An Elegant New Non-Polluting Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Plant

[wacojoe]

An actual game changing technology is being demonstrated as we sit in our air-conditioned abodes reading this. And it is being demonstrated by North Carolina–based Net Power at a new plant in La Porte, Texas.

The process involves burning fossil fuel with oxygen instead of air to generate electricity without emitting any carbon dioxide (CO2). Not using air also avoids generating NOx, the main atmospheric and health contaminant emitted from gas plants.

All CO2 that is generated by the cycle is produced as a high-pressure, pipeline-ready by-product for use in enhanced oil recovery and industrial processes, or that can be sequestered underground in tight geologic formations where it will not get out to the atmosphere for millions of years.

...But this new technology completely changes the steps and the approach from the ground up. It is based on the Allam Cycle, a new, high-pressure, oxy-fuel, supercritical CO2 cycle that generates low-cost electricity from fossil fuels while producing near-zero air emissions...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#7fce71801de2

[Billy_Rightwing]

ECO wacko's will find some fault with it.

[UTAH]

This looks interesting and promising, Joe.

Hunter

[Dave Grubb]

I'd like to share in the author's excitement---but there is very little new here--and he has made some bad assumptions.

First, lets look at sequestration of the carbon dioxide---this is not new. It first became associated with power generation, in the work to have a zero emissions coal plant. You may recall that during the GWB years there was talk of this process and a pilot plant was to be built---and then the politics kicked in. You cannot sequester carbon dioxide in all soil types and two of the best soil formations for that process are in Il and Texas. There was an industrial group spear heading this with federal money---they wanted to build the prototype in Il-----the political powers were pushing for Texas. The project fell apart at that point.

What did come out of that project was that sequestration does not come cheap---it takes a lot of power, thus reducing the overall efficiency.
I don't have the time to find a link to that but I am sure you could find information on it.

Using straight oxygen for combustion is a sure way of cleaning up the flue gas---you are preventing the basic chemical components of the polluted flue gas from entering the combustion process in the first place---however, it does nothing about blocking the introduction of some of those polluters (NOx) from entering with the methane--they co-exist. Here is a very clear and understandable discussion of how the nitrogen can be introduced in the gas stream. See 1.4.3.

Keep in mind that the pure oxygen does not come for free either and that further reduces the overall thermal efficiency of the plant.

Could this have value---absolutely---is it a silver bullet---not so much

Added in edit:

More on efficiency: To properly calculate thermal efficiency you must included all energy associated with the process. For example, in this case, the cost of generating (and possibly transporting) the oxygen must be included as well as the energy of compressing and transporting the carbon dioxide to it's final place must be included. I am not certain based on that article how the efficiency has been calculated.

[wacojoe]

In reading the article, I assumed the NOx was reduced because pure oxygen would eliminate the introduction of the ~80% nitrogen component of atmosphere. The diagram indicated the oxygen separation process would be on site and presumably would bleed off some of the energy produced, thus reducing efficiency as noted, however, there would be minimal transportation inefficiency.

CO2 is often used and injected in fracturing and sequestration is a byproduct of that process...win/win...if you care about CO2 in the atmosphere. Certainly, CO2 is a viable concern in the political process and has been made one in the economics too, hence the viability of this exercise.

I think the zero emission coal demonstration plant Dave was writing about actually was built in Mississippi by Obama at several billion$ and was an economic failure...big time. It was mentioned in the original article.

[Honda]

Here is a link to CV for the author who wrote the article referenced by WJ. It is quite impressive. After reading the CV I had a big chuckle about the post here that was somewhat critical of him and questioning his conclusions.

https://i2mconsulting.com/james-l-conca-phd-cv/

BTW I tried to post it but it was 51000 characters which is more than the software will allow to be pasted.

[Dave Grubb]

I think the zero emission coal demonstration plant Dave was writing about actually was built in Mississippi by Obama at several billion$ and was an economic failure...big time. It was mentioned in the original article.

I'm not sure that is correct---they were two different projects as I recall. I have not followed the one in Mississippi and in fact had forgotten about it until reading the article. However, I am glad you know who to blame it on

[wacojoe]

The clean emission coal project was a basic campaign promise by Obama and Biden in 2012, which has been in the news again yesterday after Biden promised last night to do what he can to kill all fossil fuel use in the U.S. with squashing fracking particularly mentioned, as his new pander to The Squad and his left.

One cannot discuss this issue without getting into politics. They are inextricably intertwined.

[Dave Grubb]

One cannot discuss this issue without getting into politics. They are inextricably intertwined.

To a degree, I concur on that--but if you want to introduce politics then you might do well to get your facts straight. This started long before Obama and Biden ( nice try at a smear job however).

[wacojoe]

I am aware of that, but Obama featured it in his campaign(s) and it has come back to haunt Biden to a degree. Those are facts in the discussion that I got right.

I agree with Billy above. If this idea panned out and it produced large amounts of electrical energy from many plants without producing any atmospheric CO2, I would wager that the ecochodriacs would still condemn and fight it because their movement has little to do with greenhouse gasses and more to do with control of us peons. A pollution-free energy source would be their bane, not their savior.

[Dave Grubb]

I do not, nor will I, share with you and Billy your level of cynicism.

Over the entire span of my career, I am certain, that I have let more people go for demonstrating a cynical attitude than any other cause.

I refuse to abide by such constraints, they cheat the spirit by expecting failure---and when expected it will likely happen.

[wacojoe]

Excuse me, but isn’t it you, Mr. Optimist, who is throwing water on the new process the subject of this thread?

I would posit that the ultimate cynics on this issue are those who maintain humans are the fly in Earth’s ointment.

Oh, and btw, Dave, you can’t fire us because we luckily do not work for you.

[Dave Grubb]

I am not throwing water on anything, I simply said that some of these claims were possibly inaccurate and the technology was not a game changing breakthrough.

I'd welcome zero emission coal combustion---and if you like, do a search here and see what I have written in the past about the various proposals to do exactly that.

Your title of:

An Elegant New Non-Polluting Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Plant

is a bit misleading.

[Honda]

Your title of: is a bit misleading.

It's not misleading at all it is his opinion. To say otherwise is just down right cynical.