$55m (world’s largest) carbon dioxide recovery plant opens (in the Middle East)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=267815

$55m carbon dioxide recovery plant opens

By Mandeep Singh , Posted on » Monday, January 04, 2010

MANAMA: The Middle East's first carbon dioxide recovery plant has been opened at the Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC).

The $55 million facility at the company's Sitra facility was formally inaugurated by GPIC chairman and adviser to the Prime Minister for oil and industrial affairs Shaikh Isa bin Ali Al Khalifa, in the presence of board members, company officials and guests.

…

He said the unit can capture 450 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per day, which is one of the world's largest capacities.

"The captured gas will later be used as feedstock for urea and methanol synthesis procedures in the process recovering approximately 90 per cent of the gas expelled.

…

http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidZAWYA20100104031034/GPIC%20opens%20world%27s%20largest%20CO2%20plant

GPIC opens world's largest CO2 plant

04 January 2010

MANAMA: With the opening of the world's largest carbon dioxide (CO2) recovery plant at Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC) Complex in Sitra, GPIC has become the first petrochemical company in the Middle East to use this advance technology to recycle carbon emissions.

According to details, the $55 million GPIC project aims at cutting down over 90 percent greenhouse gas emissions and improving overall efficiency.

"The GPIC has become the first petrochemical company in the Middle East to use such environmentally friendly technology. And this is yet another milestone towards the company's commitment to a clean environment," Sheikh Isa bin Ali Al-Khalifa adviser to the prime minister for oil and industrial affairs and GPIC board Chairman told the audience during the opening ceremony of the plant.

…

The recovery unit can capture 450 metric tons of CO2 per day, one of the world's largest capacity units for the chemical application. Captured CO2 will be used as feedstock for urea and methanol synthesis processes. The technology can recover approximately 90 percent of the CO2 in flue gas.

…

[tabatha]

1. That's great.

[kristopher]

2. So let me get this scam straight

They capture CO2;
turn it into methanol and fertilizer;
use the methanol and fertilizer;
thus releasing the carbon back into the air.

Are they expecting to benefit from carbon trading programs?

[Nihil]

3. That seems to be a pretty good summary of it. (n/t)

:banghead:

[madokie]

4. How does the fertilizer return the co2 back to the atmosphere?

I would think that the increased growth rates of the plants feeding from it would be a good thing as they absorb co2 from the air in their growing.

Fill me in on how that works if you would please

[kristopher]

6. Good question.

Think of it as two separate cycles - a biological cycle and a geological cycle.

The urea is made of CO2 that is "stolen" from the geologic cycle and inserted into the biologic cycle. It becomes part of the plant and is harvested, then the plant matter is destroyed in some manner (processing, digesting, decaying) and the carbon is released in a manner that will eventually result in it being a long term addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

The goal of carbon capture for addressing climate change is to ensure that geologically sequestered carbon (petroleum etc) is NOT released into the environment, but instead is returned to a state of geologic sequestration. This sequestration is the expensive part of the process since it requires not only the direct costs of physically accomplishing that goal of locking it away, but also the willingness to forgo profits that can be reaped by using concentrated CO2 in ways like that described in the OP. Since CO2 is very dilute in the atmosphere, many products can benefit from having a cheap source of concentrated CO2.

The methanol and urea made from the CO2 will displace other fossil fuel derived products and therefore there is a real reduction in CO2 being released. However, those other products CAN be produced without fossil fuels. For purposes of carbon management, each sector needs to be addressed individually. If we shift the source of the carbon for urea from natural gas to coal plant exhaust instead of shifting it to methane derived from human and animal wastes we really haven't done much except to increase dependence on coal.

I find it handy to view things like this as efficiency improvements that are attributed to the original mined fossil fuel. In this case, let's say that the coal plant is converting 28% of the energy in the coal to electricity going out the door. The fuels displaced by capturing the carbon can be quantified in terms of their energy and ultimate CO2 footprint. Keeping track of everything is easier for me when I attribute both to the coal. So I view projects like this as producing zero reductions in CO2 but instead as an improvement in the efficiency of the original fuel. I'd make a seat of the pants estimate and say that the ultimate improvement in the coal plant efficiency would probably be less than 2-3%. So in the end, such a project can be evaluated by asking if moving the coal plant's efficiency from 28% to 31%+- is worth the investment in the technology to capture the CO2.

Carbon capture as described in the OP is largely just greenwashing - making a dirty technology seem less dirty.

[madokie]

5. just a kicking

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. OK, so let’s look at it a different way…

How do we currently produce methanol and fertilizer?

This is carbon recycling, much like schemes of growing algae off of flue gas.

This (apparently) is the technology being employed:
http://www.mhi.co.jp/en/products/category/co2_recovery_plants.html

[kristopher]

8. I addressed that aspect

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224538&mesg_id=224611

Whether for algae or any other transitory usage that is just a temporary storage of CO2 this is a bad use of funds.
It is greenwashing pure and simple - just look at the link you provided to MHI for direct evidence of that claim.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. For you it’s greenwashing

For me, it’s a necessary first step toward CCS.

As I’ve said before, CCS is a kludge; but whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not, CCS is one of the approaches the DoE is following to decrease carbon emissions.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/index.html
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/co2/index.html

[kristopher]

10. It is a sham and a boondoogle just as ethanol is a sham and a boondoogle.

There is no rational basis to support the technology as a means of addressing climate change or energy security. Support must therefore be a result of either alternative goals or ulterior motives.

Your support for CCS (especially projects like this) marks your values clearly.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I don’t “support CCS”

As I have consistently said, it’s a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kludge">kludge. How could I be clearer?

But, I see that the powers that be have hinged their plans on “making it work.”

Please don’t tell me what my values are, when you clearly don’t know.

[kristopher]

12. Sure you do.

You defend it every chance you get.

But you are correct, I don't know what your values ARE, I only know what they are NOT. Given your unfailing support for diverting money from development of technologies that work best to technologies that are wasteful (H and CCS) it is clear that you place your personal biases above striving for the optimum solution to climate change.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Strawman

If you are ever willing to actually carry on an honest discussion with someone, please, bring it to my attention.

[kristopher]

14. You mean your personal attack is "honest discussion"?

I laid out the problem with this system above; your only response has been an appeal to DOE as an authority, and an assertion where you ignored what I wrote and stated your support:

OKIsItJustMe Tue Jan-05-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. For you it’s greenwashing
For me, it’s a necessary first step toward CCS.

That is typical of your stance. YOU SUPPORT BURNING COAL INSTEAD OF PHASING OUT COAL.

If you don't SUPPORT it inside your head, then STOP SUPPORTING it with your words; they are all we have to judge you by.