Cheaper, Cleaner CombustionA simple new design for combustion chambers used in power plants could slash the amount of pollutants and the costs to consumers.
Even outfitted with the best available technologies, gas-turbine power plants and industrial boilers emit significant amounts of nitrogen oxides, precursors to smog and acid rain. But better results could come from a new combustor that's so simple, it's been described as a "teacup with a straw."
Researchers at Georgia Tech say their simple design -- in which fuel goes down the "straw," air mixes from a donut-shaped inlet around the straw, and combustion gases flow out of the "teacup's" sides (see image) -- slashes nitrogen oxides emissions to as low as one part per million (the best existing technologies emit nine parts per million), and also produces less carbon monoxide pollution. The reduction in emissions is done without complex and costly equipment that mixes air and fuel, or systems to cleanse pollutants from the exhaust. The device was invented at Georgia Tech by a team headed by aerospace engineer Ben Zinn. Controlling NOx emissions costs industry billions of dollars. And of course the pollutants that do get emitted worsen air quality and poison waterways. "If someone can show a combustor that can get to two parts per million NOx and not require [exhaust scrubbers] on the power plant, you have made a big step to save capital costs, reduce the cost of electricity, and reduce pollution," says Richard Dennis, turbine technology manager at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, WV. Essentially, the Georgia Tech design minimizes areas of very high temperatures within the combustion chamber and also minimizes so-called "back-mixing" of combustion gases with hot areas -- zones where the nitrogen oxides form. Instead of premixing fuel with air, the shape of the combustion chamber efficiently forces the air and fuel to mix and guides the combustion process. If the simple device works as Zinn believes it will, the question becomes: Why didn't anyone think of it sooner? "That's a very good question," Zinn says. A Georgia Tech startup, Plum Combustion, is working to commercialize the technology. Zinn says he's already talking to potential customers about the device, including gas-turbine makers and even manufacturers of ordinary gas water heaters. And while the new design could, according to Zinn, surpass conventional gas-turbine combustors in reducing nitrogen oxide emissions, it could have its biggest impact in industrial boilers used for heating and powering industrial facilities, where emissions are generally even higher. "We were surprised since it looks so simple -- just a teacup with a straw in it," says the Department of Energy's Dennis. While he emphasizes the need for more study, he adds: "But the reason it seems to work so well, when you flow fuel and air into that column and it combusts, everything is just forced right out, it appears that you don't get as much back-mixing. If you do that fast enough, you avoid some NOx issues." One way industry removes nitrogen oxides today is to add a catalytic system with ammonia-injection in the exhaust stream to break down the NOx into nitrogen and water. But this is expensive, and adds pressure to the system, reducing a power plant's efficiency. And if too much ammonia is added, it can escape and create other pollutants. |










Comments
06/29/2006
Posts:1
06/29/2006
Posts:1
Not only economic side it will help reduce the environmental impact to leave much more pleasant planet Earth to our next Generations.
06/29/2006
Posts:1
06/29/2006
Posts:1
I have read that you can convert the typical car over to burn hydrogen with nothing less than about $300.00 worth of parts and labor for the engine (storage tank aside) Some farmer did it with 5th grade education to all his engines.
First you need the infrastructure to be in place to fuel the cars. This would be first thing to start on. The stations, and the conversion plants go up first. Make tons of it, then modify the cars and trucks Then the windmills could be built and brought online, while hydro,natural gas,coal, or oil plants generate the hydrogen in the short term.
When that was completed 1-2 years. I would require EVERY car to enter a shop on the expiration of the TAGS to have the car converted over to run EITHER HYDROGEN,and or normal fuels. I would require by LAW to have EVERY gas station converted to be able to store and PUMP hydrogen in EVERY STATE. With some GOVT help to do so, not in 10 years.. In 12-24 mos.
I also agree with you that the technology is great but wont help if its SLOWED down so much it takes 20 years to actually be used if ever.
As far as generating the HYDROGEN cleanly. WIND FARMS, and TONS of them. We already have Thousands in CA that power Los Vegas and Palm Springs just fine. And, even now, just a small amount of Electricity could be used to crack the Hydrogen from water, with NO carbon fuels used to generate it. The mills are reliable and proven, not pretty but neither is BROWN AIR.
I would also during the time that the Stations are being converted, create and build Massive REFINING plants NEAR every wind farm, to generate, store, and ship the Hydrogen around the country.
not to mention we have TONS of real estate left to put WIND farms on in FLY-OVER states.. One senator in AZ (forgot the name) backs this method I couldnt agree more.
I dont see why the change couldnt be made in just a few years?
Also the argument about producing HYDROGEN with fossile fuel plants as being ineffecient would be destroyed with this PlumEgg burner producing the Hydro with very few emmissions.
See02
12/19/2006
Posts:2
07/01/2006
Posts:1
07/05/2006
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
07/09/2006
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
07/27/2006
Posts:1
bojig
09/19/2006
Posts:1
Dr Fuelinste...
10/19/2006
Posts:1
"and also produces less carbon monoxide pollution."
How much is "less"? in P/B?
Any ideas how much CO would be released in a burner that could be used as an IN WALL furnace to heat a home or as he said a WATER heater?
Im asking this question because it hits home for me right now as Im in Construction, (the end game for this technology) and Im about to install a standard gas wall heater and the biggest pain Im going to have, besides re-routing the gas lines, will be fitting that thing with a large VENT riser at the top to through the roof. Same thing goes with Tankless water heaters I have put in, while great performers they require a 5" OD vent pipe in order to function properly.
Im assuming this burner, even if its VERY effecient, will still emit SOME CO which could build up over time in an enclosed space like a house or apt and be harmful to humans. They didnt say NO CO, but reduced? Right?
So in the end a guy like me will STILL be putting a VENT in for the Heaters both wall and Tankless,using this burner, but seems like it could be significantly smaller if it requires one at all. I guess it depends on just how MUCH CO and OTHER toxins are actually released from the burner chamber.
Seems to me,no matter what type of chamber is used, being used in an enclosed space, that even small amounts of Co NO2 could build up to harmful levels inside, so it probably wont make my job any easier, but it would be WAY more effecient it seems with the fuel, and pollute less, which is a good thing!
One last question, if the flame burns the fuel at a lower temp/ ie. COOLER, how is it going to generate as much heat as a HOT flame burning would generate???
See02
12/19/2006
Posts:2
jmeyer99
01/25/2007
Posts:1