Production of hydrocarbon synthesis gas from coal
We have documented, in several recent posts, that the science and the technology for the conversion of Coal into more versatile hydrocarbons, such as liquid fuels and organic chemical manufacturing raw materials, is so highly-evolved and well-understood, that a number of Big Oil companies have jumped on the boat - by patenting technologies for both the liquefaction of Coal, and for the further conversion and liquefaction of the still-carbonaceous residues resulting from primary Coal liquefaction processes.
As with the FMC Corporation and ARCO patents for Coal conversion, some of which we have already documented, with reports on others to follow, which we believe to have arisen from their participation in the United States Government-sponsored development, by FMC, of the "COED" Coal conversion process in a New Jersey pilot plant, the oil industry patents on technologies for the further conversion of Coal liquefaction residues might themselves have evolved from research originally sponsored and paid for by the Federal Government; in other words, by all of us.
But, by 1953, the United States Bureau of Mines had developed, and patented, in this case for the United States Government, the technology to further convert Coal conversion residues; still-carbonaceous material left, it seems, by a direct primary Coal conversion, or extraction and hydrogenation, process; as evidenced by the following excerpts from the enclosed link and attached file, with comment appended:
"United States Patent 2,634,286 - Production of Hydrocarbon Synthesis Gas from Coal
Date: April, 1953
Inventor: Martin Elliott, et. al.
Abstract: The invention herein described and claimed may be manufactured and used by and for the Government of the United States of America for governmental purposes without the payment of royalties.
This invention relates to the production of synthesis gas and more particularly to the production of a low-sulfur content mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen by gasifying the finely-divided low-sulfur content char obtained as a by-product of the direct hydrogenation of coal ... .
By means of the present invention it is possible to minimize the cost of the synthesis gas needed for such processes as the Fischer-Tropsch by using the low-sulfur content char produced as a by-product of the direct hydrogenation of coal ... by operating the unit for gasifying the char in immediate conjunction with the hydrogenation unit."
----------
If you do recall some of our previous reports concerning the "COED" project, mentioned above, that process was an indirect Coal conversion technology, wherein, as we've documented, the carbonaceous residues were sent, from New Jersey, to Spain for further direct conversion into hydrocarbons.
Through the technology disclosed herein by Elliott, et. al., carbonaceous residues from direct Coal conversion processes, such as might have been generated by the Government's Solvent Refined Coal plants in Wilsonville, Alabama, and Tacoma, Washington, all as we have documented in our posts to the West Virginia Coal Association, could themselves be further processed, via indirect conversion technologies into the raw materials for liquid hydrocarbon synthesis, such as via the, almost traditional, Fischer-Tropsch process.
Moreover, we must note that the full disclosure of Patent 2,634,286 reveals a number of inherent and available process efficiencies that serve to reduce the overall costs, including the internal recycling of heat energy and the integral production of any needed supplemental Hydrogen through the Water Gas Shift Reaction.
And, finally, we have known, herein officially, that such integrated and efficient technologies for conversion of our abundant domestic Coal into the liquid fuels we need have existed, fully-developed and owned by our own United States Government, for more than half a century.
Why has our own United States Government not yet enabled us to start using those Coal technologies, so that we could free ourselves from economic enslavement to overseas oil powers and to multinational oil monopolists?
