Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “selective contacts”

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.

443 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Development of Numerical Model of Metal Foam with PCM for the Estimation of Effective Thermal Conductivity

Global warming due to climate change is a threat to humankind. Nuclear energy is one of the promising solutions to reduce fossil fuel usage. Nuclear energy can handle the base load, compensating for the volatility of renewable energy. If nuclear energy could achieve load following capability, the combination with renewable energy would be more suitable. Thermal energy storage (TES) is one of the options for enabling load following of nuclear reactors. The TES makes it possible to store surplus nuclear thermal energy and release it later as needed. In Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a new concept of latent heat TES integrated with high-temperature heat pipe has been proposed and is under development, which is called Heat pipe-Integrated Thermal Battery (HITB). HITB exchanges thermal energy between the reactor system and TES via heat pipe. The heat transferred to TES medium, made of phase change material (PCM), stores energy as sensible heat and/or latent heat. As PCM typically has poor thermal conductivity, however, various heat transfer enhancement techniques are required to achieve a rapid charging cycle. There are many techniques to enhance the heat transfer ability of TES medium such as disk, fin, and metal foam. Among them, metal foam is an appropriate option to enhance the heat transfer because it maximizes the heat transfer area through metal wicks. Metal foam is a lightweight metal structure that has a high porosity of over 0.9. The typical materials for metal foam are Aluminum, Copper, Nickel, and Silicon Carbide (SiC). Metal foam not only enhances heat transfer via conduction but also increases contact surface area. In the HITB design , the metal foam is being considered as one of the options to enhance the heat transfer of TES medium (PCM) [1]. To predict the enhanced thermal performance of TES, one should properly estimate the effective thermal conductivity of metal foam combined with PCM material or calculate heat transfer in distributed model. There are many experimental works that provides effective thermal conductivity of metal foam with various PCM [2,3]. Also, many theoretical models were developed based on the unit cell model of metal foam [4,5]. With a distributed model, on the other hand, detail heat transfer characteristics between metal foam and PCM material can be analyzed considering the geometry or buoyancy effect. However, due to the complex geometry of metal foam pores, the computational cost for three-dimensional modeling highly increases. Therefore, if metal foam structure can be modeled in simple and repetitive design, the computational cost would decrease Among the various metal foam models [2], lattice model is one of the simple and extendable design. The porosity and pores per inch (PPI) can be characterized by the size and spatial distance of lattice structure. If the three-dimensional metal foam model consists of lattice structure could properly estimate the heat transfer, which is characterized by effective thermal conductivity, it would be a good option to assess the thermal performance of metal foam with PCM. In this study, a three-dimensional numerical model was developed to simulate conductive heat transfer between metal foam and PCM. The three-dimensional lattice structure of square pillars was selected as a basic structure of the metal foam. The calculation result was characterized by the effective thermal conductivity of the whole domain. A sensitivity study was conducted for mesh size, domain size, and PPI to check whether the calculation result gives a converged result or not. Lastly, the effective thermal conductivity from the lattice model was compared with existing experimental data to validate the model result

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Tip-based proximity ferroelectric switching and piezoelectric response in wurtzite multilayers

Proximity ferroelectricity is a paradigm for inducing ferroelectricity when a nonferroelectric polar material (such as Al⁢ N), which is unswitchable with an external field below the dielectric breakdown field, becomes a practically switchable ferroelectric in direct contact with a thin switchable ferroelectric layer (such as Al 1−𝑥 ⁢Sc 𝑥 ⁢N). Here, we develop a Landau-Ginzburg-Devonshire approach to study the proximity effect of local piezoelectric response and polarization reversal in wurtzite ferroelectric multilayers under a sharp electrically biased tip. Using finite-element modeling, we analyze the probe-induced nucleation of nanodomains, the features of local polarization hysteresis loops and coercive fields in the Al 1−𝑥 ⁢Sc 𝑥 ⁢N/Al⁢ N bilayers and three-layers. Similar to the wurtzite multilayers sandwiched between two parallel electrodes, the regimes of “proximity switching” (when all layers collectively switch) and the regime of “proximity suppression” (when they collectively do not switch) are the only two possible regimes in the probe-electrode geometry. However, the parameters and asymmetry of the local piezoresponse and polarization hysteresis loops depend significantly on the sequence of the layers with respect to the probe. The physical mechanism of proximity ferroelectricity in the local probe geometry is a depolarizing electric field determined by the polarization of the layers and their relative thickness. The field, whose direction is opposite to the polarization vector in the layer(s) with the larger spontaneous polarization (such as Al⁢ N), renormalizes the double-well ferroelectric potential to lower the steepness of the switching barrier in the “otherwise unswitchable” polar layers. Tip-based control of domains in otherwise nonferroelectric layers using proximity ferroelectricity can provide nanoscale control of domain reversal in memory, actuation, sensing, and optical applications. The ability of the tip-induced proximity switching to differentially switch multilayers, based on the order of the layers, provides a powerful tool for selective domain engineering.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Genarris 2.0: A Random Structure Generator for Molecular Crystals

Genarris is an open source Python package for generating random molecular crystal structures with physical constraints for seeding crystal structure prediction algorithms and training machine learning models. Here we present a new version of the code, containing several major improvements. A MPI-based parallelization scheme has been implemented, which facilitates the seamless sequential execution of user-defined workflows. A new method for estimating the unit cell volume based on the single molecule structure has been developed using a machine-learned model trained on experimental structures. A new algorithm has been implemented for generating crystal structures with molecules occupying special Wyckoff positions. A new hierarchical structure check procedure has been developed to detect unphysical close contacts efficiently and accurately. New intermolecular distance settings have been implemented for strong hydrogen bonds. To demonstrate these new features, we study two specific cases: benzene and glycine. Genarris finds the experimental structures of the two polymorphs of benzene and the three polymorphs of glycine. Program summary Program Title: Genarris 2.0 Program Files doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/grx6mz4pjn.1 Licensing provisions: BSD-3 Clause Programming language: Python, C External routines/libraries: Spglib, ASE, pymatgen, SciPy, mpi4py, scikit-learn, PyTorch, FHI-aims. Nature of problem: Molecular crystal structure prediction. Solution method: Genarris 2.0 generates molecular crystal structures over the 230 space groups, on general and special Wyckoff positions, using physical constraints. Down-sampling of the generated structures may be performed subsequently, based on molecular crystal packing descriptors and an unsupervised machine learning algorithm. Lastly, ab initio structure relaxation may be performed for the final pool. Depending on the user-defined workflow implemented, Genarris may be used to generate diverse molecular crystal datasets to seed evolutionary algorithms or to train machine learning algorithms or as a standalone crystal structure prediction method. Restrictions: For crystal structure generation, the molecule of interest must be semi-rigid with no bond rotational degrees of freedom. Unusual features: Genarris 2.0 is a highly distributed program, making use of MPI for Python parallelization. The user has the ability to design and implement workflows by executing a user-defined list of procedures. Genarris 2.0 offers new features including a machine learning model for estimating the molecular volume in the solid state from the single molecule structure, structure generation in special Wyckoff positions of space groups, hierarchical structure checks including rigorous treatment of non-orthogonal structures, and clustering and down-selection workflows combining first principles simulations with machine learning. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Crystal structure prediction↗
DOE OSTI2021

SOC Synthetic Microstructure Bank

QUICK START: Start with property_library.html (can be found by typing the filename into the query box) and use the interactive table to filter, sort, and select a microstructure with the desired properties. Search for the alphabetic code to obtain the corresponding dataset. Full description: This is a bank of 1,970 unique 3-phase electrode microstructure files. When you account for reassigning phase IDs (e.g. declare that 1=Ni and 2=pore, instead of 1=pore and 2=Ni), it actually represents 5,910 unique electrode microstructures, each of which could be considered to be either an air or a fuel electrode (e.g. declare that the phase IDs correspond to pore, Ni, and YSZ; or that they correspond to pore, LSCF, and GDC; or whatever electron-conductor and ion-conductor combination is being studied). The voxel size is 50 nm and each electrode file contains a 4x4 grid of (12.5 micron)^3 sub-volumes. If placed together in a grid, they comprise a 50x50x12.5 micron electrode (note that the interfaces between sub-volumes will be sharp; this can be mitigated via simulating annealing/relaxation). The sub-volumes can also be used individually for a reasonably sized 12.5 micron cubic region-of-interest. A user can simply consider the voxel size to be a different value to rescale the volumes (and all of their morphological features, including particle size) as desired. These microstructures were generated using DREAM3D. The general procedure is outlined in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2018.03.025 The file names are an alphabetic code having to do with the input parameters used in DREAM3D when they were generated. Most users would be best served by starting with the file property_library.html or property_library_subvols.html (which lists properties for each individual subvolume). These files contain a catalogue of the actual, measured properties of every microstructure in the database. Any combination of property values can be filtered and sorted until a desired electrode is found, at which point the user can find the file corresponding to that alphabetic code. The properties in the catalogue include connected TPB density, and for each phase: phase fraction, average particle size, polydispersity of particle size, tortuosity, and connected pair-wise interfacial area. They also include what fraction of each property is connected through to the interfaces of the volume. If the desired combination of properties is not found at first, remember that the phase IDs can be re-assigned arbitrarily, e.g. swapping 1s and 2s. In fact, the database was generated with this in mind so as not to generate redundant microstructures. If the database does not contain the desired property combinations, try to search for the other possible permutations of those properties with re-assigned phase IDs. Please cite https://doi.org/10.1149/10301.0909ecst for use. Please contact the maintainer, William K. Epting, for additional information or assistance.

3D microstructure↗
DOE OSTI2023

CPC data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston, TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗
DOE OSTI2023

Determining the Effects of Neutron Irradiation on the Structural Integrity of Additively Manufactured Heat Exchangers for Very Small Modular Reactor Applications, DOE Final Report (Project # 19-16980)

Auburn University (AU) teamed with the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) and Kansas State University (KSU) to determine how to best use laser-powder bed fusion (L-PBF) additive manufacturing (AM) methods for generating radiation resistant nickel-based superalloys, Inconel alloy 625 and 718, for special purpose reactor (SPR) or very small modular reactor (vSMR) heat-exchangers (HeXs). Compact, conformal, and durable HeXs that are tolerant of extreme environments are needed for supporting the technical maturity of next-generation, portable compact reactors. AM is an enabler for realizing this new wave of HeXs – providing a means to make customizable hot and cold stream architectures with novel flow path geometries (e.g., tortuous channels with non-uniform, asymmetric cross-sections) and reduced layer-to-layer contact resistance (i.e., no separate bonding procedure required). AM further enables a more time/cost efficient means for fabricating SPRs by reducing the number of suppliers required for HeX assembly and allowing for on-site HeX fabrication. The project aim has been to better understand how neutron irradiation affects the microstructure and properties of additively manufactured nickel-based superalloys, to accelerate their safe, reliable use in the modular reactor industry. The major objective was to qualify/quantify the microstructure and microhardness of nickel-based superalloys (including Inconel 718 and 625) additively manufactured via the L-PBF process in the neutron-dosed (irradiated) and non-irradiated states over a course of 3 years. Effects of build orientation during L-PBF and post-AM heat treatments on neutron resistance, microstructure and mechanical properties were also investigated. Neutron damage mechanisms via hardening were characterized. This project combined subject-matter experts in AM, mechanical/microstructure metallic part characterization, and neutron irradiation, as well as unique assets and capabilities at AU and MURR at MU, to ensure project results translated to effectively addressing known gaps in nuclear science and engineering. Parts were fabricated using L-PBF systems readily available at AU. Specimens were then irradiated using MURR facilities; a manipulator equipped hot cell was also used to measure material hardness after dosing. MURR, a 10 MW, light-water nuclear reactor, is the largest, highest powered, highest-flux university owned research reactor in the U.S. The major findings in this project provide evidence that AM can serve as an alternative way to build structural components for future advanced small modular reactors using advanced materials like Inconel 625 (IN625) or Inconel 718 (IN718). After full spectrum neutron irradiation, vertically as-built AM IN625 samples were observed to display better resistance towards radiation-induced-hardening defects relative to traditionally machined metals. A Vickers microhardness tester, using settings of 1 kgf and dwell time of 15 seconds per indentation, was used to measure hardness in this study. The as-built, vertically printed samples experienced 1.2% of radiation hardening vs. 5.25% radiation hardening observed in wrought IN625. Another set of IN625 and IN718 samples were exposed to fast neutron irradiation. It was observed that IN718 showed more resistance towards radiation hardening compared to IN625 samples indicating IN718 had a better performance. Results showed that the IN718 samples experienced less change (-2.5 to 3.24 %) in microhardness. On the other hand, IN625 samples underwent more (0.9 to 7.21%) change in microhardness after fast neutron irradiation. AM IN625 samples were irradiated using an ion (proton) beam in cyclotron. The mechanical properties of AM samples post irradiation were compared with wrought samples. The irradiated region on the samples were tested using nano-hardness indention. It was observed that the beam current and time used in this study generated an annealing effect and thus reduced the hardness of the samples. The sum of the project results provide precious insight into how one may minimize radiation hardening in AM materials while maintaining material property constraints. Results should assist engineers in selecting an appropriate heat treatment for AM nickel-based superalloys for increased radiation resistance. Results should increase confidence levels for adopting AM for building nuclear reactor components which perform the same or better than conventionally manufactured components. Fast neutron irradiation testing provided an accelerated means of obtaining radiation effects without making materials radioactive and difficult to handle.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Ice nucleation measurements from DRUM impactors during TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, three Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM) were used to collect aerosols for ice nucleation measurements in the Brooks laboratory at Texas A&M University. The three instruments were located at AMF1 in La Porte, Ancillary site in Guy (ANC), and onboard the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V). ROAM-V was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and one of the Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitors (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Each DRUM sampler was operated at a flow rate of 23 LPM. Each DRUM has four stages where the aerodynamic diameter size cuts are as follows: stage 1 larger than 3 μm, stage 2 from 3 to 1.2 μm, stage 3 from 1.2 to 0.34 μm, and stage 4 from 0.34 to 0.15 μm. Pretreated aluminum foil was used as a substrate on all stages. At AMF1 and ANC sites, the DRUMs were operated on the shared aerosol inlet, with generous support of the DOE ARM site staff. These instruments rotated 24 mm per day and only contained aluminum foil substrates. Substrates were changed weekly and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. The DRUM onboard ROAM-V was operated at a faster rotation rate of 150 mm per day to clearly separate the multiple deployment locations for ROAM-V. For the ROAM-V DRUM, substrates were changed every deployment and transported to Texas A&M for storage in -80C freezer until analysis. At Texas A&M, ice nucleation experiments were conducted to measure the ice nucleation temperature of the ambient aerosol samples collected from the three DRUMs using our previously established procedures (Alsante et al., 2023; Fornea et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2023). For ice nucleation, only samples collected on stage 3 were analyzed, given that these are the most relevant size (1.2 to 0.34 μm diameter) for potential ice nucleating particles. For the AMF1 and ANC sites, we cut and analyzed 2 mm (2-hour) samples. We analyzed the time periods of the AMF1 site instrument when the ROAM-V was deployed. A 72-hour period from July 11th at 23:49 through July 15th at 1:49 was analyzed from the ANC site instrument. For the ROAM-V instrument, we separated the daily samples by site location. Between 1- and 6-hour independent samples were analyzed at each location. We also cut the ROAM-V samples in half to allow for compositional analysis of the aerosol on the other half of the substrate. All viable samples from the ROAM-V were analyzed. Analysis was done using a custom-built ice nucleation apparatus, recently updated to include an array of 16 individual samples (Matthews et al., 2023). On our experimental setup, we used 100 μL of Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) water (Sigma Aldrich, >99.9% purity) to wash off the aerosol from the DRUM substrate. Then, we micropipetted 2 μL droplet samples into each of the 16 wells of the array, using hydrophobically coated microscope slides. Experiments would cycle 28 times from 10 C to -40C over a 20-hour period. During analysis of the TRACER samples, nine experiments were conducted with UHPLC water process blanks that followed an identical preparation procedure. The average freezing temperature and standard deviation for these process blanks is -27.7±2.4 C. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07023 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Alsante, A. N., Thornton, D. C., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Ice nucleation catalyzed by the photosynthesis enzyme RuBisCO and other abundant biomolecules. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 51. Fornea, A. P., Brooks, S. D., Dooley, J. B., & Saha, A. (2009). Heterogeneous freezing of ice on atmospheric aerosols containing ash, soot, and soil. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 114(D13). DOI:10.1029/2009JD011958 Matthews, B. H., Alsante, A. N., & Brooks, S. D. (2023). Pollen Emissions of Subpollen Particles and Ice Nucleating Particles. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗