Closed softwareengineerprogrammer closed 2 months ago
Regarding higher pumping power: Hydrostatic pressure is now calculated using water density calculated with pressure instead of just vapor quality: https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L284-L298; https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L951-L955
This results in increased calculated hydrostatic pressure values which in turn increases required pumping power: https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L383-L386
@kfbeckers or @malcolm-dsider can you weigh in on whether net power is expected to remain the same despite increased pumping power? I can look into the actual net power calculation when I have time, but perhaps you may know whether this is an expected result or not offhand.
I’ll let Koenraad decide on this one, but my understanding is that the model assumes that the net power is equal to the gross power minus the pumping power, so if pumping power requirements go up, the net should go down. If that is true, and it is not working that way, I am happy to go hunting for the reason. Just ask.
While we are looking at pressure and pumping, I should also point out that perhaps we should be looking at improving how the pressures are handled in order to account for overpressure systems… The DOE just announced $8B new money (yes, that is the word that starts with a B!) for new renewable energy projects in Texas and Louisiana, so the interest in doing geothermal in the overpressure belts of TX and LA is going to go WAY up, as they are among the most prospective targets in the region. As far as I know, GEOPHIRES doesn’t address overpressure. If that is true, I suggest we add something that does. The net effect of overpressure is to make production pumping easier (or zero) while increasing the pumping effort required for injection (this assumes you are injecting back into the source formation – we also might want to figure out how to account for injecting into a different (shallower, lower-pressure) formation). The other characteristic of overpressure I think we should try to account for is pressure depletion – as you allow the overpressure to lift your brine to the surface, it eventually depletes, and you have to start pumping.
My approach to this would be to add two new parameters to the code. The first one contains the percent of pressure at which the initial overpressure starts that is above and beyond what would be normally expected if the formation was not overpressured – “Initial overpressure is 30% than expected lithostatic/hydrostatic pressure.” The second new parameter would capture the rate of depletion – “overpressure depletes at 10% per year.” The algorithm can figure out at what point the overpressure drops to the point that the flow rate from the formation is less than the desired flow rate, and it can start adding in production pumping from that point in an ever-increasing amount until it gets to the pumping power you would expect if there never was overpressure (i.e., full depletion). The injection side story is the opposite – we need to calculate how much additional pumping is needed to overcome the overpressure, but then that number goes down as the overpressure depletes.
In the end, I don’t think this is going to make that big a difference – the uplift you get from the overpressure is going to be close to the increased pumping required to do the injection, but pumping down is always easier than pumping up, so there will be some difference… and in any case, I think our users want to be able to point to evidence in the output from GEOPHIRES that shows it is at least accounting for overpressure, even if the impact turns out to be relatively small.
If everyone agrees that this work is worthy and that I have the right approach, I’ll put it on my to-do list.
-Malcolm
From: Jonathan Pezzino @.> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 11:26 AM To: NREL/GEOPHIRES-X @.> Cc: Malcolm Ross @.>; Mention @.> Subject: Re: [NREL/GEOPHIRES-X] Pump power higher but net power remains the same? (Issue #167)
Regarding higher pumping power: Hydrostatic pressure is now calculated using water density calculated with pressure instead of just vapor quality (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L284-L298; https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L951-L955). This results in increased calculated hydrostatic pressure values which in turn increases required pumping power (https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/blob/46d18a783f1134f9873e77899b39a5bb2d009817/src/geophires_x/WellBores.py#L383-L386).
@kfbeckers https://github.com/kfbeckers or @malcolm-dsider https://github.com/malcolm-dsider can you weigh in on whether net power is expected to remain the same despite increased pumping power? I can look into the actual net power calculation when I have time, but perhaps you may know whether this is an expected result or not offhand.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/NREL/GEOPHIRES-X/issues/167#issuecomment-2016539336 , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWGVYT6JVZE2MCL7EMNUEG3YZWUJLAVCNFSM6AAAAABFEH4HA6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAMJWGUZTSMZTGY . You are receiving this because you were mentioned. https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AWGVYT53STHPXQYO47QHL4TYZWUJLA5CNFSM6AAAAABFEH4HA6WGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTTYGHZMQ.gif Message ID: @. @.> >
Thanks for your answer @malcolm-dsider!
The power that is generated is slightly more because the predicted temperatures produced by the reservoir in GEOPHIRES-X are slightly higher. Why there is that slight difference is not yet clear to me, but it would be useful to have the user's input file so I can trace where that slight difference is coming from in the Reservoir model. Do we have it or can we get it?
Without the user's input file, and can't trace the issue for sure, but I am 90% sure that the net power is slightly higher because in GEOPHIRES-X, we have switched to using CoolProps to more accurately calculate the working fluid (water) density, viscosity, vapor pressure, entropy, and enthalpy as a function of the reservoir conditions over time. Previously, these values were calculated with a simple correlation function or a constant. In this case, the net effect of these better fluid characterizations seems to be a slightly higher net power. Thos change to CoolProps also improved our calculation of pumping power, thus accounting for the more substantial changes in the pumping power.
Thanks @malcolm-dsider! I requested input files from the user, although it sounds like we have a pretty good working theory at this point.
Per user:
Attached output files from user:
Durham200mWellSep.out
:GeophiresX-Durham200mWellSep.out
:Geophires2-Durham200mWellSepSplit.out
: