National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas steam plants

  1. Control Scheme Modifications Increase Efficiency of Steam Generation System at Exxon Mobil Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2002-01-01

    This case study highlights control scheme modifications made to the steam system at ExxonMobil's Mary Ann Gas Plant in Mobile, Alabama, which improved steam flow efficiency and reduced energy costs.

  2. Use of GTE-65 gas turbine power units in the thermal configuration of steam-gas systems for the refitting of operating thermal electric power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lebedev, A. S.; Kovalevskii, V. P.; Getmanov, E. A.; Ermaikina, N. A.

    2008-07-15

    Thermal configurations for condensation, district heating, and discharge steam-gas systems (PGU) based on the GTE-65 gas turbine power unit are described. A comparative multivariant analysis of their thermodynamic efficiency is made. Based on some representative examples, it is shown that steam-gas systems with the GTE-65 and boiler-utilizer units can be effectively used and installed in existing main buildings during technical refitting of operating thermal electric power plants.

  3. Geothermal Steam Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Geothermal Steam Power Plant (Redirected from Dry Steam) Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home General List of Dry Steam Plants List of Flash Steam Plants...

  4. Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chen, Shiaguo (Champaign, IL); Lu, Yonggi (Urbana, IL); Rostam-Abadi, Massoud (Champaign, IL)

    2011-11-22

    Methods and systems for separating a targeted gas from a gas stream emitted from a power plant. The gas stream is brought into contact with an absorption solution to preferentially absorb the targeted gas to be separated from the gas stream so that an absorbed gas is present within the absorption solution. This provides a gas-rich solution, which is introduced into a stripper. Low pressure exhaust steam from a low pressure steam turbine of the power plant is injected into the stripper with the gas-rich solution. The absorbed gas from the gas-rich solution is stripped in the stripper using the injected low pressure steam to provide a gas stream containing the targeted gas. The stripper is at or near vacuum. Water vapor in a gas stream from the stripper is condensed in a condenser operating at a pressure lower than the stripper to concentrate the targeted gas. Condensed water is separated from the concentrated targeted gas.

  5. Steam Plant Replaces Outdated Coal-Fired System | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Steam Plant Replaces Outdated Coal-Fired System Steam Plant Replaces Outdated Coal-Fired System September 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis A new natural gas-fired steam plant will replace an older coal-fired steam plant shown here. The new plant has the capacity to heat buildings at the Portsmouth site much more efficiently than the old coal-fired steam plant. A new natural gas-fired steam plant will replace an older coal-fired steam plant shown here. The new plant has the capacity to heat buildings at

  6. Superheated steam power plant with steam to steam reheater. [LMFBR

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Silvestri, G.J.

    1981-06-23

    A desuperheater is disposed in a steam supply line supplying superheated steam to a shell and tube reheater.

  7. Land O'Lakes Shaves Gas Usage through Steam System In-Plant Training

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Twelve participants from 6 different facilities learned and practiced energy efficiency assessment skills during the recent in-plant training at a Land O'Lakes dairy plant in Carlisle, Pennsylvania...

  8. Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation (Patent...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation You are accessing a...

  9. Heat recovery steam generator outlet temperature control system for a combined cycle power plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Martens, A.; Myers, G.A.; McCarty, W.L.; Wescott, K.R.

    1986-04-01

    This patent describes a command cycle electrical power plant including: a steam turbine and at least one set comprising a gas turbine, an afterburner and a heat recovery steam generator having an attemperator for supplying from an outlet thereof to the steam turbine superheated steam under steam turbine operating conditions requiring predetermined superheated steam temperature, flow and pressure; with the gas turbine and steam turbine each generating megawatts in accordance with a plant load demand; master control means being provided for controlling the steam turbine and the heat recovery steam generator so as to establish the steam operating conditions; the combination of: first control means responsive to the gas inlet temperature of the heat recovery steam generator and to the plant load demand for controlling the firing of the afterburner; second control means responsive to the superheated steam predetermined temperature and to superheated steam temperature from the outlet for controlling the attemperator between a closed and an open position; the first and second control means being operated concurrently to maintain the superheated steam outlet temperature while controlling the load of the gas turbine independently of the steam turbine operating conditions.

  10. Steam cooling system for a gas turbine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wilson, Ian David (Mauldin, SC); Barb, Kevin Joseph (Halfmoon, NY); Li, Ming Cheng (Cincinnati, OH); Hyde, Susan Marie (Schenectady, NY); Mashey, Thomas Charles (Coxsackie, NY); Wesorick, Ronald Richard (Albany, NY); Glynn, Christopher Charles (Hamilton, OH); Hemsworth, Martin C. (Cincinnati, OH)

    2002-01-01

    The steam cooling circuit for a gas turbine includes a bore tube assembly supplying steam to circumferentially spaced radial tubes coupled to supply elbows for transitioning the radial steam flow in an axial direction along steam supply tubes adjacent the rim of the rotor. The supply tubes supply steam to circumferentially spaced manifold segments located on the aft side of the 1-2 spacer for supplying steam to the buckets of the first and second stages. Spent return steam from these buckets flows to a plurality of circumferentially spaced return manifold segments disposed on the forward face of the 1-2 spacer. Crossover tubes couple the steam supply from the steam supply manifold segments through the 1-2 spacer to the buckets of the first stage. Crossover tubes through the 1-2 spacer also return steam from the buckets of the second stage to the return manifold segments. Axially extending return tubes convey spent cooling steam from the return manifold segments to radial tubes via return elbows.

  11. Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation (Patent) | SciTech

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Connect SciTech Connect Search Results Patent: Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Integrated vacuum absorption steam cycle gas separation Methods and systems for separating a targeted gas from a gas stream emitted from a power plant. The gas stream is brought into contact with an absorption solution to preferentially absorb the targeted gas to be separated from the gas stream so that an absorbed gas is present within the

  12. Natural gas-assisted steam electrolyzer

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Pham, Ai-Quoc (San Jose, CA); Wallman, P. Henrik (Berkeley, CA); Glass, Robert S. (Livermore, CA)

    2000-01-01

    An efficient method of producing hydrogen by high temperature steam electrolysis that will lower the electricity consumption to an estimated 65 percent lower than has been achievable with previous steam electrolyzer systems. This is accomplished with a natural gas-assisted steam electrolyzer, which significantly reduces the electricity consumption. Since this natural gas-assisted steam electrolyzer replaces one unit of electrical energy by one unit of energy content in natural gas at one-quarter the cost, the hydrogen production cost will be significantly reduced. Also, it is possible to vary the ratio between the electricity and the natural gas supplied to the system in response to fluctuations in relative prices for these two energy sources. In one approach an appropriate catalyst on the anode side of the electrolyzer will promote the partial oxidation of natural gas to CO and hydrogen, called Syn-Gas, and the CO can also be shifted to CO.sub.2 to give additional hydrogen. In another approach the natural gas is used in the anode side of the electrolyzer to burn out the oxygen resulting from electrolysis, thus reducing or eliminating the potential difference across the electrolyzer membrane.

  13. Steam turbine development for advanced combined cycle power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oeynhausen, H.; Bergmann, D.; Balling, L.; Termuehlen, H.

    1996-12-31

    For advanced combined cycle power plants, the proper selection of steam turbine models is required to achieve optimal performance. The advancements in gas turbine technology must be followed by advances in the combined cycle steam turbine design. On the other hand, building low-cost gas turbines and steam turbines is desired which, however, can only be justified if no compromise is made in regard to their performance. The standard design concept of two-casing single-flow turbines seems to be the right choice for most of the present and future applications worldwide. Only for very specific applications it might be justified to select another design concept as a more suitable option.

  14. Optimization of some parameters of atomic steam-gas powerplant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ratnikov, Y.F.

    1985-10-21

    Determination of optimum parameters of binary-type atomic steam-gas powerplant is a difficult analytical problem in view of the complicated interdependence of parameters, which characterize the reactor, gas-turbine, and steam-turbine parts of the installation. Conclusions include: 1) Determination of optimum parameters of atomic steam-gas installation is recommended to produce with gas consumption = const and heat output of the reactor = var. since best technical-economic indices of installation correspond to this case. 2) With increase in power of atomic steam-gas installation, together with improvement in economic indices, the optimum pressure ratio descends and optimum temperature of feed water increases. 3) Increase in the fuel component leads to a decrease of optimum pressure ratio and to increase in temperature of feed water. 4) Change of cost of reactor plant over wide limits virtually does not have effect on numerical values of optimum parameters being investigated. 5) In all cases optimum pressure ratio is more, and temperature of feed water is less than outer limits, obtained by thermodynamic calculations.

  15. Thermochemically recuperated and steam cooled gas turbine system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Viscovich, P.W.; Bannister, R.L.

    1995-07-11

    A gas turbine system is described in which the expanded gas from the turbine section is used to generate the steam in a heat recovery steam generator and to heat a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbon fuel and the steam in a reformer. The reformer converts the hydrocarbon gas to hydrogen and carbon monoxide for combustion in a combustor. A portion of the steam from the heat recovery steam generator is used to cool components, such as the stationary vanes, in the turbine section, thereby superheating the steam. The superheated steam is mixed into the hydrocarbon gas upstream of the reformer, thereby eliminating the need to raise the temperature of the expanded gas discharged from the turbine section in order to achieve effective conversion of the hydrocarbon gas. 4 figs.

  16. Thermochemically recuperated and steam cooled gas turbine system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Viscovich, Paul W. (Longwood, FL); Bannister, Ronald L. (Winter Springs, FL)

    1995-01-01

    A gas turbine system in which the expanded gas from the turbine section is used to generate the steam in a heat recovery steam generator and to heat a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbon fuel and the steam in a reformer. The reformer converts the hydrocarbon gas to hydrogen and carbon monoxide for combustion in a combustor. A portion of the steam from the heat recovery steam generator is used to cool components, such as the stationary vanes, in the turbine section, thereby superheating the steam. The superheated steam is mixed into the hydrocarbon gas upstream of the reformer, thereby eliminating the need to raise the temperature of the expanded gas discharged from the turbine section in order to achieve effective conversion of the hydrocarbon gas.

  17. Steam-Electric Power-Plant-Cooling Handbook

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sonnichsen, J.C.; Carlson, H.A.; Charles, P.D.; Jacobson, L.D.; Tadlock, L.A.

    1982-02-01

    The Steam-Electric Power Plant Cooling Handbook provides summary data on steam-electric power plant capacity, generation and number of plants for each cooling means, by Electric Regions, Water Resource Regions and National Electric Reliability Council Areas. Water consumption by once-through cooling, cooling ponds and wet evaporative towers is discussed and a methodology for computation of water consumption is provided for a typical steam-electric plant which uses a wet evaporative tower or cooling pond for cooling.

  18. Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Reforming | Department of Energy Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming A life cycle assessment of hydrogen production via natural gas steam reforming was performed to examine the net emissions of greenhouse gases as well as other major environmental consequences. PDF icon 27637.pdf More Documents & Publications Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind/Electrolysis: Milestone

  19. Y-12 Steam Plant Project Received National Recognition for Project...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Steam Plant Project Received National Recognition for Project Management Excellence | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission...

  20. Development of the first demonstration CFB boiler for gas and steam cogeneration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fang, M; Luo, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, Q.; Shi, Z.; Ni, M.; Cen, K.

    1997-12-31

    To solve the shortage of gas and steam supply in the small towns of the country, a new gas steam cogeneration system has been developed. On the basis of the fundamental research on the system, a demonstration gas steam cogeneration system has been designed. As the phase 1 of the project, a 75t/h demonstration CFB boiler for gas steam cogeneration has been erected and operated at Yangzhong Thermal Power Plant of China. This paper introduces the first 75t/h demonstration CFB boiler for gas steam cogeneration. Due to the need of gas steam cogeneration process, the boiler has the features of high temperature cyclone separation, high solid recycle ratio, staged combustion and an external heat exchanger adjusting bed temperature and heat load. The operation results show that the boiler has wide fuel adaptability and the heating value of the coal changes from 14MJ/Kg to 25MJ/Kg. The heat load changes from 85t/h to 28t/h while steam parameter is maintained at the normal conditions. The combustion efficiency of the boiler attain 98%. The boiler design and operation experiences may be a guide to the design and operation of larger CFB units in the future.

  1. Table 7.3 Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010;

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam; Unit: U.S. Dollars per Physical Units. Electricity Components Natural Gas Components Steam Components Electricity Natural Gas Steam Electricity from Sources Natural Gas from Sources Steam from Sources Electricity from Local Other than Natural Gas from Local Other than Steam from Local Other than

  2. Table 7.7 Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010;

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam; Unit: Physical Units or Btu. Electricity Components Natural Gas Components Steam Components Electricity Natural Gas Steam Electricity from Sources Natural Gas from Sources Steam from Sources Electricity from Local Other than Natural Gas from Local Other than Steam from Local Other than NAICS Total

  3. Modeling a Helical-coil Steam Generator in RELAP5-3D for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nathan V. Hoffer; Piyush Sabharwall; Nolan A. Anderson

    2011-01-01

    Options for the primary heat transport loop heat exchangers for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant are currently being evaluated. A helical-coil steam generator is one heat exchanger design under consideration. Safety is an integral part of the helical-coil steam generator evaluation. Transient analysis plays a key role in evaluation of the steam generators safety. Using RELAP5-3D to model the helical-coil steam generator, a loss of pressure in the primary side of the steam generator is simulated. This report details the development of the steam generator model, the loss of pressure transient, and the response of the steam generator primary and secondary systems to the loss of primary pressure. Back ground on High Temperature Gas-cooled reactors, steam generators, the Next Generation Nuclear Plant is provided to increase the readers understanding of the material presented.

  4. SUPERCRITICAL STEAM CYCLE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsiklauri, Georgi V.; Talbert, Robert J.; Schmitt, Bruce E.; Filippov, Gennady A.; Bogojavlensky, Roald G.; Grishanin, Evgeny I.

    2005-07-01

    Revolutionary improvement of the nuclear plant safety and economy with light water reactors can be reached with the application of micro-fuel elements (MFE) directly cooled by a supercritical pressure light-water coolant-moderator. There are considerable advantages of the MFE as compared with the traditional fuel rods, such as: Using supercritical and superheated steam considerably increases the thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle up to 44-45%. Strong negative coolant and void reactivity coefficients with a very short thermal delay time allow the reactor to shutdown quickly in the event of a reactivity or power excursion. Core melting and the creation of corium during severe accidents are impossible. The heat transfer surface area is larger by several orders of magnitude due to the small spherical dimensions of the MFE. The larger heat exchange surface significantly simplifies residual heat removal by natural convection and radiation from the core to a subsequent passive system of heat removal.

  5. Apparatus and methods of reheating gas turbine cooling steam and high pressure steam turbine exhaust in a combined cycle power generating system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tomlinson, Leroy Omar (Niskayuna, NY); Smith, Raub Warfield (Ballston Lake, NY)

    2002-01-01

    In a combined cycle system having a multi-pressure heat recovery steam generator, a gas turbine and steam turbine, steam for cooling gas turbine components is supplied from the intermediate pressure section of the heat recovery steam generator supplemented by a portion of the steam exhausting from the HP section of the steam turbine, steam from the gas turbine cooling cycle and the exhaust from the HP section of the steam turbine are combined for flow through a reheat section of the HRSG. The reheated steam is supplied to the IP section inlet of the steam turbine. Thus, where gas turbine cooling steam temperature is lower than optimum, a net improvement in performance is achieved by flowing the cooling steam exhausting from the gas turbine and the exhaust steam from the high pressure section of the steam turbine in series through the reheater of the HRSG for applying steam at optimum temperature to the IP section of the steam turbine.

  6. Oil shale retorting with steam and produced gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merrill, L.S. Jr.; Wheaton, L.D.

    1991-08-20

    This patent describes a process for retorting oil shale in a vertical retort. It comprises introducing particles of oil shale into the retort, the particles of oil shale having a minimum size such that the particles are retained on a screen having openings 1/4 inch in size; contacting the particles of oil shale with hot gas to heat the particles of oil shale to a state of pyrolysis, thereby producing retort off-gas; removing the off-gas from the retort; cooling the off-gas; removing oil from the cooled off-gas; separating recycle gas from the off-gas, the recycle gas comprising steam and produced gas, the steam being present in amount, by volume, of at least 50% of the recycle gas so as to increase the yield of sand oil; and heating the recycle gas to form the hot gas.

  7. High performance steam development. Final report, Phase No. 3: 1500{degree}F steam plant for industrial cogeneration prototype development tests

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Duffy, T.; Schneider, P.

    1996-01-01

    As a key part of DOE`s and industry`s R&D efforts to improve the efficiency, cost, and emissions of power generation, a prototype High Performance Steam System (HPSS) has been designed, built, and demonstrated. The world`s highest temperature ASME Section I coded power plant successfully completed over 100 hours of development tests at 1500{degrees}F and 1500 psig on a 56,000 pound per hour steam generator, control valve and topping turbine at an output power of 5500 hp. This development advances the HPSS to 400{degrees}F higher steam temperature than the current best technology being installed around the world. Higher cycle temperatures produce higher conversion efficiencies and since steam is used to produce the large majority of the world`s power, the authors expect HPSS developments will have a major impact on electric power production and cogeneration in the twenty-first century. Coal fueled steam plants now produce the majority of the United States electric power. Cogeneration and reduced costs and availability of natural gas have now made gas turbines using Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG`s) and combined cycles for cogeneration and power generation the lowest cost producer of electric power in the United States. These gas fueled combined cycles also have major benefits in reducing emissions while reducing the cost of electricity. Development of HPSS technology can significantly improve the efficiency of cogeneration, steam plants, and combined cycles. Figure 2 is a TS diagram that shows the HPSS has twice the energy available from each pound of steam when expanding from 1500{degrees}F and 1500 psia to 165 psia (150 psig, a common cogeneration process steam pressure). This report describes the prototype component and system design, and results of the 100-hour laboratory tests. The next phase of the program consists of building up the steam turbine into a generator set, and installing the power plant at an industrial site for extended operation.

  8. Savannah River's Biomass Steam Plant Success with Clean and Renewable

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy | Department of Energy River's Biomass Steam Plant Success with Clean and Renewable Energy Savannah River's Biomass Steam Plant Success with Clean and Renewable Energy In order to meet the federal energy and environmental management requirements in Presidential Executive Order 13423, DOE Order 430.2B, and the Transformational Energy Action Management (TEAM) Initiative, DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman encouraged the DOE federal complex to utilize third party financing options like the

  9. Evaluation of a superheater enhanced geothermal steam power plant in the Geysers area. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janes, J.

    1984-06-01

    This study was conducted to determine the attainable generation increase and to evaluate the economic merits of superheating the steam that could be used in future geothermal steam power plants in the Geyser-Calistoga Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA). It was determined that using a direct gas-fired superheater offers no economic advantages over the existing geothermal power plants. If the geothermal steam is heated to 900/sup 0/F by using the exhaust energy from a gas turbine of currently available performance, the net reference plant output would increase from 65 MW to 159 MW (net). Such hybrid plants are cost effective under certain conditions identified in this document. The power output from the residual Geyser area steam resource, now equivalent to 1437 MW, would be more than doubled by employing in the future gas turbine enhancement. The fossil fuel consumed in these plants would be used more efficiently than in any other fossil-fueled power plant in California. Due to an increase in evaporative losses in the cooling towers, the viability of the superheating concept is contingent on development of some of the water resources in the Geysers-Calistoga area to provide the necessary makeup water.

  10. Single pressure steam bottoming cycle for gas turbines combined cycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zervos, N.

    1990-01-30

    This patent describes a process for recapturing waste heat from the exhaust of a gas turbine to drive a high pressure-high temperature steam turbine and a low pressure steam turbine. It comprises: delivering the exhaust of the gas turbine to the hot side of an economizer-reheater apparatus; delivering a heated stream of feedwater and recycled condensate through the cold side of the economizer-reheater apparatus in an indirect heat exchange relationship with the gas turbine exhaust on the hot side of the economizer-reheater apparatus to elevate the temperature below the pinch point of the boiler; delivering the discharge from the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine through the economizer-reheater apparatus in an indirect heat exchange relationship with the gas turbine exhaust on the hot side of the economizer-reheater apparatus; driving the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine with the discharge stream of feedwater and recycled condensate which is heated to a temperature below the pinch point of the boiler by the economizer-reheater apparatus; and driving the low pressure steam turbine with the discharged stream of the high pressure-high temperature steam turbine reheated below the pinch point of the boiler by the economizer-reheater apparatus.

  11. Gas turbine row #1 steam cooled vane

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Cunha, Frank J. (Longwood, FL)

    2000-01-01

    A design for a vane segment having a closed-loop steam cooling system is provided. The vane segment comprises an outer shroud, an inner shroud and an airfoil, each component having a target surface on the inside surface of its walls. A plurality of rectangular waffle structures are provided on the target surface to enhance heat transfer between each component and cooling steam. Channel systems are provided in the shrouds to improve the flow of steam through the shrouds. Insert legs located in cavities in the airfoil are also provided. Each insert leg comprises outer channels located on a perimeter of the leg, each outer channel having an outer wall and impingement holes on the outer wall for producing impingement jets of cooling steam to contact the airfoil's target surface. Each insert leg further comprises a plurality of substantially rectangular-shaped ribs located on the outer wall and a plurality of openings located between outer channels of the leg to minimize cross flow degradation.

  12. Pollution prevention opportunity assessment for the K-25 Site Steam Plant -- Level 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-09-01

    A Level 3 pollution prevention opportunity assessment (PPOA) was performed for the K-1501 Steam Plant at the K-25 Site. The primary objective was to identify and evaluate pollution prevention (P2) options to reduce the quantities of each waste stream generated by the Steam Plant. For each of the waste streams, P2 options were evaluated to first reduce the quantity of waste generated and second to recycle the waste. This report provides a process description of the facility; identification, evaluation, and recommendations of P2 options; an implementation schedule with funding sources; and conclusions. Largely for economic reasons, only 3 of the 14 P2 options are being recommended for implementation. All are source reduction options. When implemented, these three options are estimated to reduce the annual generation of waste by 658,412 kg and will result in a cost savings of approximately $29,232/year for the K-25 Site. The recommended options are to: install a flue gas return System in Boiler 7; reduce steam loss from traps; and increase lapse time between rinses. The four boilers currently in operation at the Steam Plant use natural gas or fuel oil as fuel sources.

  13. Y-12 Steam Plant Project Received National Recognition for Project

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Management Excellence | National Nuclear Security Administration Steam Plant Project Received National Recognition for Project Management Excellence | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations

  14. Rotating diffuser for pressure recovery in a steam cooling circuit of a gas turbine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Eldrid, Sacheverel Q. (Saratoga Springs, NY); Salamah, Samir A. (Niskayuna, NY); DeStefano, Thomas Daniel (Ballston Lake, NY)

    2002-01-01

    The buckets of a gas turbine are steam-cooled via a bore tube assembly having concentric supply and spent cooling steam return passages rotating with the rotor. A diffuser is provided in the return passage to reduce the pressure drop. In a combined cycle system, the spent return cooling steam with reduced pressure drop is combined with reheat steam from a heat recovery steam generator for flow to the intermediate pressure turbine. The exhaust steam from the high pressure turbine of the combined cycle unit supplies cooling steam to the supply conduit of the gas turbine.

  15. Geothermal Steam Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    1.95e-4 TW Single Flash 1997 Gunun-Salak Geothermal Area Sunda Volcanic Arc Hachijojima Geothermal Energy Power Plant Tokyo Electric Power 3.3 MW3,300 kW 3,300,000 W...

  16. Analysis of pure electrical and cogeneration steam power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Albar, A.F.

    1982-01-01

    General Electric's method of steam turbine performance was used with pure electrical and with cogeneration power plants at various flow rates. Comparisons were made for two cases: (1) the same amount of heat is added to each boiler and the amount of electrical power generated is compared; and (2) when each plant should produce the same amount of electric power and the amount of heat added to each boiler is compared. Cogeneration is energetically more efficient than pure electrical plant. Correlations for the dependence of heat rate, power generated, heat added to throttle flow ratio were obtained from this work.

  17. Electric power generating plant having direct-coupled steam and compressed-air cycles

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Drost, M.K.

    1981-01-07

    An electric power generating plant is provided with a Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) system which is directly coupled to the steam cycle of the generating plant. The CAES system is charged by the steam boiler during off peak hours, and drives a separate generator during peak load hours. The steam boiler load is thereby levelized throughout an operating day.

  18. Electric power generating plant having direct coupled steam and compressed air cycles

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Drost, Monte K. (Richland, WA)

    1982-01-01

    An electric power generating plant is provided with a Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) system which is directly coupled to the steam cycle of the generating plant. The CAES system is charged by the steam boiler during off peak hours, and drives a separate generator during peak load hours. The steam boiler load is thereby levelized throughout an operating day.

  19. Table 7.10 Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002;" " Level: National and Regional Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Million U.S. Dollars." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural

  20. Table 7.3 Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 20

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002;" " Level: National and Regional Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: U.S. Dollars per Physical Units." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " ","

  1. Table 7.7 Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    7 Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002;" " Level: National and Regional Data;" " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Physical Units or Btu." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " "," ",,,"Electricity",,,"Natural

  2. Table N11.4. Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 19

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    4. Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 1998;" " Level: National Data and Regional Totals; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Million U.S. Dollars." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " ","

  3. Table N8.3. Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3. Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 1998;" " Level: National and Regional Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: U.S. Dollars per Physical Units." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" " ","

  4. Productivity improvement handbook for fossil steam power plants. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Armor, A.F.; Wolk, R.H. |

    1998-09-01

    This book is written to help electric generation staff operate their plants more profitably in a competitive environment. Since responsibility for keeping the plant running falls directly on the shoulders of plant personnel, they want to understand what can go wrong, receive information on the current condition of equipment, and fix things when equipment fails or performs poorly. The information in this book is organized so a reader can quickly and easily grasp the current state-of-the-art in maintaining fossil steam units, obtain guidance on specific plant problems, and move ahead with solutions. Many reports and guidelines have been issued on boilers, turbines, generators, heat exchangers, and other plant equipment covering failure modes, causes, fixes, and maintenance practices. Liberal use has been made of these reports to extract the salient recommendations, and the citations and bibliographies acknowledge these sources. The reader is directed to the comprehensive list of reports and papers for further details on specific issues. The scope of this book does not permit a detailed and extensive treatment of each of the hundreds of potential in-plant problems, but does permit the reader to get a first assessment of likely symptoms and modes of failure, and enough information to do something about it. It`s a working handbook for fossil plant staff who are daily faced with protecting the integrity and reliability of the electric generation business.

  5. Table 7.10 Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010;

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    0 Expenditures for Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2010; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam; Unit: Million U.S. Dollars. Electricity Components Natural Gas Electricity Electricity from Sources Natural Gas NAICS Electricity from Local Other than Natural Gas from Local Code(a) Subsector and Industry Total Utility(b) Local Utility(c) Total Utility(b) Total United States 311 Food 5,328 4,635

  6. Continuous Emissions Monitoring System Monitoring Plan for the Y-12 Steam Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2003-02-28

    The Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), managed by BWXT, is submitting this Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) Monitoring Plan in conformance with the requirements of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 75. The state of Tennessee identified the Y-12 Steam Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, as a non-electrical generation unit (EGU) nitrogen oxides (NO{sub x}) budget source as a result of the NO{sub x} State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Rule 1200-3-27. Following this introduction, the monitoring plan contains the following sections: CEMS details, NO{sub x} emissions, and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC). The following information is included in the attachments: fuel and flue gas diagram, system layout, data flow diagrams, Electronic Monitoring Plan printouts, vendor information on coal and natural gas feed systems, and the Certification Test Protocol. The Y-12 Steam Plant consists of four Wickes boilers. Each is rated at a maximum heat input capacity of 296.8 MMBtu/hour or 250,000 lb/hour of 250-psig steam. Although pulverized coal is the principal fuel, each of the units can fire natural gas or a combination of coal and gas. Each unit is equipped with a Joy Manufacturing Company reverse air baghouse to control particulate emissions. Flue gases travel out of the baghouse, through an induced draft fan, then to one of two stacks. Boilers 1 and 2 exhaust through Stack 1. Boilers 3 and 4 exhaust through Stack 2. A dedicated CEMS will be installed in the ductwork of each boiler, downstream of the baghouse. The CEMS will be designed, built, installed, and started up by URS Group, Inc. (URS). Data acquisition and handling will be accomplished using a data acquisition and handling system (DAHS) designed, built, and programmed by Environmental Systems Corporation (ESC). The installed CEMS will continuously monitor NO{sub x}, flue gas flowrate, and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}). The CEMS will be utilized to report emissions from each unit for each ozone season starting May 1, 2003. Each boiler has independent coal and natural gas metering systems. Coal is fed to each boiler by belt-type coal feeders. Each boiler has two dedicated coal feeders. Natural gas may be burned along with coal for flame stability. The boilers may also be fired on natural gas alone. Orifice meters measure the natural gas flow to each boiler.

  7. Worldwide assessment of steam-generator problems in pressurized-water-reactor nuclear power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Woo, H.H.; Lu, S.C.

    1981-09-15

    Objective is to assess the reliability of steam generators of pressurized water reactor (PWR) power plants in the United States and abroad. The assessment is based on operation experience of both domestic and foreign PWR plants. The approach taken is to collect and review papers and reports available from the literature as well as information obtained by contacting research institutes both here and abroad. This report presents the results of the assessment. It contains a general background of PWR plant operations, plant types, and materials used in PWR plants. A review of the worldwide distribution of PWR plants is also given. The report describes in detail the degradation problems discovered in PWR steam generators: their causes, their impacts on the performance of steam generators, and the actions to mitigate and avoid them. One chapter is devoted to operating experience of PWR steam generators in foreign countries. Another discusses the improvements in future steam generator design.

  8. Incorporating supercritical steam turbines into molten-salt power tower plants : feasibility and performance.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pacheco, James Edward; Wolf, Thorsten; Muley, Nishant

    2013-03-01

    Sandia National Laboratories and Siemens Energy, Inc., examined 14 different subcritical and supercritical steam cycles to determine if it is feasible to configure a molten-salt supercritical steam plant that has a capacity in the range of 150 to 200 MWe. The effects of main steam pressure and temperature, final feedwater temperature, and hot salt and cold salt return temperatures were determined on gross and half-net efficiencies. The main steam pressures ranged from 120 bar-a (subcritical) to 260 bar-a (supercritical). Hot salt temperatures of 566 and 600%C2%B0C were evaluated, which resulted in main steam temperatures of 553 and 580%C2%B0C, respectively. Also, the effects of final feedwater temperature (between 260 and 320%C2%B0C) were evaluated, which impacted the cold salt return temperature. The annual energy production and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) were calculated using the System Advisory Model on 165 MWe subcritical plants (baseline and advanced) and the most promising supercritical plants. It was concluded that the supercritical steam plants produced more annual energy than the baseline subcritical steam plant for the same-size heliostat field, receiver, and thermal storage system. Two supercritical steam plants had the highest annual performance and had nearly the same LCOE. Both operated at 230 bar-a main steam pressure. One was designed for a hot salt temperature of 600%C2%B0C and the other 565%C2%B0C. The LCOEs for these plants were about 10% lower than the baseline subcritical plant operating at 120 bar-a main steam pressure and a hot salt temperature of 565%C2%B0C. Based on the results of this study, it appears economically and technically feasible to incorporate supercritical steam turbines in molten-salt power tower plants.

  9. Steam Turbine Materials for Ultrasupercritical Coal Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Viswanathan, R.; Hawk, J.; Schwant, R.; Saha, D.; Totemeier, T.; Goodstine, S.; McNally, M.; Allen, D. B.; Purgert, Robert

    2009-06-30

    The Ultrasupercritical (USC) Steam Turbine Materials Development Program is sponsored and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ohio Coal Development Office, through grants to Energy Industries of Ohio (EIO), a non-profit organization contracted to manage and direct the project. The program is co-funded by the General Electric Company, Alstom Power, Siemens Power Generation (formerly Siemens Westinghouse), and the Electric Power Research Institute, each organization having subcontracted with EIO and contributing teams of personnel to perform the requisite research. The program is focused on identifying, evaluating, and qualifying advanced alloys for utilization in coal-fired power plants that need to withstand steam turbine operating conditions up to 760°C (1400°F) and 35 MPa (5000 psi). For these conditions, components exposed to the highest temperatures and stresses will need to be constructed from nickel-based alloys with higher elevated temperature strength than the highchromium ferritic steels currently used in today??s high-temperature steam turbines. In addition to the strength requirements, these alloys must also be weldable and resistant to environmental effects such as steam oxidation and solid particle erosion. In the present project, candidate materials with the required creep strength at desired temperatures have been identified. Coatings that can resist oxidation and solid particle erosion have also been identified. The ability to perform dissimilar welds between nickel base alloys and ferritic steels have been demonstrated, and the properties of the welds have been evaluated. Results of this three-year study that was completed in 2009 are described in this final report. Additional work is being planned and will commence in 2009. The specific objectives of the future studies will include conducting more detailed evaluations of the weld-ability, mechanical properties and repair-ability of the selected candidate alloys for rotors, casings and valves, and to perform scale-up studies to establish a design basis for commercial scale components. A supplemental program funded by the Ohio Coal Development Office will undertake supporting tasks such as testing and trials using existing atmospheric, vacuum and developmental pressure furnaces to define specific metal casting techniques needed for producing commercial scale components.

  10. Pre-In-Plant Training Webinar (Steam) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ... Jim, Rich, and Mark have been excellent. An asset here, Deb and Steve at the corporate ... Steam trap's jobs are obviously several, but the cardinal two are trap the steam and make ...

  11. Methods for disassembling, replacing and assembling parts of a steam cooling system for a gas turbine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wilson, Ian D. (Mauldin, SC); Wesorick, Ronald R. (Albany, NY)

    2002-01-01

    The steam cooling circuit for a gas turbine includes a bore tube assembly supplying steam to circumferentially spaced radial tubes coupled to supply elbows for transitioning the radial steam flow in an axial direction along steam supply tubes adjacent the rim of the rotor. The supply tubes supply steam to circumferentially spaced manifold segments located on the aft side of the 1-2 spacer for supplying steam to the buckets of the first and second stages. Spent return steam from these buckets flows to a plurality of circumferentially spaced return manifold segments disposed on the forward face of the 1-2 spacer. Crossover tubes couple the steam supply from the steam supply manifold segments through the 1-2 spacer to the buckets of the first stage. Crossover tubes through the 1-2 spacer also return steam from the buckets of the second stage to the return manifold segments. Axially extending return tubes convey spent cooling steam from the return manifold segments to radial tubes via return elbows. The bore tube assembly, radial tubes, elbows, manifold segments and crossover tubes are removable from the turbine rotor and replaceable.

  12. Annual Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Data (EIA-767 data file)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Electricity data files > Form EIA-767 Form EIA-767 historical data files Data Released: November 02, 2006 Next Release: None(discontinued) Annual steam-electric plant operation and design data Historical data files contain annual data from organic-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric plants with a generator nameplate rating of 10 or more megawatts. The data are derived from the Form EIA-767 "Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Report." The files contains data on

  13. Workers Demolish Coal-fired Steam Plant at EM's Portsmouth Site |

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Department of Energy high-pressure water cannon is used to control dust for the demolition of the X-600 Steam Plant. A high-pressure water cannon is used to control dust for the demolition of the X-600 Steam Plant. One of three large smoke stacks comes down during the demolition. One of three large smoke stacks comes down during the demolition. A high-pressure water cannon is used to control dust for the demolition of the X-600 Steam Plant. One of three large smoke stacks comes down during

  14. "Table A49. Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    9. Average Prices of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas" " by Type of Supplier, Census Region, and Economic Characteristics of the" " Establishment, 1991" " (Estimates in Dollars per Physical Units)" ," Electricity",," Steam",," Natural Gas" ," (Million kWh)",," (Billion Btu)",," (1000 cu ft)"

  15. Table A23. Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas by Type

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3. Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas by Type" " of Supplier, Census Region, Industry Group, and Selected Industries, 1991" " (Estimates in Btu or Physical Units)" ,," Electricity",," Steam",," Natural Gas" ,," (Million kWh)",," (Billion Btu)",," (Billion cu ft)" ,," -------------------------",," -------------------------",,"

  16. Table A27. Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas by Type

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Steam, and Natural Gas by Type" " of Supplier, Census Region, and Economic Characteristics of the Establishment," 1991 " (Estimates in Btu or Physical Units)" " "," Electricity",," Steam",," Natural Gas" ," (Million (kWh)",," (Billion Btu)",," (Billion cu ft)" ," -----------------------",," -----------------------",,"

  17. Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a Petrochemical Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2007-11-01

    This DOE Save Energy Now case study describes how Dow Chemical Company saves 272,000 MMBtu and $1.9 million annually after increasing the steam system energy efficiency of a plant in Louisiana.

  18. Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer Plant Receives Energy Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This case study describes how a DOE energy assessment helped the J.R. Simplot Company identify ways to reduce energy use in its Pocatello, Idaho, plant's steam system.

  19. EA-1177: Salvage/Demolition of 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area Steam Plants, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts for the proposal to salvage and demolish the 200 West Area, 200 East Area, and 300 Area steam plants and their associated steam distribution piping...

  20. " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    1.3. Number of Establishments by Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 1998;" " Level: National Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Establishment Counts." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,,"Natural","Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components"

  1. " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Number of Establishments by Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2002;" " Level: National Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Establishment Counts." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,,"Natural","Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components"

  2. " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    8 Number of Establishments by Quantity of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam, 2006;" " Level: National Data; " " Row: NAICS Codes;" " Column: Supplier Sources of Purchased Electricity, Natural Gas, and Steam;" " Unit: Establishment Counts." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,,"Natural","Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components"

  3. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine induustrial plant study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100[degrees]F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600[degrees]F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

  4. Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion: Small gas turbine industrial plant study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shenker, J.; Garland, R.; Horazak, D.; Seifert, F.; Wenglarz, R.

    1992-07-01

    Second-Generation Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion (PFBC) plants provide a coal-fired, high-efficiency, combined-cycle system for the generation of electricity and steam. The plants use lime-based sorbents in PFB combustors to meet environmental air standards without back-end gas desulfurization equipment. The second-generation system is an improvement over earlier PFBC concepts because it can achieve gas temperatures of 2100{degrees}F and higher for improved cycle efficiency while maintaining the fluidized beds at 1600{degrees}F for enhanced sulfur capture and minimum alkali release. Second-generation PFBC systems are capable of supplying the electric and steam process needs of industrial plants. The basic second-generation system can be applied in different ways to meet a variety of process steam and electrical requirements. To evaluate the potential of these systems in the industrial market, conceptual designs have been developed for six second-generation PFBC plants. These plants cover a range of electrical outputs from 6.3 to 41.5 MWe and steam flows from 46,067 to 442,337 lb/h. Capital and operating costs have been estimated for these six plants and for equivalent (in size) conventional, coal-fired atmospheric fluidized bed combustion cogeneration plants. Economic analyses were conducted to compare the cost of steam for both the second-generation plants and the conventional plants.

  5. Steam plant ash disposal facility and industrial landfill at the Y-12 Plant, Anderson County, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-02-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to install a wet ash handling system to dewater bottom ash from the coal-fired steam plant at its Y-12 Plant and to construct a new landfill for disposal of industrial wastes, including the dewatered bottom ash. The DOE operates three major facilities on its Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Operation of these facilities results in the production of a variety of nonhazardous, nonradioactive solid wastes (approximately 300 m{sup 3} per day, compacted) including sanitary wastes, common industrial wastes and construction debris. At the current rate of use, this existing landfill will be filled within approximately 18 months, and more space is urgently needed. In an effort to alleviate this problem, DOE and WMD management propose to create additional landfill facilities at a nearby site. The potential environmental impacts associated with this proposed action are the subject of this environmental assessment (EA).

  6. Steam Generator Component Model in a Combined Cycle of Power Conversion Unit for Very High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oh, Chang H; Han, James; Barner, Robert; Sherman, Steven R

    2007-06-01

    The Department of Energy and the Idaho National Laboratory are developing a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), Very High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (VHTR) to serve as a demonstration of state-of-the-art nuclear technology. The purpose of the demonstration is two fold 1) efficient low cost energy generation and 2) hydrogen production. Although a next generation plant could be developed as a single-purpose facility, early designs are expected to be dual-purpose. While hydrogen production and advanced energy cycles are still in its early stages of development, research towards coupling a high temperature reactor, electrical generation and hydrogen production is under way. A combined cycle is considered as one of the power conversion units to be coupled to the very high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (VHTR). The combined cycle configuration consists of a Brayton top cycle coupled to a Rankine bottoming cycle by means of a steam generator. A detailed sizing and pressure drop model of a steam generator is not available in the HYSYS processes code. Therefore a four region model was developed for implementation into HYSYS. The focus of this study was the validation of a HYSYS steam generator model of two phase flow correlations. The correlations calculated the size and heat exchange of the steam generator. To assess the model, those calculations were input into a RELAP5 model and its results were compared with HYSYS results. The comparison showed many differences in parameters such as the heat transfer coefficients and revealed the different methods used by the codes. Despite differences in approach, the overall results of heat transfer were in good agreement.

  7. Steam generator materials performance in high temperature gas-cooled reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chafey, J.E.; Roberts, D.I.

    1980-11-01

    This paper reviews the materials technology aspects of steam generators for HTGRs which feature a graphite-moderated, uranium-thorium, all-ceramic core and utilizes high-pressure helium as the primary coolant. The steam generators are exposed to gas-side temperatures approaching 760/sup 0/C and produce superheated steam at 538/sup 0/C and 16.5 MPa (2400 psi). The prototype Peach Bottom I 40-MW(e) HTGR was operated for 1349 EFPD over 7 years. Examination after decommissioning of the U-tube steam generators and other components showed the steam generators to be in very satisfactory condition. The 330-MW(e) Fort St. Vrain HTGR, now in the final stages of startup, has achieved 70% power and generated more than 1.5 x 10/sup 6/ MWh of electricity. The steam generators in this reactor are once-through units of helical configuration, requiring a number of new materials factors including creep-fatigue and water chemistry control. Current designs of larger HTGRs also feature steam generators of helical once-through design. Materials issues that are important in these designs include detailed consideration of time-dependent behavior of both base metals and welds, as required by current American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code rules, evaluation of bimetallic weld behavior, evaluation of the properties of large forgings, etc.

  8. Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant Biomass Facility Facility Olinda Landfill Gas Recovery Plant...

  9. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7. Natural Gas Processing Plants in Alaska, 2009 Figure 7. Natural Gas Processing Plants in Alaska, 2009...

  10. Savannah River's Biomass Steam Plant Success with Clean and Renewable Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    SRS Biomass Cogeneration Plant Tech Stage: Deployed (Operational) Energy Savings Performance Contract Project ID: Task Order No.-KL46299M The technical solution has been deployed to the A-Area at Savannah River Site. Page 1 of 2 Savannah River Site South Carolina Savannah River's Biomass Steam Plant Success with Clean and Renewable Energy Challenge In order to meet the federal energy and environmental management requirements in Presidential Executive Order 13423, DOE Order 430.2B, and the

  11. Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a Petrochemical Plant; Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) Save Energy Now Case Study (Brochure)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Dow St. Charles Operations in Hahnville, Louisiana Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a Petrochemical Plant Industrial Technologies Program Case Study Benefits * Saves $1.9 million annually * Achieves annual natural gas savings of 272,000 MMBtu * Achieves a simple payback of 1.5 months Key Findings * Quantifying potential energy savings, especially with the assistance of an outside expert, can provide the impetus for management to take action. * Although Dow

  12. Trends in packaged steam generators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ganapathy, V. [ABCO Industries, Abilene, TX (United States)

    1996-09-01

    Oil and gas-fired packaged steam generators are used in many industrial plants. They generate saturated or superheated steam up to 250,000 lb/hr, 1000 psig, and 950 F. They may be used for continuous steam generation or as standby boilers in cogeneration systems. Numerous variables affect the design of this equipment. A few important considerations should be addressed at an early point by the plant engineer specifying or evaluating equipment options. These considerations include trends such as customized designs that minimize operating costs and ensure emissions regulations are met. The paper discusses efficiency considerations first.

  13. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves",49,"Annual",2013,"06301979" ,"Release...

  14. ,"Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  15. New Y-12 Steam Plant On Line | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Steam Plant On Line | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at

  16. Achieve Steam System Excellence - Steam Overview | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Achieve Steam System Excellence - Steam Overview Achieve Steam System Excellence - Steam Overview This fact sheet describes a steam systems approach to help companies operate and maintain their industrial steam plants and thermal manufacturing processes more efficiently. PDF icon Achieve Steam System Excellence - Steam Overview (December 2002) More Documents & Publications Save Energy Now in Your Steam Systems J.R. Simplot: Burner Upgrade Project Improves Performance and Saves Energy at a

  17. Demonstration of a Highly Efficient Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Power System Using Adiabatic Steam Reforming and Anode Gas Recirculation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Powell, Michael R.; Meinhardt, Kerry D.; Sprenkle, Vincent L.; Chick, Lawrence A.; Mcvay, Gary L.

    2012-05-01

    Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) are currently being developed for a wide variety of applications because of their high efficiency at multiple power levels. Applications for SOFCs encompass a large range of power levels including 1-2 kW residential combined heat and power applications, 100-250 kW sized systems for distributed generation and grid extension, and MW-scale power plants utilizing coal. This paper reports on the development of a highly efficient, small-scale SOFC power system operating on methane. The system uses adiabatic steam reforming of methane and anode gas recirculation to achieve high net electrical efficiency. The anode exit gas is recirculated and all of the heat and water required for the endothermic reforming reaction are provided by the anode gas emerging from the SOFC stack. Although the single-pass fuel utilization is only about 55%, because of the anode gas recirculation the overall fuel utilization is up to 93%. The demonstrated system achieved gross power output of 1650 to 2150 watts with a maximum net LHV efficiency of 56.7% at 1720 watts. Overall system efficiency could be further improved to over 60% with use of properly sized blowers.

  18. Renewable Energy Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol (4 Activities) Renewable Energy Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol (4 Activities) Below is information...

  19. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1. Natural Gas Processing Plants and Production Basins, 2009 Figure 1. Natural Gas Processing Plants and Production Basins, 2009 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,...

  20. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Natural Gas Processing Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Number of Natural Gas Plants Average Plant Capacity (Million Cubic Feet per Day) Change Between 2004 and 2009 State...

  1. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Figure 3. Natural Gas Processing Plants Utilization Rates Based on 2008 Flows Note: Average utilization rates...

  2. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    5. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Rocky Mountain States and California, 2009 Figure 5. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and...

  3. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Midwestern and Eastern States, 2009 Figure 6. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in...

  4. Renewable Energy: Plants in Your Gas Tank

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol Grades: 5-8, 9-12 Topic: Biomass Authors: Chris Ederer, Eric Benson, Loren Lykins Owner: ACTS This educational material is...

  5. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 33,031 344,073 1981-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 118 1,367 24,411 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 155 2,116 33,332 1981

  6. Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 0 0 233 1968

  7. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 164 5,393 294 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 24 231 40 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 31 345 1,043 0 0 47 1967

  8. Steam plant ash disposal facility and industrial landfill at the Y-12 Plant, Anderson County, Tennessee. Environmental Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-02-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to install a wet ash handling system to dewater bottom ash from the coal-fired steam plant at its Y-12 Plant and to construct a new landfill for disposal of industrial wastes, including the dewatered bottom ash. The DOE operates three major facilities on its Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Operation of these facilities results in the production of a variety of nonhazardous, nonradioactive solid wastes (approximately 300 m{sup 3} per day, compacted) including sanitary wastes, common industrial wastes and construction debris. At the current rate of use, this existing landfill will be filled within approximately 18 months, and more space is urgently needed. In an effort to alleviate this problem, DOE and WMD management propose to create additional landfill facilities at a nearby site. The potential environmental impacts associated with this proposed action are the subject of this environmental assessment (EA).

  9. Water Extraction from Coal-Fired Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bruce C. Folkedahl; Greg F. Weber; Michael E. Collings

    2006-06-30

    The overall objective of this program was to develop a liquid disiccant-based flue gas dehydration process technology to reduce water consumption in coal-fired power plants. The specific objective of the program was to generate sufficient subscale test data and conceptual commercial power plant evaluations to assess process feasibility and merits for commercialization. Currently, coal-fired power plants require access to water sources outside the power plant for several aspects of their operation in addition to steam cycle condensation and process cooling needs. At the present time, there is no practiced method of extracting the usually abundant water found in the power plant stack gas. This project demonstrated the feasibility and merits of a liquid desiccant-based process that can efficiently and economically remove water vapor from the flue gas of fossil fuel-fired power plants to be recycled for in-plant use or exported for clean water conservation. After an extensive literature review, a survey of the available physical and chemical property information on desiccants in conjunction with a weighting scheme developed for this application, three desiccants were selected and tested in a bench-scale system at the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC). System performance at the bench scale aided in determining which desiccant was best suited for further evaluation. The results of the bench-scale tests along with further review of the available property data for each of the desiccants resulted in the selection of calcium chloride as the desiccant for testing at the pilot-scale level. Two weeks of testing utilizing natural gas in Test Series I and coal in Test Series II for production of flue gas was conducted with the liquid desiccant dehumidification system (LDDS) designed and built for this study. In general, it was found that the LDDS operated well and could be placed in an automode in which the process would operate with no operator intervention or adjustment. Water produced from this process should require little processing for use, depending on the end application. Test Series II water quality was not as good as that obtained in Test Series I; however, this was believed to be due to a system upset that contaminated the product water system during Test Series II. The amount of water that can be recovered from flue gas with the LDDS is a function of several variables, including desiccant temperature, L/G in the absorber, flash drum pressure, liquid-gas contact method, and desiccant concentration. Corrosion will be an issue with the use of calcium chloride as expected but can be largely mitigated through proper material selection. Integration of the LDDS with either low-grade waste heat and or ground-source heating and cooling can affect the parasitic power draw the LDDS will have on a power plant. Depending on the amount of water to be removed from the flue gas, the system can be designed with no parasitic power draw on the power plant other than pumping loads. This can be accomplished in one scenario by taking advantage of the heat of absorption and the heat of vaporization to provide the necessary temperature changes in the desiccant with the flue gas and precipitates that may form and how to handle them. These questions must be addressed in subsequent testing before scale-up of the process can be confidently completed.

  10. Gas treating alternatives for LNG plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clarke, D.S.; Sibal, P.W.

    1998-12-31

    This paper covers the various gas treating processes available for treating sour natural gas to specifications required for LNG production. The LNG product specification requires that the total sulfur level be less than 30--40 ppmv, the CO{sub 2} level be less than 50 ppmv and the water level be less than 100 ppmv to prevent freezing problems in the LNG cryogenic column. A wide variety of natural gas compositions are encountered in the various fields and the gas treating process selection is dependent on the type of impurities present in the gas, namely, levels of H{sub 2}S, CO{sub 2}, mercaptans and other organic sulfur compounds. This paper discusses the implications various components in the feed to the LNG plant can have on process selection, and the various treating processes that are available to condition the gas. Process selection criteria, design and operating philosophies are discussed. An economic comparison for two treating schemes is provided.

  11. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 215,951 218,840 126,859 6,865 4,527 5,633 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 12,591 12,618 7,732 377 359 365 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 18,354 18,405 11,221 486 466 495 1967

  12. Montana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 12,415 12,391 11,185 12,727 14,575 14,751 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,409 989 927 1,115 1,235 1,254 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,853 1,367 1,252 1,491 1,645 1,670 1967

  13. Safety aspects of gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, A.H.

    1987-01-01

    Uranium enrichment by gas centrifuge is a commercially proven, viable technology. Gas centrifuge enrichment plant operations pose hazards that are also found in other industries as well as unique hazards as a result of processing and handling uranium hexafluoride and the handling of enriched uranium. Hazards also found in other industries included those posed by the use of high-speed rotating equipment and equipment handling by use of heavy-duty cranes. Hazards from high-speed rotating equipment are associated with the operation of the gas centrifuges themselves and with the operation of the uranium hexafluoride compressors in the tail withdrawal system. These and related hazards are discussed. It is included that commercial gas centrifuge enrichment plants have been designed to operate safely.

  14. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 23,819 22,405 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,409 2,207 2,132 2,046 2,005 1,593 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 2,334 2,943 2,465 2,480 2,345 1,922 1967

  15. Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 412,639 454,832 490,233 535,365 448,687 419,773 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 6,527 7,648 10,805 11,441 11,279 13,343 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 8,489 9,978 14,910 15,637 15,409 18,652 1967

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,507,142 1,642,190 1,634,364 1,614,320 1,517,876 1,526,746 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 64,581 63,857 66,839 70,737 52,999 54,933 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 93,796 92,777 97,588 102,549 74,409 76,943 1967

  17. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,112,510 1,110,236 1,218,855 1,310,331 1,377,119 1,696,107 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 77,140 83,174 91,963 96,237 98,976 117,057 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 112,891 120,631 134,032 139,928 142,595 169,864 1967

  18. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 22,364 56,162 131,959 236,817 396,726 301,514 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 975 3,421 6,721 8,882 15,496 27,903 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,295 4,578 8,931 12,003 20,936 39,989 1967

  19. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,233,260 1,434,003 1,507,467 1,464,261 1,373,046 1,495,360 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 47,705 57,924 63,075 57,379 51,978 60,850 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 67,607 82,637 90,801 82,042 87,513 85,198 1967

  20. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 370,670 341,778 322,944 259,565 190,503 191,034 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 18,863 18,424 18,098 14,844 10,900 11,611 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 26,948 26,251 25,804 21,220 15,446 16,515 1967

  1. Methods of natural gas liquefaction and natural gas liquefaction plants utilizing multiple and varying gas streams

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Wilding, Bruce M; Turner, Terry D

    2014-12-02

    A method of natural gas liquefaction may include cooling a gaseous NG process stream to form a liquid NG process stream. The method may further include directing the first tail gas stream out of a plant at a first pressure and directing a second tail gas stream out of the plant at a second pressure. An additional method of natural gas liquefaction may include separating CO.sub.2 from a liquid NG process stream and processing the CO.sub.2 to provide a CO.sub.2 product stream. Another method of natural gas liquefaction may include combining a marginal gaseous NG process stream with a secondary substantially pure NG stream to provide an improved gaseous NG process stream. Additionally, a NG liquefaction plant may include a first tail gas outlet, and at least a second tail gas outlet, the at least a second tail gas outlet separate from the first tail gas outlet.

  2. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Sullivan, John

    2014-03-14

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  3. Greenhouse Gas emissions from California Geothermal Power Plants

    DOE Data Explorer [Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)]

    Sullivan, John

    The information given in this file represents GHG emissions and corresponding emission rates for California flash and dry steam geothermal power plants. This stage of the life cycle is the fuel use component of the fuel cycle and arises during plant operation. Despite that no fossil fuels are being consumed during operation of these plants, GHG emissions nevertheless arise from GHGs present in the geofluids and dry steam that get released to the atmosphere upon passing through the system. Data for the years of 2008 to 2012 are analyzed.

  4. CO? Capture Membrane Process for Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Toy, Lora; Kataria, Atish; Gupta, Raghubir

    2011-09-30

    Because the fleet of coal-fired power plants is of such importance to the nation's energy production while also being the single largest emitter of CO?, the development of retrofit, post-combustion CO? capture technologies for existing and new, upcoming coal power plants will allow coal to remain a major component of the U.S. energy mix while mitigating global warming. Post-combustion carbon capture technologies are an attractive option for coal-fired power plants as they do not require modification of major power-plant infrastructures, such as fuel processing, boiler, and steam-turbine subsystems. In this project, the overall objective was to develop an advanced, hollow-fiber, polymeric membrane process that could be cost-effectively retrofitted into current pulverized coal-fired power plants to capture at least 90% of the CO? from plant flue gas with 95% captured CO? purity. The approach for this project tackled the technology development on three different fronts in parallel: membrane materials R&D, hollow-fiber membrane module development, and process development and engineering. The project team consisted of RTI (prime) and two industrial partners, Arkema, Inc. and Generon IGS, Inc. Two CO?-selective membrane polymer platforms were targeted for development in this project. For the near term, a next-generation, high-flux polycarbonate membrane platform was spun into hollow-fiber membranes that were fabricated into both lab-scale and larger prototype (~2,200 ft) membrane modules. For the long term, a new fluoropolymer membrane platform based on poly(vinylidene fluoride) [PVDF] chemistry was developed using a copolymer approach as improved capture membrane materials with superior chemical resistance to flue-gas contaminants (moisture, SO?, NOx, etc.). Specific objectives were: - Development of new, highly chemically resistant, fluorinated polymers as membrane materials with minimum selectivity of 30 for CO? over N? and CO? permeance greater than 300 gas permeation units (GPU) targeted; - Development of next-generation polycarbonate hollow-fiber membranes and membrane modules with higher CO? permeance than current commercial polycarbonate membranes; - Development and fabrication of membrane hollow fibers and modules from candidate polymers; - Development of a CO? capture membrane process design and integration strategy suitable for end-of-pipe, retrofit installation; and - Techno-economic evaluation of the "best" integrated CO? capture membrane process design package In this report, the results of the project research and development efforts are discussed and include the post-combustion capture properties of the two membrane material platforms and the hollow-fiber membrane modules developed from them and the multi-stage process design and analysis developed for 90% CO? capture with 95% captured CO? purity.

  5. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT - DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    2001-12-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors Texaco Power & Gasification, SASOL Technology Ltd., and Nexant Inc. entered into a Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40693 with the US Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the techno-economic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the US to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP designs emphasize on recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from coal clean operations and will assess blends of the culm and coal or petroleum coke as feedstocks. The project is being carried out in three phases. Phase I involves definition of concept and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase II consists of an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase III involves updating the original EECP design, based on results from Phase II, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 BPD coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania.

  6. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT - DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    2002-06-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the USDOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the techno-economic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the US to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP design includes recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from physical coal cleaning operations and will assess blends of the culm with coal or petroleum coke. The project has three phases. Phase 1 is the concept definition and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase II is an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase III updates the original EECP design based on results from Phase II, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 barrel per day (BPD) coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The current report is WMPI's fourth quarterly technical progress report. It covers the period performance from January 1, 2002 through March 31, 2002.

  7. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT - DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    2003-01-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors Texaco Power & Gasification (now ChevronTexaco), SASOL Technology Ltd., and Nexant Inc. entered into a Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40693 with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the technoeconomic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the United States to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP design includes recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from physical coal cleaning operations and will assess blends of the culm with coal or petroleum coke. The project has three phases. Phase I is the concept definition and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase II is an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase III updates the original EECP design based on results from Phase II, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 barrel per day (BPD) coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The current report covers the period performance from July 1, 2002 through September 30, 2002.

  8. Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade...

  9. ,,,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    3 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.3;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,"Electricity","Components",,"Natural Gas","Components",,"Steam","Components" ,,,,"Electricity",,,"Natural Gas",,,"Steam" ,,,"Electricity","from Sources",,"Natural Gas","from Sources",,"Steam","from Sources" ,,"Electricity","from Local","Other

  10. Report on Preliminary Engineering Study for Installation of an Air Cooled Steam Condenser at Brawley Geothermal Plant, Unit No. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1982-03-01

    The Brawley Geothermal Project comprises a single 10 MW nominal geothermal steam turbine-generator unit which has been constructed and operated by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). Geothermal steam for the unit is supplied through contract by Union Oil Company which requires the return of all condensate. Irrigation District (IID) purchases the electric power generated and provides irrigation water for cooling tower make-up to the plant for the first-five years of operation, commencing mid-1980. Because of the unavailability of irrigation water from IID in the future, SCE is investigating the application and installation of air cooled heat exchangers in conjunction with the existing wet (evaporative) cooling tower with make-up based on use of 180 gpm (nominal) of the geothermal condensate which may be made available by the steam supplier.

  11. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids contained in Total Natural Gas Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Period: Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 8,557 9,809 10,825 10,777 11,943 15,029 1979-2014 Alabama 55 68 68 55 51 59 1979-2014 Alaska 299 288 288 288 288 241 1979-2014 Arkansas 2 2 3 3 4 5 1979-2014 California 129 114 94 99 102 112 1979-2014 Coastal Region Onshore 10 11 12

  12. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    4. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Gulf of Mexico States, 2009 Figure 4. Natural Gas Processing Plants, Production Basins, and Plays in the Gulf...

  13. Low-Btu coal-gasification-process design report for Combustion Engineering/Gulf States Utilities coal-gasification demonstration plant. [Natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil to natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil or low Btu gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrus, H E; Rebula, E; Thibeault, P R; Koucky, R W

    1982-06-01

    This report describes a coal gasification demonstration plant that was designed to retrofit an existing steam boiler. The design uses Combustion Engineering's air blown, atmospheric pressure, entrained flow coal gasification process to produce low-Btu gas and steam for Gulf States Utilities Nelson No. 3 boiler which is rated at a nominal 150 MW of electrical power. Following the retrofit, the boiler, originally designed to fire natural gas or No. 2 oil, will be able to achieve full load power output on natural gas, No. 2 oil, or low-Btu gas. The gasifier and the boiler are integrated, in that the steam generated in the gasifier is combined with steam from the boiler to produce full load. The original contract called for a complete process and mechanical design of the gasification plant. However, the contract was curtailed after the process design was completed, but before the mechanical design was started. Based on the well defined process, but limited mechanical design, a preliminary cost estimate for the installation was completed.

  14. On-line mechanical tube cleaning for steam electric power plants. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-18

    In July 1991, Superior I.D. Tube Cleaners, Inc. (SIDTEC{trademark}) received a grant through the Department of Energy and the Energy Related Invention Program to conduct a long term demonstration of a proprietary technology for on-line mechanical condenser tube cleaning in thermal Power plants on open or once-through cooling water systems where the warmed condenser cooling water is discharged through a canal. The purpose of the demonstration was to confirm and establish the use of this mechanical method as an alternative to the application of chemical biocides in condenser cooling water for the control of biofouling, the growth of micro-organisms which can reduce a unit`s operating efficiency. The SIDTEC on-line mechanical tube cleaner, the Rocket{trademark}, is used to physically remove accumulated deposits on the water side of the main steam condenser, and the non-intrusive tube cleaner recovery system, the Skimmer{trademark}, is used to recover and recirculate tube cleaners. The periodic circulation of tube cleaners can maintain optimum condenser cleanliness and improve unit heat rate. Thermal power plants which discharge condenser cooling water through a canal now have a viable alternative to the chemical treatment of condenser cooling water, whether the principal foulant is biofouling, chemical scaling, silting, or a combination of the three. At prices competitive with scale inhibitors, and a fraction of competing mechanical systems, this technology is provided as a service requiring no capital investment; minimal retrofit modifications to plant structures or equipment; can be installed and maintained without a unit shutdown; does not add any restrictions in the cooling water system; and is environmentally benign.

  15. Goodyear Tire Plant Gains Traction on Energy Savings After Completing...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Documents & Publications Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R....

  16. Customizing pays off in steam generators

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ganapathy, V. (ABCO Industries, Inc., Abilene, TX (United States))

    1995-01-01

    Packaged steam generators are the workhorses of chemical process plants, power plants and cogeneration systems. They are available as oil- or gas-fired models, and are used to generate either high-pressure superheated steam (400 to 1,200 psig, at 500 to 900 F) or saturated steam at low pressures (100 to 300 psig). In today's emission- and efficiency- conscious environment, steam generators have to be custom designed. Gone are the days when a boiler supplier--or for that matter an end user--could look up a model number from a list of standard sizes and select one for a particular need. Thus, before selecting a system, it is desirable to know the features of oil- and gas-fired steam generators, and the important variables that influence their selection, design and performance. It is imperative that all of these data are supplied to the boiler supplier so that the engineers may come up with the right design. Some of the parameters which are discussed in this paper are: duty, steam temperature, steam purity, emissions, and furnace design. Superheaters, economizers, and overall performance are also discussed.

  17. CHARACTERIZATION OF DWPF MELTER OFF-GAS QUENCHER AND STEAM ATOMIZED SCRUBBER DEPOSIT SAMPLES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zeigler, K; Ned Bibler, N

    2007-06-06

    This report summarizes the results from the characterization of deposits from the inlets of the primary off-gas Quencher and Steam Atomized Scrubber (SAS) in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), as requested by a technical assistance request. DWPF requested elemental analysis and compound identification to help determine the potential causes for the substance formation. This information will be fed into Savannah River National Laboratory modeling programs to determine if there is a way to decrease the formation of the deposits. The general approach to the characterization of these samples included x-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and chemical analysis. The following conclusions are drawn from the analytical results found in this report: (1) The deposits are not high level waste glass from the DWPF melt pool based on comparison of the compositions of deposits to the composition of a sample of glass taken from the pour stream of the melter during processing of Sludge Batch 3. (2) Chemical composition results suggest that the deposits are probably a combination of sludge and frit particles entrained in the off-gas. (3) Gamma emitters, such as Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-154, Am-241, and Am-243 were detected in both the Quencher and SAS samples with Cs-137 having the highest concentration of the gamma emitters. (4) No evidence existed for accumulation of fissile material (U-233, U-235, and Pu-239) relative to Fe in either deposit. (5) XRD results indicated both samples were primarily amorphorous and contained some crystals of the iron oxides, hematite and magnetite (Fe{sub 2}O{sub 3} and Fe(Fe{sub 2}O{sub 4})), along with sodium nitrate (NaNO{sub 3}). The other main crystalline compound in the SAS deposit was mercurous chloride. The main crystalline compound in the Quencher deposit was a uranium oxide compound. These are all sludge components. (6) SEM analysis of the Quencher deposit revealed crystalline uranium compounds within the sample. SEM analysis of the SAS sample could not be performed due to the presence of a significant concentration of Hg in the sample. (7) Essentially all the Na and the S in the off-gas samples were soluble in water. (8) The main soluble anion was NO{sub 3}{sup -} with SO{sub 4}{sup 2-} being second. (9) In contrast to the results for the off-gas deposits analyzed in 2003, soluble compounds of fluoride and chloride were detected; however, their concentrations in the Quencher and SAS deposits were less than one weight percent. (10) The results suggest that the S is primarily in the deposits as the sulfate anion.

  18. Steam System Survey Guide | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Steam System Survey Guide Steam System Survey Guide This guide provides technical information for steam system operational personnel and plant energy managers on some of the major opportunities available to improve the energy efficiency and productivity of industrial steam systems. The guide covers five main areas of investigation: (1) profiling a steam system, (2) identifying steam properties for the steam system, (3) improving boiler operations, (4) improving resource utilization in the steam

  19. Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer Plant Receives Energy Assessment; Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) Save Energy Now (SEN) Case Study

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    J.R. Simplot Don plant in Pocatello, Idaho, repaired boiler feed water pumps such as the one pictured above, and revised boiler operating practices to reduce steam venting by 17 million pounds annually. Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer Plant Receives Energy Assessment Industrial Technologies Program Case Study Key Findings * Significant energy savings can be achieved without large capital expenditures. * While the J.R. Simplot company had an active energy

  20. Impact of drought on U.S. steam electric power plant cooling water intakes and related water resource management issues.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kimmell, T. A.; Veil, J. A.; Environmental Science Division

    2009-04-03

    This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) Existing Plants Research Program, which has an energy-water research effort that focuses on water use at power plants. This study complements their overall research effort by evaluating water availability at power plants under drought conditions. While there are a number of competing demands on water uses, particularly during drought conditions, this report focuses solely on impacts to the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet. Included are both fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants. One plant examined also uses biomass as a fuel. The purpose of this project is to estimate the impact on generation capacity of a drop in water level at U.S. steam electric power plants due to climatic or other conditions. While, as indicated above, the temperature of the water can impact decisions to halt or curtail power plant operations, this report specifically examines impacts as a result of a drop in water levels below power plant submerged cooling water intakes. Impacts due to the combined effects of excessive temperatures of the returned cooling water and elevated temperatures of receiving waters (due to high ambient temperatures associated with drought) may be examined in a subsequent study. For this study, the sources of cooling water used by the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet were examined. This effort entailed development of a database of power plants and cooling water intake locations and depths for those plants that use surface water as a source of cooling water. Development of the database and its general characteristics are described in Chapter 2 of this report. Examination of the database gives an indication of how low water levels can drop before cooling water intakes cease to function. Water level drops are evaluated against a number of different power plant characteristics, such as the nature of the water source (river vs. lake or reservoir) and type of plant (nuclear vs. fossil fuel). This is accomplished in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, the nature of any compacts or agreements that give priority to users (i.e., which users must stop withdrawing water first) is examined. This is examined on a regional or watershed basis, specifically for western water rights, and also as a function of federal and state water management programs. Chapter 5 presents the findings and conclusions of this study. In addition to the above, a related intent of this study is to conduct preliminary modeling of how lowered surface water levels could affect generating capacity and other factors at different regional power plants. If utility managers are forced to take some units out of service or reduce plant outputs, the fuel mix at the remaining plants and the resulting carbon dioxide emissions may change. Electricity costs and other factors may also be impacted. Argonne has conducted some modeling based on the information presented in the database described in Chapter 2 of this report. A separate report of the modeling effort has been prepared (Poch et al. 2009). In addition to the U.S. steam electric power plant fleet, this modeling also includes an evaluation of power production of hydroelectric facilities. The focus of this modeling is on those power plants located in the western United States.

  1. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT - DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John W. Rich

    2003-12-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors Texaco Power & Gasification (now ChevronTexaco), SASOL Technology Ltd., and Nexant Inc. entered into a Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40693 with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the techno-economic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the United States to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP design includes recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from physical coal cleaning operations and will assess blends of the culm with coal or petroleum coke. The project has three phases. Phase I is the concept definition and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase II is an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase III updates the original EECP design based on results from Phase II, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 barrel per day (BPD) coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The current report covers the period performance from July 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003. The DOE/WMPI Cooperative Agreement was modified on May 2003 to expand the project team to include Shell Global Solutions, U.S. and Uhde GmbH as the engineering contractor. The addition of Shell and Uhde strengthen both the technical capability and financing ability of the project. Uhde, as the prime EPC contractor, has the responsibility to develop a LSTK (lump sum turnkey) engineering design package for the EECP leading to the eventual detailed engineering, construction and operation of the proposed concept. Major technical activities during the reporting period include: (1) finalizing contractual agreements between DOE, Uhde and other technology providers, focusing on intellectual-property-right issues, (2) Uhde's preparation of a LSTK project execution plan and other project engineering procedural documents, and (3) Uhde's preliminary project technical concept assessment and trade-off evaluations.

  2. Steam Oxidation of Advanced Steam Turbine Alloys

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holcomb, Gordon R.

    2008-01-01

    Power generation from coal using ultra supercritical steam results in improved fuel efficiency and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Results of ongoing research into the oxidation of candidate nickel-base alloys for ultra supercritical steam turbines are presented. Exposure conditions range from moist air at atmospheric pressure (650C to 800C) to steam at 34.5 MPa (650C to 760C). Parabolic scale growth coupled with internal oxidation and reactive evaporation of chromia are the primary corrosion mechanisms.

  3. Modeling Creep-Fatigue-Environment Interactions in Steam Turbine Rotor Materials for Advanced Ultra-supercritical Coal Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shen, Chen

    2014-01-20

    The goal of this project is to model creep-fatigue-environment interactions in steam turbine rotor materials for advanced ultra-supercritical (A-USC) coal power Alloy 282 plants, to develop and demonstrate computational algorithms for alloy property predictions, and to determine and model key mechanisms that contribute to the damages caused by creep-fatigue-environment interactions. The nickel based Alloy 282 is selected for this project because it is one of the leading candidate materials for the high temperature/pressure section of an A-USC steam turbine. The methods developed in the project are expected to be applicable to other metal alloys in similar steam/oxidation environments. The major developments are: ? failure mechanism and microstructural characterization ? atomistic and first principles modeling of crack tip oxygen embrittlement ? modeling of gamma prime microstructures and mesoscale microstructure-defect interactions ? microstructure and damage-based creep prediction ? multi-scale crack growth modeling considering oxidation, viscoplasticity and fatigue The technology developed in this project is expected to enable more accurate prediction of long service life of advanced alloys for A-USC power plants, and provide faster and more effective materials design, development, and implementation than current state-of-the-art computational and experimental methods. This document is a final technical report for the project, covering efforts conducted from January 2011 to January 2014.

  4. Texas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  5. New York Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  6. Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Next Release Date: 10312014 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent at Processing Plants Federal Offshore California Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production...

  7. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2014 Next Release Date: 10312014 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent at Processing Plants California State Offshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals and Production...

  8. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","930...

  9. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (MMcf)",1,"Annual",1998 ,"Release...

  10. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  11. Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  12. ,"Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  14. ,"Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  15. ,"Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  16. ,"California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

  17. Interaction of iron-copper mixed metal oxide oxygen carriers with simulated synthesis gas derived from steam gasification of coal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siriwardane, Ranjani V.; Ksepko, Ewelina; Tian, Hanging

    2013-01-01

    The objective of this work was to prepare supported bimetallic FeCu oxygen carriers and to evaluate their performance for the chemical-looping combustion (CLC) process with simulated synthesis gas derived from steam gasification of coal/air. Ten-cycle CLC tests were conducted with FeCu oxygen carriers in an atmospheric thermogravimetric analyzer utilizing simulated synthesis gas derived from the steam gasification of Polish Janina coal and Illinois #6 coal as fuel. The effect of temperature on reaction rates, chemical stability, and oxygen transport capacity were determined. Fractional reduction, fractional oxidation, and global rates of reactions were calculated from the thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) data. The supports greatly affected reaction performance. Data showed that reaction rates and oxygen capacities were stable during the 10-cycle TGA tests for most FeCu/support oxygen carriers. Bimetallic FeCu/support oxygen carriers showed higher reduction rates than Fe-support oxygen carriers. The carriers containing higher Cu content showed better stabilities and better reduction rates. An increase in temperature from 800 C to 900 C did not have a significant effect on either the oxygen capacity or the reduction rates with synthesis gas derived from Janina coal. Oxidation reaction was significantly faster than reduction reaction for all supported FeCu oxygen carriers. Carriers with higher Cu content had lower oxidation rates. Ten-cycle TGA data indicated that these oxygen carriers had stable performances at 800900 C and might be successfully used up to 900 C for coal CLC reaction in the presence of steam.

  18. Exit chimney joint and method of forming the joint for closed circuit steam cooled gas turbine nozzles

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Burdgick, Steven Sebastian (Schenectady, NY); Burns, James Lee (Schenectady, NY)

    2002-01-01

    A nozzle segment for a gas turbine includes inner and outer band portions and a vane extending between the band portions. The inner and outer band portions are each divided into first and second plenums separated by an impingement plate. Cooling steam is supplied to the first cavity for flow through the apertures to cool the outer nozzle wall. The steam flows through a leading edge cavity in the vane into the first cavity of the inner band portion for flow through apertures of the impingement plate to cool the inner nozzle wall. Spent cooling steam flows through a plurality of cavities in the vane, exiting through an exit chimney in the outer band. The exit chimney is secured at its inner end directly to the nozzle vane wall surrounding the exit cavities, to the margin of the impingement plate at a location intermediate the ends of the exit chimney and to margins of an opening through the cover whereby each joint is externally accessible for joint formation and for subsequent inspection.

  19. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil fuel power plants. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. The citations examine hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains a minimum of 85 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  20. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil fuel power plants. (Latest citations from the NTIS database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-01-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. The citations examine hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains a minimum of 84 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  1. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil fuel power plants. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-03-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. The citations examine hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains 50-250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.) (Copyright NERAC, Inc. 1995)

  2. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil fuel power plants. (Latest citations from the NTIS Bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-11-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. The citations examine hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains a minimum of 119 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.)

  3. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil fuel power plants. (Latest citations from the NTIS bibliographic database). Published Search

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-11-01

    The bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. The citations examine hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains 50-250 citations and includes a subject term index and title list.) (Copyright NERAC, Inc. 1995)

  4. Fuzzy Logic Controller Architecture for Water Level Control in Nuclear Power Plant Steam Generator (SG) Using ANFIS Training Method

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vosoughi, Naser; Naseri, Zahra

    2002-07-01

    Since suitable control of water level can greatly enhance the operation of a power station, a Fuzzy logic controller architecture is applied to show desired control of the water level in a Nuclear steam generator. with regard to the physics of the system, it is shown that two inputs, a single output and the least number of rules (9 rules) are considered for a controller, and the ANFIS training method is employed to model functions in a controlled system. By using ANFIS training method, initial member functions will be trained and appropriate functions are generated to control water level inside the steam generators while using the stated rules. The proposed architecture can construct an input output mapping based on both human knowledge (in from of Fuzzy if then rules) and stipulated input output data. In this paper with a simple test it has been shown that the architecture fuzzy logic controller has a reasonable response to one step input at a constant power. Through computer simulation, it is found that Fuzzy logic controller is suitable, especially for the water level deviation and abrupt steam flow disturbances that are typical in the existing power plant. (authors)

  5. Estimates of health risks associated with radionuclide emissions from fossil-fueled steam-electric generating plants. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nelson, C.

    1995-08-01

    Under the Title III, Section 112 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a study of the hazards to public resulting from pollutants emitted by electric utility system generating units. Radionuclides are among the groups of pollutants listed in the amendment. This report updates previously published data and estimates with more recently available information regarding the radionuclide contents of fossil fuels, associated emissions by steam-electric power plants, and potential health effects to exposed population groups.

  6. Integration and optimization of the gas removal system for hybrid-cycle OTEC power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabas, T.J.; Panchal, C.B.; Stevens, H.C. )

    1990-02-01

    A preliminary design of the noncondensible gas removal system for a 10 mWe, land-based hybrid-cycle OTEC power plant has been developed and is presented herein. This gas removal system is very different from that used for conventional power plants because of the substantially larger and continuous noncondensible gas flow rates and lower condenser pressure levels which predicate the need for higher-efficiency components. Previous OTEC studies discussed the need for multiple high-efficiency compressors with intercoolers; however, no previous design effort was devoted to the details of the intercoolers, integration and optimization of the intercoolers with the compressors, and the practical design constraints and feasibility issues of these components. The resulting gas removal system design uses centrifugal (radial) compressors with matrix-type crossflow aluminum heat exchangers as intercoolers. Once-through boiling of ammonia is used as the heat sink for the cooling and condensing of the steam-gas mixture. A computerized calculation method was developed for the performance analysis and subsystem optimization. For a specific number of compressor units and the stream arrangement, the method is used to calculate the dimensions, speeds, power requirements, and costs of all the components.

  7. How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work How Gas Turbine Power Plants Work The combustion (gas) turbines being installed in many of today's natural-gas-fueled power plants are complex machines, but they basically involve three main sections: The compressor, which draws air into the engine, pressurizes it, and feeds it to the combustion chamber at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. The combustion system, typically made up of a ring of fuel injectors that inject a steady stream of fuel into combustion

  8. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption South Dakota Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  9. 90 MW build/own/operate gas turbine combined cycle cogeneration project with sludge drying plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schroppe, J.T.

    1986-04-01

    This paper will discuss some of the unique aspects of a build/own/operate cogeneration project for an oil refinery in which Foster Wheeler is involved. The organization is constructing a 90 MW plant that will supply 55 MW and 160,000 lb/hr of 600 psi, 700F steam to the Tosco Corporation's 130,000 bd Avon Oil Refinery in Martinez, California. (The refinery is located about 45 miles northeast of San Francisco.) Surplus power production will be sold to the local utility, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG and E). Many of the aspects of this project took on a different perspective, since the contractor would build, own and operate the plant.

  10. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Steam Generator and Intermediate Heat Exchanger Materials Research and Development Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. K. Wright

    2010-09-01

    DOE has selected the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) design for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project. The NGNP will demonstrate the use of nuclear power for electricity and hydrogen production. It will have an outlet gas temperature in the range of 900°C and a plant design service life of 60 years. The reactor design will be a graphite moderated, helium-cooled, prismatic or pebble-bed reactor and use low-enriched uranium, Tri-Isotopic (TRISO)-coated fuel. The plant size, reactor thermal power, and core configuration will ensure passive decay heat removal without fuel damage or radioactive material releases during accidents. The NGNP Materials Research and Development (R&D) Program is responsible for performing R&D on likely NGNP materials in support of the NGNP design, licensing, and construction activities. Today’s high-temperature alloys and associated ASME Codes for reactor applications are approved up to 760°C. However, some primary system components, such as the Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX) for the NGNP will require use of materials that can withstand higher temperatures. The thermal, environmental, and service life conditions of the NGNP will make selection and qualification of some high-temperature materials a significant challenge. Examples include materials for the core barrel and core internals, such as the control rod sleeves. The requirements of the materials for the IHX are among the most demanding. Selection of the technology and design configuration for the NGNP must consider both the cost and risk profiles to ensure that the demonstration plant establishes a sound foundation for future commercial deployments. The NGNP challenge is to achieve a significant advancement in nuclear technology while at the same time setting the stage for an economically viable deployment of the new technology in the commercial sector soon after 2020. A number of solid solution strengthened nickel based alloys have been considered for application in heat exchangers and core internals for the NGNP. The primary candidates are Inconel 617, Haynes 230, Incoloy 800H and Hastelloy XR. Based on the technical maturity, availability in required product forms, experience base, and high temperature mechanical properties all of the vendor pre-conceptual design studies have specified Alloy 617 as the material of choice for heat exchangers. Also a draft code case for Alloy 617 was developed previously. Although action was suspended before the code case was accepted by ASME, this draft code case provides a significant head start for achieving codification of the material. Similarly, Alloy 800H is the material of choice for control rod sleeves. In addition to the above listed considerations, Alloy 800H is already listed in the nuclear section of the ASME Code; although the maximum use temperature and time need to be increased.

  11. Recovery Act: Johnston Rhode Island Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2013-06-30

    The primary objective of the Project was to maximize the productive use of the substantial quantities of waste landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill in Johnston, Rhode Island. An extensive analysis was conducted and it was determined that utilization of the waste gas for power generation in a combustion turbine combined cycle facility was the highest and best use. The resulting project reflected a cost effective balance of the following specific sub-objectives. 1) Meet environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas. 2) Utilize proven and reliable technology and equipment. 3) Maximize electrical efficiency. 4) Maximize electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Central Landfill. 5) Maximize equipment uptime. 6) Minimize water consumption. 7) Minimize post-combustion emissions. To achieve the Project Objective the project consisted of several components. 1) The landfill gas collection system was modified and upgraded. 2) A State-of-the Art gas clean up and compression facility was constructed. 3) A high pressure pipeline was constructed to convey cleaned landfill gas from the clean-up and compression facility to the power plant. 4) A combined cycle electric generating facility was constructed consisting of combustion turbine generator sets, heat recovery steam generators and a steam turbine. 5) The voltage of the electricity produced was increased at a newly constructed transformer/substation and the electricity was delivered to the local transmission system. The Project produced a myriad of beneficial impacts. 1) The Project created 453 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 25 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. 2) By combining state-of-the-art gas clean up systems with post combustion emissions control systems, the Project established new national standards for best available control technology (BACT). 3) The Project will annually produce 365,292 MWh�s of clean energy. 4) By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO{sub 2} equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 28.3 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  12. Near-Zero Emissions Oxy-Combustion Flue Gas Purification - Power Plant Performance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Andrew Seltzer; Zhen Fan

    2011-03-01

    A technical feasibility assessment was performed for retrofitting oxy-fuel technology to an existing power plant burning low sulfur PRB fuel and high sulfur bituminous fuel. The focus of this study was on the boiler/power generation island of a subcritical steam cycle power plant. The power plant performance in air and oxy-firing modes was estimated and modifications required for oxy-firing capabilities were identified. A 460 MWe (gross) reference subcritical PC power plant was modeled. The reference air-fired plant has a boiler efficiency (PRB/Bituminous) of 86.7%/89.3% and a plant net efficiency of 35.8/36.7%. Net efficiency for oxy-fuel firing including ASU/CPU duty is 25.6%/26.6% (PRB/Bituminous). The oxy-fuel flue gas recirculation flow to the boiler is 68%/72% (PRB/bituminous) of the flue gas (average O{sub 2} in feed gas is 27.4%/26.4%v (PRB/bituminous)). Maximum increase in tube wall temperature is less than 10ºF for oxy-fuel firing. For oxy-fuel firing, ammonia injected to the SCR was shut-off and the FGD is applied to remove SOx from the recycled primary gas stream and a portion of the SOx from the secondary stream for the high sulfur bituminous coal. Based on CFD simulations it was determined that at the furnace outlet compared to air-firing, SO{sub 3}/SO{sub 2} mole ratio is about the same, NOx ppmv level is about the same for PRB-firing and 2.5 times for bituminous-firing due to shutting off the OFA, and CO mole fraction is approximately double. A conceptual level cost estimate was performed for the incremental equipment and installation cost of the oxyfuel retrofit in the boiler island and steam system. The cost of the retrofit is estimated to be approximately 81 M$ for PRB low sulfur fuel and 84 M$ for bituminous high sulfur fuel.

  13. Combined cycle power plant incorporating coal gasification

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Liljedahl, Gregory N. (Tariffville, CT); Moffat, Bruce K. (Simsbury, CT)

    1981-01-01

    A combined cycle power plant incorporating a coal gasifier as the energy source. The gases leaving the coal gasifier pass through a liquid couplant heat exchanger before being used to drive a gas turbine. The exhaust gases of the gas turbine are used to generate both high pressure and low pressure steam for driving a steam turbine, before being exhausted to the atmosphere.

  14. Table 17. Estimated natural gas plant liquids and dry natural gas content of tot

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Estimated natural gas plant liquids and dry natural gas content of total natural gas proved reserves, 2014" "million barrels and billion cubic feet" ,"Total Wet Natural Gas Proved Reserves",,,,"Estimated content of proved reserves" " State and Subdivision",,2014,,,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids",,"Dry Natural Gas" ,,"billion cubic feet",,,"million barrels",,"billion cubic feet"

  15. The NuGas{sup TM} Concept - Combining a Nuclear Power Plant with a Gas-Fired Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Willson, Paul; Smith, Alistair

    2007-07-01

    Nuclear power plants produce low carbon emissions and stable, low cost electricity. Combined cycle gas-fired power plants are cheap and quick to build and have very flexible operation. If you could combine these two technologies, you could have an ideal base-load power plant. (authors)

  16. Steam Pressure Reduction: Opportunities and Issues; A BestPractices Steam Technical Brief

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    BestPractices Steam Technical Brief Steam Pressure Reduction: Opportunities and Issues BestPractices Technical Brief Steam Pressure Reduction: Opportunities and Issues  Steam Pressure Reduction: Opportunities and Issues  Introduction Steam generation systems are found in industry and in the commercial and institutional sectors. Some of these plants employ large watertube boilers to produce saturated steam at pressures of 250 pounds per square inch (psig) or lower. They distribute steam

  17. Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 - No...

  18. Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production,...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Alaska--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  19. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    has in the past accounted for the majority of natural gas production. Processing plants are especially important in this part of the country because of the amount of NGLs in...

  20. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    which saw a 65 percent drop in processing capacity. At the same time, the number of plants in Kansas decreased by four. The decrease was likely the result of falling natural gas...

  1. Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  2. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  3. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  4. Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  5. Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9...

  6. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  7. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  8. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  9. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  10. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  11. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  12. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in New Mexico (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  13. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0...

  14. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  15. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  16. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Texas (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  17. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5...

  18. Terra Nitrogen Company, L.P.: Ammonia Plant Greatly Reduces Natural Gas Consumption After Energy Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This case study describes how Terra Nitrogen Company saved 497,000 MMBtu and $3.5 million yearly after upgrading the steam system in its ammonia plant in Verdigris, Oklahoma.

  19. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT-DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Unknown

    2002-07-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the techno-economic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the US to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP design includes recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from physical coal cleaning operations and will assess blends of the culm with coal or petroleum coke. The project has three phases. Phase 1 is the concept definition and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase 2 is an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase 3 updates the original EECP design based on results from Phase 2, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 barrel per day (BPD) coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The current report covers the period performance from April 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002.

  20. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 51,023 5,826 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 1,201 248 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 346

  1. Florida-Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,915 2014-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 173 2014-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 233 2014

  2. Illinois-Illinois Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 294 2014-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 40 2014-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 47 2014

  3. An Effective Continuum Model for the Gas Evolution in Internal Steam Drives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsimpanogiannis, Ioannis N.; Yortsos, Yanis C.

    2002-06-11

    This report examines the gas phase growth from a supersaturated, slightly compressible, liquid in a porous medium, driven by heat transfer and controlled by the application of a constant-rate decline of the system pressure.

  4. Method and apparatus for improving the performance of a steam driven power system by steam mixing

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Tsiklauri, Georgi V. (Richland, WA); Durst, Bruce M. (Kennewick, WA); Prichard, Andrew W. (Richland, WA); Reid, Bruce D. (Pasco, WA); Burritt, James (Virginia Beach, VA)

    1998-01-01

    A method and apparatus for improving the efficiency and performance of a steam driven power plant wherein addition of steam handling equipment to an existing plant results in a surprising increase in plant performance. For Example, a gas turbine electrical generation system with heat recovery boiler may be installed along with a micro-jet high pressure and a low pressure mixer superheater. Depending upon plant characteristics, the existing moisture separator reheater (MSR) can be either augmented or done away with. The instant invention enables a reduction in T.sub.hot without a derating of the reactor unit, and improves efficiency of the plant's electrical conversion cycle. Coupled with this advantage is a possible extension of the plant's fuel cycle length due to an increased electrical conversion efficiency. The reduction in T.sub.hot further allows for a surprising extension of steam generator life. An additional advantage is the reduction in erosion/corrosion of secondary system components including turbine blades and diaphragms. The gas turbine generator used in the instant invention can also replace or augment existing peak or emergency power needs. Another benefit of the instant invention is the extension of plant life and the reduction of downtime due to refueling.

  5. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a New Technology for Extraction of Insoluble Impurities from Nuclear Power Plant Steam Generators with Purge Water

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bud'ko, I. O.; Zhukov, A. G.

    2013-11-15

    An experimental technology for the removal of insoluble impurities from a horizontal steam generator with purge water during planned shutdowns of the power generating unit is improved through a more representative determination of the concentration of impurities in the purge water ahead of the water cleanup facility and a more precise effective time for the duration of the purge process. Tests with the improved technique at power generating unit No. 1 of the Rostov Nuclear Power Plant show that the efficiency with which insoluble impurities are removed from the steam generator volume was more than two orders of magnitude greater than under the standard regulations.

  6. Integrated Operation of INL HYTEST System and High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis for Synthetic Natural Gas Production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carl Marcel Stoots; Lee Shunn; James O'Brien

    2010-06-01

    The primary feedstock for synthetic fuel production is syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Current hydrogen production technologies rely upon fossil fuels and produce significant quantities of greenhouse gases as a byproduct. This is not a sustainable means of satisfying future hydrogen demands, given the current projections for conventional world oil production and future targets for carbon emissions. For the past six years, the Idaho National Laboratory has been investigating the use of high-temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) to produce the hydrogen feedstock required for synthetic fuel production. High-temperature electrolysis water-splitting technology, combined with non-carbon-emitting energy sources, can provide a sustainable, environmentally-friendly means of large-scale hydrogen production. Additionally, laboratory facilities are being developed at the INL for testing hybrid energy systems composed of several tightly-coupled chemical processes (HYTEST program). The first such test involved the coupling of HTSE, CO2 separation membrane, reverse shift reaction, and methanation reaction to demonstrate synthetic natural gas production from a feedstock of water and either CO or a simulated flue gas containing CO2. This paper will introduce the initial HTSE and HYTEST testing facilities, overall coupling of the technologies, testing results, and future plans.

  7. Minimization of steam requirements and enhancement of water-gas shift reaction with warm gas temperature CO2 removal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Siriwardane, Ranjani V; Fisher, II, James C

    2013-12-31

    The disclosure utilizes a hydroxide sorbent for humidification and CO.sub.2 removal from a gaseous stream comprised of CO and CO.sub.2 prior to entry into a water-gas-shift reactor, in order to decrease CO.sub.2 concentration and increase H.sub.2O concentration and shift the water-gas shift reaction toward the forward reaction products CO.sub.2 and H.sub.2. The hydroxide sorbent may be utilized for absorbtion of CO.sub.2 exiting the water-gas shift reactor, producing an enriched H.sub.2 stream. The disclosure further provides for regeneration of the hydroxide sorbent at temperature approximating water-gas shift conditions, and for utilizing H.sub.2O product liberated as a result of the CO.sub.2 absorption.

  8. Evaluation of gasification and gas cleanup processes for use in molten carbonate fuel cell power plants. Final report. [Contains lists and evaluations of coal gasification and fuel gas desulfurization processes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jablonski, G.; Hamm, J.R.; Alvin, M.A.; Wenglarz, R.A.; Patel, P.

    1982-01-01

    This report satisfies the requirements for DOE Contract AC21-81MC16220 to: List coal gasifiers and gas cleanup systems suitable for supplying fuel to molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) in industrial and utility power plants; extensively characterize those coal gas cleanup systems rejected by DOE's MCFC contractors for their power plant systems by virtue of the resources required for those systems to be commercially developed; develop an analytical model to predict MCFC tolerance for particulates on the anode (fuel gas) side of the MCFC; develop an analytical model to predict MCFC anode side tolerance for chemical species, including sulfides, halogens, and trace heavy metals; choose from the candidate gasifier/cleanup systems those most suitable for MCFC-based power plants; choose a reference wet cleanup system; provide parametric analyses of the coal gasifiers and gas cleanup systems when integrated into a power plant incorporating MCFC units with suitable gas expansion turbines, steam turbines, heat exchangers, and heat recovery steam generators, using the Westinghouse proprietary AHEAD computer model; provide efficiency, investment, cost of electricity, operability, and environmental effect rankings of the system; and provide a final report incorporating the results of all of the above tasks. Section 7 of this final report provides general conclusions.

  9. Development of a dynamic simulator for a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant with post-combustion carbon capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liese, E.; Zitney, S.

    2012-01-01

    The AVESTAR Center located at the U.S. Department of Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory and West Virginia University is a world-class research and training environment dedicated to using dynamic process simulation as a tool for advancing the safe, efficient and reliable operation of clean energy plants with CO{sub 2} capture. The AVESTAR Center was launched with a high-fidelity dynamic simulator for an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant with pre-combustion carbon capture. The IGCC dynamic simulator offers full-scope Operator Training Simulator (OTS) Human Machine Interface (HMI) graphics for realistic, real-time control room operation and is integrated with a 3D virtual Immersive Training Simulator (ITS), thus allowing joint control room and field operator training. The IGCC OTS/ITS solution combines a gasification with CO{sub 2} capture process simulator with a combined cycle power simulator into a single high-performance dynamic simulation framework. This presentation will describe progress on the development of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) dynamic simulator based on the syngas-fired combined cycle portion of AVESTARs IGCC dynamic simulator. The 574 MW gross NGCC power plant design consisting of two advanced F-class gas turbines, two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), and a steam turbine in a multi-shaft 2x2x1 configuration will be reviewed. Plans for integrating a post-combustion carbon capture system will also be discussed.

  10. ANALYSIS OF A HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR POWERED HIGH TEMPERATURE ELECTROLYSIS HYDROGEN PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M. G. McKellar; E. A. Harvego; A. M. Gandrik

    2010-11-01

    An updated reference design for a commercial-scale high-temperature electrolysis (HTE) plant for hydrogen production has been developed. The HTE plant is powered by a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) whose configuration and operating conditions are based on the latest design parameters planned for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The current HTGR reference design specifies a reactor power of 600 MWt, with a primary system pressure of 7.0 MPa, and reactor inlet and outlet fluid temperatures of 322°C and 750°C, respectively. The reactor heat is used to produce heat and electric power to the HTE plant. A Rankine steam cycle with a power conversion efficiency of 44.4% was used to provide the electric power. The electrolysis unit used to produce hydrogen includes 1.1 million cells with a per-cell active area of 225 cm2. The reference hydrogen production plant operates at a system pressure of 5.0 MPa, and utilizes a steam-sweep system to remove the excess oxygen that is evolved on the anode (oxygen) side of the electrolyzer. The overall system thermal-to-hydrogen production efficiency (based on the higher heating value of the produced hydrogen) is 42.8% at a hydrogen production rate of 1.85 kg/s (66 million SCFD) and an oxygen production rate of 14.6 kg/s (33 million SCFD). An economic analysis of this plant was performed with realistic financial and cost estimating The results of the economic analysis demonstrated that the HTE hydrogen production plant driven by a high-temperature helium-cooled nuclear power plant can deliver hydrogen at a competitive cost. A cost of $3.03/kg of hydrogen was calculated assuming an internal rate of return of 10% and a debt to equity ratio of 80%/20% for a reactor cost of $2000/kWt and $2.41/kg of hydrogen for a reactor cost of $1400/kWt.

  11. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 131,959 226,544 159,840 194,075 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,687 8,346 17,765 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 25,308

  12. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 113 86 71 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 23 19 16 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 30 25 21 1977

  13. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 6,200 6,304 5,721 5,000 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 343 340 281 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 382 2014

  14. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 21,518 21,243 21,416 18,654 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,046 2,005 1,593 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,922 2014

  15. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,415 5,021 4,527 5,633 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 350 359 365 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 495 2014

  16. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 69,827 75,855 136,964 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 5,481 5,903 12,130 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 16,070

  17. Wyoming-Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,622,025 1,544,493 1,442,021 1,389,782 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 65,256 47,096 42,803 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 60,873

  18. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 32,760 344,073 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 118 1,353 24,411 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 33,332 2014-2014

  19. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,811,384 2,735,783 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 17,670 15,724 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 18,434 2014

  20. Arkansas-Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 5,611 6,872 7,781 8,058 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 336 378 457 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 582 2014

  1. Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant Safeguards System Modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Elayat, H A; O'Connell, W J; Boyer, B D

    2006-06-05

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is interested in developing tools and methods for potential U.S. use in designing and evaluating safeguards systems used in enrichment facilities. This research focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of the safeguards in protecting against the range of safeguards concerns for enrichment plants, including diversion of attractive material and unauthorized modes of use. We developed an Extend simulation model for a generic medium-sized centrifuge enrichment plant. We modeled the material flow in normal operation, plant operational upset modes, and selected diversion scenarios, for selected safeguards systems. Simulation modeling is used to analyze both authorized and unauthorized use of a plant and the flow of safeguards information. Simulation tracks the movement of materials and isotopes, identifies the signatures of unauthorized use, tracks the flow and compilation of safeguards data, and evaluates the effectiveness of the safeguards system in detecting misuse signatures. The simulation model developed could be of use to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, enabling the IAEA to observe and draw conclusions that uranium enrichment facilities are being used only within authorized limits for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It will evaluate improved approaches to nonproliferation concerns, facilitating deployment of enhanced and cost-effective safeguards systems for an important part of the nuclear power fuel cycle.

  2. Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period-Unit: Monthly-Thousand Barrels Monthly-Thousand Barrels per Day Annual-Thousand Barrels Annual-Thousand Barrels per Day Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 101,809 102,880 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 1981-2015 PADD 1

  3. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 6,491 6,324 6,877 6,774 5,691 4,837 1993-2015 PADD 1 260 192 186 222 215 218 1993-2015 East Coast 4 4 7 7 1993-2015 Appalachian No. 1 260 192 182 218 208 211 1993-2015

  4. Paducah Package Steam Boilers to Provide Efficiency, Environmental Benefits

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    PADUCAH, Ky. – Five modern, modular steam boilers have replaced three larger coal-fired boilers that comprised the steam plant at EM’s Paducah Site.

  5. Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,317,031 1,002,608 1,000,964 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 60,320 49,143 52,331 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 0 0 0 87,478 70,292 75,648 2007

  6. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico Alabama Alaska Arkansas California Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Mississippi Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 View History Natural Gas

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Processing Area: U.S. Alabama Alabama Onshore-Alabama Alabama Offshore-Alabama Alaska Alaska Onshore Arkansas Arkansas-Arkansas California California Onshore-California California Offshore-California Colorado Colorado-Colorado Colorado-Kansas Colorado-Utah Florida Florida-Florida Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico-Alabama Gulf of Mexico-Louisiana Gulf of Mexico-Mississippi Gulf of Mexico-Texas Illinois Illinois-Illinois Kansas Kansas-Kansas Kansas-Oklahoma Kansas-Texas Kentucky

  8. Gas engines provide cogeneration service for Fantoni MDF plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chellini, R.

    1996-12-01

    A large MDF (medium density fiberboard) plant recently started industrial production at the headquarters of Fantoni, in Osoppo (UDINE) Italy. Providing electric power and thermal energy to the process is a cogeneration plant based on four large spark-ignited gas engines. The new Osoppo MDF plant processes 800 m{sup 3} of finished boards per day in a manufacturing line that combines the most advanced technologies available from several European equipment manufacturers. The cogeneration plant features four type 12VA32G spark-ignited gas engines from Fincantieri`s Diesel Engine Division, driving 50Hz, 6.3 kV, 5400 kVA Ansaldo generators at 750 r/min. The turbocharged and intercooled engines are a spark-ignited version of the company`s A32 diesel. They feature 12 Vee-arranged cylinders with 320 mm bore and 390 mm stroke. 5 figs.

  9. New Mexico - East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 209 1980's 209 214 209 232 221 209 217 192 208 196 1990's 222 205 223 233 234 247 299 273 262 255 2000's 333 279 290 272 274 271 295 306 318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  10. New Mexico - West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico - West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 321 1980's 332 346 322 319 290 236 360 579 815 737 1990's 768 703 843 763 777 696 760 596 667 699 2000's 563 594 548 603 590 569 566 538 486 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  11. Louisiana - North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana - North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 96 1980's 95 99 85 74 57 65 57 50 56 60 1990's 58 59 60 57 69 79 85 80 57 61 2000's 61 62 49 67 74 83 89 100 95 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  12. Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 676 1980's 540 544 501 527 454 442 428 429 421 411 1990's 431 417 380 334 337 495 411 333 325 364 2000's 337 269 226 182 153 168 159 168 142 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  13. Louisiana State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 70 39 46 40 51 1990's 49 50 55 30 28 27 47 24 29 32 2000's 38 60 48 46 36 41 32 35 63 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  14. California - Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 22 1980's 23 14 16 17 15 16 15 13 13 11 1990's 12 12 10 12 11 8 9 9 9 31 2000's 27 16 17 15 19 16 22 14 10 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  15. California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 15 6 6 6 5 6 8 8 7 4 1990's 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 4 5 7 2000's 10 8 10 8 8 9 10 9 6 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  16. California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 77 1980's 81 57 124 117 105 120 109 107 101 95 1990's 86 75 83 85 75 80 80 82 58 60 2000's 64 52 68 78 95 112 100 103 97 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  17. California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 3 2 15 17 21 25 1990's 18 16 20 25 21 25 23 14 12 4 2000's 4 9 8 8 8 8 4 4 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  18. California State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 1 2 6 2 2 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  19. California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 22 1980's 23 14 16 17 14 15 15 13 13 11 1990's 12 11 9 10 9 7 9 9 9 31 2000's 27 16 17 15 19 16 22 14 10 10 2010's 11 12 18 13 12

  20. Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 13 18 11 10 10 9 9 5 6 1990's 5 5 4 4 2 2 1 3 4 4 2000's 4 5 5 5 5 3 4 3 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  1. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    comparison of young and aged landfill (Journal Article) | SciTech Connect Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill Highlights: * Young and aged leachate works accounted for 89.1% and 10.9% of 33.35 Gg CO{sub 2} yr{sup -1}. * Fresh leachate owned extremely low ORP and high organic

  2. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 34 35 30 19 31 21 13 1990's 0 14 9 0 3 2 3 7 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

  3. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 6 3 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 148 145 150 142 128 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

  4. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 0 0 0 2010's 506 516 501 488 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  5. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3 3 7 2010's 8 11 11 11 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

  6. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 51 58 64 2010's 63 66 71 53 55 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

  7. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 822 887 1,010 2010's 1,001 1,122 1,064 894 881 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids

  8. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 56 54 116 2010's 132 196 181 169 206 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved

  9. Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 280 1980's 294 363 381 483 577 681 700 701 932 704 1990's 641 580 497 458 440 503 639 680 600 531 2000's 858 782 806 756 765 710 686 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  10. ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.1;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Selected Wood and Other Biomass Components" ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components" " "," ",,,,,,,,,,,,,"Total",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Wood Residues",,,," " " "," ","

  11. ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2 Relative Standard Errors for Table 7.2;" " Unit: Percents." ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Selected Wood and Other Biomass Components" ,,,,,,"Coal Components",,,"Coke",,,"Electricity Components",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Natural Gas Components",,,"Steam Components" " "," ",,,,,,,,,,,,,"Total",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"Wood Residues",,,," " " "," ","

  12. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 769,783 737,187 795,069 777,099 746,010 802,343 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 64,965 62,965 61,857 57,949 59,475 61,295 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 94,840 91,963 90,291 84,562 86,795 88,894 1967

  13. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 87,977 91,539 112,206 208,598 270,001 337,490 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 7,852 8,842 10,199 19,186 26,000 36,276 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 10,140 11,381 14,182 26,114 36,840 50,590 1967

  14. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 16,267,757 16,566,883 17,538,026 17,884,427 19,754,802 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 749,095 792,481 873,563 937,591 1,124,416 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 1,066,366 1,134,473 1,250,012

  15. Steam generator tube failures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MacDonald, P.E.; Shah, V.N.; Ward, L.W.; Ellison, P.G.

    1996-04-01

    A review and summary of the available information on steam generator tubing failures and the impact of these failures on plant safety is presented. The following topics are covered: pressurized water reactor (PWR), Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) reactor, and Russian water moderated, water cooled energy reactor (VVER) steam generator degradation, PWR steam generator tube ruptures, the thermal-hydraulic response of a PWR plant with a faulted steam generator, the risk significance of steam generator tube rupture accidents, tubing inspection requirements and fitness-for-service criteria in various countries, and defect detection reliability and sizing accuracy. A significant number of steam generator tubes are defective and are removed from service or repaired each year. This wide spread damage has been caused by many diverse degradation mechanisms, some of which are difficult to detect and predict. In addition, spontaneous tube ruptures have occurred at the rate of about one every 2 years over the last 20 years, and incipient tube ruptures (tube failures usually identified with leak detection monitors just before rupture) have been occurring at the rate of about one per year. These ruptures have caused complex plant transients which have not always been easy for the reactor operators to control. Our analysis shows that if more than 15 tubes rupture during a main steam line break, the system response could lead to core melting. Although spontaneous and induced steam generator tube ruptures are small contributors to the total core damage frequency calculated in probabilistic risk assessments, they are risk significant because the radionuclides are likely to bypass the reactor containment building. The frequency of steam generator tube ruptures can be significantly reduced through appropriate and timely inspections and repairs or removal from service.

  16. On-Line Monitoring and Diagnostics of the Integrity of Nuclear Plant Steam Generators and Heat Exchangers, Volumes 1, 2.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Upadhyaya, Belle R.; Hines, J. Wesley; Lu, Baofu; Huang, Xuedong; Penha, Rosani, L.; Perillo, Sergio, R.; Zhao, Ke

    2005-06-03

    The overall purpose of this Nuclear Engineering Education Research (NEER) project was to integrate new, innovative, and existing technologies to develop a fault diagnostics and characterization system for nuclear plant steam generators (SG) and heat exchangers (HX). Issues related to system level degradation of SG and HX tubing, including tube fouling, performance under reduced heat transfer area, and the damage caused by stress corrosion cracking, are the important factors that influence overall plant operation, maintenance, and economic viability of nuclear power systems. The research at The University of Tennessee focused on the development of techniques for monitoring process and structural integrity of steam generators and heat exchangers. The objectives of the project were accomplished by the completion of the following tasks. All the objectives were accomplished during the project period. This report summarizes the research and development activities, results, and accomplishments during June 2001 ???????????????????????????????? September 2004. ???????????????????????????????· Development and testing of a high-fidelity nodal model of a U-tube steam generator (UTSG) to simulate the effects of fouling and to generate a database representing normal and degraded process conditions. Application of the group method of data handling (GMDH) method for process variable prediction. ???????????????????????????????· Development of a laboratory test module to simulate particulate fouling of HX tubes and its effect on overall thermal resistance. Application of the GMDH technique to predict HX fluid temperatures, and to compare with the calculated thermal resistance. ???????????????????????????????· Development of a hybrid modeling technique for process diagnosis and its evaluation using laboratory heat exchanger test data. ???????????????????????????????· Development and testing of a sensor suite using piezo-electric devices for monitoring structural integrity of both flat plates (beams) and tubing. Experiments were performed in air, and in water with and without bubbly flow. ???????????????????????????????· Development of advanced signal processing methods using wavelet transforms and image processing techniques for isolating flaw types. ???????????????????????????????· Development and implementation of a new nonlinear and non-stationary signal processing method, called the Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT), for flaw detection and location. This is a more robust and adaptive approach compared to the wavelet transform

  17. Ukraine Steam Partnership

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gurvinder Singh

    2000-02-15

    The Ukraine Steam Partnership program is designed to implement energy efficiency improvements in industrial steam systems. These improvements are to be made by the private plants and local government departments responsible for generation and delivery of energy to end-users. One of the activities planned under this program was to provide a two-day training workshop on industrial steam systems focusing on energy efficiency issues related to the generation, distribution, and consumption of steam. The workshop was geared towards plant managers, who are not only technically oriented, but are also key decision makers in their respective companies. The Agency for Rational Energy Use and Ecology (ARENA-ECO), a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization founded to promote energy efficiency and environmental protection in Ukraine, in conjunction with the Alliance staff in Kiev sent out invitations to potential participants in all the regions of Ukraine. The purpose of this report is the describe the proceedings from the workshop and provide recommendations from the workshop's roundtable discussion. The workshop was broken down into two main areas: (1) Energy efficient boiler house steam generation; and Energy efficient steam distribution and consumption. The workshop also covered the following topics: (1) Ukrainian boilers; (2) Water treatment systems; (3) A profile of UKRESCO (Ukrainian Energy Services Company); (4) Turbine expanders and electricity generation; (5) Enterprise energy audit basics; and (6) Experience of steam use in Donetsk oblast.

  18. Axial seal system for a gas turbine steam-cooled rotor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mashey, Thomas Charles (Anderson, SC)

    2002-01-01

    An axial seal assembly is provided at the interface between adjacent wheels and spacers of a gas turbine rotor and disposed about tubes passing through openings in the rotor adjacent the rotor rim and carrying a thermal medium. Each seal assembly includes a support bushing for supporting a land of the thermal medium carrying tube, an axially registering seat bushing disposed in the opposed opening and a frustoconical seal between the seal bushing and seat. The seal bushing includes a radial flange having an annular recess for retaining the outer diameter edge of the seal, while the seat bushing has an axially facing annular surface forming a seat for engagement by the inner diameter edge of the seal.

  19. Process for purifying geothermal steam

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Li, Charles T. (Richland, WA)

    1980-01-01

    Steam containing hydrogen sulfide is purified and sulfur recovered by passing the steam through a reactor packed with activated carbon in the presence of a stoichiometric amount of oxygen which oxidizes the hydrogen sulfide to elemental sulfur which is adsorbed on the bed. The carbon can be recycled after the sulfur has been recovered by vacuum distillation, inert gas entrainment or solvent extraction. The process is suitable for the purification of steam from geothermal sources which may also contain other noncondensable gases.

  20. EARLY ENTRANCE CO-PRODUCTION PLANT--DECENTRALIZED GASIFICATION COGENERATION TRANSPORTATION FUELS AND STEAM FROM AVAILABLE FEEDSTOCKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John W. Rich

    2003-06-01

    Waste Processors Management, Inc. (WMPI), along with its subcontractors Texaco Power & Gasification (now ChevronTexaco), SASOL Technology Ltd., and Nexant Inc. entered into a Cooperative Agreement DE-FC26-00NT40693 with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to assess the technoeconomic viability of building an Early Entrance Co-Production Plant (EECP) in the United States to produce ultra clean Fischer-Tropsch (FT) transportation fuels with either power or steam as the major co-product. The EECP design includes recovery and gasification of low-cost coal waste (culm) from physical coal cleaning operations and will assess blends of the culm with coal or petroleum coke. The project has three phases. Phase I is the concept definition and engineering feasibility study to identify areas of technical, environmental and financial risk. Phase II is an experimental testing program designed to validate the coal waste mixture gasification performance. Phase III updates the original EECP design based on results from Phase II, to prepare a preliminary engineering design package and financial plan for obtaining private funding to build a 5,000 barrel per day (BPD) coal gasification/liquefaction plant next to an existing co-generation plant in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The current report covers the period performance from January 1, 2003 through March 31, 2003. Phase I Task 6 activities of Preliminary Site Analysis were documented and reported as a separate Topical Report on February 2003. Most of the other technical activities were on hold pending on DOE's announcement of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) awards. WMPI was awarded one of the CCPI projects in late January 2003 to engineer, construct and operate a first-of-kind gasification/liquefaction facility in the U.S. as a continued effort for the current WMPI EECP engineering feasibility study. Since then, project technical activities were focused on: (1) planning/revising the existing EECP work scope for transition into CCPI, and (2) ''jump starting'' all environmentally related work in pursue of NEPA and PA DEP permitting approval.

  1. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 16 11 18 19 18 21 16 16 11 16 1990's 15 14 12 8 8 8 7 5 5 8 2000's 4 5 6 8 6 9 10 11 11 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids

  2. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 21 1980's 27 17 11 17 17 14 9 16 10 1990's 8 7 8 9 18 17 22 17 18 16 2000's 11 12 14 17 12 7 3 2 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  3. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 17 1980's 16 16 15 11 12 11 16 16 13 9 1990's 9 5 4 4 6 6 4 7 5 5 2000's 5 5 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Liquids

  4. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 1 2 6 5 2 2 2 3 1990's 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  5. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Liquids

  6. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    California (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL

  7. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    California (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12,755 13,192 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  8. Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,170 794 598 1970's 555 599 539 474 460 313 259 226 168 139 1980's 126 153 133 137 132 115 77 81 59 29 1990's 0 13 3 8 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  9. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 86 4 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 30 25 21 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  10. Washington Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 440 326 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  11. Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3,978 3,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production,

  12. Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alabama (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 3,132 3,323 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production,

  13. Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Alaska (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 18,434 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  14. Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 72 1980's 74 19 12 0 1990's 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  15. ,"Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids " ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Field Production: Natural Gas Liquids ",16,"Monthly","12/2015","1/15/1981" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 495 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  17. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

  18. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 469 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

  19. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 25,308 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  20. Gas Reactor Plant Analyzer and Simulator for Hydrogen Production

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2004-01-01

    This software is used to study and analyze various configurations of plant equipment for gas cooled nuclear reactor applications. The user of this software would likely be interested in optimizing the economic, safety, and operating performance of this type of reactor. The code provides the capability for the user through his input to configure networks of nuclear reactor components. The components available include turbine, compressor, heat exchanger, reactor core, coolers, bypass valves, and control systems.

  1. Trash-fired boiler cuts plant's gas use 30%

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Watson, F

    1983-06-27

    A Minneapolis bottling plant will burn trash in a 450-horsepower boiler/incinerator to reduce natural gas consumption 30% and eliminate the costs of hauling and disposing of trash. Combined with a CA1500 heat-recovery system installed in 1982, the project will have a two-year payback. The system is clean enough that even old tires can be burned and still meet air pollution regulations. (DCK)

  2. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Kansas

  3. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 34 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

  4. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Oklahoma

  5. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Texas

  6. Deliberate ignition of hydrogen-air-steam mixtures in condensing steam environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blanchat, T.K.; Stamps, D.W.

    1997-05-01

    Large scale experiments were performed to determine the effectiveness of thermal glow plug igniters to burn hydrogen in a condensing steam environment due to the presence of water sprays. The experiments were designed to determine if a detonation or accelerated flame could occur in a hydrogen-air-steam mixture which was initially nonflammable due to steam dilution but was rendered flammable by rapid steam condensation due to water sprays. Eleven Hydrogen Igniter Tests were conducted in the test vessel. The vessel was instrumented with pressure transducers, thermocouple rakes, gas grab sample bottles, hydrogen microsensors, and cameras. The vessel contained two prototypic engineered systems: (1) a deliberate hydrogen ignition system and (2) a water spray system. Experiments were conducted under conditions scaled to be nearly prototypic of those expected in Advanced Light Water Reactors (such as the Combustion Engineering (CE) System 80+), with prototypic spray drop diameter, spray mass flux, steam condensation rates, hydrogen injection flow rates, and using the actual proposed plant igniters. The lack of any significant pressure increase during the majority of the burn and condensation events signified that localized, benign hydrogen deflagration(s) occurred with no significant pressure load on the containment vessel. Igniter location did not appear to be a factor in the open geometry. Initially stratified tests with a stoichiometric mixture in the top showed that the water spray effectively mixes the initially stratified atmosphere prior to the deflagration event. All tests demonstrated that thermal glow plugs ignite hydrogen-air-steam mixtures under conditions with water sprays near the flammability limits previously determined for hydrogen-air-steam mixtures under quiescent conditions. This report describes these experiments, gives experimental results, and provides interpretation of the results. 12 refs., 127 figs., 16 tabs.

  7. Development and Transient Analysis of a Helical-coil Steam Generator for High Temperature Reactors

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nathan V. Hoffer; Nolan A. Anderson; Piyush Sabharwall

    2011-08-01

    A high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) is under development by the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Its design emphasizes electrical power production which may potentially be coupled with process heat for hydrogen production and other industrial applications. NGNP is considering a helical-coil steam generator for the primary heat transport loop heat exchanger based on its increased heat transfer and compactness when compared to other steam generators. The safety and reliability of the helical-coil steam generator is currently under evaluation as part of the development of NGNP. Transients, such as loss of coolant accidents (LOCA), are of interest in evaluating the safety of steam generators. In this study, a complete steam generator inlet pipe break (double ended pipe break) LOCA was simulated by an exponential loss of primary side pressure. For this analysis, a model of the helical-coil steam generator was developed using RELAP5-3D, an INL inhouse systems analysis code. The steam generator model behaved normally during the transient simulating the complete steam generator inlet pipe break LOCA. Further analysis is required to comprehensively evaluate the safety and reliability of the helical-coil steam generator design in the NGNP setting.

  8. Boiler and steam generator corrosion: Fossil-fuel power plants. March 1977-December 1989 (A Bibliography from the NTIS data base). Report for March 1977-December 1989

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-05-01

    This bibliography contains citations concerning corrosion effects, mechanisms, detection, and inhibition in fossil fuel fired boilers. Fluidized bed combustors and coal gasification are included in the applications. Hot corrosion, thermal mechanical degradation, and intergranular oxidation corrosion studies performed on the water side and hot gas side of heat exchanger tubes and support structures are presented. Coatings and treatment of material to inhibit corrosion are discussed. Corrosion affecting nuclear powered steam generators is examined in a separate bibliography. (Contains 88 citations fully indexed and including a title list.)

  9. New generation enrichment monitoring technology for gas centrifuge enrichment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ianakiev, Kiril D; Alexandrov, Boian S.; Boyer, Brian D.; Hill, Thomas R.; Macarthur, Duncan W.; Marks, Thomas; Moss, Calvin E.; Sheppard, Gregory A.; Swinhoe, Martyn T.

    2008-06-13

    The continuous enrichment monitor, developed and fielded in the 1990s by the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided a go-no-go capability to distinguish between UF{sub 6} containing low enriched (approximately 4% {sup 235}U) and highly enriched (above 20% {sup 235}U) uranium. This instrument used the 22-keV line from a {sup 109}Cd source as a transmission source to achieve a high sensitivity to the UF{sub 6} gas absorption. The 1.27-yr half-life required that the source be periodically replaced and the instrument recalibrated. The instrument's functionality and accuracy were limited by the fact that measured gas density and gas pressure were treated as confidential facility information. The modern safeguarding of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant producing low-enriched UF{sub 6} product aims toward a more quantitative flow and enrichment monitoring concept that sets new standards for accuracy stability, and confidence. An instrument must be accurate enough to detect the diversion of a significant quantity of material, have virtually zero false alarms, and protect the operator's proprietary process information. We discuss a new concept for advanced gas enrichment assay measurement technology. This design concept eliminates the need for the periodic replacement of a radioactive source as well as the need for maintenance by experts. Some initial experimental results will be presented.

  10. RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF FINAL MINERALIZED WASTE FORMS FOR HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT SECONDARY WASTE BY FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMING USING THE BENCH SCALE REFORMER PLATFORM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crawford, C.; Burket, P.; Cozzi, A.; Daniel, W.; Jantzen, C.; Missimer, D.

    2012-02-02

    The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford's tank waste. Currently there are approximately 56 million gallons of highly radioactive mixed wastes awaiting treatment. A key aspect of the River Protection Project (RPP) cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the RPP mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), i.e. December 31, 2047. Therefore, Supplemental Treatment is required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. In addition, the WTP LAW vitrification facility off-gas condensate known as WTP Secondary Waste (WTP-SW) will be generated and enriched in volatile components such as {sup 137}Cs, {sup 129}I, {sup 99}Tc, Cl, F, and SO{sub 4} that volatilize at the vitrification temperature of 1150 C in the absence of a continuous cold cap (that could minimize volatilization). The current waste disposal path for the WTP-SW is to process it through the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) is being considered for immobilization of the ETF concentrate that would be generated by processing the WTP-SW. The focus of this current report is the WTP-SW. FBSR offers a moderate temperature (700-750 C) continuous method by which WTP-SW wastes can be processed irrespective of whether they contain organics, nitrates, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, volatile radionuclides or other aqueous components. The FBSR technology can process these wastes into a crystalline ceramic (mineral) waste form. The mineral waste form that is produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process has been shown to be as durable as LAW glass. Monolithing of the granular FBSR product is being investigated to prevent dispersion during transport or burial/storage, but is not necessary for performance. A Benchscale Steam Reformer (BSR) was designed and constructed at the SRNL to treat actual radioactive wastes to confirm the findings of the non-radioactive FBSR pilot scale tests and to qualify the waste form for applications at Hanford. BSR testing with WTP SW waste surrogates and associated analytical analyses and tests of granular products (GP) and monoliths began in the Fall of 2009, and then was continued from the Fall of 2010 through the Spring of 2011. Radioactive testing commenced in 2010 with a demonstration of Hanford's WTP-SW where Savannah River Site (SRS) High Level Waste (HLW) secondary waste from the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) was shimmed with a mixture of {sup 125/129}I and {sup 99}Tc to chemically resemble WTP-SW. Prior to these radioactive feed tests, non-radioactive simulants were also processed. Ninety six grams of radioactive granular product were made for testing and comparison to the non-radioactive pilot scale tests. The same mineral phases were found in the radioactive and non-radioactive testing.

  11. Biogas, once flared, fuels cogen plant serving two hosts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, J.K.; McRae, C.L.

    1995-04-01

    This article reports that digester gas from a wastewater treatment plant meets up to 40% of the fuel needs of this cogenerator. Steam is exported for heating the treatment plant`s digesters and for ice production by a second steam host. The Carson Ice-Gen Project promises to enhance the reliability of electric service to the Sacramento Regional Waste water Treatment Plant (SRWTP), to prevent effluent discharges to nearby water ways during power disruptions, and to reduce air emissions associated with flaring of digester gas. The project comprises a 95-MW combined-cycle cogeneration powerplant and a 300-ton/day ice-production plant. The powerplant features twin LM 6000 gas turbines (GTs). One, used as a 53-MW base-load unit, is paired with a heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG) feeding an extraction/condensing steam turbine/generator (STG). The other GT is used as a 42-MW, simple-cycle peaking unit. Primary fuel is natural gas, which is supplemented by digester gas that is currently being flared at the wastewater treatment plant. Export steam extracted from the STG is used to heat the digesters and to drive ammonia compressors at the ice plant. Steam is also used on-site to chill water in absorption chillers that cool the GT inlet air for power augmentation.

  12. Description of the Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arthur, W.B.

    1980-12-16

    The Portsmouth Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) will be located at the site of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. The purpose of the facility is to provide enriching services for the production of low assay enriched uranium for civilian nuclear power reactors. The construction and operation of the GCEP is administered by the US Department of Energy. The facility will be operated under contract from the US Government. Control of the GCEP rests solely with the US Government, which holds and controls access to the technology. Construction of GCEP is expected to be completed in the mid-1990's. Many facility design and operating procedures are subject to change. Nonetheless, the design described in this report does reflect current thinking. Descriptions of the general facility and major buildings such as the process buildings, feed and withdrawal building, cylinder storage and transfer, recycle/assembly building, and a summary of the centrifuge uranium enriching process are provided in this report.

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 13,725 13,657 13,425 1970's 14,165 13,520 13,346 13,534 13,821 12,785 12,477 13,310 13,173 13,484 1980's 13,340 13,264 11,741 12,843 11,687 11,436 9,259 6,662 61 81 1990's 81 100 100 86 80 77 64 200 70 55 2000's 42 35 47 48 49 46 47 48 42 31 2010's 345 1,043 0 0 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 8,582 9,158 8,521 1970's 7,893 5,840 9,153 6,152 5,357 7,894 4,836 4,979 5,421 8,645 1980's 4,428 4,028 7,236 6,632 7,202 6,296 6,562 8,091 7,100 5,021 1990's 7,257 4,585 4,945 4,829 3,632 3,507 3,584 3,652 3,710 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  15. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,270 1,530 1,924 1970's 2,251 2,419 2,847 2,725 1,649 1,760 3,043 3,210 2,134 2,889 1980's 1,320 1,580 3,278 3,543 5,236 4,575 4,715 5,799 4,983 4,767 1990's 6,031 3,502 3,381 4,145 3,252 3,069 3,299 2,275 1,706 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  16. Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2,125 1980's 2,081 2,285 2,393 2,650 2,660 2,610 2,671 2,509 2,339 2,270 1990's 2,305 2,237 2,162 2,211 2,151 2,269 2,337 2,376 2,262 2,257 2000's 2,479 2,318 2,368 2,192 2,466 2,723 2,913 3,158 3,148 3,432 2010's 3,983

  17. California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 100,497 93,074 82,996 1970's 92,119 75,241 68,738 72,574 71,686 84,843 78,967 79,425 69,624 65,787 1980's 62,824 53,655 22,275 22,231 25,213 25,274 22,973 26,846 22,778 19,586 1990's 22,712 104,251 92,228 87,306 69,639 66,447 67,817 74,182 72,881 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  18. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,010 1,723 1970's 1,829 180 2,144 2,886 3,369 9,170 13,865 13,534 17,436 15,954 1980's 15,740 12,478 10,453 8,269 6,631 5,471 4,802 3,884 3,584 3,551 1990's 2,831 1,893 2,563 2,557 1,789 1,630 1,649 1,563 1,523 1,557 2000's 1,354 1,159 855 771 618 495 485 132 22 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 233 - = No Data

  19. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 121,848 123,993 104,292 102,185 123,008 121,936 134,132 1990's 82,828 83,733 86,623 74,925 66,600 75,845 69,235 71,155 63,368 68,393 2000's 69,174 63,137 63,031 56,018 55,970 45,837 46,205 51,499 42,957 39,002 2010's 40,814 42,633 42,123 34,179 30,527 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  20. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 115,177 140,290 179,117 1970's 193,209 195,072 197,967 206,833 194,329 189,541 172,584 166,392 161,511 165,515 1980's 142,171 142,423 128,858 124,193 132,501 117,736 115,604 124,890 120,092 121,425 1990's 119,405 129,154 132,656 130,336 128,583 146,048 139,841 150,008 144,609 164,794 2000's 164,908

  1. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 382 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee-Tennessee

  2. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 32,212 33,735 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  3. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 325 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

  4. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,922 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Michigan-Michigan

  5. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Montana (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Montana (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,340 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Montana

  6. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in North Dakota (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 303 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

  7. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,070 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Colorado

  8. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Wyoming (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 60,873 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

  9. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,086 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent North Dakota-Illinois

  10. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 166,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

  11. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Cubic Feet) Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 2,434 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  12. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 14,335 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  13. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 21 2 1 2 2 3 3 1990's 2 3 6 6 7 7 7 9 8 8 2000's 7 6 8 8 8 9 11 14 14 0 2010's 9 10 12 32 350 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  14. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 21 4 5 5 3 2 4 5 5 1990's 3 8 8 8 8 7 7 9 8 10 2000's 7 7 9 10 10 12 14 22 25 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  15. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2010's 0 0 0 1 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  16. Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5 1980's 5 5 6 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 1990's 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2000's 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 3 3 4 2010's 4 6 4 3 4 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  17. Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 1 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  18. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 20 18 18 19 15 12 11 11 12 12 1990's 11 10 9 11 9 8 7 6 8 10 2000's 8 10 8 7 6 7 8 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  19. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 16 11 18 19 18 21 16 16 11 16 1990's 15 14 12 8 8 8 7 5 5 8 2000's 3 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 11 12 2010's 11 10 10 11 14 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  20. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 530 1980's 541 560 531 551 511 445 577 771 1,023 933 1990's 990 908 1,066 996 1,011 943 1,059 869 929 954 2000's 896 873 838 875 864 840 861 844 804 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  1. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 43 1980's 44 45 42 40 41 38 34 44 43 43 1990's 46 47 53 58 60 59 75 75 74 74 2000's 77 77 75 76 73 70 68 66 64 65 2010's 63 62 58 60 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  2. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 47 1980's 61 68 71 69 73 74 69 67 52 59 1990's 60 56 64 55 55 53 48 47 48 53 2000's 54 57 47 45 43 49 55 58 55 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  3. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 4 4 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 1990's 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2000's 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 6 6 8 2010's 9 11 19 26 36 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  4. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 583 1980's 604 631 745 829 769 826 857 781 765 654 1990's 657 628 629 643 652 674 684 685 698 749 2000's 734 694 695 686 790 839 892 949 1,034 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  5. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 59 1980's 62 65 67 70 75 77 76 76 79 73 1990's 75 76 77 77 76 70 74 71 69 70 2000's 69 66 61 59 64 65 67 69 74 77 2010's 82 88 96 99 117 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 170 1980's 183 195 174 173 142 155 127 142 162 191 1990's 152 181 193 190 210 243 254 244 235 277 2000's 288 298 329 325 362 386 382 452 612 722 2010's 879 925 705 762 813 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  7. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 177 1980's 194 204 186 183 155 173 148 166 181 209 1990's 169 197 226 214 248 273 287 264 260 303 2000's 316 345 396 395 465 484 478 559 716 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  8. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 10 11 10 9 8 9 8 8 9 10 1990's 10 12 13 14 15 18 17 21 18 19 2000's 21 22 23 24 26 26 26 27 38 48 2010's 58 63 57 52 61 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015

  9. Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 10 12 16 19 1990's 13 11 15 20 17 21 19 10 8 0 2000's 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  10. Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2000's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  11. Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 6 5 12 17 36 34 36 29 26 21 1990's 21 26 34 34 25 27 27 27 21 24 2000's 27 25 28 17 13 9 9 4 7 0 2010's 0 0 35 41 30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  12. Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 1990's 4 5 6 6 5 5 6 6 4 5 2000's 5 4 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 2010's 0 0 7 7 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  13. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 21 1980's 27 17 11 17 17 14 9 16 10 1990's 8 7 8 9 18 17 22 17 18 16 2000's 11 12 14 17 12 7 3 2 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  14. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 400 1980's 387 407 300 441 422 370 437 459 342 327 1990's 311 426 442 378 396 367 336 263 331 355 2000's 303 300 261 245 267 218 204 194 175 162 2010's 195 192 174 138 186 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 402 1980's 389 409 302 443 424 373 440 462 345 329 1990's 313 428 444 380 398 369 338 271 334 358 2000's 306 302 263 248 271 224 209 198 181 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 29 1980's 26 24 14 17 20 20 19 19 18 18 1990's 17 26 27 27 29 29 31 24 28 30 2000's 28 26 25 22 22 19 18 18 18 16 2010's 16 16 15 11 12 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  17. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 26 1980's 25 25 35 31 24 27 29 23 24 15 1990's 24 24 32 25 39 42 45 47 53 69 2000's 56 72 65 65 71 69 104 88 96 101 2010's 124 88 81 95 108 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  18. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 26 1980's 25 25 35 31 24 27 29 23 24 16 1990's 25 24 32 26 39 43 46 48 54 69 2000's 56 72 66 66 72 70 105 89 100 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  19. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 400 287 301 294 294 1990's 324 321 317 260 281 430 381 261 234 281 2000's 241 204 186 183 167 191 176 191 201 231 2010's 216 192 189 212 243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  20. Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 52 38 40 40 39 1990's 45 44 49 42 43 68 65 41 37 45 2000's 41 35 35 33 31 29 28 30 27 26 2010's 25 23 24 29 26 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  1. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 713 524 525 517 522 1990's 538 526 495 421 434 601 543 437 411 457 2000's 436 391 323 295 263 292 280 303 300 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring

  2. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 54 1980's 59 63 59 50 38 47 39 33 39 40 1990's 38 38 41 38 48 55 61 50 34 36 2000's 35 35 30 48 53 57 60 69 68 98 2010's 79 54 35 52 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  3. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 7 1980's 6 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 6 5 1990's 6 6 6 5 6 7 8 7 5 4 2000's 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 2010's 5 5 5 6 7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  4. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 413 1980's 273 291 258 289 225 222 220 235 228 215 1990's 249 242 229 201 214 359 284 199 187 222 2000's 178 128 119 100 87 103 94 97 78 90 2010's 113 94 134 144 145 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  5. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 59 1980's 39 38 32 33 29 28 29 30 30 28 1990's 33 33 36 34 34 58 48 31 29 37 2000's 32 23 23 20 20 20 19 18 15 15 2010's 15 14 16 20 17 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  6. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 46 28 33 27 39 1990's 37 41 47 21 19 16 36 12 13 23 2000's 28 41 37 35 27 31 22 25 55 43 2010's 24 44 20 16 15 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  7. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 6 4 5 4 6 1990's 6 5 7 3 3 3 9 3 3 4 2000's 5 9 9 9 7 5 4 6 6 5 2010's 5 4 3 3 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release

  8. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 363 382 350 331 337 1990's 295 329 295 309 309 239 245 389 370 427 2000's 515 486 511 364 423 416 399 369 321 302 2010's 341 355 405 335 399 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  9. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 54 47 51 48 49 1990's 46 51 48 52 52 37 42 71 68 80 2000's 93 91 94 70 81 61 67 69 53 61 2010's 66 57 61 49 52 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  10. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 579 1980's 572 580 564 568 597 580 566 569 572 549 1990's 556 577 599 608 608 616 655 655 631 649 2000's 688 655 657 593 627 597 615 637 654 701 2010's 734 773 854 920 1,107 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  11. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 102 1980's 102 93 91 99 77 62 77 90 82 79 1990's 66 54 52 44 43 38 48 45 43 42 2000's 32 41 42 44 44 36 36 50 58 43 2010's 48 38 26 27 24 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 1980's 112 102 97 105 84 67 88 111 99 97 1990's 81 72 68 57 54 45 53 50 51 48 2000's 35 43 47 48 48 39 42 55 62 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  13. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 11 1980's 12 12 11 10 10 8 9 8 8 8 1990's 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 2000's 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2010's 3 2 2 2 2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  14. Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 31 1980's 33 25 35 50 48 39 38 34 36 38 1990's 48 35 53 55 51 48 52 34 31 57 2000's 104 32 28 33 29 31 41 32 92 55 2010's 68 68 55 51 59 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  15. Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2 1980's 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1990's 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 2000's 10 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 7 5 2010's 6 6 5 6 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  16. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 213 1980's 226 192 193 216 200 182 177 166 166 168 1990's 170 145 171 158 142 120 119 93 81 107 2000's 150 64 57 60 50 61 56 53 106 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  17. Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 13 1980's 11 10 9 8 0 382 381 418 401 380 1990's 340 360 347 321 301 306 337 631 320 299 2000's 277 405 405 387 369 352 338 325 312 299 2010's 288 288 288 288 241 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  18. Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Alaska (with Total Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 16 20 17 1990's 18 24 27 27 26 30 33 35 24 21 2000's 22 20 20 18 18 17 14 13 13 13 2010's 11 11 11 11 17 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  19. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 23 1980's 11 10 9 8 19 383 381 418 401 380 1990's 340 360 347 321 301 306 337 631 320 299 2000's 277 405 405 387 369 352 338 325 312 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  20. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16 1980's 15 15 12 9 10 9 15 15 11 8 1990's 7 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2000's 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2010's 2 3 3 4 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date:

  1. California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 107 1980's 109 73 146 139 128 124 118 109 1990's 101 87 94 98 86 88 89 92 71 97 2000's 100 75 95 101 121 135 130 126 113 129 2010's 114 94 99 102 112 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  2. California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) California (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 1980's 7 6 12 12 12 12 11 9 1990's 9 8 10 9 8 9 9 8 7 8 2000's 8 8 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 2010's 10 10 10 11 10 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  3. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 111 1980's 120 79 152 134 130 123 113 1990's 105 92 99 104 92 92 92 95 72 98 2000's 101 76 95 101 122 137 132 126 113 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  4. ,"Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Proved Reserves" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves",49,"Annual",2014,"6/30/1979" ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  5. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982 966 7,077 4,709 6,270 6,646 7,646 1990's 637 188 268 352 467 468 451 508 405 405 2000's 441 653 890 504 490 433 509 404 470 489 2010's 529 423 622 797 871 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  6. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 85,151 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Colorado

  7. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Illinois (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 47 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  8. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 16,496 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Kansas

  9. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 5,006 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-Kentucky

  10. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West Virginia (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 1,465 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West Virginia

  11. Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 439 457 542 437 449 474 519 1990's 557 518 423 295 206 168 168 188 208 235 2000's 218 396 249 512 606 697 820 816 788 771 2010's 800 604 612 645 657 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  12. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 50 63 71 69 96 88 87 1990's 14 14 16 20 36 32 37 39 40 42 2000's 43 40 37 17 18 12 8 5 0 0 2010's 0 0 127 202 468 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  13. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 20 23 29 41 67 68 50 44 46 1990's 58 49 72 95 104 94 85 83 78 78 2000's 78 86 72 68 58 29 5 9 0 0 2010's 0 0 155 2,116 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  14. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 158 171 148 171 205 191 218 1990's 156 159 341 235 116 181 217 253 222 274 2000's 208 272 251 343 395 483 549 495 575 599 2010's 881 963 2,529 9,200 11,602 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  15. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

  16. Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 14 1980's 14 16 15 18 24 27 27 28 38 35 1990's 35 34 32 32 34 37 44 49 40 45 2000's 55 54 55 52 52 50 49 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next

  17. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 582 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Arkansas-Arkansas Natural

  18. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 465 1980's 478 496 475 495 462 395 514 708 926 863 1990's 915 840 994 925 946 881 998 814 876 896 2000's 804 794 779 824 805 781 804 788 726 715 2010's 764 776 662 679 789 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  19. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 33 1980's 42 52 53 54 57 59 53 53 40 48 1990's 50 47 54 46 46 44 40 40 41 46 2000's 47 50 41 40 39 45 51 54 51 104 2010's 157 193 297 466 540 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  20. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 511 1980's 537 565 667 740 683 731 768 702 686 586 1990's 592 567 566 575 592 605 615 610 613 667 2000's 639 605 601 582 666 697 732 797 870 985 2010's 1,270 1,445 1,452 1,408 1,752 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  1. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Florida (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 233 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

  2. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,025 7,165 6,940 4,056 852 830 627 1990's 657 702 707 689 611 702 682 641 548 641 2000's 419 475 535 536 617 698 653 691 587 391 2010's 772 278 641 280 278 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  3. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Barrels) Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 97 84 78 90 79 86 87 86 92 99 1990's 85 102 96 107 93 61 60 70 71 72 2000's 104 105 98 67 84 84 109 114 97 108 2010's 122 140 199 320 1,229 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  4. Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol

    K-12 Energy Lesson Plans and Activities Web site (EERE)

    With ethanol becoming more prevalent in the media and in gas tanks, it is important for students to know from where it comes. This module uses a series of activities to show how energy and mass are converted from one form to another. It focuses on the conversion of light energy into chemical energy via photosynthesis. It then goes on to show how the chemical energy in plant sugars can be fermented to produce ethanol. Finally, the reasons for using ethanol as a fuel are discussed.

  5. Insulate Steam Distribution and Condensate Return Lines, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip Sheet #2 (Fact Sheet), Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    2 Insulate Steam Distribution and Condensate Return Lines Uninsulated steam distribution and condensate return lines are a constant source of wasted energy. The table shows typical heat loss from uninsulated steam distribution lines. Insulation can typically reduce energy losses by 90% and help ensure proper steam pressure at plant equipment. Any surface over 120°F should be insulated, including boiler surfaces, steam and condensate return piping, and fttings. Insulation frequently becomes

  6. Tools to Boost Steam System Efficiency, Software Tools for Industry, Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) (Fact Sheet)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2008-12-01

    This fact sheet describes how the Industrial Technologies Program steam software tools can help industrial plants identify steam system improvements to save energy and money.

  7. Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer Plant Receives Energy Assessment Steam System Efficiency Optimized After J.R. Simplot Fertilizer Plant Receives Energy Assessment...

  8. System and method for coproduction of activated carbon and steam/electricity

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Srinivasachar, Srivats (Sturbridge, MA); Benson, Steven (Grand Forks, ND); Crocker, Charlene (Newfolden, MN); Mackenzie, Jill (Carmel, IN)

    2011-07-19

    A system and method for producing activated carbon comprising carbonizing a solid carbonaceous material in a carbonization zone of an activated carbon production apparatus (ACPA) to yield a carbonized product and carbonization product gases, the carbonization zone comprising carbonaceous material inlet, char outlet and carbonization gas outlet; activating the carbonized product via activation with steam in an activation zone of the ACPA to yield activated carbon and activation product gases, the activation zone comprising activated carbon outlet, activation gas outlet, and activation steam inlet; and utilizing process gas comprising at least a portion of the carbonization product gases or a combustion product thereof; at least a portion of the activation product gases or a combustion product thereof; or a combination thereof in a solid fuel boiler system that burns a solid fuel boiler feed with air to produce boiler-produced steam and flue gas, the boiler upstream of an air heater within a steam/electricity generation plant, said boiler comprising a combustion zone, a boiler-produced steam outlet and at least one flue gas outlet.

  9. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2010's 1 1 1 1 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  10. Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 10 1980's 10 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1990's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2000's 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  11. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 3 1980's 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1990's 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2000's 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2010's 5 4 5 5 5 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  12. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 5,191 1980's 5,187 5,478 5,611 6,280 6,121 6,109 6,348 6,327 6,448 6,000 1990's 5,944 5,860 5,878 5,709 5,722 5,896 6,179 6,001 5,868 6,112 2000's 6,596 6,190 6,243 5,857 6,338 6,551 6,795 7,323 7,530 8,258 2010's 9,521 10,537 10,489 11,655 14,788 - = No Data

  13. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6,592 1980's 6,717 7,058 7,212 7,893 7,624 7,561 7,784 7,729 7,837 7,389 1990's 7,246 7,104 7,104 6,901 6,869 7,093 7,486 7,342 7,204 7,515 2000's 8,068 7,588 7,589 7,072 7,559 7,813 8,134 8,818 8,963 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  14. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000's 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 11/19/2015 Next Release Date: 12/31/2016

  15. Systems approach used in the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rooks, W.A. Jr.

    1982-01-01

    A requirement exists for effective and efficient transfer of technical knowledge from the design engineering team to the production work force. Performance-Based Training (PBT) is a systematic approach to the design, development, and implementation of technical training. This approach has been successfully used by the US Armed Forces, industry, and other organizations. The advantages of the PBT approach are: cost-effectiveness (lowest life-cycle training cost), learning effectiveness, reduced implementation time, and ease of administration. The PBT process comprises five distinctive and rigorous phases: Analysis of Job Performance, Design of Instructional Strategy, Development of Training Materials and Instructional Media, Validation of Materials and Media, and Implementation of the Instructional Program. Examples from the Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant (GCEP) are used to illustrate the application of PBT.

  16. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,129 1,178 1,249 1,303 1,564 1,634 1,875 1990's 3,710 3,720 4,477 4,453 3,747 3,806 2,827 2,468 2,391 5,336 2000's 5,377 3,491 4,148 3,293 3,914 3,740 6,028 6,269 6,858 6,470 2010's 6,441 6,939 6,616 6,804 6,462 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  17. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 1,225 1,736 1,807 1,582 4,278 2,390 2,537 1990's 27,720 36,088 36,741 35,503 37,347 39,116 40,334 40,706 39,601 41,149 2000's 42,519 42,243 44,008 44,762 44,016 43,386 38,938 41,197 40,286 39,447 2010's 37,316 35,339 37,397 36,638 36,707 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  18. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 188 1970's 264 99 749 986 1,097 1,244 1,229 1,321 954 701 1980's 483 529 468 440 2,849 6,703 4,206 19,590 23,240 19,932 1990's 21,476 28,440 32,004 32,257 30,945 35,052 38,453 41,535 40,120 38,412 2000's 39,324 36,149 34,706 33,316 33,044 27,956 24,638 26,332 24,337 22,925 2010's 20,835 21,554 21,470 20,679

  19. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,499 3,667 3,475 1970's 3,235 2,563 1,197 1,118 952 899 823 674 883 1,308 1980's 1,351 1,327 1,287 1,258 1,200 1,141 1,318 1,275 1,061 849 1990's 800 290 413 507 553 488 479 554 451 431 2000's 377 408 395 320 254 231 212 162 139 168 2010's 213 268 424 486 582 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  20. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 4,844 4,379 4,198 3,944 3,378 24 17 1990's 109 132 98 106 101 90 75 80 84 83 2000's 73 60 66 58 63 56 45 45 48 41 2010's 4,559 4,917 4,896 4,917 288 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 3,995 4,136 4,142 3,831 4,365 3,896 4,141 1990's 3,212 3,343 3,096 3,282 3,367 3,337 3,011 2,674 3,073 2,912 2000's 2,455 2,587 2,445 2,798 2,419 2,318 2,363 2,076 1,982 1,686 2010's 1,684 1,303 1,174 1,071 1,152 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  2. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 855 830 641 591 385 298 280 1990's 621 708 573 538 463 399 382 372 363 638 2000's 786 722 758 251 895 1,018 1,138 1,196 1,140 1,150 2010's 1,155 1,042 1,111 1,103 1,310 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,127 971 1,334 1970's 1,270 1,217 1,058 878 679 567 520 367 485 1,146 1980's 553 830 831 633 618 458 463 437 811 380 1990's 445 511 416 395 425 377 340 300 495 5,462 2000's 11,377 15,454 16,477 11,430 13,697 14,308 14,662 13,097 10,846 18,354 2010's 18,405 11,221 486 466 495 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  4. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 744 744 705 1970's 3,032 750 839 918 857 831 761 630 503 776 1980's 890 818 940 1,049 1,069 1,189 1,086 1,058 1,072 1,095 1990's 1,091 1,055 907 741 631 597 576 409 410 435 2000's 272 470 575 615 634 1,149 1,422 1,576 1,622 1,853 2010's 1,367 1,252 1,491 1,645 1,670 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  5. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 21,399 20,875 19,415 15,118 19,180 18,418 21,396 1990's 33,316 32,940 38,892 36,826 36,310 36,455 63,850 45,982 41,926 39,345 2000's 41,863 39,501 38,973 37,620 42,601 35,508 33,435 35,600 36,571 36,827 2010's 35,289 38,331 37,195 33,121 35,269 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  6. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 46,149 48,635 50,484 1970's 52,647 53,810 54,157 55,782 54,986 56,109 61,778 72,484 77,653 62,107 1980's 59,457 60,544 56,857 56,304 58,580 53,953 51,295 65,156 63,355 61,594 1990's 66,626 70,463 75,520 83,193 86,607 85,668 108,341 109,046 106,665 107,850 2000's 110,411 108,958 110,036 111,292 105,412

  7. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,086 2,165 2,216 1,957 2,737 2,112 2,005 1990's 4,835 4,777 4,753 4,734 5,059 4,542 4,283 4,420 4,471 4,553 2000's 4,738 3,874 5,141 4,548 4,602 4,816 4,364 4,323 4,283 4,521 2010's 4,294 5,473 5,887 6,707 5,736 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  8. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,750 31,237 31,121 29,705 35,751 40,508 38,392 1990's 39,249 42,166 39,700 39,211 35,432 34,900 35,236 30,370 26,034 25,055 2000's 25,934 28,266 25,525 26,276 27,818 27,380 28,435 28,213 27,161 24,089 2010's 23,238 24,938 27,809 32,119 36,231 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  9. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 50,952 55,724 57,270 1970's 58,926 55,914 56,376 61,647 62,860 60,008 52,087 55,238 61,868 71,559 1980's 74,434 80,401 85,934 90,772 98,307 99,933 100,305 99,170 103,302 94,889 1990's 96,698 101,851 104,609 101,962 101,564 94,930 100,379 96,830 92,785 93,308 2000's 96,787 88,885 81,287 74,745 84,355 87,404

  10. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 121 116 93 1970's 79 55 70 71 75 68 61 45 64 49 1980's 41 29 40 55 61 145 234 318 272 254 1990's 300 395 604 513 513 582 603 734 732 879 2000's 586 691 566 647 634 700 794 859 1,008 1,295 2010's 4,578 8,931 12,003 20,936 39,989 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  11. Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,732 2,754 2,715 6,514 8,701 8,919 9,615 1990's 9,146 9,141 8,745 9,285 9,951 8,492 8,549 8,141 7,985 7,880 2000's 8,276 5,436 4,534 4,481 3,370 3,914 3,739 2,779 2,206 1,573 2010's 1,616 3,063 3,031 5,996 4,782 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  12. California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,662 7,715 7,699 7,105 8,780 8,408 8,521 1990's 7,958 7,809 8,008 7,096 6,388 4,287 4,520 4,796 4,511 4,212 2000's 3,572 2,893 2,781 2,568 2,760 2,875 2,475 2,540 2,318 2,611 2010's 2,370 2,253 2,417 2,834 2,361 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  13. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 5,057 5,060 5,243 4,406 5,715 5,541 6,591 1990's 8,455 9,081 12,233 11,863 12,482 13,560 14,894 12,435 12,200 12,863 2000's 13,064 13,871 15,904 15,927 17,093 15,641 16,347 16,218 18,613 21,288 2010's 25,090 28,265 29,383 25,806 30,873 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  14. Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Florida Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,852 7,425 6,782 5,878 7,250 7,034 8,734 1990's 1,466 1,338 1,315 1,241 167 145 125 113 129 147 2000's 157 127 124 112 102 286 796 671 83 0 2010's 0 0 0 0 272 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 25,430 25,873 27,297 25,616 28,804 29,357 29,665 1990's 22,499 30,800 26,312 36,294 28,988 28,510 30,444 26,205 20,921 19,321 2000's 16,664 10,928 11,723 9,706 6,460 8,100 7,541 5,439 2,331 2,126 2010's 2,102 2,246 2,268 2,189 1,983 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  16. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 2,106 2,855 2,920 2,809 3,355 3,326 3,679 1990's 3,204 3,391 3,290 3,316 3,272 3,199 2,262 2,710 2,344 2,209 2000's 2,505 2,342 2,186 1,361 723 281 315 309 283 698 2010's 810 1,153 1,812 3,429 6,776 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  17. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 12,572 16,185 17,090 13,633 16,249 17,446 19,820 1990's 12,182 14,154 13,217 13,051 13,939 14,896 15,409 15,597 16,524 19,272 2000's 20,602 20,991 25,767 28,829 24,053 24,408 23,868 25,276 23,574 25,282 2010's 27,104 28,582 29,157 27,935 25,782 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  18. Assessment and remediation at former manufactured gas plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mehan, D.G.

    1995-12-01

    Over 1,000 former Manufactured Gas Plants (MGP) have been identified in the United States. Gal Plants were used to produce gas for lighting and heating from coal and oil from the mid-1800s until the 1950s. Former MGP sites are typically impacted by a variety of compounds that do not collectively lend themselves to {open_quotes}standard{close_quotes} assessment and remedial solutions. These compounds include the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, a variety of semi-volatile organic compound, and inorganic compounds (iron and cyanide). The assessment of former MGP sites is complicated because many former sites are now located in developed and industrialized areas. MGP wastes and by-products were typically disposed on-site. Many modern buildings are now located over former MGP sites. Standard assessment tools such as augering and drilling tend to encounter former structures, making their use difficult and ineffective. Assessment by excavation and geophysical methods allows the acquisition of only shallow data. The remediation of impacted soils and ground water at former MGP sites poses significant challenges due to the differing characteristics of the typical MGP compounds. For example, soil vapor extraction and ground water treatment may decrease VOC concentrations, yet be ineffective on the inorganic and PAH compounds. Because of the variety of typical MGP associated wastes, risk assessment is a vital tool in assessing and selecting the appropriate remedial strategies. Several states have aggressively adopted clean-up programs that rely on risk assessment to determine the appropriate remedial strategy at former MGP sites. At numerous sites, no further action is employed because of the VOCs have attenuated over time, the PAH and inorganic compounds are relatively immobile, ground water contamination plumes are limited, and risk assessment indicates acceptable risks.

  19. Wet-steam erosion of steam turbine disks and shafts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Averkina, N. V.; Zheleznyak, I. V.; Kachuriner, Yu. Ya.; Nosovitskii, I. A.; Orlik, V. G.; Shishkin, V. I.

    2011-01-15

    A study of wet-steam erosion of the disks and the rotor bosses or housings of turbines in thermal and nuclear power plants shows that the rate of wear does not depend on the diagrammed degree of moisture, but is determined by moisture condensing on the surfaces of the diaphragms and steam inlet components. Renovating the diaphragm seals as an assembly with condensate removal provides a manifold reduction in the erosion.

  20. Use Steam Jet Ejectors or Thermocompressors to Reduce Venting of Low-Pressure Steam, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip Sheet #29 (Fact Sheet), Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    9 Use Steam Jet Ejectors or Thermocompressors to Reduce Venting of Low-Pressure Steam Large industrial plants often vent signifcant quantities of low-pressure steam to the atmosphere, wasting energy, water, and water-treatment chemicals. Recovery of the latent heat content of low-pressure steam reduces the boiler load, resulting in energy and fuel cost savings. Low-pressure steam's potential uses include driving evaporation and distillation processes, producing hot water, space heating,

  1. Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    to Hydrogen Fuel | Department of Energy Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel Garbage In, Power Out: South Carolina BMW Plant Demonstrates Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel August 25, 2015 - 2:15pm Addthis The plant BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell forklifts. | Photo courtesy of BMW Manufacturing. The plant BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell

  2. EIA-816, Monthly Natural Gas Plant Liquids Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    EIA-816, Monthly Natural Gas Plant Liquids Report Page 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D. C. 20585 OMB No. 1905-0165 Expiration Date: 05/31/2016 (Revised 2013) EIA-816 MONTHLY NATURAL GAS PLANT LIQUIDS REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

  3. Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  4. Compressor discharge bleed air circuit in gas turbine plants and related method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar (Niskayuna, NY); Berrahou, Philip Fadhel (Latham, NY); Jandrisevits, Michael (Clifton Park, NY)

    2003-04-08

    A gas turbine system that includes a compressor, a turbine component and a load, wherein fuel and compressor discharge bleed air are supplied to a combustor and gaseous products of combustion are introduced into the turbine component and subsequently exhausted to atmosphere. A compressor discharge bleed air circuit removes bleed air from the compressor and supplies one portion of the bleed air to the combustor and another portion of the compressor discharge bleed air to an exhaust stack of the turbine component in a single cycle system, or to a heat recovery steam generator in a combined cycle system. In both systems, the bleed air diverted from the combustor may be expanded in an air expander to reduce pressure upstream of the exhaust stack or heat recovery steam generator.

  5. Compressor discharge bleed air circuit in gas turbine plants and related method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar (Niskayuna, NY); Berrahou, Philip Fadhel (Latham, NY); Jandrisevits, Michael (Clifton Park, NY)

    2002-01-01

    A gas turbine system that includes a compressor, a turbine component and a load, wherein fuel and compressor discharge bleed air are supplied to a combustor and gaseous products of combustion are introduced into the turbine component and subsequently exhausted to atmosphere. A compressor discharge bleed air circuit removes bleed air from the compressor and supplies one portion of the bleed air to the combustor and another portion of the compressor discharge bleed air to an exhaust stack of the turbine component in a single cycle system, or to a heat recovery steam generator in a combined cycle system. In both systems, the bleed air diverted from the combustor may be expanded in an air expander to reduce pressure upstream of the exhaust stack or heat recovery steam generator.

  6. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2. Processing Plant Capacity and Percent of Total U.S. Capacity, 2009 Figure 2. Processing Plant Capacity and Percent of Total U.S. Capacity, 2009...

  7. Small scale biomass fueled gas turbine power plant. Report for February 1992--October 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Purvis, C.R.; Craig, J.D.

    1998-01-01

    The paper discusses a new-generation, small-scale (<20 MWe) biomass-fueled power plant that is being developed based on a gas turbine (Brayton cycle) prime mover. Such power plants are expected to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of generating power from fuels such as wood. The new power plants are also expected to economically utilize annual plant growth material (e.g., straw, grass, rice hulls, animal manure, cotton gin trash, and nut shells) that are not normally considered as fuel for power plants. The paper summarizes the new power generation concept with emphasis on the engineering challenges presented by the gas turbine component.

  8. Model operating permits for natural gas processing plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arend, C.

    1995-12-31

    Major sources as defined in Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that are required to submit an operating permit application will need to: Evaluate their compliance status; Determine a strategic method of presenting the general and specific conditions of their Model Operating Permit (MOP); Maintain compliance with air quality regulations. A MOP is prepared to assist permitting agencies and affected facilities in the development of operating permits for a specific source category. This paper includes a brief discussion of example permit conditions that may be applicable to various types of Title V sources. A MOP for a generic natural gas processing plant is provided as an example. The MOP should include a general description of the production process and identify emission sources. The two primary elements that comprise a MOP are: Provisions of all existing state and/or local air permits; Identification of general and specific conditions for the Title V permit. The general provisions will include overall compliance with all Clean Air Act Titles. The specific provisions include monitoring, record keeping, and reporting. Although Title V MOPs are prepared on a case-by-case basis, this paper will provide a general guideline of the requirements for preparation of a MOP. Regulatory agencies have indicated that a MOP included in the Title V application will assist in preparation of the final permit provisions, minimize delays in securing a permit, and provide support during the public notification process.

  9. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 236 1970's 225 281 243 199 501 694 661 933 1,967 4,845 1980's 4,371 4,484 4,727 4,709 5,123 5,236 4,836 4,887 4,774 5,022 1990's 4,939 4,997 5,490 5,589 5,647 5,273 5,361 4,637 4,263 18,079 2000's 24,086 13,754 14,826 11,293 15,133 13,759 21,065 19,831 17,222 17,232 2010's 19,059 17,271 7,133 7,675 7,044 - =

  10. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,351 3,244 2,705 1970's 2,330 2,013 1,912 1,581 1,921 2,879 6,665 11,494 14,641 15,686 1980's 15,933 14,540 14,182 13,537 12,829 11,129 11,644 10,876 10,483 9,886 1990's 8,317 8,103 8,093 7,012 6,371 6,328 6,399 6,147 5,938 5,945 2000's 5,322 4,502 4,230 3,838 4,199 3,708 3,277 3,094 3,921 2,334 2010's

  11. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 5,150 5,428 4,707 1970's 4,490 3,592 3,199 2,969 2,571 2,404 2,421 2,257 2,394 2,986 1980's 3,677 5,008 5,602 7,171 7,860 8,420 6,956 7,859 6,945 6,133 1990's 6,444 6,342 6,055 5,924 5,671 5,327 4,937 5,076 5,481 5,804 2000's 6,021 6,168 5,996 5,818 6,233 6,858 7,254 7,438 7,878 10,140 2010's 11,381

  12. Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 2,633 3,266 3,412 1970's 1,493 3,822 3,382 3,489 3,958 3,659 4,032 4,524 3,570 3,950 1980's 4,075 5,219 3,930 4,180 4,259 3,874 10,139 12,396 21,237 18,302 1990's 17,579 14,392 11,851 13,300 13,780 13,679 10,970 17,872 11,801 11,407 2000's 12,795 11,379 3,352 3,404 3,381 2,815 2,911 2,729 3,280 8,489 2010's

  13. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 34,803 32,639 30,334 1970's 29,901 27,585 24,156 17,498 17,201 15,221 14,125 13,567 13,288 10,720 1980's 8,583 7,278 14,113 14,943 15,442 16,973 16,203 15,002 14,892 13,376 1990's 12,424 11,786 12,385 12,053 11,250 11,509 12,169 11,600 10,242 10,762 2000's 11,063 11,060 12,982 13,971 14,061 13,748 14,056

  14. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 4,126 4,546 4,058 1970's 3,405 4,152 4,114 4,674 6,210 9,620 11,944 13,507 13,094 12,606 1980's 12,651 13,427 12,962 11,314 10,771 11,913 10,441 10,195 11,589 13,340 1990's 13,178 15,822 18,149 18,658 19,612 25,225 23,362 28,851 24,365 26,423 2000's 29,105 29,195 31,952 33,650 35,821 34,782 36,317 38,180

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 30,480 29,042 35,813 1970's 38,843 39,741 40,738 43,909 43,416 42,763 40,975 41,971 45,582 45,640 1980's 39,130 36,653 23,023 28,561 29,707 28,964 27,050 28,397 29,800 30,273 1990's 29,642 41,848 42,733 44,014 46,936 47,442 47,996 38,224 45,801 48,107 2000's 44,200 38,517 39,196 34,724 34,573 31,521 30,726

  16. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 11,500 8,573 8,579 1970's 6,574 6,133 6,063 5,441 5,557 5,454 5,231 4,764 6,192 3,923 1980's 6,845 5,638 6,854 6,213 6,516 6,334 4,466 2,003 2,142 1,444 1990's 1,899 2,181 2,342 2,252 2,024 2,303 2,385 2,404 2,263 2,287 2000's 1,416 1,558 1,836 1,463 2,413 1,716 2,252 1,957 2,401 3,270 2010's 4,576 4,684

  17. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 14,150 6,024 8,439 1970's 11,062 10,939 9,411 9,428 9,605 9,258 8,284 8,504 8,518 7,973 1980's 8,786 9,060 7,086 7,505 8,638 9,590 8,681 8,830 9,839 10,121 1990's 9,108 9,745 9,436 10,830 10,901 7,396 7,093 7,179 7,337 7,334 2000's 10,398 11,094 9,960 7,226 7,656 7,675 8,017 8,071 8,391 8,786 2010's

  18. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 11,993 11,390 12,540 1970's 12,863 12,802 16,228 16,093 14,072 13,224 14,669 15,625 14,363 14,056 1980's 13,582 15,160 15,482 19,668 29,169 31,871 25,819 24,827 29,434 29,247 1990's 28,591 31,470 31,378 29,118 33,486 36,058 48,254 49,333 44,358 50,639 2000's 65,085 65,740 74,387 69,817 70,831 67,563 67,435

  19. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Whitaker, Jr., James; Garner, James R; Whitaker, Michael; Lockwood, Dunbar; Gilligan, Kimberly V; Younkin, James R; Hooper, David A; Henkel, James J; Krichinsky, Alan M

    2011-01-01

    As Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (GCEPs) increase in separative work unit (SWU) capacity, the current International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) model safeguards approach needs to be strengthened. New measures to increase the effectiveness of the safeguards approach are being investigated that will be mutually beneficial to the facility operators and the IAEA. One of the key concepts being studied for application at future GCEPs is embracing joint use equipment for process monitoring of load cells at feed and withdrawal (F/W) stations. A mock F/W system was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to generate and collect F/W data from an analogous system. The ORNL system has been used to collect data representing several realistic normal process and off-normal (including diversion) scenarios. Emphasis is placed on the novelty of the analysis of data from the sensors as well as the ability to build information out of raw data, which facilitates a more effective and efficient verification process. This paper will provide a progress report on recent accomplishments and next steps.

  20. Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project Evaluation of Siting a HTGR Co-generation Plant on an Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.E. Demick

    2011-10-01

    This paper summarizes an evaluation by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project of siting a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) plant on an existing nuclear plant site that is located in an area of significant industrial activity. This is a co-generation application in which the HTGR Plant will be supplying steam and electricity to one or more of the nearby industrial plants.

  1. Transport Membrane Condenser for Water and Energy Recovery from Power Plant Flue Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dexin Wang

    2012-03-31

    The new waste heat and water recovery technology based on a nanoporous ceramic membrane vapor separation mechanism has been developed for power plant flue gas application. The recovered water vapor and its latent heat from the flue gas can increase the power plant boiler efficiency and reduce water consumption. This report describes the development of the Transport Membrane Condenser (TMC) technology in details for power plant flue gas application. The two-stage TMC design can achieve maximum heat and water recovery based on practical power plant flue gas and cooling water stream conditions. And the report includes: Two-stage TMC water and heat recovery system design based on potential host power plant coal fired flue gas conditions; Membrane performance optimization process based on the flue gas conditions, heat sink conditions, and water and heat transport rate requirement; Pilot-Scale Unit design, fabrication and performance validation test results. Laboratory test results showed the TMC system can exact significant amount of vapor and heat from the flue gases. The recovered water has been tested and proved of good quality, and the impact of SO{sub 2} in the flue gas on the membrane has been evaluated. The TMC pilot-scale system has been field tested with a slip stream of flue gas in a power plant to prove its long term real world operation performance. A TMC scale-up design approach has been investigated and an economic analysis of applying the technology has been performed.

  2. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    States along the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf States have been some of the most prolific natural gas producing areas. U.S. natural gas processing capacity showed a net increase of about 12...

  3. Inspect and Repair Steam Traps, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    leaking traps should account for less than 5% of the trap population. If your steam distribution system includes more than 500 traps, a steam trap survey will probably reveal...

  4. Apparatus and methods for supplying auxiliary steam in a combined cycle system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gorman, William G. (Ballston Spa, NY); Carberg, William George (Ballston Spa, NY); Jones, Charles Michael (Ballston Lake, NY)

    2002-01-01

    To provide auxiliary steam, a low pressure valve is opened in a combined cycle system to divert low pressure steam from the heat recovery steam generator to a header for supplying steam to a second combined cycle's steam turbine seals, sparging devices and cooling steam for the steam turbine if the steam turbine and gas turbine lie on a common shaft with the generator. Cooling steam is supplied the gas turbine in the combined cycle system from the high pressure steam turbine. Spent gas turbine cooling steam may augment the low pressure steam supplied to the header by opening a high pressure valve whereby high and low pressure steam flows are combined. An attemperator is used to reduce the temperature of the combined steam in response to auxiliary steam flows above a predetermined flow and a steam header temperature above a predetermined temperature. The auxiliary steam may be used to start additional combined cycle units or to provide a host unit with steam turbine cooling and sealing steam during full-speed no-load operation after a load rejection.

  5. Defining the needs for gas centrifuge enrichment plants advanced safeguards

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyer, Brian David; Erpenbeck, Heather H; Miller, Karen A; Swinhoe, Martyn T; Ianakiev, Kiril; Marlow, Johnna B

    2010-04-05

    Current safeguards approaches used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at gas centrifuge enrichment plants (GCEPs) need enhancement in order to verify declared low-enriched (LEU) production, detect undeclared LEU production and detect highly enriched uranium (HEU) production with adequate detection probability using nondestructive assay (NDA) techniques. At present inspectors use attended systems, systems needing the presence of an inspector for operation, during inspections to verify the mass and {sup 235}U enrichment of declared UF{sub 6} containers used in the process of enrichment at GCEPs. In verifying declared LEU production, the inspectors also take samples for off-site destructive assay (DA) which provide accurate data, with 0.1% to 0.5% measurement uncertainty, on the enrichment of the UF{sub 6} feed, tails, and product. However, taking samples of UF{sub 6} for off-site analysis is a much more labor and resource intensive exercise for the operator and inspector. Furthermore, the operator must ship the samples off-site to the IAEA laboratory which delays the timeliness of results and interruptions to the continuity of knowledge (CofK) of the samples during their storage and transit. This paper contains an analysis of possible improvements in unattended and attended NDA systems such as process monitoring and possible on-site analysis of DA samples that could reduce the uncertainty of the inspector's measurements and provide more effective and efficient IAEA GCEPs safeguards. We also introduce examples advanced safeguards systems that could be assembled for unattended operation.

  6. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3. Btu Content at Plant Inlets for Processing Plants in the United States, 2009 Minimum Annual Btu Content Maximum Annual Btu Content Average Annual Btu Content Alaska 850 1071 985...

  7. Synthesis Gas Demonstration Plant, Baskett, Kentucky: environmental report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1980-01-01

    A summary of the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed plant is presented. The construction and operation of the plant are discussed in detail.

  8. Gas treatment and by-products recovery of Thailand`s first coke plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Diemer, P.E.; Seyfferth, W.

    1997-12-31

    Coke is needed in the blast furnace as the main fuel and chemical reactant and the main product of a coke plant. The second main product of the coke plant is coke oven gas. During treatment of the coke oven gas some coal chemicals like tar, ammonia, sulphur and benzole can be recovered as by-products. Since the market prices for these by-products are rather low and often erratic it does not in most cases justify the investment to recover these products. This is the reason why modern gas treatment plants only remove those impurities from the crude gas which must be removed for technical and environmental reasons. The cleaned gas, however, is a very valuable product as it replaces natural gas in steel work furnaces and can be used by other consumers. The surplus can be combusted in the boiler of a power plant. A good example for an optimal plant layout is the new coke oven facility of Thai Special Steel Industry (TSSI) in Rayong. The paper describes the TSSI`s coke oven gas treatment plant.

  9. One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Hydrogen Fuel | Department of Energy One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel One Man's Trash, Another Man's Fuel: BMW Plant Converts Landfill Gas to Hydrogen Fuel August 25, 2015 - 3:08pm Addthis A worker drives a material handling train powered by hydrogen fuel cells at the BMW plant in Greer, South Carolina. The plant is home to the world's largest fleet of fuel cell forklifts. | Photo courtesy of BMW Manufacturing. A worker drives a material

  10. Water spray ejector system for steam injected engine

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hines, W.R.

    1991-10-08

    This paper describes a method of increasing the power output of a steam injected gas turbine engine. It comprises: a compressor, a combustor having a dome which receives fuel and steam from a dual flow nozzle, and a turbine in series combination with a gas flow path passing therethrough, and a system for injection of superheated steam into the gas flow path, the method comprising spraying water into the steam injection system where the water is evaporated by the superheated steam, mixing the evaporated water with the existing steam in the steam injection system so that the resultant steam is at a temperature of at least 28 degrees celsius (50 degrees fahrenheit) superheat and additional steam is added to the dome from the fuel nozzle to obtain a resultant increased mass flow of superheated steam mixture for injection into the gas flow path, and controlling the amount of water sprayed into the steam injection system to maximize the mass flow of superheated steam without quenching the flame.

  11. Steam Digest Volume IV

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2004-07-01

    This edition of the Steam Digest is a compendium of 2003 articles on the technical and financial benefits of steam efficiency, presented by the stakeholders of the U.S. Department of Energy's BestPractices Steam effort.

  12. Technical considerations in repowering a nuclear plant for fossil fueled operation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Patti, F.J.

    1996-03-01

    Repowering involves replacement of the reactor by a fossil fuel source of steam. This source can be a conventional fossil fueled boiler or the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) on a gas turbine exhaust. The existing steam turbine plant is used to the extent possible. Alternative fuels for repowering a nuclear plant are coal, natural gas and oil. In today`s world oil is not usually an alternative. Selection of coal or natural gas is largely a matter of availability of the fuel near the location of the plant. Both the fossil boiler and the HRSG produce steam at higher pressures and temperatures than the throttle conditions for a saturated steam nuclear turbine. It is necessary to match the steam conditions from the new source to the existing turbine as closely as possible. Technical approaches to achieve a match range from using a topping turbine at the front end of the cycle to attemperation of the throttle steam with feedwater. The electrical output from the repowered plant is usually greater than that of the original nuclear fueled design. This requires consideration of the ability to use the excess electricity. Interfacing of the new facility with the existing turbine plant requires consideration of facility layout and design. Site factors must also be considered, especially for a coal fired boiler, since rail and coal handling facilities must be added to a site for which these were not considered. Additional site factors that require consideration are ash handling and disposal.

  13. Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle (T-D Cycle{trademark}) application for nuclear and fossil-fueled power generating plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsiklauri, B.; Korolev, V.N.; Durst, B.M.; Shen, P.K.

    1998-07-01

    The Tsiklauri-Durst combined cycle is a combination of the best attributes of both nuclear power and combined cycle gas power plants. A technology patented in 1994 by Battelle Memorial Institute offers a synergistic approach to power generation. A typical combined cycle is defined as the combination of gas turbine Brayton Cycle, topping steam turbine Rankine Cycle. Exhaust from the gas turbine is used in heat recovery steam generators to produce steam for a steam turbine. In a standard combined cycle gas turbine-steam turbine application, the gas turbine generates about 65 to 70 percent of system power. The thermal efficiency for such an installation is typically about 45 to 50 percent. A T-D combined cycle takes a new, creative approach to combined cycle design by directly mixing high enthalpy steam from the heat recovery steam generator, involving the steam generator at more than one pressure. Direct mixing of superheated and saturated steam eliminates the requirement for a large heat exchanger, making plant modification simple and economical.

  14. Gas turbine power plant with supersonic shock compression ramps

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lawlor, Shawn P. (Bellevue, WA); Novaresi, Mark A. (San Diego, CA); Cornelius, Charles C. (Kirkland, WA)

    2008-10-14

    A gas turbine engine. The engine is based on the use of a gas turbine driven rotor having a compression ramp traveling at a local supersonic inlet velocity (based on the combination of inlet gas velocity and tangential speed of the ramp) which compresses inlet gas against a stationary sidewall. The supersonic compressor efficiently achieves high compression ratios while utilizing a compact, stabilized gasdynamic flow path. Operated at supersonic speeds, the inlet stabilizes an oblique/normal shock system in the gasdynamic flow path formed between the rim of the rotor, the strakes, and a stationary external housing. Part load efficiency is enhanced by use of a lean pre-mix system, a pre-swirl compressor, and a bypass stream to bleed a portion of the gas after passing through the pre-swirl compressor to the combustion gas outlet. Use of a stationary low NOx combustor provides excellent emissions results.

  15. File:BOEMRE oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf ...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    oil.gas.plant.platform.sta.brbra.map.4.2010.pdf Jump to: navigation, search File File history File usage Federal Leases in Pacific Ocean, near Santa Barbara Channel Size of this...

  16. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  17. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  18. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  19. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  20. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  1. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  2. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  3. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  4. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  5. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  6. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4...

  7. Consider Installing a Condensing Economizer, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip Sheet #26A (Fact Sheet), Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    A Suggested Actions ■ ■ Determine your boiler capacity, average steam production, combustion efficiency, stack gas temperature, annual hours of operation, and annual fuel consumption. ■ ■ Identify in-plant uses for heated water, such as boiler makeup water heating, preheating, or domestic hot water or process water heating requirements. ■ ■ Determine the thermal requirements that can be met through installation of a condensing economizer. Determine annual fuel energy and cost

  8. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Btu Content The natural gas received and transported by the major intrastate and interstate mainline transmission systems must be within a specific energy (Btu)...

  9. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 2013-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 2013-2013

  10. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    of new production basins, including the San Juan Basin, Powder River Basin, and Green River Basin, natural gas processing capacity in this region has expanded...

  11. Impact of different plants on the gas profile of a landfill cover

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reichenauer, Thomas G.; Watzinger, Andrea; Riesing, Johann; Gerzabek, Martin H.

    2011-05-15

    Research highlights: > Plants influence gas profile and methane oxidation in landfill covers. > Plants regulate water content and increase the availability of oxygen for methane oxidation. > Plant species with deep roots like alfalfa showed more stimulation of methane oxidation than plants with shallow root systems like grasses. - Abstract: Methane is an important greenhouse gas emitted from landfill sites and old waste dumps. Biological methane oxidation in landfill covers can help to reduce methane emissions. To determine the influence of different plant covers on this oxidation in a compost layer, we conducted a lysimeter study. We compared the effect of four different plant covers (grass, alfalfa + grass, miscanthus and black poplar) and of bare soil on the concentration of methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen in lysimeters filled with compost. Plants were essential for a sustainable reduction in methane concentrations, whereas in bare soil, methane oxidation declined already after 6 weeks. Enhanced microbial activity - expected in lysimeters with plants that were exposed to landfill gas - was supported by the increased temperature of the gas in the substrate and the higher methane oxidation potential. At the end of the first experimental year and from mid-April of the second experimental year, the methane concentration was most strongly reduced in the lysimeters containing alfalfa + grass, followed by poplar, miscanthus and grass. The observed differences probably reflect the different root morphology of the investigated plants, which influences oxygen transport to deeper compost layers and regulates the water content.

  12. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    National Overview Processing Plant Utilization Data collected for 2009 show that the States with the highest total processing capacity are among the States with the highest average...

  13. Steam turbine upgrading: low-hanging fruit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peltier, R.

    2006-04-15

    The thermodynamic performance of the steam turbine, more than any other plant component, determines overall plant efficiency. Upgrading steam path components and using computerized design tools and manufacturing techniques to minimise internal leaks are two ways to give tired steam turbines a new lease on life. The article presents three case studies that illustrate how to do that. These are at Unit 1 of Dairyland's J.P. Madgett Station in Alma, WI, a coal-fired subcritical steam plant; the four units at AmerenUE's 600 MW coal-fired Labadie plant west of St. Louis; and Unit 3 of KeyPlan Corp's Northport Power Station on Long Island. 8 figs.

  14. Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Petrochemical Plant | Department of Energy Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a Petrochemical Plant Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a Petrochemical Plant This case study describes how Dow Chemical Company saved 272,000 MMBtu and $1.9 million annually after increasing the steam system energy efficiency of a plant in Louisiana. PDF icon Dow Chemical Company: Assessment Leads to Steam System Energy Savings in a

  15. EIS-0071: Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuels Gas Demonstration Plant, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The U.S. Department of Energy developed this EIS to assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of a 3,155-ton-per-day capacity facility, which will demonstrate the technical operability, economic viability, and environmental acceptability of the Memphis Division of Light, Gas and Water coal gasification plant at Memphis, Tennessee.

  16. How to Calculate the True Cost of Steam | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    How to Calculate the True Cost of Steam How to Calculate the True Cost of Steam This brief details how to calculate the true cost of steam, which is important for monitoring and managing energy use in a plant, evaluating proposed design changes to the generation or distribution infrastructure and the process itself, and for continuing to identify competitive advantages through steam system and plant efficiency improvements. PDF icon How to Calculate the True Cost of Steam (September 2003) More

  17. Selection of an acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stone, J.B.; Jones, G.N.; Denton, R.D.

    1996-12-31

    Acid gas contaminants, such as, CO{sub 2}, H{sub 2}S and mercaptans, must be removed to a very low level from a feed natural gas before it is liquefied. CO{sub 2} is typically removed to a level of about 100 ppm to prevent freezing during LNG processing. Sulfur compounds are removed to levels required by the eventual consumer of the gas. Acid-gas removal processes can be broadly classified as: solvent-based, adsorption, cryogenic or physical separation. The advantages and disadvantages of these processes will be discussed along with design and operating considerations. This paper will also discuss the important considerations affecting the choice of the best acid-gas removal process for LNG plants. Some of these considerations are: the remoteness of the LNG plant from the resource; the cost of the feed gas and the economics of minimizing capital expenditures; the ultimate disposition of the acid gas; potential for energy integration; and the composition, including LPG and conditions of the feed gas. The example of the selection of the acid-gas removal process for an LNG plant.

  18. DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants DOE, RTI to Design and Build Gas Cleanup System for IGCC Power Plants July 13, 2009 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces a collaborative project with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International to design, build, and test a warm gas cleanup system to remove multiple contaminants from coal-derived syngas. The 50-MWe system will include technologies to remove

  19. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 113 86 71 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 23 19 16 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 21 2014

  20. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 29,056 869 2012-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,262 90 2012-2013

  1. California Offshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) NA 381 2013-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) NA 8 2013-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 9 2014

  2. Use Vapor Recompression to Recover Low-Pressure Waste Steam, Energy Tips: STEAM, Steam Tip Sheet #11 (Fact Sheet), Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO), Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    1 Use Vapor Recompression to Recover Low-Pressure Waste Steam Low-pressure steam exhaust from industrial operations such as evaporators or cookers is usually vented to the atmosphere or condensed in a cooling tower. Simultaneously, other plant operations may require intermediate-pressure steam at 20 to 50 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). Instead of letting down high- pressure steam across a throttling valve to meet these needs, low-pressure waste steam can be mechanically compressed or

  3. Natural Gas Processing Plants in the United States: 2010 Update...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    for about 12 percent of total U.S. capacity. As of 2009, there were a total of 4 plants in the State, with the largest one reporting a capacity of 8.5 Bcf per day. Average...

  4. Fast fluidized bed steam generator

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bryers, Richard W. (Flemington, NJ); Taylor, Thomas E. (Bergenfield, NJ)

    1980-01-01

    A steam generator in which a high-velocity, combustion-supporting gas is passed through a bed of particulate material to provide a fluidized bed having a dense-phase portion and an entrained-phase portion for the combustion of fuel material. A first set of heat transfer elements connected to a steam drum is vertically disposed above the dense-phase fluidized bed to form a first flow circuit for heat transfer fluid which is heated primarily by the entrained-phase fluidized bed. A second set of heat transfer elements connected to the steam drum and forming the wall structure of the furnace provides a second flow circuit for the heat transfer fluid, the lower portion of which is heated by the dense-phase fluidized bed and the upper portion by the entrained-phase fluidized bed.

  5. Integration of oxygen plants and gas turbines in IGCC facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, A.R.; Sorensen, J.C.; Woodward, D.W.

    1996-10-01

    The commercialization of Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) power has been aided by concepts involving the integration of a cryogenic air separation unit (ASU) with the gas turbine combined-cycle module. It is known and now widely accepted that an ASU designed for elevated pressure service and optimally integrated with the gas turbine can increase overall IGCC power output, increase overall efficiency, and decrease the net cost of power generation compared to non-integrated facilities employing low pressure ASU`s. Depending upon the specific gas turbine, gasification technology, NO{sub x} emission specification, and other site specific factors, various degrees of compressed air and nitrogen integration are optimal. Air Products has supplied ASU`s with no integration (Destec/Plaquemine IGCC), nitrogen-only integration (Tampa Electric/Polk County IGCC), and full air and nitrogen integration (Demkolec/Buggenum IGCC). Continuing advancements in both air separation and gas turbine technologies offer new integration opportunities to further improve performance and reduce costs. This paper reviews basic integration principles, highlights the integration scheme used at Polk County, and describes some advanced concepts based on emerging gas turbines. Operability issues associated with integration will be reviewed and control measures described for the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of these facilities.

  6. How a Geothermal Power Plant Works (Simple) | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    a Geothermal Power Plant Works (Simple) How a Geothermal Power Plant Works (Simple) Most power plants-whether fueled by coal, gas, nuclear power, or geothermal energy-have one feature in common: they convert heat to electricity. Heat from the Earth, or geothermal - Geo (Earth) + thermal (heat) - energy is accessed by drilling water or steam wells in a process similar to drilling for oil. Geothermal power plants have much in common with traditional power-generating stations. They use many of the

  7. Power plant including an exhaust gas recirculation system for injecting recirculated exhaust gases in the fuel and compressed air of a gas turbine engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Anand, Ashok Kumar; Nagarjuna Reddy, Thirumala Reddy; Shaffer, Jason Brian; York, William David

    2014-05-13

    A power plant is provided and includes a gas turbine engine having a combustor in which compressed gas and fuel are mixed and combusted, first and second supply lines respectively coupled to the combustor and respectively configured to supply the compressed gas and the fuel to the combustor and an exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system to re-circulate exhaust gas produced by the gas turbine engine toward the combustor. The EGR system is coupled to the first and second supply lines and configured to combine first and second portions of the re-circulated exhaust gas with the compressed gas and the fuel at the first and second supply lines, respectively.

  8. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 10,273 236,886 101,613 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 195 7,150 9,890 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 14,335

  9. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 151,301 99,910 94,790 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 3,378 2,694 2,454 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 5,100 3,585 2012

  10. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 116,955 189,278 315,229 867,111 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 8,010 14,195 41,116 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 57,582 2014

  11. Texas Onshore-Kansas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 57,971 63,053 144,573 112,694 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,727 5,881 5,145...

  12. California Onshore-California Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 180,648 169,203 164,401 162,413 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 9,923 10,641 9,597 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 12,755 13,192

  13. Alabama Offshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 53,348 53,771 49,474 2012-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,695 2,767 2,519 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,978 3,721

  14. Alabama Onshore-Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 100,491 33,921 35,487 31,116 2011-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 2,614 2,781 2,620 2012-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 3,132 3,323

  15. Steam Field | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Steam Field Jump to: navigation, search GEOTHERMAL ENERGYGeothermal Home Print PDF Sanyal Temperature Classification: Steam Field Dictionary.png Steam Field: No definition has been...

  16. Steam atmosphere drying exhaust steam recompression system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Becker, Frederick E. (Reading, MA); Smolensky, Leo A. (Concord, MA); Doyle, Edward F. (Dedham, MA); DiBella, Francis A. (Roslindale, MA)

    1994-01-01

    This invention relates to a heated steam atmosphere drying system comprising dryer in combination with an exhaust recompression system which is extremely energy efficient and eliminates dangers known to air dryers. The system uses superheated steam as the drying medium, which recirculated through the system where its heat of evaporation and heat of compression is recovered, thereby providing a constant source of heat to the drying chamber. The dryer has inlets whereby feedstock and superheated steam are fed therein. High heat transfer and drying rates are achieved by intimate contact of the superheated steam with the particles being dried The dryer comprises a vessel which enables the feedstock and steam to enter recirculate together. When the feedstock becomes dry it will exit the dryer with the steam and become separated from the steam through the use of a curvilinear louver separator (CLS). The CLS enables removal of fine and ultrafine particles from the dryer. Water vapor separated from the particles in the CLS as superheated steam, may then be recovered and recirculated as steam through the use of a compressor to either directly or indirectly heat the dryer, and a heat exchanger or a heater to directly provide heat to the dryer. This system not only provides a very efficient heat transfer system but results in a minimum carry-over of ultrafine particles thereby eliminating any explosive hazard.

  17. Steam atmosphere drying exhaust steam recompression system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Becker, F.E.; Smolensky, L.A.; Doyle, E.F.; DiBella, F.A.

    1994-03-08

    This invention relates to a heated steam atmosphere drying system comprising dryer in combination with an exhaust recompression system which is extremely energy efficient and eliminates dangers known to air dryers. The system uses superheated steam as the drying medium, which recirculates through the system where its heat of evaporation and heat of compression is recovered, thereby providing a constant source of heat to the drying chamber. The dryer has inlets whereby feedstock and superheated steam are fed therein. High heat transfer and drying rates are achieved by intimate contact of the superheated steam with the particles being dried. The dryer comprises a vessel which enables the feedstock and steam to enter and recirculate together. When the feedstock becomes dry it will exit the dryer with the steam and become separated from the steam through the use of a curvilinear louver separator (CLS). The CLS enables removal of fine and ultrafine particles from the dryer. Water vapor separated from the particles in the CLS as superheated steam, may then be recovered and recirculated as steam through the use of a compressor to either directly or indirectly heat the dryer, and a heat exchanger or a heater to directly provide heat to the dryer. This system not only provides a very efficient heat transfer system but results in a minimum carry-over of ultrafine particles thereby eliminating any explosive hazard. 17 figures.

  18. Analysis and decision document in support of acquisition of steam supply for the Hanford 200 Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brown, D.R.; Daellenbach, K.K.; Hendrickson, P.L.; Kavanaugh, D.C.; Reilly, R.W.; Shankle, D.L.; Smith, S.A.; Weakley, S.A.; Williams, T.A. ); Grant, T.F. )

    1992-02-01

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is now evaluating its facility requirements in support of its cleanup mission at Hanford. One of the early findings is that the 200-Area steam plants, constructed in 1943, will not meet future space heating and process needs. Because the 200 Area will serve as the primary area for waste treatment and long-term storage, a reliable steam supply is a critical element of Hanford operations. This Analysis and Decision Document (ADD) is a preliminary review of the steam supply options available to the DOE. The ADD contains a comprehensive evaluation of the two major acquisition options: line-term versus privatization. It addresses the life-cycle costs associated with each alternative, as well as factors such as contracting requirements and the impact of market, safety, security, and regulatory issues. Specifically, this ADD documents current and future steam requirements for the 200 Area, describes alternatives available to DOE for meeting these requirements, and compares the alternatives across a number of decision criteria, including life-cycle cost. DOE has currently limited the ADD evaluation alternatives to replacing central steam plants rather than expanding the study to include alternative heat sources, such as a distributed network of boilers or heat pumps. Thirteen project alternatives were analyzed in the ADD. One of the alternatives was the rehabilitation of the existing 200-East coal-fired facility. The other twelve alternatives are combinations of (1) coal- or gas-fueled plants, (2) steam-only or cogeneration facilities, (3) primary or secondary cogeneration of electricity, and (4) public or private ownership.

  19. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Feet) Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Ohio (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 33,332 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

  20. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 614 566 532 512 575 1990's 519 545 472 490 500 496 621 785 776 833 2000's 921 785 783 598 615 603 575 528 464 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  1. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 62 66 64 88 80 100 89 89 78 1990's 82 79 118 115 103 134 132 121 143 161 2000's 153 182 182 119 98 85 74 92 83 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  2. California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 9 1980's 11 6 6 6 5 6 7 7 7 4 1990's 5 4 5 6 5 4 3 4 5 7 2000's 10 8 10 8 8 9 8 9 6 6 2010's 5 4 4 4 4

  3. California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Future Production (Million Barrels) San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 74 1980's 74 51 118 111 100 115 104 102 96 91 1990's 82 71 79 81 71 77 77 79 57 59 2000's 63 51 68 78 94 110 100 103 97 113 2010's 98 78 77 85 96

  4. Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 23 1980's 24 26 29 43 39 40 35 27 30 25 1990's 26 28 27 26 26 26 46 54 38 167 2000's 55 40 39 29 36 36 42 49 49 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  5. Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 375 1980's 369 364 391 413 440 433 428 417 363 342 1990's 328 356 336 329 326 353 332 382 354 217 2000's 369 335 353 347 420 423 466 534 554 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  6. Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 64 88 75 99 103 100 89 102 92 72 1990's 80 75 80 86 86 93 93 87 85 76 2000's 72 67 71 69 79 91 90 111 105 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  7. Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 231 1980's 216 230 265 285 270 260 237 241 208 213 1990's 181 208 211 253 254 272 289 286 246 226 2000's 209 226 241 207 221 226 234 271 196 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  8. Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 248 1980's 252 260 289 292 295 269 281 277 260 260 1990's 279 273 272 278 290 287 323 347 363 422 2000's 406 378 370 287 326 309 333 327 310 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  9. Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 34 1980's 44 49 53 73 74 77 86 88 81 88 1990's 81 71 71 64 59 54 54 35 35 32 2000's 49 49 50 51 53 48 53 56 132 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  10. Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 272 1980's 321 308 278 342 298 293 277 264 263 266 1990's 247 243 251 248 265 271 290 260 276 223 2000's 283 269 277 248 304 333 357 426 396 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  11. Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 64 1980's 85 102 105 133 106 104 109 92 98 73 1990's 76 82 68 79 62 70 65 59 51 36 2000's 34 29 25 32 43 90 133 203 274 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  12. Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 182 1980's 135 186 199 219 233 256 246 243 238 238 1990's 256 241 289 273 265 274 303 327 282 305 2000's 434 290 351 345 383 411 439 491 432 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  13. Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 505 1980's 498 537 588 681 691 665 717 640 547 554 1990's 558 477 444 439 414 444 429 459 491 495 2000's 526 525 510 498 499 575 566 558 543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  14. Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 351 1980's 290 335 296 262 282 283 331 307 326 332 1990's 354 333 257 298 267 284 262 290 226 223 2000's 217 251 181 163 197 250 233 262 199 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  15. Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Texas - RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 79 1980's 92 86 119 121 119 111 119 115 106 94 1990's 104 101 92 92 98 94 119 98 93 158 2000's 161 189 238 236 235 285 385 367 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

  16. U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) U.S. Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 679 681 638 622 678 1990's 619 640 610 630 624 655 776 920 931 998 2000's 1,078 976 973 725 721 696 653 624 548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  17. ,"Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2006 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  18. Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 494 0 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  19. Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Nevada Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1980's 0 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 53 30 21 16 1 11 9 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  20. Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 0 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and