- Details
Fuel cells are being developed/promoted as an alternative technology, with some advantages, for powering our automobiles, and other useful devices.
If we do begin a transition to that technology, then coal, again, apparently provides us with the most attractive economic option.
And, herein a little more synergy: If we do opt to start using fuel cells a little further down the road, and want to use the most economical fuel for them, as documented herein, but have in the meantime established a robust coal-to-methanol-to-gasoline industry, as the Chinese seem intent on doing, then we'll be in a wonderful economic position.
Even more: Fuel cells might not work too well, at first, anyway, for long-haul trucks, and conversion of our transport fleet, if possible, would take a long time.
So, keep in mind that coal-based methanol can be converted into both gasoline and the diesel fuel replacement, DME, di-methyl ether.
If we start making methanol from coal, now, and establish the industry, it could provide us the feed for making liquid fuels needed by our current transportation fleet, and later provide us directly with the best fuel, according to the enclosed information, for vehicles powered by fuel cells.
The excerpt:
"Study: Coal based methanol is cheapest fuel for fuel cells
A recently completed study by University of Florida researchers for the Georgetown University fuel cell program assessed the the future overall costs of various fuel options for fuel cell vehicles.
The primary fuel options analyzed by the study, titled “An Investigation of the Feasibility of Coal-Based Methanol for Application in Transportation Fuel Cell Systems,” were hydrogen from natural gas, hydrogen from coal, and methanol from coal.
To estimate the cost of fuels for fuel cell vehicles for the year 2020, several elements were investigated. First, the total energy demand for fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. was projected, based on recent energy trends and expected future energy demand. The study assumed that fuel cell vehicles will be introduced into the U.S. fleet gradually, and account for half of new vehicle purchases in 2020. Second, the demand, supply, and cost of the two studied feedstocks (natural gas and coal) were analyzed. Lastly, the study examined costs of the various fuel production methods, transportation, storage, and taxes.
The key finding of the hydrogen fuel cost analysis are summarized in the following comparison of the projected costs per gasoline-equivalent gallon in the year 2020 for the different sources of hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles (costs include taxes and are given in 1996 dollars):
| Hydrogen (H2) Feedstock | $/gallon in 2020 (gasoline equivalent) |
| H2 from Natural Gas Off-board reforming | $3.44 - $4.32 |
| H2 from Coal Gasification | $3.18 |
| H2 from Methanol from Coal On-board reforming | $1.77 |
- Details
We have posted several notes to you concerning the co-gasification potential of coal, biomass, and sewer sludge, with the goal of generating syngas, which can then, through several established, even well-known, catalytic processes be converted into liquid fuels and valuable raw materials for the chemical manufacturing industry.
Enclosed is yet more documentary evidence that our coal, and even our wastes, can be combined synergistically with biomass to provide both the needed raw materials with which to manufacture our liquid transportation fuels, and an inherent mechanism, the inclusion of biomass, which could, through established technologies, be intensively cultivated for the purpose of providing additional raw material for liquid fuel production, while at the same time recycling the Carbon emissions from combustion of that fuel.
The enclosed link will access another authoritative report on that subject. Some excerpts:
"Author(s):
C. Storm, H. Rudiger, H. Spliethoff, and K.R.G. Hein
C. Storm, H. Rudiger, H. Spliethoff, and K.R.G. Hein
Institut für Verfahrenstechnik und Dampfkesselwesen, (Institute for Process Engineering and Power Plant Technology) University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 23, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Biomass and sewage sludge are attracting increasing interest in power planttechnology as a source of carbon-dioxide-neutral fuels. A new way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels could be the co-combustion or co-gasification of coal and biomass or coal and sewage sludge. In both cases, pyrolysis is the first step in the technical process. In order to obtain detailed informationabout the pyrolysis of coal/biomass and coal/sewage sludge mixtures as well as unblended fuels, the “Institute für Verfahrenstechnik und Dampfkesselwesen (IVD)” at the University of Stuttgart has carried out investigations using an electrically heated entrained flow reactor. The test runs provided information about fuel conversion efficiency, pyrolysis gas and tar yield, and composition of pyrolysis gas and tar. Besides gas and tar analysis investigations regarding the path of trace elements, like heavy metals, alkali, chlorine and nitrogen components, during the pyrolysis process varying different parameters have been carried out. The fuel nitrogen distribution between pyrolysis gas, tar, and char has been analyzed, as well as the ash composition, and, thus, the release of mineral components during pyrolysis."
This report actually concerns the co-generation of syngas which would then be, in the authors' concept, directly burned in a power plant to, cleanly, generate electricity. The technology for doing so is, again, well-understood, even established. Once the syngas is obtained, though, several options exist for it's use. It can be, as in this study, combusted directly for clean power generation; or, it can be further processed, via several well-known chemical pathways, such as Fischer-Tropsch conversion, into valuable chemicals for manufacturing, or into any of several liquid fuels: methanol, diesel, and even gasoline.
- Details
Hideki Namba, Shoji Hashimoto, Okihiro Tokunaga and Ryoji Suzuki
Department of Radiation Research for Environment and Resources, Takasaki Radiation Chemistry Research Establishment, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1233 Watanuki-machi, Takasaki, Gunma 370-12 Japan
Herein more detail on how both Sulfur, and Nitrogen Oxides - another greenhouse gas culprit, can be recovered from the flue gasses of coal utilization facilities through the use of "Flash Gordon"-sounding technology that's really not much removed from the microwave oven in your kitchen, or the picture tube on your TV. It is, in a way, just high intensity "radar".
The excerpt:
"Abstract
Experiments were carried out to investigate the removals of SO2 and NOx2 (4800 ppm), NO (320 ppm) and H2O (22%) by electron beam irradiation. Removal efficiencies of SO2 and NOx were achieved to reach 97 and 88% at 70°C, and 74 and 85% at 80°C, respectively, with the dose of 10.3 kGy without NH3 leakage. The higher removal efficiencies of SO2 and NOx were observed in simulated lignite-burning flue gas than in coal-fired flue gas containing 800 ppm of SO2, 225 ppm of NO and 7.5% H2O at the same treatment condition. The higher removal efficiencies were attributed to the higher concentrations of SO2, H2O, and added NH3. Simulation calculations indicated that the higher concentrations of these components enhance the effective radical reactions to oxidize NO to form NO2 with HO2 radical, and to oxidize SO2 to form SO32. The reactions of NOx with N and NH2 radicals to produce N2 and N2O also promote the NOx removal. By-product was determined to be the mixture of (NH4)2SO4 and NH4NO3 containing a small amount of H2SO4." from simulated lignite-burning flue gas containing SO with OH radical and O
As we would understand this, the dirtier the flue gas, the better. The N(2) by-product is just fine - that's what our atmosphere is mostly composed of to begin with. The "NH" compounds are fertilizers. And, H2SO4, sulfuric acid, would have useful, commercial industrial applications if the quantities produced are sufficient.
Again, the full implementation of our coal resources, whether we employ them to generate power or to synthesize liquid fuels and chemicals, generates valuable by-products, not pollutants.
- Details
We know we're belaboring this, but we feel we have to. Ethanol from food crops, such as corn, has been "pushed" as a viable alternative to petroleum and coal-based liquid fuels. But, it just isn't. It is unsound in terms of the economy, and the environment.
Now, when an institution of higher learning that's widely purported to be a bastion of liberal thinking and public consciousness tells you that a major tenet of green fuel philosophy is fatally flawed, shouldn't you listen?
The excerpts:
"Berkeley - Using ethanol as a gasoline additive will do more harm than good to the environment, (conclude) ... researchers at the University of California, Berkeley."
"""We're embarking on one of the most misguided public policy decisions to be made in recent history," said Tad W. Patzek, professor of geoengineering at UC Berkeley's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "We are burning the same amount of fuel twice to drive a car once," said Patzek, who conducted the study with undergraduate students in his civil engineering course."
""When you first consider ethanol, it feels like you're being progressive and environmentally friendly," said Jason Lee, an undergraduate at UC Berkeley who helped author the paper. "But, if you dig underneath, you find that it's really misleading. The amount of fuel and oil needed to use ethanol is greater than the value of energy ethanol provides. It's ridiculous to think it would decrease our dependence on oil.""
"Patzek and his students found that by the time ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive in our vehicles, the net energy lost is 65 percent, a figure that factors in the energy spent growing the corn and converting it into ethanol."
"Patzek and his students found that by the time ethanol is burned as a gasoline additive in our vehicles, the net energy lost is 65 percent, a figure that factors in the energy spent growing the corn and converting it into ethanol."
"... In other words, the energy input of 4.93 gallons of gasoline equivalent leads to an energy output of 1.74 gallons of gasoline equivalent, or a net energy loss of 65 percent."
Pretty much sums it up - especially when you consider that, in Iowa, where they make a lot of our ethanol, they're burning coal to get the power to drive the process. Coal's still King - by a TKO.
- Details
We have previously explained that ethanol derived from food crops is, most definitely, not a "Green" fuel. And, we will in future dispatches further document that contention.
However, if ethanol aficionados persist in their support of the fuel as a gasoline alternative, then you might be interested to learn that it, too, can be made directly from coal.
As follows in this excerpt from the linked article:
"Ethanol from coal? If it works, it could solve three major problems for the energy industry.
Researchers at Louisiana State University, along with colleagues from Clemson University and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, are trying to develop catalysts and processes that would allow energy companies to convert coal into a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen (just our old friend, Syngas), and then convert those gases into ethanol.
The ethanol could then be used as a liquid fuel additive or, alternatively, shipped as a liquid and then be converted into hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cells, said LSU's James Spivey, who is heading up the project.
Right now, ethanol is primarily made out of corn or sugarcane. It's expensive and time-consuming to make, a problem. A gallon of ethanol derived from plant matter also only has around two-thirds of the energy content of a gallon of gas. A gallon of ethanol derived from coal-created synthetic gases could provide more energy.
(As we've noted, using food crops to make ethanol is not a good choice - environmentally or economically. However, producing ethanol directly from coal, instead of using coal to generate the power needed to distill it from food crops, might be an option.)
""You could avoid an energy penalty" with coal ethanol," Spivey said."
Spivey sums it up: Basically, if we do want ethanol - it does have a higher energy density than methanol, although methanol can be converted into gasoline through at least one, ExxonMobil's "MTG", process - then it's cheaper to make it directly from coal, rather than to distill it, using coal power, from corn.
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.
