Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #10180379
This dispatch will prove for you a rambling sort of affair, without a lot of truly new information being presented; and, we pray, after sort of having given up on hope, that the cadre of US Coal Country public press journalists who comprise, actually, the larger body of our direct addressee's for these reports, will prove themselves to have both the attention span and the patriotic motivation to follow it through, and will surprise us by doing so.
First, we call your attention to a very recent article, as accessible via:
"'Coal-to-liquids' prospects dim, but boosters won't say die'; Greenwire: May 17, 2013; WHARNCLIFFE, W.Va. -- It's been two years since Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and other West Virginia politicians gathered near here to break ground for and sing the praises of what they said would be the first U.S. plant to turn coal into gasoline -- and create hundreds of jobs on a former strip mine near the Kentucky line. Engineering and site preparation followed the pep rally, but there's not much to show for the effort here in Mingo County. Developers haven't yet locked up financing for a $3 billion plant they say won't be up and running until at least 2016. 'The details are much more time-consuming that we anticipated,' said Randall Harris, technical director for TransGas Development Systems LLC's Adams Fork Energy project. 'But we have so far not hit a roadblock'. The Adams Fork site is located on a former strip mine along a winding, hilly road deep inside Mingo County, near the border with Kentucky and within 100 miles of more than 100 coal mines. This is ground zero of the Appalachian coal fields".
---------------------------
Much of the article, somewhat surprisingly, centers on discussion of how interest in converting natural gas into liquid hydrocarbon fuels has negatively impacted interest on making investments in converting Coal into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. That, even though, as seen in:
Analysis: U.S. Shale Gas Industry Reserves Are Over Stated at Least 100 Percent | ThinkProgress; concerning:
"'Analysis: US Shale Gas Industry Reserves Are Overstated At Least 100 Percent'; August, 2011; Shale gas has become an important and permanent feature of U.S. energy supply. Daily production has increased from less than 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day (bcfd) in 2003, when the first modern horizontal drilling and fracture stimulation was used, to almost 20 bcfd by mid-2011. There are, however, two major concerns at the center of the shale gas revolution:
- Despite impressive production growth, it is not yet clear that these plays are commercial at current prices because of the high capital costs of land and drilling and completion.
- Reserves and economics depend on estimated ultimate recoveries based on hyperbolic, or increasingly flattening, decline profiles that predict decades of commercial production. With only a few years of production history in most of these plays, this model has not been shown to be correct, and may be overly optimistic.
These are not purely technical topics for debate among petroleum professionals. The marketing of the shale gas phenomenon has been so effective that important policy and strategic decisions are being made based on as yet unproven assumptions about the abundance and low cost of these plays. The “Pickens Plan” seeks to get congressional approval for natural gas subsidies that might eventually lead to conversion of large parts of our vehicle fleet to run on natural gas. This might commit the U.S. to decades of natural gas exports at fixed prices in the face of scarcity and increasing prices in the domestic market. Similarly, companies have gotten permits from the government to transform liquefied natural gas import terminals into export facilities that would commit the U.S. to decades of large, fixed export volumes. If reserves are less and cost is more than many assume, these could be disastrous decisions.Our analysis indicates that industry reserves are over-stated by at least 100 percent based on detailed review of both individual well and group decline profiles for the Barnett, Fayetteville and Haynesville shale plays. (Standard methods of gas reserve estimation) substantially over-estimate recoverable reserves.Results to date in the Haynesville Shale play are disappointing, and will substantially underperform industry claims.
The simple truth is that shale gas ventures are costly and profits are marginal at best.
Those who expect the long-term unit cost of shale gas to be less than that of other unconventional gas resources will be disappointed. (Our analysis concludes) that the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) per well is approximately one-half of the values commonly presented by operators. Decline rates indicate that a decrease in drilling by any of the major producers in the shale gas plays would reveal the insecurity of supply.We suspect that the current euphoria about shale gas will follow the path of other energy panaceas including coal-bed methane and tight sandstone gas. Shale gas will remain an important part of the North American energy landscape but its costs will almost certainly be higher, and its abundance less than many now believe";
-------------------------
we don't have nearly as much gas, and what gas we do have won't be nearly as cheap, as the nat gas hucksters and their uncritical public press aficionados would prefer us all to believe.
As the above article notes, the "shale gas phenomenon" is more a product of "marketing" than anything else.
Returning to our initial reference article, "Coal-to-liquids' prospects dim, but boosters won't say die", we also learn that:
"(USDOE) Energy Information Agency forecasts have Coal-To-Liquids playing a more prominent role than Gas-To-Liquids. And there is a lively debate over which technology makes the most economic and environmental sense. 'It's cheaper to make syngas out of gas than it is out of coal," the University of Kentucky's (Professor Burt) Davis said. "You make a lot less carbon dioxide with natural gas than you do with coal. And so natural gas has an advantage." In a follow-up email, Davis explained that "more of the carbon in coal must be used to generate hydrogen than is the case for natural gas. The generation of hydrogen produces carbon dioxide so that for a barrel of oil, coal will generate more carbon dioxide than natural gas will.'"
-------------------------
Well, even if more Carbon Dioxide is generated, as we now know, as for just one example seen in:
West Virginia Coal Association | US Navy May 7, 2013, CO2 to Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 8,436,457 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons Via Catalytic Reduction of CO2; 2013; Assignee: The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy; Abstract: A method of: introducing hydrogen and a feed gas containing at least 50 vol % carbon dioxide into a reactor containing a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst; and heating the hydrogen and carbon dioxide to a temperature of at least about 190 C to produce hydrocarbons in the reactor";
we can, and we think should, start to view CO2 as a valuable raw material resource; a resource from which we can, using Hydrogen as a co-reactant, synthesize liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons.
But, in the above excerpt from "Coal-to-liquids' prospects dim", wherein Professor Davis makes the statement that "carbon in coal must be used to generate hydrogen", which leads to the co-generation of more Carbon Dioxide, in an indirect Coal conversion process like that seen in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | Standard Oil 1949 Coal + Steam = Hydrocarbon Syngas | Research & Development; concerning: "United States Patent 2,482,187 - Producing Hydrogen-Carbon Monoxide Mixtures; 1949; Assignee: Standard Oil Company; Abstract: This invention relates to a process and apparatus for the optimum utilization of the hydrocarbon values derived from solid carbonaceous substances such as coal ... . ... the invention pertains to the production of gas mixtures comprising essentially hydrogen and carbon oxides suitable for the synthesis of hydrocarbons. It is an object of this invention to provide improved method and means for decomposing powdered coal wherein hot coke ... (provides) ... heat for the rapid decomposition of powdered coal and for the endothermic steam reactions to produce gas mixtures of hydrogen and carbon oxides. The method of making gas mixtures consisting chiefly of hydrogen and carbon monoxide suitable for the synthesis of hydrocarbons";
wherein Coal is first converted into a hydrocarbon synthesis gas consisting of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide, which synthesis gas is then catalytically, chemically condensed into both gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons; and, wherein the Hydrogen to Carbon Monoxide ratio needs adjusted, through the addition of more Hydrogen, so that hydrocarbons of specific, targeted compositions can be synthesized, reference is being made to what is know as the "Water Gas Shift Reaction":
Water gas shift reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; "The water-gas shift reaction (WGS) is a chemical reaction in which carbon monoxide reacts with water vapor to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen:
CO + H2O = CO2 + H2";
wherein Carbon Monoxide, the major product of Coal gasification, can be catalytically reacted, in an integrated hydrocarbon synthesis gas production process, with water vapor, with both being converted through that reaction into both the needed Hydrogen and Carbon Dioxide.
The option exists, however, to make the WGS, water gas shift reaction, unnecessary, by adding elemental Hydrogen, as obtained from an external source, to the Coal-derived synthesis gas.
And, as we've documented in a couple of reports, such as:
West Virginia Coal Association | Chevron Improves Direct Coal Liquefaction | Research & Development; concerning: "US Patent 4,379,744 - Coal Liquefaction Process; 1983; Assignee: Chevron Research Company; Abstract: This invention is a process for liquefying coal in at least two stages, comprising (a) heating a slurry comprising a solid particulate coal, and an externally supplied dispersed dissolution catalyst in the presence of hydrogen in a first reaction zone to substantially dissolve the coal ... . A process for liquefying coal which comprises: (a) heating a slurry comprising a solvent, particulate coal, and an externally supplied dispersed dissolution catalyst in the presence of hydrogen in a first reaction zone to substantially dissolve the coal and provide a first effluent slurry having a normally liquid portion comprising solvent and dissolved coal and containing undissolved solids and dissolution catalyst; and contacting at least a portion of said normally liquid portion containing undissolved solids and dissolution catalyst with hydrogen in a second reaction zone in the presence of a second externally supplied hydrogenation catalyst under hydrogenation conditions, including a temperature lower than the temperature to which said slurry is heated in step (a), to produce a second effluent slurry having a normally liquid portion";not only could supplemental Hydrogen make the CO2-producing Water Gas Shift reaction unnecessary in an indirect Coal conversion process, wherein Coal is first gasified, Hydrogen also enables the direct liquefaction of Coal in processes utilizing a Hydrogen donor, or transfer, solvent, with the co-generation of little, or even no, Carbon Dioxide.
And, as we've documented in a number of reports, the technologies for economically generating Hydrogen, from Water, are being further developed and becoming more and more efficient.
Among those technologies is that discussed in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Algae Make Hydrogen for Coal and CO2 Hydrogenation | Research & Development; wherein we introduced the topic of utilizing certain strains of algae to generate hydrogen in an inexpensive, energy-efficient and renewable process, via the report:
"'Photosynthetic Hydrogen and Oxygen Production by Green Algae'; E. Greenbaum and J. W. Lee; Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Tennessee; Symposium on Hydrogen Production, Storage and Utilization; American Chemical Society; 1999; USDOE Contract Number: AC05-96OR22464";
and, via one of the United States Patents, awarded to the USDOE, related to the research represented by that report, and which may represent precedent art which motivated the additional research:
"United States Patent 4,442,211 - Method for Producing Hydrogen and Oxygen by Use of Algae; 1984; Inventor: Elias Greenbaum, Oak Ridge, TN; Assignee: The United States of America; Abstract: Efficiency of process for producing H2 by subjecting algae in an aqueous phase to light irradiation is increased by culturing algae which has been bleached during a first period of irradiation in a culture medium in an aerobic atmosphere until it has regained color and then subjecting this algae to a second period of irradiation wherein hydrogen is produced at an enhanced rate".
Herein, we submit much more complete information in the form of a full USDOE report of research and development on the efficient generation of Hydrogen by algae, the distilled essence of which might be represented by the above-cited report to the ACS, "Photosynthetic Hydrogen and Oxygen Production by Green Algae". As seen in excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:
"Renewable Hydrogen Production for Fossil Fuel Processing
1 Mb View Document or Access Individual Pages; DOI: 10.2172/10180379
OSTI ID: 10180379; DOE Contract Number: AC05-84OR21400
Date: September, 1994
Author: Elias Greenbaum
Research Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab., TN; Sponsor: USDOE
Abstract: The objective of this mission-oriented research program is the production of renewable hydrogen for fossil fuel processing. This program will build upon promising results that have been obtained in the Chemical Technology Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory on the utilization of intact microalgae for photosynthetic water splitting. In this process, specially adapted algae are used to perform the light-activated cleavage of water into its elemental constituents, molecular hydrogen and oxygen. The great potential of hydrogen production by microalgal water splitting is predicated on quantitative measurement of their hydrogen-producing capability. These are: (1) the photosynthetic unit size of hydrogen production; (2) the turnover time of photosynthetic hydrogen production; (3) thermodynamic efficiencies of conversion of light energy into the Gibbs free energy of molecular hydrogen; (4) photosynthetic hydrogen production from sea water using marine algae; (5) the original development of an evacuated photobiological reactor for real-world engineering applications; (6) the potential for using modern methods of molecular biology and genetic engineering to maximize hydrogen production. The significance of each of these points in the context of a practical system for hydrogen production is discussed. This program will be enhanced by collaborative research between Oak Ridge National Laboratory and senior faculty members at Duke University, the University of Chicago, and Iowa State University. The special contribution that these organizations and faculty members will make is access to strains and mutants of unicellular algae that will potentially have useful properties for hydrogen production by microalgal water splitting.
The purpose of this project is applied research and development for the design and construction of
a real-world engineering system that is capable of producing renewable hydrogen from water."
------------------------------
We keep our excerpts brief, since, as is usual, the bulk of the report is given over to the report of experiments using highly technical jargon.
The gist is, that, Algae can be grown while being fed, and consuming, "sequestering", Carbon Dioxide. Then, during periods of CO2-deprivation and the adjustment of other environmental factors, the Algae can be made to generate Hydrogen, which can be collected and used, as the title stipulates, for "Fossil Fuel Processing"; "Processing", we submit, like that disclosed in our above-cited report concerning: "US Patent 4,379,744 - Coal Liquefaction Process".
And, one thing about the Algae: As the mass of Algae increases, as we presume it would, and grows beyond the capacity of the Hydrogen producing cultivation facility to hold it all, the excess Algal biomass, comprised in large part of organic compounds photosynthesized from Carbon Dioxide, could be, as indicated in our report of:
West Virginia Coal Association | USDOE Coal + Biomass = Affordable, Low-Carbon Liquid Fuel | Research & Development; concerning the USDOE report: "'Affordable, Low-Carbon Diesel Fuel from Domestic Coal and Biomass'; 2009; DOE/NETL-2009/1349; Energy Systems Engineer Office of Systems, Analyses, and Planning National Energy Technology Laboratory; Executive Summary: The United States of America is currently faced with competing strategic objectives related to energy: energy supply security, economic sustainability, and concerns over global climate change. Coal to Liquids (CTL) is a commercial process which converts coal into diesel fuel (which) diesel fuel is compatible with our current fuel distribution infrastructure, can be used directly in existing diesel vehicles, and would be economically competitive with petroleum-derived diesel when the crude oil price (COP) is equal to or above $86 per barrel (bbl), based on a twenty percent rate of return ... . This same basic process can be used to leverage domestic and widely available biomass (non-food) resources. (It) is anticipated that CTL and CBTL with modest biomass percentages (less than thirty percent by weight) would, as a part of the United States’ energy portfolio, provide a balanced solution to the nation’s transportation fuel dilemma, providing affordable fuels from domestic feedstocks, and enabling significant reductions in GHG emissions. Furthermore, a national commitment to promote the use of CTL and CBTL would have a tremendously positive impact on the economy, creating skilled jobs and reducing the amount of money sent overseas for oil imports, valued at $326 billion in 2007 and between $400 and $500 billion in 2008. Should oil prices resume their upward trend, the benefits of CBTL to the nation could be enormous";
simply added to the Coal in the Coal conversion process, and be therein converted, with the Coal, into liquid hydrocarbons like "diesel fuel"; with the upshot being that much of any CO2 emitted by the "CBTL" process would, in any case, be recycled CO2 to begin with.
Returning to one of our initial references herein, "'Coal-to-liquids' prospects dim, but boosters won't say die", another excerpt reads:
"TransGas' Harris, once a National Energy Technology Laboratory senior engineer, who is working to develop two other CTL sites in Kentucky, says that if more people knew more about coal-to-liquids technology, they would back the effort".
And, that sort of begs the question, doesn't it?
Why, in United States Coal Country, don't "more people" know "about coal-to-liquids technology"?
And, further, what can we do to help correct the situation?