MIT develops a plan for carbon sequestration coal fired power plant

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

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1143/html/fig3.jpg
Traditional coal power plant - Image from USGS
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office, September 17, 2009

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan the Brit
September 22, 2009 2:38 am

Graeme Rodaughan (23:15:45) :
“I don’t want anyone sequestrating a dangerous, planet killing pollutant anywhere near my backyard… :-).”
Well said sir! I am at this very moment organising a new environ-mentalist group, called “Carbon Risk Against People”! We will talk & protest about C.R.A.P. until something is done about it. We will eat, drink, & sleep C.R.A.P. until the politicans listen to us & they start talking C.R.A.P. no kidding! We will start picketting all the local agencies until they talk C.R.A.P. too, & lobbying other environ-mentalist groups for their support, (I have already applied for a multi-million £ grant thro’ the EU, & the UN, Oh & I have found a loophole in the US legal system that means I can extort – err -be granted from US taxpayers dosh too! ). We will not rest until this filthy, dirty, toxic, poisonous substance, is stopped from being buried anywhere near me. N.I.M.B.Y & C.R.A.P forever! Let us all have a Global hug & believe in C.R.A.P.
Then again I suppose the easiest thing to do with this terrible substance is to simply allow it to disperse into the atmosphere where it will be reduced to nothing more than a harmless & slightly beneficial trace gas making up around 0.04% of the air. What do you think, anyone?

September 22, 2009 2:39 am

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.

Do I smell a rat here? Say we need 100 units of coal to produce amount 100E of electricity. If I say “increases coal usage by 1/3” I would mean it now uses 133 units of coal, would I not? But what does “reduces efficiency by 1/3” mean? Does it mean 100 units of coal now only produce 66E? In other words, 100E needs 150 units of coal?
The article goes a very long way, talking about improvements of so many percent, etc., that I smell a serious disinclination to state the real cost of this technology (beyond the trifling matter of starving plants of their essential nutrient and thence starving wildlife and the poor).

Chris Wright
September 22, 2009 3:01 am

By the time this pointless technology works the consensus will be that we need to *increase* the atmospheric CO2….
Chris

Mr Lynn
September 22, 2009 4:05 am

What we need from Realist scientists is conclusive, irrefutable proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant amount of atmospheric warming.
Is it possible to design an experiment which will clearly falsify the CO2 -> warming hypothesis?
Ideally it should be something dramatic, simple enough to be indisputable, and easily grasped by the media and the public.
That would kill the insane rush to shut down world energy production and manufacturing by simply making people wake up and exclaim, “It was all based on a mistake! There is no problem!”
Surely there is enough scientific brainpower on this site to come up with a demonstration.
/Mr Lynn

Mr Lynn
September 22, 2009 4:12 am

If I may follow up:
How about a PRIZE for the person or team who can come up with, and execute, a demonstration experiment proving that CO2 is not a problem?
I’ll bet there are a few folks with deep pockets who could endow such a prize. My pockets are shallow, but I’ll pledge a couple hundred bucks, at least.
/Mr Lynn

Mike Nicholson
September 22, 2009 4:14 am

As long as people like this continue to look on CO2 as a pollutant, and not what it is, a valuable trace gas that literallly breathes life into the planet, then we’ll continue to hear more and more about more sledgehammers to crack more nuts !
Larry Oldtimer is right about the use of CO2 for commercial growing, and I’ve supplied a link to another web site which gives some interesting info about the variable concentration of CO2 throughout each and every day ( http://www.gas-plants.com/co2-generator.html ).

Geoff Sherington
September 22, 2009 4:25 am

There would be an extra penalty, but the CO2 could be frozen to dry ice by using more of the electricity produced. At a further penalty, it could be shipped to the South Pole and kept refrigerated under the ice by electricity from windmills.
The point is, there is a stage at which the penalties become overbearing. The problem is, that point was reached even before carbon sequestration was fully costed.
Dreamin’.

Geoff Sherington
September 22, 2009 4:29 am

Re Mike McMillan at 00.25.43
“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.”
Does dandruff taste like pepper?

wws
September 22, 2009 4:48 am

“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.”
“Does dandruff taste like pepper?”
Now that’s just nasty.
“Bobby, if I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times, Don’t comb your food!!!”

Patrick Davis
September 22, 2009 4:49 am

“E.M.Smith (01:30:13) :
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…”
You’ve said this several times, I wonder why people don’t get it. I guess with the “peak oil” scare, people don’t realise that up to 40% oil is still in the well. All those capped wells in the US just waiting to be filled with nasty CO2, and, Oh what’s this? Oil, as a by product of sequestration. Who’d of thought of that (Exxon, Enron etc etc).

Bruce Cobb
September 22, 2009 4:54 am

Mr Lynn (04:05:33) :
What we need from Realist scientists is conclusive, irrefutable proof that CO2 cannot cause any significant amount of atmospheric warming.
It has never been proven in any way that C02 can, or ever has caused significant warming; just a very vague correlation which when examined, even that falls apart.
There is plenty of evidence that C02 doesn’t provide much warming, particularly once it reaches a certain minimal level.
The biggest problem isn’t actually a scientific one, but a political and sociological one.
But, AGW/CC alarmism carries the seeds of its own destruction anyway.

Vincent
September 22, 2009 4:56 am

I do think that the CO2 waste disposal problems will dwarf those of the nuclear. The S of CCS stands for storage, but only the capture costs are discussed. One estimate for bore holes in the US is that 100,000 will need to be drilled, at a cost of $10m each – 1 trillion dollars.
This is almost an order of magnitude greater than the estimated cost of the capture in the first place. Who’s going drill these? The utilities? I doubt it. They will have to pay somebody else, and those costs will be added on to the costs of generation, on top of the capture costs.
Imagine full scale CCS, generating a billion of tons of liquid CO2 each year. Can anyone even imagine such a vast quantity? Well, try and picture 5 thousand of the worlds largest cargo ships, and that will be pretty close. Now imagine this huge mass being stored, not only for 1 year, but year after year, decade after decade.
Call me cynical, but it’ll never catch on!

JeffK
September 22, 2009 5:04 am

Remind me again why the ‘Green’ people are wanting to starve the trees & plants?!?! What hypocritical idiots…

metnav
September 22, 2009 5:08 am

Tom S. (01:50:43) :
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.
Amen Tom S. I feel the same. Two folks I consider good friends are MSME holders and rabid AGW supporters. When asked why the fixation with CO2, I get no believable answers just standard AGW party line rubbish.

Norm Milliard
September 22, 2009 5:08 am

It’s not a Carbon storage but rather carbon with oxygen storage, twice as much oxygen as carbon actually.

Patrick Davis
September 22, 2009 5:26 am

Scientists never think about and cannot possibly factor in all possible effects of their “solutions to problems”. Cane toad introduction to Australia is a classic example of “unexpected results”, ok science has improved since the 1930’s, but have we heard this before? Something t do with oceans and and iron particles (I think it was). Scientists have solutions, like unleaded fuel (Because the oil companies didn’t want to bear the cost of making purer fuel (Which they did before anyway), and passed that on to the consumer – catalytic converters and unleaded fuel).

RexAlan
September 22, 2009 5:27 am

Well I speek for the plants… For millions of years we have been providing you with free food and oxygen and asking nothing in return; and now you plan to betray us bye taking away our life giving “CO2”. Believe me if this madness doesn’t stop with our dying breath we will have our revenge.

Ron de Haan
September 22, 2009 5:28 am

CO2 sequestration and storage is absolute madness.
We will consume our coal stocks much quicker, it will use up huge amounts of water
and it will drive up electricity prices.
It will not effect our climate for one bit.
We risk our development, our economy, our jobs and in the end our freedom.
We have to stop the loons behind the scam and talk some sense into our politicians or vote them out.
We have to isolate the Green Fanatics and the charletans and fight the doctrine because it is causing more harm to our societies and the developing world and it’s populations than all terror organizations put together.
There is no other solution.
History is our witness and if we study our past we will know what we have to do.

Patrick Davis
September 22, 2009 5:34 am

“Vincent (04:56:39) :
Imagine full scale CCS, generating a billion of tons of liquid CO2 each year. Can anyone even imagine such a vast quantity? Well, try and picture 5 thousand of the worlds largest cargo ships, and that will be pretty close. Now imagine this huge mass being stored, not only for 1 year, but year after year, decade after decade.
Call me cynical, but it’ll never catch on!”
As E. M. Smith elludes to, there are interested parties for vast quantities of “free” liquid CO2 pumped into “the gound” (Read old oil wells, even new ones I guess).

old construction worker
September 22, 2009 5:38 am

John Podesta was on CNBC, Squawk Box, this morning pushing CO2 Cap and Tax.
The big guns will be on CNBC, Squawk Box, tomarrow pushing for CO2 Cap and Tax.

RexAlan
September 22, 2009 5:42 am

Oops: Speak for the plants!

PSU-EMS-Alum
September 22, 2009 5:56 am

Cassandra King (23:04:26) :
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”!
—-
Who is John Galt?

Mr Lynn
September 22, 2009 6:06 am

Bruce Cobb (04:54:35) :
It has never been proven in any way that C02 can, or ever has caused significant warming; just a very vague correlation which when examined, even that falls apart.
There is plenty of evidence that C02 doesn’t provide much warming, particularly once it reaches a certain minimal level.
The biggest problem isn’t actually a scientific one, but a political and sociological one. . .

This is all true, but that “very vague correlation” has been enough for the Alarmists to persuade a very large number of intelligent people that CO2 presents a dire threat to the future of the Earth, and that drastic measures to contain CO2 are called for.
A very bright, technically literate undergraduate wrote to me recently,

. . . Man-made global climate change is real and important. Massive CO2 outgassing is one of multiple ways in which we’ve altered the complicated system that is our climate (its role has definitely been magnified by the media, because it is easy to understand). . .
We are drastically changing the system in which we live and almost every informed (scientifically modeled and researched) estimate about the result of these changes predicts negative changes for our ecosystem.

This is what kids are being taught. I think we need something dramatic, a definitive test that will slap bright but acquiescent people in the face with the realization that the assumption which underlies this teaching is simply wrong.
If it could be shown definitively that CO2 simply cannotcreate significant amounts of atmospheric warming, then the Alarmists would find themselves out on a limb that is breaking off.
/Mr Lynn

September 22, 2009 6:22 am

Mr Lynn,
Another poster [A. Giurffa, IIRC] posted this a while back:

Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago
The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine, 1909, vol 17, p319-320.
Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a “coldframe” rather than a building a person could walk into.
He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.
During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.
The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn’t indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transferred through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn’t conduct heat at the same rate.
The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn’t cause higher air temperature, then CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.

Seems like a simple experiment to falsify the greenhouse effect.

wws
September 22, 2009 6:37 am

Just a comment on some of the “BIg Oil” comments – it may surprise many to know that so-called “big oil” (companies such as Exxon and Chevron) don’t have a production presence inside the continental US anymore – their operations have all been moved either offshore or overseas over the last 20 years. Yes, it shocks most people to hear this, but I am involved in the industry here in Texas, and they’ve left. The independants, much smaller and more nimble companies, are all we still have here. (The majors still have refineries, but that’s a very different business) The rights to the old fields they used to control have all been sold off – I know investors and speculators who have bought some of them.
Do note that I am referring to lower 48 land projects, not offshore, not Alaska – although the independants are doing an impressive amount of the offshore work now as well, I think the majority of it, but I don’t have the data to confirm that.
But when people talk about “Big OIl’s” view on US energy policy, I have to shake my head. “BIg Oil” doesn’t give a damn what this country does anymore – they’ve left. And no one noticed while it was happening.
The corollary of this – and possibly the reason they’ve made this move – is that they are now essentially immune to any burdens the US government could try to place on them. They are not American companies anymore, even though they may present that corporate face to the world for PR purposes.