CCS Pioneer Reddy Patents New CO2 Sequestration Tech

Print Friendly


A long-running utility-scale pilot capturing CO2 from the flue gas of a 2,120 MW coal fired power plant in Wyoming is succeeding in capturing about a third of the carbon dioxide by mineralizing it in fly ash, according to a report at Energy Prospects.

It is no mere lab test. Dr KJ Reddy, a professor at the University of Wyoming School of Energy Resources, is the pioneer in taking highly alkaline ash from oil shale combustion to a more stable state to be more environmentally friendly, and his pioneering research, published over the last three decades in the Journal of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Science and Technology Journal, laid the groundwork for mineral carbonation studies by other scientists, engineers and researchers. These studies are the basis for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies.

His new CCS process (SequesTech) has now run continuously for 7 years in a 2,120 MW coal plant, removing 25 to 30 percent of the CO2 from 300 to 500 standard cubic feet per minute of flue gas with a concentration of 11 to 12.5 percent CO2.

The process sequesters CO2 emissions in fly ash in the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. Reddy’s three decades of research on speeding up the natural process of CO2 absorption by mineralization is the basis of the development.

He hopes his SequesTech process will be ready for commercial application “within a year or so.” He said the technology is estimated to cost $10 to $12 per ton of mineralized (sequestered) CO2.

“The ash, or fly ash, serves as a sink for the CO2,” Reddy said of his process, which runs flue gas through a fluidized bed reactor containing fly ash captured by a coal plant’s bag houses. “In turn, the CO2 fixes the toxic and heavy metals in the ash. This is a natural process, but very slow. So we needed to figure out how to speed it up.”

Unlike other carbon capture processes being considered, which would require additional energy to isolate, pressurize, transport and inject CO2 deep under ground, this uses no energy, other than to run the fans that blow the flue gas through the reactors. It also binds the carbon, making it safer than sequestration. The fly ash used to sequester the CO2 and other pollutants could also still be used safely in most traditional fly ash applications, such as gypsum.

Reddy’s SequesTech process is also capturing most of the SO2 and 80% of flue gas mercury as well – making this a potential game changer for climate protection – because regardless of how it quibbles over carbon, the coal industry already has to use some means to reduce its mercury and SO2. This kills 3 birds with one stone.

Susan Kraemer (723 Posts)

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate and GreenProphet and has been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow and Scientific American.   As a former serial entrepreneur in product design she brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention: solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan @dotcommodity on twitter.


  • Anonymous

    Susan – you might find this an interesting read…

    “4. Legislators are aware that while (cutting) the PTC would cost
    U.S. jobs, removing incentives from the oil and gas industry is
    unlikely to do so.

    “[Cutting oil and gas incentives
    won’t result in] a loss of jobs in the industry because of the profit
    margins. I think it would be hard to argue that if the PTCs weren’t
    extended, there would be no job impacts. I think there would be. There
    would be a loss of green jobs.”

    5. The political base for renewables differs from that of the fossil fuel industries, but that is changing.

    “Renewable energy has bipartisan support. The oil and gas industry has
    strong support in certain states. In Congress, it’s better to have a
    handful of really strongly motivated people than a lot of more tepid
    support,” Kelliher said, but “in North Dakota, Republican or Democrat,
    they know the wind industry is important to the state,” he added. “We’re
    starting to see some of that same kind of regional support that’s
    strongly motivated and that’s really important in Congress.””"

    http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ten-insider-tips-on-what-renewable-energy-can-expect-before-the-next-electi/

  • http://importantmedia.org Important Media Umbrella Acct

    nice additional comments here, David. i completely agree

  • Anumakonda Jagadeesh

    God Process Dr. Dr K J Reddy. Congratulations.

    Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

  • Anonymous

    This might be an awful development.

    30% of the CO2 is not enough if it means that we keep burning coal at the rate we now do. But the coal industry will declare “Problem Solved!!!” and utility companies will try to keep running their paid off coal plants.

    We need to get coal off the grid and replace it with truly clean energy.

    • BlueRock

      Yup. And we also shouldn’t be distracted from the fact that coal is dirty at *every* stage, starting with mining.

      There’s only one solution for coal: don’t mine and burn coal.

      • Susan Kraemer

        In an ideal world run by sensible democracies, sure, I would decree 0% coal. But we don’t live in one any more now (maybe if climate change had been discovered during the Enlightenment of the 18th century, before we invented Fox News), and democracies will get even weaker over the next few decades as climate change and peak oil brutalize us even more.

        But r

        educing our coal to supplying some small portion that is politically possible (with
        bribes?), say to about 15
        % of electricity (down from its current 44%), and then cutting the CO2 30%
        from that, would be better than driving the fossil industry
        to creating fascism by demanding 0% coal.

        I don’t know what the exact effect on GHGs would be of supplying 15% of electricity from coal that emits
        60% of its current emissions would be (compared with 44% of electricity from coal emitting 100%) but it might be low
        enough to make
        a safe climate.

        • Anonymous

          Here, in the US, we don’t have the political ability to simply close coal plants. But we are (have been) in the process of closing them based on cost. We have been able to use existing environmental laws to force coal plants to make expensive modifications and that has priced coal out of the market.

          TVA recently agreed to close roughly 6% of the country’s coal plants. That, alone, would move coal from the mid-40% into the 30% range.

          If Reddy’s solution works then the cost of cleaning the non-carbon emissions drops close to zero, the financial pressure to close plants disappears, and we’re stuck with lots of “70% nasty” coal on our grid.

          • Susan Kraemer

            As always, Bob, you have an excellent point… but don’t you think there is a connection between how close we did get to shutting down coal in those few months when sensible government had a brief 60 vote majority, and the “raging Tea Party” that has been unleashed by the fossil industry since? I just don’t think that realistically, the coal industry is willing to be shut down by the majority of voters in the US using mere laws,because combined with oil and gas, the fossil industry is the most powerful sector on the planet – far more powerful than any government.

          • Susan Kraemer

            I mean, that “existing environmental laws to force coal plants to make expensive modifications” are endangered now and in the future. Citizens United ruling has ended the possibility of electing a sensible majority again, and these are already being dismantled. Look at the EPA budget cuts and that’s while we still nominally can stop them at the Senate.

          • Susan Kraemer

            I mean, that “existing environmental laws to force coal plants to make expensive modifications” are endangered now and in the future. Citizens United ruling has ended the possibility of electing a sensible majority again, and these are already being dismantled. Look at the EPA budget cuts and that’s while we still nominally can stop them at the Senate.

          • Anonymous

            We had 60 Democratic senators for 96 days, but some of those Democratic senators were from fossil fuel states and were in the position of either supporting their local job producers or turning their seats over to Republicans.

            We’re very unlikely to see coal plants shut by getting a law through Congress. There’s not only the “protect our state’s economy”, there’s the “greenies are for it, we’ve got to be against it” crap that comes with a two party system.

            I don’t think the EPA is in danger unless we give the right wing control over both Houses and the White House in 2012, and neither are looking likely.

            I think our route away from coal is the one laid out by the Google Guys. Make renewables cheaper than coal and let market pressures kill coal.

            Reddy’s solution may make the job harder.

            (Fossil fuel industry strength will wane as the renewable energy/EV industries grow in size. Wind is already spending noticeable money on lobbying.)

          • Susan Kraemer

            Re getting a majority; keeping and strengthening EPA laws; google approach; more lobby power from clean energy – hope your intuition about the future is right! Mine is more pessimistic: assuming worst case political scenario that we seem to headed for: what is our best option?

          • Anonymous

            Considering a worst case political scenario (I avoid assuming the worst) –

            Wind is already as cheap as, or cheaper than coal. Solar is on a seemingly unstoppable path to becoming so. Were the anti-green forces to seize 100% control of the US government the most they could likely do is to eliminate subsidies for renewables. That would slow renewable installation, but not stop it. Wind and solar will win out over coal and natural gas because they have zero fuel costs.

            Subsidies for EVs could vanish, but it is probably too late for that to kill EVs. The general opinion seems to be that once EVs reach the 500,000 to 1,000,000 unit per year manufacturing level battery prices will drop enough to make EV prices roughly the same as ICEVs. Nissan is tooling up to produce 500,000 Leafs next year, Volt increasing production to 120,000 in 2012 and Ford building an assembly line for lots of Focus EVs in 2012. In the short term EV manufactures will sell more cars outside the US but as oil prices continue to climb and EV prices fall US drivers will switch.

            What a 100% anti-green federal government might do is to slow the transition away from fossil fuels, I don’t think they could stop it. Look at what is happened on the state level. In ‘conservative’ states fossil fuel interests have been unable to pass legislation to curtail wind farms.

            And don’t overlook the fact that Europe as well as much of Asia and South America are going green. Without our help they will finance the R&D.

            Worst case?

            A 100% Republican, anti-green federal government will slow America’s entry into the 21st economy and cost us a lot of good green jobs.

            A 100% Republican, anti-green federal government will speed the decline of the US economy.

            Europe and China will eat our lunch while we focus on hating non-whites, non-straights , non-males and those who don’t pray in an acceptable
            manner.

          • Anonymous

            Let me throw in something that I just saw on the web…


            VW earlier said it plans to locally produce the zero-emission EV
            model in China between 2013 and 2014 through its Chinese joint ventures.

            VW expects China to lead in the global EV market by 2018 under a
            blueprint to mass produce EV as part of its global E-mobility strategy
            unveiled in March 2010.

            The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology certified
            FAW-Volkswagen’s electric vehicle under the Kaili brand on May 3,
            according to VW’s statement.

            “The Chinese government has been encouraging joint ventures of
            foreign car manufactures to develop indigenous brands,” the statement
            said.

            VW is among car makers rushing to produce green cars amid the growing
            global awareness of environment protection and energy efficiency. In
            2009, VW signed partnership deal with BYD to jointly develop hybrid and
            electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries.”

            http://business.globaltimes.cn/industries/2011-05/654338.html

            Daimler (the folks who make Mercedes) also has a partnership with BYD to produce EVs. Renault has partnered with Nissan to build EVs.

            Europe and Asia are going on without us.

          • Susan Kraemer

            As always, Bob, you have an excellent point… but don’t you think there is a connection between how close we did get to shutting down coal in those few months when sensible government had a brief 60 vote majority, and the “raging Tea Party” that has been unleashed by the fossil industry since? I just don’t think that realistically, the coal industry is willing to be shut down by the majority of voters in the US using mere laws,because combined with oil and gas, the fossil industry is the most powerful sector on the planet – far more powerful than any government.

        • BlueRock

          > …and democracies will get even weaker over the next few decades as climate change and peak oil brutalize us even more.

          Yes, that reality has only dawned on me recently. Not a pleasant thought.

          P.S. I made a a long reply several hours ago. It went to moderation because I included some links. Can you set it free, please? :)

          • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

            Sorry, I don’t see it in the back of the store here. It is good and gone, wherever it went. I don’t have much control over the new comment system, in any case.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            i got it. it does go to a different place, and sorry for the delay… you have been “whitelisted” (thought i whitelisted you before, but maybe you had signed in with different info,.. twitter?) should be good to go now. thank you for the useful comments.

        • Anonymous

          “In an ideal world run by sensible democracies, sure, I would decree…”

          An odd definition of democracy.

          As described, this would make coal about as clean as natural gas. “[A]n awful development” is not the characterization that comes to my mind at the prospect of reducing US coal power emissions — more importantly, reducing China’s coal emissions — by 30% for $10/t_CO2.

          • Anonymous

             It’s not the 30% decrease in CO2. 

            It’s the potential ability to spin that into a tale of “clean coal” which can be used to extend our use of coal.

            Natural gas will die an easier death because it is dispatchable.  If there is available fuel-free electricity available on the market then buyers will grab the fuel-free first.  NG use will dwindle over time.

            Coal plants are not dispatchable.  A utility which owns a coal plant and doesn’t need additional generation isn’t going to consider building wind or solar to save fuel costs since they’ve got to keep the coal plant running anyway. 

            They won’t be able to save appreciable money with renewables and will argue that their “clean coal” is just as clean as the next guy’s natural gas plant.