Powerspan Announces CO2 Capture Technology Pilot Test Results

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.powerspan.com/pilotresults.aspx

http://www.powerspan.com/uploadedFiles/News_and_Media/Press_Releases/Pilot%20Test%20Results_December%202009.pdf">Click to download PDF

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | DECEMBER 22, 2009

---

Powerspan Announces CO₂ Capture Technology Pilot Test Results

PORTSMOUTH, NH – Powerspan Corp., a clean energy technology company, announced test results today from a one-megawatt pilot unit demonstrating its post-combustion ECO₂® carbon capture technology for coal-fired power plants. The 1-MW pilot test unit is located at FirstEnergy Corp.'s R.E. Burger Plant near Shadyside, Ohio. The test results show that the pilot unit is meeting its performance goals.

In a real world operating environment, the pilot averaged greater than 90 percent carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture from a slipstream of flue gas from the coal-fired power plant. The pilot performance data provides all of the information needed for Powerspan to confidently move to commercial scale demonstration systems. Commercial cost estimates based on pilot performance data are less than $50 per ton for CO2 capture and compression.

“Our goal with the ECO₂ pilot unit has been to demonstrate performance that results in lower energy costs than other post-combustion CO₂ capture technologies,” said senior vice president of engineering and R&D Christopher R. McLarnon, Ph.D. “The pilot performance data we have gathered shows that we have achieved this goal, and we are continuing to optimize the system.”

“We are pleased to have been part of the ECO₂ pilot test,” said Morgan Jones, staff environmental specialist of FirstEnergy. “We continue to believe that technology development is the best approach for cost-effectively reducing CO₂ emissions from existing power plants.”

Commercially proving post-combustion CO₂ capture technology is a key pathway toward meaningful CO₂ emission reductions from the existing power plant infrastructure. These pilot test results take the ECO₂ technology one step closer to commercialization as an industry-leading solution.

During extended runs, the pilot unit averaged greater than 90 percent CO₂ capture at design inlet CO₂ conditions with regeneration energy of less than 1,200 Btu/lb after heat integration. The product CO₂ was purified to meet industrial pipeline specifications using equipment that is part of the pilot installation. The pilot unit has demonstrated that it can adapt to the normal changes of an operating power plant, which is a necessary step in moving toward commercial scale systems.

In early 2010, Powerspan plans to publish an independent review of pilot test results along with an independent assessment of commercial cost implications. This review will be conducted by a leading global provider of engineering services to the energy, resource, and chemical process industries.

In December 2008, commissioning of the ECO2 pilot unit was completed and pilot testing began. During 2009, Powerspan made enhancements to the pilot configuration resulting in improved performance at lower energy cost. Powerspan is continuing to optimize the pilot system at the Burger Plant. The ECO₂ pilot unit is jointly funded by Powerspan and FirstEnergy.

Powerspan’s ECO₂ technology is a post-combustion CO₂ capture process designed to capture 90 percent of CO₂ from the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. Once the CO₂ is captured, it is dried and compressed and is ready for pipeline transport and sequestration.

Powerspan Corp., a clean energy technology company headquartered in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is engaged in the development and commercialization of proprietary carbon capture and multi-pollutant control technology for the electric power industry. The Company’s post-combustion http://www.powerspan.com/technology/">CO₂ capture technology, called ECO₂, can be applied to existing and proposed coal-fired power plants to capture 90 percent CO₂.

###

Media Contact
Stephanie Procopis
VP Communications and Government Affairs
[phone]

[wtmusic]

1. Great! It's ready for sequestration.

Now what? :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Sequester it

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/geologic/

…

Saline Formations. Sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations does not produce value-added by-products, but it has other advantages. First, the estimated carbon storage capacity of saline formations in the United States is large, making them a viable long-term solution. It has been estimated that deep saline formations in the United States could potentially store up to 500 billion tonnes of CO2.

Second, most existing large CO2 point sources are within easy access to a saline formation injection point, and therefore sequestration in saline formations is compatible with a strategy of transforming large portions of the existing U.S. energy and industrial assets to near-zero carbon emissions via low-cost carbon sequestration retrofits.

Assuring the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 storage in saline formations is a key component of this program element. Determining that CO2 will not escape from formations and either migrate up to the earth’s surface or contaminate drinking water supplies is a key aspect of sequestration research. Although much work is needed to better understand and characterize sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, a significant baseline of information and experience exists. For example, as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, the oil industry routinely injects brines from the recovered oil into saline reservoirs, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has permitted some hazardous waste disposal sites that inject liquid wastes into deep saline formations.

…

[wtmusic]

8. Pie in the sky.

There's no way this technology will be ready soon enough. We need to be building one nuclear power station a week - starting now - if we want to have any hope of controlling CO2.

Can't be done? It already has been, at the peak of new reactor construction in the early 80s.

[madokie]

9. I don't think we have the capacity to do that even if we wanted to

mind you I don't want to though. Nuclear energy is not going to solve any of our co2 problems, add to the problem maybe but not make it better.
gasifying our present coal plants for the less co2 produced but not necessarily sequester it and let that help to buy time for ramping up our alternate alternatives. We can get there and will and nuclear is not going to be a part of it either.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Take it up with Chu

http://www.energy.gov/media/CCS_Letter_-_Final.pdf
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2009/09079-DOE_Unveils_CCS_Database.html

Issued on: November 13, 2009

Worldwide Carbon Capture and Storage Projects on the Increase

International Efforts to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Carbon Capture and Storage Showcased with DOE Database

Washington, D.C. — Worldwide efforts to fund and establish carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects have accelerated, according to a new Department of Energy (DOE) online database, indicating ongoing positive momentum toward achieving the G-8 goal for launching 20 CCS demonstrations by 2010.

The database, a project of the Office of Fossil Energy's (FE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), reveals 192 proposed and active CCS projects worldwide. The projects are located in 20 countries across five continents. The 192 projects globally include 38 capture, 46 storage, and 108 for capture and storage. While most of the projects are still in the planning and development stage, or have just recently been proposed, eight are actively capturing and injecting CO2:

* In Salah Gas Storage Project, Algeria
* CRUST Project – K12-B Test, The Netherlands
* Sleipner Project, Norway
* Snøhvit Field LNG and CO2 Storage Project, Norway
* Zama Field, Canada
* SECARB Cranfield, United States
* Weyburn-Midale, Canada
* Mountaineer CCS Project, United States

CCS is a group of technologies for capturing and compressing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by power plants or industrial sites; transporting it; and injecting it into suitable permanent storage sites, such as deep underground formations. It has been increasingly recognized by scientists and nations worldwide as an effective way to both reduce CO2 emissions from existing sources and help avoid future emissions, making it part of a portfolio response to meet atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction goals.

At its 2008 meeting in Japan, the G-8 — of which the United States is a part — adopted a goal recommended by the International Energy Agency to launch 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010, with a further goal of deploying these technologies by 2020. Worldwide efforts to fund and establish CCS projects in general have accelerated, and the new database shows a recent increase in projects cost-shared by the electric power industry.

…

[wtmusic]

15. Take coal up with Obama

"Is Obama caving in to coal?

The administration deserves credit for some minimal restrictions on mountaintop mining, but the president's hands-off approach to coal defeats his climate-change efforts."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/15/opinion/ed-mining15

"Obama embraced coal industry, condemned Kyoto treaty

In May 1998, at the urging of the state's coal industry, the Illinois Legislature passed a bill condemning the Kyoto global warming treaty and forbidding state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases.

Barack Obama voted "aye."

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee now calls climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and proposes cutting carbon emissions 80% by 2050. But as a state senator, from 1997 to 2004, he usually supported bills sought by coal interests, according to legislative records and interviews."

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2991

Or maybe it's just a coincidence that Obama picked a SOE who is willing to advance pie-in-the-sky, futile efforts like CO2 sequestration. After all Chu, like Obama, should never forget how he got where he is today :eyes:

[kristopher]

16. It's a sop to the coal industry just as the republican policies on renewable "research" were

It is designed to placate a declining but powerful interest group; the need for which is an unfortunate byproduct of representative democracy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. I’m afraid the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112755481

Clean coal may be a viable energy resource.

“It’s abundant, it’s there, we know how to get to it, and so we have to learn how to use it.”

— Steven Chu

http://energy.gov/energysources/coal.htm

Coal

Coal is one of the true measures of the energy strength of the United States. One quarter of the world’s coal reserves are found within the United States, and the energy content of the nation’s coal resources exceeds that of all the world’s known recoverable oil. Coal is also the workhorse of the nation’s electric power industry, supplying more than half the electricity consumed by Americans.

Coal-fired electric generating plants are the cornerstone of America's central power system. To preserve this economically-vital energy foundation, innovative, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/">low-cost environmental compliance technologies and efficiency-boosting innovations are being developed by the Energy Department's Fossil Energy research program.

To tap the full potential of the nation’s enormous coal supplies, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy is working with the private sector to develop innovative technologies for an http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/">emission-free coal plant of the future.

This research and development program is pioneering more effective pollution controls for existing coal-fired power plants and an array of new technologies that would eliminate air and water pollutants from the next generation of power plants. Research is also underway to http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/">capture the greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants and prevent them from entering the atmosphere.

…

[kristopher]

19. You mean your selective reading of the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

Just as your selective reading of the evidence supports the idea that a hydrogen economy is viable in spite of the fact that a full evaluation shows that H as a storage medium has unacceptable energy losses.

In fact there is nothing in your link to contradict the idea that funding research into coal CC&S is anything other than a sop to the coal mining and coal burning industries - nothing. Chu is on the record innumerable times as favoring energy efficiency and renewable energy sources as the solution to our energy security and climate change challenges.

The totality of the evidence supports my assertion completely.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. The totality of the evidence (which you will not cite, because it is so obvious)

Great.

Show me evidence that the energy department is not http://www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm">actively pursuing CCS.

[kristopher]

22. I don't need to confirm your straw man.

Define "actively pursuing CCS".

However you try to rig the definition it is NOT a policy framework for deploying CCS as a means of meeting our energy security and climate change goals. It is a program of research and evaluation - period. That relegates it to the same priority level that had renewables languishing at the Dept of Energy for 40 years.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Cop out

If, as you say, “The totality of the evidence supports (your) assertion completely,” it should be easy for you to present.

Go ahead… I’ll actually be pleased to see it.

[kristopher]

25. You haven't shown anything that puts CCS as anything BUT an R&D effort.

And you can't. EVERYTHING related to CCS is R&D, not deployment. That is the same priority that was assigned to renewables under the rethuglicans. If you have evidence that there is a program to deploy CCS then it is up to you to present it, since your claim is the extraordinary one.

Sine the basic energy economics associated with CCS in a renewable energy infrastructure are a total fail, it is reasonable to conclude that this FUTILE effort is a sop to the losers in the energy tug of war related to climate change.

To disprove that you'd need to show 1) that CCS is legitimately a viable (economically, technically, and environmentally) means of accomplishing the goals we are pursuing and 2) that it is being pursued for DEPLOYMENT, not just research to evaluate #1.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. Strike two

“The totality of the evidence supports (your) assertion completely,” great!

Seriously. You say you don’t like my evidence. OK. You haven’t presented any…

Show me that the DoE has some wonderful alternatives plan that doesn’t include CCS. I’d really love to see it.

Put up, or shut up.

[kristopher]

29. Your own link supports my statement and contradicts your position.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Strike Three

Clearly, you are not going to present any evidence.

Merry Christmas.

[kristopher]

32. That's because you have no basis for your claim except wishful thinking.

You have provided nothing to refute. Everything you post supports the view that CCS is a compromise to give the coal industry hope; a hope that is unfounded.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Take it up with James Hansen

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_13/

Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?

December 2008

Humanity must find a path to reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide, to less than the amount in the air today, if climate disasters are to be averted, according to a study recently published in Open Atmospheric Science Journal by a group of ten scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France. They argue that such a path is feasible, but requires a prompt moratorium on new coal use that does not capture CO₂ and phase-out of existing coal emissions by 2030.

…

The first figure illustrates geophysical constraints that dictate essential policy actions. Coal is the largest source of atmospheric CO₂ and it is the source that would be practical to eliminate. Oil resources may be already about half depleted, depending upon the magnitude of undiscovered reserves, and it is impractical to capture CO₂ emerging from vehicle tailpipes. Coal, on the other hand, has larger reserves and the authors conclude that "the only realistic way to sharply curtail CO₂ emissions is phase out coal use except where CO₂ is captured and sequestered."

…

The authors conclude that "humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate." Specifically, they say that humanity "must begin now to move toward the era beyond fossil fuels", and "the most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO₂, is Herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."

…

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf


http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2009/05/04/hansen-hopes-lawmakers-cap-and-trade-approach-to-climate-will-fail/

…

“We’re going to have to make the decision to leave coal in the ground” or burn it only at power plants utilizing carbon capture and sequestration technology, Hansen said. “Perhaps the best chance is in the courts,” he added.

…

It’s all very well and good to say that coal is evil. I agree with you, and so does Hansen. I’d much rather “leave (it) in the ground.” However, the simple fact of the matter is, we have a lot of coal-fired power plants, and they continue to be built. (i.e. we’re not leaving it in the ground.)

There’s no such thing as “clean coal,” but there is such a thing as “cleaner coal.”

[wtmusic]

33. Continuing to build coal plants is not inevitable

"Climate change policies failing, Nasa scientist warns Obama

<>

"...Hansen wants a renewed research effort into so-called fourth generation nuclear plants, which can use nuclear waste as fuel. "In our opinion deserves your strong support, because it has the potential to help solve past problems with nuclear power: nuclear waste, the need to mine for nuclear fuel, and release of radioactive material."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/01/scentist-letter-hansen-barack-obama

Research fourth generation power; greenlight 3rd gen plus designs like the AP1000. Nuclear power works. There's no evidence that carbon sequestration will do anything but scratch the surface.

[kristopher]

34. Fortunately we have more and better choices than coal or nuclear

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[msongs]

2. coal is 1500's technology - time to leave it behind nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The problem is, it’s also 21st century technology

By all means, let’s leave it behind as fast as we can, in the meantime though… how about if we clean it up as much as we can?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Capturing carbon is not the answer.

Our total atmosphere is 5.1480e18 kg and CO2 comprises 1.9923e15 kg (0.0387%) of that.
2,196,108,370,000+ tons of CO2 are present in the atmosphere.

At $50/ton we could spend $1 trillion and only withold 20 billion tons of CO2 from the air.
That would prevent an atmospheric CO2 net composition grownth of .0003524% (from 0.0387% all the way up to 0.03905%).
Said otherwise... using the "revolutionary" technology could prevent a <1% CO2 increase for the low low price of $1T

Waste of money. They should not treat "clean coal" like some kind of environmental solution.
Reminds me of the people that think driving hybrids is good for the environment (lol).
It's not "good" for the environment... it's just not as bad.

That amount of money could build nearly ten AP1000 powerplants which have relatively NO carbon emmisions.
Also, modern gen III+ breeder reactors intrinsically fail-safe by design and require little fuel.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. CCS is a kludge

On the other hand, our existing coal plants can most likely be retrofitted much faster than we can build brand new (theoretical) Gen III+ breeder reactors.

Ideally, I’d love to replace all of our existing infrastructure with a solar-based infrastructure. On the other hand, I believe that cannot happen fast enough.

[kristopher]

21. And how do you handle the large energy penalty associated with CCS

Or the issue of redistribution of the CO2 for sequestration? You can't just dig a hole and pump it underground so it has to be collected and shipped - all costs that cannot be sustained by the current or predicted future pricing of energy or carbon.

Then there is the fact that easy to mine coal reserves are much more limited than the "several hundred years worth" that is often thrown around by a coal industry intent on deceiving the public; it is closer to being around 50 years worth at current use rates. This means that the massive investment in retrofitting you suggest has very limited utility going into the future; it is therefore much better to spend money developing a *sustainable renewable infrastructure* that can meet our future needs without creating another inevitable crisis.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. It has to be collected and shipped

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/geologic

… most existing large CO₂ point sources are within easy access to a saline formation injection point, and therefore sequestration in saline formations is compatible with a strategy of transforming large portions of the existing U.S. energy and industrial assets to near-zero carbon emissions via low-cost carbon sequestration retrofits.

…

[kristopher]

31. More selective reading. Your source also says...

The primary goal of the Energy Department's sequestration research is to understand the behavior of CO2 when stored in geologic formations. For example, studies are being done to determine the extent to which the CO2 moves within the geologic formation, and what physical and chemical changes occur to the formation when CO2 is injected. This information is key to ensure that sequestration will not impair the geologic integrity of an underground formation and that CO2 storage is secure and environmentally acceptable...
...Assuring the environmental acceptability and safety of CO2 storage in saline formations is a key component of this program element. Determining that CO2 will not escape from formations and either migrate up to the earth?s surface or contaminate drinking water supplies is a key aspect of sequestration research. Although much work is needed to better understand and characterize sequestration of CO2 in deep saline formations, a significant baseline of information and experience exists.

Keep digging...

[madokie]

36. I've been trying to say the same thing from day one here

to help us buy time we should be converting our present coal plants to gasifiers whether we capture the co2 or not. All I get in response is can't be done, too expensive, can't use the rest of the plant, who said so and several more excuses from people who don't want to talk about it to begin with.

[kristopher]

35. Nuclear is as poor a choice as CCS

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

7. Plus 1, and on another note, a mechanical engineer is needed

here, at a company that produces energy minus the carbon.

http://www.blacklightpower.com/careers.shtml

As BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) continues to refine its hydrogen-based energy technology, it progresses toward commercialization of its inventions. To fulfill this vision of commercialization, BLP has created a working environment that promotes exploration, breaking new ground, and passion for success and achievement. Join our world-class team of diligent problem solvers, innovators, fresh thinkers and communicators who excite and inspire others. Add your skills, motivation, and strong work ethic to BLP and make a difference globally.

BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) offers competitive compensation, comprehensive benefits packages, employee stock options, and the professional advantage of an environment that supports your development and recognizes your achievements. BLP is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

[madokie]

10. I tried but for the life of me

cannot believe a word I just read when I went to that link. You really think there is something there? I fail to see anything except gobbly gook trying to be passed off as scientific fact.

You may want to apply for the job they're advertizing for and in the mean time keeping your money in your pocket

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. They don't need money. They need an engineer. I'd fit the senior

part but not the other. I wouldn't have any money to give them anyway.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Oh dear oh dear -- this has reared its ugly, misshapen head before.

OK, I'm posting links to my own responses, but check out the OP and the other responses to which I was responding ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=113519&mesg_id=113600

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=34020&mesg_id=34194

an elaborate (and unnecessary) theory to explain some measurements that don't add up to 100% because (DUH) there are errors -- in conception of the experiment, probably more than in the execution.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

13. When the people hooked up to Akridge energy have their lights

go out forever..... post it.



BlackLight Power Inc. Announces Its Sixth Commercial License Agreement

Non-Exclusive License with Akridge Energy to produce up to 400 MW of continuous power



Cranbury, NJ (July 30, 2009)—BlackLight Power (BLP) Inc. today announced the execution of its sixth commercial license agreement and first with Akridge Energy, LLC (Akridge Energy), based in Maryland. In a non-exclusive agreement, BLP has granted Akridge Energy a license to use the BlackLight Process and certain BLP energy technology for the production of electric power in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Akridge Energy may use the technology to produce electric power up to a maximum continuous capacity of 400 megawatts (MW).



Akridge Energy intends to deploy distributed-scale electric power units at commercial real estate properties and sell electricity to tenants and eventually into the local electric grid.



“We believe BlackLight Power has developed a new energy technology that will have a profound impact on the environment and the economy and will help us achieve our goal in becoming a major, green-power producer in the greater-DC market,” said John E. Akridge III, chairman and owner of Akridge Energy. “We are excited to be one of the early-adopters of BLP’s energy technology.” Mr. Akridge is also a shareholder of BlackLight Power.



To date, BLP has licensed the rights to produce approximately 8,000 megawatts of electrical power to five utilities, two of which are publicly traded companies, and one independent power producer. Collectively, these companies own, purchase, or manage electric power production of approximately 7,600 megawatts and provide service to approximately 985,000 customers.

[eppur_se_muova]

23. As long as they can fool investors with pseudoscientific BS, they'll stay in "business".

Just like the "free energy from water" people.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1787786&mesg_id=1788066
All those contracts prove is that businessmen can be fooled. Recent Wall Street history should make further proof unnecessary. {Note that the chairman of Akridge is also a stockholder in BLP.}

Check out this report -- it's voodoo chemistry. Their claim of a "catalytic" energy effect is nowhere supported by experiments which generate H2 from large amounts of metal hydrides, something which happens whenever unstable metal hydrides decompose:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/pdf/RowanChemSummer2009Report.pdf
All they really observe that is anomalous is calorimetric data showing larger energy of reaction "than expected" on the basis that the reaction written out is the most exothermic one possible, as they state. What this really means, of course, is the most exothermic reaction of all those they THOUGHT TO CONSIDER, based on standard thermodynamic tables, which make no claim to be complete. The OBVIOUS interpretation is that they have not accounted for all reactions that might occur, although they are supremely confident that they have. It is very dangerous to make this kind of assumption, because Nature always finds a way that you didn't think of. {One particularly technical point -- their calculations of reaction energies/enthalpies are based on the assumption that the limiting reagent is the one they specify, and no other. Since they are dealing with three- and four-reactant systems whose actual reaction outcome is not definitely established, this is an egregiously careless assumption -- and if wrong, would inevitably lead to lower energies/mole, since more moles would be involved for the same energy. If I had to bet money, I would bet that it is this "work up" of the experimental data which leads to the error. It is not enough to take careful measurements, you must analyze them very carefully and consistently. Calorimetric data analysis is particularly tricky, and requires exceptionally critical in-lab review before publishing.}

It is interesting to note that in this "report", the theory is mentioned in only one, weakly worded phrase: "Although we have not concluded our work in the area of characterization, the presence of the new forms of lower energy hydrogen “hydrino” observed in our previous report may be responsible for these higher than expected energy gains observed." Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal -- in none of which this work has ever appeared -- would throw up a red flag at the phrase "not concluded ... characterization", and tell the author to publish such speculation only after some such characterization was in hand.

All they really prove is that they make H2 from metal hydrides (which are made from H2 in the first place), and some species -- not systematically identified -- which has a large negative NMR chemical shift (typical of metal hydrides!) which they CLAIM is a "hydrino", a hydrogen atom with a partial negative charge, specifically -1/4. This would require not only a partially charged atom, but a (stable, long-lived) partially charged subatomic particle to form it. There is no need, or indeed room, in any other physical theory for such species. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and these guys have no experimantal evidence that can't be interpreted very easily under well established theories. There is no catalytic effect established, and they may end up having to explain that to a district attorney some day. I doubt that fraud has been committed, however, because they appear to believe their own BS.

Try googling "Hydrino scam", or checking out the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklight_Power

Of course, if you want to invest your retirement fund in BlackLight Energy, I encourage you to do so. Enthusiastically.




ETA permalink, spelling, extra comment

[NNadir]

26. Actually, carbon capture technology has been commercial for decades.

Exxon, everybody's favorite company, has been stripping CO₂ off natural gas for many decades now using monomethylamine, of which it is a commercial supplier as well as user.

I covered this point on another website in some detail.

Being a narcissist, I quote myself:

Well let's be clear on something from the get go. Yes Exxon sells chemical products for stripping carbon dioxide from waste streams. Presumably they make money at it too. But their reason for doing this is commercial. They have to remove carbon dioxide from natural gas because there is always some carbon dioxide found in natural gas. Thus even if you bribe lots of people - including those in high places in government - to deny the reality of global climate change, you still need to know how to separate carbon dioxide from various product and waste streams. Moreover you can always hope to sell the carbon dioxide to people who want it for various purposes.

As it happens Exxon sometimes buys carbon dioxide. They inject it into the earth to push oil out of the ground in some places, especially places where there's oil and not much water. In a spectacular bit of marketing, rebranding, and painting lipstick on a pig, and a dollop of circular reasoning thrown in, this scheme to push more fossil fuels out of the ground, some people like to represent that this scheme is called "carbon sequestration." I don't buy it. The best way to sequester carbon, I say, is to leave it in the ground in the first place.

I am so glib.

The Exxon carbon dioxide removal product is called Flexsorb. The Mitsubishi/Kansai carbon dioxide removal product is called KM CDR.

I've scanned the science behind the Exxon product and their writings about the stability of carbamates and the formation of bicarbonate salts and second order rate constants for amine - carbon dioxide interactions. It's good science, first rate. Of course, there are some among us who might be inclined to deny this science by considering the source, but if we are interested in separating carbon dioxide for say our favorite fantasies like say, sequestration, that would be a mistake. The stability of sterically hindered amine carbonate salts is not determined by whether the particular amine is present in an Exxon lab or whether the amine is in the laboratory of some good liberal (low paid) graduate student's laboratory. The stability is determined by the physical chemistry and nothing else.

These products are commercial.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/17/19109/0486">The Utility of Light: Getting Real with the Existing Energy Infrastructure.

It is not technically difficult to strip CO₂. However, since it involves burning more dangerous fossil fuels - if dangerous fossil fuels are the source of the energy required to overcome the Gibbs Free Energy of Mixing, a thermodynamic and thus economic reality, one burns more dangerous fossil fuels than in the first place, meaning more strip mines, more fractured rock, and more tankers.

It's, predictably, a smug shell game that has been the subject of decades of wishful thinking, at least 7 or 8 years of it here.

It's pure nonsense, mostly.