Invest in 19th Century Technology

and waste investors' money like Alcoa in Australia

Or

Invest in 21st Century Technology

and remain a viable business

"...overall fuel saving by the proposed Aluminium and methanol coproduction, relative to the conventional processes, would be 53.3%." Read more below...

Vacuum Carbothermic Reduction 
of Alumina to Metal

Extract from:

M. Halmann, A. Frei, and A. Steinfeld

Mineral Processing & Extractive Metall. Rev., 32: 247–266, 2011

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0882-7508 print/1547-7401 online

DOI: 10.1080/08827508.2010.530723

INTRODUCTION

The carbothermic reduction of alumina can be represented by overall (simplified) net reaction as follows:

Al₂O_3(s) + 3C_(s) = 2Al_(g) + 3CO_(g)               (1)

The current industrial production of aluminium is based on the electrolytic Hall–Héroult process [discovered in 1886], which is characterized by the large energy consumption, about 15 MWh / tonne Aluminium (International Aluminium Institute 2009) and by the release of perfluorocarbon (PFC) and vast amounts of greenhouse gases, reaching 7 kg CO₂-equiv / kg Aluminium in modern plants.

Figure 3: Equilibrium distribution vs. temperature for the system Al₂O₃ + 3C at 10^-4 bar.

Under a vacuum of 10^-4 bar (Figure 3), with an onset of Aluminium production already at 1600 K, the formation of Al₂O and Al₄C₃ is calculated to be significantly suppressed.

At 1800 K, the equilibrium reaction is represented by Equation (10):

Al₂O₃ + 3C = 1.99Al_(g) + 2.99CO_(g) + 0.006Al₂O_3(g) + 0.006C_(gr)       (10)

A preliminary estimation of the energy demand of the process under these conditions was made in a two-step calculation. The hypothetical heat input in the reaction of Equation (1) to 2Al_(g) + 3CO_(g) at T=1800K and 1 bar was calculated to be 1605 kJ / mol Al₂O₃. The minimum work of expansion from 1 bar to p=10^-4 bar was 699 kJ / mol Al₂O₃. The total theoretical energy input would be 0.0427 GJ / kg Aluminium, comparable to that of about 0.045 GJ / kg Aluminium in modern smelters by the Hall–Héroult process (International Aluminium Institute 2009). In case CO would be submitted to water-gas shift to form syngas for methanol synthesis, this could result in the production of 1.056 kg methanol / kg Aluminium. In conventional methanol production via methane steam reforming (MSR), the total fuel consumption is 0.0445 GJ / kg methanol, thus requiring 0.047 GJ to produce the above amount of methanol (Frank et al. 2009).

Therefore, the theoretical overall fuel saving by the proposed Aluminium and methanol coproduction, relative to the conventional processes, would be 53.3%. The required heat for the process may be supplied by concentrated solar energy, induction furnaces, or electric discharges.

In case concentrated solar energy would be used for process heat, the total theoretical energy demand for pumping work would be only 0.0129 GJ / kg Aluminium.

If the combustion of fossil fuel is used for process heat, the calculated CO₂ emission would be 3.32 kg CO₂ / kg Aluminium, resulting in 53% avoidance of greenhouse gas emission relative to modern Hall–Héroult plants (International Aluminium Institute 2009). Emissions would be further decreased when applying concentrated solar energy as the source of process heat.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation

A clean energy future is part of a long term plan to reshape our economy, cut carbon pollution, drive innovation, and help avoid the increased costs of delaying action on climate change.  The latest news: Submissions open: CEFC review Wednesday, 16 November 2011 12:24 pm Submissions are being sought on the key elements of the $10 billion commercially oriented Clean Energy Finance Corporation... Clean Energy Regulator to start early 2012 Tuesday, 15 November 2011 02:58 pm The new body charged with administering the carbon pricing mechanism will begin operating in early... Clean Energy Legislation: an overview Friday, 11 November 2011 01:42 pm As the nation moves towards a clean energy future, a guide to the new legislation... Legislation passes Senate Tuesday, 8 November 2011 01:47 pm Australia took another major step towards a clean energy future today (November 8) after the...

NSW Government about to commit to Coal Seam Gas

On 17 November 2011, the NSW Government appears before a Parliamentary Committee inquiring into Coal Seam Gas.

The NSW Government submission strongly favours rapid development of coal seam gas. 

It has no place for solar or any other zero emission technology.

A hybrid solar/biomass gasification option - if costed very quickly - might persuade the Parliamentary Committee next Thursday to reject the NSW Government's submission to commit NSW to 250 years reliance on Coal Seam Gas.
At the least, it should defer a decision pending a more up-to-date analysis of alternative approaches to meeting future energy needs.
One such alternative approach - solar thermal gasification f biomass producing fuel for a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station is illustrated here - Providing Energy Without More CO2 Emissions.

Time is running out for real decisions that will determine the direction of the NSW energy industry throughout this century.

Extracts from -
NSW Government Submission to
Coal Seam Gas inquiry

The NSW Government believes that balanced co-existence of mining (including CSG) and agriculture is not only possible, it is essential. ...NSW gas consumption is projected to grow significantly from its current level of around 160 Petajoules (PJ) per annum to 550PJ pa in the next 20 years. Current possible NSW CSG reserves represent over 250 years of gas supply at that level. (Page 2)

The development of a coal seam gas industry in NSW resulting from technological innovation has created an opportunity for an abundant new cleaner energy resource which was largely unknown until recently. The coal seam gas industry has the potential to create thousands of regional jobs, and add billions of dollars to the State economy, reduce our dependence on imported petroleum for transport, and create new industries around the availability of gas as a feedstock. (Page 4)

Table 3: Costs of CSG and other energy sources

Technology	Capital Cost (A$/kW or $’000/MW)	Total Cost or LRMC $ / MWh	Variable Cost $ / MWh
Black coal - super critical (SC)	1,900	45.99	1.20
Black coal - ultra super critical (USC)	2,400	54.00	1.20
Integrated gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC)	2,100	56.85	1.50
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT)	1,050	58.38	4.85
Open Cycle Gas Turbine (OCGT)	750	522.64	7.50
Nuclear	3,500	76.13	2.00
Hydro	2,000	71.93	2.00
Solar thermal	5,000	224.37	1.50
Solar Photovoltaic (PV)	7,529	384.38	1.50
Wind	2,400	93.31	1.60
Biomass	2,200	70.34	3.00
Geothermal	5,000	87.42	2.00
Coal USC plus Carbon Capture & Storage (95%)	4,100	85.80	1.20
Gas CCGT plus Carbon Capture & Storage (95%)	2,850	112.69	1.20

Source: ACIL Tasman (May 2008), Projected energy prices in selected world regions

Notes:

• Long Run Marginal Cost (LRMC) is defined as the cost of an incremental unit of generation capacity spread across each unit of electricity produced over the life of the station. LRMC includes capital cost, fuel cost, variable operating and maintenance costs.
• Variable costs include fuel costs and variable component of operating and maintenance costs.
• All costs are based on A$ 2008 and exclude a carbon price.

CSG based base load generation is in general less expensive compared to many other technologies and when a carbon price is included it also becomes more attractive than coal based power plants. (Pages 14-15)

Reliable Affordable Energy

Do Large Corporations Plan Energy Systems to Fail?

"Drawing on experience gained in the aftermath of the March earthquake and tsunami that devastated parts of eastern Japan, Toyota will introduce a 1.5kW power supply option for the Japan-market Prius within about half a year, and will expand the option to other hybrids in the near future." 

Read more at Green Car Congress, Toyota to offer onboard generator option for hybrids sold in Japan

The gas/petrol engine used in Toyota hybrid technology is more energy-efficient, producing higher output than conventional gas/petrol engines. ...

Maximum power output: 73kW(99PS)/5,200 rpm

Maximum torque: 142N･m(14.5kgf･m)/4,000 rpm

...
Toyota's hybrid technology uses a synchronous AC generator capable of high speed axial rotation, realizing substantial electrical power while the car is running in the mid-speed range.
...
The inverter in the Power Control Unit converts ... AC generated by ... the generator into DC to recharge the battery. 

Read more at Toyota Global Technology File, Learn more about the various technologies used in Toyota's hybrid vehicles

At the Carbon Expo held recently in Melbourne, one tweeter said - 

"Australia faces massive costs in transmission, in getting power to market. Might rule out options like Geothermal - AGL"

(Tweet by @TheCO2Manager, 9:24am November 9th, 2011 )

Note the advice in these two comments -

Comments on Green Car Congress article:
Toyota to offer onboard generator option for hybrids sold in Japan

"Ever so gradually the world is turning towards reasonableness, and I'm glad to see that Toyota is part of the turn. I have felt for a long time that the only reasonable setup for an electric vehicle is one with an onboard generator.

Certainly the cost of this is many millions lower than the taxpayer money government is wasting on charging stations."

Posted by: citizen | November 03, 2011 at 11:44 AM 

"@citizen - You're on the right track. But its a bit larger than you're thinking. Toyota's onboard genset and the Japanese earthquake all spell a major wake up call for the old school power grid and power company.

Centralized power generation is the big fail here.

Single source power plants, terrorists, earthquakes, hurricanes, severe electrical storms - are all major threats.

With the advent of low cost CHP power appliances - all these threats are eliminated."

Posted by: Reel$$ | November 04, 2011 at 01:05 AM 

Onboard engines and generators of hybrid electric vehicles could be exploited to eliminate the threats to a power grid to which centralized power plants are vulnerable - as "Reel$$" commented above.

Hybrid electric vehicles generating power for the grid whenever they are parked for extended periods can do much more -

• Overcome the need for "massive costs in transmission, in getting power to market" on which TheCO2Manager tweeted at the recent Carbon Expo in Melbourne, 
• Eliminate the need for investment in large, central power plant, 
• Eliminate reliance on scarce petroleum resources for road transport, and
• Eliminate the cost of transmission and generating capacity to cope with peak electricity demand.

Why not pursue this solution?
 
To eliminate reliance on petroleum transport fuel, Hybrid electric vehicles could be connected to natural gas fuel lines at parking bays. The petrol / gasoline in the vehicles' fuel tanks would be reserved for use when the vehicles were being driven, and even then, only to extend their driving range when the onboard batteries needed recharging.

Hybrid electric vehicles such as the Toyota Prius have onboard engines/generators able to produce 50 kilowatts of electrical energy or more. With an external fuel supply, there is no reason to restrict the power output to just a few kilowatts, as Toyota has recently announced.

Parked Hybrid electric vehicles could be dynamically scheduled to generate power or shutdown in response to demand by a Smart Grid supply management system.

Providing Energy Without More CO2 Emissions

Why choose between solar and coal when you can use both?

Updated May 26, 2012

Global Energy Production will increase dramatically by 2035, regardless of energy-efficiency improvements in developed economies.

1.5 billion people have no access to electricity, and 85% of the population in Africa don't yet have electricity. There is enormous unmet demand for access to electricity and clean energy.

In its annual Human Development Report, the UN Development Progamme (UNDP) said the UN has designated 2012 as the international year of sustainable energy for all. Read more on Health without energy? - Without clean, modern energy people's health can be severely affected

Consider a region perhaps in China or India that has a 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station, and it wants to double this generating capacity.

What do some of the options look like and how do they compare on cost and carbon dioxide emissions?

1. One option is to build another 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station.
2. Another option is to build a 600 Megawatt concentrated solar thermal power station with sufficient thermal energy storage to allow it to operate reliably overnight and after one or two cloudy days.
3. A further option is to replace the existing 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station with a 1200 Megawatt combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station, and optionally generate the fuel for this power station using the coal supply from the existing 600 Megawatt coal-fired power station with a much smaller concentrated solar thermal (CST) field of heliostats.

For option 1, the coal supply has to be doubled, and CO2 emissions also double. CO2 emissions intensity is constant at 0.8 tonnes per Megawatt-hour.

For option 2, a very large and costly field of heliostats is needed. The thermal energy storage system for reliable operation overnight and after one or two cloudy days is a substantial proportion of the total cost, and even then does not provide reliable operation in periods of extended cloud cover. CO2 emissions remain constant, because the existing coal-fired power station continues operation as before. CO2 emissions intensity of the combined existing and new systems is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour.

For option 3, a new combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station is needed, and the existing coal-fired power station is decommissioned. The coal supply from the decommissioned power station is converted to Syngas using a much smaller field of heliostats. Some components of the decommissioned coal power station, such as the coal-handling equipment may be re-used. No thermal energy storage system is required: this need is met by storing Syngas for continuous power generation. CO2 emissions remain constant: the new power station is consuming the same quantity of coal as the existing coal power station it replaces. However it produces twice the amount of electrical energy so the CO2 emissions intensity is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour. Note that the solar thermal gasification of coal in this option provides the same benefit as a Carbon Capture and Storage system that removes 50 percent of the CO2 emissions of a coal-fired power station.


Note: Option 3 achieves the same outcomes as option 2. That is, total electricity output capacity is doubled to 1200 Megawatts, CO2 emissions do not increase, no additional fossil fuel is needed, and CO2 emissions intensity is halved to 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour.

Essentially these are two technologically different solutions with nearly identical economic and environmental benefits. (Option 3 overcomes criticism that solar energy sources are intermittent and hence unreliable without "backup" fossil fuel power plants.  Option 3 also eliminates toxic mercury and other emissions of the existing coal-fired power station that is retained in Option 2.)

The choice between options 2 and 3 can be based on a comparison of their cost and a consideration of the added benefits of option 3.

Coal-Fired Power Station (Option 1)

Assuming this power station achieves 40% thermal efficiency, with CO2 emissions of 0.8 tonnes per Megawatt-hour:

Input Thermal Energy from Coal: 1500 Megawatts per hour
Output Electrical Energy: 600 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 480 tonnes per hour

Figure 1: Coal-fired Power Station Model

Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Power Station (Option 2)

Assuming this power station achieves 40% thermal efficiency, with zero CO2 emissions per Megawatt-hour:

Input Thermal Energy from Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST): 1500 Megawatts per hour
Output Electrical Energy: 600 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 0 tonnes per hour

Figure 2: Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Power Station Model

Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasification (Option 3 - part 1)

Assuming this power station achieves 40% thermal efficiency, with zero CO2 emissions per Megawatt-hour:

Input Thermal Energy from Coal/Biomass: 1500 Megawatts per hour
Input Thermal Energy from Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST): 500 Megawatts per hour
Output Thermal Energy in Purified Syngas: 2000 Megawatts per hour (This is transferred to the Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power station below - where it is used the generate electricity)
CO2 Emissions: 0 tonnes per hour

Figure 3: Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasifier

Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station (Option 3 - part 2)

Assuming this power station achieves 60% thermal efficiency, with CO2 emissions of 0.4 tonnes per Megawatt-hour:

Input Thermal Energy from Syngas/Natural Gas: 2000 Megawatts per hour (This is transferred from the Concentrated Solar Thermal (CST) Coal/Biomass Gasification plant above)
Output Electrical Energy: 1200 Megawatts per hour
CO2 Emissions: 480 tonnes per hour

Figure 4: Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) Power Station Model

For details of research on solar thermal gasification see this post on Concentrated Solar Thermal energy Meets Biomass CHP

Beyond Zero Emissions

Beyond Dogmatic Presumptions

Greenhouse Gas Study

Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions says:

'Gas is dirty and dangerous. Not only will it increase emissions both here and in China if this unsustainble boom continues but it will delay the inevitable switch to renewable energy sources such as wind power, rooftop solar photovoltaic and baseload solar thermal with storage.' 

Not necessarily - 

Consider this example

1. Suppose Option 1,  replacing every coal-fired power station in Australia with gas power stations costs $10 billion, and this investment cuts CO2 emissions by 50%. 
2. Suppose Option 2,  replacing every coal-fired power station in Australia with solar thermal power stations costs $100 billion, and this investment cuts CO2 emissions by 100%. 

Assume with each option, the rate of investment is the same - $1 billion per year.

1. Option 1 cuts CO2 emissions by 50% after 10 years. 
2. Option 2 cuts CO2 emissions by 50% after 50 years. 

Cow Power: Renewable Energy - Its a Gas

Beyond Zero Emissions can contribute to the rapid reduction of CO2 emissions by remaining receptive to ideas Beyond Dogmatic Presumptions

There are many ways to increase clean energy production that deliver the same environmental benefit.
What is most important is to obtain the environmental benefit at the lowest cost - so each $ invested reaps the greatest benefit.

Read more at "Negative CO2 emissions - Climate protection opens new business areas" and "Doubling Energy Production with No Increase in CO2 Emissions"

Double your energy production

Concentrated Solar Thermal energy Meets Biomass CHP

Concentrated Solar Thermal energy is intermittent, and the cost of storing thermal energy increases the cost of using it to generate electricity.

However, biomass gasification at high temperature can be achieved efficiently with Concentrated Solar Thermal energy.

The result is almost complete conversion of biomass to a gas that is quite clean

As can be seen in the figure, the pressure drop did not increase significantly over a period of 1500 s for the 1200 °C condition. However, the increase was rapid and exponential at 1000 °C, only dropping after a safety pressure relief valve opened. This indicated the presence of tars at this decomposition temperature

As non-solar thermal gasification systems cannot efficiently achieve temperatures in excess of 1000 °C, they will be burdened by some tar production, which decreases yield and can foul downstream catalysts and equipment. This is completely eliminated at 1200 °C, adding more impetus to operate the gasification reaction in the solar thermal temperature regime.

The gas is cleaner and also contains more energy

For example:

• When biomass is gasified by incineration with air and pure oxygen, char is left over and part of the biomass energy is consumed.
• When the energy to gasify the biomass is Concentrated Solar Thermal energy, little of the biomass remains and the resulting gas contains about double the energy content.

A biomass CHP (Combined Heat and Power) system then produces much more energy from available biomass resources.
Also, Concentrated Solar Thermal energy is exploited in this process at a lower cost than a Solar Thermal power station. The expense of thermal energy storage is not needed.

To read about the energy business opportunities this technology creates see Doubling Energy Production with No Increase in CO2 Emissions

Some papers on details of Double your energy production you should know about-

• Synthesis gas production by rapid solar thermal gasification of corn stover
• SUNgas: Thermochemical gasification of biomass using concentrated solar energy
• Solar Gasification of Biomass: Kinetics of Pyrolysis and Steam Gasification in Molten Salt