Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (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

California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...  

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

Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

3

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity  

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

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2013 | Release Date: November 27, 2013 | Next Release Date: May 29, 2013 Previous Issues Year: September 2013 March 2013 September 2012 March 2012 September 2011 March 2011 September 2010 Go 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

4

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Definitions Definitions Definitions Since 2006, EIA has reported two measures of aggregate capacity, one based on demonstrated peak working gas storage, the other on working gas design capacity. Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity: This measure sums the highest storage inventory level of working gas observed in each facility over the 5-year range from May 2005 to April 2010, as reported by the operator on the Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Underground Gas Storage Report." This data-driven estimate reflects actual operator experience. However, the timing for peaks for different fields need not coincide. Also, actual available maximum capacity for any storage facility may exceed its reported maximum storage level over the last 5 years, and is virtually certain to do so in the case of newly commissioned or expanded facilities. Therefore, this measure provides a conservative indicator of capacity that may understate the amount that can actually be stored.

5

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Methodology  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Summary Prices Exploration & Reserves Production Imports/Exports Pipelines Storage Consumption All Natural Gas Data Reports Analysis & Projections Most Requested Consumption Exploration & Reserves Imports/Exports & Pipelines Prices Production Projections Storage All Reports ‹ See All Natural Gas Reports Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2012 | Release Date: July 24, 2013 | Next Release Date: Spring 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Go Methodology Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity Estimates: Estimates are based on aggregation of the noncoincident peak levels of working gas inventories at individual storage fields as reported monthly over a 60-month period ending in November 2012 on Form EIA-191, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage

6

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

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

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

7

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity  

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

Working and Net Available Shell Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity November 2013 With Data as of September 30, 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 U.S. Energy Information Administration | Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September 30, 2013 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or

8

Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Methodology Methodology Methodology Demonstrated Peak Working Gas Capacity Estimates: Estimates are based on aggregation of the noncoincident peak levels of working gas inventories at individual storage fields as reported monthly over a 60-month period ending in April 2010 on Form EIA-191M, "Monthly Natural Gas Underground Storage Report." The months of measurement for the peak storage volumes by facilities may differ; i.e., the months do 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 Natural Gas Underground Storage Report," are collected from storage operators on a field-level basis. Operators can report field-level data either on a per reservoir basis or on an aggregated reservoir basis. It is possible that if all operators reported on a per reservoir basis that the demonstrated peak working gas capacity would be larger. Additionally, these data reflect inventory levels as of the last day of the report month, and a facility may have reached a higher inventory on a different day of the report month, which would not be recorded on Form EIA-191M.

9

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity  

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

Working Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2013 Working Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2013 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity 1 2 3 4 5 U.S. Total Ending Stocks Utilization Rate 1 Refineries Crude Oil 15,154 17,952 72,858 4,109 35,324 145,397 90,778 62% Fuel Ethanol 151 142 257 114 79 743 482 65% Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,149 10,996 24,902 581 2,219 39,847 19,539 49% Propane/Propylene (dedicated) 3 405 3,710 3,886 54 199 8,254 4,104 NA Motor Gasoline (incl. Motor Gasoline Blending Components)

10

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity  

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

Net Available Shell Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2013 Net Available Shell Storage Capacity by PAD District as of September 30, 2013 (Thousand Barrels) Commodity In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 In Operation Idle 1 Refineries Crude Oil 17,334 831 21,870 1,721 86,629 3,468 4,655 174 39,839 1,230 170,327 7,424 Fuel Ethanol 174 - 175 1 289 - 134 - 92 - 864 1 Natural Gas Plant Liquids and Liquefied Refinery Gases 2 1,267 23 11,599 382 28,865 78 641 19 2,412 23 44,784 525 Propane/Propylene (dedicated)

11

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity - Energy Information  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity Underground Natural Gas Working Storage Capacity With Data for November 2012 | Release Date: July 24, 2013 | Next Release Date: Spring 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Go Overview Natural gas working storage capacity increased by about 2 percent in the Lower 48 states between November 2011 and November 2012. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has two measures of working gas storage capacity, and both increased by similar amounts: Demonstrated maximum volume increased 1.8 percent to 4,265 billion cubic feet (Bcf) Design capacity increased 2.0 percent to 4,575 Bcf Maximum demonstrated working gas volume is an operational measure of the highest level of working gas reported at each storage facility at any time

12

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

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

capacity 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...

13

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of March 31, 2011  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity Archives With Data for March 2011 | Release Date: May 31, 2011 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

14

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September 30, 2010 -  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity With Data for September 2010 | Release Date: July 28, 2011 Working and Net Available Shell Storage Capacity as of September 30, 2010 is the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) first report containing semi-annual storage capacity data. It includes three tables detailing working and net available shell storage capacity by facility type, product, and PAD District as of September 30, 2010. EIA has reported weekly and monthly inventory levels of crude oil and petroleum products for decades. New storage capacity data can help analysts place petroleum inventory levels in context and better understand petroleum market activity and price movements, especially at key market centers such as Cushing, Oklahoma.

15

FAQs about Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

about Storage Capacity about Storage Capacity How do I determine if my tanks are in operation or idle or non-reportable? Refer to the following flowchart. Should idle capacity be included with working capacity? No, only report working capacity of tanks and caverns in operation, but not for idle tanks and caverns. Should working capacity match net available shell in operation/total net available shell capacity? Working capacity should be less than net available shell capacity because working capacity excludes contingency space and tank bottoms. What is the difference between net available shell capacity in operation and total net available shell capacity? Net available shell capacity in operation excludes capacity of idle tanks and caverns. What do you mean by transshipment tanks?

16

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

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

Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" 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",2013,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/21/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","6/20/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","pet_pnp_capwork_dcu_nus_a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capwork_dcu_nus_a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov"

17

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

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

Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","nga_epg0_sacw0_nus_mmcfa.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nga_epg0_sacw0_nus_mmcfa.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

18

,"U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)" Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","nga_epg0_sacws_nus_mmcfa.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nga_epg0_sacws_nus_mmcfa.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

19

,"U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)" Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","nga_epg0_sacwa_nus_mmcfa.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nga_epg0_sacwa_nus_mmcfa.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

20

,"U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)" Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","nga_epg0_sacwd_nus_mmcfa.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/nga_epg0_sacwd_nus_mmcfa.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov"

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Solid-State Hydrogen Storage: Storage Capacity,Thermodynamics...  

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

Hydrogen Storage: Storage Capacity,Thermodynamics and Kinetics. Solid-State Hydrogen Storage: Storage Capacity,Thermodynamics and Kinetics. Abstract: Solid-state reversible...

22

Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

. . Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity by State, December 31, 1996 (Capacity in Billion Cubic Feet) Table State Interstate Companies Intrastate Companies Independent Companies Total Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Number of Active Fields Capacity Percent of U.S. Capacity Alabama................. 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0.04 Arkansas ................ 0 0 3 32 0 0 3 32 0.40 California................ 0 0 10 470 0 0 10 470 5.89 Colorado ................ 4 66 5 34 0 0 9 100 1.25 Illinois ..................... 6 259 24 639 0 0 30 898 11.26 Indiana ................... 6 16 22 97 0 0 28 113 1.42 Iowa ....................... 4 270 0 0 0 0 4 270 3.39 Kansas ................... 16 279 2 6 0 0 18 285 3.57 Kentucky ................ 6 167 18 49 0 0 24 216 2.71 Louisiana................ 8 530 4 25 0 0 12 555 6.95 Maryland ................ 1 62

23

Solid-state hydrogen storage: Storage capacity, thermodynamics, and kinetics  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Solid-state reversible hydrogen storage systems hold great promise for onboard applications. ... key criteria for a successful solid-state reversible storage material are high storage capacity, suitable thermodyn...

William Osborn; Tippawan Markmaitree; Leon L. Shaw; Ruiming Ren; Jianzhi Hu

2009-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

24

,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",12,"Annual",2013,"6301988" ,"Release...

25

,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"  

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

Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",11,"Annual",2013,"6301988" ,"Release...

26

California Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity...  

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

Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements) California Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Number of Elements) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

27

High-capacity hydrogen storage in lithium and sodium amidoboranes...  

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

capacity hydrogen storage in lithium and sodium amidoboranes. High-capacity hydrogen storage in lithium and sodium amidoboranes. Abstract: A substantial effort worldwide has been...

28

[working paper] Regional Economic Capacity, Economic Shocks,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 [working paper] Regional Economic Capacity, Economic Shocks, and Economic that makes them more likely to resist economic shocks or to recover quickly from of resilience capacity developed by Foster (2012) is related to economic resilience

Sekhon, Jasjeet S.

29

Maryland 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1988-2012 Salt Caverns

30

Ohio 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 572,477 572,477 580,380 580,380 580,380 577,944 1988-2012

31

Texas 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 690,678 740,477 766,768 783,579 812,394 831,190 1988-2012

32

Kentucky 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 220,359 220,359 220,368 221,751 221,751 221,751 1988-2012

33

Oregon 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 29,415 29,415 29,565 29,565 29,565 28,750 1989-2012 Salt Caverns

34

Michigan 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 1,060,558 1,062,339 1,069,405 1,069,898 1,075,472 1,078,979

35

Tennessee 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 1,200 1,200 1,200 0 1998-2012 Salt Caverns 0 1999-2012

36

Alabama 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 19,300 26,900 26,900 32,900 35,400 35,400 1995-2012 Salt Caverns

37

Wyoming 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 114,067 111,167 111,120 111,120 106,764 124,937 1988-2012

38

Indiana 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 114,294 114,937 114,274 111,271 111,313 110,749 1988-2012

39

Louisiana 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 588,711 615,858 651,968 670,880 690,295 699,646 1988-2012

40

Montana 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 374,201 374,201 376,301 376,301 376,301 376,301 1988-2012

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

Virginia 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 9,560 6,200 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 1998-2012 Salt Caverns

42

Mississippi 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 166,909 187,251 210,128 235,638 240,241 289,416 1988-2012

43

Pennsylvania 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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 759,365 759,153 776,964 776,822 776,845 774,309 1988-2012

44

Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)  

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

Total Working Gas Capacity Total Number of Existing Fields Period: Monthly Annual 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 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View History U.S. 9,072,508 9,104,181 9,111,242 9,117,296 9,132,250 9,171,017 1989-2013 Alaska 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 83,592 2013-2013 Lower 48 States 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 2012-2013 Alabama 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 35,400 2002-2013 Arkansas 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 21,853 2002-2013 California 592,711 592,711 592,711 599,711 599,711 599,711 2002-2013 Colorado 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 122,086 2002-2013

45

Optimization of Storage vs. Compression Capacity  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

46

Structural Capacity of Light Gauge Steel Storage Rack Uprights.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Master of Engineering (Research)%%%This report investigates the down-aisle buckling load capacity of steel storage rack uprights. The effects of discrete torsional restraints provided by the (more)

Koen, Damien Joseph

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

47

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:07:28 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

48

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

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

,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1162014 3:07:27 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NY2"...

49

High capacity stabilized complex hydrides for hydrogen storage  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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.

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

2014-11-11T23:59:59.000Z

50

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

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

3,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1989" 3,"Monthly","9/2013","1/15/1989" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 7:03:21 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGA_EPG0_SACW0_NUS_MMCF","NA1394_NUS_8" "Date","U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)","U.S. Working Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)","U.S. Natural Gas Count of Underground Storage Capacity (Count)"

51

HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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

52

Hydrogen storage capacity in single-walled carbon nanotubes  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Molecular-dynamics simulations were used to investigate the storage capacity of hydrogen in single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) and the strain of nanotube under the interactions between the stored hydrogen molecules and the SWNT. The storage capacities inside SWNTs increase with the increase of tube diameters. For a SWNT with diameter less than 20 , the storage capacity depends strongly on the helicity of a the SWNT. The maximal radial strain of SWNT is in the range of 11%18%, and depends on the helicity of the SWNT. The maximal strain of armchair SWNTs is less than that of zigzag SWNTs. The tensile strengths of SWNTs decrease with increasing diameters, and approach that of graphite (20 GPa) for larger-diameter tubes.

Yuchen Ma; Yueyuan Xia; Mingwen Zhao; Minju Ying

2002-04-11T23:59:59.000Z

53

NREL: Energy Storage - Working with Us  

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

Working with Us Working with Us 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 collaboration with our diverse partners, we use thermal management and modeling and analysis from a vehicle systems perspective to improve energy storage devices. Much of our research is conducted at the state-of-the-art energy storage laboratory, in Golden, Colorado. There are a variety of ways to become involved with NREL's Energy Storage activities: NREL's Partnering Agreements Work collaboratively with NREL through a variety of Technology Partnership Agreements. We can help you select the most appropriate agreement for your research project. Gain access to NREL's expertise and specialized research facilities through

54

Effect of specific surface area on oxygen storage capacity (OSC) and methane steam reforming reactivity of CeO2  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

It was found from the work that the specific surface area of ceria presents an important role on the oxygen storage capacity (OSC), the reactivity toward methane steam reforming, and the resistance toward carbon ...

W. Sutthisripok; S. Sattayanurak; L. Sikong

2008-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

55

Storage capacity of hydrogen in tetrahydrothiophene and furan clathrate hydrates  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The storage capacity of hydrogen in the tetrahydrothiophene and furan hydrates was investigated by means of pressurevolumetemperature measurement. The hydrogenabsorption rate of tetrahydrothiophene and furan hydrates is much larger than that of tetrahydrofuran hydrate in spite of same crystal structure (structure-II). The storage amount of hydrogen at 275.1K is about 1.2mol (hydrogen)/mol (tetrahydrothiophene or furan hydrate) (?0.6mass%) at 41.5MPa, which is coincident with that of tetrahydrofuran hydrate.

Takaaki Tsuda; Kyohei Ogata; Shunsuke Hashimoto; Takeshi Sugahara; Masato Moritoki; Kazunari Ohgaki

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

56

Capacity of a 3-D multi-layer optical data storage system , Edwin P. Walkera  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Capacity of a 3-D multi-layer optical data storage system Yi Zhanga* , Edwin P. Walkera , Wenyi) Emcore Fiber Optics Components, 1600 Eubank Blvd. SE, Albuquerque, NM 87123 ABSTRACT Storage capacity of a 3-D multi-layer optical data storage system is analyzed. Theoretical analysis of recorded bit size

Esener, Sadik C.

57

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 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 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History Total Storage Capacity 8,402,216 8,498,535 8,655,740 8,763,798 8,849,125 8,991,335

58

AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million  

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

Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas 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 2,110,116 2,108,116 2,110,116 2,127,294 2,126,618 2,134,784 2,140,284 2,140,284 2,144,784 2,144,784 1997 2,143,603 2,149,088 2,170,288 2,170,288 2,170,178 2,170,178 2,189,642 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 1998 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,194,242 2,205,540 2,205,540 2,205,540 2,205,540 2,205,540 2,205,540 2,197,859

59

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  

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

Capacity (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 1,237,446 1,228,208 1,270,505 1,270,505 1,270,505 1,270,505 1,270,505 1,270,505 1997 1,228,395 1,228,395 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1998 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,228,076 1,122,586 1,122,586 1,122,586 1,122,586 1,122,586 1,122,586 1,122,586

60

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity  

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

Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas 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 4,600,548 4,603,048 4,603,048 4,607,048 4,740,509 4,740,509 4,742,309 4,743,309 4,743,309 4,743,309 4,743,309 1997 4,681,090 4,574,740 4,586,024 4,578,486 4,586,024 4,582,146 4,582,146 4,582,146 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,585,702 1998 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,585,702 4,799,753 4,799,753 4,799,753 4,799,753 4,799,753 4,799,753 4,805,622

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

EA-1044: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge  

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

44: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak 44: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee EA-1044: Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee SUMMARY 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, Tennessee, for liquid low-level radioactive waste. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES None available at this time. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD May 25, 1995 EA-1044: Finding of No Significant Impact Melton Valley Storage Tanks Capacity Increase Project- Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee May 25, 1995 EA-1044: Final Environmental Assessment

62

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Argonne DC Offices  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Argonne DC Offices L'Enfant Plaza and Kristin Deason Sentech, Inc. January 16, 2008 #12;SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Objectives This meeting was one of a continuing series of biannual meetings of the Hydrogen Storage Systems

63

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

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.

64

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.

65

High-Capacity Hydrogen Storage in Metal-Free Organic Molecular Crystals  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

High-Capacity Hydrogen Storage in Metal-Free Organic Molecular Crystals Mina Yoon1, 2 and Matthias donor and acceptor molecules as a promising new class of hydrogen storage materials. Using quantum(Tetrathiafulvalene)/TCNQ(7,7,8,8-tetracyanoquinodimethane) become very efficient hydrogen storage media of high gravimetric

66

Storage and capacity rights markets in the natural gas industry  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

This dissertation presents a different approach at looking at market power in capacity rights markets that goes beyond the functional aspects of capacity rights markets as access to transportation services. In particular, ...

Paz-Galindo, Luis A.

1999-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

67

Complex Hydride Compounds with Enhanced Hydrogen Storage Capacity  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

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

2008-02-18T23:59:59.000Z

68

Fuel Cell Technologies Office: Storage Systems Analysis Working Group  

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

Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Storage Systems Analysis Working Group The Storage Systems Analysis Working Group, launched in March 2005, provides a forum to facilitate research and communication of hydrogen storage-related analysis activities among researchers actively engaged in hydrogen storage systems analyses. The working group includes members from DOE, the national laboratories, industry, and academia. Description Technical Targets Meetings Contacts Description Hydrogen storage is a key enabling technology for the advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell power technologies in transportation, stationary, and portable power applications. One of the most challenging technical barriers known is how to efficiently store hydrogen on-board a vehicle to meet customer expectations of a driving range greater than 300 miles-as well as performance, safety, and cost-without impacting passenger or cargo space. The Department of Energy's hydrogen storage activity is coordinated through the "National Hydrogen Storage Project," with multiple university, industry, and federal laboratory partners focused on research and development of on-board vehicular hydrogen storage technologies. This research also has components applicable to off-board storage of hydrogen for refueling infrastructure and the off-board regeneration of chemical hydrogen carriers applicable to hydrogen delivery.

69

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

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

Shell Storage Capacity at Operable Refineries" 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",2013,"6/30/1982" ,"Release Date:","6/21/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","6/20/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","pet_pnp_capshell_dcu_nus_a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capshell_dcu_nus_a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov"

70

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report  

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

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Argonne DC Offices L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC December 4, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT Compiled by Romesh Kumar Argonne National Laboratory and Kristin Deason Sentech, Inc. January 16, 2008 SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting December 4, 2007 Argonne DC Offices, L'Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC Meeting Objectives This meeting was one of a continuing series of biannual meetings of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group (SSAWG). The objective of these meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information exchange and to update the researchers on related developments within the DOE program. A major thrust of these meetings is to leverage

71

Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage  

Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

December 19, 2013 December 19, 2013 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 May 2002 through September 2013, estimated total working gas stocks have exhibited an average absolute error of 16 billion cubic feet, or 0.6 percent. Background The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides weekly estimates of working gas volumes held in underground storage facilities at the national and regional levels. These are estimated from volume data provided by a

72

Differences Between Monthly and Weekly Working Gas In Storage  

Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

November 7, 2013 November 7, 2013 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 May 2002 through August 2013, estimated total working gas stocks have exhibited an average absolute error of 16 billion cubic feet, or 0.6 percent. Background The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provides weekly estimates of working gas volumes held in underground storage facilities at the national and regional levels. These are estimated from volume data provided by a

73

Achieving increased spent fuel storage capacity at the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The HFIR facility was originally designed to store approximately 25 spent cores, sufficient to allow for operational contingencies and for cooling prior to off-site shipment for reprocessing. The original capacity has now been increased to 60 positions, of which 53 are currently filled (September 1994). Additional spent cores are produced at a rate of about 10 or 11 per year. Continued HFIR operation, therefore, depends on a significant near-term expansion of the pool storage capacity, as well as on a future capability of reprocessing or other storage alternatives once the practical capacity of the pool is reached. To store the much larger inventory of spent fuel that may remain on-site under various future scenarios, the pool capacity is being increased in a phased manner through installation of a new multi-tier spent fuel rack design for higher density storage. A total of 143 positions was used for this paper as the maximum practical pool capacity without impacting operations; however, greater ultimate capacities were addressed in the supporting analyses and approval documents. This paper addresses issues related to the pool storage expansion including (1) seismic effects on the three-tier storage arrays, (2) thermal performance of the new arrays, (3) spent fuel cladding corrosion concerns related to the longer period of pool storage, and (4) impacts of increased spent fuel inventory on the pool water quality, water treatment systems, and LLLW volume.

Cook, D.H.; Chang, S.J.; Dabs, R.D.; Freels, J.D.; Morgan, K.A.; Rothrock, R.B. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Griess, J.C. [Griess (J.C.), Knoxville, TN (United States)

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

74

Hydrogen storage capacities of nanoporous carbon calculated by density functional and Mller-Plesset methods  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The hydrogen storage capacities of nanoporous carbons, simulated as flat graphene slit pores, have been calculated using a quantum-thermodynamical model. The model is applied for several interaction potentials between the hydrogen molecules and the graphitic walls that have been generated from density functional theory (DFT) and second-order Mller-Plesset (MP2) calculations. The hydrogen storage properties of the pores can be correlated with the features of the potential. It is shown that the storage capacity increases with the depth of the potential, De. Moreover, the optimal pore widths, yielding the maximum hydrogen storage capacities, are close to twice the equilibrium distance of the hydrogen molecule to one graphene layer. The experimental hydrogen storage capacities of several nanoporous carbons such as activated carbons (ACs) and carbide-derived carbons (CDCs) are well reproduced within the slit pore model considering pore widths of about 4.95.1? for the DFT potential and slightly larger pore widths (5.35.9?) for the MP2 potentials. The calculations predict that nanoporous carbons made of slit pores with average widths of 5.86.5? would yield the highest hydrogen storage capacities at 300 K and 10 MPa.

I. Cabria; M. J. Lpez; J. A. Alonso

2008-08-13T23:59:59.000Z

75

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting: Summary Report  

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

Held in Conjunction with the DOE Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA June 11, 2008 SUMMARY REPORT Compiled by Romesh Kumar Argonne National Laboratory and Elvin Yzugullu Sentech, Inc. July 18, 2008 SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting June 11, 2008 Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA Meeting Objectives This meeting was one of a continuing series of biannual meetings of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group (SSAWG). The objective of these meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information exchange and to update the researchers on related

76

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

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

92 Strategic Petroleum Reserve - - - - 727,000 - - - - - 727,000 - RRevised. 1 Idle tanks and caverns are those that were not capable of being used to hold stocks on the report...

77

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

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

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

78

HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage  

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

FLORIDA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER FLORIDA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER Creating Energy Independence Since 1975 A Research Institute of the University of Central Florida HT Combinatorial Screening of HT Combinatorial Screening of Novel Materials for High Capacity Novel Materials for High Capacity Hydrogen Storage Hydrogen Storage Ali T Ali T - - Raissi Raissi Director, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell R&D Director, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell R&D Division Division High Throughput/Combinatorial Analysis of Hydrogen Storage High Throughput/Combinatorial Analysis of Hydrogen Storage Materials Workshop, Bethesda, MD Materials Workshop, Bethesda, MD 26 June 2007 26 June 2007 This presentation does not contain any proprietary or confidential information 2 Objectives Objectives Develop (i.e. design, build, test and verify) a high

79

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion 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 04/08 201 04/15 202 04/22 210 04/29 215 1994-May 05/06 225 05/13 236 05/20 242 05/27 256

80

Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt 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 04/13 556 04/20 568 04/27 590 2007-May 05/04 610 05/11 629 05/18 648 05/25 670

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic 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 04/22 334 04/29 353 1994-May 05/06 376 05/13 399 05/20 429 05/27 443

82

"Table A7. Shell Storage Capacity of Selected Petroleum Products by Census"  

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

Shell Storage Capacity of Selected Petroleum Products by Census" Shell Storage Capacity of Selected Petroleum Products by Census" " Region, Industry Group, and Selected Industries, 1991" " (Estimates in Thousand Barrels)" " "," "," "," "," ","Other","RSE" "SIC"," ","Motor","Residual"," ","Distillate","Row" "Code(a)","Industry Groups and Industry","Gasoline","Fuel Oil","Diesel","Fuel Oil","Factors" ,,"Total United States" ,"RSE Column Factors:",1,0.9,1,1.1 , 20,"Food and Kindred Products",38,1448,306,531,12.1 2011," Meat Packing Plants",1,229,40,13,13.2

83

Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary Report  

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

Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting 2007 Hydrogen Program Annual Review Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA May 17, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT Compiled by Romesh Kumar Argonne National Laboratory and Elvin Yuzugullu Sentech, Inc. June 28, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting May 17, 2007 Crystal Gateway Marriott, Arlington, VA Meeting Objectives This meeting was one of a continuing series of biannual meetings of this Working Group. The objective of these meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information exchange and to update the researchers on related developments within the DOE program. A major thrust of these meetings is to leverage expertise, complement related work of different individuals and

84

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

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

Capacity (MMcf)" 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","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ngm_epg0_sac_sal_mmcfm.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/ngm_epg0_sac_sal_mmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:57:12 PM"

85

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

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

Capacity (MMcf)" 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","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ia2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ia2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:10 PM"

86

,"U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Count)"  

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

Acquifers Capacity (Count)" Acquifers Capacity (Count)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (Count)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1392_nus_8a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1392_nus_8a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:23 PM"

87

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

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

Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)" Acquifers Capacity (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 Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1392_nus_2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1392_nus_2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:23 PM"

88

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2007-02-07T23:59:59.000Z

89

Ultra-high hydrogen storage capacity of Li-decorated graphyne: A first-principles prediction  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Graphyne, consisting of sp- and sp{sup 2}-hybridized carbon atoms, is a new member of carbon allotropes which has a natural porous structure. Here, we report our first-principles calculations on the possibility of Li-decorated graphyne as a hydrogen storage medium. We predict that Li-doping significantly enhances the hydrogen storage ability of graphyne compared to that of pristine graphyne, which can be attributed to the polarization of H{sub 2} molecules induced by the charge transfer from Li atoms to graphyne. The favorite H{sub 2} molecules adsorption configurations on a single side and on both sides of a Li-decorated graphyne layer are determined. When Li atoms are adsorbed on one side of graphyne, each Li can bind four H{sub 2} molecules, corresponding to a hydrogen storage capacity of 9.26 wt. %. The hydrogen storage capacity can be further improved to 15.15 wt. % as graphyne is decorated by Li atoms on both sides, with an optimal average binding energy of 0.226 eV/H{sub 2}. The results show that the Li-decorated graphyne can serve as a high capacity hydrogen storage medium.

Zhang Hongyu; Zhang Meng; Zhao Lixia; Luo Youhua [Department of Physics, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237 (China); Zhao Mingwen; Bu Hongxia; He Xiujie [School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Crystal Materials, Shandong University, Jinan, 250100 Shandong (China)

2012-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

90

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1995-04-14T23:59:59.000Z

91

Two-tank working gas storage system for heat engine  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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.

Hindes, Clyde J. (Troy, NY)

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

92

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

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

Argonne National Laboratory DC Offices 955 L'Enfant Plaza, North, SW, Suite 6000 Washington, DC December 12, 2006 SUMMARY REPORT Compiled by Romesh Kumar Argonne National Laboratory and Laura Verduzco Sentech, Inc. February 28, 2007 SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting December 12, 2006 955 L'Enfant Plaza, North, SW, Suite 6000, Washington, DC Meeting Objectives This meeting was one of a continuing series of biannual meetings of this Working Group. The objective of these meetings is to bring together the DOE research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information exchange and to update the researchers on related developments within the DOE program. A major thrust of

93

Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion 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 80 04/27 83 2007-May 05/04 85 05/11 88 05/18 92 05/25 97 2007-Jun 06/01 100 06/08 101 06/15 102 06/22 102 06/29 102

94

Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic 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 04/08 969 04/15 1,005 04/22 1,085 04/29 1,161 1994-May 05/06 1,237 05/13 1,325 05/20 1,403 05/27 1,494

95

Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion 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 04/01 465 04/08 475 04/15 494 04/22 541 04/29 593 1994-May 05/06 636 05/13 690 05/20 731 05/27 795

96

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

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

Monthly","12/2012" Monthly","12/2012" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tn2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290tn2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:23 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290TN2" "Date","Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,1200 37302,1200 37330,1200 37361,1200

97

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290tx2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:24 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290TX2" "Date","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,590248 32689,589780 33054,586502 33419,589018 33785,595229 34150,598782

98

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290pa2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290pa2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:22 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290PA2" "Date","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,805394 32689,805393 33054,640938 33419,640938

99

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ar2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:08 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290AR2" "Date","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,36147 32689,31447 33054,31277 33419,31277 33785,31277 34150,31277

100

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290co2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:10 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290CO2" "Date","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,100227 37302,100227 37330,100227 37361,100227

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290la2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:14 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290LA2" "Date","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,580037 37302,580037 37330,580037 37361,580037

102

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ks2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:12 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290KS2" "Date","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,334925 32689,334925 33054,301199 33419,301199 33785,290571

103

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ky2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ky2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:13 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290KY2" "Date","Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,219914 37302,219914 37330,219914 37361,219914

104

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290oh2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:21 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290OH2" "Date","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,573784 37302,573784 37330,573784 37361,573784 37391,573784

105

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ms2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:17 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MS2" "Date","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,134012 37302,134012 37330,134012

106

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290mn2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:15 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MN2" "Date","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,7000 32689,7000 33054,7000 33419,7000 33785,7000 34150,7000

107

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290pa2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290pa2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:23 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290PA2" "Date","Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,713818 37302,713818 37330,713818

108

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290md2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290md2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:14 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MD2" "Date","Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,61978 32689,61978 33054,61978 33419,61978 33785,62400 34150,62400

109

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ks2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ks2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:12 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290KS2" "Date","Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,301502 37302,301502 37330,301502 37361,301502

110

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ar2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ar2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:08 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290AR2" "Date","Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,22000 37302,22000 37330,22000 37361,22000

111

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mt2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290mt2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:18 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MT2" "Date","Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,373963 32689,373960 33054,373960 33419,373960 33785,375010

112

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mn2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290mn2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:16 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MN2" "Date","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,7000 37302,7000 37330,7000 37361,7000

113

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290in2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:11 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290IN2" "Date","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,114603 32689,112045 33054,97332 33419,102246 33785,106176

114

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ok2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ok2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:21 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290OK2" "Date","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,377189 32689,364887 33054,362616 33419,362616 33785,359616

115

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290tx2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290tx2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:24 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290TX2" "Date","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,699324 37302,698258 37330,699324 37361,699324

116

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290or2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:22 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290OR2" "Date","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,17755 37302,21080 37330,21080 37361,21080 37391,21080

117

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290la2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290la2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:13 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290LA2" "Date","Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,559019 32689,559019 33054,550823 33419,559823 33785,539200

118

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290in2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290in2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:11 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290IN2" "Date","Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,109310 37302,109310 37330,109310 37361,109310

119

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290al2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:08 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290AL2" "Date","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,5280 37302,5280 37330,5280 37361,5280 37391,5280

120

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290co2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290co2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:09 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290CO2" "Date","Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,82662 32689,82662 33054,98999 33419,98999 33785,105790

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ms2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ms2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:17 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MS2" "Date","Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,108171 32689,108207 33054,108601 33419,114621 33785,114627

122

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290mi2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:15 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MI2" "Date","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,1070717 37302,1070717 37330,1070717 37361,1070717

123

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ne2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:19 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NE2" "Date","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,39469 37302,39469 37330,39469 37361,39469

124

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290oh2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290oh2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:20 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290OH2" "Date","Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,612547 32689,612547 33054,591494 33419,591494 33785,591494 34150,594644

125

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290al2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290al2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:07 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290AL2" "Date","Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 34880,2600 35246,3280 35611,3280 35976,3280 36341,3280 36707,3280

126

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290wy2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:28 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290WY2" "Date","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,105869 37302,105869 37330,105869 37361,105869

127

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290wa2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:26 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290WA2" "Date","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,36400 32689,36400 33054,32100 33419,34100 33785,34100

128

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290or2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290or2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:22 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290OR2" "Date","Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32689,9791 33054,9791 33419,9791 33785,11445 34150,11445 34515,11622

129

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ca2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ca2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:09 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290CA2" "Date","California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,388480 37302,475720 37330,475720 37361,475720

130

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ut2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:25 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290UT2" "Date","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,114980 32689,114980 33054,114980 33419,114980 33785,114980 34150,114980

131

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ne2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ne2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:18 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290NE2" "Date","Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,88438 32689,88438 33054,143311 33419,93311 33785,93311

132

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290ut2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290ut2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:25 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290UT2" "Date","Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,129480 37302,129480 37330,129480 37361,129480 37391,129480

133

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290mi2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290mi2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:15 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290MI2" "Date","Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,982362 32689,982362 33054,994542 33419,995181 33785,994281

134

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290va2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290va2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:26 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290VA2" "Date","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,4967 37302,4967 37330,4967 37361,4967 37391,4967

135

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

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

Annual",2012 Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wy2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290wy2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:27 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290WY2" "Date","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 32324,103831 32689,103830 33054,106130 33419,106130 33785,105668

136

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

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

Monthly","9/2013" Monthly","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5290wa2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5290wa2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:26 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290WA2" "Date","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" 37271,37300 37302,37300 37330,37300 37361,37300

137

Strain induced lithium functionalized graphane as a high capacity hydrogen storage material  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Strain effects on the stability, electronic structure, and hydrogen storage capacity of lithium-doped graphane (CHLi) have been investigated by stateof-the art first principle density functional theory (DFT). Molecular dynamics MD) simulations have confirmed the stability of Li on graphane sheet when it is subject to 10% of tensile strain. Under biaxial asymmetric strain, the binding energy of Li of graphane (CH) sheet increases by 52% with respect to its bulk's cohesive energy. With 25% doping concentration of Li on CH sheet,the gravimetric density of hydrogen storage is found to reach up to 12.12wt%. The adsorption energies of H2 are found to be within the range of practical H2 storage applications.

Hussain, Tanveer; Ahuja, Rajeev

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

138

,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)" Salt Caverns Capacity (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 Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1393_nus_2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1393_nus_2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:34 PM"

139

,"U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Count)"  

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

Depleted Fields Capacity (Count)" Depleted Fields Capacity (Count)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (Count)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1391_nus_8a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1391_nus_8a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:06 PM"

140

,"U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Count)"  

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

Salt Caverns Capacity (Count)" Salt Caverns Capacity (Count)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description","# Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Number of Underground Storage Salt Caverns Capacity (Count)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1393_nus_8a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1393_nus_8a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:34 PM"

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)"  

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

Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)" Depleted Fields Capacity (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 Underground Storage Depleted Fields Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2012 ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","na1391_nus_2a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/na1391_nus_2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:43:05 PM"

142

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Birkholzer, J.T.; Zhou, Q.

2009-04-02T23:59:59.000Z

143

Work Capacity, Thermal Responses and Lung Function: United Kingdom Studies in the I.B.P.  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...1976 research-article Work Capacity, Thermal Responses and Lung Function: United Kingdom...and water, as shown by studies in the Sudan and Tanzania. Lung function of some seven...factors was examined. Work capacity, thermal responses and lung function: united kingdom...

1976-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

144

Storage Systems Analysis Working Group | Department of Energy  

Energy Savers [EERE]

to achieve common objectives. The systems under consideration include physical storage (tankscryogenic storage), metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and high-surface-area...

145

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Held in Conjunction with the  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Held in Conjunction with the DOE Hydrogen REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting June 11, 2008 Crystal Gateway Marriott of the Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group (SSAWG). The objective of these meetings is to bring

146

Yttrium-dispersed C{sub 60} fullerenes as high-capacity hydrogen storage medium  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Interaction between hydrogen molecules and functionalized C{sub 60} is investigated using density functional theory method. Unlike transition metal atoms that tend to cluster on the surface, C{sub 60} decorated with 12 Yttrium atoms on each of its 12 pentagons is extremely stable and remarkably enhances the hydrogen adsorption capacity. Four H{sub 2} molecules can be chemisorbed on a single Y atom through well-known Dewar-Chatt-Duncanson interaction. The nature of bonding is a weak physisorption for the fifth adsorbed H{sub 2} molecule. Consequently, the C{sub 60}Y{sub 12} complex with 60 hydrogen molecules has been demonstrated to lead to a hydrogen storage capacity of ?6.30wt.%.

Tian, Zi-Ya; Dong, Shun-Le, E-mail: dongshunle2013@hotmail.com [Department of Physics, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100 (China)] [Department of Physics, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100 (China)

2014-02-28T23:59:59.000Z

147

U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote  

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

6: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let 6: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code July 19, 2012 - 7:14am Addthis PROBLEM: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code PLATFORM: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent ABSTRACT: Two vulnerabilities were reported in HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent. reference LINKS: SecurityTracker Alert ID: 1027281 ZDI-12-127 ZDI-12-126 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: High Discussion: The vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. 1. (ZDI-12-127) The specific flaw exists within the HsmCfgSvc.exe service

148

U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote  

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

U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code U-216: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code July 19, 2012 - 7:14am Addthis PROBLEM: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent Buffer Overflows Let Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code PLATFORM: HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent ABSTRACT: Two vulnerabilities were reported in HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent. reference LINKS: SecurityTracker Alert ID: 1027281 ZDI-12-127 ZDI-12-126 IMPACT ASSESSMENT: High Discussion: The vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on vulnerable installations of HP StorageWorks File Migration Agent. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability.

149

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 86,773 86,048 87,257 87,558 88,012 87,924 85,137 81,930 1994 78,106 72,445 71,282 70,501 71,440 73,247 74,599 75,685 77,456 78,490 76,784 74,111 1995 70,612 68,618 67,929 68,727 70,007 72,146 75,063 78,268 79,364 78,810 75,764 70,513

150

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 33,303 34,605 32,707 30,052 1994 23,623 20,052 18,102 17,396 17,194 19,647 24,780 29,088 33,077 35,877 36,408 33,424 1995 27,732 21,973 19,542 18,899 19,227 21,026 23,933 27,541 31,972 36,182 36,647 31,830

151

Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 33,553 34,322 39,110 43,935 47,105 53,425 58,298 62,273 65,655 66,141 60,495 1991 43,838 39,280 39,196 45,157 48,814 50,833 52,841 54,954 60,062 64,120 56,034 50,591 1992 40,858 39,723 37,350 37,516 41,830 46,750 51,406 51,967 58,355 59,621 59,164 52,385 1993 46,427 38,859 32,754 35,256 42,524 46,737 51,884 55,215 61,028 60,752 38,314 31,086 1994 21,838 17,503 20,735 25,099 29,837 30,812 37,339 42,607 44,739 47,674 48,536 43,262 1995 32,938 27,069 23,018 27,735 34,699 36,337 40,488 41,240 47,530 50,166 40,729 32,224

152

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 75,616 89,955 92,825 87,252 76,184 1994 52,998 41,644 39,796 40,779 49,519 55,059 64,664 77,229 86,820 91,309 84,568 74,364 1995 59,292 47,263 37,998 39,071 48,761 60,148 65,093 65,081 81,654 93,880 90,905 73,982

153

Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 499 497 233 233 260 302 338 556 1,148 1,075 886 485 1996 431 364 202 356 493 971 1,164 1,553 1,891 2,008 1,879 1,119 1997 588 404 429 559 830 923 966 1,253 1,515 1,766 1,523 1,523 1998 773 585 337 582 727 1,350 1,341 1,540 1,139 1,752 1,753 1,615 1999 802 688 376 513 983 1,193 1,428 1,509 1,911 1,834 1,968 1,779 2000 865 863 1,178 1,112 1,202 1,809 1,890 1,890 1,780 1,638 1,434 1,349 2001 1,020 1,261 657 851 807 1,384 1,538 1,651 1,669 1,549 2,837 2,848 2002 2,435 2,119 1,849 2,106 2,206 2,076 2,326 2,423 2,423 1,863 2,259 2,117

154

Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 22,694 17,504 13,313 17,552 23,767 28,965 33,972 35,196 34,955 34,660 1991 26,266 24,505 17,544 16,115 17,196 21,173 25,452 30,548 35,254 36,813 37,882 36,892 1992 33,082 29,651 22,962 18,793 18,448 20,445 24,593 30,858 36,770 38,897 35,804 33,066 1993 28,629 23,523 21,015 17,590 20,302 24,947 28,113 31,946 36,247 34,224 30,426 29,254 1994 24,249 19,331 16,598 11,485 16,989 18,501 23,590 28,893 34,044 34,298 32,687 29,307 1995 24,948 21,446 16,467 12,090 14,043 19,950 25,757 29,774 32,507 33,707 35,418 30,063

155

California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 125,898 106,575 111,248 132,203 157,569 170,689 174,950 177,753 182,291 196,681 196,382 153,841 1991 132,323 132,935 115,982 136,883 163,570 187,887 201,443 204,342 199,994 199,692 193,096 168,789 1992 125,777 109,000 93,277 107,330 134,128 156,158 170,112 182,680 197,049 207,253 197,696 140,662 1993 106,890 87,612 100,869 109,975 138,272 152,044 175,917 185,337 199,629 210,423 198,700 164,518 1994 121,221 77,055 76,162 95,079 123,190 143,437 161,081 170,434 191,319 203,562 186,826 161,202 1995 130,241 125,591 117,650 114,852 141,222 167,231 181,227 179,508 194,712 212,867 214,897 188,927

156

Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 115,418 117,492 109,383 110,052 117,110 131,282 145,105 158,865 173,570 188,751 197,819 190,747 1991 141,417 109,568 96,781 103,300 122,648 146,143 159,533 169,329 190,953 211,395 197,661 165,940 1992 120,212 91,394 79,753 85,867 106,675 124,940 136,861 152,715 174,544 194,414 187,236 149,775 1993 103,287 66,616 47,157 49,577 86,976 120,891 149,120 176,316 212,046 227,566 213,581 170,503 1994 112,054 93,499 80,056 101,407 134,333 155,279 184,802 207,383 230,726 239,823 235,775 197,145 1995 145,373 106,289 97,677 107,610 126,266 154,036 174,808 175,953 199,358 213,417 188,967 141,572

157

AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working  

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

Working 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 280,620 236,878 221,371 232,189 268,812 299,619 312,736 313,747 330,116 333,134 322,501 282,392 1997 216,113 179,067 171,563 184,918 227,756 273,507 306,641 330,075 351,975 363,189 350,107 263,455 1998 211,982 163,084 150,923 155,766 206,048 254,643 281,422 305,746 346,135 379,917 388,380 330,906

158

Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 53,604 51,563 52,120 53,225 54,581 56,980 58,990 61,428 62,487 60,867 1991 54,085 53,423 53,465 53,581 54,205 56,193 58,416 60,163 61,280 61,366 59,373 57,246 1992 30,371 28,356 27,542 27,461 27,843 28,422 29,588 29,692 30,555 29,505 27,746 23,929 1993 20,529 18,137 17,769 18,265 19,253 21,322 23,372 24,929 26,122 27,044 24,271 21,990 1994 21,363 18,661 19,224 20,115 21,689 22,447 23,568 25,072 26,511 27,440 26,978 25,065 1995 22,086 20,762 19,352 18,577 19,027 20,563 22,264 23,937 25,846 27,025 26,298 24,257

159

Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 459 343 283 199 199 199 333 467 579 682 786 787 1999 656 532 401 321 318 462 569 645 749 854 911 855 2000 691 515 452 389 371 371 371 371 371 420 534 619 2001 623 563 490 421 525 638 669 732 778 840 598 597 2002 647 648 650 650 625 622 609 605 602 600 512 512 2003 404 294 226 179 214 290 365 460 463 508 508 447 2004 344 293 281 312 345 391 454 509 514 539 527 486 2005 444 364 265 184 143 126 126 126 88 79 73 60 2006 52 52 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

160

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 163,571 125,097 100,438 110,479 158,720 215,000 265,994 318,024 358,535 364,421 359,766 306,561 1991 194,349 153,061 137,579 147,399 174,145 196,678 219,025 254,779 297,531 315,601 305,179 272,103 1992 201,218 144,582 93,826 103,660 140,908 188,078 222,215 264,511 306,113 331,416 332,959 288,433 1993 217,967 120,711 66,484 89,931 133,866 187,940 233,308 272,685 320,921 334,285 328,073 278,791 1994 172,190 97,587 75,470 114,979 166,013 222,300 272,668 315,887 339,424 354,731 335,483 294,393 1995 232,561 139,624 111,977 124,790 168,112 221,731 253,442 290,185 338,021 355,887 311,749 236,656

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 311,360 252,796 228,986 221,127 269,595 333,981 410,982 481,628 534,303 553,823 542,931 472,150 1991 348,875 285,217 262,424 287,946 315,457 372,989 431,607 478,293 498,086 539,454 481,257 405,327 1992 320,447 244,921 179,503 179,306 224,257 292,516 367,408 435,817 504,312 532,896 486,495 397,280 1993 296,403 194,201 133,273 148,416 222,106 303,407 386,359 468,790 534,882 568,552 516,491 426,536 1994 282,144 193,338 162,719 203,884 276,787 351,286 425,738 502,577 568,235 599,504 579,874 516,887 1995 410,946 298,325 247,016 245,903 299,050 364,569 438,995 492,773 545,157 577,585 511,573 392,896

162

Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 129,245 118,053 119,532 116,520 130,817 139,698 150,336 158,048 165,206 171,008 180,706 154,515 1991 111,225 106,204 111,759 125,973 140,357 150,549 151,393 156,066 166,053 169,954 144,316 133,543 1992 115,658 107,281 103,919 109,690 117,435 128,505 145,962 153,948 166,637 174,182 154,096 123,225 1993 46,462 26,472 19,429 30,902 49,259 67,110 82,104 95,435 111,441 118,880 101,220 86,381 1994 56,024 35,272 32,781 49,507 73,474 86,632 102,758 115,789 124,652 129,107 126,148 109,979 1995 86,312 72,646 62,779 67,245 83,722 96,319 103,388 101,608 113,587 126,287 116,265 92,617

163

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Argonne National Laboratory DC Offices  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Argonne National Laboratory DC Offices 955 REPORT Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting December 12, 2006 955 L'Enfant Plaza research community involved in systems analysis of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information

164

Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 54,179 53,869 54,783 56,160 57,690 56,165 56,611 57,708 58,012 57,606 54,005 1991 52,095 51,060 50,341 51,476 54,531 56,673 56,409 56,345 57,250 56,941 56,535 54,163 1992 52,576 51,568 51,525 52,136 53,768 56,396 58,446 59,656 60,842 60,541 57,948 54,512 1993 51,102 49,136 48,100 49,069 52,016 55,337 57,914 59,772 61,281 10,707 8,936 6,562 1994 3,476 743 886 1,845 3,983 4,882 6,505 6,852 8,978 9,908 10,078 8,075 1995 6,063 5,068 4,138 3,940 4,583 5,449 3,881 4,059 4,443 3,676 2,078 485 1996 - - - - - 806 1,938 3,215 3,960 3,389 2,932 1,949

165

Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 5,257 3,304 2,365 1,893 5,005 7,942 10,880 11,949 12,154 12,235 9,008 1991 6,557 6,453 3,509 6,342 7,864 10,580 12,718 12,657 12,652 14,112 15,152 14,694 1992 12,765 9,785 9,204 8,327 9,679 10,854 11,879 13,337 14,533 13,974 13,312 9,515 1993 6,075 2,729 3,958 4,961 9,491 10,357 12,505 13,125 15,508 13,348 9,567 11,274 1994 9,672 5,199 4,765 6,867 9,471 11,236 13,045 13,496 14,629 14,846 14,458 12,884 1995 10,750 8,520 8,267 8,500 11,070 12,622 14,035 13,764 16,258 16,158 16,224 12,869 1996 6,547 5,488 4,672 4,780 6,742 10,060 11,344 15,100 14,244 12,391 11,634 9,724

166

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 1,045 888 1,237 1,642 2,011 2,213 2,362 2,360 2,356 2,284 1995 1,771 1,294 1,037 990 1,321 1,584 1,890 2,121 2,362 2,368 2,365 2,110 1996 1,329 1,069 847 935 1,301 1,596 1,883 2,093 2,295 2,328 2,297 2,070

167

Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 5,796 6,047 7,156 7,151 7,146 7,140 7,421 7,927 8,148 8,157 7,869 1991 7,671 5,875 4,819 6,955 7,638 7,738 8,033 8,335 8,547 8,765 8,964 8,952 1992 7,454 6,256 5,927 7,497 7,924 8,071 8,337 8,555 8,763 8,954 8,946 8,939 1993 7,848 6,037 4,952 6,501 7,550 8,001 8,104 8,420 8,627 8,842 8,720 8,869 1994 7,602 7,073 6,794 4,640 6,094 7,449 7,765 8,072 8,341 8,548 8,778 8,783 1995 8,200 7,921 7,879 7,608 8,230 8,221 8,210 8,559 9,022 9,145 9,311 8,981 1996 7,558 7,658 7,225 6,931 8,250 8,511 8,751 8,958 9,162 9,372 9,067 8,993

168

AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working  

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

Working 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 1,192,952 1,456,355 1,695,873 1,838,842 1,664,539 1,423,793 1997 965,310 711,444 521,508 539,750 735,527 985,803 1,230,970 1,474,855 1,702,601 1,816,709 1,706,526 1,416,580 1998 1,108,737 878,420 669,205 772,790 1,017,260 1,248,564 1,462,360 1,644,247 1,797,048 1,918,157 1,878,225 1,630,559

169

Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 1,309 844 534 742 1,055 1,364 1,553 1,894 2,218 2,349 2,255 1,897 1999 1,519 1,070 745 929 1,202 1,413 1,641 1,830 2,248 2,357 2,175 1,708 2000 998 843 814 1,063 1,642 1,848 2,066 2,215 2,223 2,594 2,242 1,529 2001 991 823 532 963 1,477 1,869 2,113 2,416 2,677 2,651 2,711 2,503 2002 2,029 1,356 968 1,090 1,627 1,899 2,181 2,322 2,631 2,838 2,559 2,065 2003 1,042 546 367 660 1,107 1,582 1,994 2,710 3,247 3,281 3,167 2,621 2004 1,570 1,195 865 1,024 1,706 1,990 2,188 2,925 3,253 4,115 4,082 3,077

170

Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 1,668 2,849 4,357 5,601 6,365 7,001 7,373 7,562 7,517 6,766 1991 5,691 4,726 2,959 1,980 2,694 4,248 5,706 6,798 7,472 7,811 7,834 7,347 1992 5,779 4,239 2,653 2,211 3,783 5,323 6,518 7,528 7,981 8,154 7,055 6,475 1993 4,557 3,161 2,433 2,007 3,651 4,949 6,130 7,172 7,750 8,240 7,509 6,406 1994 5,145 4,018 3,073 648 1,858 3,357 4,553 5,628 6,312 6,566 6,129 5,491 1995 3,814 3,429 2,989 3,856 5,035 6,069 6,765 6,765 7,251 7,251 7,193 6,371 1996 5,120 4,179 3,528 3,396 4,119 5,292 6,425 6,862 6,965 6,759 6,206 4,967

171

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

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

Working Gas) (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 369,545 263,652 195,447 224,002 279,731 339,263 391,961 474,402 578,991 638,500 562,097 466,366 1997 314,140 248,911 297,362 326,566 401,514 471,824 478,925 532,982 617,733 705,879 642,254 494,485 1998 391,395 384,696 362,717 457,545 550,232 610,363 684,086 748,042 784,567 893,181 888,358 768,239 1999 611,978 585,458 530,610 568,307 653,498 728,071 744,307 750,460 826,493 858,836 849,011 718,513

172

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

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

Working Gas) (Million 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 41,670 46,361 84,672 111,540 131,113 150,292 170,597 176,189 162,821 129,738 1994 71,547 38,973 20,662 41,766 67,235 97,887 125,442 147,683 168,538 174,514 166,920 140,377 1995 96,574 55,283 43,199 48,420 72,781 96,991 120,021 128,965 146,728 161,226 138,140 98,925

173

EIA - Natural Gas Storage Data & Analysis  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Storage 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 Storage - All Operators Total storage by base gas and working gas, and storage activity by State (monthly, annual). Underground Storage by Type U.S. storage and storage activity by all operators, salt cavern fields and nonsalt cavern (monthly, annual). Underground Storage Capacity Storage capacity, working gas capacity, and number of active fields for salt caverns, aquifers, and depleted fields by State (monthly, annual). Liquefied Natural Gas Additions to and Withdrawals from Storage By State (annual). Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Estimates of natural gas in underground storage for the U.S. and three regions of the U.S.

174

Hydrgoen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting Summary...  

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

a survey they have initiated on solid state hydride tanks for hydrogen storage and other energy conversion applications. The IPHE (International Partnership for the Hydrogen...

175

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

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 27,780 16,330 1993 16,748 -23,871 -27,342 -13,729 -7,043 -138 11,093 8,174 14,808 2,868 -4,885 -9,642 1994 -45,776 -23,124 8,987 25,048 32,148 34,360 39,360 43,202 18,502 20,447 7,409 15,602 1995 60,371 42,037 36,507 9,811 2,098 -569 -19,226 -25,702 -1,403 1,156 -23,733 -57,737

176

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

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

12,"Annual",2012,"6/30/1988" 12,"Annual",2012,"6/30/1988" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_a.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_stor_cap_dcu_nus_a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 7:03:21 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393_NUS_2","NA1392_NUS_2","NA1391_NUS_2","NGA_EPG0_SACW0_NUS_MMCF","NGA_EPG0_SACWS_NUS_MMCF","NGA_EPG0_SACWA_NUS_MMCF","NGA_EPG0_SACWD_NUS_MMCF","NA1394_NUS_8","NA1393_NUS_8","NA1392_NUS_8","NA1391_NUS_8"

177

UFD Storage and Transportation - Transportation Working Group Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Maheras, Steven J.; Ross, Steven B.

2011-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting 2007 Hydrogen Program Annual Review  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Working Group Meeting 2007 Hydrogen Program Annual Review Crystal Laboratory and Elvin Yuzugullu Sentech, Inc. June 28, 2007 #12;SUMMARY REPORT Hydrogen Storage of hydrogen storage materials and processes for information exchange and to update the researchers on related

179

Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

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 1.3 -0.3 -7.1 -8.1 -0.4 0.3 -7.1 -19.6 1996 -32.3 -32.6 -49.9 -39.0 -28.4 -18.3 -0.5 4.4 0.7 -0.2 3.9 26.8 1997 31.1 63.7 89.6 41.7 24.2 9.7 -4.5 -6.2 -2.2 -2.4 -0.3 -8.7 1998 5.7 9.8 22.4 52.3 49.3 32.7 23.0 11.1 3.1 4.1 12.5 17.6

180

Interim UFD Storage and Transportation - Transportation Working Group Report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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)

Maheras, Steven J.; Ross, Steven B.

2011-03-30T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

2008-02-10T23:59:59.000Z

182

EA-1900: Radiological Work and Storage Building at the Knolls Atomic Power  

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

0: Radiological Work and Storage Building at the Knolls 0: Radiological Work and Storage Building at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York EA-1900: Radiological Work and Storage Building at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory Kesselring Site, West Milton, New York Summary 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. Public Comment Opportunities None available at this time. Documents Available for Download July 16, 2012

183

Capacity allocation of a hybrid energy storage system for power system peak shaving at high wind power penetration level  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract High wind power penetration in power system leads to a significant challenge in balancing power production and consumption due to the intermittence of wind. Introducing energy storage system in wind energy system can help offset the negative effects, and make the wind power controllable. However, the power spectrum density of wind power outputs shows that the fluctuations of wind energy include various components with different frequencies and amplitudes. This implies that the hybrid energy storage system is more suitable for smoothing out the wind power fluctuations effectively rather than the independent energy storage system. In this paper, we proposed a preliminary scheme for capacity allocation of hybrid energy storage system for power system peak shaving by using spectral analysis method. The unbalance power generated from load dispatch plan and wind power outputs is decomposed into four components, which are outer-day, intra-day, short-term and very short-term components, by using Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and spectral decomposition method. The capacity allocation can be quantified according to the information in these components. The simulation results show that the power rating and energy rating of hybrid energy storage system in partial smoothing mode decrease significantly in comparison with those in fully smoothing mode.

Pan Zhao; Jiangfeng Wang; Yiping Dai

2015-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

184

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

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

Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Maximizing Storage Rate and Capacity and Insuring the Environmental Integrity of Carbon dioxide Sequestration in Geological Reservoirs L. A. Davis Lorne.Davis@coe.ttu.edu Department of Petroleum Engineering A. L. Graham Alan.Graham@coe.ttu.edu H. W. Parker** Harry.Parker@coe.ttu.edu Department of Chemical Engineering Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas 79409 M. S. Ingber ingber@me.unm.edu A. A. Mammoli mammoli@me.unm.edu Department of Mechanical Engineering University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 L. A. Mondy lamondy@engsci.sandia.gov Energetic and Multiphase Processes Department Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0834 Quanxin Guo quan@advantekinternational.com Ahmed Abou-Sayed a.abou-sayed@att.net

185

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

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

projects and work being presented. Romesh Kumar (ANL) presented the agenda, led the self- identification of those present in the room and the participants who were calling in, and...

186

Potential Urban Forest Carbon Sequestration and Storage Capacities in Burnside Industrial Park, Nova Scotia.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Urban and industrial settings represent potential areas for increased carbon (C) sequestration and storage through intensified tree growth. Consisting of an estimated 1270 ha of (more)

Walsh, Alison

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

187

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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:

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

2013-05-08T23:59:59.000Z

188

Storage Sub-committee  

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

Storage Sub-committee Storage Sub-committee 2012 Work Plan Confidential 1 2012 Storage Subcommittee Work Plan * Report to Congress. (legislative requirement) - Review existing and projected research and funding - Review existing DOE, Arpa-e projects and the OE 5 year plan - Identify gaps and recommend additional topics - Outline distributed (review as group) * Develop and analysis of the need for large scale storage deployment (outline distributed again) * Develop analysis on regulatory issues especially valuation and cost recovery Confidential 2 Large Scale Storage * Problem Statement * Situation Today * Benefits Analysis * Policy Issues * Technology Gaps * Recommendations * Renewables Variability - Reserves and capacity requirements - Financial impacts - IRC Response to FERC NOI and update

189

Storage  

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

Storage Storage DUF6 Health Risks line line Accidents Storage Conversion Manufacturing Disposal Transportation Storage A discussion of depleted UF6 cylinder storage activities and associated risks. Management Activities for Cylinders in Storage The long-term management of the existing DUF6 storage cylinders and the continual effort to remediate and maintain the safe condition of the DUF6 storage cylinders will remain a Departmental responsibility for many years into the future. The day to day management of the DUF6 cylinders includes actions designed to cost effectively maintain and improve their storage conditions, such as: General storage cylinder and storage yard maintenance; Performing regular inspections of cylinders; Restacking and respacing the cylinders to improve drainage and to

190

Storage  

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

Environmental Risks » Storage Environmental Risks » Storage Depleted UF6 Environmental Risks line line Storage Conversion Manufacturing Disposal Environmental Risks of Depleted UF6 Storage Discussion of the potential environmental impacts from storage of depleted UF6 at the three current storage sites, as well as potential impacts from the storage of depleted uranium after conversion to an oxide form. Impacts Analyzed in the PEIS The PEIS included an analysis of the potential environmental impacts from continuing to store depleted UF6 cylinders at the three current storage sites, as well as potential impacts from the storage of depleted uranium after conversion to an oxide form. Impacts from Continued Storage of UF6 Cylinders Continued storage of the UF6 cylinders would require extending the use of a

191

Mechanism for high hydrogen storage capacity on metal-coated carbon nanotubes: A first principle analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The hydrogen adsorption and binding mechanism on metals (Ca, Sc, Ti and V) decorated single walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) are investigated using first principle calculations. Our results show that those metals coated on SWCNTs can uptake over 8 wt% hydrogen molecules with binding energy range -0.2--0.6 eV, promising potential high density hydrogen storage material. The binding mechanism is originated from the electrostatic Coulomb attraction, which is induced by the electric field due to the charge transfer from metal 4s to 3d. Moreover, we found that the interaction between the H{sub 2}-H{sub 2} further lowers the binding energy. - Graphical abstract: Five hydrogen molecules bound to individual Ca decorated (8, 0) SWCNT : a potential hydrogen-storage material. Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Each transition metal atom can adsorb more than four hydrogen molecules. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The interation between metal and hydrogen molecule is electrostatic coulomb attraction. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The electric field is induced by the charge transfer from metal 4s to metal 3d. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer The adsorbed hydrogen molecules which form supermolecule can further lower the binding energy.

Lu, Jinlian; Xiao, Hong [Department of Physics and Institute for nanophysics and Rare-earth Luminescence, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan Province 411105 (China)] [Department of Physics and Institute for nanophysics and Rare-earth Luminescence, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan Province 411105 (China); Cao, Juexian, E-mail: jxcao@xtu.edu.cn [Department of Physics and Institute for nanophysics and Rare-earth Luminescence, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan Province 411105 (China)] [Department of Physics and Institute for nanophysics and Rare-earth Luminescence, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan Province 411105 (China)

2012-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

192

Hydrogen storage capacity of Ti-doped boron-nitride and B?Be-substituted carbon nanotubes  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

We investigate the hydrogen absorption capacity of two tubular structures, namely, B?Be-substituted single-wall carbon nanotube (SWNT) and Ti covered single-wall boron nitride nanotube (SWBNT) using first-principles plane wave method. The interaction of H2 molecules with the outer surface of bare SWBNT, which is normally very weak, can be significantly enhanced upon functionalization by Ti atoms. Each Ti atom adsorbed on SWBNT can bind up to four H2 molecules with an average binding energy suitable for room temperature storage. While the substitution process of Be atom on SWNT is endothermic, the substituted Be strengthens the interaction between tube surface and H2 to hold one H2 molecule.

E. Durgun; Y.-R. Jang; S. Ciraci

2007-08-27T23:59:59.000Z

193

Optimization of an atmospheric air volumetric central receiver system: Impact of solar multiple, storage capacity and control strategy  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Portugal has a high potential for concentrated solar power and namely for atmospheric air volumetric central receiver systems (CRS). The solar multiple and storage capacity have a significant impact on the power plant levelized electricity cost (LEC) and their optimization and adequate control strategy can save significant capital for the investors. The optimized proposed volumetric central receiver system showed good performance and economical indicators. For Faro conditions, the best 4MWe power plant configuration was obtained for a 1.25 solar multiple and a 2h storage. Applying control strategy #1 (CS#1) the power plant LEC is 0.234/kWh with a capital investment (CAPEX) of 22.3million. The capital invested has an internal rate of return (IRR) of 9.8%, with a payback time of 14 years and a net present value (NPV) of 7.9million (considering an average annual inflation of 4%). In the case of better economical indicators, the power plant investment can have positive contours, with an NPV close to 13million (annual average inflation of 2%) and the payback shortened to 13 years.

Bruno Coelho; Szabolcs Varga; Armando Oliveira; Adlio Mendes

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

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

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

in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas 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 1,047,322 994,769 911,345 800,040 655,845 556,041 481,190 406,811 271,902 259,915 2013 -216,792 -360,517 -763,506 -767,663 -631,403 -489,573 -325,475 -214,105 -148,588 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013

195

What we're working on | ornl.gov  

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

increasing batteries' energy storage capacity and bringing manufacturing back to the US. Climate change Ben Preston works with scientists from a variety of disciplines to study...

196

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

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

Working Gas (MMcf)" 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","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5410us2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5410us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:28 PM"

197

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

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

Working Gas (MMcf)" 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","9/2013" ,"Release Date:","12/12/2013" ,"Next Release Date:","1/7/2014" ,"Excel File Name:","n5510us2m.xls" ,"Available from Web Page:","http://tonto.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n5510us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, Contact:","infoctr@eia.doe.gov" ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"12/12/2013 5:30:32 PM"

198

Shape of the hydrogen adsorption regions of MOF-5 and its impact on the hydrogen storage capacity  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The adsorption of molecular hydrogen on a metal-organic framework (MOF) material, MOF-5, has been studied using the density-functional formalism. The calculated potential-energy surface shows that there are two main adsorption regions: both near the OZn4 oxide cores at the vertices of the cubic skeleton of MOF-5. The adsorption energies in those regions are between 100 and 130 meV/molecule. Those adsorption regions have the shape of long, wide, and deep connected trenches and passage of the molecule between regions needs to surpass small barriers of 3050 meV. The shape of these regions, and not only the presence of metal atoms, explains the large storage capacity measured for MOF-5. The elongated shape explains why some authors have previously identified only one type of adsorption site, associated to the Zn oxide core, and others identified two or three sites. One should consider adsorption regions rather than adsorption sites. A third region of adsorption is near the benzenic rings of the MOF-5. We have also analyzed the possibility of dissociative chemisorption. The chemisorption energy with respect to two separated H atoms is 1.33 eV/H atom; but, since dissociating the free molecule costs 4.75 eV, the physisorbed H2 molecule is more stable than the dissociated chemisorbed state by about 2 eV. Dissociation of the adsorbed molecule costs less energy, but the dissociation barrier is still high.

I. Cabria; M. J. Lpez; J. A. Alonso

2008-11-24T23:59:59.000Z

199

E-Print Network 3.0 - anaerobic work capacity Sample Search Results  

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

This publication provides a general overview of anaero- Summary: lost some of its biogas production potential. Anaerobic digesters work best when the digestion pro... at...

200

Neutron Scattering Methodology for Absolute Measurement of Room-Temperature Hydrogen Storage Capacity and Evidence for Spillover Effect in a Pt-Doped Activated Carbon  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Neutron Scattering Methodology for Absolute Measurement of Room-Temperature Hydrogen Storage Capacity and Evidence for Spillover Effect in a Pt-Doped Activated Carbon ... A neutron scattering methodology is proposed to simultaneously determine the total hydrogen adsorption, the excess hydrogen adsorption, and hydrogen gas confined in the porous sample. ... It can be combined with an in situ small-angle neutron scattering to study the hydrogen spillover effect in the kinetic adsorption process. ...

Cheng-Si Tsao; Yun Liu; Mingda Li; Yang Zhang; Juscelino B. Leao; Hua-Wen Chang; Ming-Sheng Yu; Sow-Hsin Chen

2010-04-29T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

Base Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)  

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

Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground Storage Base Gas in Underground Storage Working Gas in Underground Storage Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period:

202

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

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

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 -1,862 -1,456 -552 -338 -348 -285 -294 58 -85 1995 598 848 1,085 2,969 2,136 772 445 487 680 597 533 197 1996 -642 -262 -655 -677 21 290 541 398 140 226 -244 12 1997 309 461 -279 -42 -162 -311 -119 55 90 95 607 453

203

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,034,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,403,000 NA 2,050,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,468,000 2,599,000 2,541,000 2,212,000 1976 1,648,000 1,444,000 1,326,000 1,423,000 1,637,000 1,908,000 2,192,000 2,447,000 2,650,000 2,664,000 2,408,000 1,926,000 1977 1,287,000 1,163,000 1,215,000 1,427,000 1,731,000 2,030,000 2,348,000 2,599,000 2,824,000 2,929,000 2,821,000 2,475,000 1978 1,819,000 1,310,000 1,123,000 1,231,000 1,491,000 1,836,000 2,164,000 2,501,000 2,813,000 2,958,000 2,927,000 2,547,000

204

Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet)  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 64,538 57,880 40,257 1994 21,994 12,505 9,508 11,414 16,978 23,485 33,733 44,726 56,420 65,515 60,945 43,175 1995 22,656 11,780 7,447 6,865 10,632 18,717 28,858 43,748 55,435 62,560 51,890 36,857

205

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

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) 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 165,226 149,367 141,472 157,250 183,990 198,041 207,344 220,032 216,071 222,798 210,181 194,014 1994 143,701 103,889 111,945 135,634 168,679 181,683 207,232 226,641 248,857 261,209 266,958 235,718 1995 215,449 192,489 184,914 206,178 228,388 238,593 238,850 234,779 254,339 265,781 248,336 200,382

206

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

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

Working Gas) (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 2,693,215 2,088,293 1,709,624 1,843,563 2,255,657 2,625,874 2,919,726 3,192,029 3,544,465 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 12/12/2013 Next Release Date: 1/7/2014 Referring Pages:

207

Energy Storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Paranthaman, Parans

2014-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

208

Energy Storage  

ScienceCinema (OSTI)

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.

Paranthaman, Parans

2014-06-23T23:59:59.000Z

209

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

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

Working Gas (Million Cubic 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 77,598 93,020 95,180 82,610 1998 69,390 68,851 63,549 80,476 82,711 83,080 90,544 92,319 83,365 115,709 118,521 104,104 1999 82,043 77,133 67,758 77,908 94,436 101,788 95,521 102,210 111,680 115,048 116,495 99,921

210

New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 54,363 63,952 65,899 62,563 53,140 1994 40,502 26,320 17,867 26,755 35,465 47,773 56,880 65,819 70,776 72,168 69,544 60,807 1995 46,883 32,592 26,685 27,192 35,773 47,125 54,358 62,641 71,561 73,249 63,560 45,810

211

New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic  

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

Working Gas) (Million Cubic 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 8,356 10,544 7,832 7,914 1994 4,952 3,973 3,588 3,256 4,025 4,716 5,087 5,306 8,708 10,826 10,274 9,735 1995 7,590 7,588 8,025 8,247 9,470 10,575 10,593 9,503 10,022 10,057 8,980 7,490 1996 6,178 4,942 4,250 3,871 4,212 4,219 4,193 4,308 5,444 5,866 5,030 4,605

212

Uncertainty analysis of capacity estimates and leakage potential for geologic storage of carbon dioxide in saline aquifers  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The need to address climate change has gained political momentum, and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a technology that is seen as being feasible for the mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions. However, there is ...

Raza, Yamama

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

213

Improved hydrogen storage capacity by hydrogen spillover and fine structural characterization of MIL-100 metal organic frameworks  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The MIL-100 metal organic framework was synthesized through solvothermal route, modified with Pt-loaded active carbon and H2 adsorption capacity was evaluated. The maximum specific surface area of MIL-100 was obt...

Abhijit Krishna Adhikari; Kuen-Song Lin

2014-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

214

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

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

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 86 454 -69 1994 587 858 640 -1,359 -1,793 -1,593 -1,578 -1,544 -1,438 -1,674 -1,380 -915 1995 -1,331 -589 -83 3,208 3,177 2,713 2,212 1,136 939 685 1,065 880 1996 1,306 751 539 -460 -916 -777 -340 97 -286 -492 -987 -1,405

215

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

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

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 -864 -4,596 -2,260 694 -12 478 3,249 2,672 1,131 -20,850 -21,299 1994 -24,589 -21,355 -12,019 -10,157 -12,687 -15,926 -14,545 -12,608 -16,289 -13,079 10,221 12,176 1995 11,100 9,566 2,283 2,636 4,862 5,526 3,149 -1,367 2,792 2,492 -7,807 -11,038

216

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

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

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 -51,572 -52,876 -51,081 -40,760 -41,229 -40,132 -39,867 -44,533 -43,110 -44,873 -36,080 -34,184 1994 -6,101 -1,289 8,929 5,795 -3,558 -6,807 -4,948 -4,181 -3,006 -678 -77 11,376 1995 20,962 7,104 -805 -3,970 -29,257 -30,038 -32,571 -35,022 -40,472 -36,406 -41,858 -53,433

217

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

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

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 -17,034 -19,377 -21,219 -23,373 -24,811 -24,628 -25,093 -24,213 -22,944 -22,384 -19,989 1994 -18,713 -19,954 -18,358 -17,429 -15,333 -12,802 -12,658 -11,874 -10,555 -9,434 -8,353 -7,819 1995 -7,494 -3,827 -3,353 -1,774 -1,433 -1,101 464 2,584 1,908 321 -1,020 -3,599

218

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

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

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 -6,948 -28,550 1993 -119,345 -120,895 -123,412 -110,528 -102,328 -100,860 -113,541 -118,288 -125,086 -122,661 -114,692 -94,084 1994 -21,524 -45,478 -29,527 -21,615 -15,311 -16,358 -113 6,609 32,786 38,411 56,777 41,703 1995 71,748 88,600 72,969 70,544 59,709 56,910 31,618 8,138 5,482 4,572 -18,623 -35,336

219

Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

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 -30,129 -26,038 -22,202 -4,247 4,828 6,211 5,963 10,199 10,284 14,158 14,727 1994 8,105 8,620 12,116 13,982 2,713 -3,469 465 1,613 -3,134 -1,516 -2,683 -1,820 1995 6,294 5,619 -1,798 -1,708 -758 5,090 429 -12,148 -5,167 2,571 6,337 -382

220

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

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

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 -46 187 -153 -439 2003 -987 -810 -600 -430 -520 -317 -187 388 616 443 608 557 2004 528 649 498 364 599 408 194 216 6 834 916 456 2005 201 391 -60 22 -116 -186 -62 -780 -679 -910 1,097 1,608 2006 3,081 2,559 3,389 3,163 2,744 2,220 2,009 2,014 2,869 2,415 531 784

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

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

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

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 -1,700 -270 -379 -1,170 1994 -4,444 -2,565 -113 1,629 1,482 1,771 2,779 2,519 1,569 658 -517 1,249 1995 5,583 3,808 3,166 1,674 1,629 2,195 -93 -369 129 -488 -247 -2,056 1996 -3,630 -2,064 -3,459 -3,286 -3,097 -2,473 -372 315 -34 394 -346 1,808

222

Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 1,462 1,893 876 -679 -25 903 1994 -79 1,426 2,111 236 -856 -462 215 -22 -226 1,272 3,701 3,372 1995 4,108 1,921 1,440 1,503 2,033 1,379 -847 -1,547 -1,105 305 239 -1,594 1996 -2,809 -931 -2,059 -2,296 -2,608 -2,010 -508 2,016 1,499 -9 283 1,806

223

Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

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 -42,967 1994 3,868 4,407 3,612 1,225 -15 -1,608 -2,255 -1,606 -2,529 977 3,064 2,918 1995 662 -725 -2,062 -4,549 -6,346 -4,768 -4,875 -978 -985 -2,955 -9,054 -6,318 1996 -2,596 -433 -1,982 -2,204 -5,609 -6,677 -4,290 -5,912 -4,983 -1,206 3,642 151

224

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

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

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 1,087 -522 -4,673 -5,378 -3,812 1994 -4,380 -4,192 -4,417 -6,105 -3,313 -6,446 -4,523 -3,052 -2,203 74 2,261 53 1995 699 2,115 -131 605 -2,947 1,448 2,167 881 -1,537 -592 2,731 756 1996 -3,583 -1,460 -1,587 1,297 1,828 892 223 -114 831 -332 -2,174 183

225

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

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

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 -233,967 -253,766 -260,320 -246,398 -159,895 -134,327 -127,911 -138,359 -86,091 1997 -55,406 -14,740 101,915 102,564 121,784 132,561 86,965 58,580 38,741 67,379 80,157 28,119 1998 77,255 135,784 65,355 130,979 148,718 138,540 205,160 215,060 166,834 187,302 246,104 273,754

226

West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas  

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

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 22,584 1993 24,960 9,394 9,292 12,636 27,031 36,232 34,023 34,755 41,628 34,399 26,968 -14,222 1994 -40,501 -30,621 -21,008 -4,595 -17,438 -13,653 -5,670 -2,609 -2,058 -1,674 4,099 10,639 1995 25,027 16,310 22,537 6,655 5,546 -896 -5,421 -18,718 -21,810 -13,288 -28,780 -41,453

227

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

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

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 -2,265 -5,717 -5,105 -6,433 -3,632 -2,953 -584 -4,847 -5,056 -5,431 -7,107 -7,436 1994 -7,752 -4,567 -4,829 -2,234 -4,170 -4,700 -4,598 -2,062 352 281 2,443 1,820 1995 2,638 3,615 4,436 4,991 5,445 5,859 5,506 4,197 1,314 -768 -1,294 -2,244

228

Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 -16,165 1993 -16,925 -24,778 -32,596 -36,290 -19,699 -4,049 12,259 23,601 37,502 33,152 26,345 20,728 1994 8,768 26,882 32,899 51,830 47,357 34,388 35,682 31,067 18,680 12,257 22,195 26,643 1995 33,319 12,790 17,621 6,203 -8,067 -1,243 -9,994 -31,430 -31,368 -26,406 -46,809 -55,574

229

Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 -9,773 -9,196 -8,590 -7,100 -6,215 -4,763 -4,433 -2,461 -3,475 -1,939 1994 834 524 1,455 1,850 2,436 1,126 195 143 389 396 2,707 3,074 1995 723 2,101 128 -1,538 -2,661 -1,884 -1,303 -1,135 -665 -416 -680 -807 1996 -1,225 -2,881 -2,568 -1,148 1,099 1,302 1,744 832 -482 -1,417 -3,593 -5,063

230

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

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

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 -212 975 -626 -3,745 1,760 1994 3,597 2,471 806 1,906 -20 879 539 371 -878 1,499 4,890 1,609 1995 1,078 3,321 3,503 1,633 1,599 1,386 990 268 1,628 1,312 1,767 -15 1996 -4,203 -3,033 -3,595 -3,720 -4,328 -2,562 -2,690 1,336 -2,014 -3,767 -4,591 -3,144

231

U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

Million Cubic Feet) 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 Nov Dec 1973 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 305,000 1974 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 16,000 1975 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 196,000 NA 162,000 1976 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 182,000 65,000 -133,000 -286,000 1977 -361,000 -281,000 -111,000 4,000 94,000 122,000 156,000 152,000 174,000 265,000 413,000 549,000 1978 532,000 147,000 -92,000 -196,000 -240,000 -194,000 -184,000 -98,000 -11,000 29,000 106,000 72,000 1979 71,000 39,000 113,000 104,000 128,000 114,000 120,000 127,000 107,000 121,000 118,000 207,000

232

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

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

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 -21,375 -21,809 -21,634 -20,069 -20,488 -16,719 -11,806 -1,499 -5,717 -13,058 -21,422 1994 -39,036 -30,048 -9,070 4,162 7,033 5,081 8,939 7,976 3,961 7,543 16,019 30,397 1995 36,925 34,571 29,611 9,077 7,499 9,345 6,077 2,682 -942 -2,597 -22,632 -39,593

233

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

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

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 -533 -430 2001 155 398 -521 -260 -395 -413 -352 -239 -111 -89 1,403 1,499 2002 1,415 858 1,192 1,255 1,399 692 788 772 755 314 -578 -731 2003 -2,107 -1,207 -476 304 1,194 2,067 2,346 2,392 3,132 4,421 4,005 3,823

234

Total Working Gas Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Monthly Annual Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 View History U.S. 4,211,193 4,327,844 4,410,224 4,483,650 4,576,356 2008-2012 Alabama 20,900 20,900 25,150 27,350 27,350 2008-2012 Arkansas 14,500 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 2008-2012 California 283,796 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 2008-2012 Colorado 42,579 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 2008-2012 Illinois 296,318 303,761 303,500 302,385 302,962 2008-2012 Indiana 32,769 32,157 32,982 33,024 33,024 2008-2012 Iowa 87,350 87,414 90,613 91,113 90,313 2008-2012 Kansas 119,260 119,339 123,190 123,225 123,343 2008-2012 Kentucky

235

Total Working Gas Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

12,178 2012-2014 California 374,296 374,296 374,296 374,296 374,296 374,296 2012-2014 Colorado 60,582 60,582 60,582 60,582 60,582 63,774 2012-2014 Illinois 303,312 303,312...

236

Analytical Estimation of CO2 Storage Capacity in Depleted Oil and Gas Reservoirs Based on Thermodynamic State Functions  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

dimensions. Vertical discretization of grid size allows to improve aquifer influx modeling......................................... 55 Table 4.2? Reservoir model properties. ................................................................ 58 Table 4... fuel dependency will continue in the near future, increasing the need to develop economic and technologically feasible approaches to reduce and capture and dispose CO2 emissions. Geological storage of CO2 in aquifers and depleted oil and gas...

Valbuena Olivares, Ernesto

2012-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

237

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

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

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 10.5 16.3 17.9 8.4 -3.2 6.2 5.2 -16.1 -25.5 1996 -25.7 -20.7 -31.6 -29.8 -36.9 -21.2 -9.3 8.1 9.4 9.4 21.0 38.5 1997 33.4 39.7 105.3 64.1 71.0 44.2 10.9 -1.2 -5.3 -6.4 1.9 -7.4 1998 6.1 2.0 -13.3 -3.6 -8.6 -10.1 5.8 7.1 -4.2 10.9 11.9 23.7

238

Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 0.8 0.7 -4.8 1996 -10.1 -4.2 -10.5 -12.2 -13.6 -9.6 -2.1 7.3 4.7 0.0 0.8 5.7 1997 5.1 6.0 13.3 1.9 2.2 -0.6 -6.1 -12.4 -8.9 -7.0 -6.5 -9.3 1998 0.6 3.3 -5.1 6.1 8.3 -0.3 -0.9 -0.2 -0.4 -0.8 2.9 3.4

239

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

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

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 -28,127 1993 -18,888 -21,388 7,592 2,646 4,145 -4,114 5,805 2,657 2,580 3,170 1,004 23,856 1994 14,332 -10,557 -24,707 -14,896 -15,082 -8,607 -14,837 -14,903 -8,310 -6,861 -11,874 -3,316 1995 9,020 48,536 41,487 19,773 18,032 23,794 20,147 9,074 3,393 9,305 28,072 27,725

240

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

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

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 35.6 24.2 26.7 -0.9 -3.1 1.0 -3.2 -1.7 -15.6 1996 -33.1 -30.7 -52.3 -51.6 -37.0 -23.8 0.0 0.0 -0.3 2.7 -2.5 16.3 1997 -3.8 -5.7 -21.1 -23.6 -25.2 -29.3 -27.9 -19.8 -9.3 -3.7 4.9 1.1 1998 39.5 61.5 119.5 179.6 87.5 54.4 63.0 38.2 13.2 4.1 3.6 -1.8

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

U.S. Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

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 1979 3.9 3.0 10.1 8.4 8.6 6.2 5.5 5.1 3.8 4.1 4.0 8.1 1980 23.0 37.3 29.0 26.7 23.4 17.9 13.3 8.6 6.1 3.5 -0.6 -3.6 1981 -7.4 -1.5 2.3 4.3 -1.1 -2.0 -1.1 1.0 1.7 1.9 5.8 6.1 1982 1.4 -2.0 -1.7 -5.0 2.9 5.2 5.7 4.0 3.1 3.6 3.4 9.0

242

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

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

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 63.8 2002 104.8 64.7 81.8 13.2 10.2 1.6 3.2 -3.9 -1.7 7.0 -5.6 -17.5 2003 -48.6 -59.7 -62.0 -39.4 -32.0 -16.7 -8.6 16.7 23.4 15.6 23.8 27.0 2004 50.7 118.7 135.4 55.0 54.1 25.8 9.7 8.0 0.2 25.4 28.9 17.4

243

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

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

Percent) 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 8.0 0.2 18.3 29.2 20.6 7.1 5.5 3.8 4.6 8.4 6.4 1992 25.9 21.0 30.9 16.6 7.3 -3.4 -3.4 1.0 4.3 5.7 -5.5 -10.4 1993 -13.5 -20.7 -8.5 -6.4 10.0 22.0 14.3 3.5 -1.4 -12.0 -15.0 -11.5 1994 -15.3 -17.8 -21.0 -34.7 -16.3 -25.8 -16.1 -9.6 -6.1 0.2 7.4 0.2 1995 2.9 10.9 -0.8 5.3 -17.3 7.8 9.2 3.0 -4.5 -1.7 8.4 2.6 1996 -14.4 -6.8 -9.6 10.7 13.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 -1.0 -6.1 0.6 1997 15.7 -0.6 19.6 -8.7 10.6 9.4 9.1 10.7 13.9 12.4 3.0 -2.1 1998 1.5 1.9 -7.3 5.5 7.3 -0.1 -5.5 -0.6 1.5 8.0 23.7 18.0

244

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

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

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 -3,859 -5,235 -12,631 -8,772 -10,235 -10,273 -3,149 1994 -2,517 -470 1,289 6,015 4,590 5,915 4,963 11,457 6,824 6,269 6,981 7,667 1995 6,381 6,272 8,818 437 309 -648 -2,521 -3,178 786 1,081 -5,984 -14,997 1996 -14,592 -13,733 -14,382 -13,026 -10,421 -9,742 -4,162 368 -1,791 -848 2,368 11,761

245

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

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

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 -19.8 -17.7 -16.0 -15.8 -12.9 -15.3 -22.1 1996 -32.4 -34.1 -42.5 -37.1 -6.6 -2.1 2.0 3.5 5.3 3.1 3.2 8.3 1997 15.3 24.7 33.5 27.3 14.8 7.4 3.9 3.6 2.9 2.4 8.6 5.5 1998 12.9 22.3 23.5 24.2 18.8 14.7 8.2 4.3 2.2 2.3 -0.8 0.8

246

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

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

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 -6.0 -4.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 -7.6 1996 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.8 -1.7 -2.9 -1.9 1997 11.5 27.8 39.0 29.2 13.8 12.4 12.3 7.6 3.7 2.3 3.5 14.6 1998 30.1 26.3 11.2 -4.8 -22.3 -26.4 -23.9 -19.0 -11.9 -4.1 -0.3 -18.6

247

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

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

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 -6.6 1995 17.7 53.9 163.4 177.6 64.0 80.9 96.0 105.5 99.3 96.9 80.2 20.9 1996 -23.6 -51.7 -97.8 -92.0 -31.2 -23.8 -31.6 -36.6 -21.2 -16.7 -17.7 8.9 1997 22.6 54.8 3,707.8 830.5 36.2 47.9 57.3 62.7 46.5 34.5 36.1 21.2

248

Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 -12.3 -8.4 -5.5 -4.5 -2.5 -1.5 -2.5 -3.2 1996 -5.5 -13.9 -13.3 -6.2 5.8 6.3 7.8 3.5 -1.9 -5.2 -13.7 -20.9 1997 -28.6 -33.1 -34.9 -38.1 -41.3 -35.8 -27.4 -18.7 -11.1 -9.6 -6.5 -5.2 1998 -4.6 1.6 0.9 -10.6 -7.1 2.5 -1.3 -4.6 -3.6 0.4 12.4 16.6

249

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

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

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 19.30 8.80 0.30 5.30 -3.80 0.00 0.00 2000 -14.80 -32.50 -28.30 -30.80 -35.70 -34.40 -30.70 -30.60 -28.40 -22.30 -28.90 -46.70 2001 -38.30 -35.20 -37.70 -12.80 9.80 25.20 31.70 43.40 46.40 30.90 52.60 127.30 2002 127.50 140.90 136.10 82.90 59.20 34.80 18.30 10.40 3.10 -0.50 -14.40 -23.90

250

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

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

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 65.2 52.0 35.4 31.3 15.3 3.6 2.2 1.8 -7.0 -15.0 1996 -39.6 -55.6 -63.2 -60.9 -56.4 -52.4 -54.0 -45.4 -36.2 -30.4 -29.0 -23.9 1997 -22.9 -11.1 43.9 42.6 36.6 44.1 39.4 29.5 14.7 19.6 15.0 -3.0 1998 10.4 54.6 29.7 45.6 40.4 30.3 52.1 51.3 37.5 31.2 44.1 72.7

251

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

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

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 3.1 -2.0 -4.1 -3.7 -11.8 -24.0 1996 -36.3 -39.8 -47.6 -41.4 -32.3 -22.7 -17.5 -9.7 -4.1 -0.9 -0.2 9.0 1997 16.9 31.2 41.0 40.5 23.5 15.4 11.0 6.8 3.1 0.2 1.9 3.7 1998 17.4 33.0 41.3 43.7 44.2 36.0 22.0 14.2 6.0 4.5 11.4 17.1

252

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

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

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 14.8 11.6 5.3 1.9 -0.6 -1.5 -13.5 -28.0 1996 -36.6 -54.9 -83.2 -46.6 -20.6 -7.3 -0.6 4.2 6.7 8.8 9.2 20.8 1997 11.5 50.2 163.8 -2.8 8.0 4.9 2.0 2.8 2.3 -0.2 6.1 3.3 1998 43.1 60.2 92.8 193.9 65.5 24.3 15.1 8.6 5.6 7.5 12.7 20.9

253

Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

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 -14.5 -2.2 -1.7 -4.5 -14.9 -14.6 1996 -11.5 0.0 -26.6 -32.1 -52.8 -35.7 -14.9 -13.5 -9.0 -1.9 7.0 0.4 1997 5.1 11.2 76.8 72.4 129.0 65.0 16.6 4.6 3.7 -1.1 8.3 16.8 1998 15.2 41.6 15.6 34.6 25.3 14.9 48.5 17.4 12.0 8.3 9.4 4.7

254

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

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

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 35.8 13.9 11.2 0.6 -12.2 -8.9 -2.2 -7.8 -15.8 1996 -31.5 -51.7 -63.0 -57.6 -49.9 -45.9 -42.1 -26.5 -18.0 -15.4 -23.0 -27.6 1997 -28.4 -3.5 62.3 59.0 49.7 32.7 17.2 5.5 0.1 6.6 12.9 11.8 1998 34.3 61.5 15.9 41.1 37.9 45.5 53.2 46.9 37.6 31.0 46.7 62.1

255

Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same  

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

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 -15.7 -6.0 2.8 7.5 -0.5 1996 -22.8 -19.2 -23.4 -13.2 -16.5 -13.8 -4.8 7.7 -4.5 -10.7 -22.9 -23.0 1997 -0.9 -1.0 19.1 6.4 12.1 9.5 -2.4 2.6 9.6 12.4 23.3 28.2 1998 26.0 30.6 4.0 18.0 34.9 19.3 33.7 29.6 20.8 18.7 25.3 28.3

256

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

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

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 99.9 12.1 -3.5 2002 3.9 15.1 32.5 54.2 19.0 -2.5 -9.0 -17.3 -22.6 -28.6 -14.4 -14.2 2003 -37.6 -54.6 -65.2 -72.4 -65.7 -53.4 -40.1 -24.0 -23.2 -15.3 -0.8 -12.8 2004 -15.0 -0.5 24.1 74.4 61.1 82.6 24.4 10.6 11.2 6.1 3.7 8.9

257

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

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

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 -6.9 -10.7 -27.1 -24.2 2001 17.9 46.2 -44.2 -23.4 -32.8 -23.0 -18.6 -12.6 -6.3 -5.4 97.8 111.1 2002 138.8 68.1 181.5 147.4 173.3 50.0 51.2 46.8 45.2 20.3 -20.4 -25.7 2003 -86.5 -57.0 -25.7 14.4 54.1 99.5 100.8 98.7 129.2 237.3 177.3 180.6

258

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

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

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 1995 -9.6 -5.3 -4.7 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 0.6 3.4 2.5 0.4 -1.3 -4.9 1996 -9.0 -11.4 -16.2 -18.1 -20.7 -19.2 -18.0 -16.9 -13.6 -13.4 -16.2 -17.7 1997 -18.5 -20.5 -19.6 -21.9 -19.3 -20.3 -20.1 -20.8 -22.7 -23.8 -22.5 -20.6

259

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

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

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 6,012 6,934 10,321 7,849 7,551 8,609 1995 5,458 10,271 8,870 8,362 6,546 8,164 11,552 10,230 4,613 2,012 5,484 -708 1996 -5,185 -10,201 -9,074 -10,256 -8,313 -7,322 -7,566 -7,192 -6,606 -8,327 -14,146 -13,483 1997 -10,123 -4,260 296 2,223 969 2,109 3,330 4,725 5,811 8,139 10,145 6,148

260

Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 6.1 -6.0 -0.8 -5.4 -15.2 -13.6 -11.0 -19.9 -28.2 1996 -31.0 -28.8 -47.1 -50.7 -48.5 -47.6 -37.5 -19.6 -12.8 -11.9 -14.6 -6.4 1997 -14.5 -14.9 61.5 61.3 62.8 54.4 24.7 7.8 3.7 7.4 13.1 7.3 1998 40.7 86.3 35.5 55.9 46.9 35.0 42.0 40.1 22.5 26.5 40.7 56.9

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

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

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

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 1995 53.3 91.0 123.6 153.3 135.3 124.2 108.2 79.1 15.1 -7.1 -12.6 -23.1 1996 -18.6 -34.9 -47.0 -53.1 -55.5 -60.1 -60.4 -54.7 -45.7 -41.7 -44.0 -38.5 1997 -33.5 -29.5 0.6 10.4 4.4 10.4 13.4 27.8 18.1 14.5 24.1 19.8

262

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

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

Percent) 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 7.6 5.1 9.8 10.8 3.2 1.9 1.0 3.5 6.1 -0.1 3.5 1992 29.1 17.2 -7.6 -7.9 1.5 5.0 10.3 10.6 5.4 3.2 5.6 -8.1 1993 -13.6 -24.4 -30.1 -22.5 -15.0 -8.4 -9.2 -18.9 -12.1 -13.4 -14.1 -5.6 1994 -5.8 -1.8 7.8 29.0 14.9 14.1 9.6 21.1 10.7 9.5 11.2 14.4 1995 15.8 23.8 49.4 1.6 0.9 -1.4 -4.4 -4.8 1.1 1.5 -8.6 -24.7 1996 -31.2 -42.1 -53.7 -47.7 -29.0 -20.4 -7.4 0.8 -1.8 -1.2 3.8 25.9 1997 23.3 57.3 67.6 58.2 25.1 3.5 -0.3 -3.1 -5.1 -5.3 -2.6 -2.0 1998 13.7 23.0 38.5 46.2 37.9 33.6 18.6 6.4 6.6 9.4 15.5 25.9

263

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

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

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 16.9 12.3 7.6 2.0 11.1 8.8 12.2 -0.1 1996 -39.1 -35.6 -43.5 -43.8 -39.1 -20.3 -19.2 9.7 -12.4 -23.3 -28.3 -24.4 1997 25.9 17.4 -31.4 -31.5 35.7 28.4 19.3 -17.0 3.9 13.8 20.4 11.4 1998 30.6 2.6 2.4 -47.6 -38.3 -33.5 -34.2 0.1 -2.9 -3.1 3.0 3.4

264

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

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

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 11.6 -40.3 -40.8 -50.5 -62.9 -79.4 -94.0 1996 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -100.0 -85.2 -50.1 -20.8 -10.9 -7.8 41.1 301.9 1997 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 193.8 26.0 6.0 13.6 34.7 51.4 79.3 1998 188.1 377.6 104.3 6.6 14.8 -1.5 28.0 9.9 2.4 8.9 -0.1 -7.9

265

Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from  

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

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 7.3 3.3 6.6 5.5 -4.6 -8.7 1996 -14.5 -16.8 -24.3 -29.4 -33.2 -22.0 -13.0 -5.9 -3.8 -3.6 0.9 5.3 1997 5.8 15.5 27.1 28.5 28.0 13.5 3.6 -0.7 -1.1 -0.7 0.2 -3.1 1998 7.5 5.2 -1.0 3.5 9.7 9.1 12.7 12.8 7.3 9.4 12.3 14.5

267

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

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

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 8.2 7.0 6.1 2.2 1996 -7.8 0.0 -8.3 -8.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 1.6 2.5 -2.6 0.1 1997 4.1 6.0 -3.9 -0.6 -2.0 -3.7 -1.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 6.7 5.0 1998 14.2 10.6 23.2 23.5 10.9 7.6 2.1 0.1 2.0 1.8 1.8 -1.8 1999 1.3 -2.4 0.6 1.5 4.1 5.7 5.7 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.3 6.0

268

Natural Gas Withdrawals from Underground Storage (Annual Supply &  

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

Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground Storage Base Gas in Underground Storage Working Gas in Underground Storage Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual

269

Injections of Natural Gas into Storage (Annual Supply & Disposition)  

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

Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price 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 Storage Base Gas in Underground Storage Working Gas in Underground Storage Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual

270

Carbon Storage in Basalt  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...immobile and thus the storage more secure, though...continental margins have huge storage capacities adjacent...unlimited supplies of seawater. On the continents...present in the target storage formation can be pumped up and used to dissolve...

Sigurdur R. Gislason; Eric H. Oelkers

2014-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

271

Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability and Capacity Concerns in the Modern Grid  

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

ELECTRICITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MISSION The mission of the Electricity Advisory Committee is to provide advice to the U.S. Department of Energy in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005, executing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and modernizing the nation's electricity delivery infrastructure. ELECTRICITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE GOALS The goals of the Electricity Advisory Committee are to provide advice on: * Electricity policy issues pertaining to the U.S. Department of Energy * Recommendations concerning U.S. Department of Energy electricity programs and initiatives * Issues related to current and future capacity of the electricity delivery system (generation, transmission, and distribution, regionally and nationally)

272

BAdvanced adiabatic compressed air energy storage for the article has been accepted for inclusion  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

advantages, only compressed air energy storage (CAES) has the storage capacity of pumped hydro, but with

Chris Bullough; Christoph Gatzen; Christoph Jakiel; Martin Koller; Andreas Nowi; Stefan Zunft; Alstom Power; Technology Centre; Leicester Le Lh

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

273

Natural Gas Aquifers Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1,347,516 1,351,832 1,340,633 1,233,017 1,231,897 1,237,269 1999-2012 Alabama 0 1999-2012 Arkansas 0 1999-2012 California 0 0 1999-2012 Colorado 0 1999-2012 Illinois 876,960 874,384 885,848 772,381 777,294 779,862 1999-2012 Indiana 81,490 81,991 81,328 81,268 81,310 80,746 1999-2012 Iowa 278,238 284,747 284,811 288,010 288,210 288,210 1999-2012 Kansas 0 1999-2012 Kentucky 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 9,567 1999-2012 Louisiana 0 1999-2012 Michigan 0 1999-2012 Minnesota 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 1999-2012 Mississippi 0 1999-2012 Missouri 32,940 32,876 10,889 11,502 13,845 13,845 1999-2012 Montana 0 1999-2012 New Mexico 0 1999-2012 New York 0 1999-2012 Ohio 0 1999-2012 Oklahoma 170 1999-2012 Oregon 0 1999-2012 Pennsylvania

274

Comprehensive work plan for Building 3001 storage canal at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Comprehensive Work Plan describes the method of accomplishment to replace the shielding protection of the water in the canal with a controlled low strength material (CLSM) 4. The canal was used during the operation of the Oak Ridge Graphite Reactor in the 1940s and 1950s to transport spent fuel slugs and irradiated test materials from the reactor, under water to the hot cell in Building 3019 for further processing, packaging, and handling. After the reactor was shut down, the canal was used until 1990 to store some irradiated materials until they could be transferred to a Solid Waste Storage Area. This task has the following objectives and components: (1) minimize potential future risk to human health and the environment; (2) reduce surveillance and maintenance cost of the canal; (3) perform site preparation activities; (4) replace the water in the canal with a solid CLSM; (5) pump the water to the Process Waste Treatment System (PWTS) for further processing at the same rate that the CLSM is pumped under the water; (6) remove the water using a process that will protect the workers and the public in the visitors area from contamination while the CLSM is being pumped underneath the water; (7) painting a protective coating material over the CLSM after the CLSM has cured.

NONE

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

275

VideoSTAR (Video STorage And Retrieval) is an experimental database frame-work for video information management. The development of this framework  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ABSTRACT VideoSTAR (Video STorage And Retrieval) is an experimental database frame- work for video of traditional video tape archives are facing and by the multimedia technology that makes integrated, digital video archives feasible. Speci cally, VideoSTAR addresses issues related to sharing of video information

276

Small capacity absorption systems for cooling and power with a scroll expander and ammonia based working fluids  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Up to now, the use of ammonia/water absorption cycles has been mainly limited to the production of refrigeration or air conditioning but due to the relatively high generator pressure some authors have proposed the integration in parallel of an expander to produce cooling and power simultaneously. This feature could provide many benefits in the future such as the use of solar thermal energy to partially cover the heating, cooling and electricity demand of a building. In the other hand the life cycle cost of the absorption system is improved because of the increase in the number of running hours in periods in which there is no demand for cooling but the demand for electrical power is still important. This paper shows a new combined absorption system using a scroll expander and three different working fluids using ammonia as refrigerant: ammonia/water, ammonia/lithium nitrate and ammonia/sodium thiocyanate. The scroll expander performance maps were obtained experimentally and modeled to predict the power production, rotational speed and exhaust temperature of the expander and included in the complete absorption cycle model build using Engineering Equation Solver (EES) Software. This system produces different amounts of cooling and power at the desired power/cooling ratio to cover varying demand profiles.

Luis Carlos Mendoza; Dereje S. Ayou; Joaqun Navarro-Esbr; Joan Carles Bruno; Alberto Coronas

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

277

work  

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

THE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S WORKING CAPITAL FUND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES OCTOBER 1998 AUDIT REPORT CR-B-99-01 MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, BUSINESS MANAGEMENT STAFF FROM: William S. Maharay Acting Manager, Capital Regional Audit Office, Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION : Audit Report on the Department's Working Capital Fund BACKGROUND The Department established the Working Capital Fund (Fund) in January 1996 as a financial management tool for charging the costs of common services provided at Headquarters to Departmental program offices. The objectives in establishing the Fund were to increase efficiency of the Department's operations, improve management of administrative services

278

Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers  

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

96,950 396,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 2008-2012 96,950 396,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 2008-2012 Alabama 0 2012-2012 Arkansas 0 2012-2012 California 0 0 2009-2012 Colorado 0 2012-2012 Illinois 244,900 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 2008-2012 Indiana 19,978 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 2008-2012 Iowa 87,350 87,414 90,613 91,113 90,313 2008-2012 Kansas 0 2012-2012 Kentucky 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 2008-2012 Louisiana 0 2012-2012 Michigan 0 2012-2012 Minnesota 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2012 Mississippi 0 2012-2012 Missouri 11,276 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 2008-2012 Montana 0 2012-2012 New Mexico 0 2012-2012 New York 0 2012-2012 Ohio 0 2012-2012 Oklahoma 31 2012-2012 Oregon 0 2012-2012 Pennsylvania 942 2012-2012 Tennessee 0 2012-2012 Texas 0 2012-2012 Utah 948 948 939 939 948 2008-2012

279

Working Gas Capacity of Aquifers  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

96,950 396,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 2008-2012 96,950 396,092 364,228 363,521 367,108 2008-2012 Alabama 0 2012-2012 Arkansas 0 2012-2012 California 0 0 2009-2012 Colorado 0 2012-2012 Illinois 244,900 252,344 216,132 215,017 215,594 2008-2012 Indiana 19,978 19,367 19,437 19,479 19,215 2008-2012 Iowa 87,350 87,414 90,613 91,113 90,313 2008-2012 Kansas 0 2012-2012 Kentucky 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 6,629 2008-2012 Louisiana 0 2012-2012 Michigan 0 2012-2012 Minnesota 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2008-2012 Mississippi 0 2012-2012 Missouri 11,276 3,040 3,656 6,000 6,000 2008-2012 Montana 0 2012-2012 New Mexico 0 2012-2012 New York 0 2012-2012 Ohio 0 2012-2012 Oklahoma 31 2012-2012 Oregon 0 2012-2012 Pennsylvania 942 2012-2012 Tennessee 0 2012-2012 Texas 0 2012-2012 Utah 948 948 939 939 948 2008-2012

280

ORISE: Capacity Building  

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

Capacity Building 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 building may relate to almost any aspect of its work-from leadership and administration to program development and implementation. Strengthening an organizational infrastructure can help agencies and community-based organizations more quickly identify targeted audiences for

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

Reaction Mechanisms in the Li3AlH6/LiBH4 and Al/LiBH4 Systems for Reversible Hydrogen Storage. Part 1: H capacity and Role of Al  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Lithium-based complex hydrides, including lithium aluminum hydrides (LiAlH4, Li3AlH6) and lithium borohydride (LiBH4), are some of the most attractive materials for hydrogen storage due to their high hydrogen contents. In the present work, we investigated the hydrogen storage properties of combined systems of Li3AlH6-LiBH4 and Al-LiBH4, both of which exhibit favorable hydrogen storage properties owing to the formation of AlB2 during dehydrogenation. TGA data showed that TiCl3-doped Li3AlH6/2LiBH4 and 0.5Al/LiBH4 release ~ 8.8 and ~ 8.4 wt.% H2, respectively, with ~ 3.8 and ~ 5.8 wt.% release after rehydrogenation of the dehydrogenation product. XRD results identified LiH and AlB2 phases in the dehydrogenated products, which has suggested a mechanism by which Al contributes to the remarkable improvement of the reversible storage properties of LiBH4 in terms of the temperature and pressure for H2 release/uptake.

Choi, Young Joon; Lu, Jun; Sohn, Hong Yong; Fang, Zhigang Zak

2011-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

282

From Fundamental Understanding to Predicting New Nanomaterials for High-Capacity Hydrogen Storage - DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program FY 2012 Annual Progress Report  

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

0 0 DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program FY 2012 Annual Progress Report Taner Yildirim 1,2 1 Department of Materials Science and Eng. University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 2 National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCNR Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Phone: (301) 975-6228 Email: taner@seas.upenn.edu DOE Program Manager: Dr. Thiyaga P. Thiyagarajan Phone: (301) 903-9706 Email: P.Thiyagarajan@science.doe.gov Objectives Use neutron scattering methods along with first- * principles computation 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. Study the effect of scaffolding, nanosizing, doping of *

283

Effect of manganese addition on hydrogen storage performance of vanadium-based BCC hydrogen storage alloys  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The effect of manganese addition on hydrogen storage performance of vanadium-based BCC alloys was ... plateau pressure and a reverse effect on maximum hydrogen storage capacity. However, an effective hydrogen storage

Chan-Yeol Seo; Zhao-Liang Zhang; Jin-Ho Kim

2002-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

284

Long-term prediction of the migration of radionuclides from solid radwaste storage sites at the Siberian Chemical Works  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The results of a calculation of the migration of radionuclides from a repository for solid radioactive wastes from the reactor plant of the Siberian Chemical Works, performed using a method recommended by IAEA...

R. B. Sharafutdinov; A. V. Talitskaya; Yu. V. Runova; V. I. Korzh

2007-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

285

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

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

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...

286

Nanofluid heat capacities  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Significant increases in the heat capacity of heat transfer fluids are needed not only to reduce the costs of liquid heating and cooling processes but also to bring clean energy producing technologies like concentrating solar power (CSP) to price parity with conventional energy generation. It has been postulated that nanofluids could have higher heat capacities than conventional fluids. In this work nano- and micron-sized particles were added to five base fluids (poly-? olefin mineral oil ethylene glycol a mixture of water and ethylene glycol and calcium nitrate tetrahydrate) and the resulting heat capacities were measured and compared with those of the neat base fluids and the weighted average of the heat capacities of the components. The particles used were inert metals and metal oxides that did not undergo any phase transitions over the temperature range studied. In the nanofluids studied here we found no increase in heat capacity upon the addition of the particles larger than the experimental error.

Anne K. Starace; Judith C. Gomez; Jun Wang; Sulolit Pradhan; Greg C. Glatzmaier

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

287

Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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%.

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

2011-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

288

Fundamentals of Capacity Control  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Whereas capacity planning determines in advance the capacities required to implement a production program, capacity control determines the actual capacities implemented shortly beforehand. The capacity control...

Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Hermann Ldding

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

289

Evaluation of Storage Reallocation and Related Strategies for Optimizing Reservoir System Operations  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

necessity to use limited storage capacity as effectively as possible warrants periodic re-evaluations of operating policies. Reallocation of storage capacity between purposes represents a general strategy for optimizing the beneficial use of limited storage...

Wurbs, Ralph A.; Carriere, Patrick E.

290

Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2 Storage |  

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

Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2 Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2 Storage Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2 Storage In September 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the award of 11 projects with a total project value of $75.5 million* to conduct site characterization of promising geologic formations for CO2 storage. These Recovery Act projects will increase our understanding of the potential for these formations to safely and permanently store CO2. The information gained from these projects (detailed below) will further DOE's efforts to develop a national assessment of CO2 storage capacity in deep geologic formations. Site Characterization of Promising Geologic Formations for CO2 Storage * Subsequently, the Board of Public Works project in Holland, MI has been

291

Final work plan : phase I investigation of potential contamination at the former CCC/USDA grain storage facility in Montgomery City, Missouri.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

LaFreniere, L. M.; Environmental Science Division

2010-08-16T23:59:59.000Z

292

PCM energy storage during defective thermal cycling:.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Incomplete thermal cycling affects storage capacities of phase change materials (PCMs). Existing PCM measuring methods are presented with their drawbacks. A new device named the (more)

Koekenbier, S.F.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

293

Metal supported carbon nanostructures for hydrogen storage.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Carbon nanocones are the fifth equilibrium structure of carbon, first synthesized in 1997. They have been selected for investigating hydrogen storage capacity, because initial temperature (more)

Matelloni, Paolo

2012-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

294

Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity  

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

253,410 341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 1999-2012 253,410 341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 1999-2012 Alabama 8,300 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2012 Arkansas 0 1999-2012 California 0 1999-2012 Colorado 0 1999-2012 Illinois 0 1999-2012 Indiana 0 1999-2012 Kansas 931 931 931 931 931 931 1999-2012 Kentucky 0 1999-2012 Louisiana 61,660 88,806 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 1999-2012 Maryland 0 1999-2012 Michigan 3,851 3,827 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2012 Mississippi 45,383 62,424 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 1999-2012 Montana 0 1999-2012 Nebraska 0 1999-2012 New Mexico 0 1999-2012 New York 2,340 2,340 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 1999-2012 Ohio 0 1999-2012 Oklahoma 0 1999-2012 Oregon 0 1999-2012 Pennsylvania 0 1999-2012 Tennessee 0 1999-2012 Texas 124,686 160,786 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 1999-2012

295

West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

296

Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

297

Montana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

298

Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

299

Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

300

Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

302

Oregon Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

303

Alabama Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

304

Natural Gas Salt Caverns Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

253,410 341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 1999-2012 253,410 341,213 397,560 456,009 512,279 715,821 1999-2012 Alabama 8,300 15,900 15,900 21,900 21,900 21,900 1999-2012 Arkansas 0 1999-2012 California 0 1999-2012 Colorado 0 1999-2012 Illinois 0 1999-2012 Indiana 0 1999-2012 Kansas 931 931 931 931 931 931 1999-2012 Kentucky 0 1999-2012 Louisiana 61,660 88,806 123,341 142,253 161,668 297,020 1999-2012 Maryland 0 1999-2012 Michigan 3,851 3,827 3,821 3,834 3,834 3,834 1999-2012 Mississippi 45,383 62,424 62,301 82,411 90,452 139,627 1999-2012 Montana 0 1999-2012 Nebraska 0 1999-2012 New Mexico 0 1999-2012 New York 2,340 2,340 2,340 2,340 2,340 0 1999-2012 Ohio 0 1999-2012 Oklahoma 0 1999-2012 Oregon 0 1999-2012 Pennsylvania 0 1999-2012 Tennessee 0 1999-2012 Texas 124,686 160,786 182,725 196,140 224,955 246,310 1999-2012

305

Pennsylvania Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

306

Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

307

Natural Gas Depleted Fields Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 6,801,291 6,805,490 6,917,547 7,074,773 7,104,948 7,038,245 1999-2012 Alabama 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,500 13,500 1999-2012 Arkansas 22,000 22,000 21,760 21,760 21,359 21,853 1999-2012 California 487,711 498,705 513,005 542,511 570,511 592,411 1999-2012 Colorado 98,068 95,068 105,768 105,768 105,858 124,253 1999-2012 Illinois 103,731 103,606 103,606 218,106 220,070 220,070 1999-2012 Indiana 32,804 32,946 32,946 30,003 30,003 30,003 1999-2012 Iowa 0 1999-2012 Kansas 287,996 281,291 281,370 283,891 283,800 283,974 1999-2012 Kentucky 210,792 210,792 210,801 212,184 212,184 212,184 1999-2012 Louisiana 527,051 527,051 528,626 528,626 528,626 402,626 1999-2012 Maryland 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 1999-2012

308

Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

309

Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

310

Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

311

Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

312

Storage capacity in hot dry rock reservoirs  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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

Brown, Donald W. (Los Alamos, NM)

1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

313

Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

314

California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

315

Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

316

Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

317

Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

318

Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

319

California Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

320

Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

322

Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

323

Colorado Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

324

Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

325

Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

326

Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wyoming Period: Monthly Annual Download...

327

California: Conducting Polymer Binder Boosts Storage Capacity...  

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

method. National Labs Leading Charge on Building Better Batteries California: Heliotrope Technologies Wins R&D 100 Award for Universal Smart Window Coating that Saves Energy...

328

Indiana Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

329

Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

330

Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

331

New York Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

332

Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

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

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 View

333

NV Energy Electricity Storage Valuation  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Samaan, Nader A.; Jin, Chunlian

2013-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

334

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005  

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

S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005 S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Developments: 1998-2005 Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, October 2006 1 This special report examines the current status of the underground natural gas storage sector in the United States and how it has changed since 1998, particularly in regards to deliverability from storage, working gas capacity, ownership, and operational capabilities. In addition, it includes a discussion and an analysis of underground natural gas storage expansions in 2005 and an examination of the level of proposed additional storage expansions over the next several years. Questions or comments on the contents of this article should be directed to James Tobin at james.tobin@eia.doe.gov or (202) 586-4835.

335

Molecular Simulation of Hydrogen Storage in SWNT ? Shigeo MARUYAMAa  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Molecular Simulation of Hydrogen Storage in SWNT ? Shigeo MARUYAMAa , Tatsuto KIMURAb a Eng. Res efficiency storage of hydrogen with single walled nanotubes (SWNTs) by Dillon et al. [1], experimental determinations of the storage capacity and mechanism of storage have been extensively studied. Hydrogen storage

Maruyama, Shigeo

336

Quasi-experimental study on the effectiveness of psychoanalysis, long-term and short-term psychotherapy on psychiatric symptoms, work ability and functional capacity during a 5-year follow-up  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Background Psychotherapy is apparently an insufficient treatment for some patients with mood or anxiety disorder. In this study the effectiveness of short-term and long-term psychotherapies was compared with that of psychoanalysis. Methods A total of 326 psychiatric outpatients with mood or anxiety disorder were randomly assigned to solution-focused therapy, short-term psychodynamic and long-term psychodynamic psychotherapies. Additionally, 41 patients suitable for psychoanalysis were included in the study. The patients were followed from the start of the treatment and assessed 9 times during a 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome measures on symptoms were the Beck Depression Inventory, the Hamilton Depression and Anxiety Rating Scales, and the Symptom Check List, anxiety scale. Primary work ability and functional capacity measures were the Work Ability Index, the Work-subscale of the Social Adjustment Scale, and the Perceived Psychological Functioning Scale. Results A reduction in psychiatric symptoms and improvement in work ability and functional capacity was noted in all treatment groups during the 5-year follow-up. The short-term therapies were more effective than psychoanalysis during the first year, whereas the long-term therapy was more effective after 3years of follow-up. Psychoanalysis was most effective at the 5-year follow-up, which also marked the end of the psychoanalysis. Conclusions Psychotherapy gives faster benefits than psychoanalysis, but in the long run psychoanalysis seems to be more effective. Results from trials, among patients suitable for psychoanalysis and with longer follow-up, are needed before firm conclusions about the relative effectiveness of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy in the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders can be drawn.

Paul Knekt; Olavi Lindfors; Maarit A. Laaksonen; Camilla Renlund; Peija Haaramo; Tommi Hrknen; Esa Virtala

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

Distributed Generation with Heat Recovery and Storage  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

in floor tiles for thermal energy storage, working paper,D. R. (2000). Thermal energy storage for space cooling,A simple model of thermal energy storage is developed as a

Siddiqui, Afzal S.; Marnay, Chris; Firestone, Ryan M.; Zhou, Nan

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

338

Investigations in cool thermal storage: storage process optimization and glycol sensible storage enhancement  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

device in order to meet the utility's mandate. The first part of this study looks at the effects of adding propylene glycol to a static-water ice thermal storage tank, in the pursuit of increasing storage capacity. The effects of glycol addition...

Abraham, Michaela Marie

1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

339

6 ENGenious NO.7 2010 The newly formed Resnick Institute is working on game-changing solutions to challenges in the generation, storage,  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

new photovoltaic arrays. As of October 2010, Caltech's total solar generation capacity is 1.3 mega Sustainability: The Caltech Approach Two GALCIT Alumni's Vision Graduate Aerospace Laboratories of the California

Haile, Sossina M.

340

Hydrogen storage systems from waste Mg alloys  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract The production cost of materials for hydrogen storage is one of the major issues to be addressed in order to consider them suitable for large scale applications. In the last decades several authors reported on the hydrogen sorption properties of Mg and Mg-based systems. In this work magnesium industrial wastes of AZ91 alloy and Mg-10wt.% Gd alloy are used for the production of hydrogen storage materials. The hydrogen sorption properties of the alloys were investigated by means of volumetric technique, in situ synchrotron radiation powder X-ray diffraction (SR-PXD) and calorimetric methods. The measured reversible hydrogen storage capacity for the alloys AZ91 and Mg-10wt.% Gd are 4.2 and 5.8wt.%, respectively. For the Mg-10wt.% Gd alloy, the hydrogenated product was also successfully used as starting reactant for the synthesis of Mg(NH2)2 and as MgH2 substitute in the Reactive Hydride Composite (RHC) 2LiBH4+MgH2. The results of this work demonstrate the concrete possibility to use Mg alloy wastes for hydrogen storage purposes.

C. Pistidda; N. Bergemann; J. Wurr; A. Rzeszutek; K.T. Mller; B.R.S. Hansen; S. Garroni; C. Horstmann; C. Milanese; A. Girella; O. Metz; K. Taube; T.R. Jensen; D. Thomas; H.P. Liermann; T. Klassen; M. Dornheim

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

Large Scale Energy Storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This work is mainly an experimental investigation on the storage of solar energy and/or the waste heat of a ... lake or a ground cavity. A model storage unit of (120.75)m3 size was designed and constructed. The...

F. mez; R. Oskay; A. ?. er

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

342

Electrochemistry: Metal-free energy storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

... % of total energy capacity will require electric-energy storage systems to be deployed. For grid-scale applications and remote generation sites, cheap and flexible storage systems are needed, but ... level as a source of potential energy) or expensive (for example, conventional batteries, flywheels and superconductive electromagnetic storage). On page 195 of this issue, Huskinson et al. ...

Grigorii L. Soloveichik

2014-01-08T23:59:59.000Z

343

Capacity Markets for Electricity  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

ternative Approaches for Power Capacity Markets, Papers andprof id=pjoskow. Capacity Markets for Electricity [13]Utility Commission- Capacity Market Questions, available at

Creti, Anna; Fabra, Natalia

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

344

Hydrogen storage in aligned carbon nanotubes and David T. Shaw  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen storage in aligned carbon nanotubes Yan Chena) and David T. Shaw Department of Electrical and thermogravimetric analysis show a hydrogen storage capacity of 5­7 wt% was achieved reproducibly at room temperature the samples to 300 °C and removing of the catalyst tips, can increase the hydrogen storage capacity up to 13

Chung, Deborah D.L.

345

Grid Applications for Energy Storage  

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

Applications for Energy Storage Applications for Energy Storage Flow Cells for Energy Storage Workshop Washington DC 7-8 March 2012 Joe Eto jheto@lbl.gov (510) 486-7284 Referencing a Recent Sandia Study,* This Talk Will: Describe and illustrate selected grid applications for energy storage Time-of-use energy cost management Demand charge management Load following Area Regulation Renewables energy time shift Renewables capacity firming Compare Sandia's estimates of the economic value of these applications to the Electricity Storage Association's estimates of the capital costs of energy storage technologies *Eyer, J. and G. Corey. Energy Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential Assessment Guide. February 2010. SAND2010-0815 A Recent Sandia Study Estimates the Economic

346

Underground pumped hydroelectric storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

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

1984-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

347

STORAGE OF CHILLED NATURAL GAS IN BEDDED SALT STORAGE CAVERNS  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

JOel D. Dieland; Kirby D. Mellegard

2001-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

348

Working Gas Capacity of Salt Caverns  

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

230,456 271,785 312,003 351,017 488,268 2008-2012 230,456 271,785 312,003 351,017 488,268 2008-2012 Alabama 11,900 11,900 16,150 16,150 16,150 2008-2012 Arkansas 0 2012-2012 California 0 2012-2012 Colorado 0 2012-2012 Illinois 0 2012-2012 Indiana 0 2012-2012 Kansas 375 375 375 375 375 2008-2012 Kentucky 0 2012-2012 Louisiana 57,630 84,487 100,320 111,849 200,702 2008-2012 Maryland 0 2012-2012 Michigan 2,154 2,150 2,159 2,159 2,159 2008-2012 Mississippi 43,292 43,758 56,928 62,932 100,443 2008-2012 Montana 0 2012-2012 Nebraska 0 2012-2012 New Mexico 0 2012-2012 New York 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 0 2008-2012 Ohio 0 2012-2012 Oklahoma 0 2012-2012 Oregon 0 2012-2012 Pennsylvania 0 2012-2012 Tennessee 0 2012-2012 Texas 109,655 123,664 130,621 152,102 164,439 2008-2012 Utah 0 2012-2012 Virginia

349

Working Gas Capacity of Depleted Fields  

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

,583,786 3,659,968 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 2008-2012 ,583,786 3,659,968 3,733,993 3,769,113 3,720,980 2008-2012 Alabama 9,000 9,000 9,000 11,200 11,200 2008-2012 Arkansas 14,500 13,898 13,898 12,036 12,178 2008-2012 California 283,796 296,096 311,096 335,396 349,296 2008-2012 Colorado 42,579 48,129 49,119 48,709 60,582 2008-2012 Illinois 51,418 51,418 87,368 87,368 87,368 2008-2012 Indiana 12,791 12,791 13,545 13,545 13,809 2008-2012 Iowa 0 2012-2012 Kansas 118,885 118,964 122,814 122,850 122,968 2008-2012 Kentucky 94,598 96,855 100,971 100,971 100,971 2008-2012 Louisiana 284,544 284,544 284,544 285,779 211,780 2008-2012 Maryland 17,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 18,300 2008-2012 Michigan 660,693 664,486 664,906 670,473 671,041 2008-2012 Mississippi 53,140 65,220 70,320 68,159 68,159 2008-2012

350

Savannah River Hydrogen Storage Technology  

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

Member of DOE Carbon Working Group - Developed novel method for forming doped carbon nanotubes as part of DOE Storage Program (patent pending) - Collaborated with universities and...

351

Increasing the Capacity of Existing Power Lines  

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

works with Idaho Power engineers to train system operators in the use of weather station data and software tools to generate transmission capacity operat- ing limits. The ability...

352

EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL STUDIES OF THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE IN AQUIFERS  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

In Proceed- ings of Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Work-Mathematical Modeling of Thermal Energy storage in Aquifers.In Proceed- ings of Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers Work-

Tsang, Chin Fu

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Thermal Storage Options for HVAC Systems  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

this method is based on the specific heat of water rather than the latent 'heat of fusion of ice as in ice storage, it requires about 4 times the storage capacity of an equivalent ice storage system. ? Salt Storage: This system utilizes eutectic salts... which freeze and melt around 47 o F. Exist ing chillers can be easily retrofitted for salt storage or chilled water storage. For ice stor age systems, a direct refrigerant system or glycol chillers are suitable. This paper discusses the details...

Weston, R. F.; Gidwani, B. N.

354

Doped Carbon Nanotubes for Hydrogen Storage Ragaiy Zidan  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Doped Carbon Nanotubes for Hydrogen Storage Ragaiy Zidan Savannah River Technology Center Savannah-capacity hydrogen storage material. The final product should have favorable thermodynamics and kinetics- board hydrogen storage for transportation applications. One of the candidates for solid hydrogen storage

355

MODELING OF HYDRO-PNEUMATIC ENERGY STORAGE USING PUMP TURBINES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of delivered power and energy capacities. Hydraulic storage or compressed air energy storage (CAES) can be used-turbine to displace a virtual liquid piston for air compression (Figure 1). A dynamic model of the storage system. It is based upon air compression storage using a hydraulic drive, which allows relatively high conversion

Paris-Sud XI, Université de

356

Dependability of Wind Energy Generators with Short-Term Energy Storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...ca-pacity must be enlarged, or storage facili-ties must be added...re-gions where reservoirs for pumped water storage are available, the wind...Examples of possible storage systems are batteries, flywheels, pumped water, compressed air...

BENT SRENSEN

1976-11-26T23:59:59.000Z

357

COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY  

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

COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TECHNOLOGY 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 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Partnerships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Process Chart: From Agency to Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Case Studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

358

Hydrogen Storage Materials Database Demonstration  

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

| Fuel Cell Technologies Program Source: US DOE 4/25/2011 eere.energy.gov | Fuel Cell Technologies Program Source: US DOE 4/25/2011 eere.energy.gov Hydrogen Storage Materials Database Demonstration FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Ned Stetson Storage Tech Team Lead Fuel Cell Technologies Program U.S. Department of Energy 12/13/2011 Hydrogen Storage Materials Database Marni Lenahan December 13, 2011 Database Background * The Hydrogen Storage Materials Database was built to retain information from DOE Hydrogen Storage funded research and make these data more accessible. * Data includes properties of hydrogen storage materials investigated such as synthesis conditions, sorption and release conditions, capacities, thermodynamics, etc. http://hydrogenmaterialssearch.govtools.us Current Status * Data continues to be collected from DOE funded research.

359

Rapidly solidified magnesium: nickel alloys as hydrogen storage materials.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Due to high hydrogen capacity, good reversibility and low cost, magnesium hydride is one of the most promising hydrogen storage materials. However, the high desorption (more)

Yi, Xiaodong

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

360

Monitoring Infrastructure Capacity Monitoring Infrastructure Capacity  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Levinson, D. (2000) Monitoring Infrastructure Capacity p. 165-181 in Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban) task. Monitoring infrastructure capacity is at least as complex as monitoring urban land markets Levinson, D. (2000) Monitoring Infrastructure Capacity p. 165-181 in Land Market Monitoring for Smart Urban

Levinson, David M.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

NETL: Carbon Storage - Geologic Storage  

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

Geologic Storage Geologic Storage Carbon Storage Geologic Storage Focus Area Geologiccarbon dioxide (CO2) storage involves the injection of supercritical CO2 into deep geologic formations (injection zones) overlain by competent sealing formations and geologic traps that will prevent the CO2 from escaping. Current research and field studies are focused on developing better understanding 11 major types of geologic storage reservoir classes, each having their own unique opportunities and challenges. Understanding these different storage classes provides insight into how the systems influence fluids flow within these systems today, and how CO2 in geologic storage would be anticipated to flow in the future. The different storage formation classes include: deltaic, coal/shale, fluvial, alluvial, strandplain, turbidite, eolian, lacustrine, clastic shelf, carbonate shallow shelf, and reef. Basaltic interflow zones are also being considered as potential reservoirs. These storage reservoirs contain fluids that may include natural gas, oil, or saline water; any of which may impact CO2 storage differently. The following summarizes the potential for storage and the challenges related to CO2 storage capability for fluids that may be present in more conventional clastic and carbonate reservoirs (saline water, and oil and gas), as well as unconventional reservoirs (unmineable coal seams, organic-rich shales, and basalts):

362

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)

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.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

363

Refinery Capacity Report  

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

Report --- Full report in PDF (1 MB) XLS --- Refinery Capacity Data by individual refinery as of January 1, 2006 Tables 1 Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum...

364

Chemical Hydrogen Storage | Department of Energy  

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

a new type of liquid-phase material has been developed. This material, developed by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., has shown 5-7 wt.% gravimetric hydrogen storage capacity...

365

Spent fuel storage requirements 1993--2040  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Historical inventories of spent fuel are combined with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) projections of future discharges from commercial nuclear reactors in the United States to provide estimates of spent fuel storage requirements through the year 2040. The needs are estimated for storage capacity beyond that presently available in the reactor storage pools. These estimates incorporate the maximum capacities within current and planned in-pool storage facilities and any planned transshipments of spent fuel to other reactors or facilities. Existing and future dry storage facilities are also discussed. The nuclear utilities provide historical data through December 1992 on the end of reactor life are based on the DOE/Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates of future nuclear capacity, generation, and spent fuel discharges.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

366

Avoca, New York Salt Cavern Gas Storage Facility  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The first salt cavern natural gas storage facility in the northeastern United States designed to serve the interstate gas market is being developed by J Makowski Associates and partners at Avoca in Steuben County, New York. Multiple caverns will be leached at a depth of about 3800 ft from an approximately 100 ft interval of salt within the F unit of the Syracuse Formation of the Upper Silurian Salina Group. The facility is designed to provide 5 Bcf of working gas capacity and 500 MMcfd of deliverability within an operating cavern pressure range between 760 psi and 2850 psi. Fresh water for leaching will be obtained from the Cohocton River aquifer at a maximum rate of 3 million gallons per day and produced brine will be injected into deep permeable Cambrian age sandstones and dolostones. Gas storage service is anticipated to commence in the Fall of 1997 with 2 Bcf of working gas capacity and the full 5 Bcf or storage service is scheduled to be available in the Fall of 1999.

Morrill, D.C. [J. Makowski and Associates, Boston, MA (United States)

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

367

Commercial Storage and Handling of Sorghum Grain.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

percent divided-among storage operators attempt to keep merchandising space TABLE 6. STORAGE SPACE BY SPECIFIED MATERIAL AND TYPE OF STRUCTURE1 Area and con- Storage built prior to 1956 Storage built 1956-60 inclusive 'ruttion material Flat structures...,000 bushels Percent 17.1 81.3 1.6 90.5 9.5 100.0 40.7 58.2 1.1 iomple proportions were applied to total storage capacities by areas to obtain estimates of quantities in the table. ntludes wood, steel and concrete and steel and wood structures...

Brown, Charles W.; Moore, Clarence A.

1963-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

368

Technical and cost analyses of two different heat storage systems for residential micro-CHP plants  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract The heat storage system represents a key component for micro-cogeneration plants since it permits to store the unused thermal energy during electricity production for a later use. Nevertheless, it also represents a consistent additional cost that has to be taken into account in order to evaluate the profitability of the micro-CHP system with respect to the separate generation. In this paper the results of a technical and of a cost analysis of two different types of thermal energy storage systems for residential micro-CHP plants are presented. Indeed, in the present work hot water thermal energy storage systems and latent heat thermal energy storage systems have been dimensioned for different micro-CHP systems producing electrical and thermal energy for two different buildings situated in Italy. For each analysed micro-CHP system an adequate thermal energy storage capacity is estimated on the basis of the operational logic and of the electric and thermal loads, and the sizing of the cylindrical tank and of the coil heat exchanger relative to both types of thermal energy storage systems is performed. Comparisons in terms of components cost between hot water thermal energy storage systems and latent heat thermal energy storage systems are performed as well.

L. Mongibello; M. Capezzuto; G. Graditi

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

369

End of Month Working  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

The level of gas in storage at the end of the last heating season (March The level of gas in storage at the end of the last heating season (March 31, 2000) was 1,150 billion cubic feet (Bcf), just above the 1995-1999 average of 1,139 Bcf. Underground working gas storage levels are currently about 8-9 percent below year-ago levels. In large part, this is because injection rates since April 1 have been below average. Storage injections picked up recently due to warm weather in the last half of October. The month of November is generally the last month available in the year for injections into storage. A cold November would curtail net injections into storage. If net injections continue at average levels this winter, we project that storage levels will be low all winter, reaching a level of 818 Bcf at the end of March, the lowest level since 1996

370

Spindletop salt-cavern points way for future natural-gas storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Spindletop underground natural-gas storage complex began operating in 1993, providing 1.7 bcf of working-gas capacity in its first cavern. The cavern and related facilities exemplify the importance and advantages of natural-gas storage in leached salt caverns. Development of a second cavern, along with continued leaching of the initial cavern, target 5 bcf of available working-gas capacity in both caverns by the end of this year. The facilities that currently make up the Spindletop complex include two salt dome gas-storage wells and a 24,000-hp compression and dehydration facility owned by Sabine Gas; two salt dome gas-storage wells and a 15,900-hp compression and dehydration facility owned by Centana; a 7,000-hp leaching plant; and three jointly owned brine-disposal wells. The paper discusses the development of the storage facility, design goals, leaching plant and wells, piping and compressors, dehydration and heaters, control systems, safety and monitoring, construction, first years operation, and customer base.

Shotts, S.A.; Neal, J.R.; Solis, R.J. (Southwestern Gas Pipeline Inc., The Woodlands, TX (United States)); Oldham, C. (Centana Intrastate Pipeline Co., Beaumont, TX (United States))

1994-09-12T23:59:59.000Z

371

Energy Storage and Solar Power: An Exaggerated Problem  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

...capac-ity in an electric grid. The data base for wind correlation...intermittent sources through a grid to circumvent storage is particularly...com-pressed-air systems, flywheels, and su-perconducting magnets...compressed-air systems, flywheels, and superconducting storage...

WILLIAM D. METZ

1978-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

372

Concerted Action European Solar Storage Testing Group  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The European Solar Storage Testing Group has been established by the ... to draw up recommendations for test-procedures for solar storage systems. The working group programme is discussed...

E. van Galen

1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

373

Solid State Materials for Hydrogen Storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

This paper seeks to review the hydride/hydrogen technology and to describe the work being...5) type solid state materials for hydrogen storage. To start with a brief review of the basic theme for solid state storage

K. Ramakrishna; S. K. Singh; A. K. Singh; O. N. Srivastava

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

374

EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Pipeline Capacity and Utilization  

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

Pipeline Utilization & Capacity 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 utilization rate (flow relative to design capacity) of a natural gas pipeline system seldom reaches 100%. Factors that contribute to outages include: Scheduled or unscheduled maintenance Temporary decreases in market demand Weather-related limitations to operations

375

installed capacity | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

installed capacity installed capacity Dataset Summary Description Estimates for each of the 50 states and the entire United States show Source Wind Powering America Date Released February 04th, 2010 (4 years ago) Date Updated April 13th, 2011 (3 years ago) Keywords annual generation installed capacity usa wind Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon Wind potential data (xls, 102.4 KiB) Quality Metrics Level of Review Some Review Comment Temporal and Spatial Coverage Frequency Time Period License License Other or unspecified, see optional comment below Comment Work of the U.S. Federal Government. Rate this dataset Usefulness of the metadata Average vote Your vote Usefulness of the dataset Average vote Your vote Ease of access Average vote Your vote Overall rating Average vote Your vote Comments

376

Instrumentation & control architecture applied for a hydrogen isotopes storage system  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The properties of hydrogen storage used materials refers to their ability to high "connect" hydrogen, to have a large storage capacity, to be easily achievable and, if necessary, to allow its easy recovery. The metals and intermetallic compounds are ... Keywords: architecture, control system, hydrogen, isotopes, storage

Eusebiu Ilarian Ionete; Bogdan Monea

2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

377

Multi-resolution Storage and Search in Sensor Deepak Ganesan  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

of sensor data to internet gateways which can quickly drain battery-operated nodes. Constructing a storage such summaries, and (c) efficient use of network storage capacity through load-balancing and progressive agingMulti-resolution Storage and Search in Sensor Networks Deepak Ganesan Department of Computer

Ganesan, Deepak

378

Boosting CSP Production with Thermal Energy Storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Denholm, P.; Mehos, M.

2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

379

Capacity of Fading Gaussian Channel with an Energy Harvesting Sensor Node  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

there are inefficiencies in energy storage and the capacity when energy is spent in activities other than transmission. Keywords: Energy harvesting, sensor networks, fading chan- nel, Shannon capacity, inefficiencies in storage) and converts them to electrical energy. Common energy harvesting devices are solar cells, wind turbines

Sharma, Vinod

380

New Alkali Doped Pillared Carbon Materials Designed to Achieve Practical Reversible Hydrogen Storage for Transportation  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and room temperature. This satisfies the DOE (Department of Energy) target of hydrogen-storage materials single-wall nanotubes can lead to a hydrogen-storage capacity of 6.0 mass% and 61:7 kg=m3 at 50 bars of roughly 1­20 bars and ambient temperature. Chen et al. reported remarkable hydrogen-storage capacities

Goddard III, William A.

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Storage Technology: Fundamental Research for Optimization of Hydrogen Storage and Utilization  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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.

Perret, Bob; Heske, Clemens; Nadavalath, Balakrishnan; Cornelius, Andrew; Hatchett, David; Bae, Chusung; Pang, Tao; Kim, Eunja; Hemmers, Oliver

2011-03-28T23:59:59.000Z

382

NREL: Learning - Energy Storage Basics  

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

Energy Storage Basics Energy Storage Basics The demand for electricity is seldom constant over time. Excess generating capacity available during periods of low demand can be used to energize an energy storage device. The stored energy can then be used to provide electricity during periods of high demand, helping to reduce power system loads during these times. Energy storage can improve the efficiency and reliability of the electric utility system by reducing the requirements for spinning reserves to meet peak power demands, making better use of efficient baseload generation, and allowing greater use of renewable energy technologies. A "spinning reserve" is a generator that is spinning and synchronized with the grid, ready for immediate power generation - like a car engine running with the gearbox

383

Dynamic simulation of integrated rock-bed thermocline storage for concentrated solar power  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract In contrast to wind and photovoltaic, concentrated solar power plants can be equipped with thermal energy storage in order to decouple intermittent energy supply and grid feed-in. The focus of this study is the technical evaluation of a cost-efficient storage concept for solar tower power plants. Consisting of a quartzite-rock bed that is charged with a hot air flow and discharged by cold air counter-flow, the storage essentially operates like a regenerator. For such systems, the discharge temperature typically declines with time. Furthermore, the use of a randomly packed bed results in considerable pressure loss. In order to describe the relevant flow and heat transfer mechanisms in rock beds used for thermal storage, a mathematical model written in the modelling language Modelica is developed and validated. Good agreement with experimental data from literature is obtained. With the aid of the validated model, a rock-bed thermal storage for application in a semi-industrial scale solar power plant (1.5MWel) is designed and optimised with respect to electrical efficiency of the plant during the charge and discharge cycle. The storage capacity is equivalent to four hours of full-load operation. Results show that compressor work should be considered directly in the selection of packed-bed geometry in order to minimise the efficiency penalty of storage integration in the solar plant.

Nicolas Mertens; Falah Alobaid; Lorenz Frigge; Bernd Epple

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

384

cryogenic storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Storage in which (a) the superconductive property of materials is used to store data and (b) use is made of the phenomenon that superconductivity is destroyed in the presence of a magnetic field, thus enabling...

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

Hydrogen Storage  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

On-board hydrogen storage for transportation applications continues to be one of the most technically challenging barriers to the widespread commercialization of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. The EERE...

386

Storage Water Heaters | Department of Energy  

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

Storage Water Heaters Storage Water Heaters Storage Water Heaters June 15, 2012 - 6:00pm Addthis Consider energy efficiency when selecting a conventional storage water heater to avoid paying more over its lifetime. | Photo courtesy of ©iStockphoto/JulNichols. Consider energy efficiency when selecting a conventional storage water heater to avoid paying more over its lifetime. | Photo courtesy of ©iStockphoto/JulNichols. Conventional storage water heaters remain the most popular type of water heating system for the home. Here you'll find basic information about how storage water heaters work; what criteria to use when selecting the right model; and some installation, maintenance, and safety tips. How They Work A single-family storage water heater offers a ready reservoir -- from 20 to

387

Energy Storage - More Information | Department of Energy  

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

Energy Storage - More Information Energy Storage - More Information Energy Storage - More Information As energy storage technology may be applied to a number of areas that differ in power and energy requirements, DOE's Energy Storage Program performs research and development on a wide variety of storage technologies. This broad technology base includes batteries (both conventional and advanced), flywheels, electrochemical capacitors, superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES), power electronics, and control systems. The Energy Storage Program works closely with industry partners, and many of its projects are highly cost-shared. The Program collaborates with utilities and State energy organizations such as the California Energy Commission and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority to field major pioneering storage installations that

388

GAS STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission and distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services, and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is critical in meeting the needs of these new markets. In order to address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created--the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance operational flexibility and deliverability of the Nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. To accomplish this objective, the project is divided into three phases that are managed and directed by the GSTC Coordinator. Base funding for the consortium is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In addition, funding is anticipated from the Gas Technology Institute (GTI). The first phase, Phase 1A, was initiated on September 30, 2003, and is scheduled for completion on March 31, 2004. Phase 1A of the project includes the creation of the GSTC structure, development of constitution (by-laws) for the consortium, and development and refinement of a technical approach (work plan) for deliverability enhancement and reservoir management. This report deals with the second 3-months of the project and encompasses the period December 31, 2003, through March 31, 2003. During this 3-month, the dialogue of individuals representing the storage industry, universities and the Department of energy was continued and resulted in a constitution for the operation of the consortium and a draft of the initial Request for Proposals (RFP).

Robert W. Watson

2004-04-17T23:59:59.000Z

389

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...

390

Optimized LNG Storage Tanks for Fleet-Size Refueling Stations with Local LNG Liquefiers  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

The capacity of a liquid natural gas (LNG) storage tank in a LNG fleet-size refueling station is determined in ... . These considerations drive the selection of the LNG storage tank size upwards. On the other han...

J. A. Barclay; A. J. Corless; E. H. Nelson

1998-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

391

Development of magnesium-based multilayer PVD coatings for hydrogen storage applications.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??On the long list of solid-state hydrogen storage materials, magnesium hydride stands out for its relatively high hydrogen storage capacity of 7.7 wt%, combined with (more)

Fry, Christopher

2013-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

392

Numerical aperture influence on 3-D multi-layer optical data storage systems , Edwin P. Walkera  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Numerical aperture influence on 3-D multi-layer optical data storage systems Yi Zhanga* , Edwin P storage system is analyzed. Keywords: NA, multi-layer data storage, two-photon recording, capacity) 550-0596, Fax: (858) 550-0917 #12;Numerical aperture influence on 3-D multi-layer optical data storage

Esener, Sadik C.

393

Working Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Summary)  

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

1,857,570 2,270,934 2,642,060 2,936,813 3,210,598 3,564,920 1,857,570 2,270,934 2,642,060 2,936,813 3,210,598 3,564,920 1973-2013 Alabama 20,405 20,908 20,110 20,532 19,968 21,262 1995-2013 Alaska 14,007 15,277 16,187 17,087 18,569 20,455 2013-2013 Arkansas 1,486 1,928 2,330 2,735 3,168 3,372 1990-2013 California 255,453 287,757 309,448 326,906 329,024 338,271 1990-2013 Colorado 15,625 19,489 25,833 32,642 40,240 46,136 1990-2013 Illinois 50,160 75,951 110,815 142,938 177,700 218,245 1990-2013 Indiana 8,965 10,955 13,533 15,951 19,622 22,817 1990-2013 Iowa 11,615 17,696 23,768 32,853 47,421 64,102 1990-2013 Kansas 35,397 49,412 62,747 79,590 91,430 101,169 1990-2013 Kentucky 52,985 61,078 68,847 74,285 79,656 88,369 1990-2013 Louisiana 212,975 235,835 263,701 296,375 315,517 342,981 1990-2013

394

Liquid heat capacity lasers  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

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.

Comaskey, Brian J. (Walnut Creek, CA); Scheibner, Karl F. (Tracy, CA); Ault, Earl R. (Livermore, CA)

2007-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

395

Theoretical and experimental study of solid state complex borohydride hydrogen storage materials.  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Materials that are light weight, low cost and have high hydrogen storage capacity are essential for on-board vehicular applications. Some reversible complex hydrides are alanates (more)

Choudhury, Pabitra

2009-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

396

System design and manufacturability of concrete spheres for undersea pumped hydro energy or hydrocarbon storage .  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

??Offshore wind and energy storage have both gained considerable attention in recent years as more wind turbine capacity is installed, less attractive/economical space remains for (more)

Fennell, Gregory E. (Gregory Edmund)

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

397

Design and hydraulic characteristics of the hydromechanical equipment of an energy-storage hydroelectric station  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

1. The energy-storage hydroelectric station (ESHES) can provide a 1.52-fold increase in peak capacity with a si...

P. R. Khlopenkov

1976-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

398

capacity | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

capacity capacity Dataset Summary Description This dataset comes from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and is part of the 2011 Annual Energy Outlook Report (AEO2011). This dataset is table 9, and contains only the reference case. The dataset uses gigawatts. The data is broken down into power only, combined heat and power, cumulative planned additions, cumulative unplanned conditions, and cumulative retirements and total electric power sector capacity . Source EIA Date Released April 26th, 2011 (3 years ago) Date Updated Unknown Keywords 2011 AEO capacity consumption EIA Electricity generating Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon AEO2011: Electricity Generating Capacity- Reference Case (xls, 130.1 KiB) Quality Metrics Level of Review Peer Reviewed Comment

399

AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

using aquifers for thermal energy storage. Problems outlinedmatical Modeling of Thermal Energy Storage in Aquifers,"ings of Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage Workshop, Lawrence

Tsang, C.-F.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

400

GAS STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Gas storage is a critical element in the natural gas industry. Producers, transmission and distribution companies, marketers, and end users all benefit directly from the load balancing function of storage. The unbundling process has fundamentally changed the way storage is used and valued. As an unbundled service, the value of storage is being recovered at rates that reflect its value. Moreover, the marketplace has differentiated between various types of storage services, and has increasingly rewarded flexibility, safety, and reliability. The size of the natural gas market has increased and is projected to continue to increase towards 30 trillion cubic feet (TCF) over the next 10 to 15 years. Much of this increase is projected to come from electric generation, particularly peaking units. Gas storage, particularly the flexible services that are most suited to electric loads, is critical in meeting the needs of these new markets. In order to address the gas storage needs of the natural gas industry, an industry-driven consortium was created--the Gas Storage Technology Consortium (GSTC). The objective of the GSTC is to provide a means to accomplish industry-driven research and development designed to enhance operational flexibility and deliverability of the Nation's gas storage system, and provide a cost effective, safe, and reliable supply of natural gas to meet domestic demand. To accomplish this objective, the project is divided into three phases that are managed and directed by the GSTC Coordinator. Base funding for the consortium is provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In addition, funding is anticipated from the Gas Technology Institute (GTI). The first phase, Phase 1A, was initiated on September 30, 2003, and was completed on March 31, 2004. Phase 1A of the project included the creation of the GSTC structure, development and refinement of a technical approach (work plan) for deliverability enhancement and reservoir management. This report deals with Phase 1B and encompasses the period April 1, 2004, through June 30, 2004. During this 3-month period, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was made. A total of 17 proposals were submitted to the GSTC. A proposal selection meeting was held June 9-10, 2004 in Morgantown, West Virginia. Of the 17 proposals, 6 were selected for funding.

Robert W. Watson

2004-07-15T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

FAFCO Ice Storage test report  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Ice Storage Test Facility (ISTF) is designed to test commercial ice storage systems. FAFCO provided a storage tank equipped with coils designed for use with a secondary fluid system. The FAFCO ice storage system was tested over a wide range of operating conditions. Measured system performance during charging showed the ability to freeze the tank fully, storing from 150 to 200 ton-h. However, the charging rate showed significant variations during the latter portion of the charge cycle. During discharge cycles, the storage tank outlet temperature was strongly affected by the discharge rate and tank state of charge. The discharge capacity was dependent upon both the selected discharge rate and maximum allowable tank outlet temperature. Based on these tests, storage tank selection must depend on both charge and discharge conditions. This report describes FAFCO system performance fully under both charging and discharging conditions. While the test results reported here are accurate for the prototype 1990 FAFCO Model 200, currently available FAFCO models incorporate significant design enhancements beyond the Model 200. At least one major modification was instituted as a direct result of the ISTF tests. Such design improvements were one of EPRI`s primary goals in founding the ISTF.

Stovall, T.K.

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

402

Seneca Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) Project  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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 NYSEGs service territory in the Town of Reading, New York, at the southern end of Seneca Lake, in New York States 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. NYSEGs 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 installe

None

2012-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

403

Summary of On-Board Storage Models and Analyses  

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

On-Board Storage On-Board Storage Models and Analyses R.K. Ahluwalia, T. Q. Hua and J-K Peng Hydrogen Delivery Analysis Meeting FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership Delivery, Storage and Hydrogen Pathways Tech Teams May 8-9, 2007 Columbia, MD 2 Objective: To determine the performance of the on-board system relative to the storage targets (capacity, efficiency, etc) 1. On-Board System Configuration 2. Dehydrogenation Reactor Dehydrogenation kinetics Trickle bed hydrodynamics Dehydrogenation reactor model Reactor performance with pelletized and supported catalysts 3. System Performance Storage efficiency Storage capacity On-Board Hydrogen Storage System with a Liquid Carrier 3 Fuel Cell System with H 2 Stored in a Liquid Carrier Enthalpy Wheel Spent H 2 Fuel cell Stack Stack Coolant

404

EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary Name: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building Agency/Company /Organization: United States Environmental Protection Agency Sector: Energy, Land Topics: GHG inventory, Background analysis Resource Type: Training materials, Lessons learned/best practices References: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building[1] Logo: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building "Developing greenhouse gas inventories is an important first step to managing emissions. U.S. EPA's approach for building capacity to develop GHG inventories is based on the following lessons learned from working alongside developing country experts: Technical expertise for GHG inventories already exists in developing countries.

405

pumped storage | OpenEI  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

pumped storage pumped storage Dataset Summary Description These two datasets include energy statistics for the European Union (EU). The statistics are available from the European Commission. The data includes detailed information about: production, net imports, gross inland consumption, and electricity generation for the EU as a whole, as well as the individual member countries, for the period between 1990 and 2007. Source European Commission Date Released Unknown Date Updated Unknown Keywords annual energy consumption biomass coal crude oil Electricity Generation EU gas geothermal Hydro pumped storage PV renewable energy generating capacity wind Data application/vnd.ms-excel icon EU Energy Figures 2010 (Excel file, multiple tabs) (xls, 2 MiB) application/vnd.ms-excel icon EU Electricity Generation from Renewables (xls, 190.5 KiB)

406

Transportation Plan Ad Hoc Working Group | Department of Energy  

Office of Environmental Management (EM)

Transportation Plan Ad Hoc Working Group Transportation Plan Ad Hoc Working Group Transportation Plan Ad Hoc Working Group More Documents & Publications Nuclear Fuel Storage and...

407

Energy Storage  

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

Daniel R. Borneo, PE Daniel R. Borneo, PE Sandia National Laboratories September 27, 2007 San Francisco, CA PEER REVIEW 2007 DOE(SNL)/CEC Energy Storage Program FYO7 Projects Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin Company, for the United States Department of Energy under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. 2 Presentation Outline * DOE(SNL)/CEC Collaboration - Background of DOE(SNL)/CEC Collaboration - FY07 Project Review * Zinc Bromine Battery (ZBB) Demonstration * Palmdale Super capacitor Demonstration * Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Regional Transit (RT) Super capacitor demonstration * Beacon Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) 3 Background of DOE(SNL)/CEC Collaboration * Memorandum of Understanding Between CEC and DOE (SNL). - In Place since 2004

408

Energy Storage  

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

Development Concept Development Concept Nitrogen-Air Battery F.M. Delnick, D. Ingersoll, K.Waldrip Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM presented to U.S. DOE Energy Storage Systems Research Program Washington, DC November 2-4, 2010 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Funded by the Energy Storage Systems Program of the U.S. Department Of Energy through Sandia National Laboratories Full Air Breathing Battery Concept * Concept is to use O 2 and N 2 as the electrodes in a battery * Novel because N 2 is considered inert * Our group routinely reacts N 2 electrochemically

409

WINDExchange: Wind Potential Capacity  

Wind Powering America (EERE)

area with a gross capacity factor1 of 35% and higher, which may be suitable for wind energy development. AWS Truepower LLC produced the wind resource data with a spatial...

410

Panama Canal capacity analysis  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Predicting the transit capacities of the various Panama Canal alternatives required analyzing data on present Canal operations, adapting and extending an existing computer simulation model, performing simulation runs for each of the alternatives, and using the simulation model outputs to develop capacity estimates. These activities are summarized in this paper. A more complete account may be found in the project final report (TAMS 1993). Some of the material in this paper also appeared in a previously published paper (Rosselli, Bronzini, and Weekly 1994).

Bronzini, M.S. [Oak Ridge National Lab., Knoxville, TN (United States). Center for Transportation Analysis

1995-04-27T23:59:59.000Z

411

Appendix E: Underground Storage Annual Site Environmental Report  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Appendix E: Underground Storage Tank Data #12;Annual Site Environmental Report Appendix E identification service Contents Status ( ) date to Corrective action Tank Out-of- assessment number date regulatory Installation Capacity Preliminary date (gallons) investigation Environmental agency Petroleum USTs

Pennycook, Steve

412

HYDROGEN STORAGE IN CARBON NANOTUBES JOHN E. FISCHER  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

HYDROGEN STORAGE IN CARBON NANOTUBES JOHN E. FISCHER UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA * SOME BASIC NOTIONS * BINDING SITES AND ENERGIES * PROCESSING TO ENHANCE CAPACITY: EX: ELECTROCHEMICAL Li INSERTION of Li+. AND: van der Waals interaction NANOTUBES CAPILLARITY: metals

413

Storage of hydrogen in floating catalytic carbon nanotubes after graphitizing  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Hydrogen storage under moderate pressure (?10 MPa) and ... catalyst method is investigated. The capacity of hydrogen adsorption is evaluated based on both the ... diameter and morphology. Indirect evidence indica...

Hongwei Zhu; Xuesong Li; Lijie CI; Cailu Xu

2002-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

414

Reversible hydrogen storage materials  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

In accordance with the present disclosure, a process for synthesis of a complex hydride material for hydrogen storage is provided. The process includes mixing a borohydride with at least one additive agent and at least one catalyst and heating the mixture at a temperature of less than about 600.degree. C. and a pressure of H.sub.2 gas to form a complex hydride material. The complex hydride material comprises MAl.sub.xB.sub.yH.sub.z, wherein M is an alkali metal or group IIA metal, Al is the element aluminum, x is any number from 0 to 1, B is the element boron, y is a number from 0 to 13, and z is a number from 4 to 57 with the additive agent and catalyst still being present. The complex hydride material is capable of cyclic dehydrogenation and rehydrogenation and has a hydrogen capacity of at least about 4 weight percent.

Ritter, James A. (Lexington, SC); Wang, Tao (Columbia, SC); Ebner, Armin D. (Lexington, SC); Holland, Charles E. (Cayce, SC)

2012-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

415

The Silver Bullet: Storage!  

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

West Philly High X-prize PHEV The Silver Bullet... Storage! Terry Boston President & CEO PJM Interconnection July 12, 2011 PJM©2011 2 United States PJM Eastern Interconnection PJM as Part of the Eastern Interconnection KEY STATISTICS PJM member companies 700+ millions of people served 58 peak load in megawatts 158,448 MWs of generating capacity 180,400 miles of transmission lines 61,200 GWh of annual energy 794,335 generation sources 1,365 square miles of territory 211,000 area served 13 states + DC Internal/external tie lines 142 * 24% of generation in Eastern Interconnection * 27% of load in Eastern Interconnection * 19% of transmission assets in Eastern Interconnection 20% of U.S. GDP produced in PJM www.pjm.com As of 6/1/2011 PJM©2011 3 43,623 0 5,000 10,000 15,000

416

Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 2003 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 301,502 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 299,474 2004 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 293,574 288,197 288,197 288,197 2005 288,197 288,197 288,197 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 2006 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,259 289,747 289,747 289,747 2007 289,747 289,747 289,747 289,747 289,747 289,747 289,747 289,747 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 2008 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,383 288,926 288,926

417

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Alaska Lower 48 States 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 AGA Producing Region AGA Eastern Consuming Region AGA Western Consuming Region Period: Monthly Annual Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Show Data By: Data Series Area May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 View

418

Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 591,673 593,740 593,740 593,740 2007 593,740 593,740 593,740 593,740 593,740 593,740 593,740 593,740 599,165 599,869 599,869 599,869 2008 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 599,869 606,369 605,361 605,361

419

Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 2007 24,034 24,034 24,034 24,034 24,034 24,034 24,034 24,034 26,703 26,703 26,703 29,165 2008 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 22,310 29,415 29,415

420

Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 9,692 9,692 9,692 2008 9,692 9,692 9,692 6,260 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 2009 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,677 9,500

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


421

Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 2007 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 2008 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000

422

Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2007 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 2008 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480 129,480

423

New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 175,496 189,267 189,267 2003 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 189,267 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 2004 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 190,157 203,265 203,265 203,265 2005 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 203,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 2006 204,265 204,265 204,265 204,265 212,165 212,165 212,165 212,165 212,165 212,755 212,755 212,755 2007 212,755 212,755 212,755 212,755 212,755 212,755 212,755 212,755 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 2008 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 213,225 229,013 229,013

424

Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 37,720 38,969 38,969 38,969 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 2004 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 39,628 40,247 40,247 40,247 2005 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 2006 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 40,247 42,191 42,191 42,191 2007 42,191 42,191 42,191 42,191 42,191 42,191 42,191 42,191 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 2008 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 43,316 39,341 39,341

425

California Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 388,480 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 475,720 474,920 474,920 2003 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 474,920 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 2004 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 478,995 486,095 446,095 446,095 454,095 454,095 454,095 2005 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 2006 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 474,095 481,095 481,095 481,095 484,726 484,726 484,726 2007 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,726 484,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 2008 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 476,711 477,911 488,911 488,911

426

Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 2007 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 2008 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 39,469 34,850 34,850

427

Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 2003 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 100,227 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2004 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2005 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 2006 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 101,055 98,068 98,068 98,068 2007 93,474 93,474 93,474 93,474 93,474 93,474 93,474 93,474 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 2008 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068 98,068

428

Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2007 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 2008 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201 374,201

429

Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 2003 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 5,280 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 2004 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 8,520 11,015 11,015 11,015 2005 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2006 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 2007 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 11,015 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 2008 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 2009 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 19,300 26,900

430

Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 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 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,404 572,477 572,477 572,477 2007 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 2008 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477 572,477

431

West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet)  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2002 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 733,126 496,796 496,796 496,796 496,796 497,996 497,996 2003 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 497,996 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,836 509,758 494,458 494,458 2004 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 492,025 510,827 510,827 510,827 2005 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 2006 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 510,827 512,377 512,377 512,377 2007 512,377 512,377 541,977 541,977 541,977 541,977 541,977 541,977 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 2008 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 543,016 536,702 536,702

432

Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...  

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

Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1980's 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...

433

Flood control reservoir operations for conditions of limited storage capacity  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

: ______________________________ ______________________________ Ralph Wurbs Anthony Cahill (Chair of Committee) (Member) ______________________________ ______________________________ Francisco Olivera Patricia Haan... to perform the computations to develop risk-based EOS. The computational algorithm in REOS is divided in three major components: (1) synthetic streamflow generation, (2) mass balance computations, and (3) frequency analysis. The methodology computes...

Rivera Ramirez, Hector David

2005-02-17T23:59:59.000Z

434

U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity  

Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

Lower 48 States Alabama Arkansas California Colorado Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska New Mexico...

435

Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic...  

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

Year-8 Year-9 1980's 36,147 31,447 1990's 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 31,277 38,347 31,871 31,871 24,190 24,190 2000's 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000...

436

U.S. Total Shell 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: 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 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 View History Total 765,593 758,619 710,413 -- -- -- 1982-2013 Crude Oil 180,830 179,471 180,846 -- -- -- 1985-2013 Liquefied Petroleum Gases 34,772 32,498 33,842 -- -- -- 1982-2013 Propane/Propylene 10,294 8,711 8,513 -- -- -- 1982-2013 Normal Butane/Butylene 24,478 23,787 25,329 -- -- -- 1982-2013 Other Liquids 95,540 96,973 96,157 -- -- -- 1982-2013 Oxygenates 1,336 1,028 1,005 -- -- -- 1994-2013

437

Carbon Sequestration Kinetic and Storage Capacity of Ultramafic Mining Waste  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Mineral carbonation of ultramafic rocks provides an environmentally safe and permanent solution for CO2 sequestration. In order to assess the carbonation potential of ultramafic waste material produced by industrial processing, we designed a laboratory-...

Julie Pronost; Georges Beaudoin; Joniel Tremblay; Faal Larachi; Jose Duchesne; Rjean Hbert; Marc Constantin

2011-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

438

Estimating the Capacity Value of Concentrating Solar Power Plants: A Case Study of the Southwestern United States  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

We estimate the capacity value of concentrating solar power (CSP) plants without thermal energy storage in the southwestern U.S. Our results show that CSP plants have capacity values that are between 45% and 95% of maximum capacity, depending on their location and configuration. We also examine the sensitivity of the capacity value of CSP to a number of factors and show that capacity factor-based methods can provide reasonable approximations of reliability-based estimates.

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

2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

439

Hydrogen & Fuel Cells - Hydrogen - Hydrogen Storage  

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

Hydrogen Storage Systems Modeling and Analysis Hydrogen Storage Systems Modeling and Analysis Several different approaches are being pursued to develop on-board hydrogen storage systems for light-duty vehicle applications. The different approaches have different characteristics, such as: the thermal energy and temperature of charge and discharge kinetics of the physical and chemical process steps involved requirements for the materials and energy interfaces between the storage system and the fuel supply system on one hand, and the fuel user on the other Other storage system design and operating parameters influence the projected system costs as well. Argonne researchers are developing thermodynamic, kinetic, and engineering models of the various hydrogen storage systems to understand the characteristics of storage systems based on these approaches and to evaluate their potential to meet the DOE targets for on-board applications. The DOE targets for 2015 include a system gravimetric capacity of 1.8 kWh/kg (5.5 wt%) and a system volumetric capacity of 1.3 kWh/L (40 g/L). We then use these models to identify significant component and performance issues, and evaluate alternative system configurations and design and operating parameters.

440

Continuous Commissioning(SM) of a Thermal Storage System  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

shows that commissioning of the thermal storage system is not limited to the storage tank itself, but is closely related to successful commissioning of building air handling units (AHUs) and chilled water loops. The full benefit of a thermal storage... than a dozen major buildings. The storage system was installed after a campus-wide energy efficiency retrofit. It is designed to store 42?F chilled water with a return water temperature of 56?F. Total storage capacity is 7000 ton-hours. The tank...

Turner, W. D.; Liu, M.

2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


441

Gas storage materials, including hydrogen storage materials  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A material for the storage and release of gases comprises a plurality of hollow elements, each hollow element comprising a porous wall enclosing an interior cavity, the interior cavity including structures of a solid-state storage material. In particular examples, the storage material is a hydrogen storage material, such as a solid state hydride. An improved method for forming such materials includes the solution diffusion of a storage material solution through a porous wall of a hollow element into an interior cavity.

Mohtadi, Rana F; Wicks, George G; Heung, Leung K; Nakamura, Kenji

2014-11-25T23:59:59.000Z

442

Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability  

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

Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing 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 proposed five-year plan for integrating basic and applied research on energy storage technology applications. This report recommends policies that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should consider as it develops and implements an energy storage technologies program, as authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Bottling Electricity: Storage as a Strategic Tool for Managing Variability

443

Refinery Capacity Report  

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

Refinery Capacity Report Refinery Capacity Report June 2013 With Data as of January 1, 2013 Independent Statistics & Analysis www.eia.gov U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA's data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies. Table 1. Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State as of January 1, 2013

444

Dual capacity reciprocating compressor  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A multi-cylinder compressor particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor rotation is provided with an eccentric cam on a crank pin under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180[degree] apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons whose connecting rods ride on a crank pin without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation. 6 figs.

Wolfe, R.W.

1984-10-30T23:59:59.000Z

445

Dual capacity reciprocating compressor  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

A multi-cylinder compressor 10 particularly useful in connection with northern climate heat pumps and in which different capacities are available in accordance with reversing motor 16 rotation is provided with an eccentric cam 38 on a crank pin 34 under a fraction of the connecting rods, and arranged for rotation upon the crank pin between opposite positions 180.degree. apart so that with cam rotation on the crank pin such that the crank throw is at its normal maximum value all pistons pump at full capacity, and with rotation of the crank shaft in the opposite direction the cam moves to a circumferential position on the crank pin such that the overall crank throw is zero. Pistons 24 whose connecting rods 30 ride on a crank pin 36 without a cam pump their normal rate with either crank rotational direction. Thus a small clearance volume is provided for any piston that moves when in either capacity mode of operation.

Wolfe, Robert W. (Wilkinsburg, PA)

1984-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

446

Refinery Capacity Report  

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

Refinery Capacity Report Refinery Capacity Report With Data as of January 1, 2013 | Release Date: June 21, 2013 | Next Release Date: June 20, 2014 Previous Issues Year: 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1997 1995 1994 Go 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.

447

Energy Harvesting Broadcast Channel with Inefficient Energy Storage  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Energy Harvesting Broadcast Channel with Inefficient Energy Storage Kaya Tutuncuoglu Aylin Yener with an energy harvesting transmitter equipped with an inefficient energy storage device. For this setting by the energy harvesting process. The convexity of the capacity region for the energy harvesting broadcast

Yener, Aylin

448

NREL Advances Spillover Materials for Hydrogen Storage (Fact Sheet)  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This fact sheet describes NREL's accomplishments in advancing spillover materials for hydrogen storage and improving the reproducible synthesis, long-term durability, and material costs of hydrogen storage materials. Work was performed by NREL's Chemical and Materials Science Center.

Not Available

2010-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

449

Hydrogen Storage Systems Analysis Meeting: Summary Report, March 29, 2005  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

This report highlights DOEs systems analysis work related to hydrogen storage materials and process development, with a focus on models of on-board and off-board hydrogen storage systems.

450

On-Board Storage Systems Analysis  

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

On-Board Storage Systems Analysis On-Board Storage Systems Analysis R. K. Ahluwalia, J-K Peng and T. Q. Hua DOE and FreedomCAR & Fuel Partnership Hydrogen Delivery and On-Board Storage Analysis Workshop Washington, DC 25 January 2006 Work sponsored by U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies 2 ANL ANL ' ' s Role in H s Role in H 2 2 Storage Systems Development Storage Systems Development Working with DOE contractors and Centers of Excellence researchers: Model and analyze various developmental hydrogen storage systems Analyze hybrid systems that combine features of more than one concept Develop models that can be used to "reverse-engineer" particular technologies Identify interface issues and opportunities, and data

451

Benefit/cost framework for evaluating modular energy storage : a study for the DOE energy storage systems program.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The work documented in this report represents another step in the ongoing investigation of innovative and potentially attractive value propositions for electricity storage by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Energy Storage Systems (ESS) Program. This study uses updated cost and performance information for modular energy storage (MES) developed for this study to evaluate four prospective value propositions for MES. The four potentially attractive value propositions are defined by a combination of well-known benefits that are associated with electricity generation, delivery, and use. The value propositions evaluated are: (1) transportable MES for electric utility transmission and distribution (T&D) equipment upgrade deferral and for improving local power quality, each in alternating years, (2) improving local power quality only, in all years, (3) electric utility T&D deferral in year 1, followed by electricity price arbitrage in following years; plus a generation capacity credit in all years, and (4) electric utility end-user cost management during times when peak and critical peak pricing prevail.

Eyer, James M. (Distributed Utility Associates, Livermore, CA); Schoenung, Susan M. (Longitude 122 West, Inc., Menlo Park, CA)

2008-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

452

Capacity of steganographic channels  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

An information-theoretic approach is used to determine the amount of information that may be safely transferred over a steganographic channel with a passive adversary. A steganographic channel, or stego-channel is a pair consisting of the channel transition ... Keywords: information spectrum, information theory, steganalysis, steganographic capacity, steganography, stego-channel

Jeremiah J. Harmsen; William A. Pearlman

2005-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

453

Storage Experiments with Texas Citrus Fruit  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 446 k -. APRIL, 1932 a' -, ' 'STORAGE EXPERIMENTS WITH TEXAS CITRUS FRUIT AGRICULTURAL... fruit in cold storage. ject of this work was to determine the principal causes of loss of ruit in cold storage under ValIey conditions, and to study the effect ain factors on the keeping quality of fruit. evident that pitting, scald, and stem-end rot...

Friend, W. H. (William Heartsill); Bach, Walter J. (Walter Johnson)

1932-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

454

WORK PROGRAMME 2012 RESEARCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF SMES  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

WORK PROGRAMME 2012 CAPACITIES PART 2 RESEARCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF SMES (European Commission C (2011)5023 of 19 July) #12;FP7 Capacities Work Programme: Research for the Benefit of SMEs Page 2 of 30 Capacities Work Programme: Research for the Benefit of SMEs The available budget for the 2012 work programme

Rimon, Elon

455

How Solar Works | Department of Energy  

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

Carbon Capture Works 34 likes Carbon capture, utilization and storage is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either...

456

Flywheel energy storage using superconducting magnetic bearings  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Storage of electrical energy on a utility scale is currently not practicable for most utilities, preventing the full utilization of existing base-load capacity. A potential solution to this problem is Flywheel Energy Storage (FES), made possible by technological developments in high-temperature superconducting materials. Commonwealth Research Corporation (CRC), the research arm of Commonwealth Edison Company, and Argonne National Laboratory are implementing a demonstration project to advance the state of the art in high temperature superconductor (HTS) bearing performance and the overall demonstration of efficient Flywheel Energy Storage. Currently, electricity must be used simultaneously with its generation as electrical energy storage is not available for most utilities. Existing storage methods either are dependent on special geography, are too expensive, or are too inefficient. Without energy storage, electric utilities, such as Commonwealth Edison Company, are forced to cycle base load power plants to meet load swings in hourly customer demand. Demand can change by as much as 30% over a 12-hour period and result in significant costs to utilities as power plant output is adjusted to meet these changes. HTS FES systems can reduce demand-based power plant cycling by storing unused nighttime capacity until it is needed to meet daytime demand.

Abboud, R.G. [Commonwealth Research Corp., Chicago, IL (United States); Uherka, K.; Hull, J.; Mulcahy, T. [Argonne National Lab., IL (United States)

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

457

Capacity Value of Solar Power  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Evaluating the capacity value of renewable energy sources can pose significant challenges due to their variable and uncertain nature. In this paper the capacity value of solar power is investigated. Solar capacity value metrics and their associated calculation methodologies are reviewed and several solar capacity studies are summarized. The differences between wind and solar power are examined, the economic importance of solar capacity value is discussed and other assessments and recommendations are presented.

Duignan, Roisin; Dent, Chris; Mills, Andrew; Samaan, Nader A.; Milligan, Michael; Keane, Andrew; O'Malley, Mark

2012-11-10T23:59:59.000Z

458

AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

and Zakhidov, 1971. "Storage of Solar Energy in a Sandy-Aquifer Storage of Hot Water from Solar Energy Collectors,"with solar energy systems, aquifer energy storage provides a

Tsang, C.-F.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

459

AQUIFER THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Zakhidov, 1971. "Storage of Solar Energy in a Sandy-Gravelwith solar energy systems, aquifer energy storage provides aAquifer Storage of Hot Water from Solar Energy Collectors,"

Tsang, C.-F.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

460

Seasonal thermal energy storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This report describes the following: (1) the US Department of Energy Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage Program, (2) aquifer thermal energy storage technology, (3) alternative STES technology, (4) foreign studies in seasonal thermal energy storage, and (5) economic assessment.

Allen, R.D.; Kannberg, L.D.; Raymond, J.R.

1984-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


461

Solar Thermal Energy Storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Various types of thermal energy storage systems are introduced and their importance and desired characteristics are outlined. Sensible heat storage, which is one of the most commonly used storage systems in pract...

E. Payko; S. Kaka

1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

462

Energy Storage Safety Strategic Plan Now Available  

Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) has worked with industry and other stakeholders to develop the Energy Storage Safety Strategic Plan, a roadmap for grid energy storage safety that highlights safety validation techniques, incident preparedness, safety codes, standards, and regulations. The Plan also makes recommendations for near- and long-term actions.

463

Dynamic Positioning System as Dynamic Energy Storage on Diesel-Electric Ships  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 Dynamic Positioning System as Dynamic Energy Storage on Diesel-Electric Ships Tor A. Johansen in order to implement energy storage in the kinetic and potential energy of the ship motion using the DP in order to relate the dynamic energy storage capacity to the maximum allowed ship position deviation

Johansen, Tor Arne

464

Opening of a Post Doctoral Position Complex hydrides for hydrogen storage applications  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Opening of a Post Doctoral Position Complex hydrides for hydrogen storage applications on complex hydrides for hydrogen storage applications in connection with the « Fast, reliable and cost effective boron hydride based high capacity solid state hydrogen storage materials» project co

465

SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC ENERGY STORAGE  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

hydro, compressed air, and battery energy storage are allenergy storage sys tem s suc h as pumped hydro and compressed air.

Hassenzahl, W.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

466

Lecture Ch. 2a Energy and heat capacity  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 Lecture Ch. 2a · Energy and heat capacity ­ State functions or exact differentials ­ Internal energy vs. enthalpy · 1st Law of thermodynamics ­ Relate heat, work, energy · Heat/work cycles (and path integrals) ­ Energy vs. heat/work? ­ Adiabatic processes ­ Reversible P-V work ! define entropy Curry

Russell, Lynn

467

Lecture Ch. 2a Energy and heat capacity  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

1 Lecture Ch. 2a · Energy and heat capacity ­ State functions or exact differentials ­ Internal energy vs. enthalpy · 1st Law of thermodynamics ­ Relate heat, work, energy · Heat/work cycles (and path integrals) ­ Energy vs. heat/work? ­ Adiabatic processes ­ Reversible "P-V" work define entropy Curry

Russell, Lynn

468

ICDF Complex Remedial Action Work Plan  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This Remedial Action Work Plan provides the framework for operation of the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility Complex (ICDF). This facility includes (a) an engineered landfill that meets the substantial requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C, Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl landfill requirements; (b) centralized receiving, inspections, administration, storage/staging, and treatment facilities necessary for CERCLA investigation-derived, remedial, and removal waste at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) prior to final disposition in the disposal facility or shipment off-Site; and (c) an evaporation pond that has been designated as a corrective action management unit. The ICDF Complex, including a buffer zone, will cover approximately 40 acres, with a landfill disposal capacity of approximately 510,000 yd3. The ICDF Complex is designed and authorized to accept INL CERCLA-generated wastes, and includes the necessary subsystems and support facilities to provide a complete waste management system. This Remedial Action Work Plan presents the operational approach and requirements for the various components that are part of the ICDF Complex. Summaries of the remedial action work elements are presented herein, with supporting information and documents provided as appendixes to this work plan that contain specific detail about the operation of the ICDF Complex. This document presents the planned operational process based upon an evaluation of the remedial action requirements set forth in the Operable Unit 3-13 Final Record of Decision.

W. M. Heileson

2006-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

469

Refinery Capacity Report  

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

1 1 Idle Operating Total Stream Day Barrels per Idle Operating Total Calendar Day Barrels per Atmospheric Crude Oil Distillation Capacity Idle Operating Total Operable Refineries Number of State and PAD District a b b 14 10 4 1,617,500 1,205,000 412,500 1,708,500 1,273,500 435,000 ............................................................................................................................................... PAD District I 1 0 1 182,200 0 182,200 190,200 0 190,200 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Delaware......................................

470

Hydrogen storage in carbon nitride nanobells X. D. Bai, Dingyong Zhong, G. Y. Zhang, X. C. Ma, Shuang Liu, and E. G. Wanga)  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

Hydrogen storage in carbon nitride nanobells X. D. Bai, Dingyong Zhong, G. Y. Zhang, X. C. Ma as hydrogen adsorbent. A hydrogen storage capacity up to 8 wt % was achieved reproducibly under ambient pressure and at temperature of 300 °C. The high hydrogen storage capacity under the moderate conditions

Zhang, Guangyu

471

GIZ-Best Practices in Capacity Building Approaches | Open Energy  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

GIZ-Best Practices in Capacity Building Approaches GIZ-Best Practices in Capacity Building Approaches Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary LAUNCH TOOL Name: GIZ-Best Practices in Capacity Building Approaches: Recommendations for the Design of a Long -Term Capacity Building Strategy for the Wind and Solar Sectors by the MEF Working Group Agency/Company /Organization: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Sector: Energy, Climate Focus Area: Solar, Wind Resource Type: Publications, Training materials, Lessons learned/best practices Website: prod-http-80-800498448.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/w/images/8/80/Best_ Cost: Free GIZ-Best Practices in Capacity Building Approaches: Recommendations for the Design of a Long -Term Capacity Building Strategy for the Wind and Solar Sectors by the MEF Working Group Screenshot

472

Magnetic Energy Storage System: Superconducting Magnet Energy Storage System with Direct Power Electronics Interface  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

GRIDS Project: ABB is developing an advanced energy storage system using superconducting magnets that could store significantly more energy than todays best magnetic storage technologies at a fraction of the cost. This system could provide enough storage capacity to encourage more widespread use of renewable power like wind and solar. Superconducting magnetic energy storage systems have been in development for almost 3 decades; however, past devices were designed to supply power only for short durationsgenerally less than a few minutes. ABBs system would deliver the stored energy at very low cost, making it ideal for eventual use in the electricity grid as a costeffective competitor to batteries and other energy storage technologies. The device could potentially cost even less, on a per kilowatt basis, than traditional lead-acid batteries.

None

2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

473

EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building | Open Energy Information  

Open Energy Info (EERE)

EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building EPA-GHG Inventory Capacity Building (Redirected from US EPA GHG Inventory Capacity Building) Jump to: navigation, search Tool Summary Name: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building Agency/Company /Organization: United States Environmental Protection Agency Sector: Energy, Land Topics: GHG inventory, Background analysis Resource Type: Training materials, Lessons learned/best practices References: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building[1] Logo: US EPA GHG inventory Capacity Building "Developing greenhouse gas inventories is an important first step to managing emissions. U.S. EPA's approach for building capacity to develop GHG inventories is based on the following lessons learned from working alongside developing country experts: Technical expertise for GHG inventories already exists in developing

474

Evaluation Model for Safety Capacity of Chemical Industrial Park Based on Acceptable Regional Risk  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract The paper defines the Safety Capacity of Chemical Industrial Park (SCCIP) from the perspective of acceptable regional risk. For the purpose to explore the evaluation model for the SCCIP, a method based on quantitative risk assessment was adopted for evaluating transport risk and to confirm reasonable safety transport capacity for chemical industrial park, and then by combining with the safety storage capacity,a SCCIP evaluation model was put forward. The SCCIP was decided by the smaller one between the largest safety storage capacity and the maximum safety transport capacity, or else, the regional risk of the park will exceed the acceptable level. The developed method was applied to a chemical industrial park in Guangdong province to obtain the maximum safety transport capacity and the SCCIP. The results can be realized the regional risk control to the Park effectively.

Guohua Chen; Shukun Wang; Xiaoqun Tan

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

475

Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage (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 Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production Natural Gas Processed NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Underground Storage Injections Underground Storage Withdrawals Underground Storage Net Withdrawals LNG Storage Additions LNG Storage Withdrawals LNG Storage Net Withdrawals Total Consumption Lease and Plant Fuel Consumption Lease Fuel Plant Fuel Pipeline & Distribution Use Delivered to Consumers Residential Commercial Industrial Vehicle Fuel Electric Power Period: Monthly Annual

476

OEM Perspective on Cryogenic H2 Storage  

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

compressed compressed Hydrogen Storage. Tobias Brunner February 15 th , 2011, Washington D.C. BMW Hydrogen. Hydrogen Storage Workshop. BMW EfficientDynamics Less emissions. More driving pleasure. BMW Hydrogen Washington DC 02/15/2011 Page 2 BMW Hydrogen Technology Strategy. Advancement of key components. Source: BMW Advanced key components Next vehicle & infrastructure Hydrogen 7 small series LH 2 StorageCapacity   Safety   Boil-off loss   Pressure supply   Complexity   Infrastructure  Technology leap storage & drive train Efficient long-range mobility:  Zero Emission  Focus on vehicles with high energy demand.  Range > 500 km (6-8 kg H 2 )  Fast refueling (< 4 min / 6 kg)  Optimized safety oriented vehicle package & component

477

Carbon Capture and Storage  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the long-term isolation of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through physical, chemical, biological, or engineered processes. This includes a range of approaches including soil carbon sequestration (e.g., through no-till farming), terrestrial biomass sequestration (e.g., through planting forests), direct ocean injection of CO{sub 2} either onto the deep seafloor or into the intermediate depths, injection into deep geological formations, or even direct conversion of CO{sub 2} to carbonate minerals. Some of these approaches are considered geoengineering (see the appropriate chapter herein). All are considered in the 2005 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2005). Of the range of options available, geological carbon sequestration (GCS) appears to be the most actionable and economic option for major greenhouse gas reduction in the next 10-30 years. The basis for this interest includes several factors: (1) The potential capacities are large based on initial estimates. Formal estimates for global storage potential vary substantially, but are likely to be between 800 and 3300 Gt of C (3000 and 10,000 Gt of CO{sub 2}), with significant capacity located reasonably near large point sources of the CO{sub 2}. (2) GCS can begin operations with demonstrated technology. Carbon dioxide has been separated from large point sources for nearly 100 years, and has been injected underground for over 30 years (below). (3) Testing of GCS at intermediate scale is feasible. In the US, Canada, and many industrial countries, large CO{sub 2} sources like power plants and refineries lie near prospective storage sites. These plants could be retrofit today and injection begun (while bearing in mind scientific uncertainties and unknowns). Indeed, some have, and three projects described here provide a great deal of information on the operational needs and field implementation of CCS. Part of this interest comes from several key documents written in the last three years that provide information on the status, economics, technology, and impact of CCS. These are cited throughout this text and identified as key references at the end of this manuscript. When coupled with improvements in energy efficiency, renewable energy supplies, and nuclear power, CCS help dramatically reduce current and future emissions (US CCTP 2005, MIT 2007). If CCS is not available as a carbon management option, it will be much more difficult and much more expensive to stabilize atmospheric CO{sub 2} emissions. Recent estimates put the cost of carbon abatement without CCS to be 30-80% higher that if CCS were to be available (Edmonds et al. 2004).

Friedmann, S

2007-10-03T23:59:59.000Z

478

Legal Implications of CO2 Ocean Storage  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

, ocean currents may prevent stagnation or accumulatioLegal Implications of CO2 Ocean Storage Jason Heinrich Working Paper Laboratory for Energy #12;Introduction Ocean sequestration of CO2, a potentially significant technique to be used

479

NREL: Energy Storage - Isothermal Battery Calorimeters  

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

100 Maximum Constant Heat Generation (W) 50 150 4,000 Working with Industry to Fine-Tune Energy Storage Designs The IBCs' capabilities make it possible for battery developers to...

480

Hydrate Control for Gas Storage Operations  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The overall objective of this project was to identify low cost hydrate control options to help mitigate and solve hydrate problems that occur in moderate and high pressure natural gas storage field operations. The study includes data on a number of flow configurations, fluids and control options that are common in natural gas storage field flow lines. The final phase of this work brings together data and experience from the hydrate flow test facility and multiple field and operator sources. It includes a compilation of basic information on operating conditions as well as candidate field separation options. Lastly the work is integrated with the work with the initial work to provide a comprehensive view of gas storage field hydrate control for field operations and storage field personnel.

Jeffrey Savidge

2008-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "working storage capacity" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


481

1992 Annual Capacity Report. Revision 1  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (10 CFR Part 961) requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue an Annual Capacity Report (ACR) for planning purposes. This report is the fifth in the series published by DOE. In May 1993, DOE published the 1992 Acceptance Priority Ranking (APR) that established the order in which DOE will allocate projected acceptance capacity. As required by the Standard Contract, the acceptance priority ranking is based on the date the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) was permanently discharged, with the owners of the oldest SNF, on an industry-wide basis, given the highest priority. The 1992 ACR applies the projected waste acceptance rates in Table 2.1 to the 1992 APR, resulting in individual allocations for the owners and generators of the SNF. These allocations are listed in detail in the Appendix, and summarized in Table 3.1. The projected waste acceptance rates for SNF presented in Table 2.1 are nominal and assume a site for a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility will be obtained; the facility will initiate operations in 1998; and the statutory linkages between the MRS facility and the repository set forth in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA), will be modified. During the first ten years following projected commencement of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS) operation, the total quantity of SNF that could be accepted is projected to be 8,200 metric tons of uranium (MTU). This is consistent with the storage capacity licensing conditions imposed on an MRS facility by the NWPA. The annual acceptance rates provide an approximation of the system throughput and are subject to change as the program progresses.

Not Available

1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

482

Kuwait pressing toward preinvasion oil production capacity  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

Oil field reconstruction is shifting focus in Kuwait as the country races toward prewar production capacity of 2 million b/d. Oil flow last month reached 1.7 million b/d, thanks largely to a massive workover program that has accomplished about as much as it can. By midyear, most of the 19 rigs in Kuwait will be drilling rather than working over wells vandalized by retreating Iraqi troops in February 1991. Seventeen gathering centers are at work, with capacities totaling 2.4 million b/d, according to state-owned Kuwait Oil Co. (KOC). This article describes current work, the production infrastructure, facilities strategy, oil recovery, well repairs, a horizontal pilot project, the drilling program, the constant reminders of war, and heightened tensions.

Tippee, B.

1993-03-15T23:59:59.000Z

483

Advanced Underground Gas Storage Concepts Refrigerated-Mined Cavern Storage  

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

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE CONCEPTS REFRIGERATED-MINED CAVERN STORAGE FINAL REPORT DOE CONTRACT NUMBER DE-AC26-97FT34349 SUBMITTED BY: PB-KBB INC. 11757 KATY FREEWAY, SUITE 600 HOUSTON, TX 77079 SEPTEMBER 1998 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 information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily

484

Storage | Department of Energy  

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

Storage Storage Storage Energy storage isn’t just for AA batteries. Thanks to investments from the Energy Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), energy storage may soon play a bigger part in our electricity grid, making it possible to generate more renewable electricity. Learn more. Energy storage isn't just for AA batteries. Thanks to investments from the Energy Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), energy storage may soon play a bigger part in our electricity grid, making it possible to generate more renewable electricity. Learn more.

485

The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage Understanding CCS Representations, Governance studies. He works as a Research Associate at the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage research centre at the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage research centre at the University of Edinburgh. His research focuses

486

Thermal energy storage  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Various types of thermal stares for solar systems are surveyed which include: long-term water stores for solar systems; ground storage using soil as an interseasonal energy store; ground-water aquifers; pebble or rock bed storage; phase change storage; solar ponds; high temperature storage; and cold stores for solar air conditioning system. The use of mathematical models for analysis of the storage systems is considered

W.E.J. Neal

1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

487

CAPACITIES 2012 annexes 1 -3 WORK PROGRAMME 2012  

E-Print Network [OSTI]

------------------------- · Central African L · Saint Vincent UM ASIA (EECA) Republic and Grenadines · Armenia3 LM · Chad L · Suriname

De Cindio, Fiorella

488

Porous polymeric materials for hydrogen storage  

DOE Patents [OSTI]

Porous polymers, tribenzohexazatriphenylene, poly-9,9'-spirobifluorene, poly-tetraphenyl methane and their derivatives for storage of H.sub.2 prepared through a chemical synthesis method. The porous polymers have high specific surface area and narrow pore size distribution. Hydrogen uptake measurements conducted for these polymers determined a higher hydrogen storage capacity at the ambient temperature over that of the benchmark materials. The method of preparing such polymers, includes oxidatively activating solids by CO.sub.2/steam oxidation and supercritical water treatment.

Yu, Luping (Hoffman Estates, IL); Liu, Di-Jia (Naperville, IL); Yuan, Shengwen (Chicago, IL); Yang, Junbing (Westmont, IL)

2011-12-13T23:59:59.000Z

489

Dish Stirling Advanced Latent Storage Feasibility  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

Abstract Dish-Stirling systems have been demonstrated to provide high-efficiency solar-only electrical generation, holding the world record at 31.25%. This high efficiency results in a system with a high possibility of meeting the DOE SunShot goal of $0.06/kWh. Current dish-Stirling systems do not incorporate thermal storage. For the next generation of non-intermittent and cost-competitive solar power plants, we propose a thermal energy storage system that combines latent (phase-change) energy transport and latent energy storage in order to match the isothermal input requirements of Stirling engines while also maximizing the exergetic efficiency of the entire system. This paper reports on the technical advantages and challenges of dish Stirling with storage, to make a preliminary estimate as to the technical feasibility of such a system. The proposed system with storage incorporates high temperature latent transport and latent storage, providing an exergetic match to the isothermal input of the Stirling cycle. The transport from the receiver to the storage, and from storage to the engine, is accomplished with advanced sodium heat pipes. The storage is in a solid-liquid phase change material (PCM), likely a metallic eutectic to reduce exergy losses in thermal conduction. We model a dish Stirling system at a block level, using a combination of real data from several dish systems with and without heat pipe transport, and determine annual energy production and revenue streams based on Barstow California weather data and Southern California Edison Time of Day pricing. We optimize the system on solar multiple, capacity of storage, and several operational strategies. We find that a storage system using metallic eutectic phase change storage results in a feasible physical embodiment, with mass, volume, and complexity suitable for 25kWe dish Stirling systems. The results indicate a system with 6hours of storage and a solar multiple of 1.25 provides the optimum impact to LCOE and profit for the range of cases studied. A storage system applied to dish Stirling will leverage the current high performance systems, increasing the value to the utilities and transmission entities. A feasible embodiment has been proposed, which with sufficient development will re-establish dish Stirling as a leading energy option.

C.E. Andraka

2014-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

490

NV energy electricity storage valuation : a study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems program.  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

This study examines how grid-level electricity storage may benefit the operations of NV Energy, and assesses whether those benefits are likely to justify the cost of the storage system. To determine the impact of grid-level storage, an hourly production cost model of the Nevada Balancing Authority (%22BA%22) as projected for 2020 was created. Storage was found to add value primarily through the provision of regulating reserve. Certain storage resources were found likely to be cost-effective even without considering their capacity value, as long as their effectiveness in providing regulating reserve was taken into account. Giving fast resources credit for their ability to provide regulating reserve is reasonable, given the adoption of FERC Order 755 (%22Pay-for-performance%22). Using a traditional five-minute test to determine how much a resource can contribute to regulating reserve does not adequately value fast-ramping resources, as the regulating reserve these resources can provide is constrained by their installed capacity. While an approximation was made to consider the additional value provided by a fast-ramping resource, a more precise valuation requires an alternate regulating reserve methodology. Developing and modeling a new regulating reserve methodology for NV Energy was beyond the scope of this study, as was assessing the incremental value of distributed storage.

Ellison, James F.; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Samaan, Nader [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA; Jin, Chunlian [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA

2013-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

491

NREL: Energy Storage - Energy Storage Thermal Management  

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

Energy Storage Thermal Management Infrared image of rectangular battery cell. Infrared thermal image of a lithium-ion battery cell with poor terminal design. Graph of relative...

492

NREL: Energy Storage - Energy Storage Systems Evaluation  

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

Energy Storage Systems Evaluation Photo of man standing between two vehicles and plugging the vehicle on the right into a charging station. NREL system evaluation has confirmed...

493

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

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

Ellison, James; Bhatnagar, Dhruv; Black, Clifton [Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL; Jenkins, Kip [Southern Company Services, Inc., Birmingham, AL

2013-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

494

A partial differential equation system for modelling stochastic storage in physical systems with applications to wind power generation  

Science Journals Connector (OSTI)

......system for energy, whose purpose...the physical storage system as...flow. The tool of last resort...framework for the valuation of electricity storage. Working...supply with energy storage. First Report...2004) Valuation and optimal......

Sydney D. Howell; Peter W. Duck; Andrew Hazel; Paul V. Johnson; Helena Pinto; Goran Strbac; Nathan Proudlove; Mary Black

2011-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

495

Underground natural gas storage reservoir management  

SciTech Connect (OSTI)

The objective of this study is to research technologies and methodologies that will reduce the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of underground natural gas storage. This effort will include a survey of public information to determine the amount of natural gas lost from underground storage fields, determine the causes of this lost gas, and develop strategies and remedial designs to reduce or stop the gas loss from selected fields. Phase I includes a detailed survey of US natural gas storage reservoirs to determine the actual amount of natural gas annually lost from underground storage fields. These reservoirs will be ranked, the resultant will include the amount of gas and revenue annually lost. The results will be analyzed in conjunction with the type (geologic) of storage reservoirs to determine the significance and impact of the gas loss. A report of the work accomplished will be prepared. The report will include: (1) a summary list by geologic type of US gas storage reservoirs and their annual underground gas storage losses in ft{sup 3}; (2) a rank by geologic classifications as to the amount of gas lost and the resultant lost revenue; and (3) show the level of significance and impact of the losses