http://www.nma.org/pdf/liquid_coal_fuels_100505.pdf
The document we bring to you in this dispatch originates from what is, obviously, a partisan source:
The National Mining Association (www.nma.org).
Welcome to National Mining Association; "The National Mining Association (NMA) is U.S. mining's advocate in Washington, D.C. and beyond. NMA is the only national trade organization that represents the interests of mining before Congress, the administration, federal agencies, the judiciary and the media—providing a clear voice for U.S. mining.NMA’s mission is to build support for public policies that will help America fully and responsibly utilize its coal and mineral resources."
However, there is nothing said in it that we haven't many times already documented for you from other, independent and impeccable, sources.
The gist of the message is this:
We can, cleanly and competitively, convert our abundant United States of America Coal into anything, quite literally anything, we now enslave ourselves and indenture our grandchildren to OPEC and Big Oil to keep ourselves supplied with in the here and now.
We can replace imported OPEC Oil with our domestic United States of America Coal.
And, we - all of us - should get off our dead cans and start insisting that our elected representatives get off their dead cans and start doing whatever is necessary to make that start happening.
Comment follows and is inserted within excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"Liquid Fuels from U.S. Coal
The technology is modern, proven and ready . . . It has national security, economic and environmental benefits . . . What is needed to make it happen?
A recent ABC News poll reported a majority of Americans believe rising gasoline prices are causing personal financial hardships and are a potential threat to the long-term durability of the U.S. economy.
This spring, gasoline prices increased at the fastest rate in 50 years. Recent natural disasters have caused disruption at up to a dozen refineries in the U.S . . . at a time when America is dependent on foreign sources of petroleum for 56 percent of its needs – a share that will grow to nearly 70 percent by 2025 if nothing changes, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
There is a solution to these and other problems related to the nation’s critical need for a reliable and affordable supply of liquid fuel:
America’s abundant and readily available supplies of domestic coal.
There are more than 250 billion tons of recoverable U.S. coal reserves– equivalent to an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil (compared to Saudi Arabia’s proven reserves of 260 billion barrels).
- Coal already provides more than half of the nation’s electricity and is the largest single source of overall domestic energy production at more than 31 percent of the total.
- Coal can be converted through proven, existing modern technology into clean, zero-sulfur synthetic oil and oil products at a cost of approximately $35 per barrel – compared to the current world price of about $67 per barrel for oil.
(At "$67 per barrel for oil", we're obviously a little behind the times with this report. That's true of the cost of "approximately $35 per barrel" for converting Coal into "clean, zero-sulfur synthetic oil", as well, since, although it was reported in our dispatch concerning:
West Virginia Coal Association | WVU Coal Liquefaction Yields $50 Oil | Research & Development; concerning: "Quantex targets coal-to-liquids conversion at less than $50 per barrel; June 22, 2011. Gordon Eberth, COO of Quantex Energy Inc., admits that his company’s coal-to-liquids (CTL) process seems too good to be true. Could there really be a CTL technology that converts low-grade raw coal to synthetic crude and high-value green coke at a break-even operating cost under US$50 per barrel? A conversion process that generates less CO2 per barrel than Arab light crude? 'Yes, it’s true - almost for sure,' says Eberth with a grin. This CTL process was discovered at West Virginia University, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy";
that, Coal could be converted into liquid substitute petroleum for "under US$50 per barrel", it was seen in:
West Virginia Coal Association | WVU and China Coal to $24 per Barrel Oil | Research & Development; concerning: "Coal to Clean Fuel; The Shenhua Investment in Direct Coal Liquefaction; Jerald J. Fletcher, Director and Professor, (and) Qingyun Sun, Research Assistant Professor; West Virginia University; 2004";
that Coal could conceivably be converted into "Oil equivalent products" at an "Estimated production cost" of only "$24/bbl".)
- Given these advantages, why isn’t coal-to-liquid fuels a reality?
- Why are there no commercial coal-to-liquid plants in the U.S. today?
(Actually, we believe that there is at least one. Unless it has since closed, as seen, for only one example in:
West Virginia Coal Association | Coal to Methanol - Eastman & Air Products | Research & Development;
and, separately, in an October, 2006, report from the George C. Marshall Institute;
The Marshall Institute - Science for Better Public Policy:
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/469.pdf; "Methanol as a Potential Contributor to Energy Independence;
Beginning in 1997, a Department of Energy (DOE) project successfully operated a methanol-from-coal pilot plant at a Tennessee-Eastman facility in Kingsport, TN. The pilot plant used an innovative technology developed by Air Products and Chemicals Co. This plant demonstrated that methanol could be produced from coal at reasonable costs. DOE’s project ended in 2003, but the pilot plant is still being operated
by Tennessee-Eastman. Most of the methanol produced by this plant was used for chemical manufacture, but a small amount was processed further and used by DOE in vehicle test programs, which showed that methanol-from-coal was suitable for vehicle use";
Eastman Chemical is/was operating a factory in Tennessee to convert Coal, on an economical and industrial basis, into Methanol; and, which "methanol-from-coal", as demonstrated by the USDOE, "was suitable for vehicle use".)
One reason is the historic sharp volatility of oil prices - - if the price of oil stays above $35 per barrel, a coal refinery makes economic sense. If it drops below that figure, as it has in the past ..., there is no assurance a coal refinery can remain competitive, posing a substantial risk for investors.
(As can be learned via:
WTI Crude Oil Spot Price; the price of oil blew it's last kiss at "$35 per barrel" on Februray 18, 2009.)
Secondly, the front end cost is high - - coal refineries are expensive to construct, with capital costs in the $600-million-to-$700-million range for a 10,000 barrel per day plant (and, the) technical and financial risks of a “first of a kind” plant in the US have discouraged consideration of this type of investment in the past.
Finally, the lead time for a coal refinery, as with all refineries, is a minimum of five to seven years under optimal circumstances.
But steps can be taken to create incentives and minimize these disadvantages so that Americans could be using domestic-based coal-to-liquid fuels in the near future – if we act soon.
Two basic approaches to convert coal to a liquid fuel:
- Direct Liquefaction calls for breaking coal down in a solvent at elevated temperature and pressure, followed
by interaction with hydrogen gas and a catalyst.
(See, for just one example, our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Exxon Multi-Stage Hydrogen Donor Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,189,371 - Multiple-stage Hydrogen-donor Coal Liquefaction Process; 1980; Assignee: Exxon Research and Engineering; Abstract: An increased yield of hydrogenated liquid product is obtained from coal by treating the feed coal with a hydrogen-donor solvent and hydrogen-containing gas in a first coal liquefaction reactor to produce a liquefaction effluent ... . Claims: A multiple-stage hydrogen-donor liquefaction process for producing liquid hydrocarbons from coal".)
- Indirect Liquefaction involves first gasifying coal and then making synthetic fuels from this “syngas.”
(See, for just one example, our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | More Mobil Coal to High Octane Gasoline | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 4,049,734 - Conversion of Coal to High Octane Gasoline; 1977; Assignee: Mobil Oil Corporation; Abstract: An integrated process for converting coal to high octane gasoline by gasifying the coal in such manner as to form a gas comprising carbon oxides, hydrogen and methane; contacting this gas in one or a series of steps with one or a series of catalysts (as specified, thus) converting the carbon oxides and hydrogen by such contact to a product comprising water, high octane aromatic gasoline and light hydrocarbon gases; alkylating the C3 and C4 olefins with the isobutane in the light gases to produce alkylate gasoline; admixing the aromatic and alkylate gasolines; and subjecting the C2 portion of the product to catalytic methanation via a nickel catalyst to produce synthetic natural gas";
wherein "syngas" made from Coal can be processed in such a way so as to yield not only "high octane aromatic gasoline", but, a quantity of co-product "synthetic natural gas", as well.)
Using modern technology, indirect liquefaction produces environmentally compatible zero-sulfur liquid fuels that are cleaner than required under today’s emissions laws and regulations.
(See, for example:
West Virginia Coal Association | US EPA Recommends Coal Liquefaction as a Clean Alternative | Research & Development; concerning: "Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch; United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2002; A Success Story (!) For the past 50 years, Fischer-Tropsch fuels have powered all of South Africa’s vehicles, from buses to trucks to taxicabs. The fuel is primarily supplied by Sasol, a world leader in Fischer-Tropsch technologies (who produce) more than 150,000 barrels of high quality fuel from domestic low-grade coal daily. The popular fuel is cost-competitive with crude oil-based petroleum products in South Africa. Fischer-Tropsch technology converts coal ... into a high-value, clean-burning fuel (which) is colorless, odorless, and low in toxicity. In addition, it is virtually interchangeable with conventional diesel fuels and can be blended with diesel at any ratio (and offers) important emissions benefits compared with diesel, reducing nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter".)
Coal-to-liquid fuel technologies are well-established and have been improved by 30 years of U.S. government research and development efforts, directly and through industry partnerships, into innovative processes ready for widespread commercialization in the 21st century.
Technology has come a long way since the first coal-derived liquid fuel (a synthetic crude oil) was produced through direct liquefaction in the early 1900s. In 1925, Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch used an indirect liquefaction process, which still bears their name, to produce excellent transportation fuels.
(See, in a report that contains a number of links to references concerning Fischer and Tropsch, and their "indirect liquefaction process" for converting Coal into "excellent transportation fuels":
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Pays Kentucky to Improve Fischer-Tropsch Coal Conversion | Research & Development; concerning, primarily: US Patent Application 20110294906 - Incorporation of Catalytic Dehydrogenation into Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis to Lower Carbon Dioxide Emissions; 2011;
Inventor: Gerald P. Huffman (Professor, University of Kentucky); Abstract: A method for producing liquid fuels includes the steps of gasifying a starting material selected from a group consisting of coal, biomass, ... and mixtures thereof to produce a syngas, subjecting that syngas to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (FTS) to produce a hydrocarbon product stream".)
Germany had 25 liquefaction plants that, at their peak in 1944, produced more than 124,000 barrels daily and met 90 percent of the nation’s needs.
(Without including reference links, we've previously reported that Germany, based on since-published WWII Allied Command strategic wartime bombing plans, had four, maybe five, Coal "liquefaction plants", while Japan had three. Those military documents seem most reliable to us; but, we will note that other reports we've seen actually estimate a total of around 40 such Axis Coal conversion plants, some of which are reported to have been converting Coal into a synthetic replacement for natural rubber.)
In the 1950s, South Africa, through its SASOL company, developed a commercial coal liquids industry to produce transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) using synthesis gas produced by the gasification of coal. Modern research has further developed this technology, and SASOL has produced more than 700 million barrels of synthetic fuels from coal since the early 1980s.
The United States government, directly and through industrial partnerships and international cooperation, has a 30-year research effort that has resulted in improved processes, catalysts and reactors.
These improvements have helped reduce costs and improved product quantity and quality.
While the stage is set for rapid commercialization and deployment in the U.S., China - - with its vast coal reserves and immensely growing economy - - currently is ahead of America in this regard.
China, which is the world’s second biggest consumer and importer of oil after the U.S., is planning a $6 billion investment in new liquefaction plants that would have a total annual production capacity of 440 million barrels of liquid fuel annually ... .
(West Virginia Coal Association | China Makes "Huge Profits" from Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development)
Advantages of Coal-to-Liquid Fuels:
- Improves national and economic security by lessening dependence on foreign oil and substituting plentiful, more affordable U.S. coal.
- Uses domestic resources and produces more jobs for Americans.
- Provides positive influence on U.S. balance of trade and economy.
- Provides environmental benefits, including cleaner fuels that reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions, enabling use of higher efficiency engines.
- Is capable of capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions ... .
(Which captured "carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions" can be, as we've documented in, for only one recent example:
West Virginia Coal Association | US Navy Announces $3/Gallon Jet Fuel from CO2 | Research & Development; concerning: "Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas; 2012; The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is developing the chemistry for producing jet fuel from renewable resources in theater. The process envisioned would catalytically convert CO2 and H2 directly to liquid hydrocarbon fuel used as JP-5. NRL has successfully developed and demonstrated technologies for the recovery of CO2 and the production of H2 from seawater using an electrochemical acidification cell, and the conversion of CO2 and H2 to hydrocarbons ... that can be used to produce jet fuel (and) initial studies predict that jet fuel from seawater would cost in the range of $3 to $6 per gallon to produce. How it Works: CO2 + H2 = Jet Fuel";
put to some very intriguing uses.)
- Provides geographic diversity of domestic refining capacity (Coal is located in 38 states and all regions of the U.S.).
Coal is a 21st century energy resource - it is mined, transported and used in the U.S. in an environmentally compatible and sustainable manner.
Unlike other energy resources, the location and quantity of U.S. coal reserves are known (and) exploration isn't necessary.
What is Needed to Make it Happen in the US?
Although existing impediments to wide scale deployment of coal-to-liquids technologies are challenging, all can be mitigated or eliminated through concerted and focused efforts by government and industry and with public support.
For example:
- Construction of new coal-to-liquids capacity can be made more attractive with incentives, such as streamlining the permitting process; offering federal loan guarantees to cover construction costs; providing federal financing to pay charges incurred through permitting delays; and offering price guarantees, or providing a price floor, for refinery output.
- Tax incentives, such as federal investment tax credits, fuel excise tax exemptions or accelerated depreciation could be used to reduce risk and assist commercial development.
- Siting issues can be mitigated by maximizing retrofit opportunities at existing coal-based power plants or by placing refineries on closed military bases or abandoned industrial or mine sites.
- State/federal government partnership consortiums with industry to build first-of-a-kind, commercial-scale demonstration facilities that use advanced technologies.
Incentives such as these would get the ball rolling. Eventually, market forces would take over, and the private sector would assume the majority of risks for commercialization and technology deployment.
China is putting billions of dollars into its coal-to-liquids fuels program (and) the failure of the U.S. to provide domestic incentives could prove to be a significant energy, economic, environmental and security challenge later in this century.
Congress should adopt incentives for coal-to-liquid fuel facilities!
National Mining Association; Washington, D.C."
--------------------------
Well, you know, "Congress" ain't going to do diddly unless enough of us get together and tell 'em to - and, make it stick at the voting booth.
And, there won't ever be enough of us to make it stick unless enough of us who are motivated enough to make it stick get educated enough to know that we have something we might want to make stick - if that makes any sense to you.
It does to us.
And, the sense it makes to us is, that, it is far, far past time that the Coal Country Press got motivated enough to start acting as the public educators and defenders of the public trust they are supposed, and present themselves, to be; and, started not only fulfilling their fiduciary informational responsibilities to the mass of people whose discretionary dollars support the advertisers who keep their sorry rags afloat; but, taking personal responsibility for conducting themselves in a way consistent with who and what they would no doubt prefer to have us believe them all to be:
First, patriots.
Second, fonts of honest knowledge and centers of communication and information focused on and orbiting around all our common US Coal Country good.
Third, maybe, friends.
When it comes to "Liquid Fuels from U.S. Coal" with all of it's "national security, economic and environmental benefits", we will all need their help to really "make it happen" - - to inform the majority of us concerning our very real options, so that we can, with one large, confident voice, in turn inform our elected employees what option we wish them to make a priority, and how we wish them to, thus, conduct themselves on our behalf.
And, sadly, all we can do is ask.
