We have previously brought some of the coal liquefaction technology accomplishments of Consol Energy to your attention.
Some of what we report in this, and another report on Consol's Coal-to-Liquids developments soon to follow, might be redundant.
But, some will not. And, the truth of viable coal liquefaction technology needs repeated until it is not just acknowledged, but, for the greater good of the United States of America, implemented.
Herein, in a recent report, one from this century at least, compiled under contract for, and made to, the United States Department of Energy, Consol records and defines a number of the coal liquefaction technologies developed in the United States during the latter half of the last century.
The excerpt, with some comment interspersed and appended:
"SUMMARY REPORT OF THE DOE DIRECT LIQUEFACTION PROCESS DEVELOPMENT CAMPAIGN OF THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY
July 2001
DOE Contract DE-AC22-94PC93054
Contributors:
F. P. Burke
S. D. Brandes
D. C. McCoy
R. A. Winschel
CONSOL Energy Inc.
Research & Development
4000 Brownsville Road
South Park, PA 15129-9566
S. D. Brandes
D. C. McCoy
R. A. Winschel
CONSOL Energy Inc.
Research & Development
4000 Brownsville Road
South Park, PA 15129-9566
- and
D. Gray
G. Tomlinson
Mitretek Systems
7525 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102-7400
Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
(It was "sponsored by ... the US Government". That's us, ain't it? "By the People and For the People", and all of that. How come all of us US tax-paying People in US Coal Country didn't get a copy of this "SUMMARY" in our US Mail boxes? And, did any of us US tax-paying People in US Coal Country even know there was such as thing as a US "DOE DIRECT LIQUEFACTION PROCESS DEVELOPMENT CAMPAIGN OF THE LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY"? Why not? - JtM)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter 2 -AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DOE DIRECT COAL LIQUEFACTION PROGRAM, 1976-2000
(Note: For a quarter of a century, there was a US "DOE DIRECT COAL LIQUEFACTION PROGRAM".)
Chapter 3 - SRC-II PROCESS
Chapter 4 - H-COAL PROCESS
Chapter 5 -LUMMUS INTEGRATED TWO-STAGE LIQUEFACTION PROGRAM
Chapter 6 - WILSONVILLE TWO-STAGE LIQUEFACTION PROGRAM 53
Chapter 7 - HYDROCARBON RESEARCH, INC./HYDROCARBON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. TWO-STAGE LIQUEFACTION PROGRAM
Chapter 8 -SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF CONSOL'S PROCESS DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM
ABSTRACT
Following the petroleum price and supply disruptions of 1973, the U.S. government began a substantial program to fund the development of alternative fuels. Direct coal liquefaction was one of the potential routes to alternative fuels. The direct coal liquefaction program was funded at substantial levels through 1982, and at much lower levels thereafter. Those processes that were of most interest during this period were designed to produce primarily distillate fuels. By 1999, U.S. government funding for the development of direct coal liquefaction ended. Now that the end of this campaign has arrived, it is appropriate to summarize the process learnings derived from it. This report is a summary of the process learnings derived from the DOE direct coal liquefaction process development campaign of the late twentieth century. The report concentrates on those process development programs that were designed to produce primarily distillate fuels and were largely funded by DOE and its predecessors in response to the petroleum supply and price disruptions of the 1970s. The report is structured as chapters written by different authors on most of the major individual DOE-funded process development programs. The focus of the report is process learnings, as opposed to, say, fundamental coal liquefaction science or equipment design. As detailed in the overview (Chapter 2), DOE’s direct coal liquefaction campaign made substantial progress in improving the process yields and the quality of the distillate product. Much of the progress was made after termination by 1983 of the major demonstration programs of the "first generation" (SRC-II, H-Coal, EDS) processes.
Following the petroleum price and supply disruptions of 1973, the U.S. government began a substantial program to fund the development of alternative fuels. Direct coal liquefaction was one of the potential routes to alternative fuels. The direct coal liquefaction program was funded at substantial levels through 1982, and at much lower levels thereafter. Those processes that were of most interest during this period were designed to produce primarily distillate fuels. By 1999, U.S. government funding for the development of direct coal liquefaction ended. Now that the end of this campaign has arrived, it is appropriate to summarize the process learnings derived from it. This report is a summary of the process learnings derived from the DOE direct coal liquefaction process development campaign of the late twentieth century. The report concentrates on those process development programs that were designed to produce primarily distillate fuels and were largely funded by DOE and its predecessors in response to the petroleum supply and price disruptions of the 1970s. The report is structured as chapters written by different authors on most of the major individual DOE-funded process development programs. The focus of the report is process learnings, as opposed to, say, fundamental coal liquefaction science or equipment design. As detailed in the overview (Chapter 2), DOE’s direct coal liquefaction campaign made substantial progress in improving the process yields and the quality of the distillate product. Much of the progress was made after termination by 1983 of the major demonstration programs of the "first generation" (SRC-II, H-Coal, EDS) processes.
(Note, as we have previously documented, and questioned: "The direct coal liquefaction program was funded at substantial levels through 1982, and at much lower levels thereafter. ... By 1999, U.S. government funding for the development of direct coal liquefaction ended." Why? That, we insist, is a question someone should be held responsible "by the People" for answering.)
INTRODUCTION
R. A. Winschel - CONSOL Energy Inc.
DOE has completed a 25-year campaign to develop direct coal liquefaction technologies for the production of liquid transportation fuels. This campaign was successful in greatly improving and expanding liquefaction technology. However, it was not successful in making the technology the basis for a commercial business, partially because the prices of conventional petroleum fuels did not rise during the 1980s and 1990s to the levels originally anticipated in the mid- and late 1970s. The general consensus of industry and government is that direct liquefaction technology will not be needed, nor will it be competitive with conventional fuels, for the foreseeable future. Therefore, although it may be appropriate to continue the development program at a modest level, a major development program such as that conducted during the last 25 years of the century is no longer justified. Nevertheless, it is possible that direct liquefaction will contribute to the world’s hydrocarbon demand at some time in the future, as a source of liquid fuels, petrochemicals, or both. When it is appropriate in the future to begin a new development campaign, it is likely that few, if any, of those individuals deeply involved in the recent campaign will take part. As the current campaign closes, it is important that the lessons learned are identified and documented for the future while the community memory remains fresh.
(Read that preceding paragraph carefully, and consider: What were the prices of petroleum going to do, but go up? Maybe they didn't make it to "anticipated" levels in the "1980s and 1990s", but they were going to get there sooner or later, weren't they? And, wouldn't you be willing to bet they're there now? And, have "the lessons learned" been "documented"? What "community memory"? We're the "community", aren't we? Do youweren't told about any of it.)
remember any of it? Us, neither. Because we
remember any of it? Us, neither. Because we
This is a DOE-funded report and the focus will be on DOE-funded direct coal liquefaction technology development programs.
(In other words: There are others, too, that none of us has heard about, including anything related to the already-known derivatives of Fischer-Tropsch indirect coal liquefaction technology, which was at that time, and still is, being employed on a nationwide scale in South Africa to produce their liquid fuels from their domestic coal, because this study and this report, for whatever unfathomable reason, limited itself only to "direct coal liquefaction technologies", as above.)
It will be limited to those programs that meet the following criteria:
• They were funded by DOE and were primarily American programs.
• They were conducted during the last 25 years, largely in response to the OPEC actions.
• They were designed to produce primarily distillate liquids.
• They used coal as the only principal feedstock.
• They were developed to the continuous bench-scale or larger-scale operations.
• They were conducted during the last 25 years, largely in response to the OPEC actions.
• They were designed to produce primarily distillate liquids.
• They used coal as the only principal feedstock.
• They were developed to the continuous bench-scale or larger-scale operations.
The process development programs that meet these criteria include:
• SRC-II Program
• H-Coal Program
• Lummus Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• Wilsonville Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• HRI/HTI Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• Exxon Donor Solvent Program
• University of Kentucky Advanced Liquefaction Concepts Program
• SRC-II Program
• H-Coal Program
• Lummus Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• Wilsonville Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• HRI/HTI Two-Stage Liquefaction Program
• Exxon Donor Solvent Program
• University of Kentucky Advanced Liquefaction Concepts Program
(So, at least seven coal liquefaction technologies were under active development during that quarter century. Not mentioned is West Virginia University's "West Virginia" direct coal liquefaction "Process", which, as we much earlier documented, the Chinese appear to be seeking international patents on; likely, we are led by our research to suspect, because it would obviously work well.)
Certain process development programs do not meet the criteria to fit the scope of this report. Thus, the NEDO and British Coal processes are not included, even though DOE provided some minor level of support. Project Gasoline (Cresap) and many early programs are not included, because they were conducted before the OPEC actions. SRC-I is not included, because it was designed to produce primarily a solid fuel. Coal/petroleum and coal/waste co-processing technologies are not included as general topics because coal is not the only principal feedstock.
(How narrow, how short-sighted, how deliberately targeted on failure could we be? They didn't even mention Sasol who were, at the time of this review, profitably making large amounts of liquid fuel from Coal, in South Africa, using an indirect conversion technology. We contend this review, if not deliberately targeted on failure, was at least constrained so that the full, true commercial potentials of Coal-to-liquid conversion technology would be, in effect, suppressed.)
The DOE direct liquefaction program produced a surprisingly mature technology. The intensive effort between 1976 and 1982 (Phase I), when 90% of the program funds were expended, resulted in a demonstration of the technical feasibility of the major process components. The Phase I processes, however, were deficient in terms of product yield and quality. This stimulated further research and development work between 1983 and 1999 (Phase II). The Phase II work was significantly less costly than the earlier demonstration projects, but resulted in substantial improvements in process performance and economics.
(NOTE the following.)
It now is possible to produce liquids of high quality at yields that approach the theoretical maximum. At the same time, the cost for a barrel of product dropped by 50%, because of process optimization and increased yields. Economic and engineering studies conducted throughout Phase II have reduced the uncertainty and, therefore, the risk associated with commercial deployment of the technology.
The current technology is well defined in terms of cost and performance. It represents a technically available option for the production of liquid fuels. It can be used domestically in the United States to limit our exposure to oil price increases in the international market or to offset supply reductions.
It can be used with coal alone, or to co-process a variety of lower value feedstocks. The results of the DOE program allow direct coal liquefaction
to be accurately assessed in context to the costs and risks associated with other options for securing liquid fuel supplies should the need arise."
to be accurately assessed in context to the costs and risks associated with other options for securing liquid fuel supplies should the need arise."
----------
We submit for you that the need has arisen. And, that: "It now is possible to produce liquids of high quality" from Coal, using a "technology (that) is well defined in terms of cost and performance ... to limit our exposure to oil price increases in the international market or to offset supply reductions".
The price of oil has increased, and the supply has, seemingly, been reduced. About time "to limit our exposure", ain't it?