Storage of CO2 in saline aquifers: Effects of gravity, viscous, and capillary forces on amount and timing of trapping

CO₂ can be effectively immobilized during CO₂ injection into saline aquifers by residual trapping – also known as capillary trapping – a process resulting from capillary snap-off of isolated CO₂ bubbles. Simulations of CO₂ injection were performed to investigate the interplay of viscous and gravity forces and capillary trapping of CO₂. Results of those simulations show that gas injection processes in which gravitational forces are weak compared to viscous forces (low gravity number N_gv) trap significantly more CO₂ than do flows with strong gravitational forces relative to the viscous forces (high N_gv). The results also indicate that over a wide range of gravity numbers (N_gv), significant fractions of the trapping of CO₂ can occur relatively quickly. The amount of CO₂ that is trapped after injection ceases is demonstrated to correlate with N_gv. For some simulated displacements, effects of capillary pressure and aquifer dip angle on the amount and the rate of trapping are reported. Trapping increases when effects of capillary pressure and aquifer inclination are included in the model. Finally we show that injection schemes such as alternating injection of brine and CO₂ or brine injection after CO₂ injection can also enhance the trapping behavior.     

Environmental considerations for levees and floodwalls

Levees and floodwalls are used extensively throughout the United States for flood control. Levee projects often lack ecological, recreational, and aesthetic values, except for incidental fish and wildlife benefits derived from borrow pits and recreational facilities found in some urban settings. In recent years increased environmental concern within construction agencies and greater responsiveness to public opinion have resulted in increasing numbers of levee projects designed, built, and maintained with environmental objectives in mind. This paper reviews environmental concepts successfully employed on levee projects constructed in recent years by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Some of the most innovative concepts are described and illustrated and design considerations are discussed.     

Determination of optimum minimum flow from a dam by using energy analysis

The proposed restoration of an abandoned hydroelectric dam on the Quinebaug River, Connecticut, is studied using energy analysis. The analysis considers the effects of alternative minimum flow releases, ranging from 0 to 34 cubic meters per second (cms), on the total energy flow of the affected system. The principal system components affected by differing minimum flows are hydroelectric power generation, aquatic habitat, and gross aquatic ecosystem productivity.The minimum flow alternative resulting in the highest annual energy flow in the affected system is considered optimal. From this purely analytical point of view, the optimum minimum flow is 0 cms, due to the short length and low productivity of the regulated reach, and the lack of floodplain interactions.Simulations of longer and more productive river reaches were conducted. For very short, unproductive reaches, in the absence of a floodplain, the contribution of aquatic community productivity to total system energy flow is negligible compared to hydroelectric generation. Optimum minimum flows are higher for longer and more productive reaches. For such cases the operation of hydroelectric dams could reduce total system energy flow because the energy supplied by hydroelectric generation may be offset by losses in aquatic productivity due to diminished riverine habitat.     

Effects of Short- and Long-Term Disturbance Resulting from Military Maneuvers on Vegetation and Soils in a Mixed Prairie Area

Loss of grassland species resulting from activities such as off-road vehicle use increases the need for models that predict effects of anthropogenic disturbance. The relationship of disturbance by military training to plant species richness and composition on two soils (Foard and Lawton) in a mixed prairie area was investigated. Track cover (cover of vehicle disturbance to the soil) and soil organic carbon were selected as measures of short- and long-term disturbance, respectively. Soil and vegetation data, collected in 1-m² quadrats, were analyzed at three spatial scales (60, 10, and 1 m²). Plant species richness peaked at intermediate levels of soil organic carbon at the 10-m² and 1-m² spatial scales on both the Lawton and Foard soils, and at intermediate levels of track cover at all three spatial scales on the Foard soil. Species composition differed across the disturbance gradient on the Foard soil but not on the Lawton soil. Disturbance increased total plant species richness on the Foard soil. The authors conclude that disturbance up to intermediate levels can be used to maintain biodiversity by enriching the plant species pool.     

Testing ecological models: the meaning of validation

The ecological literature reveals considerable confusion about the meaning of validation in the context of simulation models. The confusion arises as much from semantic and philosophical considerations as from the selection of validation procedures. Validation is not a procedure for testing scientific theory or for certifying the ‘truth’ of current scientific understanding, nor is it a required activity of every modelling project. Validation means that a model is acceptable for its intended use because it meets specified performance requirements.Before validation is undertaken, (1) the purpose of the model, (2) the performance criteria, and (3) the model context must be specified. The validation process can be decomposed into several components: (1) operation, (2) theory, and (3) data. Important concepts needed to understand the model evaluation process are verification, calibration, validation, credibility, and qualification. These terms are defined in a limited technical sense applicable to the evaluation of simulation models, and not as general philosophical concepts. Different tests and standards are applied to the operational, theoretical, and data components. The operational and data components can be validated; the theoretical component cannot.The most common problem with ecological and environmental models is failure to state what the validation criteria are. Criteria must be explicitly stated because there are no universal standards for selecting what test procedures or criteria to use for validation. A test based on comparison of simulated versus observed data is generally included whenever possible. Because the objective and subjective components of validation are not mutually exclusive, disagreements over the meaning of validation can only be resolved by establishing a convention.