Validating "NET Power's" use of the Allam-Fetvedt cycle

  • #1
Joseph M. Zias
61
27
TL;DR Summary
www.netpower.com claims they have commercial use of the Allam-Fetvedt cycle.
The Allam-Fedvedt cycle is a method to burn natural gas without releasing Carbon to the atmosphere. www.netpower.com claims they have a 50 Mw commercial grade power plant using this innovation and I hope that is the case. Netpower states they are building a 300 Mw plant. This NEEDS TO BE VALIDATED! Does anyone reading this thread have any "pull" to have it done and if so make it a news item? Imagine the benefit of using fossil fuels without putting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I have via tweets tried to get Ernest Moniz's attention, an email to Fox and NBC news, and an email to one of my state senators. Goodness, if this proposed system is in operation and is indeed viable it would be quite important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
11,184
8,577
You can read more about it on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allam_power_cycle

Be sure to read the talk page of that article where several of the claims are disputed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allam_power_cycle

The article said, that the final product is a pure stream of CO2 "ready for sequestration". That is not the same as sequestered. That is like saying that I have a dollar bill, "ready for investment." There are several other obstacles to overcome. See the Wikipedia article on Carbon Sequestration.

A commercial plant using this cycle is not yet ready. If it proves practical, and if affordable, and if effective, and if reliable, and if long-lived, and if maintainable, and if the CO2 is actually and permanently sequestered, it will indeed be a significant breakthrough. But don't count your chickens before they hatch.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes jim mcnamara, russ_watters, berkeman and 1 other person
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
22,053
9,149
The Allam-Fedvedt cycle is a method to burn natural gas without releasing Carbon to the atmosphere.
My first reaction to this is: So what.

The primary combustion products of *any* hydrocarbon thermo plant are carbon dioxide and water vapor. Condense out the water vapor and you're left with carbon dioxide. Heck, my propane furnace does that!

[Edit] Slight correction: my furnace takes in air, which has nitrogen in it. This "cycle" uses pure oxygen in the combustion. You could easily convert my furnace to do that.

The main potential benefit I see would be from *if* this cycle is any more efficient than a standard Brayton cycle/combined cycle system. But the idea has nothing specifically to do with carbon sequestration that I can see. Just adding "ready for carbon sequestration" to the label of the waste stream doesn't mean anything.

[Also edit] Due to the requirement of using pure oxygen as the oxidizer, there can't possibly be an efficiency improvement over a standard system. But it may be more efficient to remove the nitrogen before combustion rather than after.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Insights Author
11,184
8,577
The primary combustion products of *any* hydrocarbon thermo plant are carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Their claim is that the output is a liquified and pressurized stream of pure CO2. So that differs, from gaseous emissions.

If they could then inject that liquid in the ocean at depths deeper than 2700 meters, it could be sequestered in the form of stable hydrate crystals.

All that is easier said than done, but it not the same as your home furnace.

p.s. There's at least one place where this has been done, so it is an issue of practicality rather than impossibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
The first large-scale CO2 sequestration project which began in 1996 is called Sleipner, and is located in the North Sea where Norway's StatoilHydro strips carbon dioxide from natural gas with amine solvents and disposed of this carbon dioxide in a deep saline aquifer.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
22,053
9,149
Their claim is that the output is a liquified and pressurized stream of pure CO2. So that differs, from gaseous emissions.
Sure: because they paired the power plant with a gas liquefication/distillation plant. There's no secret sauce in that, and they aren't inherently connected systems.

The only secret sauce I see here is using carbon dioxide as a working fluid in the gte.
 
  • Like
Likes Keith_McClary

Suggested for: Validating "NET Power's" use of the Allam-Fetvedt cycle

Replies
3
Views
628
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
988
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
897
Replies
8
Views
697
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
676
Top