1 / 25

SARCLE-2010: Steam enhanced ISR and CO 2 -footprint

SARCLE-2010: Steam enhanced ISR and CO 2 -footprint. > 20 years experience Groundwater Technology Eric de Zeeuw. Steam enhanced ISR. Principle Steam heats up the soil Heat accelerates the clean up processes Heat/Energy ‘releases’ captured product Extraction recovers mobile contaminants

velvet
Download Presentation

SARCLE-2010: Steam enhanced ISR and CO 2 -footprint

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SARCLE-2010: Steam enhanced ISR and CO2-footprint > 20 years experience Groundwater Technology Eric de Zeeuw

  2. Steam enhanced ISR Principle • Steam heats up the soil • Heat accelerates the clean up processes • Heat/Energy ‘releases’ captured product • Extraction recovers mobile contaminants • Costs a lot (€, energy and CO2)???

  3. Heat enhanced process • Boiling point exceeded: • No liquid water present. Boiling water (steam) expands 1200 fold. Oil completely free to flow. • Low viscosity, high vapour pressure. Not Contaminated Soil particles (grey) surrounded by bonded water (dark blue). The rest of the pores filled with groundwater Contaminated Some pores contain free phase product (oil). Oil is ‘trapped’ in pores by touching layers of bonded water. • Increased temperature: • Thickness layer of bonded water decreases. Viscosity decreases. Solubility and reaction rates increase. • Elevated temperature: • Virtually no bonded water. Viscosity is low. Product no longer ‘trapped’. Boiling point of product/water mix is lower than < 100°C Cooling down starts Groundwater returns. Layer bonded water returns Residual contamination remains strongly adsorbed onto soil particles After remediation: Almost all product removed. Some residuals adsobed onto soil particles Cool down progresses Layer bonded water increases Residual contamination remains strongly adsorbed onto soil particles. Only contamination that is not mobile at > 100°C is left Cool down complete Residual contamination remains strongly adsorbed onto soil particles. Only contamination that is not mobile at > 100°C is left. Residual contamination will gradually biodegrade. Remediation complete Any residual contamination is demonstrated stable. No migration, no exposure, no ecological risk. Residual contamination will gradually biodegrade.

  4. Temperature probes Temperature distribution (3D)

  5. Case Heat Enhanced Remediation Of Light Cycle Oil

  6. ISSUE Light Cycle Oil (similar to diesel) spill 300 m3 spilled, 15.000 m2 contaminated Initial response: recovery (10 -20 m3 remain) Immediate action: containment via DM-VEX Remedial actions: evaluated

  7. SITE OVERVIEW

  8. OPTIONS Three solutions were considered: • Excavation • Technically complicated, Expensive (> €2M) • Multi-phase extraction & in situ bioremediation • Time (3+ years), residual contamination • Heat enhanced remediation • Quick (3 rounds, 2 months each) • Low residual contamination • Costs equivalent to in situ bioremediation

  9. RESULT Containment • High-vacuum multiphase extraction: no migration Remediation • 3 injection events for a period of 2 months for each event • Residual of Light Cycle Oil: below detection

  10. RESULTS Before cooling After cooling Discharge to foul was not to exceed 70o C

  11. RESULTS

  12. TIME & COSTS

  13. Carbon Footprint Method SKB-project Carbon Footprint Soil Remediation Project management TAUW Members: Groundwater Technology (and others) Result: Spreadsheet Model Calculation CO2 emissions

  14. Case GT Surface: 500 m2 Depth: 10 m Volume: 5000 m3 Contamination: Creosote and Oil Average concentration: 10.000 mg/kg In groundwater: max. 120.000 ug/l Soil consisting of fine sands, layered, some loam and clay layers

  15. Comparison of D&D vs. STI • Dig and dump: • Excavation in controled by sheet piles • Refill with clean sand • Groundwater treatment during 3 years • Steam enhanced Extraction • Complete removal of all contaminants • During 60 days

  16. Result: CO2 Dig and Dump CO2 emissions totally 2008.7 Tons, mainly transport and treatment

  17. Result: CO2 Groundwater Water treatment 159.5 Tons, extraction 6.2 Tons CO2

  18. Resultaat: CO2 Steam Steam production 1,021.6 Tons CO2 emissions, 2/3 part Steam production

  19. Vergelijking technieken

  20. Conclusions Steam enhanced In situ remediation leads to less emissions of CO2 compaired to dig and dump Yet, Innovations are possible to further deminish the emissions and improve the Carbon Footprint

  21. Innovations Optimalisation of the proces control saves time, costs and energy Use surplus steam, that is available on manyindustrial sites 80% of the contaminants are removed with the vapour phase With a RSI (ICE) unit can produce electricity using the contaminants as a fuel source

  22. ICE unit

  23. TECHNOLOGY • Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) at 1760° C • Automated air-fuel ratio control system • Contamination used as fuel for engine

  24. ADVANTAGES • Mobile & self-supporting • Continuous automatic control • High intake concentrations • Energy production of up to 30kW/hr

  25. Thank youfor yourattention

More Related