Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SkyMine: CO2 to bicarb

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SkyMine: CO2 to bicarb

    Link....


    Skyonic site....


    Can baking soda curb global warming?

    Some scientists have proposed compressing carbon dioxide and sticking it in underground caves as a way to cut down on greenhouse gases. Joe David Jones wants to make baking soda out of it.

    Jones, the founder and CEO of Skyonic, has come up with an industrial process called SkyMine that captures 90 percent of the carbon dioxide coming out of smoke stacks and mixes it with sodium hydroxide to make sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda. The energy required for the reaction to turn the chemicals into baking soda comes from the waste heat from the factory.

    "It is cleaner than food-grade (baking soda)," he said.

    The system also removes 97 percent of the heavy metals, as well as most of the sulfur and nitrogen compounds, Jones said.


    Luminant, a utility formerly known as TXU, installed a pilot version of the system at its Big Brown Steam Electric Station in Fairfield, Texas, last year. Skyonic, meanwhile, hopes to install a system that will consume the greenhouse gas output of a large--500 megawatts or so--power plant around 2009. Skyonic is currently designing one of these large systems.

    "It has been working pretty well. It does present a potential solution to emissions," said a representative for Luminant. "But right now there is still a lot of work to be done."

    If the concept works on a grand scale, it could help change some of the pernicious economics and daunting engineering challenges surrounding carbon capture and sequestration.

    Carbon capture likely will be required to curb global warming, according to many scientists and companies that are currently experimenting with ways to effectively bury or fix greenhouse gases as they come out of smokestacks. Coal accounted for 26 percent of energy consumed in 2004 worldwide, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, and will grow to 28 percent by 2030. Coal also accounted for 39 percent of carbon dioxide in 2004 (behind oil) but is expected to pass oil for the No. 1 spot in 2010.

    What about replacing every incandescent bulb in America with compact fluorescents? The benefits are eradicated by the carbon dioxide emitted by two coal-fired plants over a year, according to Ed Mazria, founder of Architecture 2030, a nonprofit that encourages builders, suppliers, and architects to move toward making carbon-neutral buildings by 2030.

    Unfortunately, a lot of the proposed solutions for sequestration involve large amounts of capital and risk. If you bury carbon dioxide underground, it could always leak out. Other ideas include pumping it into underground saline aquifers or porous rock formations.

    Because it's a solid, storing baking soda is simply easier, and it allows greenhouse gas emitters to store a lot of carbon in one place. The stuff piles up: A 500-megawatt power plant will produce approximately 338,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year. Multiply that weight by 1.9 and you get the number of tons of baking soda that the plant will produce. Still, it can be sold, stored in containers, used for landfill or buried in abandoned mines.

    "If you can use the waste heat, it strikes me as a potentially feasible approach," said Alex Farrell, an assistant professor in the energy and resources group at the University of California at Berkeley. "I'm not willing to throw any of the ideas out yet."

    On top of that, the byproducts of the different reactions--chlorine, baking soda, hydrogen (a byproduct from making the sodium hydroxide that gets mixed with the carbon dioxide), and chlorine--can be sold to industrial users. In all likelihood, the chlorine and hydrogen will have a higher market value than the baking soda, but baking soda does have its buyers. It is often used as an industrial abrasive. Besides, baking soda today gets mined--an expensive process. Skyonic's byproduct would obviate the need to dig holes in the ground.
    >
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Anyone who has the slightest notion of what is going on will realise that this is about the most stupid suggestion I have heard in a very long time. The one point I would agree on is that if you scrub flue gases with NaOH, there will be a chemical reaction.
    However, it will be
    2NaOH + CO2 > Na2CO3 + H2O
    forming sodium carbonate, not bicarbonate.
    Under some conditions of lower pH, further treatment with CO2 may form the bicarbonate:
    Na2CO3 + H2O + CO2 > 2NaHCO3
    and most of the bicarbonate will precipitate out. This would require careful control to obtain stoichiometry, not over easy.

    However, what is ignored is NaOH is produced by the electrolysis of sea water and is a very energy-intensive process, requiring vast numbers of kWh. These would presumably be produced from the power station which would pump even more CO2 to perform this electrolysis. This is done in a Castner-Kellner cell where the cathode is a stream of mercury. Chlorine gas is produced at the anode. If the conditions are correctly adjusted, no hydrogen is produced (if it is, then the cell is not using the electrical energy optimally), despite what this article says.

    Let's assume that a number of power stations are producing literally megatonnes of sodium bicarbonate, which is not a very stable compound. At the drop of a hat, the following happens:
    2NaHCO3 > Na2CO3 +H2O +CO2
    which will take us back halfway to where we started. So, what are the conditions for this to happen? Time with humidity, temperature or acidification. Gently heating it is sufficient, hence it's use as a rising agent in baking. It is also mixed with e.g. tartaric acid (very mild acid) to make baking powder for a similar effect.

    So what will we do to all this bicarb which will exceed industrial requirements by several orders of magnitude? This moron says landfill it. The first time it rains it will start burping out CO2 galore, as the pH of rain is generally between 5 and 6, sufficiently low to decompose the stuff. Percolating water in mines would have a similar effect: it would be like having a rising cake foaming out of the shafts. Some figures: one small power plant (500 MW) will produce 338,000 tonnes of CO2 (cretin dixit) and he can capture 90% of it to produce 578,000 tonnes of bicarb (using his figures which I have not checked). This one, single, power station will produce 5.8 times the current industrial production of bicarb. Let's visualise 580 kt of the stuff as a solid lump. It has a specific gravity of about 2.8, so we are looking at ~200,000 m3. 20 month's production could produce a column of 1 m x 1 m base which would reach the moon!!!!!!

    OK, what will you do with the megatonnes of chlorine that the process would produce? For each two molecules of bicarb you produce, you will have a molecule of chlorine gas released and two molecules of carbon dioxide gas absorbed. The chemical industry already has a surplus of chlorine, because PVC, CFCs and many other chlorine-containing compounds have a bad press and production is diminishing. Despite what this idiot says, you could not give it away; it is literally without value. Allow it to be emitted? It is HIGHLY toxic (was used in the 1st WW to kill the enemy) and heavier than air. Some of it would form hypochloric acid with rain, which would reduce on contact with organic material to hydrochloric acid (sodium hypochlorite is bleach). Some of it would reach the ozone layer where the molecular bond would break into monatomic chlorine under the combined effect of oxidation by ozone and ultraviolet photolysis causing vast ozone depletion.

    The final lunacy of this article is in the last 2 sentences, that bicarb is mined. It never has been. Before electrolysis was current (no pun intended), it was produced by the Solvay process which used a mined sodium carbonate, but this is expensive and requires large quantities of ammonia. I'm not a geologist, but it would surprise me greatly if there were any exploitable sodium bicarbonate mines in the world. So the guy is not only mentally deficient, he is a liar, incapable of thinking through a problem.

    When will people like this think their ideas through?
    Last edited by Brian Ellis; 29 November 2007, 08:00. Reason: Small corrections
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      what if they just stopped at the first step (sodium carbonate), is it possible?. wouldn't that be a lot less problematic and still commercially exploitable (glass)?

      edit: ok, except they would still need a lot of NaOH

      Comment


      • #4
        The problem with sodium carbonate would be you would need twice as much NaOH. OK, current usage is ~10 Mt, so there could be a potentially better market. Even so, it would still not be viable, IMHO, for large quantities to be produced and the energy requirements would be twice as great.
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment

        Working...
        X