- Details
Algae, Coal, and Jatropha: the Future of Aviation Fuels? | Science Blog
We submitted some of this information previously, but not only do we think it bears repeating, it reinforces our contention that coal-to-liquids and bio-fuels are complementary, mutually supportive and synergistic technologies.
Coal-to-liquid conversion provides a broad range of liquid fuels, up to and including, perhaps most importantly, gasoline; and, perhaps just as importantly, complex organic chemical derivatives for our chemicals and plastics industrial manufacturing base. At the same time, algae, and other biological sources, can provide simpler organic compounds for conversion into hydrocarbon fuels other than gasoline, such as alcohol, diesel or jet fuel, while at the same time cleaning up, recycling, emissions, i.e., CO2, from the processes of coal, or any other fossil fuel, utilization.
The technologies complement, enable and conserve each other. They are, truly, synergistic.
An excerpt:
" A C-5 Galaxy, supersized military transport capable of carrying one million pounds, became the Air Force's first coal-powered jet in a test conducted at Memphis, TN, the week of January 15. Using a 50-50 blend of standard aviation fuel and a coal-derived fuel similar to that used by British military jets with great success, the monster aircraft performed ideally, making at least two landings and takeoffs in the test."
(Important to note, isn't it, the implication that, according to this report, British military jets are already using a "coal-derived fuel" ... "with great success"? - JtM)
"Coal may be a fossil fuel to cause objections in some quarters. But if there's one thing the U.S. has that makes it No. 1 in the world, it's coal reserves. And burning them may provide us something to use until we figure out how to grow, store, process and market our future aviation fuels."
And then be able to direct the products of our coal conversion industry into more profitable, more useful process streams for the manufacture of other valuable necessities, we would add.
- Details
From the New York Times comes this article about the "Encoal", USDOE-sponsored coal-to-liquid conversion project we previously alerted you to.
Some excerpts:
"An experimental process by Encoal at a Wyoming plant and enables low-energy, low-sulfur coal to be refined into a liquid resembling heavy fuel oil and (a residual - JtM) coal that contains about 45 percent more energy per pound than the raw material. The pyrolyzer subjects the coal to light heat and pressure and separates the resultant hydrocarbon gas from the coal solids. (Source: Department of Energy)"
"The raw material is low-sulfur coal with a heat content of 8,300 British thermal units a pound -- about half the energy in a pound of gasoline. Some 30 percent of the coal's weight is moisture. The coal can be pyrolyzed -- subjected to heat and pressure -- to give off a gas rich in water and hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons are condensed into a liquid that resembles heavy fuel oil."
"The remaining coal, which weighs less because it has much less moisture, has a heat content of about 12,000 B.T.U.'s a pound. The lighter weight cuts about 45 percent off the price of shipping a million B.T.U.'s. More important, once processed, the coal can be used in the boilers of utilities in the East and Midwest that are designed for local grades of coals."
"The SGI process is the only one that produces two products from coal, said William M. Owens, chairman and chief executive of the company. "Even if oil is at $10 a barrel, this has the potential to be competitive," he said."
(Please note, again: "Even if oil is at $10 a barrel", this coal conversion process "has the potential to be competitive". However, we suspect this statement is based on an analysis of actual production costs only, and does not include amortization of capital. Still... - JtM)
Well, if liquid fuel derived from coal can "compete" with petroleum-based fuels when "oil is at $10 a barrel", it should really be able to kick some butt nowadays, shouldn't it?
And, also note, we get an improved solid coal fuel as a co-product of the liquid extraction process.
- Details
Entrepreneurs Aim to Turn Carbon Into Gasoline | Newsweek Leadership and the Environment | Newsweek.com
Following is the complete excerpt from this recent Newsweek interview concerning the company, Carbon Sciences, whom we've previously brought to your attention, and their innovations for recycling Carbon Dioxide into additional liquid fuels and chemicals.
As we have noted for you, the Carbon Sciences technology was apparently developed by, and licensed from, the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver.
Our research, though, has unearthed multiple CO2 recycling technologies, including one developed by the global leader in commercial coal-to-liquid fuel technology, Sasol, of South Africa, wherein captured CO2 is added directly to their liquid fuel-making raw material - syngas, generated from coal.
We have also alerted you to work being performed on CO2 recycling technology by our US National Laboratories, and one of them, Los Alamos, is cited in this interview, wherein they are reported as saying they can make gasoline from Carbon Dioxide at $4.00 per gallon.
Carbon Sciences claims they can do it less expensively, but even so, the actual cost of fuel produced from Carbon Dioxide must include an allowance for not having to capture and sequester it, or to manage a truly unproductive and wasteful "shell game" like Cap-and-Trade.
Excerpt as follows, with emphases added:
"Carbon to Burn
Entrepreneurs are trying to recycle carbon from the air by turning it into gasoline.
By Anita Kirpalani | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Apr 18, 2009
Whatever the world's governments decide to do about climate change, one thing seems certain: the value of carbon is going to rise. Government and industry are beginning to invest in technologies to capture carbon from their smokestacks, and entrepreneurs are beginning to figure out ways to recycle it. One of them is Carbon Sciences, a Santa Barbara, California, firm that says it has found an efficient way of turning carbon dioxide and water into methanol, a type of fuel that racing cars now use instead of gasoline. (Although the fuel would produce carbon when it's burned, its net effect would be neutral, says the company, because carbon was used in producing it.) To make the fuel, Carbon Sciences uses enzymes similar to those that occur in nature. The firm has built a prototype methanol plant. The big question now is whether the process can be ramped up to large-scale manufacturing and made to produce gasoline. CEO Derek McCleish and President Byron Elton spoke with NEWSWEEK's Anita Kirpalani about how inventions like this might help in the battle against climate change. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How does your prototype work?
ELTON: Within the last year Naveed Aslam, our chief technology officer, developed and invented the technology that takes CO2 as its source of carbon and water as its source of hydrogen, and produces hydrocarbons, which are the building blocks for fuel. So with the prototype right now we are making methanol-a liquid explosive fuel.
What is the next step?
McCLEISH: We need to scale it up. We work in low pressure and low temperature so our scale-up cost is low. So the next step is a mini-pilot that will be developed in Santa Barbara too, from 2010 to 2011, which will produce gasoline this time. Gasoline is our main objective. Our main advantage is that our system allows our fuel to go directly in the same distribution channels and infrastructure as gasoline. We don't need to build new infrastructure.
But the fuel does produce carbon?
McCLEISH: Yes, it does. We take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and we make fuel out of it. We are recycling it. Our process is carbon neutral.
Does this mean we don't have to worry about emitting less carbon?
McCLEISH: We think we should emit less, of course. But it won't solve our problems, and people will not give up the lifestyle they have. When you consider a gallon of gas being burnt, the CO2 that is emitted is only partially the carbon footprint of the gas. There is a huge carbon footprint before you actually burn the fuel, which is linked to the exploration, the transportation, the refinery needed to produce gas. So our carbon footprint is lower because we don't need all that. We believe that the world should look at everything it can to reduce the footprint, but the world still needs portable fuel and the best way to have that is our system.
Isn't capturing carbon expensive? Some people say it doubles the cost of a coal power plant.
McCLEISH: Apparently the cost of carbon capturing is more around 35 percent. There are a lot of companies doing that, but that's not our business. We transform CO2 into fuel.
ELTON: We happen to agree with a lot of people who think that sequestration [capturing carbon and burying it underground] is probably not really a good idea. It prevents it from going in the air, but then if you are going to hide it somewhere, there are all kinds of questions on how and where you are going to hide it. Are you sure that it is not going to be released?
If it's expensive to capture and bury carbon, what will motivate companies to do it?
McCLEISH: Government. It is a political will of the world to make sure that we don't lose our future. Recessions come and go, but climate change stays. The U.S.A. will be a leader in climate change and technology, and the new administration seems to send the right signals about that. The most recent one is that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] decided yesterday to make carbon a pollutant. It's major.
What is the advantage of your technology over biofuels?
ELTON: Our biggest asset is scale. You can't grow enough to make a big impact. But there is an unbelievable amount of CO2 available. Also, the fuel that we are making goes right back in the existing infrastructure. It is gasoline. It is diesel. So, for instance, if you are making biofuels, you can't use the existing supply chains or the existing pipelines because it corrodes the copper. It is a different kind of fuel. [What we do] is not a different kind of fuel. [It requires] no additional expenditure.
How expensive does the oil have to be for your system to be viable?
McCLEISH:Los Alamos [National Labs in New Mexico] says that they can do it for $4 a gallon. We believe we can do it for less. Because the key to our technology is about making the biocatalysts do their job as many times as possible [which reduces the need to replenish them, cutting costs]. Our work focuses mainly on that.
Would technologies such as this be of use to developing countries?
ELTON: This is not only an American problem, but a global one. The energy demand is driven by population growth especially in developing countries, in places that have emerging middle classes. Their focus is now on growth and on providing lifestyle and energy to their population. It's not environment. But they'll have to focus on it and do something about it."
Carbon Dioxide is a valuable and useful by-product generated from our use of coal.
- Details
This report on Canadian coal-to-liquid enterprise comes from the Saskatchewan, Canada, Star-Phoenix.
Some excerpts:
"NuCoal expects a coal liquefaction plant to be operating in southern Saskatchewan within years -- not decades, says president Alan Cruickshank."
"New technology will ease carbon emissions and develop alternative and economical uses for coal, including turning it into gasoline, he says."
""Coal isn't dirty. It's the way we process it," he said in an interview this week."
""A liquefaction plant would produce fuels with no air pollution, no tailings and no carbon emissions," he said.
"Saskatchewan is blessed with huge amounts of coal and ...One of the biggest prospective business opportunities is liquefying coal and shipping it south, likely by pipeline, to the United States."
- Details
clean-energy.us - case studies - eastman chemical
This will be about as brief as the Subject header. We submit herein further documentation of the potential environmental cleanliness of coal-to-liquid conversion processes.
We have, with references, explained that, when syngas is generated from coal, as the first step in converting coal into liquid fuels and industrial chemicals, the opportunity exists to efficiently remove sulfur entrained in that coal, with the potential to sell the recovered sulfur to chemical manufacturers for use in it's many commercial applications.
We have also documented Eastman Chemical's coal-to-chemicals plant in Kingsport, Tennessee, and how they convert coal there into valuable liquid raw materials, to replace petroleum feed stocks, for multiple chemical and plastics manufacturing processes.
Eastman, according to the following excerpt from the linked article, before manufacturing their products, from syngas generated from coal, first:
"... removes more than 99.9% of the sulfur ... and nearly all of the volatile mercury ... is removed."
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.
