CARBON CAPTURE: Fuel-cell technology might be able to capture a power plant's carbon dioxide emissions while also generating more electricity.
Image: Flickr/glasseyes view - back again
Armed with new Department of Energy money, a Connecticut company announced this week it is moving forward with a carbon capture project that it thinks could revolutionize the technology.
FuelCell Energy is one of a handful of companies investigating how to address one of the biggest barriers in trying to capture carbon dioxide from coal plants for later storage underground, an unproved concept. The problem is called parasitic load. It refers to the phenomenon that a typical carbon capture system requires a great deal of electricity and thus saps power from a power plant and can cause electricity costs to spike by 70 percent or more.
The Danbury company's potential solution for this problem is fuel cells. The company says that fuel cells have the potential to essentially reverse parasitic load and cause a carbon capture system to generate as much as 40 percent more electricity for a power plant, rather than take away power.
"This award enables us to further advance and refine our research as we pursue this opportunity that has the potential to favorably impact public health while providing FuelCell Energy with the possibility of a new and potentially large market share," said Chip Bottone, the company's CEO.
DOE awarded $3 million for the carbon capture project with $800,000 authorized this week. The capture test will be run in a lab next year.
Carbon capture is an obvious extended use for fuel cells, said Tony Leo, vice president of application engineering and advanced technology development at FuelCell Energy.
Company fuel cells have a naturally high concentration of CO2 in their fuel stream -- about 75 percent concentration of CO2, compared to 10 percent or so from a typical coal plant emissions stream. That makes them prime candidates to be "CO2 concentration membranes," Leo said.
In its test in its Danbury lab, the company plans to mix carbon dioxide, air and nitrogen to simulate coal plant emissions and then shoot those gases into a fuel cell stack.
Because the CO2 becomes concentrated in the fuel's cell stream, the greenhouse gas is easy to strip away.
Simultaneously, natural gas is sent to the cell stack to generate electrical power that could in theory be sent back to a power plant and cancel out the parasitic load. Any extra carbon dioxide released from using natural gas this way also would be captured, Leo said.
Additionally, the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is destroyed through a process that "is not fully understood," said Leo. That is significant, because it wouldn't occur with other types of capture systems, he said. The system also uses much less water than other types of carbon capture proposals, the company said.
Small step in the direction of commercial use
The test will be small, the equivalent of 20 kilowatts, he said. To receive the new $800,000 in DOE money this week, however, the company had to document that the technology likely would remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide from an emissions stream and keep electricity prices to a 35 percent increase if attempted at scale.
If the small test is successful, the next step is to find financing for a commercial-scale project at the megawatt level, Leo said. There also will be additional tests at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to test impurities that can exist in actual coal-plant emissions as opposed to simulated gas streams in a lab.
FuelCell Energy's project is one of 16 awarded funds from a $41 million DOE pot established last year to test advanced capture technologies. Other companies and universities are trying out different solvents and sorbents that in theory could scrub CO2 from coal plant emissions more efficiently than the amines and chilled ammonia mixes that exist today.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add Comment"In its test in its Danbury lab, the company plans to mix carbon dioxide, air and nitrogen to simulate coal plant emissions and then shoot those gases into a fuel cell stack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause the CO2 becomes concentrated in the fuel's cell stream, the greenhouse gas is easy to strip away.
Simultaneously, natural gas is sent to the cell stack to generate electrical power that could in theory be sent back to a power plant and cancel out the parasitic load. Any extra carbon dioxide released from using natural gas this way also would be captured, Leo said.
Additionally, the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is destroyed through a process that "is not fully understood," said Leo. That is significant, because it wouldn't occur with other types of capture systems, he said. The system also uses much less water than other types of carbon capture proposals, the company said."
This is a very puzzling story! It doesn't clearly state which "streams" of gases are sent where in the overall system. So natural gas is used as the fuel source (internally reformed hydrogen) for the molten carbonate fuel cell, which generates electricity. The carbon liberated from the natural gas hydrocarbon fuel is utilized in the anode reaction as carbonate ions, but where does the carbon from the flue gas fit in the equation?
I'm a PEM guy, so maybe I've missed something here. I met the founders of Skyonic (also receiving DOE funds) back in 2005. Their technology seems very promising, as it takes the flue gas and turns it into valuable commodities. Have a look at it, as it's pretty exciting!
“Skyonic’s green carbon capture technologies present a scalable cost-effective solution for industry to reduce emissions.” SkyMine® is a profitable carbonate mineralization technology that produces beneficial re-use products in a safe, efficient and profitable manner. The process achieves this goal using low-cost chemical inputs, producing high-value chemical outputs and operating at energy-efficient conditions. A major differentiator is that SkyMine® captures CO2 as a stable solid, making it easy and safe for storage.
SkyMine®, will selectively remove CO2, acid gases, and heavy metals emitted from the plant’s flue gas streams and recycle it into hydrochloric acid, sodium bicarbonate and other byproducts.
I wholeheartedly agree that this article was about as clear as coal - I'm not sure how the fuel cell process being presented would work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I also wish you'd described a little more thoroughly how the "SkyMine®" technology works...
" I want to invest $3 billion taxpayer dollars in this technology. Why? because I don't understand it, so it must be great. Therefore it'll be another of my great successes in my Green March Forward. That and it's not my money. By the way, did I tell you that I killed Osama Bin Laden?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.
@jtdwyer Skymine is dependent on the market value of the byproducts generated by the flue gas. Primarily food-grade bicarbonate (baking soda) and HCl. Inferior bicarbonates can be sold as use for road base materials, etc. The cost per ton of emissions is very low, though I won't quote a price as commercial-scale costs haven't been proven. When this project was in it's infancy I remember sitting across the table from Joe Jones and thinking "well IF it could work it may change the world.." No pun intended... but I sure hope this project isn't "Blue Sky"!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin You're a troll. Try Craigslist instead.
LOL! I'm pretty sure the grant application was nowhere near as sketchy as this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Johnay I'm not so sure!? When the VP of Application Engineering is quoted in SA as saying "process that 'is not fully understood,'"..... I'd be curious to see how that was explained in the RFP. I've written over $30M in winning grant proposals and tend to avoid such language! Now I'm LOL!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of people here are complaining about the lack of detail provided. I can tell you if I was inventing something new that may help the industry and make me a lot of money I'm certainly not going to let a magazine know the specifics so someone else can beat me to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt they're avoiding describing the process because they need to keep it secret. At this stage they've already got DOE funding and any key technologies should have patent applications already submitted. Anyone that tries to steal their plans is going to have a hell of a time playing catch up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's far more likely that the VP knows if they describe any part of the process INCORRECTLY people will rip them apart down the road for being incompetent. I agree with energydogjeff though, that's pretty sloppy language to use when talking about your product.
This needs looking into. It would be nice if it's not more energy cargo-cult stuff. Will we hear anything more about this in two years time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile, it serves to distract attention from making the difficult decisions about tried-and-tested technology.
And all the while the CO2 in the atmosphere is rising and rising.
I don't "get" this stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just know that in the early 70s Hamilton Standard division of what is now United Technologies demonstrated a fuel cell home.
No utilities.
Water and some non-toxic gas [hydrogen?] as by-products; used throughout the Apollo program. NOT CO2.
I just know I want one so I can kiss Gainesville Regional Utility goo-bye for my electricity.
How simple is this stuff? Why do we need electrical utilities after all this time? 'Cause they don't want us to stop paying bills..
jeffreej , a hydrogen fuel cell has to get hydrogen from somewhere. This process apparently uses methane as fuel. The fuel cell produces carbon dioxide and hydrogen through a chemical process called reforming. The hydrogen is separated in the fuel cell and reacts with oxygen from the air to produce electricity. Most of the electricity would go back into converting salt(sodium chloride) and carbon dioxide into HCl(hydrochoric acid) and sodium bicarbonate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's been a long time since I've done a detailed anaylysis of this kind of reaction, but you don't get anything for free. A fuel cell and appropriate catalysts could make these reactions more efficient, but all these chemicals are already produced. It looks like they are banking on 35% less CO2 from increase efficiency. The reaction producing bicarbonate could use some emissions(that 35% CO2) from an associated coal or natural gas electric power plant.