Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Journal of Energy Resources Technology”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

20 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Instream water use in the United States: water laws and methods for determining flow requirements

Water use generally is divided into two primary classes - offstream use and instream use. In offstream use, sometimes called out-of-stream or diversionary use, water is withdrawn (diverted) from a stream or aquifer and transported to the place of use. Examples are irrigated agriculture, municipal water supply, and industrial use. Each of these offstream uses, which decreases the volume of water available downstream from the point of diversion, is discussed in previous articles in this volume. Instream use, which generally does not diminish the flow downstream from its point of use, and its importance are described in this article. One of the earliest instream uses of water in the United States was to turn the water wheels that powered much of the Nation's industry in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although a small volume of water might have been diverted to a mill near streamside, that water usually was returned to the stream near the point of diversion and, thus, the flow was not diminished downstream from the mill. Over time, the generation of hydroelectric power replaced mill wheels as a means of converting water flow into energy. Since the 1920's, the generation of hydroelectric power increasingly has become a major instream use of water. By 1985, more than 3 billion acre-feet of water (3,050,000 million gallons per day) was used annually for hydropower generation (Solley and others, 1988, p. 45)-enough water to cover the State of Colorado to a depth of 51 feet. Navigation is another instream use with a long history. The Lewis and Clark expedition journals and many of Mark Twain's novels illustrate the extent to which the Nation originally depended on adequate streamfiows for basic transportation. Navigation in the 1980's is still considered to be an instream use; however, it often is based upon a stream system that has been modified greatly through channelization, diking, and construction of dams and locks. The present (1987) inland water navigation system in the conterminous United States consists of about 12,000 miles of maintained waterways, over which about 500 million tons of cargo is carried each year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, p. 16). Although not so widely practiced in recent years, streams have been used to dispose of raw waste products from homes, communities, and factories. This use has been discouraged by law and public policy because of public health concerns and the damage it causes to the environment. Beginning in the mid-1960's, other instream uses gained new prominence in the water-resources arena-the assertion of a legal right to a free-flowing stream for biological, recreational, and esthetic purposes. These uses themselves, however, are not new. Riverine habitat always has produced fish, and the beauty of flowing water always has evoked a strong sense of esthetic appreciation. What is new is the emerging legitimacy and awareness of these noneconomic uses under State and Federal laws and regulations. In the past, environmental uses of flowing water were ignored, for the most part, under a long-standing legal tradition that favored offstream uses and certain instream uses that had a strong economic basis. The history of instream-flow policy debate really concerns those recently recognized types of interim uses. Although the more transitional water uses have been protected by law, the recognition of other in stream uses has resulted in substantial changes in State water laws. Although methods for determining the volume of water needed for most traditional water uses are relatively straight-forward and well-established, methods for determining water requirements for the in stream uses have been developed only recently and are continuing to evolve. Water laws that have favored the more traditional water uses, the inherent nature of conflict between instream and offstream water uses, and the special kinds of technological and philosophical problems posed by the "newer" types of instream uses are described below. Water laws that have been passed to accommodate the more recently recognized instream uses are summarized.

Report↗

Enhanced microbial coalbed methane generation: A review of research, commercial activity, and remaining challenges

Coalbed methane (CBM) makes up a significant portion of the world’s natural gas resources. The discovery that approximately 20% of natural gas is microbial in origin has led to interest in microbially enhanced CBM (MECoM), which involves stimulating microorganisms to produce additional CBM from existing production wells. This paper reviews current laboratory and field research on understanding processes and reservoir conditions which are essential for microbial CBM generation, the progress of efforts to stimulate microbial methane generation in coal beds, and key remaining knowledge gaps. Research has been primarily focused on identifying microbial communities present in areas of CBM generation and attempting to determine their function, in-situ reservoir conditions that are most favorable for microbial CBM generation, and geochemical indicators of metabolic pathways of methanogenesis (i.e., acetoclastic or hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis). Meanwhile, researchers at universities, government agencies, and companies have focused on four primary MECoM strategies: 1) microbial stimulation (i.e., addition of nutrients to stimulate native microbes); 2) microbial augmentation (i.e., addition of microbes not native to or abundant in the reservoir of interest); 3) physically increasing microbial access to coal and distribution of amendments; and 4) chemically increasing the bioavailability of coal organics. Most companies interested in MECoM have pursued microbial stimulation: Luca Technologies, Inc., successfully completed a pilot scale field test of their stimulation strategy, while two others, Ciris Energy and Next Fuel, Inc., have undertaken smaller scale field tests. Several key knowledge gaps remain that need to be addressed before MECoM strategies can be implemented commercially. Little is known about the bacterial community responsible for coal biodegradation and how these microorganisms may be stimulated to enhance microbial methanogenesis. In addition, research is needed to understand what fraction of coal is available for biodegradation, and methods need to be developed to determine the extent of in-situ coal biodegradation by MECoM processes for monitoring changes to coal quality. Questions also remain about how well field-scale pilot tests will scale to commercial production, how often amendments will need to be added to maintain new methane generation, and how well MECoM strategies transfer between coal basins with different formation water geochemistries and coal ranks. Addressing these knowledge gaps will be key in determining the feasibility and commercial viability of MECoM technology.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗