Net Zero Natural Gas Plant -- The Game Changer

Forbes ^ | July 31, 2019 | James Conca

[Svartalfiar]

This process sounds very promising, especially the claims of extra efficiency at converting the energy in the natural gas to electric power. But I don’t know where developing countries that don’t have much of an oil industry (like India) are going to put all the CO2 extracted by this new process. They could just skip that step, release the CO2 into the air, and just take advantage of the higher efficiency (which should lower emissions of everything, including CO2, compared to conventional power plants.)

Well sure, ANY combustion process is going to be more efficient if you use pure oxygen as opposed to 21% oxygen (air). That's just basic chemistry. And, lack of nitrogen (78% air) will of course mean you don't have any nitrous emissions.

That said, what's the cost to bottle all this pure oxygen they need for their fancy machine? Is it cheaper / more efficient than just using current power generators? How would a developing country manage to do this? Is it actually cost effective? Pure oxygen isn't that cheap...

[trebb]

And when plants die, they can't make Oxygen out of CO² and those still living need the CO²

What could go wrong...except the product of burning something is usually Carbon and Water which means they are misleading us...

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The process involves burning fossil fuel with oxygen instead of air to generate electricity without emitting any carbon dioxide (CO2).

Yeah, that's impossible. (or a lie)

Where does the O2 come from...is it "free"?

[norwaypinesavage]

The energy used to produce the electricity and heat comes from the combustion of the natural gas, NH4. The combustion of NH4 produces water-H20, and carbon dioxide-CO2. This is true, no matter what pressure the system operates at, or how many words you copy from links.

The CO2 is not consumed in the process and thus must be disposed of. The CO2 is NOT "recycled". Once some small amount is "recycled", the total amount required for combustion is excess that must be disposed of. There is simply no market for all of the CO2 produced in the world to make electricity from liquid petroleum, natural gas, coal, or even unicorn farts. This especially true if electric propulsion becomes mandated for cars, trucks, trains, boats and airplanes.

[aspasia]

Yeah, that's impossible. (or a lie)

Comments from Freepers on this thread were informative for me. The quick dismissals not so much.

We're going to see "climate neutral" goals here as soon as the Dems take over the administration. Any technology that undercuts their march is beneficial, even though it appears that some of these efforts are part of their scheme and therefore a scam. That's probably going too far. Flying, too, was once impossible and unbelievably stupid to try. But I'd say any invention that thwarts their entire effort would really be a game changer.

[norwaypinesavage]

The energy used to produce the electricity and heat comes from the combustion of the natural gas, N CH4. The combustion of N CH4 produces water-H20, and carbon dioxide-CO2. This is true, no matter what pressure the system operates at, or how many words you copy from links. The CO2 is not consumed in the process and thus must be disposed of. The CO2 is NOT "recycled". Once some small amount is "recycled", the total amount required for combustion is excess that must be disposed of.

There is simply no market for all of the CO2 produced in the world to make electricity from liquid petroleum, natural gas, coal, or even unicorn farts. This especially true if electric propulsion becomes mandated for cars, trucks, trains, boats and airplanes.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Any technology that undercuts their march is beneficial, even though it appears that some of these efforts are part of their scheme and therefore a scam. That's probably going too far. Flying, too, was once impossible and unbelievably stupid to try. But I'd say any invention that thwarts their entire effort would really be a game changer."

Of course that's true. However, it's VERY important to note that there is no known simple "invention" that produces sufficient energy to give all 9 billion future inhabitants of the earth the standard of living enjoyed by most people in the US today. Articles that ignore this reality and tout some unrealistic process that violates the laws of physics do more harm than good. They give people the false impression that simple government mandates will solve the problem. It's important to retain scientific realities, and not let unrealistic notions govern our behaviors.

[i_robot73]

>
hmmm. We subsidize families and children.
>

You state that like it’s a GOOD thing.

Yet another example of “It’s not fascism when WE do it”; doesn’t matter the party

[aspasia]

there is no known simple "invention" that produces sufficient energy to give all 9 billion future inhabitants of the earth the standard of living enjoyed by most people in the US today

This article certainly isn't about that.

[zeugma]

it does not say how that separation process is being powered.

Most likely it's all smoke and mirrors.The laws of thermodynamics are inviolate. You cannot get more out than you put in.

[TexasGator]

You missed the point.

[aquila48]

“The process involves burning fossil fuel with oxygen instead of air to generate electricity without emitting any carbon dioxide (CO2).”

A bit misleading. When I first read that paragraph I thought “without emitting any CO2 “ meant “without producing any CO2”. Well after further reading you find out it produces as much CO2 as other natural gas plants, but they claim that it’s easier to sequester, but they haven’t figured out how to do that in the scale required.

[aquila48]

“A single dollar spent on preventing the production of CO2 is a dollar wasted. CO2 is not a problem.”

It constantly amazes me the amount of money, brainpower and angst that we’re spending to solve a non problem to appease fear mongering control freaks hell bent on controlling our lives.

[aspasia]

as in “no stack”

[mwilli20]

“a new commercially competitive, non-polluting, plasma-based primary source of massive power from the conversion of hydrogen atoms of water molecules to dark matter”

By golly I think I know why it doesn’t get any press :-)

[TigersEye]

No kidding! Enough money to feed a lot of starving people. Or enough money to clean up a lot of real pollution. But liberals don’t really care so ...

[_Jim]

Two questions: Do you need anything explained, and, would you like to see a ‘talk’/lecture about this before a college audience?

[monkeyshine]

Can’t they split the CO2 and re-use the oxygen in the process, and the carbon into other products eg. fertilizer?

[Pining_4_TX]

The mo’ tax credits, the mo’ better. A tax credit is not the same as a subsidy. Tax credits allow people and businesses to keep more of the money they earned. Would you rather the money go into the black hole of government waste, corruption, and fraud?

Ridiculous wind farms and corrosive ethanol are subsidized. Stop all subsidies to any business. For that matter, taxpayers are subsidizing laziness and drug use via welfare payments. Subsidies hurt the recipients as well as those forced to pay for them.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The quick dismissals not so much...Flying, too, was once impossible and unbelievably stupid to try.

Did you flunk chemistry?