The Ergosphere
Monday, December 12, 2005
 

Meet you halfway

SHEC Labs (h/t:  GCC) is touting a process to convert landfill gas (mainly methane and carbon dioxide) to hydrogen using a two-step process:

CH4 + CO2 + 65.5 kcal/mol1  →  2 CO + 2 H2           (1)
CO + H2O(gas)  →  CO2 + H2 + 11.6 kcal/mol2           (2)

SHEC claims that their process increases the useful energy of the fuel by 14% (based on the lower heating value, no doubt; if it is assumed that the water's heat of evaporation can be recovered, it's about 29%).  But that's not the end.  Step (2) loses energy.  Why not just take the process halfway?

The final conversion to hydrogen is only necessary if hydrogen is the desired product or to sequester the carbon from the process; without that, it's just throwing energy away.  Keeping more energy in the product gas would be useful for stretching natural gas, getting more out of what has become a very expensive fuel.  With that in mind, I propose a modified process:

 Thermochemical process:  CH4 + CO2 + 65.5 kcal/mol  →  2 CO + 2 H2           (1)
 50% CO flows through,   (2a)
 50% process to CO2 CO + H2O(gas) →  CO2 + H2 + 11.6 kcal/mol           (2b)
 Recycle CO2 to step 1, H2 to output.            (3)
 Net reaction:  CH4 + H2O →  CO + 3 H2           (4)

The heat of combustion of CO is 68.56 kcal/mol, while the LHV of the hydrogen is 56.93 kcal/mol.  This implies that a thermochemical process can convert 185.45 kcal (LHV) of methane into 239.35 kcal of gas mixture (plus leftover solar heat and steam), an increase of 29%.  If the natural gas for a generating or heating plant was processed this way, the gas demand would be reduced by up to 22.5%.

Is it worthwhile to do this?  Perhaps not; the cost of the hardware might not be justified compared to getting the same amount of energy from something else.  Or maybe it's justified by its versatility; the concentrating mirrors could be used with anything at the collector, including solar Stirling engines.  Whichever way the conclusion goes, it's worth thinking about.

Footnotes:

  1. SHEC claims 917 kJ/mol (219 kcal/mol).  I can't reproduce this figure.  The numbers herein are based on the heat of formation of water (steam) as 56.93 kcal/mol, CO as 25.40 kcal/mol, CO2 as 93.96 kcal/mol, and the HHV of methane (25 C) as 212.79 kcal/mol; the corresponding LHV of methane would be 185.45 kcal/mol.
  2. SHEC's figure is 40.6 kJ/mole (9.70 kcal/mol).  The same caveat applies.

 
Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home
Talk largely about energy and work, but also politics and other random thoughts


Mail Engineer-Poet

(If you're mailing a question, is it already in the FAQ?)

Important links

The FAQ
Glossary
The Reference Library

Blogchild of

Armed and Dangerous

Blogparent of

R-Squared




The best prospect for our energy future:
Flibe Energy

ARCHIVES
January 1990 / February 2004 / March 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / August 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / April 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / February 2015 / April 2015 / October 2015 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / February 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / November 2017 / March 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / October 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / March 2019 / June 2019 / October 2019 / November 2019 / March 2020 / June 2020 / December 2020 / March 2021 / April 2021 / May 2021 / July 2021 / January 2022 / February 2022 /


Powered by Blogger

RSS feed

Visits since 2006/05/11: