Field Demonstration of a Compact Steam Methane Reformer at Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton, CA

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Field Demonstration of a Compact Steam Methane Reformer at Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton, CA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TM-NAVFAC-EXWC-PW-1501 Field Demonstration of a Compact Steam Methane Reformer at Marine Corp Base Camp Pendleton, CA October 2014 Final Report Optimizing Infrastructure for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) ESTCP Project WP-200402 Version 2 October 2014 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives of the Demonstration ................................................................................2 1.3 Regulatory Drivers ......................................................................................................3 2. DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGY ...........................................................................4 2.1 Technology Description .................................................................................................4 2.2 Technology Development ..............................................................................................6 2.3 Advantages and Limitations of the Technology ............................................................7 3. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................9 3.1 Performance Objectives .................................................................................................9 3.2 Summary of Actual Performance .................................................................................10 4. SITE/PLATFORM DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................14 4.1 Test Platforms/Facilities ..............................................................................................14 4.2 Present Operations .......................................................................................................15 4.3 Site Related Permits and Regulations ..........................................................................16 5. TEST DESIGN ..............................................................................................................20 6. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................25 7. COST ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................35 7.1 Cost Model .............................................................................................................35 7.2 Cost Analysis and Comparison ..............................................................................38 7.3 Cost Summary ........................................................................................................43 8. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES .....................................................................................45 9. REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................49 Appendices A. Demonstration Project Points of Contact ................................................................... A-1 B. GREET Spreadsheet Tables ........................................................................................B-1 C. Air Emission Test Report ............................................................................................C-1 D. Hydrogen Quality Report ........................................................................................... D-1 E. Vehicle Efficiency Data .............................................................................................. E-1 F. Environmental Cost Analysis Methodology Spreadsheet Tables ................................ F-1 iii List of Figures 1-1 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Trend ....................................................................1 2-1 Hydrogen Production Process Flow Chart ...............................................................5 2-2 Off-Site Fueling Approach for Initial FCVs ............................................................8 3-1 Photograph of Emergency Responder Training ....................................................13 4-1 Project Location .....................................................................................................15 4-2 Light Vehicle Fleet Composition at MCB Camp Pendleton .................................16 5-1 Experimental Design .............................................................................................21 6-1 Hydrogen Fill and Communication Connections ..................................................25 6-2 Average Pollutant Levels in Reformer Exhaust Emissions ...................................27 6-3 Comparison of Hydrogen Fuel Sample Contaminants with the SAE J2719 .........29 6-4 Comparison of Fuel Cycle Emissions from Hydrogen FCVs with Alternatives ...34 List of Tables 2-1 Waste Generation for Reformer-Based Hydrogen Fuel Station ..............................5 2-2 Primary Design Criteria for Compact Hydrogen Fuel Processor ............................6 3-1 Performance Objectives ...........................................................................................9 5-1 Performance Confirmation Methods .....................................................................20 5-2 Hydrogen Quality Test Methods ...........................................................................22 6-1 Hydrogen Quality Testing Results ........................................................................28 6-2 Results from Safety Walk-Through Audit.............................................................32 6-3 Format for Emissions Comparison of Alternative Transportation Technologies..34 7-1 Fleet Model Assumption for Cost Analysis ..........................................................35 7-2 Hydrogen Delivery Options...................................................................................36 7-3 Scale of Alternative Fuel Technology for Cost Comparison ................................37 7-4 Fuel Economy Assumptions for Vehicles .............................................................37 7-5 Incremental Cost of Alternative Fuel Technologies ..............................................40 7-6 Cost Assumptions for Delivered Fuels ..................................................................42 7-7 Cost Assumptions for Utility Feeds.......................................................................42 iv 7-8 Summary of Life Cycle Costs for Competing Hydrogen Fueling Options ...........43 7-9 Alternative Fuel Technology Cost Comparison ....................................................44 A Demonstration Points of Contact .......................................................................... A-1 B GREET Spreadsheet Tables ...................................................................................B-1 C Air Emission Test Report .......................................................................................C-1 D Hydrogen Quality Test Report .............................................................................. D-1 E Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Data ................................................................................. E-1 F Environmental Cost Analysis Methodology Spreadsheet Tables ........................... F-1 v Acronyms and Abbreviations ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineering CH4 Methane CNG Compressed Natural Gas CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CSD Compression, Storage, and Dispenser DLA Defense Logistics Agency E-85 Ethanol (85%) Blend in Gasoline (15%) EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency EV Electric Vehicle FCV Fuel Cell Vehicle GREET Greenhouse Gas, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation H2 Hydrogen HC Hydrocarbons MCB Marine Corps Base NAVFAC EXWC Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFPA National Fire Protection Association NOx Oxides of Nitrogen PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SOx Oxides of Sulfur SWRFT Southwest Region Fleet Transportation UL Underwriters Laboratory VOC Volatile Organic Compound vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) Office provided funds to demonstrate an on-site hydrogen production technology for fuel cell vehicle (FCV) applications. Hydrogen production and delivery are key barriers to FCV implementation. The production unit, a compact steam methane reformer, offers potential advantages due to the abundant supply of natural gas available through the existing pipeline infrastructure. The technology also offers a dual benefit for stationary power applications and distributed generation. Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (NAVFAC EXWC) was the principal investigator and overall coordinator for the field demonstration effort. This demonstration project field tested a compact version of a traditional steam methane reformer. The reformer is a sub-component of the larger fuel processor. The reformer’s core consists of a catalyst-filled reaction chamber and a natural gas heater. The reformer converts steam and natural gas into hydrogen, carbon dioxide (CO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). Reaction chamber is made of nickel alloy or another material resilient to high temperatures and pressures. Unlike the long tube-shaped chambers in industrial units, compact reformers have stacked plate or concentric cylinders to meet space constraints. Competing
Recommended publications
  • Biogas Membrane Reformer for Decentralized Hydrogen Production
    Biogas membrane reformer for decentralized hydrogen production Newsletter – Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 This Newsletter Previous release Membrane & Catalysts Industrial specifications development Reference case First results @ Lab scale First membrane & First release of LCA catalyst release analysis March September March September March September 2016 2017 2018 Editorial Dear BIONICO friends I am glad to welcome you to the second project newsletter! The last project meeting was held at the end of August, allowing all the consortium members to take stock of the situation: in the second six months of the project new membranes, membrane supports and catalyst specifically designed for operating with biogas have been tested at TU/e labs and soon new promising finger-like porous asymmetric ceramic supports will be tested. The information collected allow now the Abengoa Hidrogeno engineering team to start with the design of the pilot scale reactor that will contain around 100 membranes! The scale of the project represents a strong step forward for CMR technology. Not only experimental, but also simulation work was performed by POLIMI in order to have benchmark cases for BIONICO. At the same time environmental performance of these technologies is being evaluated by Quantis, in order to demonstrate not only improved efficiency performance but also environmental ones for the BIONICO technology! I hope you will find the info in this newsletter interesting. On our website www.bionicoproject.eu you will find public presentations, all the public deliverables of the project and many other interesting news. Stay tuned! BIONICO newsletter - Issue 2 – 2nd half 2016 www.bionicoproject.eu In this Issue: Editorial .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Synthesis Gas Processes
    Review of Synthesis Gas Processes This review is extracted from the following report: SOFC AS A GAS SEPARATOR By M.A. Korobitsyn F.P.F van Berkel G.M. Christie December 2000 Synthesis gas production 1. Introduction There are a number of technologies available to produce syngas, these technologies are summarized in Fig. 1. Of the technologies shown in Fig. 1, steam methane reforming (SMR) is the most common. In this process light hydrocarbon feedstock and steam are converted in an endothermic reaction over a nickel catalyst. Heat to the reaction is provided in a radiant furnace. Due to the sulfur content in heavier hydrocarbons their use in the SMR process can cause problems with the catalysts, also there is a risk of tar and coke deposition. The second most common technology is partial oxidation (POX) which proceeds exothermically. Non-catalytic oxidation reaction allows a wider range of feedstock, however, an oxygen source is needed in most applications. Carbon dioxide reforming is a less common technology, which is primarily used for the production of syngas with a low H2/CO ratio. The combined and advanced processes, also detailed in Fig. 1, are either a combination or an enhancement of the three basic processes. In the following sections firstly the three basic processes are further described, shorter descriptions of the combined and advanced processes follow later in the section. Fig. 1 General overview of the routes from natural gas to chemicals. 2. Steam methane reforming (SMR) Background The steam methane reforming (SMR) process can be described by two main reactions: CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2, ΔH = 198 kJ/mol (1) CO + H2O = CO2 + H2, ΔH = -41 kJ/mol (2) The first reaction is reforming itself, while the second is the water-gas shift reaction.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: from Conventional to Emerging Technologies
    environments Article Life Cycle Assessment and Water Footprint of Hydrogen Production Methods: From Conventional to Emerging Technologies Andi Mehmeti 1,* ID , Athanasios Angelis-Dimakis 2 ID , George Arampatzis 3 ID , Stephen J. McPhail 4 and Sergio Ulgiati 5 1 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80143 Naples, Italy 2 School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; [email protected] 3 School of Production Engineering and Management, Technical University of Crete, 731 00 Chania, Greece; [email protected] 4 DTE-PCU-SPCT, ENEA C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00123 Rome, Italy; [email protected] 5 Department of Science and Technology, Parthenope University of Naples, 80134 Naples, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-327-556-3659 Received: 26 December 2017; Accepted: 2 February 2018; Published: 6 February 2018 Abstract: A common sustainability issue, arising in production systems, is the efficient use of resources for providing goods or services. With the increased interest in a hydrogen (H2) economy, the life-cycle environmental performance of H2 production has special significance for assisting in identifying opportunities to improve environmental performance and to guide challenging decisions and select between technology paths. Life cycle impact assessment methods are rapidly evolving to analyze multiple environmental impacts of the production of products or processes. This study marks the first step in developing process-based streamlined life cycle analysis (LCA) of several H2 production pathways combining life cycle impacts at the midpoint (17 problem-oriented) and endpoint (3 damage-oriented) levels using the state-of-the-art impact assessment method ReCiPe 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Substitutability of Electricity and Renewable Materials for Fossil Fuels in a Post-Carbon Economy
    Article Substitutability of Electricity and Renewable Materials for Fossil Fuels in a Post-Carbon Economy Antonio García-Olivares Received: 7 September 2015; Accepted: 17 November 2015; Published: 25 November 2015 Academic Editor: Robert Lundmark Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Marine Sciences, Ps. Maritim de la Barceloneta 37-49, Barcelona 08003, Spain; [email protected]; Tel.: +34-932309500 Abstract: A feasible way to avoid the risk of energy decline and combat climate change is to build a 100% renewable global energy mix. However, a globally electrified economy cannot grow much above 12 electric terawatts without putting pressure on the limits of finite mineral reserves. Here we analyze whether 12 TW of electricity and 1 TW of biomass (final) power will be able to fuel a future post-carbon economy that can provide similar services to those of a contemporary economy. Contrarily to some pessimistic expectations, this analysis shows that the principle economic processes can be replaced with sustainable alternatives based on electricity, charcoal, biogas and hydrogen. Furthermore, those services that cannot be replaced are not as crucial so as to cause a return to a pre-industrial society. Even so, land transport and aviation are at the limit of what is sustainable, outdoor work should be reorganized, metal primary production should be based on hydrogen reduction when possible, mineral production should be increasingly based on recycling, the petrochemical industry should shrink to a size of 40%–43% of the 2012 petrochemical sector, i.e., a size similar to that the sector had in 1985–1986, and agriculture may require organic farming methods to be sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection Data Package—Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Waste Form
    PNNL-20704 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Secondary Waste Form Down- Selection Data Package—Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming Waste Form NP Qafoku MM Valenta JH Westsik, Jr. RP Pires DM Strachan Septemeber 2011 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Printed in the United States of America Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062; ph: (865) 576-8401 fax: (865) 576-5728 email: [email protected] Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161 ph: (800) 553-6847 fax: (703) 605-6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm This document was printed on recycled paper.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas
    applied sciences Article A Comparative Exergoeconomic Evaluation of the Synthesis Routes for Methanol Production from Natural Gas Timo Blumberg 1,*, Tatiana Morosuk 2 and George Tsatsaronis 2 ID 1 Department of Energy Engineering, Zentralinstitut El Gouna, Technische Universität Berlin, 13355 Berlin, Germany 2 Institute for Energy Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, 10587 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] (T.M.); [email protected] (G.T.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-30-314-23343 Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 20 November 2017; Published: 24 November 2017 Abstract: Methanol is one of the most important feedstocks for the chemical, petrochemical, and energy industries. Abundant and widely distributed resources as well as a relative low price level make natural gas the predominant feedstock for methanol production. Indirect synthesis routes via reforming of methane suppress production from bio resources and other renewable alternatives. However, the conventional technology for the conversion of natural gas to methanol is energy intensive and costly in investment and operation. Three design cases with different reforming technologies in conjunction with an isothermal methanol reactor are investigated. Case I is equipped with steam methane reforming for a capacity of 2200 metric tons per day (MTPD). For a higher production capacity, a serial combination of steam reforming and autothermal reforming is used in Case II, while Case III deals with a parallel configuration of CO2 and steam reforming. A sensitivity analysis shows that the syngas composition significantly affects the thermodynamic performance of the plant. The design cases have exergetic efficiencies of 28.2%, 55.6% and 41.0%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M
    Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-46587 November 2010 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Techno-Economic Analysis of Biofuels Production Based on Gasification Ryan M. Swanson, Justinus A. Satrio, and Robert C. Brown Iowa State University Alexandru Platon ConocoPhillips Company David D. Hsu National Renewable Energy Laboratory Prepared under Task No. BB07.7510 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 1617 Cole Boulevard NREL/TP-6A20-46587 Golden, Colorado 80401 November 2010 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonomics the Rise of Clean Hydrogen
    EQUITY RESEARCH | July 8, 2020 | 11:34PM BST Carbonomics The Rise of Clean Hydrogen Clean hydrogen has a major role to play in the path towards net zero carbon, providing de-carbonization solutions in the most challenging parts of the Carbonomics cost curve - including long-haul transport, steel, chemicals, heating and long-term power storage. Clean hydrogen cost competitiveness is also closely linked to cost deflation and large scale developments in renewable power and carbon capture (two key technologies to produce it), creating three symbiotic pillars of de-carbonization. Clean hydrogen is gaining strong political and business momentum, emerging as a major component in governments' net zero plans such as the European Green Deal. This is why we believe that the hydrogen value chain deserves serious focus after three false starts in the past 50 years. Hydrogen is very versatile, both in its production and consumption: it is light, storable, has high energy content per unit mass and can be readily produced at an industrial scale. The key challenge comes from the fact that hydrogen (in its ambient form as a gas) is the lightest element and so has a low energy density per unit of volume, making long-distance transportation and storage complex and costly. In this report we analyze the clean hydrogen company ecosystem, the cost competitiveness of green and blue hydrogen in key applications and its key role in Carbonomics: the green engine of economic recovery. Michele Della Vigna, CFA Zoe Stavrinou Alberto Gandolfi +44 20 7552-9383 +44 20 7051-2816 +44 20 7552-2539 [email protected] [email protected] alberto.gandolfi@gs.com Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs International Goldman Sachs does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision of the U.S. Biofuel Future: a Case for Hydrogen-Enriched Biomass Gasification
    Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 8863-8874 8863 Vision of the U.S. Biofuel Future: A Case for Hydrogen-Enriched Biomass Gasification Mark A. Dietenberger* Forest Products Laboratory, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest SerVice, One Gifford Pinchot Dr., Madison, Wisconsin, 53726-2398 Mark Anderson Department of Engineering Physics, UniVersity of Wisconsin-Madison, 1500 Engineering DriVe, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Researchers at the Forest Product Laboratory (FPL) and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW) envision a future for biofuels based on biomass gasification with hydrogen enrichment. Synergisms between hydrogen production and biomass gasification technologies will be necessary to avoid being marginalized in the biofuel marketplace. Five feasible engineering solutions have been suggested for this synergism. We are researching one solution to investigate cleaner and more-efficient wood gasification via high-temperature liquid metal as a carrier fluid and making use of hydrogen, power, and waste heat from future nuclear reactors. The enrichment of syngas with nuclear, windmill, or solar hydrogen permits full conversion of all carbon from biomass to produce competitive synthetic gasoline, diesel, or other liquid hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels. Introduction have been improving in their ability to gasify the carbon in the biomass completely, there arises the challenge of converting as Futuristic productions of hydrogen or biomass synfuels by much of that carbon as possible into the liquid synfuel. The themselves are threatened to be marginalized in the motor fuel use of external hydrogen can make this possible as (1) a fuel in market sector if the coal-to-liquid (CTL) technologies now being the burners, (2) a reactant (to more easily convert the carbon to commercialized are able to produce diesel at a cost of $1/gal at a gaseous form), and (3) a diluent to increase the H2/CO gas the plant gate.1 In this paper, we show how separate productions molar ratio needed by the Fischer-Tropsch reactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Onboard Plasmatron Hydrogen Production for Improved Vehicles
    PSFC JA-06-3 Onboard Plasmatron Hydrogen Production for Improved Vehicles L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, N. Alexeev, A. Samokhin, K. Hadidi, J. Palaia, N. Margarit-Bel February 6, 2006 MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Work supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of FreedomCar and Vehicle Technologies, Contract number: DE-AC03-99EE50565 1 Abstract This paper describes progress in plasmatron fuel reformers and applications to internal combustion vehicles. Several plasmatron configurations and their performance with a variety of fuels are described. Fuels investigated range from methane and propane to gasoline, diesel and biofuels. Applications described include lean spark ignition operation, NOx trap regeneration, diesel particulate filter regeneration and ignition timing control in advanced combustion mode engines. 2 Table of Contents 1) INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT................................................................. 5 2) PLASMATRON DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 7 A) THERMAL PLASMATRON (GEN 1)............................................................................................................. 8 Summary of thermal plasmatron features ................................................................................................. 11 B) LOW CURRENT PLASMATRON FUEL CONVERTERS (GEN 2) ................................................................... 12 Summary of gen 2 plasmatron features....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Download Author Version (PDF)
    RSC Advances This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been accepted for publication. Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading. Using this free service, authors can make their results available to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited article. This Accepted Manuscript will be replaced by the edited, formatted and paginated article as soon as this is available. You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the Information for Authors. Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s standard Terms & Conditions and the Ethical guidelines still apply. In no event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held responsible for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript or any consequences arising from the use of any information it contains. www.rsc.org/advances Page 1 of 92 RSC Advances 1 Carbon Dioxide Bio-fixation and Wastewater Treatment via Algae 2 Photochemical Synthesis for Biofuels Production 3 Yafei Shen 4 Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science 5 and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, G5-8, 4259 Nagatsuta, Midori-ku, Yokohama, 6 226-8502, Japan 7 8 *Corresponding Author 9 Email address: [email protected]; [email protected] 10 Tel: +81-45-924-5507; Fax: +81-45-924-5518 11 12 13 ABSTRACT Manuscript 14 We are faced with the problem of energy/carbon dioxide (CO 2) in the coming decades.
    [Show full text]