- Details
Herein is reported the results of more research, by West Virginia University, into some rather fine points of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion technology.
It's important work, but, in essence, they're just jiggling some atoms and molecules to hone in on the highest-possible efficiencies of coal-to-oil production.
An analogy you might draw is that these mechanics already have the engine up and running pretty good, they're just fiddling with carburetor's mix to tweak out a few extra horsepower.
A brief note follows the excerpt:
"Direct Liquefaction of Coal Using Aerosol-Generated Ferric Sulfide Based Mixed-Metal Catalysts
R. K. Sharma, J. S. MacFadden, A. H. Stiller, and D. B. Dadyburjor
[Unable to display image]Department of Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 6102, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6102
The activity of aerosol-generated ferric sulfide based mixed-metal catalysts for direct coal liquefaction was studied at 400 °C and nominally 2000 psi hydrogen pressure. Aluminum, cobalt, copper, lead, silver, and tin were used in turn as the second metal. The typical fraction of the second metal was 10 atom % of total metal, although the concentration was varied in some cases. The catalysts were prepared in an aerosol reactor at 250 °C and 70 psi and were characterized in terms of their skeletal density, surface area, pyrrhotite/pyrite ratio, and X-ray diffraction. Of the catalysts tested, only those in which Al (and perhaps Pb) was used as the second metal cause an increase in conversion compared to the iron-alone catalyst. Selectivity to oil-range products is higher for catalysts containing Ag, Co, Cu, or Pb than for the iron-alone catalyst and is highest for the Fe−Pb−S catalyst. Hence, the Fe−Pb−S catalyst appears to be the one most suitable. The relative size of the ions of the second metal may be important for the performance of the catalyst. These aerosol-generated catalysts are slightly less active (in overall conversion) than the corresponding catalysts impregnated in situ in coal but are slightly more selective (to oil-range products)."
Again, they're just tweaking the process, and there's nothing too exotic in the mix, with the very minor exception of silver, which apparently doesn't work that well, anyway. The Fe-Pb-S catalyst, which seems to be the best, is just a combination of iron and lead sulfides - which are relatively common and naturally-occurring minerals that won't break the bank.
We submit this just as more evidence that the processes of converting our abundant coal into needed liquid fuel are well-developed and well-understood.
- Details
Some excerpts:
"It's (Coal To Liquid) definitely not new, but people are realizing that we're short on oil, and this is a method that will work," says INL (Idaho National Laboratory) engineer Rick Wood. "For energy security reasons, we want to look to other resources."
"The combination of biomass with coal takes advantage of the carbon credits given to biomass with the economies of abundant coal in the U.S. (as we've been suggesting)," says INL engineer Richard Boardman, who worked with Wood and engineer Anastasia Gribik on the project. "Many say we should kill new coal projects, but I believe we should do more to understand improved methods to use this abundant natural resource without disregarding the environment."
"Although today's low gas prices may have temporarily weakened the financial incentive for synthetic fuel production, Wood says these projects are important for the U.S. to assert its energy independence. "From an energy security standpoint, they make as much sense as they ever have," he says. "We have to get rid of our dependence on the Middle East for our energy.""
- Details
We'll repeat the title, as it appears in the link, and our comment follows the abstract:
"Analyses of Illinois no. 6 Coal Liquefaction results generated in the Wilsonville, Alabama Unit
VALENTE A. M., CRONAUER D. C.
BP Products North America, Incorporated, Warrenville, Illinois 60555
Abstract
A database was set up to correlate the coal liquefaction results generated at the Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Two-Stage Coal Liquefaction Facility in Wilsonville, AL. Published information available in the public domain was used, centering on runs made with Illinois No. 6 seam bituminous coal with two reactors in a close-coupled mode. A linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of process variables on conversions and product yields. Bimodal catalysts were more effective than a unimodal catalyst, as indicated by 10 wt % higher resid + unconverted coal conversion, 1 wt % greater hydrogen consumption, 19 wt % greater C4-1000 °F liquid production, and 14 wt % lower resid yield. Another significant result was a lower coal conversion, hydrogen consumption, C1-C3 yield, light (IBP-350 °F) distillate yield, and C1-C3 selectivity, when using half-volume reactors rather than full-volume reactors under similar conditions, including space velocities. This was apparently due to flatter reactor temperature profiles and lower catalyst-to-thermal volume ratios. Overall preferred processing conditions for converting coal to distillate liquids included the use of EXP-AO-60 catalyst, high reactor temperatures (>810 °F, 432 °C) and a high process solvent resid concentration (>50 wt %, if mechanically possible). The space rate of coal in the reactors is best set at a point where resid production is minimized, if justifiable by process economics."
You will, perhaps, by now have received our previous dispatch relating the Supreme Court's ruling against Amoco, in a case involving coal-to-liquid conversion rights. The BP operating unit involved in the DOE/Alabama project detailed in this submission is, in fact, an old Amoco division acquired by BP, as part of their merger with Amoco. Other sources document Amoco executives' interest in coal conversion technology, and their intent to pursue it, prior to the merger.
Based on the Supreme Court case, it might not be injudicious to assume that BP acquired proven coal conversion technology in the Amoco merger, and are now looking for places to try it out, using Federal, DOE, subsidies to fine-tune and commercialize it prior to commercialization at the site of a major coal holding.
- Details
We submit this as further evidence that the science of converting our coal into much-needed liquid fuels is advanced, even sophisticated. We had earlier alerted you to some process refinements which supported that concept, and herein is yet another.
We became alerted to this particular issue in our research by frequent mention of molybdenum as a component of CTL processes.
The excerpt:
| Title;Improvement of Coal Liquefaction Process by Using the Ultra Fine Particles of Molybdenum Sulfide. |
| Author;KURIKI YASUNORI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) UCHIDA KUNIO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) OSHIMA SATOSHI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) YUMURA MOTOO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) IKAZAKI FUMIKAZU(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) |
| Journal Title;Journal of Japan Society for Safety Engineering |
"Abstract;Coal derived oil is produced by the reaction of hydrogen and coal slurry which is mixture of pulverized coal, recycle solvent and catalyst particles. In the coal liquefaction equipment, the slurry causes erosion of the valves and blockage of the pipeline. The following were carried out as a prevention: design change of equipments and improvement on operation technology. The erosion is thought to be caused by the ash of coal and the hard particles of iron used as a catalyst. Therefore, the effect of the use of ultra fine particles of soft molybdenum sulfide instead of the use of pyrite particles as a iron catalyst was investigated. The control of the erosion of the valves was expected. This molybdenum sulfide catalyst showed the high activity and the generation of carbon dioxide using this catalyst was suppressed. We think this catalyst improve the process of the coal liquefaction."
We're down, to the fine-tuning point of controlling internal erosion of coal-to-liquid conversion equipment; and, as a bonus, we get some conversion efficiencies that reduce co-generation of carbon dioxide.
As we've said before, of other developments we've reported to you, this is pretty detailed and sophisticated stuff. Coal-to-Liquid conversion technology is much further advanced, much more efficient and more highly "developed", than we, the "public", know, have been allowed to know.
An excerpt:
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
Look, you know our stance on CO2 - it can, and should be, captured and recycled. The technology exists to do that, as we have documented in our posts. CO2 could be, and should be, seen as a valuable by-product of coal-use processes, a resource we shouldn't waste.
- Details
We have documented how some wastes, by-products, of the coal-to-liquid conversion process, most especially Carbon Dioxide, can be efficiently, and even profitably, recovered from process streams and recycled into additional products of value.
Herein we document that yet another by-product, "phenol", of coal conversion, and other coal use technologies, can be effectively recovered and profitably utilized.
And, we will note that "phenols" generically, are common organic compounds. There is nothing particularly unique or threatening about them, but their generation by coal utilization processes has prompted environmentalist objections to the increased use of coal, especially when it is employed to make liquid fuels.
First, an excerpt from the phenol extraction patent linked above, and it's an important one:
"The waste water to be treated originates for instance from the gasification of coal, and in particular from the gasification of coal in a fixed bed, or from the hydrogenation or carbonization of coal."
So, the inventors, who seem to be German, as they are listed in the attached file, but who have no readily-discernible corporate or government affiliations, acknowledge the industrial gasification of coal, the initial step of liquefaction processes, and the "hydrogenation" of coal, which is the direct chemical process of liquefying it, and specify those processes as the prime reasons for developing a phenol extraction process.
And, note the following:
"It is the object underlying the invention to save energy when extracting phenols by means of a solvent mixture, and to flexibly effect the distillative separation of the phenols and the separation of the solvent mixture prior to its reuse."
They are, apparently, also looking at efficiencies in the process. The objective is to "save energy" and recycle, "reuse" the solvent.
Once we have efficiently recovered the phenol, it has quite a lot of commercial utility, as follows in a brief excerpt from our own, US, EPA's web site:
"Uses (of phenol):
- The primary use of phenol is in the production of phenolic resins, which are used in the plywood, construction, automotive, and appliance industries.
- Phenol is also used in the production of caprolactam and bisphenol A, which are intermediates in the manufacture of nylon and epoxy resins, respectively.
- Other uses of phenol include as a slimicide, as a disinfectant, and in medicinal products such as ear and nose drops, throat lozenges, and mouthwashes."
And, to further confirm that phenols, as might be found in the wastes of coal-to-liquid conversion plants, do have value, and can be efficiently recovered, and are worth recovering, here is yet another patent for that purpose:
"Title:
Extraction of phenol-containing effluent streams
United States Patent 6972345
Abstract:
A process for extracting phenol from a phenol-containing aqueous solution is disclosed."
We submit this second patent for phenol extraction toward the end of demonstrating the compound's value. This phenol extraction process was developed, and the patent is held, by Bayer. They make a lot of resins and plastics of the kind the EPA specifies; and, the construction, automotive and appliance industries are among the largest customers they serve. It might be valid to suppose they are recovering phenol from waste streams so that they can use it as a raw material for further resin and chemical manufacturing purposes.
Otherwise, there would be little value in developing, and patenting, a process centered on treating or recovering just one organic compound from a complex waste stream. Other methods exist for precipitating or removing entire, undifferentiated groups of chemicals. These enclosed patents are methods for "mining" a valuable substance from effluents.
As we've said previously, our use of coal, whether for the generation of power or conversion into liquid fuels, doesn't generate wastes or pollutants, but by-products which can be profitably harvested and used.
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.
