Greener Way of Getting Electricity From Natural Gas

A new type of natural-gas electric power plant proposed by MIT researchers could provide electricity with zero carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, at costs comparable to or less than conventional natural-gas plants, and even to coal-burning plants. But that can only come about if and when a price is set on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — a step the U.S. Congress and other governments are considering as a way to halt climate change.



postdoctoral associate Thomas Adams and Paul I. Barton, the Lammot du Pont Professor of Chemical Engineering, propose a system that uses solid-oxide fuel cells, which can produce power from fuel without burning it. The system 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 system would also have the advantage of running on natural gas, a relatively plentiful fuel source — proven global reserves of natural gas are expected to last about 60 years at current consumption rates — that is considered more environmentally friendly than coal or oil. (Present natural-gas power plants produce an average of 1,135 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour of electricity produced — half to one-third the emissions from coal plants, depending on the type of coal.)

Natural gas already accounts for 22 percent of all U.S. 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.

The system proposed by Adams and Barton would not emit into the air any carbon dioxide or other gases believed responsible for global warming, but would instead produce a stream of mostly pure carbon dioxide. This stream could be harnessed and stored underground relatively easily, a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). One additional advantage of the proposed system is that, unlike a conventional natural gas plant with CCS that would consume significant amounts of water, the fuel-cell based system actually produces clean water that could easily be treated to provide potable water as a side benefit, Adams says.

Although no full-scale plants using such systems have yet been built, the basic principles have been demonstrated in a number of smaller units including a 250-kilowatt plant, and prototype megawatt-scale plants are planned for completion around 2012. Actual utility-scale power plants would likely be on the order of 500 megawatts, Adams says. And 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.”

Adams says practical application of such systems is “not very far away at all,” and could probably be ready for commercialization within a few years. “This is near-horizon technology,” he says.

Costs and benefits

Adams and Barton, with funding from the BP-MIT Conversion Research Program, 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.

Combined-cycle natural gas plants — the most efficient type of fossil-fuel power plants in use today — could be retrofitted with a carbon-capture system to reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 90 percent. But the MIT researchers’ study found that their proposed system could eliminate virtually 100 percent of these emissions, at a comparable cost for the electricity produced, and with even a higher efficiency (in terms of the amount of electricity produced from a given amount of fuel). Jack Brouwer, associate director of the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California, Irvine, says that the high efficiency and the carbon separation capabilities of solid-oxide fuel cell technology “are indeed impressive.”

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 — which attempts to take into account the true price exacted on the environment by greenhouse gas emissions — “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. Such a pricing mechanism would be put in place, for example, by the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act” that was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in July, through its “cap and trade” provisions. (A corresponding bill has not yet reached the floor of the U.S. Senate.) If the program becomes law, the actual price per ton of carbon would vary, being determined through the free market.

CCS is considered the only practical way of meeting reduced emissions targets under a cap-and-trade program, because alternatives to the use of fossil fuels are not far enough advanced to be able to quickly replace them at reasonable cost. CCS involves separating out the carbon dioxide from other gases in the plant’s exhaust, and then injecting them into deep geological formations (for example, in depleted oil wells) to keep them from going into the atmosphere. Most approaches to capturing the carbon dioxide emissions from a fossil-fuel power plant require the use of a chemical solvent that absorbs the carbon dioxide from a mixture of gases — a process that is inherently inefficient and adds significantly to the cost of the power produced. Adams and Barton’s system eliminates this inefficient separation step.

One of the critiques most often leveled against proposals for fuel-cell power plants is that the technology has high initial costs compared to conventional combustion technologies. But the new study found that once carbon pricing is in effect, even if the cost of fuel cells remains more than double that targeted by the U.S. Department of Energy for 2010, the solid-oxide fuel cell system would be the cheapest option available in terms of lifecycle costs of electricity produced, even though the up-front capital costs could be three to four times greater than for natural gas or coal combustion systems.

In fact, the system’s predicted efficiency is so high that it beats the lifecycle cost of a combined-cycle natural gas plant, even without carbon pricing. And the study shows that a very low level of carbon tax, on the order of $5 to $10 per ton, would make this technology cheaper than coal plants, which are currently the lowest cost option for electricity generation.


Read more...

Soiled Power Lamp

Normally when it comes to energy, we talk about biofuels and hydrogen sources like methanol. But one designer decided to go for a more natural, easily accessible power source. One of Marieke Strap's rather interesting projects is a lamp powered by nothing else other than your run-of-the-mill garden soil. Aptly called the "Soil Lamp," it exploits the naturally-occurring electrolytes in healthy garden soil to provide energy enough to power a simple LED light bulb.


According to Inhabitat, because soil contains metals and microbes similar to those used in fuel cells, all Strap needed to do is devise zinc and copper conductive plates to harness the potential energy. Aside from having to design plates to harness energy from the soil, all the setup needs is regular watering, just like a plant. While the design itself is small in scale, it will be interesting to see where this idea leads in the future. To note, a couple of other soil-powered projects we featured before are Harvard's microbial fuel cell and Living Power System's fuel cell.

Read more...

Fuel Came From Styrofoam

You know polystyrene foam - that thing we more commonly refer to as Styrofoam, otherwise known as the bane of recycling? Yes, THAT Styrofoam has recently been proven as an effective ingredient to up the efficiency and performance of biodiesel. And no, it's not April Fools all over again.


A study funded by the Department of Defense on finding ways to generate energy and recycle waste in the battlefield stumbled upon this gem of an information. The methodology used was quite elementary - the scientists merely dissolved Styrofoam with biodiesel in varying percentages (from 2 to 20 percent) and tested the fuel's performance. "A polystyrene cup will dissolve almost instantly in biodiesel, like a snowflake in water," says Song-Charng Kong, one of the researchers. The polystyrene material doesn't do quite well with other liquid fuels though.

Results are varying but one thing is clear - create a mixture of biodiesel with five percent of Styrofoam and you get an increase an output of the same rate. Unfortunately, any concentration beyond five percent and the fuel becomes too viscous, thereby negatively affecting performance. This limitation might be overcome in the future, or it might not, but fact remains that this discovery presents a possible and very agreeable option when it comes to recycling polystyrene foam in the garbage.

Read more...

Hydrogen Powered Vehicle

Scientists are getting mad. They are like magicians who transform things in a wink of an eye. But unlike the magician, it’s no mean feat that they could, for example, use water to run your pick-up truck or car at home! You may sometimes complain that if water will leak into the gas tank, the engine would be corroded and in due time will function poorly. But not with the hybrid hydrogen-powered cars invented.

They are in fact, one of the fastest cars invented without the pressure of consuming too much gas and the guilt of polluting the environment. How is this possible that water can be used as fuel for cars?

First, hydrogen powered cars are invented in answer of the call to save the environment from the worsening pollution released by carbon dioxide gases in the air. These harmful gases deplete the ozone layer creating that so-called green house effect since there are more carbon molecules than plants and trees that could absorb them. And, as a result, these carbon molecules create a heating green house effect in the atmosphere. The idea of hydrogen powered cars is not so new; in fact, it has been here for decades. But only a few people would buy it because it needs to convert your car’s engine into a hydrogen-compatible engine.

Water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen molecules in such a way that these two hydrogen molecules in water are increased in atomic power while maintaining the oxygen molecule which aids in easy combustion. There are hydrogen-powered cars which are called hybrids because they use two power sources-water and gasoline. The other one uses purely water for fuel. There are hydrogen kits available in some machine shops if you want your car to be a hybrid. And believe me, experts said that hydrogen powered cars run faster and smoothly than traditional cars.

If you come to think of it, scientists are not really crazy. Well, if they appear to be, it is because of their determination to help the human race and the environment to live longer. In the next generations, maybe hydrogen powered cars will attain its perfection and that anybody would be aware of it and would use it.

Read more...

Common Sources of Renewable Sources of Energy

You might not think of it but saving your electric energy and switching to renewable and alternative sources of energy in your house will save lots of money for your electric bills as well as save the environment from global warming. If you think you can’t do this, just browse the internet and you’ll see a lot of testimonies confirming that indeed renewable sources of energy work!


One of the most commonly-used renewable sources of energy is solar power. There are many websites that provide DIY instructions on how to construct your home made solar panels just by using recycled tins aluminum. Some would require the use of a well that absorbs sun rays. In the well is a heating rod that conducts the heat energy from sun rays and relay to other parts that would finally convert solar energy to electric energy. The use of solar energy has limitations, though because this would be more efficient in places where there is a lot of sunlight.

The power of the wind could also be used for renewable sources of energy. If your house is located in flat terrains or in plateaus, then renewable wind energy could be helpful to you. Again, you browse the internet for easy instructions on how to make wind turbines. There are also local dealers for plastic and metal wind turbines to be set up in your yard. Though, some environmentalist complain that wind turbines kill birds that fly along the way, but it is worth a try. It produces energy without carbon emission.

Aside from solar and wind energy, you can also try simple but effective ways to save electricity. To lessen the use of our air conditioners, we just have to carefully insulate our houses so that it will be protected but extreme heat and coldness on summer and winter seasons.

Read more...

Solar Water Heater

William J. Weber wrote this article in Mother Earth News about his experiences with building his own solar water heater, with detailed on materials, and how much it costs, as well as how to construct it.




Read more...