Chapter 1: Energy Park - Part 8 of 10 - An Oil Powered Energy Park
Home Page    Site Map (Contents & Chapters)    <  Next Part  >    

An Oil Powered Energy Park

Stopping Climate Change by replacing all fossil fuels with equivalent biosynfuels.

The Replacing All Fossil Fuels Idea - slides

For the Early Carbon Neutralization Era Between 2017 and 2030

Upper:    1                         2         3                                       4                                     5                6                                               7        8 9                             
Lower: 16                                    15                                                                  13    14                                             12       10         11                                                

The Nuclear-Hydrogen-Biomass Energy System - slides
(Nuclear isn't necessarily a prerequisite.)




1  Oil Train To Take Salvaged Crude Oil From Depleted Oil Field To Energy Park


2  Carbon Captured Combined Cycle Crude Oil Burning Gas Turbine

Dual GAS turbine + electricity generators dual heat recovery boilers single steam turbine + electricity generator.

A typical coal burning steam power plant is about 35% efficient. 
The above combined cycle system is 60% efficient, makes 1/2 the Climate Changing CO2.

7F 7 Gas Turbine Generator: 250 mW (Has been run on Arabian Super Light (ASL) Crude.), H25 Steam Generator: 270 mW, Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) 2,400 psi, 1,050F to 1,112F    72.004, 20.012

(Below) How an integral carbon capture unit could be added to above.)

(Below) How post-combustion carbon capture units work.


3  Oil Burning, Carbon Captured, Thermochemical Hydrogen and Oxygen Plant

Excellent overview slide show:  Hydrogen Production Using Thermochemical Technology .pdf


Very high temperature custom industrial process furnaces:  2017 Carbolite Gero Ltd., UK


4  Original Coal Power Plant



5  Biomass Grinder and Cleanup Chain


6  Plasma Torch Biomass Gasifier

 Why plasma gasification was picked. You can get an idea of the performance of plasma gasification of biomass
from this paper by Czech Republic Milan Hrabovsky, Institute of Plasma Physics, ASCR: 
Thermal Plasma Gasification - 19.316.pdf  also:  

                     How Plasma Torch Pyrolyzation Works:
                     Alter Plasma (Westinghouse):
                     Alter Overview Video:    


The economics of MSW plasma gasification are favorable, although complex. Waste gasification facilities get paid for their intake of waste, via tipping fees. The system then earns revenues from the sale of power produced. Electricity is the primary product today, but liquid fuels, hydrogen, and synthetic natural gas are all possibilities for the future.

Sorting the MSW to capture commodity recyclables, such as metals and high value plastics, presents a third revenue stream. Minor revenue streams include the sales of slag and sulfur. Slag has the potential to be used for a number of construction products, such as rock wool, bricks and architectural tiles, and sulfur has some commodity value as fertilizer.

Additional costs are avoided by diverting waste from landfills and minimizing transportation of waste. Government subsidies for renewable energy or carbon credits may be substantial in the future, but are difficult to project.

A base case scenario with a 680 tonne per day (750 US tons) waste gasification plant which would be appropriate for a small city or regional facility, would cost an estimated $150 million (108 million) to construct. A municipality that funds the entire project through bonds should seek a positive cash flow year-after-year via revenues from tipping fees, recyclables and electricity sales, as well as sales of slag and sulfur. There is considerable range in the values for each of these variables, and any proposed development would require extensive due diligence to determine local prices for each line item. Tipping fees, electricity rates, commodity recyclables, as well as interest rates and taxes, all vary dramatically creating a model which needs to be thoroughly evaluated for any proposed development. The economics of waste gasification heavily favor recycling inorganic materials like metal and glass have no value as fuel and make the gasification process less efficient, even though plasma torches have the ability to melt them.

High-value plastics and papers that can be readily separated are far more valuable as recyclables than as fuel. Certain plastics earn 195 per tonne ($300 per US ton) and certain types of paper can earn around 53 per tonne ($75 per US ton). For comparison, a tonne of waste may produce 0.8 MW of electricity, worth around 51 ($70) per MW. It is clear that any of these materials that can be separated and sold, are worth much more as commodities than as fuel.

Wide variety of inputs and outputs

There are additional waste streams available in certain locations which earn higher tipping fees than MSW because they are toxic and yet have excellent fuel value. Refinery wastes from petroleum and chemical plants, medical waste, auto shredder residue, construction debris, tires and telegraph poles, are all examples of potential fuels that can earn high tipping fees and provide good heat value. Additionally, there are millions of ton of low-grade waste coal that exist in massive piles throughout the Appalachian region of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, US, that can be utilized for gasification.

Multiple outputs can be produced from a single facility. Heat and steam can be sold, and electricity production can be combined with ethanol or hydrogen production to maximize resources. Hydrogen can be readily produced from syngas by separating it from the carbon and oxygen, while synthetic natural gas can be produced by upgrading the methane content of syngas. Liquid fuels are typically produced from syngas through catalytic conversion processes such as Fischer-Tropsch which has been widely used since World War II to produce motor fuels from coal. Biotech methods to produce liquid fuels are also being developed to use enzymes or micro-organisms to make the conversion.

Much research and effort is being put into developing more selective catalysts and productive enzymes which will raise system efficiencies to levels needed to be competitive. Currently, ethanol from gasification costs more than $2 a gallon (equivalent of 0.37 per liter), and it is estimated that production needs to cost closer to $1.25 (0.90) or $1.50 (1.10). Production of ethanol at demonstration scale has shown that one US ton of MSW can produce around 100 gallons (equivalent of 0.9 ton producing 380 liters) of ethanol, give or take 20%. Cost estimation for ethanol production is difficult, but rough calculations indicate that ethanol could potentially be more profitable than electricity.

Gasification is superior to incineration

Gasification is superior to incineration and offers a dramatic improvement in environmental impact and energy performance. Incinerators are high temperature burners that use the heat generated from the fire to run a boiler and steam turbine in order to produce electricity. During combustion, complex chemical reactions take place that bind oxygen to molecules and form pollutants, such as nitrous oxides and dioxins. These pollutants pass through the smokestack unless exhaust scrubbers are put in place to clean the gases.

Gasification by contrast is a low-oxygen process, and fewer oxides are formed. The scrubbers for gasification are placed in line and are critical to the formation of clean gas, regardless of the regulatory environment. For combustion systems, the smokestack scrubbers offer no operational benefit and are put in place primarily to meet legal requirements. Plasma gasification systems employing proper scrubbers have extremely low emissions and no trouble meeting and beating the most stringent emissions targets.

The objective of gasification systems is to produce a clean gas used for downstream processes which requires specific chemistry, free of acids and particulates so the scrubbing is an integral component to the system engineering, as opposed to a legal requirement that must be met.

Incinerator ash is also highly toxic and is generally disposed of in landfills, while the slag from plasma gasification is safe because it is melted and reforms in a tightly-bound molecular structure.

In fact, one of the main uses for plasma torches in the hazardous waste destruction industry has been to melt toxic incinerator ash into safe slag. The glassy slag is subject to EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) regulations that measure eight harmful elements. Data from existing facilities, even those processing highly hazardous waste, has shown them to be well below regulatory limits.

Electricity production from plasma gasification is superior to that from incinerator combustion. Incinerators typically use the heat from combustion to power a steam turbine to produce power. Gasification systems can use gas turbines that are far more efficient, particularly when configured in integrated gasification combined cycle mode (IGCC).

Just as IGCC is the state-of-the-art in producing power from coal, the same is true when using MSW as the fuel source.

Carbon impact

The carbon impact of plasma gasification is significantly lower than other waste treatment methods. It is rated to have a negative carbon impact, especially when compared to allowing methane to form in landfills. Gasification is also an important enabling technology for carbon separation. It is primarily a carbon processing technology; it transforms solid carbon into gas form.

Syngas is comprised of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The hydrogen readily separates from the carbon monoxide allowing the hydrogen to be used while the carbon is sequestered. The US Department of Energy has identified gasification through its clean coal projects as a critical tool to enable carbon capture

Environmental opposition

Environmentalists have expressed opposition to waste gasification for two main reasons. The first argument is that any waste-to-energy facility will discourage recycling and divert resources from efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle. Economic studies of the waste markets show the opposite to be true; waste-to energy heavily favors the processing of waste to separate valuable commodities and to maximize its value for fuel.

The second argument made against waste gasification is that has the same emissions as incineration. These arguments are based on gasification systems which do not clean the gases and instead combust dirty syngas. Such systems are essentially two-stage burners and are not recommended for environmental reasons. There are many variations of combustion, pyrolysis and gasification - all used in different combinations. Proper engineering is required to achieve positive environmental performance.


Reference Folders: 17.652, 19.316-3, 19.021


7  Small Refinery To Synthesize Carbon-neutral Biosynfuels


There is more hydrogen in 1 L of liquid methanol than in 1 L of pure cryogenic hydrogen (98.8 g of hydrogen in 1 L of methanol at room temperature compared to 70.8 g in liquid hydrogen at 253 C). Therefore, it There is more hydrogen in 1 L of liquid methanol than in 1 L of pure cryogenic hydrogen (98.8 g of hydrogen in 1 L of methanol at room temperature compared to 70.8 g in liquid hydrogen at 253 C).

Therefore, it transpires that methanol is a safe carrier fuel for hydrogen.

Olah, George A.; Goeppert, Alain; Prakash, G. K. Surya. Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy (p. 207). Wiley. Kindle Edition.

(Below) A European synthesis process.

(Above) A direct biomass process being suggested in Germany.  Their problem is they are using biomass for heat.

The key point is: "You can't burn biomass to make biosynfuels".  There isn't enough biomass for both. 
The BECCS example below shows what happens when you try.


8  Carbon-neutral Biosynfuels This Small Refinery Might Make
    Methanol, Gasoline, Diesel, Dimethyl Ether

The plant would operate on a "largest profit" basis, switching available energy output as opportunities change over the day and the week.


9  Liquid CO2 Tank Car To Take "Dirty" CO2 Back To Depleted Oil Field


10  Deep Strata Sequestration CO2 Disposal Well

  (Right.) Some of the world's best CO2 Sequestration strata.


11  Selector Valve To Inject Water Or CO2 Into Periphery Of Depleted Oil Field

Global Map of Depleted Oil Fields.


12  Injection Well At Periphery Of Depleted Oil Field To Push Oil Toward Production Well


13  Depleted Oil Field Map for Michigan


(Center.) Showing most of Michigan's remaining oil is in depleted oil fields.


14  Oil Production Well To Extract Salvaged Crude Oil

Michigan Oil Well


15  Salvaged Crude Oil

EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery:   See explanation #11.  A typical oil patch will give up about 1/3 of it's oil to direct pumping.  The other 2/3 is attached more or less strongly to pores in the rocks. Captured CO2 that has been liquefied will act as a solvent to help flush about another 15% to 30% out of the oil patch. This has been done with great success in Texas' Permian Basin oil fields but liquefied CO2 is relatively rare so most of the world's oil patches that have been depleted of their pumpable oil have simply been abandoned and largely forgotten. About 5 barrels of liquid CO2 will get you about 9 barrels of crude oil which might be enough to enable you to capture another 5 barrels of CO2. See explanation #12.

Salvaged crude oil is just ordinary crude oil that has been puffed up by coming in contact with liquid CO2 that has been injected into the periphery of an oil patch to push unpumpable oil toward oil production wells. This puffing up in size enables water to break the oil away from rock pores and push the freed up oil toward an oil production pump to "salvage" it. The CO2 that has been picked up by the oil will be recaptured when the oil is burned.

We know that a carbon-based fuel will emit 3.15 times its own weight in CO2 when burnt. The oil in a barrel weighs 306 pounds, so 964 pounds of CO2 will be produced. Liquid CO2 density lb/ft3 @ 70F, 840 psig = 47.35 lb, oil barrel = 5.6 ft3, = 265 lb/bbl, so 964/265 = 3.64 bbl of CO2 will be produced per bbl oil burnt.

So, according to these numbers, one barrel of oil into the system produces enough CO2 to flush out 6.5 barrels of oil. This means about 85% of the captured CO2 needs to be disposed of forever in the deep sequestration strata via the CO2 disposal well.

The chart above shows that oil is naturally CO2 cleaner than coal but produces more CO2 than natural gas. Since post combustion carbon capture always fails to catch about 10% of the CO2s, there will be more leakage with oil than with natural gas.
But 90% capture is still far better than 0% capture.
Wood is terrible but, since it is making carbon-neutral CO2 that isn't adding to Climate Change, wood is OK in most people's book.


Using carbon captured oil salvaged from depleted oil fields to power both electricity generation and manufacture of carbon-neutral synthetic replacements for oil and natural gas.

Incredibly, many small old coal power plants are located near depleted oil fields - an excellent place to salvage oil and to dispose of the CO2 that burning of oil creates. Many states have similar 100+ year-old depleted oil fields, sometimes forgotten or unknown by inheritors of century old farms.

State records of depleted oil fields are well-mapped, showing locations of the wells - both producing and dry - greatly reducing the possibility of drilling a "dry" well. Short transportation distances for the oil to the carbon-neutral fuel plant and short distances for the CO2 to travel from the plant to the oil field to flush out more oil keep transportation and handling costs to a minimum. Often, old abandoned railroad right-of-way spur lines run to remote long-depleted oil boom fields - a clue for Google Earth users ferreting out forgotten depleted oil fields.

In many cases, it may be possible for the power company to purchase the mineral rights to nearby depleted oil fields at very advantageous prices because only the power company would have the captured carbon dioxide needed to flush more oil out of a depleted oil field. Current experience with using liquid carbon dioxide alternated with water as a flushing methodology on the Texas Permian Basin oil field has been very rewarding.

The now-unneeded coal power plant in this article, located in South Central Michigan, is a perfect candidate for upgrading to a site for manufacturing syngas biosynfuels. 

Michigan's Core Energy: 


16  Special Carbon Captured Crude Oil-burning Aeroderivative Gas Turbine Note



Footnotes & Links