DOTY WINDFUELS BOLD MOVE TO USE OFF-PEAK WIND ENERGY TO RECYCLE CO2 GASES INTO TRANSPORTATION FUELS

 

For many years, greentech leaders have been saying renewables are never going to make a major contribution to our energy needs until we have a better method for storing off-peak clean energy. For even longer, environmentalists and national security analysts have been seeking an alternative to fossil oil for our transportation needs. WindFuels, a small company in South Carolina, believes both of these needs can be met simultaneously with a new concept to store excess intermittent clean energy in standard hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel) for transportation.

Doty Windfuels has been working on a system called RFTS, or Renewable Fischer Tropsch Synthesis. The process looks to use off-peak excess wind energy to recycle CO2 into standard fuels that work seamlessly in the one billion cars and trucks on the road around the world.  The chemistry is fundamentally simple and well understood.  First, variable off-peak energy is used to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen; some of the hydrogen is used to reduce CO2 into CO and H2O in a catalyzed reaction called Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS); the balance of the hydrogen is combined with the CO in a Fischer Tropsch reactor (see picture below) to form a synthetic oil -- a mixture of mostly gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel -- just like the stuff from petroleum, but with no contaminants. The co-produced oxygen from the electrolysis is a byproduct. 

Fischer Tropsch chemistry has been well understood for seven decades.  During World War II, Germany synthesized some of its fuel by combining CO and H2 (derived from coal) in an FT reactor. Today, this process is commonly referred to as coal-to-liquids, or CTL. South Africa has the longest history of FTS generation of fuels.  Unfortunately, traditional coal-to-liquids production is even more environmentally destructive than tar sands or oil-shale-based petroleum because of its enormous on-site release of CO2.  However, if the H2 is obtained from water and excess carbon-neutral energy, and the CO is derived from CO2, the fuels are carbon neutral.

There is no question that it should be possible to synthesize standard liquid fuels from CO2 and water using off-peak clean energy.  The only step that has not been commercialized is the RWGS process – reducing CO2 to CO.  The question has not been whether such a system would work, but whether it would compete with traditional petroleum derived fuels.

Our analysis concludes that if the correct paths and system design are chosen, overall system efficiency (from input electrical energy to output energy in the liquid fuels) will exceed 58 percent.  If done at a reasonable scale, the synthetic fuels could be competitive when oil is as low as $50/bbl -- and always when oil is above $95/bbl.  After the R&D phase, the equipment capital costs are expected to be low enough to be recovered in two to three years. The goal is to develop a process that will allow the world to replace the use of petroleum and tar sands with clean, competitive, carbon-neutral fuels synthesized efficiently from CO2 and off-peak clean energy.

One of the team’s recent technical papers shows that the related direct-solar-fuels processes face daunting practical barriers because of fundamental laws of thermodynamics governing equilibria in one or more of the required steps. The RFTS process, on the other hand, eliminates such bottlenecks by starting with electrical energy rather than thermal energy or photons to get the needed hydrogen.  The technology for electrolysis is mature and efficient. After the electrolysis, there are no highly endothermic reactions, so there are no reactions that are difficult to get to work.

The “windfuels” name is apt because about 99 percent of the inexpensive, clean, off-peak energy that has come on-line in the past several years in the U.S. has been wind, although nuclear energy may be the best option in some places.  A few facts here put the scalability, climate benefit, and expected competitiveness of windfuels into perspective.

Approximately 25 TWh (yes, 25 terawatt-hours) of wind energy was curtailed (idled) in the U.S. last year to keep the off-peak grid energy price from frequently going negative.  That is about equal to the energy in 700 million gallons of gasoline just being thrown away. Curtailed wind energy in the U.S. appears likely to exceed 40 TWh in 2011.

Our Plan Use recycled CO2, water and wind energy to make liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. No Magic. Just good physics, chemistry and engineering.
1. Wind Farms will generate the electricity required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. Using off-peak (night time) wind energy keeps costs down.	2. Electrolysis: electric current (from wind turbines) is passed through water (H2O) to break the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen. This yeilds hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gases.
3. Reverse Water Gas Shift (RWGS).  In a RWGS reaction, some Hydrogen (H2) is added to CO2to reform CO2 into water (H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO). CO2 + H2 -----> CO + H2O	4. Renewable FTS (RFTS). In our renewable FTS process, CO andH2 are chemically reformed into liquid hydrocarbon fuels including gasoline and jet fuel. (In traditional fossil FTS, the CO and H2 are provided by coal. Unfortunately large amounts of CO2are released in that process.)  We don't need coal. We just needCO from CO2 and H2 from water.
5. These fuels made from CO2 (gasoline, diesel, ethanol, and jet fuel) can be transported in trucks and distributed in our current gas stations and fuel stations.

Economically recoverable wind energy potential in the U.S. exceeds 70 PWh/yr -- enough  energy to synthesize twice the current U.S. transportation fuel needs just during the off-peak hours at the efficiency expected.

Point-source CO2 emissions in the U.S. total about 4 Gt/yr -- enough to synthesize twice the current domestic transportation fuel usage -- about 0.7 Gt/yr. Windfuels are expected to be 85 percent carbon-neutral (fully burdened), while most domestic biofuels are only 5 percent to 15 percent carbon neutral when land-use change is fully considered.
 
Windfuels provide the potential for the U.S. to transition from the world's largest importer of oil to the world’s largest exporter of carbon-neutral transportation fuels.   

The company is working on scaling windfuels plant designs down as small as practical with acceptable efficiency and capital cost, since changes in the financial markets argue that the more likely scale-up path would be thousands of 10-megawatt plants throughout the wind corridor rather than a much smaller number of gigawatt-scale plants near large nuclear reactors.  Recent simulations are showing 45 percent efficiency at the 2-megawatt plant size, 53 percent at 20 megawatts, and 58 percent at 250 megawatts.

The strong upwards trend in the price of oil in the last two years is bringing gasoline prices back into the media spotlight.  Doty expects to be showing laboratory results by the time the public is again insisting on solutions that show real promise for competing with OPEC.

COMMENTARY:   I find Fischer-Tropsch synthesized fuels very interesting. but their technology takes us backwards rather than forwards.  Isn't the whole idea behind green technology to reduce greenhouse gases, not produce them?  Although the technology is not exactly novel, they claim they can produce synthetic fuels at higher efficiency because they will be using off-peak electricity from wind turbines.  I assume they  will locate their plants in close proximity to a wind farm.  I don't doubt that the technology produces synthetic fuels, and that they can produce their synthetic fuels economically as the price of oil increases, but they are a long ways from proving they can scale their technology for commercial production.   Raising capital could also become an issue given that they are not a green technology.  Still, as we reach peak-oil, peak-coal and peak-shale oils, governments will be desperate to find solutions to oil shortages, so this might make real sense, but it is going to take a lot of capital to get a plant off the ground, and state and national initiatives could torpedo their plans to meet gas emission standards.    

Courtesy of an article dated February 2, 2011 appearing in GreenTechMedia

Comments

[David Bindoff]

Glenn, can you advise your calculations for the supply of CO2 for your 10Mw plant, how many tons will be required per day?
Is the geographical supply of CO2 coincident with the supply of off peak wind energy?

Is the supply of CO2 a derivative of coal fired power generation - if so what is the method of collection or removal and delivery of the CO2 from the process?
Are the capital costs of delivery of the CO2 included in your capital required?

[Glenn Doty]

Tommy,

First, I am not the founder - my father is. I am on the development team, but my father is the founder, CEO, and chief engineer both for the root business: Doty Scientific Inc; and the energy development team: Doty Energy.

My father wrote the article for Greentech media, and used the 85% carbon neutral position as a worst-case position, one in which no bi-products (such as oxygen) were sold. This may be the case in some large deployment conditions, as the oxygen market may become saturated in some regions, and oxy-combustion facilities may take longer to build-out than WindFuels is projected to scale-up.

But we decided to use the 85% figure as it is far less controversial than a more full assessment as I gave in the other comment.

We largely agree on near-term oil prices. As conventional oil peaks the price must rise until investors feel safe developing non-conventional oil. The price point for GTL and CTL seem to be ~$120/bbl, tar-sands seems to be ~$150/bbl, and oil shale is probably ~$180/bbl. I doubt oil will average higher than $180/bbl for long, though it may spike as high as $300/bbl. I think the 20-year average will be in the neighborhood of ~$150-$160/bbl (2010 USD).

It's either us or the tar sands as far as fueling transportation, because EV's aren't even remotely competitive within that price range... and we're far more carbon neutral under any analysis than EV's or compressed natural gas (CNG), which only marginally compete at that price point.

As for your questions (this may be a long response):

1. We are self funded and are looking for investors. Doty Scientific Inc is a privately-held 30-year-old company making custom scientific equipment. Doty Energy is a group within DSI that is working on the novel WindFuels process.
The profits from DSI have thus far wholly funded our R&D for the WindFuels project. We are, however, looking for Round A funding, as DSI is a very small company (~$2-3M/yr), and we will need ~$18M in order to build a pilot WindFuels plant and prototypes of the recuperator and heat engines.

2. The capital required to build plants depends entirely on what stage of development we are at. We expect our 200 kW pilot plant to cost ~$16M, and we then expect our first 2MW plant to cost ~$25M. However, we should move very quickly to deployment after the completion and successful demonstration of the 2 MW plant, and we will benefit from standardized designs, mass-produced components, and other economy-of-scale norms. At this point, our plant price projections can only be based on assessing the cost of similar technology, so there is some uncertainty in the projections (these are conservative projections, so the uncertainty is +/-... do not consider these to be best-case).
We're projecting a cost of a 5 MW plant to be ~$9-$13M: (47-49% efficiency);
10 MW plant: $15-$19M (50-52% efficiency);
20 MW plant: $27-$33M (53-55% efficiency);
50 MW plant: $63-$73M (56-58% efficiency);
250 MW plant: $280-326M (58-60% efficiency);

We should have a pilot plant built within 2.5 years of receiving Round A; and we'll have much more clarity concerning the plant costs by that point.

3. The efficiency we calculate is based on the electrical energy consumed by the electrolyzers vs the thermal energy in the fuels that are produced. Hence, if a 20 MW system achieved 53% efficiency, then for every 20 MWhs that were purchased from the grid, a total of 10.6 MWh's in thermal energy would be stored in fuels and chemicals, while 9.4 MWh's of waste heat would be rejected. I can direct you to several papers that explain how we achieve that level of efficiency, but those papers are 10,000 words. In a nutshell though, it revolves around assuming that energy is valuable, and all energy must be recovered or re-used within the system as effectively as possible.

4. 2.5 years from the date of funding we expect to have a pilot plant running. Once we're deployment ready, and have gone through our IPO and raised capital to deploy in full, we expect it will take no more time to build a 20 MW WindFuels plant than it takes to build a comparably sized power plant... So depending on the local politics, it should take between a few months and ~3 years.

[Tommy]

Glen, thank you for discovering me. I always appreciate the input and additional information from company founders like yourself. By the way, I try to be fair and balanced in my opinion of green technology innovations. I think you will agree, that what we really need to do is reduce carbon emissions. GreenTechMedia also believes that Windfuels will be 85% carbon neutral, not 100%. Carbon neutral doesn't move us towards that goal. We can't just "chip away" at the carbon emissions problem. We need quantum leaps, and take huge chunks out of the CO2 emissions. That's why I am such an advocate of renewable energy. On another subject, you maybe on to something if the scalability issues can be overcome and cost to produce come down to create economies of scale. America has end its runaway addiction to oil and reliance on foreign oil. I recently wrote about the Peak Oil Crisis, you probably read my article. That's reality. At $4.00 per gallon by mid 2011, and $5.00 by 2012, you maybe very well positioned to take advantage of our immediate needs. In that regard, I have a few questions for you:
1) Are you self-funded or have investors?
2) How much capital will you need to build plants (2MW, 20MW and so forth).
3) Explain efficiency.
4) How long would it take build a small plant.

glen, thanks so much for your comments. I appreciate your input very much.

[Glenn Doty]

To further follow up on the commentary, I'd like to address the issue of raising capital. Most investors can clearly see that we are a company dedicated to reducing net carbon emissions. By being strongly profitable with or without subsidies, this technology shows more promise for scaling rapidly and making a significant difference in carbon emissions than any other. The problem most VC's have - at first glance - is that the solution involves multiple innovations that must be integrated, adding a greater element of technical risk.

However, upon further consideration, it becomes clear that the multi-innovation nature of this investment is a strength that drastically reduces technical risk, so long as you understand that each of the innovations on their own have very large market potentials. This is actually a diversified investment in efficiency technology with a high chance of being integrated into a major fuels opportunity.

Consider this:

With none of the novel technologies succeeding, and current technology achieving its range of potential, we would be looking at a price-point for oil of ~$150-$200/bbl if we used carbon-neutral energy to recycle CO2. That’s still better than EV’s, but that’s not competitive.
We have patented and are developing a truly novel high-pressure cryogenic separation loop for the product stream, a novel FT reactor, a novel cost-effective recuperator, and a novel heat engine.

The multi-technology approach ensures that any investor faces multiple high-yield exits.

There has not been a single valid scientific or engineering rebuttal against the concept or our detailed simulations, so we can assume that the actual technical risk associated with any component is less than 5%, or certainty is greater than 95% (we actually believe this to be greater than 98% for most of the components). A typical analysis would show a 95% certainty for the heat engine, and the recuperator, the cryogenic separation/recycling loop, and the FT reactor; then a ~75% certainty for the RWGS integration and for the full system integration. Which would compound out to a total technical certainty of ~46% for the full WindFuels system. (or however you choose to assign risk or certainty - again we think 95% is low-balling it, and 75% is insane considering the level of detail in the simulations and the complete lack of any errors found).
However, since any one of the individual innovations has a very strong market potential, the risks are diversified, and only one success needs to be accomplished in order for a highly profitable exit, the true risk that investors face becomes lessened. Let’s say instead that the investor knew very little about the relevant engineering or science - and so had little certainty of any of the processes, so he posed an 85% certainty for the components and a coin-flip (50%) for the integrations. In this case, his certainty of a fully integrated WindFuels plant seems extraordinarily low: ~13%... but his evaluation of the certainty of a profitable exit now is almost perfectly certain, because he sees a 13% chance of this becoming a trillion-dollar industry through total success, and he sees an 85% chance of this becoming a hundred million dollar industry with the FT reactor, and an 85% chance of this being a hundred million dollar industry with the cryogenic loop, and he sees an 85% chance of this becoming a multi-billion dollar industry with the heat engine, and an 85% chance of this becoming a mulit-billion dollar industry with the recuperator, and a 72% chance of this becoming a multi-hundred billion dollar industry if both the recuperator and the heat engine succeed (the Geo-CSP hybrid opportunity).
Now the perceived total certainty (in this outlined perception of risk and certainty) of making a very large return is now ~99.99%... it’s actually much higher, as we see better than 95% technical certainty for all of the innovations, and an 80-90% certainty for the integrations.

I think that any investor who gives us a fair hearing will be very interested.

[Glenn Doty]

I'm glad I stumbled across this site.

First, I'd like to thank you for looking into our technology and spreading some information about our WindFuels process.

Second, I'd like to point out that the picture that you included is not a picture of an FTS reactor. That was just a picture of some of the equipment in our company and two of our employees. That particular picture is a 7T magnet for spectroscopy.

But the commentary, I feel, requires a response.

There seems to be a lack of understanding concerning the goal of renewable energy here: People who are concerned about global warming have a desire and a duty to attempt to reduce CO2 emissions (and people who are concerned about the environment at large have a responsibility to reduce all other contaminate emissions). That's the goal. Any other random goal that is applied has nothing to do with "green-ness" and has everything to do with vested interests (pride is the most common investment in this sense, but the statement is true nonetheless).

To be “carbon neutral” does not mean that the process cannot involve carbon, it means that the net amount of carbon produced from the process is equal to the amount of carbon absorbed by the process. In a very basic and simplified analysis, the RFTS process is carbon neutral - as it takes in carbon that is currently being emitted to the atmosphere, and it converts that carbon to fuels, which are then burned and emit that carbon into the atmosphere - net neutral.

A more thorough reckoning shows that this process is actually “carbon negative”, in that far less net carbon is emitted when the process is operational than would be emitted if the process is not operational.

First, 100% of the CO2 will either be recycled or converted within the WindFuels plant. 58% of the ENERGY will be converted to fuel, while 42% will be exhausted as waste heat, but 100% of the CO2 entering the WindFuels plant is projected to be converted to fuel. So every 1 gallon of gasoline will be produced from ~8.8 kg of purchased CO2. Which means 8.8 kg of CO2 are sequestered for every 1 gallon of gasoline produced. The gasoline will eventually be burned, emitting 8.8 kg of CO2, for a net total carbon intensity of zero.

Of course, the truth isn’t quite so simple, as we will likely absorb somewhere between 3-8% carbon-sourced energy because the electrolyzer bank must have a minimum of 2% power running through it, and there will be some absorption of carbon-sourced energy from the grid. Furthermore, there will be some carbon-sourced energy required to separate and compress the CO2. So we are anticipating a total carbon intensity in our fuels of between 10.9 and 14.3 kg/gallon gasoline. 8.8 kg of exhaust was sequestered into these fuels, for a net carbon intensity of 2.1 - 5.5 kg-CO2/gallon of gasoline.
However, in a real market evaluation, every gallon of WindFuels gasoline that is produced and consumed will offset the production of a gallon of tar sands fuel, or CTL or oil shale fuel. These fuels have a minimum carbon intensity of 14 kg-CO2/gallon. So thus far for every gallon that is produced and consumed we’re seeing a net reduction in atmospheric CO2 of between 11.9 and 8.5 kg-CO2/gallon.

But O2 is a current commercial product that is derived from fractional distillation of air, with a market of 100 million tons/year. Assuming a net savings of 865 kg-CO2/MWh of fossil electricity (from reduction, this co-produced O2 from WindFuels will offset an additional 3.2 kg-CO2/gallon from the abatement of fractional-distillation produced O2.

Finally, depending on siting, there could be some industrial pre-heating uses for the clean waste heat that is produced. If this is credited, then a further reduction of ~5 kg of CO2 emissions might be reduced.

Hence, every gallon of WindFuels that is produced and sold will reduce net CO2 emissions by between 11.7 and 18.1 kg-CO2.

[refurbishusedcomputer]

The blog provides helpful information regarding the topic and it also gives a vast knowledge as well which helps us in our studies and in practical life.