Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “geothermal network”

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.

186 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

PCOR partnership initiative to accelerate CCCUS deployment

The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership Initiative, led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), was a 5-year collaborative effort under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Regional Initiative to Accelerate CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and storage). With support from the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources (UW SER), the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Northern Engineering (UAF INE), and a broad network of public and private stakeholders, the program focused on overcoming regional challenges to CCUS across ten U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. This report summarizes the notable findings of the EERC and its collaborators through the 5-year PCOR Partnership Initiative phase. The EERC developed and demonstrated a risk-based area of review (AOR) workflow for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Class VI carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage permitting.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Slip Tendency Analysis of Fracture Networks to Determine Suitability of Candidate Testbeds for the EGS Collab Hydroshear Experiment

Experiment 2 of the EGS Collab project is aimed at testing stimulation by hydro-shearing of existing natural fractures, versus Experiment 1, which is focused on hydraulic fracturing a rock mass to enhance permeability. The main criterion for the testbed selection in Experiment 2 is the presence of an interconnected network of fractures, at least 10 meters in extent, and with orientations such that shear slip can be induced at injection pressures less than the minimum horizontal stress (Shmin). The feasibility analysis for this experiment requires a well-constrained stress state along with well-characterized fracture networks. The fracture systems at two candidate locations in the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF), the 4850 Level (number refers to depth below ground surface in feet) and the 4100 Level, have been characterized to different extents. The 4850 Level has a well-characterized Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) from borehole (drilled for an experimental test bed) and drift observations. In contrast, the 4100 level has a fracture network characterized only by observations from the drift wall, which provides little constraint on fracture extents. This paper will present assessments for the interpreted slip potential for the natural fractures at the two locations. Data uncertainties are addressed by performing a probabilistic analysis that takes into account the uncertainty in the stress state, uncertainty in the fracture properties, and preliminary borehole locations. There is strong evidence of shear stimulation of some natural fractures in Experiment 1 on the 4850 level. We use examples of natural fractures strongly linked to shear stimulation in Experiment 1 from multiple monitoring indicators to test the consistency of the stress model and guide the uncertainty interpretation. This analysis is intended to guide the site selection process for Experiment 2 by highlighting the fracture orientations that are likely to be shear-stimulated in a majority of modeled realizations.

40 EE - Geothermal Technologies Office (EE-4G)↗
DOE OSTI2021

Processed Lab Data for Neural Network-Based Shear Stress Level Prediction

Machine learning can be used to predict fault properties such as shear stress, friction, and time to failure using continuous records of fault zone acoustic emissions. The files are extracted features and labels from lab data (experiment p4679). The features are extracted with a non-overlapping window from the original acoustic data. The first column is the time of the window. The second and third columns are the mean and the variance of the acoustic data in this window, respectively. The 4th-11th column is the the power spectrum density ranging from low to high frequency. And the last column is the corresponding label (shear stress level). The name of the file means which driving velocity the sequence is generated from. Data were generated from laboratory friction experiments conducted with a biaxial shear apparatus. Experiments were conducted in the double direct shear configuration in which two fault zones are sheared between three rigid forcing blocks. Our samples consisted of two 5-mm-thick layers of simulated fault gouge with a nominal contact area of 10 by 10 cm^2. Gouge material consisted of soda-lime glass beads with initial particle size between 105 and 149 micrometers. Prior to shearing, we impose a constant fault normal stress of 2 MPa using a servo-controlled load-feedback mechanism and allow the sample to compact. Once the sample has reached a constant layer thickness, the central block is driven down at constant rate of 10 micrometers per second. In tandem, we collect an AE signal continuously at 4 MHz from a piezoceramic sensor embedded in a steel forcing block about 22 mm from the gouge layer The data from this experiment can be used with the deep learning algorithm to train it for future fault property prediction.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

High-Temperature Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (HT-ATES) Projects in Germany and the Netherlands—Review and Lessons Learned

Aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) is a concept that can help to address heating and cooling needs through the use of the subsurface as a seasonal thermal energy storage (STES) system. Over 2800 ATES systems have been deployed with storage temperatures typically below 25 °C and only a few with higher temperatures (>40 °C), which would increase the energy density and utility of the stored thermal fluids. Until now, only a few high-temperature aquifer thermal energy storage (HT-ATES) projects have been initiated and are still in operation. These HT-ATES projects have encountered a range of technical and non-technical challenges. This study reviews ten such projects: four in Germany and six in the Netherlands. The non-technical issues include public acceptance, a lack of regulatory framework for these systems, managing overlapping uses of the subsurface, managing changes with the providers and off-takers of thermal energy, and obtaining financing to implement these projects. Common technical issues include geological factors such as incomplete characterization of the subsurface and reservoir heterogeneity; geochemical issues such as mineral scaling, corrosion, and biofouling; lower than expected thermal recovery; and issues with system design and reliability. This review highlights benefits and challenges faced by HT-ATES projects with the goal to use the lessons learned to improve the siting, design, development, and operation of such systems. Recommendations include improved initial subsurface site characterization, use of coupled process models to optimize system design and predict system performance, cascaded uses of stored thermal energy to better utilize the stored heat, monitoring networks to provide feedback on system performance, and expanded system scale to allow for continued operation even when maintenance of some system components is required. Techno-economic modeling and risk analysis could be used to optimize such HT-ATES project design and identify key factors that will affect sustained economic viability. In addition, design flexibility is important for these systems to allow for changing conditions regarding the supply and demand of thermal energy. Adopting these findings should improve the performance and reduce the risks for future HT-ATES projects worldwide.

15 - GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2012

Long-Lasting Science Returns from the Apollo Heat Flow Experiments

The Apollo astronauts deployed geothermal heat flow instruments at landing sites 15 and 17 as part of the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Packages (ALSEP) in July 1971 and December 1972, respectively. These instruments continuously transmitted data to the Earth until September 1977. Four decades later, the data from the two Apollo sites remain the only set of in-situ heat flow measurements obtained on an extra-terrestrial body. Researchers continue to extract additional knowledge from this dataset by utilizing new analytical techniques and by synthesizing it with data from more recent lunar orbital missions such as the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. In addition, lessons learned from the Apollo experiments help contemporary researchers in designing heat flow instruments for future missions to the Moon and other planetary bodies. For example, the data from both Apollo sites showed gradual warming trends in the subsurface from 1971 to 1977. The cause of this warming has been debated in recent years. It may have resulted from fluctuation in insolation associated with the 18.6-year-cycle precession of the Moon, or sudden changes in surface thermal environment/properties resulting from the installation of the instruments and the astronauts' activities. These types of reanalyses of the Apollo data have lead a panel of scientists to recommend that a heat flow probe carried on a future lunar mission reach 3 m into the subsurface, approx 0.6 m deeper than the depths reached by the Apollo 17 experiment. This presentation describes the authors current efforts for (1) restoring a part of the Apollo heat flow data that were left unprocessed by the original investigators and (2) designing a compact heat flow instrument for future robotic missions to the Moon. First, at the conclusion of the ALSEP program in 1977, heat flow data obtained at the two Apollo sites after December 1974 were left unprocessed and not properly archived through NASA. In the following decades, heat flow data from January 1975 through February 1976, as well as the metadata necessary for processing the data (the data reduction algorithm, instrument calibration data, etc.), were somehow lost. In 2010, we located 450 original master archival tapes of unprocessed data from all the ALSEP instruments for a period of April through June 1975 at the Washington National Records Center. We are currently extracting the heat flow data packets from these tapes and processing them. Second, on future lunar missions, heat flow probes will likely be deployed by a network of small robotic landers, as recommended by the latest Decadal Survey of the National Academy of Science. In such a scenario, the heat flow probe must be a compact system, and that precludes use of heavy excavation equipment such as a rotary drill for reaching the 3-m target depth. The new heat flow system under development uses a pneumatically driven penetrator. It utilizes a stem that winds out of a reel and pushes its conical tip into the regolith. Simultaneously, gas jets, emitted from the cone tip, loosen and blow away the soil. Lab experiments have demonstrated its effectiveness in lunar vacuum.

Nagihara, S.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Notional Artemis Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ArLSEP) based on the Gandalf Staff Platform

Introduction: The Artemis program is planning to deliver crew and cargo to the lunar surface, but there is no current package for supporting lunar in-struments and experiments similar to the Apollo Lunar Surface Exploration Package (ALSEP). This abstract provides a possible concept for such a package using the Gandalf Staff Platform as a common core. Gandalf Staff: The Gandalf Staff is an early prototype system developed over FY’21/FY’22 using NASA Science Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) Center Information Fund (CIF) grants to de-sign, build and test “proof-of-concept” components. These components include a 24v battery powered monopole that powers a suite of subsystems, including a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for crew, surface voice and data communications, Lunar Search and Rescue (LunaSAR) navigation and communications, LiDAR, field site external lighting, 360-degree camera, and a geothermal instrument for measuring sub-surface temperature gradient. The staff can be carried independently by an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) astronaut, or can be mounted into a tripod for “hands free” support at a surface site being investigated. The staff can be attached to an external solar array and power storage system for long-duration operations. [1,2] ALSEP: An ASLEP flew on each mission Apollo 12 to Apollo 17. For Apollo 11, a simplified packaged called the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Pack-age (EASEP) was flown. Each package included a “Central Station” that provided the power and communications connected to a variety of instruments and sensors. The power was provided by a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) fueled by Plutoni-um-238 generating 70 watts of power (initially, decayed over time) [3]. The communications system provide for direct to Earth data transfer from the lunar surface. Each pack-age was stowed externally in the Lunar Module (LM) Scientific Equipment (SEQ) bay with a mass up to 163 kg (Apollo 17). The crew unloaded the ALSEP from the LM and deployed the instruments on the lunar surface. Although designed to operate for only 1 year, many sites operated for up to 8 years successfully [4]. The Active Seismic Experiment (ASE) included 3 geophones for detecting seismic waves created by mortars and thumpers deployed by the crew. Other active experiments measured the lunar atmosphere, the heat flow in the subsurface, the lunar gravity and potential gravity waves, the lunar magnetic field, the solar wind and plasma interactions in cislunar space. Passive experiments included collectors for dust and cosmic rays, and retroreflectors for precise measurements of distance using a laser from Earth. The ALSEP program continues to generate insights into lunar formation and evolution. ArLSEP Concepts: The lunar surface science package for the Artemis program will hopefully exceed the capability of the ALSEP. There are multiple issues for discussion leading to the design of a new ArLSEP, needing requirements definition from the science community, NASA mission architecture, and NASA budget planners. 1. Delivery Mechanism Two possible projects currently provide capability to deliver scientific cargo to the lunar surface: 1) the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) [5] and the Human Landing System (HLS) [6, 7]. Each project is controlled by a different organization within NASA and budgeted with different criteria although both support lunar exploration. The HLS system delivers crew (and potentially cargo) to human landing sites. If an ArLSEP is “predeployed” to such a site, the design must include power (either from the vehicle or independently) to keep the electronics functioning until deployed by the crew. If an ArLSEP is delivered on a vehicle after the crew is present on the lunar surface, safety protocols require adequate distance from the humans for impact from descent propelled sur-face regolith ejecta. This distance can not exceed the capability of the crew to walk (if no rover) to the vehicle for ArLSEP deployment. 2. Overall Guidelines The general design of ArLSEP will likely follow the ALSEP with a common system for communications and power; however, significant architecture differences between Apollo and Artemis exist. Power: The RTG will not be available for early Artemis missions nor likely follow-on Lunar Exploration Transportation Services (LETS) missions [8]. Thus, ArLSEP power must be supplied by solar arrays with sufficient battery capability to “keep alive” necessary electronics during any lunar surface eclipse period. Communication: The Artemis program is developing a series of communications satellites for lunar orbit to provide surface transmission of data and voice to Earth. Called “LunaNET”, this network is component useful for ArLSEP since south polar locations may not always have direct “line-of-sight” to Earth [9]. 3. Concept of Operations (ConOps) The general ConOps for ArLSEP is to deliver the package to lunar surface before the crew arrives, and then have the crew deploy the package after some period of time. This requires coordinated design (for power systems) and launch window (for schedule) on both the cargo and crew missions. Once the ArLSEP is deployed, it will operate autonomously for a number of years. It should be designed to be EVA compatible for crew maintenance and upgrade. 4. Notional Design (for discussion purpose only) The landing site near the South Pole is expected to have no eclipse cycle exceeding 5 days, so the “keep alive” power is 144 hours (6 days to include margin). A 12v ArLSEP will use rechargeable LiFePO4 cells, which are common in the Electric Vehicle (EV) industry. With a current of 5 amps and a 125 watt system, the mass is about 90kg. The comm. system and structure adds another 10kg, thus the “Central Station” is approximately 100kg. The solar power is collected on four arrays (each 2m above the surface), and the entire ArLSEP is designed to stow in a 2m x 1m x 1m volume. The experiment and instrument design will vary for each installation and add mass to the total (although they are expected to fit within the 2m3 volume). Seismic wave generation will likely not be provided with mortars, thus an electric “thumper” will be required. Active instruments such as imaging systems and sensing instruments will benefit from the additional power and communication capability provided by ArLSEP. Passive systems such as retroreflectors, witness plates, and cosmic dust collectors can be added to either the landing vehicle and/or the ArLSEP. With repeated HLS missions to the same human site, the ArLSEP can be expanded and easily maintained for long duration science collection on the lunar surface.

ALSEP↗