Applying a Recognized HWC MACT Technology for CO2 Capture

with Low Energy Consumption

COAL-GEN ― 2011

Robert E. Tang — CEFCO Global Clean Energy, LLC

- 2 -

Outline of Presentation

• Current U.S. EPA’s MACT Compliance Issues and Carbon Capture’s Energy Consumption

• Conventional BACT vs. CEFCO MACT Technologies

• How the CEFCO Process Works

• Current Status of CEFCO Technology & Summary

- 3 -

The Issue

• Current BACT Technologies for Carbon Capture

• Need to achieve MACT standards to provide 10 ppm of SO2 and 5 ppm of NOX in Flue Gas for processing

• High Costs: Energy Penalty (33+% on Performance plus additional Parasitic Load)

• Current BACT users must combine multiple overlapping technologies to come close to meeting MACT requirements

• CEFCO’s modularized “segregated-capture Modules” customizable to retrofit Power Plants based on needs

- 4 -

CEFCO’s Innovative U.S. MACT Solution

• Use Ewan’s shockwave “free-jet collision scrubbing” to capture MACT multi-pollutants*

• Cooper Process to convert all “captured pollutants” into recovered, valuable End-Products for sale

• US Patent Office Issued on November 30, 2010 under: 7,842,264

• CEFCO Users benefit from:

• 1) Complying with announced EPA’s MACT and HAP Requirements

• 2) Producing valuable End-Products – no longer “cost-center”

+

=

- 5 -

Power Engineering:“Patent Rights Will Soon be Available for Novel Emission Control Process”August 2009

“Supersonic Emissions Control”January 2009

Modern Power Systems:“Sending Shockwaves Through the Multi-Pollutant Control Business”October 2010 issue

Power Engineering International:“Ewan and Cooper Processes Unite in ‘Paradigm Shifting’ Patent”November 2010 issue

Recent Major Industry Publications:

- 6 -

CEFCO Patent Title – Key Concepts

Title of the Patent: • “Process and Apparatus for Carbon Capture and Elimination of

Multi-Pollutants in Flue Gas from Hydrocarbon Fuel Sources and Recovery of Multiple By-Products”

Key Concepts:• Elimination of Multi-Pollutants (EPA’s MACT, or near “Zero

Emissions”)• Low “Energy Penalty” or “Parasitic Load”• Recovery of Commercially-Pure Sellable Products • Pollution Control becomes “profit-generator” instead of “cost-

center”• 4 Modules for separate capture of each of 4 major groups of

Pollutants

- 7 -

Supersonic “Free Jet Collision” Shockwave Effect (Intense Pressure and Energy)

Aerodynamic Recovery of ∆P and ∆T

Subsonic “Free Jet” EffectEwan’s Subatmospheric Reaction Zone(Adiabatic Conditions)

t = time in secondsP = PressureT = Temperature °F

(∆ T)(∆ P)

100°

t1 t2 tm0

X,000°

300°

200°

Ambient

tm = time in minutes

Conventional Thermodynamics and ChemistryReaction Zone for Target

Capture/Conversion by Reagent

Comparison of Parasitic Load or Energy Penalty

- 8 -

Seeing Shockwaves Being Formed

Image: Schlieren Photography – multiple shockwaves generated by shuttle craft at much higher Mach speeds

Image: Airplane beginning to cross sound barrier at Mach 1.0, showing first shockwave

- 9 -

Free-Jet Reaction Zone

Image: Schlieren Photography of Free-Jet Collision Zone inside adiabatic reaction chamber under CEFCO Technology

- 10 -

Shockwave-Induced Intimate Mixing

Image: Schlieren Photography showing shockwave-induced intimate inter-mixing and re-combination of two gas-phase molecules

Inter-mixing

Re-combination

Shockwave envelopment

- 11 -

CEFCO Process Uses Supersonic Shockwaves

CFD image: Accelerating steam to form a Shockwave

Image: Beginning to form supersonic shockwave at Mach 1.0

and will move into much higher Machs attacking the flue gas in the

CEFCO Reactors System

Conventional BACT Processes’ Speeds = 50 ft/sec to several hundred ft/sec

Reaching 1st Shockwave at Mach 1.0 ≥ 1,200 ft/sec

- 12 -

CEFCO’s Unique Reaction Mechanism

• All flue gas must pass downward through Shockwaves “no escape” from “free-jet collision” and capture effect

• Pollutants are first captured using Physics then converted into valuable end-products by using Chemistry

- 13 -

Technology Flow Diagram

- 14 -

SRS (SOX) Module for Sulfur Capture

• MACT Compliance — capturing over 99% of SO2 by using KOH as reagent

• KOH = reagent to make Potassium Sulfate Fertilizer, a very desirable Fertilizer

• Sodium will work, but Sodium Sulfate is not a desirable by-product salt

• Hess’s Law:

- 15 -

SRS (SOX) Module – Continued

Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):

• SO2 + 2 KOH (reagent) → K2SO3 + 2 H2O (Reaction Product)

• SO2 + H2O → H2SO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)

• H2SO3 + 2 KOH (reagent) → K2SO3 + 2 H2O (Final Reaction Product)

Conventional Oxidation Reactions Forming Final Stable Product:

• 2 K2SO3 + O2 (or + 2H2O2) → 2 K2SO4 (or + 2H2O) (Reaction Product)

- 16 -

NRS (NO, NOX) Module for NOX Capture

• MACT Compliance — capturing over 99% of NO2 by using KOH as reagent

• KOH = reagent to make Potassium Nitrate Fertilizer, which may become the replacement for Ammonium Nitrate

• Sodium will work, but Sodium Nitrate is not a desirable by-product salt

• Hess’s Law:

- 17 -

NRS (NO, NOX) Module – Continued

Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):

• 2 NO2 + H2O → HNO2 + HNO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)

• 2 NO2 + H2O2 (reagent) → 2 HNO3 (Intermediate-Transient Product)

• KOH (reagent) + HNO3 → KNO3 + H2O (Final Reaction Product)

Transient Reactions:

• KOH (reagent) + HNO2 → KNO2 + H2O

• KOH (reagent) + HNO2 + ½ O2 → KNO3 + H2O (Final Reaction Product)

• See: “Oxidation” and “Exothermic” Reactions

Conventional Oxidation Reactions after Forming Final Stable Product:

• KNO2 (if not fully-oxidized) + H2O2 (reagent) ( or + O2 ) → KNO3 + H2O (Reaction Product)

- 18 -

CRS (CO2) Module for Carbon Capture

Reactions inside the Aerodynamic System (Effect of Hess’s Law):

• CO2 + KOH (reagent) → KHCO3 (Carbon Capture)

• CO2 + K2CO3 (reagent) + H2O → 2 KHCO3 (Carbon Capture)

Transient Reactions (Effect of Hess’s Law):

• CO2 + H2O → H2CO3

• KOH (reagent) + H2CO3 → KHCO3 + H2O (Carbon Capture)

Conventional Decarbonation = Liberation of Carbon Dioxide Reaction:

• Heat + 2 KHCO3 → K2CO3 (regenerated) + CO2 (liberated gas) + H2O

Note: K2CO3 re-generation process liberates CO2 as gas and produces supply of recovered water for many subsequent uses

- 19 -

Pilot Plant in Wichita Falls, Texas: Jan. 2011

• Began Installation in Jan. 2011

• Completed and currently operated by Peerless Manufacturing Co.

- 20 -

CEFCO Aerodynamic Reactors and Aero-Coalescers: Feb 2011

• 3-10 tons/hr in Mass of Flue Gas

• 1-3 MW equivalent of Coal-Fired Flue Gas

• 4 x Separate and Distinct Modules

• Pictured: Chairman Don Degling and President Robert Tang

- 21 -

EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1974 to 1986)

Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance ConclusionApril 1, 1974 EPA-650/2-74-028

(Dale L. Harmon, EPA-NERC-RTP)

Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning System Evaluation

0.03 micron to 5.0 micron (EPA Method 5)

Steam-Hydro Patent invented by T.K. Ewan sold and assigned to Lone Star

Steel (Div. of US Steel)

“90.0% at 0.01 micron . . . . 99.9% at 0.5 micron and 99.99%

at 1.0 micron”

Oct. 1976 NCASI ― SpecialRTP

Kraft Recovery of TRS Emissions

Total Reduced Sulfur, H2S, CO2

“. . . near instantaneous . . . tremendous surface area for gas-liquid contact . . .

50 x 10-3 sec.”

“TRS emissions were reduced to less than 2 ppm during total

run”, “quite successful . . . it is recommended to test for SO2

removal also”Sept. 1977 EPA- 600/2-77 -193 under

Dennis C. Drehmel, EPA, Research Triangle Park

EPA/600/13 Code Contract 68-02-2190: Particulates, H2S, SO2

“High performance with low energy requirement is achieved by the use of free-

jet . . .”

“ . . . well below the 0.0052 grains /SCF...effective removal of hydrophobic fumed silica having a near uniform particle diameter of 0.007 microns. This material rejects water. Analysis of the captured material shows the particulate not wetted, but

encapsulated in a film of water.”

Feb. 10, 1986 DCN 86-213-071-03 Radian Corp. Technical and Economic Evaluation for

MSW Incineration

MSW, PM, HCl, SO2, SO3 “proven below 0.02 grains/scf”, “achieved 99% HCl removal”. “using slaked

lime reagent . . . 95% SO2

removal”

“shows overall capital cost and total annual operating cost

advantage over spray scrubbing systems, using either ESP or FF particulate matter collection”

- 22 -

EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1986 to 1996)

Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance ConclusionJuly, 1986 EPA- 600/S2-86 -011

[this is a head-to-head test vs. equipment and

technology provided by ETS, Inc. and Vulcan

Engineering]

EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Lab,

Cincinnati, OH

APCD, PM, HCl, SO2, SO3 “supersonic tandem nozzle . . .”, “most effective of the versions tested for control of submicron particulate

matter”

Page 2: “uranium hexafluoride and its hydrolysis products with

particulate removal efficiency consistently exceeding 99%”; Page 3: “chloride removal of

99% or better should be expected for any version of this

unit [vs. both competitors].”

Sept. 1992 DOE PNL-8281 DE-AC06-76RlO 1830 by Battelle Memorial Institute

Hanford Radioactive Waste Incineration

Performance per Office of Solid Waste Emergency

Response (OSWER) Directive 9335.3-01

“ . . . cesium-137 was greater than 99.98%”; other metals,

acids and organics “greater than 99.99%”

August 1993 DE-AC01-EW300-30 DOE/MWIP-3 by SAIC PNL ― Idaho Labs undisclosed undisclosed1993 WSRC-TR-93-00623 Final Report: Consolidated

Incineration Facility by Westinghouse Savannah

River Corporation

CIF, POHCs (Principal Organics Hazardous

Constituents), Metals, TVOC, Chlorides, PAH (Polynuclear Aromatic

Hydrocarbons)

CEMS measures: O2, CO2, NOx, CO, and SO2.

Continuous recording by strip charts. The CEMS

monitored both the PCC and SCC flue gases

Destruction “greater than 99.99998%”

Feb. 1996 EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0164

Technical Support Document for HWC MACT

Standards, Vol. I

Page 3-17, Section 3.4.2.2, Page 3-58, Figure 3-14

- 23 -

EPA and DOE Reports on Ewan Technology (1997 to 2002)

Date Reference No. Report Title Emissions Targets Description of Tests Performance Conclusion1997 CERCLIS #: MOD980685226

EPA Remedial Project Manager: Robert W. Field U.S. EPA Region 7 Kansas

City, KS 66101

On-Site Incineration at the Times Beach Superfund

Site (Times Beach, Missouri)

Dioxins, TCDD (“Agent Orange”)

CEMS measures: O2, CO2, NOx, CO, and SO2. Acids,

metals and minerals. Continuous recording.

MACT Compliance. “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA): DRE of 99.9999% for TCDD. Stack gas monitoring was

conducted for oxygen and carbon monoxide in accordance with 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart

O.”

July 1998 DOE/ID-10651, Rev.1 Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Treatment

Technologies Handbook

PM, Hg, ROW (Radioactive Organic Waste), BRW (Blended Radioactive

Waste)

Consolidated Incineration under SVM (Semi-Volatile

Metals) + LVM (Low Volatile Metals) Standards

MACT Compliance, and Toxic Substances Control Act

Incinerator (TSCAI)

May 22, 2002 40 CFR §63.1209 (m) and §63.1209 (o)

A Guide to Phase I MACT Compliance ― May 22,

2002

PM, acids, HCl and Chlorine Gas

“hydrosonic, collision, or free-jet wet scrubber”

unspecified DOD/DOE docs controlled At National Labs Internal GOV official and formal EPA request

EPA published its “Guide to Phase I MACT Compliance” for Hazardous Waste Combustors MACT ― May 22, 2002

Ewan’s Technology was recognized and codified in 40 CFR §63.109 et al.

- 24 -

Technology Summary

• Transformative MACT technology for Multi-Pollutants and Carbon Capture

• Pollution Control as “profit-generator” instead of “cost-center”

• Low “Energy Penalty” or “Parasitic Load”• Eliminate plant shutdowns and reduce toxic landfills• Customizable Modular Design for retrofitting Power Plants

according to true MACT Compliance Needs• Environmental responsibility: near “Zero Emissions” MACT

can be achieved

Questions & Answers

Thank you very much for your attention.

Please Contact Us At:

For Robert Tang: robert.tang@cefcoglobal.com

Website: www.cefcoglobal.com