National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for total storage capacity

  1. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Storage Capacity Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working...

  2. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec...

  3. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

  4. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

  5. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 2016 2,634,512 2,644,516 -

  6. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2016 2,195,132 2,195,132 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  7. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 2015 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 678,273 678,273 678,273 2016 678,273 678,273 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  8. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 2016 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data

  9. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  10. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  11. Mountain Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 904,787 909,887 912,887 912,887...

  12. U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 710,413 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 180,846 -- -- -- -- -- 1985-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 33,842 -- -- -- ...

  13. ,"U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Total Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  14. FAQs about Storage Capacity

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

    about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or ... Do I have to report storage capacity every month? No, only report storage capacity with ...

  15. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    Salt Caverns Storage Capacity Aquifers Storage Capacity Depleted Fields Storage Capacity Total Working Gas Capacity Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields Total Number of Existing Fields Number of Existing Salt Caverns Number of Existing Aquifers Number of Depleted Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data

  16. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:00:58 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  17. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 11:44:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  18. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2015 | Release ... Containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. ...

  19. Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  2. California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Net Available Shell Storage Capacity of Terminals and Tank Farms as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels, Except Where Noted) Commodity 2 3 4 5 U.S. Total Crude Oil (Excluding SPR) Capacity In Operation 6,686 150,637 260,493 20,397 34,423 472,636 Percent Exclusive Use 2 79% 39% 66% 89% 76% 59% Percent Leased to Others 21% 61% 34% 11% 24% 41% Cushing, Oklahoma Capacity In Operation -- 87,685 -- -- -- 87,685 Percent Exclusive Use 2 -- 17% -- -- -- 17% Percent Leased to Others -- 83% -- -- --

  4. High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite - Energy Innovation...

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

    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Storage Energy Storage Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search High Capacity Hydrogen...

  5. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Capacity Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity Released: September 3, 2010 for data as of April 2010 Next Release: August 2011 References Methodology Definitions...

  6. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity...

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

    Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award August 19, 2013 - 10:17am ...

  7. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  8. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Previous Articles Previous Articles Estimates of Peak Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States, 2009 Update (Released, 8312009) Estimates of Peak Underground...

  9. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  10. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity November 2015 With Data as of September 30, 2015 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September 30, 2015 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and

  11. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Working Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity 1 2 3 4 5 U.S. Total Ending Stocks Utilization Rate 1 Refineries Crude Oil 14,915 20,106 76,215 4,174 36,136 151,546 102,678 68% Fuel Ethanol 151 139 272 120 69 751 542 72% Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,179 11,054 28,530 559 2,294 43,616 19,428 45% Propane/Propylene (dedicated) 3 405 3,576 4,991 44 195 9,211 4,567 NA Motor Gasoline (incl. Motor Gasoline Blending Components)

  12. New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  13. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  14. New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  15. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  16. Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  17. Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  19. Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  2. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  4. Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  5. Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  6. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  7. Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  8. Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  9. Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  10. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  11. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  12. Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  13. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  14. Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  15. West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  16. Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  17. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  18. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 834,965 844,911 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 538,281 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  19. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  20. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  1. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 259,314 259,314 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  2. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  3. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  4. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  5. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 111,581 111,581 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 33,592 33,592 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  6. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  7. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  8. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  9. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 375,143 375,143 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 191,455 191,455 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  10. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  11. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  12. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  13. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  14. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 743,067 743,067 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 453,929 453,929 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  15. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  16. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  17. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 332,900 332,958 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 202,972 203,085 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  18. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  19. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  20. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  1. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  2. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  3. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    and also allows for tracking seasonal shifts in petroleum product usage of tanks and underground storage. Using the new storage capacity data, it will be possible to calculate...

  4. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  5. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014...

  6. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2016 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  7. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159...

  8. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2013 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619...

  9. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300...

  10. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1988-2014 Aquifers 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2014 ...

  11. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1988-2014 Aquifers 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000...

  12. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    Net Available Shell Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2015 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 Refineries Crude Oil 16,853 981 24,677 733 91,650 2,192 4,748 137 40,924 2,201 178,852 6,244 Fuel Ethanol 174 - 171 - 309 - 144 6 77 9 875 15 Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,328 21 12,256 270 31,315 92 608 1 2,470 - 47,977 384 Propane/Propylene

  13. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored. Working Gas Design Capacity: This measure estimates a natural gas facility's working gas capacity, as...

  14. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 View History U.S. 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 9,222,527 9,232,532 1989-2016 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2016 Lower 48 States 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648 9,138,935 9,148,940

  15. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    ,"Data 1","U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",3,"Monthly","22016","115...ngstorcapdcunusm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  16. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  17. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks...

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

    High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks Previous Next List Felipe Gndara, Hiroyasu Furukawa, Seungkyu Lee, and Omar M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 136,...

  18. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy...

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

    ... Inactive fields were removed from aggregate statistics. Percent change in storage capacity ... In late 2015, EIA began publishing weekly data in five regions and historical data for the ...

  19. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8,740 38,792 38,658 38,516 38,492 38,987 2013-2016 Base Gas 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,197 2013-2016 Working Gas 24,543 24,595 24,461 24,319 24,295 24,790 2013-2016 Net Withdrawals 92 -52 197 140 -50 -459 2013-2016 Injections 682 824 756 717 496 748 2013-2016 Withdrawals 774 772 953 857 446 289 2013-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 723 881 189 -679 -515 164 2013-2016 Percent 3.0 3.7 0.8 -2.7 -2.1 0.7 2013

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage

  20. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2016 Base Gas 340 340 340 340 340 340 1997-2016 Working Gas 1997-2011 Net Withdrawals 1998-2006 Injections 1997-2005 Withdrawals 1997-2006 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 1997-2011 Percent 1997-2011

    1,200 0 NA NA 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,200 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 860 0 0 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 860 0 0 2008-2014

  1. Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This presentation by Amgad Elgowainy of Argonne National Laboratory was given at the DOE Hydrogen Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Workshop in March 2013.

  2. Rocky Mountain Regional CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Significance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Laes, Denise; Eisinger, Chris; Esser, Richard; Morgan, Craig; Rauzi, Steve; Scholle, Dana; Matthews, Vince; McPherson, Brian

    2013-08-30

    The purpose of this study includes extensive characterization of the most promising geologic CO{sub 2} storage formations on the Colorado Plateau, including estimates of maximum possible storage capacity. The primary targets of characterization and capacity analysis include the Cretaceous Dakota Formation, the Jurassic Entrada Formation and the Permian Weber Formation and their equivalents in the Colorado Plateau region. The total CO{sub 2} capacity estimates for the deep saline formations of the Colorado Plateau region range between 9.8 metric GT and 143 metric GT, depending on assumed storage efficiency, formations included, and other factors.

  3. High capacity hydrogen storage nanocomposite materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zidan, Ragaiy; Wellons, Matthew S

    2015-02-03

    A novel hydrogen absorption material is provided comprising a mixture of a lithium hydride with a fullerene. The subsequent reaction product provides for a hydrogen storage material which reversibly stores and releases hydrogen at temperatures of about 270.degree. C.

  4. High capacity stabilized complex hydrides for hydrogen storage

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zidan, Ragaiy; Mohtadi, Rana F; Fewox, Christopher; Sivasubramanian, Premkumar

    2014-11-11

    Complex hydrides based on Al(BH.sub.4).sub.3 are stabilized by the presence of one or more additional metal elements or organic adducts to provide high capacity hydrogen storage material.

  5. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGAEP...

  6. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGAEPG0SACW0NUSMMCF","NA1394NUS8"...

  7. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

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

    292016 12:05:02 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGA...

  8. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2016 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  9. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1988-2013 Aquifers 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2013 Total Working Gas...

  10. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total...

  11. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    2,000 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 22,000 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 1999-2013 Total Working...

  12. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 80,000 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 1999-2013 Total Working...

  13. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Presentation for the high temperature combinatorial screening for high capacity hydrogen storage meeting

  14. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 461,243 464,435 464,435...

  15. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831 414,831...

  16. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September...

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

    for PAD District 2 and the U.S. total have been revised to correct a processing error that caused some capacity data to be double counted in the original release of this...

  17. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,226,103 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1995 1,232,392 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,243,137 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1996 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446

  18. Complex Hydride Compounds with Enhanced Hydrogen Storage Capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mosher, Daniel A.; Opalka, Susanne M.; Tang, Xia; Laube, Bruce L.; Brown, Ronald J.; Vanderspurt, Thomas H.; Arsenault, Sarah; Wu, Robert; Strickler, Jamie; Anton, Donald L.; Zidan, Ragaiy; Berseth, Polly

    2008-02-18

    The United Technologies Research Center (UTRC), in collaboration with major partners Albemarle Corporation (Albemarle) and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), conducted research to discover new hydride materials for the storage of hydrogen having on-board reversibility and a target gravimetric capacity of ≥ 7.5 weight percent (wt %). When integrated into a system with a reasonable efficiency of 60% (mass of hydride / total mass), this target material would produce a system gravimetric capacity of ≥ 4.5 wt %, consistent with the DOE 2007 target. The approach established for the project combined first principles modeling (FPM - UTRC) with multiple synthesis methods: Solid State Processing (SSP - UTRC), Solution Based Processing (SBP - Albemarle) and Molten State Processing (MSP - SRNL). In the search for novel compounds, each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages; by combining them, the potential for success was increased. During the project, UTRC refined its FPM framework which includes ground state (0 Kelvin) structural determinations, elevated temperature thermodynamic predictions and thermodynamic / phase diagram calculations. This modeling was used both to precede synthesis in a virtual search for new compounds and after initial synthesis to examine reaction details and options for modifications including co-reactant additions. The SSP synthesis method involved high energy ball milling which was simple, efficient for small batches and has proven effective for other storage material compositions. The SBP method produced very homogeneous chemical reactions, some of which cannot be performed via solid state routes, and would be the preferred approach for large scale production. The MSP technique is similar to the SSP method, but involves higher temperature and hydrogen pressure conditions to achieve greater species mobility. During the initial phases of the project, the focus was on higher order alanate complexes in the phase space between alkaline metal hydrides (AmH), Alkaline earth metal hydrides (AeH2), alane (AlH3), transition metal (Tm) hydrides (TmHz, where z=1-3) and molecular hydrogen (H2). The effort started first with variations of known alanates and subsequently extended the search to unknown compounds. In this stage, the FPM techniques were developed and validated on known alanate materials such as NaAlH4 and Na2LiAlH6. The coupled predictive methodologies were used to survey over 200 proposed phases in six quaternary spaces, formed from various combinations of Na, Li Mg and/or Ti with Al and H. A wide range of alanate compounds was examined using SSP having additions of Ti, Cr, Co, Ni and Fe. A number of compositions and reaction paths were identified having H weight fractions up to 5.6 wt %, but none meeting the 7.5 wt%H reversible goal. Similarly, MSP of alanates produced a number of interesting compounds and general conclusions regarding reaction behavior of mixtures during processing, but no alanate based candidates meeting the 7.5 wt% goal. A novel alanate, LiMg(AlH4)3, was synthesized using SBP that demonstrated a 7.0 wt% capacity with a desorption temperature of 150°C. The deuteride form was synthesized and characterized by the Institute for Energy (IFE) in Norway to determine its crystalline structure for related FPM studies. However, the reaction exhibited exothermicity and therefore was not reversible under acceptable hydrogen gas pressures for on-board recharging. After the extensive studies of alanates, the material class of emphasis was shifted to borohydrides. Through SBP, several ligand-stabilized Mg(BH4)2 complexes were synthesized. The Mg(BH4)2*2NH3 complex was found to change behavior with slightly different synthesis conditions and/or aging. One of the two mechanisms was an amine-borane (NH3BH3) like dissociation reaction which released up to 16 wt %H and more conservatively 9 wt%H when not including H2 released from the NH3. From FPM, the stability of the Mg(BH4)2*2NH3 compound was found to increase with the inclusion of NH3 groups in the inner-Mg coordination sphere, which in turn correlated with lowering the dimensionality of the Mg(BH4)2 network. Development of various Ak Tm-B-H compounds using SSP produced up to 12 wt% of H2 desorbed at temperatures of 400°C. However, the most active material can only be partially recharged to 2 wt% H2 at 220-300°C and 195 bar H2 pressure due to stable product formation. While gravimetric & volumetric targets are feasible, reversibility remains a persistent challenge.

  19. Delaware Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by...

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

    Delaware" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",3367,3350,3344,3355,3379 " ... "Renewables",7,7,7,7,10 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-" ...

  20. AGA totes up new U. S. gas-pipeline mileage, storage capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-04

    More than 8,000 miles of new US natural-gas transmission line or pipeline looping have been built, are under construction, or are proposed in 1993--94, the American Gas Association, Arlington, Va., states in its latest annual report on new construction. Additionally, AGA lists 47 proposed natural-gas storage projects in various stages of development to add more than 500 bcf of working-gas storage capacity and, if constructed, would increase total US working-gas storage capacity by nearly 20%. Throughout 1993 and 1994, more than $9 billion of new gas-pipeline construction projects have been in various stages of development. AGA classifies these projects as either built in 1993 or 1994 and operational, or currently under construction, or proposed and pending. In aggregate, the projects total 8,087 miles of new pipeline and pipeline looping, 1,098,940 hp of additional compression, and 15.3 bcfd of additional capacity. A table shows the regional breakout.

  1. HybridPlan: A Capacity Planning Technique for Projecting Storage Requirements in Hybrid Storage Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kim, Youngjae; Gupta, Aayush; Urgaonkar, Bhuvan; Piotr, Berman; Sivasubramaniam, Anand

    2014-01-01

    Economic forces, driven by the desire to introduce flash into the high-end storage market without changing existing software-base, have resulted in the emergence of solid-state drives (SSDs), flash packaged in HDD form factors and capable of working with device drivers and I/O buses designed for HDDs. Unlike the use of DRAM for caching or buffering, however, certain idiosyncrasies of NAND Flash-based solid-state drives (SSDs) make their integration into hard disk drive (HDD)-based storage systems nontrivial. Flash memory suffers from limits on its reliability, is an order of magnitude more expensive than the magnetic hard disk drives (HDDs), and can sometimes be as slow as the HDD (due to excessive garbage collection (GC) induced by high intensity of random writes). Given the complementary properties of HDDs and SSDs in terms of cost, performance, and lifetime, the current consensus among several storage experts is to view SSDs not as a replacement for HDD, but rather as a complementary device within the high-performance storage hierarchy. Thus, we design and evaluate such a hybrid storage system with HybridPlan that is an improved capacity planning technique to administrators with the overall goal of operating within cost-budgets. HybridPlan is able to find the most cost-effective hybrid storage configuration with different types of SSDs and HDDs

  2. Connecticut Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity...

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

    Connecticut" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",5498,5361,5466,5582,5845 " ... "Renewables",316,285,287,287,281 "Pumped Storage",4,29,29,29,29 "Other",27,27,27,27,27 ...

  3. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States: 2007 Update

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

    This report provides an update to an estimate for U.S. aggregate natural gas storage capacity that was released in 2006.

  4. High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

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

    | Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs)

  5. Estimate of Maximum Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

    This report examines the aggregate maximum capacity for U.S. natural gas storage. Although the concept of maximum capacity seems quite straightforward, there are numerous issues that preclude the determination of a definitive maximum volume. The report presents three alternative estimates for maximum capacity, indicating appropriate caveats for each.

  6. Voltage Dependent Charge Storage Modes and Capacity in Subnanometer Pores

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Qiao, Rui; Meunier, V.; Huang, Jingsong; Wu, Peng; Sumpter, Bobby G

    2012-01-01

    Using molecular dynamics simulations, we show that charge storage in subnanometer pores follows a distinct voltage-dependent behavior. Specifically, at lower voltages, charge storage is achieved by swapping co-ions in the pore with counterions in the bulk electrolyte. As voltage increases, further charge storage is due mainly to the removal of co-ions from the pore, leading to a capacitance increase. The capacitance eventually reaches a maximum when all co-ions are expelled from the pore. At even higher electrode voltages, additional charge storage is realized by counterion insertion into the pore, accompanied by a reduction of capacitance. The molecular mechanisms of these observations are elucidated and provide useful insight for optimizing energy storage based on supercapacitors.

  7. Using Pressure and Volumetric Approaches to Estimate CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thibeau, Sylvain; Bachu, Stefan; Birkholzer, Jens; Holloway, Sam; Neele, Filip; Zhou, Quanlin

    2014-12-31

    Various approaches are used to evaluate the capacity of saline aquifers to store CO2, resulting in a wide range of capacity estimates for a given aquifer. The two approaches most used are the volumetric open aquifer and closed aquifer approaches. We present four full-scale aquifer cases, where CO2 storage capacity is evaluated both volumetrically (with open and/or closed approaches) and through flow modeling. These examples show that the open aquifer CO2 storage capacity estimation can strongly exceed the cumulative CO2 injection from the flow model, whereas the closed aquifer estimates are a closer approximation to the flow-model derived capacity. An analogy to oil recovery mechanisms is presented, where the primary oil recovery mechanism is compared to CO2 aquifer storage without producing formation water; and the secondary oil recovery mechanism (water flooding) is compared to CO2 aquifer storage performed simultaneously with extraction of water for pressure maintenance. This analogy supports the finding that the closed aquifer approach produces a better estimate of CO2 storage without water extraction, and highlights the need for any CO2 storage estimate to specify whether it is intended to represent CO2 storage capacity with or without water extraction.

  8. Using Pressure and Volumetric Approaches to Estimate CO2 Storage Capacity in Deep Saline Aquifers

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Thibeau, Sylvain; Bachu, Stefan; Birkholzer, Jens; Holloway, Sam; Neele, Filip; Zhou, Quanlin

    2014-12-31

    Various approaches are used to evaluate the capacity of saline aquifers to store CO2, resulting in a wide range of capacity estimates for a given aquifer. The two approaches most used are the volumetric “open aquifer” and “closed aquifer” approaches. We present four full-scale aquifer cases, where CO2 storage capacity is evaluated both volumetrically (with “open” and/or “closed” approaches) and through flow modeling. These examples show that the “open aquifer” CO2 storage capacity estimation can strongly exceed the cumulative CO2 injection from the flow model, whereas the “closed aquifer” estimates are a closer approximation to the flow-model derived capacity. Anmore » analogy to oil recovery mechanisms is presented, where the primary oil recovery mechanism is compared to CO2 aquifer storage without producing formation water; and the secondary oil recovery mechanism (water flooding) is compared to CO2 aquifer storage performed simultaneously with extraction of water for pressure maintenance. This analogy supports the finding that the “closed aquifer” approach produces a better estimate of CO2 storage without water extraction, and highlights the need for any CO2 storage estimate to specify whether it is intended to represent CO2 storage capacity with or without water extraction.« less

  9. EA-1044: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposal to construct and maintain additional storage capacity at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,...

  10. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Authors: Farmer, J ; Chang, J ; Zumstein, J ; Kotovsky, J ; Dobley, A ; Puglia, F ; Osswald, S ; Wolf, K ; Kaschmitter, J ; Eaves, S ; Bandhauer, T Publication Date: 2013-10-01 OSTI Identifier: 1124816 Report Number(s): LLNL-CONF-644556 DOE Contract Number: W-7405-ENG-48

  11. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy

  12. A Dynamic Programming Approach to Estimate the Capacity Value of Energy Storage

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    We present a method to estimate the capacity value of storage. Our method uses a dynamic program to model the effect of power system outages on the operation and state of charge of storage in subsequent periods. We combine the optimized dispatch from the dynamic program with estimated system loss of load probabilities to compute a probability distribution for the state of charge of storage in each period. This probability distribution can be used as a forced outage rate for storage in standard reliability-based capacity value estimation methods. Our proposed method has the advantage over existing approximations that it explicitly captures the effect of system shortage events on the state of charge of storage in subsequent periods. We also use a numerical case study, based on five utility systems in the U.S., to demonstrate our technique and compare it to existing approximation methods.

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Total 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 1990's 1,077,139 957,254 1,004,281 2000's 1,030,604 951,616 1,049,878 998,486 953,207 969,642 893,997 965,591 1,000,501 956,068 2010's 966,678 986,867 940,367 1,056,826 1,092,999 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  14. ,"U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries"

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

    Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries",28,"Annual",2015,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/19/2015" ,"Next Release Date:","6/30/2016" ,"Excel File

  15. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 2.86 2.58 2.98 2000's 4.52 5.20 3.57 5.81 6.24 9.67 7.32 7.19 10.03 4.30 2010's 4.85 W 3.09 4.14 4.74 3.06

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 4.46 1967-2010 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1967-2005 Citygate Price 6.46 5.80 5.18 4.65 4.93 NA 1984-2015 Residential Price 15.79 15.08 16.20 15.47 14.59 13.95 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries

  16. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 2.69 2.29 2.59 2000's 4.46 4.44 3.59 4.37 6.19 8.59 6.38 7.04 9.23 4.14 2010's 5.11 W 3.19 4.32

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 3.84 1967-2010 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1967-2005 Citygate Price 6.76 6.27 5.36 4.99 5.84 4.76 1984-2015 Residential Price 11.53 11.46 11.82 10.46 10.39 11.20 1967-2015 Percentage of Total Residential Deliveries included in

  17. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 77,130 79,015 84,406 1970's 86,811 87,617 89,042 86,670 82,999 82,380 87,408 77,575 83,391 82,784 1980's 68,080 70,423 67,500 64,716 73,012 68,399 71,896 70,670 74,918 75,138 1990's 66,428 69,235 75,122 76,871 76,688 76,552 85,533 77,500 68,057 74,848 2000's 84,082 70,691 80,122 90,669 86,382 85,768 71,345 83,457 81,180 82,699 2010's 83,830 77,838 70,346 83,341 90,542 81,592

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic

  18. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 53,819 53,376 55,163 1970's 58,295 57,678 59,978 50,383 49,403 53,803 54,965 52,909 48,193 53,526 1980's 48,915 43,907 51,381 47,236 47,834 46,674 42,303 38,871 43,502 44,804 1990's 41,499 44,671 41,414 48,256 44,397 45,054 48,989 47,105 40,771 40,588 2000's 42,510 46,663 43,826 42,190 38,600 37,963 35,896 38,596 42,357 40,143 2010's 40,132 39,717 31,286 41,229 42,147 33,830

    Total Consumption (Million Cubic

  19. Optimal capacity of the battery energy storage system in a power system

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsungying Lee; Nanming Chen

    1993-12-01

    Due to the cyclical human life, utility loads appear to be cyclical too. During daytime when most factories are in operation, the electricity demand is very high. On the contrary, when most people are sleeping from midnight to daybreak, the electric load is very low, usually only half of the peak load amount. To meet this large gap between peak load and light load, utilities must idle many generation plants during light load period while operating all generation plants during peak load period no matter how expensive they are. This low utilization factor of generation plants and uneconomical operation have sparked utilities to invest in energy storage devices such as pumped storage plants, compressed air energy storage plants, battery energy storage systems (BES) and superconducting magnetic energy storage systems (SMES) etc. Among these, pumped storage is already commercialized and is the most widely used device. However, it suffers the limit of available sites and will be saturated in the future. Other energy storage devices are still under research to reduce the cost. This paper investigates the optimal capacity of the battery energy storage system in a power system. Taiwan Power Company System is used as the example system to test this algorithm. Results show that the maximum economic benefit of the battery energy storage in a power system can be achieved by this algorithm.

  20. Carborane-Based Metal-Organic Framework with High Methane and Hydrogen Storage Capacities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kennedy, RD; Krungleviciute, V; Clingerman, DJ; Mondloch, JE; Peng, Y; Wilmer, CE; Sarjeant, AA; Snurr, RQ; Hupp, JT; Yildirim, T; Farha, OK; Mirkin, CA

    2013-09-10

    A Cu-carborane-based metal organic framework (MOF), NU-135, which contains a quasi-spherical para-carborane moiety, has been synthesized and characterized. NU-135 exhibits a pore volume of 1.02 cm(3)/g and a gravimetric BET surface area of ca. 2600 m(2)/g, and thus represents the first highly porous carborane-based MOF. As a consequence of the, unique geometry of the carborane unit, NU-135 has a very high volumetric BET surface area of ca. 1900 m(2)/cm(3). CH4, CO2, and H-2 adsorption isotherms were measured over a broad range of pressures and temperatures and are in good agreement with computational predictions. The methane storage capacity of NU-135 at 35 bar and 298 K is ca. 187 v(STP)/v. At 298 K, the pressure required to achieve a methane storage density comparable to that of a compressed natural gas (CNG) tank pressurized to 212 bar, which is a typical storage pressure, is only 65 bar. The methane working capacity (5-65 bar) is 170 v(STP)/v. The volumetric hydrogen storage capacity at 55 bar and 77 K is 49 g/L. These properties are comparable to those of current record holders in the area of methane and hydrogen storage. This initial example lays the groundwork for carborane-based materials with high surface areas.

  1. Sensitivity study of CO2 storage capacity in brine aquifers withclosed boundaries: Dependence on hydrogeologic properties

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J.; Rutqvist, J.; Tsang, C-F.

    2007-02-07

    In large-scale geologic storage projects, the injected volumes of CO{sub 2} will displace huge volumes of native brine. If the designated storage formation is a closed system, e.g., a geologic unit that is compartmentalized by (almost) impermeable sealing units and/or sealing faults, the native brine cannot (easily) escape from the target reservoir. Thus the amount of supercritical CO{sub 2} that can be stored in such a system depends ultimately on how much pore space can be made available for the added fluid owing to the compressibility of the pore structure and the fluids. To evaluate storage capacity in such closed systems, we have conducted a modeling study simulating CO{sub 2} injection into idealized deep saline aquifers that have no (or limited) interaction with overlying, underlying, and/or adjacent units. Our focus is to evaluate the storage capacity of closed systems as a function of various reservoir parameters, hydraulic properties, compressibilities, depth, boundaries, etc. Accounting for multi-phase flow effects including dissolution of CO{sub 2} in numerical simulations, the goal is to develop simple analytical expressions that provide estimates for storage capacity and pressure buildup in such closed systems.

  2. Review of private sector treatment, storage, and disposal capacity for radioactive waste. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, M.; Harris, J.G.; Moore-Mayne, S.; Mayes, R.; Naretto, C.

    1995-04-14

    This report is an update of a report that summarized the current and near-term commercial and disposal of radioactive and mixed waste. This report was capacity for the treatment, storage, dating and written for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) with the objective of updating and expanding the report entitled ``Review of Private Sector Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Capacity for Radioactive Waste``, (INEL-95/0020, January 1995). The capacity to process radioactively-contaminated protective clothing and/or respirators was added to the list of private sector capabilities to be assessed. Of the 20 companies surveyed in the previous report, 14 responded to the request for additional information, five did not respond, and one asked to be deleted from the survey. One additional company was identified as being capable of performing LLMW treatability studies and six were identified as providers of laundering services for radioactively-contaminated protective clothing and/or respirators.

  3. Assessment of Factors Influencing Effective CO{sub 2} Storage Capacity and Injectivity in Eastern Gas Shales

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

    Building upon advances in technology, production of natural gas from organic-rich shales is rapidly developing as a major hydrocarbon supply option in North America and around the world. The same technology advances that have facilitated this revolution - dense well spacing, horizontal drilling, and hydraulic fracturing - may help to facilitate enhanced gas recovery (EGR) and carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) storage in these formations. The potential storage of CO {sub 2} in shales is attracting increasing interest, especially in Appalachian Basin states that have extensive shale deposits, but limited CO{sub 2} storage capacity in conventional reservoirs. The goal of this cooperative research project was to build upon previous and on-going work to assess key factors that could influence effective EGR, CO{sub 2} storage capacity, and injectivity in selected Eastern gas shales, including the Devonian Marcellus Shale, the Devonian Ohio Shale, the Ordovician Utica and Point Pleasant shale and equivalent formations, and the late Devonian-age Antrim Shale. The project had the following objectives: (1) Analyze and synthesize geologic information and reservoir data through collaboration with selected State geological surveys, universities, and oil and gas operators; (2) improve reservoir models to perform reservoir simulations to better understand the shale characteristics that impact EGR, storage capacity and CO{sub 2} injectivity in the targeted shales; (3) Analyze results of a targeted, highly monitored, small-scale CO{sub 2} injection test and incorporate into ongoing characterization and simulation work; (4) Test and model a smart particle early warning concept that can potentially be used to inject water with uniquely labeled particles before the start of CO{sub 2} injection; (5) Identify and evaluate potential constraints to economic CO{sub 2} storage in gas shales, and propose development approaches that overcome these constraints; and (6) Complete new basin-level characterizations for the CO{sub 2} storage capacity and injectivity potential of the targeted eastern shales. In total, these Eastern gas shales cover an area of over 116 million acres, may contain an estimated 6,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place, and have a maximum theoretical storage capacity of over 600 million metric tons. Not all of this gas in-place will be recoverable, and economics will further limit how much will be economic to produce using EGR techniques with CO{sub 2} injection. Reservoir models were developed and simulations were conducted to characterize the potential for both CO{sub 2} storage and EGR for the target gas shale formations. Based on that, engineering costing and cash flow analyses were used to estimate economic potential based on future natural gas prices and possible financial incentives. The objective was to assume that EGR and CO{sub 2} storage activities would commence consistent with the historical development practices. Alternative CO{sub 2} injection/EGR scenarios were considered and compared to well production without CO{sub 2} injection. These simulations were conducted for specific, defined model areas in each shale gas play. The resulting outputs were estimated recovery per typical well (per 80 acres), and the estimated CO{sub 2} that would be injected and remain in the reservoir (i.e., not produced), and thus ultimately assumed to be stored. The application of this approach aggregated to the entire area of the four shale gas plays concluded that they contain nearly 1,300 Tcf of both primary production and EGR potential, of which an estimated 460 Tcf could be economic to produce with reasonable gas prices and/or modest incentives. This could facilitate the storage of nearly 50 Gt of CO{sub 2} in the Marcellus, Utica, Antrim, and Devonian Ohio shales.

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number

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

    of Elements) Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 49 2000's 49 39 38 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 2010's 43 43 44 47 46 - = 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: Number of

  5. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 335 2000's 336 351 340 318 320 320 322 326 324 331 2010's 331 329 330 332 333 - = 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:

  6. U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity

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

    (Number of Elements) Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 29 2000's 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 34 35 2010's 37 38 40 40 39 - = 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:

  7. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 396,950 396,092 2010's 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 - = 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: Working Gas

  8. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 3,583,786 3,659,968 2010's 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 3,839,852 3,844,927 - = 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

  9. U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 230,456 271,785 2010's 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 - = 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: Working Gas

  10. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

  11. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

  12. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

  13. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  14. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

  15. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

  16. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

  17. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

  18. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

  19. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

  20. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

  1. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290pa2m.xls"

  2. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

  3. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

  4. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

  5. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

  6. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

  7. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

  8. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  9. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

  10. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

  11. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

  12. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

  13. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

  14. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

  15. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

  16. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

  17. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","2/2016" ,"Release Date:","4/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","5/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

  18. Basin-Scale Hydrologic Impacts of CO2 Storage: Regulatory and Capacity Implications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Birkholzer, J.T.; Zhou, Q.

    2009-04-02

    Industrial-scale injection of CO{sub 2} into saline sedimentary basins will cause large-scale fluid pressurization and migration of native brines, which may affect valuable groundwater resources overlying the deep sequestration reservoirs. In this paper, we discuss how such basin-scale hydrologic impacts can (1) affect regulation of CO{sub 2} storage projects and (2) may reduce current storage capacity estimates. Our assessment arises from a hypothetical future carbon sequestration scenario in the Illinois Basin, which involves twenty individual CO{sub 2} storage projects in a core injection area suitable for long-term storage. Each project is assumed to inject five million tonnes of CO{sub 2} per year for 50 years. A regional-scale three-dimensional simulation model was developed for the Illinois Basin that captures both the local-scale CO{sub 2}-brine flow processes and the large-scale groundwater flow patterns in response to CO{sub 2} storage. The far-field pressure buildup predicted for this selected sequestration scenario suggests that (1) the area that needs to be characterized in a permitting process may comprise a very large region within the basin if reservoir pressurization is considered, and (2) permits cannot be granted on a single-site basis alone because the near- and far-field hydrologic response may be affected by interference between individual sites. Our results also support recent studies in that environmental concerns related to near-field and far-field pressure buildup may be a limiting factor on CO{sub 2} storage capacity. In other words, estimates of storage capacity, if solely based on the effective pore volume available for safe trapping of CO{sub 2}, may have to be revised based on assessments of pressure perturbations and their potential impact on caprock integrity and groundwater resources, respectively. We finally discuss some of the challenges in making reliable predictions of large-scale hydrologic impacts related to CO{sub 2} sequestration projects.

  19. United States Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source, 2006 - 2010" "(Megawatts)" "United States" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",761603,763994,770221,774279,782176 " Coal",312956,312738,313322,314294,316800 " Petroleum",58097,56068,57445,56781,55647 " Natural Gas",388294,392876,397460,401272,407028 " Other Gases",2256,2313,1995,1932,2700

  20. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (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 1,263,106 2000's 1,263,711 1,195,141 1,234,007 1,237,132 1,238,158 1,350,689 1,356,323 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 2010's 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  1. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (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 6,780,700 2000's 6,788,130 6,768,622 6,747,108 6,733,983 6,776,894 6,667,222 6,711,656 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 2010's 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  2. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (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 185,451 2000's 189,043 218,483 225,958 234,601 239,990 250,532 261,988 253,410 341,213 397,560 2010's 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

  3. Grid Inertial Response-Based Probabilistic Determination of Energy Storage System Capacity Under High Solar Penetration

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

    It is well-known that responsive battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are an effective means to improve the grid inertial response to various disturbances including the variability of the renewable generation. One of the major issues associated with its implementation is the difficulty in determining the required BESS capacity mainly due to the large amount of inherent uncertainties that cannot be accounted for deterministically. In this study, a probabilistic approach is proposed to properly size the BESS from the perspective of the system inertial response, as an application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The proposed approach enables a risk-informed decision-making process regarding (1) the acceptable level of solar penetration in a given system and (2) the desired BESS capacity (and minimum cost) to achieve an acceptable grid inertial response with a certain confidence level.

  4. Grid Inertial Response-Based Probabilistic Determination of Energy Storage System Capacity Under High Solar Penetration

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

    It is well-known that responsive battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are an effective means to improve the grid inertial response to various disturbances including the variability of the renewable generation. One of the major issues associated with its implementation is the difficulty in determining the required BESS capacity mainly due to the large amount of inherent uncertainties that cannot be accounted for deterministically. In this study, a probabilistic approach is proposed to properly size the BESS from the perspective of the system inertial response, as an application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The proposed approach enables a risk-informed decision-making processmore » regarding (1) the acceptable level of solar penetration in a given system and (2) the desired BESS capacity (and minimum cost) to achieve an acceptable grid inertial response with a certain confidence level.« less

  5. Table 8.11a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors), 1949-2011 (Sum of Tables 8.11b and 8.11d; Kilowatts)

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

    a Electric Net Summer Capacity: Total (All Sectors), 1949-2011 (Sum of Tables 8.11b and 8.11d; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 9 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power 5 Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 8 Wind Total Wood 6 Waste 7 1949 NA NA NA NA 44,887,000 0 [5] 18,500,000 13,000 [10] NA NA NA 18,513,000 NA 63,400,000 1950 NA NA NA NA 49,987,000 0 [5] 19,200,000 13,000

  6. Capacity Enhancement of Aqueous Borohydride Fuels for hydrogen storage in liquids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schubert, David M.; Neiner, Doinita; Bowden, Mark E.; Whittemore, Sean M.; Holladay, Jamelyn D.; Huang, Zhenguo; Autrey, Thomas

    2015-10-05

    In this work we demonstrate enhanced hydrogen storage capacities through increased solubility of sodium borate product species in aqueous media achieved by adjusting the sodium (NaOH) to boron (B(OH)3) ratio, i.e., M/B, to obtain a distribution of polyborate anions. For a 1:1 mole ratio of NaOH to B(OH)3, M/B = 1, the ratio of the hydrolysis product formed from NaBH4 hydrolysis, the sole borate species formed and observed by 11B NMR is sodium metaborate, NaB(OH)4. When the ratio is 1:3 NaOH to B(OH)3, M/B = 0.33, a mixture of borate anions is formed and observed as a broad peak in the 11B NMR spectrum. The complex polyborate mixture yields a metastable solution that is difficult to crystallize. Given the enhanced solubility of the polyborate mixture formed when M/B = 0.33 it should follow that the hydrolysis of sodium octahydrotriborate, NaB3H8, can provide a greater storage capacity of hydrogen for fuel cell applications compared to sodium borohydride while maintaining a single phase. Accordingly, the hydrolysis of a 23 wt% NaB3H8 solution in water yields a solution having the same complex polyborate mixture as formed by mixing a 1:3 molar ratio of NaOH and B(OH)3 and releases >8 eq of H2. By optimizing the M/B ratio a complex mixture of soluble products, including B3O3(OH)52-, B4O5(OH)42-, B3O3(OH)4-, B5O6(OH)4- and B(OH)3, can be maintained as a single liquid phase throughout the hydrogen release process. Consequently, hydrolysis of NaB3H8 can provide a 40% increase in H2 storage density compared to the hydrolysis of NaBH4 given the decreased solubility of sodium metaborate. The authors would like to thank Jim Sisco and Paul Osenar of Protonex Inc. for useful discussion regarding liquid hydrogen storage materials for portable power applications and the U.S. DoE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office for their continued interest in liquid hydrogen storage carriers. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a multi-program national laboratory operated for DOE by Battelle. The authors dedicate the work to the memory of Professor Sheldon Shore. His contributions to boron hydride chemistry set the foundation for many who have followed.

  7. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 4,211,193 4,327,844 2010's 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 4,748,636 4,785,669

  8. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 4,491,557 4,491,226 4,491,596 4,502,901 4,514,569 4,526,987 4,530,486 4,540,575 4,567,586 4,577,649 4,575,112 4,576,356 2013 4,567,566 4,628,787 4,652,018 4,640,880 4,665,310 4,669,698 4,699,349 4,717,265 4,745,659 4,750,673 4,748,937 4,748,636 2014 4,743,198 4,741,378 4,741,585 4,740,958 4,749,560 4,755,665 4,764,979 4,771,870 4,770,241 4,772,138 4,784,895 4,785,669 2015 4,793,631 4,792,829 4,792,559 4,792,746 4,792,790

  9. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 8,119,368 8,119,368 8,119,368 8,119,368 8,119,368 8,119,368 8,120,142 8,120,142 8,120,142 8,105,621 8,120,142 8,120,142 1990 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 1991 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 7,917,074 1992 7,993,265 7,896,252 7,896,252 7,896,252 7,896,252 7,896,252

  10. U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    586,953 575,601 549,151 489,505 505,318 514,809 1978-2014 From Gas Wells 259,848 234,236 208,970 204,667 186,887 159,337 1978-2014 From Oil Wells 327,105 341,365 340,182 284,838 318,431 355,472 1978

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1980's 155 176 145 132 110 126 113 101 101 107 1990's 123 113 118 119 111 110 109 103 102 98 2000's 90 86 68 68 60 64 66 63 61 65 2010's 65 60 61 55 60 60 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  11. U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 8,124,067 8,120,142 1990's 7,794,083 7,993,265 7,931,513 7,988,856 8,042,830 7,952,610 7,980,400 8,331,879 8,178,889 8,229,259 2000's 8,240,886 8,182,248 8,207,074 8,205,716 8,255,042 8,268,443 8,329,967 8,402,216 8,498,535 8,655,740 2010's 8,763,798 8,849,125 8,991,335 9,172,951 9,233,35

  12. A method for quick assessment of CO2 storage capacity in closedand semi-closed saline formations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J.; Tsang, C.F.; Rutqvist, J.

    2008-02-10

    Saline aquifers of high permeability bounded by overlying/underlying seals may be surrounded laterally by low-permeability zones, possibly caused by natural heterogeneity and/or faulting. Carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) injection into and storage in such 'closed' systems with impervious seals, or 'semi-closed' systems with nonideal (low-permeability) seals, is different from that in 'open' systems, from which the displaced brine can easily escape laterally. In closed or semi-closed systems, the pressure buildup caused by continuous industrial-scale CO{sub 2} injection may have a limiting effect on CO{sub 2} storage capacity, because geomechanical damage caused by overpressure needs to be avoided. In this research, a simple analytical method was developed for the quick assessment of the CO{sub 2} storage capacity in such closed and semi-closed systems. This quick-assessment method is based on the fact that native brine (of an equivalent volume) displaced by the cumulative injected CO{sub 2} occupies additional pore volume within the storage formation and the seals, provided by pore and brine compressibility in response to pressure buildup. With nonideal seals, brine may also leak through the seals into overlying/underlying formations. The quick-assessment method calculates these brine displacement contributions in response to an estimated average pressure buildup in the storage reservoir. The CO{sub 2} storage capacity and the transient domain-averaged pressure buildup estimated through the quick-assessment method were compared with the 'true' values obtained using detailed numerical simulations of CO{sub 2} and brine transport in a two-dimensional radial system. The good agreement indicates that the proposed method can produce reasonable approximations for storage-formation-seal systems of various geometric and hydrogeological properties.

  13. U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Total (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 84,650 74,817 80,243 89,252 99,008 97,724 105,227 105,831 112,197 115,062 116,865 113,229 1995 127,040 118,542 112,576 120,337 127,595 132,749 130,338 117,338 134,950 142,711 138,775 131,368 1996 121,867 110,621 100,667 120,036 125,710 134,937 130,796 135,916 145,249 148,410 151,210 149,245 1997 122,426 108,624 120,923 123,380 138,068 145,452

  14. New York Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    York" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",28071,27582,26726,27022,26653 " Coal",4014,3570,2899,2804,2781 " Petroleum",7241,7286,7273,7335,6421 " Natural Gas",16816,16727,16554,16882,17407 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-",45 "Nuclear",5156,5156,5264,5262,5271 "Renewables",5027,5087,5433,6013,6033 "Pumped Storage",1297,1297,1297,1374,1400

  15. North Carolina Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Carolina" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",19673,20247,20305,20230,20081 " Coal",13113,13068,13069,12952,12766 " Petroleum",563,564,558,560,573 " Natural Gas",5997,6616,6679,6718,6742 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",4975,4975,4958,4958,4958 "Renewables",2292,2301,2294,2294,2499 "Pumped Storage",84,84,90,86,86

  16. North Dakota Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Dakota" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",4222,4212,4212,4243,4247 " Coal",4127,4119,4119,4148,4153 " Petroleum",77,75,75,71,71 " Natural Gas",10,10,10,15,15 " Other Gases",8,8,8,8,8 "Nuclear","-","-","-","-","-" "Renewables",617,879,1272,1720,1941 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  17. Ohio Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Ohio" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",31582,31418,31154,31189,30705 " Coal",22264,22074,21815,21858,21360 " Petroleum",1057,1075,1047,1047,1019 " Natural Gas",8161,8169,8192,8184,8203 " Other Gases",100,100,100,100,123 "Nuclear",2120,2124,2124,2134,2134 "Renewables",175,213,214,216,231 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  18. Pennsylvania Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Pennsylvania" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",32893,32751,32654,32663,32530 " Coal",18771,18581,18513,18539,18481 " Petroleum",4664,4660,4540,4533,4534 " Natural Gas",9349,9410,9507,9491,9415 " Other Gases",110,100,94,101,100 "Nuclear",9234,9305,9337,9455,9540 "Renewables",1365,1529,1619,1971,1984 "Pumped Storage",1513,1521,1521,1521,1521

  19. South Carolina Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Carolina" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",12100,12682,13281,13189,13207 " Coal",6088,6641,7242,7210,7230 " Petroleum",685,685,705,669,670 " Natural Gas",5327,5355,5335,5311,5308 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",6472,6472,6472,6486,6486 "Renewables",1594,1587,1592,1580,1623 "Pumped Storage",2616,2826,2666,2716,2666

  20. Louisiana Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Louisiana" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",23904,23379,23207,23087,23906 " Coal",3453,3482,3482,3482,3417 " Petroleum",285,346,346,346,881 " Natural Gas",19980,19384,19345,19225,19574 " Other Gases",186,167,34,34,34 "Nuclear",2119,2127,2154,2142,2142 "Renewables",525,586,586,579,517 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  1. Maryland Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Maryland" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",10071,10028,10125,10050,10012 " Coal",4958,4958,4944,4876,4886 " Petroleum",3140,2965,2991,2986,2933 " Natural Gas",1821,1953,2038,2035,2041 " Other Gases",152,152,152,152,152 "Nuclear",1735,1735,1735,1705,1705 "Renewables",693,723,725,727,799 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  2. Massachusetts Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Massachusetts" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",11050,10670,10621,10770,10763 " Coal",1743,1744,1662,1668,1669 " Petroleum",3219,3137,3120,3125,3031 " Natural Gas",6089,5789,5839,5977,6063 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",685,685,685,685,685 "Renewables",554,560,557,564,566 "Pumped Storage",1643,1643,1643,1680,1680

  3. Michigan Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Michigan" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",23693,23826,23805,23691,23205 " Coal",11860,11910,11921,11794,11531 " Petroleum",1499,673,667,684,640 " Natural Gas",10322,11242,11218,11214,11033 " Other Gases",12,"-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",4006,3969,3969,3953,3947 "Renewables",618,638,773,792,807 "Pumped Storage",1872,1872,1872,1872,1872

  4. Mississippi Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Mississippi" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",15125,14707,14454,14340,14205 " Coal",2548,2542,2555,2555,2526 " Petroleum",36,36,36,35,35 " Natural Gas",12537,12125,11859,11746,11640 " Other Gases",4,4,4,4,4 "Nuclear",1266,1268,1259,1251,1251 "Renewables",229,229,229,229,235 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  5. Missouri Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Missouri" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",18197,18099,18126,18101,18861 " Coal",11299,11259,11240,11231,12070 " Petroleum",1279,1287,1282,1272,1212 " Natural Gas",5619,5553,5604,5598,5579 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",1190,1190,1190,1190,1190 "Renewables",555,612,734,880,1030 "Pumped Storage",657,657,657,657,657

  6. New Jersey Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Jersey" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",14363,13741,13771,13759,13676 " Coal",2124,2054,2054,2065,2036 " Petroleum",1810,1345,1514,1362,1351 " Natural Gas",10385,10298,10159,10288,10244 " Other Gases",44,44,44,44,44 "Nuclear",3984,3984,4108,4108,4108 "Renewables",212,215,219,221,230 "Pumped Storage",400,400,400,400,400 "Other",11,11,11,11,11

  7. Alabama Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Alabama" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",21804,21784,22372,22540,23519 " Coal",11557,11544,11506,11486,11441 " Petroleum",43,43,43,43,43 " Natural Gas",10104,10098,10724,10912,11936 " Other Gases",100,100,100,100,100 "Nuclear",5008,4985,4985,4985,5043 "Renewables",3852,3846,3865,3863,3855 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  8. Arizona Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Arizona" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",18784,18756,18942,19351,19338 " Coal",5830,5818,5818,6227,6233 " Petroleum",90,93,93,93,93 " Natural Gas",12864,12845,13031,13031,13012 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",3872,3872,3942,3942,3937 "Renewables",2736,2736,2762,2826,2901 "Pumped Storage",216,216,216,216,216

  9. Arkansas Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Arkansas" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",10965,11807,11756,11753,12451 " Coal",3846,3846,3861,3864,4535 " Petroleum",23,22,22,22,22 " Natural Gas",7096,7939,7873,7867,7894 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",1824,1838,1839,1835,1835 "Renewables",1691,1623,1643,1659,1667 "Pumped Storage",28,28,28,28,28

  10. California Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    California" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",39351,39961,39950,41443,42654 " Coal",389,389,367,367,374 " Petroleum",789,754,752,734,701 " Natural Gas",38001,38556,38635,40146,41370 " Other Gases",171,262,197,197,209 "Nuclear",4390,4390,4390,4390,4390 "Renewables",15776,15774,15945,16295,16460 "Pumped Storage",3688,3688,3813,3813,3813 "Other",8,"-",7,7,11

  11. Connecticut Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Connecticut" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",5498,5361,5466,5582,5845 " Coal",551,551,553,564,564 " Petroleum",2926,2709,2741,2749,2989 " Natural Gas",2020,2100,2171,2268,2292 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",2037,2022,2015,2103,2103 "Renewables",316,285,287,287,281 "Pumped Storage",4,29,29,29,29

  12. Illinois Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Illinois" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",30626,30435,30662,30795,30554 " Coal",15731,15582,15653,15852,15551 " Petroleum",1143,1097,1099,1090,1106 " Natural Gas",13705,13709,13870,13806,13771 " Other Gases",47,47,40,47,125 "Nuclear",11379,11379,11379,11441,11441 "Renewables",264,916,1145,1777,2112 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  13. Tennessee Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Tennessee" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",13051,12974,12999,12982,13517 " Coal",8841,8816,8841,8805,8805 " Petroleum",58,58,58,58,58 " Natural Gas",4153,4101,4101,4120,4655 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",3398,3397,3397,3401,3401 "Renewables",2821,2838,2842,2817,2847 "Pumped Storage",1635,1653,1653,1653,1653

  14. Texas Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Texas" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",92088,91494,91450,87547,92136 " Coal",19843,19817,20189,20247,22335 " Petroleum",220,216,218,221,204 " Natural Gas",71737,71152,70856,66896,69291 " Other Gases",287,308,187,184,306 "Nuclear",4860,4860,4927,4927,4966 "Renewables",3607,5385,8380,10354,10985 "Pumped Storage","-","-","-","-","-"

  15. Virginia Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Virginia" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",14968,15080,15543,15740,15880 " Coal",5774,5794,5773,5777,5868 " Petroleum",2386,2418,2418,2427,2432 " Natural Gas",6809,6869,7351,7536,7581 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",3432,3404,3404,3404,3501 "Renewables",1251,1347,1368,1403,1487 "Pumped Storage",2997,3161,3161,3241,3241

  16. Washington Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity, by Energy Source

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

    Washington" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",4436,4343,5130,5145,5183 " Coal",1405,1405,1376,1376,1340 " Petroleum",40,4,4,5,15 " Natural Gas",2991,2933,3750,3764,3828 " Other Gases","-","-","-","-","-" "Nuclear",1131,1131,1131,1131,1097 "Renewables",22343,22828,22919,23504,23884 "Pumped Storage",314,314,314,314,314

  17. Microsoft PowerPoint - Andy Ronald.Finger Lakes NGL Storage Providence...

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

    of pipeline - 80 Bcf natural gas storage capacity (2) * NGL and Crude Oil - Eight ... expansion projects (2) Total storage ... results in higher prices for consumers * ...

  18. Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2 storage capacity over the course of the 21st Century: A meta-analysis of the literature

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dooley, James J.

    2013-08-05

    Whether there is sufficient geologic CO2 storage capacity to allow CCS to play a significant role in mitigating climate change has been the subject of debate since the 1990s. This paper presents a meta- analysis of a large body of recently published literature to derive updated estimates of the global deep geologic storage resource as well as the potential demand for this geologic CO2 storage resource over the course of this century. This analysis reveals that, for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation scenarios that have end-of-century atmospheric CO2 concentrations of between 350 ppmv and 725 ppmv, the average demand for deep geologic CO2 storage over the course of this century is between 410 GtCO2 and 1,670 GtCO2. The literature summarized here suggests that -- depending on the stringency of criteria applied to calculate storage capacity global geologic CO2 storage capacity could be: 35,300 GtCO2 of theoretical capacity; 13,500 GtCO2 of effective capacity; 3,900 GtCO2, of practical capacity; and 290 GtCO2 of matched capacity for the few regions where this narrow definition of capacity has been calculated. The cumulative demand for geologic CO2 storage is likely quite small compared to global estimates of the deep geologic CO2 storage capacity, and therefore, a lack of deep geologic CO2 storage capacity is unlikely to be an impediment for the commercial adoption of CCS technologies in this century.

  19. U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,864,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,042,000 NA 2,912,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3,085,000 3,107,000 3,150,000 3,162,000 1976 3,169,000 3,173,000 3,170,000 3,184,000 3,190,000 3,208,000 3,220,000 3,251,000 3,296,000 3,302,000 3,305,000 3,323,000 1977 3,293,000 3,283,000

  20. U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,034,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,403,000 NA 2,050,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,468,000 2,599,000 2,541,000 2,212,000 1976 1,648,000 1,444,000 1,326,000 1,423,000 1,637,000 1,908,000 2,192,000 2,447,000 2,650,000 2,664,000 2,408,000 1,926,000 1977 1,287,000 1,163,000

  1. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 2,305,843 1,721,875 1,577,007 1,788,480 2,186,855 2,529,647 2,775,346 3,019,155 3,415,698 3,803,828 3,842,882 3,462,021 2012 2,910,007 2,448,810 2,473,130 2,611,226 2,887,060 3,115,447 3,245,201 3,406,134 3,693,053 3,929,250 3,799,215 3,412,910 2013 2,690,271 2,085,441 1,706,102 1,840,859

  2. Analysis of Large- Capacity Water Heaters in Electric Thermal Storage Programs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cooke, Alan L.; Anderson, David M.; Winiarski, David W.; Carmichael, Robert T.; Mayhorn, Ebony T.; Fisher, Andrew R.

    2015-03-17

    This report documents a national impact analysis of large tank heat pump water heaters (HPWH) in electric thermal storage (ETS) programs and conveys the findings related to concerns raised by utilities regarding the ability of large-tank heat pump water heaters to provide electric thermal storage services.

  3. California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Working with Nextval, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a Conducting Polymer Binder for high-capacity lithium-ion batteries.

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Total (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Total (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 5,842,438 5,352,874 5,220,483 5,427,454 5,807,019 6,150,408 6,523,428 6,855,588 7,153,329 7,314,086 7,214,150 6,852,919 1995 6,283,457 5,791,160 5,581,144 5,619,397 5,933,659 6,286,946 6,510,677 6,716,782 7,008,042 7,191,015 6,931,287 6,371,139 1996 5,694,851 5,258,703 4,947,685 5,046,305 5,367,004 5,734,954 6,102,705 6,440,727 6,797,354

  5. Total

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

    Cell shipments Total Inventory, start-of-year 328,658 Manufactured during reporting year ... Table 5. Source and disposition of photovoltaic cell shipments, 2013 (peak kilowatts) ...

  6. Total............................................................

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

    Total................................................................... 111.1 2,033 1,618 1,031 791 630 401 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................................... 3.2 357 336 113 188 177 59 500 to 999....................................................... 23.8 733 667 308 343 312 144 1,000 to 1,499................................................. 20.8 1,157 1,086 625 435 409 235 1,500 to 1,999................................................. 15.4 1,592

  7. Spent fuel storage alternatives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Connell, R.H.; Bowidowicz, M.A.

    1983-01-01

    This paper compares a small onsite wet storage pool to a dry cask storage facility in order to determine what type of spent fuel storage alternatives would best serve the utilities in consideration of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The Act allows the DOE to provide a total of 1900 metric tons (MT) of additional spent fuel storage capacity to utilities that cannot reasonably provide such capacity for themselves. Topics considered include the implementation of the Act (DOE away-from reactor storage), the Act's impact on storage needs, and an economic evaluation. The Waste Act mandates schedules for the determination of several sites, the licensing and construction of a high-level waste repository, and the study of a monitored retrievable storage facility. It is determined that a small wet pool storage facility offers a conservative and cost-effective approach for many stations, in comparison to dry cask storage.

  8. Simulation of CO2 Sequestration at Rock Spring Uplift, Wyoming: Heterogeneity and Uncertainties in Storage Capacity, Injectivity and Leakage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Deng, Hailin; Dai, Zhenxue; Jiao, Zunsheng; Stauffer, Philip H.; Surdam, Ronald C.

    2011-01-01

    Many geological, geochemical, geomechanical and hydrogeological factors control CO{sub 2} storage in subsurface. Among them heterogeneity in saline aquifer can seriously influence design of injection wells, CO{sub 2} injection rate, CO{sub 2} plume migration, storage capacity, and potential leakage and risk assessment. This study applies indicator geostatistics, transition probability and Markov chain model at the Rock Springs Uplift, Wyoming generating facies-based heterogeneous fields for porosity and permeability in target saline aquifer (Pennsylvanian Weber sandstone) and surrounding rocks (Phosphoria, Madison and cap-rock Chugwater). A multiphase flow simulator FEHM is then used to model injection of CO{sub 2} into the target saline aquifer involving field-scale heterogeneity. The results reveal that (1) CO{sub 2} injection rates in different injection wells significantly change with local permeability distributions; (2) brine production rates in different pumping wells are also significantly impacted by the spatial heterogeneity in permeability; (3) liquid pressure evolution during and after CO{sub 2} injection in saline aquifer varies greatly for different realizations of random permeability fields, and this has potential important effects on hydraulic fracturing of the reservoir rock, reactivation of pre-existing faults and the integrity of the cap-rock; (4) CO{sub 2} storage capacity estimate for Rock Springs Uplift is 6614 {+-} 256 Mt at 95% confidence interval, which is about 36% of previous estimate based on homogeneous and isotropic storage formation; (5) density profiles show that the density of injected CO{sub 2} below 3 km is close to that of the ambient brine with given geothermal gradient and brine concentration, which indicates CO{sub 2} plume can sink to the deep before reaching thermal equilibrium with brine. Finally, we present uncertainty analysis of CO{sub 2} leakage into overlying formations due to heterogeneity in both the target saline aquifer and surrounding formations. This uncertainty in leakage will be used to feed into risk assessment modeling.

  9. From Fundamental Understanding To Predicting New Nanomaterials For High Capacity Hydrogen/Methane Storage and Carbon Capture

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yildirim, Taner

    2015-03-03

    On-board hydrogen/methane storage in fuel cell-powered vehicles is a major component of the national need to achieve energy independence and protect the environment. The main obstacles in hydrogen storage are slow kinetics, poor reversibility and high dehydrogenation temperatures for the chemical hydrides; and very low desorption temperatures/energies for the physisorption materials (MOF’s, porous carbons). Similarly, the current methane storage technologies are mainly based on physisorption in porous materials but the gravimetric and volumetric storage capacities are below the target values. Finally, carbon capture, a critical component of the mitigation of CO2 emissions from industrial plants, also suffers from similar problems. The solid-absorbers such as MOFs are either not stable against real flue-gas conditions and/or do not have large enough CO2 capture capacity to be practical and cost effective. In this project, we addressed these challenges using a unique combination of computational, synthetic and experimental methods. The main scope of our research was to achieve fundamental understanding of the chemical and structural interactions governing the storage and release of hydrogen/methane and carbon capture in a wide spectrum of candidate materials. We studied the effect of scaffolding and doping of the candidate materials on their storage and dynamics properties. We reviewed current progress, challenges and prospect in closely related fields of hydrogen/methane storage and carbon capture.[1-5] For example, for physisorption based storage materials, we show that tap-densities or simply pressing MOFs into pellet forms reduce the uptake capacities by half and therefore packing MOFs is one of the most important challenges going forward. For room temperature hydrogen storage application of MOFs, we argue that MOFs are the most promising scaffold materials for Ammonia-Borane (AB) because of their unique interior active metal-centers for AB binding and well defined and ordered pores. Here the main challenge is to find a chemically stable MOF required for regeneration of the AB-spent fuel. Finally, for carbon capture application of MOFs, we investigate the performance of a number of metal–organic frameworks with particular focus on their behavior at the low pressures commonly used in swing adsorption. This comparison clearly shows that it is the process that determines which MOF is optimal rather than there being one best MOF, though MOFs that possess enhanced binding at open metal sites generally perform better than those with high surface area. References: 1. Y. Peng, V. Krungleviciute, J. T. Hupp, O. K. Farha, and T. Yildirim, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 135, 11887 (2013). 2. G. Srinivas, V. Krungleviciute, Z. Guo, and T. Yildirim, Ener. Environ. Sci. 7, 335 (2014). 3. G. Burres, and T. Yildirim, Ener. Environ. Sci. 5, 6453 (2012). 4. G. Srinivas, W. Travis, J. Ford, H. Wu, Z. X. Guo, and T. Yildirim, J. Mat. Chem.1, 4167 (2013). 5. For details, please see http://www.ncnr.nist.gov/staff/taner

  10. Total..........................................................

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

    14.7 7.4 12.5 12.5 18.9 18.6 17.3 9.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500...... 3.2 0.7 Q 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 Q 500 to ...

  11. Design and Synthesis of Novel Porous Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) Toward High Hydrogen Storage Capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mohamed, Eddaoudi; Zaworotko, Michael; Space, Brian; Eckert, Juergen

    2013-05-08

    Statement of Objectives: 1. Synthesize viable porous MOFs for high H2 storage at ambient conditions to be assessed by measuring H2 uptake. 2. Develop a better understanding of the operative interactions of the sorbed H2 with the organic and inorganic constituents of the sorbent MOF by means of inelastic neutron scattering (INS, to characterize the H2-MOF interactions) and computational studies (to interpret the data and predict novel materials suitable for high H2 uptake at moderate temperatures and relatively low pressures). 3. Synergistically combine the outcomes of objectives 1 and 2 to construct a made-to-order inexpensive MOF that is suitable for super H2 storage and meets the DOE targets - 6% H2 per weight (2kWh/kg) by 2010 and 9% H2 per weight (3kWh/kg) by 2015. The ongoing research is a collaborative experimental and computational effort focused on assessing H2 storage and interactions with pre-selected metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and zeolite-like MOFs (ZMOFs), with the eventual goal of synthesizing made-to-order high H2 storage materials to achieve the DOE targets for mobile applications. We proposed in this funded research to increase the amount of H2 uptake, as well as tune the interactions (i.e. isosteric heats of adsorption), by targeting readily tunable MOFs:

  12. Water-Stable Zirconium-Based Metal-Organic Framework Material with High-Surface Area and Gas-Storage Capacities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gutov, OV; Bury, W; Gomez-Gualdron, DA; Krungleviciute, V; Fairen-Jimenez, D; Mondloch, JE; Sarjeant, AA; Al-Juaid, SS; Snurr, RQ; Hupp, JT; Yildirim, T; Farha, OK

    2014-08-14

    We designed, synthesized, and characterized a new Zr-based metal-organic framework material, NU-1100, with a pore volume of 1.53 ccg(-1) and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 4020 m(2)g(-1); to our knowledge, currently the highest published for Zr-based MOFs. CH4/CO2/H-2 adsorption isotherms were obtained over a broad range of pressures and temperatures and are in excellent agreement with the computational predictions. The total hydrogen adsorption at 65 bar and 77 K is 0.092 gg(-1), which corresponds to 43 gL(-1). The volumetric and gravimetric methane-storage capacities at 65 bar and 298 K are approximately 180 v(STP)/v and 0.27 gg(-1), respectively.

  13. Total

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

    Product: Total Crude Oil Liquefied Petroleum Gases Propane/Propylene Normal Butane/Butylene Other Liquids Oxygenates Fuel Ethanol MTBE Other Oxygenates Biomass-based Diesel Other Renewable Diesel Fuel Other Renewable Fuels Gasoline Blending Components Petroleum Products Finished Motor Gasoline Reformulated Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Kerosene Distillate Fuel Oil Distillate Fuel Oil, 15 ppm Sulfur and Under Distillate Fuel Oil, Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur

  14. Total Working Gas Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History U.S. 4,327,844 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 4,748,636 4,785,669 2008-2014 Alaska 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Alabama 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Arkansas 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 California 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014

  15. Total..........................................................................

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

    . 111.1 20.6 15.1 5.5 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.6 1.1 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 2.2 0.6 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 1.7 0.5 2,500 to

  16. Total..........................................................................

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

    5.6 17.7 7.9 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.5 0.3 Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 3.9 2.4 1.5 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 4.4 3.2 1.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 3.5 2.4 1.1 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 3.2 2.1 1.1 2,500 to

  17. Total..........................................................................

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

    0.7 21.7 6.9 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.6 Q Q 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 9.0 4.2 1.5 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 8.6 4.7 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.0 2.9 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 4.1 2.1 0.7

  18. Total..........................................................................

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

    4.2 7.6 16.6 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 1.0 0.2 0.8 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 6.3 1.4 4.9 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 5.0 1.6 3.4 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 4.0 1.4 2.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.6 0.9 1.7 2,500 to

  19. Total..........................................................................

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

    7.1 19.0 22.7 22.3 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 2.1 0.6 Q 0.4 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 13.6 3.7 3.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 9.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 6.6 2.7 2.5 3.6 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 5.0 2.1

  20. Templated assembly of photoswitches significantly increases the energy-storage capacity of solar thermal fuels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kucharski, TJ; Ferralis, N; Kolpak, AM; Zheng, JO; Nocera, DG; Grossman, JC

    2014-04-13

    Large-scale utilization of solar-energy resources will require considerable advances in energy-storage technologies to meet ever-increasing global energy demands. Other than liquid fuels, existing energy-storage materials do not provide the requisite combination of high energy density, high stability, easy handling, transportability and low cost. New hybrid solar thermal fuels, composed of photoswitchable molecules on rigid, low-mass nanostructures, transcend the physical limitations of molecular solar thermal fuels by introducing local sterically constrained environments in which interactions between chromophores can be tuned. We demonstrate this principle of a hybrid solar thermal fuel using azobenzene-functionalized carbon nanotubes. We show that, on composite bundling, the amount of energy stored per azobenzene more than doubles from 58 to 120 kJ mol(-1), and the material also maintains robust cyclability and stability. Our results demonstrate that solar thermal fuels composed of molecule-nanostructure hybrids can exhibit significantly enhanced energy-storage capabilities through the generation of template-enforced steric strain.

  1. Total................................................

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

    .. 111.1 86.6 2,522 1,970 1,310 1,812 1,475 821 1,055 944 554 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500............................. 3.2 0.9 261 336 162 Q Q Q 334 260 Q 500 to 999.................................... 23.8 9.4 670 683 320 705 666 274 811 721 363 1,000 to 1,499.............................. 20.8 15.0 1,121 1,083 622 1,129 1,052 535 1,228 1,090 676 1,500 to 1,999.............................. 15.4 14.4 1,574 1,450 945 1,628 1,327 629 1,712 1,489 808 2,000 to

  2. Total..........................................................

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

    .. 111.1 24.5 1,090 902 341 872 780 441 Total Floorspace (Square Feet) Fewer than 500...................................... 3.1 2.3 403 360 165 366 348 93 500 to 999.............................................. 22.2 14.4 763 660 277 730 646 303 1,000 to 1,499........................................ 19.1 5.8 1,223 1,130 496 1,187 1,086 696 1,500 to 1,999........................................ 14.4 1.0 1,700 1,422 412 1,698 1,544 1,348 2,000 to 2,499........................................ 12.7

  3. Total...................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500............................................ 3.2 0.4 Q 0.6 1.7 0.4 500 to 999................................................... 23.8 4.8 1.4 4.2 10.2 3.2 1,000 to 1,499............................................. 20.8 10.6 1.8 1.8 4.0 2.6 1,500 to 1,999............................................. 15.4 12.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 2,000 to 2,499............................................. 12.2 10.7 1.0 0.2 Q Q 2,500 to

  4. Total.........................................................................

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

    Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 2 Fewer than 500.................................................. 3.2 Q 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 500 to 999.......................................................... 23.8 1.5 5.4 5.5 6.1 5.3 1,000 to 1,499.................................................... 20.8 1.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.2 1,500 to 1,999.................................................... 15.4 1.4 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.8 2,000 to 2,499.................................................... 12.2 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.3

  5. Total..........................................................................

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

    25.6 40.7 24.2 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.9 0.5 0.9 1.0 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 4.6 3.9 9.0 6.3 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 2.8 4.4 8.6 5.0 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 1.9 3.5 6.0 4.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 2.3 3.2 4.1

  6. Total..........................................................................

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

    7.1 7.0 8.0 12.1 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................................... 3.2 0.4 Q Q 0.5 500 to 999........................................................... 23.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 3.7 1,000 to 1,499..................................................... 20.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 2.5 1,500 to 1,999..................................................... 15.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.9 2,000 to 2,499..................................................... 12.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.4

  7. New High Capacity Getter for Vacuum-Insulated Mobile Liquid Hydrogen Storage Systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    H. Londer; G. R. Myneni; P. Adderley; G. Bartlok; J. Setina; W. Knapp; D. Schleussner

    2006-05-01

    Current ''Non evaporable getters'' (NEGs), based on the principle of metallic surface sorption of gas molecules, are important tools for the improving the performance of many vacuum systems. High porosity alloys or powder mixtures of Zr, Ti, Al, V, Fe and other metals are the base materials for this type of getters. The continuous development of vacuum technologies has created new challenges for the field of getter materials. The main sorption parameters of the current NEGs, namely, pumping speed and sorption capacity, have reached certain upper limits. Chemically active metals are the basis of a new generation of NEGs. The introduction of these new materials with high sorption capacity at room temperature is a long-awaited development. These new materials enable the new generation of NEGs to reach faster pumping speeds, significantly higher sticking rates and sorption capacities up to 104 times higher during their lifetimes. Our development efforts focus on producing these chemically active metals with controlled insulation or protection. The main structural forms of our new getter materials are spherical powders, granules and porous multi-layers. The full pumping performance can take place at room temperature with activation temperatures ranging from room temperature to 650 C. In one of our first pilot projects, our proprietary getter solution was successfully introduced as a getter pump in a double-wall mobile LH2 tank system. Our getters were shown to have very high sorption capacity of all relevant residual gases, including H2. This new concept opens the opportunity for significant vacuum improvements, especially in the field of H2 pumping which is an important task in many different vacuum applications.

  8. Total...........................................................

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

    26.7 28.8 20.6 13.1 22.0 16.6 38.6 Floorspace (Square Feet) Total Floorspace 1 Fewer than 500................................... 3.2 1.9 0.9 Q Q Q 1.3 2.3 500 to 999........................................... 23.8 10.5 7.3 3.3 1.4 1.2 6.6 12.9 1,000 to 1,499..................................... 20.8 5.8 7.0 3.8 2.2 2.0 3.9 8.9 1,500 to 1,999..................................... 15.4 3.1 4.2 3.4 2.0 2.7 1.9 5.0 2,000 to 2,499..................................... 12.2 1.7 2.7 2.9 1.8 3.2 1.1 2.8

  9. Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Reservoirs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L.A. Davis; A.L. Graham; H.W. Parker; J.R. Abbott; M.S. Ingber; A.A. Mammoli; L.A. Mondy; Quanxin Guo; Ahmed Abou-Sayed

    2005-12-07

    Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Geological Formations The U.S. and other countries may enter into an agreement that will require a significant reduction in CO2 emissions in the medium to long term. In order to achieve such goals without drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage, CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere and be stored in acceptable reservoirs. The research outlined in this proposal deals with developing a methodology to determine the suitability of a particular geologic formation for the long-term storage of CO2 and technologies for the economical transfer and storage of CO2 in these formations. A novel well-logging technique using nuclear-magnetic resonance (NMR) will be developed to characterize the geologic formation including the integrity and quality of the reservoir seal (cap rock). Well-logging using NMR does not require coring, and hence, can be performed much more quickly and efficiently. The key element in the economical transfer and storage of the CO2 is hydraulic fracturing the formation to achieve greater lateral spreads and higher throughputs of CO2. Transport, compression, and drilling represent the main costs in CO2 sequestration. The combination of well-logging and hydraulic fracturing has the potential of minimizing these costs. It is possible through hydraulic fracturing to reduce the number of injection wells by an order of magnitude. Many issues will be addressed as part of the proposed research to maximize the storage rate and capacity and insure the environmental integrity of CO2 sequestration in geological formations. First, correlations between formation properties and NMR relaxation times will be firmly established. A detailed experimental program will be conducted to determine these correlations. Second, improved hydraulic fracturing models will be developed which are suitable for CO2 sequestration as opposed to enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Although models that simulate the fracturing process exist, they can be significantly improved by extending the models to account for nonsymmetric, nonplanar fractures, coupling the models to more realistic reservoir simulators, and implementing advanced multiphase flow models for the transport of proppant. Third, it may be possible to deviate from current hydraulic fracturing technology by using different proppants (possibly waste materials that need to be disposed of, e.g., asbestos) combined with different hydraulic fracturing carrier fluids (possibly supercritical CO2 itself). Because current technology is mainly aimed at enhanced oil recovery, it may not be ideally suited for the injection and storage of CO2. Finally, advanced concepts such as increasing the injectivity of the fractured geologic formations through acidization with carbonated water will be investigated. Saline formations are located through most of the continental United States. Generally, where saline formations are scarce, oil and gas reservoirs and coal beds abound. By developing the technology outlined here, it will be possible to remove CO2 at the source (power plants, industry) and inject it directly into nearby geological formations, without releasing it into the atmosphere. The goal of the proposed research is to develop a technology capable of sequestering CO2 in geologic formations at a cost of US $10 per ton.

  10. U.S. Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Percent) Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others (Percent) U.S. Natural Gas % of Total Commercial Delivered for the Account of Others (Percent) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 10.9 1990's 13.4 14.9 16.8 16.1 20.7 23.3 22.4 29.2 33.0 33.9 2000's 36.1 34.0 36.4 34.9 35.9 35.0 36.3 37.6 38.1 40.8 2010's 42.5 44.2 46.8 46.1 46.2 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  11. Total Reducing Capacity in Aquifer Minerals and Sediments: Quantifying the Potential to Attenuate Cr(VI) in Groundwater

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sisman, S. Lara

    2015-07-20

    Hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI), is present in the environment as a byproduct of industrial processes. Due to its mobility and toxicity, it is crucial to attenuate or remove Cr(VI) from the environment. The objective of this investigation was to quantify potential natural attenuation, or reduction capacity, of reactive minerals and aquifer sediments. Samples of reduced-iron containing minerals such as ilmenite, as well as Puye Formation sediments representing a contaminated aquifer in New Mexico, were reacted with chromate. The change in Cr(VI) during the reaction was used to calculate reduction capacity. This study found that minerals that contain reduced iron, such as ilmenite, have high reducing capacities. The data indicated that sample history may impact reduction capacity tests due to surface passivation. Further, this investigation identified areas for future research including: a) refining the relationships between iron content, magnetic susceptibility and reduction capacity, and b) long term kinetic testing using fresh aquifer sediments.

  12. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 9 Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries by PAD District as of January 1, 2006 PDF 10...

  13. Aluminium doped ceriazirconia supported palladium-alumina catalyst with high oxygen storage capacity and CO oxidation activity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dong, Qiang; Yin, Shu Guo, Chongshen; Wu, Xiaoyong; Kimura, Takeshi; Sato, Tsugio

    2013-12-15

    Graphical abstract: Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} possessed high OSC and CO oxidation activity at low temperature. - Highlights: A new OSC material of Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} is prepared via a mechanochemical method. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} showed high OSC even after calcination at 1000 C for 20 h. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd/?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} exhibited the highest CO oxidation activity at low temperature correlates with enhanced OSC. - Abstract: The Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst prepared by a mechanochemical route and calcined at 1000 C for 20 h in air atmosphere to evaluate the thermal stability. The prepared Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst was characterized for the oxygen storage capacity (OSC) and CO oxidation activity in automotive catalysis. For the characterization, X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy and the BrunauerEmmetTeller (BET) technique were employed. The OSC values of all samples were measured at 600 C using thermogravimetric-differential thermal analysis. Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.3}Al{sub 0.2}O{sub 1.9}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} catalyst calcined at 1000 C for 20 h with a BET surface area of 41 m{sup 2} g{sup ?1} exhibited the considerably high OSC of 583 ?mol-O g{sup ?1} and good OSC performance stability. The same synthesis route was employed for the preparation of the CeO{sub 2}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} and Ce{sub 0.5}Zr{sub 0.5}O{sub 2}/Pd-?-Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} for comparison.

  14. EERE Success Story—California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Working with Nextval, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a Conducting Polymer Binder for high-capacity lithium-ion batteries.

  15. Storage

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

    - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear Energy Nuclear

  16. Energy Storage

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-23

    ORNL Distinguished Scientist Parans Paranthaman is discovering new materials with potential for greatly increasing batteries' energy storage capacity and bring manufacturing back to the US.

  17. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-03

    ORNL Distinguished Scientist Parans Paranthaman is discovering new materials with potential for greatly increasing batteries' energy storage capacity and bring manufacturing back to the US.

  18. Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines for Meeting Peak Capacity Requirements under Increased Penetration of Solar Photovoltaics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, Paul; Diakov, Victor; Margolis, Robert

    2015-09-01

    Batteries with several hours of capacity provide an alternative to combustion turbines for meeting peak capacity requirements. Even when compared to state-of-the-art highly flexible combustion turbines, batteries can provide a greater operational value, which is reflected in a lower system-wide production cost. By shifting load and providing operating reserves, batteries can reduce the cost of operating the power system to a traditional electric utility. This added value means that, depending on battery life, batteries can have a higher cost than a combustion turbine of equal capacity and still produce a system with equal or lower overall life-cycle cost. For a utility considering investing in new capacity, the cost premium for batteries is highly sensitive to a variety of factors, including lifetime, natural gas costs, PV penetration, and grid generation mix. In addition, as PV penetration increases, the net electricity demand profile changes, which may reduce the amount of battery energy capacity needed to reliably meet peak demand.

  19. Optimizing accuracy of determinations of CO₂ storage capacity and permanence, and designing more efficient storage operations: An example from the Rock Springs Uplift, Wyoming

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bentley, Ramsey; Dahl, Shanna; Deiss, Allory; Duguid, Andrew; Ganshin, Yuri; Jiao, Zunsheng; Quillinan, Scott

    2015-12-01

    At a potential injection site on the Rock Springs Uplift in southwest Wyoming, an investigation of confining layers was undertaken to develop and test methodology, identify key data requirements, assess previous injection scenarios relative to detailed confining layer properties, and integrate all findings in order to reduce the uncertainty of CO₂ storage permanence. The assurance of safe and permanent storage of CO₂ at a storage site involves a detailed evaluation of the confining layers. Four suites of field data were recognized as crucial for determining storage permanence relative to the confining layers; seismic, core and petrophysical data from a wellbore, formation fluid samples, and in-situ formation tests. Core and petrophysical data were used to create a vertical heterogenic property model that defined porosity, permeability, displacement pressure, geomechanical strengths, and diagenetic history. These analyses identified four primary confining layers and multiple redundant confining layers. In-situ formation tests were used to evaluate fracture gradients, regional stress fields, baseline microseismic data, step-rate injection tests, and formation perforation responses. Seismic attributes, correlated with the vertical heterogenic property models, were calculated and used to create a 3-D volume model over the entire site. The seismic data provided the vehicle to transform the vertical heterogenic property model into a horizontal heterogenic property model, which allowed for the evaluation of confining layers across the entire study site without risking additional wellbore perforations. Lastly, formation fluids were collected and analyzed for geochemical and isotopic compositions from stacked reservoir systems. These data further tested primary confining layers, by evaluating the evidence of mixing between target reservoirs (mixing would imply an existing breach of primary confining layers). All data were propagated into a dynamic, heterogenic geologic property model used to test various injection scenarios. These tests showed that the study site could retain 25MT of injected CO₂ over an injection lifespan of 50 years. Major findings indicate that active reservoir pressure management through reservoir fluid production (minimum of three production wells) greatly reduces the risk of breaching a confining layer. To address brine production, a well completion and engineering study was incorporated to reduce the risks of scaling and erosion during injection and production. These scenarios suggest that the dolostone within the Mississippian Madison Limestone is the site’s best injection/production target by two orders of magnitude, and that commercial well equipment would meet all performance requirements. This confirms that there are multiple confining layers in southwest Wyoming that are capable of retaining commercial volumes of CO₃, making Wyoming’s Paleozoic reservoirs ideal storage targets for low-risk injection and long-term storage. This study also indicates that column height retention calculations are reduced in a CO₂-brine system relative to a hydrocarbon-brine system, which is an observation that affects all potential CCS sites. Likewise, this study identified the impacts that downhole testing imparts on reservoir fluids, and the likelihood of introducing uncertainty in baseline site assumptions and later modeling.

  20. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity...

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

    HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Presentation for ...

  1. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,086 11,809 11,254 9,720 9,459 9,992 1979-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 12,004 11,704 11,111 9,578 9,322 9,766 1979-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 82 105 143 142 137 226 1979-2014 Dry Natural Gas 11,457 11,186 10,626 9,200 8,943 9,484 Separation

    2,004 11,704 11,111 9,578 9,322 9,766 1979-2014 Adjustments 263 120 179 49 42 310 1979-2014 Revision Increases 898 1,795 1,695 1,647 2,517 2,021 1979-2014 Revision Decreases 1,125

  2. T10K Change Max Capacity

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2013-08-16

    This command line utility will enable/disable the Oracle StorageTek T10000 tape drive's maximum capacity feature.

  3. Hydrogen Storage Materials Database Demonstration

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

    * Data includes properties of hydrogen storage materials investigated such as synthesis conditions, sorption and release conditions, capacities, thermodynamics, etc. http:...

  4. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

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

    Prices This presentation provides information about EIA's estimates of working gas peak storage capacity, and the development of the natural gas storage industry....

  5. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Table 5. Refiners' Total Operable Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity as of January 1, 2015 Calendar Day Barrels per CORPORATION / Refiner / Location Calendar Day Barrels per Companies with Capacity Over 100,000 bbl/cd .............................................................................................................................. VALERO ENERGY CORP 1,964,300 Valero Refining Co Texas LP

  6. Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts: Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage, Final Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-09-30

    Over the past 40 years, cavern storage of LPG's, petrochemicals, such as ethylene and propylene, and other petroleum products has increased dramatically. In 1991, the Gas Processors Association (GPA) lists the total U.S. underground storage capacity for LPG's and related products of approximately 519 million barrels (82.5 million cubic meters) in 1,122 separate caverns. Of this total, 70 are hard rock caverns and the remaining 1,052 are caverns in salt deposits. However, along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. and the Pacific northwest, salt deposits are not available and therefore, storage in hard rocks is required. Limited demand and high cost has prevented the construction of hard rock caverns in this country for a number of years. The storage of natural gas in mined caverns may prove technically feasible if the geology of the targeted market area is suitable; and economically feasible if the cost and convenience of service is competitive with alternative available storage methods for peak supply requirements. Competing methods include LNG facilities and remote underground storage combined with pipeline transportation to the area. It is believed that mined cavern storage can provide the advantages of high delivery rates and multiple fill withdrawal cycles in areas where salt cavern storage is not possible. In this research project, PB-KBB merged advanced mining technologies and gas refrigeration techniques to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates to demonstrate the commercialization potential of the storage of refrigerated natural gas in hard rock caverns. DOE has identified five regions, that have not had favorable geological conditions for underground storage development: New England, Mid-Atlantic (NY/NJ), South Atlantic (DL/MD/VA), South Atlantic (NC/SC/GA), and the Pacific Northwest (WA/OR). PB-KBB reviewed published literature and in-house databases of the geology of these regions to determine suitability of hard rock formations for siting storage caverns, and gas market area storage needs of these regions.

  7. Metal Hydride Storage Materials

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's (FCTO's) metal hydride storage materials research focuses on improving the volumetric and gravimetric capacities, hydrogen adsorption/desorption kinetics, cycle life, and reaction thermodynamics of potential material candidates.

  8. First principles screening of destabilized metal hydrides for high capacity H2 storage using scandium (presentation had varying title: Accelerating Development of Destabilized Metal Hydrides for Hydrogen Storage Using First Principles Calculations)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alapati, S.; Johnson, J.K.; Sholl, D.S.; Dai, B. --last author not shown on publication, only presentation

    2007-10-31

    Favorable thermodynamics are a prerequisite for practical H2 storage materials for vehicular applications. Destabilization of metal hydrides is a versatile route to finding materials that reversibly store large quantities of H2. First principles calculations have proven to be a useful tool for screening large numbers of potential destabilization reactions when tabulated thermodynamic data are unavailable. We have used first principles calculations to screen potential destabilization schemes that involve Sc-containing compounds. Our calculations use a two-stage strategy in which reactions are initially assessed based on their reaction enthalpy alone, followed by more detailed free energy calculations for promising reactions. Our calculations indicate that mixtures of ScH2 + 2LiBH4, which will release 8.9 wt.% H2 at completion and will have an equilibrium pressure of 1 bar at around 330 K, making this compound a promising target for experimental study. Along with thermodynamics, favorable kinetics are also of enormous importance for practical usage of these materials. Experiments would help identify possible kinetic barriers and modify them by developing suitable catalysts.

  9. Pseudocapacitive Lithium-Ion Storage in Oriented Anatase TiO2 Nanotube Arrays

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhu, K.; Wang, Q.; Kim, J. H.; Pesaran, A. A.; Frank, A. J.

    2012-06-07

    We report on the synthesis and electrochemical properties of oriented anatase TiO{sub 2} nanotube (NT) arrays as electrodes for Li-ion batteries. The TiO{sub 2} NT electrodes displayed both pseudocapacitive Li{sup +} storage associated with the NT surface and the Li{sup +} storage within the bulk material. The relative contribution of the pseudocapacitive and bulk storages depends strongly on the scan rate. While the charges are stored primarily in the bulk at low scan rates (<< 1 mV/s), the surface storage dominates the total storage capacity at higher scan rates (>1 mV/s). The storage capacity of the NT electrodes as a function of charge/discharge rates showed no dependence on the NT film thickness, suggesting that the Li{sup +} insertion/extraction processes occur homogeneously across the entire length of NT arrays. These results indicated that the electron conduction along the NT walls and the ion conduction within the electrolyte do not cause significant hindering of the charge/discharge kinetics for NT electrode architectures. As a result of the surface pseudocapacitive storage, the reversible Li{sup +} storage capacities for TiO{sub 2} NT electrodes were higher than the theoretical storage capacity for bulk anatase TiO{sub 2} materials.

  10. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    5 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 9 9 0 1,268,500 1,236,500 32,000 1,332,000 1,297,000 35,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 1 0 182,200 182,200 0 190,200 190,200 0

  11. Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials | Department of Energy

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

    Storage » Materials-Based Storage » Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's (FCTO's) chemical hydrogen storage materials research focuses on improving the volumetric and gravimetric capacity, transient performance, and efficient, cost-effective regeneration of the spent storage material. Technical Overview The category of chemical hydrogen storage materials generally refers to covalently bound hydrogen in either solid or

  12. Assessing the Effect of Timing of Availability for Carbon Dioxide Storage in the Largest Oil and Gas Pools in the Alberta Basin: Description of Data and Methodology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahowski, Robert T.; Bachu, Stefan

    2007-03-05

    Carbon dioxide capture from large stationary sources and storage in geological media is a technologically-feasible mitigation measure for the reduction of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere in response to climate change. Carbon dioxide (CO2) can be sequestered underground in oil and gas reservoirs, in deep saline aquifers, in uneconomic coal beds and in salt caverns. The Alberta Basin provides a very large capacity for CO2 storage in oil and gas reservoirs, along with significant capacity in deep saline formations and possible unmineable coal beds. Regional assessments of potential geological CO2 storage capacity have largely focused so far on estimating the total capacity that might be available within each type of reservoir. While deep saline formations are effectively able to accept CO2 immediately, the storage potential of other classes of candidate storage reservoirs, primarily oil and gas fields, is not fully available at present time. Capacity estimates to date have largely overlooked rates of depletion in these types of storage reservoirs and typically report the total estimated storage capacity that will be available upon depletion. However, CO2 storage will not (and cannot economically) begin until the recoverable oil and gas have been produced via traditional means. This report describes a reevaluation of the CO2 storage capacity and an assessment of the timing of availability of the oil and gas pools in the Alberta Basin with very large storage capacity (>5 MtCO2 each) that are being looked at as likely targets for early implementation of CO2 storage in the region. Over 36,000 non-commingled (i.e., single) oil and gas pools were examined with effective CO2 storage capacities being individually estimated. For each pool, the life expectancy was estimated based on a combination of production decline analysis constrained by the remaining recoverable reserves and an assessment of economic viability, yielding an estimated depletion date, or year that it will be available for CO2 storage. The modeling framework and assumptions used to assess the impact of the timing of CO2 storage resource availability on the regions deployment of CCS technologies is also described. The purpose of this report is to describe the data and methodology for examining the carbon dioxide (CO2) storage capacity resource of a major hydrocarbon province incorporating estimated depletion dates for its oil and gas fields with the largest CO2 storage capacity. This allows the development of a projected timeline for CO2 storage availability across the basin and enables a more realistic examination of potential oil and gas field CO2 storage utilization by the regions large CO2 point sources. The Alberta Basin of western Canada was selected for this initial examination as a representative mature basin, and the development of capacity and depletion date estimates for the 227 largest oil and gas pools (with a total storage capacity of 4.7 GtCO2) is described, along with the impact on source-reservoir pairing and resulting CO2 transport and storage economics. The analysis indicates that timing of storage resource availability has a significant impact on the mix of storage reservoirs selected for utilization at a given time, and further confirms the value that all available reservoir types offer, providing important insights regarding CO2 storage implementation to this and other major oil and gas basins throughout North America and the rest of the world. For CCS technologies to deploy successfully and offer a meaningful contribution to climate change mitigation, CO2 storage reservoirs must be available not only where needed (preferably co-located with or near large concentrations of CO2 sources or emissions centers) but also when needed. The timing of CO2 storage resource availability is therefore an important factor to consider when assessing the real opportunities for CCS deployment in a given region.

  13. Southern company energy storage study : a study for the DOE energy storage systems program.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ellison, James; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Black, Clifton; Jenkins, Kip

    2013-03-01

    This study evaluates the business case for additional bulk electric energy storage in the Southern Company service territory for the year 2020. The model was used to examine how system operations are likely to change as additional storage is added. The storage resources were allowed to provide energy time shift, regulation reserve, and spinning reserve services. Several storage facilities, including pumped hydroelectric systems, flywheels, and bulk-scale batteries, were considered. These scenarios were tested against a range of sensitivities: three different natural gas price assumptions, a 15% decrease in coal-fired generation capacity, and a high renewable penetration (10% of total generation from wind energy). Only in the elevated natural gas price sensitivities did some of the additional bulk-scale storage projects appear justifiable on the basis of projected production cost savings. Enabling existing peak shaving hydroelectric plants to provide regulation and spinning reserve, however, is likely to provide savings that justify the project cost even at anticipated natural gas price levels. Transmission and distribution applications of storage were not examined in this study. Allowing new storage facilities to serve both bulk grid and transmission/distribution-level needs may provide for increased benefit streams, and thus make a stronger business case for additional storage.

  14. Injections of Natural Gas into Storage (Annual Supply & Disposition...

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

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price ... By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground Storage Base ...

  15. Sandia Energy - DOE International Energy Storage Database Has...

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

    International Energy Storage Database Has Logged 420 Energy Storage Projects Worldwide with 123 GW of Installed Capacity Home Energy Assurance Infrastructure Security Energy Surety...

  16. Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing...

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

    Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) Bottling Electricity: Storage as a ...

  17. NREL: Energy Storage - Energy Storage Systems Evaluation

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

    Energy Storage Systems Evaluation Photo of man standing between two vehicles and plugging the vehicle on the right into a charging station. NREL system evaluation has confirmed that extreme climates can have a dramatic impact on batteries and energy storage systems. Graph with numerous plots showing battery capacity and resistance with drive time data spanning a two-year period. An NREL algorithm is being used to extract battery state-of-health information and degradation trends from BMW Mini-E

  18. Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Madaeni, S. H.; Sioshansi, R.; Denholm, P.

    2011-06-01

    This study estimates the capacity value of a concentrating solar power (CSP) plant at a variety of locations within the western United States. This is done by optimizing the operation of the CSP plant and by using the effective load carrying capability (ELCC) metric, which is a standard reliability-based capacity value estimation technique. Although the ELCC metric is the most accurate estimation technique, we show that a simpler capacity-factor-based approximation method can closely estimate the ELCC value. Without storage, the capacity value of CSP plants varies widely depending on the year and solar multiple. The average capacity value of plants evaluated ranged from 45%?90% with a solar multiple range of 1.0-1.5. When introducing thermal energy storage (TES), the capacity value of the CSP plant is more difficult to estimate since one must account for energy in storage. We apply a capacity-factor-based technique under two different market settings: an energy-only market and an energy and capacity market. Our results show that adding TES to a CSP plant can increase its capacity value significantly at all of the locations. Adding a single hour of TES significantly increases the capacity value above the no-TES case, and with four hours of storage or more, the average capacity value at all locations exceeds 90%.

  19. Natural gas storage - end user interaction. Final report, September 1992--May 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-12-31

    The primary purpose of this project is to develop an understanding of the market for natural gas storage that will provide for rigorous evaluation of federal research and development opportunities in storage technologies. The project objectives are: (1) to identify market areas and end use sectors where new natural gas underground storage capacity can be economically employed; (2) to develop a storage evaluation system that will provide the analytical tool to evaluate storage requirements under alternate economic, technology, and market conditions; and (3) to analyze the economic and technical feasibility of alternatives to conventional gas storage. An analytical approach was designed to examine storage need and economics on a total U.S. gas system basis, focusing on technical and market issues. Major findings of each subtask are reported in detail. 79 figs.

  20. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    116,465 117,867 114,737 108,552 99,722 96,037 1990-2016 Base Gas 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 69,525 1990-2016 Working Gas 46,940 48,342 45,211 39,027 30,197 26,512 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -4,323 -1,402 3,131 6,185 8,830 3,685 1990-2016 Injections 4,599 2,100 1,228 430 117 1,451 1990-2016 Withdrawals 276 698 4,359 6,615 8,947 5,135 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 5,898 5,327 6,748 7,931 5,349 4,913 1991-2016 Percent 14.4 12.4 17.5 25.5 21.5 22

  1. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    8,536 9,080 9,351 9,302 7,691 7,673 1997-2016 Base Gas 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 4,100 1997-2016 Working Gas 4,436 4,980 5,251 5,202 3,591 3,573 1997-2016 Net Withdrawals -623 -545 -270 48 1,612 17 1995-2016 Injections 1,146 1,077 722 392 1,258 1,471 1997-2016 Withdrawals 523 533 451 440 2,870 1,488 1997-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 6 -88 358 468 124 1,928 1997-2016 Percent 0.1 -1.7 7.3 9.9 3.6 117.1 1997

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014

  2. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    5,053 45,877 42,090 39,380 37,900 32,046 1990-2016 Base Gas 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 22,300 1990-2016 Working Gas 22,753 23,577 19,790 17,080 15,600 9,746 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -2,976 -792 3,788 2,710 1,480 5,854 1990-2016 Injections 3,653 1,967 1,065 1,968 1,951 503 1990-2016 Withdrawals 677 1,175 4,853 4,678 3,431 6,357 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume -747 -154 -2,386 -4,419 -1,484 -2,626 1990-2016 Percent -3.2 -0.6 -10.8 -20.6 -8.7 -21.2

  3. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    70,454 479,640 476,839 452,957 390,894 355,238 1990-2016 Base Gas 269,975 269,978 269,978 269,983 269,908 269,801 1990-2016 Working Gas 200,479 209,662 206,862 182,973 120,986 85,437 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -22,820 -9,186 2,845 23,846 62,042 35,655 1990-2016 Injections 22,967 11,101 5,919 3,512 734 2,318 1990-2016 Withdrawals 147 1,915 8,764 27,358 62,776 37,974 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 13,738 5,456 18,992 25,179 21,224 26,766 1990-2016 Percent 7.4

  4. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    97,387 98,805 99,061 97,415 94,381 91,933 1990-2016 Base Gas 67,815 67,815 67,815 68,174 68,131 68,062 1990-2016 Working Gas 29,572 30,991 31,246 29,240 26,249 23,871 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -1,866 -1,419 -255 1,646 3,031 2,448 1990-2016 Injections 1,871 1,431 716 227 1,988 3,024 1990-2016 Withdrawals 5 12 461 1,873 5,019 5,472 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 804 173 1,291 872 -218 -200 1990-2016 Percent 2.8 0.6 4.3 3.1 -0.8 -0.8

    111,120 111,120 106,764

  5. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    693,267 724,856 730,680 719,217 631,739 569,313 1990-2016 Base Gas 343,975 344,161 343,997 343,965 343,818 343,699 1990-2016 Working Gas 349,293 380,696 386,683 375,251 287,921 225,614 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -38,785 -31,589 -5,821 11,466 87,473 62,426 1990-2016 Injections 42,529 37,962 24,482 17,010 5,148 8,852 1990-2016 Withdrawals 3,744 6,373 18,662 28,476 92,621 71,278 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 6,781 -1,466 20,561 38,300 34,424 64,473 1990-2016

  6. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    725,652 767,699 769,020 762,592 705,870 681,323 1990-2016 Base Gas 297,542 297,441 297,427 293,580 294,440 294,196 1990-2016 Working Gas 428,110 470,258 471,593 469,012 411,431 387,127 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -35,276 -41,913 -2,086 6,424 56,721 24,128 1990-2016 Injections 50,816 56,019 26,996 31,787 17,953 21,048 1990-2016 Withdrawals 15,540 14,106 24,910 38,211 74,674 45,176 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 121,603 103,543 86,959 94,731 103,720 154,836

  7. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 ...

  8. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 ...

  9. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 ...

  10. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338...

  11. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    not necessarily coincide. As such, the noncoincident peak for any region is at least as big as any monthly volume in the historical record. Data from Form EIA-191M, "Monthly...

  12. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas ... Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports ...

  13. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gross Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) US--Federal Offshore Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals (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 3,932,196 4,355,742 4,822,114 1980's 4,902,354 4,990,667 4,772,873 4,182,233 4,706,782 4,185,519 4,185,515 4,671,801 4,746,664 4,771,411 1990's 5,046,660 4,849,657 4,771,744 4,765,865 4,996,197 4,942,089 5,246,422 5,315,514 5,185,312 5,130,746 2000's 5,043,769 5,136,962 4,615,443 4,505,443 4,055,340

  14. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    03,416 204,466 202,011 198,390 193,997 191,940 1990-2016 Base Gas 178,500 178,500 178,501 178,501 178,501 178,501 1990-2016 Working Gas 24,916 25,966 23,510 19,890 15,496 13,439 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -2,101 -1,050 2,456 3,620 4,394 2,057 1990-2016 Injections 2,260 1,313 153 50 12 55 1990-2016 Withdrawals 159 264 2,609 3,670 4,406 2,112 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 2,931 2,239 3,471 3,197 3,391 4,649 1990-2016 Percent 13.3 9.4 17.3 19.2 28.0 52.9

  15. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Separation, as of Dec. 31 33,383 35,746 42,823 53,156 58,490 69,117 1979-2014 Federal Offshore U.S. 5,223 5,204 5,446 5,864 5,530 5,334 1990-2014 Pacific (California) 731 722 711 652 264 243 1979-2014 Louisiana & Alabama 3,863 3,793 4,196 4,358 4,293 4,253 1981-2014 Texas 629 689 539 854 973 838 1981-2014 Alaska 8,093 7,896 8,535 8,672 6,428 5,851 1979-2014 Lower 48 States 25,290 27,850 34,288 44,484 52,062 63,266 1979-2014 Alabama 29 38 48 100 46 141 1979-2014 Arkansas 20 29 46 82 135

  16. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    345,498 358,954 354,984 346,618 319,836 309,723 1990-2016 Base Gas 184,522 185,345 185,530 183,624 183,624 183,624 1990-2016 Working Gas 160,976 173,608 169,454 162,995 136,212 126,100 1990-2016 Net Withdrawals -8,189 -13,483 3,951 8,250 26,725 10,070 1990-2016 Injections 11,609 14,397 6,360 7,073 2,701 4,518 1990-2016 Withdrawals 3,420 914 10,310 15,323 29,426 14,589 1990-2016 Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year Volume 34,288 22,870 25,764 34,802 38,649 59,569 1990-2016 Percent

  17. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300...

  18. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    6,900 26,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 1995-2013 Salt Caverns 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,500...

  19. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    187,251 210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 62,424 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 124,827 147,827...

  20. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944...

  1. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

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

    341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 1999-2013 Alabama 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2013 Arkansas 0 1999-2012 California 0 1999-2012 Colorado 0...

  2. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184...

  3. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239...

  4. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606...

  5. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    114,937 114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012 Aquifers 81,991 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 1999-2013 Depleted Fields 32,946 32,946 30,003...

  6. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    15,858 651,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 1988-2013 Salt Caverns 88,806 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 1999-2013 Aquifers 0 1999-2012 Depleted Fields 527,051 528,626...

  7. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, D.W.

    1997-11-11

    A method is described for extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid inventory of the reservoir. 4 figs.

  8. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Donald W.

    1997-01-01

    A method of extracting thermal energy, in a cyclic manner, from geologic strata which may be termed hot dry rock. A reservoir comprised of hot fractured rock is established and water or other liquid is passed through the reservoir. The water is heated by the hot rock, recovered from the reservoir, cooled by extraction of heat by means of heat exchange apparatus on the surface, and then re-injected into the reservoir to be heated again. Water is added to the reservoir by means of an injection well and recovered from the reservoir by means of a production well. Water is continuously provided to the reservoir and continuously withdrawn from the reservoir at two different flow rates, a base rate and a peak rate. Increasing water flow from the base rate to the peak rate is accomplished by rapidly decreasing backpressure at the outlet of the production well in order to meet periodic needs for amounts of thermal energy greater than a baseload amount, such as to generate additional electric power to meet peak demands. The rate of flow of water provided to the hot dry rock reservoir is maintained at a value effective to prevent depletion of the liquid

  9. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974...

  10. ,"Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:41 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Minnesota Natural Gas in ...

  11. ,"Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Michigan Natural Gas in ...

  12. ,"Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:38 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Louisiana Natural Gas in ...

  13. ,"Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:50 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Oklahoma Natural Gas in ...

  14. ,"Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Tennessee Natural Gas in ...

  15. ,"Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:26 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Alaska Natural Gas in ...

  16. ,"Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:43 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Missouri Natural Gas in ...

  17. ,"Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:28 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Arkansas Natural Gas in ...

  18. ,"Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Maryland Natural Gas in ...

  19. ,"Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:36 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Kansas Natural Gas in ...

  20. ,"Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:49 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Ohio Natural Gas in ...

  1. ,"Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Illinois Natural Gas in ...

  2. ,"Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Nebraska Natural Gas in ...

  3. ,"Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:30:00 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Wyoming Natural Gas in ...

  4. ,"Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:56 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Utah Natural Gas in ...

  5. ,"Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:37 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Kentucky Natural Gas in ...

  6. ,"Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Virginia Natural Gas in ...

  7. ,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:29 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","California Natural Gas in ...

  8. ,"Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:44 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Mississippi Natural Gas in ...

  9. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Authors: Farmer, J ; Chang, J ; Zumstein, J ; Kotovsky, J ; Dobley, A ; Puglia, F ; Osswald, S ; ...

  10. Table 2. Ten largest plants by generation capacity, 2014

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

    Virginia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Bath County","Pumped storage","Virginia Electric & Power Co",3003 2,"North ...

  11. Storage & Transmission Projects | Department of Energy

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

    CAPACITY ALL FIGURES AS OF MARCH 2015 STORAGE & TRANSMISSION PROJECT LOAN PROGRAM ... Transmission LS Power Associates, NV Energy & John Hancock Eastern Nevada Loan ...

  12. Renewable Energy Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity Website Focus Area: Renewable Energy...

  13. NV Energy Electricity Storage Valuation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Samaan, Nader A.; Jin, Chunlian

    2013-06-30

    This study examines how grid-level electricity storage may benet the operations of NV Energy in 2020, and assesses whether those benets justify the cost of the storage system. In order to determine how grid-level storage might impact NV Energy, an hourly production cost model of the Nevada Balancing Authority (\\BA") as projected for 2020 was built and used for the study. Storage facilities were found to add value primarily by providing reserve. Value provided by the provision of time-of-day shifting was found to be limited. If regulating reserve from storage is valued the same as that from slower ramp rate resources, then it appears that a reciprocating engine generator could provide additional capacity at a lower cost than a pumped storage hydro plant or large storage capacity battery system. In addition, a 25-MW battery storage facility would need to cost $650/kW or less in order to produce a positive Net Present Value (NPV). However, if regulating reserve provided by storage is considered to be more useful to the grid than that from slower ramp rate resources, then a grid-level storage facility may have a positive NPV even at today's storage system capital costs. The value of having storage provide services beyond reserve and time-of-day shifting was not assessed in this study, and was therefore not included in storage cost-benefit calculations.

  14. Determination of Total Solids in Biomass and Total Dissolved...

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

    ... The published moisture loss on drying for sodium tartrate is 15.62% (84.38% total solids). 14.6 Sample size: Determined by sample matrix. 14.7 Sample storage: Samples should be ...

  15. Operational Benefits of Meeting California's Energy Storage Targets

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eichman, Josh; Denholm, Paul; Jorgenson, Jennie; Helman, Udi

    2015-12-18

    In October 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) finalized procurement targets and other requirements to its jurisdictional utilities for a minimum of 1,325 MW of 'viable and cost-effective' energy storage systems by 2020. The goal of this study is to explore several aspects of grid operations in California and the Western Interconnection resulting from meeting the CPUC storage targets. We perform this analysis using a set of databases and grid simulation tools developed and implemented by the CPUC, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the CPUC's Long-term Procurement Plan (LTPP). The 2014 version of this database contains information about generators, storage, transmission, and electrical demand, for California in the year 2024 for both 33% and 40% renewable energy portfolios. We examine the value of various services provided by energy storage in these scenarios. Sensitivities were performed relating to the services energy storage can provide, the capacity and duration of storage devices, export limitations, and negative price floor variations. Results show that a storage portfolio, as outlined by the CPUC, can reduce curtailment and system-wide production costs for 33% and 40% renewable scenarios. A storage device that can participate in energy and ancillary service markets provides the grid with the greatest benefit; the mandated storage requirement of 1,325 MW was estimated to reduce the total cost of production by about 78 million per year in the 33% scenario and 144 million per year in the 40% scenario. Much of this value is derived from the avoided start and stop costs of thermal generators and provision of ancillary services. A device on the 2024 California grid and participating in only ancillary service markets can provide the system with over 90% of the value as the energy and ancillary service device. The analysis points to the challenge of new storage providing regulation reserve, as the added storage could provide about 75% of the regulation up requirement for all of California, which would likely greatly reduce regulation prices and potential revenue. The addition of storage in California decreases renewable curtailment, particularly in the 40% RPS case. Following previous analysis, storage has a mixed impact on emissions, generally reducing emissions, but also creating additional incentives for increased emissions from out-of-state coal generations. Overall, storage shows significant system cost savings, but analysis also points to additional challenges associated with full valuation of energy storage, including capturing the operational benefits calculated here, but also recovering additional benefits associated avoided generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and avoided losses.

  16. HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity

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

    HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity Analysis of NERSC Users' Data-Access Habits Reveals Sweet Spot for Short-term Storage October 16, 2015 Contact: Kathy Kincade, +1 510 495 2124, kkincade@lbl.gov HPSS 09 vert NERSC users today are benefiting from a business decision made three years ago by the center's Storage Systems Group (SSG) as they were looking to upgrade the High-Performance Storage System (HPSS) disk cache: rather than focus primarily on

  17. Sorbent Storage Materials

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's sorbent storage materials research focuses on increasing the dihydrogen binding energies and improving the hydrogen volumetric capacity by optimizing the material's pore size, pore volume, and surface area, as well as investigating effects of material densification.

  18. File storage

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

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and...

  19. File Storage

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

    File Storage File Storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Carver File Systems Carver has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and...

  20. Hydrogen Energy Storage (HES) and Power-to-Gas Economic Analysis; NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eichman, Joshua

    2015-07-30

    This presentation summarizes opportunities for hydrogen energy storage and power-to-gas and presents the results of a market analysis performed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to quantify the value of energy storage. Hydrogen energy storage and power-to-gas systems have the ability to integrate multiple energy sectors including electricity, transportation, and industrial. On account of the flexibility of hydrogen systems, there are a variety of potential system configurations. Each configuration will provide different value to the owner, customers and grid system operator. This presentation provides an economic comparison of hydrogen storage, power-to-gas and conventional storage systems. The total cost is compared to the revenue with participation in a variety of markets to assess the economic competitiveness. It is found that the sale of hydrogen for transportation or industrial use greatly increases competitiveness. Electrolyzers operating as demand response devices (i.e., selling hydrogen and grid services) are economically competitive, while hydrogen storage that inputs electricity and outputs only electricity have an unfavorable business case. Additionally, tighter integration with the grid provides greater revenue (e.g., energy, ancillary service and capacity markets are explored). Lastly, additional hours of storage capacity is not necessarily more competitive in current energy and ancillary service markets and electricity markets will require new mechanisms to appropriately compensate long duration storage devices.

  1. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Former Corporation/Refiner Total Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) New Corporation/Refiner Date of Sale Table 12. Refinery Sales During 2014 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Speciality Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Savannah, GA 28,000 Lindsay Goldberg LLC/Axeon Specialty Products LLC Nustar Asphalt LLC/Nustar Asphalt Refining LLC 2/14 Paulsboro, NJ 70,000 bbl/cd= Barrels per calendar day Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form

  2. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allen, R.D.; Doherty, T.J.; Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-07-01

    Underground pumped hydroelectric energy storage was conceived as a modification of surface pumped storage to eliminate dependence upon fortuitous topography, provide higher hydraulic heads, and reduce environmental concerns. A UPHS plant offers substantial savings in investment cost over coal-fired cycling plants and savings in system production costs over gas turbines. Potential location near load centers lowers transmission costs and line losses. Environmental impact is less than that for a coal-fired cycling plant. The inherent benefits include those of all pumped storage (i.e., rapid load response, emergency capacity, improvement in efficiency as pumps improve, and capacity for voltage regulation). A UPHS plant would be powered by either a coal-fired or nuclear baseload plant. The economic capacity of a UPHS plant would be in the range of 1000 to 3000 MW. This storage level is compatible with the load-leveling requirements of a greater metropolitan area with population of 1 million or more. The technical feasibility of UPHS depends upon excavation of a subterranean powerhouse cavern and reservoir caverns within a competent, impervious rock formation, and upon selection of reliable and efficient turbomachinery - pump-turbines and motor-generators - all remotely operable.

  3. Country Total

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

    Country Total Percent of U.S. total China 1,461,074 34 Republic of Korea 172,379 4 Taiwan 688,311 16 All others 1,966,263 46 Total 4,288,027 100 Note: All Others includes Canada, Czech Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines and Singapore Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-63B, 'Annual Photovoltaic Cell/Module Shipments Report.' Table 7 . Photovoltaic module import shipments by country, 2013 (peak kilowatts)

  4. The Petascale Data Storage Institute

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gibson, Garth; Long, Darrell; Honeyman, Peter; Grider, Gary; Kramer, William; Shalf, John; Roth, Philip; Felix, Evan; Ward, Lee

    2013-07-01

    Petascale computing infrastructures for scientific discovery make petascale demands on information storage capacity, performance, concurrency, reliability, availability, and manageability.The Petascale Data Storage Institute focuses on the data storage problems found in petascale scientific computing environments, with special attention to community issues such as interoperability, community buy-in, and shared tools.The Petascale Data Storage Institute is a collaboration between researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of Michigan, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

  5. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"

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

    Sourcekey","N5030US2","N5010US2","N5020US2","N5070US2","N5050US2","N5060US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground...

  6. Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary...

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

    Additions LNG Storage Withdrawals LNG Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease ... Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual Download Series ...

  7. Energy Storage

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

    Stationary PowerSafety, Security & Resilience of Energy InfrastructureEnergy Storage Energy StorageTara Camacho-Lopez2016-03-25T17:52:38+00:00 ESTP The contemporary grid limits ...

  8. Carbon Storage

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

    Storage Fact Sheet Research Team Members Key Contacts Carbon Storage Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key component of the U.S. carbon management portfolio. Numerous studies have shown that CCS can account for up to 55 percent of the emissions reductions needed to stabilize and ultimately reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. NETL's Carbon Storage Program is readying CCS technologies for widespread commercial deployment by 2020. The program's goals are: By 2015, develop technologies

  9. Storage Trends and Summaries

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

    Summaries Storage Trends and Summaries Total Bytes Utilized The growth in NERSC's storage systems amounts to roughly 1.7x per year. Total Bytes Utilized Number of Files Stored The growth in the number of files stored is less than the growth in the number of bytes stored as the average file size has increased over time. The average file size as of August 2003 is about 30 MB. The median file size is closer to 1 MB. Number of Files Monthly I/O The growth rate of I/O is roughly the same as the

  10. NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration of Renewable Energy Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity...

  11. Carbon Capture and Storage in Southern Africa | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    assessment of the rationale, possibilities and capacity needs to enable CO2 capture and storage in Botswana, Mozambique and Namibia AgencyCompany Organization Energy Research...

  12. Thermal Storage and Advanced Heat Transfer Fluids (Fact Sheet...

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

    measure the thermophysical properties of heat transfer fluids and storage materials to ... measure the melting point, boiling point, heat capacity, density, viscosity, and phase- ...

  13. DOE Technical Targets for Hydrogen Storage Systems for Portable...

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

    Hydrogen Capacity Hydrogen capacity g H2 1 1 1 1 System Gravimetric ... Storage System Cost System cost Wh net (g H2 stored) 0.09 (3.0) 0.75 (25) 0.03 (1.0) ...

  14. State Total

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

    State Total Percent of U.S. total Alabama 1,652 0.0 Alaska 152 0.0 Arizona 912,975 19.9 Arkansas 2,724 0.1 California 2,239,983 48.8 Colorado 49,903 1.1 Connecticut 33,627 0.7 Delaware 3,080 0.1 District of Columbia 1,746 0.0 Florida 22,061 0.5 Georgia 99,713 2.2 Guam 39 0.0 Hawaii 126,595 2.8 Idaho 1,423 0.0 Illinois 8,176 0.2 Indiana 12,912 0.3 Iowa 4,480 0.1 Kansas 523 0.0 Kentucky 2,356 0.1 Louisiana 27,704 0.6 Maine 993 0.0 Maryland 30,528 0.7 Massachusetts 143,539 3.1 Michigan 3,416 0.1

  15. Experience with thermal storage in tanks of stratified water for solar heating and load management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wildin, M.W.; Witkofsky, M.P.; Noble, J.M.; Hopper, R.E.; Stromberg, P.G.

    1982-01-01

    Results have been obtained for performance of stratified tanks of water used to store heating and cooling capacity in a 5574 m/sup 2/ university building. The major sources of energy used to charge the heated tanks were solar energy, obtained via collectors on the roof of the building, and excess heat recovered from the interior of the building via thermal storage and electric-driven heat pump/chillers. Through stratification of the water in the storage tanks and an appropriate system operating strategy, 40 percent of the building's total heating needs were supplied by solar energy during the first four months of 1981. Month-long thermal efficiencies of the storage array ranging from 70 percent during the heating season to nearly 90 percent during the cooling season, were measured. Work is underway to improve the performance of thermal storage.

  16. Electricity storage using a thermal storage scheme

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Alexander

    2015-01-22

    The increasing use of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation, many of which have an unpredictably intermittent nature, will inevitably lead to a greater demand for large-scale electricity storage schemes. For example, the expanding fraction of electricity produced by wind turbines will require either backup or storage capacity to cover extended periods of wind lull. This paper describes a recently proposed storage scheme, referred to here as Pumped Thermal Storage (PTS), and which is based on “sensible heat” storage in large thermal reservoirs. During the charging phase, the system effectively operates as a high temperature-ratio heat pump, extracting heat from a cold reservoir and delivering heat to a hot one. In the discharge phase the processes are reversed and it operates as a heat engine. The round-trip efficiency is limited only by process irreversibilities (as opposed to Second Law limitations on the coefficient of performance and the thermal efficiency of the heat pump and heat engine respectively). PTS is currently being developed in both France and England. In both cases, the schemes operate on the Joule-Brayton (gas turbine) cycle, using argon as the working fluid. However, the French scheme proposes the use of turbomachinery for compression and expansion, whereas for that being developed in England reciprocating devices are proposed. The current paper focuses on the impact of the various process irreversibilities on the thermodynamic round-trip efficiency of the scheme. Consideration is given to compression and expansion losses and pressure losses (in pipe-work, valves and thermal reservoirs); heat transfer related irreversibility in the thermal reservoirs is discussed but not included in the analysis. Results are presented demonstrating how the various loss parameters and operating conditions influence the overall performance.

  17. Minnesota Total Electric Power Industry Net Summer Capacity,...

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

    Minnesota" "Energy Source",2006,2007,2008,2009,2010 "Fossil",9714,9550,10548,10752,10519 " Coal",5444,5207,5235,4826,4789 " Petroleum",746,764,782,801,795 " Natural ...

  18. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be...

  19. SRS K-AREA MATERIAL STORAGE - EXPANDING CAPABILITIES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koenig, R.

    2013-07-02

    In support of the Department of Energys continued plans to de-inventory and reduce the footprint of Cold War era weapons material production sites, the K-Area Material Storage (KAMS) facility, located in the K-Area Complex (KAC) at the Savannah River Site reservation, has expanded since its startup authorization in 2000 to accommodate DOEs material consolidation mission. During the facilitys growth and expansion, KAMS will have expanded its authorization capability of material types and storage containers to allow up to 8200 total shipping containers once the current expansion effort completes in 2014. Recognizing the need to safely and cost effectively manage other surplus material across the DOE Complex, KAC is constantly evaluating the storage of different material types within K area. When modifying storage areas in KAC, the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) must undergo extensive calculations and reviews; however, without an extensive and proven security posture the possibility for expansion would not be possible. The KAC maintains the strictest adherence to safety and security requirements for all the SNM it handles. Disciplined Conduct of Operations and Conduct of Projects are demonstrated throughout this historical overview highlighting various improvements in capability, capacity, demonstrated cost effectiveness and utilization of the KAC as the DOE Center of Excellence for safe and secure storage of surplus SNM.

  20. ORISE: Capacity Building

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

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  1. Million Cu. Feet Percent of National Total

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

    to Consumers: Residential: Electric Power: Commercial: Total Delivered: Table S47. ... 0 LNG Storage 0 0 0 0 0 Supplemental Gas Supplies 1 2 3 3 5 Balancing Item -453 -1,711 ...

  2. Boosting CSP Production with Thermal Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, P.; Mehos, M.

    2012-06-01

    Combining concentrating solar power (CSP) with thermal energy storage shows promise for increasing grid flexibility by providing firm system capacity with a high ramp rate and acceptable part-load operation. When backed by energy storage capability, CSP can supplement photovoltaics by adding generation from solar resources during periods of low solar insolation. The falling cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) - generated electricity has led to a rapid increase in the deployment of PV and projections that PV could play a significant role in the future U.S. electric sector. The solar resource itself is virtually unlimited; however, the actual contribution of PV electricity is limited by several factors related to the current grid. The first is the limited coincidence between the solar resource and normal electricity demand patterns. The second is the limited flexibility of conventional generators to accommodate this highly variable generation resource. At high penetration of solar generation, increased grid flexibility will be needed to fully utilize the variable and uncertain output from PV generation and to shift energy production to periods of high demand or reduced solar output. Energy storage is one way to increase grid flexibility, and many storage options are available or under development. In this article, however, we consider a technology already beginning to be used at scale - thermal energy storage (TES) deployed with concentrating solar power (CSP). PV and CSP are both deployable in areas of high direct normal irradiance such as the U.S. Southwest. The role of these two technologies is dependent on their costs and relative value, including how their value to the grid changes as a function of what percentage of total generation they contribute to the grid, and how they may actually work together to increase overall usefulness of the solar resource. Both PV and CSP use solar energy to generate electricity. A key difference is the ability of CSP to utilize high-efficiency TES, which turns CSP into a partially dispatchable resource. The addition of TES produces additional value by shifting the delivery of solar energy to periods of peak demand, providing firm capacity and ancillary services, and reducing integration challenges. Given the dispatchability of CSP enabled by TES, it is possible that PV and CSP are at least partially complementary. The dispatchability of CSP with TES can enable higher overall penetration of the grid by solar energy by providing solar-generated electricity during periods of cloudy weather or at night, when PV-generated power is unavailable. Such systems also have the potential to improve grid flexibility, thereby enabling greater penetration of PV energy (and other variable generation sources such as wind) than if PV were deployed without CSP.

  3. Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Storage Technology: Fundamental Research for Optimization of Hydrogen Storage and Utilization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perret, Bob; Heske, Clemens; Nadavalath, Balakrishnan; Cornelius, Andrew; Hatchett, David; Bae, Chusung; Pang, Tao; Kim, Eunja; Hemmers, Oliver

    2011-03-28

    Design and development of improved low-cost hydrogen fuel cell catalytic materials and high-capacity hydrogenn storage media are paramount to enabling the hydrogen economy. Presently, effective and durable catalysts are mostly precious metals in pure or alloyed form and their high cost inhibits fuel cell applications. Similarly, materials that meet on-board hydrogen storage targets within total mass and volumetric constraints are yet to be found. Both hydrogen storage performance and cost-effective fuel cell designs are intimately linked to the electronic structure, morphology and cost of the chosen materials. The FCAST Project combined theoretical and experimental studies of electronic structure, chemical bonding, and hydrogen adsorption/desorption characteristics of a number of different nanomaterials and metal clusters to develop better fundamental understanding of hydrogen storage in solid state matrices. Additional experimental studies quantified the hydrogen storage properties of synthesized polyaniline(PANI)/Pd composites. Such conducting polymers are especially interesting because of their high intrinsic electron density and the ability to dope the materials with protons, anions, and metal species. Earlier work produced contradictory results: one study reported 7% to 8% hydrogen uptake while a second study reported zero hydrogen uptake. Cost and durability of fuel cell systems are crucial factors in their affordability. Limits on operating temperature, loss of catalytic reactivity and degradation of proton exchange membranes are factors that affect system durability and contribute to operational costs. More cost effective fuel cell components were sought through studies of the physical and chemical nature of catalyst performance, characterization of oxidation and reduction processes on system surfaces. Additional development effort resulted in a new hydrocarbon-based high-performance sulfonated proton exchange membrane (PEM) that can be manufactured at low cost and accompanied by improved mechanical and thermal stability.

  4. Hydrogen Storage

    Fuel Cell Technologies Publication and Product Library (EERE)

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen storage technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains the different ways in which hydrogen can be stored, as well a

  5. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

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

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  6. File storage

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

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and project directories, all provided by the NERSC Global File system. Each file system serves a different purpose. File System Home Scratch Project Environment Variable Definition $HOME $SCRATCH or $GSCRATCH No environment variable /project/projectdirs/ Description Global homes file system shared by all NERSC systems except

  7. Carbon Storage

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

    Storage - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs Advanced Nuclear Energy

  8. Storage Statistics

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

    Storage Trends and Summaries Storage by Scientific Discipline Troubleshooting I/O Resources for Scientific Applications at NERSC Optimizing I/O performance on the Lustre file system I/O Formats Science Databases Sharing Data Transferring Data Unix Groups at NERSC Unix File Permissions Data & Analytics Connecting to NERSC Queues and Scheduling Job Logs & Statistics Application Performance Training & Tutorials Software Policies User Surveys NERSC Users Group User Announcements Help

  9. Table 8.11b Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts)

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

    b Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector, 1949-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 9 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power 5 Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 8 Wind Total Wood 6 Waste 7 1949 NA NA NA NA 44,887,000 0 [5] 18,500,000 13,000 [10] NA NA NA 18,513,000 NA 63,400,000 1950 NA NA NA NA 49,987,000 0 [5] 19,200,000 13,000 [10] NA

  10. Table 8.11c Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector by Plant Type, 1989-2011 (Breakout of Table 8.11b; Kilowatts)

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

    c Electric Net Summer Capacity: Electric Power Sector by Plant Type, 1989-2011 (Breakout of Table 8.11b; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 8 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 7 Wind Total Wood 5 Waste 6 Electricity-Only Plants 9<//td> 1989 296,541,828 77,966,348 119,304,288 364,000 494,176,464 98,160,610 18,094,424 73,579,794

  11. Table 8.11d Electric Net Summer Capacity: Commercial and Industrial Sectors, 1989-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts)

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

    d Electric Net Summer Capacity: Commercial and Industrial Sectors, 1989-2011 (Subset of Table 8.11a; Kilowatts) Year Fossil Fuels Nuclear Electric Power Hydro- electric Pumped Storage Renewable Energy Other 8 Total Coal 1 Petroleum 2 Natural Gas 3 Other Gases 4 Total Conventional Hydroelectric Power Biomass Geo- thermal Solar/PV 7 Wind Total Wood 5 Waste 6 Commercial Sector 9<//td> 1989 258,193 191,487 578,797 – 1,028,477 [–] – 17,942 13,144 166,392 [–] – – 197,478 – 1,225,955 1990

  12. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Vacuum State/Refiner/Location Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Barrels per Operating Idle Operating Idle Downstream Charge Capacity Thermal Cracking Delayed Fluid Coking Visbreaking Other/Gas Calendar Day Stream Day Distillation Coking Oil Table 3. Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State as of January 1, 2015 (Barrels per Stream Day, Except Where Noted) ......................................................... Alabama 120,100 0 135,000 0 45,000 32,000 0 0 0

  13. Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability

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

    and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) | Department of Energy Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) The objectives of this report are to provide the Secretary of Energy with the Electricity Advisory Committee's

  14. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mukundan, Rangachary

    2014-09-30

    Energy storage technology is critical if the U.S. is to achieve more than 25% penetration of renewable electrical energy, given the intermittency of wind and solar. Energy density is a critical parameter in the economic viability of any energy storage system with liquid fuels being 10 to 100 times better than batteries. However, the economical conversion of electricity to fuel still presents significant technical challenges. This project addressed these challenges by focusing on a specific approach: efficient processes to convert electricity, water and nitrogen to ammonia. Ammonia has many attributes that make it the ideal energy storage compound. The feed stocks are plentiful, ammonia is easily liquefied and routinely stored in large volumes in cheap containers, and it has exceptional energy density for grid scale electrical energy storage. Ammonia can be oxidized efficiently in fuel cells or advanced Carnot cycle engines yielding water and nitrogen as end products. Because of the high energy density and low reactivity of ammonia, the capital cost for grid storage will be lower than any other storage application. This project developed the theoretical foundations of N2 catalysis on specific catalysts and provided for the first time experimental evidence for activation of Mo 2N based catalysts. Theory also revealed that the N atom adsorbed in the bridging position between two metal atoms is the critical step for catalysis. Simple electrochemical ammonia production reactors were designed and built in this project using two novel electrolyte systems. The first one demonstrated the use of ionic liquid electrolytes at room temperature and the second the use of pyrophosphate based electrolytes at intermediate temperatures (200 – 300 ºC). The mechanism of high proton conduction in the pyrophosphate materials was found to be associated with a polyphosphate second phase contrary to literature claims and ammonia production rates as high as 5X 10-8 mol/s/cm2 were achieved.

  15. Total Number of Operable Refineries

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

    Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Reforming Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Reforming Low Pressure Charge Capacity (BSD) Catalytic Reforming High Pressure Charge Capacity (BSD) ...

  16. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  17. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  18. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a Knudsen heat capacity as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  19. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  20. Report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-04-01

    The report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel discusses the technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of spent-fuel storage at nuclear reactors. The report is intended to provide legislators state officials and citizens in the Midwest with information on spent-fuel inventories, current and projected additional storage requirements, licensing, storage technologies, and actions taken by various utilities in the Midwest to augment their capacity to store spent nuclear fuel on site.

  1. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

    Wind Powering America (EERE)

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  2. U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Distillate Fuel Oil 63,249 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 15 ppm Sulfur and Under 39,259 -- -- -- -- -- 2004-2015 Greater than 15 ppm to 500 ppm Sulfur 8,706 -- -- -- -- -- 2004-2015 ...

  3. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600...

  4. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 ...

  5. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 ...

  6. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico ...

  7. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,200 1,200 2000's 1,200 1,000 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2010's 0

  8. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 590,248 589,780 1990's 586,502 589,018 595,229 598,782 627,589 653,420 672,533 683,891 684,226 684,226 2000's 699,323 686,000 699,471 662,593 674,196 680,096 690,061 690,678 740,477 766,768 2010's 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124

  9. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,980 114,980 1990's 114,980 114,980 114,980 114,980 122,498 122,498 121,980 121,980 121,980 121,980 2000's 129,480 129,000 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2010's 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465

  10. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's 9,500 9,500 9,500

  11. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,400 36,400 1990's 32,100 34,100 34,100 34,100 33,900 33,900 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 2000's 37,300 37,000 39,627 40,247 41,263 42,191 43,316 39,341 39,287 39,210 2010's 41,309 43,673 46,900

  12. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 523,132 523,132 1990's 525,138 525,138 525,206 519,286 520,457 466,089 484,596 734,157 733,157 733,157 2000's 733,125 733,000 494,457 510,827 512,143 512,377 513,416 536,702 528,442 531,456 2010's 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,3

  13. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 2004 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 203,265 203,265 203,265 2005 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 2006 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265

  14. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  15. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  16. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 17,755 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,796 23,796 23,796 2005 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 2006 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,034 24,034 24,034

  17. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 713,818 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 2003 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 950,148 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,417 714,217 714,097 2004 712,687 712,292 712,292 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,946 709,826 721,019 748,874 748,874 748,338 2005 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338 2006 748,338 748,338 748,338 748,338

  18. "US Commercial Crude Oil Stocks and Storage Capacity"

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

    " Pipeline Fill and in Transit by Water and Rail1",75419,75543,77569,82649,80846,8... " Alaskan Crude Oil in Transit by Water",3631,4298,4485,2209,4959,2803,5814,3447,2...

  19. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 15,073 14,081 15,757 15,821 14,757 15,209 15,209 15,665 12,137 14,694 14,486 14,329 1992 15,221 13,656 13,168 11,390 11,537 11,941 11,954 11,375 11,617 10,161 10,609 9,069 1993 9,234 8,048 8,426 10,843 10,044 9,739 10,136 9,860 9,381 8,310 7,236 7,372 1994 7,057 6,684 6,978 6,450 6,086 6,183 6,058 6,000 5,912 4,935 5,287 5,167 1995 4,736 3,880 3,400 3,383 3,441 1,323 1,293 1,492 1,056 1,076 907 886 1996 762 708 215 187 210 167 165 169 163

  20. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 0 0 0 1982-2014 Dry Natural Gas 3,091 3,215 2,832 2,579 2,373 2,800 1982-2014

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 41,495 43,582 46,663 1970's 49,554 49,488 55,427 51,618 48,160 48,802 52,491 48,953 54,250 50,999 1980's 54,825 50,997 48,253

  1. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 929 289 499 863 0 2,707 2,937 2,937 1,101 622 906 507 1991 833 586 299 3,139 1,705 2,716 2,138 291 308 0 1,447 753 1992 436 149 945 1,205 1,824 1,543 1,336 1,618 1,578 979 785 895 1993 750 383 2,192 1,363 4,359 1,112 2,036 1,280 2,258 340 326 3,176 1994 1,579 318 1,268 3,455 2,882 2,005 1,945 965 1,330 503 1,263 1,192 1995 541 827 1,671 1,661 2,601 2,020 1,565 829 2,494 464 1,696 1,447 1996 808 2,027 1,081 1,609 2,176 3,349

  2. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  3. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 5,127 4,605 8,610 8,415 7,743 8,318 8,211 8,971 7,226 10,425 7,920 4,894 1992 7,886 7,507 4,809 7,021 7,608 15,649 4,881 7,665 4,623 4,660 4,544 4,859 1993 6,544 6,120 6,276 6,226 10,323 6,573 21,075 10,246 9,455 6,476 10,110 10,620 1994 6,371 7,194 5,976 7,649 8,952 7,896 8,341 12,156 7,771 13,020 12,298 12,440 1995 11,460 10,137 13,117 10,183 9,733 10,159 10,446 11,174 11,080 11,833 11,224 11,348 1996 11,440 9,821 11,800 11,600 10,739

  4. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  5. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 21,760 2010's 21,760 21,359 21,853

  6. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 459,673 466,818 1990's 291,678 467,678 472,108 472,108 472,108 472,908 469,695 396,430 388,370 388,370 2000's 388,480 476,000 478,995 446,095 478,226 477,726 484,711 487,711 498,705 513,005 2010's 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711

  7. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

  8. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  9. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  10. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,010 288,210 288,210

  11. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101 301,101 2000's 300,401 300,000 299,473 288,197 289,450 289,747 288,383 288,926 282,221 282,300 2010's 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,97

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

  13. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

  14. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

  15. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

  17. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

  18. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  19. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  20. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  1. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944...

  2. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2008 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 679,449 698,449 709,678 709,678 2009 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678 709,678...

  3. Colorado Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 48,709 48,709 48,709 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,582 60,582 2013...

  4. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015

  5. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 25,907 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2014 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2015 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2016

  6. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2003 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2004 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2005 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 2006 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000

  7. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095

  8. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055

  9. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 2003 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 898,565 901,274 901,274 901,274 945,307 945,307 945,307 945,307 2004 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,244 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 959,112 972,388 972,388 972,388 2005 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388 2006 972,388 972,388 972,388 972,388

  10. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 109,310 111,556 111,556 2003 112,088 129,968 112,095 112,095 112,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 111,095 2004 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 111,680 113,597 113,397 113,397 2005 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397 2006 113,397 113,397 113,397 113,397

  11. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2003 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2004 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2005 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 2006 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200

  12. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259

  13. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  14. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267...

  15. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 4,668 4,668 2000's 4,967 5,000 5,100 6,720 8,100 9,035 9,692 9,560 6,200 9,500 2010's...

  16. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,300 89,100

  17. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 156,259 156,259 1990's 147,618 150,538 167,834 173,463 173,463 173,463 173,979 175,479 175,479 175,129 2000's 175,495 166,000 190,156 200,545 204,765 204,855 213,225 229,013 228,613 245,579 2010's 245,579 245,579 245,579

  18. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  19. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

  20. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

  1. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

  2. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W W W W W W W W W W W W 2003 5.54 W 7.00 6.28 W 6.35 5.61 5.30 W W 4.75 6.48 2004 5.76 W W 6.12 6.88 6.56 6.28 6.08 5.44 W W 7.50 2005 6.67 W W W W 7.61 7.80 9.49 13.52 14.90 12.76 14.05 2006 10.47 9.13 7.73 7.96 6.98 6.81 7.12 7.74 6.56 6.25 6.99 7.37 2007 6.75 8.00 6.97 7.38 7.45 7.76 6.81 7.01 6.44 6.77 7.75 7.64 2008 8.83 10.01 W W W 13.64 12.44 9.52 9.16 6.03 8.45 7.29 2009 5.89 5.20 4.46 3.93 4.03 4.00 3.69

  3. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W 2.57 2.77 2.46 2.38 2.40 2.12 2.12 2.11 2.02 2.02 1.98 2003 2.02 2.03 2.02 2.11 W 2.07 2.57 2.58 2.50 2.65 2.64 2.64 2004 2.78 2.78 2.81 2.85 2.80 2.81 2.69 2.77 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2005 3.11 3.12 3.17 3.31 3.38 3.32 3.54 3.54 3.53 3.59 3.58 3.66 2006 3.52 3.52 3.42 3.68 3.63 3.74 3.51 3.38 3.72 3.79 3.94 3.88 2007 3.75 3.54 3.59 3.64 3.56 3.48 3.57 3.57 3.64 3.51 3.57 3.49 2008 W W W W W W W W W W W W 2009 W W

  4. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 10,010 4,633 4,752 1970's 2,073 995 0 0 0 3,963 10,387 17,507 20,293 17,546 1980's 15,494 38,991 24,278 25,376 25,359 26,036 20,329 24,779 22,994 23,837 1990's 20,165 4,722 8,056 7,773 7,426 7,815 2,354 2,139 1,293 1,150 2000's 8 0 0 0 0 0 439 516 511 520 2010's 414 4,051 0

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 854 748 874 377 368 398 320 289 301 116 43 35 1992 714 638 688 663 660 639 651

  5. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 14,966 15,278 13,652 8,580 5,694 3,947 2,778 2,279 2,601 3,750 6,975 11,066 1990 15,699 13,559 12,631 9,873 7,248 4,191 2,478 2,357 2,331 3,450 7,142 10,956 1991 17,902 15,114 11,686 9,187 7,108 3,600 2,569 2,283 2,367 3,541 8,076 14,007 1992 16,198 14,400 11,499 8,789 5,005 3,963 2,809 2,438 2,644 3,547 7,607 15,715 1993 18,551 15,981 15,025 9,897 6,505 3,996 2,851 2,391 3,027 4,451 8,984 14,527 1994 16,252 15,391 13,500 9,732 6,819

  6. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 74,796 76,868 64,320 40,575 24,582 12,602 10,775 9,958 13,627 26,027 51,490 94,362 1990 71,107 64,322 52,008 37,441 23,464 12,361 10,424 10,802 12,633 30,333 40,903 76,365 1991 92,323 62,627 54,680 32,273 18,197 11,041 10,168 10,122 16,099 27,231 61,099 71,109 1992 80,315 63,013 59,187 40,752 22,488 12,963 10,391 11,171 13,758 28,742 54,950 77,632 1993 85,860 74,466 67,993 42,426 18,258 12,716 10,373 9,728 15,193 31,937 51,226 75,134 1994

  7. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 26,677 23,164 24,258 19,456 18,831 18,369 17,553 20,171 17,971 21,014 20,330 22,971 2002 24,441 23,170 23,714 20,750 18,770 17,297 19,398 20,664 19,688 22,268 23,322 25,579 2003 27,047 24,384 21,994 19,376 18,238 16,652 16,774 17,813 18,398 20,589 22,780 24,621 2004 28,155 25,447 25,012 21,558 19,052 18,264 18,325 19,767 19,514 20,781 22,067 24,940 2005 28,069 24,575 27,661 22,009 19,346 18,322 17,340 19,005 18,711 20,639 21,908 26,437

  8. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 232 179 329 365 534 479 1,124 1,278 449 259 247 279 2002 366 291 364 323 325 587 1,032 637 551 281 264 229 2003 247 276 270 241 195 316 559 1,008 244 226 447 221 2004 388 177 332 213 324 704 788 657 770 1,086 1,395 1,457 2005 1,307 1,096 2,541 1,671 1,351 2,257 2,620 2,885 1,817 977 920 1,841 2006 681 489 909 707 1,672 1,780 3,166 2,467 1,181 2,639 2,393 1,544 2007 2,694 3,549 1,450 1,928 2,649 2,181 2,202 2,574 684 1,875 1,471

  9. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 9,700 10,403 8,293 5,319 3,161 1,809 1,332 1,337 1,446 3,109 6,141 13,034 1990 9,736 8,409 6,367 5,007 2,448 1,599 1,376 1,288 1,375 3,306 5,741 9,412 1991 11,629 9,644 7,168 3,430 1,805 1,378 1,278 1,168 1,487 3,120 7,676 9,682 1992 11,805 8,511 7,813 4,179 2,626 1,835 1,326 1,416 1,413 3,376 6,997 10,617 1993 11,143 11,145 9,198 4,989 1,908 1,710 1,289 1,137 1,410 3,858 7,612 11,510 1994 15,487 10,560 8,417 3,601 2,314 1,260 1,178 1,211

  10. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 W W W W W 3.61 3.49 3.34 W W W W 2003 5.86 7.31 7.89 5.81 W 6.47 5.74 5.45 5.29 5.20 4.92 W 2004 6.74 6.22 5.99 6.14 6.81 6.91 6.51 6.17 5.49 6.77 7.11 7.48 2005 6.74 6.70 7.20 7.78 7.15 7.46 7.96 9.15 13.07 W 12.25 13.64 2006 11.64 8.69 8.11 7.77 7.25 6.97 6.83 7.95 6.96 5.94 7.94 9.06 2007 6.80 8.49 7.98 8.14 8.25 8.35 7.26 7.07 6.30 7.26 7.76 7.79 2008 8.36 8.95 9.93 10.78 12.26 13.21 12.68 9.71 8.70 7.78 7.20

  11. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    from All Countries (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Imports from All Countries (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 0 2000's 0 0 0 66,078 209,294 221,689 116,613 148,231 25,894 72,339 2010's 43,431 13,981 2,790 5,366 11,585 - = 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:

  12. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 55,928 52,459 51,163 34,224 20,415 9,803 8,052 7,957 9,726 19,994 31,679 60,266 1990 55,931 48,164 43,437 31,606 19,275 11,093 7,779 8,253 9,336 17,937 29,517 45,069 1991 61,349 49,685 43,914 29,081 18,655 10,014 7,555 6,594 9,297 18,491 33,409 49,160 1992 56,513 52,668 46,640 36,421 21,545 11,927 8,773 8,655 9,435 20,856 34,278 50,376 1993 59,618 57,465 54,627 35,109 18,269 11,464 8,589 7,199 10,020 22,363 34,389 50,690 1994 72,958

  13. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 545 650 611 788 866 791 1,941 2,026 513 866 469 543 2002 715 815 1,155 652 648 1,310 2,991 1,526 1,304 830 605 629 2003 885 881 540 1,029 481 844 2,220 3,812 1,498 1,734 1,560 1,269 2004 2,209 1,317 987 957 991 703 1,652 402 1,492 626 612 826 2005 1,279 997 1,027 1,984 931 3,602 4,476 3,729 2,169 1,953 1,934 1,944 2006 907 737 833 443 1,060 1,912 5,845 3,518 1,213 3,451 2,423 2,568 2007 2,268 4,022 2,376 2,697 1,428 2,870 4,081

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 3,995 4,030 4,077 2,195 1,282 929 864 829 894 1,043 1,933 4,241 1990 6,060 3,307 2,793 2,205 1,266 922 850 809 798 948 2,070 3,018 1991 4,628 4,348 3,390 1,903 1,117 882 846 811 824 1,024 2,357 3,625 1992 4,724 4,551 2,850 2,440 1,287 963 896 817 856 979 1,927 4,198 1993 4,474 4,388 4,396 2,961 1,465 947 830 788 815 933 2,518 3,832 1994 6,163 5,192 3,481 2,254 1,088 883 845 784 834 921 1,542 3,098 1995 5,027 4,997 3,800 1,770 1,178 892

  15. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 8,526 7,720 5,601 5,511 4,509 4,386 4,772 4,809 4,386 4,954 5,329 7,342 2002 7,089 5,945 6,709 5,703 5,620 4,458 4,410 4,486 4,255 6,007 5,966 6,319 2003 7,084 6,868 6,028 4,820 4,273 3,942 3,396 4,833 4,317 4,659 5,254 6,070 2004 7,377 6,846 5,989 5,220 4,565 4,624 4,193 4,543 4,470 4,690 5,183 6,783 2005 7,534 6,457 6,449 5,350 4,758 4,701 4,433 4,709 4,733 4,965 5,487 6,775 2006 6,869 6,415 6,259 5,168 4,767 4,659 4,611 4,994 4,640

  16. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 2,803 2,778 2,544 1,666 965 680 426 435 568 1,084 1,728 2,518 1990 2,625 2,421 1,900 1,459 1,104 701 389 392 450 1,040 1,694 2,673 1991 3,533 2,139 2,087 1,585 1,244 608 455 382 559 977 2,218 2,626 1992 2,529 2,180 1,620 1,371 837 541 485 421 727 1,106 1,792 3,065 1993 3,658 2,509 2,611 1,686 1,005 644 608 530 741 1,172 2,236 2,961 1994 2,722 2,915 2,180 1,600 1,005 614 461 396 535 1,184 2,115 2,986 1995 3,072 2,398 2,441 1,796 1,264 704

  17. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 3,350 3,088 2,887 3,230 2,646 2,637 5,283 3,782 3,414 2,746 3,947 3,135 2002 3,374 3,222 2,416 2,786 2,840 1,919 5,602 4,879 4,369 2,846 2,950 3,224 2003 3,384 3,125 2,517 2,548 2,640 1,816 4,392 4,190 4,005 3,644 2,863 2,991 2004 3,428 3,291 2,458 2,973 2,584 3,188 4,366 4,402 2,170 2,830 3,472 3,704 2005 3,450 3,453 2,623 2,975 2,545 2,597 4,393 4,914 3,613 3,175 3,696 3,514 2006 4,851 4,406 3,758 4,299 3,657 4,541 5,326 5,689 4,415

  18. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 3,837 4,632 4,861 1970's 3,358 2,202 3,679 4,539 4,990 7,628 9,235 10,682 13,900 15,500 1980's 15,643 16,074 15,877 17,836 25,200 31,561 29,964 25,676 23,455 20,433 1990's 25,023 22,777 23,508 21,183 20,465 18,400 18,131 16,188 16,699 16,122 2000's 17,757 27,787 36,816 36,137 46,050 55,180 55,980 54,942 50,320 44,849 2010's 35,813 31,124 26,424 23,458 20,201

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

  19. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 11,577 13,137 12,277 5,784 3,043 2,169 1,858 1,654 1,886 2,571 4,798 11,039 1990 14,092 10,213 8,262 6,640 4,024 2,206 1,679 1,599 1,563 2,416 4,675 8,248 1991 15,898 11,165 8,216 4,711 2,853 1,985 1,747 1,573 1,741 2,327 6,915 10,069 1992 12,164 10,656 7,235 5,961 3,219 2,549 1,949 1,712 1,775 2,236 4,722 11,635 1993 14,565 12,460 12,131 8,019 3,907 2,331 1,832 1,612 1,729 2,317 6,783 10,675 1994 13,551 13,450 9,884 5,919 3,639 2,014

  20. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 5,971 7,343 5,742 5,695 5,456 6,550 6,621 8,791 7,952 8,062 6,832 7,527 2002 7,332 5,748 6,225 2,355 2,073 3,093 2,066 4,899 5,614 5,579 5,330 5,541 2003 7,862 5,409 4,352 1,994 1,537 3,203 9,285 9,064 9,436 8,083 7,783 6,392 2004 8,070 7,672 5,888 5,633 4,756 4,199 8,724 9,401 8,320 8,314 9,292 8,464 2005 8,480 8,335 8,641 7,944 1,561 2,690 6,970 9,097 8,251 8,661 8,210 9,159 2006 3,510 5,417 6,304 588 711 2,700 9,740 9,646

  1. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 42,523 40,317 37,886 26,310 15,825 8,128 6,400 6,014 6,716 13,222 22,442 44,960 1990 46,618 34,274 31,872 24,487 13,211 8,393 5,973 5,697 6,665 10,603 20,874 31,349 1991 42,638 38,146 32,729 22,324 11,101 6,704 5,716 5,399 6,792 13,403 23,637 34,139 1992 44,113 41,812 36,068 26,243 13,989 8,047 6,134 5,902 6,950 15,853 24,806 36,609 1993 41,969 45,019 42,350 24,988 11,007 8,560 5,614 5,688 6,754 15,261 24,357 37,429 1994 55,091 47,970

  2. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 8,323 8,151 7,961 4,311 2,220 1,347 1,041 961 1,044 1,683 3,555 8,601 1990 11,556 6,514 5,575 4,407 2,119 1,304 993 963 1,017 1,582 4,018 6,293 1991 9,950 8,803 6,940 3,245 1,629 1,128 1,034 961 1,069 1,898 5,085 7,616 1992 10,132 8,849 6,002 4,859 2,186 1,437 1,120 1,051 1,100 1,885 4,473 9,125 1993 10,319 9,273 10,041 5,755 2,317 1,365 1,109 1,011 1,111 1,839 5,774 9,003 1994 13,829 11,693 7,753 4,606 2,027 1,350 1,133 1,081 1,145 1,668

  3. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 2.65 2.36 2.96 3.57 3.52 3.39 3.37 3.21 3.49 3.95 4.09 4.28 2003 5.11 6.91 7.20 5.20 W 5.97 5.27 5.06 4.91 4.62 4.49 5.39 2004 5.92 5.41 5.22 5.54 6.14 6.45 6.07 5.86 5.13 5.85 6.57 6.59 2005 6.01 6.04 6.47 7.07 6.66 6.88 7.29 8.41 10.43 11.30 9.32 10.72 2006 8.48 7.48 6.76 6.82 6.34 6.08 6.06 7.03 5.83 5.09 6.87 6.92 2007 6.42 7.34 6.90 7.29 7.51 7.48 6.55 6.19 5.88 6.68 6.58 7.00 2008 7.73 8.08 8.92 9.95 10.48

  4. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 206,572 206,603 1990's 312,061 307,235 210,242 210,242 209,753 215,351 216,351 219,907 219,907 219,907 2000's 219,913 220,000 220,596 220,804 220,844 218,927 218,394 220,359 220,359 220,368 2010's 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723

  5. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 559,019 559,019 1990's 550,823 559,823 539,200 542,900 551,580 549,436 554,872 559,012 563,867 564,062 2000's 569,187 580,000 587,115 591,673 593,740 593,740 599,165 588,711 615,858 651,968 2010's 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 61,978 61,978 1990's 61,978 61,978 62,400 62,400 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2000's 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2010's 64,000 64,000 64,000

  7. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 982,362 982,362 1990's 994,542 995,181 994,281 1,043,781 1,046,582 1,053,814 1,052,236 992,933 1,021,674 1,071,699 2000's 1,070,716 1,071,000 1,034,429 1,028,344 1,010,034 1,021,622 1,031,290 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 2010's 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462

  8. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  9. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502 13,845 13,845

  10. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's 376,301 376,301 376,301

  11. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's 34,850 34,850 34,850

  12. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio ...

  13. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 8,316 8,290 5,786 3,585 2,215 1,763 1,374 1,235 1,322 1,718 3,640 5,923 1990 7,169 6,949 5,699 3,287 2,576 1,880 1,314 1,236 1,222 1,932 3,699 6,463 1991 9,582 7,276 5,715 4,514 3,544 2,041 1,348 1,269 1,347 1,802 4,293 7,841 1992 8,422 7,132 4,869 3,184 1,986 1,524 1,406 1,255 1,321 1,802 3,844 7,957 1993 8,919 8,045 6,589 4,375 3,055 1,845 1,533 1,353 1,449 2,322 4,676 7,619 1994 7,251 7,329 4,831 3,524 1,577 1,404 1,369 1,306 1,457

  14. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 5,838 5,621 5,179 3,608 2,263 1,001 741 695 824 1,738 3,240 6,382 1990 6,858 4,690 4,174 3,403 1,747 1,055 724 696 800 1,353 3,031 4,069 1991 5,561 5,527 4,858 2,876 1,372 707 629 622 765 1,738 3,210 4,722 1992 6,183 6,231 4,328 4,038 2,076 1,105 683 661 819 1,899 3,120 4,146 1993 5,220 5,960 5,767 3,560 1,608 962 533 620 740 1,818 3,347 5,072 1994 7,397 6,344 5,136 3,281 1,841 926 541 625 789 1,511 2,462 4,348 1995 5,783 6,546 4,592

  15. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1989 1,923 1,964 1,597 1,180 743 517 344 259 350 518 973 1,412 1990 1,832 1,692 1,511 1,140 849 585 320 288 256 484 973 1,556 1991 2,238 1,668 1,340 1,124 922 463 293 259 274 568 1,179 1,665 1992 1,876 1,492 1,146 951 613 431 323 278 360 551 1,071 1,803 1993 2,142 1,797 1,653 1,164 809 506 366 292 380 641 1,181 1,731 1994 1,849 1,790 1,371 1,121 652 352 276 257 333 662 1,210 1,690 1995 2,037 1,496 1,453 1,200 1,006 681 347 271 361 611 1,125

  16. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Thousand 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 1.74 1.80 1.59 2000's 1.77 2.36 2.27 2.29 2.79 3.42 3.65 3.58 W W 2010's W 5.04 4.32 4.73 5.06 5.40

    2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Wellhead Price 3.17 1967-2010 Exports Price 12.19 12.88 15.71 -- 15.74 1989-2014 Pipeline and Distribution Use Price 1970-2005 Citygate Price 6.67 6.53 6.14 6.02 6.34 6.57 1988-2015 Residential Price 8.89 8.77 8.47 8.85 9.11 9.68 1967-2015

  17. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 657 638 525 665 651 635 507 611 607 1992 665 667 720 787 782 766 787 513 840 822 915 821 1993 1,034 857 948 531 965 949 922 936 879 982 976 1,016 1994 1,024 885 999 948 553 949 969 999 1,000 1,003 1,010 1,009 1995 1,594 931 2,253 893 1,451 1,976 976 958 1,256 830 929 993 1996 954 931 858 862 907 849 880 865 762 1,028 957 863 1997 543 530 578 485 612 618 588 623 609 609 712 664 1998 594 589 751 704 764 400 626 641 604 677 588 306 1999 556

  18. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0

  19. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Price (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet) Iowa 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 0.17 0.16 0.17 1970's 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.26 0.34 0.52 0.73 0.99 1.17 1980's 1.55 1.89 2.50 2.73 2.71 2.83 2.57 2.75 2.01 2.02 1990's 1.52 1.54 1.71 1.25 1.39 1.40 2.37 2.46 2.06 2.16 2000's 3.17 3.60 NA -- -- -- - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  20. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2,919 2,785 2,128 1,515 1,794 1,753 1979-2014 Natural Gas Nonassociated, Wet After Lease Separation 2,887 2,674 2,030 1,422 1,750 1,704 1979-2014 Natural Gas Associated-Dissolved, Wet After Lease Separation 32 111 98 93 44 49 1979-2014 Dry Natural Gas 2,782 2,613 2,006 1,408 1,663 1,611

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 69,542 75,824 83,815 1970's 86,473 84,197 85,881 80,233 76,129 79,156 96,351 94,646 84,436 77,438 1980's 74,235 70,538 67,590

  1. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 5,244 4,734 4,225 4,287 4,497 4,051 3,869 2,184 3,937 4,254 2,076 1,935 1992 3,882 3,446 3,606 3,528 3,694 3,572 3,661 3,278 3,265 3,553 3,480 3,668 1993 3,051 2,763 2,983 2,907 3,017 2,891 2,959 2,994 2,996 3,134 3,065 3,144 1994 3,119 2,825 3,049 2,971 3,083 2,955 3,024 3,060 3,062 3,204 3,133 3,215 1995 3,033 2,747 2,965 2,887 2,993 2,869 2,939 2,977 2,978 3,118 3,048 3,130 1996 3,068 2,866 3,008 2,923 3,036 3,346 3,525 3,543 3,488

  2. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1997 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1998 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 1999 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2000 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2001 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2002 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2003 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 2004 195 195 195 195

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 2,616 2,686 2,471 1,829 1,467 1,373 1,598 1,758 1,730 2,200 2,025 2,177 1992 2,152 1,997 2,170 2,085 2,270 2,135 2,053 2,031 2,060 2,003 2,016 2,021 1993 1,658 1,080 1,219 1,154 1,199 1,227 1,260 1,063 1,109 1,148 1,060 915 1994 870 784 850 1,004 1,034 953 1,044 1,103 1,174 1,110 1,057 1,100 1995 1,087 1,004 1,048 1,097 1,088 1,014 1,019 886 722 742 733 879 1996 865 842 898 905 892 838 696 685 667 695 678 706 1997 699 703 526 664 728 593

  4. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

  5. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 7 6 6 7 8 7 7 7 5 5 6 6 1997 6 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 1998 6 5 5 8 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6 1999 6 5 6 6 5 7 5 5 5 5 5 6 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2004 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2005 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2006 1 0 4 5 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2007 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2008 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2011 0 0 0 0

  6. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 1,585 1,316 1,468 1,420 1,417 1,348 1,272 1,370 1,380 1,501 1,484 1,532 1992 1,381 1,233 1,393 1,237 1,500 1,429 1,555 1,390 1,413 1,563 1,247 1,198 1993 1,024 1,175 1,499 1,478 1,540 1,386 1,374 1,442 1,387 1,395 1,329 1,537 1994 1,173 1,346 1,718 1,693 1,765 1,588 1,574 1,652 1,589 1,599 1,523 1,761 1995 594 682 870 858 894 804 797 837 805 810 771 892 1996 884 824 900 864 906 859 816 828 796 806 811 838 1997 904 827 920 887 912 843 883

  7. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0

  8. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Repressuring (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0

  9. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1997 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 1998 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1999 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 0 0 0 0

  10. "Table A7. Shell Storage Capacity of Selected Petroleum Products...

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

    ...,38,1448,306,531,12.1 2011," Meat Packing Plants",1,229,40,13,13.2 2033," Canned Fruits ...ts",3,196,59,142,20.2 2011," Meat Packing Plants","*",1,2,3,22.6 2033," Canned Fruits and ...

  11. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 2,600 3,280 3,280 3,280 3,280 2000's 3,280 5,000 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 26,900 26,900 2010's 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,4

  12. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2010's

  13. Ecosystem carbon storage capacity as affected by disturbance...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    and tausub 1 is the residence time of the carbon pool affected by disturbances (biomass pool in this study). The disturbance regime is characterized by the mean disturbance...

  14. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  15. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 699,324 698,258 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 699,324 700,324 700,324 723,922 723,922 2003 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 723,922 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 699,472 2004 700,769 700,769 700,769 700,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 675,769 665,730 665,730 665,730 2005 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730 2006 665,730 665,730 665,730 665,730

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 103,831 103,830 1990's 106,130 106,130 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,668 105,868 105,868 105,868 105,868 2000's 105,868 106,000 115,068 114,187 114,160 114,160 114,096 114,067 111,167 111,120 2010's 111,120 106,764 124,937

  17. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502...

  18. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...

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

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 334,925 334,925 1990's 301,199 301,199 290,571 289,797 290,148 283,603 285,201 304,065 301,101...

  19. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  20. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692