Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “FOSSIL ENERGY”

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.

At least 1,603 records · Page 89
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Extruder system and method for treatment of a gaseous medium

A system for treatment of a gaseous medium, comprises an extruder having a barrel. The extruder further comprises a first inlet port, a second inlet port, and a plurality of outlet ports coupled to the barrel. The first inlet port is configured for feeding a lean sorbent, the second inlet port is configured for feeding a gaseous medium, and the plurality of outlet ports are configured for releasing a plurality of components removed from the gaseous medium. Further, the extruder comprises a plurality of helical elements coupled to a plurality of kneading elements, mounted on a shaft, and disposed within the barrel. The barrel and the plurality of helical and kneading elements together form an absorption unit and a desorption unit. The first and second inlet ports are formed in the absorption unit and the plurality of outlet ports are formed in the absorption and desorption units.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Summary of Carbon Storage Incentives and Potential Legislation: East Sub-Basin Project Task 3.1 Business and Financial Case Study

The CarbonSAFE Illinois – East Sub-Basin project is conducting a pre-feasibility assessment for commercial-scale CO2 geological storage complexes. The project aims to identify sites capable of storing more than 50 million tons of industrially-sourced CO2. To support the business development assessment of the economic viability of potential sites in the East Sub-Basin and explore conditions under which a carbon capture and storage (CCS) project therein might be revenue positive, this document provides a summary of carbon storage incentives and legislation of potential relevance to the project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2018

Policy, Regulatory, Legal, and Permitting Case Study Subtask 3.2 – Topical Report

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.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2019

Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Storage Resource Estimates (SREs) of Cambrian Ordovician Units within the CarbonSAFE Prefeasibility Study Region Subtasks 4.2 and 4.3 – Topical Report

This report by the Indiana Geological & Water Survey (IGWS) assessed the storage resource estimate (SRE) of Cambrian-Ordovician stratigraphic units located within the CarbonSAFE prefeasibility area within the Illinois Basin. A comprehensive data set of wireline logs and petrophysical information was used. These data include core analysis for porosity and permeability, and existing well data including location and stratigraphic information. This report includes storage resource estimates (SREs) for four potential storage reservoirs (Upper Ordovician Trenton Limestone/Black River Group, Middle Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone, Lower Ordovician and Upper Cambrian Knox Supergroup, including a separate assessment for the lower Knox Potosi Dolomite. The resultant SREs volumes are displayed using georeferenced maps and boxplots. The latter allow for comparing data statistics (mean values and variability) between five methods employed for the SRE calculations. Differences observed in SRE results from the five methods are mainly attributable to differences in the data used for porosity in each method. ArcMap 10.5.1 software was used to portray SREs to help visualize spatial variance of estimates for each methodology, and more importantly, to highlight those areas having the greatest total storage potential estimates.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2019

Stakeholder Analysis Report Subtask 3.3 – CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin Topical Report 8

Effective stakeholder engagement has been proven to be a critical component in the success of numerous CCS activities and is essential if the technology is to be widely developed in the future. This report contains a stakeholder assessment and highlights some engagement activities conducted during the CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin Prefeasibility study. This report is intended to lay the groundwork and provide recommendations for the Wabash CarbonSAFE Feasibility project, currently underway in conjunction with the Wabash Valley Resources ammonia plant retrofit taking place at the former Terre Haute US DOE integrated gasification combined cycle plant. The analysis sets the stage for identifying and understanding the concerns of key stakeholders, describes actions currently underway, highlights perceptions of potential benefits and risks of project activities, and provides recommendations for short- and long-term forms of engagement. This study used social site characterization methods to better understand local and regional stakeholder positions and needs. The stakeholder engagement strategy will emphasize engagement with stakeholders that enable project development and those that are impacted by the project. The stakeholder analysis process can be broken down into the four basic steps of: identifying, analyzing, mapping, and prioritizing. Various stakeholders were identified by literature search, and additionally by a group of approximately twenty Indiana University SPEA master’s students via a stakeholder workshop. The stakeholder analysis and mapping process is used to help prioritize stakeholder engagement strategies; engagement strategies must be developed with particular stakeholder concerns in mind and messages tailored to those stakeholders’ needs. The stakeholder map with engagement strategy developed for this analysis suggests state government, industry, federal government, and state education are predicted to have the highest interest and influence and should be a priority focus in engagement. Local media, local landowners, local government, and utilities are predicted to have high influence but low interest and may also be a high priority group to engage. Environmental and economic impacts of activities that are considered to be important by stakeholders in the present day (key) or activities that have taken place in the past (legacy) can impact stakeholder perspectives and need to be considered when creating a stakeholder engagement strategy. The issue of environmental clean-up was identified in both the social media analysis and also through USEPA Environmental Justice analysis tools. Thus, it is clear this will be an important factor for consideration in any stakeholder engagement conducted in and around Terre Haute. Furthermore, stakeholder engagement education materials will need to emphasize that carbon dioxide is not a hazardous material, as well as address FAQs regarding CCS. In addition, recommendations for consideration when developing the stakeholder engagement strategy for projects in the Illinois East Sub-Basin in general and related to the Wabash CarbonSAFE project specifically include: drawing clear lines of responsibility between Wabash Valley Resources and ISGS-led Wabash CarbonSAFE that allow the projects to manage integration and messaging; the need for ISGS and other partners to maintain objectivity and remain trusted sources of information; monitoring of social media and continuing to engage with key stakeholder groups; and providing support for key stakeholders to become sources of project information and project champions.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2019

Developing CO 2 Source and Storage Opportunities across the Illinois Basin Subtask 5.3 – Regional Roadmap for Source Network and Storage Deployment Topical Report

Large-scale anthropogenic CO 2 sources (>100,000 tonnes/year) were catalogued for the CarbonSAFE Illinois East Sub-Basin carbon capture and storage pre-feasibility study. The source portfolio is diverse, consisting of fossil-base power production, ethanol production operations, chemical development, and refinery facilities, most of which are relatively new or modernized (i.e. post year 2000). Ten facilities were considered for potential commercial-scale geological storage in a regional CO 2 source and storage network study. The study area has a number of potential geologic sequestration targets, including three significant deep saline reservoirs with corresponding seals, and potential enhanced oil recovery (EOR) opportunities. Recent research has focused on a high-porosity, highly arkosic zone within the Lower Mt. Simon Sandstone. Based on this work, we present a conceptual CO 2 source and storage network, which focuses on the arkosic zone in the Lower Mt. Simon as a prospective storage resource play in the Illinois East Sub-Basin region.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗