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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It still uses oxygen and still produces Co2, if the Co2 is not released to the atmosphere but stored somehow, it means we are depleting our atmosphere of oxygen, we need more not less.
[snip. You are persona non grata at WUWT. — mod.]
Here’s a recent white paper on the concept, published by Babock & Wilcox. http://www.babcock.com/library/pdf/BR-1892.pdf
I’d urge caution, they don’t eliminate CO2, but merely concentrate it so that it is easier to handle. Also, I didn’t see them mention contaminants (coal is loaded with uranium, radium, arsenic, lead, mercury & other junk), plus sulfur, silica and calcium compounds.
Sorry, I’ve seen far too many of these “miracle process” things come and go over the past 30 years…the last one was thermal depolymerization, which managed to stink up the town of Carthage, Missouri when the owners tried to turn turkey guts into renewable fuel.
[snip. You are persona non grata here. — mod.]
“Owen in GA says:
February 20, 2013 at 7:32 pm”
Flyash is used and can be used even more so in construction using concrete. So not that much of a problem IMO. But I agree with many here, it’s just a call for funding from the alarmist gravy train!
Well !
Let us all join in and dig the hole where we can bury windfarms and solarpanels and make the economy boom again! And wave the green khmers goood bye!!
This is nothing new, so they have re-invented the wheel or something. The so called sealed reaction chamber is no different to a gasification column. the so called syngas, and producer gasses are hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the gas coking process. Read about it on Wikipedia, and compare this with the “Doctor’s” process. Does this do the same thing? Yes it does. Nothing new to see here then, move along now.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gasification]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_gas]
[snip. — mod.]
Gary Hladik says:
February 20, 2013 at 8:22 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Priceless!
How much energy do they get out per Kg of Coal compared to burning it traditionally?
How much does it cost for the chemicals involved in the “chemical process”?
What are those chemicals, where do they come from and where do they end up?
Hi guys , started visiting this site (and will keep doing so) for serious science now I come for a few laughs and a good story (Willis) as well.
[snip. Per Anthony, you are one of the very rare persona non grata here. Run along now. — mod.]
Aren’t these two statements at odds with each other? Please explain!!!
++++++
1) “the process does not “burn” the coal so does not produce CO2.”
2) 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.”
The CO2 is not produced, but it is created and contained?????
Moe said on February 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm:
Odds are pretty high these days. Someone goes to post, and if it doesn’t pop right up “awaiting moderation” or something else is wrong, they think it’s a WordPress screw-up and they should have been logged in. So you end up with the first version with a name, and the second version with their WordPress account name.
In this case, “Klaas Fokkema” made the first post, noticed he had forgot to hawk a tiny “I get paid for clicks” commercial site, then re-posted the same thing with the link.
Common mistake, site promotion… Not sock puppetry, this time.
this won’t mean a thing. climate change is a means to control and power not carbon dioxde. If you don’t know the enemy you can not win the war.
If it’s so clean, why are they wearing heavy gas masks?
I have nothing against CO2 going into the atmosphere at present rates and many photosynthetic organisms probably would back me up on that view but since these carbon atoms have been sitting around underground for so long, it wouldn’t hurt to delay them a bit if concentrated CO2 can be captured more easily from such a process. There have been some interesting developments in industrial chemistry like catalysts which can convert CO2 and light into methanol fairly cheaply and closed system aquaculture and agriculture that use higher CO2 to increase yields. Even if algae doesn’t become a fuel source in the near term it is still possible to use it to make animal feed, chemicals and pharmaceuticals (if modified). CO2 could be used in these operations (learning to grow algae for these reasons in closed systems on cheap desert land may help spur the advancements of fuel algae enterprises).
Cheaper CO2 may advance industries and research that would not have been cost effective if you were trying to capture it from flue gas.
“If it’s so clean, why are they wearing heavy gas masks?”
Well, the EPA seems to believe that particulate matter is instantly lethal at certain quantities. Unfortunately they didn’t find the high enough concentration when testing it on humans without their informed consent so no one is taking any chances. Better luck next time EPA.
Could be interesting as there would be no burned products – no NOx, SOx etc. and no heavy metals, mercury and so on put into the air. The CO2 capture is a nod to the funding. The efficiency is the question as process needs pure oxygen and questions about long term fouling of the catalyst material with contaminents like the heavy metals. The heat capture and conversion to electricity would be subject to the ususal losses.
D.B. Stealey says: February 20, 2013 at 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?
————————————————————————–
China signed the Kyoto agreement, therefore they are good guys. The US under Clinton never signed, therefore we are the bad guys. Get it? Neither do I. Plus, as a developing country, China was not required to lower emissions, so signing carried zero penalty for them. In China’s defense, they are currently building 28 large nuke power plants and have over 100 on order or planned.
D.B. Stealey says: Steve,
No one likes pollution. But CO2 is no more polluting than H2O.
Current processes for removing real pollutants (SO2 & NO2 for example) aren’t cheap. Perhaps in their attempt to eliminate CO2, they might have found a more economical mwans of reducing real pollutants…that was the intent of my previous message. Bottom line, we will use whatever form of fuel most cost effective to produce electricity…would love for that to be coal since we have so much of it…
None the less, a waste of money.
Aw what a shame LazyT is not allowed any more. I always enjoyed the smack down he/she usually received by the more erudite denizens in this venue… I usually learned something from the exchange.
My immediate reaction to this story was like so many other commenters – where do they put the CO2? My suggestion is that they could sell it to nurseries and forresters as growth promoter and make some extra income to pay for the expensive infrastructure and processing required to attain the required particle size. /sarc
Looks like the UN is moving on to the next scare scam.
Effects of human exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals examined in landmark UN report
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/hormone_disrupting_20130219/en/index.html
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, warmongers.