- Details
In an earlier dispatch, we reported that Coke Oven Gas could be used to facilitate the hydrogenation/liquefaction of coal. Herein a sequential series of technical articles, from Belgium, confirming that assertion.
The articles were published sequentially, in 1991, 1993 and 1996. As follows:
"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas: 1. Influence of temperature on the pyrolysis yields
Colette Braekman-Danheux, René Cyprès, André Fontana, Philippe Laurent and Michel Van Hoegaerden
Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP165, 50, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium
Abstract
In order to improve the economy of the hydropyrolysis process by reducing the hydrogen cost, pyrolysis of coal has been carried out with a simulated coke-oven gas (55% H2, 30% CH4, 15% N2) as the reactive gas at 3 MPa and between 700 °C and 900 °C. Comparisons have been made with hydropyrolysis, pyrolysis with helium and methanolysis under the same conditions. The results indicate that there are no major obstacles to the use of coke-oven gas as the reactive gas in coal pyrolysis. The experimental conditions have to be improved to optimize the yields of the valuable chemicals."
"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas : 2. Influence of the coke-oven gas components on pyrolysis yields
Colette Braekman-Danheux, René Cyprès, André Fontana and Michel van Hoegaerden
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, CP 165, 50, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium
Abstract
To improve the economics of the hydropyrolysis of coal by reducing the hydrogen cost, it has been suggested that coke-oven gas be used instead of pure hydrogen. The present paper describes the role of methane and some minor components in the coke-oven gas during pyrolysis and their influence on the oil and gas yields. Pyrolysis was conducted at 765°C under 3 MPa of various gas mixtures simulating coke-oven gas. The results clearly demonstrate the possibility of using coke-oven gas for coal pyrolysis and lead to the conclusion that synergy between metallurgical cokemaking and ‘creaming-off’ coal by hydropyrolysis will be profitable to both processes."
"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas. 3. Influence of the coke-oven gas components on the char characteristics
Colette Braekman-Danheux, André Fontana, Ali Labani and Philippe Laurent
Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, C.P. 165, 50 Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium
Abstract
To improve the economy of the hydropyrolysis process by reducing the hydrogen cost, it has been suggested to use coke-oven gas instead of pure hydrogen. The results presented here describe some characteristics of the chars obtained by pyrolysis carried out at 765°C under 3 MPa of various gas mixtures simulating coke-oven gas composition. The char obtained after pyrolysis under coke-oven gas pressure is not fundamentally different from those obtained under inert or hydrogen pressure, at least in porosity, optical texture and oxyreactivity in fixed and fluidized beds. The results show clearly the possibility of using coke-oven gas for coal pyrolysis and lead to the conclusion that synergy between metallurgical cokemaking and ‘creaming-off’ coal by hydropyrolysis will be profitable to both processes."
We won't repeat the concluding sentence of the final abstract. These Belgian scientists have said it several times, in several ways, already. But, coke oven gas, from steel making operations, was once, like Carbon Dioxide, considered just another troublesome, objectionable waste generated by our use of coal. Both of those "pollutants", as we have documented, like coal, can be converted into liquid fuels; moreover, they enhance and increase the productivity of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion processes.
And, reclaiming CO2 and coke-oven gas to combine them with coal in the manufacture of liquid fuels would contribute to a cleaner environment.
Our use of coal doesn't generate pollutants, just valuable by-products.
- Details
Gazprom to supply coal gasification technology to Vietnam
Following is the text of the release, excerpted in it's entirety:
"DATE: May,18, 2009
Dow Jones quoted that Vietnam's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment said Russia's OAO Gazprom signed an agreement to supply its underground coal-gasification technology to Vietnam.
The ministry said in a statement that he agreement was signed in Hanoi with Vietnam's Dong Duong Co. Dong Duong will use the technology for gas production in the Red River coal basin in northern part of the country.
The ministry said it supports the idea of using Gazprom's gasification technology to extract gas from the Red River coal basin as it is environmental friendly.
Details about the agreement weren't provided."
The ministry said in a statement that he agreement was signed in Hanoi with Vietnam's Dong Duong Co. Dong Duong will use the technology for gas production in the Red River coal basin in northern part of the country.
The ministry said it supports the idea of using Gazprom's gasification technology to extract gas from the Red River coal basin as it is environmental friendly.
Details about the agreement weren't provided."
In earlier dispatches, we have documented the participation of Australia's Coal-to-Liquid and Gas conversion experts, Linc Energy, in Vietnam's coal conversion activities.
Russia, as we've documented, has coal conversion technology of their own.
Vietnam's coal reserves are generally described as "stranded", meaning they're relatively small and isolated, and can't be easily or economically mined using standard practices. Based on other reports we've located, UCG - underground coal gasification - appears to be a viable alternative to extracting - actually mining - the coal for processing only when the coal deposits are too thin, too deep, or too limited in extent to make physical extraction a practical option.
But, the real point is what Vietnam intend doing with the coal gas. Other reports document that they plan to convert it, like the Chinese with the help of WVU and others are doing, into liquid fuels and chemicals, though detailed news out of Vietnam is sparse and difficult to track down.
- Details
Yet more evidence that we've known how to convert our coal into liquid fuels, and how beneficial that would be, for a long time.
It's saddening to realize the truth of that has to have been, for whatever reason, and by whoever, deliberately suppressed. We can think of no other reason we don't already have a flourishing CoalTL industry in the United States. As we've documented, we can make liquid fuels from coal, we can make plastics and other useful chemicals from coal, and we can support a renewable bio-based energy industry with the by-products from coal.
The excerpt:
| "Title: | Coal gasification and its alternatives | |
| Authors: | Huffman, R. L. | |
| Affiliation: | AA(Cities Service Gas Co., Oklahoma City, Okla.) | |
| Publication: | In: Annual Conference on Energy, 4th, Rolla, Mo., October 11-13, 1977, Proceedings. (A79-14676 03-44) Rolla, Mo., University of Missouri-Rolla, 1978, p. 46-55. | |
| Publication Date: | 00/1978 | |
| Category: | Energy Production and Conversion | |
| Origin: | STI | |
| NASA/STI Keywords: | ALTERNATIVES, COAL GASIFICATION, COST ESTIMATES, ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, SYNTHETIC FUELS | |
| Bibliographic Code: | 1978umor.conf...46H |
Abstract
The paper discusses six groups planning Lurgi coal gasification plants with capacities of about 250 MMCFD of synthetic gas. The present efficiencies and costs of natural gas and electricity are given in terms of production efficiency, transmission and distribution, and delivered energy efficiency. Estimates of the cost of space heating and cooling equipment are presented for a typical home having 1,800 square feet of living space. In contrast to nuclear energy, it is shown that coal has direct applications to industry, for the generation of electric power, and for the production of synthetic fuels. It is demonstrated that synthetic gas from coal is less costly and more efficient than electricity made from the same coal from the point of view of the residential consumer."So, coal conversion, in this case to a "synthetic" replacement for natural gas, is a better technology than nuclear energy alternatives. And, perhaps even more interestingly, according to the author, converting coal into synthetic fuels is more efficient and less costly, in terms of delivering energy to the end consumer, than burning it in power plants to generate electricity - which we seem to do a lot of.
And, who were the six groups working on Lurgi-type coal conversion, and what has become of their projects? The full paper, which we will be unable to acquire, would likely reveal the details should anyone have interest in finding out.
Finally, although this paper concerns the manufacture of a natural gas substitute from coal, once that substitute - syngas - is manufactured, only a pass over one of a variety of catalysts is required to convert that gas into liquid fuels compatible with our current transportation fleet and infrastructure.
- Details
Liquid sulphur dioxide — a reagent for the separation of coal liquids
We submitted earlier reports which indicated that the presence of Sulfur was actually something positive, in terms of coal liquefaction. Sulfur can, through several established commercial processes, be reclaimed from effluent gasses and liquids, and then be profitably sold into several existing markets for it. More than that, it's presence seemed, according to those earlier reports, to facilitate the conversion of coal into liquids.
Herein is more documentation of it's beneficial effect on the coal-to-liquid process.
The excerpt:
"Ralph A. Zingaro, C.V. Philip, Rayford G. Anthony and Argentina Vindiola
Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843 U.S.A.
Received 30 June 1980;
accepted 23 September 1980.
Available online 12 August 2003.
Abstract
Liquid sulfur dioxide has been found to be an excellent solvent for coal derived liquids. The higher alkanes and mineral matter are insoluble in this solvent and they are effectively separated. The sulfur dioxide-soluble fraction is very low in ash content. However, no improvement is achieved with respect to sulfur content. The soluble fraction has been separated by gel permeation chromatography and a large number of components have been identified."
First, when SO2 - which we presume could be extracted and made from the coal feed itself - is used to "clean" liquids derived from coal, it would, we think, be expected that "no improvement is achieved with respect to sulfur content".However, minerals and other, perhaps unwanted, substances "are effectively separated".
And, this report comes from Texas A&M University. Again, we question the now-obvious decentralization of coal-to-liquid conversion development and research; and, the fact that so much of it has seemingly been performed by institutions not geographically situate at the center of our US coal universe.
Finally, though, this is another "dated" report - from 1980 - which has no apparent broad publication credits. Why, would you speculate, has there been so little apparently achieved since then?
If you do look for an answer, perhaps you should check out back. Maybe somebody hid one in the Bushes.
- Details
We're sending this report along to confirm, if more confirmation was needed, that our USDOE did have at least two coal-to-liquid plants up and running in the fairly recent past - in addition to the ones founded by various entities in the 40's and early 50's, which used captured German technology, and the Ohio Valley Synfuels plant in the 1970's.
There doesn't appear to be anything too revelatory in this entry, represented by the abstract below. In sum, two different processes for converting coal into liquid fuels work, and either way you go about it you'll get similar hydrocarbon liquids.
Of course, we're not getting any of those now, but...
"Curt M. White, Mildred B. Perry, Charles E. Schmidt, Nasrin Behmanesh and David T. Allen
Division of Coal Science, US Department of Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, PO Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, USA
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 09924, USA
Received 15 January 1987;
revised 11 May 1987.
Available online 11 August 2003.
Abstract
Coal liquefaction products from the H-coal (Kentucky) and the Wilsonville (Alabama) Integrated two-stage liquefaction processes were separated into narrow-boiling distillates. The Wilsonville product was from the first stage. Information resulting from elemental analysis, proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H n.m.r.), low-voltage, highresolution mass spectrometery (LVHRMS), infrared spectroscopy (i.r.) and open-column preparative liquid chromatography were obtained for each distillate. The analytical data were used to estimate the concentrations of the major functional groups in the distillates. The results indicated that the structure and functionality of the molecular constituents of the two sets of distillates boiling in the same temperature range were similar. Structural differences appear to be primarily related to the concentrations of alkylated aromatics and saturates."
It's real, and we've known how to do it for a long time. Why haven't we been told?
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.
