A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications
Abstract
Geothermal reservoir characterization, construction, and operations are technology-intensive activities that contribute significantly to the cost of delivering renewable electricity. The technologies involved, such as downhole tools and drilling equipment, are similar to those used in oil and gas exploration and production must often be adapted for use in the corrosive, high-temperature geothermal reservoir environment. Low production volume of geothermal tools presents a major challenge in meeting the industry's technology needs. Production of specialized tools for geothermal subsurface applications is often cost-prohibitive. Reduced inventory of subsurface well construction, characterization, and production tools causes geothermal reservoir development efficiency and sophistication to lag behind that of the oil and gas industry. Advances in additive manufacturing provide opportunities to advance geothermal technology while reducing lead time and costs associated with production of low-volume, complex parts. Additionally, this paper performs an initial techno-economic analysis comparing the cost of conventional production techniques and additive manufacturing for geothermal downhole applications. An analysis of representative downhole tools is used to create a framework for estimating fabrication costs of subtractive and additive techniques, including post-print machining required to meet final tolerances. The framework is used to explore several manufacturing scenarios and identify the dominant factors driving manufacturing time andmore »
- Authors:
-
[1];
[1];
[1];
- Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
- Senvol LLC, New York, NY (United States)
- Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
- Publication Date:
- Research Org.:
- Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
- Sponsoring Org.:
- USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
- OSTI Identifier:
- 1830138
- Alternate Identifier(s):
- OSTI ID: 1868840
- Grant/Contract Number:
- AC05-00OR22725
- Resource Type:
- Accepted Manuscript
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Manufacturing Processes
- Additional Journal Information:
- Journal Volume: 72; Journal Issue: 12; Journal ID: ISSN 1526-6125
- Publisher:
- Society of Manufacturing Engineers; Elsevier
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 36 MATERIALS SCIENCE; Geothermal wells; High tolerance; Post-machining; Techno-economic analysis; Selective laser melting; Directed energy deposition
Citation Formats
Price, Chris, Armstrong, Kristina O., Polsky, Yarom, Wang, Annie, Nimbalkar, Sachin U., Chesser, Phillip, Post, Brian, and Su, Jian-cherng. A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications. United States: N. p., 2021.
Web. doi:10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.028.
Price, Chris, Armstrong, Kristina O., Polsky, Yarom, Wang, Annie, Nimbalkar, Sachin U., Chesser, Phillip, Post, Brian, & Su, Jian-cherng. A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications. United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.028
Price, Chris, Armstrong, Kristina O., Polsky, Yarom, Wang, Annie, Nimbalkar, Sachin U., Chesser, Phillip, Post, Brian, and Su, Jian-cherng. Sat .
"A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications". United States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.028. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1830138.
@article{osti_1830138,
title = {A techno-economic framework for comparing conventionally and additively manufactured parts for geothermal applications},
author = {Price, Chris and Armstrong, Kristina O. and Polsky, Yarom and Wang, Annie and Nimbalkar, Sachin U. and Chesser, Phillip and Post, Brian and Su, Jian-cherng},
abstractNote = {Geothermal reservoir characterization, construction, and operations are technology-intensive activities that contribute significantly to the cost of delivering renewable electricity. The technologies involved, such as downhole tools and drilling equipment, are similar to those used in oil and gas exploration and production must often be adapted for use in the corrosive, high-temperature geothermal reservoir environment. Low production volume of geothermal tools presents a major challenge in meeting the industry's technology needs. Production of specialized tools for geothermal subsurface applications is often cost-prohibitive. Reduced inventory of subsurface well construction, characterization, and production tools causes geothermal reservoir development efficiency and sophistication to lag behind that of the oil and gas industry. Advances in additive manufacturing provide opportunities to advance geothermal technology while reducing lead time and costs associated with production of low-volume, complex parts. Additionally, this paper performs an initial techno-economic analysis comparing the cost of conventional production techniques and additive manufacturing for geothermal downhole applications. An analysis of representative downhole tools is used to create a framework for estimating fabrication costs of subtractive and additive techniques, including post-print machining required to meet final tolerances. The framework is used to explore several manufacturing scenarios and identify the dominant factors driving manufacturing time and cost. The current feasibility of additive manufacturing for geothermal downhole tool applications is assessed and issues for future development to better meet the needs of the geothermal industry are identified.},
doi = {10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.10.028},
journal = {Journal of Manufacturing Processes},
number = 12,
volume = 72,
place = {United States},
year = {Sat Oct 30 00:00:00 EDT 2021},
month = {Sat Oct 30 00:00:00 EDT 2021}
}
Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journalWorks referenced in this record:
Additive Manufacturing for the Aircraft Industry: A Review
journal, January 2019
- Singamneni, Sarat; Lv, Yifan; Hewitt, Andrew
- Journal of Aeronautics & Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 08, Issue 01
Understanding the sustainability potential of part consolidation design supported by additive manufacturing
journal, September 2019
- Yang, Sheng; Min, Wenbo; Ghibaudo, Julian
- Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 232
Technology selection in green supply chains - the effects of additive and traditional manufacturing
journal, February 2021
- Rinaldi, Marta; Caterino, Mario; Fera, Marcello
- Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 282
Comparison of geothermal with solar and wind power generation systems
journal, February 2015
- Li, Kewen; Bian, Huiyuan; Liu, Changwei
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 42
A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job
journal, January 2019
- Pereira, Tanisha; Kennedy, John V.; Potgieter, Johan
- Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 30
The Additive Manufacturing (AM) of titanium alloys
journal, March 2017
- Dutta, B.; Froes, F. H. (Sam)
- Metal Powder Report, Vol. 72, Issue 2
Current challenges and potential directions towards precision microscale additive manufacturing – Part IV: Future perspectives
journal, March 2021
- Behera, Dipankar; Chizari, Samira; Shaw, Lucas A.
- Precision Engineering, Vol. 68
Why manufacturers adopt additive manufacturing technologies: The role of sustainability
journal, June 2019
- Niaki, Mojtaba Khorram; Torabi, S. Ali; Nonino, Fabio
- Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 222
A review on additive manufacturing and its way into the oil and gas industry
journal, January 2018
- Sireesha, Merum; Lee, Jeremy; Kranthi Kiran, A. Sandeep
- RSC Advances, Vol. 8, Issue 40