Carbon Capture: Possible Solutions, Pt. III

Carbon capture and sequestration have been about research and very little about actually putting the technology to real use. In this four-part series, we'll examine some of the issues and possible solutions.

Capture Without a Cave
Several companies are proposing ways to capture carbon without the geological engineering and policy headaches that come with underground storage. Some of the leading ideas include:

A. Mineralization
Carbon dioxide can be stored by turning it into stable carbonate mineral. This is made through a chemical process that actually speeds up a natural process that changes the CO2 gas into a solid mass. When it's done in nature the CO2 turns into limestone. When higher temperatures or pre-treatment of the minerals speeds up the process, the result is CO2 in solid form, not dependent on sealed storage space below ground or sea level. Though the technology is estimated to use much more energy than a regular power plant.

Carbon Sciences has a system for converting CO2 into calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Calcium carbonates can sell for $1,000 a ton and the paper industry, which started substituting it for wood chips in the 1980s, buys 80 percent of it. Converting gases into a solid requires energy and money, but the energy usage and cost are offset because the calcium carbonate won't have to be mined from the ground.

The process of mineralization can also be used in building products. CalStar is a company that takes advantage of this technology when making bricks for buildings. Instead of burning clay, CalStar takes fly ash, the particulate matter that ordinarily leaves smokestacks to enter the atmosphere, add some extra chemicals and make bricks. Rather than requiring high temperature cooking, the chemicals sort of congeal into a solid, hard mass. The CalStar process will reduce the energy content in bricks by over 90 percent, according to CalStar.

Another actor in this field is Skyonic. Its SkyMine process is a post-combustion technology that fits with large CO2 emitters like coal, natural gas or oil fired power plants. The process is said to remove CO2 from conditioned at-temperature flue gas and store it as stable sodium bicarbonate (industrial clean baking soda). It also returns the flue gas to the plants stack for release.

B. Algae
CO2 can be turned into food for algae, which then can be used to make biofuel. Algae are also fast-growing and harness sunlight and CO2. Some researchers believe they can use the stored energy within the algae and convert into fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol. Also, proteins produced by algae could be used for animal feed.

The method has not been tested on a big scale. However, startups like SequesCO claim it is possible.

C. Untouched Rain Forests
Rain forests act as a carbon sink when it comes to taking care of greenhouse gases, and there is more carbon stored in the world's forests than in all remaining oil reserves in the world. That shows the importance of keeping the forests alive. Young, actively growing forests consumes more CO2 than it releases and could be used for lowering the effects of CO2 emissions.

Forestation carbon credits are already for sale on auctions and carbon markets conducted by WorldEnergy and others.

Countries in the Rainforest Coalition, like Papua New Guinea, Brazil and Costa Rica, are somewhat dependent on the destruction of the forests for their economic growth. In the same time, the rest of the world is dependent on the preservation of the forests' natural wealth. The Rainforest Coalition recognizes this and their solution is putting a price on the action of not harvesting the forests and controlling the logging.

"The objective, is to align the interests of rain forested developing nations with industrial nations – with the latter offering markets for carbon off-sets and forest products," said Sir Michael Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, in an interview with The Independent. "If we, the rain forested nations, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we should be compensated for these reductions, as are industrialized nations. It's that simple."

D. CO2 Into Fuel
Carbon Sciences says it has the technology to transform CO2 into basic fuel building blocks. It converts CO2 into hydrocarbons (methane, ethane and propane), which can be used for gasoline and jet fuel.

It is a biocatalyst process, which means that both microbes and chemical catalysts are involved. The biocatalysts "destabilize" the carbon dioxide. Water is injected as part of the process. The end result is a number of carbon-hydrogen molecules, which become precursors to fuel. The hydrogen atoms released from the water molecules do not have to be converted into freestanding hydrogen molecules in the company's process. The biological part of the process is key because CO2 is a stable molecule; cracking or destabilizing it requires quite a bit of energy with traditional processes.

Carbon Sciences isn't the first company to think of something like this. LanzaTech, a Khosla Ventures company, wants to make ethanol from CO2. Japan's Mitsui is also trying to turn carbon dioxide into methanol, another liquid fuel.

Also, Scientists in Singapore say they've found a way to turn carbon dioxide into methanol, using less energy and lower temperatures than previous processes. The new process uses N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) as an organocatalyst, then adds hydrosilicane – a combination of silica and hydrogen – and water to make methanol, according to a study published in the journal Angewandte Chemie International Edition.

But don't hold your breath. "There is a good reason CO2 is the end product of combustion. It is a low energy molecule," said Steve Koonin, the former BP chief scientist who is now in the Department of Energy." Getting rid of CO2 by burying it underground may be the best option.

Comments [6]

  • Dale 06/24/09 11:12 AM

    No mention of Powerspan or Calera?

    Reply
  • SamJaffe 06/24/09 11:20 AM

    Very good series about a subject that isn’t well described in the popular press. I would like to see a new part of the series that looks at the various underground formations that can be used to store CO2, and how much space they represent on each continent. One technology you didn’t describe was subteranean mineralization—basaltic rocks off the California coast and in Oman offer enough of a CO2 sink to take all the carbon—if a good way can be found to insert the carbon into the rocks. Another word on algae—in most studies 90% of the CO2 is lost into the air when bubbled through water. In addition, the algae produce almost as much CO2 when they respire at night as they consume during daytime photosynthesis. Algae is an awful means for sequestering CO2 and the reasons are insurmountable. And on the Calcium carbonate front, the limiting factor is the supply of calcium. Where are we going to get all that calcium from? If it has to be mined, there’s an enormous cost to that, financial and environmental. And it’s my understanding that pure calcium can’t be mined. One more missing technology: deep sea sequestration. It probably will never happen (even if it works, it will be released in 500 years when the water upwells—not enough storage time).

    Reply
  • russ 06/24/09 11:41 AM

    The process flow diagram you show is only about 40 years old. They have been doing it in South Africa and starting in the early 80’s North Dakota as well. The syn gas with the CO2 in it is of limited use. In North Dakota some percentage of the CO2 is piped north to Canadian oil fields for injection into failing wells.

    GreatPoint’s process will be a lot more impressive when commercial scale plants are up and running - until then it is a dream. There are hundreds of the processes which have been tried and failed over the years.

    One minor item not mentioned is that there are many byproducts of syn gas - all of which require a use. That makes a project much more costly to put into operation.

    Reply
  • Jeff 06/24/09 12:39 PM

    A very nice overview of challenges and solutions for carbon reduction but an important solution went unmentioned.  Improving the efficiency of coal conversion reduces CO2 as well as other emissions and preserves resources. The Liquid Tin Anode Fuel Cell developed by CellTech Power allows highly efficient production of electricity from coal.  DOE projections are for 61-63% efficiency in a 250 MW plant.  A coal plant operating at t this efficiency will have lower CO2 emissions than a typical natural gas power plant.  In addition, the smaller amount of CO2 that is produced is concentrated in an exhaust stream that will be easier to capture and sequester.

    Reply
  • Tom Benson 06/26/09 2:17 PM

    The best way to sequester carbon is to use the immense untapped solar energy potential of the oceans…75% of the earth’s surface…to suck the carbon out of the air and convert it to organic goo at the botton of the oceans.  This is how Gaia has maintained her CO2 balance for billions of years.  If it didn’t work we wouldn’t be here, because the atmophere would have destablized millenia ago.

    However the scientific and green community, for various reasons, some political and some emotional, have decided that ocean sequestration is too scary to even consider, much less research.  The sheer volume of distortion on the topic is incredible.  Hopefully someday, reason will again return to that field.

    Reply
  • James Everett 06/28/09 1:57 AM

    SamJaffe,  I am curious for your thoughts on Skyonic, which turns flue gas into baking soda and Chlorine gas, or other products depending on local markets.  For example, they can make HCl for frac-ing.  As I understand it, they do require large amounts of NaOH, and will have to dispose of very large amounts of baking soda, but I would think that baking soda is safer to store long-term than CO2 gas.  I think underground CO2 gas storage is very risky - failure of a large CO2 reservoir would be catastrophic.  CO2 credits associated with underground storage would likely therefore be de-valued relative to other credits, because of uncertainty related to permanence.  But you sound more informed on this subject than me - are you un-concerned about reservoir failure?

    Reply
.