From MIT, while “plug-and-play” is cited, it’s just a paper.
Getting the carbon out of emissions
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Many researchers around the world are seeking ways to “scrub” carbon dioxide (CO2) from the emissions of fossil-fuel power plants as a way of curbing the gas that is considered most responsible for global climate change. But most such systems rely on complex plumbing to divert the steam used to drive the turbines that generate power in these plants, and such systems are not practical as retrofits to existing plants.
Now, researchers at MIT have come up with a scrubbing system that requires no steam connection, can operate at lower temperatures, and would essentially be a “plug-and-play” solution that could be added relatively easily to any existing power plant.
The new electrochemical system is described in a paper just published online in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, and written by doctoral student Michael Stern, chemical engineering professor T. Alan Hatton and two others.
The system is a variation on a well-studied technology that uses chemical compounds called amines, which bind with CO2 in the plant’s emission stream and can then release the gas when heated in a separate chamber. But the conventional process requires that almost half of the power plant’s low-pressure steam be diverted to provide the heat needed to force the amines to release the gas. That massive diversion would require such extensive changes to existing power plants that it is not considered economically feasible as a retrofit.
In the new system, an electrochemical process replaces the steam-based separation of amines and CO2. This system only requires electricity, so it can easily be added to an existing plant.
The system uses a solution of amines, injected at the top of an absorption column in which the effluent gases are rising from below. The amines bind with CO2 in the emissions stream and are collected in liquid form at the bottom of the column. Then, they are processed electrochemically, using a metal electrode to force the release of the CO2; the original amine molecules are then regenerated and reused.
As with the conventional thermal-amine scrubber systems, this technology should be capable of removing 90 percent of CO2 from a plant’s emissions, the researchers say. But while the conventional CO2-capture process uses about 40 percent of a plant’s power output, the new system would consume only about 25 percent of the power, making it more attractive.
In addition, while steam-based systems must operate continuously, the all-electric system can be dialed back during peak demand, providing greater operational flexibility, Stern says. “Our system is something you just plug in, so you can quickly turn it down when you have a high cost or high need for electricity,” he says.
Another advantage is that this process produces CO2 under pressure, which is required to inject the gas into underground reservoirs for long-term disposal. Other systems require a separate compressor to pressurize the gas, creating further complexity and inefficiency.
The chemicals themselves — mostly small polyamines — are widely used and easily available industrial materials, says Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering Practice. Further research will examine which of several such compounds works best in the proposed system.
So far, the research team, which also includes former MIT research scientist Fritz Simeon and Howard Herzog, a senior research engineer at the MIT Energy Initiative, has done mathematical modeling and a small-scale laboratory test of the system. Next, they hope to move on to larger-scale tests to prove the system’s performance. They say it could take five to 10 years for the system to be developed to the point of widespread commercialization.
Because it does not rely on steam from a boiler, this system could also be used for other applications that do not involve steam — such as cement factories, which are among the leading producers of CO2 emissions, Stern says. It could also be used to curb emissions from steel or aluminum plants.
It could also be useful in other CO2 removal, Hatton says, such as in submarines or spacecraft, where carbon dioxide can accumulate to levels that could endanger human health, and must be continually removed.
The work was supported by Siemens AG and by the U.S. Department of Energy through the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this system works as stated. Does anyone really think this will placate the warmistas?
CO2! What a fixation. The amount of good to be realized from these scrubbers reminds me of the old lady who urinated in the ocean and thought she caused the tide to come in.
“Ready in 5 to 10 years” – by then the carbon hysteria will have run its course, and even Al Gore
will be sick and tired of the whole dirty mess.
Then when we discover CO2 is not all bad we can release it back into the atmosphere.
This idea is fundamentally flawed because if it worked it would allow us to employ fossil fuels to power economic growth and human progress.
I have an even better idea for CO2 scrubbers. Its called plants. And after they’ve scrubbed CO2 from the atmosphere, we eat them.
We really do need to see more scientists educated in the elementary aspects of the carbon cycle. If this does not happen we will continue to see them advocating for dangerous and unwarranted public policy.
New idea? We were using amine CO2 scrubbers 20 years ago when I was on submarines…
I’m sorry, did they just say a CO2 scrubber uses 40% of a power plant’s output? Does that mean for each kWh I buy from my power company I have to buy an additional one to clear my CO2 contribution? So I seriously am paying double for power? That can’t be right can it?
Conservation of energy.
CO2 capture is two steps forward one (or maybe even 2) steps back. I have trouble seeing how this would help anything…other than creating some more of those green jobs, perhaps.
25% of the electricity vs 40% as mix of low temperature (mostly waste heat) steam and some electricity (for punps, fans and compressors), not sure this is such a bargain.
Often early estimates of new technology tend to err on the optimistic side too but I wish them good luck though I hope the technology never will be needed for CCS. Unless it is for extracting more oil and gas off cause.
We are talking about reducing or eliminating emissions of a trace gas, carbon dioxide, required by green plants to produce the oxygen we need to exist, right? Sounds like a costly solution to a non-problem. The engineers and scientists buying into this BS should be ashamed of themselves. It certainly doesn’t reflect well on their professions.
Another solution in search of a problem.
Don’t they have such systems already on nuclear submarines?
Don’t these idiots realize that for every carbon molecule they put underground they are also sequestering two oxygen atoms. That is the beauty of the natural process, it removes the carbon and leaves the oxygen for me to breath.
Does this system work at night?
After all it’s the nocturnal emissions that are most dangerous.
Low-temperature steam is cheap, Electricity is not, and will become even more expensive.
The system idea was lifted from natural gas processing, where acid gases (CO2, H2S) are scrubbed from a gas stream with an absorbent – usually a fluid based on amines, glycols, or both. The most expensive problem arises in the distillation column where the fluid is degassed:
HEAT + ACID + WATER + METAL = CORROSION.
A 25% performance hit still sucks and is not worth the supposed gain.
What happens to the CO2 once it is released from the amines?
At least it’s not another electrical car or worse another GCM.
A system like this has been in use in US submarines since the 60’s. It is very effective at maintaining CO2 levels in the submarine atmosphere. It is a power hog and I wonder if a 25% reduction in available power plant output is economically feasible.
Sequestering CO2 even if it could be done for free is a stupid idea.
As tadchem says, CO2 scrubbing by amines is well known and often used. This is a wrinkle that may or may not (probably) be an economic alternative to temperature swing. For natural gas or landfill gas processing, the CO2 can be blown off into the atmosphere or cleaned, captured, compressed and chilled for some industrial use. It eventually ends up in the atmosphere. You can also use zeolites to separate the CO2. It they are used in natural gas and landfill gas separations. However, compressing stack gas at 10%-15% CO2 to 200 psi is probably a bit energy intensive. (Actually, my company makes pipeline methane from landfill gas using zeolite separation and compression is darned expensive).
This bit of research doesn’t address the problem with what do you do with the CO2 once you have it.
Well if it works as advertised there is a big and growing market.
” Global demand for coal is expected to grow to 8.9 billion tons by 2016 from 7.9 billion tons this year, with the bulk of new demand — about 700 million tons — coming from China, according to a Peabody Energy study. China is expected to add 240 gigawatts, the equivalent of adding about 160 new coal-fired plants to the 620 operating now, within four years. During that period, India will add an additional 70 gigawatts through more than 46 plants.
“If you poke your head outside of the U.S., coal-fired plants are being built left and right,” said William L. Burns, an energy analyst with Johnson Rice in New Orleans. “Coal is still the cheapest fuel source.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/china-leads-the-way-as-demand-for-coal-surges-worldwide.html?_r=1&
Despite Obama’s nice little speech he made this week.
A very nice little speech indeed.
Dave says-
“Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this system works as stated. Does anyone really think this will placate the warmistas?”
Excellent question, sir. We already know the answer to that question, from here-
CURRENT AFFAIRS ANALYSIS
ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS BAD FOR THE PLANET? – TRANSCRIPT OF A RECORDED DOCUMENTARY
Presenter: Justin Rowlatt
BBC4, Broadcast Date: 25.01.10
“TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200 really hardcore, deep environmentalists and I played a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure with my little magic wand that we do not go above two degrees of global warming. However, by waving my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger, the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over the place but there will be no climate change. And I asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised their hands.
ROWLATT: That is quite shocking. I bet you were shocked, weren’t you?
TOWNSEND: I was angry. I wasn’t shocked. I was angry because it really showed that they wanted more. They didn’t just want to prevent climate change. They wanted to somehow change people, or at very least for people to know that they had to change.”