10 replies to this topic

[engware]

To All:

Roughly one third of the US carbon emissions come from power plants and other large point sources. To stabilize and ultimately reduce concentrations of this greenhouse gas, it will be necessary to employ carbon sequestration as a major tool for managing carbon emissions -- carbon capture, separation, storage and/or reuse.

I would like to invite both Forum members and visitors to start a discussion on Carbon Sequestration -- ask questions of interest, share knowledge and experience related to Carbon Sequestration (carbon capture, separation, storage and/or reuse).

Also, everybody is welcome to contribute to the Carbon Sequestration topic.

Thanks,

Gordan

Below are a few plots related to combustion -- complete combustion of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, coal, oil and gas with air at standard conditions (298 [K] and 1 [atm]) with no heat loss and stoichiometric conditions.

[niallmacdowell]

Hi

I have a question.

Is global warming real?

What I mean is that, given that CO2 is such a small fraction of our atmosphere and that from what I have read, man made emissions account for something or the order of 5% of this, and all of the models that I have seen have so many parameterisations and approximations as to render them almost inapplicable to "real world" problems, and most of them seem to have inconclusive results.

Add to this that world temperature records since the 1800's show more of a mean decrease in average temperatures than an increase, and that many papers I have read seem very unclear as to the magnitude of the "fudge factor" used to account for the thermal bloom associated with large urban areas-some seem to use linear models, some use non-linear models.

Finally, given that the stated aim of the Kyoto protocol will perhaps result in a fraction of a degree decrease in global mean temperature, can this notion really be taken seriously, or are we to conclude that this is some sort of political genuflection in the environmentalist direction?

It is probably necessary to point out that I am not "anti-environmental", but I am definitely anti hysteria, and this seems to be in overly abundant supply in every arena these days. Almost every one seems to have a NIMBY attitude towards everything, especially in my country (Ireland). If people really wanted to be "carbon neutral" why not just build a bunch of nuclear plants.....appart from the obvious answer.

So basically, are there any informed opinions out there that believe one way or another and can you tell me why?

Thanks,

Niall

[engware]

Hi Niall:

I do appreciate you comments and views.

Before I try to share a few views of mine with you and Cheresourses.com Forum members and visitors, let me indicate that I live in the US.

For years, people have been talking about increased carbon emissions (CO2) and the possible global warming effect.

There are some studies out there that do indicate a steady increase and build up of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and an increase of the ambient temperature. It should be noted that the CO2 increase is pretty much manmade. I do agree with you that the CO2 percentage is still very small, but its presence does enhance the global warming problem and can have a very bad impact on the environment.

These are the facts. Summers are getting hotter and winters are getting milder. Just a few weeks ago, there was a huge heat wave -- it was getting unbearable.

Let me get back to business. I would suggest to check out the US Department of Energy web site -- http://www.energy.gov -- where one can get an insight into new technologies that are being developed and at the same time that are getting closer to commercialization.

The bottom line is that the world is getting ready to slowly but surely move to the hydrogen economy. This is not an easy step, but it will come over the next few decades.

Through hydrogen economy, carbon emissions will go down as well as the ambient temperature and as a result the possible impact of global warming problem.

Niall, I am looking forward to your and Cheresources.com Forum members and visitors additional comments and having a nice discussion on the subject matter.

Thanks,

Gordan

PS

CO2 emissions and global warming are tricky issues and there are numerous ways on how to go after such issues ...

Even the best experts and scientists out there agree on the facts and potential problems, but disagree on how to cope with them and which way to take ...

In my opinion, there is no clear way of saying this is right and that is wrong, but it is time fow some kind of action before it is too late. By following the energy industry news and Governmnent efforts, I can see that technologies are getting developed and ready for commercial use. In other words, the are means out there of coping with CO2 emissions and global warming.

The key elements in dealing with global warming are: renewable energy, nuclear energy, hydrogen and fuel cells ...

In order to make such transition possible and commercially viable, meeting the demand for energy on the go/move (various wireless applications that require power) will be the driving force ...

[mxmaciek]

1. : ...There are some studies out there that do indicate a steady increase and build up of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and an increase of the ambient temperature....
2: ....The bottom line is that the world is getting ready to slowly but surely move to the hydrogen economy. This is not an easy step, but it will come over the next few decades.
Through hydrogen economy, carbon emissions will go down as well as the ambient temperature and as a result the possible impact of global warming problem....

1. Mhm... Well, there are some research results available as well showing the periodic temperature and CO2 concentrations variations over the time. And, from such long timescale research, the ice age is closer than global warming. ALMOST as the joke: so, do you think that mini-Ice Age in the medieval in Europe, when Baltic sea frozen for some decades was the result that there was no coal-fired Power plants?

2. I'm almost certainly sure that if we will swith to hydrogen power generation, after few decades same authors will make monies by writting about global cooling effect caused by H2O vapour emitted to the atmosphere

And somehow more serious conclusion: I'm not sure as well if the rumour about horrible CO2 is not the way of making monies for some peoples/companies, which want to make it having the environment as the shield.
The exapmle? Be my guest:
Greenpeace in UK: they are voting against:
- coal power plants, because of the CO2, wastes etc;
- gas & oil fired plants - similar reasons;
- nuclear plants: risk, safety issues (with Chernobyl as the indicator), and decommissioning/waste treatment issues;
now, it will be more fun: they are voting against, as well:
- wind farms because of infrasonics, and birds harming potential as well as the landscape affecting;
- water/wave generators because of the fish migration;
- solar panels because of the footprint of the landscape taken (especially in the UK conditions);
- waste incinerators because of the "generally environmentally unfriendly technologies used";
etc...
So, listening carefully to them, we can go back to the cave..

There has been a movement towards separating the monopoly parts of the industry, such as transmission and distribution sectors from the contestable sectors of generation and retailing across the world. This has occurred prominently since the reform of the electricity supply industry

[J Degenstein]

To All,

Another interesting development that I have come across recently is the development of biomass gasification with oxyfuel combustion for use in generating steam+power. If you apply carbon dioxide sequestration to a plant of this type you can create a plant that is not carbon neutral but carbon negative.

So, my question for you is what are the potential impacts of pumping CO2 into an underground geological formation? How likely are these impacts? (I don't mean to leave the ChE realm of expertise but I think that it is warranted in this case)

-J

[djack77494]

I feel very negative about the practicality of carbon sequestration. Unless you have a valuable use for the captured CO2, such as Enhanced Oil Recovery, I believe the economics would be VERY unfavorable. I takes a lot of capital and operating expense to capture large quantities of CO2, which represents a huge penalty. What incentive could balance that?

[bernacakal]

I feel very negative about the practicality of carbon sequestration. Unless you have a valuable use for the captured CO2, such as Enhanced Oil Recovery, I believe the economics would be VERY unfavorable. I takes a lot of capital and operating expense to capture large quantities of CO2, which represents a huge penalty. What incentive could balance that?

I am interested in carbon capture and storage technology for my project. I have read some reports of International Energy Agency. They expect an increase in C02 taxes in following 10 years and they say it is necessary to be able to keep amount of CO2 in atmosphere at 450 ppm. (now the amount is 390 ppm and expected to increase to around 700 ppm by 2030, which will result in 4.5-5 degrees celcius increase in global temperature according to ancient times, which will be sufficient to melt the poles...) Increase in CO2 tax (or starting such a tax in some countries) means a price jump for investors which will affect their profit directly. So, if CO2 emission tax increases suddenly and fuels like coal stay cheaper compared to natural gas, they may try to install CCS technology together with a coal plant, according to the report.

I will try to make profitability analysis of coal plant+CCS and gas plant+CCS cases for some tax increase scenarios. If there is anybody interested in this technology or know examples of application of this technology, I appreciate his/her ideas and knowledge.

Thank you in advance,

Berna

[engware]

Berma:

Here is a URL for the Carbon Capture Journal: http://www.carboncapturejournal.com

The above URL could be of some help to you. There is a social network where you might be able to find some useful feedback.

When you get a chance, please look at my plots on the combustion of different fuels.

In my opinion, hydrogen economy will help deal with CO2 emissions and its various applications and specially its connection and synergy with the computer industry when meeting the demand for energy on the go will make possible to take care of the economics and pricing so that the variety of fuels and technologies can coexist in the commercial arena.

I have to thank everybody for provding valuable input and sharing their opinion on the subject matter.

Thanks,

Gordan

Edited by engware, 12 April 2010 - 10:39 AM.

[riven]

I feel very negative about the practicality of carbon sequestration. Unless you have a valuable use for the captured CO2, such as Enhanced Oil Recovery, I believe the economics would be VERY unfavorable. I takes a lot of capital and operating expense to capture large quantities of CO2, which represents a huge penalty. What incentive could balance that?

I agree with this point to such an extent that I believe using words like carbon capture storage or sequestration are falsehoods and buzzwords. I have seen many advocate this technology but never with a viable reuse so thus the process should be called disposal especially since no allowances are going to be made to keep the carbon dioxide in a usable form (i.e. pure).

In any case using CCD will add about 30% more energy usage to the power plant severely reducing efficiency and requiring the use of natural resources at a faster rate leading to the symptom of more CO2. Clean coal technologies where the coal is buried in a way to avoid excessive CO2 should be the forefront not CCD.

We have made similar assumptions and mistakes before with regard to disposal of nuclear waste (I do not hear people calling that storage even though the waste is stored in such a way that it is reusable in 3/4th gen reactors). The problem with CO2 is we will not have 50,000 tonnes for fifty years worth of power but much much more.

Edited by riven, 13 April 2010 - 01:46 AM.

[ae.ng]

Hi All,

I'd like to add a few concerns I have about the practicality of carbon sequestration and bring it back into practical thinking for engineers, rather than what the media and research may drop on us. I don't mean to take away importance of the research or the effect of public opinion on determining feasibility of a project, but I'd like to balance the thread with some more focused content. Please note that I feel particularly negative towards the feasibility of CS, CSS, and EOR in lieu of their high capital costs.

The idea of using a depleted reservoir (one where there is no more economic advantage in extraction) sounds great on paper, giving us a way of dealing with high CO2 emissions. However, there are a number of physical limitations on reservoir selection including:

- Reservoir characteristics: does the geology of the reservoir support injection? What will the miscible pressure be? What will the required CO2 flow rate be?
- Location: is the reservoir near a CO2 source? The source will be limited on distance due to piping costs. Think of major industries/plants that produce CO2. Sources that come to mind are refineries. These CO2 sources must also be able to provide the high injection flowrates.
- Piping: I previously stated that piping costs based on reservoir-CO2 sources would limit capital costs, but it may also influence piping considerations on withdrawal (increased acidity).

There is a long list of expensive limitations on these techniques leading to very high capital costs. It doesn't help that storage techniques have in theory zero payback, and are money sinks since they cost substantially more than any taxes on CO2 at the moment. For EOR methods, it will have revenue generated - though with a payback period that is unacceptable.

I hope I've stimulated the discussion, and I hope the rest of you will contribute, especially since I believe that environmental restrictions will be tighter and tighter in coming years. And as such, one must have a suitable awareness of different options and be able to educate others on them. @bernacakal, I would also be interested in those specific applications, so please continue posting.

-Andrew

P.S.

To those discussing CO2 conditions and world temperature-time profiles. I recall briefly reading about earth being on a general cooling cycle in some relationship to the sun, and when compared to historical models, global temperatures have increased with respect to the cooling trends. If I can find the resource I'll drop it here.