Carbon Capture on the Cheap?

Colorado startup Ion Engineering says it has devised a cheaper way to clean contaminating gases from natural gas – and it's seeking investment and stimulus funding to extend that to capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants.

Ion Engineering says its new technology could cut the costs of capturing carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants to as low as $20 a ton – a price that could get the attention of companies and governments looking to spend tens of billions of dollars on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions over the coming years.

But the Boulder, Colo.-based startup founded by University of Colorado researchers will first set its sights on a market that actually exists today – cleaning CO2 and other contaminant gases from natural gas, CEO Alfred Brown said Friday.

Ion's breakthrough is in using ionic liquids – molten salts – in place of water in the amine solutions now used in so-called "gas sweetening," Brown said.

Processing "sour" natural gas to remove CO2, hydrogen sulfide and other contaminating gases is a $12 billion-a-year business in the United States, and possibly as large as $50 billion worldwide, Brown said.

Using ionic liquids, which don't evaporate like water-based solutions and react with contaminating gases at a much higher rate, could lead to 30 percent to 40 percent reductions in those processing costs, he said.

"That alone addresses a huge market," Brown said, noting that cheaper sweetening processes could also open up "sour" gas fields now viewed as too expensive to develop. Ion – founded six months ago with funding from its founders and the University of Colorado – is seeking to raise about $5 million to develop that business, he said.

But the next step for Ion's technology – capturing carbon dioxide emitted from coal-fired power plants and other large-scale sources – will take a lot more money. "You could be talking $30 million to $40 million there," he said.

And for that, Ion is looking to partnerships with companies and institutions doing carbon capture pilot projects, as well as the federal stimulus money aimed at promoting them.

The stimulus package signed into law by President Barack Obama on Tuesday adds $3.5 billion to  the federal Fossil Energy Research and Development program,  which includes carbon capture and storage funding, bringing the program's total funding to more than $8 billion.

Worldwide, carbon capture and storage is looking at $20 billion in government grants and other incentives, Cambridge, Mass.-based Emerging Energy Research reported last week.

But while several carbon-capture pilot projects are underway around the world, the costs remain high (see Canada to Beat U.S. to Carbon Storage and Vattenfall to Trap Carbon Emissions).

The Department of Energy said in 2007 that current technology's costs are about $150 per ton of CO2 captured – enough to increase the cost of electricity by 2.5 cents to 4 cents per kilowatt hour.

Mark Trexler, director of EcoSecurities Consulting, said at the Clean-Tech Investor Summit in Indian Wells, Calif. last month that recent technology improvements have brought costs of carbon capture down to $50 to $100 a ton.

ION's $20-per-ton carbon capture cost would place it among the cheapest being promised, though Brown cautioned that the figure was based on "very preliminary" estimates.

"Obviously, we are trying to get into a small pilot situation as quickly as we can to validate these assumptions," he said. "Both gas and coal-fired power plants is what we're looking at. We're putting together partnerships right now."

But, of course, carbon that's captured needs to be stored somewhere – the other half of the carbon capture and storage, or sequestration, equation.

"The variable here is, sequestration hasn't been figured out yet," he said. While several projects around the world inject captured carbon into oil and gas wells or underground caverns, it's unclear whether that method will be effective for large-scale carbon storage (see DOE to Spend $126M to Put CO2 Underground).

Ion is exploring other uses for the CO2 it captures, including providing it to algae-to-biofuel companies that could use the gas to speed growth of the plants they want to turn into fuel at commercially viable costs, Brown said (see GreenFuels Farms 100 Square Meters of Algae).

The company's founders are Jason Bara and Dean Camper, two University of Colorado scientists with a long history in research into using ionic liquids for carbon capture. Their research has been published by the American Chemical Society and in other peer-reviewed journals.

Comments [3]

  • David Doty 02/22/09 7:01 PM

    It will be interesting to see if they have something of value here.  Thousands of ionic liquids have been investigated over the past decade for this and other separations purposes.  So far, they?ve been far to expensive to be practical except for some specialized applications.  I would expect IONs ionic-liquid-amine solutions to have enormous cost challenges.  There are many opportunities for cost reductions in classical CO2 separation processes that will compete with ION.

    You?re right that the CO2 sequestration side is still uncertain and expensive. Fortunately, there is a better solution.  Scientists have recently shown that off-peak wind energy can be used to recycle CO2 into ethanol, gasoline, and jet fuel at up to 60% efficiency.

    Annual WindFuels production per land area in good wind regions will exceed biofuels production density in fertile farming areas by a factor of 4 to 30. The cost of producing ethanol and gasoline from CO2 and wind energy will depend mostly on the cost of the off-peak wind energy.  These wind-generated carbon-neutral fuels, dubbed WindFuels, will sometimes compete when oil is $50/bbl.  WindFuels will eventually be cheaper than biofuels. Wind energy will not continue to grow quickly without a solid market for its off-peak power.  WindFuels will provide a market for the CO2, provide a market for off-peak power, stabilize the grid, and address climate change by replacing petroleum with carbon-neutral fuels. 

    Detailed scientific, engineering, and economics analyses are available at http://windfuels.com/ .

    Reply
  • Peter Antypas 02/24/09 7:08 AM

    Nice try but you failed to mention the most important detail:

    “we can efficiently and competitively recycle the exhausted CO2 from coal and natural gas power plants into fuels”

    So your input is still coal and gas CO2, hardly “carbon neutral” as you claim.

    Give me a technology that emulates a tree and converts air CO2 into combustible hydrocarbon fuel instead of plant mass, and then I’ll get excited ...

    Reply
  • David Doty 02/24/09 10:12 AM

    We have explained the enormous climate advantage of WindFuels in some detail on the Primer page on the our windfuels website, and much more detail can be found on other pages.  You must first understand that the benefit of any alternative transportation fuel arises from displacing the use of tar sands.  They are the most expensive current source of fuels, so they are the first to be displaced.  Tar sands currently contribute 5% of transportation fuels, but are responsible for 10% of its CO2 emissions.  So eliminating tar sands without adding any new carbon reduces total CO2 emissions from transportation fuels by 10%.  WindFuels adds no new carbon to the atmosphere.  It takes some carbon that was going to be emitted and makes fuels from it, so the carbon gets used twice before going into the atmosphere. 

    There is not a single power plant in the world that is currently sequestering its carbon dioxide.  The $40M spent by the coal lobby over the past year has convinced most consumers that ?clean coal? is a reality.  The fact is, the total amount of CO2 sequestered from coal plants in the US by 2012 is likely to be less than 0.03% of the amount of CO2 they?ll release.  Whether the next decade is much better remains to be seen.  The political will is still lacking.  WindFuels can provide the market needed to make CO2 separation happen quickly, and WindFuels can stop the growth of tar sands. 

    I highly recommend you look at the scientifically and economically sound analysis we have on the various alternatives on our website.  It really is the best analysis you will find.  Perhaps you will be able to understand why every day fewer scientists support biofuels ? which last year had a net contribution to transportation fuels of only 0.4% and reduced total CO2 emissions by only 0.1%. 

    Reply
.