as natural discontinuities (e.g., fractures, weeps), location of monitoring instruments, and stimulation notches. Baseline geophysical characterization results (e.g., seismic, ERT, temperature, etc.) are also imported into the Leapfrog database. The location and size of packers, various point-source signals detected during stimulation and flow tests (e.g., temperature anomalies, micro-earthquake events, etc.) are also compiled in the database. All feature locations are reported using the local Homestake Mine coordinate system. In this paper, we present some of the geostructural characteristics as well as the status of the testbed as represented by Leapfrog/FracMan database/visualizations.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2019

Flexible Geothermal Power Generation utilizing Geologic Thermal Energy Storage (Final Seedling Project Report)

This report concludes that there is a cost-effective strategy for seasonal storage of heat that will provide firm, but dispatchable, electrical generating capacity in times when other renewable energy is not available to meet demand. Deployment of the technology appears to require no new technology, but instead combines solar, geothermal, and conventional oil and gas drilling technologies in a novel way. The study basis is the use of sedimentary geologic formations as a medium for thermal energy storage (TES), specifically for heat collected in concentrating solar collectors. The study identifies methodologies that could be used to transport this heat into and out of the subsurface in order to produce dispatchable electrical power, and reports on initial optimization results. The GeoTES system (heat input, storage, heat recovery, and heat to electric conversion) described in this analysis has the potential to provide a unique pathway for increasing the grid penetration of renewable energy in large blocks of power and across many states and regions. Further, the system can be used both to meet the nation’s flexible energy needs while also improving grid stability and reliability. The present study evaluated the use of a large number of dedicated wells to store and recover the heat, essentially creating a synthetic geothermal reservoir. The use of sedimentary geology allows the wells to be drilled at low cost. Dedicated hot and cold wells are used, arranged in a five-spot well pattern with each hot or cold well surrounded at an appropriate distance by the opposite type of well. In large numbers this becomes alternating rows of hot and cold wells. Each hot and cold well is operated using a push-pull strategy. This configuration provides the ability to immediately recover stored hot fluid from a GeoTES reservoir, or to store the heat over many months for recovery at low loss when needed. This is a practical approach for managing the system’s fluid inventory and reducing parasitic load. The production and injection power requirements are reduced because the rows of wells operating in “push” mode provide help to the wells operating in “pull” mode, and vice-versa. Initial charging of a GeoTES system increases the heat recovery temperature. Increasing the duration of the charging period decreases the magnitude of the temperature fluctuations that occur following prolonged system operation. Because of direct contact of the heated water with the reservoir formation, the production of both hot water and steam from the TES, and the temperature ranges of the recovered fluid (190 – 230°C or 375 – 445°F), conventional geothermal power cycles were used to convert the stored heat to electricity. A power cycle configuration for the GeoTES system was selected following a screening study of a number of flash, and flash/binary hybrid options. This analysis concluded that, of the configurations evaluated, a dual-stage flash steam cycle provides the lowest capital costs per unit net power generation with an acceptable hot brine inlet fluid flow rate. The evaluation included the power plant cost estimate, the cost and number of wells and the associated parasitic loads. Annual power generation performance was simulated to evaluate capacity factor and LCOE. The LCOE calculated for the inherently high capacity GeoTES system was $\$$0.13/kWhe. This value was calculated for the case where the solar thermal collector was sized in such a way that the solar collectors permitted an annual power plant capacity factor of up to 97%. The power cycle was able to provide power to the grid every night of the year, and flexible base-load power during the winter, if needed. This LCOE value compares favorably with reported values for solar photovoltaic plus battery energy storage (PV+BES) systems in the open literature, i.e. $\$$0.148/kWhe for a PV+BES system with 4 hours of electrochemical battery energy storage capacity. Addition of battery energy storage with more hours of storage would further increase PV+BES system LCOE and increase the separation between GeoTES and PV+BES. A GeoTES system would therefore provide superior economics for high capacity and long duration solar energy storage.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2019

A Nationwide Study of REEs in Geothermal and Produced Waters: Final Results

This study sampled and analyzed water from around the United States. Activities that enhanced this work included the co-collection of rock samples, the statistical analysis of the data with an ESOM, and evaluation of extraction by three promising methods. These activities led to five conclusions (1) REEs sometimes occur in continental groundwater in excess of 1000-times their seawater concentrations. (2) REEs exist as a trace (ng/L) component in all analyzed samples. (3) The traditional distinction of light (Z=57-64) and heavy (Z=65-71) REEs in rock-mineral chemistry applies to aqueous chemistry. (4) REE content is not significantly controlled by lithology, reservoir temperature, nor salinity. (5) REE concentration, both in sampled basins and neural network predictions of potential, appears to be spatially co-associated, with the basin mattering more than formation. These five conclusions have advanced the scientific understanding of REEs in subsurface geothermal systems. These conclusions suggest that future work study three questions. (1) What is the spatially–dependent variable that controls REE concentration? (2) Does the output of the ESOM change significantly as input samples are grown in both number and spatial extent? (3) Compared with next-gen analytical techniques, under what metrics does the current method for aqueous REE analysis perform well, and under what metrics is it surpassed? Some of these questions are being investigated in new projects that grew from this work, others would benefit from government support.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2019

Preliminary Collab Fracture Characterization Results from Flow and Tracer Testing Efforts

The EGS Collab project is developing ~10-20 m-scale field sites where fracture stimulation and flow models can be validated against controlled, small-scale, in-situ experiments. The first multi-well experimental site was established at the 4850 level in the Homestake Mine, where hydraulic fractures were created at an injection well drilled sub-horizontal from the drift. Ten tracer tests were conducted to characterize fracture flow pathways during the second hydraulic characterization test for 164’ Notch (October 24th to November 14th, 2018) during steady state injection of 400 ml/min at the injection well. Injected tracers include DNA, C-dots (fluorescein nano particles), fluorescein, rhodamine-b, sodium chloride, lithium bromide and cesium iodine. The tracers have been detected in three flowing wells located about 7.5 to 9 meters away from the injection interval. The tracer breakthrough curves from these locations have been adjusted to account for the residence time in the injection and production tubing. At the time of writing this paper, only the fluorescent C-dots, rhodamine-b and chloride have been analyzed for concentration vs time/volume at the production wells. Results from early testing have been re-analyzed as to the; amount and location of injected water recovery and the mass of tracer recovered.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗