Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Coal Resources”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Harnessing the Hydroelectric Potential of Engineered Drops (Final Technical Report)

The potential for low-head hydropower in the engineered drops in both federal and private irrigation system is well known and significant. The environmental and socio/recreational impacts of harnessing this renewable energy resource in man-made conduits are much less, and often insignificant, compared with comparable hydro-electric potential in natural water features on rivers, lakes, and streams. Yet, few new plants have been commissioned in more than two decades. Over the same time period, low head hydro installations in Germany have more than doubled. The challenge is in finding economical ways to harness the hydro-electric potential in the engineered drops, and efficiently deliver the power to the grid. The objectives of Percheron Power, LLC's (Percheron Power) Project were to design, develop, permit, and operate an innovative low-head hydro-electric generation facility on an existing engineered drop of a large irrigation canal system. The hydro-electric generation facility was designed to employ a new type of turbine and technology, called an Archimedes Hydrodynamic Screw (AHS), to harness the existing potential of the engineered drop. The goal was to demonstrate the new lower cost AHS technology system to federal agencies, irrigation districts and other system owners and to support further development of new small hydropower projects at previously marginal low-head sites in the U.S. The objective of this funding opportunity of the Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office was to reduce the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) for small hydropower to less than ${$}$0.07/kWh (${$}$70/MWh) to be competitive with existing base-load power sources such as coal-powered power plants.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wabash CarbonSAFE Subtask 4.1 - Application of Policy Frameworks for Improved Carbon Capture and Storage Social Site Characterization & Stakeholder Engagement

Anthropogenic climate change threatens environmental and human health globally. Limiting these threats requires large-scale and innovative greenhouse gas mitigation responses across carbon-intensive energy and industrial sectors. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies present potential opportunities for mitigating climate change while maintaining a diverse energy resource portfolio. Successful development of CCS physical sites requires effective and efficient project management solutions that elicit and incorporate the concerns and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Due to the urgency of climate change mitigation technology implementation and the costs of CCS development, CCS project developers cannot risk setbacks by poor stakeholder assessment that concern management processes. Thus, this report presents four prominent policy frameworks and associated case studies as opportunities to improve CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement. After comparing the relative effectiveness and efficiencies of each framework with regard to CCS, this report concludes that the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Narrative Policy Framework, and Policy Conflict Framework can improve the CCS social site characterization process, while the Collaborative Governance Framework paired with the Q-Methodology provides an ideal framework for direct stakeholder engagement. Overall, this report finds that the Narrative Policy Framework and the Collaborative Governance Framework are most ideally suited for the purposes of CCS social site characterization and stakeholder engagement.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
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 OSTI2024

Recovery of valuable metals from electronic waste using a novel ammonia-based hydrometallurgical process

The growing quantity of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), also known as electronic waste (E-waste), has been an area of growing public concern. The abundance of valuable metals contained in waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs) has made it a promising secondary resource, especially for Cu and Au. Although the recovery of metals from WPCBs via hydrometallurgical routes has been studied extensively over the past 20 years, most of the research has been limited in the laboratory. In current hydrometallurgical processes, strong acids and expensive oxidizers are often used to ensure a high recovery of metals without considering the sustainability aspects of the environment and economics. To improve upon current hydrometallurgical offerings, the current study seeks to develop an energy-saving, environmentally friendly, economic and sustainable process to efficiently recover the valuable metals from real-world end-of-life WPCBs. The new contributions presented in this study are 1) design and evaluation of a comprehensive hydrometallurgical flowsheet; 2) employment of real end-of-life PCBs as feed materials in an investigation on Cu-NH3 leaching kinetics; 3) further application of kinetic model on a counter flow process simulation; and 4) evaluation of the influences by co-existing metals in Au-S2O3 leaching and recommendation for favorable leaching conditions.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy Communities IWG Site Review Tool

The Energy Communities IWG's new Site Review Tool is a resource for manufacturers and investors interested in developing or expanding clean energy supply chain projects in energy communities and nationwide. The interactive map provides access to publicly available information on brownfields, facilities, nearby infrastructure, and community attributes, including federal incentives. The site review tool empowers community leaders and developers to promote investment into communities and encourages users to learn and explore the diverse range of investment options. This tool can be useful for applicants to identify relevant information about their project that is requested in DOE grant and tax credit submissions, including 48C energy community status and whether a project is located in a disadvantaged community. More information on this tool can be found at: https://energycommunities.gov/iwg-site-review-tool/ Disclaimer: This mapping tool may not be relied upon by taxpayers to substantiate a tax return position or for determining whether certain penalties apply and will not be used by the IRS for examination purposes. The mapping tool does not reflect the application of the law to a specific taxpayer's situation, and the applicable Internal Revenue Code provisions ultimately control.

48C↗
DOE OSTI2022

Designing the PR100 Study: Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transition to 100% Renewable Energy

Puerto Rico has committed to meeting its electricity needs with 100% renewable energy by 2050, along with realizing interim goals of 40% by 2025, 60% by 2040, the phaseout of coal-fired generation by 2028, and a 30% improvement in energy efficiency by 2040 as established in Act 17. [1] To meet these goals and support widespread end-use electrification, the territory must explore how renewable energy and other generation technologies can be developed with energy storage, distributed generation, distribution control, electric vehicles, and energy efficient and responsive loads in each of Puerto Rico's cities and communities. To support Puerto Rico in reaching its renewable energy goals; help ensure energy system resilience against future extreme weather events; improve energy justice; and provide inputs to LUMA Energy's walk, jog, and run approach in its coordinated planning roadmap, the U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories propose to evaluate 100% renewable energy pathways through an integrated analysis process. This talk will present steps in designing a two-year study entitled Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy (PR100). [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. Puerto Rico Territory Energy Profile.

100% renewable energy↗
DOE OSTI2020

Structural Characterization of Potential Carbon Dioxide Reservoirs and Adjacent Strata within the Llandovery Silurian to Middle Devonian Strata of Ohio

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) has incorporated the work of geologic research teams (Geoteams) in its regional characterization, project planning and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) injection implementation work since the partnership was established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2003. Over this 16-year period, the cohort of Geoteams has grown from five to ten states and has contributed to the characterization of geologic sequestration opportunities, refinement of reservoir and seal data, and supported injection efforts through both predictive and post-injection assessments. This report details the work led by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey to evaluate the structure of nine formations in the Appalachian Basin of Ohio to assess seal integrity and whether carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) migration pathways could pose a potential risk. As part of Phase II MRCSP work, the Pennsylvania Geological Survey led the characterization of the Llandovery Silurian (“middle Silurian”) to Middle Devonian regional geologic characterization CO 2 utilization and storage. This preliminary assessment included generalized, regional-scale mapping, as well as the development of relatively coarse structure and isochore maps of stratigraphic intervals of interest for the Appalachian Basin. Because this stratigraphic interval offers several enhanced oil recovery targets and secondary targets for CO 2 storage, the Ohio Geological Survey undertook efforts in Phase III to characterize the Ohio’s portion of the Appalachian Basin more precisely and to resolve inconsistencies within Ohio’s formation tops. This study refined the subsurface correlations of the Silurian-through-Devonian stratigraphic section in Ohio. Higher-resolution isochore mapping of the CO 2 storage reservoirs and seals provides greater detail of potential high-porosity zones and potential structural influence on the interval.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear Thermal Energy Storage Configurations for Industrial Combined Heat and Power Supply: Conceptual Study and Engineering Designs

The industries examined in this report primarily rely on moderate-temperature heat provided by gas- or coal-fired boilers and combined heat and power (CHP) plants, delivered through standard process steam systems. High-temperature energy demands are often industry-specific and typically exceed the capabilities of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs). While it is technically feasible to replace process steam from fossil-based heat sources with nuclear energy, certain industries, such as methanol production and pulp and paper, face technoeconomic challenges in integrating nuclear energy without major changes or a technological shift. This is mainly due to the limited external energy demand remaining after the use of internal byproducts, waste heat recovery, and simple efficiency improvements. Achieving full decarbonization of these processes with nuclear energy would require significant technological advancements, involving experimental technology and substantial investments, making widespread adoption in existing industrial plants unlikely in the near term. This study reviews TES options in the context of enabling a flexible CHP supply while maintaining a steady nuclear heat input. Heat storage systems that interface between the reactor primary fluid and the CHP system offer superior performance and flexibility. Specifically, steam extraction downstream of the reheater with a two-tank molten-salt TES appears as the best solution regarding thermodynamic system benefits and system drawbacks. Using selected system configurations, a conceptual design of an industrial energy park was developed for industries with varying energy demands, such as steel production plants utilizing electric arc furnaces (EAFs) and chemical plants, as well as for those with constant energy demands, like petroleum refineries. This design highlights the capabilities of TES and explores its potential business cases. The study also conceptually develops the potential for integrating additional energy sources with nuclear systems through the implementation of TES. The potential of the HTGR-TES-CHP system was also evaluated considering key uncertainties such as industrial demand profiles, external grid access availability, and eligible tax credit levels, using the Holistic Energy Resource Optimization Network. Sensitivity of net present value to these uncertainties was analyzed to determine the optimal number of nuclear reactors (and CHP systems) and the suitable TES capacity. The results were interpreted from a decision-maker’s perspective, focusing on three key areas: deployment strategy (oversized units vs. undersized units with TES support), industrial process characteristics (thermal-intensive single profiles vs. electricity-intensive combined profiles), and operational goals (maximizing profits vs. minimizing natural gas (NG) consumption or external grid dependence). The optimization results indicate that the HTGR-TES-CHP system significantly reduces reliance on NG boilers for individual industrial processes by 9-60% (in NG capacity factor), with an average reduction of 38%, compared to standalone NG boiler operation case (Business As Usual [BAU]). For combined industrial processes, the reduction ranges from 37-77%, with an average of 60%. Additionally, the system greatly reduces dependence on external grids. In meeting industrial electrical demands, a 33-100% self-sufficient internal electricity supply is achieved for single industrial process, with an average of 74%, compared to the BAU scenario, where 100% of electricity is imported. For combined processes, 35-100% of internal electricity demands are met by the reactor, with an average of 73%. At last, the relative NG price levels at which the proposed HTGR-TES-CHP system can cost-effectively enter the market currently dominated by existing NG boilers were estimated. For a moderate HTGR CAPEX level ($\$$2500/kWth, $\$$6329/kWe), the analysis suggests that NG prices must be 2.5 to 7 times higher than HTGR variable operating and maintenance costs for single industrial process, and 5.5 to 9.5 times higher for a combined process scenario. Tax credit modeling shows that the Investment Tax Credit significantly reduces the price threshold needed to break even, making the system competitive with NG boilers in certain cases.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

From ash to oxides: Recovery of rare-earth elements as a step towards valorization of coal fly ash waste

Coal fly ash (CFA) is both a valuable waste material and a potential source of environmental contamination. The inclusion of metals such as rare-earth elements offer a possible incentive towards waste valorization if the metals can be extracted and recovered in an economical manner. Rare-earth elements (REEs) have many technological applications and are critically important in the manufacture of electric vehicles, communication devices, and industrial magnets. However, the global supply of rare-earth elements has faced shortages and price shocks. Current methods for separating and isolating individual rare-earth elements use large amounts of energy and organic solvents, raising concerns over environmental impacts. These factors have led to the investigation of nontraditional sources and separation techniques for these elements. Here, we describe a column-based system that uses a newly developed ligand-associated organosilica sorbent to concentrate and separate rare-earth elements from fly ash leachate. The fly ash used in this study originally contained 0.024 wt% rare-earth elements and the final oxide powder after enrichment contained > 10 wt% rare-earth elements, which is a enrichment of > 400 times. This process requires no additional organic solvents after the sorbent media has been synthesized, offering an alternative to the current standard using solvent extraction for rare-earth element recovery.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100): Six-Month Progress Update [Slides]

Puerto Rico has committed to meeting its electricity needs with 100% renewable energy by 2050, along with realizing interim goals of 40% by 2025, 60% by 2040, the phase-out of coal-fired generation by 2028, and a 30% improvement in energy efficiency by 2040, as established in Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act (Act 17). Since hurricanes Irma and Maria in September 2017, DOE and its national laboratories have provided Puerto Rico energy system stakeholders with tools, training, and modeling support to enable planning and operation of the electric power grid with more resilience against further disruptions. On February 2, 2022, DOE, FEMA, and six national laboratories launched the two-year Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100) to conduct comprehensive analysis of stakeholder-driven pathways to Puerto Rico's energy future. The robust and objective energy analysis entails five activities, with an emphasis on power system reliability, resilience, and generation planning. This presentation provides a six-month progress update on the study, including presentation of four initial scenario frameworks defined with extensive stakeholder input.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100) (Six-Month Progress Update) [Slides]

Puerto Rico has committed to meeting its electricity needs with 100% renewable energy by 2050, along with realizing interim goals of 40% by 2025, 60% by 2040, the phase-out of coal-fired generation by 2028, and a 30% improvement in energy efficiency by 2040, as established in Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act (Act 17). Since hurricanes Irma and Maria in September 2017, DOE and its national laboratories have provided Puerto Rico energy system stakeholders with tools, training, and modeling support to enable planning and operation of the electric power grid with more resilience against further disruptions. On February 2, 2022, DOE, FEMA, and six national laboratories launched the two-year Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100) to conduct comprehensive analysis of stakeholder-driven pathways to Puerto Rico's energy future. The robust and objective energy analysis entails five activities, with an emphasis on power system reliability, resilience, and generation planning. This presentation was delivered in a public webinar on July 21, 2022, providing a high level summary of the progress in the first six months of the study, including presentation of four initial scenario definitions based on extensive stakeholder input.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
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 OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with Mongird et al. (in prep) organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSI+RP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_ep_score_raster.tif solar_msi_ep_score_raster.tif wind_msi_ep_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Marginal Soils Index Analysis & Geospatial Data

This data package contains output files associated with the Mongird et al. paper entitled "Can US power grid expansion avoid prime agricultural lands?" and is organized into four dataset directories. Each dataset is described in more detail below. 1. Marginal Soils Index Analysis Description: This folder contains a csv file with land needs and availability by state, power generating technology type, and scenario in 2050 when suitable siting areas are additionally constrained to areas with increasing levels of soil marginality. Files: msi_constrained_siting_availability_2050.csv Variables: Scenario - Projected 2050 scenario name State - US state abbreviation Technology - Generating technology type solar = solar photovoltaic gas_cc_re = natural gas combined cycle (recirculating cooling) wind = onshore wind gas_cc_ccs_re = natural gas combined cycle with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) gas_cc_dry = natural gas combined cycle with (dry cooling) gas_cc_pond = natural gas combined cycle with (pond cooling) coal_conv_ccs_re = conventional coal with carbon capture sequestration (recirculating cooling) Req_Capacity_MW - The amount of rated capacity required in 2050 of the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario from the capacity expansion plan Req_Capacity_Factor - The assumed capacity factor (fraction between 0 and 1) for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario by the capacity expansion plan Req_Land_km2 - The amount of land required (in km-squared) to host the required generating capacity that is capable of meeting the specified capacity factor for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario Req_Energy_TWh - Product of Req_Capacity_MW, Req_Capacity_Factor, and 8760/1e6 for the given technology type in the given state and under the given scenario MSI_Case - The level of MSI that siting the given technology is additionally constrained to, where >0 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than 0 >=1 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 1 >=2 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 2 >=3 means siting is additionally constrained to suitable land areas that have an MSI value greater than or equal to 3 Soil Attribute Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files for individual soil parameters upscaled to the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of non-missing 30m resolution values. All raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. Files: avg_cond_raster_ .tif - Average conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm max_cond_raster_ .tif - Maximum conductivity of the saturation extract across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches, measured in mmhos/cm min_ph_raster_ .tif- Min pH values across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. avg_ph_raster_ .tif - Average pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. max_ph_raster_ .tif- Max pH value across all soil horizons within a depth of 40 inches. erosion_factor_raster_ .tif - Product of k-factor and percent slope flood_freq_raster_ .tif - Number of months of the year during which the area is commonly, frequently, or very frequently flooded. max_sar_raster_ .tif - Maximum sodium adsorption ratio across all horizons within a depth of 40 inches rock_frac_raster_ .tif - Fraction of the upper 6 inches of soil composed of rock fragments larger than 3 inches. temp_regime_raster_ .tif - Soil temperature regime with the following key: 0 = pergelic 1 = gelic 2 = cryic 3 = frigid 4 = isofrigid 5 = mesic 6 = isomesic 7 = thermic 8 = isothermic 9 = hyperthermic 10 =isohyperthermic Marginal Soils Index Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index at the listed grid resolution (30m or 1 km). 1 km resolution files are a spatial average of 30m resolution. Both raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. A value of 0 indicates that there were no soil attributes present that indicate marginal soil. NA values indicate that data was unavailable or bodies of water. Files: marginal_soils_index_30m_raster.tif marginal_soils_index_1km_raster.tif Marginal Soils Index Resource Potential Rasters Description: This folder contains geospatial raster files of the Marginal Soils Index + Resource Potential (MSIxRP) score at 1km resolution for geothermal, solar, and wind technologies. Raster files use the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) projection. NA values indicate that the location is not suitable for siting the given technology due to policy, environmental, socioeconomic, topological, and other constraints regardless of soil marginality level. Areas with values greater than or equal to zero represent the product of the normalized MSI value and the normalized resource potential value. Files: geothermal_msi_rp_score_raster.tif solar_msi_rp_score_raster.tif wind_msi_rp_score_raster.tif Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Agriculture↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗