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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
91 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
George E. Smith
September 22, 2009 1:26 pm

“”” Ron de Haan (10:52:24) :
George E. Smith (10:15:24) :
Thanks for your wise words George but may I add the word “dangerous” to “idiots”.
I grew up during the Cold War and served with our Air Force. “””
Ron my hat is off to anyone who has served our country in the services; we can’t ever repay you for that; thanks for sharing that little bit of your past. I’m old enough to have watched the cold war from start to finish; well maybe just to armistice, as it seems like we have “dangerous idiots” bent on getting back into that.
My asthma exccused me from any of those conflicts; but I can never pass up a chance to honor those who stood in for me.
Thanks Ron

paul c
September 22, 2009 3:43 pm

Thank you Mark S. I was thinking about the liquid injection and earthquake correlation as I read the thread, but I could not remember the details. And that was from quantities small compared to the amount of CO2 being discussed.
I suggest that random and large injections of CO2 could result in a massive demonstration of unintended consequences.

September 22, 2009 4:03 pm


Sandy (00:59:29) :

The Dutch use tomatoes, what other fast growing crops would work?
No not marijuana, no matter how fast it grows!

Alex, I’ll take fast-growing plant-life for $10,000 … What is Kudzu?
The vine pejoratively known as the “foot-a-night vine”, “mile-a-minute vine”[1], and “the vine that ate the South”.
.
.

September 22, 2009 4:09 pm

Pressurized oxy-fuel combustion sounds like partial oxidization (gasification) technology done halfway. Oxy-fuel combustion is a great way to reduce NOx emissions. Probably more efficient too, since it doesn’t have to heat all that nitrogen.
But, as someone mentioned, air separation units are famous energy hogs. Depending on the quantity of oxygen required, the air separation unit could use well over 100 MWh all by itself. That’s a lot of parasitic load on the power plant. Now add the electricity (or steam) needed to run the CO2 compressor, acid gas removal (yes, sulfur components still have to be removed), and other auxiliary systems and you’re talking a substantial parasitic load. I also suspect the overall cost of the facility would go up a bit.
Why not just go straight gasification technology and skip this interim step? The technology is proven and it’s more efficient than typical coal fired power plants. The gasifier produces carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. The CO is subsequently converted to LOTS of hydrogen via a “water gas shift” reaction (CO + H2O = CO2 + H2). The process also converts COS to H2S and CO2. The acid gas removal system deals more with H2S than SO2 & SO3.
But I’m rambling.
Jesse

Claude Harvey
September 22, 2009 4:45 pm

I can hardly wait for the environmental impact hearings on the first commercial power plant that proposes to give the revered “Holy Mother Earth” a CO2 enema. “Hold ‘er down boys, this is for her own good!”

Richard M
September 22, 2009 6:00 pm

Vertical algae farms have also been proposed as devices for CO2 reduction. I have no idea what percentage of the CO2 output a power plant could funnel into the algae, but at least they end up with a usable product.

3x2
September 22, 2009 6:51 pm

Vincent (09:16:31) :
Re: Wood and Greenhouses,
IMO, skeptic arguments that deny the reality that CO2 has a greenhouse forcing, or somehow violates the second law of thermodynamics, just exposes us to ridicule.

No.. just suggesting that 1.3 billion cubic km of variable state water may have a vote at the table.

Bulldust
September 22, 2009 8:50 pm

A presentation on uranium/nuclear energy recently had an interesting case study. I think it may have been a company like Duke (memory on the company is sketchy) that was looking to build a reactor on an old coal-fired plant site (due to the cost savings from existing infrastructure to connect to the grid).
They found they had to clean the site prior to building the nuke because the ground was too “hot” from the flyash and would set off the future sensors of the nuke plant.
Ironically the Aussies want nothing to do with nuclear plants but they are happy to have coal plants all over the place… scientifically clueless. Ignorant hypocrisy is all around you these days. This from the country that is one of the largest suppliers of uranium /boggle. The gods forbid they store the waste in our backyard either (despite being probably the most suitable place on the planet for it… geologically speaking).

Roger Knights
September 22, 2009 9:32 pm

“What we do know is that an earthquake can be induced by pumping water into the ground. It happened near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal back in the 60’s.”
About a week ago I read an article on geothermal power that stated that water-injection systems into hot deep rock had caused earthquakes also, meaning that such plants have to be located away from urban areas.

Allan M R MacRae
September 22, 2009 10:55 pm

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/an_energy_strategy_for_america1/
An Energy Strategy for America
By Allan M.R. MacRae
November 2008
The USA has two daunting problems – the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression; and President-Elect Obama’s energy policies, which will severely deepen the economic crisis. Obama stated in a San Francisco Chronicle television interview that he wants to implement an aggressive CO2 cap-and-trade system that could bankrupt coal companies. He further stated that energy prices will necessarily skyrocket. Obama believes that global warming is a critical issue, and he supports the use of solar energy, wind power and biodiesel. To his credit, Obama also supports a market approach and technological development.
In 2007, US primary energy consumption consisted of oil (40%), natural gas (25%), coal (24%), nuclear (8%) and hydroelectricity (2%). As a percentage of total proved reserves of fossil fuels, the US holds just over 2% of the world’s oil, 3% of natural gas, but almost 29% of global coal.
Energy projects have been constrained due to fears of catastrophic global warming, allegedly caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from burning fossil fuels. However, global warming is just not happening anymore. For the last decade, average global temperatures have not increased. Since January 2007 all global warming has disappeared, as average temperatures plummeted to 1979 levels – when accurate satellite measurements began.
Global cooling is now occurring and is expected to continue for the next twenty to thirty years, due to the recent shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm to cool phase. See here and here.
Despite shrill claims of ice cap melting, Arctic sea-ice extent is now at its highest seasonal level since modern satellite measurements began in 2002 – more evidence of global cooling. For decades, the US has experienced a huge balance of trade deficit, due primarily to high oil imports. Energy self-sufficiency has been the goal of recent US Presidents, without success. There is now an opportunity to address both these serious challenges, by rejecting global warming myths and creating an energy strategy based on true, verifiable facts. Here is the outline of a responsible and economic Energy Strategy for America:
1. Reject CO2 taxes and cap-and-trade measures used to “fight global warming”. Examine the satellite data, the only accurate global temperature measurements in existence. Climate Dyslexics please note: The Earth is cooling, not warming. Global cooling should last for twenty to thirty years and could be severe.
2. Generate much more electrical energy from abundant US coal reserves. Use existing technologies to control real atmospheric pollution from SOx, NOx and particulates, but do not control CO2. In the future, if CO2 sequestration becomes economically attractive (for enhanced oil recovery) or is proved necessary (in the unlikely event that global warming becomes a real problem), retrofit the coal plants with expensive CO2 recovery equipment at that time.
3. As rechargeable battery technology continues to improve, electric and gasoline-electric light vehicles will become commonplace. The power infrastructure already exists to fuel this fleet, and refueling can be done during off-peak periods, when power plants are underutilized. This major change in the light vehicle fleet will shift energy consumption from foreign oil to domestic coal.
4. Re-examine corn ethanol and wind power, which do not work economically or effectively. Corn ethanol for motor fuel requires huge ongoing subsidies and severely distorts food prices. Wind power also requires big subsidies, and almost 100% backup with conventional power generation. Wind power can also cause critical instabilities in the electric power grid. Conduct a full-life-cycle energy balance on corn ethanol, wind power, biodiesel and solar energy, and also examine the environmental demands and pollution associated with these so-called “green” technologies.
5. Re-examine hydrogen. It is an energy medium, like electricity, but if implemented would require a huge new hydrogen infrastructure to be built at great cost, for no environmental or energy gain.
6. Avoid energy subsidies, especially ongoing operating subsidies, which distort economic decisions and create expensive industrial and environmental boondoggles. Wind power and corn ethanol may prove to be two such costly mistakes.
Instead of skyrocketing energy prices, this Energy Strategy for America will result in lower costs, improved balance of trade, and in time could even provide energy self-sufficiency for the USA.
Allan M.R. MacRae is a Professional Engineer and writer on energy and the environment. In 2002 he predicted in a newspaper article that global cooling would recur. He does not work in the coal industry, accepts no compensation for his writing and holds no coal investments

Claude Harvey
September 23, 2009 12:46 am

Re: Allan M R MacRae (22:55:31) :
Better check your facts, Allen; especially your report on Arctic sea ice extent (it bottomed out in 2007). Although you got some of it right, I wouldn’t give up my day job quite yet. The prognostication and energy consulting fields are quite crowded at the moment. Incidentally, the problem with hydrogen, the perfect fuel, is that it takes considerably more energy to produce the stuff than the stuff contains. That’s what we in the energy business used to call “a self-eating watermelon”.

September 23, 2009 4:52 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.
===
Question: Does increasing CO2 levels cause a detectable increase in the temperature of the earth over significant periods of time?
Design of experiment:
1) Obtain one (1) earth; complete with a single worldwide, stable, constant temperature with respect to time. Isolate said “earth” from all variable influences (except CO2.)
2) Measure various temperatures of the subject (earth) for various periods of time using various processes over the duration of the experience (er, experiment.)
3) At a given point in time in the experiment, begin increasing CO2 levels.
4) Determine what temperatures are valid, correctly obtained, and accurate with respect to the actual temperature of the earth when the various temperatures were recorded from the various processes.
5) Plot all (valid, correct, and accurate) temperatures of earth with respect to time of observation.

Various sources indicate Step 1 has begun, but is incomplete.
Steps 2 and 3 are proceeding.
We are now at step 4.
The politicians (including those who wear academic robes, are now past Steps 6 through 78 and are in full panic mode about Steps 79 through 158.

September 23, 2009 8:54 am

Wow. Does little for existing power plants, which to use this technology would have to pass through New Source Review a real regulatory never-never-land.
In addition, to have an oxy-fuel system in which pure oxygen is combusted with the fuel means having a large supply of pure oxygen on site, probably in the form of an on-site gas separation plant, and additional complexity in plant operations and day-to-day hazards. Add to that the fact that now the power plant has additional hazardous materials on-site. I’m sure communities will embrace that, too, with open arms.
Anyone know if there has been a trustworthy analysis of how much storage capacity is in the US for these projects?

Larry
September 23, 2009 10:01 pm

Cassandra King –
I’m afraid you are right, dear. I’m not one prone to conspiracy theories, either. But how else do you explain the madness that has seized the IPCC bureaucrats and the alarmists?

Allan M R MacRae
September 26, 2009 7:19 am

Claude – don’t be a clod.
Please note the date on my article re Arctic Sea ice – you are correct, but so was I at the time of writing. Arctic sea ice does appear to be recovering from the summer low of 2007.
RE Hydrogen – I agree. It sucks. Re-read what I said.
RE my day job. I’ll compare my achievements in the energy business with yours anytime.

Leland Palmer
September 26, 2009 11:17 am

[snip ~ I think I’ve said it before. Modify your tone or post elsewhere ~ ctm]
This development of pressurized oxyfuel combustion is a very good thing, in my opinion, and posting this article on WUWT is the first time I can remember WUWT actually posting an article that mentions a potentially positive solution to the global warming problem, rather than simple and outright skepticism.
I don’t have time to argue with people this weekend, unfortunately.
No, CCS would not require coal fired power plants to be relocated.
Yes, it is potentially extremely useful, especially if the coal fired power plants are progressively transformed into biomass or biochar power plants.
It is also possible to retrofit an external gas turbine topping cycle to existing coal fired power plants or oxyfuel retrofitsf, and pay for the conversions and CCS with increased efficiency.
Combining an oxyfuel power plant with biomass or biochar fuel can result in a carbon negative power plant, that actually puts carbon back in the ground while generating electricity. This is a synergistic solution, that can have a huge impact on the climate problem. If we did this worldwide and immediately, we could put 6 billion tons of carbon per year back underground, and put the 300 billon tons of carbon we have put in the atmosphere back underground in about 50 years. Many coal fired power plants are located on rivers or lakes for cooling water, and rivers and lakes constitute natural biomass or biochar transport networks, to get the biomass or biochar to the power plants.
Good for MIT, and good for WUWT for posting this potentially positive solution to the climate crisis, instead of simply engaging [snip ~ ctm]