Why Store Carbon Underground When You Can Reuse it In a Chemical?

Jennifer Holmgren, CEO, LanzaTech
December 04, 2012 | 22 Comments

As scientists, policymakers, environmentalists and industries around the world grapple with the challenge of reducing carbon emissions, much effort is spent on finding ways to do what we have always done with waste – bury it. Various proposals and research projects have focused on storing (or "sequestering") carbon in underground formations.

There’s no doubt many of these carbon sequestration technologies have great promise, but they reflect a continuation of the “old-school” approach to waste. There is, however, a new generation of renewable technologies that are putting a new twist on this age-old problem of carbon waste — carbon recycling.

Companies are working on technologies that will transform waste gases like CO and CO2 from energy intensive industries into fuels and chemicals. So, instead of storing the carbon underground, it will be reused in fuels and chemicals.

In doing so, these technologies reduce overall emissions while at the same time it substitutes carbon from new fossil fuels. By creating a revenue stream from emissions, energy intensive industries finally have a powerful incentive to invest in these technologies.

Technologies are indeed rapidly moving into commercial scales of production. Just a few years ago the potential of using CO₂as a resource was surprising and welcome news in scientific publications. Today we are learning about new technologies that are coming online in real world facilities and are starting to make significant breakthroughs in carbon reuse technology.

Companies that use biological organisms to consume CO₂ are advancing in leaps and bounds. Sapphire Energy has opened an impressive biorefinery in New Mexico that will grow algae and refine it into a renewable substitute for crude oil. The process will reuse significant quantities of carbon dioxide.

Companies like Fulcrum BioEnergy, which is building a facility to convert municipal solid waste into low-carbon renewable ethanol, will divert large volumes of garbage that would otherwise have been buried in landfills.

Here at LanzaTech we are using biological organisms to transform industrial waste gases like carbon monoxide into fuels and chemicals through our gas fermentation technology. In doing so, the technology reduces overall emissions as it substitutes carbon from fossil fuels. We are currently operating at pre-commercial-scale in Shanghai, China at a facility we’ve developed with Baosteel, one of the largest steel producers in the world, and plan to move into commercial operation in 2013.

One reason these carbon recycling approaches are moving so quickly is that they can create value from waste. Depending on the industry, the producer can meet regulatory requirements, potentially earn credits for CO₂reductions, and drive revenue from products derived from emissions. Technology providers like LanzaTech benefit because we can procure gas resources, which are typically 80 percent of the cost of the finished product, at low costs.

Carbon taxation, trading schemes and government policies are becoming increasingly prevalent globally, but the real driving force behind developments in industry is the fact that new technologies are challenging the traditional assumptions about how best to deal with waste. By giving industry a tool to reuse waste and derive a profit, these new technologies have the potential to accelerate overall emissions reductions at a time when the world needs it most.

This entire discussion was best framed by economist Stuart L. Hart in a Harvard Business Review article. Hart stated: “Rarely is greening linked to strategy or technology development, and as a result, many companies fail to recognize opportunities of potentially staggering proportions.”

We are at the cusp of helping energy intensive industries realize “opportunities of staggering proportions” as technologies that convert waste into valuable fuels and chemicals evolve and scale, and as industries around the world begin adopting their use. We should be asking ourselves, if these technologies are available now, why on earth are we still considering burying carbon?

Image: Landfill via Shutterstock

22 Comments

ANONYMOUS
December 12, 2012

We are wasting time and money trying to remove CO2 from industrial plants. It is not CO2 but HEAT that we need to minimize. Kyoto correctly identified fossil fuels as the major cause of global warming. In the most unscientific way imaginable They ignored the heat emitted from burning of fossil fuels (which is the reason we burn them, and declared that it was the CO2 that caused global warming. If one concedes that CO2 could be one factor and heat another, a simple calculation will show that so clearly can be accounted for that nothing is left to be attributed to CO2. For example: energy use in 2008 was 16 terrawatts, equivalent to 50x10E16 btus a year. (That is like the energy from 500 Mount Saint Helen's eruptions). The mass of the atmosphere is 1166x10E16 pounds. The specific heat of air is 0.24 BTU/#-*F. The potential rise in temperature was 0.17*F. Actual rise was ~1/4th that due to cooling from glacial melting and through photosynthesis. Last year Greenland alone lost 250 billion tons of ice. That's 54 cubic miles consuming 7.2x10E16 btus. To those who say that they detect no global warming, wait til the ice is all gone There is no doubt that fossil fuels and nuclear power must be replaced with renewables which remove as much energy as they eventually replace with more usable energy. Nuclear emits twice the total heat as its electrical output. In the meantime let's tax heat not CO2 and provide no incentive to remove CO2. CO2 actually removes 5000 btus per pound of CO2 through photosynthesis. I can't argue the point that CO2 may be causing an increase in acidity of the oceans even though acid rain may be the cause. When fossil fuels are replaced with renewable energy that problem will take care of itself. For the present let's kill the effort to sequester carbon dioxide.

Bill Brandon
December 8, 2012

Peter Bubik - I don't know if you are missing something or not. It would seem that we are focusing on different things. No one is saying that this CO2 is permanently being removed from the atmosphere. If we are going to produce steel it would seem that we are going to produce CO. On the other hand if you can recycle two molecules of CO2 for every one you sequester you have the same effect on the atmosphere. Sequestration is expensive and consumes a surprising amount of energy. People of the world have a large waste stream following them. Utilizing these waste streams whether they be CO2, MSW, plastics, etc is a significant way to become more efficient with less of a human footprint. I think the point here is that utilizing wastes in a continuing and expanded value chain is more realistic than other methods. Nature always produces wastes that are dealt with through nature's ecology. With large human populations seeking a more comfortable way of life, we can use our brains to construct a sympathetic ecology with that of nature.
Bill Brandon

Peter Bubik
December 7, 2012

Brandon,
That's great, all the power to them. But it is still not correct to say that we are producing energy from CO2. PLEASE! It would be like saying that we are producing fuel from water. The reality is that the energy comes from the light. You borrow the water and CO2 and once you burn the fuel you release them back into the environment. It does not consume CO2 - which is what this article and your post seems to imply. Or am I missing something?
In that sense, the fuel does what a PV panel and a battery does. And that's great - we need that, and we need more of it (the energy density is great), but it does not REMOVE the CO2 from the environment. The steel plants should still have to buy CO2 emissions credits, because they are still adding CO2 into the atmosphere.

Bill Brandon
December 7, 2012

Peter Bradshaw - Let me tell you where the 'IFs' and KNOWs' are. The author is CEO of LanzaTech, a New Zeeland founded and based company. Their primary thrust of develop is using anaerobic microbes which in the presence of water convert CO into ethanol. The target source of CO is from blast furnaces used in making steel. While they have some development of microbes using CO2, that is not their initial focus. They have moved through a pilot plant stage and have recently completed a demonstration plant in conjunction with the Chinese Bao Steel located outside of Shanghai. This demonstration met or exceeded all performance levels. All permits from the Chinese authorities have been obtained to expand into full commercial production at this site. As with many of these gas feedstocks using microbes, the microbial function is done in a module manner so there should be few scale-up issues. In addition LanzaTech has MOUs from several other steel mills in both China and India. I would say this technology is basically commercialized.

The most advanced technology using CO2 is from Joule Ltd. They have several different microbes capable of producing different hydrocarbons. They are focusing on two, one produces ethanol and the other diesel. They are presently building their demonstration facility in the southwest US. Somewhat like LanzaTech, Joule's microbes secrete their product in the presence of water, CO2 and light. No biomass is involved and their initial cost projections are amazingly low. Joule has an impressive list of investors and value chain partners. I expect a lot from them. Bill Brandon

Bob Wallace
December 6, 2012

"If the biomass/bioenergy-based CO2 ... close to 100% ... had the equivalent energy content ... could be a great way to significantly reduce the CO2 generation currently involved in our energy production."

Right. It could maximally cut CO2 by 50%. Burn coal/gas and get one more round of energy out of the smokestack.

If we replace coal with natural gas production we also get a 50% reduction. And the overnight cost for NG plants is very low. Probably more bang for our buck in doing a coal->NG swap. And we avoid the mercury, etc.

If we replace coal or NG with renewable energy and electric vehicles we get roughly a 100% reduction. And I'm willing to guess that renewable generation would be as cheap or cheaper than synthetic fuel from CO2 technology.

Peter Bradshaw
December 6, 2012

Wow, a mostly polite and rational discussion.

If the biomass/bioenergy-based CO2 (and CO) recovery from the fossil fuel burning, to create new fuel, were close to 100%, and the fuel produced had the equivalent energy content of the original fossil fuel, and could be used to substitute for the fossil fuel, this could be a great way to significantly reduce the CO2 generation currently involved in our energy production. Provided it didn't leak other GHGs, such as methane, or have other bad side effects. This would then, presumably, be bio-solar, and be also a form of energy storage. To achieve this, the CO2 would have to be convertible or recoverable at night as well as during the day. As a holder of a degree in Physics, a top chemistry student in a good high school, and one with a strong interest now in biology, the "IFs" in the above analysis seem very heavy to me, but if they can become "Know hows" this could be a really better result, almost a good one.

Meanwhile, lets get all the geothermal, solar PV, wind, storage and solar thermal capabilities that we DO know how to do going as fast as we can, since my bet is the above "IFs", sadly, will not truly become "Know hows". Jennifer, please prove me wrong!

Bob Wallace
December 6, 2012

" It will take some time for large utilities to figure out how to dispatch a large number of tiny loads"

Correct. We in the early days of figuring it out. And that's OK.

There are so few EVs/PHEVs on the road now that using them as dispatchable loads would make no detectable difference. Five years from now things are likely to be quite different. And I'll bet that car manufacturers are already looking forward to the eventual need for their cars to talk to the owner's smart meter.

I suspect what will happen is something along the lines of being able to program your car on a calendar. Normal work days, set a minimum number of miles at which you are comfortable.

Got a 20 mile RT commute? Set a minimum of 50 miles which gives you another 30 miles to run around after work. The utility computer will make sure you have 50, minimum, in the morning and will sell you that 50 at the lowest possible price throughout the night.

Then, if there's a lot of cheap electricity available, will sell you all the way up to full. Now they've pre-serviced some demand and if the wind is down for a couple of days they can let you coast. They get to avoid purchasing more expensive supply.

Your plans change? Call/email your car and raise your minimum.

Dispatchable loads and off-peak markets are valuable to grid operators. I suspect anyone who signed up to let the utility company control their charging would end up paying a lot less for charging than those who demand a fill-up every night.

I don't see the government needing to be involved. Car manufacturers and smart meter manufacturers will settle in on standards once we've had some more development and thought.

Bob Wallace
December 6, 2012

I share your concern, but I don't think it possible to get the vast majority of people to stop driving. People are wired for the short term, not long term. Evolution most likely did that to us, something about needing to eat and get warm now.

I think we have to solve our climate change problem, or more accurately minimize the hurt, by switching people to clean alternatives.

Wind and solar are good ways to get coal off our grids. We have promising electricity storage technology in development that will allow us to cut back, possibly eliminate, natural gas.

We are probably only short years from EVs that are as affordable as the gas/diesel equivalents, cost a small fraction as much to operate, and have adequate range for long trips.

There are other things that are being done that help, making public transportation more attractive and efficiency programs which appeal to people because they save them money.

Unfortunately we're working with humans who just, in general, won't suffer now for future gain.

Peter Bubik
December 6, 2012

Well put Bob_Wallace. That's where we are headed. It will take some time for large utilities to figure out how to dispatch a large number of tiny loads though. If we all had time-of-day meters in our homes and bought power on spot market, the market would do that job automatically. But most of us don't. I wonder if standards are needed to force EV makers to install a dispatch switch. An internet connected device that will take in the command from the utilities. Then we could rank the severity of the need:
- Charge Delay Recommended (if your battery is low, you can still charge)
- Urgent Charge only (only if your battery is dead you can charge)
- Charge Now (grid has too little load)

But it seems that both are going to be hard to implement (because they require government vision).

Ken Higgs
December 6, 2012

All nice articles. Written with good heart and intentions.

But everywhere, even in Doha, etc. I hear or see nothing about
the fact that we are putting 2.4 million pounds of carbon into the
air every second.

Nor is there mention of the HUGE DANGER: Methan clathrates are now
melting in the Arctic Oceans, all of them, at new rates, due to
warming from the foregoing.

When methane in the atmosphere reaches very high proportions, there will be crocodiles in Greenland

So much about the Tar Sands of Canada being extracted as soon
as possible, strictly for short-term political dollars.

Bob Wallace
December 5, 2012

" don't get overly excited about electric vehicles. That electricity needs to come from someplace"

Yes it does. And there is an excellent place to get it at a good price, from wind farms.

In the windy parts of the US the wind tends to blow harder at night when demand is lower which means that the market will not pay as much for produced power. Right now there are times at which wind farms give away their output for free and take their profit from the 2.2 cent PTC.

Add a bunch of EVs to the grid, plugged in at night and waiting for a charge and you create a new market for wind.

A larger market means more profits. More profits means that more investment flows in to build more wind farms. More wind farms means more wind available during peak hours. Wind is our cheapest way to generate new electricity and cheap wind on the peak hour market will bring down the cost of our overall electricity bills.

Furthermore, on average EVs/PHEVs need less than 1.5 hours per night to charge. With smart meters controlling actual charge times that means that grid operators will have large amounts of dispatchable load. When the wind spikes up lots of EVs can be brought on line to absorb the peak. When demand pushes supply EVs can be curtailed which will avoid the need to bring more expensive peaking power on line.

When solar falls to the cost of wind, which it probably will, EVs can be plugged in during the day while parked. Outlets are cheap to install. That's another source of charging power.

Last, the average drive day is about 34 miles. We will likely get EVs with 200 mile ranges. Then if there are a few days with little or no wind a number of EVs can skip charging. Utilities would gladly pay drivers to let their batteries run down some rather than have to bring peakers on line.

And having daytime solar charging options would take further pressure off when nighttime wind is low.

Peter Bubik
December 5, 2012

I agree that we should never discard the better in search of the perfect.
I think Bioenergy does have its role to play (we should drive on anything other than fossils). But the article would be more accurate to state that we can make fuels from sunlight then to suggest that sequestering CO2 is an outdated practice that can be replaced by biofuels.
Don't get me wrong, I think its a briliant idea to be driving on solar energy (brought in by photosythesis, PV or any other way). Let's just not pretend that we are driving on CO2 - that harms us all.

Bob Wallace
December 5, 2012

"We should never discard the better in search of the perfect."

I agree with that. But we often have to choose between the "betters".

I would argue that with our time and money limits we should not spend money and energy on a "better" that will most likely be a dead end.

Given that we have to get fossil fuels off our grid there will come a day on which it will be time to turn off the last coal and gas plants. When that happens any smokestack CO2 -> fuel production stops.

We have an alternative "better" in hand right now. One that seems to lead to a "forever" personal transportation solution. Put our available money and energy into electrifying our transportation systems. We do just as much to reduce CO2 levels by taking an ICEV off the road as we would do by switching to smokestack fuel.

Bioenergy, especially that which is based on the microbes, also makes sense to me. We will likely need some liquid fuel for a long time into the future. Long distance air travel and transoceanic shipping will require more densely stored energy than what we can imagine right now with batteries. If we can sustainably produce liquid fuels at an affordable price for special uses then that is another "better" with an open ended future.

Bill Brandon
December 5, 2012

peter-bubik and others - First let me say that it is nice that we can have a civil debate on this. I recognize that many readers of RenewableEnergyWorld are solar and wind advocates and I appriciate your position. Those of us that advocate bioenergy, especially that which is based on the microbes rather than the 'biomass' will often disagree as we do here. As I stated in my first post "We should never discard the better in search of the perfect." I don't think we would claim that this will "solve the CO2 issue" (the perfect) but rather it will mitigate it (the better). When we are starting a war (on climate change) it is best to first line your war chest. The government is not going to line anyones war chest, the best they can do is inforce more strigent regulations. Existing energy industries have a 'war chest' and the 'better' can be obtained quite fast. I believe this has significant value over the slow march toward the 'perfect'. Bill Brandon

Peter Bubik
December 5, 2012

Sorry Bill Brandon, Bob_Wallace and Pierrot got it right. While there may be some benefits to what Jennifer is doing, it will certainly not solve the CO2 issues. Using photosynthesis to borrow the CO2 only to release it again once your burn the fuel you made doesn't get rid of the CO2 - but it sure shows what a fascinating process photosynthesis is.
As to your point that electricity for EV's "needs to come from somewhere" Yes it does, and it can be stored in that battery when the sun shines and the wind blows.

ANONYMOUS
December 5, 2012

Bob - You make some good points but don't get overly excited about electric vehicles. That electricity needs to come from someplace. As pointed out above, coal flue stacks contain a lot of other harmful impurities. Those would need to be scrubbed out before being used for as a waste stream gas. I think these technologies will actually hasten shuting down of coal generation plants. Dual cycle natural gas fired generation plants are more efficient than coal fired. Although natural gas is very cheap right now it is ulikely to remain that cheap over the 50 year life of a power station. This added margin will give further incentive to switch to natural gas whose flue gas has fewer impurities. It is all about efficiency and coal is on the losing end of that stick. Bill Brandon

Bob Wallace
December 5, 2012

Bill, "double-dipping" by using CO2 from fossil fuel smoke stacks increases profits for the fossil fuel plants and gives the owners an excuse for not shutting them down.

Right now we are making our energy decisions mostly on the basis of economics. We're shutting coal plants down because it would be too expensive to bring them up to EPA standards. Make them more profitable by creating a market for their CO2 and they will burn on for more years.

Right now every single driver could use a PHEV and cut overall fuel use by at least 75%. 85% of all US driving days are 40 miles or less. The Chevy Volt will go 40 miles on electricity. We can build PHEV pickups, SUVs, and minivans for those who need other body configurations.

Build PHEVs (and EVs) in much larger numbers and the prices will come down. The materials in batteries are not expensive, it's an economy of scale issue that will sort itself out as manufacturing volumes increase.

The sooner we move away from fossil fuels the less we hurt ourselves.

pierre vincent
December 5, 2012

Turning CO2 into a fuel so that the fuel gets turned back into CO2 by a big old idling Hummer? Where's the benefit?? I dont get it?

Bob Wallace is right. This is the classic "technology trap".

Christina Nelson
December 5, 2012

There is a lot more to it than CO2! How about methane and other greenhouse gases? You should be concerned about sulfuric acid and nitric acid eating all the calcium out of our soil. How about mercury and other heavy metals contaminating our food and the 18,000 tons of radioactive material spewed into the air by coal fired power plants every year.

ANONYMOUS
December 5, 2012

Bob Wallace has it wrong. We should never discard the better in search of the perfect. In a world that depends on energy and its price has significant effects on productivity, recycling wastes including CO and CO makes sense. We will be burning carbon based fuel for some time to come and when its use can be made more efficient by 'double dipping' we benifit. When this can be done within our economic system where economic value can be derived rather than just assuming we can endlessly bear sunk costs without economic value, our goals can be met faster. Bill Brandon

Ioannis Skiadas
December 5, 2012

I fully agree with Jennifer.
It is not only fossil fuels that generate CO2. Many biorefineries produce huge quantities of CO2. Burning of biomass or wastes as well. Why not converting this CO2 to added value products? Converting CO2 to fuels or chemicals can also contribute to the reduction of fossil fuels consumption since more energy will be produced from the same amount of fossils. And finally, I do not see anything wrong with eliminating the emission of greenhouse gases from energy intensive industrial activities. Everybody knows that use of fossil resources is not something that is going to stop during the next many years.

Bob Wallace
December 4, 2012

Reusing CO2 from fossil fuel plants does not sequester it. Especially if used as fuel. Sticking it underground (hopefully) would.

The first thing we need to do is to quit burning fossil fuels, not find an excuse to continue using them.

Put your energy in finding ways to get the job done without further extraction of stored carbon.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Jennifer Holmgren

Dr. Jennifer Holmgren is the Chief Executive Officer of LanzaTech. Jennifer has over 20 years of experience in the energy sector including a proven track record in the development and commercialization of fuels and chemicals technologies....