Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “surface levelized cost of heat”

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 19 records

GPFA-AB_Phase1UtilizationTask4DataUpload

This submission of Utilization Analysis data to the Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) node of the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) is in support of Phase 1 Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (project DE-EE0006726). The submission includes data pertinent to the methods and results of an analysis of the Surface Levelized Cost of Heat (SLCOH) for US Census Bureau ‘Places’ within the study area. This was calculated using a modification of a program called GEOPHIRES, available at http://koenraadbeckers.net/geophires/index.php. The MATLAB modules used in conjunction with GEOPHIRES, the MATLAB data input file, the GEOPHIRES output data file, and an explanation of the software components have been provided. Results of the SLCOH analysis appear on 4 .png image files as mapped ‘risk’ of heat utilization. For each of the 4 image (.png) files, there is an accompanying georeferenced TIF (.tif) file by the same name. In addition to calculating SLCOH, this Task 4 also identified many sites that may be prospects for use of a geothermal district heating system, based on their size and industry, rather than on the SLCOH. An industry sorted listing of the sites (.xlsx) and a map of these sites plotted as a layer onto different iterations of maps combining the three geological risk factors (Thermal Quality, Natural Reservoir Quality, and Risk of Seismicity) has been provided. In addition to the 6 image (.png) files of the maps in this series, a shape (.shp) file and 7 associated files are included as well. Finally, supporting files (.pdf) describing the utilization analysis methodology and summarizing the anticipated permitting for a deep district heating system are supplied.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utilization Analysis in Low-Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin (GPFA-AB)

This submission of Utilization Analysis data to the Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) node of the National Geothermal Data System (NGDS) is in support of Phase 1 Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin. The submission includes data pertinent to the methods and results of an analysis of the Surface Levelized Cost of Heat (SLCOH) for US Census Bureau Places within the study area. This was calculated using a modification of a program called GEOPHIRES, available at http://koenraadbeckers.net/geophires/index.php. The MATLAB modules used in conjunction with GEOPHIRES, the MATLAB data input file, the GEOPHIRES output data file, and an explanation of the software components have been provided. Results of the SLCOH analysis appear on 4 .png image files as mapped risk of heat utilization. For each of the 4 image (.png) files, there is an accompanying georeferenced TIF (.tif) file by the same name. In addition to calculating SLCOH, this Task 4 also identified many sites that may be prospects for use of a geothermal district heating system, based on their size and industry, rather than on the SLCOH. An industry sorted listing of the sites (.xlsx) and a map of these sites plotted as a layer onto different iterations of maps combining the three geological risk factors (Thermal Quality, Natural Reservoir Quality, and Risk of Seismicity) has been provided. In addition to the 6 image (.png) files of the maps in this series, a shape (.shp) file and 7 associated files are included as well. Finally, supporting files (.pdf) describing the utilization analysis methodology and summarizing the anticipated permitting for a deep district heating system are supplied. UPDATE: Newer version of the Utilization Analysis has been added here: https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/878

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Appalachian Basin Play Fairway Analysis Analyses and Results

*This submission updates a 2015 submission for the utilization analysis (https://gdr.openei.org/submissions/623)* The files document the analysis of utilization potential in support of Phase 1 Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis for the Appalachian Basin. This 2016 submission includes data pertinent to the methods and results of an analysis of the Surface Levelized Cost of Heat (SLCOH) for US Census Bureau 'Places' within the study area. The SLCOHis was calculated using a modification of a program called GEOPHIRES, available at http://koenraadbeckers.net/geophires/index.php. In addition to calculating SLCOH, this task also identified many industrial sites that may be prospects for use of a geothermal district heating system, based on their size and industry, rather than on the SLCOH. An industry sorted listing and maps of the sites have been plotted as a layer onto different iterations of maps combining the three geologic risk factors (Thermal Quality, Natural Reservoir Quality, and Risk of Seismicity). In addition, a shapefile of the industrial sites is also included with 7 associated files. Supporting files are also supplied.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Low Temperature Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis For The Appalachian Basin: Phase 1 Revised Report November 18, 2016

Geothermal energy is an attractive sustainable energy source. Yet project developers need confirmation of the resource base to warrant their time and financial resources. The Geothermal Play Fairway Analysis of the Appalachian Basin evaluated risk metrics that communicate the favorability of potential low-temperature geothermal energy resources in reservoirs more than 1000 m below the surface. This analysis is focused on the direct use of the heat, rather than on electricity production. Four risk factors of concern for direct-use geothermal plays in the Appalachian Basin portions of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia are examined individually, and then in combination: 1) thermal resource quality, 2) natural reservoir quality, 3) induced seismicity, and 4) utilization opportunities. Uncertainty in the risk estimation is quantified. Based on these metrics, geothermal plays in the Appalachian Basin were identified as potentially viable for a variety of direct-use-heat applications. The methodologies developed in this project may be applied in other sedimentary basins as a foundation for low temperature (50-150 °C), direct use geothermal resource, risk, and uncertainty assessment. Three methods with which to combine the four risk factors were used. Among these, the averaging of the individual risk factors indicates the most favorable counties within the study area are the West Virginia counties of Monongalia, Harrison, Lewis (dubbed the Morgantown–Clarksburg play fairway), Putnam, and Kanawha (Charleston play fairway), the New York counties of Chemung and Steuben plus adjacent Bradford county in Pennsylvania (Corning–Ithaca play fairway), and the Pennsylvania counties of Mercer, Crawford, Erie, and Warren, and adjacent Chautauqua county in New York (together, the Meadville–Jamestown play fairway). These higher priority regions are surrounded by broader medium priority zones. Also worthy of additional exploration is a broad region near Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, for which the available geological data are insufficient to fully analyze the geological risks but yet the population is high. First, to assess the spatial variation in the depth to which one would need to drill to obtain geothermal temperatures that are useful to a future project, the project used bottom-hole temperature data from Appalachian Basin oil and gas exploration. These bottom hole temperature data are abundant but of low quality. Second, the project examined the potential for sufficient water flow rates through rocks to harvest heat from a geothermal well field, considering only natural reservoirs. This analysis provides a very incomplete picture of spatial variability of natural reservoirs because the oil and gas reservoir data lack key properties and are spatially biased toward those locations with profitable amounts of hydrocarbons in the rock pore spaces. Third, in light of the fact that earthquake activity has been induced in several states by subsurface work related to the oil and gas industry, this project examined the potential for similar activity in the Appalachian Basin. Acknowledging that data for such a task are insufficient, we utilized what was available: records of seismic activity, regional estimates of the orientations of stress in the rocks, and locations and orientations of zones of lateral change in rock properties at depths down to several kilometers below Earth’s surface. With these data, we created a first approximation of spatially variable risks for induced earthquakes. Because no data existed with which to test the reliability of these methods, the results have a high degree of uncertainty. Fourth, we examined the spatial variability of the above-the-ground factors that contribute to the economical viability of projects to tap low-temperature geothermal resources for direct-use. We worked principally with population density as a regionally known variable that would impact the cost of district heating. The resulting maps omit the costs of producing the hot water from the ground, because the below-ground costs are directly coupled to the thermal resource risk factor and natural reservoir risk factor – later analyses of those costs will be needed. The result of the district heating analysis is highly skewed: few census locations yielded a low estimated surface cost. The team also identified more than 165 prospects for high value direct-use geothermal energy opportunities such as industrial sites, university campuses, and federal facilities, among others. At the closure of this regional analysis, the most significant technical uncertainties are 1) reservoir distribution and capacities; 2) validity of thermal resource maps, and 3) the holistic estimation of Levelized Cost of Heat for favorable geological situations.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utilizing GEOPHIRES-X Beyond Electricity

The GEOPHIRES tool is a techno-economic simulator for evaluating the thermal performance and cost-competitiveness of geothermal plants for electricity, heating, and/or cooling. The tool combines reservoir, wellbore, and surface plant cost and performance models to estimate overall techno-economic metrics such as net present value or levelized cost of electricity, heating, or cooling. We recently upgraded the tool to an object-oriented Python framework, presented in an accompanying paper. As part of the upgrade, we enhanced the capability to simulate the performance of geothermal plants for heating and cooling, which is the topic of this paper. Specifically, we (1) integrated absorption chillers to investigate the performance of utilizing geothermal heat for cooling, (2) integrated a heat pump module to boost the geothermal temperature and thermal output, (3) integrated a district heating module to estimate heating demand for a district based on local weather data, and simulated heat supply with geothermal energy and peaking boilers, and (4) integrated GEOPHIRES as an engine in the dGeo simulator to perform a geospatial analysis of geothermal district heating feasibility across a large region (e.g., a state or the entire United States) utilizing resource and thermal demand maps. This paper presents background information and case studies for several of these heating and cooling end-use options in GEOPHIRES.

absorption chiller↗

GEOPHIRES v2.0

GEOPHIRES v2.0 is a geothermal techno-economic simulation tool upgraded from GEOPHIRES v1.2. The name stands for "GEOthermal energy for Production of Heat and electricity (“IR”) Economically Simulated". GEOPHIRES combines reservoir, wellbore, and surface plant technical models with cost correlations and levelized cost models to estimate the capital and operation and maintenance costs, instantaneous and lifetime energy production, and overall levelized cost of energy of a geothermal plant. In addition to electricity generation, direct-use heat applications and combined heat and power or cogeneration can be modeled. Various upgrades have been implemented to develop GEOPHIRES v2.0, including: updating the built-in cost correlations, coupling to the external reservoir simulator TOUGH2, enhancing the built-in wellbore simulator, converting the programming language to Python, and making the code open-source. Users are encouraged to build upon the tool, e.g. by implementing their own correlations or coupling to other simulators.

Beckers, Koenraad↗

Introducing GEOPHIRES v2.0: Updated Geothermal Techno-Economic Simulation Tool: Preprint

This paper presents an updated version of the geothermal techno-economic simulation tool GEOPHIRES (GEOthermal Energy for Production of Heat and electricity (IR) Economically Simulated). GEOPHIRES combines reservoir, wellbore, surface plant and economic models to estimate the capital, and operation and maintenance costs, lifetime energy production, and overall levelized cost of energy of a geothermal plant. The available end-use options are electricity, direct-use heat and cogeneration. The main updates in the new version include conversion of the source code from FORTRAN to Python, the option to couple to an external reservoir simulator, updated cost correlations, and more flexibility in selecting the time step and number of injection and production wells. An overview of all the updates and two case-studies to illustrate the tool's new capabilities are provided in this paper.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Introducing GEOPHIRES v2.0: Updated Geothermal Techno-Economic Simulation Tool

This paper presents an updated version of the geothermal techno-economic simulation tool GEOPHIRES (GEOthermal energy for Production of Heat and electricity ('IR') Economically Simulated). GEOPHIRES combines engineering models of the reservoir, wellbores, and surface plant facilities of a geothermal plant with an economic model to estimate the capital and operation and maintenance costs, lifetime energy production, and overall levelized cost of energy. The available end-use options are electricity, direct-use heat, and cogeneration. The main updates in the new version include conversion of the source code from FORTRAN to Python, the option to import temperature data (e.g., measured or from stand-alone reservoir simulator), updated cost correlations, and more flexibility in selecting the time step and number of injection and production wells. In this paper, we provide an overview of all the updates and two case studies to illustrate the tool's new capabilities.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Geothermal district energy systems coupled with seasonal underground thermal energy storage: a U.S. techno-economic screening by climate and geology

In the United States, cooling-dominated commercial building loads can cause geothermal heat pump-based district energy systems to accumulate a long-term subsurface thermal imbalance, motivating the incorporation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage. We developed a transferable workflow to evaluate geothermal district systems that pair ground heat exchangers with seasonal underground thermal energy storage. Using standardized hourly loads for seven commercial buildings and a uniform cost framework, we simulated ten U.S. cities with a physics-based ground heat exchanger model, subsurface storage simulations, and economic assessment to isolate the roles of climate and hydrogeology. In cooling-dominated cities, underground thermal energy storage supplied the majority of annual cooling, cutting electricity use and summer peaks substantially while achieving levelized costs comparable to or below conventional chiller-boiler plants. In cooler climates, the storage share shrunk, required borefield size and costs rose, and levelized cost of energy increased nearly linearly with declining underground thermal energy storage fraction, indicating storage fraction as the primary economic lever. Sensitivity analysis showed capital risk dominated by borefield drilling and surface heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning and piping, with underground thermal energy storage costs secondary. This workflow provides a transparent foundation for site-specific design and screening of next-generation geothermal district energy systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Turbulent Reynolds analogy factors for nonplanar surface microgeometries

Direct measurements of turbulent Reynolds analogy factors are presented for 15 nonplanar surface microgeometries (including riblets, oscillating transverse curvature, wavy walls, and micro air bearings) for momentum thickness Reynolds numbers of 1638-2631. It is shown that certain types of nonplanar surface microgeometries will increase turbulent Reynolds analogy factors significantly above flat-plate levels. In several cases, the observed elevated heat-transfer efficiencies represent the combined effects of both heat-transfer increases and drag decreases. Generally, the results suggest that decreases of the order of 20 percent are possible in heat exchanger volume, cost, and weight for designs with extensive planar surfaces.

Lindemann, A. M.↗

Establishing and Monitoring an Aseptic Workspace

When are aseptic operations necessary? In order to meet certain bioburden requirements, some components must undergo dry heat microbial reduction (DHMR) or other sterilizing procedures. If sensitive surfaces must be re-exposed after DHMR, this could compromise the bioburden levels. Recontaminating sterilized surfaces could be costly both in time by requiring repeated DHMR and risk to the hardware, which may not be compatible with repeated high temperature bakes. In order to prevent recontamination of the sensitive surfaces, an aseptic environment and sterile technique must be employed. Aseptic environments mean working in a space with almost no detectable bioburden in the air or on surfaces. Ideally, DHMR happens as late as possible to avoid requiring aseptic operations, as it can be considered a high-risk operations. Preparing the cleanroom for aseptic operations Establishing an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) class 5 space to minimize airborne particles. Maintain low bioburden in the cleanroom by using biocidal cleaners. Using multiple biocidal techniques decreases the likelihood of selecting for resistant microorganisms. 70% Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) denatures the proteins in a microorganism (note: 70% IPA is better at killing microorganisms than 100% IPA) 7% hydrogen peroxide: damages DNA and proteins through oxygen radical damage. Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) lamps: causes crosslinking in DNA which prevents replication. Monitor cleanroom regularly for bioburden trending: Standard bioassay: Swab or wipe samples of cleanroom surfaces processed for colony forming unity (viable or spore selected); Rapid bioassay: Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) or Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) for a bioburden snapshot. High levels can signal an immediate re-cleaning before standard bioassay samples are taken. Airborne monitoring: Active (pulling air through a filter) or passive (particle fallout) for bioburden. Verify bioburden levels just before aseptic operation. Test hardware and cleanroom surfaces and air 3 days before the planned aseptic operation. Rapid bioburden just before aseptic operation to ensure room was not re-contaminated. Preparing personnel and tools: Personnel training. Everyone in the cleanroom: Standard cleanroom certification Everyone on the team: 1 day Planetary Protection overview. Aseptic operators only: Half-day aseptic operations training. Covers sterile garmenting/gloves, Sterile handling with a focus on contact transfer risk, tool/GSE preparation, and two-operator system for opening sterilized tools/components. Tool sterilization: All tools to be used during an aseptic operation need to be identified. Compatible tools are sterilized by DHMR or Autoclave. Double wrapped so that the exterior bag can be handled by a non-sterile operator, and the sterile. Tools that are not compatible with high heat do not come in contact with sensitive surfaces: either substitutes are found, or tools are isolated by wrapping in sterile foil. During an aseptic operation. Pre-task to make sure everyone understands the operations, who is handling what, and when the most critical surfaces will be exposed. Monitoring during the operation. Bioburden: active and passive airborne bioburden sampling, glove-tip dabs onto a plate after completion of operation (3 days for results). Particles: real time particle counter constantly running, with alarm for exceeding ISO 5 conditions.

aseptic processing↗

Inversion of geothermal heat flux in a thermomechanically coupled nonlinear Stokes ice sheet model

We address the inverse problem of inferring the basal geothermal heat flux from surface velocity observations using a steady-state thermomechanically coupled nonlinear Stokes ice flow model. This is a challenging inverse problem since the map from basal heat flux to surface velocity observables is indirect: the heat flux is a boundary condition for the thermal advection–diffusion equation, which couples to the nonlinear Stokes ice flow equations; together they determine the surface ice flow velocity. This multiphysics inverse problem is formulated as a nonlinear least-squares optimization problem with a cost functional that includes the data misfit between surface velocity observations and model predictions. A Tikhonov regularization term is added to render the problem well posed. We derive adjoint-based gradient and Hessian expressions for the resulting partial differential equation (PDE)-constrained optimization problem and propose an inexact Newton method for its solution. As a consequence of the Petrov–Galerkin discretization of the energy equation, we show that discretization and differentiation do not commute; that is, the order in which we discretize the cost functional and differentiate it affects the correctness of the gradient. Using two- and three-dimensional model problems, we study the prospects for and limitations of the inference of the geothermal heat flux field from surface velocity observations. The results show that the reconstruction improves as the noise level in the observations decreases and that short-wavelength variations in the geothermal heat flux are difficult to recover. We analyze the ill-posedness of the inverse problem as a function of the number of observations by examining the spectrum of the Hessian of the cost functional. Motivated by the popularity of operator-split or staggered solvers for forward multiphysics problems – i.e., those that drop two-way coupling terms to yield a one-way coupled forward Jacobian – we study the effect on the inversion of a one-way coupling of the adjoint energy and Stokes equations. Here, we show that taking such a one-way coupled approach for the adjoint equations can lead to an incorrect gradient and premature termination of optimization iterations. This is due to loss of a descent direction stemming from inconsistency of the gradient with the contours of the cost functional. Nevertheless, one may still obtain a reasonable approximate inverse solution particularly if important features of the reconstructed solution emerge early in optimization iterations, before the premature termination.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Synthesis of ceramic powders and surface films from laser heated gases

Two new processes have been developed that are based on laser-heated gases. Both permit unusually precise levels of process control and, thereby, materials having superior properties. The power process yields Si, Si3N4 and SiC powders that are uniform in size, nonagglomerated, small diameter, spherically shaped and high purity. Manufacturing cost analyses show that submicron powders can be made with an energy cost of approximately 2 kWhr/kg and a dollar cost of 2-3.30 $/kg, exclusive of the costs of feed materials. The laser-induced chemical vapor deposition process (LICVD) causes reactant gases to be heated by absorbing IR light from a laser beam that passes parallel to the substrate surface. Laser heating permits independent control of gas and substrate temperatures while operating in a conventional, thermally activated chemical vapor deposition mode. Spin density, hydrogen content, electrical conductivity and mobility gap properties show the LICVD process capable of producing very high quality films.

Haggerty, J. S.↗

Development of 3-D Geological Model of Tuscarora Sandstone for Feasibility of Deep Direct-Use Geothermal at West Virginia University’s Main Campus

The Morgantown campus of West Virginia University (WVU) is uniquely positioned to host the first geothermal deep direct-use district heating system in the eastern United States. While much of the eastern United States is not blessed with extremely high heat flow and elevated temperatures, the northeastern part of West Virginia is unique in having a basin that is expected to support the achievable flowrate of geofluid through target formations, with sufficient temperatures at depth. These two factors were identified in the 2006 MIT Future of Geothermal Energy Report to be the two most critical factors in minimizing cost of geothermal energy. Our overall project objective is to determine the feasibility of designing a Geothermal District Heating and Cooling (GDHC) system for the West Virginia University campus utilizing Geothermal Deep Direct-Use (DDU) by 1) minimization of the uncertainty and risk associated with developing the geothermal resource for use on campus at WVU and 2) completion of an optimized design for the geothermal system, minimizing the delivered Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH). Our first goal, to minimize the risk of project development, will be achieved by decreasing the uncertainty in both the subsurface geothermal system as well the surface distribution system. The subsurface uncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty in the projections of geofluid flowrate in the target formation, the Tuscarora Sandstone. In this paper, three cores from the heterogeneous reservoir, available through West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey, are analyzed by performing core analysis using CT scanning and permeability measurements via minipermeameter. Additional geological data are collected through cores, published literature, seismic data, and nearby, existing wells to estimate thickness, fracture network configuration and geothermal gradient to minimize the uncertainty of well deliverability. Using these estimated reservoir properties; a 3D conceptual model for the proposed geothermal site is developed.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

TRITON11 - Westinghouse 11*11 BWR fuel design

Westinghouse has developed an 11*11 BWR fuel design referred to as the TRITON11 fuel design. Given the current economic pressure on the utilities, the key development objective was to significantly reduce the fuel cycle costs. Careful considerations were also made to meet the varying requirements between the different BWR utilities. In particular, the fuel was optimized for both short and long cycle operation, as well as for the up-rated cores and higher burnups. In addition to these advances, careful considerations were given to the overall reliability of the new design to further reduce the risk of fuel failures. Further improved fuel economy requires improved thermal margins since both SVEA-96 Optima2 and Optima3 are already highly optimized for reactivity performance at the fuel lattice level. It was realized that better thermal margins must come from adding more fuel rods, thereby reducing the linear heat generation rate and surface heat flux. This requires going beyond the 10*10 fuel lattice. An 11*11 fuel design was chosen as optimum, considering benefits versus manufacturing cost and added complexity. The numbers, dimensions and positioning of fuel rods and internal water channels (passing non-boiling water) were analyzed intensively. The resulting TRITON11 design has 109 fuel rods and 3 central water rods for improved moderation. The paper presents the TRITON11 fuel design. The development objectives are laid out and the resulting performance and reliability improvements are described. The development is in the final phase of testing and validation. Examples of recent tests are presented. The advances in BWR core analysis codes in support of TRITON11 fuel are briefly summarized. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Separating Propulsive Mass and Energy for Space Applications

Initially and traditionally, space access and in-space propulsion utilized combustion and expulsion of chemical “fuels” carried on board, with performance governed by the rocket equation. These chemicals produced energy, and after combustion, constituted the propulsive mass/momentum. The best such chemicals in terms of Isp that are deemed safe engineering/mission wise are hydrogen and oxygen, producing some 450 seconds of Isp. There are more reactive chemicals, such as fluorine, which have higher Isp, but also have serious safety issues. Propulsion in atmospheres can ingest atmospheric constituents (aka “airbreathing propulsion”) which provide additional propulsive mass when heated and a component of the combustion/energy generation process. This utilization of non-stored/carried propulsive mass provides partial separation of propulsive mass and energy and produces higher Isp. The other approach to separating propulsive mass and energy is to, either on board or added from offboard, supply additional energy, such as from nuclear or solar sources. This is the approach for fission nuclear thermal and electric propulsion, which can provide an Isp in excess of 800 seconds of Isp. Other processes or in addition to thermal expansion, such as electro-magnetics, can be employed to increase exit velocity and Isp. Separating propulsive mass and energy for space faring is commonly referred to as a means to circumvent the rocket equation and is capable of producing major benefits for the development of commercial deep space and space faring in general including affordable fast transits to mitigate the human health impacts of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and microG. The key to higher than chemical Isp, beyond H2-O2, and beyond the radiated energy and systems limitations of solar for space faring, is a light weight, high energy density source, either on board or via utilization of energy beaming to the vehicle. Traditional energy sources include chemical, heat, electrics, mechanical, photons, and nuclear. Propulsive mass can be carried on board, sourced beyond the surface of Earth via in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), and includes harvesting from atmospheres. High Isp via electromagnetic related propulsive mass acceleration requires sufficient ionization and conductivity. The major metrics for space propulsion are costs, safety, Isp, weight, and thrust level, the latter dependent upon mission requirements. High thrust for human missions is needed to reduce time exposed to radiation and microG and high thrust is required for space access. Costs of space access are reducing via reusability, printing manufacture, and robotization of manufacturing and operation. Chemical rockets provide high thrust from the expansion of the heated mass constituents at high mass flow. The other high thrust propulsion approach is magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), which, in addition to high thrust, has a high Isp of over 2,000 seconds of Isp. The VASIMIR engine offers some 5,000 seconds of Isp at high thrust [ref. 3]. Electric propulsion cycles are capable of Isp much higher than that but at low thrust levels using available energy sources. With cost as a major metric, reusable rockets and improved manufacturing and operations are rapidly greatly lowering the costs of space access, which could provide/supply in space fuel depots and affordable chemical propulsion for the desired human fast transits (e.g., some 200-day round trips to Mars). The other option for fast transits is VASIMIR, given a nuclear on-board energy source that has the requisite many megawatts of power and an alpha, kgs of weight/kW of energy produced, on the order of one (i.e., a light weight, high energy density energy source). The purpose of this report is to examine the options beyond traditional rocket engines, where propulsive mass and energy are combined, specifically the separation of propulsive mass and energy. This report considers the spectrum of advanced energetics, sources of propulsive mass, conductivity enhancement approaches, energy beaming possibilities, and candidate propulsion cycles. Suggestions are made for various combinatorial, system level, beyond traditional combustion rocket, space propulsion approaches for human deep space missions given the changing conditions of increased knowledge of deep space resources for ISRU, revolutionary energetics, and technology advancements writ large.

Dennis M. Bushnell↗

Feasibility of Development of Geothermal Deep Direct-Use District Heating and Cooling system at West Virginia University Campus-Morgantown, WV

The Morgantown campus of West Virginia University (WVU) is uniquely positioned to host the first geothermal deep direct-use district heating and cooling (GDHC) system in the eastern United States. While much of the eastern United States does not have elevated heat flow, the Morgantown region of West Virginia is unique in exhibiting sufficient temperatures at the depth of a formation, the Tuscarora, which is expected to support a desirable flow rate of geofluid. Temperature and flow rate were identified in the 2006 MIT Future of Geothermal Energy Report to be the two most critical factors in minimizing the cost of geothermal energy. The WVU campus site offers surface demand coupled with the potential subsurface viability. Specifically, the existing district heating and cooling system that is in use year round will be leveraged. Absorption chilling systems are used to cool the campus in the summer and provide hot water circulating heat in the winter. Our overall project objectives are to 1) collect local information on these critical factors to understand the uncertainty and reduce the risk associated with developing the geothermal resource for use in a WVU campus GDHC system, and 2) complete an optimized design for the GDHC system by minimizing the delivered Levelized Cost of Heat (LCOH). A Tuscarora geological model was built based on core analysis and permeability measurements using data from nearby wells. This geological model is then translated into a reservoir model. iTOUGH2/EOS1 is used to simulate the subsurface portion of a GDHC system using two well configurations: 1) a pair of vertical wells, and 2) a pair of horizontal wells. The performance of both configurations is evaluated based on achievable flow rates and production fluid temperatures; the recommended well configuration is selected based on the expected GDHC system performance. The thermal breakthrough and reservoir productivity increased for horizontal well configuration however, the well-head LCOH for vertical well horizontal well configuration is higher than vertical wells due to the additional cost of horizontal drilling. To minimize the delivered LCOH, we perform an integrated surface-to-subsurface optimization of the full GDHC system. The economic and performance analysis of the GDHC system is evaluated for two cases: 1) using existing district heating and cooling facilities, and 2) by converting the current WVU campus steam infrastructure to a hot water system. The optimized GDHC system will be selected by minimizing the LCOH over these two possible configurations.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Comparing the cooling effectiveness of operationalisable urban surface combination scenarios for summer heat mitigation

Extreme summer heat in cities exacerbates the vulnerability of urban communities to heatwaves. Vegetative and reflective urban surfaces can help reduce urban heat. This study investigated the impacts of urban trees, green roofs and cool roofs on heat mitigation during average and extreme summer conditions in temperate oceanic Melbourne, Australia. We simulated the city climate using ‘The Air Pollution Model’ (TAPM) at a 1 km spatial resolution over 10 years, which according to our review of the literature, was the most prolonged period for simulation in Melbourne. During a widespread heatwave event, some of the tested scenarios with combined surface parameters could reduce the extreme values of the energy budget components- sensible heat, latent heat, and storage heat fluxes up to seasonal averages compared to the existing situation for Melbourne (control). The scenario with the highest (reasonable maximum) ground-level vegetation, green roofs, and cool roofs could reduce air temperatures up to 2.4 °C. The simulations suggest that a combined strategy with vegetative and high-albedo surfaces will deliver higher effectiveness with maximum cooling benefits and cost-effectiveness than individual strategies in cities. These results suggest the importance of collaborative strategic planning of urban surfaces to make cities healthier, sustainable, and liveable.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗