Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Cryogenic Tanks”

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.

28 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Hydrogen Risk Assessment Models (HyRAM) (V.3.1) (Technical Reference Manual)

The HyRAM software toolkit provides a basis for conducting quantitative risk assessment and consequence modeling for hydrogen infrastructure and transportation systems. HyRAM is designed to facilitate the use of state-of-the-art science and engineering models to conduct robust, repeatable assessments of hydrogen safety, hazards, and risk. HyRAM includes generic probabilities for hydrogen equipment failures, probabilistic models for the impact of heat flux on humans and structures, and experimentally validated first-order models of hydrogen release and flame physics. HyRAM integrates deterministic and probabilistic models for quantifying accident scenarios, predicting physical effects, and characterizing hydrogen hazards (thermal effects from jet res, overpressure effects from deflagrations), and assessing impact on people and structures. HyRAM is developed at Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy to increase access to technical data about hydrogen safety and to enable the use of that data to support development and revision of national and international codes and standards. HyRAM is a research software in active development and thus the models and data may change. This report will be updated at appropriate developmental intervals. This document provides a description of the methodology and models contained in HyRAM version 3.1. There have been several impactful updates since version 3.0. HyRAM 3.1 contains a correction to use the volume fraction for two-phase speed of sound calculations; this only affects cryogenic releases in which two-phase ow (vapor and liquid) is predicted in the orifice. Other changes include clarifications that inputs for tank pressure should be given in absolute pressure, not gauge pressure. Additionally, the interface now rejects invalid inputs to probability distributions, and the less accurate single-point radiative source model selection was removed from the interface.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Cryogenic aspects of a 20 MW class low-temperature superconducting generator for the renewables industry

In this paper we give a progress update on the cryogenic design for cooling a 20 MW class, partially superconducting generator with stationary field coils for offshore wind renewables industry [1-2]. This is a continuation of an earlier program on a 10 MW system dating back ten years. Whereas this new power rating increase leads to a radial diameter expansion of the superconducting field coils from 4 to > 9.5 m, it maintains the axial length. We show the design based on this scaled up with enlarged diameter. The field coil size increase asks for higher cooling power that leads to a bigger cold box size to accommodate the cryocoolers. In the design, as many as 8 cryocoolers can be accessed and serviced from the nacelle that houses the main cryogenic components. A typical thermal load balance sheet with all components is given and compared against the available cryocooler cooling power at different operating conditions. Due to the cryocoolers’ local point of contact cooling within the nacelle, the temperature gradient of the thermal shield that fully encloses the cold mass with its embedded field coils needs to be balanced out to minimize the heat burden on the field coils. This requires additional analytical efforts and implementation of further design features. The extended nacelle houses the cold box with its cryogenic infrastructure. The interface for the envisaged cryogenic pushbutton closed-loop circulating system remains invisible, requires no handling of cryogenic liquids and is hermetically closed. The field coil diameter increase also leads to a greater initial helium gas storage volume. In addition, it requires higher initial room temperature fill pressure within the toroidal helium vapor storage tanks and in cooling tubes connecting to the cryocoolers. The toroidal helium gas tanks are thermally coupled with the thermal shield so that helium convection inside the storage tank can improve heat transfer and reduce the temperature gradient of the thermal shield. Besides those heat transfer challenges, additional mechanical strain within this large structure is exerted on the torque tubes during initial cooldown and when energizing field coils. Some of those design challenges are quite unexpected, leading to novel workarounds in order to maintain the chosen cooling strategy. Finally, we assess those design limitations in view of further cryogenic scalability with emphasis on manufacturability and assembly.

cryogenics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing the Heisenberg Vortex Tube for Hydrogen Cooling (Final Technical Report)

Hydrogen utilization at Plug Power sites ranges between 70-93% with the remainder vented and lost to the atmosphere. The goal of this project was to improve hydrogen utilization at Plug Power fulfillment centers via the patented Heisenberg vortex tube (HVT). The HVT combines conventional counterflow vortex tubes with para-orthohydrogen conversion catalyst to allow the cooling of hydrogen flows with no moving parts or external energy inputs. In year 1 of this project the HVT was evaluated to improve hydrogen utilization via the following concepts: 1) increasing liquid hydrogen pump volumetric efficiency by 20% through vapor separation and subcooling of the liquid, 2) reducing liquid hydrogen storage tank boil-off losses by 20% through thermal vapor shielding (TVS), and 3) increase isentropic efficiency of supercritical hydrogen expansion at 40-50 K, from 31% to over 40%. The TVS concept was selected as the most favorable application for further development. While the conceptual analysis was underway, the cryocatalysis hydrogen experiment facility (CHEF) was retrofitted with a new cryocooler, higher pressure condenser tanks, and in-situ fiber-optic Raman probes for ortho-parahydrogen composition analysis at the inlets and outlets of the HVT. To our knowledge this is the first in-situ implementation of cryogenic Raman probes for ortho-parahydrogen analysis. Subsequent testing of catalyzed and non-catalyzed HVT identified a low flow rate, high-conversion efficacy regime well suited for TVS development. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), Reduced order modeling (ROM), and quantum Monte Carlo atomistic simulations were applied to optimize the design of the HVT implemented for TVS. The simulations and analysis identified a ruthenium-based catalyst as the most optimal for high conversion with little pressure losses and was matched to experimental measurements. These results indicated the design could achieve the 20% boil-off reduction target. An HVT field-trial was designed and constructed by Plug Power and implemented at a customer site. However, budget limitations reduced the amount of catalyst that could be applied to the HVT. With the reduced amount of catalyst, CFD analysis estimated about 3% reduction in boil-off. A similar amount of boil-off reduction was observed during preliminary measurements during tank commissioning. However, the results have a large margin for error and were operated at relatively low tank temperatures when the HVT has the lowest potential for improvement. This project demonstrated the use of para-orthohydrogen catalysis for reducing liquid hydrogen tank boil-off losses. The field trial system is anticipated to provide long-term experimental measurements on tank operational performance that will allow Plug Power to instrument additional tanks in the future. Recommendations for future work include the development of higher activity, lower cost para-orthohydrogen conversion catalyst for use in the HVT. Tank process optimizations could maximize the efficacy of the HVT and further improve hydrogen utilization.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Methods for Estimating Hydrogen Fuel Tank Characteristics

The pressure vessels needed to store hydrogen for next-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are expected to be a substantial portion of the total system mass, volume, and cost. Gravimetric capacity, volumetric capacity, and cost per kilogram of usable hydrogen are key performance metrics that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to determine the viability of hydrogen fuel cell systems. Research and development related to hydrogen storage systems covers a wide range of potential operating conditions, from cryogenic temperatures to high temperatures (above ambient) and low pressure to high pressure. Researchers at PNNL have developed methods for estimating these key pressure vessel characteristics to support on-board hydrogen storage system design and performance evaluation and to support decision-making about DOE hydrogen storage system research investments. This article describes the pressure tank estimation methodology that has been used as a stand-alone calculation and has been incorporated into larger system evaluation tools. The methodology estimates the geometry, mass, and material cost of type I, type III, and type IV pressure vessels based on operating pressure and material strength at the system's operating temperature, using classical thin-wall and thick-wall pressure vessel stress calculations. The geometry, mass, and material cost requirements of the pressure vessel have significant impacts on the total system performance. For example, hydrogen storage materials that can separately achieve a very high hydrogen density can be deemed impractical for use in fuel cell vehicle hydrogen storage systems because the pressure tank containing them is too large, heavy, or expensive. This article describes the design philosophy and analytical process of the tank characteristic estimation methodology, which has been implemented in spreadsheet calculation tools and system-level analysis tools used by DOE researchers. Each of the three tank types (type I, type III, and type IV) uses a different analysis methodology with some common elements. This article also provides examples of implementing the methodology to perform parametric studies of all three pressure vessel types. The goal of this article is to present the methodology in sufficient detail so it can be implemented in other hydrogen fuel cell vehicle design and analysis tools.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Validation of HyRAM+ Version 5.1 Physics Models

The Hydrogen Plus Other Alternative Fuels Risk Assessment Models (HyRAM+) software has seen various improvements and additional physics capabilities since validation against experimental data was last published for HyRAM v3.1. Notably, HyRAM+ now includes four models allowing for the calculation of overpressure resulting from vapor cloud explosions from unconfined jet releases. As with the previous HyRAM validation report, validation data was gathered from available published literature and tested against HyRAM+ capabilities. The validation comparisons include tank blowdown, unignited dispersion jet plume, ignited jet flame, and enclosed accumulation and overpressure. The unconfined overpressure calculations in HyRAM+ v5.1.1 generally show good agreement with many of the experimental data sets for all four unconfined overpressure models, though HyRAM+ overpredicts the experimental data for small and cryogenic hydrogen releases. The comparisons for the other HyRAM+ physics models are largely unchanged from the previously published validation report.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integration and commissioning plan of Full Flow Purifier at Muon Campus

The Full Flow Purifier for Fermilab’s Muon Campus uses a charcoal bed surrounded by a liquid nitrogen jacket to purify up to 240 g/s of helium gas. Fabrication by Ability Engineering Technology Inc. has been completed and the purifier delivered to Fermilab. It is the largest purifier to be used at Fermilab based on both capacity and size. A previous paper discussed the design of purifier for various operational conditions and horizontal shipping. The purifier is designed to withstand 5g force in vertical and 2g force in lateral and longitudinal directions. Transportation experience from vendor to Fermilab and within site is discussed. Integration of the purifier involved design and fabrication of a liquid nitrogen transfer line, regeneration system, and helium piping to connect it to Muon Campus cryogenic system. It also involved establishing electrical, instrumentation and controls connections to the system. Integration of the purifier is discussed in detail. The purifier is to be commissioned using up to 4 MYCOM helium compressors to supply helium and liquid nitrogen supplied by a 15,000 -gallon tank. Actual effectiveness of the 3-stream heat exchanger is to be estimated based on measured temperatures and flow rate. Impurity levels shall be monitored at inlet and outlet of the purifier. Theoretical adsorption capacity of the purifier is calculated based on the measured temperatures and flowrates and is compared to actual adsorption capacity over time.

Subedi, Jeewan [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integration and commissioning plan of Full Flow Purifier at Muon Campus

The Full Flow Purifier for Fermilab's Muon Campus uses a charcoal bed surrounded by a liquid nitrogen jacket to purify up to 240 g/s of helium gas. Fabrication by Ability Engineering Technology Inc. has been completed and the purifier delivered to Fermilab. It is the largest purifier to be used at Fermilab based on both capacity and size. A previous paper discussed the design of purifier for various operational conditions and horizontal shipping. The purifier is designed to withstand 5g force in vertical and 2g force in lateral and longitudinal directions. Transportation experience from vendor to Fermilab and within site is discussed. Integration of the purifier involved design and fabrication of a liquid nitrogen transfer line, regeneration system, and helium piping to connect it to Muon Campus cryogenic system. It also involved establishing electrical, instrumentation and controls connections to the system. Integration of the purifier is discussed in detail. The purifier is to be commissioned using up to 4 MYCOM helium compressors to supply helium and liquid nitrogen supplied by a 60,000-liter tank. Actual effectiveness of the 3-stream heat exchanger is to be estimated based on measured temperatures and flow rate. Impurity levels will be monitored at inlet and outlet of the purifier. Theoretical adsorption capacity of the purifier is calculated based on the measured temperatures and flowrates and is compared to actual adsorption capacity over time.

Subedi, J. [Fermilab] (ORCID:0009000185837576)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Techno-Economic Analysis of Green Hydrogen Energy Storage in a Cryogenic Flux Capacitor

Abstract The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. Hydrogen storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (∼1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 36% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at improved densities, but testing is ongoing. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce green GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen produced at a small scale for a 25 MW power system and at a large scale in a 500 MW power system. The system allowed for hydrogen imports and exports at a set price with a tank sized for 10 hours of power production. The two power producing technologies are a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) and hydrogen fuel cells. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH), and levelized cost of storage (LCOS) are developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. The results are shown for current costs using a 2021 benchmark and DOE projections for cost improvements by 2030. The TEA showed that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR has an LCOH of about 1.4 to 2 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production LCOH is about 5.2 to 5.5 USD per kg. The LCOS of conventional GH2 systems is estimated to be $210/MWh and cost of storage for LH2 systems is $205/MWh for fuel cell systems and $249/MWh for CCGT systems. CFC improved the LCOS of all these systems to $198/MWh, $191/MWh and $233/MWh respectively. The LCOE also improved with conventional systems between $171/MWh and $228/MWh improved by CFC to between $167/MWh and $212/MWh. Using projections for improvement in costs following DOE’s goals by 2030, green hydrogen improved to as low as $78/MWh LCOS and LCOE for conventional cases. CFC improved over conventional storage with the lowest LCOS being $62/MWh and the lowest LCOE being $73/MWh. These results correspond to an LCOH of $2/kg. Finally, the TEA shows how LCOE is improved for hydrogen conditioning and storage over conventional systems and caverns in the 10 to 50 hour range.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Techno-economic Analysis of the Cryogenic Flux Capacitor Compared to Other forms of Hydrogen Production and Storage

The Cryogenic Flux Capacitor (CFC) is a cold, dense energy storage core that is being studied in the cryo-compressed, about 300 bar and 80K, region of gaseous hydrogen (GH2) storage and liquid hydrogen (LH2) region near the normal boiling point. The hydrogens storage is improved by physically bonding the molecules within the nanoscale pores of the aerogel composite blanket material. The process of bonding or debonding is governed by principles of physical adsorption (physisorption) and thermodynamics. The large surface area afforded by the nanoporous aerogel (~1,000 m2/g) allows its storage performance to easily exceed capacities of high-pressure GH2 storage for an equivalent volume. With the integrated aerogel, subscale tests have shown that storage is increased by about 49% over a simple tank filled with GH2 at the same operating temperature and pressure. For LH2 conditions, the CFC is shown to operate at equivalent densities. For the techno-economic analysis (TEA), the source of hydrogen is compared between onsite steam methane reforming (SMR) and onsite solar photovoltaic (PV) panels providing power to electrolyzers to produce GH2. The TEA compares pure hydrogen burning in a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) to hydrogen fuel cells with an overall net power output of 650 MW. The SMR system uses natural gas as an input and includes a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system. The levelized cost of electricity is developed based on the capital cost and operating cost of the systems. Sensitivities are discussed around the cost of natural gas, ranging from 1.93 USD per MMBTU to 6.75 USD per MMBTU, and carbon dioxide disposal, ranging from 7 USD per tonne to 10 USD per tonne. For comparison to the conventional CCGT baseline, a baseload scenario is adopted with 85% capacity factor. The results of the study show that onsite hydrogen generation from SMR is about 1 to 3 USD per kg over the life of the plant and the PV hydrogen production produces at 4 to 5 USD per kg. The cost of storage for CFC is compared to other systems, including high-pressure GH2 and atmospheric LH2. The system is shown to provide the lowest costs for all these options at the grid scale, due to its higher capacity than high-pressure GH2 and ability to operate at 80K, receiving refrigeration from liquid nitrogen systems reducing capital and operating costs when compared LH2 storage systems. SMR is competitive with CCGT at the gas prices, both of which have lower LCOE than the PV system. When accounting for variability in gas prices, the PV and electrolyzer system is less sensitive to these changes and provides the lowest LCOE across the whole range.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recent Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ Field Test Results

Sustainable Energy Solutions (SES) has been developing Cryogenic Carbon Capture™ (CCC) since 2008. In that time, two processes have been developed, the External Cooling Loop and Compressed Flue Gas CCC processes (CCC-ECL and CCC-CFG, respectively). The CCC-ECL process cools the flue gas with an external refrigerant loop. This process currently captures up to 1 tonne of CO2 per day (TPD). SES has tested CCC-ECL on real flue gas slip streams from subbituminous coal, bituminous coal, biomass, natural gas, shredded tires, and municipal waste fuels at field sites that include utility power stations, heating plants, cement kilns, and pilot-scale research reactors. The CO2 concentrations from these tests ranged from 5 to 22% on a dry basis. CO2 capture ranged from 95-99+% during these tests. Several other condensable species were also captured including NO2, SO2 and PMxx at 95+%. NO was also captured at a modest rate. The CCC-CFG process has been scaled up to a 0.25 ton per day system. This system has been tested on real flue gas streams including subbituminous coal, bituminous coal, and natural gas at field sites that include utility power stations, heating plants, and pilot-scale research reactors. CO2 concentrations for these tests ranged from 5 to 15% on a dry basis. CO2 capture ranged from 95-99+% during these tests. Several other condensable species were also captured including NO2, SO2, and PMxx at 95+%. NO was also captured at 90+%. Hg capture was also verified and the resulting effluent from CCC-CFG was below a 1ppt concentration. This paper will focus on discussion of the capabilities of CCC generally, the results of CCC-ECL field testing, and future steps surrounding the development of this technology. Test results that will be presented have been collected during 9 months of testing at a commercial power plant under funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the host utility. Testing of one of the systems at a commercial cement plant in the United States will also be discussed. During this testing, the system captured CO2 from the cement plant and stored the CO2 in pressurized tanks. These tanks were provided to a partner company that later used the CO2 in a CO2 utilization demonstration. The CO2 was utilized to cure concrete manufactured using cement from the same plant where the CO2 was captured. This integrated capture and utilization demonstration was the first time that the cement industry has shown in the field that it can sequester its CO2 emissions in its main product stream. This represents a potential game changing solution for industrial CO2 emissions. Operational data and host-site feedback indicate that the CCC process is ideally suited for deployment into a variety of commercial environments. A few areas of de-risking remain to make sure the technology can meet very strict industrial reliability standards. These areas of de-risking are identified and discussed. The product CO2 is shown to meet specification for many uses including industrial and merchant applications. The technology is nearing readiness for deployment at commercial scale and several initial target markets have been identified.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗