Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Scrubbing CO2 Cheaply

A new carbon-capture method will be tested at a German coal plant.

By Duncan Graham-Rowe

Monday, March 09, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

A new process for scrubbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power-plant exhaust gases could make carbon capture a more affordable option for the energy industry. The process, which is to be tested in Germany this summer, promises to remove up to 90 percent of CO2 from flue gases while using far less energy than other methods.

Catching carbon: This illustration shows the layout of a plant with carbon capture and storage.
Credit: Siemens

Existing carbon-capture methods reduce a plant's efficiency by about 11 percent. The new process, developed by Siemens, could reduce this efficiency loss to just 9.2 percent. This may not seem like much of an improvement, "but in a power plant, that's a huge benefit," says Tobias Jockenhoevel, head of the project at Siemens, in Erlangen, Germany. Capturing CO2 will always consume a certain amount of energy, says Jockenhoevel, so the aim is to find ways to keep these losses to a minimum.

In theory, 99.9 percent of the CO2 emitted from a power plant could be removed using the process, but Jockenhoevel says that 90 percent is the economic optimum in terms of infrastructure costs and how much energy is required: "The last 10 percent costs too much."

In August, the Siemens process will be put to the test at a pilot facility built by Siemens and the energy company E.ON: the Staudinger coal-fired plant, near Frankfurt. The plant will be adapted so that part of its exhaust gases are fed into a chimney containing a 25-meter-high column that gives off a solvent mist that reacts with CO2 under pressure. As the flue gases pass through the mist, the CO2 is chemically absorbed, leaving residual gases to pass out of the chimney. The CO2 can then be separated from the solvent, which can be reused.

Story continues below

"It's basically like washing the gases," says Jockenhoevel. It is a standard approach to scrubbing CO2; the novelty of the process comes down to the solvent used and the way it is recovered, says Jockenhoevel.

"There's a lot of research looking for new solvents," says Amparo Galindo, a physical chemist in the Carbon Capture and Storage group at Imperial College London. Currently, the most preferred solvent is monoethnolamine (MEA). "MEA reacts very strongly, but the difficulty with it lies in recapturing it so you can reuse it," which requires a lot of energy, she says.

Comments

  • scrubbing co2
    Since enzymes work on amino acids and there are thousands of enzymatic reaction it might help to throw some enzymes into the mix along with the amino acid solvents
    Rate this comment: 12345

    protn7
    03/09/2009
    Posts:69
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: scrubbing co2
      Most of the energy from burning coal comes from oxidizing carbon. It takes as least that much energy, given inefficiencies, to reduce the product CO2 to carbon and oxygen again.   Where does that energy appear in the process described here?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ka5s
      03/09/2009
      Posts:13
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: scrubbing co2
        It doesn't. The point is not to convert the CO2 back to carbon and oxygen, merely to keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Various techniques have been proposed for doing this, such as pumping it into deep wells or dissolving it in rocks. At least one idea does convert it back by pumping it through growing algae; that uses solar power for the conversion.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        ms
        03/09/2009
        Posts:129
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: scrubbing co2
          This has the consequence that we must now handle the solvents used AND store the scrubbed CO2.   I expect a leak will make the news inside of fifty years.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          ka5s
          03/09/2009
          Posts:13
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
  • Pressure requirements
    Greater efficiency in solvent regeneration would be a significant step. However, paragraph 4 refers to pressurizing the entire flue gas stream prior to introduction of the mist. Depending on the pressure levels, this could offset gains in regeneration efficiency, especially since compression steals electricity whereas thermal regeneration only steals heat. Moreover, pressure vessels that can handle on the order of 50,000 cubic meters of flue gas per minute will be very large and have a high capital cost relative to liquid columns.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    taylormp@cor...
    03/09/2009
    Posts:1
  • Carbon capture
    While the article does not have the details to compare this with other capture processes, there is lots of literature in the USDOE web site, and especially so for the sequestration partnership areas and their reports.  A number of companies are still researching chemical processes for capture and there are a number of variations.  There are major differences if one is to install a system on a pulverized coal plant or a gasification plant.  Also, retrofitting an existing plant can be very difficult and very likely too expensive to meet any reasonable dispatch schedule. 

    And then there is the whole issue of pipelines and below ground sequestration. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    JDRUBY
    03/09/2009
    Posts:15
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Don't sequester CO2
    Again I must ask WHY?  Look at the long-term data and see there is no nexus between CO2 levels and temperature.  But research does show CO2 critical to plant life. Why then spend a fortune to reduce CO2?

    540 million years ago CO2 was 7000ppm (when land animals appeared).
    170 million years ago CO2 was 1700ppm (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth)
    250 years ago CO2 was 250ppm (after Little Ice Age)
    currently, because of man, CO2 is 385ppm.
    Plant life dies at 150-180ppm through asphyxiation.

    CO2 is a finite resource. Nature has been sequestering it underground for 540 million years. At the rate of decrease over the last 170 million years, Earth would have hit 150ppm in about 10 million years. Odd as it may seem, man had inadvertently increased the life essential CO2 concentrations, and if we were to disappear today, the added CO2 probably adds another 10 million years to plant life on Earth. However, man is clever, and may find a way to bury CO2 and make it unavailable to nature at an accelerated rate. Thus, we may yet find a way to kill off most of the planet's plant life, thus ending the 3rd atmosphere.

    The global agricultural growth rate has increased 30+% because of the increase of CO2 in the past 250 years. It is projected to increase further with any continued rise of CO2. What is the political end game? Are ecopoliticians trying to reduce CO2 to preindustrial 250ppm? Do you realize that we would lose the 30% agricultural gain and thus cause massive STARVATION across the planet? And do you know what happens when global concentrations drop to about 150ppm? Most life on Earth DIES. Is this what you want to promote?  Does the ability of science to accomplish a task overwhelm the sensibility of whether it is right or wrong?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    RD
    03/09/2009
    Posts:114
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Don't sequester CO2
      the whole idea hinges on political neeeds of a "NEW WORLD ORDER" run by a certain select groups who want to reduce the world populations so these groups have more easier control on the remaining folks and it makes it easier to keep the food supplies in their control so their whims are considered first above all in order to servive!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      malnick
      03/09/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Don't sequester CO2
      There is a far better way of using carbon dioxide which will provide economic benefit for hundreds or thousands of years to come , which is to build up the level of carbon stored in soils , thus increasing the productivity agricultural and forestry land , allowing the world to produce more food and biofuel for a growing world population . Various techniques are currently being used to achieve this such as conservation tillage , and others may become widespread in the near future such as the addition of charcoal to the soil . What this means is that we do not need to capture CO2 directly at power stations at great expense , and also we do not need a carbon trading scheme since it is in the farmers financial interest anyway to to care for their soils properly . Keep it simple .

      Since it is ABSOLUTELY essential that we find ways of feeding a growing world population , soil building is something that we have to place more focus on doing . Ocean fertilization would be a good thing too .
      Rate this comment: 12345

      DJTal
      03/10/2009
      Posts:130
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Don't sequester CO2
        As a timber grower with 124 acres, I agree enriching the soil with carbon is a smart use because much of it returns to the air eventually.  But nature continues to bury carbon in ocean and lake sediment such that much of it is unavailable to natural recirculation.  There will always be loss of carbon.  The question is how fast will we lose it. Our tapping hydrocarbons is an unnatural return of carbon to the atmosphere, that has benefited all plants on Earth. 
        Rate this comment: 12345

        RD
        03/10/2009
        Posts:114
        Avg Rating:
        3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.