The new boiler at the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in Spremberg, Germany, captures 95 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from its coal burning—a small demonstration of one option for capturing carbon and compressing it for transportation by pipeline or truck to a place where it can be buried or used....[More]
CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE:
The new boiler at the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in Spremberg, Germany, captures 95 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from its coal burning—a small demonstration of one option for capturing carbon and compressing it for transportation by pipeline or truck to a place where it can be buried or used. This photo was taken in October 2007 and shows the general layout of the carbon capture and storage addition to the 1,600 megawatt power plant.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of Vattenfall
OXYFUEL:
In September 2007 the oxyfuel combustion chamber is lifted into place at Schwarze Pumpe. By burning the coal in pure oxygen—hence the name oxyfuel—rather than ordinary air, the waste gases are a mix of water vapor and nearly pure carbon dioxide....[More]
OXYFUEL:
In September 2007 the oxyfuel combustion chamber is lifted into place at Schwarze Pumpe. By burning the coal in pure oxygen—hence the name oxyfuel—rather than ordinary air, the waste gases are a mix of water vapor and nearly pure carbon dioxide.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of Vattenfall
CAPTURED CO2:
By simply condensing the water vapor, nearly pure carbon dioxide can be captured. It is then compressed and stored in the big tanks pictured here, being lifted into place in September 2007....[More]
CAPTURED CO2:
By simply condensing the water vapor, nearly pure carbon dioxide can be captured. It is then compressed and stored in the big tanks pictured here, being lifted into place in September 2007. At full capacity, the oxyfuel boiler produces—and captures—nine metric tons of CO2 every hour.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of Vattenfall
CO2 STORAGE:
Captured carbon dioxide can be pumped deep underground for permanent storage, as has been done with CO 2 extracted from natural gas at the Sleipner field in the North Sea....[More]
CO2 STORAGE:
Captured carbon dioxide can be pumped deep underground for permanent storage, as has been done with CO2 extracted from natural gas at the Sleipner field in the North Sea. The artist's rendering here depicts the extraction well for the natural gas as well as the injection pipe for CO2.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Alligator film / BUG / StatoilHydro
ROCK LOCK:
The carbon dioxide is stored in between the pores in a sandstone type rock, as pictured here, where it mixes with water over decades and becomes permanently trapped.
The liquefied carbon dioxide has slowly spread through the Utsira sandstone formation in the Sleipner natural gas field and has stayed in place over the past 13 years....[More]
CO2 POOL:
The liquefied carbon dioxide has slowly spread through the Utsira sandstone formation in the Sleipner natural gas field and has stayed in place over the past 13 years. More than 10 million metric tons of CO2 are now stored in the rocks rather than vented into the atmosphere, slowly spreading to cover 1.15 square miles (three square kilometers) as more CO2 is pumped down as pictured here via seismic imaging.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of StatoilHydro
SMALL SCALE:
It takes one small compressor (pictured on left) and three pipelines leading to three wells to compress and store a million metric tons of liquid carbon dioxide a year beneath the In Salah natural gas extraction plant in Algeria....[More]
SMALL SCALE:
It takes one small compressor (pictured on left) and three pipelines leading to three wells to compress and store a million metric tons of liquid carbon dioxide a year beneath the In Salah natural gas extraction plant in Algeria.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of BP
WELLHEAD:
All that marks the surface above a pilot carbon dioxide storage facility south of Dayton, Tex., is a wellhead. Even when geologists attempted to pump the CO 2 back out of the ground using natural-gas techniques, it was impossible to extract it....[More]
WELLHEAD:
All that marks the surface above a pilot carbon dioxide storage facility south of Dayton, Tex., is a wellhead. Even when geologists attempted to pump the CO2 back out of the ground using natural-gas techniques, it was impossible to extract it.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of Susan Hovorka, University of Texas at Austin
CO2 LEAK:
The Chaffin Ranch geyser in Utah, pictured here, is an example of a natural outpouring of carbon dioxide stored deep within the earth. Such erupting CO 2 disperses too quickly in the atmosphere to pose a danger....[More]
CO2 LEAK:
The Chaffin Ranch geyser in Utah, pictured here, is an example of a natural outpouring of carbon dioxide stored deep within the earth. Such erupting CO2 disperses too quickly in the atmosphere to pose a danger.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
There are already some 3,100 miles (4,988 kilometers) of pressurized pipelines, like the one pictured here, transporting carbon dioxide from naturally occurring deposits in Colorado, for example, to depleted oil fields in west Texas....[More]
CO2 PIPELINE:
There are already some 3,100 miles (4,988 kilometers) of pressurized pipelines, like the one pictured here, transporting carbon dioxide from naturally occurring deposits in Colorado, for example, to depleted oil fields in west Texas. The 320-mile (515 km) Green Pipeline under construction will connect petroleum reservoirs south of Houston with a variety of natural and manmade sources of CO2 in Louisiana and Texas. The CO2 can then be used to scour more oil out of the field.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Courtesy of Denbury Resources, Inc
POWER PLANT:
Duke Energy is building a new power plant in Edwardsport, Ind., that will gasify coal before burning, so-called integrated gasification combined cycle technology or IGCC....[More]
POWER PLANT:
Duke Energy is building a new power plant in Edwardsport, Ind., that will gasify coal before burning, so-called integrated gasification combined cycle technology or IGCC. When coal is gasified in this way, carbon dioxide can be stripped out during the gasification process. Duke is studying the feasibility of capturing 18 percent of the CO2 that would be produced by the $2.35 billion facility, one of many commercial projects underway in the U.S.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Tom Wolfe / Duke Energy
INDUSTRIAL CCS:
Carbon capture and storage technology could also be applied to other large industrial sources of carbon dioxide: cement- and steelmaking, or aluminum smelting....[More]
INDUSTRIAL CCS:
Carbon capture and storage technology could also be applied to other large industrial sources of carbon dioxide: cement- and steelmaking, or aluminum smelting. StatoilHydro plans to build a test facility at its Mongstad refinery in Norway to examine how CCS might be applied to other industries.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
Harald M. Valderhaug / StatoilHydro
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
The power plants should turn around and sell the carbon dioxide to interested buyers; Airgas perhaps. I'm not sure how the current supply is created, but there is definitely a market as it is used for powering paintball guns, industrial equipment and even candy (Pop Rocks). The power plants could compete quite easily in the market as their only cost of creation is the investment in the CCS system and some form of transporting the product. Granted, this only shifts the carbon emissions from the power plants to the end users, but the end users are using the CO2 anyway so there may be a net decrease in the emissions of CO2.
Go to your local farmers cow pasture and look down at what the bull offers the "Green" field.
Lot's of crap! The same crap that all you "green" advocates keep pumping out as newworthy information.
All you people that are pushing this carbon crap, and green everything stuff are eliminating western world industrialization. We are loosing thousands of jobs, and industries based on a false premise of world climate change, and carbon dioxide capturing. None of it is proven by the IPCC or by the supporters of Green inititives. But we are seeing a whole destruction of western industrialization by self inflicted blood letting where industries are being forced to prove an unprovable question. Making industries store a basic product of combustion is adding exponentially to the cost of our industries, and the loss of industries and jobs. You people are doing a great disservice to all of us and are traitors to the greater good of society.
I do not think, that the author of this message holds the head under an exhaust pipe of the automobile. It seems to me, that he from cities to breathe on fresh air goes in a day off! If nobody will force to establish clearing structures, is speed(faster) also other substances, harmful to life, will return to factory pipes and in an atmosphere. The nature has left to us an opportunity to transform free-of-charge and everywhere accessible thermal energy of air to mechanical job and electrical current. Come in the visitors - I shall show a working breadboard model of the isothermal converter of heat in a constant electrical current. Why it(him) do not want to introduce? Ask itself!
A picture isn't always worth 1000 words, more often worth $1000. Here I saw buildings and construction, but the technology of CCS mainly in print, and not much of that. It seemed rather like a commercial. I'd like to see more about what kind of pumps they use these days to compress large amount of gas, how they separate air to get pure oxygen without nitrogen (probably a space-age solid ceramic filter that lets only oxygen through), and in other means, how they separate CO2 from nitrogen, and how efficient these methods are.
In lieu of intelligent actual action to limit human CO2 emissions, we should be looking also at natural sources of concentrated CO2 and how to apply CCS to them, such as undersea volcanic vents. I see likely ways we might do so much more easily. I doubt anyone has yet considered the possibilities.
Under the high pressure on deep ocean floors, droplets of liquid CO2 have been seen coming from the vents along with water, even sometimes at temperatures of molten lead. At depths below 30,000 feet (or perhaps less) CO2 is liquid at normal sea temperatures, and heavier than seawater, so these droplets could be easily separated. Insulated pipes to conduct hot water to levels of less pressure would boil off dissolved CO2, which would then be condensed separately when cooled to seawater temperatures, and drained away to a "CO2 lake" on the ocean floor. This might be designed to operate on its own, mainly with light sheet metal and plastic plumbing, no outside energy source beyond the heat from the vent, without necessarily bothering the lifeforms around such vents. The heat might even be reused to also distill fresh water for local seaside communities.
Note that I talk about CO2 rather than "carbon", unlike many people who should know better. There's a big difference between the two, especially when specifying amounts. Sometimes I hear about how many tons of carbon are being put into the atmosphere. Twelve tons of carbon burn to produce 44 tons of CO2. ("Black carbon", or soot, fine carbon powder from inefficient burning, is also coming to be recognized as a global warming problem, as it turns sunlight into heat.)
Less1leg, where do you get your info, other than politicians, economists and business people and your own experiences? I'd sure like to feel that confident. But I get mine from scientists, who I trust much more, who tell us more than just what we're comfortable with.
Uhh, I'm not quite sure how we've lost thousands of jobs because we require companies to capture carbon dioxide. Since we don't require companies to capture carbon dioxide or reduce emissions, I fail to see how that is causing job losses. Perhaps you need to look into globalization, where companies move industry overseas primarily for cheap labor, so we can all buy tons of crap incredibly cheaply.
Some of the above comments are somewhat bizarre. What is more dependable are the possibilities from oxygen enriched combustion, both to improve thermal efficiency ( especially when burning poorer fuels )and to reduce nitrous oxides and facilitate carbon dioxide separation for sale or sequestration. The technology already is quite mature and not very expensive in energy terms ( much of the energy in air separation plant goes into compression or liquifaction of the final gaseous products.An on site air separator at a power station would only require to supply at modest pressures. The gas burning the fuel would be a mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and some water vapour. Fresh oxygen would be supplied at one part of the cycle, and some carbon dioxide removed after the heat exchangers which provide the high temperature steam for the turbines.Higher combustion temperatures allows greater efficiency and as the process is not diluted with a large quantity of atmospheric nitrogen, treatment for other pollutants, such as sulphur is easier.
i'd like to add to what less1leg said because we can't prove that the temperature is rising because of the carbon who knows maybe we should be blaming that on the constant pull of the sun's gravity making us so hot by getting closer.
For several years now science has known how to extract solid carbon from crude oil or methane BEFORE burning it. This is much simpler than CCS and is pollution free, as only the remaining hydrogen is burnt producing water vapour. The carbon can cheaply be put into nearby landfill sites. Why has no government funding been put into this technology, as the process solves most of our environmental problems until alternative energy sources such as laser fusion will have been developped.
Blue-Green Acres
Full-size Unmanned Aircraft Flies on Hydrogen Fuel
Recycling Could Replace Mining for U.S. Iron Supply
10 Comments
Add CommentThe power plants should turn around and sell the carbon dioxide to interested buyers; Airgas perhaps. I'm not sure how the current supply is created, but there is definitely a market as it is used for powering paintball guns, industrial equipment and even candy (Pop Rocks). The power plants could compete quite easily in the market as their only cost of creation is the investment in the CCS system and some form of transporting the product. Granted, this only shifts the carbon emissions from the power plants to the end users, but the end users are using the CO2 anyway so there may be a net decrease in the emissions of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can save you the story and the picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo to your local farmers cow pasture and look down at what the bull offers the "Green" field.
Lot's of crap! The same crap that all you "green" advocates keep pumping out as newworthy information.
All you people that are pushing this carbon crap, and green everything stuff are eliminating western world industrialization. We are loosing thousands of jobs, and industries based on a false premise of world climate change, and carbon dioxide capturing. None of it is proven by the IPCC or by the supporters of Green inititives. But we are seeing a whole destruction of western industrialization by self inflicted blood letting where industries are being forced to prove an unprovable question.
Making industries store a basic product of combustion is adding exponentially to the cost of our industries, and the loss of industries and jobs.
You people are doing a great disservice to all of us and are traitors to the greater good of society.
good
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not think, that the author of this message holds the head under an exhaust pipe of the automobile. It seems to me, that he from cities to breathe on fresh air goes in a day off!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nobody will force to establish clearing structures, is speed(faster) also other substances, harmful to life, will return to factory pipes and in an atmosphere.
The nature has left to us an opportunity to transform free-of-charge and everywhere accessible thermal energy of air to mechanical job and electrical current.
Come in the visitors - I shall show a working breadboard model of the isothermal converter of heat in a constant electrical current.
Why it(him) do not want to introduce?
Ask itself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA picture isn't always worth 1000 words, more often worth $1000. Here I saw buildings and construction, but the technology of CCS mainly in print, and not much of that. It seemed rather like a commercial. I'd like to see more about what kind of pumps they use these days to compress large amount of gas, how they separate air to get pure oxygen without nitrogen (probably a space-age solid ceramic filter that lets only oxygen through), and in other means, how they separate CO2 from nitrogen, and how efficient these methods are.
In lieu of intelligent actual action to limit human CO2 emissions, we should be looking also at natural sources of concentrated CO2 and how to apply CCS to them, such as undersea volcanic vents. I see likely ways we might do so much more easily. I doubt anyone has yet considered the possibilities.
Under the high pressure on deep ocean floors, droplets of liquid CO2 have been seen coming from the vents along with water, even sometimes at temperatures of molten lead. At depths below 30,000 feet (or perhaps less) CO2 is liquid at normal sea temperatures, and heavier than seawater, so these droplets could be easily separated. Insulated pipes to conduct hot water to levels of less pressure would boil off dissolved CO2, which would then be condensed separately when cooled to seawater temperatures, and drained away to a "CO2 lake" on the ocean floor. This might be designed to operate on its own, mainly with light sheet metal and plastic plumbing, no outside energy source beyond the heat from the vent, without necessarily bothering the lifeforms around such vents. The heat might even be reused to also distill fresh water for local seaside communities.
Note that I talk about CO2 rather than "carbon", unlike many people who should know better. There's a big difference between the two, especially when specifying amounts. Sometimes I hear about how many tons of carbon are being put into the atmosphere. Twelve tons of carbon burn to produce 44 tons of CO2. ("Black carbon", or soot, fine carbon powder from inefficient burning, is also coming to be recognized as a global warming problem, as it turns sunlight into heat.)
Less1leg, where do you get your info, other than politicians, economists and business people and your own experiences? I'd sure like to feel that confident. But I get mine from scientists, who I trust much more, who tell us more than just what we're comfortable with.
Uhh, I'm not quite sure how we've lost thousands of jobs because we require companies to capture carbon dioxide. Since we don't require companies to capture carbon dioxide or reduce emissions, I fail to see how that is causing job losses. Perhaps you need to look into globalization, where companies move industry overseas primarily for cheap labor, so we can all buy tons of crap incredibly cheaply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the above comments are somewhat bizarre. What is more dependable are the possibilities from oxygen enriched combustion, both to improve thermal efficiency ( especially when burning poorer fuels )and to reduce nitrous oxides and facilitate carbon dioxide separation for sale or sequestration. The technology already is quite mature and not very expensive in energy terms ( much of the energy in air separation plant goes into compression or liquifaction of the final gaseous products.An on site air separator at a power station would only require to supply at modest pressures. The gas burning the fuel would be a mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and some water vapour. Fresh oxygen would be supplied at one part of the cycle, and some carbon dioxide removed after the heat exchangers which provide the high temperature steam for the turbines.Higher combustion temperatures allows greater efficiency and as the process is not diluted with a large quantity of atmospheric nitrogen, treatment for other pollutants, such as sulphur is easier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi'd like to add to what less1leg said because we can't prove that the temperature is rising because of the carbon who knows maybe we should be blaming that on the constant pull of the sun's gravity making us so hot by getting closer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFind a way to recycle the process and re-use. Isn't there something like nano-carbon that can be created from CO2? Not sure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor several years now science has known how to extract solid carbon from crude oil or methane BEFORE burning it. This is much simpler than CCS and is pollution free, as only the remaining hydrogen is burnt producing water vapour. The carbon can cheaply be put into nearby landfill sites. Why has no government funding been put into this technology, as the process solves most of our environmental problems until alternative energy sources such as laser fusion will have been developped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this