This document was initially
prepared for Climatecleanup.com’s own internal use to clarify the positioning
of our CO2 Destruction Device technology
and device for our people’s use. Owing
to the urgency of the CO2 environmental threat and need for fast action,
particularly as the outcomes of this document are stunningly clear and vivid we
have decided to make it available to the general public.
This document is merely one
resource now available to assist people to put the entire issue of the CO2 Reduction Industry in a
comprehensible format. Do not use this
document as a basis for your own choices.
We cannot guarantee the complete accuracy of all the data included. We will not be held liable for any economic
or other loss claimed to have resulted from your or any other person’s reading
of this document.
In conclusion, the single
striking datum that emerges from this White Paper is that our own CO2 Destruction technology and device is
a great blessing for mankind at this particular time of urgent need to sustain
life on his planet.
Our mission is to ensure
survival of life on this planet.
According to our research and
investigation no other practical universal solution for CO2 Destruction exists that is unique,
free of waste bi-products, does not use costly solvents and chemicals, does not
require heat to be generated as part of the process, does not use further
energy resources, does not require capital expenditure on buildings and
treatment plants, and is capable of rapid retrofit.
To achieve our purpose we must
gain common acceptance of our Black Box CO2
Destruction Device rapidly around the world.
The race has started to prevent
a collapse of the earth’s atmosphere and life as we know it on this
planet. The stakes are high and time is
extremely short.
Unlike the Y2K computer
conversion deadline at
Given our purpose and the situation we have prepared this
White Paper to provide environmental decision makers with a clear cut
comparison of our own CO2 Destruction
Black Box technology and device.
Our product is capable of rapid
deployment, thereby aligning with the sense of urgency, and is universal across
all industries being suitable for almost all sources of CO2 pollution
including:
5.
An Optimum Post-Combustion CO2 Reduction Solution
Characteristics
What are the characteristics desired of an optimum CO2 Reduction Solution methodology,
technology and device? We put our minds
to this question and came up with the following list of twenty one desirable characteristics.
|
Characteristics |
Optimum Post-Combustion CO2 Reduction Solution Detailed Description |
|
|
|
|
1. Universal CO2 device |
The ideal know-how would cut
emissions from any co2 source. |
|
2. Destroys CO2 gases |
Stops co2 gases entering the
atmosphere. |
|
3. Low capture cost per ton |
Does not need costly
additional chemicals or heat assistance. |
|
4. No capital improvements |
No construction of buildings
or treatment plants required. |
|
5. Can be demonstrated |
Prototype equipment
functioning with operational equipment. |
|
6. Observed to work |
One can look at the equipment
in operation. |
|
7. Effective - results |
Observable, measurable and
testable actual co2 reduction. |
|
8. No bi-products |
There is not waste bi-product
needing to be treated. |
|
9. No waste treatment |
There is not waste bi-product
needing to be removed or destroyed. |
|
10. No heat treatment |
Production of heat is not
required to aid the process. |
|
11. Scalable to problem |
Equipment is identical
regardless of the size of the exhaust. |
|
12. Installed by retrofit |
Equipment is capable of being fitted
to older equipment. |
|
13. Convenient - small |
Devices are not heavy
equipment. |
|
14. Fast to implement |
Time from decision to results
is small. |
|
15. Can be mass produced |
Automated manufacturing
production line techniques can be used. |
|
16. Relatively cheap |
Compared to
alternative costs of legal compliance and alternatives. |
|
17. No variable cost drivers |
The ideal device is self
contained and renewable. |
|
18. No Corrosion effect |
Does not cause chemical
reactions yielding corrosive effects. |
|
19. No chemicals needed |
Does not require solvents. |
|
20. Near energy neutral |
Uses a small amount of
electrical energy. |
|
21. Cuts CO2 emissions |
Actually
focuses on cutting co2 emissions not
futuristic fuel savings. |
To compile a table comparing the Climatecleanup.com Black Box Device for CO2 Destruction with alternate CO2 Capture options we located a Thesis
published on the subject of CO2 Capture
Options and tabulated the following data:
Table :
Comparison of Black Box Device for CO2
Destruction and CO2 Capture
Options
Note: This table has been
filled based on our study of the following Thesis, citation is given at the
end. The relevant extract of the Thesis
is shown below.
|
Optimum Post-Combustion CO2 Reduction Solution Characteristics* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Black Box |
Seques-tration |
Biological |
Flue Gases
Capture |
|
|
1. Universal CO2 device |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
2. Destroys CO2 gases |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
3. Low capture cost per ton |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
4. No capital improvements |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
5. Can be demonstrated |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
6. Observed to work |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
7. Effective - results |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
8. No bi-products |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
9. No waste treatment |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
10. No heat treatment |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
11. Scalable to problem |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
12. Installed by retrofit |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
13. Convenient - small |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
14. Fast to implement |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
15. Can be mass produced |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
16. Relatively cheap |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
17. No variable cost drivers |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
18. No corrosion effect |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
19. No chemicals needed |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
20. Near energy neutral |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
21. Cuts CO2 emissions |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Summary “Yes” Results |
21 |
4 |
8 |
6 |
5 |
*
Characteristics are not listed in an implied order of importance.
Introduction to CO2 Capture
CO2 capture from power plants entails the integration of a
capture technology into a power plant
system.
The primary CO2 capture technologies being considered
are:
Cryogenics,
Adsorption,
Chemical absorption, and
Cryogenics
Is refrigeration of the gas
stream to reduce the vapor pressure so phase change occurs and the liquid CO2
can be distilled out of the mixture. Significant energy s required to cool the
gas especially since the majority of power
plant processes occur at high temperature. Without substantial new system
integration, cryogenics does not appear either efficient or economically
feasible for power plants and will not
be included further in this study.
Biological remediation harnesses the
natural process that plants undergo to consume CO2 and convert it into biological
material. Photosynthesis is the most common
method of biological absorption, but
some algae are known to utilize CO2 in the absence
of light. A portion of all CO2 emissions
is absorbed biologically by terrestrial plant life.
However given the increased CO2 atmospheric concentration of 0.4 percent per
year, the
absorption rate does not keep pace with emissions (U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Inventory
Program, 2002). To increase the rate of biological
absorption, bioreactors are being
developed to integrate into power plant
systems.
Adsorption
Occurs by passing the flue gas
stream through a microporous solid adsorbent stream so that surface forces
capture the CO2 on the surface of the adsorbent without chemical reaction.
Modifications of this process include pressure swing absorption and temperature
swing adsorption, which rely on high pressure and temperature respectively to
activate surface forces and then low pressure or temperature to regenerate the
adsorbent. Significant process and system development work is underway to
implement absorption in power plants
for CO2 capture. Specific technologies will be addressed
further in this study.
Entails passing the flue gas
stream through an absorbent stream but in this case the CO2 chemically reacts
with the absorbent to reduce the Gibbs free energy of the mixture.
The absorption reaction requires
a low temperature of approximately 50oC and the desorption reaction to
regenerate the absorbent occurs at approximately 120 oC (ESRU 2006). Chemical absorption is most effective
with low CO2 concentrations and is therefore appropriate for flue gas
processing where the CO2 is diluted with air and steam.
To further consider CO2 capture
technologies, the technology must be placed in
the context of the power plant. Among power plants fueled by natural gas, the
current
predominant system is natural gas combined cycle (NGCC).
Among power plants fueled by coal the most
common system is a pulverized coal power
plant (PC). In both systems, the fuel is combusted without chemical
preprocessing except that which is necessary to remove contaminants. However,
both coal and natural gas are capable of being chemically reformed through
partial oxidation reactions into syngas, a mixture of CO and ?
Subsequently the syngas may be combusted in a combined cycle system for
electricity generation. When coal is the fuel the reforming occurs in a
gasifier, this entire
process is called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). With natural
gas the
reforming can take place with catalytic partial oxidation (CPO) and the process
is called
integrated reforming combined cycle (IRCC).
Chemical preprocessing through gasification or catalytic partial oxidation
enables the carbon to be separated out of the syngas before the syngas is
diluted by air in the combustion process. When capturing carbon pre-combustion,
adsorption is typically employed to separate the carbon bearing species from
the syngas.
When coal or natural gas is
combusted without chemical modification, chemical
absorption is well suited to remove CO2 from the flue gas.
The performance of the separation technology is largely dependent on how it is
integrated into the power plant
system; therefore, for the majority of this study, capture technologies will be
considered within the context of the power generation system.
Pre-combustion capture occurs at high total pressure and high CO2 fraction.
These
conditions are present because the syngas exiting the reformer is at high
pressure and has
not yet been diluted with air.
Capture under these conditions
is inherently easier because there is a larger driving force so less energy input
is required. Post-combustion capture occurs after the syngas has been diluted
in the combustion process and expanded in the turbine.
Therefore less driving force is
present and separation is more difficult.
Nevertheless, post-combustion capture requires less system integration
than precombustion capture.
Post-Combustion Capture
Chemical
Absorption
Chemical absorption of CO2 from gas streams
is currently utilized in many
industries using monoethanolamine.
Once CO2 is absorbed, the monoethanolamine is thermally regenerated to release
CO2 and H2O, which must be separated through condensing the H2O (Soong 2005).
The
ability to absorb and then desorb CO2 for capture and release without degrading
the
reactants is the primary factor that makes monoethanolamine commonly used for
CO2
capture.
Post-combustion CO2 capture monoethanolamine system. The CO2 rich flue gas flows through an
absorption chamber with a counter flow of the lean monoethanolamine solvent.
CO2 and the solvent chemically react and are pumped out of the absorber as rich
solvent. The thermal regeneration used to strip the CO2 and regenerate the lean
solvent occurs at high temperature and is endothermic requiring that
approximately 4MJ of heat be added per kg of recovered CO2.
A heat exchanger between rich
and lean solvents is commonly utilized to recycle
some of the heat, but the majority is extracted from the low-pressure steam
turbine. The
primary cost drivers of the monoethanolamine system are the heat utilized for
regeneration, solvent loss, and CO2 loading.
Development of power plant post-combustion
chemical absorption CO2 capture
technologies has resulted in both chemical and system level advancements that
reduce
costs. Praxair, (Chakravarti 2001), Mitsubishi (2002) and FluorDaniel (Chapel
1999) all
attempted to develop low cost products by decreasing the impact of one or more
of these
cost drivers.
In a review of Praxair’s CO2 capture
technology, Chakravarti 2001 notes:
“Chemical absorption with
[monoethanolamine] has been generally used in processes
such as natural gas sweetening and hydrogen production for the rejection of
carbon
dioxide.” Similar processes using monoethanolamine are not cost effective for
postcombustion CO2 capture because of
the high operating cost and corrosion rates.
According to Chakravarti, Praxair determined the operating cost and corrosion
rates are
worth mitigating with process modifications because of the high loading rates
even at low
partial pressure. In order to mitigate the corrosion problems, the CO2 rich
monoethanolamine is deoxygenated by depressurization as described by
Chakravarti.
Praxair reduced operating costs by employing monoethanolamine blends with
concentrations of up to 50 percent from 30 percent thus reducing the high cost
steam
consumption for regeneration.
Similarly, Mitsubishi developed advanced post-combustion CO2 capture technology based on
monoethanolamine (Mitsubishi 2002). Unlike the Praxair technology, which
utilizes a unique process, Mitsubishi’s technology uses a unique reagent called
KS-1, a sterically hindered monoethanolamine with reduced oxidation rates.
According to Mitsubishi, KS-1 has improved operating characteristics with
respect to monoethanolamines. The reduced oxidation rate decreases the
degradation of the solvent and solvent loss enabling operation without a corrosion
inhibitor. While the Mitsubishi data offers a relative comparison, no absolute
data is provided and no background on the testing used to generate the data is
discussed. Based on the data provided, Mitsubishi maintains the total CO2 capture cost to be approximately $
per thousand standard cubic feet (MSCF) or $20 per ton for a coal fired boiler
and $1.44 per MSCF or $28 per ton for a natural gas fired gas turbine.
The relatively higher CO2 capture cost per ton in gas turbine
systems is due to the low CO2 flue gas concentration of 3 to 5 percent compared
to 12 to 14 percent coal fired boiler flue gas.
Thus, the gas turbine KS-1 system operates with a lower CO2 loading parameter.
Despite the uncertainty of the data source, the low cost of the KS-1 system
appears to make the capture process comparable with a current trading value of
approximately $20 per ton and, therefore, should be considered further.
A third flue gas CO2 capture
technology was developed by FluorDaniel and is
described by Chapel (1999). The FluorDaniel Econamine FG process utilizes an
inhibited 30 percent by mass monoethanolamine solution for CO2 capture.
According to Chapel, the
inhibitor reduces corrosion and solvent degradation problems, which ultimately
drives down cost. Chapel conducted an economic analysis for a coal-fired plant
with a typical 13 percent by mass flue gas CO2 concentration and natural gas
fired plant with a typical 3 percent by mass flue gas CO2 concentration.
The resulting capital and
operating cost for a 1000 ton per day coal-fired plant was $29.5 per ton and
for a 1000 ton per day natural gas fired plant $43.5 per ton. In a conversation
with co-author Carl Mariz, Mariz speculated capital cost improvements along
with efficiency improvements and economies of scale could reduce the total cost
to between $20 per ton and $25 per ton for a 500 MW coal-fired plant (Mariz
2005). Given the potential cost reductions cited by Mariz the Economanie FG
process should be considered further because the cost could become comparable
with current CO2 credit trading values.
An alternative post-combustion capture technology known as “enhanced
photosynthetic CO2 mitigation”. The photosynthetic CO2 mitigation system
described passes cooled flue gas through a bioreactor, containing thermophilic
organisms that use chlorophyll to produce sugar from CO2.
As the microalgea age, the CO2 uptake is limited. Some of the microalgea must
be periodically removed to provide sufficient space and light available for new
productive microalgea. Light is collected in parabolic solar dishes then
transmitted
through fiber optic cables to the bioreactor. According to Bayless, this
current light
collection and transmission system is cost prohibitive. With advances in
microbial
research and light delivery systems, future developments might make similar
bioremediation technologies feasible, especially since photosynthesis
alleviates the need
for CO2 storage. Currently, Bayless does not suggest photosynthetic CO2
mitigation is a
near term solution and consequently it will not be considered further in this
study.
Pre-Combustion Capture
Pre-combustion capture has the potential to occur under high CO2 partial
pressure and high fuel stream total pressure. In order to utilize
pre-combustion capture, both coal and natural gas must be partially oxidized
into syngas, a mixture of predominately CO, CO2 and H2. Partial oxidation or
reforming can be implemented with coal in an integrated gasification combined
cycle power plant and with natural gas
in an integrated reforming combined cycle power
plant. A discussion of both technologies follows.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)
In the case of coal, the coal and either oxygen or air, flow into the gasifier,
where
under elevated pressure and temperature, the coal undergoes partial oxidation
to produce
syngas. The actual composition of syngas can vary by site in the amount and
type of
constituents. Table 3 provides a sample of gasification sites and their
respective syngas
constituents from 11 different power plants
or chemical plants that gasify coal (Brdar,
2000). The integrated gasification combined cycle power plant subsystems, which
potentially include a CO2 capture
system, must be robust for the range of constituents and concentrations.
In an integrated gasification combined cycle power plant without CO2 capture, as
shown in Figure 4, the syngas is scrubbed to remove SO2 and combusted in a gas
turbine
to produce about 60 percent of the electricity.

The hot exhaust is delivered to
a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce steam, which is sent to a
steam turbine that produces the remaining 40 percent of the plant’s
electricity. The thermal efficiency of advanced integrated gasification
combined cycle power plants and sub
critical coal fired boiler power plants
are 46 percent higher heating value and 34 percent higher heating value
respectively (Hughes, 2000).
Consequently integrated
gasification combined cycle power plants
convert coal to electricity 35 percent more efficiently than pulverized coal power plants so they can use 35 percent
less coal to produce the same amount of electricity. In terms of CO2 emissions, the 35 percent less fuel
utilized per kWh translates into a 35 percent CO2 reduction on a tons/kWh basis.
Other advanced coal technologies such as super-critical coal boilers and
fluidized
bed combustors are capable of achieving comparable efficiencies. Nordjyllands,
the ultra
super-critical coal fired power plant
in
integrated gasification combined cycle power
plants with an opportunity to employ precombustion capture, a significant
competitive advantage in a carbon constrained market.
An integrated gasification combined cycle power
plant with precombustion CO2 capture,
syngas leaves the gasifier and is processed in a shift reactor, which reacts
the CO with H2O to form CO2 .
The shift reaction is performed
in a series of two reactors. Upon leaving the gasifier at
approximately 1400oF, the syngas is cooled in a steam generator to
app