Comments on: Recycled Energy — A core climate solution

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:54:36 +0000

Ok, I see they are both related, but it splits into these two main activities.

Of the two, which one has greater potential – using waste heat from electricity generation to provide heat or using waste heat from industrial processes to create electricity?

Another thing I’ve noticed is whether there’s any discussion on making existing coal etc powerplants more efficient, as there seem to be major differences between them.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:47:35 +0000

I might be a bit dumb, but are we talking about two different things here:

- recycling the heat wasted in electricity production to say heat houses etc near the power plant.

- using the heat currently wasted in industrial processes to create electricity by putting a turbine on a smokestack etc…..?

[JR: Two related things. in both cases we are trying to make use of the waste heat generated from combustion of fossil fuels (or non fossil fuels for that matter).]

By: msn nickleri

msn nickleri — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:11:50 +0000

if we want to phase out fossil fuels before 2030, we need to apply this kind of efficiency to critical infrastructure while we figure out how to replace it. take casten’s idea, not his advice.

By: Steve Sexton

Steve Sexton — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:50:44 +0000

Check out http://www.vocgen.com and let me know what you think about my economic solution for industry. Go CHP!

By: hotairman

hotairman — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:53:59 +0000

I checked out Casten’s company’s site. Pretty amazing stuff. This page puts things in laymen’s terms: http://recycled-energy.com/ _documents/ media-kit/ backgrounder.pdf

By: hapa

hapa — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:47:54 +0000

as i just commented at the grist blog, the casten’s financial model has them buying the entire energy facility — older, local, so not CCS — on a 20-year mortgage, making them part of the new problem: fans of a permanent transition economy. they’re well-set to take advantage of carbon trading and the lose money on their bet if the reduction curve tightens or isn’t tradeable.

if we want to phase out fossil fuels before 2030, we need to apply this kind of efficiency to critical infrastructure while we figure out how to replace it. take casten’s idea, not his advice.

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:32:46 +0000

Roger C, I believe one idea is to co-locate large heat-needing industrial facilities next to power plants (which are usually not in somebody’s backyard).

For smaller heat users, it is also possible to put molten carbonate or solid oxide fuel cells in an industrial facility and generate heat (they both operate over 600C so heat is readily available). These run directly off of natural gas, and generate extremely low emissions of everything but CO2. Here’s an example:
http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/dfc3000.php
According to their FAQ, ‘DFC power plants have also been designated as “Ultra-Clean” by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and exceed all 2007 CARB standards.’

By: Roger C

Roger C — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:21:29 +0000

Tthere are two problems with this approach that were not mentioned.

In order to build the cogeneration facility you are going to have to build in somebody’s back yard. The regulatory process to get anything built is difficult but to get something built in any major urban area it is excruciating because there are so many people who get affected. Moreover, because most major urban areas are air quality non-attainment areas you either have to add all sorts of additional and expensive pollution control equipment (that will surely excite the neighbors) or use natural gas for fuel. That is a problem because fuel diversity helps reduce cost and improve reliability.

As a result, I don’t think the entire reason that this isn’t used more is because of the utility monopolies and even if those legal impediments are removed that this will be implemented as widely as advocates hope.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:37:43 +0000

Torrified wood is suffciently similar to low sulfer bituminous coal that fluidized bed coal reactors accomodate it with only minor operating adjustments.

Most places, anthracite is too precious to just burn. It is metalurgical grade coking coal, largely.

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:49:18 +0000

I think if you build boilers that can handle multiple fuels they are not as efficient as those which burn one fuel. Even within coal, you can gain a bit of efficiency by building a plant which is optimized for a particular type (anthracite, bituminous, low sulfur, etc.)