Natural Gas "Cleaning" Extracts Valuable Waste Carbon

Al writes "There's been a lot of focus on "clean coal" lately, but a Canadian start-up called Atlantic Hydrogen is developing a way to make natural gas more environmentally friendly. The process involves using a plasma reactor to separate hydrogen and methane in the gas. The procedure also turns carbon emissions into high-purity carbon black, a substance that is used to make inks, plastics and reinforced rubber products. Utility companies could potentially sell the carbon black, making the process more financially attractive."

Comments

Cleaner Gas

[MyLongNickName]

Let the Taco Bell jokes commence.

Better for the environment, but

[GreenTech11]

You are still going to run out of gas eventually, this just means that we don't hurt the environment as much in the process.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[Scrameustache]

You are still going to run out of gas eventually, this just means that we don't hurt the environment as much in the process.

Well, it's methane, which is produced naturally by decomposing organic matter (as a waste product of the microorganism doing the biodegradation), so the technology could be applied to renewable sources of methane even though that's probably not economically sound when competing with currently mined deposits of gas.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[LWATCDR]

But to do this with bio gas would be dumb.
Biogas is carbon neutral and removing the carbon decreases the energy content of the gas by a good amount.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[ericrost]

What's wrong with Biodiesel if you don't mind me asking? Honest question.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[icebrain]

We have had answers in front of us for at least one, if not two decades.

Feel free to enlighten us any time, then...

I do agree that the expenditure of combustible fuels to run electric power generation is stupid. Hydrodynamic dams, tidal generators, and nuclear reactors are the way to go.

But you still need some form of combustible fuel for transportation, particularly in aviation, because the power output and energy density of hydrocarbons are unmatched for that application. They are also consumable during flight (lowering weight and extending range). I expect that aircraft will be the last to convert to emissionless power, as demand is relatively small and practical electric drive will take a long time to develop beyond light airplanes. Some form of biodiesel, however, could suffice in the near to medium term, particularly if it can be feasibly produced from waste products and if the corn lobby is kept quiet.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[evanbd]

On the other hand, there is a large market for carbon black. If you remove the carbon and sell it, while getting the energy from the hydrogen, your biogas is now carbon-negative, which is even better. Whether it could be economical or not likely depends on things like cap and trade -- with no incentives for being carbon-negative, it probably doesn't make sense economically, with them it might, depending on the size.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[redbeard]

This doesn't answer what I see as the biggest problem with BioD. Current feedstocks are almost exclusively diverting oils from food sources. So, instead of making canola for cooking, it's being turned into motor fuel.

Some promising research is being done on oil producing algae, but it's not ready for production yet.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[Snarky McButtface]

It does clog the injectors if the bio portion of the ratio is too high. The state of Minnesota requires all diesel in the state to be a biodiesel blend. During winter months the blend is lowered to 2 percent biodiesel.

It is really good stuff. It acts as an upper cylinder lubricant and, as Tubesteak has stated, cleans the fuel system.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[0100010001010011]

Woa there Misinformation. You seem to have your facts a bit twisted around. First off, I own a TDI and I'm a fairly active member on TDIClub.com, second I work for a company that makes diesel engines.

1) Yes, Gen 1 Biodiesel does gel at a lower temperature, but there are additives that people use to make it good down to -40.
2) It doesn't clog injectors nor do you have to startup and shutdown on D2. You're thinking of Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO). Biodiesel is 100% not even the same chemical composition as WVO. People turn WVO into Biodiesel by reacting it with acids, but WVO is not Biodiesel and vice versa. This is the #1 thing the media gets wrong.

Some people swear by WVO, IMHO it destroys injectors, injection pumps and is just a whole mess to deal with. It's best suited to <80s IDI engines.

Biodiesel is one of the best things you can run through your engine IF IT IS SPECIFIED TO TAKE IT. (Newer 2009 engines with DPFs are not). It has a higher lubricity, burns cleaner, cleans the system as it goes. It's like the odd marriage of colon blow and Metamucil at the same time.

3) Biodiesel does not love dirt. D2 loves dirt. The reason you have to change your filter at least once or twice after making the switch is Biodiesel is such a good solvent that it'll actually clean out your tank. Meaning if you ran on D2 for 200k miles and switch to B100. You have 200k worth of crap in your tank that the D2 left there. The Biodiesel will break it up and suck it through the system. Some people swear by using Biodiesel for cleaning car parts.

4) Finally, you don't HAVE to use corn or soybeans to make BioDiesel. Gen2 biodiesel is more or less a synthetic diesel. Using Gas to Liquid you can take *any* hydrocarbon gas and turn it into diesel. Not just that, you can control the process to more or less make it absolutely perfect (cetane levels, hydrocarbon length, etc). Instead of using natural gas or gassified coal (like the Germans did in WWII), you can use heated human waste, heated trash, if you can convert it to a gas hydrocarbon, you can turn it into Gen2 BioDiesel. (Once we get some Nukes on line and have some energy to do this, this is in my opinion the future since you honestly can't beat the power density of D2).

There's already a company which will sell you SynDiesel. Back when D2 was creeping way up in cost it was almost getting cost effective.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[Firethorn]

there is a large market for carbon black

Yes, but is it sufficient to cover if ALL the power plants started doing this?

A similar thing happened with Glycerin due to biodiesel production. As a byproduct of biodiesel, it was sold at market rates, eventually shutting down the old methods of artificially making it due to the price drop.

Now they're getting to the point they don't know quite what to do with it all.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[evanbd]

All you're saying is that this method doesn't solve all the world's problems, but we already knew that. Think of it as a more environmentally friendly way of producing carbon black, that happens to clean up some uses of natural gas as a side effect, rather than the other way around. Sure, it's not a world-changing effect, but it's helpful nonetheless.

Re:Better for the environment, but

[Firethorn]

Good point. By the same token, they're busily working on finding more uses for glycerin now that the price has dropped. New ways of making products that use it instead of other things. Moisturizing soaps are a lot cheaper now. ;)

Another benefit

[Bob the Super Hamste]

After reading the article it is mentioned in the last paragraph that:

"Chibante and his research team are working with carbon-black maker Columbian Chemicals to identify a market for Atlantic Hydrogen's carbon, which has "very interesting carbon nanostructures that we just don't see from industrial production," he says. An early study shows that the material has a high surface area and thin chicken-wire structures called graphene stacks, making it potentially ideal in the production of high-performance batteries and ultracapacitors and for structurally reinforced products."

So this sound like it has additional benefits other than just reducing the total CO2 released by burning natural gas.

Energy arithmetic

[russotto]

Current processes

Carbon black production
Hydrocarbon + O2 -> C (carbon black) + H2O + CO2 + other carbon-containing waste

Hydrogen production by steam reforming (requires energy input)
CH4 + H2O -> CO + 3H2

"New" process (also requires energy input)
CH4 -> C + H2

So looked at as a method of carbon black and hydrogen production, it certainly seems better, but it depends on the relative amounts of energy used for steam reforming versus the "new" process. But if you basically throw away the hydrogen by mixing it back in with the natural gas (as the article suggests), you're wasting a lot of the gain that would be achieved by displacing the steam reforming process.

I'm not really buying the idea that hydrogen-enriched natural gas will burn more cleanly. It will produce less CO2, true, but at the price of less energy per unit volume. And natural gas can already be burned less completely.

I put the scare quotes around "new" because this isn't a new process. According to Wikipedia, not only was it developed (by Kvaerner) in the 1980s, it's actually already in use in Norway for producing hydrogen and carbon black.

Re:Energy arithmetic

[evanbd]

I'm not really buying the idea that hydrogen-enriched natural gas will burn more cleanly. It will produce less CO2, true, but at the price of less energy per unit volume. And natural gas can already be burned less completely.

Combustion chemistry is best described as really weird. Different fuels have a large impact on how much nitrogen burns to nitrogen oxides, as well as how completely the fuel burns. Details of the combustion environment (mixing, combustion time, combustion temp, pressure, etc) also have a huge impact. There is plenty of evidence that adding H2 to normal hydrocarbon fuels makes them burn both more completely and with less NOx production. Oxygen-bearing fuels (eg ethanol added to gasoline) can also have similar effects. Normally adding H2 has a large enough energy cost that it isn't viable, but if this process can do it easily and efficiently, that's interesting.

Re:Energy arithmetic

[russotto]

Normally, water vapor all freezes out of the atmosphere before it gets that high, so there isn't much ice at ozone layer altitudes. Hydrogen, however, happily floats up that high, where it is oxidized by the ozone and forms ice.

It would be a very weak ozone depeletor. CFCs are a problem because the chlorine isn't consumed in the reaction. One molecule of hydrogen can combine with one molecule of ozone, but then it's done.

OK, and exactly WHERE does the power

[Ralph Spoilsport]

to run this little plasma doohickie come from?

Oh, that's right - fossil fuels, and a lot of coal.

Nice.

And, remember, this counts against your energy return on energy invested. How much energy does it take to do this, and then mark it against the energy produced by the natgas. And the transportation of the natgas to this machine and then to the customer. And you get hydrogen out of the deal? Great - a gas so small nothing can really hold it, and due to its physical structure always requires more energy to break its bonds and contain it than what you get from burning it.

At least you get lamp black out of the deal.

Sigh. NEXT!

RS

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power

[all204]

We also have a nuclear power plant in the province, undergoing a retrofit at the moment. It is one of the larger base load plants in the province. (Second largest I think.)

Point Lepreau

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power

[evanbd]

You're looking at it backwards. It should really be viewed as a more efficient way of producing carbon black (which there is a huge market for, btw -- it's a major component of tire rubber, rubber hoses, and similar plastics) that happens to have some nice side effects (like producing an enriched natural gas with cleaner combustion properties).

The current carbon black production techniques involve sooty combustion of hydrocarbon fuels; the energy from that process is normally wasted, since it's in a form that is difficult to recapture. This process manages to waste less energy, since the electricity input is modest and some of the electrical energy and fossil fuel energy spend making the carbon black is stored in the H2, which can be used productively by enriching the unused portion of the natural gas stream.

(Also, there's no reason the electricity to run this *has* to come from fossil fuels. It could come from nuclear or renewable sources. It's the same as electric cars -- saying "but the electricity comes from fossil fuels!" is true but misses the point -- it's easier to swap out your electric source later on than to swap your car / chemical plant. Going to a process that can easily choose a cleaner energy source is a good thing, even if that source won't be available immediately.)

Coal to methane

[mangu]

You are still going to run out of gas eventually

Then what you need is some way to convert coal to methane.

a plasma reactor, huh?

[circletimessquare]

a lot of schemes like this look great on paper, until you consider the energy expenditure involved in running the thing

who knows, maybe carbon black is worth more than the extra methane it costs to run the thing. that would make it financially friendly. but its certainly not environmentally friendly, when you consider the extra methane consumption

Re:a plasma reactor, huh?

[evanbd]

It uses less energy and less methane than normal carbon black production. True, a lot of methane passes through the reactor, but most of it leaves in enriched form that can easily be used somewhere else. The methane *consumed* is less than a conventional carbon black production process. (The carbon black market is huge -- it's a major component of tire rubber and other industrial plastics.)