Â
In our recent report: Conoco Hydrogenates More Carbon Monoxide | Research & Development, wherein is discussed primarily "US Patent 6,730, 708 - Fischer-Tropsch Processes and Catalysts Using Aluminum Borate; 2004; Assignee: ConocoPhillips Company, TX; A process ... for the hydrogenation of carbon monoxide ... to produce a variety of products ranging from methane to higher aliphatic hydrocarbons and/or alcohols"; we documented how Carbon Monoxide could be utilized as the primary raw material for, through reactions with Hydrogen, the synthesis of a wide range of higher hydrocarbons through an improved and more efficient version of the long-known Fischer-Tropsch process.
In that report, we also made brief reference to the technology which comprises one of our primary topics herein, through our inclusion of a separate link in that report to: "US Patent 4564513 - Process for the Production of Carbon Monoxide".
First, our recent review of that ConocoPhillips report, as posted on the West Virginia Coal Association's web site, indicated that the separate link we included, in our reference to USP 4564513, doesn't seem to have proven durable, a phenomenon we have previously noted with other US Patent and Trademark Office electronic file links, and, which we have come to attribute to automated maintenance functions within the USPTO computers.
We wanted, in any case, to address the "Process for the Production of Carbon Monoxide", with it's implications, a bit further and more specifically, and, so, are including a fresh link to it: the initial one in this dispatch, above.
We find the technology disclosed by the patent to be especially intriguing since it originates from the German parent company of a highly-respected US corporate citizen, with headquarters in Pittsburgh, PA, and with at least one of it's multiple US manufacturing sites resident along the Ohio River in West Virginia.
We know that company, Bayer Corporation, from long and direct personal experience, to be especially dedicated to the pursuit of impeccability in their technical and scientific achievements.
Thus, with some confidence, we present herein not only more information extracted from the full Disclosure of USP 4564513, but, more information, via following links and excerpts, from both Bayer Corporation and others, concerning what can be done with the Carbon Monoxide produced, from Carbon Dioxide, via:
"United States Patent 4,564,513 - Process for the Production of Carbon Monoxide
Date: January, 1986
Inventors: Dieter Becher, et. al., Germany
Assignee: Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (AG), Germany
Abstract: Carbon monoxide is produced in an improved process in a carbon-filled, water-cooled generator in the configuration of a truncated cone in the longitudinal section, by the gasification of said carbon with a mixed gas of oxygen and carbon dioxide ... .
Claims: In a process for the production of carbon monoxide in a carbon-filled, water-cooled generator in the configuration of a truncated cone in the longitudinal section, by the gasification of said carbon with a mixed gas of oxygen and carbon dioxide ... .
(And) wherein the carbon is in the form of coke.
Background: This invention relates to a process for the production of carbon monoxide in a water-cooled generator which has the form of a truncated cone in longitudinal section. The generator is filled with carbon and by gasification of carbon with a mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide is produced.
The production of carbon monoxide from coal ... has long been known ... .
The carbon used in this process is preferably coke (and) complete conversion (of Carbon Dioxide and the coke) to carbon monoxide may be achieved."
------------
Our take on it is that they prefer to use "coke", as opposed to raw Coal, since it is a more pure form of Carbon.
And, that's okay.
An initial processing of Coal, to produce the required Coke, presents some opportunities to manufacture valuable by-products from such a coking process, as seen, for instance, in our reports of:
China Recycles CO2 with Coke Oven Gas | Research & Development; concerning: "CO2 reforming of CH4 in coke oven gas to syngas over coal char catalyst; Key La
boratory of Coal Science, China"; wherein we learn that Methane is one component of Coke Oven gas, and, that the Methane in Coke Oven gas can be reacted with Carbon Dioxide and made thereby to form a hydrocarbon synthesis gas; and:
Coke Oven Gas to Synfuel | Research & Development; which includes information about at least one "methanol project based on coke oven gas".
And, again, according to Bayer, we can, via their process of USP 4,564,513, use the resultant solid Coke to efficiently convert Carbon Dioxide, recovered from whatever handy source, into Carbon Monoxide.
We've previously documented the value of Carbon Monoxide, since, as in the well-known Fischer-Tropsch process, see:Fischer–Tropsch process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it can be reacted with molecular Hydrogen and made thereby to form a wide range of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
Or, such Carbon Monoxide, made efficiently by Bayer, from hot Coke and Carbon Dioxide, can also, as in:
Pittsburgh 1951 Carbon Monoxide + Water = Hydrocarbons | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 2,579,663 - Process of Synthesizing Hydrocarbons; 1951; Assignee: Gulf Research and Development Company, Pittsburgh; Abstract: This invention relates to a process for synthesizing hydrocarbons; more particularly the invention relates to a process for synthesizing normally liquid hydrocarbons from carbon monoxide and steam";
be simply reacted with plain old H2O, and, be made thereby to form "liquid hydrocarbons".
We do note that Sulfur is an unwanted contaminant in such reactions, especially since it tends to degrade the catalysts used for the hydrogenation of Carbon Monoxide.
And, if the Carbon Monoxide is intended for use in other chemical syntheses, any Sulfur contamination could be even more of a problem.
Bayer acknowledged that fact, and the fact that Carbon Monoxide produced by reacting Carbon Dioxide with hot Coke derived from Coal might contain a little Sulfur, by later developing a technology to deal with it, as in:
"United States Patent Application: 0040141901 - Process for the Desulfurization of CO Gas
Date: July, 2004
Inventors: Werner Breuer, et. al., Germany
Correspondence (and presumed Assignee): Bayer Polymers, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA
Abstract: The present invention relates to a process for the preparation of carbon monoxide gas (CO gas) that is free of sulfur compounds to the greatest possible extent, to a process for the desulfurization of a CO gas containing sulfur, and to the use of that gas in chemical syntheses, for example for the synthesis of phosgene from carbon monoxide and chlorine."
-------------
Bayer's primary intent for making de-sulfurized Carbon Monoxide, as indicated immediately above, isn't likely for the production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but. instead, for the synthesis of Phosgene through reactions between Carbon Monoxide and Chlorine, which can itself be produced from salt water, extracted via wells into ancient "brine" deposits that underlie some of Appalachian Coal Country, below, and even between, the Coal beds.
So, those brine deposits, too, are a valuable Coal Country resource.
Phosgene, however, to many, might seem an unpleasant thing to have, since most, automatically, without even remembering where they heard it, relate Phosgene to the poison, or "mustard", gas used in warfare, until such use was supposedly outlawed by the Geneva conventions.
It is, instead, though, as can be learned via: Phosgene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; a valuable raw material used, we're certain by Bayer, in the synthesis and manufacture of a number of valuable "plastics", including, as specified in theWikipedia article, "polycarbonate" and "polyurethane"; which polyurethane would include, coincidentally, the same types of polyurethane which can be used in high-performance ground and water control situations in underground Coal, and other, mines, and tunnels; especially where the rock is so badly broken, or there is so much water present, that conventional means of ground or water control, like roof bolts and pumps, aren't sufficient to deal with the problem.
Most importantly, perhaps, any Carbon Dioxide, that might, through the technique of "United States Patent 4,564,513 - Process for the Production of Carbon Monoxide", wind up being consumed in the synthesis of Phosgene, and, then, through Phosgene, in the manufacture of polycarbonate or polyurethane, would be permanently, and productively, "sequestered".
There would be no need, through mandated Geologic Sequestration, to collect our valuable Carbon Dioxide, and then ship it to West Texas for Geologic Sequestration in leaky old oil wells - where it would also, in any case, be used for secondary petroleum recovery, with the resultant production of petrochemicals; which petrochemicals would then be shipped back to the chemical plants and factories along the Ohio River and it's tributaries, for use in the manufacture and production, as is now the case, of such things as polyurethane and polycarbonate plastics.
The resulting simple reduction in vehicle traffic between West Virginia and West Texas would itself reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions, would it not?
Furthermore, consider:
Carbon Dioxide, as herein, could and should be viewed as a valuable raw material resource which could be utilized if enough, as our environmentalist friends would seem to indirectly indicate is the case, is available, to provide, in combination with the Coal needed to convert it into Carbon Monoxide, an even larger plastics manufacturing industry, with it's high-paying jobs and attendant prosperity, in the Ohio Valley aorta of United States Coal Country.
Should, then, specious schemes and scams like Cap & Trade taxation, and the mandated Geologic Sequestration of CO2 - at the expense of Coal product consumers - in leaky old oil wells, even, ever, be afforded any further public consideration or discussion, with the implied credence such public consideration and discussion convey?
Far past time those two concepts and, in light of the truth of Coal liquefaction technology, OPEC, went, as the old saying goes, the way of the dinosaurs.