Nuclear Cement

In the recent Nuclear Ammonia article post, ammonia was illustrated as a fuel that could propel vehicles in a zero carbon era. Despite our best efforts in developing new internal combustion engines and direct ammonia fuel cells, there will continue to be a role for carbonaceous fuels. Gasoline and jet fuel have double the volumetric energy capacity of liquid ammonia. A given fuel tank can only contain half as much ammonia combustion potential energy as gasoline combustion potential energy. Fuel tank size is very important in aircraft. Decades of engineering of airframes and turbine engines have optimized aircraft performance using diesel-like JP8 jet fuel.

Global fossil fuel essions

CO2 emissions from burning liquid carbonaceous fuels continue to rise, exceeding even those from burning coal. Aside from the fact that CO2 emissions may cause a global warming catastrophe, and aside from the fact that the world is running out of economically recoverable oil, the US has an energy security problem.

Oil Reserves Concentrated

The US produces just 35% of the 260 billion gallons used annually. We pay $400 billion per year for imported oil. The US spent $7 trillion through 2007 to maintain a US presence in the Persian Gulf.

We can and should reduce our use of liquid fuels derived from fossil petroleum, and we know we will always need some carbonaceous gasoline, diesel, and JP8 fuels. Yet there may be carbon neutral methods to recover or offset the CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning them.

Using nuclear heat and power, chemical engineers can design plants to synthesize CHx fuels from any carbon source. One source might be agriculture to harvest carbon from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a different objective than growing corn to harvest its kernels’ sugar to be fermented into ethanol. This objective is to obtain the carbon from all the plant matter, not the potential energy from ethanol combustion. The energy source to make such synthetic fuels would really be the nuclear heat and power source.

How much agriculture might be needed? Very roughly, an acre of land can produce 3 dry weight tons of biomass per year. This is approximately the same for corn fields and forests. The mass of the carbon in biomass is about 50%, so the dry weight of carbon extracted from the atmosphere this way is about 1.5 tons per acre. The US has about one billion acres of farmland, capable in total of producing about 1.5 GT (giga tons) of carbonaceous fuels. US annual fuel consumption is about 1 GT per year. So making such fuel this way is barely conceivable, especially if we use less, perhaps substituting ammonia or battery power for most vehicles.

Project Green Freedom is conceived by Jeffrey Martin and William Kubic of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The idea is to use a nuclear power plant to provide the energy to synthesize fuel, and use the air flow of the cooling towers as a source for carbon from CO2 that makes up about 0.035% of the atmosphere. They observed that alkaline lakes absorb about 30 times the CO2 of similar size fields of switchgrass, and so conceived of trays of potassium carbonate exposed to the airflow within the nuclear plant cooling towers. The CO2 would be electrochemically removed from solution, combined with hydrogen from electrolysis of water to manufacture methanol, which is converted to gasoline. There is not yet a demonstration plant and there are some concerns about the efficacy of CO2 absorption and the number of cooling towers required. The whole fuel combustion/synthesis process would be carbon neutral, because just as much CO2 would be put into the atmosphere by burning as removed by Green Freedom.

There may be another way to implement a carbon neutral cycle for carbonaceous liquid fuels. Did you notice the “cement” line on the first illustration in this post?

The lime cycle has been used to make mortar for construction for millennia. Limestone is heated very hot to drive off CO2; it’s not really “burned”. Adding water makes calcium hydroxide used as the binding agent for mortar. Water is then given off and the setting mortar very slowly absorbs CO2 from the air to make a strong calcium carbonate cement. This idealized cycle is carbon neutral, but in the real world the process of heating the limestone is accomplished by burning large quantities of natural gas, which is why this process is the fourth largest contributor to atmospheric CO2 pollution, after natural gas, coal, and petroleum burning. In today’s construction industry, lime mortar is replaced by Portland cement, produced by a similar cycle, but with sand added to the limestone to add silicon to the chemistry, making a stronger cement. The CO2 cycle is the same.

This process is the conception of Darryl Siemer, a retired nuclear chemist from Idaho National Labs. Heat from a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) would be transferred to the kilns to heat the sand and limestone. The molten salt might have a temperature of 800 C, so it just preheats the sand and limestone. The Portland cement process requires 1500 C, so that energy is supplied by a plasma arc powered by electricity from a LFTR. The exhaust gas contains CO2 and H2O, with the CO2 fed to a synfuel plant combining with H2 from electrolysis powered by LFTR. In this example Darryl proposed making 3 quads of carbonaceous fuel — about 8% of today’s US fuel consumption. Making that much fuel creates 300 MT (mega tonnes) of cement. The process would be carbon neutral, because the fuel synthesized and eventually burned would release CO2 into the atmosphere that would be absorbed by cement hardening as it is used in construction.

The US only uses about 106 MT per year of cement, so the rest could be exported. China uses 1800 MT of cement annually — more than half the entire world production.

So here is another source for carbon neutral carbonaceous fuels — nuclear cement.

 

 

Comments

comments


34 Replies to "Nuclear Cement"

  • Robert Hargraves
    December 12, 2011 (7:29 am)
    Reply

    Alex, Gerry, et al

    I do admit that nuclear cement is at the outer limits of practicality for obtaining carbon for synthesizing carbonaceous fuels. But stimulating thinking gets results, like the paper Alex referenced — well worth reading.
    http://www.wcce8.org/doc/090803_CH_Technico_econo

    I note that the technology that produces the most diesel from biomass uses external heat, hydrogen, and plasma heating (as does the cement kiln concept) — available from LFTR sourced energy.

    I wrote that synthesizing all US carbonaceous fuel consumption would require 1 GT of carbon per year, possible from using 2/3 of our cropland. In the presentation I proposed reducing carbon requirements by an order of magnitude via vehicle efficiency, electrification of autos and trains, and substitution of ammonia for most fuels. Also, there is three times as much forestland and grassland as cropland, so we really could satisfy carbon requirements from bio-sources.

  • darryl siemer
    December 12, 2011 (12:50 pm)
    Reply

    Dear Jerry

    Re your first comment: “Nuclear cement” assumes that LFTRs will make clean energy cheap which renders arguments based upon the cement/concrete industry’s current cost drivers/customs irrelevant. In other words it assumes that "change" happens.

    Second, it also assumes that this country could profitably utilize 3-4 times as much cement as it currently does. (e.g., for housing which is now primarily made of wood & roads now primarily glued together with asphalt) & therefore that it’s not necessary to assume that most of the “new” cement would have to be exported. For example, if concrete were significantly cheaper than it is today, I’d pave a ~250’ driveway out in front of my house.

    I agree that putting molten salt jackets on the cyclones is probably not worth the trouble. I also agree that a LFTR’s “waste heat” is too cool to be of much use. Putting 100% of the required energy into the system as electricity would certainly be simpler & probably cheaper.

    Re alkali bypass: I suspect that the clinker would retain more alkali because much of the alkali blown out of today’s cement kilns comes out in the form of sulphates originating from the sulfur in the “dirty” fuels usedby today’s kilns. More alkali retention isn’t necessarily bad because the cure to problems engendered by it is to simply add a cheap pozzolan (e.g., calcined clay). In any case, the degree of akali bypass needed by an arc-heated kiln can’t be determined until somebody screws up enough resolve to build & use a pilot plant. The same comment applies to optimizing everything else in such a radically different process.

    Wouldn’t it be fun to actually do those tests?

  • DarCK
    December 15, 2011 (10:33 am)
    Reply

    Wouldn't what ever carbon is store as methanol in tanks effectively be sequestered?

    The larger the use and capacity stored the more is sequestered?

  • JerryFSD
    December 15, 2011 (3:05 pm)
    Reply

    Alex – Please be aware that the ag community is progressing to 'no till' and the removal of stover represents a removal of fertilizer. Diesel can be produced from CO2, sunlight and LFTR waste heat. The production rate being bandied about was 10k gals per acre per year. I would say that anything over 2k would be great. The leftovers, sugar and protein, would have other uses.

  • JerryFSD
    December 15, 2011 (4:09 pm)
    Reply

    Robert – I would suggest that crops are being grown where it is economically viable to do so. Forest and pasture are generally less productive. Vehicle eff is increasing with, of course, fleet eff lagging. Electrification of vehicles is necessary, but must be in form of PHEV. Many people, like myself, do not live in SFH. Electrification of trains is a $1mil+/mile deal and there are a lot of miles. Milwaukee Road had 1 or 2 divisions that way many years ago.

  • JerryFSD
    December 15, 2011 (4:24 pm)
    Reply

    Darryl – I understand that "change' happens, but chemistry does not and the temperatures are what they are. I agree that the sulphates are from the pulv coal fuel.
    If I had a 250' driveway it would be pea gravel, but, hey, that's just me.
    It will be a long time before SFH are built of concrete w/ insulation on outside where it belongs.
    Low quality waste heat is useable w/ the marriage of the right processes.
    If injection of calcined clay would cure the alkali problem, they should be doing it. Seems simple enough.

  • Roger Arnold
    December 23, 2011 (4:19 am)
    Reply

    I'm strongly in favor of using biomass as a carbon source, and not an energy source. I'm equally in favor of using the concentrated CO2 from sources like cement production to make synfuels. But one small point of correction: the type of cement that is overwhelmingly dominant in construction does not absorb a significant amount of CO2 over its lifetime. Absorbtion of CO2 is not what causes it to harden. Rather, it's a hydration reaction, with CaO + H2O -> Ca(OH)2. Crystals of hydrated material grow and interlock.

    There *is* a type of cement in which absorbtion of CO2 plays a key role in hardening. I believe it's based on MgO, rather than CaO. Fuzzy about the details, but I know that some green technology folks have advocated for using that type of cement more. As I recall, however, it starts out very weak, and takes decades to achieve full strength.

  • darryl siemer
    December 23, 2011 (9:05 am)
    Reply

    The primary hardening mechanism in Portland (or lime pozzolan)-type cements does indeed involve the formation of interlocking hydrated calcium silicate (CSH)fibers. However, in the presence of carbon dioxide, CSH is thermodynamically unstable with respect to silica and limestone which combined with the fact that concretes are porous means that they will eventually become fully carbonated. Since carbonation is a non expansive reaction, it doesn't weaken concrete which explains why Rome's Parthenon etc. are still standing. On the other hand modern concrete structures possess a fatal weakness (steel rebar) which does undergo an expansive reaction (corrosion) which will destroy those structures in far less time.

  • JerryFSD
    December 28, 2011 (8:14 pm)
    Reply

    I have Benign Tremor and it is very hard to type. I expend the time, energy and frustration too make a comment and the #$%^ CAPTCHA Code won't recognize

1 2

Leave a Reply