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.
OK so the amines remove the CO2 from the boiler fumes, these amines are then heated presumably for reuse, to release the CO2. Then what? you still have CO2.
This sounds like one of those scam add on devices to increase a car’s mileage per gallon only to find it uses more gas to work. But you have paid your money and the company has gone.
Brilliant! Lets run the world out of limited coal resources 33% earlier, and bring about the greatest loss of human life ever seen 25% faster! Yay! /environmentalistmode
As an engineer, it’s stupid & wasteful to remove plant-fertilizer from power plant emissions, no matter how clever the design is.
Agesilaus says:
June 29, 2013 at 7:52 am
I was in air ASW, P-3 & S-3’s, but I was able to get an honorary crewmen aboard George Washington. Spent a week aboard during a crew change out of Holy Loch. Cross deck training they used to call it.
Carbon dioxide is an odorless, tasteless, transparent, harmless gas (even at over 10 times the present level http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html), is not a pollutant (contrary to the decision of our technologically incompetent SCOTUS) and is absolutely necessary for all visible life on earth. The slight increase to the current still-impoverished atmospheric carbon dioxide level has increased food production and caused a general greening of the planet. Sequestering it is profoundly ignorant.
A simple equation at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a single external forcing, a proxy that is the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph in that paper, shows the calculated temperature anomaly trajectory overlaid on measurements.
‘The End of Global Warming’ at http://endofgw.blogspot.com/ expands recent (since 1996) temperature anomaly measurements by the five reporting agencies and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.
It’s not possible to drive from Colorado Springs to Denver without passing at least one mile long coal train supplying energy to the Front Range . Other than a few percent ash and SO2 , etc which are well worth the scrubbing , ALL of that coal becomes CO2 .
The idea that you are going to remove all of that from the exhaust leaving just the N2 , surplus O2 , and Ar is nuts .
There is apparently some market for CO2 for oil well injection , but that would be quickly saturated with just a few power plants . Using the CO2 and waste heat to grow algae or other biomass might make economic sense . But , of course , it is already demonstrably greening the planet on a global basis as a collateral bene .
What you need to understand about greens is their real objective being “forced global deindustrialization” – meaning no power plants, period. Add to that a forced top global population of well less than one billion people. They want to do this with the UN and Agenda 21 as a start. The only response to their madness must be uncompromising resistance.
Please note that each kilowatt-hour of power used to regenerate the amine results in the emission of approximately 2 pounds of CO2 or 1 ton per megawatt hour that has to be scrubbed out. In addition, more advanced amines currently under demonstration (they have graduated from the lab bench) in actual power plants have achieved greater efficiencies, more in low 20’s. The 40% number is from the first generation of amines (MEA) and also includes power for compression, transportation and injection of the CO2.
To a power plant owner, even 25% is a hell of a cut to take from the output of a power plant. “Plug-and-play” my Aunt Fannie.
I have been intrigued by the giant hydroponic greenhouses the Dutch invented – the type measured in square kilometres rather than square metres! They usually add CO2 to help the plants grow.
With a power station the low grade heat could be used to heat them, electricity could be used to power UV lamps for 24 hour operation, and the power station exhaust could be passed through a series of greenhouses until the CO2 is absorbed. The first stage could be sunflowers which also absorb heavy metals and other pollutants. These could be used as biofuel. The other greenhouses could produce food or other types of biofuel.
Being hydroponic and self contained means the soil quality of the land is irrelevant. One area of Spain with very poor soil quality now produces salad vegetables for most of Europe. Not sure how the economics stack up but I would rather billions be wasted on these than some clumsy and wasteful chemical process.
For those sueing the EPA about CO2 being classed as a toxic pollutant :
It would be interesting to grow four identical plants with varying CO2 levels, possibly using hydroponic techniques so all factors can be accurately measured. I would suggest zero CO2, 200 ppm, 400 ppm and 800 ppm. The experiment should also measure drought resistence.
I have an idea of how the results would turn out but would be interested in exactly what happens. At last we would have an accurate measurement of CO2 toxicity to plants rather than just made-up ‘science’.
Sherwood Idso made this brilliant graphic of living pine trees long ago in AGW fraud years : http://cosy.com/Science/BuildingBlockOfLifeSlide.jpg .
“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.”
That’s considered good. 25% less product out of the same inputs. That’s not just stupid, it’s “do Darwin a favor and shoot yourself in the f’ing face” stupid.
25% more coal burned for the same product… How does that reduce pollution?