Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Jeffrey M. Bielicki is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Jeffrey M. Bielicki.


Environmental Management | 2013

Environmental Indicators of Biofuel Sustainability: What About Context?

Rebecca A. Efroymson; Virginia H. Dale; Keith L. Kline; Allen C. McBride; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Raymond L. Smith; Esther S. Parish; Peter E. Schweizer; Denice M. Shaw

Indicators of the environmental sustainability of biofuel production, distribution, and use should be selected, measured, and interpreted with respect to the context in which they are used. The context of a sustainability assessment includes the purpose, the particular biofuel production and distribution system, policy conditions, stakeholder values, location, temporal influences, spatial scale, baselines, and reference scenarios. We recommend that biofuel sustainability questions be formulated with respect to the context, that appropriate indicators of environmental sustainability be developed or selected from more generic suites, and that decision makers consider context in ascribing meaning to indicators. In addition, considerations such as technical objectives, varying values and perspectives of stakeholder groups, indicator cost, and availability and reliability of data need to be understood and considered. Sustainability indicators for biofuels are most useful if adequate historical data are available, information can be collected at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, organizations are committed to use indicator information in the decision-making process, and indicators can effectively guide behavior toward more sustainable practices.


Computers, Environment and Urban Systems | 2012

Generating candidate networks for optimization: The CO2 capture and storage optimization problem

Richard S. Middleton; Michael Kuby; Jeffrey M. Bielicki

We develop a new framework for spatially optimizing infrastructure for CO2 capture and storage (CCS). CCS is a complex and challenging problem: domestically deploying CCS at a meaningful scale will require linking hundreds of coal-fired power plants with CO2 sequestration reservoirs through a dedicated and extensive (many tens-of-thousands of miles) CO2 pipeline network. We introduce a unique method for generating a candidate network from scratch, from which the optimization model selects the optimal set of arcs to form the pipeline network. This new generation method can be applied to any network optimization problem including transmission line, roads, and telecommunication applications. We demonstrate the model and candidate network methodology using a real example of capturing CO2 from coal-fired power plants in the US Midwest and storing the CO2 in depleted oil and gas fields. Results illustrate the critical need to balance CCS investments with generating a candidate network of arcs.


International Regional Science Review | 2011

Optimal Spatial Deployment of CO2 Capture and Storage Given a Price on Carbon

Michael Kuby; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Richard S. Middleton

Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) links together technologies that separate carbon dioxide (CO2) from fixed point source emissions and transport it by pipeline to geologic reservoirs into which it is injected underground for long-term containment. Previously, models have been developed to minimize the cost of a CCS infrastructure network that captures a given amount of CO2. The CCS process can be costly, however, and large-scale implementation by industry will require government regulations and economic incentives. The incentives can price CO2 emissions through a tax or a cap-and-trade system. This paper extends the earlier mixed-integer linear programming model to endogenously determine the optimal quantity of CO2 to capture and optimize the various components of a CCS infrastructure network, given the price per tonne to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. The spatial decision support system first generates a candidate pipeline network and then minimizes the total cost of capturing, transporting, storing, or emitting CO2. To illustrate how the new model based on CO2 prices works, it is applied to a case study of CO2 sources, reservoirs, and candidate pipeline links and diameters in California.


Environmental Management | 2013

Comparing Scales of Environmental Effects from Gasoline and Ethanol Production

Esther S. Parish; Keith L. Kline; Virginia H. Dale; Rebecca A. Efroymson; Allen C. McBride; Timothy L. Johnson; Michael R. Hilliard; Jeffrey M. Bielicki

Understanding the environmental effects of alternative fuel production is critical to characterizing the sustainability of energy resources to inform policy and regulatory decisions. The magnitudes of these environmental effects vary according to the intensity and scale of fuel production along each step of the supply chain. We compare the spatial extent and temporal duration of ethanol and gasoline production processes and environmental effects based on a literature review and then synthesize the scale differences on space–time diagrams. Comprehensive assessment of any fuel-production system is a moving target, and our analysis shows that decisions regarding the selection of spatial and temporal boundaries of analysis have tremendous influences on the comparisons. Effects that strongly differentiate gasoline and ethanol-supply chains in terms of scale are associated with when and where energy resources are formed and how they are extracted. Although both gasoline and ethanol production may result in negative environmental effects, this study indicates that ethanol production traced through a supply chain may impact less area and result in more easily reversed effects of a shorter duration than gasoline production.


Environmental Science & Technology | 2016

The Leakage Risk Monetization Model for Geologic CO2 Storage

Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Melisa F. Pollak; Hang Deng; Elizabeth J. Wilson; Jeffrey P. Fitts; Catherine A. Peters

We developed the Leakage Risk Monetization Model (LRiMM) which integrates simulation of CO2 leakage from geologic CO2 storage reservoirs with estimation of monetized leakage risk (MLR). Using geospatial data, LRiMM quantifies financial responsibility if leaked CO2 or brine interferes with subsurface resources, and estimates the MLR reduction achievable by remediating leaks. We demonstrate LRiMM with simulations of 30 years of injection into the Mt. Simon sandstone at two locations that differ primarily in their proximity to existing wells that could be leakage pathways. The peak MLR for the site nearest the leakage pathways (


Environmental Science & Technology | 2011

A Tale of Two Technologies: Hydraulic Fracturing and Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Joseph A. Dammel; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Melisa F. Pollak; Elizabeth J. Wilson

7.5/tCO2) was 190x larger than for the farther injection site, illustrating how careful siting would minimize MLR in heavily used sedimentary basins. Our MLR projections are at least an order of magnitude below overall CO2 storage costs at well-sited locations, but some stakeholders may incur substantial costs. Reliable methods to detect and remediate leaks could further minimize MLR. For both sites, the risk of CO2 migrating to potable aquifers or reaching the atmosphere was negligible due to secondary trapping, whereby multiple impervious sedimentary layers trap CO2 that has leaked through the primary seal of the storage formation.


Environmental Management | 2013

Advancing Sustainable Bioenergy: Evolving Stakeholder Interests and the Relevance of Research

Timothy L. Johnson; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Rebecca S. Dodder; Michael R. Hilliard; P. Ozge Kaplan; C. Andrew Miller

T wo technologies, hydraulic fracturing and geologic carbon sequestration, may fundamentally change the United States’ ability to use domestic energy sources while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Shale gas production, made possible by hydraulic fracturing and advances in directional drilling, unlocks large reserves of natural gas, a lower carbon alternative to coal or other fossil fuels. Geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) could enable use of vast domestic coal reserves without the attendant greenhouse gas emissions. Both hydraulic fracturing and geologic sequestration are 21st Century technologies with promise to transform energy, climate, and subsurface landscapes, and for both, effective risk management will be crucial. Potential environmental impacts, particularly to groundwater, are key concerns for both activities, because both inject large volumes of fluids into the subsurface. Unless environmental issues and public concerns are actively addressed, public opposition could stall deployment of these two important technologies. In the United States, shale gas production increased 8-fold in the past decade, and it is projected to comprise roughly half of domestic production in 2035. Between 2010 and 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) doubled the estimate of technically recoverable unproven shale gas reserves. U.S. energy supply projections have been fundamentally and strategically altered. Hydraulic fracturing, which makes this bounty possible, injects a mix of water, propping agents, and proprietary chemicals at high pressure to create millions of small fractures in low-permeability shale and liberate trapped natural gas. At each well, 2 to 4 million gallons of water are injected and 30 to 70% remains underground. Geologic sequestration could keepCO2 out of the atmosphere by capturing it at coal burning power plants or other industrial facilities and injecting it into deep geologic formations. The U.S. Department of Energy, in the 2010 Carbon Sequestration Atlas, estimated that the nation has the capacity to store all CO2 emissions from large domestic stationary sources for at least 500 years (at 2009 emission rates). Geologic sequestration has great promise, but its role in the U.S. energy future is uncertain; there is no economic driver to do it unless society decides to substantively reduce GHG emissions. A few demonstration projects are underway, scheduled to inject a total of about 10 million tons of CO2 in the United States. Another 12 million tons of captured CO2 was used for enhanced oil recovery in 2010, but currently, geologic sequestration is a minor player on the U.S. energy stage. Although hydraulic fracturing and geologic carbon sequestration are distinct technologies, they pose some similar environmental risks. Groundwater contamination could occur if injected or mobilized fluids escape from the target formation and migrate upward into drinking water along faults, fractures, abandoned wells, or poorly constructed injection wells. Both technologies can protect groundwater by carefully studying site geology so only appropriate sites are chosen, using best practices for well construction, monitoring site performance, and developing emergency and remedial response plans so all parties are prepared if problems arise. Despite similarities in their environmental risks, regulations for geologic carbon sequestration and hydraulic fracturing are drastically different; the result is that similar risks are managed quite differently. Ironically, nascent geologic sequestration technology has state-of-the art regulations that were crafted during a decade of federal notice-and-comment rulemaking. The environmental risks of geologic sequestration will be managed by the EPA UIC program, under new Class VI well rules adopted in 2010. As the first injection well class added since 1983, Class VI rules incorporate advances in subsurface technology and modeling, regulatory philosophy, and environmental expectations that have transpired in the intervening quarter century. In contrast, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 officially exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the UIC program. The environmental risks of shale gas production are managed


Energy and Environmental Science | 2016

Managing geologic CO2 storage with pre-injection brine production: a strategy evaluated with a model of CO2 injection at Snøhvit

Thomas A. Buscheck; Joshua A. White; Susan A. Carroll; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Roger D. Aines

The sustainability of future bioenergy production rests on more than continual improvements in its environmental, economic, and social impacts. The emergence of new biomass feedstocks, an expanding array of conversion pathways, and expected increases in overall bioenergy production are connecting diverse technical, social, and policy communities. These stakeholder groups have different—and potentially conflicting—values and cultures, and therefore different goals and decision making processes. Our aim is to discuss the implications of this diversity for bioenergy researchers. The paper begins with a discussion of bioenergy stakeholder groups and their varied interests, and illustrates how this diversity complicates efforts to define and promote “sustainable” bioenergy production. We then discuss what this diversity means for research practice. Researchers, we note, should be aware of stakeholder values, information needs, and the factors affecting stakeholder decision making if the knowledge they generate is to reach its widest potential use. We point out how stakeholder participation in research can increase the relevance of its products, and argue that stakeholder values should inform research questions and the choice of analytical assumptions. Finally, we make the case that additional natural science and technical research alone will not advance sustainable bioenergy production, and that important research gaps relate to understanding stakeholder decision making and the need, from a broader social science perspective, to develop processes to identify and accommodate different value systems. While sustainability requires more than improved scientific and technical understanding, the need to understand stakeholder values and manage diversity presents important research opportunities.


Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene | 2015

Assessment of the Acute and Chronic Health Hazards of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids

Elizabeth V. Wattenberg; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; Ashley E. Suchomel; Jessica T. Sweet; Elizabeth M. Vold

CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in saline reservoirs can play a key role in curbing CO2 emissions. Buildup of pressure due to CO2 injection, however, can create hazards (wellbore leakage, caprock fracturing, and induced seismicity) to safe storage that must be carefully addressed. Reservoir pressure management by producing brine to minimize pressure buildup is a potential tool to manage these risks. To date, research studies on the effectiveness of brine production have largely focused on generic, hypothetical systems. In this paper, we use data from the Snohvit CCS project to perform a data-constrained analysis of its effectiveness under realistic geologic conditions. During the first phase of the Snohvit project, CO2 was injected into the compartmentalized Tubaen Fm. with lower-than-expected injectivity and capacity, which resulted in pressure buildup sooner than was expected. Using a reservoir model calibrated to this observed behavior, we analyze an alternative scenario in which brine is produced from the storage unit prior to injection. The results suggest that pre-injection brine production in this particular formation would be 94% efficient on a volume-per-volume basis – i.e. for each cubic meter of brine removed, an additional 0.94 cubic meters of CO2 could have been injected while maintaining the same peak reservoir pressure. Further, pressure drawdown observed during brine production is a mirror image of pressure buildup during CO2 injection, providing necessary data to estimate reservoir capacity before CO2 is injected. These observations suggest that this approach can be valuable for site selection and characterization, risk management, and increasing public acceptance.


Proceedings of the 1999 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.99CH36366) | 1999

Beam sweeping system

F.M. Bieniosek; O. Kurnaev; A. Cherepakhin; Jeffrey M. Bielicki; J. Dinkel

There is growing concern about how hydraulic fracturing affects public health because this activity involves handling large volumes of fluids that contain toxic and carcinogenic constituents, which are injected under high pressure through wells into the subsurface to release oil and gas from tight shale formations. The constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids (HFFs) present occupational health risks because workers may be directly exposed to them, and general public health risks because of potential air and water contamination. Hazard identification, which focuses on the types of toxicity that substances may cause, is an important step in the complex health risk assessment of hydraulic fracturing. This article presents a practical and adaptable tool for the hazard identification of HFF constituents, and its use in the analysis of HFF constituents reported to be used in 2,850 wells in North Dakota between December 2009 and November 2013. Of the 569 reported constituents, 347 could be identified by a Chemical Abstract Service Registration Number (CASRN) and matching constituent name. The remainder could not be identified either because of trade secret labeling (210) or because of an invalid CASRN (12). Eleven public databases were searched for health hazard information on thirteen health hazard endpoints for 168 identifiable constituents that had at least 25 reports of use. Health hazard counts were generated for chronic and acute endpoints, including those associated with oral, inhalation, ocular, and dermal exposure. Eleven of the constituents listed in the top 30 by total health hazard count were also listed in the top 30 by reports of use. This includes naphthalene, which along with benzyl chloride, has the highest health hazard count. The top 25 constituents reportedly used in North Dakota largely overlap with those reported for Texas and Pennsylvania, despite different geologic formations, target resources (oil vs. gas), and disclosure requirements. Altogether, this database provides a public health tool to help inform stakeholders about potential health hazards, and to aid in the reformulation of less hazardous HFFs.

Collaboration


Dive into the Jeffrey M. Bielicki's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Richard S. Middleton

Los Alamos National Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas A. Buscheck

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Yunwei Sun

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Yue Hao

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge