Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CO2 point source”

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.

42 records · Page 3

Development Fiber Optic Distributed System for Direct Detection of Subsurface Gases Leakages

Carbon, natural gas, and hydrogen gas storage is an emerging solution to safeguard us against pollution, support goals of negative carbon emission, and protect sources of renewable energy. Properly constructed storage wells provide a virtually impervious barrier to any unintended subsurface transmission. The ability to ensure the long-term integrity of such wells is vital to the success of any storage operation and be successful in the public eyes. Therefore, robust monitoring of any gas migration into the subsurface is highly sought. A fiber-optic distributed chemical sensor (DCS) enables monitoring of long-term well integrity along its depth, ensuring the success of any storage operation and bolsters public acceptance of the safety of the reservoir via leak early detection. The same technique can be applied to gas monitoring in pipeline networks and nuclear stockpile monitoring applications. Fiber based Raman spectroscopy enables DCS, as optical fibers can be deployed in virtually any environment and relay spectroscopic information over long distances back to the user. Hollow core fibers (HCF) make excellent DCSs as the air core of the fiber allows gas from the environment to diffuse into the core, which interacts with the laser signal that is carried in the air core. This work builds upon the previous LDRD project, Fiber Optic System for Direct Detection of Carbon Dioxide Leakage in Carbon Storage Wells (21-FS-003), in which the feasibility of Raman spectroscopy detection of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in HCF detection was demonstrated. We mitigated the risk of this DCS technology by establishing and completing five objectives. The first objective was to model and optically characterize HCF uptake of CO2, establishing the relationship between HCF length, gas diffusion time, detectable gas concentration, and measured Raman intensity. In objective two, we developed a fiber core drilling recipe to enable additional diffusion ports in the fiber core and established a method for maintaining fiber strength and integrity post drilling. Objective three characterized the drilled fibers against the undrilled fibers, establishing the differences in the gas mechanics and optical properties and provided parameters to iterate the drilling process. In objective four, a fusion splicing technique was developed to join the HCF to conventional single-mode fibers, localizing the gas detection point at the drilled HCF hole, emulating a DCS. Lastly, objective five was the testing of the sensor in Edgar Mines at Colorado School of Mines on a CO2 pipeline with a simulated leak, to showcase the ability to detect CO2 leaks. This capstone result showed CO2 leak detection in < 10 minutes, raising the technology readiness level of HCF segments as deployable DCS.

organic↗

DeFault: DEep‐Learning‐Based FAULT Delineation Using the IBDP Passive Seismic Data at the Decatur CO2 Storage Site

Abstract The carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) framework is an essential component in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with its success hinging on the comprehensive knowledge of subsurface geology and geomechanics. Passive seismic event relocation and fault detection offer vital insights into subsurface structures and the ability to monitor fluid migration pathways. Accurate identification and localization of seismic events, however, face significant challenges, including the necessity for high‐quality seismic data and advanced computational methods. To address these challenges, we introduce a novel deep learning method, , specifically designed for passive seismic source relocation and fault delineating for passive seismic monitoring projects. By leveraging data domain‐adaptation, allows us to train a neural network with labeled synthetic data and apply it directly to field data. Using , the passive seismic sources are automatically clustered based on their recording time and spatial locations, and subsequently, faults and fractures are delineated accordingly. We demonstrate the efficacy of on a field case study involving injection related microseismic data from Decatur, Illinois area. Our approach accurately and efficiently relocated passive seismic events, identified faults and could aid in potential damage induced by seismicity. Our results highlight the potential of as a valuable tool for passive seismic monitoring, emphasizing its role in ensuring CCUS project safety. This research bolsters the understanding of subsurface characterization in CCUS, illustrating machine learning’s capacity to refine these methods. Ultimately, our work has significant implications for CCUS technology deployment, an essential strategy in combating climate change. Plain Language Summary In our quest to tackle climate change, we use a strategy known as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) to keep greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere. This strategy relies heavily on our ability to understand what's happening deep under the earth's surface. To make sure we store super critical safely, we need to accurately map out the geological structure, especially faults, but this is tough without high‐quality data and complex computer programs. We've developed a new tool called “DeFault,” which uses advanced machine learning to improve how we find and map these underground features. “DeFault” is smart enough to learn from numerically simulated data and then apply what it’s learned to real‐world situations. It groups together seismic activity—tiny tremors and shifts in the earth—based on when and where they happen, which helps us spot where there might be cracks or faults. We tested “DeFault” in Illinois, where CO 2 is injected underground, and it successfully pinpointed where these tremors occurred and mapped out the faults, helping to prevent accidents accurately in the future. Our study shows that “DeFault” will be a powerful ally in making CCUS safer and more effective, especially for the Illinois Basin Decatur Project. Key Points Faults and fractures introduced by carbon storage can be monitored by passive seismicity DeFault algorithm enables an automatic process for accurate and efficient passive seismic event locating and clustering

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Biphasic solvents for post-combustion CO 2 capture from natural gas flue Gas

Fossil fuel fired power plants are generally expected to remain one of the most significant global sources of electricity for decades to come. Consequently, carbon management technologies are needed to reduce or eliminate ongoing emissions from these sources. Amongst the many techniques for carbon capture, aqueous amine-based absorbents (monoethanolamine, MEA, in particular) are, presently, considered the leading technology for post-combustion CO 2 point-source capture. These technologies are nevertheless limited by their high capital and regeneration energy costs. Biphasic solvents have been identified as an attractive alternative to traditional MEA based absorbents due to their potential energy savings. Thus far, however, the research on biphasic solvents has largely focused on their performance in coal flue gas while more dilute natural gas flue gas applications have received relatively little attention. Here, this work examines the performances of two novel biphasic solvent blends, diethylenetriamine (DETA) and triethylenetetramine (TETA), in CO 2 capture from a natural gas flue gas simulant. Across several regeneration tests, both solvents achieved considerable energy savings over the benchmark MEA solution. Specifically, the energy consumption per mol CO 2 recovered for the DETA-based and TETA-based solvents was 46 % and 35 % less than that of the benchmark MEA solution, respectively. Molecular dynamics simulations were also performed to gain a deeper understanding of the phase separation phenomena that occur as a consequence of CO 2 absorption. These simulations indicated that phase change was driven by the strong interaction between the absorption products and water, while the degree of separation depended on the CO 2 loading.

Biphasic solvents↗

Carbon management technology pathways for reaching a U.S. Economy-Wide net-Zero emissions goal

The Carbon Management Study Group of the 37 th Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 37) designed seven scenarios to explore the role of three potentially key technology suites – point source carbon dioxide capture and storage (PSCCS), direct air capture of carbon dioxide (DACCS), and hydrogen systems (H 2 ) – in shaping the broader technology pathways to reaching net-zero carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions in United States by 2050. Each scenario was run by up to 13 models participating in the EMF 37 study. Results show that carbon dioxide removal technologies were consistently a major part of successful pathways to net-zero U.S. CO 2 emissions in 2050. Achieving this net-zero CO 2 goal without any form of carbon dioxide capture and storage was found to be impossible for most models; some models also found it impossible to reach net-zero without DACCS. The marginal cost of achieving net-zero CO 2 emissions in 2050 was between two and 10 times higher without PSCCS and/or DACCS available. The carbon price at which DACCS was deployed as a backstop technology depended upon the assumed cost at which DACCS was available at scale. Carbon prices were between $\$$250 and $\$$500 per ton CO 2 when DACCS deployed as a backstop. The average CO 2 capture rate across all models in 2050 in the central net-zero scenario was 1.3 GtCO 2 /year, which implies a substantial upscaling of capacity to move and store CO 2 . Finally, hydrogen sensitivity scenarios showed that H 2 typically constituted a relatively small share of the overall U.S. energy system; however, H 2 deployed in applications that are considered hard to decarbonize, facilitating transition towards net-zero emissions.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗

Global Methane Budget 2000–2020

Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO2), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH4 emissions compared to those of CO2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH4 yr−1). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH4 yr−1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH4 yr−1) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH4 yr−1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH4 yr−1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty (∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH4 yr−1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH4 yr−1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH4 yr−1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GKQ9-2RHT (Martinez et al., 2024).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗