http://www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge/prost/proceedings/aiche-2008/data/papers/P138376.pdf
It seems so odd to us that specious public debates about the environmental acceptability of Coal, as in:
Radicals: Obama Too Easy on Coal - News, Sports, Jobs - The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register; could continue, and be afforded broad dissemination, without someone, somewhere, stepping onto the stage and explaining that a fuller, more complete use of our domestic Coal, and of the by-products of our Coal use, could spare us, could have spared us, some absolutely devastating environmental catastrophes, such as, obviously: Gulf oil spill: real disaster might be lurking beneath the surface - CSMonitor.com; wherein is explained the fact that we have yet to realize the full effect of British Petroleum's oil rig disaster on what should be seen and treated as an environmental treasure, a precious and unique sub-tropic sea.
Perhaps less-obvious are the indirect, but only slightly indirect, but also huge and devastating, environmental effects of the conflicts that can be attributed to oil, and to the supply of oil.
Can anyone really argue against the fact that the greatest environmental disaster in world history which can be attributed to human activity was World War II?
Germany's humanitarian crimes aside, does anyone really know and publicly acknowledge that WWII spread beyond the borders of Europe and mainland Asia because of the need for the Axis powers to supply themselves with oil?
That is why Germany invaded, specifically, the Caucasus and Africa. It is one reason Japan invaded Asia.
And, the attack on Pearl Harbor was directly attributable to the fact that the United States of America, then a net exporter of oil, acted in the fashion of an early OPEC, in and of herself, and declared an Oil Embargo against Japan.
More can be learned via: Inventory of Conflict and Environment (ICE), Template; which reports: "Japan is extremely poor in natural resources, and the situation was not much different in the pre-World War II era. Consequently, Japan had to depend on trade heavily to function as a modern nation, and it was a serious and vital issue for Japan to keep all crucial strategic resources, particularly oil, coming in to it from the outside world. The conflict and negotiation between the US and Japan in the pre-World War II period illustrates ... and explains why Japan went to war against the US. The US, the biggest oil supplier for Japan at the time, imposed the oil embargo on Japan in July, 1941, and it helped the Japanese to make up their minds to fight against the Americans."
But, according to West Virginia University, there is a way for us to obtain our liquid fuels that will, in fact, be better for the environment than our current practice of getting them all from petroleum.
We can make those needed liquid fuels, cleanly and efficiently, from Coal.
Comment is inserted within, and follows, excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"'Solvent Extraction Of Low Grade Coals For Clean Liquid Fuels'
(by) Elliot B. Kennel, et. al.; West Virginia University; Morgantown WV
Abstract: Solvent extraction of bituminous coals has been used as a means of coproducing clean liquid transportation fuels as well as solid fuels for gasification. Coal solvents are created by first hydrogenating coal tar distillate fractions to the level of a fraction of a percent and then simply dissolving the coal in the hydrogenated solvent.
(We'll interject here to remind you that, as in "as well as solid fuels for gasification", there can be solid and still-carbonaceous residues remaining from an initial direct liquefaction of Coal using "hydrogenated solvent". As we've earlier reported, as in: Consol Hydrogasifies CoalTL Residues | Research & Development; which concerns "US Patent 4,248,605 - Gasification of Coal Liquefaction Residues; 1981; Inventor: Michael Lancet, Pittsburgh; Assignee: Conoco, Inc.; Abstract: A method for gasifying the bottoms fraction from a coal liquefaction ... to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel gas"; the technology does exist to fully-extract, through "gasification", any Carbon remaining from an initial direct, solvent liquefaction of Coal, and to convert that residual Carbon, as well, into hydrocarbons..)
Solvent extraction is an evolutionary way by which criteria emissions can be reduced during the production process while replacing processes such as co-production of coal tar from metallurgical grade coke production, as a means of obtaining liquid products from coal.
Because coal tar is an aromatic liquid, aromatic chemicals from it are more easily produced rather than aliphatic chemicals preferred for transportation fuels and the like. This is not to say, however, that coal liquids are inherently useless for fuels. Other aromatic heavy liquids, such as Athabasca Oil Sands crudes and Venezuelan Orinoco crudes, might have been considered unacceptable for the fuels industry a generation ago, but are now routinely handled in state-of-the-art North American refineries. Were it not for the fact that established markets exist for chemicals derived from coal tars, no doubt coal tar would be increasingly utilized as a feedstock for transportation fuels, as the technology certainly exists to upgrade
such hydrocarbons.
In the case of solvent extraction processes, the present authors advocate the creation of heavy aromatic coal-derived crudes from coal as a simpler and less expensive process than the creation of synthetic sweet light crudes. This process involves dissolving coal in a commodity solvent such as decant oil or coal tar distillate, usually with the addition of hydrogen-rich diluent in order to increase the total solubility of the coal, and to decrease the viscosity.
The total amount of hydrogenation in the solution can be as low as a fraction of a percent by mass ... .
In this way, it is possible to dissolve up to about 90% of the coal feedstock as determined on a dry ash-free basis. Both bituminous as well as sub-bituminous rank coals have been successfully trialed in this way. The result is slurry containing dissolved coal as well as undissolved mineral matter and fixed carbon. The solid phase is then removed via centrifugation, resulting in a heavy, aromatic synthetic hydrocarbon liquid.
(Newly-evolved) basic principles suggest that additional hydrogen is not needed to convert coal (and) in fact a small amount of excess hydrogen might be generated. In practice, however, a certain amount of hydrogen is lost due to methane generation ... . The environmental consequence is that hydrogen is consumed only in small amounts (less than one mass percent of the product) to generate a pitch product ... .
A zero-hydrogen process is also potentially achievable.
Generation of thermal energy for processing is another requirement that could be associated with generation of carbon dioxide. This would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the particular method used to generate thermal energy, and the associated capture and sequestration strategy associated with each case.
(Here are some "case"s for you: If we do use a CO2-generating process to obtain the needed "thermal energy", then we could, as in: Pennsylvania Sunshine Converts CO2 to Methanol | Research & Development; simply use freely-available and non-polluting Solar energy to convert that CO2 into the nearly-precious Methanol. Or, as in: USDOE Hydrogasifies Coal with Solar Power | Research & Development; concerning: "US Patent 4,415,339 - Solar Coal Gasification Reactor; 1983; Assignee: The USA, as represented by the Department of Energy; Abstract: Coal ... is fed into a solar reactor, and solar energy is directed into the reactor onto coal (and, the resulting) product gas will be free of tar and other hydrocarbons, and thus be suitable for use in many processes"; we could, instead, in the first place, use a non-Carbon source of heat for that needed "thermal energy", for whatever process, whether gasification or simple chemical processing, that might be required in WVU's process, and, thus, avoid any co-generation of CO2 altogether.) .
The refining process of the resultant coal extract solution would presumably be conceptually similar to the processes used for upgrading petroleum-based crudes such as ... Venezuelan or Athabasca Oil Sands.
Summary: The results suggest that fuels produced from solvent extraction of coal can be “greener” than conventional fuels if not perfectly so. Direct liquefaction processes do not produce CO2 directly although anytime energy or hydrogen is consumed, the processes used to generate those commodities need to be considered for their environmental footprint.
(We addressed the issue of thermal "energy", and how we can get it without generating CO2, above. If, as the authors suggest, we do need Hydrogen for the processing and hydrogenation of the Coal liquids, though themselves perhaps arising from a potentially "zero-hydrogen process", then, as seen, for one instance, in: NASA Hydrogen from Water and Sunlight | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,045,315 - Solar Photolysis of Water; 1977; NASA; Abstract: Hydrogen is produced by the solar photolysis of water"; we can darned-well get that Hydrogen, too, without co-producing any CO2. - JtM)
Combinations of coal-derived fuels with fuels with exceptional environmental characteristics such as biofuels may offer the best overall combination of environmental and other performance metrics."
------------------
We do object to our WVU scholars' almost-obligatory genuflection to that vacuous totem pole of the environmental and agricultural lobbies: "biofuels".
As we discussed in: Coal vs. Ethanol: Corn Drains Resources - UCal | Research & Development; which reports that "using ethanol ... will do more harm than good to the environment, (conclude) ... researchers at the University of California, Berkeley"; and, in: Corn's Carbon Problem | Research & Development; which documents that "Ohio’s largest ethanol plant, generates annually more than 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide"; using the products of agriculture to manufacture liquid fuel isn't an sensible way to mitigate the environmental effects of using fuels based on more direct Carbon conversion technologies.
Worse, as in: Biofuels Could Kill More People Than the Iraq War | Environment | AlterNet; we're plainly told that the use of plant-based fuels, such as Corn Ethanol, "will snatch food from people's mouths"; and, that, if we who live in relative affluence run our cars "on virgin biofuel ... other people will starve".
Those relentless genuflections to "biofuels" arise mostly from our being pounded gun shy by the hammering of the Carbon Dioxide drum; and, we are thus again compelled to remind you that, as seen, for just one out of now many examples, in: More Standard Oil 1944 CO2 + CH4 = Hydrocarbons | Research & Development; which discloses: "US Patent 2.347.682 - Hydrocarbon Synthesis; 1944; Assignee: Standard Oil Company of Indiana; Abstract: This invention relates to an improved method and means for effecting the synthesis of hydrocarbons (by using) methane (which is) mixed with ... carbon dioxide and steam as to give a gas mixture ... consisting chiefly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide ... hereinafter referred to as ... 'synthesis' gas (which may then be catalytically converted into) methane (and/or) high quality motor fuels or heavier oils"; we can react any CO2 we might wish to recover with "methane" and thereby make "motor fuels".
And, the Methane, which is required in that Standard Oil CO2-recycling process, as it is in others similar, can, as in: Penn State Solar CO2 + H2O = Methane | Research & Development | News; concerning the: "High-Rate Solar Photocatalytic Conversion of CO2 and Water Vapor to Hydrocarbon Fuels; The Pennsylvania State University; 2009; (The) solar conversion of carbon dioxide and water vapor to methane"; itself be made, through the use of non-polluting energy, from Carbon Dioxide.
Far past time someone put some merciful silver bullets into the hearts of our self-styled "specious public debates about the environmental acceptability of Coal", ain't it?
Isn't there anyone out there with the guts to start pulling the trigger?