Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
Filter
- Title
- Author
- Author Affiliations
- Full Text
- Abstract
- Keyword
- DOI
- ISBN
- ISBN-10
- ISSN
- EISSN
- Issue
- Journal Volume Number
- References
- Conference Volume Title
- Paper No
NARROW
Date
Availability
1-20 of 32215
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Article Type: Research Papers
J. Energy Resour. Technol. June 2023, 145(6): 061302.
Paper No: JERT-21-2093
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Journal Articles
Zheng Zhang, Shangqing Yang, Guorong Wang, Jingpeng Wang, Jingsheng Lu, Lin Zhong, Geng Peng, Ganghui Pan
Article Type: Research Papers
J. Energy Resour. Technol. June 2023, 145(6): 063201.
Paper No: JERT-21-1997
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 1 ( a ) Geometry geothermal reservoir with single fracture, ( b ) boundary conditions, and ( c ) the meshed geometry More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 2 Comparison of the properties of SCCO 2 and water within the operating pressure and temperatures: ( a ) viscosity, Pa · s, ( b ) density, kg/m 3 , ( c ) heat capacity J/kg · K, and ( d ) thermal conductivity, W/m · K More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 3 Schematic of the solution process for fully coupled thermo-hydro-geomechanical model in the geothermal reservoir with fracture More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 4 Verification for the heat transfer in single fracture with analytical solution: ( a ) schematic of single fracture conceptual model, ( b ) temperature variation in fracture with time, and ( c ) temperature variation with time in fracture. More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 5 Spatiotemporal variation of temperature in the reservoir and fracture with different injection/production velocities when using SCCO 2 as geofluid at an initial pressure of 15 MPa, and injection temperature of 35 °C More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 6 Comparison of SCCO 2 and water as geofluids on the spatiotemporal variation of temperature in the reservoir and fracture at injection/production velocity of 0.1 m/s and initial pressure of 20 MPa, and injection temperature of 35 °C More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 7 Impact of injection/production velocities, initial reservoir pressure, and injection temperature on the production temperature when using SCCO 2 , and water as geofluids More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 8 Production temperature when using SCCO 2 as geofluid at different injection rates: ( a ) injection temperature = 35 °C, ( b ) injection temperature = 40 °C, and ( c ) injection temperature = 45 °C More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 9 Spatiotemporal variation of Von mises stress in MPa (aperture = 0.5 mm and Biot–Willis’s coefficient = 0.5, initial reservoir pressure = 20 MPa, and injection temperature = 40 °C) More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 10 Spatiotemporal variation of tresca stress in MPa (aperture = 0.5 mm and Biot–Willis coefficient = 0.5, initial reservoir pressure = 20 MPa, and injection temperature = 40 °C) More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 11 Spatial variation of different variants of strains after 10 years of injection and production operation (injection/production velocity = 0.05 m/s, aperture = 0.5 mm, Biot–Willis coefficient = 0.5, initial reservoir pressure = 25 MPa, and injection temperature = 45 °C) More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 12 Spatiotemporal variation of permeability, porosity, Young’s modulus, and effective thermal conductivity (injection/production velocity = 0.05 m/s, aperture = 0.5 mm, and Biot–Willis coefficient = 0.5), initial reservoir pressure = 20 MPa and injection temperature = 40 °C More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 13 Impact of injection/production velocities, initial reservoir pressure, and injection temperature on the reservoir flow impedance when using SCCO 2 and water as geofluids More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 14 Reservoir flow impedance when using SCCO 2 as geofluid at different injection rates: ( a ) injection temperature = 35 °C, ( b ) injection temperature = 40 °C, and ( c ) injection temperature = 45 °C More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 15 Impact of injection/production velocities, initial reservoir pressure, and injection temperature on the heat power when using SCCO 2 and water as geofluids More
Image
in Comparison of Supercritical CO 2 With Water as Geofluid in Geothermal Reservoirs With Numerical Investigation Using Fully Coupled Thermo-Hydro-Geomechanical Model
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 16 Reservoir flow impedance when using SCCO 2 as geofluid at different injection rates: ( a ) injection temperature = 35 °C, ( b ) injection temperature = 40 °C, and ( c ) injection temperature = 45 °C More
Image
in Influence of Inlet Mud Temperature on Bottom Hole Mud Temperature During Horizontal Well Drilling
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of thermal transmission between wellbore and formation during horizontal well drilling More
Image
in Influence of Inlet Mud Temperature on Bottom Hole Mud Temperature During Horizontal Well Drilling
> Journal of Energy Resources Technology
Published Online: January 24, 2023
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of meshing in the solution area More