Enclosed is information on coal liquefaction which might, or might not, have been generated by Texas A&M University, although we have previously documented some of their research into coal liquefaction technology.
Herein, they describe related coal conversion processes that should, by now, if you've followed our posts, be familiar to you.
The "LTC", or Low-Temperature Carbonization, process is one we've previously described in some detail. One variation of the technology is also called the "Karrick Process", which, if you recall, was invented, patented and reduced to practice by a US Bureau of Mines scientist early in the last century; all as we have documented.
Some of the coal conversion rates Texas A&M reveal might not sound all that efficient. However, if you examine the facts closely, some of what they are describing is the further conversion of residues that result from primary coal liquefaction processes. Genuine potential exists for such processing, as referenced in one of our most recent posts, concerning the fact that carbonaceous coal liquefaction residues produced in New Jersey, by FMC Corporation, were shipped all the way to Spain for further liquefaction, via hydrogenation, in a coal conversion plant operating there.
Brief comment follows:
"Title: Comparison of coal and iron requirements between bituminous coal hydrogenation and low temperature carbonization (L. T. C. ) followed by hydrogenation
Publication Date: April 1943; OSTI ID: 6675914; TOM-237-1104-1111
Technical Report; Research Organization: Unknown Corporate - Texas A&M University
Abstract:
Plants producing 100,000 tons/yr aviation gasoline and 25,000 tons/yr of liquid petroleum gasoline (L.P.G.) by hydrogenation of coal and 100,000 tons/yr of aviation gasoline, 15,000 tons/yr L.P.G., and 912,000 tons/yr of excess L.T.C. coke by L.T.C. followed by hydrogenation of the L.T.C. tar are considered. Specific data are included on L.T.C., specific data for L.T.C. tar hydrogenation, and total coal requirement for L.T.C. of coal and hydrogenation of the L.T.C. tar. Information is also included on hydrogenation of bituminous coal and iron requirements. Three charts show differences between various bituminous coal conversion processes. The iron requirements for L.T.C. and tar hydrogenation was 100,500 tons and for bituminous coal hydrogenation it was 123,300 tons. An input of 1,480,000 tons of L.T.C. coal was calculated. The power coal requirement for L.T.C. and hydrogenation was 1,612,000 tons. The coal requirement for tar hydrogenation was 482,000 tons and 1,130,000 tons for surplus coke and gas. Therefore about 30% of the total coal was used for aviation gasoline and L.P.G. and about 70% for surplus coke and gas."
As we've previously documented: High-quality coke can be generated as a by-product of Karrick/LTC primary coal conversion processes. That coke can be used in it's traditional roles, or, as a high-carbon product, be treated as feed for direct liquefaction processes which utilize hydrogen donor solvents to liquefy and hydrogenate the carbon, and convert it into more liquid hydrocarbons. There are other options, as well, we believe, for it's further conversion.
Surplus gas is also generated, again as we've otherwise documented, and it, too, can be further processed via indirect catalysis into hydrocarbon liquids, employing Fischer-Tropsch-type technologies; or, used, as we've documented to be possible and practical, as, what is referred to by some researchers we've cited, "SNG", or "Substitute Natural Gas".
Of great interest to everyone in US Coal Country, though, should be the date of this research report: 1943.
In 1943, when we were fighting enemies who fueled their militaries, as has been thoroughly documented, with liquid hydrocarbons manufactured from coal, we, too, had figured out how to convert coal into liquid fuels. And, in fact, as we have documented, we actually started doing just that in several places around the nation almost immediately after WWII.
Why, are we not doing it now?
That is a question everyone in US Coal Country, every responsible party in the United States of America, should be demanding an answer to.
Why, they are not demanding that answer is a question we would certainly like to have answered.