- Details
We present herein three reports, presented sequentially, months apart, detailing a coal liquefaction technology improvement invented, or further developed, by what we believe to be Consol coal scientists, perhaps working in concert with US Government energy researchers, under a US DOE Contract.
Consol, isn't mentioned by name in these several samples of the literature that is web-available concerning the "The zinc chloride process for the hydrocracking of coal"; but, Consol were acquired by Consolidation Oil, i.e., Conoco, in the 1960's; and, it is a Consol coal lab that is referred to in the second report, following "Conoco Zinc Chloride Hydrocracking Process".
There is a body of research available on the inter net concerning the Zinc Chloride Process, and it is, in some of the references, called a "One Step" process, thus our headline.
Note that six months after the first of our examples, a report of Oak Ridge National Laboratory's research into the Zinc Chloride Process, made at a coal conversion conference in Maryland, was published; a second report was issued, in an international "energy" publication, and Shell Oil had become involved.
With that overseas collaboration of petroleum company majors, Consol's Zinc Chloride Coal Liquefaction Process, developed, at least in part, with USDOE, and thus US taxpayer, money, seems to begin to evaporate; although we did find a third report, delivered at what we are forced to describe as an obscure chemical industry conference, in London. We include it, herein, as well.
An excerpt from the above link, with additional links and excerpts following:
"Title: Materials for Conoco Zinc Chloride Hydrocracking Process
Author: Baylor, V.B.; Keiser, J.R.; DeVan, J.H.
Publication Date: January 1, 1980
Report Number: Conf-801079-2
DOE Contract Number: W-7405-ENG-26
Resource: Annual Conference On Materials for Coal Conversion; Gaithersburg, MD, 6 Oct. 1980
Abstract:
Use of zinc chloride to augment hydrogenation of coal and yield a high-octane gasoline product is the most significant feature of a coal liquefaction process being developed by Conoco Coal Development Company. The zinc chloride catalyst is regenerated in a fluidized sand bed, where the spent melt is mixed with air and hydrogen chloride at about 1000/sup 0/C. Recovery is completed at 370/sup 0/C in a condenser, where the zinc chloride is collected and the oxygen and sulfur are separated as H/sub 2/O and SO/sub 2/. The economic viability of the entire process is highly dependent on almost complete recovery of the zinc chloride. The severe environmental conditions of this recovery process cause unique materials problems. Although high-temperature oxidation and sulfidation are being studied in related programs, suitable materials to resist their combined effects along with those of chlorides have not yet been specifically addressed. Common engineering materials, such as the austenitic stainless steels and many nickel-base alloys, are unsuitable because of their inability to tolerate the elevated temperatures and sulfidation, respectively. The objectives of this task are to screen various metallic and ceramic materials for resistance to the zinc chloride recovery system environment and to determine the nature of the attack by exposing coupons to the simulated environment in the laboratory."
As follows:
"Title: The Zinc Chloride Process for the Hydrocracking of Coal
Author(s): Biasca, F.E.; Greene, C.R.; Clark, W.E.; Struck, R.T.
Affiliation: Shell Development Co.; Conoco Coal Development Co.
Publication: International Journal of Energy Research, June 1980
Abstract:
The molten zinc chloride process is a hydrocracking system that converts coal to gasoline in a single step. An economically attractive process is currently under development at the one ton per day process development unit scale. The design and economics of a plant for the production of 53,000 bbl/day of gasoline with 90-92 unleaded research octane number from Western coals are discussed."
Then, nearly a year later, at yet another coal-to-liquid conversion conference, held, not in US Coal Country, but in what can only be described as relative obscurity, in London, at a meeting sponsored by the chemical industry, more encouraging developments of the Zinc Chloride coal liquefaction technology were presented.
As follows:
"Hydrocracking of coal to light distillate with molten zinc chloride
Conoco Coal Development Company, Research Division, Library, Pennsylvania 15129, USA
Presented at the Conference: ‘Industrial Conversion of Coal and Carbon to Gas, Liquid and High-Value Solid Products’, organized by the Industrial Carbon and Graphite Group of the Society of Chemical Industry, and held at the Society of Chemical Industry, 14, Belgrave Square, London SW1 8PS, UK, 7–9 April 1981.
Abstract:
Molten zinc chloride has the ability to rapidly hydrocrack coals, producing largely gasoline with a high octane number, and to remove nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur impurities, resulting in liquid products with 10 to 100 times less nitrogen and sulphur than corresponding fractions from other direct coal liquefaction processes. The process minimizes or eliminates toxic compounds owing to elimination of nitrogen bearing species and polynuclear aromatics, and produces gasoline at an estimated cost which is among the lowest for any direct coal liquefaction process. The paper summarizes a five-year process development in continuous units up to 1 t day, and suggests further development needed to reach commercial scale."
So, in 1981, a petroleum major knew, as a result of "a five-year process development" that we could "rapidly hydrocrack coals" to produce "gasoline with a high octane number", and, at the same time, "remove nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur impurities".
- Details
We continue in our efforts to confirm for everyone that the science of coal conversion, to liquid and gaseous fuels, embodies a group of technologies that are, in certain and seemingly-closed circles, both well-known and well-understood, and undergoing continuous improvement.
This very recent work, performed by our National Renewable Energy Laboratory, one of the USDOE's national laboratories, is targeted on removing sulfur from synthesis gas, whether the syngas is derived from coal or biomass, before that syngas is catalyzed into liquid fuels.
Comment follows:
"Review of Mid- to High-Temperature Sulfur Sorbents for Desulfurization of Biomass- and Coal-derived Syngas
Singfoong Cheah, Daniel L. Carpenter and Kimberly A. Magrini-Bair
[Unable to display image]National Bioenergy Center, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1617 Cole Blvd., MS 3322 Golden, Colorado
Energy Fuels, 2009, 23 (11), pp 5291–5307
October 16, 2009
Copyright 2009 American Chemical Society
Abstract
This review examines state-of-the-art mid- and high-temperature sulfur sorbents that remove hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from syngas generated from coal gasification and may be applicable for use with biomass-derived syngas. Biomass feedstocks contain low percentages of protein-derived sulfur that is converted primarily to H2S, as well as small amounts of carbonyl sulfide (COS) and organosulfur compounds during pyrolysis and gasification. These sulfur species must be removed from the raw syngas before it is used for downstream fuel synthesis or power generation. Several types of sorbents based on zinc, copper, iron, calcium, manganese, and ceria have been developed over the last two decades that are capable of removing H2S from dry coal-derived syngas at mid- to high-temperature ranges. Further improvement is necessary to develop materials more suitable for desulfurization of biomass-derived syngas because of its hydrocarbon, tar, and potentially high steam content, which presents different challenges as compared to desulfurization of coal-derived syngas."
Note: "These sulfur species must be removed from the raw syngas before it is used for downstream fuel synthesis ...".
And, that for "two decades" we have had materials "that are capable of removing H2S from dry coal-derived syngas".
In earlier posts we have cited research confirming that gasoline, and other liquid fuels, derived from coal are, or can be, virtually sulfur-free. And, sulfur, as herein can be effectively extracted during coal gasification, as part of an indirect coal liquefaction process, is a product of commercial value which could help to offset the cost of coal conversion, if it were to be recovered in a marketable form.
Perhaps more to the point: Other research attests that sulfur is a contaminant that can "poison" some coal indirect liquefaction catalysts. It seems clear, though they don't, unsurprisingly, say so, that these scientists weren't just working to reduce pollution; they were working to enhance the economy and reliability of one variant of coal liquefaction technology.
- Details
We submit this British economic analysis of the available technologies for converting what would be our domestic coal into the liquid fuels we need, and which we are currently being forced to pay sheiks' ransoms for the privilege of importing, to illustrate a few points; and, to ask a few questions.
Comment follows the excerpt:
"Economics of liquid fuels production by coal gasification
Anthony V. Bridgwater and Mark Anders
Energy Research Group, Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry Department, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
May 1991
Abstract
Since the oil crisis of 1973 considerable interest has been shown in the production of liquid fuels from alternative sources. In particular, processes utilizing coal as the feedstock have received considerable interest. These processes can be divided into indirect liquefaction, direct liquefaction and pyrolysis. This paper describes the modelling of indirect coal liquefaction processes in order to perform a consistent technical and economic assessment of the production of liquid fuels from coal and lignite, using a variety of gasification and synthesis gas conversion technologies. The technologies are modelled on a ‘step model’ basis where a step is defined as a combination of individual unit operations which together perform a significant function on the process streams, such as a methanol synthesis step or gasification and a physical gas cleaning step. Sample results of the modelling are presented to illustrate the scope of the work. These cover a representative range of gasifiers, liquid synthesis processes and products from the large number of combinations of feeds (3 alternatives), gasifiers (10 alternatives), products (6 alternatives), other technical parameters (up to 20 variables) and economic or financial parameters (17 variables), as well as possible sensitivity studies. The results have been validated by major European companies in absolute as well as comparative terms. The main results show that methanol is the most attractive fuel relative to current market prices, followed by fuel alcohol (a mixture of alcohols produced by modified Fischer-Tropsch synthesis), diesel from the Shell middle distillate synthesis process, diesel from the Mobil methanol to olefins gasoline diesel process, gasoline from the same process and finally gasoline from the Mobil methanol to gasoline process. Some products are currently economic based on typical world coal prices. There was a variation in production costs of up to 100% for most products depending on the type of gasifier chosen and specific feedstock."
First of all, in 1991, British researchers knew enough about no fewer than "10 alternatives" for transforming coal into other, more malleable, forms to hold discourse on those alternatives.
And, they were kind enough to name several of those alternatives, which you should by now be familiar with, such as the venerable Fischer-Tropsch, Shell MDS, and Mobil (now ExxonMobil) MTG technologies. If you have followed our coal liquefaction posts thus far, the names, and general outlines, of those technologies should be familiar to you; and, a sense of what the reality of their largely-unacknowledged existence implies should by now have dawned.
Note that, in 1991, these British researchers were able to study multiple "processes ... to perform a consistent technical and economic assessment of the production of liquid fuels from coal ...using a variety of ... technologies."
Why, very nearly two decades later, do we, in the US, seem publicly unable to do the same? And, in those two decades of constantly-rising oil prices, could the "economic assessment" of coal-to-liquid conversion have done anything but grown more favorable?
- Details
We earlier sent you a report of research performed by British workers confirming not just the technical reality of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion technologies, but their genuine economic practicality, as well.
Since cost objections, as opposed to nuts and bolts, and aside from what we have documented to be misplaced environmental concerns, seem to be the primary public hurdle to establishing a viable coal conversion industry, with the real potential for entraining elements of sustainability, in the United States, we thought we would fill you in on how a petroleum company sees the nickels and dimes.
The enclosed report isn't clearly dated on it's cover page, but the inter net web links indicate is was published in 1996. The report cites references from 1995, so it was made "available", after a fashion, more than a decade ago.
It is entitled:
"Fischer-Tropsch Indirect Coal Liquefaction Design Economics - Mild Hydrocracking Vs. Fluid Catalytic Cracking"
by
"Gerald N. Choi, Sheldon J. Kramer and Samuel S. Tam (Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, CA)
Joseph M. Fox 111 (Consultant)
William J. Reagan (Amoco Oil Company, Naperville. IL)"
First, we excerpt an intriguing, but by now unsurprising, acknowledgement, as follows:
"Bechtel, along with Amoco, who was the main subcontractor for a major portion of this study, expresses
our appreciation to the DOE Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center for both technical guidance and
financial funding under Contract No. DE-AC22-91PC90027."
our appreciation to the DOE Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center for both technical guidance and
financial funding under Contract No. DE-AC22-91PC90027."
So, not only was the actual work done by an oil company, it was reported to our employees: The US Department of Energy; and employees of the DOE in a local, Pittsburgh, PA, office, at that.
Why haven't we, the people, the owners of the DOE, received this report? Especially those of us dependent upon coal industry in the Pittsburgh environs?
In any case, the oil company our employees saw fit, for whatever reason, to have study the economics of converting coal into liquid fuels discovered that the price of oil made from coal would vary between 33.2 and 35.8 dollars per barrel, depending on the exact technology they used to convert coal into oil.
That finding is presented in their concluding statements, and we won't excerpt herein the complete paragraph.
But, in 1996, our US Department of Energy, and their contractors, confirmed that we could make a barrel of oil, out of coal, for less than 40 bucks: "between 33.2 ind 35.8", dollars per barrel, according to the report.
Since 1996, how much has oil gone up in price? How much has coal gone up in price?
Amoco and our USDOE did the math in 1996. It's time we did it for ourselves, now.
- Details
In an earlier dispatch, we disparaged the lack of information available from our own, US, Department of Energy concerning the technologies available for coal liquefaction into the liquid fuels and chemical manufacturing raw materials we are domestically short of.
Well, we guess we just had to know where to dig.
Following, and attached via the enclosed link, is a small catalogue of publications available from the USDOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory.
Truth to tell, we did try downloading some of the reports for the purposes of individual presentation and comment, but without much success.
Perhaps, presuming your interest, you'll have better luck. And, you should, from our earlier posts, recognize a few of the projects and technologies which we have reported on from other sources.
We might try some of these files again, ourselves. Of special interest is: Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization Task 2 Topical Report Coke/Coal Gasification With Liquids Co production Volumes 1 and 2 .
But, in the meantime, happy mining:
| Gasification Reference Shelf – Publications, Presentations & Reports - Process & Technology Studies The following are Gasification Process & Technology Studies:
So, our USDOE does have some CoalTL info available for us. Let's get it and start using it. |
Join Friends of Coal
Be part of West Virginia's coal industry future. Together, we can continue building a stronger, more prosperous Mountain State by supporting our miners and communities.
West Virginia Coal Association
The West Virginia Coal Association has been the voice of the coal industry for over 100 years, advocating for safe, responsible mining practices and supporting the communities that depend on coal.
Join the FOC
Become a Friend of Coal and download our app to stay connected and support the industry.
Recent Press
