National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for gas treatment plant

  1. 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.

  2. Coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant of Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Egorov, V.N.; Anikin, G.J.; Gross, M.

    1995-12-01

    Magnitogorsk Integrated Iron and Steel Works, Russia, decided to erect a new coke oven gas treatment and by-product plant to replace the existing obsolete units and to improve the environmental conditions of the area. The paper deals with the technological concept and the design requirements. Commissioning is scheduled at the beginning of 1996. The paper describes H{sub 2}S and NH{sub 3} removal, sulfur recovery and ammonia destruction, primary gas cooling and electrostatic tar precipitation, and the distributed control system that will be installed.

  3. Method of measurement of VOCs in the off-gas and wastewater of wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Min Wang; Keener, T.C.; Orton, T.L.; Zhu, H.; Bishop, P.; Pekonen, S.; Siddiqui, K.

    1997-12-31

    VOCs need to be controlled according to Title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), so an accurate estimation of the total VOC emissions must be attained. This paper reports on a study where EPA method 624 was revised so that this method could be used for VOC analysis both in the water and off-gas of wastewater treatment plants. The revised method uses the same approach and equipment as water and soil analyses, thereby providing a great time and cost advantage for anyone needing to perform this type of analysis. Without using a cryogenic preconcentration step, gas samples from Tedlar bags are easily analyzed to concentrations of approximately 20 ppb using scan mode in a GC-MS unit. For the wastewater, scan mode was still used for the identification, but Selected Ion Monitoring (SIM) mode was used for quantitative analysis because of lower VOC concentration in the water. The results show that this method`s detection limit (MDL) was lowered 2--3 orders of magnitude when compared with scan mode. The modified method has been successfully applied to the identification and quantitative analysis of wastewater and off-gas VOCs from a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) aeration basin (120 MGD).

  4. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants: A comparison of young and aged landfill

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wang, Xiaojun; Jia, Mingsheng; Chen, Xiaohai; Xu, Ying; Lin, Xiangyu; Kao, Chih Ming; Chen, Shaohua

    2014-07-15

    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 matter content. • Strong CH{sub 4} emissions occurred in the fresh leachate ponds, but small in the aged. • N{sub 2}O emissions became dominant in the treatment units of both systems. • 8.45–11.9% of nitrogen was removed as the form of N{sub 2}O under steady-state. - Abstract: With limited assessment, leachate treatment of a specified landfill is considered to be a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In our study, the cumulative GHG emitted from the storage ponds and process configurations that manage fresh or aged landfill leachate were investigated. Our results showed that strong CH{sub 4} emissions were observed from the fresh leachate storage pond, with the fluxes values (2219–26,489 mg C m{sup −2} h{sup −1}) extremely higher than those of N{sub 2}O (0.028–0.41 mg N m{sup −2} h{sup −1}). In contrast, the emission values for both CH{sub 4} and N{sub 2}O were low for the aged leachate tank. N{sub 2}O emissions became dominant once the leachate entered the treatment plants of both systems, accounting for 8–12% of the removal of N-species gases. Per capita, the N{sub 2}O emission based on both leachate treatment systems was estimated to be 7.99 g N{sub 2}O–N capita{sup −1} yr{sup −1}. An increase of 80% in N{sub 2}O emissions was observed when the bioreactor pH decreased by approximately 1 pH unit. The vast majority of carbon was removed in the form of CO{sub 2}, with a small portion as CH{sub 4} (<0.3%) during both treatment processes. The cumulative GHG emissions for fresh leachate storage ponds, fresh leachate treatment system and aged leachate treatment system were 19.10, 10.62 and 3.63 Gg CO{sub 2} eq yr{sup −1}, respectively, for a total that could be transformed to 9.09 kg CO{sub 2} eq capita{sup −1} yr{sup −1}.

  5. Laboratory optimization tests of technetium decontamination of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant low activity waste melter off-gas condensate simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, Kathryn M.L.; McCabe, Daniel J.

    2015-11-01

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable simplified operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste.

  6. Laboratory Evaporation Testing Of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Adamson, Duane J.; Nash, Charles A.; McCabe, Daniel J.; Crawford, Charles L.; Wilmarth, William R.

    2014-01-27

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream, LAW Off-Gas Condensate, from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of canistered glass waste forms. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to be within acceptable concentration ranges in the LAW glass. Diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task examines the impact of potential future disposition of this stream in the Hanford tank farms, and investigates auxiliary evaporation to enable another disposition path. Unless an auxiliary evaporator is used, returning the stream to the tank farms would require evaporation in the 242-A evaporator. This stream is expected to be unusual because it will be very high in corrosive species that are volatile in the melter (chloride, fluoride, sulfur), will have high ammonia, and will contain carryover particulates of glass-former chemicals. These species have potential to cause corrosion of tanks and equipment, precipitation of solids, release of ammonia gas vapors, and scale in the tank farm evaporator. Routing this stream to the tank farms does not permanently divert it from recycling into the WTP, only temporarily stores it prior to reprocessing. Testing is normally performed to demonstrate acceptable conditions and limits for these compounds in wastes sent to the tank farms. The primary parameter of this phase of the test program was measuring the formation of solids during evaporation in order to assess the compatibility of the stream with the evaporator and transfer and storage equipment. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW facility melter offgas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet, and, thus, the composition will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. This report discusses results of evaporation testing of the simulant. Two conditions were tested, one with the simulant at near neutral pH, and a second at alkaline pH. The neutral pH test is comparable to the conditions in the Hanford Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) evaporator, although that evaporator operates at near atmospheric pressure and tests were done under vacuum. For the alkaline test, the target pH was based on the tank farm corrosion control program requirements, and the test protocol and equipment was comparable to that used for routine evaluation of feed compatibility studies for the 242-A evaporator. One of the radionuclides that is volatile in the melter and expected to be in high concentration in this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream is Technetium-99 (99Tc). Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford WTP, and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass by repeated recycle of the off-gas condensate into the LAW melter. Other radionuclides that are also expected to be in appreciable concentrations in the LAW Off-Gas Condensate are 129I, 90Sr, 137Cs, and 241Am. The concentrations of these radionuclides in this stream will be much lower than in the LAW, but they will still be higher than limits for some of the other disposition pathways currently available. At this time, these scoping tests did not evaluate the partitioning of the radionuclides to the evaporator condensate, since ample data are available separately from other experience in the DOE complex. Results from the evaporation testing show that the neutral SBS simulant first forms turbidity at ~7.5X concentration, while the alkaline-adjusted simulant became turbid at ~3X concentration. The major solid in both cases was Kogarkoite, Na3FSO4. Sodium and lithium fluorides were also detected. Minimal solids were formed in the evaporator bottoms until a substantial fraction of liquid was removed, indicating that evaporation could minimize storage volume issues. Achievable concentration factors without significant insoluble solids were 17X at alkaline pH, and 23X at neutral pH. In both runs, significant ammonia carried over and was captured in the condenser with the water condensate. Results also indicate that with low insoluble solids formation in the initial testing at neutral pH, the use of Reverse Osmosis is a potential alternate method for concentrating the solution, although an evaluation is needed to identify equipment that can tolerate insoluble solids. Most of the ammonia remains in the evaporator bottoms during the neutral pH evaporation, but partitions to the condensate during alkaline evaporation. Disposition of both streams needs to consider the management of ammonia vapor and its release. Since this is an initial phase of testing, additional tasks related to evaporation methods are expected to be identified for development. These tasks likely include evaluation and testing of composition variability testing and evaluations, corrosion and erosion testing, slurry storage and immobilization investigations, and evaporator condensate disposition.

  7. Waste Treatment Plant Overview

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    To address this challenge, the U.S. Department of Energy contracted Bechtel National, Inc., to design and build the world's largest radioactive waste treatment plant. The Waste ...

  8. Laboratory Scoping Tests Of Decontamination Of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, Kathryn M.; Nash, Charles A.; Crawford, Charles L.; McCabe, Daniel J.; Wilmarth, William R.

    2014-01-21

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task seeks to examine the potential treatment of this stream to remove radionuclides and subsequently disposition the decontaminated stream elsewhere, such as the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), for example. The treatment process envisioned is very similar to that used for the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) that has been operating for years at the Savannah River Site (SRS), and focuses on using mature radionuclide removal technologies that are also compatible with longterm tank storage and immobilization methods. For this new application, testing is needed to demonstrate acceptable treatment sorbents and precipitating agents and measure decontamination factors for additional radionuclides in this unique waste stream. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in high concentration in this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc). Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford WTP, and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass by repeated recycle of the off-gas condensate into the LAW melter. Other radionuclides that are also expected to be in appreciable concentration in the LAW Off-Gas Condensate are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 241}Am. This report discusses results of preliminary radionuclide decontamination testing of the simulant. Testing examined use of Monosodium Titanate (MST) to remove {sup 90}Sr and actinides, inorganic reducing agents for {sup 99}Tc, and zeolites for {sup 137}Cs. Test results indicate that excellent removal of {sup 99}Tc was achieved using Sn(II)Cl{sub 2} as a reductant, coupled with sorption onto hydroxyapatite, even in the presence of air and at room temperature. This process was very effective at neutral pH, with a Decontamination Factor (DF) >577 in two hours. It was less effective at alkaline pH. Conversely, removal of the cesium was more effective at alkaline pH, with a DF of 17.9. As anticipated, ammonium ion probably interfered with the Ionsiv®a IE-95 zeolite uptake of {sup 137}Cs. Although this DF of {sup 137}Cs was moderate, additional testing is expected to identify more effective conditions. Similarly, Monosodium Titanate (MST) was more effective at alkaline pH at removing Sr, Pu, and U, with a DF of 319, 11.6, and 10.5, respectively, within 24 hours. Actually, the Ionsiv® IE-95, which was targeting removal of Cs, was also moderately effective for Sr, and highly effective for Pu and U at alkaline pH. The only deleterious effect observed was that the chromium co-precipitates with the {sup 99}Tc during the SnCl{sub 2} reduction. This effect was anticipated, and would have to be considered when managing disposition paths of this stream. Results of this separation testing indicate that sorption/precipitation was a viable concept and has the potential to decontaminate the stream. All radionuclides were at least partially removed by one or more of the materials tested. Based on the results, a possible treatment scenario could involve the use of a reductive precipitation agent (SnCl{sub 2}) and sorbent at neutral pH to remove the Tc, followed by pH adjustment and the addition of zeolite (Ionsiv® IE-95) to remove the Cs, Sr, and actinides. Addition of MST to remove Sr and actinides may not be needed. Since this was an initial phase of testing, additional tasks to improve separation methods were expected to be identified. Primarily, further testing is needed to identify the conditions for the decontamination process. Once these conditions are established, follow-on tasks likely include evaluation and testing of applicable solid-liquid separation technologies, slurry rheology measurements, composition variability testing and evaluations, corrosion and erosion testing, slurry storage and immobilization investigations, and decontaminated LAW Off-Gas Condensate evaporation and solidification.

  9. LABORATORY OPTIMIZATION TESTS OF TECHNETIUM DECONTAMINATION OF HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT LOW ACTIVITY WASTE OFF-GAS CONDENSATE SIMULANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, K.; Nash, C.; McCabe, D.

    2014-09-29

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility again. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable de-coupled operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. This LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are problematic for the glass waste form. Because this stream recycles within WTP, these components accumulate in the Condensate stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers that must be produced. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and diverting the stream reduces the halides in the recycled Condensate and is a key outcome of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, identifying a disposition path becomes vitally important. This task examines the potential treatment of this stream to remove radionuclides and subsequently disposition the decontaminated stream elsewhere, such as the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), for example. The treatment process envisioned is very similar to that used for the Actinide Removal Process (ARP) that has been operating for years at the Savannah River Site (SRS), and focuses on using mature radionuclide removal technologies that are also compatible with longterm tank storage and immobilization methods. For this new application, testing is needed to demonstrate acceptable treatment sorbents and precipitating agents and measure decontamination factors for additional radionuclides in this unique waste stream. The origin of this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream will be the liquids from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover. The soluble components are expected to be mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, but a simulant has been produced based on models, calculations, and comparison with pilot-scale tests. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in greatest abundance in this LAW Off-Gas Condensate stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc). Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford WTP, and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass by repeated recycle of the off-gas condensate into the LAW melter. Other radionuclides that are low but are also expected to be in measurable concentration in the LAW Off-Gas Condensate are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, {sup 241}Pu, and {sup 241}Am. These are present due to their partial volatility and some entrainment in the off-gas system. This report discusses results of optimized {sup 99}Tc decontamination testing of the simulant. Testing examined use of inorganic reducing agents for {sup 99}Tc. Testing focused on minimizing the quantity of sorbents/reactants added, and minimizing mixing time to reach the decontamination targets in this simulant formulation. Stannous chloride and ferrous sulfate were tested as reducing agents to determine the minimum needed to convert soluble pertechnetate to the insoluble technetium dioxide. The reducing agents were tried with and without sorbents. The sorbents, hydroxyapatite and sodium oxalate, were expected to sorb the precipitated technetium dioxide and facilitate removal. The Phase 1 tests examined a broad range of conditions and used the initial baseline simulant. The Phase 2 tests narrowed the conditions based on Phase 1 results, and used a slightly modified simulant. Test results indicate that excellent removal of {sup 99}Tc was achieved using SnCl{sub 2} as a reductant, and was effective with or without sorption onto hydroxyapatite. This reaction worked even in the presence of air (which could oxidize the stannous ion) and at room temperature. This process was very effective at neutral pH, with a Decontamination Factor (DF) >199 in one hour with only 1 g/L of SnCl{sub 2}. Prior work had shown that it was much less effective at alkaline pH. The only deleterious effect observed was that the chromium co-precipitates with the {sup 99}c during the SnCl{sub 2} reduction. This effect was anticipated, and would have to be considered when managing disposition paths of this stream. Reduction using FeSO{sub 4} was not effective at removing {sup 99}Tc, but did remove the Cr. Chromium is present due to partial volatility and entrainment in the off-gas, and is highly oxidizing, so would be expected to react with reducing agents more quickly than pertechnetate. Testing showed that sufficient reducing agent must be added to completely reduce the chromium before the technetium is reduced and removed. Other radionuclides are also present in this off-gas condensate stream. To enable sending this stream to the Hanford ETF, and thereby divert it from the recycle where it impacts the LAW glass volume, several of these also need to be removed. Samples from optimized conditions were also measured for actinide removal in order to examine the effect of the Tc-removal process on the actinides. Plutonium was also removed by the SnCl{sub 2} precipitation process. Results of this separation testing indicate that sorption/precipitation is a viable concept and has the potential to decontaminate the {sup 99}Tc from the stream, allowing it to be diverted away from WTP and thus eliminating the impact of the recycled halides and sulfate on the LAW glass volume. Based on the results, a possible treatment scenario could involve the use of a reductive precipitation agent (SnCl{sub 2}) with or without sorbent at neutral pH to remove the Tc. Although hydroxyapatite was not necessary to effect the {sup 99}Tc removal, it may be beneficial in solid-liquid separations. Other testing will examine removal of the other radionuclides. This testing was the second phase of testing, which aimed at optimizing the process by examining the minimum amount of reductant needed and the minimum reaction time. Although results indicated that SnCl{sub 2} was effective, further work on a pH-adjusted Fe(SO{sub 4}) mixture are needed. Additional tasks are needed to examine removal of the other radionuclides, solid-liquid separation technologies, slurry rheology measurements, composition variability impacts, corrosion and erosion, and slurry storage and immobilization.

  10. Laboratory Optimization Tests of Technetium Decontamination of Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Melter Off-Gas Condensate Simulant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor-Pashow, K.; McCabe, D.

    2015-12-23

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility will generate an aqueous condensate recycle stream (LAW Off-Gas Condensate) from the off-gas system. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to send it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be blended with LAW, concentrated by evaporation and recycled to the LAW vitrification facility. Alternate disposition of this stream would eliminate recycling of problematic components, and would enable less integrated operation of the LAW melter and the Pretreatment Facilities. Eliminating this stream from recycling within WTP would also decrease the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste.

  11. Large-Scale Testing of Effects of Anti-Foam Agent on Gas Holdup in Process Vessels in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant - 8280

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahoney, Lenna A.; Alzheimer, James M.; Arm, Stuart T.; Guzman-Leong, Consuelo E.; Jagoda, Lynette K.; Stewart, Charles W.; Wells, Beric E.; Yokuda, Satoru T.

    2008-06-03

    The Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) will vitrify the radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks. These wastes generate and retain hydrogen and other flammable gases that create safety concerns for the vitrification process tanks in the WTP. An anti-foam agent (AFA) will be added to the WTP process streams. Prior testing in a bubble column and a small-scale impeller-mixed vessel indicated that gas holdup in a high-level waste chemical simulant with AFA was up to 10 times that in clay simulant without AFA. This raised a concern that major modifications to the WTP design or qualification of an alternative AFA might be required to satisfy plant safety criteria. However, because the mixing and gas generation mechanisms in the small-scale tests differed from those expected in WTP process vessels, additional tests were performed in a large-scale prototypic mixing system with in situ gas generation. This paper presents the results of this test program. The tests were conducted at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in a -scale model of the lag storage process vessel using pulse jet mixers and air spargers. Holdup and release of gas bubbles generated by hydrogen peroxide decomposition were evaluated in waste simulants containing an AFA over a range of Bingham yield stresses and gas gen geration rates. Results from the -scale test stand showed that, contrary to the small-scale impeller-mixed tests, gas holdup in clay without AFA is comparable to that in the chemical waste simulant with AFA. The test stand, simulants, scaling and data-analysis methods, and results are described in relation to previous tests and anticipated WTP operating conditions.

  12. Large-Scale Testing of Effects of Anti-Foam Agent on Gas Holdup in Process Vessels in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahoney, L.A.; Alzheimer, J.M.; Arm, S.T.; Guzman-Leong, C.E.; Jagoda, L.K.; Stewart, C.W.; Wells, B.E.; Yokuda, S.T. [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA (United States)

    2008-07-01

    The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will vitrify the radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks. These wastes generate and retain hydrogen and other flammable gases that create safety concerns for the vitrification process tanks in the WTP. An anti-foam agent (AFA) will be added to the WTP process streams. Previous testing in a bubble column and a small-scale impeller-mixed vessel indicated that gas holdup in a high-level waste chemical simulant with AFA was as much as 10 times higher than in clay simulant without AFA. This raised a concern that major modifications to the WTP design or qualification of an alternative AFA might be required to satisfy plant safety criteria. However, because the mixing and gas generation mechanisms in the small-scale tests differed from those expected in WTP process vessels, additional tests were performed in a large-scale prototypic mixing system with in situ gas generation. This paper presents the results of this test program. The tests were conducted at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in a 1/4-scale model of the lag storage process vessel using pulse jet mixers and air spargers. Holdup and release of gas bubbles generated by hydrogen peroxide decomposition were evaluated in waste simulants containing an AFA over a range of Bingham yield stresses and gas generation rates. Results from the 1/4-scale test stand showed that, contrary to the small-scale impeller-mixed tests, holdup in the chemical waste simulant with AFA was not so greatly increased compared to gas holdup in clay without AFA. The test stand, simulants, scaling and data-analysis methods, and results are described in relation to previous tests and anticipated WTP operating conditions. (authors)

  13. Cryogenic treatment of gas

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bravo, Jose Luis; Harvey, III, Albert Destrehan; Vinegar, Harold J.

    2012-04-03

    Systems and methods of treating a gas stream are described. A method of treating a gas stream includes cryogenically separating a first gas stream to form a second gas stream and a third stream. The third stream is cryogenically contacted with a carbon dioxide stream to form a fourth and fifth stream. A majority of the second gas stream includes methane and/or molecular hydrogen. A majority of the third stream includes one or more carbon oxides, hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 2, one or more sulfur compounds, or mixtures thereof. A majority of the fourth stream includes one or more of the carbon oxides and hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 2. A majority of the fifth stream includes hydrocarbons having a carbon number of at least 3 and one or more of the sulfur compounds.

  14. Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2005-08-01

    This is a combined heat and power (CHP) project profile on 320 kW fuel cell and microturbine power plants at Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant in Portland, Oregon.

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. Waste Treatment Plant - 12508

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harp, Benton; Olds, Erik

    2012-07-01

    The Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) will immobilize millions of gallons of Hanford's tank waste into solid glass using a proven technology called vitrification. The vitrification process will turn the waste into a stable glass form that is safe for long-term storage. Our discussion of the WTP will include a description of the ongoing design and construction of this large, complex, first-of-a-kind project. The concept for the operation of the WTP is to separate high-level and low-activity waste fractions, and immobilize those fractions in glass using vitrification. The WTP includes four major nuclear facilities and various support facilities. Waste from the Tank Farms is first pumped to the Pretreatment Facility at the WTP through an underground pipe-in-pipe system. When construction is complete, the Pretreatment Facility will be 12 stories high, 540 feet long and 215 feet wide, making it the largest of the four major nuclear facilities that compose the WTP. The total size of this facility will be more than 490,000 square feet. More than 8.2 million craft hours are required to construct this facility. Currently, the Pretreatment Facility is 51 percent complete. At the Pretreatment Facility the waste is pumped to the interior waste feed receipt vessels. Each of these four vessels is 55-feet tall and has a 375,000 gallon capacity, which makes them the largest vessels inside the Pretreatment Facility. These vessels contain a series of internal pulse-jet mixers to keep incoming waste properly mixed. The vessels are inside the black-cell areas, completely enclosed behind thick steel-laced, high strength concrete walls. The black cells are designed to be maintenance free with no moving parts. Once hot operations commence the black-cell area will be inaccessible. Surrounded by black cells, is the 'hot cell canyon'. The hot cell contains all the moving and replaceable components to remove solids and extract liquids. In this area, there is ultrafiltration equipment, cesium-ion exchange columns, evaporator boilers and recirculation pumps, and various mechanical process pumps for transferring process fluids. During the first phase of pretreatment, the waste will be concentrated using an evaporation process. Solids will be filtered out, and the remaining soluble, highly radioactive isotopes will be removed using an ion-exchange process. The high-level solids will be sent to the High-Level Waste (HLW) Vitrification Facility, and the low activity liquids will be sent to the Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility for further processing. The high-level waste will be transferred via underground pipes to the HLW Facility from the Pretreatment Facility. The waste first arrives at the wet cell, which rests inside a black-cell area. The pretreated waste is transferred through shielded pipes into a series of melter preparation and feed vessels before reaching the melters. Liquids from various facility processes also return to the wet cell for interim storage before recycling back to the Pretreatment Facility. (authors)

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

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

    California Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 ... Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption California Natural Gas Consumption by End Use ...

  1. California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption ... Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption California Natural Gas Consumption by ...

  2. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) ... Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) ...

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

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

    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 ...

  4. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Market Centers and Hubs: A 2003 Update EIA Home > Natural Gas > Natural Gas Analysis Publications Natural Gas Market Centers and Hubs: A 2003 Update Printer-Friendly Version "This special report looks at the current status of market centers/hubs in today's natural gas marketplace, examining their role and their importance to natural gas shippers, marketers, pipelines, and others involved in the transportation of natural gas over the North American pipeline network. Questions or

  5. Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The city of St. Peters, Missouri obtains its water from one of the best known rivers. Eight pumps from underground wells in the Mississippi River floodplain send water to a lime-softening water treatment plant where it is prepared for drinking water purposes. But because the demand for clean water exists at all times, the plant consumes noticeably large amounts of money and energy.

  6. Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Office of River Protection About ORP ORP Projects & Facilities Tank Farms Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant 242-A Evaporator 222-S Laboratory Newsroom Contracts & Procurements Contact ORP Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Email Email Page | Print Print Page |Text Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size Waste Treatment Plant Overview Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Background Information The Hanford Site, located in

  7. New Mexico - West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  8. Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore - Texas Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    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...

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

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

    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...

  10. California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 ...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

  12. California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California - San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 ...

  13. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production (Million Cubic...

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

    Liquids Production (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production ... Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent California Natural Gas Plant ...

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

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

    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 ...

  15. 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...

  16. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ... PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected ...

  17. Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Technical Report: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: ...

  18. Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a ...

  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. "NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANT SURVEY"

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

    ... connected to the plant. (Please check all that apply.)" "Name:" "Capacity (list amount and check units):",,,..." MMcfDay",,,,," BblsDay" "Pipeline ...

  6. California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

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

    Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved ... Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 California Natural Gas Liquids Proved ...

  7. 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...

  8. Confinement Ventilation and Process Gas Treatment Functional...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ... Gas Cleaning and Air Pollution Control; DOE-HDBK-1169, Nuclear Air Cleaning Handbook; ASME AG-1, Code on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment; Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook. a. ...

  9. 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

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 2,211 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

  11. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – February 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Off-gas Systems Hazards Analysis Activities [HIAR-WTP-2014-01-27

  12. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – October 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Observation of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter and Melter Off-gas Process System Hazards Analysis Activities [HIAR-WTP-2013-10-21

  13. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- June 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Off-gas Process System Hazards Analysis Activity Observation [HIAR-WTP-2013-05-13

  14. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production"

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

    Gas Plant Field Production" "Sourcekey","MNGFPUS1","MPPFPUS1","MLPFPUS1","METFPUS1","MPRFPUS1","MBNFPUS1","MBIFPUS1" "Date","U.S. Gas Plant Production of Natural Gas Liquids ...

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  16. Montana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. Utah Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  20. Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,507,142 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

  1. 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

  2. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  3. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 1,112,510 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

  4. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  5. 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.

  6. Texas Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Texas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 294,879 284,013 270,227 1990's 268,181 269,411 292,990 297,516 306,376 325,785 329,287 332,077 320,922 314,598 2000's 315,906 314,858 317,446 320,786 322,242 322,999 329,918 326,812 324,671 313,384 2010's 312,277 314,041 314,811 314,036 317,217 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  7. Alabama Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Alabama Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 53 54,306 55,400 56,822 1990's 56,903 57,265 58,068 57,827 60,320 60,902 62,064 65,919 76,467 64,185 2000's 66,193 65,794 65,788 65,297 65,223 65,294 66,337 65,879 65,313 67,674 2010's 68,163 67,696 67,252 67,136 67,806 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  8. Alaska Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Alaska Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11 11,484 11,649 11,806 1990's 11,921 12,071 12,204 12,359 12,475 12,584 12,732 12,945 13,176 13,409 2000's 13,711 14,002 14,342 14,502 13,999 14,120 14,384 13,408 12,764 13,215 2010's 12,998 13,027 13,133 13,246 13,399 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  9. Florida Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Florida Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 41 42,376 43,178 43,802 1990's 43,674 45,012 45,123 47,344 47,851 46,459 47,578 48,251 46,778 50,052 2000's 50,888 53,118 53,794 55,121 55,324 55,479 55,259 57,320 58,125 59,549 2010's 60,854 61,582 63,477 64,772 67,460 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  10. Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Louisiana Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 67,382 66,472 64,114 1990's 62,770 61,574 61,030 62,055 62,184 62,930 62,101 62,270 63,029 62,911 2000's 62,710 62,241 62,247 63,512 60,580 58,409 57,097 57,127 57,066 58,396 2010's 58,562 58,749 63,381 59,147 58,611 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  11. California Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) California Federal Offshore ... Natural Gas Liquids Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31 Federal Offshore, Pacific (California) ...

  12. California Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  13. California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) California Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in California (Million Cubic Feet) Decade ...

  14. Alabama Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted...

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

    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...

  15. 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...

  16. Natural Gas Plant Liquids Proved Reserves

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

    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

  17. EIS-0224: Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Improvements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    "This EIS analyzes the Lake County Sanitation District joint venture with the geothermal industry, specifically the Northern California Power Agency, Calpine Corporation (Calpine), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, to develop a plan for disposal of secondary-treated effluent from the Southeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant near the City of Clearlake, California, in the Southeast Geysers Geothermal Steam Field."

  18. 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...

  19. Cyanide treatment options in coke plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Minak, H.P.; Lepke, P.

    1997-12-31

    The paper discusses the formation of cyanides in coke oven gas and describes and compares waste processing options. These include desulfurization by aqueous ammonia solution, desulfurization using potash solution, desulfurization in oxide boxes, decomposition of NH{sub 3} and HCN for gas scrubbing. Waste water treatment methods include chemical oxidation, precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and biological treatment. It is concluded that biological treatment is the most economical process, safe in operation and requires a minimum of manpower.

  20. Insurance recovery for manufactured gas plant liabilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koch, G.S.; Wise, K.T.; Hanser, P.

    1997-04-15

    This article addresses insurance and liability issues arising from former manufactured gas plant sites. Three issues are discussed in detail: (1) how to place a value on a potential insurance recovery or damage award, (2) how to maximize recovery through litigation or settlement, and (3) how to mediate coverage disputes to avoid litigation. The first issue, valuing potential recovery, is discussed in the most detail. An approach is outlined which includes organizing policy data, evaluating site facts relevant to coverage, estimating site costs, estimating coverage likelihoods, and assessing the expected value of litigation. Probability and cost estimate data is provided to aid in assessments.

  1. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Progress

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Progress Hanford Advisory Board requested action:  Based on progress discussions, the Hanford Advisory Board will develop and advocate an effective public communication strategy for use by the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Assistant Manager/Federal Project Director Progress discussions on the following:  High-level waste (HLW) authorization to proceed with full production engineering:  HLW Safety Design Strategy approval and

  2. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    7 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment Facility L. Holton D. Alexander M. Johnson H. Sutter August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection Richland, Washington, 99352 07-DESIGN-047 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment Facilities L. Holton D. Alexander M. Johnson H. Sutter August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of

  3. Flue gas desulfurization wastewater treatment primer

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Higgins, T.E.; Sandy, A.T.; Givens, S.W.

    2009-03-15

    Purge water from a typical wet flue gas desulfurization system contains myriad chemical constituents and heavy metals whose mixture is determined by the fuel source and combustion products as well as the stack gas treatment process. A well-designed water treatment system can tolerate upstream fuel and sorbent arranged in just the right order to produce wastewater acceptable for discharge. This article presents state-of-the-art technologies for treating the waste water that is generated by wet FGD systems. 11 figs., 3 tabs.

  4. Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report ...

  5. CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants...

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

    for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities This document explores ...

  6. New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants (Conference) |

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    SciTech Connect SciTech Connect Search Results Conference: New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants Citation Details In-Document Search Title: New Measures to Safeguard Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants 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

  7. Arizona Natural Gas Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million...

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

    and Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Arizona 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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

  9. Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  10. Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  12. Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    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...

  13. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  14. ,"Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    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...

  15. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    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...

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

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

    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...

  17. Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    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...

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  19. 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...

  20. ,"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...

  1. ,"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...

  2. ,"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...

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

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

    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 ...

  4. ,"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...

  5. 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...

  6. MOLTEN CARBONATE FUEL CELL POWER PLANT LOCATED AT TERMINAL ISLAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    William W. Glauz

    2004-09-01

    The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has developed one of the most recognized fuel cell demonstration programs in the United States. In addition to their high efficiencies and superior environmental performance, fuel cells and other generating technologies that can be located at or near the load, offers several electric utility benefits. Fuel cells can help further reduce costs by reducing peak electricity demand, thereby deferring or avoiding expenses for additional electric utility infrastructure. By locating generators near the load, higher reliability of service is possible and the losses that occur during delivery of electricity from remote generators are avoided. The potential to use renewable and locally available fuels, such as landfill or sewage treatment waste gases, provides another attractive outlook. In Los Angeles, there are also many oil producing areas where the gas by-product can be utilized. In June 2000, the LADWP contracted with FCE to install and commission the precommercial 250kW MCFC power plant. The plant was delivered, installed, and began power production at the JFB in August 2001. The plant underwent manufacturer's field trials up for 18 months and was replace with a commercial plant in January 2003. In January 2001, the LADWP contracted with FCE to provide two additional 250kW MCFC power plants. These commercial plants began operations during mid-2003. The locations of these plants are at the Terminal Island Sewage Treatment Plant at the Los Angeles Harbor (for eventual operation on digester gas) and at the LADWP Main Street Service Center east of downtown Los Angeles. All three carbonate fuel cell plants received partial funding through the Department of Defense's Climate Change Fuel Cell Buydown Program. This report covers the technical evaluation and benefit-cost evaluation of the Terminal Island 250kW MCFC power plant during its first year of operation from June 2003 to July 2004.

  7. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption South Dakota Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  8. 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"

  9. 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)

  10. ,"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...

  11. Natural Gas Plant Stocks of Natural Gas Liquids

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

    Product: Natural Gas Liquids Pentanes Plus Liquefied Petroleum Gases Ethane Propane Normal Butane Isobutane Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History...

  12. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility | Department

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    of Energy Pretreatment Facility Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility Full Document and Summary Versions are available for download PDF icon Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant Pretreatment Facility PDF icon Summary - WTP Pretreatment Facility More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility Compilation of TRA Summaries Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment

  13. Technical analysis of advanced wastewater-treatment systems for coal-gasification plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-03-31

    This analysis of advanced wastewater treatment systems for coal gasification plants highlights the three coal gasification demonstration plants proposed by the US Department of Energy: The Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant, the Illinois Coal Gasification Group Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant, and the CONOCO Pipeline Gas Demonstration Plant. Technical risks exist for coal gasification wastewater treatment systems, in general, and for the three DOE demonstration plants (as designed), in particular, because of key data gaps. The quantities and compositions of coal gasification wastewaters are not well known; the treatability of coal gasification wastewaters by various technologies has not been adequately studied; the dynamic interactions of sequential wastewater treatment processes and upstream wastewater sources has not been tested at demonstration scale. This report identifies key data gaps and recommends that demonstration-size and commercial-size plants be used for coal gasification wastewater treatment data base development. While certain advanced treatment technologies can benefit from additional bench-scale studies, bench-scale and pilot plant scale operations are not representative of commercial-size facility operation. It is recommended that coal gasification demonstration plants, and other commercial-size facilities that generate similar wastewaters, be used to test advanced wastewater treatment technologies during operation by using sidestreams or collected wastewater samples in addition to the plant's own primary treatment system. Advanced wastewater treatment processes are needed to degrade refractory organics and to concentrate and remove dissolved solids to allow for wastewater reuse. Further study of reverse osmosis, evaporation, electrodialysis, ozonation, activated carbon, and ultrafiltration should take place at bench-scale.

  14. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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...

  15. New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  16. Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  17. 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...

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

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  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 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...

  2. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

  3. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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...

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

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (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...

  5. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production ...

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

    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...

  6. Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas...

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

    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...

  7. Waste Treatment Plant Liquid Effluent Treatability Evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LUECK, K.J.

    2001-06-07

    Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI) provided a forecast of the radioactive, dangerous liquid effluents expected to be generated by the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP). The forecast represents the liquid effluents generated from the processing of 25 distinct batches of tank waste through the WTP. The WTP liquid effluents will be stored, treated, and disposed of in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) and the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FH) evaluated the treatability of the WTP liquid effluents in the LERFIETF. The evaluation was conducted by comparing the forecast to the LERFIETF treatability envelope, which provides information on the items that determine if a liquid effluent is acceptable for receipt and treatment at the LERFIETF. The WTP liquid effluent forecast is outside the current LERFlETF treatability envelope. There are several concerns that must be addressed before the WTP liquid effluents can be accepted at the LERFIETF.

  8. Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information (Conference) | SciTech Connect Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote

  9. Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information (Conference) | SciTech Connect Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote

  10. Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information (Conference) | SciTech Connect Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote

  11. Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information (Conference) | SciTech Connect Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote inspections driven by information Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Evaluating the necessity of certain gas centrifuge enrichment plant process parameters to a safeguards approach that includes possible remote

  12. CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market

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

    Opportunities | Department of Energy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities This document explores opportunities for alternative CHP fuels. PDF icon CHP and Bioenergy for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants: Market Opportunities (November 2007) More Documents & Publications CHP and Bioenergy Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants Barriers to CHP with

  13. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    More Documents & Publications Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Intermech Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site - November 2013 Voluntary Protection Program...

  14. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- December 2012

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity

  15. Pennsylvania-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  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. Wyoming-Colorado Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  20. Wyoming-Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  1. Pennsylvania-Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  2. South Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  3. Tennessee-Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Michigan-Michigan Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  7. Mississippi-Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  8. Ohio-Ohio Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  9. Natural Gas Treatment and Fuel Gas Conditioning: Membrane Technology...

    Office of Science (SC) Website

    Membrane modules are needed to selectively recover the heavy hydrocarbons, which can be ... revenues, especially for applications in the shale oil and shale gas production areas. ...

  10. Emission of reduced malodorous sulfur gases from wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Devai, I.; DeLaune, R.D.

    1999-03-01

    The emission of malodorous gaseous compounds from wastewater collection and treatment facilities is a growing maintenance and environmental problem. Numerous gaseous compounds with low odor detection thresholds are emitted from these facilities. Sulfur-bearing gases represent compounds with the lowest odor detection threshold. Using solid adsorbent preconcentration and gas chromatographic methods, the quantity and composition of reduced malodorous sulfur gases emitted from various steps of the treatment process were determined in wastewater treatment plants in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Hydrogen sulfide, which is a malodorous, corrosive, and potentially toxic gas, was the most dominant volatile reduced sulfur (S) compound measured. Concentrations were not only more than the odor detection threshold of hydrogen sulfide, but above levels that may affect health during long-term exposure. The concentrations of methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, and carbonyl sulfide were significantly less than hydrogen sulfide. However, even though emissions of reduced sulfur gases other than hydrogen sulfide were low, previous studies suggested that long-term exposure to such levels may cause respiratory problems and other symptoms.

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 143,468 137,740 139,592 189,278 315,229 867,111 1967-2014 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 6,514 6,384 6,407 8,010 14,195 41,116 1983-2014 NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent (Million Cubic Feet) 8,786 8,607 8,627 10,888 19,564 57,582 1967

  14. New 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) 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

  15. North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  16. 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.

  17. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption

  18. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Processing NGPL

  19. Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7 (Million Cubic Feet)

    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 Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Offshore Natural Gas Plant Processing

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

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

    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

  1. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Natural gas treatment process using PTMSP membrane

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Toy, L.G.; Pinnau, I.

    1996-03-26

    A process is described for separating C{sub 3}+ hydrocarbons, particularly propane and butane, from natural gas. The process uses a poly(trimethylsilylpropyne) membrane. 6 figs.

  6. Natural gas treatment process using PTMSP membrane

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Toy, Lora G.; Pinnau, Ingo

    1996-01-01

    A process for separating C.sub.3 + hydrocarbons, particularly propane and butane, from natural gas. The process uses a poly(trimethylsilylpropyne) membrane.

  7. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

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

    Project - October 2010 | Department of Energy Project - October 2010 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project - October 2010 October 2010 Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) conducted an independent review of the nuclear safety culture at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) project at the Hanford

  8. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    August 2012 | Department of Energy August 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - August 2012 August 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of Construction Quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was performed February 6-10, 2012, and April 30 - May 4, 2012, by the U.S. Department of

  9. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    March 2012 | Department of Energy March 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - March 2012 March 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of Construction Quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was performed November 14-17, 2011, by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of

  10. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    October 2012 | Department of Energy October 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - October 2012 October 2012 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. The review was conducted August 6-10, 2012, by the DOE Office of

  11. Independent Oversight Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant

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

    - January 2012 | Department of Energy Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2012 Independent Oversight Assessment, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2012 January 2012 Assessment of the Nuclear Safety Culture and Management of Nuclear Safety Concerns at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and

  12. Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified | Department of

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

    Energy Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Support Task Order Modified March 11, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Lynette Chafin, 513-246-0461 Lynette.Chafin@emcbc.doe.gov Cincinnati - The Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a modification to a task order to Aspen Resources Limited, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado for support of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford Site. The modification increased the value

  13. Saving Energy at 24/7 Wastewater Treatment Plant

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    When the wastewater treatment plant uses more electricity than any other public building, it makes sense to look for improvements that reduce energy costs.

  14. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    6 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August ...

  15. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory, Balance of Facilities and LAW Waste Vitrification Facilities L. Holton D. ...

  16. West Point Treatment Plant Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    West Point Treatment Plant Sector Biomass Facility Type Non-Fossil Waste Location King County, Washington Coordinates 47.5480339, -121.9836029 Show Map Loading map......

  17. Independent Activity Report, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- March 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Follow-up of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity Review [HIAR-WTP-2013-03-18

  18. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory...

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

    (LAW) Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Analytical Laboratory (LAB), Balance of Facilities (BOF) and Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facilities (LAW) Full ...

  19. Water Treatment in Oil and Gas Production | GE Global Research

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Water Treatment and Reuse in Unconventional Gas Production Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Water Treatment and Reuse in Unconventional Gas Production A key challenge in tapping vast reserves of natural gas from shale deposits is treating the water that is used to bring this gas to the surface. GE

  20. An investigation of gas separation membranes for reduction of thermal treatment emissions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stull, D.M.; Logsdon, B.W.; Pellegrino, J.J.

    1994-05-16

    Gas permeable membranes were evaluated for possible use as air pollution control devices on a fluidized bed catalytic incineration unit. The unit is a candidate technology for treatment of certain mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant. Cellulose acetate and polyimide membranes were tested to determine the permeance of typical off-gas components such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and oxygen. Multi-component permeation studies included gas mixtures containing light hydrocarbons. Experiments were also conducted to discover information about potential membrane degradation in the presence of organic compounds.

  1. 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.

  2. MEMBRANE PROCESS TO SEQUESTER CO2 FROM POWER PLANT FLUE GAS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tim Merkel; Karl Amo; Richard Baker; Ramin Daniels; Bilgen Friat; Zhenjie He; Haiqing Lin; Adrian Serbanescu

    2009-03-31

    The objective of this project was to assess the feasibility of using a membrane process to capture CO2 from coal-fired power plant flue gas. During this program, MTR developed a novel membrane (Polaris) with a CO2 permeance tenfold higher than commercial CO2-selective membranes used in natural gas treatment. The Polaris membrane, combined with a process design that uses a portion of combustion air as a sweep stream to generate driving force for CO2 permeation, meets DOE post-combustion CO2 capture targets. Initial studies indicate a CO2 separation and liquefaction cost of $20 - $30/ton CO2 using about 15% of the plant energy at 90% CO2 capture from a coal-fired power plant. Production of the Polaris CO2 capture membrane was scaled up with MTRs commercial casting and coating equipment. Parametric tests of cross-flow and countercurrent/sweep modules prepared from this membrane confirm their near-ideal performance under expected flue gas operating conditions. Commercial-scale, 8-inch diameter modules also show stable performance in field tests treating raw natural gas. These findings suggest that membranes are a viable option for flue gas CO2 capture. The next step will be to conduct a field demonstration treating a realworld power plant flue gas stream. The first such MTR field test will capture 1 ton CO2/day at Arizona Public Services Cholla coal-fired power plant, as part of a new DOE NETL funded program.

  3. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous

  4. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  5. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  6. Alabama (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) 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

  7. Alaska (with Total 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) 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

  8. California (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) 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 =

  9. California--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) 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.

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

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, 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

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

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

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, 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

  12. 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:

  13. ,"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","2/2016","1/15/1981" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel

  14. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    May 2013 | Department of Energy May 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - May 2013 May 2013 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight) within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) conducted an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Utah-Wyoming

  16. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Colorado-Utah

  17. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kansas-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-Wyoming

  19. 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.

  20. 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)

  1. Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant Project - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    300 Area 324 Building 325 Building 400 AreaFast Flux Test Facility 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Grounds 700 Area B Plant B Reactor C Reactor Canister Storage Building and Interim ...

  2. 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.

  3. CHP and Bioenergy Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants |

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

    Department of Energy Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants CHP and Bioenergy Systems for Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants There are important issues to consider when selecting a CHP technology, such as size, emissions, location of maintenance personnel, and efficiency. This document summarizes the following CHP technologies: Reciprocating Engine, Microturbine, Combustion Turbines, Stirling Engine, and Fuel Cell. PDF icon CHP and Bioenergy Systems for Landfills and

  4. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    January 2013 | Department of Energy January 2013 Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - January 2013 January 2013 Review of the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Black-Cell and Hard-To-Reach Pipe Spools Procurement Process and the Office of River Protection Audit of That Process The Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted a concurrent independent review with

  5. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    March 2013 | Department of Energy March 2013 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security, conducted an independent review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review, which was performed November 26-30, 2012, was the latest in

  6. Independent Oversight Review, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant -

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

    November 2011 | Department of Energy November 2011 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Construction Quality This report documents the results of an independent oversight review of selected aspects of construction quality at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The review was conducted September 12-15, 2011, by the DOE Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations, which is within the DOE

  7. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    6 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August 2007 Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection Richland, Washington, 99352 07-DESIGN-046 Technology Readiness Assessment for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) HLW Waste Vitrification Facility L. Holton D. Alexander C. Babel H. Sutter J. Young August 2007 Prepared by the U.S.

  8. Microwave off-gas treatment apparatus and process

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Schulz, Rebecca L.; Clark, David E.; Wicks, George G.

    2003-01-01

    The invention discloses a microwave off-gas system in which microwave energy is used to treat gaseous waste. A treatment chamber is used to remediate off-gases from an emission source by passing the off-gases through a susceptor matrix, the matrix being exposed to microwave radiation. The microwave radiation and elevated temperatures within the combustion chamber provide for significant reductions in the qualitative and quantitative emissions of the gas waste stream.

  9. 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

  10. 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 =

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 =

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Wyoming-Wyoming

  19. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 8,718 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Oklahoma

  20. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Texas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 790,721 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Texas Onshore-Texas

  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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Florida-Florida

  2. 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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

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

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

    Barrels) Liquids, 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.

  8. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  9. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  10. 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: 4/29/2016 Next

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Pennsylvania-Ohio

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

    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 =

  13. 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

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

    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.

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

    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

  16. Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based 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.

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

    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

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

    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

  19. 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

  20. 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:

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

    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

  2. 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

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

    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.

  4. 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:

  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. 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: 4/29/2016 Next

  7. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release

  8. Utah and Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Barrels) 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 disclosure of individual company data.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Barrels) 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 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 6 1980's 6 6 5 5 6 7 6 6 7 7 1990's 7 7 7 7 6 4 4 4 4 4 2000's 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 2010's 5 5 8 10 41 - = 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:

  10. Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Mississippi (Million Cubic Feet) 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 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's 9,793 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Gulf of

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  12. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Kentucky-West Virginia

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Louisiana Onshore-Texas

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Montana-North Dakota

  15. Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Oklahoma

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Oklahoma

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Oklahoma-Texas

  17. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent

  18. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing"

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

    Processing" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Plant Processing",3,"Annual",2013,"6/30/1930" ,"Release Date:","9/30/2014" ,"Next Release Date:","10/31/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_prod_pp_dcu_nus_a.xls"

  19. Plants in Your Gas Tank: From Photosynthesis to Ethanol

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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.

  20. 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

  1. Removal of hydrogen sulfide from waste treatment plant biogas using the apollo scrubber

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, J.W.; Burrowes, P.A.; Gupta, A.; Walton, P.S.; Meffe, S.

    1996-12-31

    The removal of hydrogen sulfide and other sulphur compounds from anaerobic digester gas streams prior to their use as fuel for boilers, stationary engines, and cogeneration units minimizes corrosion problems and reduces sulfur emission loadings. A research program at the Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto in the 1980`s demonstrated the use of a modified flotation cell for the absorption of hydrogen sulfide from a gas stream and its catalytic oxidation to sulfur. The essence of the technology was a proprietary gas liquid contactor which provided very high mass transfer rates at the interface. A bench scale contactor developed at the university achieved hydrogen sulfide removal efficiencies of over 99.9% at atmospheric pressure. A demonstration unit for digester gas scrubbing applications was designed, fabricated, and then installed and evaluated at the Metropolitan Toronto Works Department - Main Treatment Plant (MTP).

  2. CO₂ 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 CO₂, the development of retrofit, post-combustion CO₂ 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 CO₂ from plant flue gas with 95% captured CO₂ 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 CO₂-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 ft²) 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, SO₂, NOx, etc.). Specific objectives were: - Development of new, highly chemically resistant, fluorinated polymers as membrane materials with minimum selectivity of 30 for CO₂ over N₂ and CO₂ permeance greater than 300 gas permeation units (GPU) targeted; - Development of next-generation polycarbonate hollow-fiber membranes and membrane modules with higher CO₂ permeance than current commercial polycarbonate membranes; - Development and fabrication of membrane hollow fibers and modules from candidate polymers; - Development of a CO₂ capture membrane process design and integration strategy suitable for end-of-pipe, retrofit installation; and - Techno-economic evaluation of the "best" integrated CO₂ 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% CO₂ capture with 95% captured CO₂ purity.

  3. Sour gas injection for use with in situ heat treatment

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Fowler, Thomas David

    2009-11-03

    Systems, methods, and heaters for treating a subsurface formation are described herein. At least one method for providing acidic gas to a subsurface formation is described herein. The method may include providing heat from one or more heaters to a portion of a subsurface formation; producing fluids that include one or more acidic gases from the formation using a heat treatment process. At least a portion of one of the acidic gases may be introduced into the formation, or into another formation, through one or more wellbores at a pressure below a lithostatic pressure of the formation in which the acidic gas is introduced.

  4. Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 3 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 ...

  5. Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  6. Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 ...

  7. Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 4 Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 ...

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

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

    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 1980's 123,847 122,272 113,937 113,093 126,712 118,683 128,759 1990's 166,120 172,035 170,734 165,507 158,826 154,721 153,039 157,013 153,966 144,544 2000's 144,971 128,836 133,427 123,383 127,356 133,306 140,414 139,262 142,476 152,948 2010's 151,818 155,358 171,359 178,682 184,723 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  9. 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 1960's 433,684 457,117 447,325 1970's 466,016 448,288 470,105 466,143 448,993 435,571 428,635 421,110 393,819 352,650 1980's 350,312 345,262 356,406 375,849 393,873 383,719 384,693 364,477 357,756 343,233 1990's 342,186 353,737 374,126 385,063 381,020 381,712 398,442 391,174 388,011 372,566 2000's 380,535 355,860

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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 =

  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: 4/29/2016 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. 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 =

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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 =

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million

    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

  6. 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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) 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 4,541 4,727 5,653

  8. 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

  9. 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:

  10. 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; -- =

  11. 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;

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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 =

  16. 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.

  17. Phase I: the pipeline-gas demonstration plant. Demonstration plant engineering and design. Volume 17. Plant section 2500 - Plant and Instrument Air

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1981-05-01

    Contract No. EF-77-C-01-2542 between Conoco Inc. and the US Department of Energy provides for the design, construction, and operation of a demonstration plant capable of processing bituminous caking coals into clean pipeline quality gas. The project is currently in the design phase (Phase I). This phase is scheduled to be completed in June 1981. One of the major efforts of Phase I is the process and project engineering design of the Demonstration Plant. The design has been completed and is being reported in 24 volumes. This is Volume 17 which reports the design of Plant Section 2500 - Plant and Instrument Air. The plant and instrument air system is designed to provide dry, compressed air for a multitude of uses in plant operations and maintenance. A single centrifugal air compressor provides the total plant and instrument air requirements. An air drying system reduces the dew point of the plant and instrument air. Plant Section 2500 is designed to provide air at 100/sup 0/F and 100 psig. Both plant and instrument air are dried to a -40/sup 0/F dew point. Normal plant and instrument air requirements total 1430 standard cubic feet per minute.

  18. EECBG Success Story: Missouri Water Treatment Plant Upgraded

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The city of St. Peters, Missouri is installing a water reservoir pump at the water treatment plant and replace seven pump motors with premium efficiency motors on the high service and backwash pumping systems, thanks to an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG). Learn more.

  19. 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

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Consumption by End Use Plant Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas

  1. Construction of Industrial Electron Beam Plant for Wastewater Treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Han, B.; Kim, J.; Kim, Y.; Kim, S.; Lee, M.; Choi, J.; Ahn, S.; Makarov, I.E.; Ponomarev, A.V.

    2004-10-06

    A pilot plant for treating 1,000 m3/day of dyeing wastewater with e-beam has been constructed and operated since 1998 in Daegu, Korea together with the biological treatment facility. The wastewater from various stages of the existing purification process has been treated with electron beam in this plant, and it gave rise to elaborate the optimal technology of the electron beam treatment of wastewater with increased reliability at instant changes in the composition of wastewater. Installation of the e-beam pilot plant resulted in decolorizing and destructive oxidation of organic impurities in wastewater, appreciable to reduction of chemical reagent consumption, in reduction of the treatment time, and in increase in flow rate limit of existing facilities by 30-40%. Industrial plant for treating 10,000 m3/day, based upon the pilot experimental result, is under construction and will be finished by 2005. This project is supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Korean Government.

  2. 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...

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Communications Approach Tools and Techniques

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Communications Approach Author: Suyama, Mattson, Niles, Hudson, Catrell Originating Committee: Tank Waste Version: 1 Revision Date: 3/29/16 Summary The Hanford Advisory Board, following discussions conducted by the Board's committees on Tank Waste, and Public Involvement and Communication along with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection (DOE), prepared this assessment and these recommendations for a communications approach regarding

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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...

  20. Gas turbine power plant with supersonic shock compression ramps

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lawlor, Shawn P.; Novaresi, Mark A.; Cornelius, Charles C.

    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.

  1. 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)...

  2. Ohio-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 View History Natural Gas Processed (Million Cubic Feet) 271 2013-2013 Total Liquids Extracted (Thousand Barrels) 14 2013-2013

  3. 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...

  4. Characterization and possible uses of ashes from wastewater treatment plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merino, Ignacio; Arevalo, Luis F. . E-mail: fromero@ehu.es

    2005-07-01

    This work, on the ashes from the wastewater treatment plant of Galindo (Vizcaya, Spain), has been outlined with the purpose of finding their physico-chemical properties and suggesting possible applications. Ashes contain important quantities of iron, calcium, silica, alumina and phosphates. X-Ray diffraction data make it possible to estimate the mineralogical compositions of the original ashes and also, after thermal treatment at 1200 and 1300 deg. C, the main reactions occurring in thermal treatment. Particle size analysis makes it possible to classify ashes as a very fine powdered material. The thermal treatment leads to a densification of the material and provokes losses of weight mainly due to the elimination of water, carbon dioxide and sulphur trioxide. Application tests show that ashes are not suitable for landfill and similar applications, because of their plastic properties. Testing for pozzolanic character, after the ashes had been heated at 1200 deg. C, did not lead to a strong material probably due to low contents in silica and alumina or to requiring a higher heating temperature. Thermal treatment leads to densification of the material with a considerable increase of compressive strength of the probes. The use of additives (clays and powdered glass) to improve ceramic properties of ashes will be the aim of a future work.

  5. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6...

  10. Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8A Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  11. Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 6 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  12. Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 5 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  13. Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  14. Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7B Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  15. Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 7C Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 ...

  16. Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 8 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  17. Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Texas--RRC District 9 Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 ...

  18. Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill leachate treatment plants...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    ... Subject: 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; AGING; CARBON DIOXIDE; GREENHOUSE GASES; LEACHATES; ...

  19. 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.

  20. Sampling and Analysis Plan - Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reidel, Steve P.

    2006-05-26

    This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) describes planned data collection activities for four entry boreholes through the sediment overlying the basalt, up to three new deep rotary boreholes through the basalt and sedimentary interbeds, and one corehole through the basalt and sedimentary interbeds at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site. The SAP will be used in concert with the quality assurance plan for the project to guide the procedure development and data collection activities needed to support borehole drilling, geophysical measurements, and sampling. This SAP identifies the American Society of Testing Materials standards, Hanford Site procedures, and other guidance to be followed for data collection activities.

  1. 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...

  2. ,"Lower 48 States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  3. ,"Montana Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  4. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  5. ,"Lower 48 Federal Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  6. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  7. ,"North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  8. ,"Utah Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  9. ,"Miscellaneous States Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  10. ,"Mississippi (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Plant Liquids...

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

    Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  11. Waste Treatment Technology Process Development Plan For Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Recycle

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCabe, Daniel J.; Wilmarth, William R.; Nash, Charles A.

    2013-08-29

    The purpose of this Process Development Plan is to summarize the objectives and plans for the technology development activities for an alternative path for disposition of the recycle stream that will be generated in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) vitrification facility (LAW Recycle). This plan covers the first phase of the development activities. The baseline plan for disposition of this stream is to recycle it to the WTP Pretreatment Facility, where it will be concentrated by evaporation and returned to the LAW vitrification facility. Because this stream contains components that are volatile at melter temperatures and are also problematic for the glass waste form, they accumulate in the Recycle stream, exacerbating their impact on the number of LAW glass containers. Approximately 32% of the sodium in Supplemental LAW comes from glass formers used to make the extra glass to dilute the halides to acceptable concentrations in the LAW glass, and reducing the halides in the Recycle is a key component of this work. Additionally, under possible scenarios where the LAW vitrification facility commences operation prior to the WTP Pretreatment facility, this stream does not have a proven disposition path, and resolving this gap becomes vitally important. This task seeks to examine the impact of potential future disposition of this stream in the Hanford tank farms, and to develop a process that will remove radionuclides from this stream and allow its diversion to another disposition path, greatly decreasing the LAW vitrification mission duration and quantity of glass waste. The origin of this LAW Recycle stream will be from the Submerged Bed Scrubber (SBS) and the Wet Electrostatic Precipitator (WESP) from the LAW melter off-gas system. The stream is expected to be a dilute salt solution with near neutral pH, and will likely contain some insoluble solids from melter carryover or precipitates of scrubbed components (e.g. carbonates). The soluble components are mostly sodium and ammonium salts of nitrate, chloride, and fluoride. This stream has not been generated yet, and will not be available until the WTP begins operation, causing uncertainty in its composition, particularly the radionuclide content. This plan will provide an estimate of the likely composition and the basis for it, assess likely treatment technologies, identify potential disposition paths, establish target treatment limits, and recommend the testing needed to show feasibility. Two primary disposition options are proposed for investigation, one is concentration for storage in the tank farms, and the other is treatment prior to disposition in the Effluent Treatment Facility. One of the radionuclides that is volatile and expected to be in high concentration in this LAW Recycle stream is Technetium-99 ({sup 99}Tc), a long-lived radionuclide with a half-life of 210,000 years. Technetium will not be removed from the aqueous waste in the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), and will primarily end up immobilized in the LAW glass, which will be disposed in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Because {sup 99}Tc has a very long half-life and is highly mobile, it is the largest dose contributor to the Performance Assessment (PA) of the IDF. Other radionuclides that are also expected to be in appreciable concentration in the LAW Recycle are {sup 129}I, {sup 90}Sr, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 241}Am. The concentrations of these radionuclides in this stream will be much lower than in the LAW, but they will still be higher than limits for some of the other disposition pathways currently available. Although the baseline process will recycle this stream to the Pretreatment Facility, if the LAW facility begins operation first, this stream will not have a disposition path internal to WTP. One potential solution is to return the stream to the tank farms where it can be evaporated in the 242-A evaporator, or perhaps deploy an auxiliary evaporator to concentrate it prior to return to the tank farms. In either case, testing is needed to evaluat

  12. 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.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) (No intransit Receipts) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Imports (No intransit Receipts) (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 0 5,774 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Imports (Summary) Mississippi U.S. Natural Gas

  14. Treatment of gas from an in situ conversion process

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Diaz, Zaida; Del Paggio, Alan Anthony; Nair, Vijay; Roes, Augustinus Wilhelmus Maria

    2011-12-06

    A method of producing methane is described. The method includes providing formation fluid from a subsurface in situ conversion process. The formation fluid is separated to produce a liquid stream and a first gas stream. The first gas stream includes olefins. At least the olefins in the first gas stream are contacted with a hydrogen source in the presence of one or more catalysts and steam to produce a second gas stream. The second gas stream is contacted with a hydrogen source in the presence of one or more additional catalysts to produce a third gas stream. The third gas stream includes methane.

  15. 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.

  16. South Dakota-North Dakota Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  17. Texas Onshore-New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  18. 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 ...

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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...

  2. STP-ECRTS - THERMAL AND GAS ANALYSES FOR SLUDGE TRANSPORT AND STORAGE CONTAINER (STSC) STORAGE AT T PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CROWE RD; APTHORPE R; LEE SJ; PLYS MG

    2010-04-29

    The Sludge Treatment Project (STP) is responsible for the disposition of sludge contained in the six engineered containers and Settler tank within the 105-K West (KW) Basin. The STP is retrieving and transferring sludge from the Settler tank into engineered container SCS-CON-230. Then, the STP will retrieve and transfer sludge from the six engineered containers in the KW Basin directly into a Sludge Transport and Storage Containers (STSC) contained in a Sludge Transport System (STS) cask. The STSC/STS cask will be transported to T Plant for interim storage of the STSC. The STS cask will be loaded with an empty STSC and returned to the KW Basin for loading of additional sludge for transportation and interim storage at T Plant. CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) contracted with Fauske & Associates, LLC (FAI) to perform thermal and gas generation analyses for interim storage of STP sludge in the Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSCs) at T Plant. The sludge types considered are settler sludge and sludge originating from the floor of the KW Basin and stored in containers 210 and 220, which are bounding compositions. The conditions specified by CHPRC for analysis are provided in Section 5. The FAI report (FAI/10-83, Thermal and Gas Analyses for a Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSC) at T Plant) (refer to Attachment 1) documents the analyses. The process considered was passive, interim storage of sludge in various cells at T Plant. The FATE{trademark} code is used for the calculation. The results are shown in terms of the peak sludge temperature and hydrogen concentrations in the STSC and the T Plant cell. In particular, the concerns addressed were the thermal stability of the sludge and the potential for flammable gas mixtures. This work was performed with preliminary design information and a preliminary software configuration.

  3. WASTE TREATMENT PLANT (WTP) LIQUID EFFLUENT TREATABILITY EVALUATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LUECK, K.J.

    2004-10-18

    A forecast of the radioactive, dangerous liquid effluents expected to be produced by the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) was provided by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI 2004). The forecast represents the liquid effluents generated from the processing of Tank Farm waste through the end-of-mission for the WTP. The WTP forecast is provided in the Appendices. The WTP liquid effluents will be stored, treated, and disposed of in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) and the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). Both facilities are located in the 200 East Area and are operated by Fluor Hanford, Inc. (FH) for the US. Department of Energy (DOE). The treatability of the WTP liquid effluents in the LERF/ETF was evaluated. The evaluation was conducted by comparing the forecast to the LERF/ETF treatability envelope (Aromi 1997), which provides information on the items which determine if a liquid effluent is acceptable for receipt and treatment at the LERF/ETF. The format of the evaluation corresponds directly to the outline of the treatability envelope document. Except where noted, the maximum annual average concentrations over the range of the 27 year forecast was evaluated against the treatability envelope. This is an acceptable approach because the volume capacity in the LERF Basin will equalize the minimum and maximum peaks. Background information on the LERF/ETF design basis is provided in the treatability envelope document.

  4. 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.

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Federal Offshore--Texas Natural Gas Marketed 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 1990's 1,332,883 1,276,099 1,308,154 1,283,493 1,338,413 1,286,539 1,180,967 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Marketed

  6. 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.

  7. West Virginia-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  8. Pennsylvania-West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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. 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 ...

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    Natural Gas Liquids 757,019 808,865 881,306 951,057 1,100,298 1,194,630 1981-2015 Pentanes Plus 101,155 106,284 116,002 126,809 143,831 156,568 1981-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases ...

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Louisiana Offshore-Louisiana Natural Gas Plant Processing

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

  14. 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...

  15. Carbon Capture and Water Emissions Treatment System (CCWESTRS) at Fossil-Fueled Electric Generating Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Alan Mays; Bert R. Bock; Gregory A. Brodie; L. Suzanne Fisher; J. Devereux Joslin; Donald L. Kachelman; Jimmy J. Maddox; N. S. Nicholas; Larry E. Shelton; Nick Taylor; Mark H. Wolfe; Dennis H. Yankee; John Goodrich-Mahoney

    2005-08-30

    The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the Department of Energy-National Energy Technologies Laboratory (DOE-NETL) are evaluating and demonstrating integration of terrestrial carbon sequestration techniques at a coal-fired electric power plant through the use of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system gypsum as a soil amendment and mulch, and coal fly ash pond process water for periodic irrigation. From January to March 2002, the Project Team initiated the construction of a 40 ha Carbon Capture and Water Emissions Treatment System (CCWESTRS) near TVA's Paradise Fossil Plant on marginally reclaimed surface coal mine lands in Kentucky. The CCWESTRS is growing commercial grade trees and cover crops and is expected to sequester 1.5-2.0 MT/ha carbon per year over a 20-year period. The concept could be used to meet a portion of the timber industry's needs while simultaneously sequestering carbon in lands which would otherwise remain non-productive. The CCWESTRS includes a constructed wetland to enhance the ability to sequester carbon and to remove any nutrients and metals present in the coal fly ash process water runoff. The CCWESTRS project is a cooperative effort between TVA, EPRI, and DOE-NETL, with a total budget of $1,574,000. The proposed demonstration project began in October 2000 and has continued through December 2005. Additional funding is being sought in order to extend the project. The primary goal of the project is to determine if integrating power plant processes with carbon sequestration techniques will enhance carbon sequestration cost-effectively. This goal is consistent with DOE objectives to provide economically competitive and environmentally safe options to offset projected growth in U.S. baseline emissions of greenhouse gases after 2010, achieve the long-term goal of $10/ton of avoided net costs for carbon sequestration, and provide half of the required reductions in global greenhouse gases by 2025. Other potential benefits of the demonstration include developing a passive technology for water treatment for trace metal and nutrient release reductions, using power plant by-products to improve coal mine land reclamation and carbon sequestration, developing wildlife habitat and green-space around production facilities, generating Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) credits for the use of process water, and producing wood products for use by the lumber and pulp and paper industry. Project activities conducted during the five year project period include: Assessing tree cultivation and other techniques used to sequester carbon; Project site assessment; Greenhouse studies to determine optimum plant species and by-product application; Designing, constructing, operating, monitoring, and evaluating the CCWESTRS system; and Reporting (ongoing). The ability of the system to sequester carbon will be the primary measure of effectiveness, measured by accessing survival and growth response of plants within the CCWESTRS. In addition, costs associated with design, construction, and monitoring will be evaluated and compared to projected benefits of other carbon sequestration technologies. The test plan involves the application of three levels each of two types of power plant by-products--three levels of FGD gypsum mulch, and three levels of ash pond irrigation water. This design produces nine treatment levels which are being tested with two species of hardwood trees (sweet gum and sycamore). The project is examining the effectiveness of applications of 0, 8-cm, and 15-cm thick gypsum mulch layers and 0, 13 cm, and 25 cm of coal fly ash water for irrigation. Each treatment combination is being replicated three times, resulting in a total of 54 treatment plots (3 FGD gypsum levels X 3 irrigation water levels x 2 tree species x 3 replicates). Survival and growth response of plant species in terms of sequestering carbon in plant material and soil will be the primary measure of effectiveness of each treatment. Additionally, the ability of the site soils and unsaturated zone subsurface m

  16. Sorption Modeling and Verification for Off-Gas Treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tavlarides, Lawrence L.; Lin, Ronghong; Nan, Yue; Yiacoumi, Sotira; Tsouris, Costas; Ladshaw, Austin; Sharma, Ketki; Gabitto, Jorge; DePaoli, David

    2015-04-29

    The project has made progress toward developing a comprehensive modeling capability for the capture of target species in off gas evolved during the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. The effort has integrated experimentation, model development, and computer code development for adsorption and absorption processes. For adsorption, a modeling library has been initiated to include (a) equilibrium models for uptake of off-gas components by adsorbents, (b) mass transfer models to describe mass transfer to a particle, diffusion through the pores of the particle and adsorption on the active sites of the particle, and (c) interconnection of these models to fixed bed adsorption modeling which includes advection through the bed. For single-component equilibria, a Generalized Statistical Thermodynamic Adsorption (GSTA) code was developed to represent experimental data from a broad range of isotherm types; this is equivalent to a Langmuir isotherm in the two-parameter case, and was demonstrated for Kr on INL-engineered sorbent HZ PAN, water sorption on molecular sieve A sorbent material (MS3A), and Kr and Xe capture on metal-organic framework (MOF) materials. The GSTA isotherm was extended to multicomponent systems through application of a modified spreading pressure surface activity model and generalized predictive adsorbed solution theory; the result is the capability to estimate multicomponent adsorption equilibria from single-component isotherms. This advance, which enhances the capability to simulate systems related to off-gas treatment, has been demonstrated for a range of real-gas systems in the literature and is ready for testing with data currently being collected for multicomponent systems of interest, including iodine and water on MS3A. A diffusion kinetic model for sorbent pellets involving pore and surface diffusion as well as external mass transfer has been established, and a methodology was developed for determining unknown diffusivity parameters from transient uptake data. Two parallel approaches have been explored for integrating the kernels described above into a mass-transport model for adsorption in fixed beds. In one, the GSTA isotherm kernel has been incorporated into the MOOSE framework; in the other approach, a focused finite-difference framework and PDE kernels have been developed. Issues, including oscillatory behavior in MOOSE solutions to advection-diffusion problems, and opportunities have been identified for each approach, and a path forward has been identified toward developing a stronger modeling platform. Experimental systems were established for collection of microscopic kinetics and equilibria data for single and multicomponent uptake of gaseous species on solid sorbents. The systems, which can operate at ambient temperature to 250°C and dew points from -69 to 17°C, are useful for collecting data needed for modeling performance of sorbents of interest. Experiments were conducted to determine applicable models and parameters for isotherms and mass transfer for water and/or iodine adsorption on MS3A. Validation experiments were also conducted for water adsorption on fixed beds of MS3A. For absorption, work involved modeling with supportive experimentation. A dynamic model was developed to simulate CO2 absorption with chemical reaction using high alkaline content water solutions. A computer code was developed to implement the model based upon transient mass and energy balances. Experiments were conducted in a laboratory-scale column to determine model parameters. The influence of geometric parameters and operating variables on CO2 absorption was studied over a wide range of conditions. This project has resulted in 7 publications, with 3 manuscripts in preparation. Also, 15 presentations were given at national meetings of ANS and AIChE and at Material Recovery and Waste Forms Campaign Working Group meetings.

  17. California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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 ...

  18. Parris Island Wastewater Treatment Plant SCADA Upgrades Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meador, Richard J.; Hatley, Darrel D.

    2004-03-18

    Marine Corp Recruit Depot (MCRD), Parris Island, SC, home of the Easter Recruiting Region Marine Corp Boot Camp, found itself in a situation common to Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. It had to deal with several different types of installed energy-related control systems that could not talk to each other. This situation was being exacerbated by the installation of a new and/or unique type of control system for every new building being constructed or older facility that was being upgraded. The Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) and lift station controls were badly in need of a thorough inspection and a new Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system upgrade to meet environmental, safety, manpower, and maintenance concerns. A project was recently completed to implement such a wastewater treatment SCADA upgrade, which is compatible with other upgrades to the energy monitoring and control systems for Parris Island buildings and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Decision Support for Operations and Maintenance (DSOM) system installed at the Central Energy Plant (CEP). This project included design, specification, procurement, installation, and testing an upgraded SCADA alarm, process monitoring, and display system; and training WWTF operators in its operation. The ultimate goal of this and the other PNNL projects at Parris Island is to allow monitoring and control of energy and environmental components from a central location.

  19. Texas Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,615,836 7,565,123 7,910,898 8,127,004 8,285,436 8,652,111 1992-2014 From Gas Wells 4,823,557 4,413,767 3,771,162 3,603,948 3,101,759 2,723,229 1992-2014 From Oil Wells 773,829 848,406 1,073,301 860,123 1,166,425 1,519,902 1992-2014 From Shale Gas Wells 3,662,933 4,408,980 2012-2014 Repressuring 552,907 558,854 502,020 437,367 423,413 452,150 1992-2014 Vented and Flared 41,234 39,569 35,248 47,530 76,113 81,755 1992-2014 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 240,533 279,981 284,557 183,118 166,328

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana - North Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Proved Reserves (Billion 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 2,869 1980's 3,160 3,358 2,988 3,008 2,546 2,650 2,567 2,350 2,442 2,705 1990's 2,640 2,435 2,363 2,376 2,599 2,863 3,189 3,156 2,943 3,127 2000's 3,344 3,927 4,283 5,137 5,841 6,768 6,795 6,437 7,966 17,273 2010's 26,136

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    46,751 139,215 134,305 128,312 120,666 110,226 1992-2014 From Gas Wells 33,294 29,961 32,602 27,009 27,182 24,726 1992-2014 From Oil Wells 5,758 6,195 5,975 10,978 8,794 7,937 1992-2014 From Shale Gas Wells 0 0 2012-2014 From Coalbed Wells 107,699 103,060 95,727 90,325 84,690 77,563 2007-2014 Repressuring 783 736 531 NA NA NA 1992-2014 Vented and Flared 1,972 2,085 3,012 NA NA NA 1992-2014 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed 9,239 8,200 13,830 NA NA NA 1992-2014 Marketed Production 134,757 128,194

  2. Louisiana Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,482,252 2,148,447 2,969,297 2,882,193 2,289,193 1,925,968 1992-2014 From Gas Wells 1,027,728 848,745 819,264 707,705 710,608 682,684 1992-2014 From Oil Wells 53,930 57,024 61,727 43,936 44,213 43,477 1992-2014 From Shale Gas Wells 2,130,551 1,199,807 2012-2014 From Coalbed Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2014 Repressuring 5,409 3,490 4,895 NA 2,829 3,199 1992-2014 Vented and Flared 4,121 4,432 6,153 NA 3,912 4,143 1992-2014 Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed NA NA NA NA NA NA 2003-2014 Marketed Production

  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. Storing carbon dioxide in saline formations : analyzing extracted water treatment and use for power plant cooling.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dwyer, Brian P.; Heath, Jason E.; Borns, David James; Dewers, Thomas A.; Kobos, Peter Holmes; Roach, Jesse D.; McNemar, Andrea; Krumhansl, James Lee; Klise, Geoffrey T.

    2010-10-01

    In an effort to address the potential to scale up of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) capture and sequestration in the United States saline formations, an assessment model is being developed using a national database and modeling tool. This tool builds upon the existing NatCarb database as well as supplemental geological information to address scale up potential for carbon dioxide storage within these formations. The focus of the assessment model is to specifically address the question, 'Where are opportunities to couple CO{sub 2} storage and extracted water use for existing and expanding power plants, and what are the economic impacts of these systems relative to traditional power systems?' Initial findings indicate that approximately less than 20% of all the existing complete saline formation well data points meet the working criteria for combined CO{sub 2} storage and extracted water treatment systems. The initial results of the analysis indicate that less than 20% of all the existing complete saline formation well data may meet the working depth, salinity and formation intersecting criteria. These results were taken from examining updated NatCarb data. This finding, while just an initial result, suggests that the combined use of saline formations for CO{sub 2} storage and extracted water use may be limited by the selection criteria chosen. A second preliminary finding of the analysis suggests that some of the necessary data required for this analysis is not present in all of the NatCarb records. This type of analysis represents the beginning of the larger, in depth study for all existing coal and natural gas power plants and saline formations in the U.S. for the purpose of potential CO{sub 2} storage and water reuse for supplemental cooling. Additionally, this allows for potential policy insight when understanding the difficult nature of combined potential institutional (regulatory) and physical (engineered geological sequestration and extracted water system) constraints across the United States. Finally, a representative scenario for a 1,800 MW subcritical coal fired power plant (amongst other types including supercritical coal, integrated gasification combined cycle, natural gas turbine and natural gas combined cycle) can look to existing and new carbon capture, transportation, compression and sequestration technologies along with a suite of extracting and treating technologies for water to assess the system's overall physical and economic viability. Thus, this particular plant, with 90% capture, will reduce the net emissions of CO{sub 2} (original less the amount of energy and hence CO{sub 2} emissions required to power the carbon capture water treatment systems) less than 90%, and its water demands will increase by approximately 50%. These systems may increase the plant's LCOE by approximately 50% or more. This representative example suggests that scaling up these CO{sub 2} capture and sequestration technologies to many plants throughout the country could increase the water demands substantially at the regional, and possibly national level. These scenarios for all power plants and saline formations throughout U.S. can incorporate new information as it becomes available for potential new plant build out planning.

  6. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project Engineering Processes – October 2015

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of Engineering Processes at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Reserves (Million Barrels) Proved Reserves (Million Barrels) Alabama (with State Offshore) Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, 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 193 167 158 166 152 143 139 132 130 130 1990's 122 110 118 103 91 72 67 59 50 50 2000's 46 32 29 27 21 30 15 21 14 16 2010's 18 19 18 14 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet) Louisiana (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves (Billion 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 6 858 9,307 2010's 20,070 21,950 13,523 11,483 12,792 - = 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: Shale Natural Gas Proved Reserves as of Dec. 31

  9. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Sales (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Sales (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Sales (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 906 448 458 403 442 440 931 670 282 - = 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 Reserves Sales

  10. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and

  11. Idaho 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) Idaho 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 38 5 6 22 4 1980's 7 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas Lease and

  12. California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

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

    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

  13. California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

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

    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

  14. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  15. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural Gas

  16. ,"U.S. Total Imports Natural Gas Plant Processing"

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

    Natural Gas Plant Processing" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Imports Natural Gas Plant Processing",1,"Monthly","2/2016","1/15/1973" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  17. Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat?

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect Technical Report: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Safeguards at Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plants: Why is Iran a Threat? Authors: Boyer, Brian D. [1] + Show Author Affiliations Los Alamos National Laboratory [Los Alamos National Laboratory Publication Date: 2014-06-25 OSTI Identifier: 1136096 Report Number(s): LA-UR-14-24695 DOE Contract Number: AC52-06NA25396 Resource Type:

  18. Optical Thin Films for Gas Sensing in Advanced Coal Fired Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ohodnicki, Paul; Brown, Thomas; Baltrus John; Chorpening, Benjamin

    2012-08-09

    Even for existing coal based plants, the opportunity for sensors and controls to improve efficiency is great. A wide range of gas species are of interest for relevant applications. Functional sensor layers for embedded sensing must be compatible with extreme conditions (temperature, pressure, corrosive). Au incorporated metal oxides have been looked at by a number of other authors previously for gas sensing, but have often focused on temperatures below 500{degree}C. Au nanoparticle incorporated metal oxide thin films have shown enhanced gas sensing response. In prior work, we have demonstrated that material systems such as Au nanoparticle incorporated TiO{sub 2} films exhibit a potentially useful optical response to changing gas atmospheres at temperatures up to ~800-850{degree}C. Current work is focused on sputter-deposited Au/TiO{sub 2} films. Au and Ti are multi-layered sputter deposited, followed by a 950{degree}C oxidation step. Increasing Au layer thickness yields larger particles. Interband electronic transitions significantly modify the optical constants of Au as compared to the damped free electron theory. A high temperature oxidation (20%O{sub 2}/N{sub 2}) treatment was performed at 700{degree}C followed by a reduction (4%H{sub 2}/N{sub 2}) treatment to illustrate the shift in both absorption and scattering with exposure to reducing gases. Shift of localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) absorption peak in changing gas atmospheres is well documented, but shift in the peak associated with diffuse scattering is a new observation. Increasing Au layer-thickness results in an increase in LSPR absorption and a shift to longer wavelengths. Diffuse scattering associated with the LSPR resonance of Au shows a similar trend with increasing Au thickness. To model the temperature dependence of LSPR, the modification to the plasmon frequency, the damping frequency, and the dielectric constant of the oxide matrix must be accounted for. Thermal expansion of Au causes a decrease in free-carrier concentration and plasmon frequency with increasing temperature. Increased scattering of electrons with increasing temperatures results in an increased damping frequency for free carriers. The thermo-optic coefficient of TiO{sub 2} is assumed to be constant or decreasing with increasing temperature. A Custom Designed System Can Be Used to Monitor Optical Transmission and Reflection of Films at Elevated Temperatures and Upon Exposure to Changing Ambient Gas Atmospheres. The calculated extinction peak broadens and reduces peak height with increasing temperature. Extinction spectra measured using the elevated temperature system deviate from measurements performed with an integrating sphere. Modifications to measured transmittance and reflectance spectra are observed with increasing temperatures. Optical constants of Au nanoparticles were measured for elevated temperature. The thermo-optic coefficient of TiO{sub 2} strongly affects the shift in LSPR absorption peak. Peak broadening is dictated by the increased damping frequency of Au. In all cases of the theoretical modeling, we are assuming a particle of Au embedded in a TiO{sub 2} matrix without any interparticle interaction. Localized surface plasmon resonance in noble metal nanoparticles is associated with the free electrons. Surface charges create an internal field that acts as a restoring force on displaced charge carriers resulting in an oscillation with an associated resonance. An estimate of the sensitivity as a function of wavelength for sensing done using a single wavelength transmission measurement can be derived by focusing on the partial derivative of Q{sub abs} with respect to the material parameter that we assume is changing during the experiment. We focus on the free carrier density. However, other material parameters may also change in some cases. Peak sensitivity for transmission or absorption based sensing occurs on either side of the LSPR absorption peak maximum. Theoretically predicted wavelength dependence is consistent with the literature. The wavelength of LSPR ab

  19. The Energy-Water Nexus: State and Local Roles in Efficiency & Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This webinar, held on Sept. 11, 2013, covers the energy water nexus for state and local water and wastewater treatment plants.

  20. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – December 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Reagents Systems Hazards Analysis Activity Observation (EA-WTP-LAW-2014-06-02)

  1. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Bechtel National Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site – November 2013

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Evaluation to determine whether Bechtel National Inc., Waste Treatment Plant Construction Site is performing at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  2. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant Construction Project- June 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Evaluation to determine whether Waste Treatment Plant Construction Project is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  3. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – February 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Observation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Systems Hazards Analysis Activities [HIAR-WTP-2014-01-27

  4. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Waste Treatment Plant Hanford Site- June 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Evaluation to determine whether the Waste Treatment Plant Hanford Site is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition.

  5. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – July 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Melter Process System Hazards Analysis Activity [HIAR-WTP-2013-07-31

  6. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wayne Moe

    2013-05-01

    This document provides key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions related to the Next Generation Nuclear Plant to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions were extracted from a number of NGNP Project sources such as licensing related white papers, previously issued requirement documents, and preapplication interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

  7. pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash - Energy

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Innovation Portal Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search pH Adjustment of Power Plant Cooling Water with Flue Gas/ Fly Ash Sandia National Laboratories Contact SNL About This Technology Publications: PDF Document Publication Market Sheet (801 KB) Technology Marketing SummaryIncreased recycling of power plant cooling water calls for low-cost means of preventing the formation of calcium carbonate and silicate scale. Hardness (Ca and Mg) and silica are two of

  8. Outlook for third Malaysian LNG plant brighter with big gas find

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-05-03

    Prospects for a third liquefied natural gas export complex in Malaysia are brighter than ever. A unit of Occidental Petroleum Corp. has drilled its fourth and biggest natural gas strike into a carbonate reef on Block SK-8 off Sarawak, East Malaysia, turning up still more potential reserves for the country's proposed third LNG plant. The find brings to a combined total of 5 tcf of gas in place in the four SK-8 fields for which Oxy has disclosed test results. Well details are given. The LNG project under study would make Malaysia the largest supplier of LNG to the rapidly expanding East Asian market, Oxy said.

  9. West Virginia Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in West

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) West Virginia Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 31,283 33,192 33,880 1990's 32,785 32,755 33,289 33,611 33,756 36,144 33,837 33,970 35,362 35,483 2000's 41,949 35,607 35,016 35,160 34,932 36,635 34,748 34,161 34,275 34,044 2010's 34,063 34,041 34,078 34,283 34,339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Wyoming Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 15,342 15,093 14,012 1990's 13,767 14,931 15,064 15,315 15,348 15,580 17,036 15,907 16,171 16,317 2000's 16,366 16,027 16,170 17,164 17,490 17,904 18,016 18,062 19,286 19,843 2010's 19,977 20,146 20,387 20,617 20,894 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  11. Tennessee Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Tennessee

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 112 102 103 2 0 1999 6 0 0 0 143 107 76 104 105 57 0 0 2000 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 114 86 21 2001 0 0 0 103 113 32 63 47 62 100 32 4 2002 50 3 6 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 42 76 75 95 2 46 0 0 2004 2 0 0 33 32 46 63 55 6 25 0 0 2005

    Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas LNG Storage Additions (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Marketed Production (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Marketed 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 1990's 138,101 157,011 159,513 94,044 191,092 179,569 191,837 163,406 2000's 140,639 151,592 135,137 130,772 126,980 106,437 96,269 71,743 85,603 75,885 2010's 69,574 70,957 73,244 77,750 61,662 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  13. Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Arkansas

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Arkansas Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 60 60,355 61,630 61,848 1990's 61,530 61,731 62,221 62,952 63,821 65,490 67,293 68,413 69,974 71,389 2000's 72,933 71,875 71,530 71,016 70,655 69,990 69,475 69,495 69,144 69,043 2010's 67,987 67,815 68,765 68,791 69,011 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  14. Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Colorado

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Colorado Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108 109,770 110,769 112,004 1990's 112,661 113,945 114,898 115,924 115,994 118,502 121,221 123,580 125,178 129,041 2000's 131,613 134,393 136,489 138,621 138,543 137,513 139,746 141,420 144,719 145,624 2010's 145,460 145,837 145,960 150,145 150,235 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  15. Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Kentucky

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Kentucky Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 63,024 63,971 65,041 1990's 67,086 68,461 69,466 71,998 73,562 74,521 76,079 77,693 80,147 80,283 2000's 81,588 81,795 82,757 84,110 84,493 85,243 85,236 85,210 84,985 83,862 2010's 84,707 84,977 85,129 85,999 85,318 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  16. Michigan Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Michigan

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Michigan Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 178,469 185,961 191,474 1990's 195,766 198,890 201,561 204,453 207,629 211,817 214,843 222,726 224,506 227,159 2000's 230,558 225,109 247,818 246,123 246,991 253,415 254,923 253,139 252,382 252,017 2010's 249,309 249,456 249,994 250,994 253,127 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  17. Mississippi Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Mississippi

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Mississippi Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 43,362 44,170 44,253 1990's 43,184 43,693 44,313 45,310 43,803 45,444 46,029 47,311 45,345 47,620 2000's 50,913 51,109 50,468 50,928 54,027 54,936 55,741 56,155 55,291 50,713 2010's 50,537 50,636 50,689 50,153 50,238 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Montana Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 21,382 22,246 22,219 1990's 23,331 23,185 23,610 24,373 25,349 26,329 26,374 27,457 28,065 28,424 2000's 29,215 29,429 30,250 30,814 31,357 31,304 31,817 32,472 33,008 33,731 2010's 34,002 34,305 34,504 34,909 35,205 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) North Dakota Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 11,905 12,104 12,454 1990's 12,742 12,082 12,353 12,650 12,944 13,399 13,789 14,099 14,422 15,050 2000's 15,531 15,740 16,093 16,202 16,443 16,518 16,848 17,013 17,284 17,632 2010's 17,823 18,421 19,089 19,855 20,687 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Oklahoma Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 87,824 86,666 86,172 1990's 85,790 86,744 87,120 88,181 87,494 88,358 89,852 90,284 89,711 80,986 2000's 80,558 79,045 80,029 79,733 79,512 78,726 78,745 93,991 94,247 94,314 2010's 92,430 93,903 94,537 95,385 96,004 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  1. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Plant Liquids Production Extracted in Pennsylvania

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Elements) Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 166,901 172,615 178,545 1990's 186,772 191,103 193,863 198,299 206,812 209,245 214,340 215,057 216,519 223,732 2000's 228,037 225,911 226,957 227,708 231,051 233,132 231,540 234,597 233,462 233,334 2010's 233,751 233,588 235,049 237,922 239,681 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  2. Sampling and Analysis Plan Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes Project.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brouns, Thomas M.

    2007-07-15

    This sampling and analysis plan (SAP) describes planned data collection activities for four entry boreholes through the sediment overlying the Saddle Mountains Basalt, up to three new deep rotary boreholes through the Saddle Mountains Basalt and sedimentary interbeds, and one corehole through the Saddle Mountains Basalt and sedimentary interbeds at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site. The SAP will be used in concert with the quality assurance plan for the project to guide the procedure development and data collection activities needed to support borehole drilling, geophysical measurements, and sampling. This SAP identifies the American Society of Testing Materials standards, Hanford Site procedures, and other guidance to be followed for data collection activities. Revision 3 incorporates all interim change notices (ICN) that were issued to Revision 2 prior to completion of sampling and analysis activities for the WTP Seismic Boreholes Project. This revision also incorporates changes to the exact number of samples submitted for dynamic testing as directed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Revision 3 represents the final version of the SAP.

  3. Forming gas treatment of lithium ion battery anode graphite powders

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Contescu, Cristian Ion; Gallego, Nidia C; Howe, Jane Y; Meyer, III, Harry M; Payzant, Edward Andrew; Wood, III, David L; Yoon, Sang Young

    2014-09-16

    The invention provides a method of making a battery anode in which a quantity of graphite powder is provided. The temperature of the graphite powder is raised from a starting temperature to a first temperature between 1000 and 2000.degree. C. during a first heating period. The graphite powder is then cooled to a final temperature during a cool down period. The graphite powder is contacted with a forming gas during at least one of the first heating period and the cool down period. The forming gas includes H.sub.2 and an inert gas.

  4. Full Focus Needed on Finishing Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant - 12196

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahl, Suzanne; Biyani, Rabindra; Holmes, Erika

    2012-07-01

    The United States Department of Energy's (US DOE's) Hanford Nuclear Site has 177 underground waste storage tanks located 19 to 24 km (12 to 15 miles) from the Columbia River in south-central Washington State. Hanford's tanks now hold about 212,000 cu m (56 million gallons) of highly radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. Sixty-seven tanks have leaked an estimated 3,785 cu m (1 million gallons) of this waste into the surrounding soil. Further releases to soil, groundwater, and the Columbia River are the inevitable result of the tanks continuing to age. The risk from this waste is recognized as a threat to the Northwest by both State and Federal governments. US DOE and Bechtel National, Inc., are building the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to treat and vitrify (immobilize in glass) the waste from Hanford's tanks. As is usual for any groundbreaking project, problems have arisen that must be resolved as they occur if treatment is to take place as specified in the court-enforceable Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) and the Consent Decree, entered into by US DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). At times, US DOE's approach to solving these critical issues seems to have caused undue wastes of time, energy, and, ultimately, public funds. Upon reviewing the history of Hanford's tank waste treatment project, Ecology hopes that constructive criticism of past failures and praise of successes will inspire US DOE to consider changing practices, be more transparent with regulatory agencies and the public, and take a 'lean production' approach to successfully completing this project. All three Tri-Party Agreement agencies share the goal of completing WTP on time, ensuring it is operational and in compliance with safety standards. To do this, Ecology believes US DOE should: - Maintain focus on the primary goal of completing the five major facilities of WTP. - Construct a supplemental low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification facility for the two-thirds balance of LAW that will not be treated by the vitrification facility under construction. - Prepare infrastructure for waste feed from the tanks and facilities to handle the WTP waste streams. To support this project track, Ecology expedites dangerous waste permitting by using a design-build approach to integrate WTP into the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permit for Hanford. (authors)

  5. Simulated coal gas MCFC power plant system verification. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-07-30

    The objective of the main project is to identify the current developmental status of MCFC systems and address those technical issues that need to be resolved to move the technology from its current status to the demonstration stage in the shortest possible time. The specific objectives are separated into five major tasks as follows: Stack research; Power plant development; Test facilities development; Manufacturing facilities development; and Commercialization. This Final Report discusses the M-C power Corporation effort which is part of a general program for the development of commercial MCFC systems. This final report covers the entire subject of the Unocal 250-cell stack. Certain project activities have been funded by organizations other than DOE and are included in this report to provide a comprehensive overview of the work accomplished.

  6. ASSESSMENT OF SUBSURFACE FATE OF MONOETHANOLAMINE AT SOUR GAS PROCESSING PLANT SITES-PHASE III

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    James A. Sorensen

    1999-02-01

    Alkanolamines are commonly used by the natural gas industry to remove hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and other acid gases from the natural gas in which they occur (''sour'' gas if hydrogen sulfide is present). At sour gas-processing plants, as at all plants that use alkanolamines for acid gas removal (AGR), spills and on-site management of wastes containing alkanolamines and associated reaction products have occasionally resulted in subsurface contamination that is presently the focus of some environmental concern. In 1994, the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated a three-phase program to investigate the natural attenuation processes that control the subsurface transport and fate of the most commonly used alkanolamine in Canada, monoethanolamine (MEA). Funding for the MEA research program was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. (CanOxy), Gas Research Institute (GRI), Environment Canada, and the National Energy Board of Canada. The MEA research program focused primarily on examining the biodegradability of MEA and MEA-related waste materials in soils and soil-slurries under a variety of environmentally relevant conditions, evaluating the mobility of MEA in soil and groundwater and the effectiveness of bioremediation techniques for removing contaminants and toxicity from MEA-contaminated soil. The presently inactive Okotoks sour gas-processing plant, owned by CanOxy in Alberta, Canada, was the source of samples and field data for much of the laboratory-based experimental work and was selected to be the location for the field-based efforts to evaluate remediation techniques. The objective of the research program is to provide the natural gas industry with ''real world'' data and insights developed under laboratory and field conditions regarding the effective and environmentally sound use of biological methods for the remediation of soil contaminated with amine-related wastes.

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Field Production

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

    Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 View History Natural Gas Liquids 100,283 106,269 103,071 104,629 102,401 96,538 1981-2016 Pentanes Plus 13,829 13,963 12,798 12,666 12,323 11,708 1981-2016 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 86,454 92,306 90,273 91,963 90,078 84,830 1981-2016 Ethane 32,977 35,905 36,534 37,506 35,939 33,304 1981-2016 Propane 34,187 36,192 34,569 35,143 34,929 33,311 1981-2016 Normal Butane 10,103 10,387 10,054 9,735 9,656 9,463 1981-2016 Isobutane 9,187 9,822 9,116 9,579 9,554

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,954,896 2,826,952 2,798,220 2,857,485 2,882,956 2,803,429 1992-2014 From Gas Wells 96,685 85,383 76,066 74,998 64,537 81,565 1992-2014 From Oil Wells 2,858,211 2,741,569 2,722,154 2,782,486 2,818,418 2,721,864 1992-2014 From Coalbed Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007-2014 Repressuring 2,600,167 2,502,371 2,494,216 2,532,559 2,597,184 2,492,589 1992-2014 Vented and Flared 5,271 8,034 9,276 9,244 5,670 5,779 1992-2014 Marketed Production 349,457 316,546 294,728 315,682 280,101 305,061 1992-2014 Dry

  9. Illinois Natural Gas Plant Fuel Consumption (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline and Distribution Use Price (Dollars per Thousand 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 0.21 0.20 0.20 1970's 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.54 0.58 0.83 0.98 1.11 1980's 1.78 2.12 2.56 3.07 2.88 2.97 2.73 2.68 2.53 2.17 1990's 2.06 2.29 2.44 1.97 1.88 1.66 2.63 2.68 2.27 2.48 2000's 3.12 3.94 NA -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA

  10. Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Central Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norm Stanley

    2011-02-01

    This Operation and Maintenance Manual lists operator and management responsibilities, permit standards, general operating procedures, maintenance requirements and monitoring methods for the Sewage Treatment Plant at the Central Facilities Area at the Idaho National Laboratory. The manual is required by the Municipal Wastewater Reuse Permit (LA-000141-03) the sewage treatment plant.

  11. Improved wastewater treatment at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporations`s Steubenville East Coke Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goshe, A.J.; Nodianos, M.J.

    1995-12-01

    Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation recently improved its wastewater treatment at it`s by-products coke plant. This has led to greatly improved effluent quality. Excess ammonia liquor, along with wastewater from the light oil recovery plant, desulfurization facility, and coal pile runoff, must be treated prior to being discharged into the Ohio River. This is accomplished using a biological wastewater treatment plant to remove 99.99% of the organic contaminants and ammonia. Biologically treated, clarified wastewater is now polished in the newly constructed tertiary treatment plant.

  12. Sodium Recycle Economics for Waste Treatment Plant Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sevigny, Gary J.; Poloski, Adam P.; Fountain, Matthew S.

    2008-08-31

    Sodium recycle at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) would reduce the number of glass canisters produced, and has the potential to significantly reduce the cost to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) of treating the tank wastes by hundreds of millions of dollars. The sodium, added in the form of sodium hydroxide, was originally added to minimize corrosion of carbon-steel storage tanks from acidic reprocessing wastes. In the baseline Hanford treatment process, sodium hydroxide is required to leach gibbsite and boehmite from the high level waste (HLW) sludge. In turn, this reduces the amount of HLW glass produced. Currently, a significant amount of additional sodium hydroxide will be added to the process to maintain aluminate solubility at ambient temperatures during ion exchange of cesium. The vitrification of radioactive waste is limited by sodium content, and this additional sodium mass will increase low-activity waste-glass mass. An electrochemical salt-splitting process, based on sodium-ion selective ceramic membranes, is being developed to recover and recycle sodium hydroxide from high-salt radioactive tank wastes in DOEs complex. The ceramic membranes are from a family of materials known as sodium (Na)super-ionic conductors (NaSICON)and the diffusion of sodium ions (Na+) is allowed, while blocking other positively charged ions. A cost/benefit evaluation was based on a strategy that involves a separate caustic-recycle facility based on the NaSICON technology, which would be located adjacent to the WTP facility. A Monte Carlo approach was taken, and several thousand scenarios were analyzed to determine likely economic results. The cost/benefit evaluation indicates that 10,00050,000 metric tons (MT) of sodium could be recycled, and would allow for the reduction of glass production by 60,000300,000 MT. The cost of the facility construction and operation was scaled to the low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification facility, showing cost would be roughly $150 million to $400 million for construction and $10 million to $40 million per year for operations. Depending on the level of aluminate supersaturation allowed in the storage tanks in the LAW Pretreatment Facility, these values indicate a return on investment of up to 25% to 60%.

  13. Geology of the Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, D. BRENT; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Fecht, Karl R.; Lanigan, David C.; Reidel, Steve; Rust, Colleen F.

    2007-02-28

    In 2006, DOE-ORP initiated the Seismic Boreholes Project (SBP) to emplace boreholes at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site in order to obtain direct Vs measurements and other physical property measurements in Columbia River basalt and interbedded sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The goal was to reduce the uncertainty in the response spectra and seismic design basis, and potentially recover design margin for the WTP. The characterization effort within the deep boreholes included 1) downhole measurements of the velocity properties of the suprabasalt, basalt, and sedimentary interbed sequences, 2) downhole measurements of the density of the subsurface basalt and sediments, and 3) confirmation of the geometry of the contact between the various basalt and interbedded sediments through examination of retrieved core from the corehole and data collected through geophysical logging of each borehole. This report describes the results of the geologic studies from three mud-rotary boreholes and one cored borehole at the WTP. All four boreholes penetrated the entire Saddle Mountains Basalt and the upper part of the Wanapum Basalt where thick sedimentary interbeds occur between the lava flows. The basalt flows penetrated in Saddle Mountains Basalt included the Umatilla Member, Esquatzel Member, Pomona Member and the Elephant Mountain Member. The underlying Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt was also penetrated. The Ellensburg Formation sediments consist of the Mabton Interbed, the Cold Creek Interbed, the Selah Interbed and the Rattlesnake Ridge Interbed; the Byron Interbed occurs between two flows of the Priest Rapids Member. The Mabton Interbed marks the contact between the Wanapum and Saddle Mountains Basalts. The thicknesses of the basalts and interbedded sediments were within expected limits. However, a small reverse fault was found in the Pomona Member flow top. This fault has three periods of movement and less than 15 feet of repeated section. Most of the movement on the fault appears to have occurred before the youngest lava flow, the 10.5 million year old Elephant Mountain Member was emplaced above the Pomona Member.

  14. Microbial Gas Generation Under Expected Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Repository Conditions: Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gillow, J.B.; Francis, A.

    2011-07-01

    Gas generation from the microbial degradation of the organic constituents of transuranic (TRU) waste under conditions expected in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was investigated. The biodegradation of mixed cellulosic materials and electron-beam irradiated plastic and rubber materials (polyethylene, polyvinylchloride, hypalon, leaded hypalon, and neoprene) was examined. We evaluated the effects of environmental variables such as initial atmosphere (air or nitrogen), water content (humid ({approx}70% relative humidity, RH) and brine inundated), and nutrient amendments (nitogen phosphate, yeast extract, and excess nitrate) on microbial gas generation. Total gas production was determined by pressure measurement and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) and methane (CH{sub 4}) were analyzed by gas chromatography; cellulose degradation products in solution were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Microbial populations in the samples were determined by direct microscopy and molecular analysis. The results of this work are summarized.

  15. Gas turbines for coal-fired turbocharged PFBC boiler power plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wenglarz, R.; Drenker, S.

    1984-11-01

    A coal-fired turbocharged boiler using fluidized bed combustion at high pressure would be more compact than a pulverized coal fired boiler. The smaller boiler size could permit the utility industry to adopt efficient modular construction methods now widely used in other industries. A commercial turbocharger of the capacity needed to run a 250 MW /SUB e/ power plant does not exist; commercial gas turbines of the correct capacity exist, but they are not matched to this cycle's gas temperature of less than 538/sup 0/C (1000/sup 0/F). In order to avoid impeding the development of the technology, it will probably be desirable to use existing machines to the maximum extent possible. This paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of applying either standard gas turbines or modified standard gas turbines to the turbocharged boiler.

  16. An assessment of radiolytic gas generation: Impacts from Rocky Flats Plant residue elimination alternatives. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-02-26

    This report evaluates the Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque analytical model that is used to support present wattage limit decisions for various matrix forms from the Residue Elimination Project for Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptability. This study includes (1) a comparison of the SNL-A model to Rocky Flats Plant models for consistency of assumptions and the phenomena considered in the models, and (2) an evaluation of the appropriateness of the Sandia National Laboratory-Albuquerque model to Rocky Flats Plant residues, considering that the original intent was to model wastes rather than residues. The study draws the following conclusions: (1) only real-time gas generation testing of specific waste streams may provide a sound basis for an increase in the transportation wattage limit of specific waste streams, and (2) the radiolytic gas generation rate from Residue Elimination Project waste emplaced at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, under worst-case conditions, is not a significant factor in comparison to the total gas generation rate due to radiolysis, microbial degradation, and corrosion.

  17. Office of River Protection Prepares for Critical Waste Treatment Plant

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    NuMat Technologies, Inc. National Clean Energy Business Plan Competition NuMat Technologies, Inc. Northwestern University NuMat Technologies, Inc is a cleantech spin-out that computationally designs and synthesizes high performing nanomaterials for gas storage and separation applications. NuMat is commercializing metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), a new kind of nanoporous material that will change how the world stores, transports, and separates gases. Because molecules of gas stick strongly to the

  18. Geology of the Waste Treatment Plant Seismic Boreholes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barnett, D. Brent; Fecht, Karl R.; Reidel, Stephen P.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Lanigan, David C.; Rust, Colleen F.

    2007-05-11

    In 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy initiated the Seismic Boreholes Project (SBP) to emplace boreholes at the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) site in order to obtain direct shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements and other physical property measurements in Columbia River basalt and interbedded sediments of the Ellensburg Formation. The goal was to reduce the uncertainty in the response spectra and seismic design basis, and potentially recover design margin for the WTP. The characterization effort within the deep boreholes included 1) downhole measurements of the velocity properties of the suprabasalt, basalt, and sedimentary interbed sequences, 2) downhole measurements of the density of the subsurface basalt and sediments, and 3) geologic studies to confirm the geometry of the contact between the various basalt and interbedded sediments through examination of retrieved core from the core hole and data collected through geophysical logging of each borehole. This report describes the results of the geologic studies from three mud-rotary boreholes and one cored borehole at the WTP. All four boreholes penetrated the entire Saddle Mountains Basalt and the upper part of the Wanapum Basalt where thick sedimentary interbeds occur between the lava flows. The basalt flows penetrated in Saddle Mountains Basalt included the Umatilla Member, Esquatzel Member, Pomona Member, and the Elephant Mountain Member. The underlying Priest Rapids Member of the Wanapum Basalt also was penetrated. The Ellensburg Formation sediments consist of the Mabton Interbed, the Cold Creek Interbed, the Selah Interbed, and the Rattlesnake Ridge Interbed; the Byron Interbed occurs between two flows of the Priest Rapids Member. The Mabton Interbed marks the contact between the Wanapum and Saddle Mountains Basalts. The thicknesses of the basalts and interbedded sediments were within expected limits. However, a small reverse fault was found in the Pomona Member flow top. This fault has three periods of movement and less than 15 ft of repeated section. Most of the movement on the fault appears to have occurred before the youngest lava flow, the 10.5-million-year-old Elephant Mountain Member, was emplaced above the Pomona Member.

  19. 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.

  20. Carbon dioxide absorber and regeneration assemblies useful for power plant flue gas

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vimalchand, Pannalal; Liu, Guohai; Peng, Wan Wang

    2012-11-06

    Disclosed are apparatus and method to treat large amounts of flue gas from a pulverized coal combustion power plant. The flue gas is contacted with solid sorbents to selectively absorb CO.sub.2, which is then released as a nearly pure CO.sub.2 gas stream upon regeneration at higher temperature. The method is capable of handling the necessary sorbent circulation rates of tens of millions of lbs/hr to separate CO.sub.2 from a power plant's flue gas stream. Because pressurizing large amounts of flue gas is cost prohibitive, the method of this invention minimizes the overall pressure drop in the absorption section to less than 25 inches of water column. The internal circulation of sorbent within the absorber assembly in the proposed method not only minimizes temperature increases in the absorber to less than 25.degree. F., but also increases the CO.sub.2 concentration in the sorbent to near saturation levels. Saturating the sorbent with CO.sub.2 in the absorber section minimizes the heat energy needed for sorbent regeneration. The commercial embodiments of the proposed method can be optimized for sorbents with slower or faster absorption kinetics, low or high heat release rates, low or high saturation capacities and slower or faster regeneration kinetics.

  1. Hot waste-to-energy flue gas treatment using an integrated fluidised bed reactor

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bianchini, A.; Pellegrini, M.; Saccani, C.

    2009-04-15

    This paper describes an innovative process to increase superheated steam temperatures in waste-to-energy (WTE) plants. This solution is mainly characterised by a fluidised bed reactor in which hot flue gas is treated both chemically and mechanically. This approach, together with gas recirculation, increases the energy conversion efficiency, and raises the superheated steam temperature without decreasing the useful life of the superheater. This paper presents new experimental data obtained from the test facility installed at the Hera S.p.A. WTE plant in Forli, Italy; discusses changes that can be implemented to increase the duration of experimental testing; offers suggestions for the design of an industrial solution.

  2. Development of advanced technology of coke oven gas drainage treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Higashi, Tadayuki; Yamaguchi, Akikazu; Ikai, Kyozou; Kamiyama, Hisarou; Muto, Hiroshi

    1996-12-31

    In April 1994, commercial-scale application of ozone oxidation to ammonia liquor (which is primarily the water condensing from coke oven gas) to reduce its chemical oxygen demand (COD) was started at the Nagoya Works of Nippon Steel Corporation. This paper deals with the results of technical studies on the optimization of process operating conditions and the enlargement of equipment size and the operating purification system.

  3. U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (Million Barrels)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Acquisitions (Million Barrels) U.S. Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Acquisitions (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 1,051 550 512 433 554 596 1,048 771 332 - = 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 Reserves Acquisitions

  4. BUNCOMBE COUNTY WASTEWATER PRE-TREATMENT AND LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jon Creighton

    2012-03-13

    The objective of this project was to construct a landfill gas-to-energy (LFGTE) facility that generates a renewable energy source utilizing landfill gas to power a 1.4MW generator, while at the same time reducing the amount of leachate hauled offsite for treatment. The project included an enhanced gas collection and control system, gas conditioning equipment, and a 1.4 MW generator set. The production of cleaner renewable energy will help offset the carbon footprint of other energy sources that are currently utilized.

  5. Rhode Island 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) Rhode Island 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 4 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Natural

  6. South Dakota 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) South Dakota 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 0 63 61 76 93 70 125 123 112 1990's 158 393 451 452 437 404 424 911 848 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release

  7. Tennessee 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) Tennessee 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 355 753 986 1970's 1,265 1,524 1,150 1,263 1,087 387 537 509 516 616 1980's 0 0 78 113 153 138 98 93 60 45 1990's 74 44 39 49 44 47 37 45 31 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016

  8. Virginia 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) Virginia 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 0 128 211 1970's 252 213 157 170 307 168 157 157 191 266 1980's 240 361 181 124 272 443 438 669 536 425 1990's 489 327 653 1,120 1,102 1,296 1,183 1,330 1,243 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  9. Critique of Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant off-gas sampling requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goles, R.W.

    1996-03-01

    Off-gas sampling and monitoring activities needed to support operations safety, process control, waste form qualification, and environmental protection requirements of the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) have been evaluated. The locations of necessary sampling sites have been identified on the basis of plant requirements, and the applicability of Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) reference sampling equipment to these HWVP requirements has been assessed for all sampling sites. Equipment deficiencies, if present, have been described and the bases for modifications and/or alternative approaches have been developed.

  10. Indiana 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) Indiana 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 5 0 0 1970's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1980's 7 51 10 4 12 11 10 7 12 10 1990's 13 5 5 6 2 5 8 12 13 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages:

  11. New Mexico--East Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--East 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 192 1980's 192 197 193 216 206 192 200 176 193 179 1990's 200 187 204 215 222 236 287 253 243 230 2000's 302 259 266 251 245 237 264 274 261 289 2010's 342 350 310 329 443 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  12. New Mexico--West Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production

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

    (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) New Mexico--West 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 273 1980's 286 299 282 279 256 203 314 532 733 684 1990's 715 653 790 710 724 645 711 561 633 666 2000's 502 535 513 573 560 544 540 514 465 426 2010's 422 426 352 350 346 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  13. Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected

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

    Future Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels) Federal Offshore--Louisiana and Alabama 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 358 336 309 289 297 1990's 261 292 246 255 267 191 199 352 341 403 2000's 487 460 483 347 410 407 390 365 313 301 2010's 340 354 369 292 367 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  14. New York 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) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 508 538 561 1970's 485 460 0 442 340 267 273 278 109 961 1980's 115 80 494 617 840 1,041 957 975 788 604 1990's 840 1,073 965 563 781 1,074 939 778 636 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  15. Oregon 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) Oregon 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 32 30 37 30 30 1980's 0 0 0 0 0 120 131 130 115 59 1990's 93 60 68 118 95 66 40 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring

  16. Calif--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--Los Angeles Basin 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 1 1980's 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1990's 0 0 1 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

  17. Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Reserves Based

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Production (Million Barrels) Plant Liquids, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels) Calif--San Joaquin Basin 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 6 1980's 4 4 9 9 9 10 10 10 9 8 1990's 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 7 6 7 2000's 7 7 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 2010's 9 9 9 10 9 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  18. Maryland 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) Maryland 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 257 310 381 1970's 319 451 67 474 392 277 415 342 889 2,488 1980's 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1990's 1 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 1 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016

  19. ,"Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Louisiana--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  20. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","New Mexico Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  1. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Oklahoma Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  2. ,"Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Texas--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  3. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Arkansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  4. ,"California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","California--State Offshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  5. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Colorado Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  6. ,"Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Florida Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  7. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Kansas Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  8. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Kentucky Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","12/31/2016"

  9. ,"Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Louisiana--North Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  10. ,"Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    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","Louisiana--South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","11/19/2015" ,"Next Release

  11. 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.

  12. Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Sets Massive Protective Shield door in

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Completing the Office of River Protection (ORP) mission of stabilizing 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 tanks is one of the Energy Department's highest priorities. This Framework document outlines a phased approach for beginning tank waste treatment while continuing to resolve technical issues with

  13. Hindered amine development and operating experience at Quirk Creek Gas Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smart, P.; Devenny, I. [Imperial Oil Resources Ltd., Calgary, Alberta (Canada); Rendall, A. [Nalco/Exxon Energy Chemicals, Calgary, Alberta (Canada)

    1997-12-31

    The Imperial Oil Resources Limited Quirk Creek gas plant has a significant natural gas treating challenge. The natural gas feed contains H{sub 2}S, CO{sub 2}, carbonyl sulfide, mercaptans and elemental sulfur. The trace sulfur components are difficult to remove with conventional solvents. Over its 26 year history, three different solvents have been used. The latest solvent, a hybrid of a hindered amine and a physical solvent, has been operating for over two years, with better than expected performance. This high capacity solvent has lowered operating costs by over $500,000/yr by reducing solids formation. The development work, including pilot testing at Quirk Creek, and the operating history will be reviewed.

  14. Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project, October 2010

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Review of Nuclear Safety Culture at the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project, October 2010

  15. Enterprise Assessments Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality – October 2015

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    Enterprise Assessments Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality – October 2015

  16. NGNP: High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Key Definitions, Plant Capabilities, and Assumptions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phillip Mills

    2012-02-01

    This document is intended to provide a Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) Project tool in which to collect and identify key definitions, plant capabilities, and inputs and assumptions to be used in ongoing efforts related to the licensing and deployment of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR). These definitions, capabilities, and assumptions are extracted from a number of sources, including NGNP Project documents such as licensing related white papers [References 1-11] and previously issued requirement documents [References 13-15]. Also included is information agreed upon by the NGNP Regulatory Affairs group's Licensing Working Group and Configuration Council. The NGNP Project approach to licensing an HTGR plant via a combined license (COL) is defined within the referenced white papers and reference [12], and is not duplicated here.

  17. The Energy-Water Nexus: State and Local Roles in Efficiency & Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This presentation, given through the DOE's Technical Assitance Program (TAP), provides information on the Energy-Water Nexus: State and Local Roles in Efficiency & Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants.

  18. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – December 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Observation of Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant High Level Waste Facility Radioactive Liquid Waste Disposal System Hazards Analysis Activities (EA-WTP-HLW-2014-08-18(a))

  19. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – December 2014

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Waste Handling Systems Hazard Analysis Activities Observation (EA-WTP-LAW-2014-08-18(b))

  20. Enterprise Assessments Operational Awareness Record, Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant- March 2015

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Operational Awareness Record for the Observation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant High Level Waste Facility Concentrate Receipt/Melter Feed/Glass Formers Reagent Hazards Analysis and Review of the Radioactive Liquid Disposal Hazards Analysis Event Tables.

  1. Independent Activity Report, Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms- February 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Site Familiarization and Introduction of New Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Site Lead for the Office of River Protection Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farms [HIAR-HANFORD-2013-02-25

  2. Independent Oversight Activity Report, Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant – November 2013

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Catholic University of America Vitreous State Laboratory Tour and Discussion of Experiments Conducted in Support of Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Select Systems Design [HIAR-VSL-2013-11-18

  3. 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.

  4. Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Waste Treatment Facility Saves Taxpayers Nearly $20 Million Waste Treatment Facility Saves Taxpayers Nearly $20 Million December 11, 2012 - 1:40pm Addthis A new enclosure for processing radioactive casks has put Oak Ridge on a path to finishing cleanup work two years ahead of schedule, saving nearly $20 million. | Photo courtesy of the Office of Environmental Management. A new enclosure for processing radioactive casks has put Oak Ridge on a path to finishing cleanup work two years

  5. ,"California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Coastal Region Onshore 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","California--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  6. ,"California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    Los Angeles Basin Onshore 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","California--Los Angeles Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  7. ,"California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)"

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

    San Joaquin Basin Onshore 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","California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Expected Future Production (Million Barrels)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release

  8. Recovery Act: Brea California Combined Cycle Electric Generating Plant Fueled by Waste Landfill Gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Galowitz, Stephen

    2012-12-31

    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 Olinda Landfill near Brea, California. 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: • Meeting the environmental and regulatory requirements, particularly the compliance obligations imposed on the landfill to collect, process and destroy landfill gas • Utilizing proven and reliable technology and equipment • Maximizing electrical efficiency • Maximizing electric generating capacity, consistent with the anticipated quantities of landfill gas generated and collected at the Olinda Landfill • Maximizing equipment uptime • Minimizing water consumption • Minimizing post-combustion emissions • The Project produced and will produce a myriad of beneficial impacts. o The Project created 360 FTE construction and manufacturing jobs and 15 FTE permanent jobs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant and equipment. o 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). o The Project will annually produce 280,320 MWh’s of clean energy o By destroying the methane in the landfill gas, the Project will generate CO2 equivalent reductions of 164,938 tons annually. The completed facility produces 27.4 MWnet and operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

  9. Fate of As, Se, and Hg in a Passive Integrated System for Treatment of Fossil Plant Wastewater

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Terry Yost; Paul Pier; Gregory Brodie

    2007-12-31

    TVA is collaborating with EPRI and DOE to demonstrate a passive treatment system for removing SCR-derived ammonia and trace elements from a coal-fired power plant wastewater stream. The components of the integrated system consist of trickling filters for ammonia oxidation, reaction cells containing zero-valent iron (ZVI) for trace contaminant removal, a settling basin for storage of iron hydroxide floc, and anaerobic vertical-flow wetlands for biological denitrification. The passive integrated treatment system will treat up to 0.25 million gallons per day (gpd) of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) pond effluent, with a configuration requiring only gravity flow to obviate the need for pumps. The design of the system will enable a comparative evaluation of two parallel treatment trains, with and without the ZVI extraction trench and settling/oxidation basin components. One of the main objectives is to gain a better understanding of the chemical transformations that species of trace elements such as arsenic, selenium, and mercury undergo as they are treated in passive treatment system components with differing environmental conditions. This progress report details the design criteria for the passive integrated system for treating fossil power plant wastewater as well as performance results from the first several months of operation. Engineering work on the project has been completed, and construction took place during the summer of 2005. Monitoring of the passive treatment system was initiated in October 2005 and continued until May 18 2006. The results to date indicate that the treatment system is effective in reducing levels of nitrogen compounds and trace metals. Concentrations of both ammonia and trace metals were lower than expected in the influent FGD water, and additions to increase these concentrations will be done in the future to further test the removal efficiency of the treatment system. In May 2006, the wetland cells were drained of FGD water, refilled with less toxic ash pond water, and replanted due to low survival rates from the first planting the previous summer. The goals of the TVA-EPRI-DOE collaboration include building a better understanding of the chemical transformations that trace elements such as arsenic, selenium, and mercury undergo as they are treated in a passive treatment system, and to evaluate the performance of a large-scale replicated passive treatment system to provide additional design criteria and economic factors.

  10. Texas 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) 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 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 645,058 711,720 741,902 1970's 769,500 784,773 802,112 828,139 817,194 763,107 729,946 732,428 757,853 717,462 1980's 536,766 505,322 347,846 307,717 326,662 307,759 302,266 355,765 318,922 291,977 1990's 394,605 297,233 293,845 296,423 298,253 333,548 330,547 301,800 330,228 - = No Data

  11. Utah 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) Utah 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 1,956 1,503 2,113 1970's 633 2,115 1,978 2,435 4,193 7,240 9,150 7,585 8,325 14,123 1980's 7,594 511 5,965 4,538 8,375 9,001 13,289 17,671 16,889 16,211 1990's 19,719 13,738 12,611 12,526 13,273 27,012 27,119 24,619 27,466 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  12. West Virginia 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) West Virginia 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 2,052 2,276 0 1970's 2,551 3,043 3,808 2,160 1,909 1,791 1,490 1,527 1,233 1,218 1980's 2,482 2,515 6,426 5,826 7,232 7,190 6,658 8,835 8,343 7,882 1990's 9,631 7,744 8,097 7,065 8,087 8,045 6,554 7,210 6,893 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  13. Arkansas 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) Arkansas 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 10,267 4,027 6,268 1970's 9,184 6,433 4,740 3,000 4,246 4,200 4,049 4,032 3,760 7,661 1980's 1,949 2,549 5,096 5,384 5,922 12,439 9,062 11,990 12,115 11,586 1990's 7,101 1,406 5,838 6,405 4,750 5,551 5,575 6,857 8,385 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  14. Colorado 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) Colorado 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 2,668 2,361 2,604 1970's 2,726 3,231 4,676 7,202 5,822 7,673 7,739 9,124 10,619 21,610 1980's 7,041 7,093 13,673 10,000 10,560 10,829 9,397 12,095 11,622 12,221 1990's 17,343 23,883 21,169 24,832 24,347 25,130 27,492 29,585 31,074 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available;

  15. Florida 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) Florida 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 210 201 176 1970's 234 294 1,782 3,027 2,700 6,304 6,306 4,890 5,314 7,628 1980's 8,284 9,035 10,603 8,520 7,847 7,174 6,156 7,563 7,275 8,942 1990's 1,716 3,751 5,134 1,717 820 765 2,174 2,434 2,329 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  16. Kansas 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) Kansas 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 7,842 15,867 17,587 1970's 20,841 27,972 28,183 32,663 35,350 27,212 31,044 29,142 30,491 48,663 1980's 24,521 19,665 41,392 37,901 40,105 42,457 38,885 44,505 45,928 43,630 1990's 40,914 44,614 43,736 56,657 44,611 47,282 49,196 46,846 33,989 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  17. New Mexico 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) New Mexico 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 46,793 46,331 45,309 1970's 47,998 46,114 48,803 52,553 43,452 38,604 49,160 43,751 37,880 50,798 1980's 36,859 22,685 55,722 47,630 50,662 46,709 35,615 48,138 41,706 42,224 1990's 65,889 44,766 53,697 49,658 54,786 52,589 81,751 64,458 59,654 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  18. North Dakota 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) North Dakota 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 17,133 16,163 14,691 1970's 14,067 13,990 12,773 12,462 11,483 12,008 15,998 13,697 12,218 3,950 1980's 1,017 13,759 3,514 4,100 4,563 4,710 3,974 5,194 4,014 3,388 1990's 6,939 11,583 8,462 8,256 11,306 11,342 11,603 8,572 8,309 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  19. Ohio 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) Ohio 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 2,656 3,505 2,879 1970's 3,140 4,302 3,397 3,548 2,957 2,925 2,742 2,814 3,477 22,094 1980's 1,941 1,776 3,671 4,377 5,741 5,442 5,243 5,802 4,869 3,876 1990's 5,129 1,476 1,450 1,366 1,332 1,283 1,230 1,201 1,125 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  20. Oklahoma 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) Oklahoma 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 65,167 84,259 103,361 1970's 98,417 101,126 98,784 80,233 80,780 79,728 84,025 77,631 82,046 128,475 1980's 59,934 56,785 91,465 79,230 91,707 88,185 84,200 104,415 100,926 90,225 1990's 111,567 88,366 92,978 99,869 91,039 80,846 73,039 81,412 61,543 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;