No abstract

No abstract

Vast resources of serpenitinite rock available worldwide are capable of binding CO2 amounts that diminish the capacity of methods based on geological storage of CO2. R&D has been ongoing in Finland for many years on developing large‐scale application of process routes for serpentinite carbonation. Several routes have been assessed in the laboratory, in all cases using ammonium salts to extract magnesium from rock followed by carbonation either in a gas/solid reactor at elevated temperatures and pressures or in an aqueous solution at ambient conditions. The choice for either route is motivated by the CO2‐producing source, (waste) heat availability, the magnesium (hydro‐)carbonate product aimed at, and a preference for energy efficiency or simplicity. Rocks from several locations have been analysed. A special issue is the recovery of the ammonium flux salt, typically from an aqueous solution. As for application, several industry sectors are considered, such as a (natural gas fired) power plant, a lime kiln, or iron‐ and steelmaking, applying mineral carbonation (MC) to blast furnace top gas. The analysis includes life cycle assessment (LCA). Finally, the use of magnesium (hydro‐)carbonates for heat storage is addressed.

Ways to produce metallic nanoparticles and the scale-up of these processes have seen increased interest as the industrial application of nanoparticles continues to grow. Their feasibility from an environmental point of view can be assessed by means of life cycle analysis (LCA). In this work two methods of metallic nanoparticle production, by evaporation/condensation of metal using electrical arc discharge reactors or by chemical reduction of metal salts in aqueous solutions or dry solid/solid mixtures, are evaluated based on the life cycle indicators. The evaporation of metal using electrical discharge reactors is a method studied in the European Commission 7th Framework Program ''BUONAPART-E.'' The environmental impact of the two different nanoparticle production approaches is here compared for four metals: copper, silver, zinc and aluminum. The chemical routes of producing nanoparticles require several different chemicals and reactions, while the electrical discharge routes use electricity to evaporate metal in a reactor under inert atmosphere. The nanoparticle production processes were modeled using ''SimaPro'' LCA software. Data for both the chemical production routes and the arc routes were taken from the literature. The choice of the best route for the production of each metal is strongly dependent on the final yield of the metallic nanoparticles. The yields for the chemical processes are not reported in the open literature, and therefore the comparisons have to be made with varying yields. At similar yields the electrical process has in general a lower environmental footprint than the studied chemical routes. The step or chemical with the greatest environmental impact varies significantly depending on process and metal being studied.

Abstract:The increased global demand for metallic nanoparticles for an ever growing number of applications has given rise to a need for larger scale and more efficient nanoparticle (NP) production processes. In this paper one such process is evaluated from the viewpoints of scalability and energy efficiency. Multiple setups of different scale of an arc/spark process were evaluated for energy efficiency and scalability using exergy analysis, heat loss evaluation and life cycle impact assessment, based on data collected from EU FP7 project partners. The energy efficiency of the process is quite low, with e.g., a specific electricity consumption (SEC) of producing~80 nm copper NP of 180 kWh/kg while the thermodynamic minimum energy need is 0.03 kWh/kg. This is due to thermal energy use characteristics of the system. During scale-up of the process the SEC remained similar to that of smaller setups. Loss of NP mass in the tubing of larger setups gives a lower material yield. The variation in material yield has a significant impact on the life cycle impact for the produced NP in both the Human Health and Ecosystem Quality categories while the impact is smaller in the Global Warming and Resource Depletion categories.