- Details
This submission is lengthy and complex, and, sadly, incomplete; incomplete because a key research report file maintained by our Federal Government discloses itself to be damaged, and electronically unavailable.
Explanation follows multiple links and excerpts, with comment interspersed.
We present, first, a report of research from New Mexico State University, which starts us out on a path of discovery revealing that, not only does our Federal, US, Government know that coal can be converted, on a practical and profitable basis, into liquid fuels, but it has also been devoting considerable effort into refining the technology for refining those coal liquids, again on a practical and profitable basis, into direct replacements for the liquid fuels currently used by our transportation fleet and serviced by our transportation infrastructure.
Note that the frequently-applied term "hydrotreating" relates to the chemical process of adding Hydrogen to the highly carbonaceous molecules of raw coal liquids, to convert them into something more akin to gasoline, diesel, and etc., the "hydrocarbon" liquids we're all familiar with.
As follows:
"Title: Hydrotreating of Coal Liquids, Phase 2
Authors: Wilson, D.B.; Bogdanor, J.M.
Affiliation: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Publication: Final Report; NMSU Department of Mechanical Engineering; June 1982.
Abstract:
The kinetic parameters for the pseudo first-order denitrogenation and desulfurization of an SASOL coal naphtha was studied. Only the fraction boiling over 95 C (at 25.8 mmHg) was hydrotreated due to the high volatility of the whole naphtha. Dodecane was used as a diluent to further reduce the volatility of the hydrotreated naphtha bottoms. A commercial Ni-Mo catalyst (HDS9A) was employed. Based on chromatographic results, nitrogen and sulfur were successfully removed from the naphtha bottoms. The mathematical model developed to describe the pseudo first-order denitrogenation and desulfurization of the naphtha bottoms in the semi-batch, slurry reactor was adequate to explain the experimental results."
First of all, these New Mexico researchers, in 1982, were working to refine a coal liquid produced by Sasol, in South Africa.
South Africa was already fueling her transportation fleet with liquid fuel made from coal in 1982, and had been for quite some time.
Couldn't we have just asked them how they refined it?
And, this is the "Final Report" of "Phase 2". Where is the report of "Phase 1"? And, how many "Phases" were there?
We follow up with a report from our own Federal Government, who also, in one of their research facilities suspiciously close to New Mexico State University, was, coincidentally, looking into the "Hydrotreating", the upgrading, of coal liquids. There are some genuinely significant references in this report, and we'll elaborate a few of them, throughout and following the lengthy, but we think justified, excerpt:
"HYDROTREATING OF COAL-DERIVED LIQUIDS
Frances V. Stohl. Stephen E. Lon. Kathleen V. Diegert.
David C. Goodnow, John 8. Oelfke
Sandia National Laboratories
Process Research Department 8212
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0709
David C. Goodnow, John 8. Oelfke
Sandia National Laboratories
Process Research Department 8212
Sandia National Laboratories
P.O. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0709
ABSTRACT
The objective of Sandia's refining of coal-derived liquids project is to determine the relationship between
hydrotreating conditions and product characteristics. The coal derived liquids used in this work were
produced in HTI's first proof-of-concept run using Illinois #6 coal. Samples of the whole coal liquid
product, distillate fractions of this liquid, and Criterion HDN-60 catalyst were obtained from Southwest
Research Inc. Hydrotreating experiments were performed using a continuous operation, unattended,
microflow reactor system. A factorial experimental design with three variables (temperature (310% to
388OC), liquid hourly space velocity (1 to 3 g/h/cm'(cat)), pressure (500 to 1000 psig H2)) is being used in
this project. Sulfur and nitrogen contents of the hydrotreated products were monitored during the
hydrotreating experiments to ensure that activity was lined out at each set of reaction conditions. Results
of hydrotreating the whole coal liquid showed that nitrogen values in the products ranged from 549 ppm
at 320°C, 3 g/h/cm'(cat), 500 psig H2 to 45 ppm at 4OO0C. 1 glhl cm'(cat). 1000 psig H2.
hydrotreating conditions and product characteristics. The coal derived liquids used in this work were
produced in HTI's first proof-of-concept run using Illinois #6 coal. Samples of the whole coal liquid
product, distillate fractions of this liquid, and Criterion HDN-60 catalyst were obtained from Southwest
Research Inc. Hydrotreating experiments were performed using a continuous operation, unattended,
microflow reactor system. A factorial experimental design with three variables (temperature (310% to
388OC), liquid hourly space velocity (1 to 3 g/h/cm'(cat)), pressure (500 to 1000 psig H2)) is being used in
this project. Sulfur and nitrogen contents of the hydrotreated products were monitored during the
hydrotreating experiments to ensure that activity was lined out at each set of reaction conditions. Results
of hydrotreating the whole coal liquid showed that nitrogen values in the products ranged from 549 ppm
at 320°C, 3 g/h/cm'(cat), 500 psig H2 to 45 ppm at 4OO0C. 1 glhl cm'(cat). 1000 psig H2.
(So, in a fashion similar to other suspicion-arousing Guv research into coal liquefaction, they saw fit to ship coal products, "Illinois #6 Coal", a few thousand miles to New Mexico for coal liquefaction research. We suppose the researchers at Southern Illinois University, who, as we've thoroughly documented, have been developing and refining coal liquefaction technologies, would be "amused", for want of a better term, to learn of it. We've no idea, yet, what "Criterion HDN-60 catalyst" might be, or who "Southwest Research Inc" are, but will try to find out. - JtM)
INTRODUCTION
DOWPETC's refining of coal liquids program is aimed at determining the most cost effective
combination of existing refinery processes and blending options necessary to upgrade direct and indirect
coal liquids into transportation fuels that meet year 2000 specifications. A main reason for this program
is that coal liquefaction processing has improved significantly since the last refining evaluation was done
by Sullivan and Frumkin (1) at Chevron in the early 1980s. In addition. a recent publication by Zhou.
Marano and Winschel (2) indicates that blending coal liquids with petroleum may allow refiners to
produce specification products with less refining than if each fraction was processed separately.
Sandia's role in this program is to develop a database relating hydrotreating parameters to feed and
product quality by experimentally evaluating options for hydrotreating whole coal liquids, distillate cuts of
coal liquids, petroleum, and blends of coal liquids with petroleum. Sandia's project is unique because our
small-scale, continuous operation flow reactor system enables us to evaluate many hydrotreating options
in a cost effective manner while keeping waste production to a minimum. Sandia's project is integrated
with other program participants including participants in the Refining and End-Use of Coal Liquids Study
project (Bechtel, Southwest Research Inc. (SwRI). Amoco. M. W. Kellogg). Hydrocarbon Technology Inc.
(HTI, formerly HRI) the MITRE Corporation, and PETC. Sandia's data will be used by other program
participants in refinery linear programming models to identify the most cost effective options for
introducing and processing coal liquids in a refinery. This paper will cover results obtained from
hydrotreating whole coal liquid product from HTl's first proof of concept run with Illinois #6 coal."
combination of existing refinery processes and blending options necessary to upgrade direct and indirect
coal liquids into transportation fuels that meet year 2000 specifications. A main reason for this program
is that coal liquefaction processing has improved significantly since the last refining evaluation was done
by Sullivan and Frumkin (1) at Chevron in the early 1980s. In addition. a recent publication by Zhou.
Marano and Winschel (2) indicates that blending coal liquids with petroleum may allow refiners to
produce specification products with less refining than if each fraction was processed separately.
Sandia's role in this program is to develop a database relating hydrotreating parameters to feed and
product quality by experimentally evaluating options for hydrotreating whole coal liquids, distillate cuts of
coal liquids, petroleum, and blends of coal liquids with petroleum. Sandia's project is unique because our
small-scale, continuous operation flow reactor system enables us to evaluate many hydrotreating options
in a cost effective manner while keeping waste production to a minimum. Sandia's project is integrated
with other program participants including participants in the Refining and End-Use of Coal Liquids Study
project (Bechtel, Southwest Research Inc. (SwRI). Amoco. M. W. Kellogg). Hydrocarbon Technology Inc.
(HTI, formerly HRI) the MITRE Corporation, and PETC. Sandia's data will be used by other program
participants in refinery linear programming models to identify the most cost effective options for
introducing and processing coal liquids in a refinery. This paper will cover results obtained from
hydrotreating whole coal liquid product from HTl's first proof of concept run with Illinois #6 coal."
(We have documented "HTI" - Hydrocarbon Technologies - previously; but, who is "DOWPETC"?
And, note: "coal liquefaction processing has improved significantly since the last refining evaluation was done by Sullivan and Frumkin at Chevron in the early 1980s".
Did anyone know that Chevron was refining coal liquids in the "early 1980's"? Who was improving "coal liquefaction processing", and, where are the results, what were the improvements?
Who is the "MITRE Corporation", and what is their connection to coal liquefaction? Who is Southwest Research?
We'll try to find out for you. We all know one of their above-documented partners: "Amoco". - JtM)
"EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Sandia's experimental procedures included using a factorial experimental design, hydrotreating the
whole coal-derived liquid, characterizing the feeds and hydrotreated products, and reporting results to
other program participants.
whole coal-derived liquid, characterizing the feeds and hydrotreated products, and reporting results to
other program participants.
Continuous Operation Reactor Svstem: Sandia's hydrotreating studies are being performed using a
continuous operation, trickle-bed, microflow reactor system. The system has all required safety features
to enable it to be operated unattended. The capabilities of this reactor system include catalyst loadings
upto 25 cm', liquid flow rates from 0.05 to 4 cm'lmin. gas flows for hydrogen and nitrogen up to 2 Ilmin,
gas flows for H2S/H2 up to 0.5 Vmin. maximum temperature of 620°C, and a maximum pressure of 1800
psig. The reactor volume is 59 cm'. Four samples can be collected automatically during unattended
operation. For liquid hourly space velocities (LHSV) of 1 and 3 g/h/cm3(cat). samples would weigh about
7 and 22 g respectively.
continuous operation, trickle-bed, microflow reactor system. The system has all required safety features
to enable it to be operated unattended. The capabilities of this reactor system include catalyst loadings
upto 25 cm', liquid flow rates from 0.05 to 4 cm'lmin. gas flows for hydrogen and nitrogen up to 2 Ilmin,
gas flows for H2S/H2 up to 0.5 Vmin. maximum temperature of 620°C, and a maximum pressure of 1800
psig. The reactor volume is 59 cm'. Four samples can be collected automatically during unattended
operation. For liquid hourly space velocities (LHSV) of 1 and 3 g/h/cm3(cat). samples would weigh about
7 and 22 g respectively.
Factorial ExDerimental Desian ("Factorial Experimental Design"??? - JtM): Based on experience, three parameters were chosen for the factorial experimental design (Figure 1): temperature, pressure, and LHSV. The ranges of hydrotreatingconditions used with the design were temperatures of 310 to 388%. pressures of 500 to 1000 psig HI, and LHSVs from 1 to 3 g/hlcm'(cat). Evaluation of the first set of hydrotreating conditions (388'C, 500 psig H2, 1g/h/cm'(cat)) was repeated once during the run and once at the end of the run so lhat effects of Catalyst deactivation could be determined. Prior to the use of the testing using the factorial experimental design, two additional sets of reaction conditions were evaluated to see the effects of high pressure and temperature: 388'C, 1500 psig HI, 1 g/h/cm3(cat) and 362OC.1500 psig H2, 1 g/h/cm3(cat).
Reactor Feeds and Catalvst: Sandia received (from SwRI) a sample of fresh Criterion HDNBO catalyst
end about 3.5 gallons of whole coal liquid product that was produced in HTl's first proof-of-concept run
using Illinois #6 coal. The whole coal liquid product was collected when HTl's third stage reactor was not
on line and while catalyst replacement was being used. Sandia's reactor was loaded with log of fresh
catalyst that was sulfided in situ using temperature staging. The presulfiding procedure consisted of
heating the catalyst to 177% under He. starting the flow of a 10 mol% H2S/H2 mixture and maintaining
end about 3.5 gallons of whole coal liquid product that was produced in HTl's first proof-of-concept run
using Illinois #6 coal. The whole coal liquid product was collected when HTl's third stage reactor was not
on line and while catalyst replacement was being used. Sandia's reactor was loaded with log of fresh
catalyst that was sulfided in situ using temperature staging. The presulfiding procedure consisted of
heating the catalyst to 177% under He. starting the flow of a 10 mol% H2S/H2 mixture and maintaining
17PC for 1 hour. The catalyst was then heated to 288°C under flowing H2W2 and maintained at 286%
for 1 hour. Ned the catalyst was heated to 4MoC under flowing HzS, the temperature was maintained at
404% for 1 hour. HzS flow was stopped and HI flow started.
for 1 hour. Ned the catalyst was heated to 4MoC under flowing HzS, the temperature was maintained at
404% for 1 hour. HzS flow was stopped and HI flow started.
TEMPERATURE
Analytical Procedures: Small samples were collected either manually or automatically throughout the
run. Nitrogen and sulfur analyses were used lo determine when line out was achieved at each reaction
condition. These analyses were performed using an Antek 7000 Sulfur 8 Nitrogen Analyzer with an
automatic sampler. Standards were prepared using phenanthridine for nitrogen, thianthrene for sulfur,
toluene for the solvent. and four lo five dilutions. Standards were measured at least twice and a
polynomialfit of the intensity versus concentration data was used for analysis of unknowns.
run. Nitrogen and sulfur analyses were used lo determine when line out was achieved at each reaction
condition. These analyses were performed using an Antek 7000 Sulfur 8 Nitrogen Analyzer with an
automatic sampler. Standards were prepared using phenanthridine for nitrogen, thianthrene for sulfur,
toluene for the solvent. and four lo five dilutions. Standards were measured at least twice and a
polynomialfit of the intensity versus concentration data was used for analysis of unknowns.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analyses of the whole coal liquid by HTI, SwRI, and Sandia are shown in Table 1. SwRl used their
measured specific gravity. Sandia used 0.9 glml for the first and second samples. Data for the second
sample was also calculated using SwRl's specific gravity to show the effect of different values. Results
show some variability but indicate the whole coal liquid has about 600 ppm nitrogen and 400 ppm sulfur."
measured specific gravity. Sandia used 0.9 glml for the first and second samples. Data for the second
sample was also calculated using SwRl's specific gravity to show the effect of different values. Results
show some variability but indicate the whole coal liquid has about 600 ppm nitrogen and 400 ppm sulfur."
(We have deleted from the excerpt numerous Figure references, and etc., covering multiple pages. - JtM)
"CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Results of this work show that good denitrogenation and good desulfurization can be obtained under
relatively mild conditions with coal liquids from current processes. AI the lowest severity condition. there
is only about 10% nitrogen removal, whereas at the highest severity condition, there is about 97%
nitrogen removal. Sulfur removal is good over the whole range of conditions and is greater than 95%.
Ongoing and future work will involve additional characterization of reaction products by techniques such
as distillation. PONA or PIONA analyses. density determinations, and proton NMR for hydrogen
distributions. Results will be corrected for catalyst deactivation and analyzed statistically to determine
the effects of process conditions on product quality. Future hydrotreating experiments will be performed
with distillate fractions of this coal liquid and with coal-derived liquids from subbituminous mI."
relatively mild conditions with coal liquids from current processes. AI the lowest severity condition. there
is only about 10% nitrogen removal, whereas at the highest severity condition, there is about 97%
nitrogen removal. Sulfur removal is good over the whole range of conditions and is greater than 95%.
Ongoing and future work will involve additional characterization of reaction products by techniques such
as distillation. PONA or PIONA analyses. density determinations, and proton NMR for hydrogen
distributions. Results will be corrected for catalyst deactivation and analyzed statistically to determine
the effects of process conditions on product quality. Future hydrotreating experiments will be performed
with distillate fractions of this coal liquid and with coal-derived liquids from subbituminous mI."
A complete report on all of all this effort just might, but only might, be available in hard copy form.
No guarantees, but we think the following link(s), with excerpted info, will get you to it:
You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy science and technology.
A microfiche or paper copy of this document is also available for sale to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA at www.ntis.gov. "
Our indigent circumstances prevent us from ordering a "paper copy", as much as we might like to have one. But, we think every US citizen in US Coal Country should have a paper copy of it, or at least a newspaper copy of the synopsis.
When we attempted to download this artifact, via a "View Document" link, we were informed, after a very lengthy wait, that the file was "damaged" and "unavailable". Perhaps you'll have better luck, but we doubt it.
We don't know how much more information it might contain, or how it might differ from, the "Hydrotreating" report from Sandia we referenced, above; but, It long ago became obvious to us that much coal-to-liquid research, much of the truth of it, is "unavailable".
Why that is the case should be pretty obvious to everyone by now, we think. The situation needs to be changed.
All of it should be available to everyone, especially everyone in US Coal Country.
- Details
So confident, so assured, is China about her Coal-To-Liquids conversion industry, with which, as we've documented, she has been helped along by US entities, such as West Virginia University, that she is beginning to advertise her coal liquefaction accomplishments and talents.
Maybe you and your Coal Country journalistic colleagues should subscribe to their monthly "e-magazine", as below, on the subject of Chinese coal liquefaction: Chemsino.
As detailed further via the link:
- - - - -
"The Window to Know CTL and Coal Chemical in China
About China CTL
The coal-to-liquids (CTL) and advanced coal chemical industry, such as coal based mega methanol, DME and methanol-to-olefins boom in China, as the current high oil price and the abundant coal resource in the country.
More and more companies and investors are interested in the field, those companies and investors, together with other enterprises upstream and downstream of the sector, are eager to know the updated information in coal chemical industry for reference, such as policies, markets, companies, technologies and etc.
Chemsino Intelligence, a leading chemical information services provider in China, launched a new comprehensive monthly e-magazine on coal chemical industry, which based on English language and named as China CTL for English readers in China and overseas.
Chemsino is commissioned to provide comprehensive and accurate information on CTL and coal chemical industry in China for subscribers.
The monthly updated information included in each issue of China CTL:
Viewpoint: comment on latest breaking news about coal chemical industry in China
Policies and Markets: latest policies and laws issued by centre and local government, and market situation of products related to coal chemical sector
Companies and Projects: the activities of coal chemical enterprises and information of coal chemical projects that are planned or being built in China
Price: prices of products related to coal chemical sector
Data: import and export data of products and raw materials of coal chemical sector
Technologies: latest innovations on coal chemical"
- - - - -
This, indeed, seems to be the "The Window to Know CTL ... in China" - if you read Chinese. The excerpt above might be the only English-language entry on the site.
It is, nonetheless, somewhat revealing. Darned shame there's no "Window to Know CTL in West Virginia", or, "in Appalachia", or, "in The United States of America".
Do you know of any good reason why there is not?
We don't either. But, there should be - especially since, as we documented for you some time ago, China is seeking international patents on what seems to be a version of WVU's "West Virginia Process" for direct coal liquefaction.
- Details
We've previously cited references documenting Gulf Oil's research and development of coal liquefaction technologies, and of the USDOE's Tacoma, Washington, SRC coal liquefaction pilot plant.
Herein, it's presented that there was further, likely negative, involvement of Big Oil in the nearly top-secret USDOE program to develop technologies for coal liquefaction, which followed by some decades the CTL effort immediately-post WWII, using captured German technology, in which several US coal liquefaction facilities were built.
As follows:
"Desulfurization and Deashing of Solvent Refined Coal (SRC-I)
Authors: L. Petrakis, P.F. Ahner, F.E. Kiviat
Affiliation: Gulf Research and Development Company; Pittsburgh, PA
Publication: Separation Science and Technology; Volume 16, Issue 7, August, 1981. pp 745 - 772.
Abstract:
A pilot-scale high gradient magnetic separations (HGMS) system was assembled to investigate the magnetic separation of ash-forming solids and inorganic sulfur from liquefied coal. The liquefied coal studied was a diluted intermediate product obtained from the DOE-sponsored Tacoma SRC-I pilot plant (50 t/d coal capacity). The magnetic characteristics and particle size distribution of the Tacoma SRC-I liquefied coal were optimized for removal by HGMS. The effect of the following magnetic separator parameters upon the deashing the desulfurization of the diluted liquefied coal was considered: matrix packing density, temperature, applied magnetic field, dilution of and residence time of liquefied coal feed, backflushing of saturated separator parameters upon the deashing and desulfurization of the diluted liquefied model which satisfactorily accounts for HGMS performance was developed. The HGMS system was observed to remove over 90% of the ash-forming materials and inorganic sulfur over a wide range of operating conditions. These removals were increased to 97 and 95%, respectively, with residence times greater than 6 min."
Maybe not too exciting. But, an oil company was refining coal liquids. And, they were able to remove more than ninety percent of objectionable materials by using a technology that sounds somewhat surprisingly sophisticated, given that no one seemed, or seems, to know we were making coal liquids in the first place, much less figuring out how to refine them.
The thing we find most intriguing, to belabor a theme: Gulf refined coal liquids, in Pittsburgh, PA, which were made in Tacoma, WA, from coal mined, as per some previous references we've provided about the Tacoma SRC operation, in Kentucky.
We can, without argument, make gasoline from coal. However, our USDOE has wasted more gasoline than we ever have made from coal by playing a coast-to-coast shell game, shuttling coal and coal liquids back and forth, in their attempt to hide that fact.
Way past time the Bunco Squad kicked over Big Oil's game table, ain't it?
- Details
Enough was known about at least two methods of converting coal into liquid fuels a quarter-century ago, that a New York engineering firm was able to evaluate and report on them in detail.
Some specifics:
Title: H-Coal and coal-to-methanol liquefaction processes: process engineering evaluation. Final report
Author(s): Paul, E.V.; Dharia, D.J.; Fay, S.J.
Date: November, 1983.
Report Numbers: EPRI-AP-3290; DE84920138
Research Organization: Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., New York
Abstract: This report presents the results of a technical and economic evaluation of the H-Coal process and the coal-to-methanol process for the production of liquid fuels from coal. Evaluations are based on capital cost estimates, in mid-1982 dollars, for commercial size, self-contained plants with a nominal liquid product capacity of 50,000 fuel oil equivalent (FOE) bbl/sd (FOE bbl = 5.85 x 10/sup 6/ Btu). Product selling prices, in dollars per million Btu, are calculated for both nonregulated and regulated (utility) producers. The H-Coal process, developed by Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., is used in this study to produce hydrocarbon liquid from either Illinois No. 6 bituminous or Wyodak subbituminous coal. The primary fuel products include gasoline, turbine fuel, and distillate fuel oil. A substantial amount of LPG is produced only in the Illinois coal case. Hydrogen is produced by gasifying vacuum bottoms using Texaco technology in both cases. However, in the Wyodak case, supplemental hydrogen is required and this is produced by reforming product gas. Electric power is produced from combined-cycle gas turbines fired by process derived fuel gas. Fuel grade methanol is produced from Illinois No. 6 coal using Texaco coal gasification to provide synthesis gas to Lurgi methanol synthesis. Steam derived from the process is used to generate the electric power requirements. Product selling prices of liquid fuel products in mid-1982 dollars were found to range from 9.06 to 10.94 $/10/sup 6/ Btu for a nonregulated producer and 5.66 to 6.88 $/10/sup 6/ Btu for a regulated (utility) producer. The sensitivity of the product price to various factors, as well as approaches to accomplish early commercialization, are examined and discussed. 385 Pages. Availability: Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304."
Neither the "H-Coal" nor the "coal-to-methanol" coal liquefaction technologies should be mysteries to our readers. We have reported on both of them to the point of tedium.
What should be a mystery to everyone, though, is how it came to pass that a New York City engineering firm was selected to study the economics of multiple coal liquefaction technologies, and directed to archive their findings at a California research institute, more than two decades ago, and no one in US Coal Country has so far been privileged to be informed about any of it.
The circumstances beggar further comment from us.
They should beggar the belief of everyone in US Coal Country; and, of every US citizen genuinely concerned with the security and economic health of the United States of America.
- Details
We have previously documented for you the work of Nobel Laureate George Olah, at the University of Southern California's Loker Institute, on the recycling, the profitable conversion, into useful hydrocarbons, of Carbon Dioxide.
Somewhat surprisingly, USC, and Dr. Olah and some of his colleagues, have also been involved in the development of technology to convert our abundant coal into the liquid fuels we need, as the enclosed documents attest.
Like much about the very real processes which exist for converting coal into liquid fuels, this USC work is not well-published, even though Dr. Olah won the Nobel Prize, in 1994, for his innovative work in hydrocarbon chemistry. The public reports of USC's work which do exist, like those documenting the FMC company's liquefaction of coal in New Jersey for the USDOE, are sparse and incomplete; and, they provide only an outline, at best, of what had to have been a much more detailed and more extensive body of knowledge that was generated.
In any case, we present below some very brief passages excerpted from the quite complex presentation of coal liquefaction chemistries studied by USC, as linked above, with a link to one of Dr. Olah's coal liquefaction reports, accompanied by a brief excerpt, following. Comment inserted and appended:
"PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF COAL LIQUEFACTION PRODUCTS
I. Schwager and T. F. Yen
University of Southern California
Chemical Engineering Department
University Park
Los Angeles. California 90007
University of Southern California
Chemical Engineering Department
University Park
Los Angeles. California 90007
INTRODUCTION
The three direct general processes for converting coals to liquid fuels are: catalyzed hydrogenation, staged pyrolysis, and solvent refining. Each of these processes results in the production of a coal liquid which contains a variety of desirable and undesirable components. The desirable coal liquids are the oils-saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons plus nonpolar nonhydrocarbons, and the non-hydrocarbons. The undesirable species are the asphaltenes and the carbenes-high molecular weight highly aromatic solids, and the carboids-polymerized coke-like materials. The undesirable elements: metals, sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen are generally present in higher concentration in the asphaltene and carboid fractions. Under hydrogenolysis conditions, the conversion of coal to oil has been suggested to proceed via the following sequence: Coal-Asphaltene-Oil. Therefore, asphaltene generation and elimination are of great importance in the liquefaction process. A study of the chemical and physical properties of asphaltenes may lead to the discovery of ways to reduce or eliminate asphaltene build-up in coal liquids and to thereby increase the yields of desirable coal liquefaction products, In this work, coal liquids from representative liquefaction processes have been separated by solvent fractionation, and the fractions are being examined by various analytical and physical techniques. Particular attention is being directed toward asphaltene separation, purification and characterization.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A solvent fractionation scheme for separating coal liquid products into five fractions (oil, resin, asphaltene, carbene, and carboid) is shown. Representative coal liquid samples produced via the three direct coal liquefaction processes were separated into the five fractions described above. For the catalyzed hydrogenation product produced in the Synthoil process, the product composition is about 61% oil, 22% resin, 13%asphaltene, 0.6% carbene, and 3%carboid. The staged pyrolysis filtered product' from the FMC Corporation's COED process has a product composition of about 26% oil, 48% resin, 15% asphaltene, 1%carbene and lack carboid. The solvent refined coal (SRC) produced by Catalytic Inc. based on PAMCO's SRC process affords about 4% oil, 15% resin, 45% asphaltene, 2%carbene, and 9%carboid. The results found in this work are in good agreement with those reported recently for solvent fractionation of a Synthoil catalytic hydrogenation product, and a non-catalytic SRC product.
SUMMARY
A preliminary examination of coal liquefaction products from four different coal liquefaction processes has been carried out. Each coal liquid has been separated into five different fractions by solvent fractionation. It may be seen that heteroatoms and metals are generally concentrated in the asphaltene and carboid fractions."
--------
First, above, the "heteroatoms" would be Sulfur, and related contaminants. Moreover, the abstract begs reading of the complete work, if all the copies haven't been stuffed down a depleted oil well somewhere, to gain a clearer understanding of the results and their implications. Perhaps the important point to be taken from this is that, yes, coal can be liquefied into products suitable for refining. And, they know that even in Southern California, if not in Appalachia.
Following is the report of additional research into coal liquefaction undertaken by USC's George Olah:
"Title: Superacid catalyzed coal conversion chemistry. Final technical report, Sept. 1, 1983-Sept.1, 1986.
Author: Olah, G.A.
Publication Date: January 1, 1986
Report Number: DOE/PC/60810-T10; DOE Contract Number: FG22-83PC60810
Research Organization: Univ. of Southern Calif., Los Angeles (USA). Loker Hydrocarbon Research Inst.
Abstract:
This research project involved the study of a raw comparatively mild coal conversion process. The goal of the project was to study model systems to understand the basic chemistry involved and to provide a possible effective pretreatment of coal which significantly improves liquefaction-depolymerization under mild conditions. The conversion process operates at relatively low temperatues (170/sup 0/C) and pressures and uses an easily recyclable, stable superacid catalysts (HF-BF/sub 3/). It consequently offers an attractive alternative to currently available processes. From the present studies it appears that the modification of coal structure by electrophilic alkylation and subsequent reaction of alkylated coal with HF-BF/sub 3/-H/sub 2/ system under mild conditions considerably improves the extractability of coal in pyridine and cyclohexane. On the other hand, nitration of coal and its subsequent reaction with HF-BF/sub 3/H/sub 2/ decreases the pyridine and cyclohexane extractability. Study of model compounds under conditions identical with the superacidic HF/BF/sub 3//H/sub 2/ system provided significant information about the basic chemistry of the involved cleavage-hydrogenation reactions."
Note that Olah's reportage was of coal research done, for at least three years, under contract to our own, US, Department of Energy.
And, as in other coal conversion research undertaken by our US DOE, as we've reported, Olah was studying "mild" coal conversion processes; a term which we take to imply lower energy requirements, and thus lower costs, to effect the transmutation.
Odd, isn't it, that our Federal DOE would contract with the University of Southern California to study the conversion of coal into liquid fuels? It's like the US Department of Transportation contracting with WVU to study the molding of beach sand into surf boards.
In any case, the work is detailed, and the full reportage of it is beyond the scope of our purpose here, which is to document the fact, that: Multiple technologies exist, including the FMC, SRC and Synthoil processes named by Schwager and Yen, and about which we have previously reported, which, if coupled with the Carbon Dioxide recycling technologies we have documented for you, including some elaborated in other work by USC's George Olah, could enable the United States to end her reliance on foreign petroleum, thereby ushering in an era of domestic economic abundance, and improving the environment while doing so.
What we have so far been unable to document is any good reason why all of that isn't already being done on a broad-based industrial scale.
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
