Posts

Non-Thermal Plasma H2, no CO2

/0 Comments/in , /by

Precision H2, a Canadian company, is developing a non-thermal plasma process which disassembles methane (CH4) into hydrogen and carbon black. Note, no CO2!

There are dozens of plasma companies, often focused on medical waste, and some on power (with coal or some waste stream as the feedstock). (See footnote) Usually these are hot plasmas, and tend to be expensive due to the materials problems at high temperature. In a plasma, sometimes called the 4th state of matter, material is very highly ionized by an electrical arc discharge. Lightning is a good example, and many plasma systems are brute force, require a lot of energy, and get very hot.

A so-called “non-thermal” plasma is one in which the electric discharge is controlled and confined. Locally it is extremely hot, but each spark doesn’t last long enough to heat up the surrounding materials. Precision H2 has created a “plasma dissociation reactor”, where the electrical discharge is carefully shaped and especially tailored to the specific job of dismantling methane. The electrical energy goes straight to the molecule, and doesn’t have to get there as heat. (It’s a little bit like cooking with microwaves instead of a conventional oven.)

The methane streaming through the reactor is partly converted to H2, with the carbon dropping out as a nanopowder. The output is then a blend of methane enriched with hydrogen (hythane). In an intriguing twist, this blend can be sent to a fuel cell which will consume the hydrogen, leaving the methane to be cycled back to the reactor. In effect, the fuel cell itself is used to separate out the hydrogen–for its own use. This configuration would produce electricity directly, rather than hydrogen. Pure hydrogen is gotten by using PSA (pressure swing absorption) or membranes to do the separation. Potential partners are already in discussions on both fronts (i.e. fuel cells and purification). Also, hythane can be used directly in engines, to good advantage.

The key is electronics (pulse shaping, and analysis and control of the discharge), and costs for electronics are well understood. Because temperatures remain modest, the reaction chamber can be made inexpensively, and is readily scalable.

There is an energy penalty–not all the “fuel value” of the methane is used, because the carbon itself isn’t oxidized. Instead, since no oxygen is present, no CO2 is produced–think of it as “presequestration”, with resulting GHG and carbon-trading benefits. Also, the carbon is in a valuable form which can be sold, enhancing overall economics. Detailed thermodynamic and financial models have been developed, and the company believes that even today, with “one-off” systems, they can produce hydrogen cost competitively.

The company is raising a round of equity financing.

Contact Dan Fletcher
514-842-3575, danfletcher@precisionh2.com
Precision H2
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
http://www.precisionh2.com/

~~~~~~
An amazing find can be found at:
http://www.noharm.org/nonincineration

“Non-Incineration Medical Waste Treatment Technologies”, an August 2001 report …. explores the environmental and economic impacts, among other considerations, of about 50 specific technologies.

Chapter 4 in particular is an exhaustive review of every technology and nearly every company with a means to destroy hazardous materials. While the focus is on medical waste, most of the technologies also apply to hazardous materials, municipal waste and sludge, biomass, and fossil fuels. Gasification, pyrolysis, plasmas, and many different chemical and electrochemical oxidation and reduction methods are out there, and are being used today at industrial scale. When they can be made to work, the issues are cost, reliability, system longevity, emissions (creation of new hazards, e.g. dioxins), materials handling, feedstock variability, etc. etc. The key is to inject sufficient energy into the material to break the chemical bonds, for example, to get it hot enough for long enough (dwell time).

Cleantech Venture Forum II

/0 Comments/in , /by

Cleantech Venture Network’s second venture forum in San Franciso, Apr 30- May1 was a great success. Over 260 people in attendance included mostly investors, along with representatives of the 23 companies selected to present (from over 200 companies that applied).

You may recall reading about Cleantech Venture Network in UFTO Notes 26 July, 1 October ’02.

The surge of interest in cleantech was noteworthy. Many new faces were there, some of them very prominent VC firms whose usual sectors of IT and telecom have lost their lustre. These investors seem to be checking out energy tech and cleantech to see what the opportunities are, and whether it might represent a “next big thing”. Some of them are actually doing deals, too. Panels sessions discussed this very trend, while others went into water, Asia, and the overall outlook for investing in cleantech. The new issue of the Venture Monitor, due in a couple of weeks (for members only!) will have details from the panel discussions.

The presenting companies ranged from a successful biopesticide company (better, cheaper, safer than chemicals…really), to several hydrogen, fuel cell, and solar PV companies, and some water and waste management. (The PV companies were described in another UFTO Note just recently). Here’s the list. (If you want additional information, please contact me. I’m not including details here in the interests of brevity, but I can send you a version with longer descriptions, as well as individual company’s own writeups. Some may appear in future notes.)

AgraQuest, Inc. – Natural pesticides
aqWise – Wastewater treatment retrofit increases throughput
CellTech Power – Fundamentally new solid oxide fuel cell acts like a refuelable battery.
FiveStar Technologies – Advanced materials via cavitation technology
Global Solar – thin film PV in production
H2Gen – On-site hydrogen generation via small scale steam methane reforming
Hoku Scientific, Inc – PEM fuel cell membrane to replace Nafion
HyRadix Inc. ? Small scale hydrogen generators via thermal reforming
Integrated Env. Technologies – Waste Treatment via Plasma
iPower – Distributed Generation ? New genset
Mach Energy ? Energy management services to commercial buildings
PolyFuel Inc – Direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) systems
PowerTube – Geothermal powerplant downhole
Powerzyme – Enzymatic fuel cell
PrecisionH2 – Hydrogen, power and carbon from methane, via cold plasma (no CO2!)
Primotive – unique electric motor/generator
QuestAir – Gas purification via pressure swing absorption
Raycom Technologies – Thin film solar cells via high volume sputter coating
Sensicore – Sensors monitor water quality cheaply
Solaicx – Polycrystalline silicon PV
Solicore – Thin film lithium batteries
Verdant – Wave power via underwater windmills

Here’s a definition of “Cleantech”, from the website:
**The concept of “clean” technologies embraces a diverse range of products, services, and processes that are inherently designed to provide superior performance at lower costs, greatly reduce or eliminate environmental impacts and, in doing so, improve the quality of life. Clean technologies span many industries, from alternative forms of energy generation to water purification to materials-efficient production techniques.**

I strongly suggest you consider an investor membership, for dealflow, Venture Monitor, networking and other benefits. (http://www.cleantechventures.com). The next Forum will be held this Fall in New York.

E-Beam Stack Gas Scrubbing

/0 Comments/in , /by

This might be titled, “Son of Ebara”, for those of you familiar with the history. It appears that dramatically better performance may be possible.

This text was provided to me by a private development group with access and connections to the new e-beam technology that is mentioned. I’ve edited the letter to remove some of the proprietary details. Even so, important ideas are disclosed. I would ask that you be especially careful not share it with anyone outside your company (as with all UFTO materials). If you’re seriously interested in pursuing this, I will put you in touch with the sources.

———————————————-

Below, please, find a short overview of both old and new developments in e-beam processing of industrial exhaust gases.

E-Beam Processing of Industrial Exhaust Gases

— Background
In the past few years new methods of decomposition of VOCs as well as inorganic compounds in flue gases have been developed, primarily involving low-temperature, non-equilibrium plasmas used to selectively decompose organic molecules. The high concentration of electrons, ions, excited species and radicals make these plasmas well suited for driving decomposition reactions that otherwise could be initiated only at very high gas temperature.

Such plasma methods are of particular interest in the decomposition of dilute concentrations of halogenated organic compounds in carrier gas streams such as dry or wet (about 10% relative humidity) air. This type of gaseous waste stream is encountered for example in vapor extraction from soil, air stripping from contaminated water and air pollution control.

Low temperature, non-equilibrium plasmas can be generated by electron beams. They operate at atmospheric pressure in large volumes and in a highly controllable fashion making very high throughput possible. It has been also demonstrated that electron beam becomes even more efficient in decomposition of certain VOCs when combined with certain type of electrical discharge.
Advantages of e-beam induced decomposition over thermal processes become even more pronounced at dilute concentrations of VOCs in the exhaust gases. Because of the high non-equilibrium level of ionization and the selectivity of plasma-chemical decomposition processes the energy required for a given decomposition of dilute concentrations of “electron hungry” VOCs can be 10 to 100 times less than in thermal processes such as incineration, where energy is channeled to all molecules in the gaseous waste stream.

— The EBARA Experience
The Electron Beam Dry Scrubbing (EBDS) process has been first proposed as an efficient method for the simultaneous removal of SO2 and NOx from industrial flue gas in early 1970s. In this process, the e-beam energy generates high concentration of oxidants (OH, HO2, O3) converting SO2 and NOx to nitric and sulfuric acid which in turn form solid powder of ammonium nitrate and sulfate in the presence of added ammonia (NH3).

The Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute and the University of Tokyo have carried out the first research on EBDS in 1970. Follow up technical development by EBARA Corporation lead to the first 10,000 Nm3/hr pilot plant built for a sintering plant at Yahata Works Nippon Steel Corp in 1977. At this plant a flue gas at temperatures T=70-90 C containing 200 ppm of SO2 and 180 ppm of NOx has been treated by 2 x 750keV/45kW e-beam accelerators.

In the US the first and only EBARA-process demonstration unit with a maximum flow rate of 30,000 Nm3/hr has been put in operation in June 1985 at a coal fired power plant in Indianapolis, Indiana. At this plant 2 x 800 keV/80kW electron accelerators has been employed treating 1,000 ppm of SO2 and 400 ppm of NOx in a flue gas at temperatures T=66-150 C.

In December 1985 a 20,000 Nm3/hr pilot plant has been built at Badenwerk, Karlsruhe, FRG at 550 MW coal fired facility employing two 300KeV/90 kW accelerators to treat 50-500 ppm of SO2 and 300-500 ppm of NOx in 70-100 C exhaust gas. In early 1990s similar e-beam treatment pilot units have been built in China, Poland and Russia.

One of the main limitations of EBARA process has been a considerable energy requirement for oxidation of SO2/NOx in an air stream, which amounts in average to about 10 eV/molecule. For a coal fired 300 MW electrical power plant this translates to 12 MW (4% of the electrical power generated by the plant required e-beam power. Back in 1980s the most powerful accelerators were below 100 kW, so 12 MW installation would require 120 x100 kW accelerators and the total accelerator costs in the access of $180 mln. were prohibiting.

— What’s New
A new generation of powerful accelerators manufactured in Russia which can deliver 1MW of e-beam power for the cost of about $1.5 million per unit, can already reduce cost of EBARA process by order of magnitude.

Moreover, a synergetic approach combining electrical discharge and electron beam may allow another tenfold decrease in flue gas processing cost. This is done by essentially substituting much less expensive power of corona discharge for most of the expensive e-beam power. This process maintains all the advantages of e-beam processing such as stability of operation and uniform treatment of large volumes and high mass flows of flue gas — for a fraction of cost compare with e-beam treatment alone. Note that corona discharge alone, without e-beam stimulating effect, suffers from intrinsic non-uniformities and instabilities which greatly reduce its efficiency for industrial scale applications.

Experiments on SO2 oxidation in e-beam stimulated corona discharge have been conducted. We were investigating the plasma chemical processes in an electron beam driven plasma reactor for efficient decomposition of SO2 , NOx or any VOC in carrier gases at atmospheric pressures.

The reactor used an electron beam to stimulate corona discharge at sub-breakdown pulsed electric field. A combination of e-beam and superimposed electrical field in the form of stimulated corona discharge creates plasma with highly controllable electron density and temperature and therefore highly controllable chemical reaction rates.

Synergetic effect of SO2 decomposition by the combined action of e-beam and corona discharge was estimated by the coefficient K equal to the ratio of the discharge energy Wc, consumed from high-voltage source, to the energy Wb deposited by electron beam within the volume of the discharge:
K = Wc / Wb

It has been demonstrated that under certain experimental conditions the energy of discharge consumed from high-voltage source can exceed e-beam energy input by more than 300 times. In other words, a low cost high-voltage rectifier instead of a high-cost electron accelerator provided about 99.7% of the flue gas ionization energy. As a result the same SO2 decomposition effect in e-beam stimulated corona discharge can be achieved with 300 times lower e-beam power compare with irradiation by e-beam alone.

There some indications that shorter e-beam pulses and higher discharge threshold voltage Umax may also lead to the significant decrease of energy cost per oxidation of one SO2 molecule from a typical value of 10 eV/mol down to 3 or even 1eV/mol. However, even at the lower Umax values rather efficient SO2 oxidation process is taking place.

The main purpose of these initial experiments on SO2 oxidation was to demonstrate significance of synergetic effect in e-beam stimulated corona discharge. Discovered synergetic effect allows efficient SO2 decomposition under the conditions when only 0.3% of the total ionization energy is provided by an electron beam with the rest coming from a low cost electrical discharge. Further experiments are necessary to determine the optimum conditions for most efficient decomposition of SO2./NOx mixtures, as well as VOCs in industrial exhaust gases.

We are open to any form of collaboration with a US utility company or research organization, which would enable us to continue these very promising experiments.

I look forward to your comments and suggestions.