Prediction – greens still won’t be able to get past the word “coal”.

Researchers at MIT have shown the benefits of a new approach toward eliminating carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions at coal-burning power plants.
Their system, called pressurized oxy-fuel combustion, provides a way of separating all of the carbon-dioxide emissions produced by the burning of coal, in the form of a concentrated, pressurized liquid stream. This allows for carbon dioxide sequestration: the liquid CO2 stream can be injected into geological formations deep enough to prevent their escape into the atmosphere.
Finding a practical way to sequester carbon emissions is considered critical to the mitigation of climate change while continuing to use fossil fuels, which currently account for more than 80 percent of energy production in the United States and more than 90 percent worldwide. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are projected to rise by more than 50 percent worldwide by 2030.
It might seem paradoxical to reduce the carbon footprint of a coal plant by making its emissions into a more concentrated stream of carbon dioxide. But Ahmed Ghoniem, the Ronald C. Crane (1972) Professor of Mechanical Engineering and leader of the MIT team analyzing this new technology, explains: “this is the first step. Before you sequester, you have to concentrate and pressurize” the greenhouse gases. “You have to redesign the power plant so that it produces a pure stream of pressurized liquid carbon dioxide, to make it sequestration ready.”
There are various approaches to carbon capture and sequestration being developed and tested, and the oxy-fuel combustion system “is one of the technologies that should be looked at,” says Barbara Freese, lead author of a report on coal power by the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists. Ghoniem says that of the approaches to oxy-fuel combustion, he and his MIT colleagues are the only academic team examining a pressurized combustion system for carbon dioxide capture.
A paper describing the approach appeared in August in the journal Energy. The Italian energy company ENEL, the sponsor of the research, plans to build a pilot plant in Italy using the technology in the next few years.
Ghoniem explains that any system for separating and concentrating the carbon dioxide from a power plant reduces the efficiency of the plant by about a third. That means that it takes more fuel to provide the same amount of electricity. Therefore, finding ways to minimize that loss of efficiency is key to making carbon-sequestration systems commercially viable.
Reducing the penalty
There will always be some energy penalty to such capture-enabled systems, because it requires some energy to separate gases that are mixed together, such as separating carbon dioxide from the combustion gases emerging from an air-based combustion chamber or oxygen from air for oxy-fuel combustion. As an analogy, “mixing salt and pepper is very easy, but separating them takes energy,” he says. “Nobody in their right mind will jump into this and do it unless we can reduce the energy penalty and the extra cost, and only if it is mandated to reduce CO2 emissions” he says. And that’s what the new process is designed to do.
Other groups have been looking into oxy-fuel combustion, in which pure oxygen is fed into the combustion chamber to produce a cleaner and more concentrated emissions stream (a mixture of oxygen and CO2 replaces ordinary air for combustion, which is nearly 79 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen, thus eliminating more than three-quarters of the resulting flue gases). The focus of their studies is a system that adds one more element, putting the whole combustion chamber under pressure, which results in a more concentrated, pressurized emissions output.
Ghoniem says even though this process uses more energy at the beginning of the combustion cycle because of the need to separate oxygen from air and pressurize it, the increased efficiency of the power cycle raises the net output of the plant and reduces the compression work needed to deliver CO2 at the requisite state for sequestration, as compared to the unpressurized carbon-capture systems; in other words, the overall energy penalty is reduced. “You have to deliver carbon dioxide at high pressure for sequestration,” he points out. The system simply introduces some pressurization earlier in the process, so the output stream requires less compression at the end of the process while extracting more energy from the combustion gases.
The pressurization of the combustion system also reduces the size of the components and hence the plant, which could “reduce the footprint of needed real estate, and potentially the price of components,” he says. It is expected to lead to an overall improvement of about 3 percent in net efficiency compared to an unpressurized system, and with further research and development this can probably be improved to about a 10 to 15 percent net gain from the current values, he says.
That could be key to gaining acceptance for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a way to allow the continued growth of coal power while curtailing its emissions. The Union of Concerned Scientists report last year, “Coal Power in a Warming World,” said: “CCS is still an emerging technology. It has the potential to substantially reduce CO2 emissions from coal plants, but it also faces many challenges.”
Freese says that “the potential of this technology is there, but it needs to be demonstrated” whether it can work as expected and be economically viable. “We want to see what these actual results are before committing” to implementing such systems. Also, she added, all carbon-sequestration plans “don’t solve all the other fuel-cycle problems — all the problems associated with mining.” In fact, because all such plants are inherently less efficient, “you’d need to mine more coal” for a given energy output.
The new MIT research has the potential to help narrow that gap, if it really does prove capable of reducing the efficiency penalty enough to make such plants competitive, and if the planned ENEL pilot plant in Italy based on this technology is successfully built and tested to confirm the practicality of the concept.
Ghoniem concedes that much more research is still needed for CCS technology. The three areas that need study most, he says, are systems’ integration to determine the operating conditions at which the different components work together for highest efficiency; component-level research to optimize of the design of individual parts of the new system, especially the combustion chamber; and process analysis to examine the details of the physics and chemistry involved. His group has been concentrating on detailed computer simulations of the process to aid in the design of better systems.
Other team members include graduate students James Hong and G. Chaudhry, Prof John Brisson, Randall Field from MITEI and Marco Gazzino from ENEL.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about cleaning the toxic heavy metals in the emissions from coal plants before worrying about the dangerous CO2.
Isnt technology wonderful?
Of course the whole concept of portraying carbon dioxide as a pollutant has been a huge success, the campaign to use a harmless trace gas as a scapegoat and whipping boy is a corner stone of the campaign to de industrialise the planet.
What if the atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by human activities is NOT harmful?
What if more atmospheric CO2 is what the planet needs to produce more crops for a growing population?
What if the concerted effort to reduce CO2 emmissions is actually the wrong thing to do at the very time we enter a cooling phase that none of the original computer models saw coming, those same models that the IPCC and governments based their entire policies on BTW.
It could be that as we enter a cool phase or mini ice age the levels of CO2 will drop to dangerous levels affecting our food crops, if this is the case then instead of reducing CO2 output we should be going all out to increase our output of CO2.
Is it possible that we are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons at the wrong time, coud it be that the war on CO2 emmissions is a political ploy to alter our society to suit political ends, could it be that the political class is lying to us and they know that a cool phase is heading our way and they are in fact trying to sabotage our industrial society right at the point when a fossil fuel based expansion of our society is what we need?
I hope that I am wrong, I fear that I am not. The BBC is reporting that the decline of our industrial society due to the recession and the reductions in carbon dioxide is a “silver lining” and “great news”! isnt it a complete tragedy that a giant media group is actually gleeful about the tragedy of industrial decline and the heartbreaking poverty that always accompanies such declines, its an added tragedy because the decline has been in large part assisted by the political classes and their fellow travellers.
One problem with carbon sequestration that hardly anyone mentions is that it requires relocation of coal power stations to geologically suitable locations or a new pipeline network to transport the CO2. The first is politically a non-starter and the second very expensive.
It sounds a promising technology (assuming you think sequestration is a good idea in the first place) but at least 20 years in the future before significant power is generated from it.
And the 1/3 reduction in efficiency and the consequent increase in costs would be excluding CO2 transport or power plant relocation.
Otherwise an informative press release devoid of exaggerated claims. A pleasant change from climate science press releases.
I don’t want anyone sequestrating a dangerous, planet killing pollutant anywhere near my backyard… :-).
Madness.
I guess they can sell the CO2 to greenhouses. Many greenhouses use CO2 generators to enrich the CO2 content. Plants grow much better with enriched CO2, and with much higher yields.
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichgeneratorGEN.htm
CO2 generators burn natural gas or propane to get the additional CO2 that is needed. Go figure!
You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out, you put your left foot in and shake yourself about . . . that’s how you do the liberal hokey-pokey.
It resembles me Mao´s Great Leap in China: once, sparrows were accused of destroying crops and all billion of Chinese were hunting them on Mao´s order. The net result was overpopulation of insect, who – destroyed the crops..
Does sound like a waste of good brain power, doesn’t it?
As an analogy, “mixing salt and pepper is very easy, but separating them takes energy,” he says.
Or do it the easy way – run your comb through your dry hair enough to get a static charge, then hold the comb over the mixture. The pepper will leap to the comb.
It’s not clear what they have actually done. They describe this combustion and collection process with words and some invented numbers.
Have they gone to the next stage yet and maybe drawn … a picture ?
We will be able to tap into the sequestered CO2 as and when required to warm the world and allow trees to grow. It will be our own little lever for temperature control.
For the first time in human history we are nearing the end game in our fight against nature. Soon humanity will control the natural world – climate and all!
Philip_B (23:09:09) :
“One problem with carbon sequestration that hardly anyone mentions is that it requires” … extra time, material, cost, and energy to sequester the carbon.
All of which is wasted. None of which is productive. None of which is needed.
Scientists are always great at finding out how to do something.
They are not always so good at deciding whether or not it SHOULD be done.
Usually that’s due to self-interest. Grants come when a decision to try to do something has already been taken.
So it’s good to know that the potential is there in the toolkit to do something new.
The tricky question is how one introduces such technology in a way which evaluates whether it is really needed?
I work at a coal power station, and from my experience here, I think a pressurized furnace is a lot like AGW. It works on a computer, but not in the real world.
Just how many acres of industrial greenhouses would one need to ‘sequester’ a 1000MW power station’s CO2?
The Dutch use tomatoes, what other fast growing crops would work?
No not marijuana, no matter how fast it grows!
I’ve wondered about the unintended consequences of filling deep geological features with pressurized CO2. Are such features really so well mapped that this is sensible? Are there readily available features near any existing power plants? Does that really sound like a smart idea?
And what have the plants to say about this?
Philip_B (23:09:09) : One problem with carbon sequestration that hardly anyone mentions is that it requires relocation of coal power stations to geologically suitable locations or a new pipeline network to transport the CO2. The first is politically a non-starter and the second very expensive.
Yes, expensive, but far cheaper than building the pipeline AND buying CO2. Liquid CO2 is a very effective “oil stripping agent” for use in enhanced oil recovery from old oil fields. Exxon has just reached the limit of it’s own CO2 production (from refineries) and now is looking at needing to BUY CO2 to keep old oil fields productive.
Now you know why “Big Oil” is all in favor of CO2 “sequestration”. They will be paid to take the “Evil CO2” and get oil by pumping it into their old oil fields…. Much better than needing to pay someone else to provide CO2…
And the 1/3 reduction in efficiency and the consequent increase in costs would be excluding CO2 transport or power plant relocation.
That is one of the major problems with all the ‘pollution control’ mandates. It ignores the energy cost. Your car would be much more fuel efficient with no smog gear on it. (No, I’m not advocating dirty air. Just pointing out a cost that is ignored.) So we as a nation throw away about 1/4 to 1/3 of the oil we burn due to “smog control”. Now we want to throw away about 1/3 of the coal too? This helps future generations have fuel how? It is reducing energy dependence how? It is conserving how?
That is one heck of a lot of cash going up in non-smoke…
I don’t understand – how are they going to get all those “black balloons” into the ground and keep them there???? Won’t they just pop out again…
I sort of imagine “black balloons” oozing out of the ground…
/parody.
Since cost is no object, it would be better to convert the CO2 to synthetic fuel. Either natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc. Since we’d need more CO2 than a coal fired plant could generate let’s build a nuke power plant beside the coal plant and just freeze CO2 out of the air. The technology has existed for some time and, again, cost is not an issue. After all the CO2 out of the air they can devise another plant to put it back into the air.
Thank goodness for our CO2 geniuses.
You know, that asteroid theory and the dinosaur extinction may be way off base. Could have been the these folks going back in their time machine to test all this.
One problem with CO2 sequestration is the NIMBY complaint of “what happens if I get asphyxiated by an unplanned release of CO2 from where it is stored?”
In such a case CO2 really is a dangerous gas.
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/data/volcanoes/OFR_97-262/
Look for Cameroon in the text.
How can attempting to reduce 0.0314% of the composition of air make the slightest difference in the Earth’s climate?
After seeing photos of how well plants grow in various levels of CO2 and the cutoff point for plant growth of around 150ppm.. I’m of the mind now that we should be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at will, it only does us good.
These carbon sequestering plans actually scare me, more so not because of the potential cost, but because of the mind set that reducing CO2 is supposedly good. Even though it has a massively larger chance of causing world wide famine than does global warming. Of course, they always seem to ignore the fact that during warm periods, civilizations thrive..
Then they bring up ocean acidification, i’m sorry, I thought water holds less co2 when its warmer??? So if the oceans warm up, how in they are they absorbing more co2 to become acidic?
I woke up from the AGW haze 2 years ago when the logic just didn’t add up.. I work in logic all day as a career, so maybe it comes easier to me. But this is just getting out of hand. I expect these engineers designing these systems to have a bit more diligence in all things science. sigh.. ok thats my rant for the day. Thanks for all you do Anthony, without sites likes this, I would truly being going insane.
Why worry about land sequestration. The liquid CO2 can be piped into the deep ocean where it will sink and forever be held in the liquid or solid phase by the ocean temperature and pressure. Think I could get a study grant? Oh wait, this option was already studied and rejected because the author was worried about detrimental effects of an undersea CO2 lake. (I kid you not.)
I wonder , if you did an honest risk assessment, which would pose a greater threat to human life, the possibility that CO2 would cause catastrophic climate problems for humanity in the future or the possibility that, if we require carbon sequestration schemes for all the coal fueled power plants in the world, some number of those schemes would suffer catastrophic loss of sequestration events over their lifetime. If you think a release event would be just a harmless gas cloud, I suggest you check Google or Wiki for Lake Nyos Disaster. You may well say, but they’ll carefully select the sites so that such a thing is not possible, but they spent years picking out that spot out in Nevada to build the storage facility for nuclear waste and the enviros still decided it wasn’t safe enough. I would suspect NIMBY will be out in full force on these as well, though in the case of these boondoggles, some of the fears may actually be justified.
Joachim (22:30:20) :
“How about cleaning the toxic heavy metals in the emissions from coal plants before worrying about the dangerous CO2.”
And after removing the toxic heavy metals they can work on capturing the radioactive elements in the coal before they start trying to sequester that important life sustaining trace gas CO2.