The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can we build an efficient natural gas-renewable power plant that emits no CO2  (Read 1432 times)

Offline Chondrally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Natural Gas or kW-h to become new currency. Ammonia for farms. Electric vehicles on the road and power plants that emit no CO2
Natural Gas, or rather methane, along with ammonia and kW-h are likely to become pegged to the US Dollar soon, as the climate initiative gathers steam into the December Paris negotiations in the race to save the oceans and the atmosphere! Methane can be used to make gasoline and plastics (SASOL Ltd), and it can be gotten cleanly with bacteria from coal. Fracking is still a problem, but the glut of cheap natural gas is here to stay. A natural gas or propane power plant supplemented by wind and solar or hydro and nuclear to electrolyze water, can achieve a zero carbon footprint and still generate electricity from gas turbines and steam turbines at high efficiency. It can be oxygen neutral as well. The space station Sabatier reaction of CO2+4H2 -> CH4+2H2O catalytically with nickel or rubidium alumina as catalyst is exothermic and can power steam turbines. The water can be recycled to the electrolysis plant and the whole process, from carbon capture and water capture can produce electricity VERY EFFICIENTLY, while Regenerating its Own Fuel. The only emissions are carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides in trace amounts, which can be further reduced with catalytic converters just like in automotive vehicles. Clean coal with scrubbing and carbon capture and water capture to electrolysis to methane production to plastic production is possible, with no net CO2 emissions. Ammonia will work on farms as they need ammonia and phosphorus as fertilizer. Ammonia has no CO2 emissions but does consume oxygen, unlike the natural gas power plant. but on small scales on farms it is more economical with zero CO2 footprint. Electric vehicles (eg. TESLA,SCTY) in this scenario become favoured as the transportation mode of choice because of their efficiency and power to weight ratio. Charging problems will be solved in the near term because of all the research into batteries and supercapacitors.  No amount of tree planting can solve the problem as the biosphere is not big enough to absorb the extra CO2 per year, similarly no amount of fuel conservation in hybrid vehicles can solve the problem either.  All of this helps but it won't beat the problem strategically in isolation.  We need new power plants.
Best wishes, Richard,Acoustical Society,Geophysical Union,Association for the Advancement of Science,Chemical Society,Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Association of Computing Machinery.ASA,AGU,AAAS,ACS,IEEE,ACM
They had all better be prepared to drink a djinn(engine) and tonic(CO2 in water).
 
If you read the articles below, you will see that there is evidence the oceans could die by 2020, at around 490 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The pH discontinuity and drop in the oceans is predictable from ocean chemistry, and when it happens, the krill and phytoplankton will be at even more risk than they are today. Since they represent the base of the food chain in the ocean, all life in the ocean will be at risk. If the oceans die, there is not much point to anything else. One potential solution is the natural gas-solar hybrid engine that emits no CO2. It could get between 3000 and 8000 km per 55 litre tank fill up of natural gas, with only trace emissions of Carbon Monoxide and Nitrous Oxide and a net zero consumption of oxygen, leading to fresher air for everyone, especially in the cities. This engine could cause the oil companies to go bankrupt, which would cause economic chaos and a disruption in the balance of power world wide. So great care must be taken to phase it in carefully. Because the oil companies are so powerful, it is unlikely that this engine could be developed in North America. The UK is a likely location for its development and so is China or maybe with an outside chance, India or Pakistan. If it is not developed, the oceans and life on the entire planet could be at risk. Electric cars are to be promoted as well, but only if their electricity comes from Nuclear Power or preferably Hyrdro, wind and solar. The predominance of coal and methane power plants makes electric cars infeasible due to the amount of CO2 they continue to emit. This engine could be the basic design for a new type of methane power plant that emits no CO2, is lower tech than nuclear, and has the capacity to produce electric power for communities with no CO2 footprint. The techniques I developed for predicting the stock market , weather and water cycles could prove very important to the climate change forecasting, and economic forecasting and we cannot underestimate the usefulness of probability distributions with thick tails for forecasting rare events in the long and medium terms. Yours very Sincerely, Richard J. Belshaw, AGU,IEEE,AAAS,ASA,ACS,ACM Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53180.0 Would the magnesium carbonate buffer in the ocean break as CO2 increases,When? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53181.0 If E=mc^2=hf, Does light itself possess gravitional attraction? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53505.0 How do we forecast the stock market and water cycles? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=53592.0
« Last Edit: 07/09/2015 05:15:44 by Chondrally »


 

Offline ProjectSailor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
A fair old amount of conflicting and meaningless information there. Lots of claims of no carbon footprints.. since any piece of machinery or power to use such machinery are grown out of thin air at the point of use. The vast amounts of energy needed to isolate and fashion said rare metal catalysts are negligible of course and 100% carbon capture techniques that have eluded engineers for decades are in fact cheap and readily available..

And to wrap it all up, engines that use no external fuel other than CH4, that... wait for it.. are oxygen neutral??

Question 1 - Why for someone with so many letters after his name, does he feel that he needs to be make statements, that any person who has ever worked out what chemical reactions happen in combustion of any type, think he is talking from below desk level? But then is this a sign of the current poor show of 'great thinkers' in this age?

Question 2 - Where do I buy them gas and steam turbines that are highly efficient? I would love to know where he beat the Carnot efficiency since that truly would be a breakthrough!

Nice thoughts though, on paper his thinking is quite in depth, although totally impractical and dare i say impossible.

On a positive note.. Ammonia would be a great fuel, if it weren't so damn toxic and have a nasty habit of producing lovely nitric acids when combined with water... BUT.. if the oceans dry up then that wont be a problem any more! Problem solved!

Okay, my frustrations out of the way for the artificial barriers these 'great thinkers' put in the way of practical engineering.

He is right we need new power plants that produce more power for less waste and emissions. Current renewables tend to have higher up front costs, take up more area, require more maintenance and the clutch.. are unreliable. New power plants need to produce CONSTANT power without dependencies on natural factors and in a perfect world immune to economical, political and social factors too! Spending all our time focusing on zero emissions is folly and leads to massive inefficiencies. We should be focusing on new technology to improve efficiency, and reduce emissions and yes even through the process of offsetting we could improve the environment in the long run.

To continue the bandwagon of 0 emissions we end up with false economies and hidden emissions, a prime example being the Prius.
 

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1092
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
It's technically feasible to do virtually 100% carbon capture, so yeah, this is possible.

Economic?

Not so much, it's relatively expensive.
 

Offline Atomic-S

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 928
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • View Profile
There are a lot of scientifically interesting ideas that, however, founder economically.  The electric car, although relying on power that ultimately may be generated by polluting sources, is less objectionable than the gasoline engine because the pollution is farther from civilization and because the overall process is probably more efficient.  In the longer term, we have non-carbon energy technologies; but of these, the one that seems to be the most promising is next-generation nuclear.  And of these, one technology is especially interesting: the thorium-based reactor. It is fundamentally different than all uranium/plutonium based reactors, rewriting the book on nuclear energy. For details see, among other things,

Costwise, it is undoubtedly no worse than any existing nuclear technology, and could be substantially less being inherently safer.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length