Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CDR”

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.

134 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Potential of U.S. Marine and Offshore Wind Energy to Power Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

The goal of this project was to provide a preliminary feasibility assessment of powering different marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR), carbon capture (mCC), and carbon sequestration (mCS) strategies with marine energy. The investigation focused on methods with clear power requirements at sea beyond monitoring such as artificial upwelling, deep ocean storage, electrochemical (eChem) mCDR and mCC, offshore microalgae cultivation, and seaweed farming and sinking. The project found that eChem mCDR powered by marine energy and offshore wind energy available in the United States could meet global CDR scales needed by 2040 and 2050 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C by 2100 and marine energy alone could greatly contribute to reaching scales needed by 2040. Note that this preliminary estimate assumes that it is possible to harvest all the marine and offshore wind resources available in the United States with existing technology options. Though the biological methods were limited in scale they still hold promise in developing carbon negative fuels and products which can reduce emissions in the short term.

afforestation↗
DOE OSTI2024

Comparing net zero pathways across the Atlantic A model inter-comparison exercise between the Energy Modeling Forum 37 and the European Climate and Energy Modeling Forum

Europe and North America account for 32 % of current carbon emissions. Due to distinct legacy systems, energy infrastructure, socioeconomic development, and energy resource endowment, both regions have different policy and technological pathways to reach net zero by the mid-century. Against this background, our paper examines the results from the net zero emission scenarios for Europe and North America that emerged from the collaboration of the European and American Energy Modeling Forums. Here, in our analysis, we perform an inter-comparison of various integrated assessments and bottom-up energy system models. A clear qualitative consensus emerges on five main points. First, Europe and the United States reach net zero targets with electrification, demand-side reductions, and carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Second, the use of carbon capture and sequestration is more predominant in the United States due to a steeper decarbonization schedule. Third, the buildings sector is the easiest to electrify in both regions. Fourth, the industrial sector is the hardest to electrify in the United States and transportation in Europe. Fifth, in both regions, the transition in the energy mix is driven by the substitution of coal and natural gas with solar and wind, but to a different extent.

100 % renewables↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Dynamically-Reconfigurable Burst-Mode Link Using a Nanosecond Photonic Switch

Fast optical circuit switching has great potential to solve scaling issues with traditional packet-switch based networks and improve bandwidth and power efficiency in datacenter and high-performance computing applications. One difficultly in utilizing a fast optical switch is that the optical signal must be rapidly reacquired after each switching event so as to not significantly impact the overall throughput of the system. In this work we present a system-level integration of a nanosecond-scale $2 \times 2$ silicon photonic switch with a 25-Gbps burst-mode receiver that can lock in 31 ns. A novel FPGA-based control plane was used to generate test data, control the silicon photonic switch and burst-mode receiver, and measure bit errors at 12.5 and 20 Gbps. Error-free links (BER $< 10^{-12}$ ) with system-level reconfiguration times below 60 ns (at 20 Gbps) and 90 ns (at 12.5 Gbps) including bit- and frame-synchronization are demonstrated.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Climate Change Effects of Bioenergy and BECCS: Critical Considerations and Guidance on Methodology

Bioenergy is a critical element in many national and international climate change mitigation efforts, including as a carbon dioxide removal strategy combined with the capture and durable geological storage of flue gas emissions (BECCS). However, divergent results on the effectiveness of bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure are reported in the scientific literature. Climate impacts of bioenergy depend on case-specific factors, primarily biophysical features of the biomass production system, and the design and efficiency of conversion and capture processes. Estimates of climate impacts are also strongly affected by methodological choices and assumptions, and much of the divergence between studies derives from differences in the assumed alternate use of the land or feedstock, the alternate energy source and the system boundaries applied. We present a methodology to support robust estimates of the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, updating the standard methodology developed by the International Energy Agency's Technology Collaboration Program on Bioenergy. We provide guidance on the key choices including the reference land use and energy system that bioenergy is assumed to displace, spatial and temporal system boundaries, co-product handling, climate forcers considered, metrics applied and time horizon of impact assessment. Researchers should consider the whole bioenergy system including all life cycle stages, and choose system boundaries, reference systems and treatment of co-products that are consistent with the intended application of the results. The assessment should be normalised to a functional unit that can be compared with other systems delivering an equivalent quantity of the same function. All significant climate forcers should be included, and climate effects should be quantified using appropriate impact assessment methods that distinguish the impact of time. Consistency in methodology and interpretation will facilitate comparison between studies of different bioenergy systems.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Specialty grand challenge: renaming our section to “Carbon Dioxide Removal”

While the concept of removing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from the atmosphere to help prevent climate change has been around for decades, it is only relatively recently that its importance within climate policy has moved into mainstream discussions. As such, conventions for nomenclature are widely debated. The proposed methods of removing CO 2 from the atmosphere to restore a level that ensures a stable climate, are diverse and often share little in their form and function beyond their impact on atmospheric CO 2 . However, for this reason alone, it is useful to refer to these within an umbrella term. In this editorial, we outline why the editorial board has decided to rename this section of Frontiers in Climate to "Carbon Dioxide Removal".

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Transport Cost for Carbon Removal Projects With Biomass and CO2 Storage

Strategies to remove carbon from the atmosphere are needed to meet global climate goals. Promising strategies include the conversion of waste biomass to hydrogen, methane, liquid fuels, or electricity coupled with CO 2 capture and storage (CCS). A key challenge for these projects is the need to connect geographically dispersed biomass supplies with geologic storage sites by either transporting biomass or CO 2 . We assess the cost of transport for biomass conversion projects with CCS using publicly available cost data for trucking, rail, and CO 2 pipelines in the United States. We find that for large projects (order of 1 Mt/yr CO 2 or greater), CO 2 by pipeline is the lowest cost option. However, for projects that send most of the biomass carbon to storage, such as gasification to hydrogen or electricity production, biomass by rail is a competitive option. For smaller projects and lower fractions of carbon sent to storage, such as for pyrolysis to liquid fuels, CO 2 by rail is the lowest cost option. Assessing three plausible example projects in the United States, we estimate that total transport costs range from $24/t-CO 2 stored for a gasification to hydrogen project traversing 670 km to $\$ 36$/t for a gasification to renewable natural gas project traversing 530 km. In general, if developers have flexibility in choosing transport mode and project type, biomass sources and storage sites can be connected across hundreds of kilometers for transport costs in the range of $20-40/t-CO 2 stored. Truck and rail are often viable modes when pipelines cannot be constructed. Distances of 1,000 km or more can be connected in the same cost range when shared CO 2 pipelines are employed.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗