Enclosed via the link and attached document, we submit an interesting artifact from the Conference Proceedings of the University Coal Research; Historically Black Colleges and Universities & Other Minority Institutions; Contractors Review Meeting; held June 9-10, 2004.
At that conference, the following presentation was made:
"Title: REFORMULATION OF COAL-DERIVED TRANSPORTATION FUELS: SELECTIVE OXIDATION OF CARBON MONOXIDE ON METAL FOAM CATALYSTS
Authors: George W. Roberts, North Carolina State University; James J. Spivey, Louisiana State University; James G. Goodwin Jr, Richard W. Rice, Clemson University; Ken Butcher, Porvair Advanced Materials
Subcontractors: Clemson University, Department of Chemical Engineering; Porvair Advanced Materials; Hendersonville, NC
Grant Number: DE-FG26-O1NT41277
Objectives. Coal-derived transportation fuels must be reformed in a series of steps to provide hydrogen for use in proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. In the preferential oxidation (PROX) reaction step, carbon monoxide is selectively oxidized to less than 10 ppm in the presence of ~40% hydrogen, and steam, to prevent poisoning of the fuel cell anode. This process requires an active, selective, and stable catalyst.
Structured catalyst supports, such as ceramic monoliths and ceramic foams, have been used for a variety of applications. One of the most prominent examples is the washcoated, straight-channel ceramic monolith in the catalytic converter for gasoline-powered automobiles. An alternative to this ceramic monolith is a structured metal foam. These metal foams offer a number of advantages over the traditional ceramic monolith: higher thermal conductivity, radial mixing and heat transport, and a durable, low density, high strength structure. Our research examines the viability of catalyzed metal foams for PEM fuel cell-powered automotive applications, and compares these materials to ceramic monoliths."
----------
The foregoing is a brief excerpt. The full document contains many technical details that are beyond our scope.
Our point is, that, under a USDOE contract, or grant, "DE-FG26-O1NT41277", four scientists from three colleges, none of them, with the exception of Clemson, resident in a state that mines any appreciable coal, undertook a highly technical and very specific effort to "reformulate" "COAL-DERIVED TRANSPORTATION FUELS".
And, well, yes, as it happens, coal-derived transportation fuels can be reformulated for more optimal characteristics.
But: Why wasn't this Coal Conversion research, which was funded by our tax dollars, conducted, and reported, in Coal Country?
And, where did they get the "coal-derived transportation fuels", for their reformulation research, in the first place?
Even more to the point: Why haven't we US citizens, especially those of us resident in US Coal Country, been told about any of these advances in the use of our US domestic coal for transportation fuel, advances that our US tax dollars helped to finance the development of?