Now what is 'death train' Hansen going to do? Clean coal process developed to extract energy without burning or CO2

From James Hansen’s, Bill McKibben’s and Joe Romm’s worst nightmare department, comes this uplifting science story from the Ohio State University. Basically they found a way to oxidize coal and extract energy without releasing any CO2.

When a team of Ohio State students worked around the clock for nine days straight recently, they weren’t pulling the typical college “all-nighters.”

Instead, they were reaching a milestone in clean coal technology.

For 203 continuous hours, they operated a scaled-down version of a power plant combustion system with a unique experimental design–one that chemically converts coal to heat while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the reaction.

This new technology, called coal-direct chemical looping, was pioneered by Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory. (Fan is a Distinguished University Professor and a 2012 Innovator of the Year.)

Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn’t burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn’t pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.

“In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan says. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning.”

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group’s team leaders, says the technology’s potential benefits go beyond the environment: “The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America’s natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs.”

The researchers are about to take the technology to the next level: a pilot plant is under construction at the U.S. Department of Energy‘s National Carbon Capture Center. Set to begin operations in late 2013, that plant will produce 250 thermal kilowatts using syngas. Tests there will set the stage for future commercial development.

“At Ohio State, with a team of creative minds, we can take a technological concept closer to real commercial use,” Wang says.

The technology looks promising: as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the 203-hour experiment could have continued even longer.

“We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. Honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts,” she says.

Fan’s students were thrilled to be involved in this breakthrough, even if they did lose some sleep.

“Ohio State has been very supportive of our research efforts,” Fan says. The result of the university’s backing? A place, he says, where “brilliant invention and cutting-edge research can be successful and progressive.”

===============================================================

From: New Coal Technology Harnesses Energy Without Burning, Nears Pilot-Scale Development 

“In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan said. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning. We carefully control the chemical reaction so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor.”

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group’s team leaders, described the technology’s potential benefits. “The commercial-scale CDCL plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America’s natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs,” he said.

“We carefully control the chemical reaction so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor.”


Though other laboratories around the world are trying to develop similar technology to directly convert coal to electricity, Fan’s lab is unique in the way it processes fossil fuels. The Ohio State group typically studies coal in the two forms that are already commonly available to the power industry: crushed coal “feedstock,” and coal-derived syngas.

The latter fuel has been successfully studied in a second sub-pilot research-scale unit, through a similar process called Syngas Chemical Looping (SCL).  Both units are located in a building on Ohio State’s Columbus campus, and each is contained in a 25-foot-high insulated metal cylinder that resembles a very tall home water heater tank.

No other lab has continuously operated a coal-direct chemical looping unit as long as the Ohio State lab did last September. But as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the experiment could have continued.

“We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. We actually could have run longer, but honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts,” she said.

==============================================================

Joe Romm of course can’t yet bring himself to carry this story over at Climate Progress, but Fox News used an old quote from one of CP’s nuttiest professors, yes our old friend Donald Brown, who says:

“Claiming that coal is clean because it could be clean — if a new technically unproven and economically dubious technology might be adopted — is like someone claiming that belladonna is not poisonous because there is a new unproven safe pill under development,” wrote Donald Brown at liberal think tank Climate Progress.

Heh.  Read more here: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/

Rational people would of course embrace such news positively. But of course, we aren’t dealing with rational people at Climate Progress, or at 350.org, so I don’t expect them or James Hansen to be happy about this development.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

191 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sean
February 20, 2013 7:00 pm

“a way to oxidize coal and extract energy without releasing any CO2”
Now if only there was an actual scientifically valid reason to not release CO2.
A real breakthrough would be if a positive use for all the surplus socialists…

Crispin in Waterloo
February 20, 2013 7:05 pm


>Two chemical looping gasification processes…
That was really succinct. CH4 and H2 are produced continuously and copiously in the crust of the Earth, and further down. Below 100 km, long chain hydrocarbons are produced. Same raw materials and catalysts.

RockyRoad
February 20, 2013 7:15 pm

This is a sad, sad day for flora everywhere.
Just how smart is it to quit feeding lifestock yet everybody thinks it’s smart to quit supplying the gas that’s essential to the living plants that feed livestock (and eventually all humans)?
Let’s just hope this technology is never used.

Editor
February 20, 2013 7:15 pm

> Now what is ‘death train’ Hansen going to do?
I’ve never had the sense that Hansen is interested in forcing people back into the 19th century. I don’t know if he’d celebrate a safe/clean/efficient coal burning process, (and I’m not sure this is safe/clean/efficient), but it might release him to go after natural gas, trucking, and other uses that can’t accomodate this system.
Bill McKibben, on the other hand, will jump on the “we’re roasting ourselves from the city outward!” bandwagon.

PeterGeorge
February 20, 2013 7:21 pm

It really would be a breakthrough, and it really would be the end of the inflated claims of climate alarmists (because the solution wouldn’t require socialism) if
a) it were much cheaper than burning coal and capturing the CO2 at the stack, and
b) we knew how to sequester the CO2 cheaply, cleanly, and safely.
(a) might be true – the article doesn’t analyze all the costs.
(b) isn’t true, probably because relatively little research is being done on this.
We still don’t have a major program to get good at sequestering CO2. Shame on us.

Theo Goodwin
February 20, 2013 7:25 pm

Mark Bofill says:
February 20, 2013 at 6:48 pm
“But, as always, technology prevails. And as usually winds up being the case, not in the manner politicians would predict. Go figure.”
Greens know this. After the carbon tax, the next step is control of technology innovation and production.

gnomish
February 20, 2013 7:26 pm

*maybe* the soft drink industry will benefit slightly now that subsidy scientists have figured out how to make CO2 in a box.
all the reaction products are the same but you can be sure this subsidy science will lighten your wallet.
they burn coal in a box
whooptidoo.

February 20, 2013 7:28 pm

This is nonsense.
The only thing it does is enhance the idea that coal is a problem that needs solving.

Donald Mitchell
February 20, 2013 7:28 pm

Wikipedia gives the standard heat of formation of CO2 as -393.5 kj*mol-1.
Wikipedia gives the standard heat of formation of Fe2O3 as -826 kj*mol-1.
This immediately gives rise to the questions of what are the temperatures and pressures of the two reaction vessels and how much thermal energy can be captured at various points 9in the cycle and what and where are the losses. What tradeoffs will be needed to reach a viable compromise between capital costs, operating costs, and efficiency? Will it even be financially feasible?
The next questions are about where are we going to put all of this CO2 and how are we going to get it there. There are is a coal burning power plants in my vicinity and it is my understanding that it burns about 10,000 tons of coal each day. This would produce 36,600 tons of CO2 each day. Without spending too much time finding exact numbers, i am guessing that this would be roughly 200,000 barrels of liquid CO2 each day. How big and long a pipeline would be needed to take it where it could be used? Would the costs of the pipeline be figured into the capital costs of the plant? How much CO2 could actually be used before before the rest would have to be disposed of in some manner? How much would this cost? Considering the opposition to the Keystone pipeline, could the pipelines actually be built?
I may be unreasonably skeptical, but I would sure be interested in seeing even a rough analysis that sketched out what might be needed to have a practical installation.

D.B. Stealey
February 20, 2013 7:30 pm

PeterGeorge says:
“We still don’t have a major program to get good at sequestering CO2. Shame on us.”
CO2 is beneficial for the biosphere. More is better, therefore there is no need whatever to sequester CO2. That is one of the stupidest ideas in all of climatology — which is saying something, considering all the scientifically illiterate ideas floating around.

Owen in GA
February 20, 2013 7:32 pm

This is much ado about nothing. There is still CO2 to get rid of (greenhouses?), if someone were to be worried about that. It does seem to remove the fly ash problem rather neatly, but I doubt the heat processing efficiency of carrying the heat via iron oxide balls to the work chamber. Then again, none of this is about improving the closed cycle efficiency of the steam process, but seeking subsidy for “clean” tech. The only good thing I can see about it is if the hype can stay high enough to fool the anti-science crowd at EPA, maybe we will be able to make electricity with coal again! (I know we still use coal, but EPAs unstated goal of the CO2 pollution finding was to put coal fired power plants out of business.)

Steve
February 20, 2013 7:33 pm

Regardless of your beliefs concerning CO2, this is a great step. Current technology for removing real pollutants is expensive…this could make it more feasible to build new coal plants….

February 20, 2013 7:33 pm

Truthseeker says:
February 20, 2013 at 6:10 pm
“Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment.”
One worries about so called “scientists” who seem know so little about CO2 that they think it is bad for the environment. Let’s see how good the environment will be without any CO2. Hmmm … no life whatsoever … Yeah, real good environment that is.
There is nothing about CO2 that is bad for the environment.

That was my reaction as well. How the dickens are we going to get it through the thick skulls of academic scientists and their students that CO2 is NOT a ‘pollutant’, and a lot more of it poses NO THREAT whatsoever to the planet, the climate, humanity, or anything?
The mindless anti-CO2 litany is as irrational as the 17th-century fear of witches, and equally ill-founded—and being counterfactual, is anti-science, dammit! Someone tell them!
/Mr Lynn

Luther Wu
February 20, 2013 7:40 pm

“If we can save even one…” “We must tax ourselves and limit our own heat and travel and food for the sake of the grandchildren- we can’t take the chance…” “Just think of the miners and the filthy dirty mines. We must stop the miming now!” “Stop dirty mines nowI”
I’m just practicing- trying to come up with some new catch phrases- trying to see if I can beat them to the punch- I know they are tenacious and won’t give up.
Must I say who “they” are?

JJ
February 20, 2013 7:40 pm

Sean says:
A real breakthrough would be if a positive use for all the surplus socialists…

There are many Kcal in a socialist.

kramer
February 20, 2013 7:45 pm

Pretty cool but what’s this going to add to the cost of using coal?

D.B. Stealey
February 20, 2013 7:51 pm

Steve,
No one likes pollution. But CO2 is no more polluting than H2O.
And none of this addresses China, India, Russia, or a hundred smaller countries, which have no intention of hobbling their economies by reducing CO2 emissions. Out of all the world’s economies, the U.S. has done about the best job of reducing emissions. The real problem [for those who believe that CO2 is a problem] is China. But we hardly ever hear a peep about China. WUWT?

John Mason
February 20, 2013 7:57 pm

Why would we want to absorb o2 which comes from plants yet not feed the plants to make more o2?
This idea is so cruel to plants.
The funny thing is, if this process proves to be economical and makes coal ‘ok’ this will expose the true agenda which is to lower the standard of living of humans as we are a blight to the planet don’t you know 🙂
In other words, there will be some reason not to remove coal from Gaia.

Jeremy
February 20, 2013 8:02 pm

The idea is not to simply to oxidize coal but to create enough heat to generate steam to drive turbines.
Hello? Do these researchers have any idea why we burn coal?
This a breakthrough isn’t. Nonsense it is.

February 20, 2013 8:07 pm

Good luck to them. It will be intereesting to see what they do (and if they rethink their position on CO2) when they bump into the “We don’t actually care about CO2 or the environment, we want to ban the use of energy, period,” group.

Swiss Bob
February 20, 2013 8:09 pm

Mr Mitchell, you are slightly high in your value for No. tons CO2 produced, more like 28,600, on average!

Skiphil
February 20, 2013 8:11 pm

Intriguing, but it may be a very expensive way to use coal. (Still better than windmills, probably, at least more reliable!) We’ll have to see about the true cost/benefit economics per unit of energy. The energy and costs involved to reduce the coal to fine powder, the iron to beads like “sprinkles”, and all the heat needed to run the process etc. Then the CO2 which is contained in the reactor but has to be dealt with if the process is sold as a way to avoid releasing the CO2 into the atmosphere (I’m not accepting that worry but noting that it will have to be addressed in an economic fashion if this process is supposed to satisfy people who do worry about that). It’s an interesting lab experiment, but we shouldn’t make assumptions about the real-world economics for this just yet.

jorgekafkazar
February 20, 2013 8:15 pm

This is sooooooooooooooooo bogus. Not a snowball’s chance in hell that it will produce any useful energy at a competitive price. Another spendulus-sucking project for Obama’s friends at best.

February 20, 2013 8:19 pm

If the claimed breakthrough includes the ability to generate heat from coal without emitting large amounts of soot, sulfur dioxide, and other components of smog [and acid rain in the case of SO2] then it is indeed a big advance in “clean coal” as the US had lots of coal.
The bit about CO2 is probably directed at the funding agencies.

Gary Hladik
February 20, 2013 8:22 pm

CodeTech says (February 20, 2013 at 6:13 pm): “Great, it captures the CO2…
Then what do they do with it?”
Well, the best thing would be to sequester the CO2 where it can’t do any harm. I suggest sequestering it deep in the atmosphere, where it won’t pollute underground porous rock layers or aquifers, and won’t require long pipelines that could rupture and suffocate a bunch of folks. Plus, reverse underground sequestration is a mature technology, quite inexpensive, and is thought to have beneficial side effects on Gaian life forms. Moreover, the atmospheric sequestration sink is practically limitless AND actually RECYCLES CO2 into oxygen and flowers; the alternatives merely store the inert pollutants indefinitely, kind of like nuclear waste, except CO2 DOESN’T DECAY!!!
So why would anyone want to pollute–at great expense–beautiful naturally pristine underground expanses FOREVER when this deadly waste can be RECYCLED into life-giving gasses and sheer natural beauty for mere pennies? To me it’s a no-brainer.
🙂