National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for working storage capacity

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  5. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

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

  6. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  7. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  8. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity is the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) report containing storage capacity data for crude oil, petroleum products, and selected biofuels. The report includes tables detailing working and net available shell storage capacity by type of facility, product, and Petroleum Administration for Defense District (PAD District). Net available shell storage capacity is broken down further to show the percent for exclusive use by facility operators and the percent leased to others. Crude oil storage capacity data are also provided for Cushing, Oklahoma, an important crude oil market center. Data are released twice each year near the end of May (data for March 31) and near the end of November (data for September 30).

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  14. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    ... changed to active. References Methodology Related Links Storage Basics Field Level Annual Capacity Data Map of Storage Facilities Natural Gas Data Tables Short-Term Energy Outlook

  15. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

  19. Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2015 | Release Date: March 16, 2016 | Next Release Date: February 2017 Previous Issues Year: 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 prior issues Go Natural gas storage capacity nearly unchanged nationally, but regions vary U.S. natural gas working storage capacity (in terms of design capacity and demonstrated maximum working gas volumes) as of November 2015 was essentially flat compared to November 2014, with some

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. FAQs about Storage Capacity

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

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

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 396,950 396,092 2010's 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 230,456 271,785 2010's 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Working Gas

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

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 2000's 3,583,786 3,659,968 2010's 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 3,839,852 3,844,927 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016

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

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2007-01-01

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

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

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2006-01-01

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

  8. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

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

  10. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    2013 2014 View History Total Storage Capacity 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 67,915 67,915 2013-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 2013-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

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

    ...orcapaepg0sacmmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity " "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGMEP...

  15. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph....

  16. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

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

    Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph...

  17. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  18. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 43,600 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 33,150 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  19. Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 67,915 2013-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  20. Washington Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1988-2014 Aquifers 39,210 41,309 43,673 46,900 46,900 46,900 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 0 0 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 23,514...

  1. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  2. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,079,462 1,070,462 1,070,462 1,071,630 1,071,630 1,071,630 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 682,569 682,569 682,569 685,726 685,726 685,726 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 44 44 44 44 44 44

  3. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2

  4. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    31,301 331,301 331,301 331,812 331,812 331,812 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 200,903 200,903 200,903 201,388 201,388 201,388 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 12 12 12 12 12 12

  5. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 13,845 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6

  6. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  7. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 245,779 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 126,871 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  8. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 575,794 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 230,828 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  9. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    376,435 376,435 374,735 375,135 375,135 375,143 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 190,955 190,955 189,255 189,455 189,455 191,455 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13

  10. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 29,565 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,935 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  11. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 771,422 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 429,796 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 49 49 49 49 49 49

  12. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 832,644 834,965 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 528,445 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 528,335 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 36 36 36 36 36 36

  13. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    124,518 124,518 124,509 124,509 124,509 124,509 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 54,942 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3

  14. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  15. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    603,012 603,012 603,012 601,808 601,808 601,808 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 376,996 376,996 376,996 375,496 375,496 375,496 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 14 14 14 14 14 14

  16. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 130,186 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 63,774 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 10 10 10 10 10 10

  17. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    ,004,598 1,004,598 1,003,899 1,004,100 1,004,100 1,004,100 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 304,312 304,312 303,613 303,613 303,613 303,613 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 28 28 28 28 28 28

  18. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    10,749 110,749 110,749 110,749 111,581 111,581 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,760 32,760 32,760 32,760 33,592 33,592 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 21 21 21 21 21 21

  19. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 90,313 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 4 4 4 4 4 4

  20. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    82,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 282,984 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 122,980 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 17 17 17 17 17 17

  1. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    21,723 221,723 221,723 221,722 221,722 221,722 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 107,600 107,600 107,572 107,571 107,571 107,571 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23 23

  2. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    742,627 742,627 749,867 749,867 749,867 749,867 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 452,359 452,359 457,530 457,530 457,530 457,530 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 19 19

  3. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 528,637 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 259,324 259,324 259,324 259,321 259,321 259,315 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 30 30 30 30 30 30

  4. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 157,985 2002-2015 Total Working Gas Capacity 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 73,705 2012-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 9 9 9

  5. Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  6. Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

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

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

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

  8. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

  9. Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 431,137 431,086 433,110 434,179 433,214 433,214 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 942 938 938 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 431,137 431,086 433,110 433,236 432,276 432,276 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 51 51 51 51 51 51 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted Fields

  10. Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 842,072 834,124 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 253,220 254,136 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 584,042 587,439 587,439 584,881 588,852 579,988 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 504,524 509,961 532,336 533,336 541,161 528,485 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 168,143 167,546 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 380,859 379,340 380,234 368,897 373,018 360,938 2008-2014 Total Number of

  11. Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    20,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 221,723 221,723 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 212,156 215,156 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 103,484 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 107,600 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 100,971 102,981 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 23 23 23 23 23

  12. Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    51,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 733,939 745,029 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 520,900 520,900 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 369,031 384,864 397,627 412,482 446,713 454,140 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 292,380 292,880 2008-2014 Total Number of

  13. Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  14. Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 147,827 153,227 149,789 149,789 149,789 149,659 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 108,978 127,248 131,091 168,602 180,654 201,250 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 71,159 70,917 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields

  15. Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    76,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 197,508 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 197,501 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 5 5 5 5 5 5

  16. Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    129,480 129,480 124,465 124,465 124,465 124,465 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 11,980 11,980 4,265 4,265 4,265 4,265 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 117,500 117,500 120,200 120,200 120,200 120,200 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 52,198 52,189 54,889 54,898 54,898 54,898 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 948 939 939 948 948 948 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,250 51,250 53,950 53,950 53,950 53,950 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 3 3 3 3 3 3 1989-2014 Aquifers 2 2

  17. Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 157,985 157,985 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 10,000 10,000 6,733 6,705 6,705 6,705 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 101,120 101,120 100,030 118,232 151,280 151,280 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 42,140 42,134 41,284 48,705 73,705 73,705 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 836 830 830 836 836 836 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 41,304 41,304 40,454 47,869 72,869 72,869 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 8 8 8 9 9 9 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1

  18. Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    4,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 34,850 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,619 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 14,819 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  19. New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 80,000 84,300 84,300 89,100 89,100 89,100 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 55,300 59,000 59,000 63,300 59,738 59,738 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  20. New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    245,579 245,579 245,579 245,579 245,779 245,779 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 2,340 2,340 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 243,239 243,239 243,239 245,579 243,439 243,439 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 128,976 128,976 128,976 129,026 129,551 129,551 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 1,450 1,450 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 127,526 127,526 127,526 129,026 128,101 128,101 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 26 26 26 26 26 26

  1. Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,944 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 225,154 228,350 230,350 230,350 230,828 230,828 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 24 24 24 24 24 24

  2. Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    371,338 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 170 170 170 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 371,338 371,338 372,838 370,668 370,365 375,765 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,858 181,055 188,455 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 31 31 31 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 176,868 179,858 183,358 180,828 181,025 188,425 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 13 13 13 1989-2014 Aquifers 1 1 1 2012-2014 Depleted

  3. Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 29,565 29,565 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 15,935 15,935 15,935 15,510 15,935 15,935 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 7 7 7 7 7 7

  4. California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 599,711 599,711 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 374,296 374,296 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Depleted Fields 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 13 13 13 14 14 14 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0

  5. Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 9 9 9 10 10 10

  6. Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    989,454 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 303,312 304,312 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing

  7. Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 33,024 33,024 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Depleted Fields 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 13,809 13,809 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 22 22 22 22 22 22

  8. Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    82,300 284,821 284,731 284,905 283,974 282,984 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 283,974 282,984 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 122,970 122,980 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 19 19 19 19 18 17 1989-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 0

  9. Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    1,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 2012-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 12,178 12,178 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1989-2014 Depleted Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2

  10. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

    Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 9,228,173 9,219,173 9,224,005 9,225,079 9,225,911 9,228,240 1989-2015 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2015 Lower 48 States 9,144,581 9,135,581 9,140,412 9,141,486 9,142,319 9,144,648

  11. Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity This presentation by Amgad Elgowainy of Argonne National Laboratory was given at the DOE Hydrogen Compression, Storage, and Dispensing Workshop in March 2013. PDF icon csd_workshop_11_elgowainy.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrogen Delivery Analysis Models Overview of Station Analysis Tools Developed in Support of H2USA Webinar Overview of Station Analysis Tools Developed in Support of

  12. Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979 1,079,424 1,079,462 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 1,065,583 1,066,064 1,071,638 1,075,145 1,075,590 1,075,629 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 666,636 667,065 672,632 673,200 674,967 675,003 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 672,808 672,844 2008-2014 Total Number of

  13. Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,200 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 2009-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1998-2014 Salt Caverns 1 1 1 1 1 1

  14. Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    6,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 35,400 43,600 1995-2014 Salt Caverns 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Aquifers 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Total Working Gas Capacity 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 27,350 33,150 2008-2014 Salt Caverns 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Aquifers 0 0 2012-2014 Depleted Fields 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 2008-2014 Total Number of Existing Fields 2 2 2 2 2 2 1995-2014 Salt

  15. High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite - Energy Innovation Portal

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

    Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Energy Storage Energy Storage Advanced Materials Advanced Materials Find More Like This Return to Search High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Nanocomposite Processes to add metal hydrideds to nanocarbon structures to yield high capacity hydrogen storage materials Savannah River National Laboratory Contact SRNL About This Technology Plot of Number of hydrogen atoms per lithium atom vs the Mol ratio of C<sub>60</sub>:Li.&nbsp; An ratio of 1:6

  16. High capacity hydrogen storage nanocomposite materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Zidan, Ragaiy; Wellons, Matthew S

    2015-02-03

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

  17. High capacity stabilized complex hydrides for hydrogen storage

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

    2014-11-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-01-01

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

  1. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  2. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    ... Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report", Form EIA-819 "Monthly Oxygenate Report" EIAWorking and Net Available Shell ...

  3. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    ... Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report", Form EIA-819 "Monthly Oxygenate Report" PAD Districts EIAWorking and Net ...

  4. Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity

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

    ... Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-813 "Monthly Crude Oil Report", Form EIA-815 "Monthly Bulk Terminal and Blender Report" PAD Districts 1 EIAWorking and Net ...

  5. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

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

    company data. Notes: This table tracks U.S. natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities. The weekly stocks generally are the volumes of working gas as...

  6. West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1988-2014 Salt Caverns 0 0 1999-2014 Depleted Fields 531,456 531,480 524,324 524,324 524,337 528,637 1999-2014 Total Working Gas...

  7. Iowa Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

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

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

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

  9. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176...

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

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

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

  11. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  13. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

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

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

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

  15. Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary...

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

    Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Summary report from the May 17, 2007...

  16. Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report |

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

    Department of Energy Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Summary report from the May 17, 2007 Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting PDF icon ssawg_may_summary.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group Meeting, December 12, 2006 Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report Hydrogen Storage Systems

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

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

    Center for Gas SeparationsRelevant to Clean Energy Technologies | Blandine Jerome High Methane Storage Capacity in Aluminum Metal-Organic Frameworks Previous Next List Felipe Gándara, Hiroyasu Furukawa, Seungkyu Lee, and Omar M. Yaghi, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 136, 5271-5274 (2014) DOI: 10.1021/ja501606h Abstract Image Abstract: The use of porous materials to store natural gas in vehicles requires large amounts of methane per unit of volume. Here we report the synthesis, crystal structure and

  18. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-09-10

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

  20. Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group Meeting, December...

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

    summary of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group meeting in December 2006 in Washington, D.C. ssawgminutes1206.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrgoen Storage...

  1. Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report |

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

    Department of Energy Summary of June 11, 2008, biannual meeting of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group. PDF icon ssawg_summary_report_0608.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report Technical Assessment of Organic Liquid Carrier Hydrogen Storage Systems for Automotive Applications

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-04

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

  3. September 10th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    0th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working Group on Safety Validation and Risk Assessment R&D September 10th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working Group on Safety ...

  4. Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report |

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

    Department of Energy The objective of these biannual Working Group meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes. PDF icon ssawg_summary_report.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group Meeting, December 12, 2006 Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report

  5. Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage

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

    Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage Latest update: March 3, 2016 Note: The weekly storage estimates are based on a survey sample that does not include all companies that operate underground storage facilities. The sample was selected from the list of storage operators to achieve a target standard error of the estimate of working gas in storage which was no greater than 5 percent for each region. Based on a comparison of weekly estimates and monthly data from January

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

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

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

  7. NREL: Energy Storage - Working with Us

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

    Partnering with industry, government, and universities is key to developing affordable energy storage technology and moving it into the marketplace and the U.S. economy. In ...

  8. Complex Hydride Compounds with Enhanced Hydrogen Storage Capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-02-18

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

  9. Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary...

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

    Summary of June 11, 2008, biannual meeting of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group. PDF icon ssawgsummaryreport0608.pdf More Documents & Publications Hydrgoen...

  10. Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group Meeting, December 12, 2006

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This document provides a summary of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Anlaysis Working Group meeting in December 2006 in Washington, D.C.

  11. Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary...

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

    The objective of these biannual Working Group meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes. PDF ...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2012-01-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-08-30

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

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

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

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

    2014-12-31

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-12-31

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

  16. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0...

  17. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0...

  18. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,882...

  19. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,081...

  20. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 115,418...

  1. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,491...

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990...

  3. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 499 497...

  4. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 100,467...

  5. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,676...

  6. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 12,862 9,993...

  7. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 55,226...

  8. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 129,245...

  9. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,705 2,366...

  10. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,303...

  11. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 8,956...

  12. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 33,234...

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

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

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2015-10-05

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

  17. U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 View History Total Storage

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 48,709 48,709 48,709 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,209 60,582 60,582 2013...

  19. U.S. Working Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries

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

    Area: U.S. East Coast (PADD 1) Midwest (PADD 2) Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) West Coast (PADD 5) Period: Annual (as of January 1) Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Product Area 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 View History Total 617,513 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Crude Oil 153,181 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 30,852 -- -- -- -- -- 1982-2015 Propane/Propylene 8,150 -- --

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

  1. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.5...

  2. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 9.4...

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

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tsungying Lee; Nanming Chen

    1993-12-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2007-02-07

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Godec, Michael

    2013-06-30

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1995-04-14

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

  9. Midwest Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 449,673 237,999 142,513 179,338 317,901 471,765 625,764 788,930 935,822...

  10. Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 137,378 102,507 83,983 82,058 98,717 121,623 140,461 157,716 174,610 187,375...

  11. East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 451,335 271,801 167,715 213,475 349,739 474,624 580,937 689,328 805,733...

  12. Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

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

    Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 197,953 115,235 104,941 144,268 200,453 249,196 274,725 302,752 318,020...

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290nm2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ny2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290va2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls"

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

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

    of Elements) Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 49 2000's 49 39 38 43 43 44 44 43 43 43 2010's 43 43 44 47 46 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Number of

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

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

    (Number of Elements) Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 335 2000's 336 351 340 318 320 320 322 326 324 331 2010's 331 329 330 332 333 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

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

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

    (Number of Elements) Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 29 2000's 28 28 29 30 30 30 31 31 34 35 2010's 37 38 40 40 39 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages:

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290il2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls"

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

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

    Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mo2m.xls"

  7. Two-tank working gas storage system for heat engine

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hindes, Clyde J. (Troy, NY)

    1987-01-01

    A two-tank working gas supply and pump-down system is coupled to a hot gas engine, such as a Stirling engine. The system has a power control valve for admitting the working gas to the engine when increased power is needed, and for releasing the working gas from the engine when engine power is to be decreased. A compressor pumps the working gas that is released from the engine. Two storage vessels or tanks are provided, one for storing the working gas at a modest pressure (i.e., half maximum pressure), and another for storing the working gas at a higher pressure (i.e., about full engine pressure). Solenoid valves are associated with the gas line to each of the storage vessels, and are selectively actuated to couple the vessels one at a time to the compressor during pumpdown to fill the high-pressure vessel with working gas at high pressure and then to fill the low-pressure vessel with the gas at low pressure. When more power is needed, the solenoid valves first supply the low-pressure gas from the low-pressure vessel to the engine and then supply the high-pressure gas from the high-pressure vessel. The solenoid valves each act as a check-valve when unactuated, and as an open valve when actuated.

  8. Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 900 01/08 820 01/15 750 01/22 710 01/29 661 2010-Feb 02/05 604 02/12 552 02/19 502 02/26 464 2010-Mar 03/05 433 03/12 422 03/19 419 03/26 410 2010-Apr 04/02 410 04/09 429 04/16 444 04/23 462 04/30 480 2010-May

  9. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 195 01/08 185 01/15 176 01/22 171 01/29 164 2010-Feb 02/05 157 02/12 148 02/19 141 02/26 133 2010-Mar 03/05 129 03/12 127 03/19 126 03/26 126 2010-Apr 04/02 126 04/09 126 04/16 129 04/23 134 04/30 138

  10. Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 841 2007-Jan 01/05 823 01/12 806 01/19 755 01/26 716 2007-Feb 02/02 666 02/09 613 02/16 564 02/23 538 2007-Mar 03/02 527 03/09 506 03/16 519 03/23 528 03/30 550 2007-Apr 04/06 560

  11. Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 826 01/08 763 01/15 702 01/22 687 01/29 671 2010-Feb 02/05 624 02/12 573 02/19 521 02/26 496 2010-Mar 03/05 472 03/12 477 03/19 487 03/26 492 2010-Apr 04/02

  12. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 268 01/08 257 01/15 246 01/22 235 01/29 221 2010-Feb 02/05 211 02/12 197 02/19 193 02/26 184 2010-Mar 03/05 182 03/12 176 03/19 179 03/26 185 2010-Apr 04/02 189 04/09 193 04/16 199 04/23 209 04/30 220 2010-May

  13. East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 769 01/08 703 01/15 642 01/22 616 01/29 582 2010-Feb 02/05 523 02/12 471 02/19 425 02/26 390 2010-Mar 03/05 349 03/12 341 03/19 334 03/26 336 2010-Apr 04/02 333 04/09 358 04/16 376 04/23 397 04/30 416 2010-May 05/07

  14. Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 1,411 1994-Jan 01/07 1,323 01/14 1,199 01/21 1,040 01/28 958 1994-Feb 02/04 838 02/11 728 02/18 665 02/25 627 1994-Mar 03/04 529 03/11 531 03/18 462 03/25 461 1994-Apr 04/01

  15. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 3,117 01/08 2,850 01/15 2,607 01/22 2,521 01/29 2,406 2010-Feb 02/05 2,214 02/12 2,026 02/19 1,853 02/26 1,738 2010-Mar 03/05 1,627 03/12 1,614 03/19 1,626 03/26 1,638 2010-Apr 04/02 1,670 04/09 1,754

  16. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 2,322 1994-Jan 01/07 2,186 01/14 2,019 01/21 1,782 01/28 1,662 1994-Feb 02/04 1,470 02/11 1,303 02/18 1,203 02/25 1,149 1994-Mar 03/04 1,015 03/11 1,004 03/18 952 03/25 965 1994-Apr 04/01 953 04/08

  17. Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 570 1994-Jan 01/07 532 01/14 504 01/21 440 01/28 414 1994-Feb 02/04 365 02/11 330 02/18 310 02/25 309 1994-Mar 03/04 281 03/11 271 03/18 284 03/25 303 1994-Apr 04/01 287 04/08 293 04/15 308 04/22

  18. Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 101 2007-Jan 01/05 109 01/12 107 01/19 96 01/26 91 2007-Feb 02/02 78 02/09 63 02/16 52 02/23 54 2007-Mar 03/02 59 03/09 58 03/16 64 03/23 70 03/30 78 2007-Apr 04/06 81 04/13 80 04/20

  19. Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 159 01/08 123 01/15 91 01/22 102 01/29 108 2010-Feb 02/05 95 02/12 85 02/19 71 02/26 70 2010-Mar 03/05 63 03/12 71 03/19 80 03/26 89 2010-Apr 04/02 101 04/09 112 04/16 120

  20. South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 985 01/08 886 01/15 793 01/22 789 01/29 779 2010-Feb 02/05 719 02/12 658 02/19 592 02/26 566 2010-Mar 03/05 535 03/12 548 03/19 567 03/26 581 2010-Apr 04/02 612 04/09 649 04/16 679 04/23 710

  1. Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 341 1994-Jan 01/07 331 01/14 316 01/21 303 01/28 290 1994-Feb 02/04 266 02/11 246 02/18 228 02/25 212 1994-Mar 03/04 206 03/11 201 03/18 205 03/25 202 1994-Apr 04/01 201 04/08

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Birkholzer, J.T.; Zhou, Q.

    2009-04-02

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

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

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

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

    Feet) Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 1,263,106 2000's 1,263,711 1,195,141 1,234,007 1,237,132 1,238,158 1,350,689 1,356,323 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 2010's 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

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

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

    Cubic Feet) Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 6,780,700 2000's 6,788,130 6,768,622 6,747,108 6,733,983 6,776,894 6,667,222 6,711,656 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 2010's 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

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

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

    Feet) Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1990's 185,451 2000's 189,043 218,483 225,958 234,601 239,990 250,532 261,988 253,410 341,213 397,560 2010's 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date:

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

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

    Yue, Meng; Wang, Xiaoyu

    2015-07-01

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

  8. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

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

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 905,018 584,386 467,210 599,207 831,273 1,086,355 1,342,894 1,578,648 1,775,994 1,885,465 1,819,517 1,589,500 1995 1,206,116 814,626 663,885 674,424 850,290 1,085,760 1,300,439 1,487,188 1,690,456 1,811,013 1,608,177 1,232,901 1996 812,303 520,053 341,177 397,770 612,572 890,243

  9. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 393,598 297,240 289,617 356,360 461,202 516,155 604,504 678,168 747,928 783,414 775,741 673,670 1995 549,759 455,591 416,294 457,969 533,496 599,582 638,359 634,297 713,319 766,411 700,456 552,458 1996 369,545 263,652 195,447 224,002 279,731 339,263 391,961 474,402 578,991 638,500 562,097

  10. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

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

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 280,414 208,968 200,997 216,283 261,894 293,909 326,049 349,274 387,670 405,477 381,931 342,394 1995 288,908 270,955 251,410 246,654 284,291 328,371 362,156 372,718 398,444 418,605 419,849 366,944 1996 280,620 236,878 221,371 232,189 268,812 299,619 312,736 313,747 330,116

  11. Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 184,212 180,918 178,620 181,242 179,235 181,374 183,442 187,348 185,848 181,029 1991 179,697 178,285 176,975 176,918 178,145 179,386 181,094 182,534 182,653 181,271 178,539 174,986 1992 111,256 109,433 109,017 109,150 110,146 110,859 111,885 112,651 112,225 110,868 107,520 101,919 1993 96,819 92,399 89,640 87,930

  12. South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

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

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 668,540 452,778 337,592 426,793 560,429 666,015 755,579 806,418 929,012 1,090,604 1,084,413 1,044,833 2015 831,268 576,019 574,918 749,668 920,727 1,002,252 1,050,004 1,095,812 1,206,329 1,321,297 1,332,421 1,303,737 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  13. West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 95,718 84,444 80,152 86,360 105,201 122,470 139,486 155,506 168,801 172,513 172,198 155,477 1991 102,542 81,767 79,042 86,494 101,636 117,739 132,999 142,701 151,152 154,740 143,668 121,376 1992 87,088 60,200 32,379 33,725 57,641 75,309 97,090 115,537 128,969 141,790 135,853 143,960 1993 112,049 69,593

  14. EIA - Analysis of Natural Gas Storage

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

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

  15. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -2,863 -1,902 -2,297 -1,134 -1,671 -1,997 -907 -144 629 992 2,290 1,354 1991 30,778 27,964 37,141 36,920 15,424 -18,322 -46,969 -63,245 -61,004 -48,820 -54,587 -34,458 1992 6,870 -8,479 -43,753 -43,739 -33,236 -8,601 3,190 9,732 8,583 15,815

  16. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 58,567 62,011 60,735 61,687 66,432 71,791 79,578 86,584 93,785 97,094 92,657 86,693 1991 79,816 76,289 72,654 77,239 79,610 82,915 88,262 91,449 94,895 94,470 87,950 85,249 1992 84,385 83,106 78,213 76,527 75,300 76,861 80,412 82,020 86,208 96,910 95,391 92,376 1993 87,306 76,381 66,748 66,019 72,407 80,245 87,794

  17. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,708 1,141 1,211 1,688 2,017 2,129 2,261 2,309 2,370 2,397 2,395 2,007 1991 1,551 1,313 1,207 1,362 1,619 1,931 2,222 2,214 2,307 2,273 2,191 2,134 1992 1,685 1,556 1,228 1,019 1,409 1,716 2,013 2,193 2,319 2,315 2,307 2,104 1993 1,708 1,290 872 824 1,141 1,485 1,894 2,022 2,260 2,344 2,268 1,957 1994 1,430 1,235

  18. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 22,371 18,661 17,042 17,387 20,796 23,060 26,751 30,924 33,456 34,200 30,588 1991 24,821 19,663 16,425 15,850 17,767 18,744 22,065 26,710 31,199 37,933 35,015 30,071 1992 23,328 18,843 14,762 14,340 15,414 17,948 23,103 27,216 32,427 35,283 32,732 29,149 1993 23,702 18,626 15,991 17,160 18,050 20,109 24,565 29,110

  19. Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 65,683 55,509 49,604 47,540 48,128 53,233 64,817 76,933 92,574 99,253 115,704 93,290 1991 59,383 54,864 49,504 47,409 53,752 61,489 64,378 67,930 78,575 89,747 80,663 82,273 1992 76,311 63,152 53,718 48,998 51,053 53,700 57,987 69,653 79,756 82,541 73,094 61,456 1993 44,893 33,024 27,680 26,796 46,806 58,528 64,198

  20. Storage Systems Analysis Working Group | Department of Energy

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

    design, analysis, engineering, and optimization of reactors; materials properties ... Sunita Satyapal Hydrogen Storage Team Leader DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Fuel Cell ...

  1. Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    levels. These are estimated from volume data provided by a sample of operators that report on Form EIA-912, "Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Report." The EIA first...

  2. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 18.8 22.4 37.0 33.4 9.7 -8.5 -17.7 -19.9 -17.0 -13.4 -15.2 -11.2 1992 3.5 -5.5 -31.8 -29.7 -19.1 -4.4 1.5 3.8 2.9 5.0 9.1 6.0 1993 8.3 -16.5 -29.1 -13.2 -5.0 -0.1 5.0 3.1 4.8 0.9 -1.5 -3.3 1994 -21.0 -19.2 13.5 27.9 24.0 18.3 16.9 15.8 5.8 6.1 2.3 5.6 1995 35.1 43.1 48.4 8.5

  3. Working Together to Address Natural Gas Storage Safety

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As a part of the Administration’s ongoing commitment to support state and industry efforts to ensure the safe storage of natural gas, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will formally launch a new Interagency Task Force on Natural Gas Storage Safety.

  4. UFD Storage and Transportation - Transportation Working Group Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Maheras, Steven J.; Ross, Steven B.

    2011-08-01

    The Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) Transportation Task commenced in October 2010. As its first task, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) compiled a list of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of transportation systems and their possible degradation mechanisms during extended storage. The list of SSCs and the associated degradation mechanisms [known as features, events, and processes (FEPs)] were based on the list of used nuclear fuel (UNF) storage system SSCs and degradation mechanisms developed by the UFD Storage Task (Hanson et al. 2011). Other sources of information surveyed to develop the list of SSCs and their degradation mechanisms included references such as Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry Storage and Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel (NWTRB 2010), Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance Specification, Revision 1 (OCRWM 2008), Data Needs for Long-Term Storage of LWR Fuel (EPRI 1998), Technical Bases for Extended Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (EPRI 2002), Used Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Extended Storage Collaboration Program (EPRI 2010a), Industry Spent Fuel Storage Handbook (EPRI 2010b), and Transportation of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel, Issues Resolution (EPRI 2010c). SSCs include items such as the fuel, cladding, fuel baskets, neutron poisons, metal canisters, etc. Potential degradation mechanisms (FEPs) included mechanical, thermal, radiation and chemical stressors, such as fuel fragmentation, embrittlement of cladding by hydrogen, oxidation of cladding, metal fatigue, corrosion, etc. These degradation mechanisms are discussed in Section 2 of this report. The degradation mechanisms have been evaluated to determine if they would be influenced by extended storage or high burnup, the need for additional data, and their importance to transportation. These categories were used to identify the most significant transportation degradation mechanisms. As expected, for the most part, the transportation importance was mirrored by the importance assigned by the UFD Storage Task. A few of the more significant differences are described in Section 3 of this report

  5. Interim UFD Storage and Transportation - Transportation Working Group Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Maheras, Steven J.; Ross, Steven B.

    2011-03-30

    The Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) Transportation Task commenced in October 2010. As its first task, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) compiled a draft list of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of transportation systems and their possible degradation mechanisms during very long term storage (VLTS). The list of SSCs and the associated degradation mechanisms [known as features, events, and processes (FEPs)] were based on the list of SSCs and degradation mechanisms developed by the UFD Storage Task (Stockman et al. 2010)

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-02-10

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

  7. U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA...

  8. Role of Surface Structure on Li-ion Energy Storage Capacity of...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    of Publication: United States Language: English Subject: catalysis (heterogeneous), solar (fuels), energy storage (including batteries and capacitors), hydrogen and fuel...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dooley, James J.

    2013-08-05

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2015-03-17

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

  11. U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas...

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

    Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yildirim, Taner

    2015-03-03

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-05-08

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-04-13

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2006-05-01

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

  16. ,"Weekly East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next Release

  17. ,"Weekly Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next Release

  18. ,"Weekly Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next Release

  19. ,"Weekly Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next Release

  20. ,"Weekly Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next Release

  1. ,"Weekly South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016" ,"Next

  2. September 10th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working Group on

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Safety Validation and Risk Assessment R&D | Department of Energy 0th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working Group on Safety Validation and Risk Assessment R&D September 10th Webinar for the Energy Storage Safety Working Group on Safety Validation and Risk Assessment R&D September 8, 2015 - 5:43pm Addthis On Thursday, September 10, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE), together with Sandia National Laboratories, will present a kick-off webinar for

  3. Refinery Capacity Report

    Reports and Publications (EIA)

    2015-01-01

    Data series include fuel, electricity, and steam purchased for consumption at the refinery; refinery receipts of crude oil by method of transportation; and current and projected atmospheric crude oil distillation, downstream charge, and production capacities. Respondents are operators of all operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year, located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. The Refinery Capacity Report does not contain working and shell storage capacity data. This data is now being collected twice a year as of March 31 and September 30 on the Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report", and is now released as a separate report Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2005-12-07

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

  8. Lower 48 Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Lower 48 Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 0.1 2.3 -4.6 -11.1 -9.6 -7.7 -6.4 -4.2 -2.6 -1.2 2.0 11.3 2012 36.5 53.4 73.5 61.5 46.1 34.6 25.3 19.5 15.0 11.5 7.7 8.2 2013 -7.6 -14.8 -31.0 -29.5 -21.9 -15.7 -10.0 -6.2 -4.0 -3.4 -5.7 -15.9

  9. Lower 48 States Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 1,985 38,541 -75,406 -222,622 -232,805 -210,409 -190,434 -133,607 -91,948 -46,812 73,978 350,936 2012 778,578 852,002 1,047,322 994,769 911,345 800,040 655,845

  10. Refinery Capacity Report

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

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

  11. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (MMcf)"

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

    Working Gas (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  12. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (MMcf)"

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

    Working Gas (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","12/2015" ,"Release Date:","2/29/2016" ,"Next Release Date:","3/31/2016" ,"Excel File

  13. Storage

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

    Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering ...

  14. Huge natural gas reserves central to capacity work, construction plans in Iran

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-07-11

    Questions about oil production capacity in Iran tend to mask the country's huge potential as a producer of natural gas. Iran is second only to Russia in gas reserves, which National Iranian Gas Co. estimates at 20.7 trillion cu m. Among hurdles to Iran's making greater use of its rich endowment of natural gas are where and how to sell gas not used inside the country. The marketing logistics problem is common to other Middle East holders of gas reserves and a reason behind the recent proliferation of proposals for pipeline and liquefied natural gas schemes targeting Europe and India. But Iran's challenges are greater than most in the region. Political uncertainties and Islamic rules complicate long-term financing of transportation projects and raise questions about security of supply. As a result, Iran has remained mostly in the background of discussions about international trade of Middle Eastern gas. The country's huge gas reserves, strategic location, and existing transport infrastructure nevertheless give it the potential to be a major gas trader if the other issues can be resolved. The paper discusses oil capacity plans, gas development, gas injection for enhanced oil recovery, proposals for exports of gas, and gas pipeline plans.

  15. EA-1900: Radiological Work and Storage Building at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment for a radiological work and storage building at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (Kesselring Site in West Milton, New York. A new facility is needed to streamline radioactive material handling and storage operations, permit demolition of aging facilities, and accommodate efficient maintenance of existing nuclear reactors.

  16. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 -67 -133 -30 123 233 669 826 998 743 933 994 633 1997 156 40 226 203 337 -48 -197 -301 -376 -242 -356 405 1998 185 181 -92 24 -103 427 374 288 -376 -14 230 91 1999 29 103 39 -69 257 -156 88 -31 772 82 214 164 2000 63 175 802 599 219 615 462 381 -131 -196

  17. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -381 -30 28 -87 -12 8 23 18 74 67 131 109 1991 -157 171 -4 -326 -398 -197 -39 -95 -63 -124 -204 127 1992 134 244 21 -342 -210 -216 -209 -21 12 42 116 -30 1993 23 -266 -356 -196 -268 -230 -119 -170 -58 29 -39 -147 1994 -278 -55 173 65 96 156 117 190 101

  18. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -114 -943 -336 775 774 774 773 -107 103 55 -146 1,291 1991 -410 79 -1,227 -201 487 592 893 913 620 617 807 1,083 1992 -216 381 1,107 542 286 333 304 220 216 189 -18 -13 1993 393 -220 -975 -996 -374 -69 -233 -135 -136 -112 -226 -70 1994 -245 1,036 1,842

  19. U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,531,928 1,053,730 915,878 1,122,203 1,495,691 1,839,607 2,209,565 2,542,126 2,841,503 3,002,400 2,904,404 2,536,416 1995 1,972,316 1,477,193 1,273,311 1,313,255 1,594,809 1,935,579 2,225,266 2,431,646 2,721,269 2,908,317 2,644,778 2,081,635 1996 1,403,589 973,002 720,077 796,966 1,098,675 1,457,649 1,826,743

  20. Midwest Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 -243,074 -255,871 -209,941 -189,692 -156,914 -124,375 -83,035 -47,387 -33,755 -8,053 -11,988 108,104 2015 168,043 107,093 109,425 129,754 120,282 93,230 57,993 42,213 36,305 46,783

  1. Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 -32,861 -42,199 -45,053 -42,581 -35,771 -26,278 -21,654 -24,388 -26,437 -26,669 -34,817 -21,557 2015 -6,412 13,374 29,357 34,073 36,475 32,988 31,353 29,400 28,615 27,317 32,540 33,887 -

  2. Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 -73,745 -134,228 -151,370 -126,913 -108,676 -88,833 -85,846 -63,506 -59,951 -41,003 -28,478 51,746 2015 78,024 157,916 170,736 149,288 125,002 86,799 69,490 45,075 40,921 33,861 29,674

  3. South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working

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

    Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 -281,823 -324,789 -326,968 -286,719 -287,056 -272,324 -254,513 -242,345 -212,206 -137,887 -86,360 54,089 2015 162,728 123,241 237,326 322,874 360,298 336,237 294,425 289,394

  4. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 321,678 314,918 308,955 347,344 357,995 370,534 383,549 377,753 378,495 396,071 402,265 365,396 1991 279,362 271,469 271,401 289,226 303,895 323,545 327,350 329,102 344,201 347,984 331,821 316,648 1992 284,571 270,262 264,884 267,778 286,318 298,901 320,885 338,320 341,156 345,459 324,873 288,098 1993 165,226 149,367 141,472

  5. East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 -153,889 -148,035 -136,025 -149,021 -138,631 -131,428 -97,260 -70,667 -48,505 -17,679 -19,853 53,769 2015 84,597 70,000 74,719 98,542 105,414 101,643 79,834 76,371 53,666 26,264 82,451 113,777 -

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

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

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2013-12-15

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

  8. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working

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

    Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 393,598 297,240 289,617 356,360 461,202 516,155 604,504 678,168 747,928 783,414 775,741 673,670 1995 156,161 158,351 126,677 101,609 72,294 83,427 33,855 -43,870 -34,609 -17,003 -75,285 -121,212 1996 -180,213 -191,939 -220,847

  9. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2014 11,087 5,754 6,824 6,119 5,428 6,065 5,421 4,685 3,365 1,565 3,028 5,179 2015 4,768 4,958 3,824 3,761 3,574 2,105 2,020 1,381 723 881 189 -679 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  10. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2014 123.8 41.4 49.7 42.7 35.5 37.5 31.7 25.2 16.5 7.1 14.3 26.1 2015 23.8 25.2 18.6 18.4 17.3 9.5 9.0 5.9 3.0 3.7 0.8 -2.7 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release

  11. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -925 -513 -486 -557 -855 -813 -453 -125 98 112 82 297 1991 -381 -716 -999 -1,230 -1,199 -1,333 -1,373 -1,840 -2,119 -2,147 -2,697 -3,134 1992 -1,855 -2,008 -2,040 -1,913 -2,046 -1,875 -1,510 -861 -426 -502 -100 73 1993 100 -170 -256 -297 -803 -1,041

  12. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -862 -85 724 658 416 -1,091 -1,477 -807 2,724 -222 -1,505 5,333 1991 4,470 4,339 1,613 1,801 727 1,324 628 202 -123 -686 1,727 2,620 1992 900 -745 -1,784 -3,603 -1,779 -745 -328 -176 -219 356 579 -1,431 1993 153 742 1,488 1,891 777 -736 -1,464 -2,133

  13. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -46,336 -12,518 16,386 37,537 39,350 53,475 75,155 66,399 51,354 56,272 78,572 103,458 1991 37,515 32,421 33,438 66,819 45,861 39,009 20,626 -3,335 -36,217 -14,370 -61,674 -66,823 1992 -28,428 -40,296 -82,921 -108,640 -91,199 -80,473 -64,200 -42,476

  14. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -10,714 -2,484 2,221 9,026 9,501 3,159 1,926 1,511 539 1,182 1,803 9,892 1991 10,604 5,727 4,873 6,047 4,879 3,728 -584 -3,344 -2,211 -1,535 -10,107 -9,904 1992 -2,980 443 -1,846 -7,642 -6,984 -4,083 -1,435 -2,987 -1,706 -4,499 3,130 1,793 1993 5,569

  15. Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 705 2,167 1,643 1,813 -2,403 355 272 -26 131 59 561 542 1991 -4,514 -2,633 -2,648 -1,702 -3,097 151 -280 -908 -3,437 -6,076 -7,308 -6,042 1992 -68,442 -68,852 -67,958 -67,769 -67,999 -68,527 -69,209 -69,883 -70,428 -70,404 -71,019 -73,067 1993 -14,437

  16. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -3,131 -3,119 -3,529 -3,306 -1,630 -1,017 244 -266 -458 -1,071 -1,072 157 1992 482 508 1,184 660 -762 -277 2,037 3,311 3,592 3,600 1,413 350 1993 -1,474 -2,431 -3,424 -3,068 -1,752 -1,058 -532 116 439 -49,834 -49,012 -47,951 1994 -47,626 -48,394 -47,215

  17. New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -4,944 -5,851 -5,300 -3,038 -4,576 -4,057 77 1,820 2,686 6,478 7,515 9,209 1991 7,941 6,810 4,962 -4,017 2,723 1,139 -1,388 -6,536 -5,453 -8,726 -9,976 -6,483 1992 -5,057 -3,765 -2,333 3,222 202 -2,266 -5,420 -1,519 -2,964 -294 -1,093 -1,638 1993

  18. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -484 -13 300 294 -712 -349 -288 393 1,101 972 1,011 1,114 1991 3,318 2,144 1,258 2,592 3,476 1,343 977 614 2,324 4,252 -55 2,063 1992 11,224 5,214 -1,963 -2,306 527 2,182 5,330 6,430 3,719 2,374 3,894 -4,958 1993 -6,762 -8,650 -7,154 -6,031 -5,432

  19. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,596 507 381 -2,931 -46 -596 -311 -234 178 167 7,030 9,898 1991 19,571 17,816 10,871 17,001 13,713 16,734 12,252 11,416 8,857 5,742 -6,023 -8,607 1992 -14,527 -26,506 -45,308 -51,996 -46,282 -36,996 -26,224 -22,672 -22,086 -18,888 -11,177 -16,353 1993 -11,967

  20. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -3,932 5,480 7,289 -2,690 234 1,959 -4,575 -3,502 -6,399 723 4,670 1991 -18,020 -11,848 -7,774 9,453 9,540 10,851 1,058 -1,981 846 -1,053 -36,391 -20,972 1992 4,433 1,077 -7,840 -16,283 -22,923 -22,043 -5,431 -2,118 584 4,227 9,780 -10,318 1993 -69,197

  1. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -30,641 13,186 6,384 -1,434 1,227 -3,129 3,399 2,573 2,606 1,953 968 1,423 1991 1,986 2,360 1,291 -869 -1,664 -1,353 -659 -203 99 250 317 582 1992 89 -487 -305 231 1,089 1,075 811 730 509 343 -779 -872 1993 -1,222 -1,079 -221 -204 -131 -374 -387 -356 -231 86

  2. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 1999 197 189 118 122 119 262 235 178 169 171 125 68 2000 34 -17 51 68 53 -90 -197 -274 -377 -433 -377 -236 2001 -68 48 38 32 153 266 298 360 407 420 65 -22 2002 24 85 159 228 100 -16 -60 -126 -176

  3. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,315 40,513 43,111 18,628 12,189 2,033 47 -10,549 -21,072 -9,288 -13,355 -8,946 1991 -42,316 -43,449 -37,554 -58,118 -54,100 -46,988 -56,199 -48,651 -34,294 -48,087 -70,444 -48,747 1992 5,209 -1,207 -6,517 -21,448 -17,577 -24,644 -6,465 9,218 -3,044 -2,525

  4. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 6,258 1,922 -2,167 -243 10 2,672 -2,738 -4,873 -6,032 -7,692 -923 338 1992 -6,698 -535 4,172 3,577 4,237 4,004 2,095 84 -3,541 -5,140 1,162 1,110 1993 -850 -4,870 -7,443 -9,206 -6,521 -660 270 742 2,661 8,010 4,211 6,489 1994 7,656 4,514 6,002 8,910 9,109 5,722

  5. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,533 1999 210 227 211 187 147 49 88 -64 30 8 -80 -189 2000 -521 -228 69 134 440 435 425 385 -24 236 67 -179 2001 -7 -19 -282 -100 -165 21 46 202 453 58 469 975 2002 1,038 533 436 127 151 30 68 -94 -46

  6. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -72 452 283 -1,858 -801 699 -1,353 41 108 1,167 -1,339 1991 -2,326 1,196 205 3,977 26,799 5,575 4,775 1,778 703 1,958 2,917 5,687 1992 6,208 3,332 5,695 1,986 1,815 275 -839 679 1,880 -138 -1,840 -5,179 1993 -6,689 -7,057 -5,245 -3,367 -188 -497 627

  7. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 13,690 18,121 8,849 5,853 7,132 14,219 18,130 10,561 13,390 31,974 19,181 9,703 1991 6,425 26,360 4,734 4,680 6,001 17,198 26,493 26,589 17,703 3,011 -3,286 14,947 1992 -6,546 -23,935 -22,706 -29,553 -29,442 -31,729 -31,331 -21,662 -2,945 7,561 4,600

  8. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 701 995 446 26 639 1,368 2,249 3,219 1,102 2,496 892 1991 -1,225 1,811 40 2,493 3,883 3,621 1,685 1,583 1,282 1,616 2,927 2,233 1992 6,816 5,146 5,417 2,679 1,253 -728 -859 310 1,516 2,085 -2,078 -3,827 1993 -4,453 -6,128 -1,947 -1,204 1,853 4,502 3,520

  9. Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 9,275 18,043 13,193 1,851 5,255 9,637 5,108 8,495 9,773 7,534 9,475 11,984 1991 -9,933 -7,259 454 6,145 6,270 3,648 2,744 1,010 -13 7,942 -12,681 -9,742 1992 -9,345 -8,466 -9,599 -19,126 -16,878 -15,372 -13,507 -9,010 -7,228 -7,653 -6,931 -18,707 1993

  10. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -3,295 -2,048 303 1,673 2,267 2,054 632 690 1,081 1,169 1,343 2,765 1991 2,450 1,002 -617 -1,537 -1,372 -2,052 -995 -41 274 4,477 815 -517 1992 -1,493 -820 -1,663 -1,510 -2,353 -796 1,038 506 1,229 -2,650 -2,283 -922 1993 374 -217 1,229 2,820 2,636 2,160

  11. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -2,696 -5,556 -4,018 -2,430 -2,408 3,493 3,414 4,058 11,806 19,414 13,253 13,393 1992 -4,224 -6,407 -6,304 -5,070 -1,061 -3,484 2,536 6,836 6,037 3,618 2,568 -3,773 1993 -49,040 -46,415 -45,078 -43,755 -45,456 -45,569 -46,271 -46,798 -44,848 -48,360 -45,854

  12. Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -10,362 -8,989 -8,480 -6,853 -3,138 -3,221 -2,686 -2,091 824 166 -307 3,561 1991 -6,300 -645 -100 -132 5,625 8,255 -439 -9,003 -13,999 -9,506 -35,041 -11,017 1992 16,928 8,288 4,215 1,589 -2,700 -7,788 -6,391 1,723 1,181 -7,206 -7,569 -20,817 1993 -31,418

  13. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -1,772 682 336 86 308 -489 138 -272 -702 -351 130 2,383 1991 21,249 14,278 11,919 15,552 13,179 11,123 8,684 4,865 1,110 -2,624 -4,707 -1,444 1992 4,569 6,818 5,559 -712 -4,310 -6,053 -7,850 -9,429 -8,687 2,440 7,441 7,127 1993 2,921 -6,726 -11,466

  14. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -16,163 -3,291 4,933 5,735 6,541 3,761 1,457 -2,718 333 6,361 22,218 1991 25,998 -7,924 -12,602 -6,752 5,539 14,861 14,428 10,464 17,383 22,644 -158 -24,807 1992 -21,205 -18,174 -17,028 -17,433 -15,973 -21,203 -22,672 -16,614 -16,409 -16,981 -10,425

  15. West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -1,093 -693 -375 128 493 786 2 -447 -512 -333 -99 1,138 1991 6,825 -2,677 -1,109 134 -3,564 -4,731 -6,487 -12,806 -17,650 -17,773 -28,530 -34,101 1992 -15,454 -21,567 -46,663 -52,768 -43,995 -42,430 -35,909 -27,164 -22,183 -12,950 -7,815

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -525 -558 -653 -568 -437 -289 -114 76 566 493 1,000 1,188 1991 482 1,359 1,901 1,461 980 1,611 1,437 1,173 -147 -1,122 -1,494 -1,591 1992 -23,715 -25,067 -25,923 -26,121 -26,362 -27,771 -28,829 -30,471 -30,725 -31,860 -31,627 -33,317 1993 -9,841 -10,219

  17. U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Working Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage - Working Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 47,455 36,864 41,979 49,646 58,678 56,813 63,882 64,460 70,583 72,447 73,277 69,641 1995 72,965 64,476 58,510 66,025 73,529 78,437 76,026 63,026 80,949 87,711 83,704 71,638 1996 58,880 47,581 37,918 56,995 62,439 71,476 70,906 75,927 84,962 88,061 87,029 85,140 1997 57,054 49,490 55,865 58,039 73,265 79,811 65,589 66,536

  18. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 74,086 66,477 61,296 61,444 65,918 70,653 76,309 82,236 85,955 89,866 87,913 73,603 1991 71,390 60,921 57,278 59,014 63,510 74,146 79,723 86,294 97,761 109,281 101,166 86,996 1992 67,167 54,513 50,974 53,944 62,448 70,662 82,259 93,130 103,798 112,898 103,734 83,223 1993 18,126 8,099 5,896 10,189 16,993 25,093 35,988 46,332 58,949

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 12,085 11,213 10,893 12,718 8,903 13,496 17,077 20,270 21,829 24,996 26,006 23,472 1991 20,026 18,023 15,855 8,701 11,626 14,635 15,689 13,734 16,376 16,270 16,031 16,988 1992 14,969 14,258 13,522 11,923 11,828 12,369 10,270 12,215 13,412 15,976 14,938 15,350 1993 12,704 8,540 8,417 5,490 8,195 9,416 9,685 7,367

  20. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 35,239 28,083 24,437 26,484 32,304 42,192 50,845 59,950 66,681 69,508 68,996 59,183 1991 38,557 30,227 25,695 29,076 35,780 43,534 51,822 60,564 69,005 73,760 68,941 61,246 1992 49,781 35,441 23,732 26,771 36,307 45,716 57,152 66,993 72,724 76,134 72,836 56,289 1993 43,019 26,790 16,578 20,740 30,875 41,858 51,917

  1. Energy Storage

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-23

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

  2. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Paranthaman, Parans

    2014-06-03

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

  3. Total Working Gas Capacity

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

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

  4. ,"Weekly Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release

  5. ,"Weekly Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)"

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

    Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Weekly Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)",1,"Weekly","3/11/2016" ,"Release Date:","3/17/2016"

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, Paul; Diakov, Victor; Margolis, Robert

    2015-09-01

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2015-12-01

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

  8. U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.6 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.8 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.2 NA 7.9 1976 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 7.4 2.5 -5.2 -12.9 1977 -21.9 -19.5 -8.4 0.3 5.7 6.4 7.1 6.2 6.6 9.9 17.2 28.5 1978 41.3 12.6 -7.6 -13.7 -13.9 -9.6 -7.8 -3.8 -0.4 1.0 3.8 2.9

  9. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working

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

    Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 -32.80 -42.10 -53.10 -51.10 -47.60 -43.40 -38.60 -25.20 -18.80 -16.70 -19.80 -15.60 1997 -15.00 -5.60 52.10 45.80 43.50 39.10 22.20 12.30 6.70 10.60 14.30 6.00 1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.30 55.40 1999 56.40 52.20 46.30 24.20 18.80

  10. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1996 221.1 244.8 179.6 64.8 86.8 112.2 130.5 1997 36.2 10.9 111.7 57.1 68.4 -5.0 -17.0 -19.4 -19.9 -12.1 -19.0 36.2 1998 31.5 45.0 -21.4 4.3 -12.4 46.2 38.7 23.0 -24.8 -0.8 15.1 6.0 1999 3.8 17.6 11.5 -11.9 35.3 -11.6 6.5 -2.0 67.7 4.7 12.2 10.2 2000 7.9 25.4 213.4 116.8 22.2 51.5 32.4 25.3

  11. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.4 -8.3 -11.6 -14.2 -13.7 -14.5 -14.1 -18.0 -20.2 -20.4 -25.8 -30.6 1992 -22.4 -25.3 -26.8 -25.8 -27.1 -23.8 -18.0 -10.3 -5.1 -6.0 -1.3 1.0 1993 1.6 -2.9 -4.6 -5.4 -14.6 -17.3 -27.6 -34.0 -37.6 -37.9 -42.3 -48.2 1994 -63.6 -74.6 -86.5 -87.0 -71.6 -60.3 -47.2 -35.4 -31.0 -29.2 -21.3

  12. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 103.9 379.8 71.8 60.5 13.1 20.1 7.2 1.8 -0.9 -4.6 13.4 22.0 1992 10.3 -13.6 -46.2 -75.4 -28.4 -9.4 -3.5 -1.5 -1.6 2.5 4.0 -9.9 1993 1.6 15.7 71.7 160.6 17.3 -10.3 -16.3 -18.7 -12.6 -1.8 -2.5 -8.9 1994 -45.2 -46.8 -3.2 53.1 28.2 27.5 36.9 27.2 13.4 4.6 -3.5 10.5 1995 103.8 130.7 91.8

  13. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 12.0 12.8 14.6 30.2 17.0 11.7 5.0 -0.7 -6.8 -2.6 -11.4 -14.2 1992 -8.1 -14.1 -31.6 -37.7 -28.9 -21.6 -14.9 -8.9 1.2 -1.2 1.1 -2.0 1993 -7.5 -20.7 -25.8 -17.2 -1.0 3.7 5.2 7.6 6.1 6.7 6.2 7.4 1994 -4.8 -0.4 22.1 37.4 24.6 15.8 10.2 7.2 6.2 5.4 12.3 21.2 1995 45.7 54.3 51.8 20.6 8.0 3.8

  14. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -9.2 15.0 -0.3 -19.3 -19.7 -9.3 -1.7 -4.1 -2.7 -5.2 -8.5 6.3 1992 8.7 18.6 1.8 -25.1 -13.0 -11.2 -9.4 -1.0 0.5 1.8 5.3 -1.4 1993 1.3 -17.1 -29.0 -19.2 -19.0 -13.4 -5.9 -7.8 -2.5 1.2 -1.7 -7.0 1994 -16.3 -4.2 19.8 7.9 8.4 10.5 6.2 9.4 4.5 0.7 3.9 16.7 1995 23.8 4.8 -0.7 11.5 6.8 -3.5

  15. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 31.9 17.1 14.2 15.5 11.1 7.9 -1.1 -5.7 -3.6 -2.3 -15.3 -16.4 1992 -6.8 1.1 -4.7 -16.9 -14.3 -8.0 -2.7 -5.4 -2.8 -7.0 5.6 3.5 1993 13.6 -2.2 -12.3 -6.0 1.7 0.0 0.9 6.3 4.6 1.9 -35.2 -40.7 1994 -53.0 -55.0 -36.7 -28.8 -29.8 -34.1 -28.0 -22.8 -26.7 -21.5 26.7 39.2 1995 50.8 54.7 11.0

  16. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -5.1 1.4 -20.3 -2.8 6.8 8.3 12.5 12.3 7.8 7.6 9.9 13.8 1992 -2.8 6.5 23.0 7.8 3.7 4.3 3.8 2.6 2.5 2.2 -0.2 -0.1 1993 5.3 -3.5 -16.4 -13.3 -4.7 -0.9 -2.8 -1.6 -1.6 -1.3 -2.5 -0.8 1994 -3.1 17.2 37.2 -28.6 -19.3 -6.9 -4.2 -4.1 -3.3 -3.3 0.7 -1.0 1995 7.9 12.0 16.0 64.0 35.0 10.4 5.7 6.0

  17. Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -2.5 -1.5 -1.5 -1.0 -1.7 0.1 -0.2 -0.5 -1.8 -3.2 -3.9 -3.3 1992 -38.1 -38.6 -38.4 -38.3 -38.2 -38.2 -38.2 -38.3 -38.6 -38.8 -39.8 -41.8 1993 -13.0 -15.6 -17.8 -19.4 -21.2 -22.4 -22.0 -22.3 -21.6 -20.7 -20.8 -19.6 1994 -19.3 -21.6 -20.5 -19.8 -17.7 -14.9 -14.5 -13.6 -12.0 -10.7 -9.8 -9.5

  18. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -5.7 -5.8 -6.6 -6.0 -2.9 -1.8 0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -1.8 -1.9 0.3 1992 0.9 1.0 2.4 1.3 -1.4 -0.5 3.6 5.9 6.3 6.3 2.5 0.6 1993 -2.8 -4.7 -6.6 -5.9 -3.3 -1.9 -0.9 0.2 0.7 -82.3 -84.6 -88.0 1994 -93.2 -98.5 -98.2 -96.2 -92.3 -91.2 -88.8 -88.5 -85.3 -7.5 12.8 23.1 1995 74.4 582.5 367.3 113.6 15.1

  19. New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 65.7 60.7 45.6 -31.6 30.6 8.4 -8.1 -32.2 -25.0 -34.9 -38.4 -27.6 1992 -25.3 -20.9 -14.7 37.0 1.7 -15.5 -34.5 -11.1 -18.1 -1.8 -6.8 -9.6 1993 -15.1 -40.1 -37.8 -54.0 -30.7 -23.9 -5.7 -39.7 -37.7 -34.0 -47.6 -48.4 1994 -61.0 -53.5 -57.4 -40.7 -50.9 -49.9 -47.5 -28.0 4.2 2.7 31.2 23.0

  20. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 19.5 22.4 15.4 23.1 14.3 14.4 9.1 7.4 5.2 3.1 -3.3 -5.5 1992 -12.1 -27.3 -55.6 -57.4 -42.1 -27.9 -17.8 -13.7 -12.2 -10.0 -6.4 -11.0 1993 -11.3 -30.2 -60.3 -56.1 -31.6 -21.4 -13.8 -8.2 -0.9 -3.4 -7.9 -16.2 1994 -41.7 -61.0 -63.3 24.5 16.2 6.8 8.5 6.1 2.5 4.6 10.6 27.3 1995 67.7 179.6 562.8 43.0

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -13.9 -10.0 -6.5 8.1 7.3 7.8 0.7 -1.3 0.5 -0.6 -20.1 -13.6 1992 4.0 1.0 -7.0 -12.9 -16.3 -14.6 -3.6 -1.4 0.4 2.5 6.8 -7.7 1993 -59.8 -75.3 -81.3 -71.8 -58.1 -47.8 -43.7 -38.0 -33.1 -31.7 -34.3 -29.9 1994 20.6 33.2 68.7 60.2 49.2 29.1 25.2 21.3 11.9 8.6 24.6 27.3 1995 54.1 106.0 91.5

  2. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -0.1 1991 53.6 99.8 77.4 -30.5 -38.2 -24.2 -10.4 -2.9 1.3 3.3 4.2 8.6 1992 1.6 -10.3 -10.3 11.6 40.4 25.3 14.2 10.7 6.8 4.4 -9.9 -11.9 1993 -21.1 -25.4 -8.3 -9.2 -3.5 -7.0 -5.9 -4.7 -2.9 1.1 6.4 -1.1 1994 12.9 27.1 26.3 -67.7 -49.1 -32.2 -25.7 -21.5 -18.6 -20.3 -18.4 -14.3 1995 -25.9 -14.7

  3. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1999 43.0 55.3 41.7 61.2 59.6 131.5 70.6 38.1 29.2 25.1 16.0 8.6 2000 5.3 -3.2 12.8 21.0 16.7 -19.5 -34.7 -42.4 -50.4 -50.8 -41.4 -27.6 2001 -9.8 9.3 8.4 8.3 41.3 71.7 80.1 97.0 109.6

  4. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -13.2 -13.8 -12.2 -16.7 -15.1 -12.7 -14.7 -12.9 -9.1 -12.1 -17.5 -13.3 1992 1.9 -0.4 -2.4 -7.4 -5.8 -7.6 -2.0 2.8 -0.9 -0.7 -2.1 -9.0 1993 -41.9 -44.7 -46.6 -41.3 -35.7 -33.7 -35.4 -35.0 -36.7 -35.5 -35.3 -32.7 1994 -13.0 -30.4 -20.9 -13.7 -8.3 -8.3 -0.1 3.0 15.2 17.2 27.0 21.5 1995 49.9 85.3

  5. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 48.7 19.2 -26.2 -3.2 0.1 32.2 -15.2 -19.1 -18.8 -21.7 -3.8 2.1 1992 -35.0 -4.5 68.2 48.2 46.1 36.5 13.8 0.4 -13.6 -18.6 5.0 6.8 1993 -6.8 -42.8 -72.3 -83.7 -48.5 -4.4 1.6 3.6 11.8 35.5 17.2 37.2 1994 66.2 69.4 210.9 497.9 131.8 40.0 34.2 32.4 40.9 25.7 26.4 36.0 1995 28.4 93.2 100.2 78.2 40.9

  6. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1998 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1999 16.1 26.9 39.6 25.2 13.9 3.6 5.7 -3.4 1.3 0.3 -3.5 -10.0 2000 -34.3 -21.3 9.2 14.4 36.6 30.7 25.9 21.0 -1.1 10.0 3.1 -10.5 2001 -0.7 -2.3 -34.6 -9.4 -10.1 1.1 2.2 9.1 20.4 2.2 20.9

  7. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -26.2 22.8 6.2 168.1 -141.5 111.4 60.1 16.3 5.9 16.1 23.8 63.1 1992 94.7 51.6 162.3 31.3 23.1 2.6 -6.6 5.4 14.9 -1.0 -12.1 -35.2 1993 -52.4 -72.1 -57.0 -40.4 -1.9 -4.6 5.3 -1.6 6.7 -4.5 -28.1 18.5 1994 59.2 90.5 20.4 38.4 -0.2 8.5 4.3 2.8 -5.7 11.2 51.1 14.3 1995 11.1 63.9 73.5 23.8

  8. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 5.1 24.7 4.3 3.5 3.8 10.1 15.1 15.0 9.7 1.5 -1.7 9.7 1992 -4.9 -18.0 -19.6 -21.6 -18.0 -16.9 -15.6 -10.6 -1.5 3.8 2.4 -16.7 1993 -15.0 -19.6 8.1 2.5 3.1 -2.6 3.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.5 17.0 1994 13.4 -12.0 -24.5 -13.5 -10.9 -5.7 -8.4 -8.0 -4.2 -3.3 -6.0 -2.0 1995 7.4 63.0 54.5 20.8 14.6

  9. Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.2 -4.0 0.3 4.2 3.5 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.0 2.4 -3.8 -3.3 1992 -4.2 -4.8 -6.4 -12.6 -9.2 -7.2 -5.6 -3.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.2 -6.6 1993 -24.0 -31.6 -36.3 -30.7 -24.7 -20.2 -17.4 -16.7 -14.3 -13.7 -11.6 -12.9 1994 -3.7 -1.1 10.0 6.3 -2.8 -4.3 -2.6 -1.9 -1.2 -0.2 0.0 4.9 1995 13.3 6.3 -0.8 -4.1 -24.0

  10. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 11.0 5.4 -3.6 -8.8 -7.2 -9.9 -4.3 -0.2 0.9 13.4 2.4 -1.7 1992 -6.0 -4.2 -10.1 -9.5 -13.2 -4.2 4.7 1.9 3.9 -7.0 -6.5 -3.1 1993 1.6 -1.2 8.3 19.7 17.1 12.0 6.3 7.0 2.7 -1.9 -0.1 3.1 1994 -0.3 7.7 13.2 1.4 -4.7 -2.3 0.9 -0.1 -0.7 3.7 11.3 11.2 1995 17.4 9.6 8.0 8.6 11.8 7.0 -3.4 -5.3 -3.3

  11. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -3.6 -8.4 -6.6 -4.0 -3.7 4.9 4.5 4.9 13.7 21.6 15.1 18.2 1992 -5.9 -10.5 -11.0 -8.6 -1.7 -4.7 3.2 7.9 6.2 3.3 2.5 -4.3 1993 -73.0 -85.1 -88.4 -81.1 -72.8 -64.5 -56.2 -50.3 -43.2 -42.8 -44.2 -51.6 1994 21.3 54.4 61.3 12.0 -0.1 -6.4 -6.3 -3.5 -4.3 1.5 5.3 7.2 1995 3.0 -5.8 -21.7 -39.9 -37.4 -20.3

  12. Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same

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

    Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -9.6 -1.2 -0.2 -0.3 11.7 15.5 -0.7 -11.7 -15.1 -9.6 -30.3 -11.8 1992 28.5 15.1 8.5 3.4 -5.0 -12.7 -9.9 2.5 1.5 -8.0 -9.4 -25.3 1993 -41.2 -47.7 -48.5 -45.3 -8.3 9.0 10.7 8.6 12.8 12.5 19.4 24.0 1994 18.1 26.1 43.8 52.2 5.8 -5.9 0.7 2.1 -3.5 -1.6 -3.1 -2.4 1995 11.9 13.5 -4.5 -4.2 -1.5 9.2 0.7

  13. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 36.3 23.0 19.6 25.2 19.8 15.5 10.9 5.6 1.2 -2.7 -5.1 -1.7 1992 5.7 8.9 7.7 -0.9 -5.4 -7.3 -8.9 -10.3 -9.2 2.6 8.5 8.4 1993 3.5 -8.1 -14.7 -13.7 -3.8 4.4 9.2 12.9 14.8 3.2 -1.2 -9.6 1994 -25.7 -31.2 -28.1 -20.1 -13.8 -10.6 -7.3 -4.7 -7.2 -4.8 1.4 4.5 1995 14.0 16.7 18.3 14.2 16.8 12.2

  14. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 22.5 -6.7 -11.5 -6.1 4.7 11.3 9.9 6.6 10.0 12.0 -0.1 -13.0 1992 -15.0 -16.6 -17.6 -16.9 -13.0 -14.5 -14.2 -9.8 -8.6 -8.0 -5.3 -9.7 1993 -14.1 -27.1 -40.9 -42.3 -18.5 -3.2 9.0 15.5 21.5 17.1 14.1 13.8 1994 8.5 40.4 69.8 104.5 54.4 28.4 23.9 17.6 8.8 5.4 10.4 15.6 1995 29.7 13.7 22.0

  15. West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

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

    from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 7.1 -3.2 -1.4 0.2 -3.4 -3.9 -4.7 -8.2 -10.5 -10.3 -16.6 -21.9 1992 -15.1 -26.4 -59.0 -61.0 -43.3 -36.0 -27.0 -19.0 -14.7 -8.4 -5.4 18.6 1993 28.7 15.6 28.7 37.5 46.9 48.1 35.0 30.1 32.3 24.3 19.9 -9.9 1994 -36.1 -44.0 -50.4 -9.9 -20.6 -12.2 -4.3 -1.7 -1.2 -1.0 2.5 8.2 1995

  16. Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from

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

    Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Percent) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 0.9 2.6 3.7 2.8 1.8 3.0 2.5 2.0 -0.2 -1.8 -2.5 -2.7 1992 -43.8 -46.9 -48.5 -48.7 -48.6 -49.4 -49.4 -50.6 -50.1 -51.9 -53.3 -58.2 1993 -32.4 -36.0 -35.5 -33.5 -30.9 -25.0 -21.0 -16.0 -14.5 -8.3 -12.5 -8.1 1994 4.1 2.9 8.2 10.1 12.7 5.3 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.5 11.2 14.0 1995 3.4 11.3 0.7 -7.6

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2014-08-14

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

  18. Statement of work for conceptual design of solidified high-level waste interim storage system project (phase I)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Calmus, R.B., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-12-17

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has embarked upon a course to acquire Hanford Site tank waste treatment and immobilization services using privatized facilities. This plan contains a two phased approach. Phase I is a ``proof-of-principle/commercial demonstration- scale`` effort and Phase II is a full-scale production effort. In accordance with the planned approach, interim storage (IS) and disposal of various products from privatized facilities are to be DOE furnished. The path forward adopted for Phase I solidification HLW IS entails use of Vaults 2 and 3 in the Spent Nuclear Fuel Canister Storage Building, to be located in the Hanford Site 200 East Area. This Statement of Work describes the work scope to be performed by the Architect-Engineer to prepare a conceptual design for the solidified HLW IS System.

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

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

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

  20. Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity

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

    1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,443,769 1,445,031 1999-2014 Alabama 0 0 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 12,000 12,000 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 974,362 978,624 1999-2014 Indiana 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 80,746 80,746 1999-2014 Iowa 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 288,210 288,210 1999-2014 Kansas 0 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 6,567 1999-2014 Louisiana 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 0 0 1999-2014 Minnesota

  1. T10K Change Max Capacity

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    2013-08-16

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

  2. Superfund record of decision (EPA Region 1): Fletcher`s Paint Works and Storage, Milford, NH, September 30, 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1999-03-01

    This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Fletcher`s Paint Works and Storage Facility Superfund Site (Site) located in Milford, New Hampshire. This ROD sets forth the selected remedy for Operable Unit On at the Fletcher`s Paint Site, which involves the excavation and on-site treatment of principal threat wastes which consist of primarily PCB contaminated soils, the replacement of those treated soils at the Site, and placement of a soil and asphalt cover over the residual low level threat wastes. The selected remedy also includes monitored natural attenuation of the contaminated groundwater in the overburdened and bedrock aquifers and institutional controls to prevent future ingestion of contaminated groundwater, as well as restrictions on the use and assess to the subsurface soils at the Elm Street Site.

  3. Final work plan : investigation of potential contamination at the former CCC/USDA grain storage facility in Hanover, Kansas.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LaFreniere, L. M.; Environmental Science Division

    2008-11-19

    The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), operated a grain storage facility at the northeastern edge of the city of Hanover, Kansas, from 1950 until the early 1970s. During this time, commercial grain fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride were in common use by the grain storage industry to preserve grain in their facilities. In February 1998, trace to low levels of carbon tetrachloride (below the maximum contaminant level [MCL] of 5.0 {micro}g/L) were detected in two private wells near the former grain storage facility at Hanover, as part of a statewide USDA private well sampling program that was implemented by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) near former CCC/USDA facilities. In April 2007, the CCC/USDA collected near-surface soil samples at 1.8-2 ft BGL (below ground level) at 61 locations across the former CCC/USDA facility. All soil samples were analyzed by the rigorous gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer analytical method (purge-and-trap method). No contamination was found in soil samples above the reporting limit of 10 {micro}g/kg. In July 2007, the CCC/USDA sampled indoor air at nine residences on or adjacent to its former facility to address the residents concerns regarding vapor intrusion. Low levels of carbon tetrachloride were detected at four of the nine homes. Because carbon tetrachloride found in private wells and indoor air at the site might be linked to historical use of fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride at its former grain storage facility, the CCC/USDA is proposing to conduct an investigation to determine the source and extent of the carbon tetrachloride contamination associated with the former facility. This investigation will be conducted in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement between the KDHE and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the USDA. The investigation at Hanover will be performed, on behalf of the CCC/USDA, by the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne is a nonprofit, multidisciplinary research center operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CCC/USDA has entered into an interagency agreement with DOE, under which Argonne provides technical assistance to the CCC/USDA with environmental site characterization and remediation at its former grain storage facilities. Seven technical objectives have been proposed for the Hanover investigation. They are as follows: (1) Identify the sources and extent of soil contamination beneath the former CCC/USDA facility; (2) Characterize groundwater contamination beneath the former CCC/USDA facility; (3) Determine groundwater flow patterns; (4) Define the vertical and lateral extent of the groundwater plume outside the former CCC/USDA facility; (5) Evaluate the aquifer and monitor the groundwater system; (6) Identify any other potential sources of contamination that are not related to activities of the CCC/USDA; and (7) Determine whether there is a vapor intrusion problem at the site attributable to the former CCC/USDA facility. The technical objectives will be accomplished in a phased approached. Data collected during each phase will be evaluated to determine whether the subsequent phase is necessary. The KDHE project manager and the CCC/USDA will be contacted during each phase and kept apprised of the results. Whether implementation of each phase of work is necessary will be discussed and mutually agreed upon by the CCC/USDA and KDHE project managers.

  4. EERE Success Story-California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage

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

    Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award | Department of Energy Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award EERE Success Story-California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity, Wins R&D 100 Award August 19, 2013 - 10:17am Addthis Working with Nextval, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) developed a Conducting Polymer Binder for high-capacity lithium-ion batteries. With a focus on enabling smaller, lighter, and cheaper batteries, LBNL and

  5. Health assessment for Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility Hazardous Waste Material, Milford, Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, Region 1. CERCLIS No. NHD981067614. Preliminary report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-06-11

    Fletcher's Paint Works and Storage Facility Hazardous Waste Site (Fletcher's Paint Site) in Milford, New Hampshire, consists of three distinct entities: Fletcher's Paint Works at 21 Elm Street, Fletcher's Paint Storage Facility on Mill Street, and a drainage ditch leading from the storage facility property to Hampshire Paper Company property. The aggregation of these three properties was based on the similar nature of operations and wastes, the close proximity of the areas, the same target population, and the same underlying aquifer at risk of contamination. The aggregated site has contributed to the contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air with various volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), semivolatile organic chemicals (SVOCs), heavy metals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environmental monitoring related to the Fletcher's Paint Site has consisted of sampling of the Keyes Well by the NH WSPCC, and sampling at the paint works, storage facility and drainage ditch by NUS Corporation and EPA's Environmental Services Division (ESD). Contaminant levels at each location is discussed individually. Based upon the available information, the Fletcher's Paint NPL Site is considered to be of potential public health concern because of the risk to public health caused by potential exposure to hazardous substances, such as VOCs, PCBs, PAHs, and heavy metals, at concentrations that may result in adverse health effects. Exposure to contaminated soil and surface water, and potentially contaminated fish may be occurring. The site is located in a densely populated part of town, while the storage facility is readily accessible to children walking to and from school.

  6. Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers

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

    96,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 453,054 452,044 2008-2014 Alabama 0 0 2012-2014 Arkansas 0 0 2012-2014 California 0 0 10,000 10,000 2009-2014 Colorado 0 0 2012-2014 Illinois 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 291,544 292,544 2008-2014 Indiana 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 19,215 19,215 2008-2014 Iowa 87,414 90,613 91,113 90,313 90,313 90,313 2008-2014 Kansas 0 0 2012-2014 Kentucky 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 4,619 2008-2014 Louisiana 0 0 2012-2014 Michigan 0 0 2012-2014 Minnesota 2,000 2,000 2,000

  7. Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy Storage Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Wireless Battery Management System for Safe High-Capacity Energy ...

  8. Spent fuel storage alternatives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1983-01-01

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

  9. Electricity storage using a thermal storage scheme

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Alexander

    2015-01-22

    The increasing use of renewable energy technologies for electricity generation, many of which have an unpredictably intermittent nature, will inevitably lead to a greater demand for large-scale electricity storage schemes. For example, the expanding fraction of electricity produced by wind turbines will require either backup or storage capacity to cover extended periods of wind lull. This paper describes a recently proposed storage scheme, referred to here as Pumped Thermal Storage (PTS), and which is based on sensible heat storage in large thermal reservoirs. During the charging phase, the system effectively operates as a high temperature-ratio heat pump, extracting heat from a cold reservoir and delivering heat to a hot one. In the discharge phase the processes are reversed and it operates as a heat engine. The round-trip efficiency is limited only by process irreversibilities (as opposed to Second Law limitations on the coefficient of performance and the thermal efficiency of the heat pump and heat engine respectively). PTS is currently being developed in both France and England. In both cases, the schemes operate on the Joule-Brayton (gas turbine) cycle, using argon as the working fluid. However, the French scheme proposes the use of turbomachinery for compression and expansion, whereas for that being developed in England reciprocating devices are proposed. The current paper focuses on the impact of the various process irreversibilities on the thermodynamic round-trip efficiency of the scheme. Consideration is given to compression and expansion losses and pressure losses (in pipe-work, valves and thermal reservoirs); heat transfer related irreversibility in the thermal reservoirs is discussed but not included in the analysis. Results are presented demonstrating how the various loss parameters and operating conditions influence the overall performance.

  10. EIA - Natural Gas Storage Data & Analysis

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

    Storage Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage U.S. Natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities by East, West, and Producing regions (weekly). Underground...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-03-01

    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. HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen

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

    Storage | Department of Energy HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Presentation for the high temperature combinatorial screening for high capacity hydrogen storage meeting PDF icon ht_ucf_raissi.pdf More Documents & Publications Proceedings of the 1998 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program Review: April 28-30, 1998 Alexandria, Virginia: Volume I Hydrogen Leak Detection -

  13. Sustainable Energy Solutions Task 5.1: Expand the Number of Faculty Working in Wind Energy: Wind Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janet M Twomey, PhD

    2010-04-30

    EXECUTIVE SUMARRY Energy storage to reduce peak-load demands on utilities is emerging as an important way to address the intermittency of renewable energy resources. Wind energy produced in the middle of the night may be wasted unless it can be stored, and conversely, solar energy production could be used after the sun goes down if we had an efficient way to store it. It is uses an electrochemical process to convert hydrogen gas into electricity. The role of fuel cells in energy storage is a very important criteria and it is compared with regular batteries for the advantages of fuel cells over the latter. For this reason fuel cells can be employed. PEM fuel cells can be effectively used for this reason. But the performance and durability of PEM fuel cells are significantly affected by the various components used in a PEM cell. Several parameters affect the performance and durability of fuel cells. They are water management, degradation of components, cell contamination, reactant starvation and thermal management. Water management is the parameter which plays a major role in the performance of a fuel cell. Based on the reviews, improvement of condensation on the cathode side of a fuel cell is expected to improve the performance of the fuel cell by reducing cathode flooding. Microchannels and minichannels can enhance condensation on the cathode side of a fuel cell. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the condensation of steam in mini and microchannels with hydraulic diameter of 2mm, 2.66mm, 200m and 266m respectively. The simulation was run at various mass flux values ranging from 0.5 kg/m2s and 4 kg/m2s. The length of the mini and microchannels were in the range of 20 mm to 100 mm. CFD softwares GAMBIT and FLUENT were used for simulating the condensation process through the mini and microchannels. Steam flowed through the channels, whose walls were cooled by natural convection of air at room temperature. The outlet temperature of the condensate was in the range of 25oC to 90oC. The condensation process in minichannels was observed to be different from that in microchannels. It was found that the outlet temperature of the condensate decreased as the diameter of the channel decreased. It was also evident that the increase in length of the channel further decreased the outlet temperature of the condensate and subsequently the condensation heat flux. The investigation also showed that the pressure drop along the channel length increased with decreasing hydraulic diameter and length of the mini and micro channel. Conversely, the pressure drop along the channel increased with increasing inlet velocity of the stream. It was then suggested to use microchannels on the cathode section of a fuel cell for improved condensation.

  14. Pumped Storage Hydropower

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    In addition to traditional hydropower, pumped-storage hydropower (PSH)—A type of hydropower that works like a battery, pumping water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for storage and...

  15. Storage Statistics

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

    Storage Trends and Summaries Storage by Scientific Discipline Troubleshooting IO ... Storage Trends and Summaries Total Bytes Utilized The growth in NERSC's storage systems ...

  16. Chemical Hydrogen Storage Materials | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  17. Integrating CO₂ storage with geothermal resources for dispatchable renewable electricity

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

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Edmunds, Thomas A.; Saar, Martin O.; Randolph, Jimmy B.

    2014-12-31

    We present an approach that uses the huge fluid and thermal storage capacity of the subsurface, together with geologic CO₂ storage, to harvest, store, and dispatch energy from subsurface (geothermal) and surface (solar, nuclear, fossil) thermal resources, as well as energy from electrical grids. Captured CO₂ is injected into saline aquifers to store pressure, generate artesian flow of brine, and provide an additional working fluid for efficient heat extraction and power conversion. Concentric rings of injection and production wells are used to create a hydraulic divide to store pressure, CO₂, and thermal energy. Such storage can take excess power frommore » the grid and excess/waste thermal energy, and dispatch that energy when it is demanded, enabling increased penetration of variable renewables. Stored CO₂ functions as a cushion gas to provide enormous pressure-storage capacity and displaces large quantities of brine, which can be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.« less

  18. Integrating CO₂ storage with geothermal resources for dispatchable renewable electricity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Buscheck, Thomas A.; Bielicki, Jeffrey M.; Chen, Mingjie; Sun, Yunwei; Hao, Yue; Edmunds, Thomas A.; Saar, Martin O.; Randolph, Jimmy B.

    2014-12-31

    We present an approach that uses the huge fluid and thermal storage capacity of the subsurface, together with geologic CO₂ storage, to harvest, store, and dispatch energy from subsurface (geothermal) and surface (solar, nuclear, fossil) thermal resources, as well as energy from electrical grids. Captured CO₂ is injected into saline aquifers to store pressure, generate artesian flow of brine, and provide an additional working fluid for efficient heat extraction and power conversion. Concentric rings of injection and production wells are used to create a hydraulic divide to store pressure, CO₂, and thermal energy. Such storage can take excess power from the grid and excess/waste thermal energy, and dispatch that energy when it is demanded, enabling increased penetration of variable renewables. Stored CO₂ functions as a cushion gas to provide enormous pressure-storage capacity and displaces large quantities of brine, which can be desalinated and/or treated for a variety of beneficial uses.

  19. Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2011-06-01

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

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

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

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

  1. Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage Can Help...

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

    Concentrated Solar Power with Thermal Energy Storage Can Help Utilities' Bottom Line, Study Shows December 20, 2012 The storage capacity of concentrating solar power (CSP) can add ...

  2. Final work plan : Phase I investigation of potential contamination at the former CCC/USDA grain storage facility in Savannah, Missouri.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LaFreniere, L. M.; Environmental Science Division

    2007-10-12

    From approximately 1949 until 1970, the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (CCC/USDA) operated a grain storage facility on federally owned property approximately 0.25 mi northwest of Savannah, Missouri. During this time, commercial grain fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride were commonly used by the CCC/USDA and the private grain storage industry to preserve grain in their facilities. In November 1998, carbon tetrachloride was detected in a private well (Morgan) roughly 50 ft south of the former CCC/USDA facility, as a result of state-wide screening of private wells near former CCC/USDA facilities, conducted in Missouri by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1999). The 1998 and subsequent investigations by the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) confirmed the presence of carbon tetrachloride in the Morgan well, as well as in a second well (on property currently occupied by the Missouri Department of Transportation [MoDOT]), approximately 400 ft east of the former CCC/USDA facility. Carbon tetrachloride concentrations in the Morgan well have ranged from the initial value of 29 {micro}g/L in 1998, up to a maximum of 61 {micro}g/L in 1999, and back down to 22 {micro}g/L in 2005. The carbon tetrachloride concentration in the MoDOT well in 2000 (the only time it was sampled) was 321 {micro}g/L. The concentrations for the two wells are above the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5 {micro}g/L for carbon tetrachloride (EPA 1999; MoDNR 2000a,b). Because the observed contamination in the Morgan and MoDOT wells might be linked to the past use of carbon tetrachloride-based grain fumigants at its former grain storage facility, the CCC/USDA will conduct investigations to (1) characterize the source(s), extent, and factors controlling the subsurface distribution and movement of carbon tetrachloride at Savannah and (2) evaluate the health and environmental threats potentially posed by the contamination. This work will be performed in accord with the Intergovernmental Agreement established between the Farm Service Agency of the USDA and MoDNR, to address carbon tetrachloride contamination potentially associated with a number of former CCC/USDA grain storage facilities in Missouri. The investigative activities at Savannah will be conducted on behalf of the CCC/USDA by the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne is a nonprofit, multidisciplinary research center operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CCC/USDA has entered into an agreement with the DOE, under which Argonne provides technical assistance to the CCC/USDA with environmental site characterization and remediation at its former grain storage facilities. The site characterization at Savannah will take place in phases. This approach is recommended by the CCC/USDA and Argonne, so that information obtained and interpretations developed during each incremental stage of the investigation can be used most effectively to guide subsequent phases of the program. This site-specific Work Plan outlines the specific technical objectives and scope of work proposed for Phase I of the Savannah investigation. This Work Plan also includes the community relations plan to be followed throughout the CCC/USDA program at the Savannah site. Argonne is developing a Master Work Plan specific to operations in the state of Missouri. In the meantime, Argonne will issue a Provisional Master Work Plan (PMWP; Argonne 2007) that will be submitted to the MoDNR for review and approval. The agency has already reviewed and approved (with minor changes) the present Master Work Plan (Argonne 2002) under which Argonne currently operates in Kansas. The PMWP (Argonne 2007) will provide detailed information and guidance on the investigative technologies, analytical methodologies, quality assurance-quality control measures, and general health and safety policies to be employed by Argonne for all investigations at former CCC/USDA grain storage facilities in Missouri. Both the PMWP

  3. Spent Fuel Working Group report on inventory and storage of the Department`s spent nuclear fuel and other reactor irradiated nuclear materials and their environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities. Volume 2, Working Group Assessment Team reports; Vulnerability development forms; Working group documents

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01

    The Secretary of Energy`s memorandum of August 19, 1993, established an initiative for a Department-wide assessment of the vulnerabilities of stored spent nuclear fuel and other reactor irradiated nuclear materials. A Project Plan to accomplish this study was issued on September 20, 1993 by US Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health and Safety (EH) which established responsibilities for personnel essential to the study. The DOE Spent Fuel Working Group, which was formed for this purpose and produced the Project Plan, will manage the assessment and produce a report for the Secretary by November 20, 1993. This report was prepared by the Working Group Assessment Team assigned to the Hanford Site facilities. Results contained in this report will be reviewed, along with similar reports from all other selected DOE storage sites, by a working group review panel which will assemble the final summary report to the Secretary on spent nuclear fuel storage inventory and vulnerability.

  4. Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity

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

    6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 7,074,916 7,085,773 1999-2014 Alaska 83,592 83,592 2013-2014 Alabama 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 1999-2014 Arkansas 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 21,853 21,853 1999-2014 California 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 587,711 587,711 1999-2014 Colorado 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,086 130,186 1999-2014 Illinois 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 25,920 25,923 1999-2014 Indiana 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2014 Iowa 0 0

  5. Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity

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

    397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 654,266 702,548 1999-2014 Alabama 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 30,100 1999-2014 Arkansas 0 0 1999-2014 California 0 0 1999-2014 Colorado 0 0 1999-2014 Illinois 0 0 1999-2014 Indiana 0 0 1999-2014 Kansas 931 931 931 931 0 1999-2014 Kentucky 0 0 1999-2014 Louisiana 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 213,039 224,129 1999-2014 Maryland 0 0 1999-2014 Michigan 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2014 Mississippi 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 153,733 181,810

  6. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, D.W.

    1997-11-11

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,300 37,720 37,720 2003 37,720 37,720 37,720 37,720...

  9. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    Pipeline and Distribution Use Price Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Vehicle Fuel Price Electric Power Price Proved Reserves as of 12/31 Reserves Adjustments Reserves Revision Increases Reserves Revision Decreases Reserves Sales Reserves Acquisitions Reserves Extensions Reserves New Field Discoveries New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields Estimated Production Number of Producing Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From

  10. Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity

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

    NA NA NA NA NA NA 2002-2015 Total Number of Existing Fields 1 1 1 1 1 1

  11. Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brown, Donald W. (Los Alamos, NM)

    1997-01-01

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

  12. Final work plan : phase I investigation of potential contamination at the former CCC/USDA grain storage facility in Montgomery City, Missouri.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LaFreniere, L. M.; Environmental Science Division

    2010-08-16

    From September 1949 until September 1966, the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (CCC/USDA) leased property at the southeastern end of Montgomery City, Missouri, for the operation of a grain storage facility. During this time, commercial grain fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride were commonly used by the CCC/USDA and the private grain storage industry to preserve grain in their facilities. In January 2000, carbon tetrachloride was detected in a soil sample (220 {micro}g/kg) and two soil gas samples (58 {micro}g/m{sup 3} and 550 {micro}g/m{sup 3}) collected at the former CCC/USDA facility, as a result of a pre-CERCLIS site screening investigation (SSI) performed by TN & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VII (MoDNR 2001). In June 2001, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) conducted further sampling of the soils and groundwater at the former CCC/USDA facility as part of a preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI). The MoDNR confirmed the presence of carbon tetrachloride (at a maximum identified concentration of 2,810 {micro}g/kg) and chloroform (maximum 82 {micro}g/kg) in the soils and also detected carbon tetrachloride and chloroform (42.2 {micro}g/L and 58.4 {micro}g/L, respectively) in a groundwater sample collected at the former facility (MoDNR 2001). The carbon tetrachloride levels identified in the soils and groundwater are above the default target level (DTL) values established by the MoDNR for this contaminant in soils of all types (79.6 {micro}g/kg) and in groundwater (5.0 {micro}g/L), as outlined in Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action (MRBCA): Departmental Technical Guidance (MoDNR 2006a). The corresponding MRBCA DTL values for chloroform are 76.6 {micro}g/kg in soils of all types and 80 {micro}g/L in groundwater. Because the observed contamination at Montgomery City might be linked to the past use of carbon tetrachloride-based fumigants at its former grain storage facility, the CCC/USDA will conduct investigations to (1) characterize the source(s), extent, and factors controlling the possible subsurface distribution and movement of carbon tetrachloride at the Montgomery City site and (2) evaluate the health and environmental threats potentially represented by the contamination. This work will be performed in accord with the Intergovernmental Agreement established between the Farm Service Agency of the USDA and the MoDNR, to address carbon tetrachloride contamination potentially associated with a number of former CCC/USDA grain storage facilities in Missouri. The investigations at Montgomery City will be conducted on behalf of the CCC/USDA by the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory. Argonne is a nonprofit, multidisciplinary research center operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CCC/USDA has entered into an agreement with DOE, under which Argonne provides technical assistance to the CCC/USDA with environmental site characterization and remediation at its former grain storage facilities. The site characterization at Montgomery City will take place in phases. This approach is recommended by the CCC/USDA and Argonne, so that information obtained and interpretations developed during each incremental stage of the investigation can be used most effectively to guide subsequent phases of the program. This site-specific Work Plan outlines the specific technical objectives and scope of work proposed for Phase I of the Montgomery City investigation. This Work Plan also includes the community relations plan to be followed throughout the CCC/USDA program at the Montgomery City site. Argonne is developing a Master Work Plan specific to operations in the state of Missouri. In the meantime, Argonne has issued a Provisional Master Work Plan (PMWP; Argonne 2007) that has been reviewed and approved by the MoDNR for current use. The PMWP (Argonne 2007) provides detailed information and guidance on the investigative technologies, analytical methodologies, qua

  13. Optimizing the performance of Ice-storage Systems in Electricity Load Management through a credit mechanism. An analytical work for Jiangsu, China

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

    Han, Yafeng; Shen, Bo; Hu, Huajin; Fan, Fei

    2015-01-12

    Ice-storage air-conditioning is a technique that uses ice for thermal energy storage. Replacing existing air conditioning systems with ice storage has the advantage of shifting the load from on-peak times to off-peak times that often have excess generation. However, increasing the use of ice-storage faces significant challenges in China. One major barrier is the inefficiency in the current electricity tariff structure. There is a lack of effective incentive mechanism that induces ice-storage systems from achieving optimal load-shifting results. This study presents an analysis that compares the potential impacts of ice-storage systems on load-shifting under a new credit-based incentive scheme andmore » the existing incentive arrangement in Jiangsu, China. The study indicates that by changing how ice-storage systems are incentivized in Jiangsu, load-shifting results can be improved.« less

  14. Optimizing the performance of Ice-storage Systems in Electricity Load Management through a credit mechanism. An analytical work for Jiangsu, China

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Han, Yafeng; Shen, Bo; Hu, Huajin; Fan, Fei

    2015-01-12

    Ice-storage air-conditioning is a technique that uses ice for thermal energy storage. Replacing existing air conditioning systems with ice storage has the advantage of shifting the load from on-peak times to off-peak times that often have excess generation. However, increasing the use of ice-storage faces significant challenges in China. One major barrier is the inefficiency in the current electricity tariff structure. There is a lack of effective incentive mechanism that induces ice-storage systems from achieving optimal load-shifting results. This study presents an analysis that compares the potential impacts of ice-storage systems on load-shifting under a new credit-based incentive scheme and the existing incentive arrangement in Jiangsu, China. The study indicates that by changing how ice-storage systems are incentivized in Jiangsu, load-shifting results can be improved.

  15. Final work plan : phase II investigation of potential contamination at the former CCC/USDA grain storage facility in Savannah, Missouri.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LaFreniere, L. M.; Environmental Science Division

    2010-08-16

    From approximately 1949 until 1970, the Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (CCC/USDA) operated a grain storage facility on federally owned property approximately 0.25 mi northwest of Savannah, Missouri (Figure 1.1). During this time, commercial grain fumigants containing carbon tetrachloride were commonly used by the CCC/USDA and the private grain storage industry to preserve grain in their facilities. In November 1998, carbon tetrachloride was detected in a private well (Morgan) roughly 50 ft south of the former CCC/USDA facility, as a result of statewide screening of private wells near former CCC/USDA facilities, conducted in Missouri by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1999). The 1998 and subsequent investigations by the EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR) confirmed the presence of carbon tetrachloride in the Morgan well, as well as in a second well (on property currently occupied by the Missouri Department of Transportation [MoDOT]) described as being approximately 400 ft east of the former CCC/USDA facility. The identified concentrations in these two wells were above the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) and the Missouri risk-based corrective action default target level (MRBCA DTL) values of 5.0 {micro}g/L for carbon tetrachloride in water used for domestic purposes (EPA 1999; MoDNR 2000a,b, 2006). Because the observed contamination in the Morgan and MoDOT wells might be linked to the past use of carbon tetrachloride-based fumigants at its former grain storage facility, the CCC/USDA is conducting an investigation to (1) characterize the source(s), extent, and factors controlling the subsurface distribution and movement of carbon tetrachloride at Savannah and (2) evaluate the potential risks to human health, public welfare, and the environment posed by the contamination. This work is being performed in accord with the Intergovernmental Agreement established between the Farm Service Agency of the USDA and the MoDNR, to address carbon tetrachloride contamination potentially associated with a number of former CCC/USDA grain storage facilities in Missouri. The site characterization at Savannah is being conducted on behalf of the CCC/USDA by the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory. The investigation at Savannah is being conducted in phases. This approach is being used by the CCC/USDA and Argonne, with the approval of the MoDNR, so that information obtained and interpretations developed during each incremental stage of the investigation can be used most effectively to guide subsequent phases of the program. Phase I of the Savannah program was conducted in October-November 2007 and January 2008 (Argonne 2007a, 2008). This site-specific Work Plan provides a brief summary of the Phase I findings and the results of groundwater level monitoring that has been ongoing since completion of the Phase I study and also outlines technical objectives, investigation tasks, and investigation methods for Phase II of the site characterization at Savannah.

  16. Long vs. short-term energy storage:sensitivity analysis.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schoenung, Susan M. (Longitude 122 West, Inc., Menlo Park, CA); Hassenzahl, William V. (,Advanced Energy Analysis, Piedmont, CA)

    2007-07-01

    This report extends earlier work to characterize long-duration and short-duration energy storage technologies, primarily on the basis of life-cycle cost, and to investigate sensitivities to various input assumptions. Another technology--asymmetric lead-carbon capacitors--has also been added. Energy storage technologies are examined for three application categories--bulk energy storage, distributed generation, and power quality--with significant variations in discharge time and storage capacity. Sensitivity analyses include cost of electricity and natural gas, and system life, which impacts replacement costs and capital carrying charges. Results are presented in terms of annual cost, $/kW-yr. A major variable affecting system cost is hours of storage available for discharge.

  17. Encapsulated Nanoparticle Synthesis and Characterization for Improved Storage Fluids: Preprint

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Glatzmaier, G. C.; Pradhan, S.; Kang, J.; Curtis, C.; Blake, D.

    2010-10-01

    Nanoparticles are typically composed of 50--500 atoms and exhibit properties that are significantly different from the properties of larger, macroscale particles that have the same composition. The addition of these particles to traditional fluids may improve the fluids' thermophysical properties. As an example, the addition of a nanoparticle or set of nanoparticles to a storage fluid may double its heat capacity. This increase in heat capacity would allow a sensible thermal energy storage system to store the same amount of thermal energy in half the amount of storage fluid. The benefit is lower costs for the storage fluid and the storage tanks, resulting in lower-cost electricity. The goal of this long-term research is to create a new class of fluids that enable concentrating solar power plants to operate with greater efficiency and lower electricity costs. Initial research on this topic developed molecular dynamic models that predicted the energy states and transition temperatures for these particles. Recent research has extended the modeling work, along with initiating the synthesis and characterization of bare metal nanoparticles and metal nanoparticles that are encapsulated with inert silica coatings. These particles possess properties that make them excellent candidates for enhancing the heat capacity of storage fluids.

  18. Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generation Capacity, 2013

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

    Virginia" ,"Plant","Primary energy source","Operating company","Net summer capacity (MW)" 1,"Bath County","Pumped storage","Virginia Electric & Power Co",3003 2,"North ...

  19. Renewable Energy Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Interconnection and Storage - Technical Aspects Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity Website Focus Area: Renewable Energy...

  20. NV Energy Electricity Storage Valuation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Samaan, Nader A.; Jin, Chunlian

    2013-06-30

    This study examines how grid-level electricity storage may benet the operations of NV Energy in 2020, and assesses whether those benets justify the cost of the storage system. In order to determine how grid-level storage might impact NV Energy, an hourly production cost model of the Nevada Balancing Authority (\\BA") as projected for 2020 was built and used for the study. Storage facilities were found to add value primarily by providing reserve. Value provided by the provision of time-of-day shifting was found to be limited. If regulating reserve from storage is valued the same as that from slower ramp rate resources, then it appears that a reciprocating engine generator could provide additional capacity at a lower cost than a pumped storage hydro plant or large storage capacity battery system. In addition, a 25-MW battery storage facility would need to cost $650/kW or less in order to produce a positive Net Present Value (NPV). However, if regulating reserve provided by storage is considered to be more useful to the grid than that from slower ramp rate resources, then a grid-level storage facility may have a positive NPV even at today's storage system capital costs. The value of having storage provide services beyond reserve and time-of-day shifting was not assessed in this study, and was therefore not included in storage cost-benefit calculations.

  1. HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity

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

    HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity HPSS Disk Cache Upgrade Caters to Capacity Analysis of NERSC Users' Data-Access Habits Reveals Sweet Spot for Short-term Storage October 16, 2015 Contact: Kathy Kincade, +1 510 495 2124, kkincade@lbl.gov HPSS 09 vert NERSC users today are benefiting from a business decision made three years ago by the center's Storage Systems Group (SSG) as they were looking to upgrade the High-Performance Storage System (HPSS) disk cache: rather than focus primarily on

  2. Sorbent Storage Materials | Department of Energy

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

    Storage » Materials-Based Storage » Sorbent Storage Materials Sorbent Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's sorbent storage materials research focuses on increasing the dihydrogen binding energies and improving the hydrogen volumetric capacity by optimizing the material's pore size, pore volume, and surface area, as well as investigating effects of material densification. Technical Overview Illustration of a sorbent showing the location of hydrogen molecules relative to open

  3. Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns

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

    271,785 312,003 351,017 488,268 455,729 488,698 2008-2014 Alabama 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 16,150 21,950 2008-2014 Arkansas 0 0 2012-2014 California 0 0 2012-2014 Colorado 0 0 2012-2014 Illinois 0 0 2012-2014 Indiana 0 0 2012-2014 Kansas 375 375 375 375 0 2008-2014 Kentucky 0 0 2012-2014 Louisiana 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 154,333 161,260 2008-2014 Maryland 0 0 2012-2014 Michigan 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2014 Mississippi 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 109,495 130,333

  4. Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields

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

    296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 364,296 364,296 2008-2014 Colorado 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 60,582 63,774 2008-2014 Illinois 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 11,768 11,768...

  5. Thermochemical Energy Storage

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

    Thermochemical Energy Storage Overview on German, and European R&D Programs and the work carried out at the German Aerospace Center DLR Dr. Christian Sattler christian.sattler@dlr.de Dr. Antje Wörner antje.woerner@dlr.de Thermochemical Energy Storage > 8 January 2013 www.DLR.de * Chart 1 Contents - Short Introduction of the DLR - Energy Program - Thermochemical Storage - Strategic basis: Germany and European Union - Processes - CaO/Ca(OH) 2 - Metal oxides (restructure) - Sulfur -

  6. File storage

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

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and...

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

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

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

  8. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1984-07-01

    Underground pumped hydroelectric energy storage was conceived as a modification of surface pumped storage to eliminate dependence upon fortuitous topography, provide higher hydraulic heads, and reduce environmental concerns. A UPHS plant offers substantial savings in investment cost over coal-fired cycling plants and savings in system production costs over gas turbines. Potential location near load centers lowers transmission costs and line losses. Environmental impact is less than that for a coal-fired cycling plant. The inherent benefits include those of all pumped storage (i.e., rapid load response, emergency capacity, improvement in efficiency as pumps improve, and capacity for voltage regulation). A UPHS plant would be powered by either a coal-fired or nuclear baseload plant. The economic capacity of a UPHS plant would be in the range of 1000 to 3000 MW. This storage level is compatible with the load-leveling requirements of a greater metropolitan area with population of 1 million or more. The technical feasibility of UPHS depends upon excavation of a subterranean powerhouse cavern and reservoir caverns within a competent, impervious rock formation, and upon selection of reliable and efficient turbomachinery - pump-turbines and motor-generators - all remotely operable.

  9. COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

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

    COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Prepared by Melinda Downing, Environmental Justice Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy MAR 06 MARCH 2006 Since 1999, the Department of Energy has worked with the National Urban Internet and others to create community capacity through technology.  Empowering Communities in the Age of E-Government Table of Contents Message from the Environmental Justice Program Manager . . . . . . . . 3

  10. The Petascale Data Storage Institute

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gibson, Garth; Long, Darrell; Honeyman, Peter; Grider, Gary; Kramer, William; Shalf, John; Roth, Philip; Felix, Evan; Ward, Lee

    2013-07-01

    Petascale computing infrastructures for scientific discovery make petascale demands on information storage capacity, performance, concurrency, reliability, availability, and manageability.The Petascale Data Storage Institute focuses on the data storage problems found in petascale scientific computing environments, with special attention to community issues such as interoperability, community buy-in, and shared tools.The Petascale Data Storage Institute is a collaboration between researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of Michigan, and the University of California at Santa Cruz.

  11. STORAGE OF CHILLED NATURAL GAS IN BEDDED SALT STORAGE CAVERNS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JOel D. Dieland; Kirby D. Mellegard

    2001-11-01

    This report provides the results of a two-phase study that examines the economic and technical feasibility of converting a conventional natural gas storage facility in bedded salt into a refrigerated natural gas storage facility for the purpose of increasing the working gas capacity of the facility. The conceptual design used to evaluate this conversion is based on the design that was developed for the planned Avoca facility in Steuben County, New York. By decreasing the cavern storage temperature from 43 C to -29 C (110 F to -20 F), the working gas capacity of the facility can be increased by about 70 percent (from 1.2 x 10{sup 8} Nm{sup 3} or 4.4 billion cubic feet (Bcf) to 2.0 x 10{sup 8} Nm{sup 3} or 7.5 Bcf) while maintaining the original design minimum and maximum cavern pressures. In Phase I of the study, laboratory tests were conducted to determine the thermal conductivity of salt at low temperatures. Finite element heat transfer calculations were then made to determine the refrigeration loads required to maintain the caverns at a temperature of -29 C (-20 F). This was followed by a preliminary equipment design and a cost analysis for the converted facility. The capital cost of additional equipment and its installation required for refrigerated storage is estimated to be about $13,310,000 or $160 per thousand Nm{sup 3} ($4.29 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf)) of additional working gas capacity. The additional operating costs include maintenance refrigeration costs to maintain the cavern at -29 C (-20 F) and processing costs to condition the gas during injection and withdrawal. The maintenance refrigeration cost, based on the current energy cost of about $13.65 per megawatt-hour (MW-hr) ($4 per million British thermal units (MMBtu)), is expected to be about $316,000 after the first year and to decrease as the rock surrounding the cavern is cooled. After 10 years, the cost of maintenance refrigeration based on the $13.65 per MW-hr ($4 per MMBtu) energy cost is estimated to be $132,000. The gas processing costs are estimated to be $2.05 per thousand Nm{sup 3} ($0.055 per Mcf) of gas injected into and withdrawn from the facility based on the $13.65 per MW-hr ($4 per MMBtu) energy cost. In Phase II of the study, laboratory tests were conducted to determine mechanical properties of salt at low temperature. This was followed by thermomechanical finite element simulations to evaluate the structural stability of the cavern during refrigerated storage. The high thermal expansion coefficient of salt is expected to result in tensile stresses leading to tensile failure in the roof, walls, and floor of the cavern as it is cooled. Tensile fracturing of the cavern roof may result in loss of containment of the gas and/or loss of integrity of the casing shoe, deeming the conversion of this facility not technically feasible.

  12. Metal Hydride Storage Materials | Department of Energy

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

    Storage » Metal Hydride Storage Materials Metal Hydride Storage Materials The Fuel Cell Technologies Office's (FCTO's) metal hydride storage materials research focuses on improving the volumetric and gravimetric capacities, hydrogen adsorption/desorption kinetics, cycle life, and reaction thermodynamics of potential material candidates. Technical Overview Figure shows pressure composition isotherms and van't Hoff traces for metal hydride materials. Metal hydrides (MHx) are the most

  13. Carbon Storage

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

    Storage Fact Sheet Research Team Members Key Contacts Carbon Storage Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key component of the U.S. carbon management portfolio. Numerous studies have shown that CCS can account for up to 55 percent of the emissions reductions needed to stabilize and ultimately reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. NETL's Carbon Storage Program is readying CCS technologies for widespread commercial deployment by 2020. The program's goals are: By 2015, develop technologies

  14. Spent Fuel Working Group report on inventory and storage of the Department`s spent nuclear fuel and other reactor irradiated nuclear materials and their environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities. Volume 3, Site team reports

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01

    A self assessment was conducted of those Hanford facilities that are utilized to store Reactor Irradiated Nuclear Material, (RINM). The objective of the assessment is to identify the Hanford inventories of RINM and the ES & H concerns associated with such storage. The assessment was performed as proscribed by the Project Plan issued by the DOE Spent Fuel Working Group. The Project Plan is the plan of execution intended to complete the Secretary`s request for information relevant to the inventories and vulnerabilities of DOE storage of spent nuclear fuel. The Hanford RINM inventory, the facilities involved and the nature of the fuel stored are summarized. This table succinctly reveals the variety of the Hanford facilities involved, the variety of the types of RINM involved, and the wide range of the quantities of material involved in Hanford`s RINM storage circumstances. ES & H concerns are defined as those circumstances that have the potential, now or in the future, to lead to a criticality event, to a worker radiation exposure event, to an environmental release event, or to public announcements of such circumstances and the sensationalized reporting of the inherent risks.

  15. NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    NEDO Research Related to Battery Storage Applications for Integration of Renewable Energy Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: Spain Installed Wind Capacity...

  16. Carbon Capture and Storage in Southern Africa | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    assessment of the rationale, possibilities and capacity needs to enable CO2 capture and storage in Botswana, Mozambique and Namibia AgencyCompany Organization Energy Research...

  17. The Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines...

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

    The Relative Economic Merits of Storage and Combustion Turbines for Meeting Peak Capacity Requirements under Increased Penetration of Solar Photovoltaics Paul Denholm, Victor...

  18. Spatiotemporal Distribution of NOx Storage: a Factor Controlling...

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

    over a Commercial LNT Catalyst Evaluation of commercial Ba-based LNT (CLEERS benchmark catalyst; containing oxygen storage capacity) in a bench flow reactor under...

  19. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be...

  20. ORISE: Capacity Building

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

    Capacity Building Because public health agencies must maintain the resources to respond to public health challenges, critical situations and emergencies, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) helps government agencies and organizations develop a solid infrastructure through capacity building. Capacity building refers to activities that improve an organization's ability to achieve its mission or a person's ability do his or her job more effectively. For organizations, capacity

  1. Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Meeting: Summary Report, March...

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

    Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Meeting: Summary Report, March 29, 2005 This report highlights DOE's systems analysis work related to hydrogen storage materials and process ...

  2. Annual Report: Carbon Storage (30 September 2012)

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Carbon Storage Carbon Storage Carbon Storage Annual Report: Carbon Storage 30 September 2012 NETL Technical Report Series NETL-TRS-Carbon Storage-2012 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any

  3. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization

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

    Pipeline Utilization & Capacity About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity & Utilization Overview | Utilization Rates | Integration of Storage | Varying Rates of Utilization | Measures of Utilization Overview of Pipeline Utilization Natural gas pipeline companies prefer to operate their systems as close to full capacity as possible to maximize their revenues. However, the average

  4. Slurry-Based Chemical Hydrogen Storage Systems for Automotive Fuel Cell Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brooks, Kriston P.; Semelsberger, Troy; Simmons, Kevin L.; Van Hassel, Bart A.

    2014-05-30

    In this paper, the system designs for hydrogen storage using chemical hydrogen materials in an 80 kWe fuel cell, light-duty vehicle are described. Ammonia borane and alane are used for these designs to represent the general classes of exothermic and endothermic materials. The designs are then compared to the USDRIVE/DOE developed set of system level targets for on-board storage. While most of the DOE targets are predicted to be achieved based on the modeling, the system gravimetric and volumetric densities were more challenging and became the focus of this work. The resulting system evaluation determined that the slurry is majority of the system mass. Only modest reductions in the system mass can be expected with improvements in the balance of plant components. Most of the gravimetric improvements will require developing materials with higher inherent storage capacity or by increasing the solids loading of the chemical hydrogen storage material in the slurry.

  5. Experience with thermal storage in tanks of stratified water for solar heating and load management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wildin, M.W.; Witkofsky, M.P.; Noble, J.M.; Hopper, R.E.; Stromberg, P.G.

    1982-01-01

    Results have been obtained for performance of stratified tanks of water used to store heating and cooling capacity in a 5574 m/sup 2/ university building. The major sources of energy used to charge the heated tanks were solar energy, obtained via collectors on the roof of the building, and excess heat recovered from the interior of the building via thermal storage and electric-driven heat pump/chillers. Through stratification of the water in the storage tanks and an appropriate system operating strategy, 40 percent of the building's total heating needs were supplied by solar energy during the first four months of 1981. Month-long thermal efficiencies of the storage array ranging from 70 percent during the heating season to nearly 90 percent during the cooling season, were measured. Work is underway to improve the performance of thermal storage.

  6. Physical Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy

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

    Hydrogen Storage » Physical Hydrogen Storage Physical Hydrogen Storage Physical storage is the most mature hydrogen storage technology. The current near-term technology for onboard automotive physical hydrogen storage is 350 and 700 bar (5,000 and 10,000 psi) nominal working-pressure compressed gas vessels-that is, "tanks." While low-pressure liquid hydrogen, near the normal boiling point of 20 K, is routinely used for bulk hydrogen storage and transport, there is currently little

  7. EIA - Electricity Generating Capacity

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

    Electricity Generating Capacity Release Date: January 3, 2013 | Next Release: August 2013 Year Existing Units by Energy Source Unit Additions Unit Retirements 2011 XLS XLS XLS 2010...

  8. Hydrogen Storage

    Fuel Cell Technologies Publication and Product Library (EERE)

    This 2-page fact sheet provides a brief introduction to hydrogen storage technologies. Intended for a non-technical audience, it explains the different ways in which hydrogen can be stored, as well a

  9. File Storage

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

    File Storage File Storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Carver File Systems Carver has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and project directories, all provided by the NERSC Global File system. Each file system serves a different purpose. File System Home Scratch Project Environment Variable Definition $HOME $SCRATCH or $GSCRATCH No environment variable /project/projectdirs/ Description Global homes file system shared by all NERSC systems except

  10. File storage

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

    File storage File storage Disk Quota Change Request Form Euclid File Systems Euclid has 3 kinds of file systems available to users: home directories, scratch directories and project directories, all provided by the NERSC Global File system. Each file system serves a different purpose. File System Home Scratch Project Environment Variable Definition $HOME $SCRATCH or $GSCRATCH No environment variable /project/projectdirs/ Description Global homes file system shared by all NERSC systems except

  11. Energy Storage

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

    Stationary Power/Safety, Security & Resilience of Energy Infrastructure/Energy Storage - Energy StorageTara Camacho-Lopez2015-10-16T01:57:05+00:00 ESTP The contemporary grid limits renewable energy and other distributed energy sources from being economically and reliably integrated into the grid. While a national renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) has yet to be established, 35 states have forged ahead with their own RPS programs and policies. As this generation becomes a larger

  12. Seneca Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2012-11-30

    Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is a hybrid energy storage and generation concept that has many potential benefits especially in a location with increasing percentages of intermittent wind energy generation. The objectives of the NYSEG Seneca CAES Project included: for Phase 1, development of a Front End Engineering Design for a 130MW to 210 MW utility-owned facility including capital costs; project financials based on the engineering design and forecasts of energy market revenues; design of the salt cavern to be used for air storage; draft environmental permit filings; and draft NYISO interconnection filing; for Phase 2, objectives included plant construction with a target in-service date of mid-2016; and for Phase 3, objectives included commercial demonstration, testing, and two-years of performance reporting. This Final Report is presented now at the end of Phase 1 because NYSEG has concluded that the economics of the project are not favorable for development in the current economic environment in New York State. The proposed site is located in NYSEG’s service territory in the Town of Reading, New York, at the southern end of Seneca Lake, in New York State’s Finger Lakes region. The landowner of the proposed site is Inergy, a company that owns the salt solution mining facility at this property. Inergy would have developed a new air storage cavern facility to be designed for NYSEG specifically for the Seneca CAES project. A large volume, natural gas storage facility owned and operated by Inergy is also located near this site and would have provided a source of high pressure pipeline quality natural gas for use in the CAES plant. The site has an electrical take-away capability of 210 MW via two NYSEG 115 kV circuits located approximately one half mile from the plant site. Cooling tower make-up water would have been supplied from Seneca Lake. NYSEG’s engineering consultant WorleyParsons Group thoroughly evaluated three CAES designs and concluded that any of the designs would perform acceptably. Their general scope of work included development of detailed project construction schedules, capital cost and cash flow estimates for both CAES cycles, and development of detailed operational data, including fuel and compression energy requirements, to support dispatch modeling for the CAES cycles. The Dispatch Modeling Consultant selected for this project was Customized Energy Solutions (CES). Their general scope of work included development of wholesale electric and gas market price forecasts and development of a dispatch model specific to CAES technologies. Parsons Brinkerhoff Energy Storage Services (PBESS) was retained to develop an air storage cavern and well system design for the CAES project. Their general scope of work included development of a cavern design, solution mining plan, and air production well design, cost, and schedule estimates for the project. Detailed Front End Engineering Design (FEED) during Phase 1 of the project determined that CAES plant capital equipment costs were much greater than the $125.6- million originally estimated by EPRI for the project. The initial air storage cavern Design Basis was increased from a single five million cubic foot capacity cavern to three, five million cubic foot caverns with associated air production wells and piping. The result of this change in storage cavern Design Basis increased project capital costs significantly. In addition, the development time required to complete the three cavern system was estimated at approximately six years. This meant that the CAES plant would initially go into service with only one third of the required storage capacity and would not achieve full capability until after approximately five years of commercial operation. The market price forecasting and dispatch modeling completed by CES indicated that the CAES technologies would operate at only 10 to 20% capacity factors and the resulting overall project economics were not favorable for further development. As a result of all of these factors, the Phase 1 FEED developed an installed CAES plant cost estimate of approximately $2,300/KW for the 210MW CAES 1A and 2 cycles. The capital cost for the 136 MW CAES 1 cycle was even higher due to the lower generating capacity of the cycle. Notably, the large equipment could have generated additional capacity (up to 270MW) which would have improved the cost per KW; however, the output was limited by the night time transmission system capability. The research herein, therefore, is particular to the site-specific factors that influenced the design and the current and forecasted generation mix and energy prices in Upstate New York and may not necessarily indicate that CAES plants cannot be economically constructed in other places in New York State or the world.

  13. Liquid heat capacity lasers

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

    2007-05-01

    The heat capacity laser concept is extended to systems in which the heat capacity lasing media is a liquid. The laser active liquid is circulated from a reservoir (where the bulk of the media and hence waste heat resides) through a channel so configured for both optical pumping of the media for gain and for light amplification from the resulting gain.

  14. Variable capacity gasification burner

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saxon, D.I.

    1985-03-05

    A variable capacity burner that may be used in gasification processes, the burner being adjustable when operating in its intended operating environment to operate at two different flow capacities, with the adjustable parts being dynamically sealed within a statically sealed structural arrangement to prevent dangerous blow-outs of the reactants to the atmosphere.

  15. Refinery Capacity Report

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

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

  16. Boosting CSP Production with Thermal Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Denholm, P.; Mehos, M.

    2012-06-01

    Combining concentrating solar power (CSP) with thermal energy storage shows promise for increasing grid flexibility by providing firm system capacity with a high ramp rate and acceptable part-load operation. When backed by energy storage capability, CSP can supplement photovoltaics by adding generation from solar resources during periods of low solar insolation. The falling cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) - generated electricity has led to a rapid increase in the deployment of PV and projections that PV could play a significant role in the future U.S. electric sector. The solar resource itself is virtually unlimited; however, the actual contribution of PV electricity is limited by several factors related to the current grid. The first is the limited coincidence between the solar resource and normal electricity demand patterns. The second is the limited flexibility of conventional generators to accommodate this highly variable generation resource. At high penetration of solar generation, increased grid flexibility will be needed to fully utilize the variable and uncertain output from PV generation and to shift energy production to periods of high demand or reduced solar output. Energy storage is one way to increase grid flexibility, and many storage options are available or under development. In this article, however, we consider a technology already beginning to be used at scale - thermal energy storage (TES) deployed with concentrating solar power (CSP). PV and CSP are both deployable in areas of high direct normal irradiance such as the U.S. Southwest. The role of these two technologies is dependent on their costs and relative value, including how their value to the grid changes as a function of what percentage of total generation they contribute to the grid, and how they may actually work together to increase overall usefulness of the solar resource. Both PV and CSP use solar energy to generate electricity. A key difference is the ability of CSP to utilize high-efficiency TES, which turns CSP into a partially dispatchable resource. The addition of TES produces additional value by shifting the delivery of solar energy to periods of peak demand, providing firm capacity and ancillary services, and reducing integration challenges. Given the dispatchability of CSP enabled by TES, it is possible that PV and CSP are at least partially complementary. The dispatchability of CSP with TES can enable higher overall penetration of the grid by solar energy by providing solar-generated electricity during periods of cloudy weather or at night, when PV-generated power is unavailable. Such systems also have the potential to improve grid flexibility, thereby enabling greater penetration of PV energy (and other variable generation sources such as wind) than if PV were deployed without CSP.

  17. Knudsen heat capacity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Babac, Gulru; Reese, Jason M.

    2014-05-15

    We present a Knudsen heat capacity as a more appropriate and useful fluid property in micro/nanoscale gas systems than the constant pressure heat capacity. At these scales, different fluid processes come to the fore that are not normally observed at the macroscale. For thermodynamic analyses that include these Knudsen processes, using the Knudsen heat capacity can be more effective and physical. We calculate this heat capacity theoretically for non-ideal monatomic and diatomic gases, in particular, helium, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The quantum modification for para and ortho hydrogen is also considered. We numerically model the Knudsen heat capacity using molecular dynamics simulations for the considered gases, and compare these results with the theoretical ones.

  18. Refinery Capacity Report

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

    Cokers Catalytic Crackers Hydrocrackers Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Capacity Inputs Table 8. Capacity and Fresh Feed Input to Selected Downstream Units at U.S. Refineries, 2013 - 2015 (Barrels per Calendar Day) Reformers Capacity Inputs 2013 2,596,369 5,681,643 1,887,024 2,302,764 4,810,611 1,669,540 2,600,518 3,405,017 74,900 543,800 41,500 47,537 387,148 33,255 PADD I 162,249 240,550 450,093 1,196,952 303,000 414,732 1,028,003 263,238 PADD II 648,603 818,718 1,459,176 2,928,673 981,114

  19. Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Storage Technology: Fundamental Research for Optimization of Hydrogen Storage and Utilization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perret, Bob; Heske, Clemens; Nadavalath, Balakrishnan; Cornelius, Andrew; Hatchett, David; Bae, Chusung; Pang, Tao; Kim, Eunja; Hemmers, Oliver

    2011-03-28

    Design and development of improved low-cost hydrogen fuel cell catalytic materials and high-capacity hydrogenn storage media are paramount to enabling the hydrogen economy. Presently, effective and durable catalysts are mostly precious metals in pure or alloyed form and their high cost inhibits fuel cell applications. Similarly, materials that meet on-board hydrogen storage targets within total mass and volumetric constraints are yet to be found. Both hydrogen storage performance and cost-effective fuel cell designs are intimately linked to the electronic structure, morphology and cost of the chosen materials. The FCAST Project combined theoretical and experimental studies of electronic structure, chemical bonding, and hydrogen adsorption/desorption characteristics of a number of different nanomaterials and metal clusters to develop better fundamental understanding of hydrogen storage in solid state matrices. Additional experimental studies quantified the hydrogen storage properties of synthesized polyaniline(PANI)/Pd composites. Such conducting polymers are especially interesting because of their high intrinsic electron density and the ability to dope the materials with protons, anions, and metal species. Earlier work produced contradictory results: one study reported 7% to 8% hydrogen uptake while a second study reported zero hydrogen uptake. Cost and durability of fuel cell systems are crucial factors in their affordability. Limits on operating temperature, loss of catalytic reactivity and degradation of proton exchange membranes are factors that affect system durability and contribute to operational costs. More cost effective fuel cell components were sought through studies of the physical and chemical nature of catalyst performance, characterization of oxidation and reduction processes on system surfaces. Additional development effort resulted in a new hydrocarbon-based high-performance sulfonated proton exchange membrane (PEM) that can be manufactured at low cost and accompanied by improved mechanical and thermal stability.

  20. Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) | Department of Energy Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid - EAC Report (December 2008) The objectives of this report are to provide the Secretary of Energy with the Electricity Advisory Committee's

  1. WINDExchange: Potential Wind Capacity

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

    Potential Wind Capacity Potential wind capacity maps are provided for a 2014 industry standard wind turbine installed on a 110-m tower, which represents plausible current technology options, and a wind turbine on a 140-m tower, which represents near-future technology options. Enlarge image This map shows the wind potential at a 110-m height for the United States. Download a printable map. Click on a state to view the wind map for that state. * Grid Granularity = 400 sq km* 35% Gross Capacity

  2. Energy Storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mukundan, Rangachary

    2014-09-30

    Energy storage technology is critical if the U.S. is to achieve more than 25% penetration of renewable electrical energy, given the intermittency of wind and solar. Energy density is a critical parameter in the economic viability of any energy storage system with liquid fuels being 10 to 100 times better than batteries. However, the economical conversion of electricity to fuel still presents significant technical challenges. This project addressed these challenges by focusing on a specific approach: efficient processes to convert electricity, water and nitrogen to ammonia. Ammonia has many attributes that make it the ideal energy storage compound. The feed stocks are plentiful, ammonia is easily liquefied and routinely stored in large volumes in cheap containers, and it has exceptional energy density for grid scale electrical energy storage. Ammonia can be oxidized efficiently in fuel cells or advanced Carnot cycle engines yielding water and nitrogen as end products. Because of the high energy density and low reactivity of ammonia, the capital cost for grid storage will be lower than any other storage application. This project developed the theoretical foundations of N2 catalysis on specific catalysts and provided for the first time experimental evidence for activation of Mo 2N based catalysts. Theory also revealed that the N atom adsorbed in the bridging position between two metal atoms is the critical step for catalysis. Simple electrochemical ammonia production reactors were designed and built in this project using two novel electrolyte systems. The first one demonstrated the use of ionic liquid electrolytes at room temperature and the second the use of pyrophosphate based electrolytes at intermediate temperatures (200 – 300 ºC). The mechanism of high proton conduction in the pyrophosphate materials was found to be associated with a polyphosphate second phase contrary to literature claims and ammonia production rates as high as 5X 10-8 mol/s/cm2 were achieved.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.V.

    1996-12-31

    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.

  4. NREL: Energy Storage - Isothermal Battery Calorimeters

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

    ... Working with Industry to Fine-Tune Energy Storage Designs The IBCs' capabilities make it possible for battery developers to predict thermal performance before installing batteries ...

  5. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    02/05/16 02/12/16 02/19/16 02/26/16 03/04/16 03/11/16 View History Total Lower 48 States 2,864 2,701 2,584 2,536 2,479 2,478 2010-2016 East 620 568 512 495 464 452 2010-2016 Midwest 739 689 645 621 587 577 2010-2016 Mountain 151 147 147 145 146 147 2010-2016 Pacific 258 255 256 255 258 259 2010-2016 South Central 1,096 1,042 1,024 1,020 1,024 1,043 2010-2016 Salt 312 286 281 285 291 303 2010-2016 Nonsalt 784 756 743 735 733 740 2010-2016 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  6. Working Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)

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

    Monthly Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 View History U.S. 2,935,089 3,252,232 3,624,564 3,953,070 3,937,654 3,677,200 1973-2015 Alabama 21,501 20,444 22,861 23,276 24,493 24,742 1995-2015 Alaska 24,528 24,635 24,543 24,595 24,461 24,319 2013-2015 Arkansas 2,151 2,553 2,694 2,222 2,132 1,808 1990-2015 California 314,527 312,769 319,349 337,762

  7. Standardized Testing Program for Solid-State Hydrogen Storage Technologies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, Michael A.; Page, Richard A.

    2012-07-30

    In the US and abroad, major research and development initiatives toward establishing a hydrogen-based transportation infrastructure have been undertaken, encompassing key technological challenges in hydrogen production and delivery, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage. However, the principal obstacle to the implementation of a safe, low-pressure hydrogen fueling system for fuel-cell powered vehicles remains storage under conditions of near-ambient temperature and moderate pressure. The choices for viable hydrogen storage systems at the present time are limited to compressed gas storage tanks, cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage tanks, chemical hydrogen storage, and hydrogen absorbed or adsorbed in a solid-state material (a.k.a. solid-state storage). Solid-state hydrogen storage may offer overriding benefits in terms of storage capacity, kinetics and, most importantly, safety.The fervor among the research community to develop novel storage materials had, in many instances, the unfortunate consequence of making erroneous, if not wild, claims on the reported storage capacities achievable in such materials, to the extent that the potential viability of emerging materials was difficult to assess. This problem led to a widespread need to establish a capability to accurately and independently assess the storage behavior of a wide array of different classes of solid-state storage materials, employing qualified methods, thus allowing development efforts to focus on those materials that showed the most promise. However, standard guidelines, dedicated facilities, or certification programs specifically aimed at testing and assessing the performance, safety, and life cycle of these emergent materials had not been established. To address the stated need, the Testing Laboratory for Solid-State Hydrogen Storage Technologies was commissioned as a national-level focal point for evaluating new materials emerging from the designated Materials Centers of Excellence (MCoE) according to established and qualified standards. Working with industry, academia, and the U.S. government, SwRI set out to develop an accepted set of evaluation standards and analytical methodologies. Critical measurements of hydrogen sorption properties in the Laboratory have been based on three analytical capabilities: 1) a high-pressure Sievert-type volumetric analyzer, modified to improve low-temperature isothermal analyses of physisorption materials and permit in situ mass spectroscopic analysis of the sample’s gas space; 2) a static, high-pressure thermogravimetric analyzer employing an advanced magnetic suspension electro-balance, glove-box containment, and capillary interface for in situ mass spectroscopic analysis of the sample’s gas space; and 3) a Laser-induced Thermal Desorption Mass Spectrometer (LTDMS) system for high thermal-resolution desorption and mechanistic analyses. The Laboratory has played an important role in down-selecting materials and systems that have emerged from the MCoEs.

  8. Secure Storage Architectures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aderholdt, Ferrol; Caldwell, Blake A; Hicks, Susan Elaine; Koch, Scott M; Naughton, III, Thomas J; Pogge, James R; Scott, Stephen L; Shipman, Galen M; Sorrillo, Lawrence

    2015-01-01

    The purpose of this report is to clarify the challenges associated with storage for secure enclaves. The major focus areas for the report are: - review of relevant parallel filesystem technologies to identify assets and gaps; - review of filesystem isolation/protection mechanisms, to include native filesystem capabilities and auxiliary/layered techniques; - definition of storage architectures that can be used for customizable compute enclaves (i.e., clarification of use-cases that must be supported for shared storage scenarios); - investigate vendor products related to secure storage. This study provides technical details on the storage and filesystem used for HPC with particular attention on elements that contribute to creating secure storage. We outline the pieces for a a shared storage architecture that balances protection and performance by leveraging the isolation capabilities available in filesystems and virtualization technologies to maintain the integrity of the data. Key Points: There are a few existing and in-progress protection features in Lustre related to secure storage, which are discussed in (Chapter 3.1). These include authentication capabilities like GSSAPI/Kerberos and the in-progress work for GSSAPI/Host-keys. The GPFS filesystem provides native support for encryption, which is not directly available in Lustre. Additionally, GPFS includes authentication/authorization mechanisms for inter-cluster sharing of filesystems (Chapter 3.2). The limitations of key importance for secure storage/filesystems are: (i) restricting sub-tree mounts for parallel filesystem (which is not directly supported in Lustre or GPFS), and (ii) segregation of hosts on the storage network and practical complications with dynamic additions to the storage network, e.g., LNET. A challenge for VM based use cases will be to provide efficient IO forwarding of the parallel filessytem from the host to the guest (VM). There are promising options like para-virtualized filesystems to help with this issue, which are a particular instances of the more general challenge of efficient host/guest IO that is the focus of interfaces like virtio. A collection of bridging technologies have been identified in Chapter 4, which can be helpful to overcome the limitations and challenges of supporting efficient storage for secure enclaves. The synthesis of native filesystem security mechanisms and bridging technologies led to an isolation-centric storage architecture that is proposed in Chapter 5, which leverages isolation mechanisms from different layers to facilitate secure storage for an enclave. Recommendations: The following highlights recommendations from the investigations done thus far. - The Lustre filesystem offers excellent performance but does not support some security related features, e.g., encryption, that are included in GPFS. If encryption is of paramount importance, then GPFS may be a more suitable choice. - There are several possible Lustre related enhancements that may provide functionality of use for secure-enclaves. However, since these features are not currently integrated, the use of Lustre as a secure storage system may require more direct involvement (support). (*The network that connects the storage subsystem and users, e.g., Lustre s LNET.) - The use of OpenStack with GPFS will be more streamlined than with Lustre, as there are available drivers for GPFS. - The Manilla project offers Filesystem as a Service for OpenStack and is worth further investigation. Manilla has some support for GPFS. - The proposed Lustre enhancement of Dynamic-LNET should be further investigated to provide more dynamic changes to the storage network which could be used to isolate hosts and their tenants. - The Linux namespaces offer a good solution for creating efficient restrictions to shared HPC filesystems. However, we still need to conduct a thorough round of storage/filesystem benchmarks. - Vendor products should be more closely reviewed, possibly to include evaluation of performance/protection of select products. (Note, we are investigation the option of evaluating equipment from Seagate/Xyratex.) Outline: The remainder of this report is structured as follows: - Section 1: Describes the growing importance of secure storage architectures and highlights some challenges for HPC. - Section 2: Provides background information on HPC storage architectures, relevant supporting technologies for secure storage and details on OpenStack components related to storage. Note, that background material on HPC storage architectures in this chapter can be skipped if the reader is already familiar with Lustre and GPFS. - Section 3: A review of protection mechanisms in two HPC filesystems; details about available isolation, authentication/authorization and performance capabilities are discussed. - Section 4: Describe technologies that can be used to bridge gaps in HPC storage and filesystems to facilitate...

  9. Report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-04-01

    The report on interim storage of spent nuclear fuel discusses the technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of spent-fuel storage at nuclear reactors. The report is intended to provide legislators state officials and citizens in the Midwest with information on spent-fuel inventories, current and projected additional storage requirements, licensing, storage technologies, and actions taken by various utilities in the Midwest to augment their capacity to store spent nuclear fuel on site.

  10. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2003 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2004 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2005 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2006 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 2007 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200

  11. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 219,914 220,597 220,597 2003 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 220,597 2004 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,211 220,804 220,804 220,804 2005 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804 2006 220,804 220,804 220,804 220,804

  12. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 580,037 576,841 576,841 2003 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 576,841 587,116 563,590 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 587,116 2004 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 592,516 591,673 591,673 591,673 2005 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 2006 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2003 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2004 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2005 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 2006 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,070,717 1,071,747 1,071,747 2003 1,043,529 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,075,261 1,034,429 1,034,429 2004 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,034,429 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,018,517 1,045,517 1,045,517 1,013,437 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 2005 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264 1,023,264

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2003 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2004 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2005 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2006 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2007 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 141,912 141,912 141,912 141,912 144,787 144,787 2003 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 2004 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 144,787 143,887 143,887 143,887 2005 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887 2006 143,887 143,887 143,887 143,887

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,878 31,992 31,992 2003 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 31,992 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 2004 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,098 32,080 32,080 32,080 2005 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 2006 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,080 32,146 32,146 32,146

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 371,510 374,125 374,125 2003 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,125 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2004 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2005 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2006 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

  19. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2003 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2004 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2005 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2006 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

  20. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 4,967 2,992 2,992 2003 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 2,992 5,100 5,100 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 2004 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 6,344 8,024 8,024 8,024 2005 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 2006 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 8,024 9,035 9,035 9,035 2007 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,035 9,692

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 2003 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 105,869 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 2004 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 115,069 114,187 114,187 114,187 2005 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187 2006 114,187 114,187 114,187 114,187

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

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2003 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2004 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2005 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2006 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469

  3. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2003 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 2004 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2005 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 2006 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 83,124 83,124

  4. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 573,784 575,959 575,959 2003 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 575,959 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 2004 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,404 2005 572,404 572,404 572,329 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 2006 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404

  5. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 378,137 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 2003 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 382,037 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 2004 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 389,947 384,838 384,838 384,838 2005 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838 2006 384,838 384,838 384,838 384,838

  6. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 17,755 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 21,080 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 2003 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 22,042 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 2004 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,676 23,796 23,796 23,796 2005 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 2006 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,603 24,034 24,034 24,034

  7. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 7,000 7,000 1990's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2000's 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 2010's

  8. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 108,171 108,207 1990's 108,601 114,621 114,627 114,627 124,138 124,114 134,012 134,012 134,012 134,012 2000's 134,012 134,000 144,787 143,887 146,287 150,947 150,809 166,909 187,251 210,128 2010's 235,638 240,241 289,416 303,522 331,469

  9. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 29,025 29,791 1990's 29,791 29,791 30,564 30,564 30,564 30,564 31,125 31,273 31,273 31,273 2000's 31,878 32,000 32,098 32,080 32,004 32,146 32,505 32,940 32,876 10,889 2010's 11,502

  10. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 373,963 373,960 1990's 373,960 373,960 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 375,010 342,785 371,510 371,510 2000's 371,510 372,000 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 376,301 2010's

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 88,438 88,438 1990's 143,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 93,311 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 39,468 2000's 39,468 39,000 39,468 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850 34,850 2010's

  12. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 94,600 94,600 1990's 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 94,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 96,600 2000's 96,600 97,000 89,800 83,800 83,800 83,124 82,652 78,424 80,000 80,000 2010's 84,300 84,3

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 612,547 612,547 1990's 591,494 591,494 591,494 594,644 595,008 620,544 557,452 573,434 575,234 575,384 2000's 573,784 574,000 573,709 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 580,380 2010's 580,380 580,380 577,944 577,944 577,94

  14. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 377,189 364,887 1990's 362,616 362,616 359,616 359,616 363,593 364,593 395,087 396,087 394,827 394,827 2000's 378,137 382,000 389,767 384,838 383,638 378,738 380,038 373,738 371,324 371,338 2010's 371,338 372,838 370,838 370,535 375,935

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 9,791 1990's 9,791 9,791 11,445 11,445 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 11,622 2000's 16,035 21,000 23,675 23,796 24,480 24,034 26,703 29,415 29,415 29,565 2010's 29,565 29,565 28,750

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 805,394 805,393 1990's 640,938 640,938 669,354 664,693 658,578 654,570 680,006 684,842 684,842 684,842 2000's 684,518 717,070 714,216 748,074 749,018 748,792 750,054 759,365 759,153 776,964 2010's 776,822 776,845 774,309 774,309 774,309

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 82,662 82,662 1990's 98,999 98,999 105,790 105,790 105,583 108,837 99,599 99,599 99,599 99,599 2000's 100,226 100,000 101,054 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 95,068 105,768 2010's 105,768 105,858 124,253 122,0

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

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 953,947 952,279 1990's 949,914 949,914 949,721 952,388 958,968 905,260 898,239 965,565 898,565 898,565 2000's 898,565 899,000 945,307 972,388 982,474 981,995 984,768 980,691 977,989 989,454 2010's 990,487 997,364 999,931 1,000,281 1,004,547

  19. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 114,603 112,045 1990's 97,332 102,246 106,176 106,676 108,621 113,121 113,209 113,209 113,209 113,209 2000's 113,210 113,000 111,095 113,597 113,397 114,080 114,294 114,294 114,937 114,274 2010's 111,271 111,313 110,749 110,749 110,749

  20. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 311,000 311,000 1990's 229,700 279,700 279,700 279,700 270,200 270,200 270,200 408,200 273,200 273,200 2000's 273,200 273,000 273,200 273,200 273,200 273,200 275,200 278,238 284,747 284,811 2010's 288,0