We submit this as further evidence that the science of converting our coal into much-needed liquid fuels is advanced, even sophisticated. We had earlier alerted you to some process refinements which supported that concept, and herein is yet another.
We became alerted to this particular issue in our research by frequent mention of molybdenum as a component of CTL processes.
The excerpt:
| Title;Improvement of Coal Liquefaction Process by Using the Ultra Fine Particles of Molybdenum Sulfide. |
| Author;KURIKI YASUNORI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) UCHIDA KUNIO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) OSHIMA SATOSHI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) YUMURA MOTOO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) IKAZAKI FUMIKAZU(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.) |
| Journal Title;Journal of Japan Society for Safety Engineering |
"Abstract;Coal derived oil is produced by the reaction of hydrogen and coal slurry which is mixture of pulverized coal, recycle solvent and catalyst particles. In the coal liquefaction equipment, the slurry causes erosion of the valves and blockage of the pipeline. The following were carried out as a prevention: design change of equipments and improvement on operation technology. The erosion is thought to be caused by the ash of coal and the hard particles of iron used as a catalyst. Therefore, the effect of the use of ultra fine particles of soft molybdenum sulfide instead of the use of pyrite particles as a iron catalyst was investigated. The control of the erosion of the valves was expected. This molybdenum sulfide catalyst showed the high activity and the generation of carbon dioxide using this catalyst was suppressed. We think this catalyst improve the process of the coal liquefaction."
We're down, to the fine-tuning point of controlling internal erosion of coal-to-liquid conversion equipment; and, as a bonus, we get some conversion efficiencies that reduce co-generation of carbon dioxide.
As we've said before, of other developments we've reported to you, this is pretty detailed and sophisticated stuff. Coal-to-Liquid conversion technology is much further advanced, much more efficient and more highly "developed", than we, the "public", know, have been allowed to know.
An excerpt:
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
Look, you know our stance on CO2 - it can, and should be, captured and recycled. The technology exists to do that, as we have documented in our posts. CO2 could be, and should be, seen as a valuable by-product of coal-use processes, a resource we shouldn't waste.