Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Natural Gas "Cleaning" Extracts Valuable Waste Carbon

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the i'll-take-it-black dept.

Earth 73

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."

cancel ×

73 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cleaner Gas (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27829701)

Let the Taco Bell jokes commence.

Re:Cleaner Gas (0)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27829743)

Your Taco Bell is so ugly....

Re:Cleaner Gas (0)

Adriax (746043) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830237)

How ugly is it?

Re:Cleaner Gas (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831131)

I'll tell you how ugly it is; It's so ugly that people will not by a dog from the pet shop if there is a Taco Bell next door.

Re:Cleaner Gas (0)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830183)

I guess Taco Bell would qualify as a "reinforced rubber product".

Re:Cleaner Gas (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27839567)

Taco Bell gives me gas, but I'm not sure I would say that it is clean.

Better for the environment, but (3, Insightful)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27829717)

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 (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830113)

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 (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830281)

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 (3, Interesting)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830787)

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 (2, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27833807)

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 (2, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27834119)

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 (2, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27839481)

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. ;)

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#27840787)

Any market surplus which decreases the cost of HP printer toner is a win for everyone.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27840875)

Toner isn't so much the issue as inkjet ink.

As you specify HP toner, not just generic toner, I find it unlikely to get much cheaper.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27834081)

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.

I long for the day when we'll get tax credits for being carbon-positive...

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832977)

I disagree. With this technology, you would be sequestering the carbon rather than recycling it. A net negative emission instead of a net (nearly) zero.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27835589)

Fill an old coal mine with sawdust then. Probably a cheaper way to sequester Carbon than making Biogas and making carbon black from it.

Unless it gets wet and rots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27836769)

And who would buy sawdust just to throw it in a pit?

Why do you have such a hard-on for anything that reduces CO2 production?

!dumb (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 5 years ago | (#27853367)

But to do this with bio gas would be dumb.
Biogas is carbon neutral

The biogas burns cleaner their way: Less nitrous oxides and whatnot, less smog, cleaner air: Good.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830333)

This 'solution' is akin to "A new way to beat your wife, but leave less bruises!".

It is 2009. We already have better ways to 'settle the fight (for energy)' without resorting to cleaning up archaic energy production methods.

Biodiesel, Clean Coal, Clean Natty Gas...... Etc etc... THESE ARE ALL STUPID DISTRACTIONS. We have had answers in front of us for at least one, if not two decades. These distractions are simply only a 'better proposal' to keep the current energy big-wigs holding the reigns and leaving a big mess wherever their product is used.

Re:Better for the environment, but (3, Interesting)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830429)

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

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831489)

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

It clogs fuel injectors and gels up in cold weather.

You can run petro-diesel through the engine before start-up and shut-down + install a fuel heater.
Alternatively you can mix your biodiesel with petro-diesel, kerosene, or pretty much any paint thinner.

And biodiesel loves dirt, so if you've converted from petro to bio,
you'll need to change your fuel filter at least once and maybe twice afterwards.
/Which isn't really that big of a deal.

Re:Better for the environment, but (2, Insightful)

redbeard (30578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831589)

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 (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832003)

Some promising research is being done on oil producing algae

Why would we want oil to produce algae?

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832685)

*rimshot*

He'll be here all week folks.

Try the veal.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 5 years ago | (#27833139)

So, instead of making canola for cooking, it's being turned into motor fuel.

So? I use as much Olive Oil as I can when cooking - and yes, I don't eat out much, nor do I eat a lot of pre-made stuff. I prefer to stay away from Corn and Soy based stuff, and staying away from Canola won't hurt either.

Re:Better for the environment, but (2, Interesting)

Snarky McButtface (1542357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832503)

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 (5, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832523)

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 [wikipedia.org] (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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [hiperfuels.com] . Back when D2 was creeping way up in cost it was almost getting cost effective.

Re:Better for the environment, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27832797)

Yes it will gel at low temperatures, so does diesel. You can preheat both and mix something in to help that with both. I doesnt, however, clog up fuel injectors. What it does do is clean all of the accumulated crud out of your system, which is why you will need to change your filter at about 500 miles after the changeover, and maybe again after 1000 miles if your system is really grungy. If you start with straight biodiesel with a new vehicle, you wont have this problem at all. http://www.homepower.com/ [homepower.com] is a good source of real world information on energy production and usages.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 5 years ago | (#27833895)

It clogs fuel injectors and gels up in cold weather.

Are you sure you're thinking about Biodiesel, or SVO(Straight Vegetable Oil)?

Proper BD shouldn't clog injectors, and even regular Diesel gels up if it gets cold enough. The gel point for BD depends on the source, but if we have to cut it in winter, well, we'll cut it in winter. Might even cut it with ethanol.

As for the dirt, well, that's because BD, like ethanol, is a better solvent than the stuff it replaces. Tends to free stuff up.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27837011)

Actually, that's only true in part. Biodiesel does gel easier in cold weather.

Any injector problems are from gunk in the fuel lines being broken loose by the cleaner biodiesel. That's also why you need the filter changes after switching.

On the purely positive side, it has superior lubricity and no sulphur.

Even without the environmental and renewable benefits, it would make sense as a fuel additive.

Re:Better for the environment, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27831839)

It uses large amounts of ground to grow the crop leading to higher food prices and food shortages for poorer people. Basically we don't have enough land on earth to grow enough plants and then of course we would have no food at all.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Alcimedes (398213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27835333)

Biodesiel has a wonderful byproduct of Nitrous Oxide, which is a much, much much worse greenhouse gas than CO2 could ever hope to be. But hey, it's made from plants so it must be good for the earth, right?

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

blindseer (891256) | more than 5 years ago | (#27918009)

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

The problem with biodiesel is that it uses arable land that could be used for food crops. There is not enough land to produce the food we need along with the fuel we need. These biofuels are a solution to a problem that, in my estimation, does not exist. The claim is that the petrofuels we are digging up is damaging the environment. Now that we have stopped putting lead in our fuels, removed the sulfur, developed engines that burn these fuels nearly completely, among other things, our air is now cleaner than it has been in decades. We can still do better of course but CO2 is not the pollutant that many claim it is.

Assuming that CO2 is a problem then we are just trading one environmental disaster for another. Instead of digging up petrofuels we will be plowing up more and more land in a futile attempt to gather enough sunlight, in the form of plant matter, to fill our gas tanks and our tummies. We'd be one bad crop away from choosing between starving to death or freezing to death.

The solution lies in nuclear power. There is enough nuclear fuel on this planet to last us until the sun consumes the atmosphere, given proper management. I think we should still drill for oil and natural gas until the nuclear technology and infrastructure makes synthetic hydrocarbons a feasible replacement. Mix in some solar, wind, and hydro to spread out the load, provide backups for unplanned interruptions to the nuclear base load, and allow for some growth. Energy storage will be needed for peak power loads but that could be as simple as using some of the synthesized hydrocarbons to drive traditional internal combustion generators.

I saw something like this on Slashdot before and I think it sums up the situation nicely...

Pick one:
- Nuclear power
- Agrarian society
- Continued use of petrofuels

Biofuels does not solve any problems. If we rely on biofuels to run our society then we will find ourselves on the road to poverty. We might as well skip the whole step of turning plants into biodiesel and use it to feed horses. Without the energy density and energy return of coal and uranium we will end up living like "Little House on the Prairie".

Re:Better for the environment, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830577)

Interesting, you never actually stated what this big awesome 'solution' is. Care to elaborate? ..I should note that the main reason we still are using these energy sources has to do with economics and status quo. Not only is it what we're used to (who wants to change?), but it's, well, cheap! (or at least, cheaper.)

Re:Better for the environment, but (3, Insightful)

icebrain (944107) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830721)

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 (0, Troll)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#27841803)

Air/Hydro Electric Generation. Hell, with the 2TR we've spent on Iraq, we could be ridiculously energy independent with electricity by now... But... I mean... If you still just want to combust shit because it sounds cool... Well.. I mean, we can always say the seagulls won't like getting hit by windmill blades and pretend its just as bad.

That's what people do to keep these stupid archaic systems (and the money behind them) in place -- make efforts to change small things that have relatively no *real* impact, while finding small things to point at and smear the image of an option that would have dramatic impact.

Get your facts from science and the actual state of technology we have today. We could seriously build robots to detect and sort all of the worlds waste dumps and basically recycle all of the things we thought would just remain as filthy trash... We've had the ability to harvest amazing electric potential, cleanly, for over two decades -- it is your level of ignorance and susceptibility to $$$-driven information that will determine if you understand or not.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 5 years ago | (#27839859)

and the answer is?

Re:Better for the environment, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830723)

You are still going to run out of gas eventually, and you are still releasing carbon that has been stored for millions of years, this just means that we won't be dumping anything explicitly toxic into the groundwater.

Re:Better for the environment, but (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831049)

If by "releasing" you mean forming into solid blocks and storing for later use, then yes, this technology will release tons of carbon... into a nice tidy pile. Not the atmosphere.

Certainly it is not a permanent solution, but we have massive amounts of natural gas, and it will last a while till we manage to arrange some sustainable source of energy that works as well as what we now have

Coal to methane (2, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830847)

You are still going to run out of gas eventually

Then what you need is some way to convert coal to methane [technologyreview.com] .

well... (1)

prndll (1425091) | more than 5 years ago | (#27829783)

Now, this is the best example of something to call "organic" in a positive way.

Removing the existing CO2 (1)

pzs (857406) | more than 5 years ago | (#27829981)

A lot of technologies are being developed to reduce the CO2 emissions at source, which is useful. However, are there any industrial process that will reduce the already-emitted CO2 in the atmosphere?

Before somebody says "a tree", we might need an alternative [eurekalert.org] .

Re:Removing the existing CO2 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830295)

In principle, yes. We could "scrub" the existing CO2 from the air and sequester it underground. It's expensive, and there's no real guarantee that the CO2 will stay there for any appreciable length of time. Most of the processes being examined require a lot of energy input, either in the form of heat or electricity. So, if you're going to need a pantload of energy, you might as well couple it to a powerplant (coal or gas). Plus, since the exhaust is very carbon rich compared to the atmosphere at large, capturing it at the source is much more efficient. Finally: nobody is going to pay you to scrub CO2 from the air. People will pay you for electricity -- especially if you're generating it via a "clean" method.

Re:Removing the existing CO2 (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27835919)

Trees won't do the trick. A mature forest is actually carbon neutral. Dying trees give up their sequestered carbon as fast as young trees absorb it. You need to harvest mature trees at the end of their fastest growth and 'sequester' the product in some fashion to keep it out of the environment. The energy expended to peel tree huggers off old growth forests is exorbitant.

However, this doesn't rule out using some form of industrially controlled photosynthetic process (anything from farming to engineered pond scum in a tank) that would mitigate the down sides of waiting for nature to mop up our waste products. The input is solar power (a good thing in many people's opinions) and the process can be engineered to produce either a useful product (food, wood, chemicals) or an easily sequestered concentrated form of carbon.

Re:Removing the existing CO2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27838959)

You wouldn't use mature forests you would use trees that are genetically engineered to grow fast and sequester the carbon in biochar which can be used as a soil amendment in marginal soil.

or make graphene / nanotubes & buckyballs (1)

soibudca (846319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830001)

This process would produce tons of useful nanoparticles (like nanotubes, buckballs etc) but it would be mixed in with a lot of 'junk' molecules. Once / if an efficient process for separating and sorting the good stuff is developed, this would be a real gold mine.

Another benefit (5, Informative)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830041)

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.

Re:Another benefit (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830397)

The overall effect it has for reducing emissions is relatively small, and seems to pale in comparison to this. If this could replace the current carbon-black process entirely, that would be a pleasant outcome.

However, the article doesn't talk about how much it makes, how much we need, etc.

Energy arithmetic (3, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830051)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830221)

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.

Won't H2 also require different storage methods as well? From what I remember, H2 has a tendency to leak out of nearly anything you put it in, embrittle it, etc. I believe this is a solved problem, but I think it will result in other costs

Re:Energy arithmetic (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832237)

You're absolutely correct, however the mechanisms by which that happens are anything but trivial. Toward the end of TFA they address this -- apparently normal natural gas pipeline materials don't get brittle if the H2 content is kept to around 10%. You'll still see some leakage, but the leak rate through most metals is fairly low. Plastics show high leak rates, as do some metals like aluminum (I think; not my area of expertise, and I haven't looked up details recently), and some glasses.

The hydrogen leakage is a bigger deal as an ozone-depleting pollutant than as an energy loss. The reactions by which CFCs destroy ozone occur on the surface of ice crystals. 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.

Re:Energy arithmetic (2, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27833611)

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.

Re:Energy arithmetic (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27834067)

No, that's the whole point. The ozone molecule consumed in oxidizing the H2 to H2O is irrelevant. However, by the time that occurs, the H2 has floated up to an altitude that normally has almost no water present. The microscopic ice crystals that result from that reaction are far from harmless, though: it is on their surfaces that the CFC reactions occur. Adding more ice increases the ozone damage caused by the already-present CFCs.

Water ice is a potent ozone depleter at those altitudes. Normally, though, the water freezes out before getting there. Hydrogen, however, survives quite easily to that altitude where it turns into water ice. A small amount of ice is naturally occurring, which is why CFCs are a problem -- but that amount is so small that hydrogen pollution is a relevant source of it.

Re:Energy arithmetic (4, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832327)

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.

OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (2, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830091)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830365)

Not entirely, there are coal, and oil plants in New Brunwick; however there are hydroplants as well. Plus, the fosil fuel plants have been working on reducing their carbon foot print.

NB Power [wikipedia.org]

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (2, Informative)

all204 (898409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830519)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831543)

It's a startup company in Canada, not in the USA. There's a lot of "greener" energy available. Hydro-Québec export some energy to New-Brunswick, they have a nuclear plant too.

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (3, Interesting)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832479)

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.)

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27837639)

it's not been framed as a "superior manufacturing system" for lamp black. It's being touted as an energy system that makes lamp black.

Any energy system that uses more energy to produce energy is not an energy source - it's an energy sink.

Your points about electrical sourcing are not far from true, but not really serious given present conditions.

Here are the simple facts:

Thermo law 1: Energy is not created or destroyed.
Thermo law 2: energy degrades to heat (entropy)
Fact of the world: there is stored energy in substances like Uranium, Oil, Gas, Coal. There is a fixed amount of each on the planet. We can call this our "savings Account". It is in a non-interest bearing account. Anything removed is gone.

Fact of the world: The sun shines energy at us. This is our energy income.

The sun's energy is great, but diffuse. Thanks to clouds and angle of incidence, the GLOBAL average is about 1300wH per meter^2. One barrel of oil will provide over 328 million watts of power. We use about 85 million barrels a year, so that's 2.788+19 wH of power. At 1300wH per meter^2, that's 2.144615+16 square meters.

Simply: not gonna happen.

I recommend you learn a trade of value that doesn't require oil or electricity.

RS

Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27839119)

Solar energy is rather offtopic, but...

Your units have some nontrivial problems with them, and your results are off by orders of magnitude. Global fossil fuel consumption [wikipedia.org] is approximately 5E20 J (= 1.4E17 Watt hours), for an average rate of 1.6E13 W. Solar energy at the Earth's surface is closer to 1000W/m^2 than 1300. At 20% efficiency and 20% output factor (it isn't always noon, and it's cloudy sometimes, so you don't get 1kW average output from 1kW worth of panels; both of these numbers are optimistic, but not grossly so), that's 4E11 m^2 of panels. That's rather expensive, but then so is our current energy infrastructure.

Just when soy was taking off. (1)

phorest (877315) | more than 5 years ago | (#27830175)

Cognitive dissonence anyone?
Soy-Based Toner Cartridges? [slashdot.org]

Who run Bartertown? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27830589)

You Know Who!

Johnny Canuck!

a plasma reactor, huh? (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27831115)

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? (2, Insightful)

evanbd (210358) | more than 5 years ago | (#27832513)

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.)

Some more thoughts... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27831125)

1. I don't doubt that this would lead to cleaner gas. It's hard to get soot, CO2, PAH's from hydrogen. It even puts out less NOx.

2. Energy for running the plasma doohickie could easily come from renewables. The production process could be a pretty a flexible load.

3. I don't see us running out of methane calthrates for natural gas. There might even be some deposits we would like to mine since they are approaching istability.

4. Maybe we could make some diamond with that plasma.

5. Yes there would be a 5% to 10% hit on BTU/ft^3. I don't know if pressure regulator upstream of my meter could be tweaked that much?

6. Is that J/l @ STP in metric? Kcal/22.4l @ STP?

7. A possible low CO2 hydrogen source.

8. What happens to carbon black today? Land fill of painted products? Incineration of toner on paper? We can probably sequester the carbon a little longer though.

9. I doubt that the price for carbon black would stay very high for long with this. It might still be more valuable than coal for smelting metals and cement making. It could set a trading ceiling for carbon trading shares.

9. Is a big pile of carbon black pyrophoric like a big pile of coal left to sit too long and catch fire?

10. This really does make me think about carbon foot print. If I go through 20 tons/year of natural gas/H2, then what happens to my annual ton of carbon? Construction material? clothing? A new Tesla? A huge pile of batteries, tires and vaulting poles?

Not going to actually work ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27831347)

Ignoring efficiencies which would likely make the process less interesting..

burning H2 yield 286 kJ/mol
buring Methane yields 890 kJ/mol

Now, one problem with H2 is energy density ... Ie amount of energy per unit volume which is directly proportional to moles.

If we were to produce 2 units fo H2 from one unit of Methane we would have 64% of the total energy and 32 % of the original energy density. This ignores the carbon cost of generating H2 form Methane.

The plasma is generated from electricity obviously that has a carbon cost that needs to be factored in when counting the carbon it has removed. Since they cite 7%, we are lead to believe that for whichever energy source they are using as a baseline they claim they claim they leave slight more energy in the stream than it took to de-carbon it.

So, all in all. This technology should be treated sceptically. It may work roughly as they say which is not great. It will not improve much from here if the technology even works as well as claimed.

Henry Ford Sez (1)

sneilan (1416093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27833257)

You can haz any colour you like as long as it's black

http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27834723)

Global warming is a scam
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam

CO2 is a life giving gas. What do you think plants breathe?
What do you exhale?
How many carbon credits do you get before you have to stop exhaling?

plasma reactor of course (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27836249)

is powered by pixie dust and unicorn magic extruded from a magic time-plum which fell to earth from space a million years ago and emits soothing barry manilow renditions when not in use.

canadian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27838501)

one point for the canadians, thats 10 points for the canadians and zero for the americans!!!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>