Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Reservoir operation”

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.

492 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Mechanistic basis of post-treatment control of SIV after anti-α4β7 antibody therapy

Treating macaques with an anti-α4β7 antibody under the umbrella of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) during early SIV infection can lead to viral remission, with viral loads maintained at < 50 SIV RNA copies/ml after removal of all treatment in a subset of animals. Depletion of CD8+ lymphocytes in controllers resulted in transient recrudescence of viremia, suggesting that the combination of cART and anti-α4β7 antibody treatment led to a state where ongoing immune responses kept the virus undetectable in the absence of treatment. A previous mathematical model of HIV infection and cART incorporates immune effector cell responses and exhibits the property of two different viral load set-points. While the lower set-point could correspond to the attainment of long-term viral remission, attaining the higher set-point may be the result of viral rebound. Here we expand that model to include possible mechanisms of action of an anti-α4β7 antibody operating in these treated animals. We show that the model can fit the longitudinal viral load data from both IgG control and anti-α4β7 antibody treated macaques, suggesting explanations for the viral control associated with cART and an anti-α4β7 antibody treatment. This effective perturbation to the virus-host interaction can also explain observations in other nonhuman primate experiments in which cART and immunotherapy have led to post-treatment control or resetting of the viral load set-point. Interestingly, because the viral kinetics in the various treated animals differed—some animals exhibited large fluctuations in viral load after cART cessation—the model suggests that anti-α4β7 treatment could act by different primary mechanisms in different animals and still lead to post-treatment viral control. This outcome is nonetheless in accordance with a model with two stable viral load set-points, in which therapy can perturb the system from one set-point to a lower one through different biological mechanisms.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Environmental DNA as a tool for hydropower impact assessments: current status, special considerations, and future integration

Globally there is an urgent need to find sustainable solutions to balance energy production with the protection of vulnerable species and conservation of biodiversity. This is particularly critical for freshwater ecosystems, habitats, and species that may be impacted by hydropower development and operations needed to meet energy grid demands. Reliable and accurate environmental impact assessments (EIAs) that identify the biological, physical, or social impacts of hydropower are key to ensure biodiversity, ecosystem, and societal sustainability. The analysis of environmental DNA (eDNA) has the potential to transform hydropower EIAs, management and mitigation planning, and decision-making procedures. Further, the incorporation of eDNA surveys into EIAs during both hydropower planning and continued operations may streamline regulatory processes by improving our understanding of potentially impacted biota and habitats and evaluating environmental impacts mitigation. Here, we: (i) highlight current understanding and use of eDNA in freshwater environments; (ii) examine critical considerations for eDNA integration into hydropower EIAs and biological monitoring; (iii) identify knowledge gaps in eDNA analysis and applications unique to hydropower-regulated systems; and (iv) discuss future opportunities to bolster the incorporation of eDNA into hydropower research including regulatory acceptance and public engagement. While we acknowledge that there are several factors that may complicate the broad adoption of eDNA as a tool for assessing the impacts of hydropower, we anticipate that growing confidence in eDNA through hydropower-specific protocols, calibrations, and validations will overcome these inherent uncertainties.

aquatic biodiversity↗
DOE OSTI2021

DOE Award No.: DE-FE0023919 Phase 4 Scientific/Technical Report

This is the Phase 4 Report for the ‘Deepwater Methane Hydrate Characterization and Scientific Assessment or Genesis of Methane Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM2)’ research project (DOE Award No. DE-FE0023919). The report summarizes activities from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. The project is led by the University of Texas at Austin (UT). The project objective is to gain insight into the nature, formation, occurrence and physical properties of methane hydrate-bearing sediments for the purpose of methane hydrate resource appraisal through the planning and execution of drilling, coring, logging, testing and analytical activities that assess the geologic occurrence, regional context, and characteristics of marine methane hydrate deposits in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf (OCS). We published a dedicated American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin volume describing initial results from the UT-GOM2-1 expedition in Sept. 2020. This is part 1 of a multi-volume commitment by AAPG to this project. We further confirmed that the natural gas in hydrate at GC-955 was formed by primary microbial processes (>76.1 %). The in-situ effective permeability hydrate-bearing sandy silts at the GC-955 reservoir ranges from 0.1 md (1.0×10-16 m2) to 2.4 md (2.4×10-15m2) in cores with 83% to 93% hydrate saturation. The intrinsic permeability (the single phase permeability) is estimated from reconstituted samples to be ~12 md (1.2×10-14 m2) to ~41 md (4.1×10-14 m2). We used observation and models to interpret that the core degradation that is found in pressure cores is due to dissociation of the methane hydrate in the outer circumference of the core and dissolution of that methane into the fresh pore water that the core is stored with. We are designing approaches to minimize this core loss in the future. We spent an enormous amount of effort to further improve the ability of the pressure coring tool (the PCTB) to pressure seal correctly. We completed upgrading the upper section of the PCTB to address poor pressure. We successful tested the modifications at Geotek’s test facility in Salt Lake City (Bench Test II). We completed a Land Test of the PCTB at the Schlumberger Cameron Test and Training Facility (CTTF). The tool did not seal in 6 out of 7 tests and we clearly demonstrated that cuttings were wedging in the ball valve assembly, keeping the ball valve from sealing. We reproduced the failure mechanism observed during the land test at Salt Lake City and confirmed the sensitivity of the ball valve assembly to grit. Geotek designed and tested 9 modifications to address this issue and the PCTB is now 100% successfully sealing in the presence of grit. Our science expedition is scheduled for spring 2022 and we are fully focused on preparing for this. UT and Ohio State completed a Shallow Hazard Assessment report for each proposed UT-GOM2-2 drilling location, pursuant to 30 CFR 250.214(f) and 250.244 (f). The Shallow Hazard Reports will accompany the UT-GOM2-2 Exploration Plan that is submitted to BOEM, and completes the geological and geophysical analysis for UT-GOM2-2 permitting efforts. We updated the UT-GOM2-2 Operations Plan (Version 1). We completed the UT-GOM2-2 Science and Sample Distribution Plan (Version 1). We evaluated the scope, budget, and schedule that would result from using a commercial vessel. We developed detailed drilling schedule, mud volume, and resource estimates. We developed a vessel specification document and a well plan, and sent these documents to prospective vessel contractors.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hydroelectric Power and Hydrogen Production Integration

Hydropower-based hydrogen production could introduce opportunities for new revenue streams for hydropower plants, including from energy storage and regeneration as well as from sale of the hydrogen product to external markets. Hydrogen-based energy storage and regeneration could also help support Idaho Power’s decarbonization goals by decreasing dependence on fossil-based peaking power plants. Additionally, integration of hydrogen production with hydropower generation could help address the issue of low dissolved oxygen river water conditions that commonly accompany hydropower plant operations by utilizing the oxygen byproduct from an electrolytic hydrogen production process as a resource for mitigation of low dissolved oxygen water conditions. Comprehensive techno-economic analysis of the hybrid hydroelectric and hydrogen energy storage system has revealed critical insights into the pathways and considerations for optimizing the economic value and environmental benefits of such systems. Among the three identified pathways of natural gas blending, regeneration, and direct sale of hydrogen, the direct sale of hydrogen emerges as the most profitable, particularly given the current pricing dynamics of hydrogen and electricity. However, as we anticipate a future grid characterized by higher renewable energy penetration, the landscape may evolve, featuring lower average electricity prices, heightened fluctuations, and more significant seasonal variations. Consequently, the attractiveness of electricity regeneration through hydrogen and the benefits of long-duration hydrogen storage are expected to increase substantially in such a dynamic energy scenario. The careful selection of component sizes within the hybrid system proves to be paramount for ensuring cost-effectiveness. Notably, the size of the hydrogen market has emerged as a critical determinant for the optimal size of the electrolyzer. Hydrogen storage should be sized to meet energy shifting requirements. The appropriate size of the fuel cell/microturbine generator hinges on the shape of electricity prices and the available revenue streams derived from participating in grid services. Striking the right balance among these components is essential for maximizing the overall efficiency and profitability of the hydrogen facility. Furthermore, the by-product of electrolysis, namely oxygen, introduces an additional dimension to the system's functionality. The oxygen generated can be effectively utilized for dissolved oxygen (DO) mitigation, particularly with larger electrolyzer sizes capable of satisfying the complete oxygen demand for this purpose. While the economic benefits derived from saved oxygen purchase costs may be relatively modest compared to other revenue streams, the environmental advantages of repurposing oxygen for DO mitigation could help Idaho Power meet their environmental obligations. In addition to the identified factors shaping the viability of hybrid hydrogen production and hydroelectric generation, it is noteworthy that the integration of hydrogen energy storage offers a unique advantage during unusually wet years. In such periods of increased water inflow, the hydrogen storage capacity serves as a valuable supplement to the reservoir. By utilizing hydrogen energy storage as a complementary reservoir, the system gains flexibility in reservoir management when dealing with fluctuations in water availability.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Idaho National Laboratory Integrated Multisite SSHAC Level 3: Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) resides on the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP), part of the Snake River Plain (SRP) with a complex origin and geologic history of volcanism. Much of the Quaternary (last 2.58 million years) volcanism within 400 km of INL is genetically associated with a major thermal anomaly referred to as the Yellowstone hotspot, which is currently located more than 180 km northeast of INL. Near INL, local volcanic sources include silicic domes near its southern border, and numerous dike-fed basaltic vents of the ESRP, some of which are near or within the INL boundaries. Quantitative probabilistic assessments of screened-in volcanic hazardous phenomena for nine different facility complexes at the INL are presented for a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 (SL3) study. The comprehensive, integrated multisite SSHAC study consists of a single regional Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment (PVHA) that pertains to all nine INL facility complexes, with site-specific information developed at each respective area of interest (AOI), referred to as the "INL facility AOI" (Figure ES-1). Hazard products are generated for specified INL facility AOIs for use by multiple stakeholders from different agencies in risk-informed decision-making regarding site selection, operations, and design of nuclear facilities at INL, consistent with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory guidance. The study also serves as the basis for future periodic safety assessments required for existing DOE facilities, such as 10-year evaluations of natural-phenomena hazards. Elements of the INL PVHA including initial characterization, screening, quantitative assessments of eruption and hazard potential, and consideration of facility needs are conducted using the three phases of the SSHAC process: evaluation, integration, and documentation. As per regulatory guidance, the SSHAC framework provided the necessary processes and procedures for the PVHA Technical Integration (TI) team, at three workshops, five formal working meetings and many TI team remote meetings, to conduct initial characterization, screen the volcanic hazards, create PVHA model inputs, exercise those models in the PVHA, consider facility-specific volcanic hazard needs, and perform final hazard calculations. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) provided independent oversight and performed process and technical reviews of the PVHA throughout its duration. The study included an extensive New Data Collection and Analyses (NDCA) program developed by the PVHA TI team to reduce uncertainties in hazard-significant elements in the PVHA model. NDCA activities generated 20 reports providing important contributory datasets and results to the project database for characterizing the ESRP. For example, a report compiling the dimensions of ESRP shield volcanoes and lava fields was used to construct volcanic footprints (areas of impact), was compared with data from INL subsurface cores, and was used to validate the results of lava-flow inundation modeling on the contemporary terrain. Another example is the acquisition of aeromagnetic data over INL and its surrounding area, with maps of buried magmatic features (e.g., subsurface volcanoes and swarms of feeder dikes) that informed the PVHA conceptual model of volcanism. The SSHAC evaluation process was used to conduct all elements of the PVHA including initial characterization and screening. Existing data and NDCA activities provided the foundation to develop the tectonomagmatic conceptual model of volcanism for the region of geographical interest in the SRP and Yellowstone hotspot volcanic system, and for considering volcanoes in the western US. Considering Quaternary volcanic sources active during this period, the screening approach identified and evaluated magma compositions, types of eruptive and intrusive phenomena, types of hazardous phenomena, and proximity of sources to INL. The PVHA TI team evaluated 18 types of magmatic sources in terms of 20 potentially hazardous phenomena, resulting in 360 screening decisions. The screening process resulted in 140 screened-in hazardous volcanic phenomena for Quaternary volcanic sources 1) proximal to INL facility complexes in the ESRP (64 basaltic and 54 silicic), 2) regional sources associated with the Yellowstone caldera system and Blackfoot Reservoir volcanic field (7), and 3) more distal sources from thirteen Cascade volcanoes and two volcanoes at Long Valley caldera (CA).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed 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 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗