Maybe I’m easily excited but I find this development pretty exciting. The very first zero-emissions fossil fuel power plant is nearing deployment. MIT Technology Review reports:
On a small lot between Houston and the Gulf Coast, in an industrial zone packed with petrochemical factories and gas pipelines, a little-known company is finalizing construction of a demonstration power plant that could represent a genuine energy breakthrough.
If it works as expected, Net Power’s $140 million, 50-megawatt natural gas plant will capture effectively all of the carbon dioxide it produces, without significantly higher costs, in part by relying on the greenhouse gas itself to crank the turbine that generates electricity. The technology could enable a new generation of plants that provide clean power, without the development risks of nuclear (see “Meltdown of Toshiba’s Nuclear Business Dooms New Construction in the U.S.â€), the geographic restrictions of hydroelectric, or the intermittency issues of solar and wind. Crucially, future plants of this type could also rely on the nation’s abundant supply of cheap natural gas.
Such plants could produce significant amounts of energy 24 hours a day, 365 days a year regardless of weather conditions and without emitting carbon dioxide. That would add a useful element to our future power generation mix.
Any bets on whether there will be people who find other reasons to oppose them?
I oppose it, so what do I win?
Sound intriguing. However, like thermal depolymerization, will probably go no where.
This process is already in better shape than TD because it doesn’t depend on the price of natural gas.
Hasn’t anyone noticed the word “methane” appears not once in the article?
Natural gas is mostly methane. I’m not sure what your point is.
The process produces carbon dioxide (from the oxidation of methane), which is exported by pipeline to some unidentified process for trapping, likely deep injection wells. The energy conversion cycle is interesting, but the process does nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Conventional coal plants already operate near the thermodynamic maximum efficiency, and they have enormous economies of scale. This scheme looks like another loser.
I don’t think the author did a very good job of explaining the advantages systematically or quantitatively, even if roughly estimated. That said, I did find it interesting.
As best I could discern the carbon efficiencies come primarily from lower initial fuel input requirements, deriving from lower latent heats for CO2 vs water liquid/gas conversions during the cycle, and a better home for spent CO2. Sykes invocation of maximum thermodynamic efficiency is a powerful claim, but the Lawrence Livermore guy doesn’t seem to agree. Perhaps the MTE designation is for water based cycles only.
Browser search: methane leakage
For that to be an issue, Ben, there would need to be more methane leakage as a consequence of plants built according to this plan than in the case of other uses. Something you should consider. Even if we were to abandon the use of fossil fuels entirely we would still continue to mine, pump, etc. them because they’re so darned useful. Better to capture the methane and utilize it than just release it.
Methane leakage is already a serious issue. Some estimates are the switch to natural gas may have made the situation even worse than had we stayed with coal.
And we’re not going to escape it. Not only would we need to abandon oil as fuel but we’d need to abandon the use of plastics as well.
That’s why I’ve been emphasizing the need for capture methods.