Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Scrubbing sulfur—New process removes sulfur components, carbon dioxide from power plant emissions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:43 PM
Original message
Scrubbing sulfur—New process removes sulfur components, carbon dioxide from power plant emissions
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=393
Release date: August 18, 2009
Contact: Annie Haas, (509) 375-3732

Scrubbing sulfur

New process removes sulfur components, carbon dioxide from power plant emissions

RICHLAND, Wash. – The Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has developed a reusable organic liquid that can pull harmful gases such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide out of industrial emissions from power plants. The process could directly replace current methods and allow power plants to capture double the amount of harmful gases in a way that uses no water, less energy and saves money.

"Power plants could easily retrofit to use our process as a direct replacement for existing technology," said David Heldebrant, PNNL's lead research scientist for the project.

Harmful gases such as carbon dioxide or sulfur dioxide are called "acid gases." The new scrubbing process uses acid gas-binding organic liquids that contain no water and appear similar to oily compounds. These liquids capture the acid gases near room temperature. Scientists then heat the liquid to recover and dispose of the acid gases properly.

These recyclable liquids require much less energy to heat but can hold two times more harmful gases by weight than the current leading liquid absorbent used in power plants. It is a combination of water and monoethanolamine, a basic organic molecule that grabs the carbon dioxide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFvzuCaYrCE">Click here to watch a video of the process.

PNNL's previous work with the all-organic liquids focused on pulling only carbon dioxide out of emissions from power plants. New work will show how the process can be applied to other acid gases such as sulfur dioxide.

"Current methods used to capture and release carbon dioxide emissions from power plants use a lot of energy because they pump and heat an excess of water during the process," said Heldebrant. He notes the monoethanolamine component is too corrosive to be used without the excess water.

In PNNL's process called "Reversible Acid Gas Capture," the molecules that grab onto the acid gases are already in liquid form, and don't contain water. The acid gas-binding organic liquids require less heat than water does to release the captured gases.

Heldebrant and colleagues demonstrated the process in previous work with a carbon dioxide-binding organic liquid, called CO2BOL. In this process, scientists mix the CO2BOL solution into a holding tank with emissions that contain carbon dioxide. The CO2BOL chemically binds with the carbon dioxide to form a liquid salt solution.

In another tank, scientists reheat the salt solution to strip out the carbon dioxide. Non-hazardous gases such as nitrogen would not be captured and are released back into the atmosphere. The toxic compounds are captured separately for storage. At that point, the CO2BOL solution is back in its original state and ready for reuse.

Heldebrant and colleagues have developed organic liquid systems that bind three additional acid gases found in emissions. He will talk about new work with sulfur dioxide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide — all acid gases that are environmentally harmful — at the American Chemical Society Fall 2009 Meeting and Exposition, Tuesday, August 18, at 4:30 p.m. EDT.

# # #

This work is supported by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Energy Conversion Initiative, an ongoing research and development effort focused on finding new ways to deliver clean and safe energy.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory where interdisciplinary teams advance science and technology and deliver solutions to America's most intractable problems in energy, national security and the environment. PNNL employs 4,250 staff, has a $918 million annual budget, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab's inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, Linked In and Twitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't know how or why but some will oppose it,
it seems there is a certain segment of our country that will only be happy when we all live like the Amish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obliviously Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I think it sounds like a great idea! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I can think of a valid complaint
Edited on Tue Aug-18-09 09:53 PM by OKIsItJustMe
The tendency will be for many to say, "Oh! Hey! Coal is clean! Problem solved!" and then go back to business as usual, without having actually put a system like this in place in an appreciable number of plants.


Not too long ago, I had a woman (in all seriousness) tell me she had been really worried about "global warming" a few years back, but then it turned out not to be that bad of a problem… :cry:


That being said, I'd certainly like to see us putting this in place as a "stop gap" measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. So will this remove all the heavy metals as well, such as mercury?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Case closed Amish n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. No, I don't think that's it exactly
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 05:52 PM by OKIsItJustMe
Javaman's argument (I believe) is that removing sulfur and CO2 from coal exhaust does not take care of all of coal's drawbacks. (Notice the page Javaman cited advocates wind over coal.)

My guess is, if you could provide a truly clean power source, Javaman would not object.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks. :) You could be my lawyer. :)
Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. My pleasure
Just tryin' to sow harmony, accord and mutual understanding… :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Thanks for dropping by!
It's always nice to hear from spokesmen from the coal industry
once in a while ...
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. Oh good. Now we have yet another spectacular misinterpretation of science with which to greenwash
the coal industry.

Suppose you capture the carbon dioxide. Where you gonna put it for eternity? Your backyard? How about Lake Nyos? Can we put it there. That's already worked out very well, hasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. That's the ultimate problem, isn't it?
We're so petrified that solid nuclear waste is going to leak into the environment that we spend 40 years agonizing and wrangling over what to do. but when it comes to an actual gaseous planet-killer like CO2 we just hand-wave it away: "Well, we just scrub it out of the exhaust gases using this fancy-dancy liquid, then we store it. Problem solved."

I sometimes wonder where people learned their risk-assessment and systems analysis skills, then I remember: they didn't, they watched teevee instead.

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Or the other excuse....
(with ominous futuristic voice)
Technology will fix it!!!
(one also has to wave their hands and wiggle their fingers to get that abracadabra thing going for full effect)

I don't know, but I don't see technology yet figuring out a way to "sequester" CO2.

the difference between nuke waste and coal waste is that nuke waste "glows". LOL if we could figure out a way for CO2 glow, people would freak out.

we live in some really empty headed times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Hear, hear!
> the difference between nuke waste and coal waste is that nuke waste "glows".
> LOL if we could figure out a way for CO2 glow, people would freak out.

Nicely put!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC