Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #5878451
In coming days we'll be diverging a bit from the core thesis of our reportage, i.e., that both Coal and Carbon Dioxide, along with Carbon-recycling and sustainable botanical materials, can be cleanly and efficiently converted into any liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon fuel, or other hydrocarbon product, that we currently rely on increasingly scarce, increasingly hazardous and increasingly expensive natural petroleum for the supply of.
There are other topics related to the profound and extraordinary value of Coal which demand attention.
In a report recently presented by the West Virginia Coal Association, as accessible via:
Federal Coal & Energy Legislation: H.R. 2273 Passes House | Latest; we're told that: "H.R. 2273, 'Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act' was passed ... by the US House of Representatives by a vote of 267 to 14 with all three House Members from West Virginia voting in favor of the legislation. H.R. 2273, introduced by Congressman McKinley, R-WV, relates to the classification of “fly ash” from coal–fired electric generators and preserves its beneficial uses";
we learn that another economic assault on our essential and vital Coal-mining and Coal-use industries has been, at least temporarily, handed a setback.
Herein, we wanted to begin offering some support to our courageous Congressman McKinley's contention, that: "fly ash", and, we must add, other Coal-use residuals, do, indeed, have "beneficial uses".
First, by our use of the phrase, "Coal-use residuals", we do intend inclusion of those materials which might be co-generated in a process designed to convert, by direct or indirect means, the Carbon content in Coal into "synthetic" liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
Further, we submit, that the sponsors of "H.R. 2273" might want to broaden what might be their narrow definition of "Coal Residuals" to include Carbon Dioxide; for that is, indeed, what Carbon Dioxide could be labeled.
And, Representative McKinley and his allies might be pleased to learn, that, as in:
US Navy Awarded September, 2011, CO2 Recycling Patent | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,017,658 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons via Catalytic Reduction of CO2; 2011; The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy; A method of: introducing hydrogen and a feed gas containing at least 50 % carbon dioxide into a reactor containing a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst; and heating the hydrogen and carbon dioxide to (as specified) to produce hydrocarbons";
our United States Navy has already put a 16-inch hole, as if from one of the big guns on the battleship Iowa, into the flagship of the more radical environmental lobby, and their shadowy puppet master, Big Oil, with his schemes for the mandated geologic sequestration of CO2 in leaky old oil wells to further his secondary scrounging of natural petroleum from nearly-depleted reservoirs.
Further, Big Oil personified has already shown us that some other, what should be seen as intriguing, "coal residuals" can be further processed, as in our reports of:
Exxon 1997 Coal Liquefaction Residue Steam-Gasification | Research & Development; concerning:"United States Patent 4,060,478 - Coal Liquefaction Bottoms Conversion by Gasification; 1977; Exxon Research and Engineering Company; Heavy bottoms produced by the liquefaction of coal ... are converted into more valuable products by ... (after initially producing) gases, hydrocarbon liquids and ...char, thereafter gasifying the char with steam"; and:
Mobil Oil Converts CoalTL Residues to Hydrocarbon Syngas | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,583,993 - Carbon Monoxide and Hydrogen from Carbonaceous Material; 1986; Mobil Oil Corporation; Hydrogen and carbon monoxide are produced from ... a char like product selected from the group consisting of coal, char product of coal solvation (and) char product of coal volatilization";
and be made, through such reprocessing, to yield even more hydrocarbon values.
What would remain after the Exxon and Mobil processes of US Patents 4,060,478 and 4,583,993, as above, would be an incombustible, inorganic mineral residue consisting of essentially the same elements and compounds, in the same proportions, as those found in the ash from Coal-fired power plants.
We submit that they could be treated as equivalent materials.
And, since, above, we mentioned both allies and the battleship Iowa, following, as excerpted from the initial link in this dispatch, with additional links and excerpts appended, are what a research and education institution in the state of Iowa and the staunchest of our nation's historical allies, as sponsored by our own United States Department of Energy, say we can do with "Coal Residuals", as championed, in H.R. 2273, by West Virginia's Congressman McKinley:
"Title: Mineral Recovery from Coal-conversion Solid Wastes
European Federation of Chemical Engineers Conference on Energy, London, UK, 12 Oct 1982
DOE Contract Number: W-7405-ENG-82; Report Number: IS-M-426; CONF-8210188-1
Authors: G. Burnet and N. Harnb
Affiliations: Ames Lab (Iowa State University), IA (USA); Bradford University (UK)
(Note: As can be learned in:
Ames Laboratory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; "Ames Laboratory is a USDOE National Laboratory located ... on the campus of Iowa State University".)
Abstract: The utilization or disposal of coal conversion solid wastes is an important environmental problem of the future. Work is described on the development of two processes for the large scale extraction of Aluminum, Titanium, and Iron from these wastes. Such processes not only appreciably reduce the disposal problem but also provide an indigenous source of valuable metals. One process involves the production of soluble aluminates in the clinker resulting from a lime-fly ash sinter and the other is a high temperature chlorination process that converts the metal oxides in the ash to volatile metal chlorides. Work is proceeding from bench scale up to large scale feasibility studies."
--------------------
Don't for now be too concerned with phrases like "lime-fly ash sinter", since we will be explaining it all a bit more thoroughly in pending reports.
However, the planned "feasibility studies" did, it seems, prove the "feasibility" of extracting "valuable metals" from Coal-use "wastes", since they seemed to have resulted in the issuance of two United States Patents on the key technologies, as seen, first, in:
"United States Patent: 4386057 - Recovery of Iron Oxide from Coal Fly Ash
Date: May, 1983
Inventors: Michael Dobbins and Marlyn Murtha, Ames, Iowa
(At the time this patented technology was issued, we believe, based in web-based reference sources, that Dobbins was a student at Iowa State University, but is now with Corning, Incorporated. Marlyn "Mike" Murtha, since deceased, was also at Iowa State, apparently on the faculty, and later moved on to the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, who founded a scholarship in his name, and who eulogize him in:
"Scholarship Murtha: "Mike is best known for his work on mineral recovery from power plant fly ash, the principal solid waste from coal combustion. Processes developed at the Ames Laboratory for the recovery of iron oxide and of alumina based on ideas originally proposed by him have led to patents in his name.”)
Assignee: The United States of America; The U.S. Government has rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 between the U.S. Department of Energy and Ames Laboratory
(Thus, our own US Government, the Legislative branch of which is now debating what to do with Coal ash, knows full well that we can mine Iron ore from it, and owns the technology to do so.)
Abstract: A high quality iron oxide concentrate, suitable as a feed for blast and electric reduction furnaces is recovered from pulverized coal fly ash. The magnetic portion of the fly ash is separated and treated with a hot strong alkali solution which dissolves most of the silica and alumina in the fly ash, leaving a solid residue and forming a precipitate which is an acid soluble salt of aluminosilicate hydrate. The residue and precipitate are then treated with a strong mineral acid to dissolve the precipitate leaving a solid residue containing at least 90 weight percent iron oxide.
(Note: Concentrated "90 weight percent" pure iron ore from Coal fly ash.)
Claims: A process for recovering iron oxide from coal fly ash containing iron oxide, silica and alumina which comprises: separating the magnetic portion from the non-magnetic portion of the fly ash,
(and) contacting the magnetic portion of the fly ash with a strong alkali solution at a temperature and for a period of time sufficient to leach most of the silica and alumina from the fly ash leaving a solid residue containing the iron oxide, forming a precipitate which is an acid-soluble salt of aluminosilicate hydrate,
(and) separating the alkali solution from the precipitate and the solid residue;
(and) contacting the precipitate and solid residue with a strong mineral acid to dissolve the precipitate whereby the solid residue remaining contains at least 90 weight percent Fe2O3.
Background and Summary: This invention relates to a process for the recovery of iron from coal fly ash. More specifically, this invention relates to a process for recovering iron oxide, as a concentrate suitable for reduction, from pulverized coal fly ash.
The primary constituents of the ash are the oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron and calcium.
It is therefore one object of the invention to provide an improved process for removing silica and alumina from the magnetic portion of pulverized coal fly ash containing alumina, silica and iron oxide (and) for beneficiating iron oxide in the magnetic portion of coal fly ash to provide an iron concentrate suitable for use in either a blast furnace or an electric furnace smelter."
---------------------
So, we can recover "an iron concentrate suitable" for refining into Iron by conventional "blast furnace" or "smelter" methods.
Do you suppose there might be some underused Iron-refining "blast furnace"s growing weeds somewhere in the vicinities of Wheeling, WV, or Pittsburgh, PA?
Are there any, do you suppose, accumulations of Coal power plant fly ash in those and nearby locales?
If so, then we might think, too, about firing the Aluminum smelters that used to employ a lot of people on the Ohio side of the river, since, once we're making steel again in Wheeling and Pittsburgh, out of Iron ore mined from Coal ash, we discover, following, that mining that Iron ore from Coal ash helps to enabled the recovery, from that ash, of Aluminum ore, as well.
As seen in:
"United States Patent: 4397822 - Process for the Recovery of Alumina from Fly Ash
Date: August, 1983
Inventor: Marlyn Murtha, Iowa
Government Interests: The United States Government has rights in this invention pursuant to Contract No. W-7405-ENG-82 between the U.S. Department of Energy and Ames Laboratory.
Abstract: An improvement in the lime-sinter process for recovering alumina from pulverized coal fly ash is disclosed. The addition of from 2 to 10 weight percent carbon and sulfur to the fly ash-calcium carbonate mixture increase alumina recovery at lower sintering temperatures.
(Note that a little Sulfur, as we might recover in a Coal desulfurization process, makes the recovery of "alumina from ... coal fly ash" more efficient.)
Claims: In the process for recovering alumina from fly ash containing oxides of alumina, silica and other metals wherein the fly ash is mixed with calcium carbonate to form a mixture, the mixture is heated from 1350 to 1400C for a period of time sufficient to form a clinker containing a soluble calcium aluminate compound, the clinker is reduced to a powder, and the powder is contacted with dilute sodium carbonate solution to dissolve the soluble calcium aluminate compound, thereby recovering the alumina.
Background and Summary: This invention relates to a method for the recovery of alumina from pulverized coal fly ash. More specifically, this invention relates to an improvement in the lime-sinter process for the recovery of alumina from pulverized coal fly ash.
The treatment of fly ash to recover its constituent metals has been proposed as an alternative to disposal, since, for example, a typical fly ash may contain up to fourteen percent aluminum by weight.
This invention relates to a method for the recovery of alumina from pulverized coal fly ash. More specifically, this invention relates to an improvement in the lime-sinter process for the recovery of alumina from pulverized coal fly ash.
In the lime-soda sinter process, a mixture of fly ash, calcium carbonate and sodium carbonate are sintered to form a clinker containing soluble sodium and calcium aluminates. The clinker is reduced to powder and the soluble compounds dissolved in a dilute solution of sodium carbonate.
It has been found that the addition of a small amount of sulfur and carbon to the lime-fly ash sinter mixture before sintering, lowers the optimum sinter temperature, resulting in an energy and equipment saving, and increases the amount of alumina recovered from the fly ash to almost 90%.
It is therefore one object of the invention to provide an economical process for recovering alumina from fly ash (and) to provide an improvement in the lime-sinter method of recovering alumina from fly ash by reducing the sintering temperature and increasing the percentage of alumina recovery."
--------------------
Now, you might think that, after we've gotten all of the Iron and all of the Aluminum out of our precious reserves of Coal ash that we would still then have a fairly big, though not quite as big, pile of unwanted and unsightly "glop" that we would still have to find some way to dispose of.
And, you would be wrong.
Once we've gotten nearly "90%" of the Aluminum out of our Coal ash, and a lot of "90 weight percent" pure Iron ore out of it, there are still elements of high value that can be extracted from the residual ash, and, their extraction might be made easier by the preliminary extraction of Iron and Aluminum.
Further: Once all of the metals of commercial value have been extracted, the final, nearly-inert mineral remains can be put to even more, commercially significant and energy conserving, use.
All of that will be documented in reports to follow in coming days and weeks.
Finally, keep in mind:
Our USDOE paid to have the technologies disclosed by US Patents 4,397,822 and 4,386,057 developed.
And, through our USDOE, We the People, especially those of us people resident in US Coal Country, supposedly, own them.
Why, then, are our US Coal Country elected representatives, like, as above, Congressman McKinley, still having to fight battles, as in H.R. 2273, against the tyrannical actions of the non-elected, non-representative Environmental Protection Agency?
Maybe, just maybe, if more people, more of the common folk resident in US Coal Country, were told the full truth of the matter by their public, commercial press, McKinley and his allies wouldn't have to.