Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “feed type”

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.

150 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Westinghouse advanced fuel management strategies leveraging high enrichment and high burnup fuel to optimize PWR economics

In the US, nuclear power plants have been focused on increasing electricity generation for over three decades via longer operating cycles, reduced number of outages and duration, and the implementation of power up-rates. The potential for zero-carbon emission credits and other carbon-reduction initiatives further makes nuclear power utilities to focus on increasing generation capability. Longer operating cycles provide increased energy generation and enable economic savings to nuclear utilities when the increase in fuel loading required to achieve the extended cycle energy target and resulting increase in total fuel cost is offset by the savings from outage avoidance and reduced replacement power costs. For the current licensed limits of 5 w/o {sup 235}U enrichment and 62 GWd/tU peak pin burnup, higher power density PWR plants, which are prevalent in the PWR fleet, require an excessively penalizing fraction of feed fuel assemblies to operate for the extended cycle duration, with inevitably poor fuel use and fuel cycle economics that cannot be counterbalanced by the savings on outage cost avoidance. To overcome this barrier, the nuclear industry is pursuing development of high enrichment/high burnup fuel technology ({sup 235}U enrichment up to 8 w/o and peak pin burnup up to 75 GWd/tU) which increases fuel energy generation capability and can enable high power density plants to achieve positive economics on 24-month cycle of operation. This paper presents advanced fuel management strategies developed by Westinghouse to enable transition of PWR reactors from 18-month to 24-month cycle of operation, with and without a core thermal power uprate, which are then used as basis to assess the economics of a direct transition from 18 to 24-month cycles with high enrichment/high burnup fuel. The results show that these fuel management strategies, especially if coupled with thermal power up-rates, present the opportunity for substantial economic benefits to utilities. The systematic review of fuel management strategies presented can provide an illustrative reference for decision makers as they consider how to maximize nuclear energy generation economically. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Precision Agriculture using Networks of Degradable Analytical Sensors (PANDAS) (Final Technical Report)

Precision agriculture, where sensing of soil, environment and crop conditions are used to precisely synchronize inputs (such as water and fertilizer) to crop needs enhances input use efficiency. This can improve yields and farm profitability while mitigating environmental losses, improving soil carbon content and substantially decreasing energy use for food, feed and fuel crops. Unfortunately, farmers are not yet able to harness the full potential of these management technologies as there is a lack of available management information, and there is therefore a need for sensors that are able to economically measure spatio-temporal variability in soil and crop properties of extremely heterogeneous farm fields precisely at high resolution and at low cost. Real-time, in-situ monitoring of agricultural soil conditions is today carried out using devices that limit the total number of nodes that can be used economically to typically one per acre or less. Higher spatio-temporal resolution sensing would enable more precise agricultural input optimization, with significant benefits to the farmer and the environment. In order to address this issue, this project focused on developing additively manufactured, biodegradable, soil sensors with predicted costs of < $\$$1 per unit to monitor crop inputs (such as water and fertilizer) that predictably, harmlessly degrade away into the soil when no longer needed. These sensor nodes should be easy to place, accurately and continuously monitor soil and crop conditions for an entire season, be read remotely using existing farm equipment, require no ongoing maintenance, not impede farm operations and produce no persistent waste. This approach could enable a >100× increase in information density over current solutions for precision farming of row and other crops, and lead to significant reductions in input energy use and provide increased yield for biofuel crops. Over the course of this project the team at the University of Colorado Boulder, University of California Berkeley, and Colorado State University/Kansas State University investigated a wide range of printable biodegradable electronic materials and sensor designs for determining soil moisture and soil nitrate concentration. These efforts expanded the available materials set for printed soil degradable electronic materials, particularly for conductors, enabling high conductivity and stability. Printed soil moisture and nitrate sensors with suitable sensitivity and selectivity were developed and characterized. Low power and passive wireless electronic systems were integrated with the soil sensors, and testing was carried out with completed sensors to understand their functionality under agricultural conditions. Additionally, other sensor types enabled by the biodegradable materials set created during this project, such as soil microbial activity sensors, were also developed and demonstrated. Project outputs include 10 peer reviewed publications, 4 patent applications, 21 technical presentations, 3 PhD thesis, 10 media reports, 8 additional grants worth over $\$$6M, and the formation of 3 start-up companies.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

Radioactive Source Localization via Bayesian Particle Filter

In the event of a misplaced radioactive source or other emergency situation, measuring a radiation field, mapping its distribution, and determining a source location are essential tasks to ameliorating the situation. However, radiation fields may be extremely hazardous to human surveyors and minimizing received radiation doses is just as essential. Robots appear to be a potential solution to these problems. Beyond simply measuring radiation, the robot's computer processing capabilities offer a way to apply complex data analysis methods to radiation measurements in real-time. Methods which predict likely source locations can then feed this information into other processes, potentially improving path planning and enabling more efficient measurements. Given a robot mounted with a gamma-ray detector, can we: develop a methodology to account for detector performance across a wide range of source angles, distances, and photon energies? operate an autonomously navigating robot to effectively survey and characterize an area of interest? implement a data analysis method, conventionally used in measurements of motion, for source localization purposes? An open-source TurtleBot 3 robot, running Robot Operating System (ROS) on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, was fitted with a Kromek GR1{sup R} Cadmium Zinc Telluride (CZT) solid-state gamma-ray detector. As a part of ROS, the packages OpenSlam, gmapping, and amcl were used to perform Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM), determining the robot's position and mapping the surrounding area. Data was acquired via Lidar mounted on top the TurtleBot 3. Detector Calibration Fit: The equation was fit to 365 counts of various energies, distances, and angles. A MATLAB{sup R} program was written to simulate measurements taken a robot on a random walk, with count data and positions discretized into finite element pixels. Using this program, a sample of 100 runs was performed on a map with a simulated source at the center, with a total of 200 of 2 pixels each. Similarly, multiple runs of the filter were performed on recorded robot measurement data. In both simulation and real tests, when corrected for errors (particles placed outside of bounds or on the robot, and simulation-specific errors), corresponding t-tests of predicted x and y-coordinates were within a 95% confidence interval of the actual position. For the real trial, these positions are slightly skewed right in the x-axis as the robot remained mainly to the left side of the source within the sample area. These simulations demonstrate potential validity for the usage of a particle filter as method of radioactive source localization. In the future, true real-time implementation and data fusion may further augment the performance of the robot to localize lost sources. Additionally, identification of multiple sources, determination of source types, and usage of a collimator are areas to potentially be explored.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Development of Carbon Molecular Sieves Hollow Fiber Membranes based on Polybenzimidazole Doped with Polyprotic Acids with Superior H 2 /CO 2 Separation Properties (Final Report)

The goal of this project was to develop a highly efficient membrane-based process to capture CO 2 from coal-derived syngas with 95% CO 2 purity, achieving the cost of electricity (COE) 30% below the baseline capture approaches (i.e., Selexol process) when coupled with the advancement in other areas of the power generation facility. Our core approach is based on high-permeance hollow fiber membranes (HFMs) with superior H 2 /CO 2 separation properties at the syngas process conditions, which can then be further utilized to design membrane reactors for process intensification of H 2 production and purification and CO 2 capture. Three organizations with complementary skills collaborated to achieve the goal, including the University at Buffalo (UB), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Trimeric Corporation (Trimeric). We formulated logical steps to bring the membrane technology from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3 (Experimental proof of concept) to TRL 4 (Laboratory scale validation in relevant environment). During the budget period (BP) 1, we screened various polymeric materials and identified polybenzimidazole doped with inorganic polyprotic acids as the desirable platform. The acid doping increases the H 2 /CO 2 selectivity, and the sequential carbonization increases H 2 permeability while retaining the high selectivity. By manipulating the acid type and doping level and the carbonization temperature, we demonstrated advanced carbon molecular sieving (CMS) materials with H 2 permeability of above 200 Barrer (1 Barrer = 10 -10 cm 3 (STP) cm cm -2 s -2 cmHg -1 ) and H 2 /CO 2 selectivity of above 40 at 200-300°C with simulated syngas containing CO and water vapor. For example, the PBI-(H 3 PO 4 ) 0.11 carbonized at 700 °C exhibits H 2 permeability of 200 Barrer and H 2 /CO 2 selectivity of 60 at 200 °C, and H 2 permeability of 240 Barrer and H 2 /CO 2 selectivity of 54 at 225 °C, which meets the targeted properties and surpasses Robeson’s upper bound. During the BP2, we focused on the conversion of the advanced CMS materials to stable HFMs. Membranes with H 2 permeance of 1,090 GPU (1 GPU = 10 -6 cm 3 (STP) cm -2 s -2 cmHg -1 ) and H 2 /CO 2 selectivity of 57 at 300 °C were successfully fabricated. The effects of temperature, gas compositions, pressure, and time on the separation properties were systematically investigated. Pencil modules were continuously evaluated for 219 h (dry pure gas) and 669 h (dry simulated syngas) and showed initial decline in permeance and increased H 2 /CO 2 selectivity over time, ultimately achieving a steady state stable value, indicating that the ageing phenomena in the nanoporous structures of the membranes during the test. Membrane reactors were fabricated based on the CMS membranes and evaluated for water-gas shift (WGS) reaction. The use of membranes slightly improves the conversion of the CO. However, parametric tests of the membrane reactors at various temperatures and flow rates need to be conducted, as well as the membranes with improved separation performance. We performed a sensitivity analysis on the impact of H 2 /CO 2 selectivity on the COE based on a hybrid process of a membrane unit and cryogenic unit developed by Membrane Technology and Research, Inc. (MTR). Three H 2 /CO 2 selectivity (40, 60, and 15) cases were developed and compared with the baseline capture process (Case B5B) provided by the DOE report. Increasing the membrane H 2 /CO 2 selectivity reduces COE, but the rate of the decrease of COE also diminishes. The COE values for H 2 /CO 2 selectivities of 40 and 60 were nearly the same. As the H 2 /CO 2 selectivity increases, the inert recycling decreases, leading to smaller equipment, less auxiliary power requirements, and less heating, cooling, and refrigeration duty. The refrigeration system used to liquefy the CO 2 is the most expensive piece of equipment and consumes the most electricity within the CO 2 capture process. Increasing the CO 2 concentration in the recycle stream would improve the economics of the process by reducing the refrigeration duty requirement of the unit and also allow for higher liquefaction temperatures. The high H 2 -selective membrane developed by our team may be applicable in other separation processes where lower pressure H 2 retains value. Typically, hydrogen retains its pressure when it is separated from syngas components. Residual components may be used as low-quality fuel and then vented to the atmosphere. Applications might include control of H 2 /CO ratios or mitigation of the water gas shift reaction by CO 2 recycling to the feed of a gasifier or steam methane reformer. To summarize, we have developed industrial HFMs with the best H 2 /CO 2 separation performance reported in the literature. The membranes demonstrate stability with simulated syngas and show great potential for membrane reactors for WGS reactions, lowering the cost of blue H 2 production.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗