Mitigating Carbon Lavishness by multiple Carbon Re-Use
by
Stefan Petters*), Founder of Carbotopia™ and Executive Chairman of
Bestrong Int’l Ltd. and guo – Business Development Consult,
Weidlichgasse 12, 1130 Vienna, Austria;
Phone: +44 741 847 8852 | E-Mail: [email protected]
Dr. Klaus Mauthner, Owner of Katyusha Technology Services, Austria
Phone: +43 664 534 597 | [email protected]
Kalvin Tse, Director of Bestrong Int’l Ltd, Hong Kong
Phone: +852 9270 5776 | [email protected]
*) Lead & corresponding Author
Abstract
The world uses Carbon today as if it were a one-way package, merely disposing it into the atmosphere after single use.
Having become the most consummated resource at 57% of total anthropogenic consumptions, there seems very little
sense for starting to recycle Carbon for multiple use. Just following the rationale of recycling paper, saving the number
of fresh trees needed to be cut when producing new paper Carbon Recycling could safe fresh crude resource exploration
when needing to refine new Hydrocarbons or Hydrogen. Unfortunately secondary Energy Recovery became
fashionable mindlessly releasing stored Carbon into atmospheric CO2 Carbon stock. While Carbon is Nature’s favorite
storage for chemical energy, CO2 requires a lot of transformation energy plus unconsumed Carbon or Hydrogen to
become energetically usable again. Since the world disposes 1.6 times its bio- and maritime spheres’ CO2 absorption
capacity into the atmosphere I’m not talking about CO 2’s role in photosynthesis hereafter. So not getting all the
disposed Carbon back into an energy storing aggregate, the question is, why we lavishly squander it in the first place.
Carbotopia™ combines Austrian Technologies developed over the past decade to dissociate Hydrogen-Carbon
compounds in neat Hydrogen and Carbon. Carbon is the backbone of any living or deceased organisms all built as
Hydrogen-Carbon compounds. So recycling Carbon brings us back to Nature just working from Carbon + Hydrogen
+ Oxygen as building blocks. The latter two are plentifully available as water that can go back in the circle after using
the Hydrogen from the compounds’ formation. Crude oil being just Carbon for 83% of its mass or coal a just more or
less contaminated pure form of Carbon are not easy to understand preferred forms of Carbon replenishment for all the
disposed Carbon from singular use.
1. Introduction:
The world is in worse shape than admitted from a pure energy assessment point of view. Over the last 50 years more
than 50% of agriculture land-use change of 260 million hectares concerned oil crops. For oil palms this fatally
concerned tropical peat land in large part. In addition David Pimentel from Cornell University contemplated 2006 a
30% loss of the 1.26 billion hectares arable land since 1960 by erosion. Another word for loss of Soil Organic Matter
[SOM] whereof 60% are Soil Organic Carbon [SOC]. Globally we are talking about 3 Terra tonnes [Tt] of soil ligated
Carbon, whereof 13% may be in arable land. Under land-use change Carbon depletion is generally cited to be between
28-43%. At a rate of 42 tonnes per percent of SOC content 360 million hectares eroded land depleting 5% and 260
land-use change respiring 2.3% Carbon must have depleted at least 100 Giga tonnes [Gt] Carbon. At steady 0.8Gt
increase per decade this might be about 45% of today’s annual Paleozoic Carbon imports. Comparing this with Biofuels production reported at 70.8 million tonnes [Mt] oil equivalent for 2014 representing a mere 1.5% of crude oil
production which is just 38.6% of fossil energy. So the question is, where all this energy greed might go to lead us,
mindlessly consummating terrestrial Carbon for a grossly mistaken Carbon-Neutrality? Destroying Carbon by more or
less sophisticated burning or discarding Organic-residues contributes unnecessarily to the CO2 overload.
Today 1.7Gt Carbon from biomass decomposes into atmosphere from husbandry for 15% nutrition of our food, leaving
1 Gt Carbon behind in decay, representing 75% manmade fermentable organic waste. Non-fermentable may represent
another 1.3 Gt of Carbon. So adding all up we use about 10 Gt fossil plus 5Gt bio-Carbon which is about half the
terrestrial photosynthetic biomass accession today. On top of these come 4 Gt from soil- and 3 Gt from Carbonate
mineral decomposition. In average this results in 3 tonnes per global capita. But the “Human Appropriation of Net
Primary Production” Project assessed already 7 tonnes per capita anthropogenic consummation e.g. in Germany! What
if this spread became narrower by emerging economies wealth catching up to the higher per capita ratio? In lack of
data for terrestrial Carbon consummation the comparison may be vague, but over the last 50 years while world
population doubled, clean water consumption 3-folded to 120% of natural availability. But Carbon consummation
seems to have ~11-folded! If that was not a call for Carbon Efficiency to become established as a standard for
sustainability, lots of money will continue to flow into wrong measures, unfit to mitigate climate change! CarbonNeutrality can definitively only be spoken of, after total Carbon release into atmosphere was brought below the planet’s
metabolism threshold. As long as our housekeeping overshoots[1] that limit, nothing should be yet considered CarbonNeutral. Carbon Efficiency should be used as a benchmark for sustainability, not just being an issue of energy! It is a
matter of diligent circular housekeeping of Terrestrial Carbon!
2. Principles applied by Carbotopia™
Carbotopia™ refers to Plato's original meaning for a “good-place” of a self-sustainable island city-state in which
society relates to nature rather than living a way that destroys nature. When scientific recommendations for climate
change mitigation advocate for bringing atmospheric carbon-stock down to pre-industrial levels this is very much in
line with the original principles of utopia and as we have found out in scoping various models, far away from
utopianism, interpreted as something undoable. Carbotopia™ refers to a World in Carbon balance by respecting
nature’s most versatile element, enabling the biggest varieties of combinations with other elements, as a precious
resource to be kept circular. Just as nature demonstrates it for carbon, Hydrogen and oxygen. No matter where it may
have come from, the planet’s subaerial carbon stock levels’ total shouldn’t rise over time going forward.
Carbon compounds form the molecular basis of all terrestrial life. Any life or deceased tissue is made of carbohydrates,
consist of carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) atoms. Usually the hydrogen : oxygen atomic ratio is 2:1 (like in
water, where the hydrogen fraction of the compound comes from). More generally the empirical formula is:
Cm(H2O)n
(where m could be different from n)
When turned into fossil resources the oxygen vented leaves hydrocarbons behind. In case of Methane Gas the atomic
hydrogen : Carbon ratio becomes 4 : 1, in case of crude oil 1.73 : 1 and in case of steam coal 1 : 0.001. But any form
of natural carbonaceous compounds will fall into the so called Ternary Diagram [2]. And so do any processing outputs
from refining or decomposing them[3].
Figure 1: Ternary Diagram
In particular nature lives from perpetuated decomposing and re-synthesizing organic matter, namely carbohydrates.
Over the last two decades Technologies have been developed, mainly for purposes of energy recovery only, to
accelerate the decomposition of carbonaceous matter into energy rich gases [4]. Even Substitute Natural Gas Synthesis
from such product-gas yields has already been demonstrated industrially at Gothenburg Bio-Gas from wood at an
energy efficiency of ~ 67%[5], not to mention fermentative Bio-Gas achievements. But the problem of all these
Technologies has been lack of competitiveness at arms’ length with fossils. And subsidies for getting the Technologies
off the ground had generally been perverted by business models built upon triggering land-use changes resulting in
SOM depletion fueling desertification. So such use of these Technologies did not contribute much to Carbon
Efficiency[6] improvement as the chemically recovered Carbon usually gets disposed into atmosphere by combustion
to generate heat, usable for further transformations. When we take electricity as an example, the overall efficiency
from fossil or synthetic Natural Gas may be 35% plus whatever CHP of waste heat may be usable.
The term energy recovery actually describes the process of liquidating stored energy. There are opinions that holding
stock of production resources would violate the principles of productivity, summarized under the Japanese philosophy
of Kaizen in the 80-ies. [7] But it includes the just-in-time delivery logistics by Kanban being a pulling demand concept,
that became the most effective.[8] In contrary the biggest shortfall of any renewable energy today is its uncontrollable
volatility of pushing into the value chain whether needed or not. Since you lose it, when you don’t use it, non-renewable
supplies have to balance the differences to demand. In regimes able to afford and willing to pay high carbon abatement
cost back-up solutions that can temporarily store negative renewable energy regime outputs are thriven. In view of so
called abundant oversupply overall energy efficiency deficiencies are assumed acceptable. Therefore we have seen
many forms of so called Power-to-Gas [PtG] storage based on electrolysis hydrogen from water by excess electricity
supply in the meantime.[9] The differences in concept just vary in the forms of gas-storage and distribution.
Producing Electricity from hydrogen in a state of the art Hydrogen Fuel Cell [HFC] replaces the 3-step transformation
of generating heat to build steam pressure mechanically driving a dynamo for electricity by a single step electrochemical energy transformation with ~65% efficiency today, yet promising headroom with further materials’
development progress. When talking about a high pressure PtG electrolysis into hydrogen pressure tanks storage
efficiency could be ~45%. To compete with hydrogen Steam Methane Reformed [SMR] from Natural Gas [NG]
primary Renewable Electricity [RE] powering electrolysis could cost U$40.- per MWh max if hydrogen storage
investment needed not to be amortized. If alternatively the PtG electrolysis hydrogen was stored under use of some
captured CO2 in the form of Methane and fed into a NG-grid for distribution for reuse in combustion of Methane gas
for a 3-step transformation back to electricity, storage efficiency would drop to 27%. If undertaken SMR for a HFC
transformation instead, storage efficiency would increase to 35%. In both cases there is no energy accounted for the
CO2 capture needed as carbon-source for the Methane [CH4] synthesis, which might be the case under colocation with
a biogas plant already feeding Substitute Natural Gas [SNG] into an adjacent NG-grid.
Alternatively to a Methane Synthesis the PtG industry also explores mixing high pressure electrolysis hydrogen directly
into the NG in the grid. Chemically the hydrogen storage in methane works up to 30% and has been commercially
implemented under the brand Hythane™ at 20% hydrogen blend.[10] Existing NG-appliances and infrastructures in
Europe are considered to be safely usable without any changes required between 4-10% blending. For consumers that
results in a 1.5-4% drop in calorific supply per m³, which is considered within the specified utility tolerances. For
separating the hydrogen out again development goals are targeted at 10% of the electrolysis energy to become even
with SMR hydrogen from the SNG storage path’s efficiency. [11] In both cases actually the final cleaning stage Pressure
Swing Absorption [PSA] of remaining off-gas as well as reasonable use of methane slippage are big cost drivers.
Therefore already about 10 years ago Carbotopia™ core process of Dry Thermo- Catalytic Dissociation of hydrocarbon
gases into neat hydrogen and physical crystalline carbon[12] had been patented for the application in SMR off-gas
separation, which could also be designed downstream a membrane separation. Remaining methane could still
contribute to hydrogen yield.[13] Co-produced carbon stores 380kJ energy per mol and could serve as a crude oil refining
substitute at the rate of 2 liters crude per kilogram.
3. Applications of Dry Termo- Catalytic Dissociation of Hydrocarbon Gases
5%wt .Fecatalyst + CxHy
+ y/2 x 37kJ_
>
x.C + y/2.H2
Depending on available Input-transformation energy and desired speed of transformation temperatures between 460850°C may be chosen. Starting from the lower end reactions can also be amplified applying alternating electric fields.[14]
Today 22% of world electricity is generated from 40% of global NG consumption, disposing 2.8Gt CO 2 into
atmosphere.[15] This represents a fossil carbon consumption of 0.75Gt which is an order of 21% of crude oil carbon.
For electricity generation the NG used in the conventional 3-step thermo- mechanical transformation could be split
through DTCD to provide the same electricity off a single step electrochemical transformation of DTCD hydrogen
yield only and save the carbon for refinery use. Plastics today for example use about 10% of crude oil [16] explored and
could use the Captured Carbon for re-Use [CCU] replacing crude oil from 50% of global organic MSW.
2 432 t
733 t C
other noncyclical cull
28 373 t
packaging &
E.o.LC Mat.
16 176 t C
22 468 t
8 513 t C
Anaerobic
Digestion
57 614 t
10 900 t C
Food Use
4 373 t
1 818 t C
96 896 t
43 656 t
16 350 t C
222,4
TJtherm
Mt CO2
4 745+1910
t CH4
12 690
t CO
2 732
t H2
23 007 t C
Cement
Industry
∑
microbial
composting
12 202 MtC
17 462 Mt
food production
47 139 t C
196 411 t
38 133 t
26 733+19 386
waste carbohydrates
29 069 t C
water
53 274 t
25 422 t C
FIC-DFB
Gasification
12 161 t ashes
2 556 t C (unconverted)
Soil
∑ Decomposition Gas:
in m³/year
Methane
9 242 134
CO
10 151 915
Hydorgen
30 355 172
0
0
0
CO2
23 292 635
3 906 348
+ TJtherm
222
332
-145,7 TJtherm
19 386 287 m³ CO2/yea r
76 769 696 m³ H 2/yea r
CO2 + 4H2 Methanation
19 386 287 m³ CH 4/yea r
31 406 m³ H 2O
209,0 t Ca ta l ys t
38 699 766 m³ CH 4/yea r ∑
129,4 TJtherm
CCU
20 898 t Captured Carbon
77% Carbon Input
73,9%
Energy Effi ci ency
76 625 536 m³ H 2/yea r
39 564 m³ H 2O Output
-93,5 TJtherm
30 211 012 m³ H 2/yea r
10 151 915 m³ CO/yea r
CO + 3H2 Methanation
10 071 345 m³ CH 4/yea r
8 158 m³ H 2O
Figure 2: Scope of Global Organic Waste
Coal power today represents 40% of world electricity and appeals most secured in long term primary energy
availability. But being a solid fuel it comes along with a significant Carbon Efficiency shortfall from unavoidable
idling operations. Depending on the particular grid configurations this was reported between 30-60% of CO2
emissions.[17] In a HFC-utility architecture coal could be gasified in continuous operation mode and turned into either
hydrogen via Water-Gas [WG] + Water-Shift [WS] reaction, SNG for long haul distribution and/or long term storage
or for DTCD-carbon for onsite medium term storage. The lowest level of reuse would there be co-feeding the
gasification with it again, substituting primary fossil feedstock without cause of significant additional capital
expenditures. For orientation the order of magnitude may be indicated at 50-60% of the idling rate leveled by the
carbon-content rate of the primary fuel coal. HFC-electricity would come at 45% the carbon footprint of today’s boilerplant power, reduced by roughly half of the mitigated idling percentage (in total e.g.: 38-33%)
4. Reusing Terrestrial end of lifecycle matter-carbon not useful for composting or recycling[18]
Today’s practices of lavishly squandering carbon from energy carriers, organic waste treatment and biomass use drive
prices for carbon replenishment, stress global resources and require tapping into ever new reserves. If carbon would
be recycled atmospheric discharge could be minimized substantially. Secondly primary feedstock would be chosen by
its Hydrogen to Carbon ratios being a direct key to Carbon Efficiency, so that the most appropriate feedstock and
methods would be used for energy productions or chemical and materials synthesis only. Thirdly local closed loop
multiple Carbon Reuse would generate significant local employment from the economics of money no more needed
to be sent out into foreign oil wells, never returning again for local value adding. [19] Crude oil substitute value of 2
liters crude oil equivalent represents the value of 12 barrels of oil per tonne recycled carbon.[20]
OPEX
Gasification
in €
per ton MSW
Physical CCU
Methane Synth.
per tonne C-content
Total
per ton MSW
Direct OPEX
23,8
57,0
2,4
42,5
Fixed OPEX
10,3
39,8
52,1
39,2
Depreciation
22,8
35,4
69,5
55,8
total cost/tMSW
56,9
132,3
124,0
137,5
Table 1: Operating Expenses for Carbon Recycling from MSW
Cost of carbon recovery prior to depreciation and financing is ~U$300.- per tonne and needs capital expenditure per
tonne hourly output from:
- Municipal Solid Waste [MSW] (usually holding 30% carbon content): U$40mln;
- biomass or other presorted homogeneous feedstock U$30mln; and for a
- downstream biogas installation U$20mln.
At 1 tonne carbon output per hour we speak about ~100,000 barrel annual crude oil substitute value. With a global
average of Finding and Development Cost [F&DC] for oil of U$ 25/barrel equivalent [boe] and about 67% thereof for
LNG[21] over underlying 25 years plant life we are talking about U$16 F&DC equivalent investment cost for the most
costly MSW treatment, being at arms’ length with LNG F&DC. Whatever marginal operation cost of crude oil
exploration may be in reality, the IMF currently only supports new Find & Development projects if based on > U$ 50.per barrel oil equivalent off-take price assumptions. And at U$50.- per barrel oil price a 30% average MSW carbon
content and 75-80% recycling rate we are talking about an achievable output value of U$150.- per tonne MSW. In fact
this value is abolished today by dumping waste and in incineration regimes population pays at least 50% of that value
for neutralization of 90% of the Carbon value. In both cases 100% of such recyclable Carbon is lavishly squandered
into the atmosphere resulting in replenishment through Paleozoic carbon. If needed to be imported we even send money
out from our economies sunk in oil-wells for good, creating no employment nor inducing any local economy growth.
during plant operation: per € million
CAPEX
during plant fabrication & installation:
Figure 3: Local Circular Economy effects
5. Further Outlook
Carbon Recycling as well as New Renewable Energies as well as biomass and waste to energy Technologies all
together share appropriateness for decentral scales only. Therefore, in conjunction with the local closed loop economic
uplift by Carbon Recycling an appropriate hybridisation among the aforementioned Technologies could unlock a world
in carbon balance.[22] The self-sustainable island “Utopia” would not have had a different choice. So the question is,
how much energy recycled carbon could support in a HFC-utility regime providing the highest overall efficiency.
Whatever the ratio of New Renewable Energies may be, direct demand synchronous supply will remain limited to their
productive times of 20-30%, which under assuming overlapping of different technologies in use taking us to 35-40%.
Those capacities would usually include ~20% negative energy regime potential for PtG storage.[23]
From a pure energy efficiency perspective one could argue PtG. If policies though would tax usage of carbonaceous
matter by the Paleozoic replenishment equivalent price per discharged CO2 to secure carbon budget discipline, costs
would entice Carbon Efficiency to prevail over energy efficiency.[24] Climate Protection Accord obliges underwriters
to exit fossil resource use and foresees punitive charges for violations. Therefore not reusing available biogenic carbon
for fossil carbon substitution seems lavish. Countries with high hydropower ratio in their power-mix like for example
my home country Austria may take the legacy of an all renewable energy strategy with short term back-up storage
arrangements only. Further the geology of Austria provides substantial depleted NG fields that can reproduce SNG
from injected electrolysis hydrogen. Coming from a biomass combustion promotion of Carbon-Neutrality with plenty
of renewable resources available, Austrian policymakers waive Carbon Efficiency as a principle. This although
industry lobbies like the pulp and paper sector are over proportionally represented due to the country’s water wealth
coinciding with sustainable wood farming tradition. But maybe Austria is a blessed island of fossil-free self-sustaining
capability under current climate conditions – though yet to be proven and sustained. For sure from a less nationalist
but European perspective even Austria might have an obligation to share its advantages with neighbors and join into
the need for emphasizing Carbon Efficiency. Last but not least climate issues are global.
If the mission was to introduce the most economic and sustainable management of subaerial carbon housekeeping as
much carbon of organic residues that are no good for agricultural composting[25] should preferentially undergo carbon
recovery. Simply because in most cases carbon carries less than two hydrogen molecules per atom, which it can lend
from water in a WG-process with 12.5% transformation energy compared to electrolysis only.[26] But above and beyond
the WG-process can be widely modulated to timely match energy demand, which neither a solid fuel combustion nor
a RE-generation or its negative regime use for electrolysis can. And let’s face how nature does energy storage: Nature
always uses carbon as a backbone for storing chemical energy. If there were people who may want policymakers think
Smart energy architecture would become able to provide universal security of global supply without using any energy
storage, we should very thoroughly investigate their business interests. The explanation why mankind should be able
to outsmart nature in this regard would have to be proven very convincingly. So far we have always only been using
nature smartly but like the case with climate change, outsmarting ourselves by abusing or overusing nature. [27] Nature
is very generous and broadly offering abundance where it can afford it within its balances. If we borrow things for our
use and return it post use into circularity of manmade economy and/or the contemporary mass balances of nature, there
will be enough room for smart use monitoring and controls. In fact even carbon recovery can be optimized by
combining it smartly with hydrogen electrolysis from RE-negative energy regime use. Because the achievable carbon
recovery rate from a feedstock can be scoped as follows:
CxHy(Oy/2) => (0.8 * x + (0.9 * (y+He)/2))/2 . . . . . He external H2 supply up to e < 2.2-y
Externally contributed hydrogen for carbon recovery uplift could be retrieved again at 77% storage efficiency by a
WG + Water Shift [WS] reaction of the additional recovered carbon. Electrically we are talking about 35% storage
efficiency. While such supplementary external hydrogen could be accommodated from an intermitting source, its
retrieval could be widely matched to actual demand. Cost of WG+WS hydrogen from recycled MSW-carbon per kg is
expected at:
U$2.50 * (1 - (0.9 * e/2 * (1 - Δ$He/2.50)))
Therefore, depending on the cost of available supplementary hydrogen from RE negative energy regime electrolysis,
the carbon recovery optimization will have to be decided on the condition precedent of not making the hydrogen more
expensive. At U$2.50/kg HFC-power fuel-cost would already be at U$100/MWhel. This would be equivalent to current
coal price of U$80 per ton plus a CO2 tax of U$36 per tonne CO2 (140% of coal carbon- & 28% of crude oil carbonreplacement value) in a 40% efficient boiler plant with 30% idling. If alternatively woody biomass fuel was used as a
“carbon neutral” fuel this would be equivalent to U$95.- per tonne absolutely dry wood. For comparison Waste to
Energy [WtE] could be par under similar idling rate) at operating expenses [OPEX] plus fuel cost of U$45.- per tonne
MSW (which may be ~30% of today’s actual OPEX in most places). Specific CO2 discharge per 1 MWhel would be
0.5 tonnes terrestrial from WG/WS for the HFC-power, 5.3 tonnes fossil for a coal-power and 3.7 tonnes for the WtE
plant with ⅔ renewable and ⅓ fossil derived until plastics will be made of recycled carbon. [28] As a comparison HFCpower from conventional NG-SMR/WGS hydrogen would be at 0.23 tonnes fossil CO 2 per MWhel[29] which could be
brought down to 0.2 tonnes with an end of line DTCD separation. [13]
SMR from methane benefits from the 2 hydrogen molecules brought along by the methane. When using recycled
carbon as the carbon source for SNG, enabled to store 100% of freely available electrolysis hydrogen. Instead of doing
a CO2 synthesis needing two additional hydrogen molecules, the recycled carbon can deliver 67% WG (CO + H2) for
a carbon monoxide methane synthesis loosing consummating one hydrogen molecule only (i.e.: the WG one). [30]
During SMR/WGS + DTCD transformation of SNG into hydrogen for HFC-power the electrolysis hydrogen multiplies
by ~1.8 through the water contributions during SMR and WGS. Specific CO2 discharge per MWhel would then go to
0.3 tonnes terrestrial (⅓from powering the WG, ⅔ from the SNG). If WG was powered by RE-negative energy regime,
⅓ could be saved. Whether such extra 15% hydrogen was dispensable or not would depend on the overall capacities.
6. Conclusion
From all foregoing we could hopefully convey that the biggest failure in redesigning future energy systems is to neglect
terrestrial carbon recycling from residues that are of no use to agricultural compost or material recycling. Globally we
are talking about 2.1 Giga tonnes [Gt] order of magnitude per year (after leaving ~45% of the anthropogenically
managed 5Gt to agricultural composting).[31] After satisfying plastics industries’ raw material needs 1.9 Gt, equivalent
to 550 million tonnes [Mt] of hydrogen (expandable by 1.8 tonnes per tonne PtG hydrogen supplied) represent 13.7
Peta Watt hours [PWhel] HFC-power potential. At a global 30% RE plus 15% hydropower energy share of 15PWh el
with together 25% negative energy regime for PtG electrolysis remaining 55% * 15 => 8.2PWhel that could be
generated from 330Mt hydrogen supply only. PtG could contribute 21Mt hydrogen and could be leveraged through
SNG synthesis to 38Mt using 50Mt recycled carbon. In total 574Mt minus 330Mt would leave 206Mt disposable for
Hydrogen Mobility needing ~110Mt leaving another 94Mt at the disposition of various chemical industries.
7. References:
1 Global Footprint Network (WWF); “In 2016, Earth Overshootday fell on August8”; Oakland USA / Geneva CH
2 Denny K.S. Ng, University of Nottingham, Malaysia; “Synthesis of an integrated biorefinery via the C–H–O ternary
diagram”; Article in Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy; January 2010
3 Y. Cao, Carbotopia™; “Increasing Carbon Efficiency of Coal Power Plants by Carbon Capture Use”; EREC-2016
4 S. Kern, et al; VUT, “Gasification of Low Grade Coal in SD-DFB Gasification”; Energy Techn. 2013, 1, 253 – 264
5 Åsa Burman; “The GoBiGas-project”, SGC 2013, Gote-borg, Oct 2013, Sweden
6 Guobao Zhang; Committee Nat’l Energy Commission & former National Energy Admin. Minister, “New
Requirements to Energy Re-searchers”, 4th Asian and 1st China IAEE Conference, Beijing China; August 2014
7 M. Imai, Kaizen™ Institute, http://www.kaizen.com/home.html
8 Ōno Taiichi, Toyota Nagoya; “Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production”, ISBN 0-915299-14-3
9 Strategy Platform German Energy Agency; http://www.powertogas.info/
10 US Department of Energy, & Montreal Hythane Project, 2006
11 M. Harasek, Vienna University of Technology; “Hyly™ Project” for EVN; 2014-2016
12 N. Muradov; University of Central Florida; “Thermocatalytic decomposition of methane“; Proc.1996 U.S. DOE H2
13 EP 1623957 to Mauthner, Hammel et. Al; Bestrong International Ltd.; 02/2005 [HKG]
14 K. Mauthner; BMVIT Report 1/2011, Factory of the Future, EU-FP5
15 US Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=8
16 IPCC Report 2015
17 IPCC Report 2012
18 S. Petters; “Fossil resource substitution by Organic Waste Carbon Recycling”; 4th IAEE Asia; 07/2014, Beijing
19 C. Helmenstein; Economica Institute; “Bio-Refineries for Waste”, 08/2013 Vienna
20 K. Mauthner et al.; EP 14195574.0; Method and System for Acetylene (C2H2) or Ethylene (C2H4) Production; 2012
21 Energy Quest; “Oil and Gas Industry Cost Trends”; Nov. 2014
22 S. Petters; “Hybridizing Ambient Carbon Stock Refining with Power to Gas”; Poster at 23rd EU-BC&E; 06/2015
23 Electricity Report; “Windenergy in Germany”; http://1-stromvergleich.com/strom-report/windenergie/
24 S. Petters, www.guobeyond.com; “Pricing Fuels by measures of Carbon Efficiency” 06/2016
25 Aurel Lübke, Compost Systems; “Why it will be impossible to reach the goal of <2°C Global Warming without the
integration of Agriculture”; COP22 Marrakech, Nov. 2016
26 S. Petters, www.guobeyond.com; “Carbon Recycling enabling non-primary Electricity-recovery by HFCs” 03/2017
27 P. Narval, European Forum Alpbach, “Planetary Stewardship in the Anthropocene epoch”; Okt. 2 016
28 S. Petters, www.guobeyond.com; “Plastics to become a key towards fossil-free sustainability by 2030? “ 03//2017
29 S. Petters, www.guobeyond.com; “Hydrogen merits and its use in serving Carbon Efficiency”; Blog June 2016
30 S. Petters, www.guobeyond.com; “Carbon-Recycling in Power-to-Gas energy storage configurations” 06/2016
31 S. Wirsenius; Chalmers University; “Global use of agricultural biomass for food and non-food purposes”; 2007