SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This course, Excavation/Fill/Soil Disturbance Self-Study (#31419), presents an overview of the hazards, controls, and requirements that affect safe excavations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). An overview of the LANL excavation/fill/soil disturbance permit (EXID permit) approval process is also presented, along with potholing requirements for planning and performing excavations at LANL.
Presentation at the 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-17 held in Calgary, Canada, October 20-24, 2024. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a way to play a critical role in the global transition to a low-emission economy. Current progress is hampered by a number of factors, among which the lack of risk-informed design tools and decision support frameworks is seen as a major roadblock. Significant interest exists in using artificial intelligence to accelerate CCS site feasibility studies, as well as to facilitate the permit application process. Existing works commonly train a single deep learning model. This work investigates the feasibility of using a conventional ensemble learning (committee machine) technique to further improve prediction accuracy. Ensemble-based algorithms generally improve over individual base learners in terms of robustness and accuracy. Deep ensembles, however, are time-consuming to create and train. A pragmatic question is whether small-sized ensembles may lead to prediction improvement. Here we evaluated the efficacy of an ensemble learning technique using the latent spectral model (LSM), an efficient deep neural operator algorithm, as base learners. Preliminary results, obtained using the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (IBDP) carbon sequestration data/model, show that small-sized ensembles can improve prediction over the base learners, achieving prediction accuracy of ~1.6 psi root mean square error (RMSE) on pressure (relative the average reservoir pressure of 3150 psi), and less than 1.3% for saturation.
A capillary absorption spectrometer and process are described that provide highly sensitive and accurate stable absorption measurements of analytes in a sample gas that may include isotopologues of carbon and oxygen obtained from gas and biological samples. It further provides isotopic images of microbial communities that allow tracking of nutrients at the single cell level. It further targets naturally occurring variations in carbon and oxygen isotopes that avoids need for expensive isotopically labeled mixtures which allows study of samples taken from the field without modification. The process also permits sampling in vivo permitting real-time ambient studies of microbial communities.
In a short time the Swedish nuclear operator OKG have to shift from a operator of three nuclear power plants at one site to a company where both decommissioning and operation will take place in parallel for numerous of years as a result of a decision to permanently shut down two of the three reactors. The paper will be focusing on the challenges to change organization and mind-set from operations to decommissioning within parts of a company while still maintaining and developing the highest standard for the plant still in operation, and this in the combination with a decision of permanent shutdown earlier than expected. The paper will also address how OKG managed to create and maintain momentum in essential processes like permits, defueling and project planning before, during and short after the organization was changed and some of the employees had to leave the company. (authors)
This is the conference paper accompanying an oral presentation at the 17th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT-17 held in Calgary, Canada, October 20-24, 2024. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a way to play a critical role in the global transition to a low-emission economy. Current progress is hampered by a number of factors, among which the lack of risk-informed design tools and decision support frameworks is seen as a major roadblock. Significant interest exists in using artificial intelligence to accelerate CCS site feasibility studies, as well as to facilitate the permit application process. Existing works commonly train a single deep learning model. This work investigates the feasibility of using a conventional ensemble learning (committee machine) technique to further improve prediction accuracy. Ensemble-based algorithms generally improve over individual base learners in terms of robustness and accuracy. Deep ensembles, however, are time-consuming to create and train. A pragmatic question is whether small-sized ensembles may lead to prediction improvement. Here we evaluated the efficacy of an ensemble learning technique using the latent spectral model (LSM), an efficient deep neural operator algorithm, as base learners. Preliminary results, obtained using the Illinois Basin-Decatur Project (IBDP) carbon sequestration data/model, show that small-sized ensembles can improve prediction over the base learners, achieving prediction accuracy of ~1.6 psi root mean square error (RMSE) on pressure (relative the average reservoir pressure of 3150 psi), and less than 1.3% for saturation.
Site-permitting and regulation are necessary to ensure hydropower projects (both original and relicensed) comply with statutory requirements and address multiple stakeholder priorities that consider a range of factors, including water quality, species protection, cultural resource impacts, and recreation. However, the time involved in acquiring a license for an individual hydropower project can be highly variable by project, leading to increased project costs, financial risks, and uncertainties. In part, this variability is the result of a regulatory structure that has evolved over time to include multiple approvals and compliance requirements administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), federal land management agencies, federal and state resource agencies, and Indian Tribes. Ultimately, the time, benefits, costs, and risks to developers associated with hydropower regulatory processes and/or the preparation (e.g., studies) required for regulatory agency review are not well documented or synthesized in the public domain, which may increase uncertainty and variability within the process. This report addresses these needs by presenting results of a comprehensive examination of hydropower licensing including quantitative and qualitative analyses of timelines, causal factors, and their combined effect on risk and costs to developers.
The permitting and licensing process for marine energy in the U.S. could take up to 7 years for even small demonstrations or pilot studies despite existing resources like Tethys, MarineCadstre, and the FERC E-Library. The goal of the Marine Energy Environmental Toolkit Project was to increase regulators, developers, and marine energy innovators’ understanding of potential environmental effects of marine energy conversion devices deployments and provide information to make efficient and effective determinations during permitting and licensing; develop a one-stop shop for existing environmental, spatial, regulatory, and scientific data that allows users to access disparate sources of data through a series of tags and spatial queries. The Toolkit (marineenergy.app) builds upon prior U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) investments by pulling from WPTO-funded and outside resources to facilitate the permitting and licensing process, inform technology developers of required permits, and disseminate the latest knowledge of the environmental effects of these devices to regulators, developers, and marine energy innovators and stakeholders.
The Clausius–Clapeyron (CC) scaling, which indicates a roughly 7% increase in saturated water vapor per 1 °C increase in temperature, can serve as a strong constraint linking the intensity of precipitation extremes and local temperature. However, the relationship between precipitation extreme and local temperature (referred to as the PE-T relationship) does not always follow the CC scaling and is highly dependent on climate regimes. In this study, we investigated the impacts of different moisture processes and precipitation types on the PE-T relationship over eastern China during the summertime based on convection-permitting model simulations. Consistent with observations, the simulated intensity of precipitation extremes increases with temperature at a rate close to CC (double-CC) scaling below (above) 20 °C. When the temperature exceeds 25 °C, precipitation intensity starts to drop. Precipitation extremes are mainly contributed by the stratiform, MCS (i.e., mesoscale convective system) convective, and non-MCS convective precipitation at low (< 20 °C), medium (20–25 °C), and high (> 25 °C) temperatures, respectively, suggesting that the double-CC scaling occurs when convective types become dominant, while the negative scaling at high temperatures is attributed to the reduced horizontal scale of convection. Corresponding to the reduced intensity of precipitation at high temperatures, there are stronger divergence and subsidence in the low-level atmosphere, which is probably caused by the net cooling associated with the enhanced melting and evaporation of falling hydrometeors due to the lower relative humidity in the low-level atmosphere. Overall, our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the temperature dependence of precipitation extremes in eastern China.
This report summarizes the policy, regulatory, legal, and permitting requirements to-date for the siting of a CO 2 injection and storage project in the CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin pre-feasibility study area. Where applicable, the East Sub-Basin case study focuses on a proposed carbon capture and storage (CCS) site location in West Terre Haute, Indiana. Indiana has established the legal mechanisms to obtain rights to the subsurface mineral estate with the expectation to apply to reservoir pore space for CO 2 storage in an analogous manner to storage of natural gas, which is a common practice in Indiana. There is, however, no precedent in Indiana to take liability for stored CO 2 . There are currently no Indiana State incentives for CCS, but at the Federal level, tax credits for carbon capture and storage under 26. U.S. Code § 45Q constitute the greatest incentive targeted at CCS projects. The amendment to these credits put forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act (the FUTURE Act) of 2018 substantially increases the per-ton incentive for CCS—from $22.66 per ton in tax year 2017 up to $50 per ton in tax year 2027, for CO 2 not used as an injectant (i.e. saline storage). Additional economic opportunities may exist for the provision of CO 2 for potential EOR in the Illinois Basin. Policies that may support the development of CO 2 pipelines and/or CCS projects in Indiana include: 1) Title 41 of the FAST Act (2015), which created a new governance structure, procedures, and funding authorities in order to improve and expedite Federal review and authorization of covered infrastructure projects, including pipelines, and 2) the Eminent Domain for Transportation of Carbon Dioxide by Pipeline (IC 14-39, Indiana State, 2011), which declares pipeline transportation of CO 2 exclusively to a carbon management application, including sequestration, enhanced oil recovery, and deep saline injection as a benefit to the welfare of Indiana and the people. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI rule and permit requirements address all components pertaining to CO 2 injection and monitoring for long-term storage, and outline the minimum technical criteria to protect underground sources of drinking water at, and surrounding, injection well sites. The Class VI requirements also address financial responsibility for corrective action, post-injection site care, and site closure. In addition, UIC Program public notice requirements include that the EPA issue notice of the draft permit preparation to key stakeholders, and open a public comment period of not less than 30 days. A public hearing about the permit would also be held, if specifically requested by the public. A potential Class VI CO 2 injection well permit for the East Sub-Basin case study site would be obtained through the US EPA Region 5, because the State of Indiana does not have UIC Class VI primacy. Although no CO 2 injection wells have been permitted in Indiana, the US EPA Region 5 (which covers Illinois and Indiana) and the East Sub-Basin CarbonSAFE team (via the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium [MGSC]) have Class VI permitting experience from several projects located in Illinois. Based on our experience, applying for a Class VI permit can be an intensive and iterative process requiring clear communication and numerous interactions with EPA staff. In addition to gathering and preparing the data/models and documentation necessary for a permit application’s initial submittal, the subsequent public comments, EPA response and review, and answering of any follow-up questions/requests by the EPA could significantly increase the timeframe of draft permit issuance. The US EPA offers guidance documents regarding the specific Class VI permit requirements, and shows a general permitting timeline example from the FutureGen Alliance 2.0 covering one-and-a-half years from permit submittal to issuance. However, the overall permitting process to-date has a high degree of variability, and in MGSC’s project experience we observed a more extended timeline to receive Class VI permits for each of two CO 2 injection wells.
This report summarizes the EMPOWERED Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Permit Accelerator Pilot project. Its primary objective was to streamline the design, installation, permitting, and inspections of targeted Distributed Energy Resource (DER) solutions. Streamlining these processes is critical to strengthening and accelerating the adoption of DER solutions nationwide. Moreover, streamlined processes help expedite the clean energy transition and expand energy resilience by improving understanding and capability among key stakeholders like property owners, code officials, and the general workforce. The project team accomplished this by developing and deploying a set of design and permitting guides for simple DER solutions, which they rolled out via a permitting pilot program. The project team developed nine permitting and inspection guides for simple DER solutions, as follows: 1. Single-Family and Duplex: Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE), and Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 2. Multi-family and Office: EVSE, Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 3. A permitting process guide to support the implementation of the permitting guides. The guides cover key code requirements via plan review and field inspection checklists for code officials and building owners to follow to streamline the permitting and inspections process for DER solutions. Following the development of the initial set of guides, the project team formed two cohorts, each made up of four jurisdictions, to participate in the Permit Accelerator Pilot. Each cohort received training and technical assistance to support them in incorporating the guides into use. The project successfully engaged jurisdictions in two disparate US regions: Chelsea, Somerville, Natick, and Norwood in metro Boston; and Pima County, Town of Gilbert, Flagstaff, and Sedona in Arizona. Feedback gathered from the project was valuable in refining the guides to better address jurisdictional needs. After the pilot period, the project team developed final versions of the guides based on extensive feedback from the cohorts and from external technical peer review. Feedback included needs and barriers related to implementation, as well as detailed technical improvements from external peer review. The final guides were presented in a series of webinars with a national reach, with 192 attendees from 35 states in the live session of the final webinar, and the final guides are posted online and available for use nationwide. Key findings: • The most receptive jurisdictions were those adjacent to other jurisdictions that had already adopted similar initiatives. The least receptive jurisdictions were those in the midst of adopting new code cycles. • The most common barrier to jurisdictional adoption of new guidelines were internal administrative and process delays, more so than technical barriers. • The main technical barrier to adoption proved to be the concern of fire hazard risks posed by energy storage systems. There is some apprehension in the code enforcement community about the safety of the batteries. Education coordinated with fire and safety services will help alleviate concerns and increase confidence in the acceptance of innovative technologies. • Opportunities to further leverage and advance the guides and related resources include outreach, education, and jurisdictional support; updates to the resources to align with code cycle changes and local requirements; and advancements supporting emerging technologies.
The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community involved in closed-loop pumped storage hydropower permitting and licensing process, focus the scope of environmental reviews, and more quickly identify impacts with project nexus and potential mitigation measures for these impacts. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) is an energy storage technology that uses energy to pump water up from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir where water is stored until electricity is needed and the water is released to a lower reservoir passing through turbines. Closed-loop PSH—PSH that is not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature—is one of the lowest greenhouse gas emitting energy storage technologies and is therefore a critical part of the transition to renewable energy (Simon et al. 2023). Proposals for closed-loop PSH facilities in the United States currently account for more than 40% of original licenses and 99% of potential generation capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing pipeline (Johnson et al. 2023). While closed-loop PSH facilities can have lower environmental impacts than open-loop PSH facilities, no closed-loop facilities have been constructed in the United States to enable direct accounting of project impacts and efficacy of mitigations. Many proposals for closed-loop PSH submitted to FERC are abandoned early in the permitting and licensing process prior to license applications and environmental assessments, so there is little documentation describing potential project impacts and proposed mitigations. The newness of closed-loop PSH proposals in the United States may mean that tribal, federal, and state agencies with authorities for cultural and natural resources protection and management involved in the FERC licensing process may not have experience with closed-loop PSH regulation. Moreover, many proposed closed-loop PSH facilities are in areas that do not have high concentrations of conventional hydropower, so these agencies may also be unfamiliar with the FERC hydropower licensing process. The goal of this report is to help license applicants, resource agencies, and other members of the hydropower community focus the scope of environmental review for the closed-loop PSH development, licensing, and federal authorization process enabling quicker identification of potential impacts, mitigations, and situations where mitigation may not be possible. We found that environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are highly site-specific, and generalizations about the types of environmental impacts across closed-loop PSH projects are difficult to make. Environmental impacts of closed-loop PSH are like those for open-loop PSH with a few exceptions including water sourcing, which can lead to delays and contention due to potential complexities with water rights, impacts to aquatic resources, and greenhouse gas emission potential. Cultural resource impacts were commonly reported in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents reviewed and discussed in interviews, but in many cases such impacts cannot be mitigated.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
As part of Office’s efforts to advance marine energy technologies and address key issues to innovation, the Office aggregates and disseminates information on permitting and licensing processes used in siting projects.
Pyrolysis oil, often referred to as bio-oil when derived from biomass through a fast pyrolysis process, has attracted considerable attention because of the high carbonaceous matter and high heating value compared to the original biomass. Pyrolysis oil provides a viable link between the agriculture/forestry and (petro-) chemical industry. Utilizing existing fossil fuel infrastructure by introducing bio-oil in petroleum refineries to produce renewable hydrocarbon fuels (i.e., repurposing existing assets) is appealing due to its relatively low capital requirement. Our analysis examined the air pollutant emissions for a biorefinery utilizing an ex situ catalytic fast pyrolysis process to produce raw bio-oil, with a design capacity of 2,000 dry metric tons of biomass per day. Such a biorefinery is capable of providing sufficient bio-oil to a 4,200 barrels per day capacity of fluidized catalytic cracking unit if the bio-oil is co-processed at 5% (by volume) feed rate. This research is focused on understanding the potential air pollutant regulatory and permitting implications for a refinery co-processing 5% bio-oil with 95% vacuum gas oil in a fluidized catalytic cracking unit for two scenarios: the first case assumes that an ex situ biorefinery is collocated with a petroleum refinery, and the second one assumes that a petroleum refinery will receive bio-oil from a stand-alone biorefinery. We estimated the potential-to-emit values for 4 biorefinery and FCC sizes and assessed technically feasible emission control options that could help to avoid being subject to prevention of significant deterioration requirements due to petroleum refinery modifications to co-process bio-oil. This research fills gaps and overcomes barriers related to air permitting requirements for co-processing bio-oil in existing refineries for various stakeholders. The insights gained from this analysis can facilitate decision making and help expedite permitting processes for petroleum refineries, which seek opportunities to produce lower carbon fuels in their existing infrastructure.
Pyrolysis oil, often referred to as bio-oil when derived from biomass through a fast pyrolysis process, has attracted considerable attention because of the high carbonaceous matter and high heating value compared to the original biomass. Pyrolysis oil provides a viable link between the agriculture/forestry and (petro-) chemical industry. Utilizing existing fossil fuel infrastructure by introducing bio-oil in petroleum refineries to produce renewable hydrocarbon fuels (i.e., repurposing existing assets) is appealing due to its relatively low capital requirement. Our analysis examined the air pollutant emissions for a biorefinery utilizing an ex situ catalytic fast pyrolysis process to produce raw bio-oil, with a design capacity of 2,000 dry metric tons of biomass per day. Such a biorefinery is capable of providing sufficient bio-oil to a 4,200 barrels per day capacity of fluidized catalytic cracking unit if the bio-oil is co-processed at 5% (by volume) feed rate. This research is focused on understanding the potential air pollutant regulatory and permitting implications for a refinery co-processing 5% bio-oil with 95% vacuum gas oil in a fluidized catalytic cracking unit for two scenarios: the first case assumes that an ex situ biorefinery is collocated with a petroleum refinery, and the second one assumes that a petroleum refinery will receive bio-oil from a stand-alone biorefinery. We estimated the potential-to-emit values for 4 biorefinery and FCC sizes and assessed technically feasible emission control options that could help to avoid being subject to prevention of significant deterioration requirements due to petroleum refinery modifications to co-process bio-oil. This research fills gaps and overcomes barriers related to air permitting requirements for co-processing bio-oil in existing refineries for various stakeholders. The insights gained from this analysis can facilitate decision making and help expedite permitting processes for petroleum refineries, which seek opportunities to produce lower carbon fuels in their existing infrastructure.
Accelerating rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment has strained the capacity of local authorities responsible for permitting, inspection, and interconnection (PII). Given the ongoing expansion of rooftop PV, a growing number of authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) and utilities are reforming PII processes to reduce delays. AHJs could significantly reduce PII timelines through reforms such as expedited reviews for small-scale systems, online customer portals, and over-the-counter permitting. However, independent reforms do not resolve issues associated with PII variability across AHJs, and many AHJs lack the resources to implement reforms. In response to these challenges, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed the Solar Automated Permit Processing Plus (SolarAPP+) platform, in collaboration with local governments, code development organizations, and industry stakeholders. This report shows SolarAPP+ performance in 2021 across AHJs.
The U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is seeking to modify permit to construct (PTC) P-2015.0023 issued to U S Dept. of Energy – Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on January 11, 2018 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This PTC allowed the INL to become a synthetic minor source of air pollutants using a facility emission cap (FEC). Air dispersion modeling was performed as part of the permit revision application process to demonstrate that the modifications will comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This report documents the modeling methodology and complete results for the air dispersion impact analysis and is supplied as an appendix to the permit revision request, Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2015.0023 Facility Emission Cap Revision Request (DOE-ID 2020). All CAPs regulated under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act were modeled with the exception of lead (Pb) and ozone which are not required to be modeled by DEQ. Consistent with the original permit application, modeling was not performed for toxic air pollutants (TAPs) as uncontrolled emissions did not exceed screening emission levels for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic TAPs. Acceptable model design values (concentrations) for each CAP and averaging period were summed with average background concentrations and compared to NAAQS. The results demonstrate the impacts of requested FEC limits for CAPs are less than applicable standards and demonstrate emissions up to FEC limits will not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards.
The U.S. Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) is seeking to modify permit to construct (PTC) P-2020.0045 issued to U S Dept. of Energy – Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on January 29, 2021 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This PTC allowed the INL to become a synthetic minor source of air pollutants using a facility emission cap (FEC). Air dispersion modeling was performed as part of the permit revision application process to demonstrate that the modifications will comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This report documents the modeling methodology and complete results for the air dispersion impact analysis and is supplied as an appendix to the permit revision request, Idaho National Laboratory Permit to Construct P-2020.0045 (INL 2025). All criteria air pollutants (CAPs) regulated under Section 109 of the Clean Air Act were modeled with the exception of lead (Pb) and ozone which are not required to be modeled by DEQ. Consistent with the original permit application, modeling was not performed for toxic air pollutants (TAPs) as uncontrolled emissions did not exceed screening emission levels for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic TAPs. Acceptable model design values (concentrations) for each CAP and averaging period were summed with average background concentrations and compared to NAAQS. The results demonstrate the impacts of requested FEC limits for CAPs are less than applicable standards and demonstrate emissions up to FEC limits will not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards.