- Details
We herein offer yet more evidence that carbon dioxide emitted by coal-to-liquid, direct-liquefaction processes can be offset by the inclusion of cellulose in the CTL/BTL feed. Other references specify that cellulose (i.e., sawdust, cotton, old Intel's, etc.) can be added to the coal for co-processing into liquid fuels. In such combinations, inclusion of the cellulose actually helps to reduce the generation of some by-products that might be produced if coal were processed alone.
The excerpt:
"The Direct Liquefaction of Sawdust in Tetralin
Authors: G. Wang ; W. Li; H. Chen; B. Li
| Affiliation: | State Key Lab of Coal Conversion, Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Taiyuan, P.R. China |
AbstractHydrogen liquefaction of sawdust in tetralin was performed in an autoclave at below conditions: temperature range from 200°C to 350°C; initial cool hydrogen pressure range from 4 to 10 MPa; reaction time range from 10 to 100 min. The effect of variables on the process of sawdust liquefaction was examined. The results indicate that the oil yield may range from 6.8 to 67.1% at different liquefaction conditions. Temperature has a remarkable effect than initial cool hydrogen pressure and reaction time on the process of sawdust liquefaction. With increasing temperature (200°C-350°C) the conversion, gas yield, H2 consumption and oil yield are all increased, but the yield of preasphaltene and asphaltene (PA + A) increases first (200°C-300°C) and then decreases (300°C-350°C). The high heating value of the products is higher than that of the feedstock. With the increase in initial cool H2 pressure (4-10 MPa), the conversion and gas yield are almost unchanged, the oil yield increases (36.86-57.06%), while the yield of PA + A decreases (28.07-16.27%). With increasing reaction time (10-100 min), both the conversion and the product distribution change little. The existence of H2 or tetralin improves both the conversion of sawdust and the oil yield." We'll note that "oil" yields of sawdust alone in this process are lower than other studies have reported for sawdust combined with coal. The synergy was noted by the other researchers, who posited that the cellulose acted, in addition to the tetralin, as a Hydrogen donor for the coal. And, it might well be that, not only does sawdust - cellulose - enhance the conversion coal into useable liquids, but coal does the same for cellulose. They both "work" better together than either alone, as far as efficiency of production goes, while cellulose also helps to reduce co-production of asphaltene and offsets some of the CO2 generated. And, again, "tetralin", as noted above, has been specified by West Virginia University as the best solvent so far identified for direct coal liquefaction. |
- Details
Pursuant to our dispatches regarding the Fort Lewis, Washington, solvent-refined, direct liquefaction coal facility, we submit this dispatch, on the same subject, from India.
The excerpt:
"Solvent refined coal: studies on the behaviour of an iron catalyst
Author(s)
DWIVEDI S. R. ; DASGUPTA P. K. ; CHATTERJEE P. K. ; BOSE A. N. ; MUKHERJEE S. N. ; CHATTERJEE S. S. ; BRAHMACHARI B. B. ;
Author(s) Affiliation(s)
Cent. fuel res. inst., Dhanbad Bihar 828108, INDE
Abstract
In this paper an attempt is made to study the effect of solvent extraction on coals from Assam, South Karanpura and Singrauli Coalfields of India. Experiments were carried out in autoclaves under hydrogen pressure in the presence or haematite catalyst. Anthracene oil, having boiling range or 270-360°C, was used as solvent, whereas sulphur was used as catalyst promoter. It was observed that the yield and quality or solvent refined coal (SRC) was improved substantially by the effect or the catalyst. The yield or SRC from Sirka seam coal or South Karanpura Coalfield was found to be 94%, while its caking index was 51. Hydrogen requirement was of the order or 1.54% wt/wt or DAF coal. Recovery of recycle solvent was round to be about 90% wt/wt of solvent used in the process... ."
Note the mention, as we have previously documented, of, what could be inherent, or native, sulfur as a fortuitous catalyst promoter.
- Details
Herein another detailed study on the industrial processing particulars of coal liquefaction processes; which should be something of an oddity, since you wouldn't, based on the public evidence, think there were many, if any, Coal-to-Liquid operations around to study.
The excerpt:
"Control of corrosion in coal liquefaction plant fractionation columns |
Abstract
Severe corrosion has been encountered in fractionation columns at the solvent refined coal (SRC) pilot plants in Fort Lewis, Washington, and Wilsonville, Alabama, as well as at the H-Coal Pilot plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky, and the Exxon Donor Solvent Pilot Plant in Baytown, Texas. At the SRC plants, corrosion rates as high as 25 mm per year (one inch per year) on carbon steel and 6.4 mm per year (250 mils per year) on type 18-8 stainless steels have been measured in the portions of the columns operating at 220 to 260 °C (428 to 500 °F). Less severe corrosion is generally found at temperatures outside this range. The severity of this corrosion is related to the chlorine content of the coal. Studies of this corrosion problem by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) personnel included exposure of corrosion coupons in the pilot plant columns, analyses of liquids collected at the pilot plants, and performance of laboratory experiments. As a result of this work, we can specify alloys with adequate corrosion resistance for construction of fractionation columns, identify the chlorine-bearing compounds, and propose chlorine transport and corrosion mechanisms. Identification of the corrodent and its mechanisms enables us to suggest process changes to remove the corrodent and thereby to control the corrosion."
Like other studies we've cited, this is pretty detailed stuff. Our GUV guys and gals know a lot more about converting coal to liquid fuels than we know they know. If you know what we mean.
As we've documented, our government has had at least two coal-to-liquid conversion facilities up and running in the fairly recent past. And, there were quite a few of them in the decades following WWII. Did you ever hear of them before we reported their existence to you? Do you suppose much of anyone else in West Virginia, or the rest of Appalachian coal country, did either?
- Details
Herein is documented yet another unheralded and virtually unknown government-sponsored investigation of coal-to-liquid conversion technology.
Oddly enough, the goal of this government project, conducted in almost total obscurity on a military reservation about as far removed from the major eastern US Appalachian coal deposits as it is possible to get, was to obtain clean coal fuels, both liquid and solid, by first dissolving the coal - no doubt high-ash and low-Btu western lignite - in a solvent, much as in West Virginia University's direct coal liquefaction process.
In other words, they would first liquefy the coal, then clean it, and then either use the resulting liquids, or, almost perversely, according to this and other documents, reconsolidate it prior to use as a boiler fuel.
The excerpt:
"Abstract
The operating history of a Solvent Refined Coal (SRC) Pilot Plant from start-up through March 1978 is discussed. The Solvent Refined Coal Process SRC I (solid fuel product) and SRC II (liquid fuel product) operating modes for converting high-sulfur, high-ash bituminous coals into low-sulfur, ash-free boiler fuels have been successfully demonstrated. Extended periods of operation with both operating modes have been achieved and substantial quantities of both the solid (more than 3500 tons) and liquid (nearly 6000 barrels or 954 cu m) fuels have been produced. A large scale burning test of the solid fuel product has been successfully concluded, and a similar test using the distillate fuel product is planned. A comprehensive study of the effects of operating variables on product yield distributions has been helpful in identifying the most favorable operating conditions in both modes of operation."
More on the Fort Lewis project to follow.
- Details
As we've suggested to be possible and feasible, flue gasses can be harnessed to help cultivate aquatic crops; in this case, seaweed.
It's not exactly algae for additional liquid fuel production, as we've documented to be feasible and practical, but the principle's the same, and various seaweeds do have various uses where they're available, including as a beneficial livestock feed component, if nothing else. "Red Seaweed" presumably has some value above and beyond the one that interests us most in this Israeli demonstration, i.e., the source-point fixation of Carbon Dioxide from a coal-powered utility.
Comment follows the excerpt:
"Utilization of flue gas from a power plant for tank cultivation of the red seaweed
Alvaro Israel, Jonah Gavrieli, Anat Glazer and Michael Friedlander
Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research, Ltd., The National Institute of Oceanography, Tel Shikmona, P.O. Box 8030, Haifa 31080, Israel
IMI (TAMI), Institute for Research and Development, Ltd., P.O. Box 10140, Haifa Bay 26111, Israel
Israel Electric Company, Ltd., Haifa, Israel
Abstract
Flue gases containing 12–15% CO2, mixed with warm seawater disposed by a power plant, were used to cultivate Gracilaria cornea (Rhodophyta) in 1000 L or 40 L tanks at pH 8.0. During the 13-month study, growth rates were similar to those where commercial CO2 was used (94.1% vs. 91.3% biomass increments per week), with additions of NH4 and PO4 having significant enhancing effects on algal growth. Concentrations of chemical components, including heavy metals, measured in the seawater medium were within the range of those found in the tissue and agar of G. cornea, meeting international standards for marine pollutants. In average, the agar content and agar strength were similar for the different treatments, as were the levels of carbohydrates and total soluble proteins. These results show that flue gas and warm seawater can be used for intensive long-term seaweed tank cultivation presumably at reduced production costs as compared with commercial CO2."
We find the concluding sentence, especially, to be intriguing. The overall implication of this is, apparently, that in seaweed farms not intimately connected to a coal-utilization plant, they actually buy Carbon Dioxide, at some expense, and truck or pipe it in to nourish the crop. And, the coal-plant flue gas works, it seems, even a little better than commercial CO2.
One way, or the other, we can, and should, recover and recycle the Carbon Dioxide emitted from our coal utilization processes. We don't have to be held hostage to punitive Cap & Trade taxes, nor do we have to suffer wealth-draining dependence on foreign powers for our liquid fuel needs.
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.
