New coal technology harnesses energy without burning, nears pilot-scale development

Feb 06, 2013 by Pam Frost Gorder
New coal technology harnesses energy without burning, nears pilot-scale development
At a research-scale combustion unit at Ohio State University, engineers are testing a clean coal technology that harnesses the energy of coal chemically, without burning it. Here, doctoral student Elena Chung (left) and master's student Samuel ayham (right) display chunks of coal along with pulverized coal (bottle, center) and the iron oxide beads (bottle, right) that enable the chemical reaction. Credit: Photo by Jo McCulty, courtesy of Ohio State University.

A new form of clean coal technology reached an important milestone recently, with the successful operation of a research-scale combustion system at Ohio State University. The technology is now ready for testing at a larger scale.

For 203 continuous hours, the Ohio State combustion unit produced heat from while capturing 99 percent of the produced in the reaction.

Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State's Clean Coal Research Laboratory, pioneered the technology called Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), which chemically harnesses coal's energy and efficiently contains the carbon dioxide produced before it can be released into the atmosphere.

"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat," Fan said. "Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning. We carefully control the chemical reaction so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor."

Dawei Wang, a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, described the technology's potential benefits. "The commercial-scale CDCL plant could really promote our . Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs," he said.

Though other laboratories around the world are trying to develop similar technology to directly convert coal to electricity, Fan's lab is unique in the way it processes fossil fuels. The Ohio State group typically studies coal in the two forms that are already commonly available to the power industry: crushed coal "," and coal-derived syngas.

The latter fuel has been successfully studied in a second sub-pilot research-scale unit, through a similar process called Syngas Chemical Looping (SCL). Both units are located in a building on Ohio State's Columbus campus, and each is contained in a 25-foot-high insulated metal cylinder that resembles a very tall home water heater tank.

No other lab has continuously operated a coal-direct chemical looping unit as long as the Ohio State lab did last September. But as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the experiment could have continued.

"We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. We actually could have run longer, but honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts," she said.

Fan agreed that the nine-day experiment was a success. "In the two years we've been running the sub-pilot plants, our CDCL and SCL units have achieved a combined 830 operating hours, which clearly demonstrates the reliability and operability of our design," he said.

At any one time, the units each produce about 25 thermal kilowatts—that is, thermal energy, which in a full-scale power plant would be used to heat water and turn the steam-powered turbines that create electricity.

The researchers are about to take their technology to the next level: a larger-scale pilot plant is under construction at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, AL. Set to begin operations in late 2013, that plant will produce 250 thermal kilowatts using syngas.

The key to the technology is the use of tiny metal beads to carry oxygen to the fuel to spur the chemical reaction. For CDCL, the fuel is coal that's been ground into a powder, and the metal beads are made of iron oxide composites. The coal particles are about 100 micrometers across—about the diameter of a human hair—and the iron beads are larger, about 1.5-2 millimeters across. Chung likened the two different sizes to talcum powder and ice cream sprinkles, though the mix is not nearly so colorful.

The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured. Hot iron and coal ash are left behind. Because the iron beads are so much bigger than the coal ash, they are easily separated out of the ash, and delivered to a chamber where the heat energy would normally be harnessed for electricity. The coal ash is removed from the system.

The carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage. The iron beads are exposed to air inside the reactor, so that they become re-oxidized be used again. The beads can be re-used almost indefinitely, or recycled.

Since the process captures nearly all the carbon dioxide, it exceeds the goals that DOE has set for developing clean energy. New technologies that use should not raise the cost of electricity more than 35 percent, while still capturing more than 90 percent of the resulting carbon dioxide. Based on the current tests with the research-scale plants, Fan and his team believe that they can meet or exceed that requirement.

Explore further: Fukushima accepts 'temporary' radioactive waste storage

Related Stories

Coal gasification demonstrated

Oct 23, 2012

DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) has developed a molten catalytic process for converting coal into a synthesis gas consisting of roughly 20% methane and 80% hydrogen using alkali hydroxides ...

Clean coal plants mired by cost and delays

Dec 27, 2007

Clean coal-fired plants offer a cleaner fuel source but construction costs and increased greenhouse gas standards in the United States hamper their production.

High-tech power plant construction begins

Sep 10, 2007

The U.S. Department of Energy has announced the start of construction of what will be among the world's cleanest, most efficient coal-fueled power plants.

Recommended for you

Storing solar energy

12 hours ago

A research project conducted by Leclanché S.A., the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), Romande Energie and with the financial support of the Canton of Vaud could bring a real added value in ...

Scientists get set for simulated nuclear inspection

16 hours ago

Some 40 scientists and technicians from around the world will descend on Jordan in November to take part in a simulated on-site inspection of a suspected nuclear test site on the banks of the Dead Sea.

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Sonhouse
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2013
It says the mixture is heated and the reaction proceeds but how much energy does it take to kick start the reaction? What is the ratio of energy needed to start to the energy produced? That ratio is extremely important in coming fusion reactors.
supersubie
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2013
I always feel two ways about new developments like this! While it is great they have found a way to use coal in a much cleaner way and I think that any improvments to the way we can use fossil fuels are great! I also worry that this kind of research just allows us to justify digging up coal from the ground and burning it for longer! If we forget global warming for a second we still have the problem of coal being an ultimately limted resource! It will run out eventually!
ScooterG
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2013
It says the mixture is heated and the reaction proceeds but how much energy does it take to kick start the reaction? What is the ratio of energy needed to start to the energy produced? That ratio is extremely important in coming fusion reactors.


I assume you are worried about the cost of the start-up energy? Let not your heart be troubled, as it does not matter. All you need to know is that the power produced will cost 35% more than what we now pay - so - for your home budget purposes, simply multiply the cost of everything you purchase by 1.25 and you'll be pretty close.

The important thing is that we're saving the environment. As Fan stated above "carbon dioxide...is bad for the environment."

You don't wanna' die, do you?

ScooterG
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2013
we still have the problem of coal being an ultimately limted resource! It will run out eventually!


Yup, it will run out eventually. But we don't need to fret over it just yet as we have a 200-year or so supply. It's slightly below ground level, easy to get to, and inexpensive to mine.

And that's just from one (of several) mines in Wyoming.
djr
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2013
ScooterG "Yup, it will run out eventually. But we don't need to fret over it just yet as we have a 200-year or so supply. It's slightly below ground level, easy to get to, and inexpensive to mine."

Fortunately we can look at Beijing and understand how crazy it would be to think about burning all that coal - especially as wind generates electricity for about the same cost - and solar is headed down - and they don't have the externalities of coal - so that one is a no brainer.
Roland
not rated yet Feb 06, 2013
"Energy After The Peak: Merger Of Coal And Refiners Replaces Conventional Oil"
http://seekingalp...onal-oil
Sanescience
2 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2013
The energy crystal ball is a badly needed commodity these days. As many analysts study if our lack of refinement capacity is a conspiracy or not, I can see the argument that it is a natural result of the public and government putting so much focus on "alternative" energy. If you were going to build something that was going to need thirty years of operations to make your money back, you might hesitate based on culture trends to make your facility obsolete.

So now after several decades of alternative energy just not being able to close the deal, everyone gets confused why oil refineries are the bottle neck for a growing economy.

I can imagine some politician calling a meeting for energy executives and demanding more refinery capacity be built. To which the executives say they will spend whatever ridiculous amount of money to make one if they are guarantee a base revenue stream for thirty years. Politician says the public would kick his ass out of office. Stalemate.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (5) Feb 06, 2013
"In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat ... We carefully control the chemical reaction so that the coal never burns—it is consumed chemically..."
"The coal and iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates carbon dioxide..."
I understand what they're doing, but the wording is clumsy. "We're not burning the coal, which would be allowing it to exothermically combine with oxygen; we're just allowing it to exothermically combine with oxygen."
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2013
Ya, but the oxidation isn't happening in a a combustion chamber, it is happening in a combustion chamber.

See the difference now?

"We're not burning the coal, which would be allowing it to exothermically combine with oxygen; we're just allowing it to exothermically combine with oxygen." - Silverhill
unknownorgin
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2013
This is a prime example of wasting tax dollars on this crazy idea. There is no way to store millions of tons of CO2 and be absolutly sure it will not escape just look at the problems with storing the relativly small volume of nuclear waste. There is nothing new about the reaction, it is just the thermite reaction using carbon or in other words iron smelting. It would make more sense to use stirling cycle engines to extract power from the waste heat from a power plant so it would burn less coal and lower power costs. Economics is always the key to making a technology practical.
VendicarE
2 / 5 (4) Feb 07, 2013
You people just don't get it.

Once it's out of the way, underground and you can't see it, it's gone. Just like when you put your head in the sand and the world vanishes.

It is so simple and self evident.

Sweep a problem under a rug and it permanently goes away. It isn't rocket science people...

"There is no way to store millions of tons of CO2 and be absolutly sure it will not escape just look at the problems with storing the relativly small volume of nuclear waste." - Unknownorigin
gwrede
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2013
Like Silverhill and VenditarD, I have a problem understanding what is so commendable with this particular process.

At first sight it feels like a needlessly complicated way of burning coal, especially since you have to capture the hot carbon dioxide anyway. -- Ah, but wait, now I got it:

This way they avoid all the other gases present in the atmosphere (especially nitrogen) which create all kinds of unwanted byproducts when combusted.

Ok, now why couldn't they mention this in the article??????
Sheesh, this is the whole point of this technology.
praos
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2013
Stop this nonsense! This technology "should not raise the cost of electricity more than 35 percent" -- making it more expensive than present nukes and even PVs generated electricity. So why do it at all, in first place? Just to make coal lobby happy? Coal is dead and buried, so stop digging it!
roldor
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2013
This is the same like in a blast furnace. Only not as effective.
When they have no ideas, then they take 5000 years old technologies and make it more complicated. It is always the same. Cold fusion, pellets . . .
"Go on this way, we have 1000 solutions"
Egleton
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2013
It is not a conspiracy.
We are running out of the stuff. Projected coal forecasts are made "at todays consumption rate." Right there is the Assumption.

With a growth rate of 7% per annum, China's economy doubles every 10 years. Go check the maths. Look up Exponential Growth.
So in 20 years time China is going to be 4 times as big as it is now. They will be using coal at 4 times the current consumption rate?

In 200 years time china would have doubled 20 times.
Take a piece of paper of any size. Place another beside it. It is now double the size. Now put 2 more pieces next to them. It's size is now double again.
Repeat another 20 times. That will be the consumption rate of coal by China in 200 years.

It is not going to happen.
Let us not hear the "We have got 200 years of coal" drivel again.
Eikka
3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2013
especially as wind generates electricity for about the same cost


It does not. Wind energy has huge external costs just so you could use it, because of the random nature of production.

If you only look at the subsidized cost and the subsidy cost of wind energy, you'll be ignoring the $300/MWh gas operated plant that sits next to the wind farm to buffer the output, and which produces about 80% of the energy you actually use.

But if you like paying triple for your electricity in the form of taxes like the Germans do, be my guest.
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2013
I like paying triple for my energy.
Because I live on a yacht and grow my own energy.
And then the government takes your money and gives it to me as a tax break.
Oh Yes. I do like it a lot.
You can like it a lot too.
But you are going to have to think how to dodge the tax.
alq131
1 / 5 (2) Feb 07, 2013
I guess what would be commendable is that they're working toward a "closed loop" energy cycle. what's goofy is to try to promote coal.

Why not say that they've also integrated some renewable source of energy as part of the loop to crack the CO2, then recombine the O2 with the Carbon in the loop. Essentially using the renewable energy(which is variable) to produce stored energy in the form of cracked C and O2 for use to be combusted when needed. Looked at as an entirely closed loop energy storage/production system would be a better sell...
djr
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2013
Eikka: especially as wind generates electricity for about the same cost

It does not.

Just because you say it does not - does not make it a fact - sorry. Just google the cost of electricity - there is plenty of data out there showing that electricity from a new wind farm, is on a par with electricity from a new coal plant. Here is a quick Wiki article http://en.wikiped...y_source

Here is a neat Bloomberg article that totally refutes the nonsense of your premise about having to back it up with a gas plant. http://cleantechn...e-finds/

Yes there is an intermittancy issue - but we are figuring out how to deal with that - and this has been addressed over and over on this board - and you keep repeating the same ignorance.

Maybe you would prefer to breath the air in Beijing!!!!
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 07, 2013
I have trouble understanding how it this advantageous overnormal carbon capture and storage. The end product of the reaction is still CO2, which needs to be captured and stored. How is the different reaction relevant if the products are the same?
DirtySquirties
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2013
Okay. Regardless of how clean or efficient this is, there's still the problem of people dying while mining this stuff. People die every day mining this crap and no one pays attention to it, but when nuclear power comes along, everyone freaks out despite the fact that a relatively miniscule amount of people have/will die from it.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Feb 09, 2013
Obvious that the process produces iron which is a needed industrial metal, ie. It need not be 'recycled' as above. There is plenty of iron oxide powder around which can be formed into beads, mountains of the stuff around Western Australia.

@ShotmanMaslo
Easier to manage CO2, ie Nitrogen not heated as its not there, mostly only hot CO2 & maybe SO2, so scrubbing CO2 is much easier but, how to manage it re, cycle of carbonates has energy issues. Perhaps some bright spark can work out a way to combine it with ocean soluble K, Ca & Mg perhaps using solar energy :-)

@DirtySquirties
Fortunately there are tremendous advances in robotics & telepresence, see RIO Tinto's development 'Mine of the future' 99% controlled from Perth, Western Australia & although currently mine Iron ore, it shouldn't be that much of an issue to alter the system to handle coal whether open cut or not.

Radiation however:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry#Radiation_exposure
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 09, 2013
If we forget global warming for a second we still have the problem of coal being an ultimately limted resource!

We might consider this as a backup power source - for the inferquent times when alternatives aren't available. It isn't totally optimal, but running 3 days a year (as projected by simulations using all alternative energies and a big power grid without any storage) on fossil fuels wouldn't be too disastrous.

I'm certainly not too thrilled by further use of fossil fuels, but if this is as good as they say then it's miles above the current systems.

making it more expensive than present nukes and even PVs generated electricity. So why do it at all, in first place?
A nuclear power plant needs a week to get up to speed. PV is extremely variable. A plant based on this technology could be an occasional guarantee for net stability.
Terry Floyd
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2013
"repair the air" coal2nuclear.com
One ton {fits in the bed of a small pickup}of Thorium
in a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor yields the equivalent
{CO2 free}thermal and electrical power of 3.5 million
tons of coal.
hangman04
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
of so let me guess:
1) u take coal (which would be simply burned in our current process) then u have to smash it... did they factor the smashing since i find it very energy consuming.
2) then u put iron and coal powder and u heat them up. my second question is this heating self - sustained or u have to reheat for every "batch".
3) u get co2 in a confined space but u still have to storage it somewhere.
4) re oxidize iron which can be translated in sucking o2 from the atmosphere and putting it underground or where ever they store it into the form of co2.

So this is just a waste from my point of view. this process is burning coal and then capturing co2 in one basket. From what i read it's not even clear if the costs are lower then the process split in 2 parts like it is today.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
then u have to smash it.

Actually the coal is smashed before buring in the current process, too. More surface area makes for a cleaner/more predictable burning.

Your other points are valid, though. The point in the article about 'recycling' carbon dioxide seems rather bizarre.
casualjoe
not rated yet Feb 10, 2013
CO2 liquid is pretty useful stuff, we can dissolve things in it, it makes a great working fluid and then there's it's supercritical state to play with. If the mega consumers of coal could adopt this technology into their power plants the CO2 burden would be greatly reduced, which is a small step in the right direction.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Feb 10, 2013
casualjoe raised an interesting point
CO2 .. supercritical state to play with. If the mega consumers of coal could adopt this technology into their power plants the CO2 burden would be greatly reduced, which is a small step in the right direction.
One wonders how coal dust & other potential combustible sources can be treated via supercritical CO2 at various temperatures to extract useful organic molecules for industrial processes before burning useful stuff.

It also may be possible to 'crack' CO2 under certain circumstances depending on the relative energy economies & depending on the process temperature differentials & where it is placed in any other existing energy intensive process such as the chemicals feedstock industrial complex & especially so where there are waste heat issues at low density but high comparative volume - I'm sure Dow Chemical is looking at this & keen to be part of the process, since their CEO's talk to the National Press Club in Australia recently..
ida-russkie
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
Yes there is an intermittency issue - but we are figuring out how to deal with that ...


The only way they are dealing with intermittency is making utilities buy wind and solar even if they do not need it and thus ,drive up the cost of their capital. Their capital is amortized over the life of the plant. If you make them throttle back then their capital costs go up per kwhr. No amount of good operations of a wind plant can make up for the fact you have your capital sitting doing nothing for 70% of the time. Where as with fossil and nuke plants the more you have it online and operational the lower your capital costs per KWhr.
casualjoe
not rated yet Feb 10, 2013
Yes there is an intermittency issue - but we are figuring out how to deal with that ...

Where as with fossil and nuke plants the more you have it online and operational the lower your capital costs per KWhr.


Renewable energy is sustainable, that's why it's such an attractive route to go down, for people who can think about the future.
If someone is smart enough to be enthralled by the range of challenges presented by generating sustainable energy then I'm sure they're already aware about the short term benefits of fossil fuels and nuclear, we couldn't miss them if we tried.
MIBO
not rated yet Feb 10, 2013
hangman, you miss the point.
Coal fired power stations blow coal dust into the furnace using high pressure air jets, so the coal has to be crushed to a fine powder.
Storing CO2 is much cheaper than storing nuclear waste as it isn't radioactive and doesn't have any of the safety implications of radioactive waste.
The hot iron is re-oxidized using oxygen from the atmosphere and the heat from it is extracted, actually the oxidation is also exothermic.
Since the hot gasses are not expelled into the atmosphere the system is more efficient overall, so produces more energy per unit of coal and releases less gas and heat into the atmosphere.
The overall process will be as efficient as todays, the net chemical reaction is the same.
The cost of developing stations to use it may be higher hence a higher running cost but it will help to prolong the lifetime ofthe coal resources and reduce pollution whilst we develop better long term solutions.

It's a good stop gap until then
ida-russkie
1 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2013
Renewable energy is sustainable, that's why it's such an attractive route to go down, for people who can think about the future.
If someone is smart enough to be enthralled by the range of challenges presented by generating sustainable energy then I'm sure they're already aware about the short term benefits of fossil fuels and nuclear, we couldn't miss them if we tried.

Solar and wind are not sustainable because they have to be backed up by natural gas plants because they are the only power plants that can fire up and respond so fast. Your home maybe able to deal with the power going down daily but the city and industry can not. A wind turbine will last perhaps 20 years and nuke plant 60-80 years.
For wind and solar. You also have to make the steel, copper, concrete and if they are used, rare earths using fossil fuels. The mine tailing of rare earths used in wind turbines magnets leave more radioactive waste then the nuke plant's so called nuclear waste.
casualjoe
not rated yet Feb 10, 2013
There are some amazing people doing things with energy storage at the moment. The challenge of creating more efficient turbines is more rewarding than the challenge of storing nuclear waste, surely?

Renewables is a way smaller industry than it needs to be reliable. I acknowledge the situation in the mines and refinerys. That's the cheapest way to do it unfortunately.

Rare is just a word, Neodymium can be found throughout the earths crust and is recyclable, we're not just setting fire to it.

We can do everything with electricity, the technology is already there to replace fossil fuels in nearly all manufacturing processes.

Fossil fuels could then serve as a high value, specialist service only, so oil companies would get the same return but for far less output.
djr
5 / 5 (1) Feb 10, 2013
"Solar and wind are not sustainable because they have to be backed up by natural gas plants"

Please define sustainable. Wind and solar are indeed a viable form of energy. They can be integrated into the grid - without needing to be backed up. Take a look at Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Scotland, Spain etc. Why do we have to keep answering the same lies over and over. Wind and solar are a viable, clean, fuel source - and will be a major part of our energy infrastructure as we move forward (as in progress).
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
It also may be possible to 'crack' CO2

The thing is that you'd need more energy for that than you got out of burning coal into CO2 in the first place (otherwise you'd have a perpetuum mobile). So if you want to crack CO2 in order to get rifd of it you'd be much cheaper off (in terms of money and energy) to just leave the coal buried.

Storing CO2 is much cheaper than storing nuclear waste as it isn't radioactive and doesn't have any of the safety implications of radioactive waste.

Sort of. While it isn't radioactive the stuff must be contained indefinitely (and 'indefinitely' is a loooong time. Infinity is a timespan longer than any technical process of ours can guarantee). And if it does leak out then it poses a not-so-small health risk. If we get a 'Lake Nyos' every now and then that will be bad news.
http://en.wikiped...ake_Nyos
Steven_Anderson
1 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2013
Egleton "Look up Exponential Growth. So in 20 years time China is going to be 4 times as big as it is now. They will be using coal at 4 times the current consumption rate? In 200 years time china would have doubled 20 times." All that doubling overtakes the CO2 output of the plants as they are now even if you capture 90% CO2.

Also 30% more causes it to be more costly than alternative energies as others have pointed out. However it is very hard to get places like China to abandon coal. There might be a case for retrofitting coal plants with these devices. I will do the math in the near future. However you still have to sequester CO2. A big problem and a bigger transport problem with existing coal plants $10/ton sequester costs. We can't keep pumping CO2 in the ground forever. It's best to use this storage space to trap existing CO2 in the atmosphere. At air capture costs of $100/ton..
Steven_Anderson
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
That comes to an approximate world wide figure of 2.6 trillion to remove one years worth of CO2 from the atmosphere per year at current production rates. http://rawcell.com/1wTga

"A nuclear power plant needs a week to get up to speed. PV is extremely variable. A plant based on this technology could be an occasional guarantee for net stability." antialias_physorg This applies to the conventional nuclear reactor NOT LFTR Reactors. LFTR Reactors can change output very quickly and have a much higher thermal temperature around 1500 degrees instead of 400-500. LFTR Petition--->http://rawcell.com/yzEMb
Steven_Anderson
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
"Solar and wind are not sustainable because they have to be backed up by natural gas plants because they are the only power plants that can fire up and respond so fast."
ida-russkie

This is not true see above statement just added by me LFTR Reactors also provide this service and we are only a 4 year Manhattan style project away from being able to get them working. In fact India will have its first LFTR Reactor RUNNING next year. http://rawcell.com/yzEMb
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 11, 2013
If you go to the list of disadvantages for LFTR, it's pretty long
http://en.wikiped...vantages

It's an unproven (and unneeded) technology. It may appeal to nations that have thorium - but for anyone else it would be just replacing a dependency on nation X with a dependency on nation Y.

But in the end in those nations using it this will just cement the enregy market in the hands of a few big providers - with no net benefit to the public.

For now LFTRs seem like a non-starter to me.
Steven_Anderson
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2013
"If you go to the list of disadvantages for LFTR, it's pretty long"
antialias_physorg
There is a lot to that list of disadvantages. However lists of disadvantages are the sign of a well balanced opinion on a subject. The article you pointed to http://en.wikiped...vantages contains solutions for ALL but one of the problems listed. The only problem that remains out of that list is radiation damage to nickle alloys. I would disregard the other disadvantages that have demonstrated solutions. This Nickle Alloy issue would have to be addressed during the duration of the "Manhattan" style project (which only took 4 years starting from scratch. We are not starting from scratch. I have mirrored the listed arguments against LFTR's HERE http://rawcell.com/ST78I with my responses. Space wont allow me to do so here.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2013
antialias_physorg totally ignored the context after my quote here and got into lecture mode
when Mike Massen said
It also may be possible to 'crack' CO2
The thing is that you'd need more energy for that than you got out of burning coal into CO2 in the first place (otherwise you'd have a perpetuum mobile). So if you want to crack CO2 in order to get rifd of it you'd be much cheaper off (in terms of money and energy) to just leave the coal buried.
You missed the point totally and instead got into narrow condescending mode...

The CO2 produced can be cracked by various processes powered by solar/wind/tidal, that way you don't have the issue of solar being an intermittent and unreliable grid 'base load' power option.

ie. For the time being obviously the coal/iron oxide system for base load and the CO2 supplied to growing algae (and other biofuel options), cracked by other (solar) methods, now look back at my caveat and see this with a wider focus and some imagination,

Thanks !