“Green” natural gas?
My Clean Break column today takes a closer look at a New Brunswick, Canada-based company called Atlantic Hydrogen Inc., which has developed a plasma system that extracts hydrogen and carbon out of a natural gas stream. The hydrogen is then reinjected back into the natural gas — representing up to 20 per cent of its volume — leading to a 7 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide and dramatic reduction in nitrogen oxides when the gas is burned as a fuel for vehicles or in a turbine for power generation. The carbon that is extracted is collected in the form of a black dust — a highly pure form of carbon black that has potential for use in making carbon composites for vehicles parts and other applications. It could also be used to make inks, tires, paints, etc…. and even has potential as an agrichar for carbon sequestration and soil enhancement.
Atlantic Hydrogen believes its system — called CarbonSaver — could be installed at natural gas gateway in communities, allowing the local gas company to deliver “green” natural gas — what the company calls hydrogen-enriched natural gas. The system could also be used at natural gas refuelling stations for vehicles and, on a larger scale, at natural gas power plants.
A few questions remain, however. How much energy does the system require to function? If it’s too parasitic, then its value is limited. Also, is a 7 per cent reduction in carbon really enough to make this worth the extra cost? It all comes down to the economics of the technology. That said, given that we’re likely to be dependent on natural gas for many decades to come, any economical method for reducing the environmental impact of burning that gas within our existing distribution infrastructure is certainly worth considering.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
One wonders whether that 7% CO2 reduction includes the power input for the plasma. The significant reduction in nitrogen oxides might be the bigger win for AGW as well as local air pollution.
This system is really just competing with electrolysis or traditional NG reforming as a means to generate hydrogen. These traditional methods could be combined with carbon sequestration methods, possibly at lower overall cost than this technology. As with everything else it will boil down to the economics.
I’m also curious as to whether there are any embrittlement issues with putting 20% hydrogen through gas distribution lines not originally designed for hydrogen.
Hythane is another company touting the benefits of mixing hydrogen with natural gas.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Sounds like a good idea. I wonder if a variation would work with oil sand sludge, removing hydrogen from the sticky tar for use in natural gas. I cling to the belief that natural gas is more valuable than oil, considering how oil sand production consumes so much natural gas.
Darklamp
December 14th, 2007 at 2:47 am
natural gas from biogas digestion of the waste stream is the real green natural gas.
also natural gas derived from coal deposits using bacteria to yield biogas. It greens up coal, ending mining and leaving the coal mess where it’s at. Extracting the natural gas, used in a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine at double the efficiency of a coal plant would reduce GHG.
These fuel cells generate waste heat too that can be harvested with cogeneration for heating. Smaller power systems distributed widely over the grid make the difference. The savings over a centralized grid could pay for a lot of renewable energy. amazingdrx
December 20th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
A lot depends on what those percentages mean. If you take a litre of methane (CH4) and separate it into carbon and hydrogen (H2) you get two litres of hydrogen and a tenth of a teaspoon of black powder. You added energy to split them, and a lot of the energy that you could have had from burning the methane is now trapped in the carbon where, presumably, it will not be released by burning. Methane’s energy density is 39 KJ/L, while hydrogen’s is 12.
So if you convert 10% of the methane to hydrogen it will have 20% of the volume of the rest of the methane. You will have a gas with something like 13% less energy per volume than natural gas. So if you get 7% less CO2 but have to burn 13% more gas and on top of that have to add energy to power the plasma torch, you’re no further ahead.