MIT Researchers Propose Using Solid Oxide Fuel Cells for Natural Gas Power Generation With Zero Emissions
03 December 2009
MIT researchers are proposing a novel electricity generation process using natural gas and solid oxide fuel cells at high electrical efficiency (74%HHV) with zero atmospheric emissions. A paper on their work is in press in the Journal of Power Sources.
The system suggested by Postdoctoral associate Thomas Adams and Paul I. Barton, the Lammot du Pont Professor of Chemical Engineering, would not require any new technology, but would rather combine existing components, or ones that are already well under development, in a novel configuration (for which they have applied for a patent).
The process contains a steam reformer heat-integrated with the fuel cells to provide the heat necessary for reforming. The fuel cells are powered with H2 and avoid carbon deposition issues. 100% CO2 capture is achieved downstream of the fuel cells with very little energy penalty using a multi-stage flash cascade process, where high-purity water is produced as a side product.
However, they caution, such an approach would only be commercially viable if and when a price is set on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Absent any price for carbon emissions, Adams says, when it comes to generating electricity “the cheapest fuel will always be pulverized coal.” But as soon as there is some form of carbon pricing, “ours is the lowest price option” he says, as long as the pricing is more than about $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide.
Natural gas already accounts for 22% of all US electricity production, and that percentage is likely to rise in coming years if carbon prices are put into effect. For these and other reasons, a system that can produce electricity from natural gas at a competitive price with zero greenhouse gas emissions could prove to be an attractive alternative to conventional power plants that use fossil fuels.
Adams and Barton used computer simulations to analyze the relative costs and performance of this system versus other existing or proposed generating systems, including natural gas or coal-powered systems incorporating carbon capture technologies.
Because fuel cells, unlike conventional turbine-based generators, are inherently modular, once the system has been proved at small size it can easily be scaled up. “You don’t need one large unit,” Adams explains. “You can do hundreds or thousands of small ones, run in parallel.”
The research was partly funded from the BP-MIT Conversion Research Program
Resources
Thomas A. Adams II, Paul I. Barton (2009) High-efficiency power production from natural gas with carbon capture. Journal of Power Sources, In Press, Corrected Proof doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.10.046
Sounds a like a war might be brewing between the coal industry and natural gas... then again, maybe not depending on how ClimateGate turns out.
Posted by: ejj | 03 December 2009 at 06:21 PM
ejj:
'Climategate' is a distraction. Large corporations see the writing on the wall and are moving away from coal, e.g.:
http://online.barrons.com/article/PR-CO-20091201-907098.html
Gist of the article: Progress Energy is shutting down several older coal power plants in NC and building new natural gas power plants. The option of updating the older coal-fired plants was rejected. Lack of sulfur scrubbers is one reason, but future costs of CO2 emissions from coal also played into the decision.
I agree that the recent bonanza of shale-bed methane is going to put a lot of pressure on coal vendors. As the true costs of using coal are incorporated into its price, coal will become a much less attractive alternative for power generation.
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 03 December 2009 at 06:50 PM
This still uses natural gas and there is a lot of concern about natural gas drilling techniques and environmental issues (groundwater, radiation) in some cases. It also requires hydrogen & a carbon tax on CO2 from coal energy of $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide. I think it's nice on paper but I doubt it'll ever be economically viable...especially with ClimateGate affecting the enactment of any new legislation here in the U.S.
Posted by: ejj | 03 December 2009 at 07:22 PM
Adams says “But as soon as there is some form of carbon pricing, “ours is the lowest price option”, as long as the pricing is more than about $15 per metric ton of emitted carbon dioxide and that absent any price for carbon emissions, when it comes to generating electricity “the cheapest fuel will always be pulverized coal.”
Well, guess what ?
Price for carbon emissions IS absent, should remain so and is likely to.
Because the public's intolerance for insane profligate spending was likely to halt the potentially disastrous cap and trade program BEFORE ClimateGate.
I now bravely endure the laughter of those who NEVER DID believe in AGW.
I agree - the cheapest fuel will always be pulverized coal.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 03 December 2009 at 08:09 PM
Pulverized Coal is not the cheapest fuel. Uranium is.
As the pipeline of coming Gen III+ reactors will show in the next half decade. These 'perfected & passive' Gen III+ LWRs are everything that nuclear critics wanted in the second generation immature reactors of the 1970s.
It is too bad it took the commotion, $20 billion and 30 years to re-design and re-develop, or painful bit-by-bit do, on existing ones. But they are now even provably magnitudes safer, than the safe ones running for 30 years today, and ready to perform and join the Fleet in short construction cycles.
Any Scientist worth his salt was suspicious of the methods and pronouncements of the CRU and GISS Climate Priesthood. Failure to freely release their data, seeking replication and re-confirmation was entirely unorthodox and ultimately suspicious. Resorting to lots of 'ad hominem' attacks on their equally qualified brethren, who simply were exercising proper scientific skepticism, arose more suspicions.
Now we see why, as confirmed in their own words to each other, why they couldn't release their non-existent results. Our skepticism is confirmed, and although expected, we are appalled.
The venality of the taxing politicians to proceed headlong, seeking taxes to spend, at Copenhagen is fully expected of the likes of them; but ultimately futile, I would expect. The AGW Australian government has all but formally fallen, as a consequence. More governments will do so if they persist.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 03 December 2009 at 10:00 PM
What annoys me most about such trippers as ejj is that they make me question if I am one of these obstrolalist argumentative twits myself.
Well it takes a mere second to dismiss that.
What utter garbage this camp go on with.
Stan , ejj I'm over feeling any reluctance to tell you straight see a shrink before it's too late.
You have no idea. " the Australian govt" is all but taking every trick actually.
You guts are so full of it . So up yourselfs I don't know how you can walk.
That's all I need to say. lets see that get up.
Posted by: arnold | 04 December 2009 at 12:10 AM
What annoys me most about such trippers as ejj is that they make me question if I am one of these obstrolalist argumentative twits myself.
Well it takes a mere second to dismiss that.
What utter garbage this camp go on with.
Stan , ejj I'm over feeling any reluctance to tell you straight see a shrink before it's too late.
You have no idea. " the Australian govt" is all but taking every trick actually.
You guts are so full of it . So up yourselfs I don't know how you can walk.
That's all I need to say. lets see that get up.
Posted by: arnold | 04 December 2009 at 12:10 AM
What annoys me most about such trippers as ejj is that they make me question if I am one of these obstrolalist argumentative twits myself.
Well it takes a mere second to dismiss that.
What utter garbage this camp go on with.
Stan , ejj I'm over feeling any reluctance to tell you straight see a shrink before it's too late.
You have no idea. " the Australian govt" is all but taking every trick actually.
You guts are so full of it . So up yourselfs I don't know how you can walk.
That's all I need to say. lets see that get up.
Posted by: arnold | 04 December 2009 at 12:10 AM
Nick Lyons, thanks for the post.
-
It's funny to see the 'skeptics' talk about ClimateGate as though it proves they were right all along. Ha.
-
Coal is cheap only because the true costs are never included (not even refering to GW), such as mining destruction, sulpher, etc.
Posted by: danm | 04 December 2009 at 06:31 AM
Jon Stewart (ie. The Jon Stewart Show) talks about ClimateGate ...very funny! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8&feature=player_embedded
Posted by: ejj | 04 December 2009 at 06:31 AM
Coal is being converted to natural gas. The fuel cost of uranium is very very very low. Combined heating cooling and power can be done and should be in all new buildings it is almost as good fuel cells for efficiency, but costs far less. Local conversion of coal to hydrogen and capture of CO2 is a good option until people realize that nuclear electricity and heat can be done cheaply and much more safely than coal, oil, gas or hydrogen. All animals, including humans, have always been radioactive and given off radioactive wastes. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 04 December 2009 at 07:16 AM
Since skeptics (and R) will never accept carbon-GHG-particulates emission taxes, the majority could exercise a progressive ban.
In other words, the right to pollute the environment(and to produce and sell products bad for our health) could be progressively removed or banned. Penalities could be so high as to force foreclosures. Of course, the same would apply to imported products.
Posted by: HarveyD | 04 December 2009 at 11:24 AM
HarveyD: I don't think skeptics would accept either....but they would LOVE "Reaganomics For Renewables" - elimination of corporate taxes (state and federal combined is appx. 40%, one of the highest rates in the world) and other taxes until further notice.
Posted by: ejj | 04 December 2009 at 11:33 AM
"However, they caution, such an approach would only be commercially viable if and when a price is set on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."
This won't happen because ClimateGate will convince ALL politicians to stay away from anything to do with GHGs.
arnold: It's hard to admit you're wrong. But you were swindled by some of the more elevated con men in the realm so don't feel so bad.
By now I would think there's a good body of evidence that the LWR nukes Stan talks about are much safer than ever before. France has demonstrated nuke viability. Applying some mix of new nuke and coal->NG conversions is reasonable, combined with steady growth of residential PV for sunbelts and CHP for northern climates. Another couple years should see our domestic biofuels capacity lower foreign oil imports by 10-15%.
SOFCs still have this 300C temp issue and materials costs that make coal cheaper.
ClimateGate? When Algore canceled his speech at Nopenhagen - AGW officially asked for the last rites. RIP global warming.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 04 December 2009 at 11:39 AM
There is CCHP or Combined Cooling Heating and Power. If large buildings all used this, you would be getting a LOT out of every therm of natural gas. Make renewable methane and we are even better off.
The high temperatures of SOFCs are not a problem if you do not cycle them from operation to cold. If you keep them running at a low level, they stay hot and the glass seals do not crack. Further work in the area may even eliminate that as a possible failure mode.
Posted by: SJC | 05 December 2009 at 09:19 AM