A New Spin on Carbon
Recycling emissions has long-term potential
Recycling is in vogue. But what about re-using carbon emissions? While it may sound far-fetched, governments around the globe are looking into it.
Indeed, with the U.S. Department of Energy forecasting a 39 percent increase in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, activists are pressing for solutions. Capturing and burying the emissions is one idea. Recycling them is another. One has gotten much of the attention. The other is starting to do so.
“My bottom line -- recycling carbon will be an expensive, energy consuming alternative that society may decide it wants to pursue; but it will be expensive and energy consuming,” says David Dixon, an energy expert with government ties.
Lately, carbon recycling has come to the fore as multiple global companies have applied for patents. Toward that end, the Obama administration has included the recycling of carbon dioxide as part of its clean coal efforts under the previously enacted stimulus plan. Ditto for Canada and China that are working on some zero-emissions power plants.
If a quarter of the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants could be recycled, that could help meet 30 percent of the world's liquid fuel demand by 2030, experts say. If that happened, the global community could reduce both its emissions and fossil fuel usage.
It's all possible. But differences exist as to when wide-scale commercialization will happen. By all accounts, the technology is hugely expensive and at least 20 years away from being commercially possible. Better start now.
Sandia National Labs, for example, is building a prototype to turn carbon dioxide into transportation fuels using concentrated solar power. After coal is burned, the carbon dioxide would be captured and reduced to carbon monoxide using its technology. That would then become a feedstock for making gasoline, jet fuel, methanol, or any type of liquid fuel.
“People have known for a long time that theoretically it should be possible to recycle carbon dioxide, but most still think it cannot be made practical, either technically or economically,” says Ellen Stechel, the program manager for the Sandia team, in an internal publication.
Hugely Expensive
According to a feature story in Scientific American, carbon from coal plants are one method by which to go forward. But it would take an awfully lot of carbon to make any inroads into the traditional petroleum market. Perhaps a better way, it adds, is to take the carbon out of seawater where it is more concentrated.
Louisville, Co.-based Sundrop Fuels says that its technology can significantly reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. It says that it can take any plant material and use it as a feedstock to create transportation fuel. The end-product will not just be cost competitive with petroleum, it adds, but can also be transported using the existing infrastructure.
Carbon Sciences has another idea: It would locate its plants next to coal generators where they would collect carbon, which when used as a co-feed with natural gas, will eventually turn the product into gasoline. Placing a facility next to a 500 megawatt coal unit would cost about $250 million. But the enterprise says that 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide could make 750,000 gallons of gas.
According to the company, the chief obstacles to commercialization are the "enzymes" and the "kinetics." Scientists are now working to prolong to the lives of the enzymes so that the process becomes more efficient and less expensive. In other words, the longer they live, the more stuff gets converted. The same experts are also trying to shorten the time it takes to make the gas, or the kinetics. It once took as much as 10 hours. The goal is to get that down to 10 minutes.
Skeptics say that it would be more efficient, less toxic and less costly to just transform a fuel directly into energy. Why use more natural gas to convert the carbon when the same source can go right into the grid and supply more energy in the process?
Because it will all pay off in the long run, say advocates. Governments are backing the idea while venture capitalists also see the potential.
“Achieving energy independence and security is crucial for the nations of the world,” says Byron Elton, chief executive of Santa Barbara-based Carbon Sciences. “We believe that the successful commercialization of our technology will allow the U.S. and other countries to finally achieve a realistic energy policy that does not depend on petroleum.”
Lots of attention is being given to carbon capture and sequestration. Less of it is going to the recycling of those releases. Pursuing both ideas is worthy and one that will gradually put a dent in both emission levels and fossil fuel usage.
EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.
Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com.
Comments
Captured CO2 could be used not buried
Carbon Caputure and Sequestration [CCS] advocates burial of CO2. This technology requires commercial demonstration and burial introduces further concerns.
The Electric Utility Industry is reluctant to commit billions of dollars to CCS until the technology has been commercially demonstrated. Studies have shown that piping the captured CO2 to geologically suitable disposal sites represents a cumbersome approach – costly and fraught with regulatory and siting obstacles.
I would posit an alternate approach. Locate new coal-fired power plants within the Unconventional Natural Gas shale formations e.g. Marcellus [Northeast] and Permian [Southwest]. Use collected CO2 to replace water in ‘fracking’ the geology to extract the Natural Gas. Thus new coal plants would provide a low-cost energy source [environmentally acceptable] while contributing to the generation of Natural Gas – also contributing to low-cost energy. This concept allows USA to capitalize on its wealth of coal and natural gas deposits – ensuring independence from foreign energy sources.
Richard W. Goodwin West Palm Beach FL
Recycling CO2
What a load of rubbish!! We are already entering the cool side of the 60 year climate cycle, and have probably been in the cool side of the ca 180 year cycle for 60 years. We are looking at average temperatures for the next 80 odd years significantly cooler and drier than the average of the last 30 years. CO2 is plant food and enables plants to use less water. We will need all the atmospheric CO2 we can generate.
Carbon Recycling
There is growing interest in carbon capture and sequestration.. If it can be achieved economically it willbe a major breakthrough in Energy field.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Recycling Carbon dioxide
The only energy available in sufficent quantities is solar. If we concentrate solar energy, we might as well use it directly rather than recycle CO2. Plants do this all the time - it's called photosythesis .