- Details
We're returning to an earlier thesis that biotechnology could help us to attain liquid fuel self-sufficiency based on coal liquefaction and carbon dioxide recycling.
Although we've lately been focusing more on the published research that coal can be liquefied and that carbon dioxide can be recycled into the liquid fuels we need via straightforward industrial chemical processes, please keep in mind that we have also cited research into the use of microbes to accomplish those same tasks, and to accomplish them with, perhaps, more energy efficiency.
Herein is further documentation of that potential. Make special note of the excerpt's final statement.
"Engineering bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel
Monday, December 14, 2009
Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.
In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.
The research appears in the Dec. 9 print edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology and is available online.
This new method has two advantages for the long-term, global-scale goal of achieving a cleaner and greener energy economy, the researchers say. First, it recycles carbon dioxide, reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Second, it uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can be used in the existing energy infrastructure, including in most automobiles.
While other alternatives to gasoline include deriving biofuels from plants or from algae, both of these processes require several intermediate steps before refinement into usable fuels.
"This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production," said team leader James C. Liao, Chancellor's Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA and associate director of the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute for Genomics and Proteomics. "Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach."
Using the cyanobacterium Synechoccus elongatus, researchers first genetically increased the quantity of the carbon dioxide–fixing enzyme RuBisCO. Then they spliced genes from other microorganisms to engineer a strain that intakes carbon dioxide and sunlight and produces isobutyraldehyde gas. The low boiling point and high vapor pressure of the gas allows it to easily be stripped from the system.
The engineered bacteria can produce isobutanol directly, but researchers say it is currently easier to use an existing and relatively inexpensive chemical catalysis process to convert isobutyraldehyde gas to isobutanol, as well as other useful petroleum-based products.
In addition to Liao, the research team included lead author Shota Atsumi, a former UCLA postdoctoral scholar now on the UC Davis faculty, and UCLA postdoctoral scholar Wendy Higashide.
An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel.
"We are continuing to improve the rate and yield of the production," Liao said. "Other obstacles include the efficiency of light distribution and reduction of bioreactor cost. We are working on solutions to these problems."
The research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy."
To repeat: "An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel."
As with the Department of Energy's extensive development of coal-to-liquid conversion technologies we have documented for you in earlier dispatches, they are also demonstrating that Carbon Dioxide can, through a multiplicity of promising approaches, be recycled, on a practical basis, into even more liquid fuels. Yet, none of us, none of us whose tax dollars paid for the research, none of us in US Coal Country, especially, has been afforded the privilege of being told about these coal-critical developments and innovations.
- Details
In previous dispatches, we've cited and referenced work from both the Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Alberta, Canada, on both the science of coal-to-liquid conversion, and the technologies for Carbon Dioxide recycling.
Herein, it's documented that those entities have collaborated on improving the efficient collection, the accumulation, of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, as opposed to extracting it from point-source flue gas, and are thereby confirming the research of Sandia National Laboratory's Rich Diver, and others, who have reported similar findings.
Such developments enhance the practicality of siting Carbon Dioxide recycling facilities, using Sabatier or Carnol technologies, for instance, to make liquid fuels and raw materials for the manufacture of plastics, in locations where environmental energy - solar, wind or hydro - can be harnessed to, first, extract the CO2 from the atmosphere, and, then, to transmute the CO2 into methanol, or one of the other hydrocarbon liquid, gasoline precursors, that other research we've brought to your attention demonstrates can be synthesized directly from CO2.
Of special interest is that this report describes techniques for CO2 recovery which reduce the energy required for Carbon Dioxide collection by fifty percent, or more, thus making the recycling of carbon more efficient and obviating the need for environmentally unfriendly energy sources, such as nuclear reactors, which seem to be specified in the US Department of Defense patents on CO2 recycling, into liquid fuels, which we have earlier documented for you.
The excerpt follows; wherein, as in a similar previous report, we include their full reference list by way of further documenting the fact that the potential for CO2 recycling is quite real, and not merely a fanciful, ivory-tower concept:
"Low energy packed tower and caustic recovery for direct capture of CO2 from air
M. Mahmoudkhan, K.R. Heide, J.C. Ferreira, D.W. Keith and R.S. Cherry
Energy and Environment System Group, Institute for Sustainable Energy Environment and Economy University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA
Abstract
We used a 6.5 m tall packed tower prototype to study the capturing rate of CO2 from air. The tower was operated at a pressure drop of less than 27 pa in the packing at 0.7 m/sec air speed with a counter current flow mode and with NaOH or KOH solution as the absorbent. The tower consumed an average of 
30 kJe per mole CO2. We found that via an intermittent operation with a 5% duty cycle, the fluid pumping work reduced by 90%. A novel process for removing carbonates ions from alkaline solutions based on titanate compounds is compared to the traditional lime cycle for the caustic recovery. The titanate process reduces the high-grade heat requirement by 50%. The results from experimental data of leaching and precipitation test support process design of the titanate cycle. In this paper, we also present the chemical process design.
References
[1]J.G. Canadell, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity and efficiency of natural sinks, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (47), 2007, pp. 18866–18870.
[2]N.A. Spector and B.F. Dodge, Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42 (1946), pp. 827–848.
[3]J.B. Tepe and B.F. Dodge, Absorption of carbon dioxide by sodium hydroxide solutions in a packed column, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 39 (1943), pp. 255–276.
[4]K.S. Lackner, P. Grimes, H.J. Ziock, Capturing carbon dioxide from air, in: 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization: Clearwater, FL, 1999.
[5]R Baciocchi, G Storti and M. Mazzotti, Process design and energy requirement for the capture of carbon dioxide from air, Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006), pp. 1047–1058.
[6]F. Zeman, Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air, Environmental Science & Technology 41 (2007), pp. 7558–7563.
[7]J.K. Storaloff, D.W. Keith and G.V. Lowry, Carbon dioxide capture from atmospheric air using sodium hydroxide spray, Environmental Science & Technology 42 (2008), pp. 2728–2735.
[8]F. Zeman and K. Lackner, Capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, World Resource Review (2) (2004), pp. 157–172.
[9]X. Chen and A.R.P. van Heiningen, Kinetics of the direct causticizing reaction between sodium carbonate and titanium dioxide or sodium tri-titanate, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 32 (4) (2006), pp. 245–251.
[10]E. Kiiskilä, Recovery of sodium hydroxide from alkaline pulping liquors by smelt causticizing, Part II. Recations between sodium carbonate and titanium dioxide, Paperi ja Puu, Papper och Trä 5 (1979), pp. 394–401.
[11]E. Kiiskilä, Recovery of sodium hydroxide from alkaline pulping liquors by smelt causticizing, Part III. Alkali distribution in titanium dioxide causticizing, Paperi ja Puu, Papper och Trä 6 (1979), pp. 453–464.
[12]I. Nohlgren, Recovery of kraft black liquor with direct causticization using titanates. Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, 2002.
[13]M. Palm and H. Theliander, Kinetic study of the direct causticization reaction involving titanates and titanium dioxide, Chemical Engineering Journal 68 (1997), pp. 87–94.
[14]L. Zeng and A.R.P. van Heiningen, Pilot fluidized-bed testing of kraft black liquor gasification and its direct causticization with TiO2, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 23 (11) (1997), pp. J511–J516.
[15]X. Zou, Recovery of kraft black liquor including direct causticization, Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 1991.
[16]M. Mahmoudkhani, D.W. Keith, Low-energy sodium hydroxide recovery for CO2 capture from air, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, In review, 2008."
Without citation, we remind you of earlier research we've reported wherein wastes from wood and paper processing, i.e., "black liquor", as named in the references above, have demonstrated potential for being co-processed with coal and coal by-products in the synthesis of useful organic chemicals. Such co-processing with a botanical product from wood pulping mills, etc., would represent a further recycling, or use, of carbon extracted, in such cases via photosynthesis, from the atmosphere.
Also, if you recall, we recently reported on other work by Canada's David Keith, and collaborators, in the technology for CO2 recycling, as in: "CARBON NEUTRAL HYDROCARBONS", by Frank Zeman and David W. Keith.
- Details
In the course of our research into the very real technologies which exist, technologies that would enable us to convert our abundant coal into the liquid fuels we grow increasingly short of, it has been brought to our attention that coal conversion industry is being assertively promoted and supported by at least one active participant in West Virginia's State Government.
Weirton, WV's, own Delegate Pat McGeehan has been personally researching the science of coal conversion; has, we believe, visited some suppliers of coal conversion technology; and, most recently, posted the following and attached letter to West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection, urging approval of the TransGas Coal-to-Liquid facility, about which we have reported, proposed for construction in southern West Virginia.
We will not append comment, but, as a forward, make note, especially, of Delegate McGeehan's statement:
"Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our state."
We could not agree more, but would, in fact, expand the statement to read: "Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our Nation."
Everyone in US Coal Country should heed Delegate McGeehan's words; and, they should be grateful to him for the assertive pursuit of his duties in the support of coal technology, of West Virginia, of the entire United States of America.
(Letter reproduced with permission.)December 14, 2009WV Department of Environmental Protection
ATT: Secretary Randy Huffman
601-57th Street
Charleston, WV 25304Dear Secretary Huffman,This Thursday, your department will hold a public hearing in Mingo County to review a permit for the Coal-to-Liquid facility proposed by TransGas. In my mind, this is the most important decision facing your government agency, as the result will determine the success of this facility—I strongly urge you to grant this permit in a speedy manner.Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our state and I have dedicated the past year of my life to bring a facility like the TransGas project to my own district in Weirton, WV. I have flown to multiple destinations around this country in order to recruit investors and entrepreneurs in this field, and I have also spoken with TransGas officials. I am confident their investment will perform well in our state.Furthermore, the construction of such a plant truly brings a new era to the Mountain State and will help West Virginia turn the corner on the global recession we all face. With the implementation of this technology, we bring innovation to West Virginia—innovation which will produce thousands of jobs for our residents and open the road to economic prosperity.For decades, the American steel industry has been in decline and the city of Weirton has suffered the consequences—ranging from mass unemployment to increased poverty. With little employment opportunity, our children have been forced to leave behind their families and the Mountain State altogether. As our economic conditions worsen, our population continues to dwindle and side-effects are increasingly seen, such as poorer education and increased crime rates. Naturally, the generation of investment is one crucial way we can indirectly combat these negative results.Finally, not only will Coal-to-Liquid technology usher in economic prosperity for the foreseeable future, but it will also place West Virginia cities on the “national map”. We have a comparative advantage in coal energy and these new methods of utilizing this advantage will help decrease the value our nation places on foreign oil—one of the prime threats to our national security and sovereignty.The implementation of this investment in Mingo County will not only help this region of West Virginia, but the success of this project would most certainly pave the way for others, including my own project for Weirton. I urge you to pass this permit with due haste, as the future of our state’s economy may rest with your decision.Sincerely,
Delegate Pat McGeehan
- Details
We attach and enclose yet more documentation that the Carbon Dioxide by-product of our coal use industry does not have to be, like an offensively eccentric family member who's suffered a brain injury, expensively captured, trussed up and trucked away for doubtfully-effective confinement in some rich people's leaky basement, i.e., in petroleum reservoir sequestration.
Geologic sequestration of Carbon Dioxide is an expensive and unnecessary, and likely ineffective, waste of a potentially-valuable resource arising from our use of coal.
Herein, that fact is again affirmed by researchers David Keith, whom we've previously cited on the utilization of CO2 in our dispatches, of Canada's University of Calgary; and, Frank Zeman, of Columbia University, where other researchers we've previously cited have been working on similar issues.
Note that this is a fairly recent report presented at, and by, the prestigious, impeccable, Royal Society.
The excerpt:
"CARBON NEUTRAL HYDROCARBONS
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. August (2008) 366, 3901–3918
BY FRANK S. ZEMAN AND DAVID W. KEITH
Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University,
918 S. W. Mudd, 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
918 S. W. Mudd, 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, and Department of
Economics, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2N 1N4
Economics, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2N 1N4
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector may be the most difficult aspect of climate change mitigation. We suggest that carbon neutral hydrocarbons (CNHCs) offer an alternative pathway for deep emission cuts that complement the use of decarbonized energy carriers. Such fuels are synthesized from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon neutral hydrogen. The result is a liquid fuel compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure and therefore capable of a gradual deployment with minimum supply disruption. Capturing the atmospheric CO2 can be accomplished using biomass or industrial methods referred to as air capture. The viability of biomass fuels is strongly dependent on the environmental impacts of biomass production. Strong constraints on land use may favour the use of air capture. We conclude that CNHCs may be a viable alternative to hydrogen or conventional biofuels and warrant a comparable level of research effort and support."
("CNHCs may be a viable alternative to" to enforced Sequestration or Cap and Trade, as well, we submit, and could, with coal-to-liquid conversion industry, lead us to domestic liquid fuel self-sufficiency, as in "fuels ... from atmospheric carbon dioxide .. (are) ... compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure.)
"Beyond efficiency, deep reductions in emissions from the transportation sector will require a change in vehicle fuel. Changes in fuel are challenging owing to the tight coupling between vehicle fleet and refuelling infrastructure. Economic network effects and technological lock-in arise because users demand ubiquitous refuelling, yet investments in new fuel infrastructure are typically uneconomic without a large vehicle fleet. Moreover, each of the three leading alternative fuel options, hydrogen, ethanol and electricity, faces technical and economic hurdles precluding near-term, major reductions in transportation emissions using these technologies."
(These researchers acknowledge a key point little discussed openly: Our world-wide transportation fleet just might be the major human-based contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. And, the primary options being promoted for vehicular emissions of CO2, "hydrogen, ethanol and electricity" are faced by economic and technical barriers that preclude "major reductions in transportation emissions" by using them.)
"We consider a fourth alternative: carbon neutral hydrocarbons (CNHCs).
Hydrocarbons can be carbon neutral if they are made from carbon recovered from biomass or captured from ambient air using industrial processes. The individual capture technologies required to achieve CNHCs have been considered elsewhere; our goal is to systematically consider CNHCs as an alternative and independent route to achieving carbon neutral transportation fuels.
We argue for the development of CNHC technologies because they offer an alternative path to carbon neutral transportation with important technical and managerial advantages. We do not claim that CNHCs are ready for large-scale deployment ... (But) ... We do argue that they are promising enough to warrant research and development support on a par with efforts aimed at advancing the alternatives."
(In other words, we should put at least as much effort into carbon recycling as we are into "the alternatives", which include, in the United States, relative to coal use, Cap and Trade and Sequestration.)
"CNHCs are effectively an alternative method for using carbon-free hydrogen ... Converting CO2 into fuel by adding hydrogen can be viewed as a form of hydrogen storage. Once the hydrogen is produced, a choice exists between distribution and incorporation into a hydrocarbon fuel. The latter is potentially attractive because the energy cost of centrally produced hydrogen is inexpensive compared with crude oil or gasoline at the pump."
(Note that "hydrogen", which might be needed in supplemental quantities for coal liquefaction and CO2 hydrogenation, is "inexpensive compared with crude oil". - JtM)
"We define CNHCs as those whose oxidation does not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Hydrocarbon fuels can be made carbon neutral either directly by manufacturing them using carbon captured from the atmosphere, or indirectly by tying the production of fossil fuels to a physical transfer of atmospheric carbon to permanent storage. The indirect route allows for a gradual transition from the current infrastructure, based on petroleum, to a sustainable system based on atmospheric sources of carbon.
It is vital to distinguish negative emissions achieved by permanent physical storage from economic offsets (carbon credits) or the sequestration of carbon in the active biosphere. While the use of carbon offsets such as those allowed under the clean development mechanism may have some benefits, they are not equivalent to non-emission (Wara 2007). There are also tangible benefits to increasing stocks of carbon in soils or standing biomass, but such organic stores are highly labile and may be quickly released back to the atmosphere by changes in management practices or climate. Geological storage reservoirs for CO2 may also leak. However, the retention time for CO2 in geological reservoirs is at least 103 times longer than that for carbon stored in the biosphere. In most cases, a very large fraction of CO2 placed in geological storage is expected to be retained for time scales exceeding 108 years.
(So, "Geological storage reservoirs for CO2 may .. leak" and, they are trying to make it sound as if "108 years" isn't bad for keeping CO2 underground in a sequestration site. But, consider: They admit that the CO2 does leak out of sequestration and we will, sooner or later, have to deal with it all over again. Wouldn't it then be better to develop carbon recycling industry, now? And, thereby free our coal-use industries from economic burden and establish a basis for domestic, US, liquid fuel self-sufficiency?)
"Direct and indirect routes to CNHCs both begin by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon can be captured from the atmosphere by either harvesting biomass from sustainable plantations or direct industrial processes referred to as air capture."
(Thus, "direct industrial processes referred to as air capture" for the collection of Carbon Dioxide, which could be sited to utilize available environmental energies to capture CO2 from the atmosphere do exist, and coal-use facilities do not have to be expensively retrofitted with CO2 scrubbers.)
"The synthetic fuel pathway depends on a source of primary energy to drive the required chemical reactions including the supply of hydrogen. As with hydrogen and electricity, these synthetic hydrocarbons are an energy carrier produced from a primary energy source such as wind, nuclear power or fossil fuels with CCS. Unlike hydrogen and electricity, they are carbonaceous fuels that are nevertheless carbon neutral as they were derived from the atmosphere.
We first review the technologies for capturing carbon from the air, using either biomass growth or air capture. The review is followed by discussions on transforming the carbon, in the form of high-purity CO2, into hydrocarbon fuels."
---------
Well, there it is. The authors waffle a bit in their concluding comments, as scientists often do; but, it's clear: The Carbon Dioxide arising, in a smaller way relative to natural sources such as volcanism and seasonal vegetative rot, from our use of coal can be captured from the atmosphere in places, because of natural energy sources and useable space, convenient; then, economically transformed, recycled, into liquid fuels.
As a post script, we reproduce, following, a selection from the authors' reference list. It is extensive, and serves to reinforce our assertion that Carbon Dioxide is a valuable resource. We shouldn't, through deception and extortion, allow ourselves to be forced into wasting it.
Note, following, especially, such entries as: "Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change" and, from 1946: "Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air":
References
Agrawal, R., Singh, N., Ribeiro, F. & Delgass, W. N. 2007 Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4828–4833.
Baciocchi, R., Storti, G. & Mazzotti, M. 2006 Process design and energy requirements for the capture of carbon dioxide from air. Chem. Eng. Process. 45, 1047–1058.
Bandi, A., Specht, M., Weimer, T. & Schaber, K. 1995 CO2 recycling for hydrogen storage and
transportation—electrochemical CO2 removal and fixation. Energy Convers. Manage. 36, 899–902.
EPA 2005 Emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel.
Report no. EPA420-F-05-001, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Report no. EPA420-F-05-001, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Epplin, F. M. 1996 Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion
facility in the Southern Plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 11, 459–467.
facility in the Southern Plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 11, 459–467.
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. 2008 Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Scienc express 319, 1235–1238.
carbon debt. Scienc express 319, 1235–1238.
Farrell, A. E., Plevin, R. J., Turner, B. T., Jones, A. D., O’Hare, M. & Kammen, D. M. 2006
Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311, 506–508.
Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311, 506–508.
Galindo Cifre, P. & Badr, O. 2007 Renewable hydrogen utilisation for the production of methanol.
Energy Convers. Mange. 48, 519–527.
Energy Convers. Mange. 48, 519–527.
Gustavsson, L., Holmberg, J., Dornburg, V., Sathre, R., Eggers, T., Mahapatra, K. & Marland, G. 2007 Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil use reduction. Energy Policy 35, 5671–5691.
Halmann, M. M. & Steinberg, M. 1999 Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide mitigation science and
technology, pp. 315–389, 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
technology, pp. 315–389, 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
Inui, T. 1996 Highly effective conversion of carbon dioxide to valuable compounds on composite catalysts. Catal. Today 29, 329–337.
Jia, G., Tan, Y. & Han, Y. 2006 A comparative study on the thermodynamics of dimethyl ether synthesis from CO hydrogenation and CO2 hydrogenation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45, 1152–1159.
Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M. & Stolaroff, J. 2006 Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air.
Clim. Change 74, 17–45.
Clim. Change 74, 17–45.
Kieffer, R., Fujiwara, M., Udron, L. & Souma, Y. 1997 Hydrogenation of CO and CO2 toward methanol, alcohols and hydrocarbons on promoted copper–rare earth oxide catalysts. Catal. Today 36, 15–24.
Mignard, D. & Pritchard, C. 2006 Processes for the synthesis of liquid fuels from CO2 and marine
energy. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 828–836.
energy. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 828–836.
Nohlgren, I. 2004 Non-conventional causticization technology: a review. Nordic Pulp Pap. Res. J.
19, 467–477.
19, 467–477.
Oates, J. A. H. 1998 Lime and limestone: chemistry and technology, production and uses, p. 455.
Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
Petrus, L. & Noordermeer, M. A. 2006 Biomass to biofuels, a chemical perspective. Green Chem. 8,
861–867. (doi:10.1039/b605036k)
861–867. (doi:10.1039/b605036k)
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D. & Yu, T.-H. 2008 Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Scienc express 319, 1238–12400.
Spector, N. A. & Dodge, B. F. 1946 Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42, 827–848.
Steinberg, M. & Dang, V.-D. 1977 Production of synthetic methanol from air and water using controlled thermonuclear reactor power I—technology and energy requirement. Energy Convers. Manage. 17, 97–112.
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. & Matson, P. A. 1986 Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36, 368–373.
- Details
Since we got started digging in the USDOE's garden, we've been able to turn up some root crops, growing just below the surface, that weren't easy to find and everyone seems to have overlooked.
In addition to the NETL's survey of coal liquefaction technologies we earlier posted, we've discovered the DOE has been looking into another subject; now a controversial one among some of us it seems, but still one that all in US Coal Country should be talking about.
We've documented that the US Department of Defense holds patents on CO2 recycling, and the Department of Energy, as per the enclosed, seems interested in following suit, albeit along a different path.
As we've reported, there is interest in, and research being done on, the use of algae, cultivated in "bioreactors", to capture Carbon Dioxide that might be emitted from point sources, such as power generation plants, and using waste heat generated by those sources to support more rapid growth of the algae.
The algae can then be processed, as we've earlier documented, to yield products as varied as jet fuel and farm animal feed.
Not only that, but: The USDOE posits herein that Carbon Dioxide not consumed by algae can then be reacted with the fly ash by-product of coal combustion, and thereby form stable carbonate minerals which can be safely disposed of as solid waste near their point of production - even as mine backfill.
And, according to the DOE, that solves a problem we've previously pointed out, because it would: "eliminate the expense of locating suitable underground storage areas and costs of pumping stack gas over long distances" to nearly-depleted petroleum reservoirs, one supposes.
Carbon recycling through the farming of algae, and the chemical fixation of Carbon Dioxide with Coal Combustion Products, it turns out, are both topics of synergistic research and development within the US Department of Energy, as the following excerpt from the enclosed link attests:
--------------------
| United States Department of Energy | |
| Office of Fossil Energy | |
| Project Fact Sheet | |
| | |
| Project Information | |
| Project ID: | DE-FC26-00NT40933 |
| Project Title: | Chemical Fixation of CO2 in Coal Combustion Products and Recycling Through Algal Biosystems |
| FE Program: | Adv. Power - Supporting Research and Environmental Technology |
| Research Type: | Basic Research |
| Funding Memorandum: | Cooperative Agree't (nonCCT) - Tech R&D |
| Project Performer | |
| Performer Type: | U.S. Government Agency |
| Performer: | Tennessee Valley Authority 3J Lookout Place 1101 Market Street |
| Project Team Members: | |
| Project Location | |
| City: | Chattanooga |
| State: | Tennessee |
| Zip Code: | 37402-2801 |
| Congressional District: | 03 |
| Responsible FE Site: | NETL |
| Project Point of Contact | |
| Name: | Copeland, Robert |
| Telephone: | (303) 940-2323 |
| Fax Number: | |
| Email Address: | |
| Fossil Energy Point of Contact | |
| Name: | Figueroa, Jose D. |
| Telephone: | (412) 386-4966 ext. 4966 |
| Location: | NETL |
| Email Address: | |
| Project Dates | |
| Start Date: | 10/01/2000 |
| End Date: | 09/30/2003 |
| Contract Specialist | |
| Name: | Pearse, Mary Beth J. |
| Telephone: | (412) 386-4949 |
| Cost & Funding Information | |
| Total Est. Cost: | $755,291 |
| DOE Share: | $604,233 |
| Non DOE Share: | $151,058 |
| Project Description | |
| The overall objective is to develop basic methods for use of coal combustion products (CCP) produced at fossil fuel power plants as a sequestering medium for CO2 in stack gas from gas turbine plants, with subsequent production of methane and other recyclable carbon-containing products from the system. | |
| Project Background | |
| A research area under consideration by DOE to address carbon sequestration is pumping of CO2 to underground geologic formations, such as coal beds, to displace and recover methane. A more effective and economical alternative may be the use of coal combustion products (CCP) produced at fossil fuel power plants as a sequestering medium for CO2, with subsequent production of methane and other recyclable carbon-containing products from this system. Each year in the U.S., about 22 million metric tons of fly ash and flue gas desulfurization products (FGD) are stored on power plant sites in vast ponds or other disposal areas. Such CCP may serve as a sink for CO2 and eliminate the expense of locating suitable underground storage areas and costs of pumping stack gas over long distances. Conceptually, these impoundments may function as large reaction vessels wherein the fly ash and FGD, due to their large surface area and the presence of a surface electrical charge, might serve as highly reactive media for sequestration of the CO2 produced by gas turbine generators. After suitable adjustments to system pH, adsorption and exchange reactions of CO2 in the sterile CCP medium, followed by precipitation as carbonates, would maintain carbon in an inorganic, stable form and prevent reintroduction into the carbon cycle for an indefinite period. When economically feasible, the CCP might be used as flowable fill material for construction or could be back-hauled and used to fill underground mine voids. The carbon-enriched CCP media may also be used to create an algae biosystem, which is expected to extract and utilize carbon compounds sequestered in the CCP. Stack gas diverted into the biosystem will expose the algae to additional CO2. The CCP will provide a nutrient growth matrix for the algae, and more importantly, should provide the critical mechanism needed to increase the available CO2 in solution above the limits that are achievable with the dissolved gas alone. This would most likely increase algal growth beyond what is normally attainable. Carbon in the algal biomass can then be extracted and converted to hydrogen gas with a gasifier or converted to liquid CO2. An anaerobic digestor in the system may be used to convert the biomass into methane for on-site use in a gas turbine generator. The solid biomass residue from the digestor may be re-cycled as additional fuel stock for the gasifier. The liquid residue from the digestor may be re-cycled to provide nutrients to perpetuate the algal biosystem. The system provides for continued cycling of sequestered carbon within the system. Being solar driven, the CCP biosystem requires minimal inputs of energy and materials, and solves the energy storage problems associated with the photovoltaic cells of a solar collection system. The turnaround time for biomass production in the system is short, since it is not limited by transpiration or sunlight exposure, as would be terrestrial plants. A reasonable estimate for the area of algal biomass required to generate methane to support a 1000 MW gas turbine plant would be in the range of 2.5 - 25km2. The primary limiting factor for biosystem output would be the time required for the system to reach steady-state production of algae, methane, hydrogen, and liquid CO2. | |
| Project Milestones | |
| This information is currently unavailable. | |
| Project Accomplishments | |
| Title: | Technical Assessment |
| Date: | 10/17/2002 |
| Description | Conversion of CO2 to bicarbonate using fly ash as a catalyst. The rate of uptake of CO2 in a fly ash column id 5 to 9 times the rate of uptake in the control column containing glass beads. At 1.5 hours the fly ash column ph was 6.5 while the glass bead column was 5.6. This indicates the fly ash has a capacity to buffer the solution. At a ph of 6.5 the bicarbonate using the fly ash column was double that of the glass beads. The ph and higher bicarbonate level from the fly ash column are more suitable for biological systems than the glass bead column. Signifcantly increases in biomass production can be obtained by supplementing the algae growth medium with additional bicarbonate. The annual production of biomass from an algae facility could be in excess of 150 metric tons per hectare (74 metric tons per year)" |
------------------
Now, in honesty, we don't know how promising "150 metric tons (of biomass) per hectare", per year presumably, might be. But, we suppose they are talking about open ponds, as opposed to more compact columns, as other researchers have proposed. And, it is still a big step in the right direction. Algae farming could be another piece of the complete puzzle of supplying our United States liquid fuel needs, through the liquefaction of coal and the direct recycling of Carbon Dioxide. By combining algal recycling and, perhaps, direct Sabatier or Carnol conversion of CO2 into methane and methanol, along with reacting any excess CO2 with Coal Combustion Products to form stable carbonate minerals for disposal in nearby, exhausted, underground mine works, we might not have to pump CO2 through any more than a few hundred feet of pipeline - certainly not across a state, or a state line, to get it into some leaky oil field that might not, as research from the Colorado School of Mines we've reported suggests, hold the gas underground, anyway.
But, one point that shouldn't be missed is the concept of: "Conversion of CO2 to bicarbonate using fly ash as a catalyst". In other words, one coal combustion by-product, fly ash, can improve the efficiency of capturing another coal combustion by-product, CO2, and turning it into a solid chemical that can be more easily handled, doesn't have to be transported over long distances for storage, and which might have some commercial uses.
The synergies are everywhere.
Join Friends of Coal
Be part of West Virginia's coal industry future. Together, we can continue building a stronger, more prosperous Mountain State by supporting our miners and communities.
West Virginia Coal Association
The West Virginia Coal Association has been the voice of the coal industry for over 100 years, advocating for safe, responsible mining practices and supporting the communities that depend on coal.
Join the FOC
Become a Friend of Coal and download our app to stay connected and support the industry.
