4 ms·
Some comments and expansion on your analysis, which I enjoyed reading and provided a nice excuse to dust some mental cobwebs. I'd also like to clarify up front
by thereisnospork 5y ago
Some comments and expansion on your analysis, which I enjoyed reading and provided a nice excuse to dust some mental cobwebs.
I'd also like to clarify up front that I'm limiting my analysis to the proposed electrochemical mechanism, and have no information on the specifics of Heimdal's proposed implementation - which may vary significantly and materially:
The theoretically minimum electrical energy input (often) winds up being set by one of the reaction intermediates, rather than the overall reaction enthalpy. Typically these analyses are done via determining the corresponding half cell potentials, then counting electrons and computing power via P = IV.[0] So we only need to consider H2O (and its dissociation -0.83[1]) and Cl- to Cl2 at 1.36). That sums to approx 2.19V for the cell, and 2 electrons to do 2H2O + 2Cl- -> H2 + 2OH- + Cl2. That the formed OH-'s pair with Ca2+, and/or CO2 is immaterial to the theoretical electrical efficiency of the cell. Accordingly, the cell energy requirement is on a molar basis identical to the chloralkali process. The only difference is the presence of 2Na+ vs. Ca2+.
Less concretely the lower reactant concentrations have two specific negative effects: Cell potential is adversely affected (per the Nernst equation) and Cell current can be adversely affected if/when depletion occurs. At 0.01M of Ca2+, vs. 6+M Na+[2], current densities could be 1-3 orders of magnitude lower. Cell count (CAPEX) is inversely proportional to current density.
Ultimately making CaCO3 this way (and CaO) winds up substituting a 400$/tonne product in NaOH for an approx 40$/tonne product in CaCO3. It is a very technically feasible approach for turning $$$ into sequestered carbon via non emission from natural limestone.
The analyzed approach reminds me a lot of Calera, who had an apparently similar electrochemical approach to CaCO3.
[0]Not that it can't be done from Gibb's energies, indeed the standard potentials for a reaction can be computed from the delta Gibbs, but the specific species the electrons are being pulled from/pushed into matters. Phrased a different way: electrical energy and overall reaction enthalpy are not necessarily fungible. e.g. (at a simple level) the reaction of CO2 with Ca(OH)2 doesn't affect the electrical energy requirement, nor does CaCO3 --> CaO because neither reaction involves electrons. Any exotherm just winds up 'wasted' as heat, instead of lowering the electrical demand.
[1]Per 2H2O + 2e- --> H2(g) + 2OH-(aq) #6.8.11 https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Mount_Royal_University/Chem_1202/Unit_6%3A_Electrochemistry/6.8%3A_Industrial_Electrolysis_Processes https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Mount_Royal_University/C...
[2] Saturated near room temp, don't have a better source handy.
- brilee 5y agoThanks for the comment, I also had to dust off some mental cobwebs for this analysis :) You're pointing out the crux of the issue: "Ultimately making CaCO3 this way (and CaO) winds up substituting a 400$/tonne product in NaOH for an approx 40$/tonne product in CaCO3." I calculated that Heimdal's process has 7x reality factor overhead, whereas chloralkali has 2x reality factor. This is seemingly in opposition to your statement. I think the diff comes from considering all the other energetics - precipitation of CaO from the hydroxide is thermodynamically quite favorable, reducing the overall theoretical cost by 65% relative to the chloralkali process. So to the extent that Heimdal can usefully harness that energy gradient, that's the difference.
- blacksqr 5y agoAccording to their web site, one of their premises is that renewable electricity is now cheap and plentiful. If that's so, I'm led to wonder if there is a more direct way to reduce CO2 emissions in cement manufacture, namely, use resistive or carbon-arc heating to fire the ovens, thus replacing fossil fuels in the manufacturing process. Sorry I don't have the chops to work out if that's economically feasible.
- coryrc 5y agoThe thing you are firing in the oven (limestone) releases CO2. Fossil fuels aren't the only source of CO2. We need zero CO2.
- blacksqr 5y ago> The thing you are firing in the oven (limestone) releases CO2. I'm aware of that. There are two main sources of CO2 in cement manufacture: the calcium carbonate raw material, and the fossil fuel required to cook the raw materials into clinker. Heimdal only deals with one. The questions I'm interested in are which source contributes more CO2 and which can be most economically eliminated. > We need zero CO2. Agree, but Heimdal won't get us there. We'll either have to find a replacement for cement, or devise a practical method to convert CO2 waste to something benign, like an improved Bosch process.