As in: USDOE Funds Utah Coal Liquefaction Catalyst Improvements | Research & Development | News; which concerns: "US Patent 4,134,822 - Minimizing ... Catalyst Requirements for Coal Hydrogenation-Liquefaction; 1979; Inventors: Ralph Wood, Wendell Wiser, et. al.; Assignee: University of Utah; Abstract: A process for reducing the amount of catalyst required for coal hydrogenation-liquefaction"; we have previously reported on the USDOE-funded development, by the University of Utah, of Coal conversion technology.
A number of other reports concerning their work are to follow, but we wanted to get this one out of the way first, since it poses some technical conundrums for us.
We submit it with some reservations, but wanted to get it "out there" in the hope and expectation that some other folks, far smarter and better educated than are we, could understand it all and explain it better to the rest of us.
And, again, it is only the first of several reports to follow, concerning more Coal liquefaction technology developed at and by the University of Utah.
You have to read pretty close and dig pretty deep to learn that this particular example of a Utah Coal conversion process, targeted on the production of both liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons, might not be as inefficient as it first appears; although, the seeming inefficiency inherent in this Utah technology, paid for by the United States Department of Energy, might actually lead to a materials process balance that, we must confess, it seems to us, would ultimately overwhelm the process.
We further confess that this process, compared to other Coal conversion technologies we have reported to you, from other sources, seems, again to us, inordinately complex - especially relative to the results achieved.
With those caveats and cautions, comment follows excerpts from the initial link above, to:
"United States Patent 5,308,477 - Method for Coal Liquefaction
Date: May, 1994
Inventor: Wendell Wiser, et. al., Utah
Assignee: University of Utah, Salt Lake City
Abstract: A process is disclosed for coal liquefaction in which minute particles of coal in intimate contact with a hydrogenation catalyst and hydrogen are reacted for a very short time at a temperature in excess of 400C. at a pressure of at least 1500 psi to yield over 50% liquids with a liquid to gaseous hydrocarbon ratio in excess of 8:1.
This invention was made with Government support under Contract No. DE-AC22-88PC88817 awarded by the Department of Energy. The government has certain rights in the invention.
Claims: A method for converting more than 50% by weight coal to liquids wherein the ratio of liquids to hydrocarbon gases is greater than about 8:1, by weight comprising the steps of: introducing finely divided particles of coal into a thermal cracking zone having a temperature of at least 400C and a pressure of at least of 1500 psi;
(and) introducing a hydrogenation catalyst in intimate contact by way of impregnation with said coal particles into said thermal cracking zone and catalyst being substantially simultaneously introduced with said coal particles;
(and) introducing hydrogen into said thermal cracking zone to react with said coal to form a reaction product;
(and) maintaining said coal and hydrogen in said thermal cracking zone for a time period sufficiently short to yield a reaction product having a ratio of liquid to gaseous hydrocarbon products in excess of 8:1 by weight and a liquid content in excess of 50% of the weight of coal particles introduced into said cracking zone and unrelated coal;
(and) wherein the catalyst is selected from the group consisting of soluble hydrates or iron-containing salts.
(and) wherein the iron-containing salts are selected from the group consisting of ferric chloride hexahydrate, ferric sulfate pentahydrate, ferric formate and ferrous acetate.
A method for converting more than 70% by weight of coal to liquids ... .
The invention is a short residence coal liquefaction process in which more than fifty percent of the carbon in coal is converted to liquids, while limiting production of hydrocarbon (HC) gases, resulting in high ratios of liquids/HC gases.
-----------------
We'll close our excerpts there so that we can address the inconsistencies seemingly inherent in the two final cited passages, and, so that we can further explain our other reservations concerning the technology.
First, the two final passages which specify converting both "70% by weight of coal" and "more than fifty percent of the carbon in coal" are not, necessarily, contradictory, given that most Coal, excepting Anthracite, is comprised of other elements in addition to Carbon.
It still, though, to us and to a numbers-capable consultant we made inquiry of, implies a lot of slop. Some Carbon isn't, ultimately, being converted.
That, even though some expensive elemental Hydrogen seems to be required to effect the conversion.
And, we think you would have to convert quite a lot "more than fifty percent of the carbon" to convert "more than 70% by weight of coal to liquids", if any genuinely commercial grade of Coal were to be utilized.
However, within the full Disclosure, though not reflected in our excerpts, it is also specified that unconverted Carbon can be recycled within the system, and be added to the feed of raw Coal.
But, again our consultants pointed out the paradox, that: If there isn't 100% Carbon conversion in the system, and un-reacted Carbon were to be recycled into the Coal feed, unless the system were infinite in capacity it would, more likely sooner than later, be overwhelmed with feed material.
If the local high school math teacher we asked couldn't puzzle it out, we certainly can't.
Perhaps, instead, the unconverted Carbon could be directed to a Coal-fired power plant, and be used in the production of electricity.
But, we thought it worth reporting to you, in any case, for a couple of reasons:
Our tax money paid for the technology to be developed, and, along with the University of Utah, we own it.
We should at least be afforded the privilege of learning about it, and, of having the seeming inconsistencies explained to us by the people best able to do so: Representatives of the USDOE, who spent our tax money to have the technology, under their supervision one supposes, developed.
And, we will, in any case, be further reporting on other, similar and related, Coal conversion technologies originating from the University of Utah, which might, or might not, shed some light on the matter.