Sample records for underground storage volume

  1. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at1,066,688ElectricityLess thanThousandUnderground Storage Volume

  2. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at CommercialDecade Year-0 Year-1Year%Underground Storage Volume

  3. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1(MillionExtensionsThousandUnderground Storage Volume (Million Cubic

  4. Estimating Residual Solids Volume In Underground Storage Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Clark, Jason L.; Worthy, S. Jason; Martin, Bruce A.; Tihey, John R.

    2014-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The Savannah River Site liquid waste system consists of multiple facilities to safely receive and store legacy radioactive waste, treat, and permanently dispose waste. The large underground storage tanks and associated equipment, known as the 'tank farms', include a complex interconnected transfer system which includes underground transfer pipelines and ancillary equipment to direct the flow of waste. The waste in the tanks is present in three forms: supernatant, sludge, and salt. The supernatant is a multi-component aqueous mixture, while sludge is a gel-like substance which consists of insoluble solids and entrapped supernatant. The waste from these tanks is retrieved and treated as sludge or salt. The high level (radioactive) fraction of the waste is vitrified into a glass waste form, while the low-level waste is immobilized in a cementitious grout waste form called saltstone. Once the waste is retrieved and processed, the tanks are closed via removing the bulk of the waste, chemical cleaning, heel removal, stabilizing remaining residuals with tailored grout formulations and severing/sealing external penetrations. The comprehensive liquid waste disposition system, currently managed by Savannah River Remediation, consists of 1) safe storage and retrieval of the waste as it is prepared for permanent disposition; (2) definition of the waste processing techniques utilized to separate the high-level waste fraction/low-level waste fraction; (3) disposition of LLW in saltstone; (4) disposition of the HLW in glass; and (5) closure state of the facilities, including tanks. This paper focuses on determining the effectiveness of waste removal campaigns through monitoring the volume of residual solids in the waste tanks. Volume estimates of the residual solids are performed by creating a map of the residual solids on the waste tank bottom using video and still digital images. The map is then used to calculate the volume of solids remaining in the waste tank. The ability to accurately determine a volume is a function of the quantity and quality of the waste tank images. Currently, mapping is performed remotely with closed circuit video cameras and still photograph cameras due to the hazardous environment. There are two methods that can be used to create a solids volume map. These methods are: liquid transfer mapping / post transfer mapping and final residual solids mapping. The task is performed during a transfer because the liquid level (which is a known value determined by a level measurement device) is used as a landmark to indicate solids accumulation heights. The post transfer method is primarily utilized after the majority of waste has been removed. This method relies on video and still digital images of the waste tank after the liquid transfer is complete to obtain the relative height of solids across a waste tank in relation to known and usable landmarks within the waste tank (cooling coils, column base plates, etc.). In order to accurately monitor solids over time across various cleaning campaigns, and provide a technical basis to support final waste tank closure, a consistent methodology for volume determination has been developed and implemented at SRS.

  5. Underground Energy Storage Program: 1981 annual report. Volume I. Progress summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1982-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the 1981 annual report for the Underground Energy Storage Program administered by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the US Department of Energy. The two-volume document describes all of the major research funded under this program during the period March 1981 to March 1982. Volume I summarizes the activities and notable progress toward program objectives in both Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage (STES) and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). Major changes in program emphasis and structure are also documented.

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUnderground Storage1Feet)Year Jan

  7. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content4,367,470 4,364,790 4,363,909 4,363,143 4,363,967 4,363,549 1973-2015 Alaska 14,197 14,197Cubic Feet) Gas,Underground Storage

  8. Underground Storage Tank Regulations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Underground Storage Tank Regulations is relevant to all energy projects that will require the use and building of pipelines, underground storage of any sorts, and/or electrical equipment. The...

  9. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved Reservesthroughwww.eia.govNThousand CubicUnderground

  10. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at CommercialDecadeReservesYear21 3.96 1967-2010 PipelineUnderground

  11. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at1,066,688ElectricityLessApril 2015Year Jan Feb MarDecadeUnderground

  12. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at Commercial andSeptember 25,9,1996 N Y625(95)Feet) Underground

  13. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUndergroundCubicDecadeFeet) Year Jan Feb

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of Fossil Energy, U.S.Year Jan Feb Mar AprUnderground

  15. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of FossilFoot) Year Jan Feb(MillionYearUnderground

  16. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content4,367,470 4,364,790 4,363,909 4,363,143 4,363,967 4,363,549 1973-2015 Alaska 14,197 14,197 14,197(BillionYearThousandUnderground

  17. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYear Jan Next MECSInput SupplementalYear JanUnderground

  18. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUnderground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

  19. ,"AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments; Unit:1996..........Region Natural Gas Underground Storage

  20. Underground Storage Tanks (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This rule governs the construction, installation, upgrading, use, maintenance, testing, and closure of underground storage tanks, including certification requirements for individuals who install,...

  1. Underground Storage Tanks (New Jersey)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This chapter constitutes rules for all underground storage tank facilities- including registration, reporting, permitting, certification, financial responsibility and to protect human health and...

  2. Underground Storage Tank Program (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These rules are intended to protect public health and the environment by establishing standards for the design, installation, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and closure of underground storage...

  3. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allen, R.D.; Doherty, T.J.; Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  4. Underground Storage Tank Act (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    New underground storage tank construction standards must include at least the following requirements: (1) That an underground storage tank will prevent releases of regulated substances stored...

  5. Georgia Underground Storage Tank Act (Georgia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Georgia Underground Storage Act (GUST) provides a comprehensive program to prevent, detect, and correct releases from underground storage tanks (“USTs”) of “regulated substances” other than...

  6. Underground caverns for hydrocarbon storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barron, T.F. [Exeter Energy Services, Houston, TX (United States)

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Large, international gas processing projects and growing LPG imports in developing countries are driving the need to store large quantities of hydrocarbon liquids. Even though underground storage is common in the US, many people outside the domestic industry are not familiar with the technology and the benefits underground storage can offer. The latter include lower construction and operating costs than surface storage, added safety, security and greater environmental acceptance.

  7. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids,+ LeasePrice Sold to ElectricLNG StorageVolume

  8. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, ExpectedLNG Storage NetPrice Sold toNet WithdrawalsVolume

  9. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Breakout Session 1C—Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency

  10. ,"AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments; Unit:1996..........Region Natural Gas UndergroundWestern

  11. Underground storage of oil and gas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bergman, S.M.

    1984-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The environmental and security advantages of underground storage of oil and gas are well documented. In many cases, underground storage methods such as storage in salt domes, abandoned mines, and mined rock caverns have proven to be cost effective when compared to storage in steel tanks constructed for that purpose on the surface. In good rock conditions, underground storage of large quantities of hydrocarbon products is normally less costly--up to 50-70% of the surface alternative. Under fair or weak rock conditions, economic comparisons between surface tanks and underground caverns must be evaluated on a case to case basis. The key to successful underground storage is enactment of a realistic geotechnical approach. In addition to construction cost, storage of petroleum products underground has operational advantages over similar storage above ground. These advantages include lower maintenance costs, less fire hazards, less land requirements, and a more even storage temperature.

  12. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (DollarsVolumeCoalbed MethaneNet WithdrawalsVolume

  13. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPriceNonassociated NaturalCoalbedLNG StoragePrice

  14. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids,+ Lease Condensate Proved ReservesSummary"NetVolume

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (DollarsVolume (MMcf)"Liquids

  16. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, ExpectedLNGCoalbed Methane ProvedNet WithdrawalsVolume

  17. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, ExpectedLNGCoalbed MethaneWellhead PriceLNGNetVolume

  18. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids,+ LeasePrice Sold toDryDryDry NaturalCrude OilNetVolume

  19. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and NaturalWellhead PriceNet WithdrawalsVolume

  20. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventional Gasoline Sales to EndAdditions (MMcf)"WorkingVolume (MMcf)" ,"Click

  1. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;Net WithdrawalsWellheadNaturalDryCoalbedNet WithdrawalsVolume

  2. ,"Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (Dollars per+NonassociatedPrice (Dollars+PriceVolume

  3. ,"Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (DollarsVolume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet

  4. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPriceNonassociated Natural Gas, Wet AfterCrudeNetVolume

  5. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, Expected Future ProductionNetPrice (DollarsNetVolume

  6. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, Expected Future ProductionNetPriceGas,Price SoldNetVolume

  7. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, Expected Future7,DryPlant Liquids,Volume (MMcf)"

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  7. ,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  8. ,"Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

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

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  16. Pipelines and Underground Gas Storage (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These rules apply to intrastate transport of natural gas and other substances via pipeline, as well as underground gas storage facilities. The construction and operation of such infrastructure...

  17. Prince George's County Underground Storage Act (Maryland)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A gas storage company may invoke eminent domain to acquire property in Prince George's County for underground gas storage purposes. The area acquired must lie not less than 800 feet below the...

  18. Carbon Allocation in Underground Storage Organs

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Carbon Allocation in Underground Storage Organs Studies on Accumulation of Starch, Sugars and Oil Cover: Starch granules in cells of fresh potato tuber visualised by iodine staining. #12;Carbon By increasing knowledge of carbon allocation in underground storage organs and using the knowledge to improve

  19. Underground storage tank management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems in operation at the facility, to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks, and to establish a program for the removal of unnecessary UST systems and upgrade of UST systems that continue to be needed. The program implements an integrated approach to the management of UST systems, with each system evaluated against the same requirements and regulations. A common approach is employed, in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance, when corrective action is mandated. This Management Plan outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed by the UST Management Program, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Management Plan provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. (There are no underground radioactive waste UST systems located at Y-12.) The plan is divided into four major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) implementation requirements, (3) Y-12 Plant UST Program inventory sites, and (4) UST waste management practices. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Management Program, and the procedures and guidance used for compliance with applicable regulations.

  20. Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons Who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks (Mississippi)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Underground Storage Tank Regulations for the Certification of Persons who Install, Alter, and Remove Underground Storage Tanks applies to any project that will install, alter or remove...

  1. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 5: site selection. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume documents a six-step site selection process undertaken to identify and subsequently rank potential sites suitable for either an underground pumped hydroelectric (UPH) facility, or a water-compensated hard-rock cavern compressed air energy storage (CAES) facility. The region of study was confined to the service area of the Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and contiguous areas. Overriding considerations related to geology, environmental impact and transmission-line routing were studies within the context of minimizing plant costs. The selection process led to the identification of several sites suitable for the development of either a CAES or an UPH facility. Design development and site exploration at the selected site are described in other volumes of the final report.

  2. Underground Storage of Natural Gas (Kansas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Any natural gas public utility may appropriate for its use for the underground storage of natural gas any subsurface stratum or formation in any land which the commission shall have found to be...

  3. ADVANCED UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS REFRIGERATED-MINED CAVERN STORAGE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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. 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. Five regions of the U.S.A. were studied for underground storage development and PB-KBB reviewed the literature to determine if the geology of these regions was suitable for siting hard rock storage caverns. Area gas market conditions in these regions were also studied to determine the need for such storage. Based on an analysis of many factors, a possible site was determined to be in Howard and Montgomery Counties, Maryland. The area has compatible geology and a gas industry infrastructure for the nearby market populous of Baltimore and Washington D.C.. As Gas temperature is lowered, the compressibility of the gas reaches an optimum value. The compressibility of the gas, and the resultant gas density, is a function of temperature and pressure. This relationship can be used to commercial advantage by reducing the size of a storage cavern for a given working volume of natural gas. This study looks at this relationship and and the potential for commercialization of the process in a storage application. A conceptual process design, and cavern design were developed for various operating conditions. Potential site locations were considered and a typical plant layout was developed. In addition a geomechanical review of the proposed cavern design was performed, evaluating the stability of the mine rooms and shafts, and the effects of the refrigerated gas temperatures on the stability of the cavern. Capital and operating cost estimates were also developed for the various temperature cases considered. The cost estimates developed were used to perform a comparative market analysis of this type of gas storage system to other systems that are commercially used in the region of the study.

  4. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 1. Executive summary. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and Acres American Incorporated (AAI) have carried out a preliminary design study of water-compensated Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) and Underground Pumped Hydroelectric (UPH) plants for siting in geological conditions suitable for hard rock excavations. The work was carried out over a period of three years and was sponsored by the US Department of Energy (DOE), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and PEPCO. The study was divided into five primary tasks as follows: establishment of design criteria and analysis of impact on power system; selection of site and establishment of site characteristics; formulation of design approaches; assessment of environmental and safety aspects; and preparation of preliminary design of plant. The salient aspects considered and the conclusions reached during the consideration of the five primary tasks for both CAES and UPH are presented in this Executive Summary, which forms Volume 1 of the series of reports prepared during the study. The investigations and analyses carried out, together with the results and conclusions reached, are described in detail in Volumes 2 through 13 and ten appendices.

  5. Underground Natural Gas Storage Wells in Bedded Salt (Kansas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations apply to natural gas underground storage and associated brine ponds, and includes the permit application for each new underground storage tank near surface water bodies and springs.

  6. Appendix E: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pennycook, Steve

    Appendix E: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix E: Underground Storage Tank Data E-3 Table E.1. Underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Y-12 Plant Location/95) NA Closure approval 3/95 (6/96) 9714 2334-U 1987 In use 6,000 Gasoline Full Site check NA NA

  7. Appendix C: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pennycook, Steve

    Appendix C: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;#12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix C: Underground Storage Tank Data C-3 Table C.1. Underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Y-12 Plant Location/95) NA Closure approval 3/95 (6/96) 9714 2334-U 1987 In use 6,000 Gasoline Full Site check NA Case closed

  8. Appendix C: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pennycook, Steve

    Appendix C: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;#12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix C: Underground Storage Tank Data C-3 Table C.1. Underground storage tanks (USTs) at the Y-12 Complex Location/95) NA Closure approval 3/95 (6/96) 9714 2334-U 1987 In use 6,000 Gasoline Full Site check NA Case closed

  9. Underground storage of hydrocarbons in Ontario

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carter, T.R.; Manocha, J. [Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario (Canada)

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The underground storage of natural gas and liquified petroleum products in geological formations is a provincially significant industry in Ontario with economic, environmental, and safety benefits for the companies and residents of Ontario. There are 21 active natural gas storage pools in Ontario, with a total working storage capacity of approximately 203 bcf (5.76 billion cubic metres). Most of these pools utilize former natural gas-producing Guelph Formation pinnacle reefs. In addition there are seventy-one solution-mined salt caverns utilized for storage capacity of 24 million barrels (3.9 million cubic metres). These caverns are constructed within salt strata of the Salina A-2 Unit and the B Unit. The steadily increasing demand for natural gas in Ontario creates a continuing need for additional storage capacity. Most of the known gas-producing pinnacle reefs in Ontario have already been converted to storage. The potential value of storage rights is a major incentive for continued exploration for undiscovered reefs in this mature play. There are numerous depleted or nearly depleted natural gas reservoirs of other types with potential for use as storage pools. There is also potential for use of solution-mined caverns for natural gas storage in Ontario.

  10. Underground-Energy-Storage Program, 1982 annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1983-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Two principal underground energy storage technologies are discussed--Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage (STES) and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). The Underground Energy Storage Program objectives, approach, structure, and milestones are described, and technical activities and progress in the STES and CAES areas are summarized. STES activities include aquifer thermal energy storage technology studies and STES technology assessment and development. CAES activities include reservoir stability studies and second-generation concepts studies. (LEW)

  11. Alabama Underground Storage Tank And Wellhead Protection Act...

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

    commission, is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations governing underground storage tanks and is authorized to seek the approval of the United States Environmental...

  12. ,"Lower 48 States Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  13. ,"AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  14. ,"AGA Western Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  15. ,"West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  16. ,"AGA Eastern Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  17. ,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  18. ,"New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for"...

  19. 100-N Area underground storage tank closures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rowley, C.A.

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the removal/characterization actions concerning underground storage tanks (UST) at the 100-N Area. Included are 105-N-LFT, 182-N-1-DT, 182-N-2-DT, 182-N-3-DT, 100-N-SS-27, and 100-N-SS-28. The text of this report gives a summary of remedial activities. In addition, correspondence relating to UST closures can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C contains copies of Unusual Occurrence Reports, and validated sampling data results comprise Appendix D.

  20. Legislation pertaining to underground storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goth, W. (Ventura County Environmental Health Division, CA (United States))

    1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Statutory authority in California for cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater to protect water quality is the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code 1967). Two state laws regulating underground hazardous material storage tanks, passed in late 1983 and effective on January 1, 1984, were AB-2013 (Cortese) and AB-1362 (Sher). Both require specific actions by the tank owners. AB-2013 requires all tank owners to register them with the state Water Resources Control Board (SWCB) and to pay a registration fee. AB-1362, Health and Safety Code Section 25280 et seq., requires tank owners to obtain a Permit to Operate, pay a fee to the local agency, and to install a leak detection system on all existing tanks. New tanks installation requires a Permit to install and provide provide secondary containment for the tank and piping. For tank closures, a permit must be obtained from the local agency to clean out the tank, remove it from the ground, and collect samples from beneath the tank for evidence of contamination. In 1988, state law AB-853 appropriated state funds to be combined with federal EPA money to allow SWRCB to initiate rapid cleanups of leaks from underground tank sites by contracting with local agencies to oversee assessment and cleanup of underground tank releases. Locally, in Ventura County, there are more than 400 leaking underground tank sites in which petroleum products have entered the groundwater. To date, no public water supplies have been contaminated; however, action in necessary to prevent any future contamination to our water supply. Over 250 leaking tank sites have completed cleanup.

  1. Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bradley K. Griffith

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the TAN-664 gasoline underground storage tank in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, 'Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.'

  2. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 4. System planning studies. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Potomac Electric Power Company and Acres American Incorporated have been performing a three year DOE/EPRI/PEPCO sponsored program for preliminary design of water compensated Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) and Underground Pumped Hydroelectric (UPH) power plants. This report presents both the costs of the CAES and UPH plant designs which were developed, and the results of economic evaluations performed for the PEPCO system. The PEPCO system planning analysis was performed in parallel stages with plant design development. Analyses performed early in the project indicated a requirement for 1000 MW/10,000 MWH of energy storage on a daily operating schedule, with economic installation in two segments of 500 MW in 1990 and 1997. The analysis was updated eighteen months later near the end of the project to reflect the impact of new growth projections and revised plant costs. The revised results indicated economic installations for either UPH or CAES of approximately 675 MW/6750 MWH on a daily cycle, installed in blocks of approximately 225 MW in 1990, 1993 and 1995. Significant savings in revenue requirements and oil fuel over the combustion turbine alternative were identified for both CAES and UPH.

  3. Closure report for underground storage tank 141-R3U1 and its associated underground piping

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mallon, B.J.; Blake, R.G.

    1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Underground storage tank UST 141-R3U1 at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), was registered with the State Water Resources Control Board on June 27, 1984. This tank system consisted of a concrete tank, lined with polyvinyl chloride, and approximately 100 feet of PVC underground piping. UST 141-R3U1 had a capacity of 450 gallons. The underground piping connected three floor drains and one sink inside Building 141 to UST 141-R3U1. The wastewater collected in UST 141-R3U1 contained organic solvents, metals, and inorganic acids. On November 30, 1987, the 141-R3U1 tank system failed a precision tank test. The 141-R3U1 tank system was subsequently emptied and removed from service pending further precision tests to determine the location of the leak within the tank system. A precision tank test on February 5, 1988, was performed to confirm the November 30, 1987 test. Four additional precision tests were performed on this tank system between February 25, 1988, and March 6, 1988. The leak was located where the inlet piping from Building 141 penetrates the concrete side of UST 141-R3U1. The volume of wastewater that entered the backfill and soil around and/or beneath UST 141-R3U1 is unknown. On December 13, 1989, the LLNL Environmental Restoration Division submitted a plan to close UST 141-R3U1 and its associated piping to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health. UST 141-R3U1 was closed as an UST, and shall be used instead as additional secondary containment for two aboveground storage tanks.

  4. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"3292015 10:08:54 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NM2"...

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

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:17:17 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

  6. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:16:28 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

  7. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:16:55 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NY2"...

  8. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"2262015 9:16:27 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060NY2"...

  9. Underground Storage of Natural Gas and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Nebraska)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This statute declares underground storage of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas to be in the public interest if it promotes the conservation of natural gas and permits the accumulation of...

  10. Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act of 1972 (Georgia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Georgia Underground Gas Storage Act, which permits the building of reserves for withdrawal in periods of peak demand, was created to promote the economic development of the State of Georgia and...

  11. Viewing Systems for Large Underground Storage Tanks.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heckendorn, F.M., Robinson, C.W., Anderson, E.K. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)], Pardini, A.F. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

    1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Specialized remote video systems have been successfully developed and deployed in a number of large radiological Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)that tolerate the hostile tank interior, while providing high resolution video to a remotely located operator. The deployment is through 100 mm (4 in) tank openings, while incorporating full video functions of the camera, lights, and zoom lens. The usage of remote video minimizes the potential for personnel exposure to radiological and hazardous conditions, and maximizes the quality of the visual data used to assess the interior conditions of both tank and contents. The robustness of this type of remote system has a direct effect on the potential for radiological exposure that personnel may encounter. The USTs typical of the Savannah River and Hanford Department Of Energy - (DOE) sites are typically 4.5 million liter (1.2 million gal) units under earth. or concrete overburden with limited openings to the surface. The interior is both highly contaminated and radioactive with a wide variety of nuclear processing waste material. Some of the tanks are -flammable rated -to Class 1, Division 1,and personnel presence at or near the openings should be minimized. The interior of these USTs must be assessed periodically as part of the ongoing management of the tanks and as a step towards tank remediation. The systems are unique in their deployment technology, which virtually eliminates the potential for entrapment in a tank, and their ability to withstand flammable environments. A multiplicity of components used within a common packaging allow for cost effective and appropriate levels of technology, with radiation hardened components on some units and lesser requirements on other units. All units are completely self contained for video, zoom lens, lighting, deployment,as well as being self purging, and modular in construction.

  12. Underground Gas Storage Reservoirs (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Lays out guidelines for the conditions under which coal mining operations must notify state authorities of intentions to mine where underground gas is stored as well as map and data requirements,...

  13. Underground gas storage in New York State: A historical perspective

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Friedman, G.M.; Sarwar, G.; Bass, J.P. [Brooklyn College of the City Univ., Troy, NY (United States)] [and others

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    New York State has a long history of underground gas storage activity that began with conversion of the Zoar gas field into a storage reservoir in 1916, the first in the United States. By 1961 another fourteen storage fields were developed and seven more were added between 1970 and 1991. All twenty-two operating storage reservoirs of New York were converted from depleted gas fields and are of low-deliverability, base-load type. Nineteen of these are in sandstone reservoirs of the Lower Silurian Medina Group and the Lower Devonian Oriskany Formation and three in limestone reservoirs are located in the gas producing areas of southwestern New York and are linked to the major interstate transmission lines. Recent developments in underground gas storage in New York involve mainly carbonate-reef and bedded salt-cavern storage facilities, one in Stuben County and the other in Cayuga County, are expected to begin operation by the 1996-1997 heating season.

  14. Underground storage tank 511-D1U1 closure plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mancieri, S.; Giuntoli, N.

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains the closure plan for diesel fuel underground storage tank 511-D1U1 and appendices containing supplemental information such as staff training certification and task summaries. Precision tank test data, a site health and safety plan, and material safety data sheets are also included.

  15. Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yamamoto, Hajime; Pruess, Karsten

    2004-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To secure a stable supply of petroleum gas, underground storage caverns for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) are commonly used in many countries worldwide. Storing LPG in underground caverns requires that the surrounding rock mass remain saturated with groundwater and that the water pressure be higher than the liquid pressure inside the cavern. In previous studies, gas containment criteria for underground gas storage based on hydraulic gradient and pressure have been discussed, but these studies do not consider the physicochemical characteristics and behavior of LPG such as vaporization and dissolution in groundwater. Therefore, while these studies are very useful for designing storage caverns, they do not provide better understanding of the either the environmental effects of gas contamination or the behavior of vaporized LPG. In this study, we have performed three-phase fluid flow simulations of gas leakage from underground LPG storage caverns, using the multiphase multicomponent nonisothermal simulator TMVOC (Pruess and Battistelli, 2002), which is capable of solving the three-phase nonisothermal flow of water, gas, and a multicomponent mixture of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in multidimensional heterogeneous porous media. A two-dimensional cross-sectional model resembling an actual underground LPG facility in Japan was developed, and gas leakage phenomena were simulated for three different permeability models: (1) a homogeneous model, (2) a single-fault model, and (3) a heterogeneous model. In addition, the behavior of stored LPG was studied for the special case of a water curtain suddenly losing its function because of operational problems, or because of long-term effects such as clogging of boreholes. The results of the study indicate the following: (1) The water curtain system is a very powerful means for preventing gas leakage from underground storage facilities. By operating with appropriate pressure and layout, gas containment can be ensured. (2) However , in highly heterogeneous media such as fractured rock and fault zones, local flow paths within which the gas containment criterion is not satisfied could be formed. To eliminate such zones, treatments such as pre/post grouting or an additional installment of water-curtain boreholes are essential. (3) Along highly conductive features such as faults, even partially saturated zones possess certain effects that can retard or prevent gas leakage, while a fully unsaturated fault connected to the storage cavern can quickly cause a gas blowout. This possibility strongly suggests that ensuring water saturation of the rock surrounding the cavern is a very important requirement. (4) Even if an accident should suddenly impair the water curtain, the gas plume does not quickly penetrate the ground surface. In these simulations, the plume takes several months to reach the ground surface.

  16. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 9. Design approaches: CAES. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    During Task 3C of the PEPCO/CAES study detailed design requirements and alternate designs were developed for the major components and systems of the CAES plant. Based upon a preliminary economic and technical evaluation, preferred designs were chosen as the basis for subsequent development in Task 5C. It should be noted that in some instances design developments during Task 5C may have substantially altered the preferred design. Volume 9, Design Approaches - CAES, presents a summary of the project design criteria, pressure optimization study and the design approaches for the major plant systems which are developed in more detail in Appendices A through E. In addition, Volume 9 presents the performance, operation and control capabilities of the plant and the results of the preliminary cost estimate prepared in Task 3 which will be updated in Volume 12, Plant Design - CAES.

  17. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 12. Plant design: CAES. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    During Task 5C of the PEPCO/CAES study detailed designs were developed for the major components and systems of the CAES plant. These designs were based upon the preliminary economic and technical evaluations and alternative designs developed in Task 3C. Volume 12, Plant Design - CAES, presents the detailed project design drawings for the major plant systems and structures. In addition, Volume 12 presents the site development report, updated cost estimate, cost/schedule risk study, reliability/availability analysis, and recommendations for additional research and development.

  18. Relevance of underground natural gas storage to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lippmann, Marcelo J.; Benson, Sally M.

    2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Underground Storage of Natural Gas in the United States andEnergy Information Agency (2002). U.S. Natural Gas Storage.www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/info_glance/storage.html

  19. Underground storage of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons, and carbon dioxide (Louisiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regulates the underground storage of natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide. Prior to the use of any underground reservoir for the...

  20. Closure report for underground storage tank 161-R1U1 and its associated underground piping

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mallon, B.J.; Blake, R.G.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Underground storage tank (UST) 161-31 R at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was registered with the State Water Resources Control Board on June 27, 1984. UST 161-31R was subsequently renamed UST 161-R1U1 (Fig. A-1, Appendix A). UST 161-R1U1 was installed in 1976, and had a capacity of 383 gallons. This tank system consisted of a fiberglass reinforced plastic tank, approximately 320 feet of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) underground piping from Building 161, and approximately 40 feet of PVC underground piping from Building 160. The underground piping connected laboratory drains and sinks inside Buildings 160 and 161 to UST 161-R1U1. The wastewater collected in UST 161-R1U1, contained organic solvents, metals, inorganic acids, and radionuclides, most of which was produced within Building 161. On June 28, 1989, the UST 161-R1U1 piping system.around the perimeter of Building 161 failed a precision test performed by Gary Peters Enterprises (Appendix B). The 161-R1U1 tank system was removed from service after the precision test. In July 1989, additional hydrostatic tests and helium leak detection tests were performed (Appendix B) to determine the locations of the piping failures in the Building 161 piping system. The locations of the piping system failures are shown in Figure A-2 (Appendix A). On July 11, 1989, LLNL submitted an Unauthorized Release Report to Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH), Appendix C.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none

    1998-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  2. Rules and Regulations for Underground Storage Facilities Used for Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials (Rhode Island)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations apply to underground storage facilities for petroleum and hazardous waste, and seek to protect water resources from contamination. The regulations establish procedures for the...

  3. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469Decade Year-0Cubic Feet) Underground Storage

  4. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUnderground Storage1Feet)Year Jan Feb

  5. Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere I Geothermal Pwer Plant JumpMarysville,Missoula, Montana:Northeast AsiaAir|Underground Storage Tanks Webpage

  6. Permanent Closure of MFC Biodiesel Underground Storage Tank 99ANL00013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kerry L. Nisson

    2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the Materials and Fuels Complex biodiesel underground storage tank 99ANL00013 in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, “Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.”

  7. Relevance of underground natural gas storage to geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lippmann, Marcelo J.; Benson, Sally M.

    2002-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The practice of underground natural gas storage (UNGS), which started in the USA in 1916, provides useful insight into the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide--the dominant anthropogenic greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. In many ways, UNGS is directly relevant to geologic CO{sub 2} storage because, like CO{sub 2}, natural gas (essentially methane) is less dense than water. Consequently, it will tend to rise to the top of any subsurface storage structure located below the groundwater table. By the end of 2001 in the USA, about 142 million metric tons of natural gas were stored underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs and brine aquifers. Based on their performance, UNGS projects have shown that there is a safe and effective way of storing large volumes of gases in the subsurface. In the small number of cases where failures did occur (i.e., leakage of the stored gas into neighboring permeable layers), they were mainly related to improper well design, construction, maintenance, and/or incorrect project operation. In spite of differences in the chemical and physical properties of the gases, the risk-assessment, risk-management, and risk-mitigation issues relevant to UNGS projects are also pertinent to geologic CO{sub 2} sequestration.

  8. Structural analysis of underground gunite storage tanks. Environmental Restoration Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the structural analysis of the 50-ft diameter underground gunite storage tanks constructed in 1943 and located in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) South Tank Farm, known as Facility 3507 in the 3500-3999 area. The six gunite tanks (W-5 through W-10) are spaced in a 2 {times} 3 matrix at 60 ft on centers with 6 ft of soil cover. Each tank (Figures 1, 2, and 3) has an inside diameter of 50 ft, a 12-ft vertical sidewall having a thickness of 6 in. (there is an additional 1.5-in. inner liner for much of the height), and a spherical domed roof (nominal thickness is 10 in.) rising another 6 ft, 3 in. at the center of the tank. The thickness of both the sidewall and the domed roof increases to 30 in. near their juncture. The tank floor is nominally 3-in. thick, except at the juncture with the wall where the thickness increases to 9 in. The tanks are constructed of gunite (a mixture of Portland cement, sand, and water in the form of a mortar) sprayed from the nozzle of a cement gun against a form or a solid surface. The floor and the dome are reinforced with one layer of welded wire mesh and reinforcing rods placed in the radial direction. The sidewall is reinforced with three layers of welded wire mesh, vertical {1/2}-in. rods, and 21 horizontal rebar hoops (attached to the vertical rods) post-tensioned to 35,000 psi stress. The haunch at the sidewall/roof junction is reinforced with 17 horizontal rebar hoops post-tensioned with 35,000 to 40,000 psi stress. The yield strength of the post-tensioning steel rods is specified to be 60,000 psi, and all other steel is 40,000 psi steel. The specified 28-day design strength of the gunite is 5,000 psi.

  9. Regulation for Underground Storage of CO2 Passed by U.S. States

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Regulation for Underground Storage of CO2 Passed by U.S. States Holly Javedan Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 #12;p. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT capture, transportation, injection and storage of CO2. To date nine states have passed regulation

  10. Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Yamamoto, Hajime; Pruess, Karsten

    2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    model contains three propane storage caverns, 10 m wide and3.2.9. The loss of propane from storage is not significant,liquefied propane) was placed in the storage caverns, and

  11. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 1. General information and executive summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation. This report covers: (1) history of underground coal gasification leading to the Hanna tests; (2) area characteristics (basic meteorological and socioeconomic data); (3) site selection history; (4) site characteristics; (5) permitting; and (6) executive summary. 5 figs., 15 tabs.

  12. ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

  13. ERS 14.3 Underground and Above Ground Diesel Fuel Storage Tanks FPS 12.1, 1/9/01

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

     The objective of this surveillance is to verify underground and above ground diesel storage tanks are maintained, monitored, configured and marked as required.  These surveillance activities...

  14. Underground pumped storage scheme in the Bukit Timah granite of Singapore

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wong, I.H. [Nanyang Technological Univ. (Singapore)] [Nanyang Technological Univ. (Singapore)

    1996-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Pumped storage is an energy storage method that involves the pumping of water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir during off-peak period using low cost power and releasing of the water from the upper reservoir to produce electricity during peak load period. Because of the very small and relatively flat land area of Singapore, a conventional surface pumped storage plant is not feasible. A pumped storage plant can be constructed here by siting the upper reservoir in one of the many abandoned granite quarries and by placing the lower reservoir and the powerhouse underground in the Bukit Timah granite, which is sound, massive and impervious. The capital costs for a pumped storage plant could be the same as those of an oil-fired plant of a comparable size. When the very high cost of land in Singapore is taken into account, an underground pumped storage scheme for peaking purposes becomes attractive. 7 refs., 4 figs., 3 tabs.

  15. Cryograb: A Novel Approach to the Retrieval of Waste from Underground Storage Tanks - 13501

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Brien, Luke; Baker, Stephen; Bowen, Bob [UK National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Warrington (United Kingdom)] [UK National Nuclear Laboratory, Chadwick House, Warrington (United Kingdom); Mallick, Pramod; Smith, Gary [US Department of Energy (United States)] [US Department of Energy (United States); King, Bill [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States)] [Savannah River National Laboratory (United States); Judd, Laurie [NuVision Engineering (United States)] [NuVision Engineering (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The UK's National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) is investigating the use of cryogenic technology for the recovery of nuclear waste. Cryograb, freezing the waste on a 'cryo-head' and then retrieves it as a single mass which can then be treated or stabilized as necessary. The technology has a number of benefits over other retrieval approaches in that it minimizes sludge disturbance thereby reducing effluent arising and it can be used to de-water, and thereby reduce the volume of waste. The technology has been successfully deployed for a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear waste recovery operations. The application of Cryograb for the recovery of waste from US underground storage tanks is being explored through a US DOE International Technology Transfer and Demonstration programme. A sample deployment being considered involves the recovery of residual mounds of sludge material from waste storage tanks at Savannah River. Operational constraints and success criteria were agreed prior to the completion of a process down selection exercise which specified the preferred configuration of the cryo-head and supporting plant. Subsequent process modeling identified retrieval rates and temperature gradients through the waste and tank infrastructure. The work, which has been delivered in partnership with US DOE, SRNL, NuVision Engineering and Frigeo AB has demonstrated the technical feasibility of the approach (to TRL 2) and has resulted in the allocation of additional funding from DOE to take the programme to bench and cold pilot-scale trials. (authors)

  16. Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage...

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    April 26, 2005 This report consists of the following sections: General EIA Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Revisions Policy - a description of how revisions to the Weekly Natural...

  17. Borehole Miner - Extendible Nozzle Development for Radioactive Waste Dislodging and Retrieval from Underground Storage Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    CW Enderlin; DG Alberts; JA Bamberger; M White

    1998-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes development of borehole-miner extendible-nozzle water-jetting technology for dislodging and retrieving salt cake, sludge} and supernate to remediate underground storage tanks full of radioactive waste. The extendible-nozzle development was based on commercial borehole-miner technology.

  18. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 135: Areas 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. H. Cox

    2001-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, was closed in accordance with the approved Corrective Action Plan (DOE/NV, 2000). CAU 135 consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CAS). Two of these CAS's were identified in the Corrective Action Investigation Data Quality Objective meeting as being improperly identified as underground storage tanks. CAS 25-02-03 identified as the Deluge Valve Pit was actually an underground electrical vault and CAS 25-02-10 identified as an Underground Storage Tank was actually a former above ground storage tank filled with demineralized water. Both of these CAS's are recommended for a no further action closure. CAS 25-02-01 the Underground Storage Tanks commonly referred to as the Engine Maintenance Assembly and Disassembly Waste Holdup Tanks and Vault was closed by decontaminating the vault structure and conducting a radiological verification survey to document compliance with the Nevada Test Site unrestricted use release criteria. The Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, (CAS 25-02-01), referred to as the Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (E-MAD) Waste Holdup Tanks and Vault, were used to receive liquid waste from all of the radioactive and cell service area drains at the E-MAD Facility. Based on the results of the Corrective Action Investigation conducted in June 1999, discussed in ''The Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada'' (DOE/NV, 199a), one sample from the radiological survey of the concrete vault interior exceeded radionuclide preliminary action levels. The analytes from the sediment samples exceeded the preliminary action levels for polychlorinated biphenyls, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel-range organics, and radionuclides. The CAU 135 closure activities consisted of scabbling radiological ''hot spots'' from the concrete vault, and the drilling removal of the cement-lined vault sump. Field activities began on November 28, 2000, and ended on December 4, 2000. After verification samples were collected, the vault was repaired with cement. The concrete vault sump, soil excavated beneath the sump, and compactable hot line trash were disposed at the Area 23 Sanitary Landfill. The vault interior was field surveyed following the removal of waste to verify that unrestricted release criteria had been achieved. Since the site is closed by unrestricted release decontamination and verification, post-closure care is not required.

  19. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469Decade Year-0Cubic Feet) Underground

  20. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469Decade Year-0Cubic Feet) UndergroundWithdrawals

  1. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUndergroundCubicDecade

  2. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUndergroundCubicDecadeFeet) Year Jan Feb Mar

  3. WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide Permit webpage Jump to: navigation, searchInformationStorage

  4. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade Year-0E (2001)gasoline353/06)Pipeline UtilizationProcess andStorage

  5. Polymers for subterranean containment barriers for underground storage tanks (USTs). Letter report on FY 1992 activities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heiser, J.H.; Colombo, P.; Clinton, J.

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) set up the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration Program (USTID) to demonstrate technologies for the retrieval and treatment of tank waste, and closure of underground storage tanks (USTs). There are more than 250 underground storage tanks throughout the DOE complex. These tanks contain a wide variety of wastes including high level, low level, transuranic, mixed and hazardous wastes. Many of the tanks have performed beyond the designed lifetime resulting in leakage and contamination of the local geologic media and groundwater. To mitigate this problem it has been proposed that an interim subterranean containment barrier be placed around the tanks. This would minimize or prevent future contamination of soil and groundwater in the event that further tank leakages occur before or during remediation. Use of interim subterranean barriers can also provide sufficient time to evaluate and select appropriate remediation alternatives. The DOE Hanford site was chosen as the demonstration site for containment barrier technologies. A panel of experts for the USTID was convened in February, 1992, to identify technologies for placement of subterranean barriers. The selection was based on the ability of candidate grouts to withstand high radiation doses, high temperatures and aggressive tank waste leachates. The group identified and ranked nine grouting technologies that have potential to place vertical barriers and five for horizontal barriers around the tank. The panel also endorsed placement technologies that require minimal excavation of soil surrounding the tanks.

  6. A Brief Technical Critique of Economides and Ehlig-Economides 2010 "Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Closed Underground Volume"

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dooley, James J.; Davidson, Casie L.

    2010-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

    In their 2010 paper, “Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Close Underground Volume,” authors Ehlig-Economides and Economides assert that “underground carbon dioxide sequestration via bulk CO2 injection is not feasible at any cost.” The authors base this conclusion on a number of assumptions that the peer reviewed technical literature and decades of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection experience have proven invalid. In particular, the paper is built upon two flawed premises: first, that effective CO2 storage requires the presence of complete structural closure bounded on all sides by impermeable media, and second, that any other storage system is guaranteed to leak. These two assumptions inform every aspect of the authors’ analyses, and without them, the paper fails to prove its conclusions. The assertion put forward by Ehlig-Economides and Economides that anthropogenic CO2 cannot be stored in deep geologic formations is refuted by even the most cursory examination of the more than 25 years of accumulated commercial carbon dioxide capture and storage experience.

  7. U.S. Natural Gas Salt - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level:Energy: Grid Integration Redefining What'sis Taking Over OurThe Iron Spin Transition in2,EHSSCoalWithdrawalsPoint of- Underground Storage -

  8. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural GasU.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage

  9. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved(Million Barrels)21 4.65 1967-2010 Imports

  10. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved(Million Barrels)21 4.65per9 0 1 2YearYear

  11. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved(Million Barrels)21 4.65per9Year JanYear

  12. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved(Million Barrels)21Year Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear

  13. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghurajiConventionalMississippi"site. IfProved(Million Barrels)21Year JanCubicper

  14. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at CommercialDecadeReservesYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May

  15. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at1,066,688ElectricityLessApril 2015YearYear Jan Feb Mar Apr

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at1,066,688ElectricityLessAprilResidentialTexas (MillionYear Jan

  17. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal StocksProved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of(Millionthrough, 2002DecadeYear Jan Feb

  19. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at Commercial andSeptember 25,9,1996 N Y625(95)

  20. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at Commercial andSeptember 25,9,1996 N Y625(95)Feet)(Million

  1. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at Commercial andSeptember 25,9,1996Feet)4.32 4.46Feet)

  2. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at CommercialDecade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4Year Jan

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of Fossil Energy,off) Shale%73 4.17

  4. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of Fossil Energy,off)Thousand Cubic

  5. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content API GravityDakota" "Fuel, quality", 2013,Iowa"Dakota"Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

  6. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content API GravityDakota" "Fuel, quality", 2013,Iowa"Dakota"Year JanExpected Future ProductionYearYear

  7. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content4,367,470 4,364,790 4,363,909 4,363,143 4,363,967 4,363,549 1973-2015 Alaska 14,197 14,197 14,197 14,1978.Barrels)Year

  8. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content4,367,470 4,364,790 4,363,909 4,363,143 4,363,967 4,363,549 1973-2015 Alaska 14,197 14,197CubicYear Jan Feb Mar AprNA NAUnderground

  9. Water Quality Program, Volume 2 (Alabama)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This volume of the water quality program mainly deals with Technical Standards, Corrective Action Requirements and Financial Responsibility for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks....

  10. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management: Phase 2. Final report, June 1, 1995--March 30, 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.V.

    1996-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Gas storage operators are facing increased and more complex responsibilities for managing storage operations under Order 636 which requires unbundling of storage from other pipeline services. Low cost methods that improve the accuracy of inventory verification are needed to optimally manage this stored natural gas. Migration of injected gas out of the storage reservoir has not been well documented by industry. The first portion of this study addressed the scope of unaccounted for gas which may have been due to migration. The volume range was estimated from available databases and reported on an aggregate basis. Information on working gas, base gas, operating capacity, injection and withdrawal volumes, current and non-current revenues, gas losses, storage field demographics and reservoir types is contained among the FERC Form 2, EIA Form 191, AGA and FERC Jurisdictional databases. The key elements of this study show that gas migration can result if reservoir limits have not been properly identified, gas migration can occur in formation with extremely low permeability (0.001 md), horizontal wellbores can reduce gas migration losses and over-pressuring (unintentionally) storage reservoirs by reinjecting working gas over a shorter time period may increase gas migration effects.

  11. Assessment of concentration mechanisms for organic wastes in underground storage tanks at Hanford

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gerber, M.A.; Burger, L.L.; Nelson, D.A.; Ryan, J.L. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Zollars, R.L. [Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA (United States)

    1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) has conducted an initial conservative evaluation of physical and chemical processes that could lead to significant localized concentrations of organic waste constituents in the Hanford underground storage tanks (USTs). This evaluation was part of ongoing studies at Hanford to assess potential safety risks associated with USTs containing organics. Organics in the tanks could pose a potential problem if localized concentrations are high enough to propagate combustion and are in sufficient quantity to produce a large heat and/or gas release if in contact with a suitable oxidant. The major sources of oxidants are oxygen in the overhead gas space of the tanks and sodium nitrate and nitrite either as salt cake solids or dissolved in the supernatant and interstitial liquids.

  12. Review of sensors for the in situ chemical characterization of the Hanford underground storage tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kyle, K.R.; Mayes, E.L.

    1994-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), in the Technical Task Plan (TTP) SF-2112-03 subtask 2, is responsible for the conceptual design of a Raman probe for inclusion in the in-tank cone penetrometer. As part of this task, LLNL is assigned the further responsibility of generating a report describing a review of sensor technologies other than Raman that can be incorporated in the in-tank cone penetrometer for the chemical analysis of the tank environment. These sensors would complement the capabilities of the Raman probe, and would give information on gaseous, liquid, and solid state species that are insensitive to Raman interrogation. This work is part of a joint effort involving several DOE laboratories for the design and development of in-tank cone penetrometer deployable systems for direct UST waste characterization at Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID).

  13. 382-1 underground gasoline storage tank soil-gas survey

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jacques, I.D.

    1993-08-27T23:59:59.000Z

    A soil-gas survey was conducted near the 382 Pump House in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site. The objective of the soil-gas survey was to characterize the extent of petroleum product contamination in the soil beneath the 382-1 underground gasoline storage tank excavation. The tank was discovered to have leaked when it was removed in September 1992. The results of this soil-gas survey indicate petroleum products released from the 382-1 tank are probably contained in a localized region of soil directly beneath the tank excavation site. The soil-gas data combined with earlier tests of groundwater from a nearby downgradient monitoring well suggest the spilled petroleum hydrocarbons have not penetrated the soil profile to the water table.

  14. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis Task. Volume VII - Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume VII of the documentation for the Phase I Data Analysis Task performed in support of the current Regional Flow Model, Transport Model, and Risk Assessment for the Nevada Test Site Underground Test Area Subproject contains the tritium transport model documentation. Because of the size and complexity of the model area, a considerable quantity of data was collected and analyzed in support of the modeling efforts. The data analysis task was consequently broken into eight subtasks, and descriptions of each subtask's activities are contained in one of the eight volumes that comprise the Phase I Data Analysis Documentation.

  15. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis Task. Volume VIII - Risk Assessment Documentation Package

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume VIII of the documentation for the Phase I Data Analysis Task performed in support of the current Regional Flow Model, Transport Model, and Risk Assessment for the Nevada Test Site Underground Test Area Subproject contains the risk assessment documentation. Because of the size and complexity of the model area, a considerable quantity of data was collected and analyzed in support of the modeling efforts. The data analysis task was consequently broken into eight subtasks, and descriptions of each subtask's activities are contained in one of the eight volumes that comprise the Phase I Data Analysis Documentation.

  16. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage - Salt Cavern Storage Fields"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTownDells,1 U.S. Department of Energygasoline4 Space2.9PetroleumSalt Cavern Storage

  17. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: RCRA subtitle I. Underground storage tanks (40 cfr part 280). Updated as of July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This module explains the Underground Storage Tank Regulatory Program established in 1988, that includes technical requirements to prevent, protect, and clean up releases from Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), as well as financial responsibility requirements to guarantee that UST owners and operators have enough money set aside to clean up releases and compensate third parties. Describes the Universe of USTs and the technical and financial requirements that apply to them. Defines underground storage tank and provides criteria for determining which USTs are subject to regulation. Discusses deadlines for upgrading tanks and the closure and corrective action requirements.

  18. A study of the feasibility of construction of underground storage structures in soft soil

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rosner, Stephen Anthony

    1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Underground construction is a means of providing efficient use of land space. In recent times, the most extensive use of underground construction has been in Sweden. However, possible uses of underground space were recognized... widespread and efficient use of underground space has been in Sweden. This is facilitated in part by the competent rock that is found there. The stratigraphy in Sweden is dominated by Pre-Cambrian and Paleozoic rock with a thin covering of moraine sediment...

  19. Analysis of Underground Storage Tanks System Materials to Increased Leak Potential Associated with E15 Fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kass, Michael D [ORNL; Theiss, Timothy J [ORNL; Janke, Christopher James [ORNL; Pawel, Steven J [ORNL

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 was enacted by Congress to move the nation toward increased energy independence by increasing the production of renewable fuels to meet its transportation energy needs. The law establishes a new renewable fuel standard (RFS) that requires the nation to use 36 billion gallons annually (2.3 million barrels per day) of renewable fuel in its vehicles by 2022. Ethanol is the most widely used renewable fuel in the US, and its production has grown dramatically over the past decade. According to EISA and RFS, ethanol (produced from corn as well as cellulosic feedstocks) will make up the vast majority of the new renewable fuel requirements. However, ethanol use limited to E10 and E85 (in the case of flex fuel vehicles or FFVs) will not meet this target. Even if all of the E0 gasoline dispensers in the country were converted to E10, such sales would represent only about 15 billion gallons per year. If 15% ethanol, rather than 10% were used, the potential would be up to 22 billion gallons. The vast majority of ethanol used in the United States is blended with gasoline to create E10, that is, gasoline with up to 10% ethanol. The remaining ethanol is sold in the form of E85, a gasoline blend with as much as 85% ethanol that can only be used in FFVs. Although DOE remains committed to expanding the E85 infrastructure, that market will not be able to absorb projected volumes of ethanol in the near term. Given this reality, DOE and others have begun assessing the viability of using intermediate ethanol blends as one way to transition to higher volumes of ethanol. In October of 2010, the EPA granted a partial waiver to the Clean Air Act allowing the use of fuel that contains up to 15% ethanol for the model year 2007 and newer light-duty motor vehicles. This waiver represents the first of a number of actions that are needed to move toward the commercialization of E15 gasoline blends. On January 2011, this waiver was expanded to include model year 2001 light-duty vehicles, but specifically prohibited use in motorcycles and off-road vehicles and equipment. UST stakeholders generally consider fueling infrastructure materials designed for use with E0 to be adequate for use with E10, and there are no known instances of major leaks or failures directly attributable to ethanol use. It is conceivable that many compatibility issues, including accelerated corrosion, do arise and are corrected onsite and, therefore do not lead to a release. However, there is some concern that higher ethanol concentrations, such as E15 or E20, may be incompatible with current materials used in standard gasoline fueling hardware. In the summer of 2008, DOE recognized the need to assess the impact of intermediate blends of ethanol on the fueling infrastructure, specifically located at the fueling station. This includes the dispenser and hanging hardware, the underground storage tank, and associated piping. The DOE program has been co-led and funded by the Office of the Biomass Program and Vehicle Technologies Program with technical expertise from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The infrastructure material compatibility work has been supported through strong collaborations and testing at Underwriters Laboratories (UL). ORNL performed a compatibility study investigating the compatibility of fuel infrastructure materials to gasoline containing intermediate levels of ethanol. These results can be found in the ORNL report entitled Intermediate Ethanol Blends Infrastructure Materials Compatibility Study: Elastomers, Metals and Sealants (hereafter referred to as the ORNL intermediate blends material compatibility study). These materials included elastomers, plastics, metals and sealants typically found in fuel dispenser infrastructure. The test fuels evaluated in the ORNL study were SAE standard test fuel formulations used to assess material-fuel compatibility within a relatively short timeframe. Initially, these material studies included test fuels of Fuel C,

  20. Evaluation and Optimization of Underground Thermal Energy Storage Systems of Energy Efficient Buildings (WKSP)- A Project within the new German R&D- Framework EnBop

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Bockelmann, F.; Kipry, H.; Plesser, S.; Fisch, M. N.

    of these research projects and presents detailed results of project WKSP. The performance of buildings with systems for underground thermal energy storage is analysed in this project. As the analyses show several systems work worse than expected. Within the project...

  1. Underground storage tank management plan, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems at the facility and to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks. UST systems have been removed or upgraded in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance. With the closure of a significant portion of the USTs, the continuing mission of the UST Management Program is to manage the remaining active UST systems and continue corrective actions in a safe regulatory compliant manner. This Program outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Program provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. The plan is divided into three major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) active UST sites, and (3) out-of-service UST sites. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Program, and the procedures and guidance for compliance.

  2. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 3. The Hanna II, Phase I field test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project, and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation of all the data for the tests in Volumes 2 through 6. Hanna II, Phase I was conducted during the spring and summer of 1975, at a site about 700 feet up dip (to the southwest) of the Hanna I test. The test was conducted in two stages - Phase IA and IB. Phase IA consisted of linking and gasification operations between Wells 1 and 3 and Phase IB of linking from the 1-3 gasification zone to Well 2, followed by a short period of gasification from Well 2 to Well 3 over a broad range of air injection rates, in order to determine system turndown capabilities and response times. This report covers: (1) site selection and characteristics; (2) test objectives; (3) facilities description; (4) pre-operational testing; (5) test operations summary; and (6) post-test activity. 7 refs., 11 figs., 8 tabs.

  3. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 5. Hanna III field test research report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation of all the data for the tests in Volumes 2 through 6. Hanna III was conducted during the spring and summer of 1977. The test involved only two process wells but also had twelve water monitoring wells, eight in the Hanna No. 1 coal seam and four in an aquifer above the coal seam. The test was designed to obtain information regarding the effects of the process on groundwater within the target seam and the overlying aquifer. The site for Hanna III had a low productivity aquifer above the Hanna No. 1 seam. The wells within the seam and the overlying aquifer were placed in such a manner that maximum information on groundwater flow and quality could be obtained. This report covers: (1) site selection and characterization; (2) test objectives; (3) facilities description; (4) pre-operation tests; (5) test operations summary; and (6) post-test activity. 4 refs., 11 figs., 5 tabs.

  4. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 2. The Hanna I field test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project, and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation of all the data for the tests in Volumes 2 through 6. Based on the recommendations of A.D. Little, Inc. in a 1971 report prepared for the US Bureau of Mines, the Hanna I test represented the first field test in reestablishing a field program by the US Bureau of Mines. The test was directed toward comparing results from a thick subbitiminous coal seam with those obtained during the field test series conducted at Gorgas, AL, in the 1940's and 1950's. Hanna I was conducted from March 1973 through February 1974. This report covers: (1) site selection and characteristics; (2) test objectives; (3) facility description; (4) pre-operation tests; (5) test operations summary; and (6) post-test activity. 9 refs., 10 figs., 4 tabs.

  5. Corrective Action Decision Document for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office

    1999-12-23T23:59:59.000Z

    This corrective action decision document identifies and rationalizes the US Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office's selection of a recommended corrective action alternative (CAA) appropriate to facilitate the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. Located on the Nevada Test Site (NTS), CAU 135 consists of three Corrective Action Sites (CASs): 25-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks, referred to as the Engine, Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly Waste Holdup Tanks and Vault; 25-02-03, Underground Electrical Vault, referred to as the Deluge Valve Pit at the Test Cell A Facility; and 25-02-10, Underground Storage Tank, referred to as the former location of an aboveground storage tank for demineralized water at the Test Cell A Facility. Two of these CASs (25-02-03 and 25-02-10) were originally considered as underground storage tanks, but were found to be misidentified. Further, radio logical surveys conducted by Bechtel Nevada in January 1999 found no radiological contamination detected above background levels for these two sites; therefore, the closure report for CAU 135 will recommend no further action at these two sites. A corrective action investigation for the one remaining CAS (25-02-01) was conducted in June 1999, and analytes detected during this investigation were evaluated against preliminary action levels. It was determined that contaminants of potential concern included polychlorinated biphenyls, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel-range organics, and radionuclides. Two corrective action objectives were identified for this CAS (i.e., prevention and mitigation of human exposure to sediments and surrounding areas), and subsequently two CAAs developed for consideration based on a review of existing data, future use, and current operations at the NTS. These CAAs were: Alternative 1 - No Further Action, and Alternative 2 - Unrestricted Release Decontamination and Verification Survey. Alternative 2 was chosen as the preferred CAA, after evaluation of technical merit which focused on performance, reliability, feasibility, and safety. This alternative was judged to meet all applicable state and federal regulations for closure of the site and reduces the potential future exposure pathways to the contaminated surfaces at this site.

  6. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS FOR THE OPERATION OF VENTILATION SYSTEMS FOR UNDERGROUND RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE TANKS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiersma, B.; Hansen, A.

    2013-11-13T23:59:59.000Z

    Liquid radioactive wastes from the Savannah River Site are stored in large underground carbon steel tanks. The majority of the waste is confined in double shell tanks, which have a primary shell, where the waste is stored, and a secondary shell, which creates an annular region between the two shells, that provides secondary containment and leak detection capabilities should leakage from the primary shell occur. Each of the DST is equipped with a purge ventilation system for the interior of the primary shell and annulus ventilation system for the secondary containment. Administrative flammability controls require continuous ventilation to remove hydrogen gas and other vapors from the waste tanks while preventing the release of radionuclides to the atmosphere. Should a leak from the primary to the annulus occur, the annulus ventilation would also serve this purpose. The functionality of the annulus ventilation is necessary to preserve the structural integrity of the primary shell and the secondary. An administrative corrosion control program is in place to ensure integrity of the tank. Given the critical functions of the purge and annulus ventilation systems, engineering controls are also necessary to ensure that the systems remain robust. The system consists of components that are constructed of metal (e.g., steel, stainless steel, aluminum, copper, etc.) and/or polymeric (polypropylene, polyethylene, silicone, polyurethane, etc.) materials. The performance of these materials in anticipated service environments (e.g., normal waste storage, waste removal, etc.) was evaluated. The most aggressive vapor space environment occurs during chemical cleaning of the residual heels by utilizing oxalic acid. The presence of NO{sub x} and mercury in the vapors generated from the process could potentially accelerate the degradation of aluminum, carbon steel, and copper. Once identified, the most susceptible materials were either replaced and/or plans for discontinuing operations are executed.

  7. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEBER RA

    2009-01-16T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard. This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 8 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  8. METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FOWLER KD

    2007-12-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 7 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs. The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio {ge} 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is {ge} 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard.

  9. THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS WORKSHOP

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Authors, Various

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    1975. Underground Storage of Treated Water: A Field Test.1975. "Underground Storage of Treated Water: A Field Test,"

  10. Rocky mountain 1: Underground coal-gasification test, Hanna, Wyoming. Summary report, Volume 1. Appendix. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vardaman, M.H.

    1989-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Rocky Mountain 1 underground coal gasification test was conducted near Hanna, Wyoming during the period January 1986 through March 1988. These appendixes include information supporting Volume I as well as complete data for certain aspects of the gasification phase. These aspects include daily operations reports, raw and corrected process data, thermocouple and Time Domain Reflectometer results, and monitoring well pressure and level data obtained during the gasification phase. Piping and instrumentation diagrams and supplemental informations on the data acquisition system are included.

  11. The value of underground storage in today`s natural gas industry

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The report consists of three chapters and four appendices. Chapter 1 provides basic information on the role of storage in today`s marketplace where natural gas is treated as a commodity. Chapter 2 provides statistical analyses of the relationship between storage and spot prices on both a monthly and daily basis. For the daily analysis, temperature data were used a proxy for storage withdrawals, providing a new means of examining the short-term relationship between storage and spot prices. Chapter 3 analyzes recent trends in storage management and use, as well as plans for additions to storage capacity. It also reviews the status of the new uses of storage resulting from Order 636, that is, market-based rates and capacity release. Appendix A serves as a stand-along primer on storage operations, and Appendix B provides further data on plans for the expansion of storage capacity. Appendix C explains recent revisions made to working gas and base gas capacity on the part of several storage operators in 1991 through 1993. The revisions were significant, and this appendix provides a consistent historical data series that reflects these changes. Finally, Appendix D presents more information on the regression analysis presented in Chapter 2. 19 refs., 21 figs., 5 tabs.

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural GasU.S. Underground Natural Gas

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural GasU.S. Underground Natural

  14. ,"AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments; Unit:1996..........Region Natural Gas Underground

  15. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis Task. Volume V - Transport Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation Package

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume V of the documentation for the Phase I Data Analysis Task performed in support of the current Regional Flow Model, Transport Model, and Risk Assessment for the Nevada Test Site Underground Test Area Subproject contains the transport parameter and source term data. Because of the size and complexity of the model area, a considerable quantity of data was collected and analyzed in support of the modeling efforts. The data analysis task was consequently broken into eight subtasks, and descriptions of each subtask's activities are contained in one of the eight volumes that comprise the Phase I Data Analysis Documentation.

  16. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 6. Hanna IVA and IVB field test research report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation of all the data for the tests in Volumes 2 through 6. The reports in this series include: The Hanna IV test was designed as the first underground coal gasification test using commercial well spacings of 100 and 150 feet between well pairs in a linear 3-well pattern. The test was initiated in late 1977 and completed in late 1979. This long duration was due to unfavorable geologic conditions (faulting) which could not be successfully overcome resulting in the test being split into Hanna IVA and Hanna IVB with about one year between the conduct of each. This report covers: (1) specific site selection and characteristics; (2) test objectives; (3) facility description; (4) pre-operation tests; (5) test operations summary; and (6) post-test activity. 5 refs., 19 figs., 13 tabs.

  17. The Performance of Underground Radioactive Waste Storage Tanks at the Savannah River Site: A 60-Year Historical Perspective

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

    Wiersma, Bruce J.

    2014-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Savannah River Site produced weapons-grade materials for nearly 35 years between 1953 and 1988. The legacy of this production is nearly 37 million gallons of radioactive waste. Since the 1950s, the liquid waste has been stored in large, underground carbon steel waste tanks. During the past 20 years, the site has begun to process the waste so that it may be stored in vitrified and grout forms, which are more suitable for long-term storage. Over the history of the site, some tanks have experienced leakage of the waste to the secondary containment. This article is a review of themore »instances of leakage and corrosion degradation that the tanks and associated equipment have experienced since the first tanks were built. Furthermore, the activities that the site has taken to mitigate the degradation and manage the service life of the tank for its anticipated lifetime are reviewed.« less

  18. Preliminary studies of tunnel interface response modeling using test data from underground storage facilities.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sobolik, Steven Ronald; Bartel, Lewis Clark

    2010-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In attempting to detect and map out underground facilities, whether they be large-scale hardened deeply-buried targets (HDBT's) or small-scale tunnels for clandestine border or perimeter crossing, seismic imaging using reflections from the tunnel interface has been seen as one of the better ways to both detect and delineate tunnels from the surface. The large seismic impedance contrast at the tunnel/rock boundary should provide a strong, distinguishable seismic response, but in practice, such strong indicators are often lacking. One explanation for the lack of a good seismic reflection at such a strong contrast boundary is that the damage caused by the tunneling itself creates a zone of altered seismic properties that significantly changes the nature of this boundary. This report examines existing geomechanical data that define the extent of an excavation damage zone around underground tunnels, and the potential impact on rock properties such as P-wave and S-wave velocities. The data presented from this report are associated with sites used for the development of underground repositories for the disposal of radioactive waste; these sites have been excavated in volcanic tuff (Yucca Mountain) and granite (HRL in Sweden, URL in Canada). Using the data from Yucca Mountain, a numerical simulation effort was undertaken to evaluate the effects of the damage zone on seismic responses. Calculations were performed using the parallelized version of the time-domain finitedifference seismic wave propagation code developed in the Geophysics Department at Sandia National Laboratories. From these numerical simulations, the damage zone does not have a significant effect upon the tunnel response, either for a purely elastic case or an anelastic case. However, what was discovered is that the largest responses are not true reflections, but rather reradiated Stoneley waves generated as the air/earth interface of the tunnel. Because of this, data processed in the usual way may not correctly image the tunnel. This report represents a preliminary step in the development of a methodology to convert numerical predictions of rock properties to an estimation of the extent of rock damage around an underground facility and its corresponding seismic velocity, and the corresponding application to design a testing methodology for tunnel detection.

  19. PEGASUS, a European research project on the effects of gas in underground storage facilities for radioactive waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Haijtink, B.; McMenamin, T. [Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (Belgium)

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Whereas the subject of gas generation and possible gas release from radioactive waste repositories has gained in interest on the international scene, the Commission of the European Communities has increased its research efforts on this issue. In particular in the 4th five year R and D program on Management and Storage of Radioactive Waste (1990--1994), a framework has been set up in which research efforts on the subject of gas generation and migration, supported by the CEC, are brought together and coordinated. In this project, called PEGASUS, Project on the Effects of GAS in Underground Storage facilities for radioactive waste, about 20 organizations and research institutes from 7 European countries are involved. The project covers both experimental and theoretical studies of the processes of gas formation and possible gas release from the different waste types, LLW, ILW and HLW, under typical repository conditions in suitable geological formations as clay, salt and granite. In this paper an overview is given of the various studies undertaken in the project as well as some first results presented.

  20. AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE-A SURVEY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Tsang, Chin Fu

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    High temperature underground thermal energy storage, inProceedings, Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Workshop:underground thermal energy storage, in ATES newsletter:

  1. AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE-A SURVEY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Tsang, Chin Fu

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    1978, High temperature underground thermal energy storage,in Proceedings, Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Workshop:High temperature underground thermal energy storage, in ATES

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids,+ LeasePrice Sold to ElectricLNG Storage

  3. Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rutqvist, J.

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    associated with natural gas storage in Sweden, includingassociated with natural gas storage in Sweden. The main

  4. Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rutqvist, J.

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    compressed air energy storage technology by the hydraulicscale electric energy storage technologies. Compressed air

  5. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPriceNonassociated NaturalCoalbedLNG StoragePrice SoldNet

  6. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, ExpectedLNG Storage NetPrice Sold toNet Withdrawals

  7. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (DollarsVolumeCoalbed MethaneNet Withdrawals

  8. Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rutqvist, J.; Kim, H. -M.; Ryu, D. -W.; Synn, J. -H.; Song, W. -K.

    2012-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    We applied coupled nonisothermal, multiphase fluid flow and geomechanical numerical modeling to study the coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in concrete-lined rock caverns. The paper focuses on CAES in lined caverns at relatively shallow depth (e.g., 100 m depth) in which a typical CAES operational pressure of 5 to 8 MPa is significantly higher than both ambient fluid pressure and in situ stress. We simulated a storage operation that included cyclic compression and decompression of air in the cavern, and investigated how pressure, temperature and stress evolve over several months of operation. We analyzed two different lining options, both with a 50 cm thick low permeability concrete lining, but in one case with an internal synthetic seal such as steel or rubber. For our simulated CAES system, the thermodynamic analysis showed that 96.7% of the energy injected during compression could be recovered during subsequent decompression, while 3.3% of the energy was lost by heat conduction to the surrounding media. Our geomechanical analysis showed that tensile effective stresses as high as 8 MPa could develop in the lining as a result of the air pressure exerted on the inner surface of the lining, whereas thermal stresses were relatively smaller and compressive. With the option of an internal synthetic seal, the maximum effective tensile stress was reduced from 8 to 5 MPa, but was still in substantial tension. We performed one simulation in which the tensile tangential stresses resulted in radial cracks and air leakage though the lining. This air leakage, however, was minor (about 0.16% of the air mass loss from one daily compression) in terms of CAES operational efficiency, and did not significantly impact the overall energy balance of the system. However, despite being minor in terms of energy balance, the air leakage resulted in a distinct pressure increase in the surrounding rock that could be quickly detected using pressure monitoring outside the concrete lining.

  9. Evaluation and Optimization of Underground Thermal Energy Storage Systems of Energy Efficient Buildings (WKSP)- A Project within the new German R&D- Framework EnBop 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Bockelmann, F.; Kipry, H.; Plesser, S.; Fisch, M. N.

    2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Evaluation and optimization of underground thermal energy storage systems of Energy Efficient Buildings (WKSP) - A project within the new German R&D-framework EnBop Dipl.-Ing. Franziska Bockelmann IGS ? Institute of Building Services... and Energydesign, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany Dipl.-Ing. Herdis Kipry IGS ? Institute of Building Services and Energydesign, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany Dipl.-Ing. Stefan Plesser Head of Energy Efficient Non...

  10. Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 135: Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office

    1999-05-05T23:59:59.000Z

    This Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) has been developed in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the US Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV); the State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP); and the US Department of Defense (FFACO, 1996). The CAIP is a document that provides or references all of the specific information for investigation activities associated with Corrective Action Units (CAUs) or Corrective Action Sites (CASs). According to the FFACO, CASs are sites potentially requiring corrective action(s) and may include solid waste management units or individual disposal or release sites (FFACO, 1996). Corrective Action Units consist of one or more CASs grouped together based on geography, technical similarity, or agency responsibility for the purpose of determining corrective actions. This CAIP contains the environmental sample collection objectives and the criteria for conducting site investigation activities at CAU 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), which is located on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The NTS is approximately 105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.

  11. Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 4. Hanna II, Phases II and III field test research report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bartke, T.C.; Fischer, D.D.; King, S.B.; Boyd, R.M.; Humphrey, A.E.

    1985-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report is part of a seven-volume series on the Hanna, Wyoming, underground coal gasification field tests. Volume 1 is a summary of the project and each of Volumes 2 through 6 describes a particular test. Volume 7 is a compilation of all the data for the tests in Volumes 2 through 6. Hanna II, Phases II and III, were conducted during the winter of 1975 and the summer of 1976. The two phases refer to linking and gasification operations conducted between two adjacent well pairs as shown in Figure 1 with Phase II denoting operations between Wells 5 and 6 and Phase III operations between Wells 7 and 8. All of the other wells shown were instrumentation wells. Wells 7 and 8 were linked in November and December 1975. This report covers: (1) specific site selection and characteristics; (2) test objectives; (3) facilities description; (4) pre-operation tests; (5) test operations summary; and (6) post-test activity. 16 refs., 21 figs., 17 tabs.

  12. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (DollarsVolume (MMcf)"Liquids LeasePriceNet

  13. Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rutqvist, J.

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Williams, Compressed air energy storage: Theory, resources,for the compressed air energy storage technology by thefor compressed air energy storage power generation, Japan

  14. Assessment of Energy Storage Alternatives in the Puget Sound Energy System Volume 2: Energy Storage Evaluation Tool

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wu, Di; Jin, Chunlian; Balducci, Patrick J.; Kintner-Meyer, Michael CW

    2013-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume presents the battery storage evaluation tool developed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), which is used to evaluate benefits of battery storage for multiple grid applications, including energy arbitrage, balancing service, capacity value, distribution system equipment deferral, and outage mitigation. This tool is based on the optimal control strategies to capture multiple services from a single energy storage device. In this control strategy, at each hour, a look-ahead optimization is first formulated and solved to determine battery base operating point. The minute by minute simulation is then performed to simulate the actual battery operation. This volume provide background and manual for this evaluation tool.

  15. Rocky Mountain 1: Underground coal gasification test, Hanna, Wyoming. Volume 1. Operations. Summary report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Rocky Mountain 1 underground coal gasification (UCG) test was conducted near Hanna, Wyoming during the period January 1986 through March 1988. The report focuses on operations phases that included site selection, facility design, facility construction, well drilling, gasification and environmental monitoring. Two technologies were evaluated as separate modules: the Extended Linked Well (ELW) and the Controlled Retracting Injection Point (CRIP) processes. The test results, along with a discussion of the key test parameters and conclusions of the gasification phase, are provided. A bibliography and schematics are included.

  16. Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in an Underground Geologic Repository - Volume 3: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor, L.L.; Wilson, J.R. (INEEL); Sanchez, L.C.; Aguilar, R.; Trellue, H.R.; Cochrane, K. (SNL); Rath, J.S. (New Mexico Engineering Research Institute)

    1998-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management's (DOE/EM's) National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (NSNFP), through a collaboration between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), is conducting a systematic Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) of the disposal of SNFs in an underground geologic repository sited in unsaturated tuff. This analysis is intended to provide interim guidance to the DOE for the management of the SNF while they prepare for final compliance evaluation. This report presents results from a Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) that examined the potential consequences and risks of criticality during the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel owned by DOE-EM. This analysis investigated the potential of post-closure criticality, the consequences of a criticality excursion, and the probability frequency for post-closure criticality. The results of the NDCA are intended to provide the DOE-EM with a technical basis for measuring risk which can be used for screening arguments to eliminate post-closure criticality FEPs (features, events and processes) from consideration in the compliance assessment because of either low probability or low consequences. This report is composed of an executive summary (Volume 1), the methodology and results of the NDCA (Volume 2), and the applicable appendices (Volume 3).

  17. Proceedings of the seventh symposium on containment of underground nuclear explosions. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Olsen, C.W. [ed.] [ed.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This is Volume 1 of two unclassified volumes of a meeting of workers at all levels in the science and technology of containment. Papers on containment and related geological, geophysical, engineering, chemical, and computational topics were included. Particular topics included in this volume are: General containment,tunnel and LOS topics, cavity conditions, and LYNER and chemical kiloton. Individual papers are indexed separately on the data base.

  18. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Salt Cavern Storage Reservoir...

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

    Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Salt Cavern Underground Natural Gas Storage Reservoir Configuration Source: PB Energy Storage Services Inc....

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, ExpectedLNGCoalbed Methane

  20. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural GasU.S.Plant Liquids,Net

  1. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, and Natural

  2. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, andPrice (Dollars perPlant

  3. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy SourcesRefinery, Bulk Terminal, andPriceNet Withdrawals (MMcf)"

  4. U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTownDells,1Stocks Nov-14TotalThe Outlook269,023Year Jan Feb Mar

  5. ,"AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments; Unit:1996..........

  6. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments; Unit:1996..........RegionTotalPrice (DollarsNet

  7. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name

  8. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;Net WithdrawalsWellhead PricePrice (DollarsNet

  9. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;Net WithdrawalsWellheadNatural Gas,Crude OilPrice

  10. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPrice (Dollars per+NonassociatedPrice+Net

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

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPriceNonassociatedSummary" ,"Click

  12. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources and Shipments;NetPriceNonassociatedSummary"Shale ProvedPrice

  13. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, Expected Future Production (MillionCrude Oil

  14. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS Codes; Column: Energy Sources andPlant Liquids, Expected Future ProductionNet Withdrawals

  15. Assessment of underground coal gasification in bituminous coals. Volume I. Executive summary. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the bituminous coal resources of the United States, identifies those resources which are potentially amenable to Underground Coal Gasification (UCG), identifies products and markets in the vicinity of selected target areas, identifies UCG concepts, describes the state of the art of UCG in bituminous coal, and presents three R and D programs for development of the technology to the point of commercial viability. Of the 670 billion tons of bituminous coal remaining in-place as identified by the National Coal Data System, 32.2 billion tons or 4.8% of the total are potentially amenable to UCG technology. The identified amenable resource was located in ten states: Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. The principal criteria which eliminated 87.3% of the resource was the minimum thickness (42 inches). Three R and D programs were developed using three different concepts at two different sites. Open Borehole, Hydraulic Fracture, and Electrolinking concepts were developed. The total program costs for each concept were not significantly different. The study concludes that much of the historical information based on UCG in bituminous coals is not usable due to the poor siting of the early field tests and a lack of adequate diagnostic equipment. This information gap requires that much of the early work be redone in view of the much improved understanding of the role of geology and hydrology in the process and the recent development of analytical tools and methods.

  16. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE GROUPS FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BARKER, S.A.

    2006-07-27T23:59:59.000Z

    Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 5 is the annual update of the methodology and calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  17. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF WASTE FOR THE LARGE UNDERGROUND WASTE STORAGE TANKS AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    TU, T.A.

    2007-01-04T23:59:59.000Z

    Waste stored within tank farm double-shell tanks (DST) and single-shell tanks (SST) generates flammable gas (principally hydrogen) to varying degrees depending on the type, amount, geometry, and condition of the waste. The waste generates hydrogen through the radiolysis of water and organic compounds, thermolytic decomposition of organic compounds, and corrosion of a tank's carbon steel walls. Radiolysis and thermolytic decomposition also generates ammonia. Nonflammable gases, which act as dilutents (such as nitrous oxide), are also produced. Additional flammable gases (e.g., methane) are generated by chemical reactions between various degradation products of organic chemicals present in the tanks. Volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals in tanks also produce organic vapors. The generated gases in tank waste are either released continuously to the tank headspace or are retained in the waste matrix. Retained gas may be released in a spontaneous or induced gas release event (GRE) that can significantly increase the flammable gas concentration in the tank headspace as described in RPP-7771, Flammable Gas Safety Isme Resolution. Appendices A through I provide supporting information. The document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste and characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 6 is the annual update of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs.

  18. Modeling of coupled thermodynamic and geomechanical performance of underground compressed air energy storage (CAES) in lined rock caverns

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Rutqvist, J.

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    reservoir storage project in Sesta, Italy [1]; as well as two pilot tests in rock caverns associated with abandoned

  19. Wells, Borings, and Underground Uses (Minnesota)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This section regulates wells, borings, and underground storage with regards to protecting groundwater resources. The Commissioner of the Department of Health has jurisdiction, and can grant permits...

  20. Office of Technology Development`s Research, Development, Demonstration, Testing and Evaluation Mid-Year Program Review. Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document, Volume 2, presents brief summaries of programs being investigated at USDOE sites for waste processing, remedial action, underground storage tank remediation, and robotic applications in waste management.

  1. Soil weight (lbf/ft{sup 3}) at Hanford waste storage locations (2 volumes)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pianka, E.W.

    1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Hanford Reservation waste storage tanks are fabricated in accordance with approved construction specifications. After an underground tank has been constructed in the excavation prepared for it, soil is place around the tank and compacted by an approved compaction procedure. To ensure compliance with the construction specifications, measurements of the soil compaction are taken by QA inspectors using test methods based on American Society for the Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Soil compaction tests data taken for the 241AP, 241AN, and 241AW tank farms constructed between 1978 and 1986 are included. The individual data values have been numerically processed to obtain average soil density values for each of these tank farms.

  2. Regional assessment of aquifers for thermal-energy storage. Volume 2. Regions 7 through 12

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume contains information on the geologic and hydrologic framework, major aquifers, aquifers which are suitable and unsuitable for annual thermal energy storage (ATES) and the ATES potential of the following regions of the US: Unglaciated Central Region; Glaciated Appalachians, Unglaciated Appalachians; Coastal Plain; Hawaii; and Alaska. (LCL)

  3. Regional assessment of aquifers for thermal energy storage. Volume 1. Regions 1 through 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume contains information on the geologic and hydrologic framework, major aquifers, aquifers which are suitable and unsuitable for annual thermal energy storage (ATES) and the ATES potential of the following regions of the US: the Western Mountains; Alluvial Basins; Columbia LAVA Plateau; Colorado Plateau; High Plains; and Glaciated Central Region. (LCL)

  4. Evaluation of advanced turbomachinery for underground pumped hydroelectric storage. Part 3. Multistage unregulated pump/turbines for operating heads of 1000 to 1500 m

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frigo, A.A.; Pistner, C.

    1980-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the final report in a series of three on studies of advanced hydraulic turbomachinery for underground pumped hydroelectric storage. All three reports address Francis-type, reversible pump/turbines. The first report covered single-stage regulated units; the second report covered two-stage regulated units; the present report covers multistage unregulated units. Multistage unregulated pump/turbines offer an economically attractive option for heads of 1000 to 1500 m. The feasibility of developing such machines for capacities up to 500 MW and operating heads up to 1500 m has been evaluated. Preliminary designs have been generated for six multistage pump/turbines. The designs are for nominal capacities of 350 and 500 MW and for operating heads of 1000, 1250, and 1500 m. Mechanical, hydraulic, and economic analyses indicate that these machines will behave according to the criteria used to design them and that they can be built at a reasonable cost with no unsolvable problems. Efficiencies of 85.8% and 88.5% in the generating and pumping modes, respectively, can be expected for the 500-MW, 1500-m unit. Performances of the other five machines are at least comparable, and usually better. Over a 1000 to 1500-m head range, specific $/kW costs of the pump/turbines in mid-1978 US dollars vary from 19.0 to 23.1 for the 500-MW machines, and from 21.0 to 24.1 for the 350-MW machines.

  5. Closure report: Nevada Test Site Underground Storage Tank (UST) number 25-3123-1: Nevada Division of Emergency Management case number H940825D corrective action unit 450

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document has been prepared as a final closure report documenting the assessment and corrective actions taken for the petroleum hydrocarbon release associated with underground storage tank (UST) UST25-3123-1. UST25-3123-1 was located at Area 25 within the Nevada Test Site. The UST was identified as abandoned to be closed under the U.S. Department of Energy/Nevada Operations Office Environmental Restoration Division Program during Fiscal Year 1994. The scope of work for closure of the UST included evaluating site conditions and closing the tank in accordance with all applicable regulations. Site evaluation analytic results of a soil sample collected below the tank showed a diesel concentration of 120 mg/kg at a depth of 3 meters. During remedial excavation, approximately 3.8 cubic meters of hydrocarbon impacted soil was removed. Laboratory analysis of the soil sample collected from the excavation bottom confirms that total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations greater than 100 mg/kg are no longer present. Therefore, it is requested that the site be closed without further action. 4 refs., 2 figs., 3 tabs.

  6. Monitored retrievable storage submission to Congress: Volume 3, Monitored retrievable storage program plan. [Contains glossary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    1987-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document presents the current DOE program objectives and the strategy for implementing the proposed program for the integral MRS facility. If the MRS proposal is approved by Congress, any needed revisions to the Program Plan will be made available to the Congress, the State of Tennessee, affected Indian tribes, local governments, other federal agencies, and the public. The proposal for constructing an MRS facility must include: the establishment of a federal program for the siting, development, construction, and operation of MRS facilities; a plan for funding the construction and operation of MRS facilities; site-specific designs, specifications, and cost estimates for the first such facility; a plan for integrating MRS facilities with other storage and disposal facilities authorized by the NWPA. 32 refs., 14 figs., 1 tab.

  7. NGLW RCRA Storage Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. J. Waters; R. Ochoa; K. D. Fritz; D. W. Craig

    2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory contains radioactive liquid waste in underground storage tanks at the INTEC Tank Farm Facility (TFF). INTEC is currently treating the waste by evaporation to reduce the liquid volume for continued storage, and by calcination to reduce and convert the liquid to a dry waste form for long-term storage in calcine bins. Both treatment methods and activities in support of those treatment operations result in Newly Generated Liquid Waste (NGLW) being sent to TFF. The storage tanks in the TFF are underground, contained in concrete vaults with instrumentation, piping, transfer jets, and managed sumps in case of any liquid accumulation in the vault. The configuration of these tanks is such that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations apply. The TFF tanks were assessed several years ago with respect to the RCRA regulations and they were found to be deficient. This study considers the configuration of the current tanks and the RCRA deficiencies identified for each. The study identifies four potential methods and proposes a means of correcting the deficiencies. The cost estimates included in the study account for construction cost; construction methods to minimize work exposure to chemical hazards, radioactive contamination, and ionizing radiation hazards; project logistics; and project schedule. The study also estimates the tank volumes benefit associated with each corrective action to support TFF liquid waste management planning.

  8. Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in an Underground Geologic Repository--Volume 2: Methodology and Results

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor, L.L.; Wilson, J.R.; Sanchez, L.C.; Aguilar, R.; Trellue, H.R.; Cochrane, K.; Rath, J.S.

    1998-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management's (DOE/EM's) National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (NSNFP), through a collaboration between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), is conducting a systematic Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) of the disposal of SNFs in an underground geologic repository sited in unsaturated tuff. This analysis is intended to provide interim guidance to the DOE for the management of the SNF while they prepare for final compliance evaluation. This report presents results from a Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) that examined the potential consequences and risks of criticality during the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel owned by DOE-EM. This analysis investigated the potential of post-closure criticality, the consequences of a criticality excursion, and the probability frequency for post-closure criticality. The results of the NDCA are intended to provide the DOE-EM with a technical basis for measuring risk which can be used for screening arguments to eliminate post-closure criticality FEPs (features, events and processes) from consideration in the compliance assessment because of either low probability or low consequences. This report is composed of an executive summary (Volume 1), the methodology and results of the NDCA (Volume 2), and the applicable appendices (Volume 3).

  9. ICPP calcined solids storage facility closure study. Volume III: Engineering design files

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The following information was calculated to support cost estimates and radiation exposure calculations for closure activities at the Calcined Solids Storage Facility (CSSF). Within the estimate, volumes were calculated to determine the required amount of grout to be used during closure activities. The remaining calcine on the bin walls, supports, piping, and floor was also calculated to approximate the remaining residual calcine volumes at different stages of the removal process. The estimates for remaining calcine and vault void volume are higher than what would actually be experienced in the field, but are necessary for bounding purposes. The residual calcine in the bins may be higher than was is experienced in the field as it was assumed that the entire bin volume is full of calcine before removal activities commence. The vault void volumes are higher as the vault roof beam volumes were neglected. The estimations that follow should be considered rough order of magnitude, due to the time constraints as dictated by the project`s scope of work. Should more accurate numbers be required, a new analysis would be necessary.

  10. Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Underground...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Environmental Response and Remediation Underground Storage Tank Branch Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Division of...

  11. Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks...

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

    fiscal year 2013, which ended Sept. 30, SRR reached contract milestones in the Interim Salt Disposition Process, which treats salt waste from the underground storage tanks. Salt...

  12. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 2) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Quality Assurance, Training and Qualification, Emergency Planning and Preparedness, and Construction.

  13. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 5

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 5) outlines the standards and requirements for the Fire Protection and Packaging and Transportation sections.

  14. ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS - - A SURVEY OF RECENT THEORETICAL STUDIES

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Tsang, Chin Fu

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    temperature underground thermal energy storage. In Proc. Th~al modeling of thermal energy storage in aquifers. In ~~-Mathematical modeling; thermal energy storage; aquifers;

  15. Addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 452: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grant Evenson

    2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document constitutes an addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 452: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, April 1998 as described in the document Supplemental Investigation Report for FFACO Use Restrictions, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (SIR) dated November 2008. The SIR document was approved by NDEP on December 5, 2008. The approval of the SIR document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR removals. In conformance with the SIR document, this addendum consists of: • This page that refers the reader to the SIR document for additional information • The cover, title, and signature pages of the SIR document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the SIR document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for CASs: • 25-25-09, Spill H940825C (from UST 25-3101-1) • 25-25-14, Spill H940314E (from UST 25-3102-3) • 25-25-15, Spill H941020E (from UST 25-3152-1) These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to remove these URs because contamination is not present at these sites above the risk-based FALs. Requirements for inspecting and maintaining these URs will be canceled, and the postings and signage at each site will be removed. Fencing and posting may be present at these sites that are unrelated to the FFACO URs such as for radiological control purposes as required by the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This modification will not affect or modify any non-FFACO requirements for fencing, posting, or monitoring at these sites.

  16. Addendum 2 to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 454: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grant Evenson

    2009-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document constitutes an addendum to the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 454: Historical Underground Storage Tank Release Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, April 1998 as described in the document Supplemental Investigation Report for FFACO Use Restrictions, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (SIR) dated November 2008. The SIR document was approved by NDEP on December 5, 2008. The approval of the SIR document constituted approval of each of the recommended UR removals. In conformance with the SIR document, this addendum consists of: • This page that refers the reader to the SIR document for additional information • The cover, title, and signature pages of the SIR document • The NDEP approval letter • The corresponding section of the SIR document This addendum provides the documentation justifying the cancellation of the URs for CASs: • 12-25-08, Spill H950524F (from UST 12-B-1) • 12-25-10, Spill H950919A (from UST 12-COMM-1) These URs were established as part of Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) corrective actions and were based on the presence of contaminants at concentrations greater than the action levels established at the time of the initial investigation (FFACO, 1996). Since these URs were established, practices and procedures relating to the implementation of risk-based corrective actions (RBCA) have changed. Therefore, these URs were re-evaluated against the current RBCA criteria as defined in the Industrial Sites Project Establishment of Final Action Levels (NNSA/NSO, 2006). This re-evaluation consisted of comparing the original data (used to define the need for the URs) to risk-based final action levels (FALs) developed using the current Industrial Sites RBCA process. The re-evaluation resulted in a recommendation to remove these URs because contamination is not present at these sites above the risk-based FALs. Requirements for inspecting and maintaining these URs will be canceled, and the postings and signage at each site will be removed. Fencing and posting may be present at these sites that are unrelated to the FFACO URs such as for radiological control purposes as required by the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual (NNSA/NSO, 2004). This modification will not affect or modify any non-FFACO requirements for fencing, posting, or monitoring at these sites.

  17. Underground Exploration

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Underground Exploration and Testing A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Use rail to support tunnel boring machine operation . . . . . . . . . 14 Excavate smaller diameter tunnels outside the portal-to-portal loop . 15 Use a tunnel boring machine to excavate the core test area

  18. Investigating leaking underground storage tanks

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Upton, David Thompson

    1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    and characterizing sites at which releases have been reported. The proposed requirements very nearly parallel those prepared by the E. P. A. , contained in 40 CFR parts 280 and 281. By their nature, these requirements necessitate that a thorough site investigation... be performed before the Texas Water Commission's concerns can be adequately addressed in the final site characterization and assessment report. However, the contents of these regulations do not indicate appropriate procedures for conducting such site...

  19. Multinational underground nuclear parks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, C.W. [Nuclear Engineering and Nonproliferation Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS F650, Los Alamos, NM 87544 (United States); Giraud, K.M. [Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, 1550 Oxen Lane NE, P.O. Box 411, Burlington, KS 66839-0411 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Newcomer countries expected to develop new nuclear power programs by 2030 are being encouraged by the International Atomic Energy Agency to explore the use of shared facilities for spent fuel storage and geologic disposal. Multinational underground nuclear parks (M-UNPs) are an option for sharing such facilities. Newcomer countries with suitable bedrock conditions could volunteer to host M-UNPs. M-UNPs would include back-end fuel cycle facilities, in open or closed fuel cycle configurations, with sufficient capacity to enable M-UNP host countries to provide for-fee waste management services to partner countries, and to manage waste from the M-UNP power reactors. M-UNP potential advantages include: the option for decades of spent fuel storage; fuel-cycle policy flexibility; increased proliferation resistance; high margin of physical security against attack; and high margin of containment capability in the event of beyond-design-basis accidents, thereby reducing the risk of Fukushima-like radiological contamination of surface lands. A hypothetical M-UNP in crystalline rock with facilities for small modular reactors, spent fuel storage, reprocessing, and geologic disposal is described using a room-and-pillar reference-design cavern. Underground construction cost is judged tractable through use of modern excavation technology and careful site selection. (authors)

  20. Comments on Economides and Ehlig-Economides,"Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume," SPE 124430, October 2009

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curt; Pruess, Karsten; Birkholzer, Jens; Doughty, Christine

    2009-10-22T23:59:59.000Z

    The paper examines the pressure increase resulting from injection of CO2 into a 1D radial system with closed boundaries. The finding is that unacceptably high pressures are obtained when only 1% or less of the pore volume is occupied by injected CO2. These results are used to make the general conclusion that large-scale CCS is not feasible.

  1. Potential underground risks associated with CAES.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirk, Matthew F.; Webb, Stephen Walter; Broome, Scott Thomas; Pfeifle, Thomas W.; Grubelich, Mark Charles; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    CAES in geologic media has been proposed to help 'firm' renewable energy sources (wind and solar) by providing a means to store energy when excess energy was available, and to provide an energy source during non-productive renewable energy time periods. Such a storage media may experience hourly (perhaps small) pressure swings. Salt caverns represent the only proven underground storage used for CAES, but not in a mode where renewable energy sources are supported. Reservoirs, both depleted natural gas and aquifers represent other potential underground storage vessels for CAES, however, neither has yet to be demonstrated as a functional/operational storage media for CAES.

  2. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan Feb MarDecadeFour-Dimensional2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

  3. Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade Year-0E (2001)gasoline prices4 Oil demand expected to risesummerNov-14

  4. Technical and economic assessment of fluidized-bed-augmented compressed-air energy-storage system. Volume I. Executive summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Giramonti, A.J.; Lessard, R.D.; Merrick, D.; Hobson, M.J.

    1981-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An energy storage system which could be attractive for future electric utility peak-load applications is a modified gas turbine power system utilizing underground storage of very high pressure air. The compressed air energy storage (CAES) concept involves using off-peak electricity generated from indigenous coal or nuclear sources to compress air, storing the air in large underground facilities, and withdrawing the air during peak-load periods when it would be heated by combustion and expanded through gas turbines to generate power. The attractiveness of the CAES concept is based upon its potential to supply competitively priced peaking energy, to reduce peak-load power plant dependence on petroleum-based fuels, and to provide a means for leveling the utility system load demand. Therefore, a technical and economic assessment of coal-fired fluidized bed (FBC) combustor/compressed air energy storage (FBC/CAES) systems was performed and is described. The conclusions drawn from the FBC/CAES study program are encouraging. They indicate that pressurized FBC/CAES power plants should be technologically feasible, provide good performance, and be economically competitive. Specifically, it is concluded that: coal-fired FBC/CAES systems should be technically feasible in the near future and potentially attractive for peak-load power generation; and an open-bed PFBC/CAES configuration would provide the best candidate for early commercialization. It has relatively low risk combined with moderate cost and reasonable round-trip heat rate. It also has the potential for future growth options which tend to reduce costs and lower fuel consumption.

  5. Technical and economic assessment of fluidized bed augmented compressed air energy storage system. Volume III. Preconceptual design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Giramonti, A.J.; Lessard, R.D.; Merrick, D.; Hobson, M.J.

    1981-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A technical and economic assessment of fluidized bed combustion augmented compressed air energy storage systems is presented. The results of this assessment effort are presented in three volumes. Volume III - Preconceptual Design contains the system analysis which led to the identification of a preferred component configuration for a fluidized bed combustion augmented compressed air energy storage system, the results of the effort which transformed the preferred configuration into preconceptual power plant design, and an introductory evaluation of the performance of the power plant system during part-load operation and while load following.

  6. Sandia National Laboratories: Carbon Storage

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

    from improved climate models to performance models for underground waste storage to 3D printing and digital rock physics. Marianne Walck (Director ... Joint SandiaUniversity of...

  7. Sandia National Laboratories: Energy Storage

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

    from improved climate models to performance models for underground waste storage to 3D printing and digital rock physics. Marianne Walck (Director ... Recent Sandia Secure,...

  8. COBRA-SFS (Spent Fuel Storage): A thermal-hydraulic analysis computer code: Volume 1, Mathematical models and solution method

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rector, D.R.; Wheeler, C.L.; Lombardo, N.J.

    1986-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    COBRA-SFS (Spent Fuel Storage) is a general thermal-hydraulic analysis computer code used to predict temperatures and velocities in a wide variety of systems. The code was refined and specialized for spent fuel storage system analyses for the US Department of Energy's Commercial Spent Fuel Management Program. The finite-volume equations governing mass, momentum, and energy conservation are written for an incompressible, single-phase fluid. The flow equations model a wide range of conditions including natural circulation. The energy equations include the effects of solid and fluid conduction, natural convection, and thermal radiation. The COBRA-SFS code is structured to perform both steady-state and transient calculations: however, the transient capability has not yet been validated. This volume describes the finite-volume equations and the method used to solve these equations. It is directed toward the user who is interested in gaining a more complete understanding of these methods.

  9. West Hackberry Strategic Petroleum Reserve site brine-disposal monitoring, Year I report. Volume III. Biological oceanography. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DeRouen, L.R.; Hann, R.W.; Casserly, D.M.; Giammona, C.; Lascara, V.J. (eds.)

    1983-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy's Strategic Petroleum Reserve Program began discharging brine into the Gulf of Mexico from its West Hackberry site near Cameron, Louisiana in May 1981. The brine originates from underground salt domes being leached with water from the Intracoastal Waterway, making available vast underground storage caverns for crude oil. The effects of brine discharge on aquatic organisms are presented in this volume. The topics covered are: benthos; nekton; phytoplankton; zooplankton; and data management.

  10. Production management techniques for water-drive gas reservoirs. Field No. 4; mid-continent aquifer gas storage reservoir. Volume 1. Topical report, January 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hower, T.L.; Obernyer, S.L.

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A detailed reservoir characterization and numerical simulation study is presented for a mid-continent aquifer gas storage field. It is demonstrated that rate optimization during both injection and withdrawal cycles can significantly improve the performance of the storage reservoir. Performance improvements are realized in the form of a larger working volume of gas, a reduced cushion volume of gas, and decrease in field water production. By utilizing these reservoir management techniques gas storage operators will be able to minimize their base gas requirements, improve their economics, and determine whether the best use for a particular storage field is base loading or meeting peak day requirements. Volume I of this two-volume set contains a detailed technical discussion.

  11. High-level waste storage tank farms/242-A evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID), Volume 7. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burt, D.L.

    1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The High-Level Waste Storage Tank Farms/242-A Evaporator Standards/Requirements Identification Document (S/RID) is contained in multiple volumes. This document (Volume 7) presents the standards and requirements for the following sections: Occupational Safety and Health, and Environmental Protection.

  12. Storage System and IBM System Storage

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    IBM® XIV® Storage System and IBM System Storage® SAN Volume Controller deliver high performance and smart management for SAP® landscapes IBM SAP International Competence Center #12;"The combination of the XIV Storage System and SAN Volume Controller gives us a smarter way to manage our storage. If we need

  13. Monitored retrievable storage submission to Congress: Volume 2, Environmental assessment for a monitored retrievable storage facility. [Contains glossary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    1986-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Environmental Assessment (EA) supports the DOE proposal to Congress to construct and operate a facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) of spent fuel at a site on the Clinch River in the Roane County portion of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The first part of this document is an assessment of the value of, need for, and feasibility of an MRS facility as an integral component of the waste management system. The second part is an assessment and comparison of the potential environmental impacts projected for each of six site-design combinations. The MRS facility would be centrally located with respect to existing reactors, and would receive and canister spent fuel in preparation for shipment to and disposal in a geologic repository. 207 refs., 57 figs., 132 tabs.

  14. Sandia National Laboratories: hydrogen storage options

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

    storage options Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportation, Energy Security On February 26, 2015, in Capabilities, Center for Infrastructure Research and Innovation...

  15. Compressed Air Energy Storage Act (Kansas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This act lays out regulations for the local authorities related to site selection, design, operation and monitoring for underground storage of compressed air.

  16. Sandia National Laboratories: Carbon Capture & Storage

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

    from improved climate models to performance models for underground waste storage to 3D printing and digital rock physics. Marianne Walck (Director ... Federal Laboratory...

  17. SWEDISH-AMERICAN COOPERATIVE PROGRAM ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE IN MINED CAVERNS. PROGRAM SUMMARY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Witherspoon, P.A.

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    field investigations on the general problem of underground waste storage.field work will be carried out aimed at the general nroblen of underground radioacti\\'e waste storage.

  18. Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement Volume1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723).DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations:Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho;Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOE’s Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

  19. Final Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Pursuant to the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), DOE was directed to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has analyzed the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in a facility(ies) constructed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (74 FR 31723). DOE prepared this Final Mercury Storage EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508), and DOE’s NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR 1021) to evaluate reasonable alternatives for a facility(ies) for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury. This Final Mercury Storage EIS analyzes the potential environmental, human health, and socioeconomic impacts of elemental mercury storage at seven candidate locations: Grand Junction Disposal Site near Grand Junction, Colorado; Hanford Site near Richland, Washington; Hawthorne Army Depot near Hawthorne, Nevada; Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; Kansas City Plant in Kansas City, Missouri; Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina; and Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas. As required by CEQ NEPA regulations, the No Action Alternative was also analyzed as a basis for comparison. DOE intends to decide (1) where to locate the elemental mercury storage facility(ies) and (2) whether to use existing buildings, new buildings, or a combination of existing and new buildings. DOE’s Preferred Alternative for the long-term management and storage of mercury is the Waste Control Specialists, LLC, site near Andrews, Texas.

  20. Technical and economic assessment of fluidized bed augmented compressed air energy-storage system. Volume II. Introduction and technology assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Giramonti, A.J.; Lessard, R.D.; Merrick, D.; Hobson, M.J.

    1981-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The results are described of a study subcontracted by PNL to the United Technologies Research Center on the engineering feasibility and economics of a CAES concept which uses a coal fired, fluidized bed combustor (FBC) to heat the air being returned from storage during the power production cycle. By burning coal instead of fuel oil, the CAES/FBC concept can completely eliminate the dependence of compressed air energy storage on petroleum fuels. The results of this assessment effort are presented in three volumes. Volume II presents a discussion of program background and an in-depth coverage of both fluid bed combustion and turbomachinery technology pertinent to their application in a CAES power plant system. The CAES/FBC concept appears technically feasible and economically competitive with conventional CAES. However, significant advancement is required in FBC technology before serious commercial commitment to CAES/FBC can be realized. At present, other elements of DOE, industrial groups, and other countries are performing the required R and D for advancement of FBC technology. The CAES/FBC will be reevaluated at a later date when FBC technology has matured and many of the concerns now plaguing FBC are resolved. (LCL)

  1. Site characterization plan: Conceptual design report: Volume 4, Appendices F-O: Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MacDougall, H R; Scully, L W; Tillerson, J R [comps.] [comps.

    1987-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The site for the prospective repository is located at Yucca Mountain in southwestern Nevada, and the waste emplacement area will be constructed in the underlying volcanic tuffs. The target horizon for waste emplacement is a sloping bed of densely welded tuff more than 650 ft below the surface and typically more than 600 ft above the water table. The conceptual design described in this report is unique among repository designs in that it uses ramps in addition to shafts to gain access to the underground facility, the emplacement horizon is located above the water table, and it is possible that 300- to 400-ft-long horizontal waste emplacement boreholes will be used. This report summarizes the design bases, design and performance criteria, and the design analyses performed. The current status of meeting the preclosure performance objectives for licensing and of resolving the repository design and preclosure issues is presented. The repository design presented in this report will be expanded and refined during the advanced conceptual design, the license application design, and the final procurement and construction design phases. Volume 4 contains Appendices F to O.

  2. Underground Injection Control (Louisiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Injection and Mining Division (IMD) has the responsibility of implementing two major federal environmental programs which were statutorily charged to the Office of Conservation: the Underground...

  3. ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS - - A SURVEY OF RECENT THEORETICAL STUDIES

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Tsang, Chin Fu

    2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    underground thermal energy storage. In Proc. Th~rmal1980), 'I'hermal energy storage? in a confined aquifer·--al modeling of thermal energy storage in aquifers. In ~~-

  4. Materials for electrochemical energy storage and conversion II -- Batteries, capacitors and fuel cells. Materials Research Society symposium proceedings, Volume 496

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ginley, D.S.; Doughty, D.H.; Scrosati, B.; Takamura, T.; Zhang, Z.J. [eds.

    1998-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Our energy-hungry world is increasingly relying on new methods to store and convert energy for portable electronics, as well as new, environmentally friendly modes of transportation and electrical energy generation. The availability of advanced materials is linked to the commercial success of improved power sources such as batteries, fuel cells and capacitors with higher specific energy and power, longer cycle life and rapid change/discharge rates. The papers in this symposium were heavily weighted toward lithium batteries. The proceedings volume is organized into six sections highlighting: general papers on a wide variety of rechargeable battery technologies; new approaches to modeling of Li batteries; advances in fuel-cell technology; new work on Li battery cathodes; anodes and electrolytes; and work on super-capacitors. The authors think the volume is an excellent snapshot of the current state of the art in energy storage and conversion technologies, many of which will make a significant impact on society. Separate abstracts were prepared for most papers in this volume.

  5. Regional assessment of aquifers for thermal-energy storage. Volume 3. Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This volume contains two appendices to the main report. The first lists the aquifers in the 12 geographic regions of the USA and characterizes each as containing sands and gravels or limestones or volcanic rock. The second appendix tabulates the hydrologic characteristics of each aquifer. (LCL)

  6. Underground nuclear energy complexes - technical and economic advantages

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, Carl W [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Kunze, Jay F [IDAHO STATE UNIV; Giraud, Kellen M [BABECOCK AND WILCOX; Mahar, James M [IDAHO STATE UNIV

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Underground nuclear power plant parks have been projected to be economically feasible compared to above ground instalIations. This paper includes a thorough cost analysis of the savings, compared to above ground facilities, resulting from in-place entombment (decommissioning) of facilities at the end of their life. reduced costs of security for the lifetime of the various facilities in the underground park. reduced transportation costs. and reduced costs in the operation of the waste storage complex (also underground). compared to the fair share of the costs of operating a national waste repository.

  7. Base Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)

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

    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...

  8. Underground Storage Tank Management (District of Columbia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The  installation, upgrade and operation of any petroleum UST (>110 gallons) or hazardous substance UST System, including heating oil tanks over 1,100 gallons capacity in the District requires a...

  9. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0 0.0Decade4Year

  10. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0 0.0Decade4Year114,937 114,274 111,271

  11. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0Base7 3 2 1 0 0

  12. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0Base7 3 2 1 0 0284,747

  13. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYearDecade Year-0Thousand

  14. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYearDecade Year-0Thousand82,221

  15. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1 1996-2013 Lease20 55 10 41

  16. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1 1996-2013 Lease20 55 10 4120,359

  17. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766 568,661 511,096 438,064

  18. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766 568,661 511,096

  19. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0

  20. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.04,000 64,000 64,000 64,000

  1. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exportsper Thousand Cubic9 6 0

  2. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exportsper Thousand Cubic9 6 01,062,339

  3. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercialper Thousand Cubic9 2.8 2.66,992

  4. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercialper Thousand Cubic9 2.8

  5. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)Same Month443,025(Million

  6. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)Same Month443,025(Million187,251

  7. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic

  8. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic32,876 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 13,845

  9. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial ConsumersThousandCubic Feet)4.Synthetic 1980-2003 Propane-Air340 340

  10. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial ConsumersThousandCubic Feet)4.Synthetic 1980-2003 Propane-Air340

  11. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS8) Distribution Category UC-950 Cost and Quality of Fuels forA 6 J 9 U B u oDecadeSame52,051per0 1 2

  12. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National and Regional Data; Row: NAICS8) Distribution Category UC-950 Cost and Quality of Fuels forA 6 J 9 U B uYearDecadeYearThousand From

  13. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion CubicPotentialNov-14 Dec-14 Jan-1538,469 39,194 39,008 38,823

  14. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion CubicPotentialNov-14SalesSame Month Previous1 0 11 102008

  15. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion CubicPotentialNov-14SalesSame Month Previous1 0 11 1020082,000

  16. California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469 2,321 2,590FuelDecadeCalifornia23 46 47 62 53

  17. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469 2,321 2,590FuelDecadeCalifornia23 46 47 62 53498,705

  18. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469 2,321Spain,606,602 1,622,434 1,634,58723

  19. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,128 2,469 2,321Spain,606,602 1,622,434 1,634,5872395,068

  20. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office(BillionYear JanYearYear Jan8,859 8,560 8,662)

  1. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40Coal Stocks at Commercial andSeptember 25, 2012 MEMORANDUM FOR:0,0, 1997Working

  2. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,397 125 Q 69 (Million Cubic58 810Year Jan Feb

  3. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,397 125 Q 69 (Million Cubic58 810Year Jan Feb39,287 39,210 41,309

  4. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,397 125 Q 69 (Million Cubic58(MillionYear Jan Feb(Dollars528,442

  5. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,397 125 Q 69 (MillionAdjustments (MillionYearYear Jan Feb162

  6. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,397 125 Q 69 (MillionAdjustments (MillionYearYear Jan Feb162111,167

  7. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2011 20123.9684,094 673,410

  8. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2011 20123.9684,094

  9. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul2011Dry ProductionThe Basics

  10. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan FebIncreases (BillionThousand Cubic Feet)403

  11. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year Jan FebIncreases (BillionThousand Cubic

  12. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year JanDecade Year-0 Year-11,113,016 1,124,7170 0 0

  13. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 34 44Year JanDecade Year-0 Year-11,113,016 1,124,7170 0 06,200

  14. Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTownDells,1Stocks Nov-14TotalThe Outlook269,023Year69,023USWNC MO

  15. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of(Millionthrough 1996)200971 andEIA projects9,233,469

  16. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1 Source: Office of(Millionthrough 1996)200971 andEIA

  17. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are nowTotal" (Percent) Type: Sulfur Content API GravityDakota" "Fuel, quality", 2013,Iowa"Dakota"YearProductionShale ProvedA(MillionGrossNatural Gas

  18. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803 TableTotal Consumptionper Thousand Cubic4 15 0 0

  19. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803 TableTotal Consumptionper Thousand Cubic4 15 0 0977,989

  20. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYear Jan Feb Mar AprYear Jan FebThousand198,539

  1. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYear Jan Feb Mar AprYear Jan FebThousand198,53974,201

  2. Natural Gas In Underground Storage (Summary)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYear Janthrough2,869,960 3,958,315 5,817,1223,751,360

  3. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYear Janthrough2,869,9601. Natural5,1958 2009 2010

  4. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYearWithdrawals (MillionYear Jan FebThousand9

  5. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion2,12803andYearWithdrawals (MillionYear Jan FebThousand94,850

  6. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1(MillionExtensionsThousand Cubic%perYear Jan Feb Marper3Working Gas in

  7. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade1(MillionExtensionsThousand Cubic%perYear Jan Feb Marper3Working Gas

  8. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building Floorspace (Square Feet)SalesYear Jan Feb Mar Aprper Thousand0 16,900

  9. Underground CO2 Storage | GE Global Research

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of ScienceandMesa del SolStrengthening aTurbulence mayUndergraduate Program Undergraduate

  10. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office ofthroughYear Jan Feb Mar AprYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayPeachThree 0 0 0 0

  11. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto17 3400,Information55,035 283,879 317,647 348,809 322,670 Salt Caverns

  12. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto ChinaThousand Cubic Feet)Feet)Feet)556,905136 14980,000

  13. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto ChinaThousand CubicSeparation 29 0Year Jan0 0 0 0 0 08.1228,613

  14. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto ChinaThousandDecade Year-0Separation3,262,7160 0 0

  15. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto ChinaThousandDecadeSales (Billion CubicDecadeSameThousand1.4

  16. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office ofthrough 1996) in Delaware (Million3,751,360 3,740,757 Annual55,035 283,879

  17. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office ofthroughYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul9Thousand Cubic Feet)7 5 1 1

  18. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office ofthroughYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

  19. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5 Tables July 1996 Energy Information Administration Office ofthroughYear Jan Feb Mar Apr MayYear Jan FebYear Jan FebYearYear27,713

  20. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40CoalLease(Billion Cubic Feet)Year Jan FebFeet) Gas WellsNatural Gas Glossary

  1. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial Consumers (NumberThousand Cubic Feet) DecadeYear JanYear0.9 0.929,415

  2. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial Consumers (NumberThousand Cubic Feet) 0PADPrevious Articles Previous

  3. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial Consumers (NumberThousand Cubic Feet) 0PADPrevious Articles

  4. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial Consumers (NumberThousand Cubic Feet) 0PADPrevious

  5. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook 2013 [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial Consumers (NumberThousand CubicFuelDecade Year-0(Dollars per 0 0

  6. CPP-603 Underwater Fuel Storage Facility Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP), Volume I

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denney, R.D.

    1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The CPP-603 Underwater Fuel Storage Facility (UFSF) Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP) has been constructed to describe the activities required for the relocation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from the CPP-603 facility. These activities are the only Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) actions identified in the Implementation Plan developed to meet the requirements of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 94-1 to the Secretary of Energy regarding an improved schedule for remediation in the Defense Nuclear Facilities Complex. As described in the DNFSB Recommendation 94-1 Implementation Plan, issued February 28, 1995, an INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan is currently under development to direct the placement of SNF currently in existing INEL facilities into interim storage, and to address the coordination of intrasite SNF movements with new receipts and intersite transfers that were identified in the DOE SNF Programmatic and INEL Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement Record, of Decision. This SISMP will be a subset of the INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan and the activities described are being coordinated with other INEL SNF management activities. The CPP-603 relocation activities have been assigned a high priority so that established milestones will be meet, but there will be some cases where other activities will take precedence in utilization of available resources. The Draft INEL Site Integrated Stabilization Management Plan (SISMP), INEL-94/0279, Draft Rev. 2, dated March 10, 1995, is being superseded by the INEL Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Plan and this CPP-603 specific SISMP.

  7. Sandia National Laboratories: cost-effective hydrogen storage

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

    cost-effective hydrogen storage Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportation, Energy Security On February 26, 2015, in Capabilities, Center for Infrastructure Research...

  8. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Aquifer Storage Reservoir...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Configuration About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Aquifer Underground Natural Gas Storage...

  9. Preliminary design study of underground pumped hydro and compressed-air energy storage in hard rock. Volume 9. Design approaches: CAES. Appendix B. Champagne effect. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This appendix documents the work performed during the study to investigate the significance of the release of dissolved air from the water in the water shaft during air compression on the design and operation of a hydraulically compensated CAES plant. This air release phenomena has been named the Champagne Effect. Included is a description of the work performed by Dr. Mollendorf to investigate the rate of diffusion of air into water, the rate of the subsequent release of air from the water during passage up the water shaft, and an evaluation of the resulting behavior of the air bubbles in the shaft. Also included is a discussion of the dynamic modeling performed by Rowe and Associates under a separate contract to DOE. This simulation was based upon a two-fluid model of the PEPCo system and includes an analysis of potential modifications to the design that might further mitigate any operation problems.

  10. Maine Natural Gas LNG Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for On-Highway4,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,9,1,50022,3,,,,6,1,Decade EnergyTennesseeYearUnderground Storage Volume16,% ofYear Jan

  11. Natural gas storage - end user interaction. Task 2. Topical report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    New opportunities have been created for underground gas storage as a result of recent regulatory developments in the energy industry. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order 636 directly changed the economics of gas storage nationwide. This paper discusses the storage of natural gas, storage facilities, and factors affecting the current, and future situation for natural gas storage.

  12. Underground Injection Control (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This rule set forth criteria and standards for the requirements which apply to the State Underground Injection Control Program (U.I.C.). The UIC permit program regulates underground injections by...

  13. Storage of LWR spent fuel in air: Volume 1: Design and operation of a spent fuel oxidation test facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thornhill, C.K.; Campbell, T.K.; Thornhill, R.E.

    1988-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the design and operation and technical accomplishments of a spent-fuel oxidation test facility at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The objective of the experiments conducted in this facility was to develop a data base for determining spent-fuel dry storage temperature limits by characterizing the oxidation behavior of light-water reactor (LWR) spent fuels in air. These data are needed to support licensing of dry storage in air as an alternative to spent-fuel storage in water pools. They are to be used to develop and validate predictive models of spent-fuel behavior during dry air storage in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The present licensed alternative to pool storage of spent fuel is dry storage in an inert gas environment, which is called inerted dry storage (IDS). Licensed air storage, however, would not require monitoring for maintenance of an inert-gas environment (which IDS requires) but does require the development of allowable temperature limits below which UO/sub 2/ oxidation in breached fuel rods would not become a problem. Scoping tests at PNL with nonirradiated UO/sub 2/ pellets and spent-fuel fragment specimens identified the need for a statistically designed test matrix with test temperatures bounding anticipated maximum acceptable air-storage temperatures. This facility was designed and operated to satisfy that need. 7 refs.

  14. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J. (Hamburg, NY); Grant, David C. (Gibsonia, PA)

    1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Disclosed is an underground waste barrier structure that consists of waste material, a first container formed of activated carbonaceous material enclosing the waste material, a second container formed of zeolite enclosing the first container, and clay covering the second container. The underground waste barrier structure is constructed by forming a recessed area within the earth, lining the recessed area with a layer of clay, lining the clay with a layer of zeolite, lining the zeolite with a layer of activated carbonaceous material, placing the waste material within the lined recessed area, forming a ceiling over the waste material of a layer of activated carbonaceous material, a layer of zeolite, and a layer of clay, the layers in the ceiling cojoining with the respective layers forming the walls of the structure, and finally, covering the ceiling with earth.

  15. Rainwater Harvesting: Soil Storage and Infiltration System

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mechell, Justin; Lesikar, Bruce J.

    2008-08-11T23:59:59.000Z

    A soil storage and infiltration system collects rainfall runoff from the roofs of buildings and directs it underground where it infiltrates the soil. Such a system conserves water and protects it from surface pollution. This publication describes...

  16. Underground and under scrutiny

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Lee, Leslie

    2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    2 txH2O Summer 2014 Story by Leslie Lee The Frio River, located in the Texas Hill Country, is spring-fed and therefore affected by groundwater pumping. Photo from istock.com. Underground and under scrutiny A changing state increasingly... their geological features is more multifaceted. Consider that each aquifer in Texas has different geological and hydrological character- istics, and therefore varying recharge rates, water quality and regional needs, and the complexity heightens. From a legal...

  17. A life cycle cost analysis framework for geologic storage of hydrogen : a scenario analysis.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kobos, Peter Holmes; Lord, Anna Snider; Borns, David James

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy has an interest in large scale hydrogen geostorage, which would offer substantial buffer capacity to meet possible disruptions in supply. Geostorage options being considered are salt caverns, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, aquifers and potentially hard rock cavrns. DOE has an interest in assessing the geological, geomechanical and economic viability for these types of hydrogen storage options. This study has developed an ecocomic analysis methodology to address costs entailed in developing and operating an underground geologic storage facility. This year the tool was updated specifically to (1) a version that is fully arrayed such that all four types of geologic storage options can be assessed at the same time, (2) incorporate specific scenarios illustrating the model's capability, and (3) incorporate more accurate model input assumptions for the wells and storage site modules. Drawing from the knowledge gained in the underground large scale geostorage options for natural gas and petroleum in the U.S. and from the potential to store relatively large volumes of CO{sub 2} in geological formations, the hydrogen storage assessment modeling will continue to build on these strengths while maintaining modeling transparency such that other modeling efforts may draw from this project.

  18. Underground Injection Control Regulations (Kansas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This article prohibits injection of hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above an underground source of drinking water, establishes permit conditions and states regulations for design,...

  19. Underground Injection Control Rule (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This rule regulates injection wells, including wells used by generators of hazardous or radioactive wastes, disposal wells within an underground source of drinking water, recovery of geothermal...

  20. Saving an Underground Reservoir 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wythe, Kathy

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    significant part of the region?s agricultural economy. Though the area has few rivers and lakes, underneath it lies a supply of water that has provided groundwater for developing this economy. This underground water, the Ogallala Aquifer, is a finite... resource. The amount of water seeping back into the aquifer is much less than the water taken out, especially in the southern half of the aquifer, which spreads out from western Kansas to the High Plains of Texas. ?Water levels are declining 2 to 4...

  1. Underground coal gasification. Presentations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 8 presentations are: underground coal gasification (UCG) and the possibilities for carbon management (J. Friedmann); comparing the economics of UCG with surface gasification technologies (E. Redman); Eskom develops UCG technology project (C. Gross); development and future of UCG in the Asian region (L. Walker); economically developing vast deep Powder River Basin coals with UCG (S. Morzenti); effectively managing UCG environmental issues (E. Burton); demonstrating modelling complexity of environmental risk management; and UCG research at the University of Queensland, Australia (A.Y. Klimenko).

  2. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection Systems Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground...

  3. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Report: WPCF Underground Injection...

  4. Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Underground Construction...

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

    Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. - WEA-2009-02 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Pacific Underground Construction, Inc. - WEA-2009-02 April 7, 2009 Issued to Pacific...

  5. NEUTRON LIFETIME EXPERIMENT BASED ON AN `ACCORDION-LIKE' UCN STORAGE VOLUME COATED WITH `LOW TEMPERATURE FOMBLIN'

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Steyerl, Albert

    , Cambridge, MA, USA; 2 University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA; 3 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research-fluorinated polymer, `Low Temperature Fomblin', has been tested as a wall coating in an ultracold neutron (UCN of an accordion-like storage vessel. In this system, the surface area and its distribution over height remain

  6. Proceedings of the third international seminar on double layer capacitors and similar energy storage devices. Volume 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This book contains the papers presented at the Third International Seminar on Double Layer Capacitors and Similar Energy Storage Devices in December, 1993. The topics of the papers include basic electrochemical principles, testing of ultracapacitors and systems for application in electric powered vehicles, performance of capacitors, materials used in supercapacitors, and reliability of supercapacitors.

  7. BWR spent fuel storage cask performance test. Volume 2. Pre- and post-test decay heat, heat transfer, and shielding analyses

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wiles, L.E.; Lombardo, N.J.; Heeb, C.M.; Jenquin, U.P.; Michener, T.E.; Wheeler, C.L.; Creer, J.M.; McCann, R.A.

    1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes the decay heat, heat transfer, and shielding analyses conducted in support of performance testing of a Ridhihalgh, Eggers and Associates REA 2033 boiling water reactor (BWR) spent fuel storage cask. The cask testing program was conducted for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Commercial Spent Fuel Management Program by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) and by General Electric at the latters' Morris Operation (GE-MO) as reported in Volume I. The analyses effort consisted of performing pretest calculations to (1) select spent fuel for the test; (2) symmetrically load the spent fuel assemblies in the cask to ensure lateral symmetry of decay heat generation rates; (3) optimally locate temperature and dose rate instrumentation in the cask and spent fuel assemblies; and (4) evaluate the ORIGEN2 (decay heat), HYDRA and COBRA-SFS (heat transfer), and QAD and DOT (shielding) computer codes. The emphasis of this second volume is on the comparison of code predictions to experimental test data in support of the code evaluation process. Code evaluations were accomplished by comparing pretest (actually pre-look, since some predictions were not completed until testing was in progress) predictions with experimental cask testing data reported in Volume I. No attempt was made in this study to compare the two heat transfer codes because results of other evaluations have not been completed, and a comparison based on one data set may lead to erroneous conclusions.

  8. On CO2 Behavior in the Subsurface, Following Leakage from a Geologic Storage Reservoir

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pruess, Karsten

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    1 - 16, 1987. Skinner, L. CO2 Blowouts: An Emerging Problem,Assessment for Underground CO2 Storage, paper 234, presentedReservoir Performance Risk in CO2 Storage Projects, paper

  9. The lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Szulczewski, Michael Lawrence

    In carbon capture and storage (CCS), CO[subscript 2] is captured at power plants and then injected underground into reservoirs like deep saline aquifers for long-term storage. While CCS may be critical for the continued ...

  10. Water intrusion in underground structures

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Nazarchuk, Alex

    2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This thesis presents a study of the permissible groundwater infiltration rates in underground structures, the consequences of this leakage and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Design guides and codes do not restrict, ...

  11. Opportunities in underground coal gasification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bloomstran, M.A.; Davis, B.E.

    1984-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A review is presented of the results obtained on DOE-sponsored field tests of underground coal gasification in steeply-dipping beds at Rawlins, Wyoming. The coal gas composition, process parameters, and process economics are described. Steeply-dipping coal resources, which are not economically mineable using conventional coal mining methods, are identified and potential markets for underground coal gasification products are discussed. It is concluded that in-situ gasification in steeply-dipping deposits should be considered for commercialization.

  12. Underground coal gasification using oxygen and steam

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yang, L.H.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S. [China University of Mining & Technology, Xuzhou (China)

    2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In this paper, through model experiment of the underground coal gasification, the effects of pure oxygen gasification, oxygen-steam gasification, and moving-point gasification methods on the underground gasification process and gas quality were studied. Experiments showed that H{sub 2} and CO volume fraction in product gas during the pure oxygen gasification was 23.63-30.24% and 35.22-46.32%, respectively, with the gas heating value exceeding 11.00 MJ/m{sup 3}; under the oxygen-steam gasification, when the steam/oxygen ratio stood at 2: 1, gas compositions remained virtually stable and CO + H{sub 2} was basically between 61.66 and 71.29%. Moving-point gasification could effectively improve the changes in the cavity in the coal seams or the effects of roof inbreak on gas quality; the ratio of gas flowing quantity to oxygen supplying quantity was between 3.1:1 and 3.5:1 and took on the linear changes; on the basis of the test data, the reasons for gas quality changes under different gasification conditions were analyzed.

  13. Storage of LWR spent fuel in air. Volume 3, Results from exposure of spent fuel to fluorine-contaminated air

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cunningham, M.E.; Thomas, L.E.

    1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Behavior of Spent Fuel in Storage (BSFS) Project has conducted research to develop data on spent nuclear fuel (irradiated U0{sub 2}) that could be used to support design, licensing, and operation of dry storage installations. Test Series B conducted by the BSFS Project was designed as a long-term study of the oxidation of spent fuel exposed to air. It was discovered after the exposures were completed in September 1990 that the test specimens had been exposed to an atmosphere of bottled air contaminated with an unknown quantity of fluorine. This exposure resulted in the test specimens reacting with both the oxygen and the fluorine in the oven atmospheres. The apparent source of the fluorine was gamma radiation-induced chemical decomposition of the fluoro-elastomer gaskets used to seal the oven doors. This chemical decomposition apparently released hydrofluoric acid (HF) vapor into the oven atmospheres. Because the Test Series B specimens were exposed to a fluorine-contaminated oven atmosphere and reacted with the fluorine, it is recommended that the Test Series B data not be used to develop time-temperature limits for exposure of spent nuclear fuel to air. This report has been prepared to document Test Series B and present the collected data and observations.

  14. Underground Coal Thermal Treatment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    P. Smith; M. Deo; E. Eddings; A. Sarofim; K. Gueishen; M. Hradisky; K. Kelly; P. Mandalaparty; H. Zhang

    2011-10-30T23:59:59.000Z

    The long-term objective of this work is to develop a transformational energy production technology by insitu thermal treatment of a coal seam for the production of substitute natural gas (SNG) while leaving much of the coalâ??s carbon in the ground. This process converts coal to a high-efficiency, low-GHG emitting gas fuel. It holds the potential of providing environmentally acceptable access to previously unusable coal resources. This topical report discusses the development of experimental capabilities, the collection of available data, and the development of simulation tools to obtain process thermo-chemical and geo-thermal parameters in preparation for the eventual demonstration in a coal seam. It also includes experimental and modeling studies of CO{sub 2} sequestration. Efforts focused on: â?¢ Constructing a suite of three different coal pyrolysis reactors. These reactors offer the ability to gather heat transfer, mass transfer and kinetic data during coal pyrolysis under conditions that mimic in situ conditions (Subtask 6.1). â?¢ Studying the operational parameters for various underground thermal treatment processes for oil shale and coal and completing a design matrix analysis for the underground coal thermal treatment (UCTT). This analysis yielded recommendations for terms of targeted coal rank, well orientation, rubblization, presence of oxygen, temperature, pressure, and heating sources (Subtask 6.2). â?¢ Developing capabilities for simulating UCTT, including modifying the geometry as well as the solution algorithm to achieve long simulation times in a rubblized coal bed by resolving the convective channels occurring in the representative domain (Subtask 6.3). â?¢ Studying the reactive behavior of carbon dioxide (CO{sub 2}) with limestone, sandstone, arkose (a more complex sandstone) and peridotite, including mineralogical changes and brine chemistry for the different initial rock compositions (Subtask 6.4). Arkose exhibited the highest tendency of participating in mineral reactions, which can be attributed to the geochemical complexity of its initial mineral assemblage. In experiments with limestone, continuous dissolution was observed with the release of CO{sub 2} gas, indicated by the increasing pressure in the reactor (formation of a gas chamber). This occurred due to the lack of any source of alkali to buffer the solution. Arkose has the geochemical complexity for permanent sequestration of CO{sub 2} as carbonates and is also relatively abundant. The effect of including NH{sub 3} in the injected gas stream was also investigated in this study. Precipitation of calcite and trace amounts of ammonium zeolites was observed. A batch geochemical model was developed using Geochemists Workbench (GWB). Degassing effect in the experiments was corrected using the sliding fugacity model in GWB. Experimental and simulation results were compared and a reasonable agreement between the two was observed.

  15. Steam tracer experiment at the Hoe Creek No. 3 underground coal gasification field test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thorsness, C.B.

    1980-11-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Water plays an important role in in-situ coal gasification. To better understand this role, we conducted a steam tracer test during the later stages of the Hoe Creek No. 3 underground coal gasification field test. Deuterium oxide was used as the tracer. This report describes the tracer test and the analysis of the data obtained. The analysis indicates that at Hoe Creek the injected steam interacts with a large volume of water as it passes through the underground system. We hypothesize that this water is undergoing continual reflux in the underground system, resulting in a tracer response typical of a well-stirred tank.

  16. DOE Manual Studies 11 Major CO2 Geologic Storage Formations

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A comprehensive study of 11 geologic formations suitable for permanent underground carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is contained in a new manual issued by the U.S. Department of Energy.

  17. Commercial potential of natural gas storage in lined rock caverns (LRC)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1999-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The geologic conditions in many regions of the United States will not permit the development of economical high-deliverability gas storage in salt caverns. These regions include the entire Eastern Seaboard; several northern states, notably Minnesota and Wisconsin; many of the Rocky Mountain States; and most of the Pacific Northwest. In late 1997, the United States Department of Energy (USDOE) Federal Energy Technology Center engaged Sofregaz US to investigate the commercialization potential of natural gas storage in Lined Rock Caverns (LRC). Sofregaz US teamed with Gaz de France and Sydkraft, who had formed a consortium, called LRC, to perform the study for the USDOE. Underground storage of natural gas is generally achieved in depleted oil and gas fields, aquifers, and solution-mined salt caverns. These storage technologies require specific geologic conditions. Unlined rock caverns have been used for decades to store hydrocarbons - mostly liquids such as crude oil, butane, and propane. The maximum operating pressure in unlined rock caverns is limited, since the host rock is never entirely impervious. The LRC technology allows a significant increase in the maximum operating pressure over the unlined storage cavern concept, since the gas in storage is completely contained with an impervious liner. The LRC technology has been under development in Sweden by Sydkraft since 1987. The development process has included extensive technical studies, laboratory testing, field tests, and most recently includes a storage facility being constructed in southern Sweden (Skallen). The LRC development effort has shown that the concept is technically and economically viable. The Skallen storage facility will have a rock cover of 115 meters (375 feet), a storage volume of 40,000 cubic meters (250,000 petroleum barrels), and a maximum operating pressure of 20 MPa (2,900 psi). There is a potential for commercialization of the LRC technology in the United States. Two regions were studied in some detail - the Northeast and the Southeast. The investment cost for an LRC facility in the Northeast is approximately $182 million and $343 million for a 2.6-billion cubic foot (bcf) working gas facility and a 5.2-bcf working gas storage facility, respectively. The relatively high investment cost is a strong function of the cost of labor in the Northeast. The labor union-related rules and requirements in the Northeast result in much higher underground construction costs than might result in Sweden, for example. The LRC technology gas storage service is compared to other alternative technologies. The LRC technology gas storage service was found to be competitive with other alternative technologies for a variety of market scenarios.

  18. The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) Experiment

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    D. S. Akerib; X. Bai; S. Bedikian; E. Bernard; A. Bernstein; A. Bolozdynya; A. Bradley; D. Byram; S. B. Cahn; C. Camp; M. C. Carmona-Benitez; D. Carr; J. J. Chapman; A. Chiller; C. Chiller; K. Clark; T. Classen; T. Coffey; A. Curioni; E. Dahl; S. Dazeley; L. de Viveiros; A. Dobi; E. Dragowsky; E. Druszkiewicz; B. Edwards; C. H. Faham; S. Fiorucci; R. J. Gaitskell; K. R. Gibson; M. Gilchriese; C. Hall; M. Hanhardt; B. Holbrook; M. Ihm; R. G. Jacobsen; L. Kastens; K. Kazkaz; R. Knoche; S. Kyre; J. Kwong; R. Lander; N. A. Larsen; C. Lee; D. S. Leonard; K. T. Lesko; A. Lindote; M. I. Lopes; A. Lyashenko; D. C. Malling; R. Mannino; Z. Marquez; D. N. McKinsey; D. -M. Mei; J. Mock; M. Moongweluwan; M. Morii; H. Nelson; F. Neves; J. A. Nikkel; M. Pangilinan; P. D. Parker; E. K. Pease; K. Pech; P. Phelps; A. Rodionov; P. Roberts; A. Shei; T. Shutt; C. Silva; W. Skulski; V. N. Solovov; C. J. Sofka; P. Sorensen; J. Spaans; T. Stiegler; D. Stolp; R. Svoboda; M. Sweany; M. Szydagis; D. Taylor; J. Thomson; M. Tripathi; S. Uvarov; J. R. Verbus; N. Walsh; R. Webb; D. White; J. T. White; T. J. Whitis; M. Wlasenko; F. L. H. Wolfs; M. Woods; C. Zhang

    2012-11-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) collaboration has designed and constructed a dual-phase xenon detector, in order to conduct a search for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles(WIMPs), a leading dark matter candidate. The goal of the LUX detector is to clearly detect (or exclude) WIMPS with a spin independent cross section per nucleon of $2\\times 10^{-46}$ cm$^{2}$, equivalent to $\\sim$1 event/100 kg/month in the inner 100-kg fiducial volume (FV) of the 370-kg detector. The overall background goals are set to have $<$1 background events characterized as possible WIMPs in the FV in 300 days of running. This paper describes the design and construction of the LUX detector.

  19. The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) Experiment

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Akerib, D S; Bedikian, S; Bernard, E; Bernstein, A; Bolozdynya, A; Bradley, A; Byram, D; Cahn, S B; Camp, C; Carmona-Benitez, M C; Carr, D; Chapman, J J; Chiller, A; Chiller, C; Clark, K; Classen, T; Coffey, T; Curioni, A; Dahl, E; Dazeley, S; de Viveiros, L; Dobi, A; Dragowsky, E; Druszkiewicz, E; Edwards, B; Faham, C H; Fiorucci, S; Gaitskell, R J; Gibson, K R; Gilchriese, M; Hall, C; Hanhardt, M; Holbrook, B; Ihm, M; Jacobsen, R G; Kastens, L; Kazkaz, K; Knoche, R; Kyre, S; Kwong, J; Lander, R; Larsen, N A; Lee, C; Leonard, D S; Lesko, K T; Lindote, A; Lopes, M I; Lyashenko, A; Malling, D C; Mannino, R; Marquez, Z; McKinsey, D N; Mei, D -M; Mock, J; Moongweluwan, M; Morii, M; Nelson, H; Neves, F; Nikkel, J A; Pangilinan, M; Parker, P D; Pease, E K; Pech, K; Phelps, P; Rodionov, A; Roberts, P; Shei, A; Shutt, T; Silva, C; Skulski, W; Solovov, V N; Sofka, C J; Sorensen, P; Spaans, J; Stiegler, T; Stolp, D; Svoboda, R; Sweany, M; Szydagis, M; Taylor, D; Thomson, J; Tripathi, M; Uvarov, S; Verbus, J R; Walsh, N; Webb, R; White, D; White, J T; Whitis, T J; Wlasenko, M; Wolfs, F L H; Woods, M; Zhang, C

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) collaboration has designed and constructed a dual-phase xenon detector, in order to conduct a search for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles(WIMPs), a leading dark matter candidate. The goal of the LUX detector is to clearly detect (or exclude) WIMPS with a spin independent cross section per nucleon of $2\\times 10^{-46}$ cm$^{2}$, equivalent to $\\sim$1 event/100 kg/month in the inner 100-kg fiducial volume (FV) of the 370-kg detector. The overall background goals are set to have $<$1 background events characterized as possible WIMPs in the FV in 300 days of running. This paper describes the design and construction of the LUX detector.

  20. BWR spent fuel storage cask performance test. Volume 1. Cask handling experience and decay heat, heat transfer, and shielding data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McKinnon, M.A.; Doman, J.W.; Tanner, J.E.; Guenther, R.J.; Creer, J.M.; King, C.E.

    1986-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents a heat transfer and shielding performance test conducted on a Ridihalgh, Eggers and Associates REA 2023 boiling water reactor (BWR) spent fuel storage cask. The testing effort consisted of three parts: pretest preparations, performance testing, and post-test activities. Pretest preparations included conducting cask handling dry runs and characterizing BWR spent fuel assemblies from Nebraska Public Power District's Cooper Nuclear Station. The performance test matrix included 14 runs consisting of two loadings, two cask orientations, and three backfill environments. Post-test activities included calorimetry and axial radiation scans of selected fuel assemblies, in-basin sipping of each assembly, crud collection, video and photographic scans, and decontamination of the cask interior and exterior.

  1. Hydro-mechanical modelling of geological CO2 storage and the study of possible caprock fracture mechanisms

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Hydro-mechanical modelling of geological CO2 storage and the study of possible caprock fracture element modelling of a hypothetical underground carbon dioxide (CO2) storage operation. The hydro

  2. Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Paris-Sud XI, Université de

    Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs Minh Ha-Duong David W carbon underground), we derive analytic expressions for the value of leaky CO2 storage compared to perfect storage when storage is a marginal component of the energy system. If the annual leak rate is 1

  3. Gas Storage Technology Consortium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Joel L. Morrison; Sharon L. Elder

    2006-07-06T23:59:59.000Z

    Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission & distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services, and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is critical in meeting the needs of these new markets. In order to address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created--the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance operational flexibility and deliverability of the Nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. This report addresses the activities for the quarterly period of April 1 to June 30, 2006. Key activities during this time period include: (1) Develop and process subcontract agreements for the eight projects selected for cofunding at the February 2006 GSTC Meeting; (2) Compiling and distributing the three 2004 project final reports to the GSTC Full members; (3) Develop template, compile listserv, and draft first GSTC Insider online newsletter; (4) Continue membership recruitment; (5) Identify projects and finalize agenda for the fall GSTC/AGA Underground Storage Committee Technology Transfer Workshop in San Francisco, CA; and (6) Identify projects and prepare draft agenda for the fall GSTC Technology Transfer Workshop in Pittsburgh, PA.

  4. Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg

    2009-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

    July 21, 2009 Berkeley Lab summer lecture: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

  5. Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground (LBNL Summer Lecture Series)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curtis M. (LBNL Earth Sciences Division) [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

    2009-07-21T23:59:59.000Z

    Summer Lecture Series 2009: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

  6. Geologic Carbon Sequestration: Mitigating Climate Change by Injecting CO2 Underground (LBNL Summer Lecture Series)

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Oldenburg, Curtis M [LBNL Earth Sciences Division

    2011-04-28T23:59:59.000Z

    Summer Lecture Series 2009: Climate change provides strong motivation to reduce CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide capture and storage involves the capture, compression, and transport of CO2 to geologically favorable areas, where its injected into porous rock more than one kilometer underground for permanent storage. Oldenburg, who heads Berkeley Labs Geologic Carbon Sequestration Program, will focus on the challenges, opportunities, and research needs of this innovative technology.

  7. Underground coal gasification: environmental update

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dockter, L.; Mcternan, E.M.

    1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    To evaluate the potential for ground water contamination by underground coal gasification, extensive postburn groundwater monitoring programs are being continued at two test sites in Wyoming. An overview of the environmental concerns related to UCG and some results to date on the two field sites are presented in this report.

  8. TSUAHXETSUAHXE UndergroUnd tank

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Schladow, S. Geoffrey

    USer waterheatexchange waterheatexchange general exhaUSt lab exhaUSt warmairexhaUSt radiant panel heat radiant panel heat by night air, then stored underground. cold water travels through floors and ceiling panels to absorb heat rain and snowmelt in toilets saves water and reduces stormwater runoff photovoltaic panels turn solar

  9. High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farrell, Roger, A.

    2010-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Project was to design, build, install and demonstrate the technical feasibility of an underground high temperature superconducting (HTS) power cable installed between two utility substations. In the first phase two HTS cables, 320 m and 30 m in length, were constructed using 1st generation BSCCO wire. The two 34.5 kV, 800 Arms, 48 MVA sections were connected together using a superconducting joint in an underground vault. In the second phase the 30 m BSCCO cable was replaced by one constructed with 2nd generation YBCO wire. 2nd generation wire is needed for commercialization because of inherent cost and performance benefits. Primary objectives of the Project were to build and operate an HTS cable system which demonstrates significant progress towards commercial progress and addresses real world utility concerns such as installation, maintenance, reliability and compatibility with the existing grid. Four key technical areas addressed were the HTS cable and terminations (where the cable connects to the grid), cryogenic refrigeration system, underground cable-to-cable joint (needed for replacement of cable sections) and cost-effective 2nd generation HTS wire. This was the world’s first installation and operation of an HTS cable underground, between two utility substations as well as the first to demonstrate a cable-to-cable joint, remote monitoring system and 2nd generation HTS.

  10. On scale and magnitude of pressure build-up induced by large-scale geologic storage of CO2

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Zhou, Q.

    2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    underground volume. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. 70, 123–130 (2010).mature and green fields. J. Petrol. Technol. 55(1), 11. Veil

  11. Potential method for measurement of CO2 leakage from underground sequestration fields using radioactive tracers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bachelor, Paula P.; McIntyre, Justin I.; Amonette, James E.; Hayes, James C.; Milbrath, Brian D.; Saripalli, Prasad

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) release to the environment is a pressing challenge that should be addressed to avert the potential devastating effects of global warming. Within the United States, the most abundant sources of CO2 emissions are those generate from coal- or gas-fired power plants; one method to control CO2 emissions is to sequester it in deep underground geological formations. From integrated assessment models the overall leakage rates from these storage locations must be less than 0.1% of stored volume per year for long-term control. The ability to detect and characterize nascent leaks, in conjunction with subsequent remediation efforts, will significantly decrease the amount of CO2 released back into the environment. Because potential leakage pathways are not necessarily known a priori, onsite monitoring must be performed; the monitoring region in the vicinity of a CO2 injection well may be as large as 100 km2, which represents the estimated size of a supercritical CO2 bubble that would form under typical injection scenarios. By spiking the injected CO2 with a radiological or stable isotope tracer, it will be possible to detect ground leaks from the sequestered CO2 using fewer sampling stations, with greater accuracy than would be possible using simple CO2 sensors. The relative merits of various sorbent materials, radiological and stable isotope tracers, detection methods and potential interferences will be discussed.

  12. Advanced underground Vehicle Power and Control: The locomotive Research Platform

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vehicle Projects LLC

    2003-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

    Develop a fuelcell mine locomotive with metal-hydride hydrogen storage. Test the locomotive for fundamental limitations preventing successful commercialization of hydride fuelcells in underground mining. During Phase 1 of the DOE-EERE sponsored project, FPI and its partner SNL, completed work on the development of a 14.4 kW fuelcell power plant and metal-hydride energy storage. An existing battery-electric locomotive with similar power requirements, minus the battery module, was used as the base vehicle. In March 2001, Atlas Copco Wagner of Portland, OR, installed the fuelcell power plant into the base vehicle and initiated integration of the system into the vehicle. The entire vehicle returned to Sandia in May 2001 for further development and integration. Initial system power-up took place in December 2001. A revision to the original contract, Phase 2, at the request of DOE Golden Field Office, established Vehicle Projects LLC as the new prime contractor,. Phase 2 allowed industry partners to conduct surface tests, incorporate enhancements to the original design by SNL, perform an extensive risk and safety analysis, and test the fuelcell locomotive underground under representative production mine conditions. During the surface tests one of the fuelcell stacks exhibited reduced power output resulting in having to replace both fuelcell stacks. The new stacks were manufactured with new and improved technology resulting in an increase of the gross power output from 14.4 kW to 17 kW. Further work by CANMET and Hatch Associates, an engineering consulting firm specializing in safety analysis for the mining industry, both under subcontract to Vehicle Projects LLC, established minimum requirements for underground testing. CANMET upgraded the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) software used to monitor and control the fuelcell power plant, taking into account locomotive operator's needs. Battery Electric, a South Africa manufacturer, designed and manufactured (at no cost to the project) a new motor controller capable of operating the higher rpm motor and different power characteristics of the fuelcells. In early August 2002, CANMET, with the technical assistance of Nuvera Fuel Cells and Battery Electric, installed the new PLC software, installed the new motor controller, and installed the new fuelcell stacks. After minor adjustments, the fuelcell locomotive pulled its first fully loaded ore cars on a surface track. The fuelcell-powered locomotive easily matched the battery powered equivalent in its ability to pull tonnage and equaled the battery-powered locomotive in acceleration. The final task of Phase 2, testing the locomotive underground in a production environment, occurred in early October 2002 in a gold mine. All regulatory requirements to allow the locomotive underground were completed and signed off by Hatch Associates prior to going underground. During the production tests, the locomotive performed flawlessly with no failures or downtime. The actual tests occurred during a 2-week period and involved moving both gold ore and waste rock over a 1,000 meter track. Refueling, or recharging, of the metal-hydride storage took place on the surface. After each shift, the metal-hydride storage module was removed from the locomotive, transported to surface, and filled with hydrogen from high-pressure tanks. The beginning of each shift started with taking the fully recharged metal-hydride storage module down into the mine and re-installing it onto the locomotive. Each 8 hour shift consumed approximately one half to two thirds of the onboard hydrogen. This indicates that the fuelcell-powered locomotive can work longer than a similar battery-powered locomotive, which operates about 6 hours, before needing a recharge.

  13. GRI highlights underground gasification effort

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1987-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A consortium headed by the Gas Research Institute is supporting major underground coal gasification tests to take place over the next two years at a site near Hanna, Wyoming. About 200 tons of coal will be gasified per day. Directional drilling will be used to form the horizontal gasification pathways linking the injection and production wells. The objectives of the program include a further evaluation of the controlled-retracting-injection-point technology. The technology involves the use of a device that is capable of igniting successive coal zones as it is retracted through a borehole in the coal seam. Comparable data will also be obtained during the test in sections where a linked-vertical-well concept will be used instead of the retracting-injection method. The linked-vertical-well concept, which has been used in most coal gasification tests, involves drilling a series of vertical wells into the coal seam gasification pathway for the ignition of successive coal zones. A parallel program will be conducted to evaluate environmental control technology applicable to underground coal gasification and to define the process requirements that must be satisfied to meet environmental quality standards. The results of these combined programs will provide the process and environmental data bases necessary to assess the economic potential of underground coal gasification from various US locations for a variety of end-product applications.

  14. User manual for AQUASTOR: a computer model for cost analysis of aquifer thermal-energy storage oupled with district-heating or cooling systems. Volume II. Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Huber, H.D.; Brown, D.R.; Reilly, R.W.

    1982-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A computer model called AQUASTOR was developed for calculating the cost of district heating (cooling) using thermal energy supplied by an aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) system. the AQUASTOR Model can simulate ATES district heating systems using stored hot water or ATES district cooling systems using stored chilled water. AQUASTOR simulates the complete ATES district heating (cooling) system, which consists of two prinicpal parts: the ATES supply system and the district heating (cooling) distribution system. The supply system submodel calculates the life-cycle cost of thermal energy supplied to the distribution system by simulating the technical design and cash flows for the exploration, development, and operation of the ATES supply system. The distribution system submodel calculates the life-cycle cost of heat (chill) delivered by the distribution system to the end-users by simulating the technical design and cash flows for the construction and operation of the distribution system. The model combines the technical characteristics of the supply system and the technical characteristics of the distribution system with financial and tax conditions for the entities operating the two systems into one techno-economic model. This provides the flexibility to individually or collectively evaluate the impact of different economic and technical parameters, assumptions, and uncertainties on the cost of providing district heating (cooling) with an ATES system. This volume contains all the appendices, including supply and distribution system cost equations and models, descriptions of predefined residential districts, key equations for the cooling degree-hour methodology, a listing of the sample case output, and appendix H, which contains the indices for supply input parameters, distribution input parameters, and AQUASTOR subroutines.

  15. Risk assessment of CST-7 proposed waste treatment and storage facilities Volume I: Limited-scope probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of proposed CST-7 waste treatment & storage facilities. Volume II: Preliminary hazards analysis of proposed CST-7 waste storage & treatment facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sasser, K.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In FY 1993, the Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Management Group [CST-7 (formerly EM-7)] requested the Probabilistic Risk and Hazards Analysis Group [TSA-11 (formerly N-6)] to conduct a study of the hazards associated with several CST-7 facilities. Among these facilities are the Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility (HWTF), the HWTF Drum Storage Building (DSB), and the Mixed Waste Receiving and Storage Facility (MWRSF), which are proposed for construction beginning in 1996. These facilities are needed to upgrade the Laboratory`s storage capability for hazardous and mixed wastes and to provide treatment capabilities for wastes in cases where offsite treatment is not available or desirable. These facilities will assist Los Alamos in complying with federal and state requlations.

  16. Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs Minh Ha-Duong, David W. Keith

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Paris-Sud XI, Université de

    Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs Minh Ha-Duong, David W carbon underground), we derive analytic expressions for the value of leaky CO2 storage compared to perfect storage when storage is a marginal component of the energy system. If the annual leak rate is 1

  17. Innostock 2012 The 12th International Conference on Energy Storage

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    exchanger (GHE) that may be used with ground source heat pump (GSHP) or underground thermal energy storage Innostock 2012 The 12th International Conference on Energy Storage 1 INNO-U-39 A quasi-two-dimensional standing column well model for ground source heat pump systems Annamalai Ramesh1 , Jeffrey Spitler2 1

  18. Saving for dry days: Aquifer storage and recovery may help

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wythe, Kathy

    2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    underground storage (MUS) of recoverable water. The Committee on Sustainable Underground Storage of Recoverable Water uses MUS ?to denote purposeful recharge of water into an aquifer system for intended recovery and use as an element of long-term water...tx H2O | pg. 2 Saving for dry days Story by Kathy Wythe tx H2O | pg. 3 Aquifer storage and recovery may help With reoccurring droughts and growing population, Texas will always be looking for better ways to save or use water. Some water...

  19. Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (Summary...

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

    Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells...

  20. Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply...

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

    Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells...

  1. Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply...

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

    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...

  2. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

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

    11,649 -2,967 -2,028 -12,074 9,944 7,015 1967-2014 Injections 21,094 18,643 19,738 22,732 14,077 14,010 1967-2014 Withdrawals 9,445 15,676 17,710 10,658 24,021 21,025...

  3. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0 0.0Decade4Year Jan

  4. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0 0.0Decade4Year114,937 114,274

  5. Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0 0.0Decade4Year114,9379 2010 2011

  6. Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-20 0

  7. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0 Year-1Decade

  8. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0 Year-1DecadeDecade Year-0

  9. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0 Year-1DecadeDecade Year-0

  10. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0Decade Year-0Base7 3 2 1 0

  11. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar Apr

  12. Kansas Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan Feb Mar AprYear Jan Feb

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan FebNov-14TotalYear Jan

  14. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan FebNov-14TotalYear

  15. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan FebNov-14TotalYearDecade

  16. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear Jan

  17. Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYear JanDecadeFeet) Working

  18. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Building FloorspaceThousandWithdrawals0.0DecadeYearDecade

  19. Kentucky Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet) Year Jan Feb

  20. Kentucky Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet) Year Jan FebFeet) Year

  1. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet)Year Jan Feb MarYear Jan

  2. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet)Year Jan Feb MarYear

  3. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet)Year Jan Feb MarYearDecade

  4. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet)Year Jan Feb

  5. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) Kenai,Feet)Year JanVentedFeet)

  6. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1 1996-2013 Lease20 55 10

  7. Louisiana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 0 0Year Jan FebFeet)

  8. Louisiana Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 0 0Year Jan

  9. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 02,208,9204.49Year Jan Feb

  10. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 02,208,9204.49Year Jan

  11. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 02,208,9204.49Year JanDecade

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569 02,208,9204.49Year

  13. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569Decade Year-0 Year-1Feet)

  14. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0 1569Decade Year-0

  15. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766 568,661 511,096Feet)

  16. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766236,957Cubic Feet)

  17. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766236,957Cubic

  18. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766236,957Cubicfrom

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 0 0579,766236,957CubicfromCubic

  20. Lower 48 States Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 07,755,432 7,466,375 6,741,759

  1. Lower 48 States Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 0 07,755,432 7,466,375 6,741,759(Million

  2. Maryland Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Year Jan Feb

  3. Maryland Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Year Jan FebFeet)

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.05.03 5.68 4.61

  5. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.05.03 5.68 4.61Feet)

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.05.03 5.68

  7. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.05.03 5.68Year Jan Feb Mar

  8. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.0 0.05.03 5.68YearYear

  9. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0 0.04,000 64,000 64,000

  10. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0Feet) (Million(Million Cubic

  11. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0Feet) (Million(Million

  12. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3 00.0Feet) (Million(MillionFeet)

  13. Michigan Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan Feb MarFeet)

  14. Michigan Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan Feb

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan2009

  16. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan2009Feet) Decade

  17. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan2009Feet)

  18. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYear Jan2009Feet)Year Jan

  19. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exports (NoYearDecade Year-0Feet)

  20. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exportsper Thousand Cubic9 6

  1. Minnesota Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exportspercontinues,Decade

  2. Minnesota Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet) 3Exportspercontinues,DecadeFeet) Year

  3. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial Consumers (NumberTotalYear Jan

  4. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial Consumers (NumberTotalYear

  5. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial Consumers (NumberTotalYearDecade

  6. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial Consumers

  7. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial ConsumersDecade

  8. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercial ConsumersDecadeFeet) Working

  9. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million Cubic Feet)Commercialper Thousand Cubic9 2.8Feet)

  10. Mississippi Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) Price All CountriesFeet)

  11. Mississippi Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) Price All

  12. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) PriceLiquids,35 922 858

  13. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) PriceLiquids,35 922 858Feet)

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) PriceLiquids,35 922

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) PriceLiquids,35 922Feet) Year

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet) PriceLiquids,35Feet)Year

  17. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)

  18. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)Same

  19. Missouri Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)Same 2011

  20. Missouri Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122 40 Buildingto China (Million CubicCubic Feet)Same 2011Feet) Year Jan Feb