Single photon Lidar gas imagers for practical and widespread continuous methane monitoring

Titchener, James; Millington-Smith, Doug; Goldsack, Chris; Harrison, George R.; Dunning, Alexander; Ai, Xiao; Reed, Murray K.

doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118086

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Practical use of the active approach still needs to be proven on poorly reflecting elements for larger distances. A system setup that may have potential in this regard is a "methane laser scanner", which may increase the signal-to-noise ratio significantly by using a focused laser beam that is rasterized over the field of view, similar to the approach being developed in the "SPLICE" project (Titchener et al, 2022). camera.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-time active-gas imaging of small gas leaks

Bergau

Strahl

Scherer

et al. 2023

J. Sens. Sens. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. To tackle global warming, the reduction of greenhouse gas leaks is of great public interest. While state-of-the-art optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras can visualize larger gas leaks with magnitudes of liters per minute in the case of methane, a much more sensitive laser-based approach is introduced here. This is accomplished using an infrared camera in combination with an interband cascade laser (ICL) as active illumination. The laser beam diverges such that it covers roughly half of the camera's field of view. Three-image batches are recorded to perform classic direct absorption spectroscopy (DAS) at the image scale. The obtained concentration length in parts per million meter (ppm m) is validated using measurements with varying known methane concentrations, different reflective elements, and varying distances. The real-time camera was able to record and quantify a methane leak as low as 40 mL min−1. Possible incorrect information due to moving objects is taken into account using an adapted frame-difference approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-time active-gas imaging of small gas leaks

Bergau

Strahl

Scherer

et al. 2023

J. Sens. Sens. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Testing during the ARPA-E MONITOR program included several CM solutions, but due to small sample sizes, performance of individual solutions was difficult to assess . Other testing, including the Methane Detectors Challenge and tests by the UK National Physical Laboratory, , suffers from similar limitations: small sample sizes and limited experimental complexity. These studies typically used a single isolated emission source, a limited range of emission rates and environmental conditions, and testing methods that were partially blind (e.g., known emission timing and location, unknown emission rate) instead of fully blind.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol

Bell

Ilonze

Duggan

et al. 2023

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH4/h) replicating conditions that were challenging, but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated a 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3–30 kg CH4/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved a POD < 6 kg CH4/h, although uncertainty was high. Four had true positive rates > 50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For a release rate of 0.1–1 kg/h, the solutions’ mean relative errors ranged from −44% to +586% with single estimates between −97% and +2077%, and 4 solutions’ upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was −40% to +93%, with two solutions within ±20%, and single-estimate relative errors were from −82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicates that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting.

show abstract

“…Testing during the ARPA-E MONITOR program 13 included several CM solutions, but due to small sample sizes, performance of individual solutions was dicult to assess. 19 Other testing including the Methane Detectors Challenge, 20 and tests by the UK National Physical Laboratory, 21,22 suer from similar limitations: small sample sizes and limited experimental complexity. These studies typically used a single isolated emission source, a limited range of emission rates and environmental conditions, and testing methods that were partially-blind (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of continuous emission monitoring solutions under single-blind controlled testing protocol.

Bell

Ilonze

Duggan

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Continuous emission monitoring (CM) solutions promise to detect large fugitive methane emissions in natural gas infrastructure sooner than traditional leak surveys, and quantification by CM solutions has been proposed as the foundation of measurement-based inventories. This study performed single-blind testing at a controlled release facility (release from 0.4 to 6400 g CH4/h) replicating conditions that were challenging but less complex than typical field conditions. Eleven solutions were tested, including point sensor networks and scanning/imaging solutions. Results indicated 90% probability of detection (POD) of 3-30 kg CH4/h; 6 of 11 solutions achieved POD >50%. False positive rates ranged from 0 to 79%. Six solutions estimated emission rates. For release rate of 0.1-1 kg/h, the solutions' mean relative errors ranged from -44% to +586% with single estimates between -97% and +2077%, with 4 solutions' upper uncertainty exceeding +900%. Above 1 kg/h, mean relative error was -40% to +93%, with two solutions within 20%, and single-estimate relative errors from -82% to +448%. The large variability in performance between CM solutions, coupled with highly uncertain detection, detection limit, and quantification results, indicate that the performance of individual CM solutions should be well understood before relying on results for internal emissions mitigation programs or regulatory reporting.

show abstract

Single photon Lidar gas imagers for practical and widespread continuous methane monitoring

Cited by 41 publications

References 36 publications

Real-time active-gas imaging of small gas leaks

Real-time active-gas imaging of small gas leaks

Performance of Continuous Emission Monitoring Solutions under a Single-Blind Controlled Testing Protocol

Performance of continuous emission monitoring solutions under single-blind controlled testing protocol.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About