?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
REnewables etc

Pitch

CO2 sequestration can be prized after its chemical capturing can be a realistic system, even if being applied for CO2 cars exhaust.

Description

Summary

CO2 chemical capture from cars’ exhaust can be quite suitable engineering system by its cheapness and small dimensions. For example, such CO2 containing harmful sulfur based dirties can be extracted by mixing with NaOH solution, forming NaCO3-sediment including solid dirties, can be periodically sold at the NaCO3 collectors for further recycling into NaOH, while recycled CO2 is valuable goods for various chemistry and other industry, including artificial fuel production, closing GHG cycle. In your turn, the NaCO3 sold can be considered as a well profitable prize for all participants, and it is helpful for global environment & human health saving too.

What actions do you propose?

CO2 capture from car’s exhaust can be:

CO2 + 2NaOH = Na2CO3 + H2O + 171 kJ/mol

It runs in a chemical reactor being a simple small vessel for mixing CO2 exhaust containing the water and dirties. The said reactor is equipped by dewatering for surplus water by evaporation using car’s exhaust heat, while Na2CO3 with dirties are solid sediments.

A new and very important factor, it is a possibility of extremely cheap high temp heat (down to USD 0.001/kWh) and electricity produced by the said heat, and it would change a game in economics of the NaOH and CO2 recycling from Na2CO3.

(see solar system in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html )

NaOH recycling from Na2CO3 with dirties can be of different chemical technologies the all give the NaOH cycled and CO2. The both can be clean products:

The said CO2 can be used for oil production to close the GHG cycle:

(a) CO2 + 2H2 = CO + H2O

(b) CO + H2 = oil + H2O

It can be clean oil, further is not dirtying the cars exhaust.

If 25,000 km is a car annual running, so 70 km daily, and 7 liter oil for 100 km, or 4 kg oil = 0.3 kmol oil daily = 30 kg NaCO3 for sale daily = 120 kg in 4 days in average = 47 liter reactor must be installed at the car. It can be a cube of 35 cm, can capture 0.3 * 44 *365 = 5 ton CO2 annually. It is quite small device and extremely cheap, not more than some hundred dollars.

For comparison, such “clean” and modern car as electric car Tesla Model X, 400 km range, USD 83,000 is equipped by 85 kWh battery of 540 kg weight, can serve not more than 3-5 years.

Now CO2 market price in EC is 100 euro/ton, and USD 600/ton in Japan, while NaOH and Na2CO3 the both are USD 200/ton.      

Who will take these actions?

The system must by supported by central and local governments legislature and preferences, and aggressive publicity to attract private businesses for the end users:

(a) to create a manufacture of different capacity from small businesses and up to large plants for production of the chemical reactors.

(b) to install such reactor in a car

(c) to place Na2CO3 collectors on the roads

and after that to recycle NaOH and CO2 from Na2CO3

Where will these actions be taken?

The said system can be deployed over the World.

What are the key benefits of these actions?

The CO2 captured at cars is valuable goods for various chemistry and other industry, including artificial fuel production, closing GHG cycle. In your turn, the Na2CO3 sold can be considered as a well profitable prize for all participants, and it is helpful for global environment & human health saving too.

What are the costs associated with the solution?

Now CO2 market price in EC is 100 euro/ton and, and USD 600/ton in Japan, and it would be practically net profit for my system’s participants, while NaOH and Na2CO3 the both are USD 200/ton.       

The said reactor is practically eternal and quite small device of several tens liter and about 100 kg emptied ones in some days, and extremely cheap, not more than some hundred dollars.

For comparison, such “clean” and modern car as electric car Tesla Model X, 400 km range, USD 83,000 is equipped by 85 kWh battery of 540 kg weight, with lifetime not more than 3-5 years, and must be charged daily.

Time line

My reactors offered here is well scalable product for commercialization, but for getting a profit from selling CO2 captured and Na2CO3, it needs a net of Na2CO3 collecting stations, analogously refueling and recharging station, and it can take a time, but not big time if regional application.  It needs several years the NaOH & CO2 recycling plants to be designed and created, but Na2CO3 for them can be stored, isn't waiting when they are would be built in full scale.

Related solutions

Short glance through other your authors suggestions show me that nobody of them offer even a little similar for my solution for your Solve, Fuel: Carbon price.

References

Being basic engineering system (not science, but design only) it doesn’t need science references and so on. I can note that during years any possibility of economical extraction of CO2 from the car’s exhaust directly at the same car, it was categorical denied.

A new and very important factor, it is a possibility of extremely cheap high temp heat and electricity produced by the said heat, and it would change a game in economics of the NaOH and CO2 recycling from Na2CO3. (see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html )

Leave a comment

Solution for Fuel: Negative carbon emissions by Judbarovski

Cost of CO2 chemical capture, if breakthrough cheap energy

Pitch

CO2 as a valuable goods can be very cheap & abundant, being captured by using a cycled chemistry and breakthrough cheap solar energy for it.

Description

Summary

A possibility of breakthrough cheap energy is a key element for breakthrough cheap & abundant capture of gaseous CO2, to produce CO2 greatly concentrated and pure.

Chemical capture of CO2 is known and can be very promising for it, especially if the energy for the said chemistry will be breakthrough cheapened, and I disclose such energy device and system here.

It is solar thermal concentrated energy, designed more skillfully than it is common now. Cost of such high temp heat is down to USD 0.001/kWh, and such CO2 can be as low as several USD-s/ton, being depended on a chemical technology chosen for consideration.

What actions do you propose?

More detailed disclosure

Heat energy can be very cheap, because can be produced by system of cheap small solar concentrators, because the smaller it, the less materials consumed and being in a cube of dimensions. It is made of cheap foils, thin sheets and reflecting films protected, and from cheap mass produced materials and parts bought by lower prices if in large order. Totally it is about 10.0 USD for 1.0 m2 of solar flux, so 2000 kWh heat/m2 (annually for sunny regions) * 5 years of payback, so as cheap as 10.0 USD / (2000 * 5) = USD 0.001/kWh heat (see more detailed in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html ). It is greatly recyclable and very reliable, especially because its focal spot is motionless. Such cheap solar heat is about USD 0.001/kWh for sunny regions, and 0.0013-0.0016 for moderate climate regions, can be transformed in electricity as conventionally as by much more energy effective means than Carnot limit allows for a heat machine. It can be a fuel cell can be recycled thermally or by cycled chemistry, can include some electrochemical processes. Their by-products can be fuels or carbon and/or hydrogen and/or nitrogen predecessors for various chemistry and artificial fuels production. It can be thermal antenna-generators are intensively investigated in the world during last ten years. 

It is well known that antenna-generators and a chemistry and electrochemistry, the all those can be heat transformers with energy efficiency near 100%. 

We can accumulate surplus solar energy in the form of artificial fuels, can support the heat and electricity supply to be round the clock and year-round and not depended on seasons, and a day-time and a variable sunshine. It would be not depended on a distance from such solar plant to CO2 production plants in a case of input being a local CO2 exhaust. 

For illustration, let very speculative consider one of the possible technologies for CO2 cycled chemical capture, here from the natural atmosphere.

For example,

(1a) CO2 + CaO (H2O) = CaCO3 + 178 kJ
(1b) CaCO3 = at 825 C = CaO + CO2 – 178 kJ

The said chemistry can use electricity for the second reaction, while another lion share of electricity is consumed for contacting the air with CaO solution in the water. If 80% of the CO2 extraction it needs (1.0 / 0.0004) / 0.8 = 3.1 * 10^3 m3 air/m3 CO2 = 2 *10 ^6 m3/ton CO2 = 1.2 * 2 * 10^6 * 10^5 * P (bars) * 10^(-3) / 3600 = 67,000 *  P(bars) kWh/ton CO2 + for chemistry we uses 1100 kWh/ton CO2. P is the air pressure for mixing the air with the CaO solution. If P = 1000 Pa = 0.01 bars, so totally it is about 1770 kWh electricity/ton CO2, and if 0.001 /0.33 = USD 0.003/kWh electricity, so CO2 of high purity would be USD 5.3 /ton CO2. The more energy effective it, the cheaper CO2 can be.

If input CO2 being concentrated exhaust of some technology, the CO2 would be many times cheaper.

Who will take these actions?

The cheap & abundant CO2 sequestration is very important for global environment and human health. When reaching to be big system fully complicated and fed by solar energy can be extremely cheap, it can shock the world markets and regional ones by energy being extremely cheap and abundant, so prices of them must be controlled step-by-step, and it needs support by legislature from central governments’ and regional ones, and by creating special authorities for co-ordination and supervision, while there will be a big potential field for organizations and business activity including startups since its initial stage, because my system is well scalable from very small units, and up to full scale system, can be financed by breeding model, when extra-profit from earlier stage can be redirected for exponential grow wouldn’t be needed in external investments.  

Where will these actions be taken?

The system of CO2 capture offered here can be deployed everywhere, but more preferable if near a solar energy plant can act in sunny- and moderate climate regions of over the World.

What are the key benefits of these actions?

The said system  will help our mankind wealth and health in much more clean and safe environment, while CO2 captured and being very cheap and abundant can be cheap and “green” carbon predecessor for wide spectra of chemical production, including artificial fuels too.

What are the costs associated with the solution?

CO2 can be as low as several USD-s/ton, being depended on a chemical technology chosen for consideration. The more energy effective it, the cheaper CO2 can be.

If input CO2 being concentrated exhaust of some technology, the CO2 would be many times cheaper than CO2 captured from natural atmosphere.

Time line

Being a complex of separate two parts, i.e. solar energy plans and CO2 capture plants, the both are well scalable from very small devices needs from some months for commercialization, if the full scaled, it would be burden by problems of world markets stability, because extremely cheap and abundant energy for our CO2 production and enormous huge demand of materials for full scaling.

All that is a reason that the system introduction and its organizing procedures must be distributed in time up to 10 years and not sufficiently more it, because after initial stages it wouldn’t need to waste a time to collect enormously huge external investing, but they can be taken from extra-profit from earlier stages.

Design works can consume not more than 2-3 years, because being basic engineering and not research & development.   

Related solutions

A short glance through solutions of other your authors  shows me that nobody of them offered even a little similar for my solution for your Solve, Negative carbon emission. Nevertheless, I met among them well understanding of basis idea to apply a more cheap energy for more cheap CO2 capture.

References

(1) ”Closing the Carbon Cycle: Liquid Fuels from Air, Water and Sunshine”,

Klaus S. Lackner etc., klaus.lackner@columbia.edu

This document was originally written as an application for the U.S. DOE funding opportunity “Energy Innovation Hub – Fuels from Sunlight” (DE-FOA-0000214).

(2) PJ07 “New promising class of electrochemical generators”, David Judbarovski, Battery Conference, RWTU, Aachen, 2013

(3) “Photovoltaic Technologies Beyond the Harizon: Optical REctenna Solar Cell”,

B. B. Berland, ITN Energy Systems, Inc., Litton, Colorado,

Final Report, 1 August 2001-30 September 2002,

February 2003, NREL/SR-520-33263

(4) Era of Renewables-3, 2013, part 1, David Judbarovski, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/86285.html

Leave a comment
Foldable shelter, e.g. tent, can be installed quickly
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com , http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

It is flexible double walls inflatable structure being a solid of revolution (e. g. hemisphere or cylinder covered by transparent plastic foil as a roof) can be formed by pumping the air at small pressure between the said walls by tinny pump can be powered by muscle force about 50-100 watt with a help of a device analogously to an engine’s starter of motor boat, but it is much more lighter and smaller generator sufficiently less than 100 gram weight. After energetic pulling a wire in full swing of arm with a force of several kilograms, the said wire returns s back with a help of 'weak and tiny spiral spring of tiny ratchet mechanism. It needs
a share of a minute to install a shelter of 10 m2 area and 2.5 m height, and such structure would withstand even strong wind.   
     
Leave a comment
Method to provide a flying helicopter with a fuel
Author: David Judbarovski, pensioner, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

Many years ago I offered occasionally a method to supply a flying helicopter with electric energy from the ground, but now I see a big disadvantage of that initial idea, can be sufficiently improved if supplying with gaseous fuel instead of the electricity.
For example, let consider a flying marine patrol helicopter can be provided for whole year remote patrol from a tiny vessel with engine for floating or/and for stabilization in constant position. The said vessel can by unmanned. It is loaded by ammonia, is liquidized at about 10 bars. By heating, the said ammonia is decomposed into nitrogen and hydrogen, the both are gases, while the nitrogen is exhausted away, and the hydrogen goes through very thin pipe upward to helicopter flying in the sky, possible, very high in the sky.
The lighter, the less power-to-weight ratio of the helicopter. If being non-armored patrol helicopter of about 5 kg, it can be powered by about 0.25 kW engine, can be supplied by the said hydrogen, e.g. with a help of hydrogen-air fuel cell (FC). Such engine consumes 250 Joules/sec. If FC’s energy efficiency being 70%, the said helicopter consumes about 0.003 g/sec H2 = 37 ml/sec H2, so a pipe of 1 mm diameter is enough to supply the said helicopter by the fuel. It can be thin wall pipe of polyamide.
The said vessel must be stable at any stormy weather, so it can be equipped by heavy underwater counterweigh of heavy metal, e.g. the iron. For uninterrupted patrol mission at 2 km height, so for patrol range of 400 km diameter, the said vessel spends 1.5 kg liquid ammonia daily. It can by high-speed vessel, and it can substitute a satellite for remote patrol unmanned during whole year, if being as tiny as about 500 kg dead-weight only!!! 
Leave a comment

Practical niche for HPV can be competing with motor cars

Author: David Judbarovski, 76, Israel

judbarovski@gmail.com, http://judbarovski.livejournal.com

Being a light transport in principle, ordinary HPV-s are moved by muscle power, is not more than 100-200 Watt in its single pilot variants allowing a long travel. For safety of travel, especially on roads for motor cars, such HPV-s’ velocity must be limited to be not more than 20-25 km/h. It is achievable velocity, because such HPV-s’ friction resistance is able to be as low as 20-30 Watt for two adult riders.

It can be as a bicycle in one of its numerous variants, but it can be high-tech construction looked as a mini-car. For example, a pilot can moves either as an oarsman or as a skier, but for charging electric motors through intermediate small electric generators moved by hands and legs and involving big powerful muscles of his body as variants, while such separated energies are summarized and then distributed for motor-wheels. The said electricity can be accumulated by small battery, and it allows the said car successfully to go on roads with descents and steep ascents.

Such mini-car is a well trainer, and can be much cheaper than motor-cars.

Leave a comment

Fukusima Renewable Energy Institute AIST (FREA), Japan

Renewable Energy Research Center

Hydrogen Energy Carrier Team

For Mr.Taku Tsujimur, Leader

For Mr. Tetsuya Namba, Chief Senior Researcher

Jointly with a leader and Senior Researcher of

Research Institute for Chemical Processes

21.6.2016

I can offer a real way to produce incredible cheap (including energy, materials and O & M) H2 (7 cents/kg), NH3 (USD 20.0/ton) and electricity (0.15 cents/kWh) by industrial cycled chemical processes, and a real way to incredibly cheap and safe transportation of them from production area to consumers for long distances.
I can suppose, my technologies separately looked to be very simple and known, but jointly till now was offered by nobody.

Hydrogen can be released at distributed stations from ammonia delivered in liquidized form at 10 bars by a system of main tubes from production & solar plants. The last is producing cheap hydrogen by mixing Zn with water vapor, while known process using H2SO4 cycled, can restore the said Zn being extremely cheap, because heat energy for the said chemistry can be produced by cheap small solar concentrating systems made of cheap foils and cheap mass produced parts of large order, totally is about 10.0 USD for 1.0 m2 of solar flux, so 2000 kWh heat * 5 years of payback, so as cheap as 10.0 USD / (2000 * 5) = USD 0.001/kWh heat (see more detailed in http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/106896.html ). Electricity can be produced by H2-air fuel cells from such cheap H2.

More detailed disclosure.

(a) Zn + H2O (steam, 400 C) = ZnO + H2 + 74 kJ, can be utilized in electricity
(b) ZnO + H2SO4 = ZnSO4 + H2O – 355 kJ here being simple heating in a simple, but stainless tank, and not electrowinning needed if Zn-ore
(c) ZnSO4 + H2O = (electrolysis, here high productive and not so sophisticated and at normal T and P conditions) = Zn + H2SO4 + ½ O2 – 5 kJ
And totally: H2O = H2 + ½ O2
Here it is allowed to consider all reagents as pure chemicals not needed in costly purification plus O & M plus energy, the both being not irretrievable expenses. Energy in our case is (355 – 74)/3.6/2 = 39.0 kWh/kg H2 * 0.001 USD/kWh = USD 0.039/kg H2 plus O &M, being minimal in the light of above-mentioned arguments, but can be significant in the hydrogen cost. Supposing O & M of electrolysis to be USD 2000/kW = 2000 /(5 years * 8700 hours/year) = USD 0.045/kWh, and because 5 kJ/mol Zn = 5 kJ/mol H2 = 0.7 kWh/kg H2, so 0.7 * 0.045 = USD 0.03/O & M for 1.0 kg H2 + 0.039 for energy, so the total cost is USD 0.07/kg H2 production.

Such cheap hydrogen can be used for ammonia production at the same plant by another cycled chemistry, e.g.

(a) 3 CaH2 +N2 = Ca3N2 + 3 H2

(b) Ca3N2 + 6 H2 = 3 CaH2 + 2 NH3, and we can use several analogous processes instead it, with the same incredible cheap ammonia, here is USD20.0/ton NH3, while O & M cost is negligible and N2 is produced by O2 burning from the air by coal.

David Judbaropvski, retired engineer, Israel, judbarovski@gmail.com

Leave a comment
david judbarovski<judbarovski@gmail.com> Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:35 PM
To: alex.danovich@gmail.com

Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original


alex,
you declared in LinkedIn that Russian is your mother language, and you
lived in Russian language environment since your childhood.
If you can read and understood adequately Russian in written form, I
can present you just below an idea can be promising as for your
present business success as for your future and expertise in IT and
transportation. .
It is special Apps conception for land transport navigation. Sorry me
that I'm trying to disclose it in Russian. I'm able it to present in
English too, but it is not so influent for me.
Нынешние навигаторы на автотранспорте назрело уже дополнить
приложением о разметках на дороге и дорожных знаках из облачной базы
данных. Эти Физические разметка и знаки могут быть повреждены, даже
испорчены или убраны злоумышленниками - например на территориях или
просто хулиганами. Тут нужны и законодательные инициативы и исполнение
чиновниками полиции, транспортных и дорожных служб и местной власти
своих же обязанностей. Речь идёт об улучшении безопасности на дорогах,
к чему привлекается общественный небезразличный интерес и поддержка,
лоббирование и следовательно - финансирование. Ответственность за
информацию для своевременного информирования о всех изменениях на
дорогах для обновления этого приложения, дополнительно ляжет на все
нынешние службы к их нынешним обязанностям по поддержанию порядка на
дорогах по контролю состояния разметки и знаков, причём нет
необходимости этим службам нанимать на работу компьютерщиков для этого
и создавать даже автоматическое оповещение по началу, хотя не плохо и
даже необходимо было бы в дальнейшем. Такое приложение к навигаторам
сильно упростит переход к беспилотному транспорту (unmanned vehicles),
и ваше приложение к навигаторы будут ещё более востребовано и его
больше повысится рыночное стоимость, А бизнес должен ещё раньше
получит государственный статус финансовой и законодательной поддержки
министерств и ведомств.
Алекс, кстати, журналист Лазарь Данович - не Ваш ли родственник? если
Вам трудно было читать, могу повторить на английском.
David Judbarovski. Akko, your contact in LinkedIn, judbarovski@mail.com.
Leave a comment
The Leclanché cell upgraded and another variant of its recycling
Author: David Judbarovski, 76, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com , http://judbarovski.livejournal.com
[1531]-29.05.2016

My present conceptual invention is a new look on power generation. Here just below I disclose such systems.
(A) The Leclanché cell is a battery invented and patented by the French engineer Georges Leclanché in 1866. I slightly modified his cell to turn the big problem of his ECG for the earliest age of electrochemistry into pretty advantage for our present level of technologies. Mr. Georges Leclanché had found a special technological trick being a usage of composite electrode containing manganese oxide for his Zn-battery to avoid its hydrogen being a byproduct of his battery. In my turn, I offer to utilize such free hydrogen for the said battery recycling. Moreover, my buttery is cheaper and simpler and much simpler recyclable.
Being summarized, my battery
anode reaction: Zn – 2 e (-) = Zn(+2)
electrolyte: 2 NH4(+) + 2 OH(-) + 2 H2O + Zn(+2) = 2 H3O(+) + Zn(OH)2 solid + 2 NH3, and the last with the water added is restoring our NH4OH-electrolyte.
Cathode reaction: 2 H3O(+) + 2 e(-) = H2 + 2 H2O
And totally:
Zn + 2NH4OH = Zn(OH)2 + 2 NH3 + H2 + 2.47 kWh electricity /kg Zn (theoretically).
Really, Q = 645 + 2 * 46 - 2 * 80 = 577 kJ, and 577/3.6/65 = 2.47 kWh.
For comparison, the Zn-air battery is 1.5 kWh/kg Zn (theoretically).
Further we’ll need to restore NH4OH consumed by adding some water to the product of the said electrochemistry and to recycle the Zn from Zn(OH)2.
For example, it can be
(A1) 2 NH3 + 2 H2O = 2 NH4OH - 505.6 kJ
(A2) Zn(OH)2 = 125 C = ZnO + H2O – 9 kJ
(A3) ZnO + H2 = 1300-1400 C = Zn + H2O – 65 kJ
And totally :
Zn(OH)2 + 2 NH3 + 2 H2O + H2 = Zn + 2 NH4OH using 505.6 + 9 + 65 = 580 kJ heat = 2.47 kWh heat can be renewable energy or can be obtained with a help of fuel burning, e. g. 1.48 C (coal) + 1.48 O2 = 1.48 CO2 + 580 kJ heat. The said total recycling chemistry doesn’t need any purification of the chemicals and of the coal.
Supposing the said coal to be USD 80.0/ton = 8 cents/kg, the said Zn (OH)2 recycling into Zinc is 1.48 * 12 * 1.48 / 65 = 2.18 cents/kg Zn, being a cost of our battery recycling, so our electricity would be as cheap as 2.18 cents/2.47kWh = 0.88 cents/kWh with 400 gram CO2 exhaust per one kWh of electricity production.
We can see that such thermal recycling of our battery is run with energy efficiency near 100%, and can be considered as a heat transformer into electricity with about 100% energy efficiency. It looks incredibly, but it is true.
For comparison, the conventional coal thermal power station produces electricity with about 40% efficiency by 2.2 cents/kWh with 1000 gram CO2 exhaust. Being the most clean & powerful fossil fuel now as cheap as USD 120 /1000 m3, the natural gas produces electricity by 2.4 cents/kWh and gives 400 gram CO2.
Leave a comment
The Leclanché cell upgraded and its recycling’s variants

My present conceptual invention is a new look on power generation. Here just below I disclose such systems.
(A) The Leclanché cell is a battery invented and patented by the French engineer Georges Leclanché in 1866. I slightly modified his cell to turn the big problem of his ECG for the earliest age of electrochemistry into pretty advantage for our present level of technologies. Mr. Georges had found a special technological trick being a usage of composite electrode containing manganese oxide for his Zn-battery to avoid its hydrogen being a byproduct of his battery. In my turn, I offer to utilize such hydrogen for additional electricity production up to 3.7 kWh per 1.0 kg of the Zinc vs. about 2.0 kWh/kg Zn if the Leclanché original (theoretically). Moreover, my buttery is cheaper and simpler and much simpler recyclable.
Being summarized, my battery
anode reaction: Zn – 2 e (-) = Zn(+2)
electrolyte: 2 NH4(+) + 2 OH(-) + 2 H2O + Zn(+2) = 2 H3O(+) + Zn(OH)2 solid + 2 NH3, and the last with the water added is restoring our NH4OH-electrolyte.
Cathode reaction: 2 H3O(+) + 2 e(-) = H2 + 2 H2O
And totally:
Zn + 2NH4OH = Zn(OH)2 + 2 NH3 + H2 + 2.45 kWh/kg Zn (theoretically)
H2 + air = (Fuel cell) = additional and practically free electricity of 1.22 kWh/kg Zn, so totally 3.7 kWh/kg Zn., while the said H2-air Fuel cell is 30 times cheaper than H2O-electrolizer per kW, so it allows to produce additional electricity practically free.
For comparison, the Zn-air battery is 1.5 kWh/kg Zn (theoretically).
Further we’ll need to recycle the Zn only from Zn(OH)2 for the battery fully recycling.
For example, it can be
(A1) Zn(OH)2 = 125 C = ZnO + H2O – 9 kJ
After that we can transform ZnO into Zn by using well know process now widely applied in industry.
(A2) ZnO + ½ C = 950 C = Zn + ½ CO2 – 154 kJ
and in sum it is 263 kJ, can be added by
(A3) (C + O2 = CO2 + 393 kJ) * (263 / 393 = 0.67)
And totally
Zn(OH)2 + (0.5 +0.67) C + 0.67 O2 = Zn + (0.5 + 0.67) CO2, or
Zn (OH)2 + 1.17 C = Zn recycled + 1.17 CO2
If supposing C to be USD 100.0/ton = 10 USA cents per kg, so
Zn can be recycled by cost of 10 * 12 * 1.17 / 65 = 2.16 USA cents/kg Zn + O & M for the coal pre-cleaning.
Because 1.0 kg Zn can produce 3.7 kWh electricity by above mentioned Leclanché cell improved, so our electricity would be 2.16 / 3.7 ~= 0.6 USA cents/kWh electricity.
Another variant of recycling see just below.
(A1) Zn(OH)2 = 125 C = ZnO + H2O – 9 kJ
After that we can transform ZnO into Zn by using well know process now widely applied in industry.
See: (a) ZnO + H2SO4 = ZnSO4 + H2O + 103 kJ here being a stainless tank, and not electrowinning needed if Zn-ore
(b) ZnSO4 + H2O = (electrolysis, here being high productive and not so sophisticated and at normal T and P conditions) = Zn + H2SO4 + ½ O2 – 453 kJ
And totally: ZnO = Zn + ½ O2 + 94 kJ (heat) – 453 kJ (electricity)
Here it is allowed to consider all reagents as pure chemicals not needed in costly purification plus O & M plus energy.
Zn recycled being a product of the said chemistry, it here gives (per a mol Zn) 94 kJ of heat and uses 453 kJ electricity, and producing 1.0 mol of free hydrogen additionally as my Zn-battery’s byproduct.
Supposing O & M of the electrolysis to be USD 1000.0/kW = 1000 /(5 yr. * 8700 hr/yr.) = USD 0.022/kWh.
453 kJ/mol Zn = 453 / 3.6/ 65 = 1.94 kWh/kg Zn, and 1.94 * 0.022 ~= USD 0.044/O & M for 1.0 kg Zn recycling + (3.7 – 1.94) = 1.76 kWh per kg Zn of net electricity production,. So 0.044/1.76 ~= USD 0.025/kWh electricity by my technology.
In reality we must count energy losses for all steps of the said technology.
Leave a comment
Equipment for condensation of air humidity cheaply
Author: David Judbarovski, 76, Israel
judbarovski@gmail.com , http://judbarovski.livejournal.com
[1530]-21.05.2016

Our equipment is a vertical row of numerous thin film "layers", while each of them has a metallic frame with sides of about 20.0 meters. A depth of the layer is about 60 cm.
The layer is made of polyamide film of about 40 micron, except of upper and lower layers is made of more thick films. The ends of the said framed are fixed to six vertical polyamide ropes. The upper end of each rope is fixed to own separate aerostat, while the lower ends of the ropes are joined in single rope winded on a bobbin placed on the ground level. A perforated metallic tube goes through the central axis of the said construction, and further down to the ground it is a corrugated flexible stainless steel tube.
The said equipment is placed and stabilized between the lifted condensation level and lower clouds level with a help of buoyancy force of the said aerostat and by tensile force of the rope from its low end.
Wind flow goes through the said equipment and condensing its humidity in the water goes to the ground level. Being collected there the water further can be conditioned and distributed for the water consumers.
The said equipment of 400 layers can produce the water of distilled quality from some hundreds thousand ton till some millions ton annually by a cost of about one USA cent per a ton.
Certainly, the said estimation of the productivity and the cost is depended on geographic and climate conditions, and can be optimized with a help of height control of the equipment deployment at the sky.
Leave a comment