Let's Chemically Recycle CO2

 
We've thoroughly documented that CO2, which arises, in a small way relative to natural sources, from our use of coal, can be, on a practical basis, captured and recycled into more liquid fuels and raw materials for our plastics and pharmaceutical industries.
 
Paul Sabatier was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, early in the last century, for demonstrating the basis of that fact by converting CO2 into methane.
 
Herein, yet another Nobel Laureate, whom we've cited previously in this respect, makes the simple, sensible, suggestion:
 
""Let's Chemically Recycle CO2" - by George Olah (as reprinted in Businessworld.) 
 
Methanol provides renewable fuels and synthetic hydrocarbon products, while stemming global warming
 
Our ancestors discovered fire and burned wood. The industrial revolution was fuelled by coal. The twentieth century added oil and natural gas to the mix.

When such fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity, to heat our houses or propel our cars and airplanes, they release carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). They are also non-renewable on the human time-scale.

The scientific challenge is to reverse this process, by making hydrocarbon fuels and products through chemically recycling spent CO2 into a convenient fuel called methanol.

This process would, in effect, mimic the natural process of photosynthesis, which, using the energy of the Sun, recycles CO2 and water into new plant life. It would also produce new hydrocarbon sources on the short human time-scale, since plant life turns into fossil fuel over hundreds of millions of years.

The ‘methanol economy’ made possible by this process can eventually liberate mankind from its dependence on diminishing oil, natural gas and coal reserves while mitigating global warming caused by their excessive combustion — producing CO2.

Methanol is an excellent fuel for transportation. It is also adequate for fuel cells, which are capable of producing energy in reaction with atmospheric oxygen.

Methanol produced on a large scale will be also able to replace oil and natural gas to produce synthetic hydrocarbon and products such as plastics, which we are so used to.

For now, methanol can be efficiently produced from still-existing sources of natural gas or coal. New approaches, now in development, would allow chemical recycling of CO2 from the exhaust gases of fossil-fuel-burning power plants and other industrial or natural sources.

The emissions of fossil-fuel-burning power plants and chemical plants contain high concentrations of carbon dioxide. Because the large amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere contribute greatly to global warming, it is now generally agreed that it must be captured and stored through the presently proposed process called sequestration. But, rather than simply sequestering CO2, chemical recycling would be more innovative. Water can provide the required hydrogen for converting CO2 to methanol using any energy source. Eventually, atmospheric CO2 can be recycled, using catalytic or electrochemical processes. I am optimistic for the future. Humankind is an ingenious species, which always seems to find ways of overcoming adversities and challenges. In the coming decades, we must face the fact that our nature-given, non-renewable fossil fuel resources are finite and diminishing, while both our population and consumption are growing.

If we wish to continue living at a comparable or even higher standard of living as we do today, while not further endangering our environment, we need to develop new solutions starting now. Regulations and energy savings, however sensible they may be, cannot solve our problems on their own. Certainly, we can extend our oil and gas reserves through more economical use with conservation and fuel-efficient technologies, particularly in the transportation sector (such as hybrid engines and fuel cells).

In reality, mankind will have to rely on all possible solutions available. By replacing the ‘petroleum economy’, the ‘methanol economy’ holds great promise for the future. After all, the inescapable reality is that we live in a carbon-based global environment.

Nature has shown us its own way to sustain itself in that environment by recycling CO2 into new plant life.
Human activities, however, increasingly seem to affect nature’s own way. Scientific advance now allows us to reverse this: supplement nature with mankind’s own alternative.

(c) 2007 Nobel Laureates Plus.
Distributed By Tribune Media Services, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Olah, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1994. His most recent book, written with Alain Goeppert and G.K. Surya Prakash, is Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy."

We did highlight one passage, above, almost as an aside: "methanol can be efficiently produced from still-existing sources of ... coal".

We wanted to make certain that was clear. Even though this article is about recycling CO2 into methanol, this Nobel Laureate states unequivocally that "methanol can be efficiently produced from ... coal".

And, once we have methanol, we can, as through ExxonMobil's "MTG(r) Process", convert it into gasoline, and, as Olah suggests, more permanently sequester it, by replacing petroleum feed stocks "to produce synthetic ... products such as plastics."

Instead of wasting a lot of money to pump it all down leaky geologic storage rat holes, "Let's Chemically Recycle CO2"

"Burying CO2 Ridiculous" - Penn State University

 
We want to point out, subsequent to our recent exchange of love notes with the Texas Big Oil contingent, that this enclosed item, about an obviously, to us, sensible suggestion made by a Penn State University scientist, was published in a Texas newspaper.
 
We've cited PSU's Craig Grimes, on the subject of CO2 recycling and carbon conversion, previously, as well as a few of his Penn State colleagues, most notably Dr. Chunsan Song. In fact, in following dispatches, we'll document even further some of Dr. Song's sensible presentations on CO2 recycling.
 
But, first, the excerpt from Houston, revealing Penn State's radically sensible stance on the matter of CO2:

"Radical idea: Why not convert carbon dioxide into fuel?

A recent study in the journal Nano Letters  discusses the possibility of using special honeycombs made of nanotubes to capture carbon dioxide and convert it into methane, the primary component in natural gas.

This is what you call making lemonade out of lemons. ... we've got all this extra carbon dioxide coming out of smokestacks. Some researchers are now asking, Hey, maybe this is actually a natural resource that we can put to work for us.

An article in Discovery News quotes the study's lead author, Craig Grimes:

"Right now there is lots of talk about burying carbon dioxide, which is ridiculous," said Craig Grimes of Penn State, who, along with Oomman Varghese, Maggie Paulose and Thomas LaTempa, co-authored a paper on the nanotubes in the journal Nano Letters. "Instead we can collect the waste out of the smoke stack, put it though a converter, and presto, use sunlight to change [CO2] back into fuel.""

When sunlight hits the copper oxide, carbon dioxide is converted into carbon monoxide. When sunlight hits the titanium oxide, water molecules split apart. The hydrogen freed from the water and the carbon freed from CO2 then recombine to create burnable methane, and the spare oxygen atoms pair up to create breathable oxygen.""

Again, in case you missed it: "burying carbon dioxide ... is ridiculous".

Sequestering CO2 as Liquid Fuel

 
 
Again we return to what seems an issue of contention among some of our readers. But, the reasoning behind the concept of recycling the carbon dioxide by-product of our coal use, as opposed to, at great expense, attempting to stuff it all down leaky geologic storage rat holes, seems so self-evident to us that we can't abstain from dwelling on it.
 
Our excerpt, below, from the enclosed link and attached file is lengthy, and we haven't attempted to edit it very much. But, it is well-worth a careful read.
 
You will find within it some concepts that we have touched on previously. One, which shouldn't escape you, is the proposal that, yes, we should harness environmental energy; but, we could use that wind or water power as a means to capture and recycle carbon dioxide into a more portable energy storage medium - such as methanol.
 
The authors of this report refer to such practice as the "chemical storage of renewable energy". Such "chemical storage" media would also be a lot more portable, and a lot more versatile, as well.
 
Remember: Once methanol has been synthesized from carbon dioxide, and from hydrogen electrolyzed from water, using wind, water or solar power, it can be further processed, as we have amply documented, into gasoline and plastics.
 
The same is true of ethanol, as well, again as we have documented. And, ethanol, too, as these United Kingdom scientists reveal, and as we have also thoroughly documented, can be directly synthesized from carbon dioxide, without wasting food crops, and a great deal of additional energy, and creating more carbon dioxide, through the processes of fermentation and distillation.
 
Another point they make, but somewhat obliquely, is that there is a huge energy cost involved in capturing carbon dioxide from flue gas for the purposes of geologic sequestration. And, remember, these researchers are very close to the North Sea oil field. They touch on that subject lightly, though, as we have also been "encouraged" to do.
 
Without further comment, the excerpt follows. Everyone in US Coal Country should read it carefully, and ponder all of the implications; the main one being, from our point of view, that carbon dioxide, as arises in part from our use of coal, is a valuable raw material resource. We shouldn't be fooled into allowing it to be hijacked from us, and we shouldn't allow our vital, critically important, coal industries to be taxed out of existence because they produce it for us. We can use it.
 
 
SQUARING THE CIRCLE: SEQUESTRATION OF CO2 AS LIQUID FUEL
 
Dimitri.Mignard and Colin Pritchard
 
Institute for Energy Systems, University of Edinburgh, UK
 
ABSTRACT
 
The case for using CO2 as a feedstock to fix electrolytic hydrogen is presented. Advantages include the avoidance of small scale reforming and associated un-recovered CO2 emissions for the production of hydrogen; the possibility for a large penetration of renewable generators of variable output into the electricity grid; and the production of clean fuel utilising CO2 emissions. A preliminary analysis based on integrated
heat balances indicates that the methanol-to-gasoline process uses less energy than the production of methanol or ethanol fuel.
 
WHY USE CO2 AS RAW MATERIAL FOR FUEL?
 
1. Challenges for the attainment of a high proportion of wind and marine power -
 
The long term-necessity for the world economy is to achieve a sustainable pattern of energy use. In Britain, a significant contribution is expected from resources such as wind and wave power, but the intermittency and variability of these sources limits their penetration into existing electricity grids to a maximum of 15-20%. Besides power conditioning, there are issues of continuity of supply, and of matching demand and supply. For example, Denmark met 14% of its 33 TWh/yr internal electricity demand from wind in 2002, but the variability of this supply meant it had to import 8.94 TWh from neighbouring countries, and export 11.01 TWh [1]. For a country such as Britain, the Danish example would suggest that a contribution of 14% from wind power in the future would make available at least 115 TWh of additional electricity. Continuity of supply can also be a serious issue, since imports may not be an option for Britain at times of supply shortage. Within this context, the chemical storage of electrical power appears to be an attractive option for the supply of fuels or power back-up.
 
2. Chemical storage of renewable energy – large scale, seasonal or remote production - 

Electrolysis of water is an established technology for producing hydrogen fuel from electricity, but centralised production, storage and distribution of H2 on a large scale or for long periods may be very costly. In Britain, where a high proportion of renewable energy is expected to come from remote locations on islands or at sea, the production of a liquid fuel could be more convenient than hydrogen for shipping to the mainland. The decentralised production of H2 on the mainland using the electricity grid (e.g. with electrolysis at vehicle refuelling stations) has been proposed, but the very large infrastructure cost suggests that this scheme would not be able to develop in the short timescale required to reduce CO2 emissions. It would require network management and control of the hydrogen production, in order to avoid using grid electricity
when it is needed elsewhere. More importantly, hydrogen vehicles and appliances would have to be as economical as conventional ones, with ubiquituous refuelling stations.
 
3. Recycling of CO2 as hydrogen carrier fuel -

Meanwhile, it is usually assumed that the expansion of the “hydrogen economy” will rely on decentralised fossil-fuel reforming for the production of hydrogen. This option would lead to the generation of considerable quantities of CO2 which could be difficult to collect. On the other hand, the development of electrolytic capacity would need to be given a head start if a truly sustainable energy economy is to emerge within 30 years. Perhaps a worthwhile approach would be to shift some of the emphasis away from the ‘demand’ side of the future hydrogen economy, and to generate truly “zero emission” fuels over a timescale of years rather than decades.
 
A possible solution is the centralised production of electrolytic hydrogen, to be used on-site in the synthesis of a liquid fuel (hydrocarbon or alcohol) from recycled CO2. Such a fuel could be readily used in existing distribution networks, appliances and vehicles. This scheme would permit a substantial penetration of renewable power and deliver large cuts in CO2 emissions, on a short timescale. The CENS project, which
involves the UK, Denmark and Norway (government bodies and companies), is currently planning a CO2 infrastructure in and around the North Sea for sequestration and EOR. 29 Mt/yr of CO2 would come from coal-fired power stations in the UK and Denmark [2].
 
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW: ELECTROLYSIS AND RECYCLED CO2 FOR THE PRODUCTION OF FUELS
 
1. Electrolysis using variable and intermittent current Recent developments have made available on the market alkaline electrolysers that can operate at 25 or 30 bar ([3] and [4], resp.), and in intermittent or variable conditions. Appropriate industrial electrodes can be found that do not need a protective voltage in these conditions [5]. Advanced designs for alkaline pressure electrolysers include the IMET® technology, which is commercialised by Stuart Energy for capacities up to 1MW ([3] and [6]), and the Pressure Module Electrolyser (PME) technology, which is being developed by a consortium including MTU-Friedrichshafen, Norsk Hydro, and PMT (Prime Membrane Technology, Belgium) [4]. The PME technology is at the demonstration stage [4]. Both technologies do not require lye pumps, and use separate catholyte and anolyte streams preventing any mixing of O2 and H2, an advantage for operation at low load. The modular construction of the PME pressurised shell allows the electrolyser to be scalable beyond several MW [7]. Capital costs for the PME electrolyser are 500 Euro/kW installed or less [4].
 

Anglesey Wind and Electricity Ltd (AWEL) is promoting electrolysis as a ‘dispatchable’ load for grid power management [8]. The technology may help electricity suppliers to offset any excess production caused by the unpredictability of embedded generation and intermittent power sources. Following the Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC), electricity providers in Britain are charged for any imbalance between supply and demand on the National Grid. In a favourable case (detailed on the company website, [8]) AWEL claims that a 10MW electrolysis plant can produce 5.84 MNm3/yr H2, and make £1,350,000 from a licence fee and industrial sales of the hydrogen. This shows that the cost of power may actually be negative in a grid management context.

 
2. CO2 recovery

The CENS project claims a cost of 35 $/t for CO2 recovered from flue-gas, which represents ca. $ 33 /t CO2 after subtracting the CAPEX of the 1500 km pipeline [2]. This cost is kept low due to the use of high-pressure, superheated steam at the reboiler of the CO2 amine-absorption stripper, and the exclusive use of existing ‘ultra clean’ flue-gas at 14-16% CO2 from a coal-fired power station which has heat co-generation for district heating. Energy consumption may be improved further with the flue-gas scrubbing technology and the KS-1 solvent that were developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (MHI), and Kansai Electric Company (KEPCO) [9]. A 160 tCO2/day plant in Malaysia has been using the KS-1 solvent since 1999. Solvent consumption there is 0.35 kg/t of CO2 recovered, with solvent stability over at least 5,700 hours; LP steam consumption is 1.5t per t CO2 recovered, which compares to 2.7 t with the Kerr-McGee/ABB Lummus Global process [10].

3. Fuel synthesis
The following three options were considered:

 
3.1. Process A. Methanol synthesis

Methanol synthesis from pure CO2 has been shown to be feasible on existing Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 catalysts used for making methanol from synthesis gas [11], according to the reaction CO2 + 3H2 7 CH3OH + H2O(g) (1) DH298K, 1bar = - 49.16 kJ/mol The observed equilibrium yield when using CO2 + 3H2 was ca. 22% for methanol, due to the inhibitory effect of the water product. Deactivation of the catalyst by water is known to be a problem, but better catalysts have been developed. For instance, Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Al2O3/Ga2O3 showed excellent longevity, selectivity and activity [12]. Its space-time-yield was stable at 600 g MeOH/l(catalyst)/h after 2500 hours, 46% better than for a commercial Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 [12]. Mignard et al. [13] modelled the adiabatic operation of a tubular reactor with ICI 51-2 catalyst (Cu/ZnO/Al2O3). Modelling for a minimum 99% yield predicted minimum compression requirements (including recycle) at 227oC, 30 bar; recycle ratio of 7.9.
3.2. Process B. Ethanol synthesis

Ethanol has the advantage that it is less toxic than methanol, and could be handled more safely by the general public. However, the reactor may ‘run away’ and requires cooling with careful control. The reactions are CO2 + H2 7 CO + H2O(g) (2) DH298K, 1bar = 41.21 kJ/mol of C 2CO + 4H2 7 CH3CH2OH(g) + H2O(g) (3) DH298K,1bar = - 256.1 kJ/mol ethanol Until recently, reaction (3) was not possible with good yields or good selectivity. However, Pearsons Technologies Inc. (PTI) [14, 15] now claims the invention of a Fischer-Tropsch catalyst capable of converting synthesis gas to ethanol with a yield of 99+% to ethanol after recycle the single pass conversion was 15-60%, depending on the conditions. It is claimed that the process and catalyst can be adapted to run at temperatures and pressures typical of methanol processes [14], although higher pressures and temperatures are favourable. Details on the composition of a synthesis gas feedstock could be found in [16]: 51.1% H2, 23.7% CO, 17.1% CO2, and 6.3% CH4. This indicates that a ratio CO2 /(CO2+CO) of 42% is acceptable, and that the catalyst must have a strong reverse Water-Gas Shift (WGS) activity. The light ends were returned to the reactor [14,15]. The Pearson process is marketed by Kwikpower Inc. under the name KPI Ethxx, Ethxx being the owner of PTI in 2001 [17]. PTI has built and operated a 50 t/day pilot plant processing woodwaste to produce ethanol in Aberdeen, North Mississippi[14]. A reverse Water-Gas-shift reactor may be needed if the feedstock is pure CO2. A Cu/ZnO/ZrO2/Ga2O3 catalyst for reverse WGS was proposed [18]. Using the table provided by these authors, it was found that operating the RWGS reactor at 400oC, 30 bars and no recycle would permit a ratio CO2/(CO2+CO) of 61%.

3.3. Process C. Methanol to gasoline (MTG)

Methanol reacts on the ZSM-5 zeolite catalyst to produce DME, which then gives hydrocarbons with up to ten carbon atoms [19]. The Mobil fluid bed process demonstrated in Wesseling, Germany, was able to produce 15.9 m3/day of gasoline. 99+% methanol was converted to 88% gasoline, 6.4% LPG and 5.6% fuel gas when operating at 413oC and 2.75 bar. The feed was raw methanol with 27% mol. water and 73% mol.
methanol. The heat evolved was 1.74 MJ/kg methanol, recovered through heating oil tubes immersed within the bed. [19].

METHODOLOGY

The processes were compared according to their overall net energy requirements. A preliminary heat integration was carried out, and then the need for additional high grade heat for product purification was compared with that made available from the reaction. The feed was taken to be CO2 + 3H2 at 30 bar, 25oC. Methanol product was fuel grade at 98% wt, while ethanol was also fuel grade at 99.4%. In process B, a reverse water-gas-shift reactor was operated at 30 bar, 500oC inlet and 383oC outlet, CO2 conversion 39% and no recycle. The ethanol reactor was operated at 30 bars, 500oC inlet and 570oC outlet, CO conversion was 30%, and the reverse WGS reaction was assumed to maintain the CO2/CO ratio constant. Ethanol separation was first effected at atmospheric pressure to yield a 90% azeotropic condensate, which was sent to a drying unit. In process C, the gaseous product from process A was partly condensed to yield a 40% mol. methanol feed for distillation, and the remainder of the gas was separately condensed to yield a 73% methanol liquid. Distillation to upgrade the 40% product to 73% may be carried out in one stage. This scheme saved up to a third of the reboiler duty, and two thirds of the MTG reactor feed vaporisation duty. A debutaniser column was also required to separate the light gases from the raw product.
 
DISCUSSION
 
The methanol process was not producing much surplus high-grade heat, due to the lower heat of reaction. The ethanol process generated more heat, but demanded more energy for distillation. The MTG process seemed to need no net heat input, due to its integration with the methanol process, and reduced distillation loads. In all cases, the extraction of CO2 using amine technology was not considered and would require 10.95 kWh/kmol (CO2 + H2 ) feed.
 
CONCLUSION
 
The methanol to gasoline process seemed the most promising candidate from the point of view of heat inputs. Future work will look at the integration of this scheme with a fossil-fuel power technology requiring the less energy for CO2 extraction, in particular the chemical looping process.
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 
EPSRC funded this work through the SUPERGEN marine energy research consortium.
 
REFERENCES
 
1. Danish Energy Authority, Energy in Denmark. 2002, http://www.ens.dk
2. Markussen P., J.M. Austell, C.-W. Hustad. 2003. A CO2 infrastructure for EOR in the North Sea (CENS): macroeconomic implications for host countries, Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, GHGT6, Kyoto, J. Gale and Y. Kaya Eds., Pergamon, Vol. II: 1077-1082
3. Stuart Energy website. Accessed 06/2004. http://stuartenergy.com
4. European Commission. 2003. EUR 20718 - European and Fuel Cell Projects 1999-2002, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities p. 90
5. EUHYFIS website. Accessed 06/2004. http://www.euhyfis.com/indexgb2.html?/konzept.html~mainFrame
6. Vandenborre H. 2002. High Pressure Electrolyser Module, Patent EP0995818
7. Kliem E. 1995. Dispositif d’électrolyse (sous pression) en structure modulaire, Linde AG patent FR2710076
8. AWEL website, accessed 06/2004. http://www.anglesey-wind.co.uk/HydrogenSystems/Index1.htm
9. Iijima M. and T. Kamijo. 2003. Flue gas CO2 recovery and compression cost study for CO2 enhanced oil recovery, GHGT6, Kyoto, Vol. I: 109-114
10. CO2 Recovery. April 2000. Hydrocarbon Processing, April 2000, p. 63.
11. Sahibzada M., I.S. Metcalfe and D. Chadwick. 1998. Methanol synthesis from CO/CO2/H2 over Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 at differential and finite conversion, Journal of Catalysis, 74: 111-118
12. NEDO and RITE. 1998. Project of CO2 fixation and utilization using catalytic hydrogenation reaction, , report obtained from NEDO, Japan
13. Mignard D., M. Sahibzada, J. Duthie, and H.W. Whittington. 2003. Methanol synthesis from flue-gas CO2 and renewable electricity: a feasibility study, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 28: 455-464
14. Pearson S.R. 2001. The manufacture of synthetic gas and ethanol from biomass using the Pearson thermo-chemical steam reforming and catalytic conversion processes, 5th International Biomass Conference of the Americas, Sept. 17-21 2001, Orlando, USA
15. Pearson S.R. 2003. The manufacture of synthesis gas from biomass and production of alcohols and electric power using the Pearson thermo-chemical steam reforming and catalytic conversion processes, Poster Presentation 5-18, 25th Biotechnology Symposium, Breckenridge, Colorado May 4-7 2003, http://www.nrel.gov/biotech_symposium/session5_pp.html
16. Vantine B. 2004. Pearson technologies is making ethyl alcohol from “almost anything” a reality. Presented at the New Mexico Green Fuels Symposium, Santa Fe Community College, May 12-13, 2004, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ECMD/html/ 
17. Kwikpower Inc. website, http://www.kwikpower.com, flowsheet is ©2000
18. Joo O.-S., K.D. Jung, I. Moon, A.Y. Rozovskii, G.I. Lin, S.H. Han, and S.J. Uhm. 1999. Carbon Dioxide Hydrogenation to form methanol via a reverse-water-gas-shift reaction (the CAMERE process), Industrial Engineering and Chemistry Research, 38: 1808-1812
19. Keil F.J. 1999. Methanol-to-hydrocarbons: process technology, Microporous & Mesoporous Materials, 29: 49-66

USDOE Coal Liquefaction Progress Report

 

 
We aren't even going to edit the format of the US Department of Energy's presentation of this, the "Cooperative research in coal liquefaction. Technical progress report, May 1, 1993--April 30, 1994"  synopsis, in the following excerpt from the above link.
 
As with other USDOE reports confirming the validity of coal liquefaction technology to which we've alerted you, the size of the full text file, comprising 333 pages, from our US Government, reporting on the refinement of coal liquefaction technology, is far beyond our limited technical capacity to download and manage.
 
Allow us, though, some forewords excerpted from the Abstract:
 
"Accomplishments for the past year are ... coliquefaction of coal with waste materials; catalysts for coal liquefaction to clean transportation fuels ... (and) ... very promising results have been obtained from the liquefaction of plastics, rubber tires, paper and other wastes, and the coliquefaction of wastes with coal."
 
"Very promising results .. from ... wastes, and ... coal."
 
The full report, printed and bound, should have been mailed to every taxpaying citizen in US Coal Country; or, serialized and provided as a Sunday supplement in every Coal Country newspaper every week for a year - during just one of the fifteen-plus years that we have been suffering extortion at the hands of liquid fuel suppliers since this report was "published".
 
And, note yet again: We aren't trying to figure out how to make liquid fuels from coal. We already know how to do it. We are figuring out how to do it better than we've been able to do it before. But, wouldn't almost any way we could make our needed liquid fuels, out of our abundant domestic coal, be better than what we have now, where we're being held in unhealthy economic bondage, by less-than-friendly petroleum powers?
 
Details and links follow.
 
 
Text
pdf 40 Mb   View Full Text or Access Individual Pages  -   search, view and/or download individual pages
loading...
DOI 10.2172/10187871
Title Cooperative research in coal liquefaction. Technical progress report, May 1, 1993--April 30, 1994
Creator/Author Huffman, G.P. [ed.]
Publication Date 1994 Oct 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 10187871; Legacy ID: DE95001177
Report Number(s) DOE/PC/93053--T2
DOE Contract Number FC22-93PC93053
DOI 10.2172/10187871
Other Number(s) Other: ON: DE95001177; BR: AA2560000
Resource Type Technical Report
Specific Type Numerical Data; Progress Report
Resource Relation Other Information: PBD: [1994]
Coverage Annual
Research Org Consortium for Fossil Fuel Liquefaction Science, Lexington, KY (United States)
Sponsoring Org USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

  
Description/Abstract Accomplishments for the past year are presented for the following tasks: coliquefaction of coal with waste materials; catalysts for coal liquefaction to clean transportation fuels; fundamental research in coal liquefaction; and in situ analytical techniques for coal liquefaction and coal liquefaction catalysts some of the highlights are: very promising results have been obtained from the liquefaction of plastics, rubber tires, paper and other wastes, and the coliquefaction of wastes with coal; a number of water soluble coal liquefaction catalysts, iron, cobalt, nickel and molybdenum, have been comparatively tested; mossbauer spectroscopy, XAFS spectroscopy, TEM and XPS have been used to characterize a variety of catalysts and other samples from numerous consortium and DOE liquefaction projects and in situ ESR measurements of the free radical density have been conducted at temperatures from 100 to 600{degrees}C and H{sub 2} pressures up to 600 psi.
Country of Publication United States
Language English
Format Medium: ED; Size: 333 p.

USDOE Low-rank Coal Liquefaction

 
We some time ago reported, without many details available to us at the time, on the "Encoal"(R) Process for converting low-rank coal into liquid fuels, and the work on development of such technology in Wyoming.
 
As it happens, that was one of our US Department of Energy's Coal-to-Liquid development projects, and our Federal Government does know quite a lot about using this technology to convert coal into liquids, with  improved solid fuels being produced as a useful by-product. .
 
Brief comment follows our excerpt from the evidentiary link:
 
"CCPI/Clean Coal Demonstrations; ENCOAL(R) Mild Coal Gasification Project
 
PROJECT FACT SHEET: US Department of Energy; Office of Fossil Energy

Project Summary

Operational Performance
The LFC(R) facility operated for more than 15,000 hours over a five-year period. Steady-state operation was maintained for much of the demonstration with availabilities of 90% for extended periods. The length of operation and volume of production proved the soundness and durability of the process.

By the end of the demonstration ... (over)  5 million gallons of (coal liquids) were produced and shipped to eight customers in seven states."

Those millions of gallons of liquid fuel, from a demonstration plant, were in addition to a refined, higher-Btu, cleaner, solid fuel that: "enabled reduction in SO2 emissions, reduction in NOx emissions" when used in a utility boiler application.

Again: Our US Government sponsored development of this coal liquefaction technology in the far, remote west. And, it works, and works well, on low-rank coal. How well would it work on high-rank Appalachian bituminous coal? And, why haven't any of us in the very heart of US Coal Country heard anything about it?