Department of Energy and Geo-Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 206 Hosler Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
December 1999.
We have found that adding a proper amount of water can dramatically improve conversion of a sub-bituminous coal in solvent-free liquefaction under at 350C using ammonium tetrathiomolybdate (ATTM) as precursor to dispersed MoS2 catalyst H2 pressure. However, adding water to catalytic reactions at 400C decreased coal conversion, although water addition to the non-catalytic runs was slightly beneficial at this temperature. We further examined the effect of water in solvent-mediated runs in addition to “dry” tests and explored a temperature-programmed liquefaction (TPL) procedure to take advantage of the synergetic effect between water and dispersed Mo catalyst precursor at low temperatures for more efficient coal conversion. The TPL using ATTM with added water at 350C, followed by water removal and subsequent reaction at 400C gave good coal conversion and oil yield. Model reactions of dinaphthyl ether (DNE) were also carried out to clarify the effect of water. Addition of water to ATTM substantially enhanced DNE conversion at 350C. The combination of data from one-step and two-step tests of DNE and coal at 350–400C revealed that water results in highly active MoS2 catalyst in situ generated at 350C, but water does not promote the catalytic function or reaction once an active catalyst is generated. Using ATTM coupled with water addition and removal and temperature-programming may be an effective strategy for developing a better coal conversion process using dispersed catalysts."
We have cited Dr. Song, and others at Penn State, in a few of our previous dispatches. And, we have referenced for you other work indicating that plain old water, for various reasons, could enhance the efficiency and productivity of coal liquefaction processes. We've submitted this piece, like others recently, to help demonstrate that, unlike what some would have us believe, the science and technology to convert our abundant coal into liquid fuels doesn't just exist, but, it is, in some circles, well-known, well-understood and undergoing continuous improvement.
Our question: Just how good does it, coal-to-liquid conversion technology, have to be before we stop allowing ourselves to be extorted for overseas oil? Before we stop allowing our domestic economy to be further weakened and crippled? Before we put all of our people to work? Before we establish a self-sufficient US domestic energy economy based on coal; and, on the recycling of coal-use by-products, including CO2?
It's now obvious the technology to accomplish all of that is available. But, why we aren't now using that technology sure ain't so obvious.