Further Developments in Carbon Capture and Storage
xnic...@hotmail.com
favouring CCS, developments in the UK and the likelihood it will be
the main technology aimed at reducing China and India's C02 emissions,
it's appropriate to review some of the issues involved in this
controversial technology.
These were recently discussed in the thread:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.energy/msg/4e0ed8536256758d?&hl=en&q=carbon+capture+and+storage
--------------------------------------
James Hansen's proposal:-
---------------------------------------
Hansen et. al "Climate change and trace gases" Phil. Trans. Royal.
Soc. A, 365, 1925-1954, doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
Hansen combines his proposal for CCS with the suggestion that the US
should invest in biomass power plants. This would mean that
atmospheric C02 fixed in plant biomass would be sequestered and no
extra fossil carbon would enter the atmosphere. It's not clear
whether it is envisaged to fuel these power stations exclusively using
biomass, or to use co-generation with coal.
The main issues arising from this proposal are:-
1) Whether enough biomass could be grown to replace coal being used
in power plants, or provide co-generation, without significantly
affecting US food production.
2) Whether suitable sites can be found, in which there is no danger of
leakage over geological timescales.
3) Whether private industry would be prepared to accept the additional
costs of power production it would entail
------------------------------------------
CCS developments in the UK:
------------------------------------------
An interview on BBC Radio's "Today" programme, (June 20th) focused on
the use of CCS as a strategic method of preventing C02 levels rising
to the point where they cause irreversible climate change.
The British government is actively exploring CCS following publication
of the Energy White Paper: Meeting the Energy Challenge 23 May 2007
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.asp?MediaDetailsID=203153
© Crown Copyright 2007
See Section 5.4 - Cleaner Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage for
Fossil Fuels
This is clearly seen as a technology to be used in persuading
developing countries like China and India to mitigate their C02
emissions:
Quote: -
"The Stern Review highlighted the strategic role that CCS
technology could play globally to lower carbon emissions, with the
potential
to contribute up to 28% of global carbon dioxide mitigation by 2050,
particularly in fast-growing economies with rising fossil fuel
consumption
such as China and India.
In order to deploy CCS in these countries the technology needs to be
demonstrated on a commercial scale. Developing countries strongly
indicate it
is for developed countries to show leadership and to prove the
validity of the
technology, firm up costs and reduce technical risks."
The practical measures proposed by the White Paper hinge around a full
life-cycle CCS demonstration plant to be developed by 2011-14
It's planned to launch a competition in November 2007 open to
international companies with the criteria that any project proposal:
- be located in the UK;
- cover the full chain of CCS technology on a commercial scale power
station (capture, transport and storage);
- be based on sound engineering design (reliable and safe)
underpinned
by a full front-end engineering and design study;
- set out the quantum of financial support requested;
- be at least 300MW, and capture and store around 90% of the carbon
dioxide and thereby contribute at least an additional 0.25 Mt/yr of
carbon savings to the UK's domestic abatement targets (relative to
a gas-fired power station of equivalent size without CCS);
- start demonstrating the full chain of CCS at some point between
2011
And 2014;
- address its contribution to the longer term potential of CCS in the
UK,
(for example, through the potential of shared infrastructure) and to
the
international development of CCS; and
- be supported by a creditworthy developer entity.
--------------------------------
IPCC Report on CCS
--------------------------------
The IPCC in its report was discussed in sci.energy in the thread
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.energy/msg/4e0ed8536256758d?&hl=en&q=carbon+capture+and+storage
Reference:-
IPCC Special Report for Policy makers on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage- Summary for Policy Makers (A report of Working Group III of
the IPCC) and Technical Summary (A report accepted by Working Group
III of the IPCC but not approved in detail)
Editors:
Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson
Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos, Leo Meyer
This report was produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change on the invitation
of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
ISBN 92-9169-119-4
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/ccsspm.pdf
Accessed February 9th 2007
------------------------------------------------
The Tyndall Centre Study on CCS
-------------------------------------------------
A detailed study of the question has also be made by the Tyndall
Centre and documented in Technical Report 47, Tyndall Project T2/21,
October 2005
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme2/final_reports/t2_21.pdf
As they point out:-
"China, India and the USA all use large amounts of coal, and are
likely to use
increasing amounts in the future. From a climate change perspective,
there is an urgent need to design new coal power plants in all coal-
using countries such that they can be modified to capture CO2 in
future (capture-ready)."
Public opinion:-
"Our research has shown that, given an acceptance of the severity and
urgency of addressing climate change, CCS is viewed favourably by
members of the public, provided it is adopted within a portfolio of
other measures and is likely to be a more acceptable decarbonisation
option to the public than nuclear fission."
Finding Suitable sites to store C02: -
They estimate that the UK has suitable sites for safe storage of 100
years worth of CO2, with further storage capacity existing in less
well understood formations.
Pointing to the dangers they say:-
"The greatest uncertainty with respect to CCS is whether the CO2 will
leak from the
reservoirs. It is not possible to make general statements concerning
storage security; assessments must be site specific. The impacts of
any potential leakage upon global climate change and marine ecosystems
are also somewhat uncertain but should be balanced against the
deleterious effects of increased acidification in the oceans due to
uptake of elevated atmospheric CO2 that have already been observed.
Provided adequate long term monitoring can be ensured, any leakage of
CO2 from a storage site is likely to have minimal localised impacts as
long as leaks are rapidly repaired."
mrbawana2u
> Given the recent publication of James Hansen's recent document
Hansen's a tard.
[turds from tards snipped]
Willie...@gmail.com
and methanol with low cost hydrogen.
METHANE PRODUCTION:
Low cost solar hydrogen at $170 per metric ton can be combined with
CO2 to produce CH4 using the Sabatier process;
CO2 + 4 H2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O
So a ton of hydrogen absorbs 5.5 tons of carbon dioxide and produces 2
tons of methane.
At $350 per ton for methane you can see that $170 worth of hydrogen
can become $700 - by absorbing CO2 in this way. And at $20 per ton
of CO2 carbon credits, this adds another $110 to the mix for a toal of
over $800 perton of hydrogen made for $170 .
METHANOL PRODUCTION
But once you have water and CH4 you can make CH3OH by making syngas
first
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
Which takes half of the water and recycles 1/4 of the H2 the rest is
used for the rest of the reaction
The carbon monoxide and hydrogen then react on a second catalyst to
produce methanol. Today, the most widely used catalyst is a mixture of
copper, zinc oxide, and alumina first used by ICI in 1966. At 5–10 MPa
(50–100 atm) and 250 °C, it can catalyze the production of methanol
from carbon monoxide and hydrogen with high selectivity
CO + 2 H2 → CH3OH
So we have the following NET reaction
CO2 + 3 H2 --> CH3OH + H2O
So, for each ton of H2 we have absorbed 7.33 tons of CO2 and made 5.33
tons of methanol. At $800 per ton for methanol this represents over
$4,200 for each ton of hydrogen consumed this way. And at $20 per
ton for the carbon absorbed, that's another $146 - nearly the cost of
the hydrogen at $170 per ton.
The Natuna gas fields of Indonesia had to stop or curtail production
because they couldn't reinject the carbon dioxide that is present with
the natural gas there. However, with a small amount of hydrogen,
methanol can be produced to make use of both gases. The methanol can
be mixed with synfuels made by direct hydrogenation of coal in Sumatra
and Borneo - to make use of these resources.
Willie...@gmail.com
Methane + Water = Methanol + Hydrogen
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
CO + 2 H2 → CH3OH
Combined to form
CH4 + H2O --> CH3OH + H2
Carbon dioxide + hydrogen = methanol + water (as already described)
CO2 + 3 H2 --> CH3OH + H2O
The Natuna gas fields consist in equal number of atoms CO2 and CH4 -
so, combining these reactions efficiently
CH4 + CO2 + 2H2 --> 2 CH3OH
So, 1 ton of hydrogen gas added to 15 tons of Natuna gas creates 16
tons of methanol. At $800 per ton for the methanol this is $12,800
for each ton of hydrogen added.
So, it seems like it might be worth doing.
1,000 tons of hydrogen per day requires the productoin of 50 GWh of
electricity from the sun. With 5 hours of sunlight per day that's 10
GW of capacity to meet this demand. At 180 Watts electrical per sq
meter this is 56 sq km of collectors. At $0.09 per peakwatt this
installation costs $900 million - the value of the methanol is $12.8
million per day - and the amount is 17,000 tons of methanol per day.
The methanol can be sold as a liquid fuel, or shipped to a place like
Korea and converted into methane again by taking 1/4 of the methanol
and running the one reaction in reverse;
CH3OH + H2O --> CO2 + 3 H2
and then taking 3/4 of the methanol and running the other reaction in
reverse
CH3OH + H2 --> CH4 + H2O
So, 17,000 tons of methanol can be converted to 6,375 tons of methane
each day - after being shipped to Korea in liquid form. haha.. Since
methanol is presently worth more than methane on a weight basis - this
doesn't seem to be worthwhile, even though its doable.
xnic...@hotmail.com
I can't see this working at least not on earth.
For one thing you need to get the hydrogen, then you need to run this
process at 300C.
Then when you burn off the Methane at the end of it, you're left
with....C02.
That's why the only "serious" proposal for using it is to generate
fuel for a return journey from Mars!
Far better than going to Mars would be to spend more money on
replacing the weather observation satellites that have begun to fail,
scientific missions like LISA and doing space research as an
international cooperative effort.
The push for CCS is becoming overwhelming, which is why is has to be
addressed.
I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct way to deal with C02
emissions, but it one of the main games in town.
Willie...@gmail.com
??? Then you lack any idea of what I'm talking about.
> For one thing you need to get the hydrogen,
Yes that's true. I have developed low-cost solar panels that cost
$0.09 per peak watt including balance of systems costs, This
translates to hydrogen at $170 per metric ton from water and
sunlight. Did I forget to mention this? lol.
This is the source of hydrogen I am speaking of.
> then you need to run this
> process at 300C.
So? 300C is not the difficult to achieve or control. What is your
point?
> Then when you burn off the Methane at the end of it, you're left
> with....C02.
So? Take the CO2 again and do the same thing. The CO2 was there to
begin with remember? You got a lot more energy out of it making the
unwanted CO2 into desireable CH4 by taking stranded H2 to do it..
You double the energy released per ton of CO2 if your source was
originally methane. You triple the energy released per ton of CO2 if
your source was originally coal. Now, which is easier? Converting
2/3 or our economy to hydrogen from scratch? Or taking all our coal
emissions and converting them to methane and selling it?
> That's why the only "serious" proposal for using it is to generate
> fuel for a return journey from Mars!
The hydrogen economy doesn't exist any more than people have gone to
Mars. They're both fantasies at present. So, the question is, now
that we do have an abundant low cost source of hydrogen, how to build
up that capacity to make it using our existing energy infrastructure
to help leverage it? And the answer is, use the hydrogen to take low
rank carbon coal and CO2 - to make high rank hydrocarbons - liquid
fuels from coal and methane from CO2 - in the early stages. This more
than triples the amount of energy released from these carbon sources
and profits from doing this support the creation of the hydrogen
production side of the equation. Once that production is in place -
its child's play to make use of it to compete directly with oil and
natural gas and coal.
The Sabatier process has been around for a while. I can make more low
cost hydrogen than our economy presently can use. So what to do with
the stranded solar hydrogen?
One use is to take any and all CO2 emissions and convert them to
methane - and sell the methane. You get a lot more energy per unit
CO2 produced. Check it out;
With a source of CO2 that was NG to begin with, you double the energy
you get out of each ton of CO2 made by cycling the CO2 back into
methane again.
With a source of CO2 that was coal to begin with you triple the energy
you get out of each ton of CO2 made by cycling the CO2 back into
methane again
C + O2 ---> CO2
1 ton carbon ---> 3.7 tons CO2
32.8 GJ/ton ---> 9 GJ/ton
By adding 2/3 ton of hydrogen to 3.7 tons of CO2 you make 4/3 ton of
methane. That's an additional 72.5 GJ/ton of carbon originally
raising the total from 32.8 GJ per ton to 105.3 GJ/ton of carbon -
going from 9 GJ/ton CO2 to 28.7 GJ/ton of CO2.
> Far better than going to Mars would be to spend more money on
> replacing the weather observation satellites that have begun to fail,
??? YOU brought up Mars and said it was practical. Now you're
complaining about it? I think you need to settle down and quit
frothing about things I never spoke of..
> scientific missions like LISA and doing space research as an
> international cooperative effort.
??? This is tangential to the discussion I was having about CO2.
Clearly,
You have a source of CO2 that is operational.
Its putting CO2 out today.
You cannot use hydrogen directly in the process for whatever reason.
You have a choice.
You can inject it underground or react it to make something more
valuable.
When you inject CO2 underground it takes energy, and the release of
MORE CO2 to get THAT energy.
The CO2 you inject will also be released at some point in the future.
Maybe a distant future, but released nevertheless.
CO2 In the environment it will eventually be removed by ocean action
in the form of carbonates.
The key is to get the rate of production down to levels that are
sustainable by the environment. There is a carbon cycle even without
industry you know! Its just that industry releases now more CO2 than
the carbon cycle can handle at present. So, the key is to get the
rate of release down for a given rate of energy use.
So, you can react CO2 when you have it with solar derived hydrogen to
make a valuable hydrocarbon today, and burn that hydrocarbon which
produces the CO2 again. THAT CO2 can be made into CH4 again if its
convenient to do so. Even if its a single pass system, you've tripled
the energy obtained for a given amount of CO2 released - which
effectively reduces the rate of CO2 release per unit energy.
> The push for CCS is becoming overwhelming, which is why is has to be
> addressed.
Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the environment in the
oceans. The rate of removal is fixed by atmospheric concentration and
temperature. An accelerating rate of carbon dioxide production over
the last century led to a rising concentration of CO2 and a rising
temperature worldwide.
By tripling the amount of industrial energy released for each ton of
CO2 we make, we've reduced the CO2 intensity by 1/3 - doing this with
ALL systems that cannot be converted directly to hydrogen - vastly
reduces their intensity.
> I'm not saying it's necessarily the correct way to deal with C02
> emissions, but it one of the main games in town.- Hide quoted text -
Its something that folks have tried and it doesn't always work.
Natuna gas fields were shut down in part because they tried to
reinject CO2 but it reacted with water and rock to create carbolic
acid and the pure CO2 couldn't be contained under the water without
the CH4 buffering it.
Of course a small amount of hydrogen added to water, CH4 and CO2
creates methanol - which is a good way to go - creating value from a
stranded resource, while increasing the energy content of each ton of
CO2 released and paying for the creation of a solar hydrogen
capability of unprecedented size. This solar hydrogen facility will
be there long after the CH4 no longer has value..
There's also an industrial process that occurs naturally that leads to
global cooling. Its called global dimming. Its caused by the haze
created by industrial activity. By increasing the energy released to
2 or 3 times that now obtained from each ton of CO2 - we increase
global dimming without increasing global warming - and we end the rise
in temperatures.
Think about it this way. To get an increase of 3x the energy for each
ton of CO2 released requires that we burn hydrogen in 75% of our
engines. It requires we create a huge infrastructure for hydrogen in
competition with existing fuels. In short, it requires an impractical
amount of work and effort at great cost.
But by reacting CO2 with hydrogen to create methane where convenient
to do so - a fuel we already use in great quantitiy is made - and we
increase the energy released for each ton of CO2 3x already. With no
changes in our infrastructure - and the profit in taking a low value
gas and making a high value gas out of it - pays for the creation and
expansion of a hydrogen infrastructure that will one day compete
directly with hydrocarbon fuels.
Abundant solar hydrogen at $170 per ton once widely available when
used in a wide range of energy applications directly eliminate carbon
releases altogether.
Check it out;
1 ton H2 = 6.17 tons Carbon and avoids 22.6 tons of CO2
1 ton H2 = 23.2 bbls crude and avoids 9.9 tons of CO2
1 ton H2 = 3,636 m3 NG and avoids 7.2 tons of CO2
But we won't get there directly. We can start out by taking coal and
making liquid fuels from it by adding hydrogen - or taking carbon-
dioxide and making gaseous fuels from it by adding hydrogen.
1 ton H2 + 6.33 tons C ---> 7.33 tons Octane
(141.8 GJ) (207.6 GJ) (346.7 GJ)
You can see that the process is really rather efficient and it nearly
doubles the energy intensity of the lower rank carbon - converting CO2
to methane nearly triples the energy intensity if the CO2 comes from
carbon burning - so its a way to make use of hydrogen to create
tremendous value and helps reduce our rate of CO2 release by reusing
carbon - while building up hydrogen infrastructure.
Mike Swift
Willie...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For one thing you need to get the hydrogen,
>
> Yes that's true. I have developed low-cost solar panels that cost
> $0.09 per peak watt including balance of systems costs, This
> translates to hydrogen at $170 per metric ton from water and
> sunlight. Did I forget to mention this? lol.
>
> This is the source of hydrogen I am speaking of.
>
If you have developed this "low-cost solar panel" that you can sell for
9 cents per peak watt why are you wasting your time talking on the
Internet. Just make it and put every other solar cell manufacturer out
of business, or sell the idea to them for a quick billion dollar profit.
If you can't then you are just blowing smoke, and wasting our time.
--
Mike
Remember companies do not pay taxes. They only collect
them from their customers for payment to the government.