Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CuSO4”

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.

Materials Data on CuSO4 by Materials Project

CuSO4 crystallizes in the orthorhombic Pnma space group. The structure is three-dimensional. Cu2+ is bonded to six O2- atoms to form CuO6 octahedra that share corners with six equivalent SO4 tetrahedra and edges with two equivalent CuO6 octahedra. There are a spread of Cu–O bond distances ranging from 1.95–2.43 Å. S6+ is bonded to four O2- atoms to form SO4 tetrahedra that share corners with six equivalent CuO6 octahedra. The corner-sharing octahedra tilt angles range from 44–57°. There are a spread of S–O bond distances ranging from 1.46–1.55 Å. There are three inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted bent 150 degrees geometry to one Cu2+ and one S6+ atom. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted single-bond geometry to two equivalent Cu2+ and one S6+ atom. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded in a trigonal planar geometry to two equivalent Cu2+ and one S6+ atom.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

Iodine Capture with Copper-Electroplated Nickel Foams

This work explores the use of Ni0 foam scaffolds for Cu0 coatings for use as sorbents for iodine. The Cu0 electroplating was performed from aqueous copper(II) sulfate (CuSO4) solutions under different conditions to achieve a range of Cu0-layer thicknesses (4.89 ± 1.05 μm–57.32 ± 3.95 μm) with 900 A·m–2 current densities and coating times of 15–180 min. The thickest coatings resulted in Cu0-plated Ni0 foams with >89 mass % Cu0 in the final product. Iodine capture experiments showed very high Cu0 utilizations of 91.9–97.3 mass % at iodine loadings of 839–1774 mg·g–1 through the formation of CuI (marshite; space group F-43m). No evidence was found of iodine reactions taking place with the Ni0 scaffold, so it remained in iodine-loaded Cu-electroplated Ni foams as structural support to provide mechanical rigidity to the foams during the iodine loading process. Hot pressing of these materials can be used to create a CuI/Ni ceramic-metal composite waste form for disposal as demonstrated with spark plasma sintering.

Riley, Brian [Pacific Northwest National Laborator↗

Thermocatalytic Heat Pipes for Geothermal Resource Recovery

Heat pipes are an important technology that allow orders of magnitude faster heat transfer than simple conduction. However, operating principles in heat pipes place fundamental bounds on their performance (critical heat flux and efficiency). Conventional heat pipe functionality is inherently tied to vaporization and condensation of the working fluid charged in the heat pipe. These fluids each have different operating temperature ranges based on the capillary, entrainment, sonic, and boiling limits of the heat pipe design. These limits, typically the capillary limit, dictate the maximum heat flux a heat pipe can carry, and most importantly for geothermal systems, the distance over which the pipes can operate (100 to 200 m maximum under optimum conditions). A thermocatalytic heat pipe breaks the inherent limitations of phase change thermo- and hydrodynamics and can transform heat pipe technology as a potentially more efficient means of extracting heat from a geothermal resource. The thermocatalytic heat pipe uses a working fluid to transport both sensible and chemical heat. An endothermic chemical reaction at depth removes heat from the reservoir and produces reactive intermediates, which are transported to the surface and used to run a reverse exothermic reaction that releases heat for use in power generation or other useful purposes. This technology offers two distinct advantages over conventional geothermal heat recovery technologies: (1) lower heat loss to the rock outside of the geothermal reservoir, and (2) higher heat transfer rates to the well field within the geothermal reservoir. Both advantages offer opportunity to reduce risks and lower costs of geothermal energy recovery. In this report, we discuss an initial effort to assess the efficacy and limitations of this technology for extracting heat from both porous/permeable and nominally impermeable geothermal reservoirs. Numerical simulation capabilities of the STOMP-GT code were enhanced to enable simulations of thermochemical heat pipes traversing geothermal reservoirs. An array of potential thermochemical reaction systems was evaluated and screened. Of these, an ethanol dehydration reaction was most promising in the vapor-liquid reaction set. A solid-phase dehydration reaction (CuSO4·5H2O) showed the highest reaction enthalpy per unit volume but would require development of a nonaqueous carrier fluid to implement it in a heat pipe. Subsurface reservoir simulations predicted long-term performance of the heat pipes for each geothermal reservoir type. The performance of U-shaped wells and coaxial wells was evaluated for a suite of reactions for both hydrothermal and hot dry rock reservoirs and was compared with a baseline case of simply pumping water through the wells. The heat pipe technology was additionally evaluated for an enhanced geothermal system (EGS) with an injection borehole, production borehole, and intervening hydraulically conductive fracture. All reservoir types showed significant improvement in heat recovered over a 20-year operating period ranging from a 1.8X increase for the hot dry rock case to more than 2.5X more energy recovered for the EGS case.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗