WV Coal Member Meeting 2024 1240x200 1 1

WVU - Coal Liquefaction with Ferric Sulfide

 
 
Herein is reported the results of more research, by West Virginia University, into some rather fine points of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion technology.
 
It's important work, but, in essence, they're just jiggling some atoms and molecules to hone in on the highest-possible efficiencies of coal-to-oil production.
 
An analogy you might draw is that these mechanics already have the engine up and running pretty good, they're just fiddling with carburetor's mix to tweak out a few extra horsepower.
 
A brief note follows the excerpt: 

"Direct Liquefaction of Coal Using Aerosol-Generated Ferric Sulfide Based Mixed-Metal Catalysts

R. K. Sharma, J. S. MacFadden, A. H. Stiller, and D. B. Dadyburjor
[Unable to display image]Department of Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 6102, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6102
 
The activity of aerosol-generated ferric sulfide based mixed-metal catalysts for direct coal liquefaction was studied at 400 °C and nominally 2000 psi hydrogen pressure. Aluminum, cobalt, copper, lead, silver, and tin were used in turn as the second metal. The typical fraction of the second metal was 10 atom % of total metal, although the concentration was varied in some cases. The catalysts were prepared in an aerosol reactor at 250 °C and 70 psi and were characterized in terms of their skeletal density, surface area, pyrrhotite/pyrite ratio, and X-ray diffraction. Of the catalysts tested, only those in which Al (and perhaps Pb) was used as the second metal cause an increase in conversion compared to the iron-alone catalyst. Selectivity to oil-range products is higher for catalysts containing Ag, Co, Cu, or Pb than for the iron-alone catalyst and is highest for the Fe−Pb−S catalyst. Hence, the Fe−Pb−S catalyst appears to be the one most suitable. The relative size of the ions of the second metal may be important for the performance of the catalyst. These aerosol-generated catalysts are slightly less active (in overall conversion) than the corresponding catalysts impregnated in situ in coal but are slightly more selective (to oil-range products)."
 
Again, they're just tweaking the process, and there's nothing too exotic in the mix, with the very minor exception of silver, which apparently doesn't work that well, anyway. The Fe-Pb-S catalyst, which seems to be the best, is just a combination of iron and lead sulfides - which are relatively common and naturally-occurring minerals that won't break the bank.
 
We submit this just as more evidence that the processes of converting our abundant coal into needed liquid fuel are well-developed and well-understood.