Natural Gas "Cleaning" Extracts Valuable Waste Carbon 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."
Energy arithmetic (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Better for the environment, but (Score:4, Interesting)
What's wrong with Biodiesel if you don't mind me asking? Honest question.
Re:Better for the environment, but (Score:4, Interesting)
a plasma reactor, huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Some more thoughts... (Score:1, Interesting)
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?
Re:OK, and exactly WHERE does the power (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Better for the environment, but (Score:2, Interesting)
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.