Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Cheaper, Cleaner Combustion

A simple new design for combustion chambers used in power plants could slash the amount of pollutants and the costs to consumers.

By David Talbot

Thursday, June 29, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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."

Georgia Tech’s new design for a combustor could achieve ultra-low emissions of smog-causing nitrogen oxides and other pollutants without the complexity associated with premixing fuel and air. Instead, the device injects the fuel and air separately into the combustor, whose shape alone guides ultra-efficient burning and exhausts combustion gases. (Credit: Georgia Tech.)

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."

Story continues below


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

  • How is power extracted?  Where would it be used?
    Sounds wonderful . . . but how is the power extracted?  Through a turbine, or recpirocating piston, or something else?  What is the capital cost and thermal efficiency?  Is it suitable for cars, electrical power, or both?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Mark Shapiro)
    06/29/2006
    Posts:1
    • Ummm, the regular way?
      It sounds like this new combustion chamber replaces one part of the current design with another one that's functionally similar, but more efficient and/or less polluting. Shouldn't have any effect on the ability to generate power at a later stage - that part of the power plan design stays the same.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Nils Davis)
      06/29/2006
      Posts:1
  • It's a wonderful news to Power Industry!
    It will be a great invention! When this design is commercialized, it will impact Power Generation industry with tremendous amount of cost saving by eliminating NOx reduction facilities all over the world.
    Not only economic side it will help reduce the environmental impact to leave much more pleasant planet Earth to our next Generations.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Won-Chul Shin)
    06/29/2006
    Posts:1
    • wonderful new invention
      true- BUT - we sit and wait while so many 'wonderful inventions' get sidelined or dumped because the corporations who would have to incorporate the new idea into their processing,  cant make profit from changing their ways - nothing happens for the right reasons does it - this is why we need the 'marshal plan' idea to make things happen !!!!
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Veronica)
      06/29/2006
      Posts:1
      • If I were president
        Instead of wasting billions only on wars of futility, wouldnt it be nice to have a war on OIL?  If I were president I would have ALREADY FORCED the US, at wartime speed to convert all cars/trucks possible over to Hydrogen, with a target of 3 years to get it completed. PERIOD end of story.

        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        See02
        12/19/2006
        Posts:2
  • Why not use sphere shape but cylinder one?
    I think the combustion explodes in all direction. Will a water drop bottle shape direct the force more focusing and more tolerate to explosion? The shape is like the ancient cannon.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Alvin Chan)
    07/01/2006
    Posts:1
  • Only Action count
    There are many good invention out there.  There is even technology that use water as fuel. They call it HHO water fuel.  You can go to this website for an example  http://hytechapps.com/  .  There were even a car that run on water only but never got off.  It is not the invention but what the mighty corporation want.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Same Ole Same Ole)
    07/05/2006
    Posts:1
    • Only Action count
      While water can be used as a fuel, form what I know it takes a lot of enrgy to make it work. The information I have tells me that it is not neatr enough efficient to make feasable.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (F Warner)
      07/27/2006
      Posts:1
  • Venturi Fuel Air mixer
    Curious if this tech would add to the efficiency of the Mixing vinture offerd by Contenential controlls.http://www.continentalcontrols.com/section.cfm?id=32
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Peter Laehy)
    07/09/2006
    Posts:1
  • old system
    This type of burner has been around years. I use it daily in my small blacksmith shop. It can be a venturi or forced air. if adjusted carefully it is very efficient. I use it with propane which is clean burning anyway. There is no noticeable fumes. I don't know what the make-up of the flue gases though. I use it in a small area and havn't felt any ill effects.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (F. Warner)
    07/27/2006
    Posts:1
    • old system
      I also am building a burner like this to use waste oil.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (F Warner)
      07/27/2006
      Posts:1
      • Are you going to use water with it?
        Two parts(drips) water to one part (drip) waste oil falling onto to sufficiently preheated steel plate is reputed to combust into a remarkably hot and clean-burning flame.  I haven't tried it myself and only read about it.  Unfortunately, we cannot take comfort in the "fact" that "I read it on the internet, so it MUST be true" becdause I read about it an old-fashioned book.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (James)
        07/27/2006
        Posts:1
  • Roy's been doing it for years
    Roy McAlister in Arizona has been employing the same principle to run unthrottled engines on gasoline, diesel, mixed terpenes home-distilled from citrus waste whatever undeterminate mixture of these that he may have in his tank at any given moment.  He using a little bit of hydrogen fed into the cylinder by nothing more high-tech than a tube mounted inside the intake manifold close to the port and controlled by a pressure/flow regulator.  He ends up with a more complete combustion event surrounded by excess air.  His engines run cleaner but otherwise undifferentiated from "regular" engines.  You'd have to ask him but I suspect that his may run a tiny bit cooler because of the excess air.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (James)
    07/27/2006
    Posts:1
  • teacup and straw?sounds familiar
    the setup is topologically similar to a fixed dome type biogas digester design of mine, although in my case the purpose is different: to make the digester more compact.This, together with its ferrocement construction reduced costs by a factor of 10.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    bojig
    09/19/2006
    Posts:1
  • Fuel Behaviour
    MIT published a small piece back in 1995 on fuel behaviour. They studied droplet size of injected and observed that the fuel does not break up in to small homogeneious droplets, they further said that even with air assited injectors there was not much better improvement. They noted that no one knew what mechanism caused this agglomeration problem. With all the energy content in todays liquid fuels ? And no improvement in fuel economy even with all the technology at our disposal. We need to examine the fuel and discover what the mechanism is that causes this agglomeration problem? Could it be charge separation in flowing fuel?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Dr Fuelinste...
    10/19/2006
    Posts:1
  • Exactly how much Less CO is released from the EGG?
    I dont see any hard numbers on how much CO is released from the combustion chamber when using the Plum-Egg Combustion chamber?(I named it for the EGG shape of the flame area) They mentioned hard numbers for the N02 but dont recall any EXACT figures for the CO emmissions.

    "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???
    Rate this comment: 12345

    See02
    12/19/2006
    Posts:2
  • Pintle Regulated Venturi
    For a look at a drivable prototype already delivery excellent results, please see www.aspenesco.com.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jmeyer99
    01/25/2007
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Brain Imaging and IQ
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
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.