Japan, Australia Liquefy Brown Coal

  
We submit the enclosed and following as additional confirmation that the technology for liquefying coal is so well understood that even low-rank coals can be considered as appropriate feed stocks.
 
Herein is reported work undertaken jointly by Australia and Japan, which further demonstrates that fact.
 
The excerpt, with comment appended: 

"Coal Liquefaction Technology for Low Rank Coal.

Author: Matsumura Tetsuo (Kobe University); Tamura Masaaki (Kobeseikosho Takasagoekikase(?))
 
Journal: Energy and Resources; 1999; Code: Z0986A; ISSN: 0285-0494; Vol. 20; No. 1; Pages 23-29
 
Abstract: This paper outlines the conceptual design demonstration plant of liquefaction of brown coal jointly developed by Japan and Australia and evaluation of economical efficiency. Improved BCL process which promotes catalytic reaction by first and second hydrogenation is adopted. Hydroxy iron oxide is used as a catalyst, and sulfur and nitrogen are removed by vapor-phase hydrogenation. Calculation results of product cost and energy efficiency are shown."
 
Be interesting to see those "calculation results of product cost and efficiency", wouldn't it?
 
Thing is: Here again, we have research focused on the liquefaction of coal, to produce substitutes for petroleum-based products, that isn't targeted on figuring out how to do it, but, on how to do it better.
 
And, they are doing it with "Low Rank" coals that, in terms of Btu and ash content, might compare to what we used to dump in waste piles in Appalachia.
 
Our point: If we can make the liquid fuels we need from our domestic reserves of coal, including low-rank coals, and even coal mine wastes, that option, even if it isn't yet absolutely perfect or completely optimized, has to be better than what we have now, with an uncontrolled flood of our money gushing out to various petroleum powers who don't really care for us - the US, the common people of the US - all that much, doesn't it?

USDOE Encoal(R) Final Report

 

By way of follow-up on our most recent dispatches concerning the US Department of Energy's "Encoal(R)" coal conversion developments, with the company "SGI", in Wyoming, we submit herein links, through which you, or anyone genuinely interested in coal's true potential to help us overcome our domestic liquid fuel supply problems, could learn more.
 
Note, though, the title.
 
It has been thoroughly documented that we know how to convert our coal into the liquid fuels we need. It has also been documented that many coal liquefaction processes leave behind a "residue" that itself has potential commercial value, and which could thus serve to help make coal liquefaction processes more profitable.
 
That seems to be what this "Final report" is all about: The co-products of one coal conversion process.
 
The excerpt:
 
Title: Final report for Production of mild gasification co-products project; December, 1994
 
Author: Horne, D.A.; Castro, J.C.
 
DOI: 10.2172/10102215; OSTI ID: 10102215; Legacy ID: DE95003620; DOE/MC/27240--T5
 
DOE Contract: AC21-91MC27240; Research Organization: SGI Fuels, Inc., La Jolla, CA
 
Abstract:
 
The SGI International Liquids From Coal (LFC) Process is a mild pyrolysis, or mild gasification, treatment that upgrades low-rank coals by removing almost all of the moisture and a substantial portion of the volatile matter. The process produces two value-added co-products: a Coal Derived Liquid (CDL) and a solid Process Derived Fuel (PDF). A third co-product, a low-heating-value non-condensible gas, is recirculated and combusted in a commercial sized plant to provide drying and pyrolysis process heat. The LFC Process consists of three basic steps. The first step, drying, involves essentially inert gas convectively raising the coal temperature and removing most of the moisture. The drying temperature is limited to ensure that no hydrocarbon gases evolve, and the flow rate is limited below fluidization levels for most of the coal particles. The second step, pyrolysis, consists of additional inert gas heating that raises the temperature of the dried coal so that more than half of the volatile matter is removed under a controlled temperature history that is characteristic for each particular coal and customer demand. The third step, finishing or conditioning, consists of exposure to a cooling inert gas that quenches the pyrolysis reaction, followed by controlled exposure to oxygen for the purposes of stabilization. The processed solid char is then brought to moisture equilibrium (much less than the parent coal`s equilibrium level), and, if necessary, a dust suppressant is added to the PDF. The PDF co-product is environmentally more attractive than the parent coal because a large fraction of the organic sulfur is removed with the volatile matter, and the heating value of the fuel is increased with a concurrent increase in combustion efficiency. When subjected to appropriate finishing steps, the PDF represents a stable, economically transportable, high-heat-value reactive combustion fuel with stable flame characteristics similar to natural gas. 143 Pages. System entry date: 2009 Dec 11."
 
As we perceive this, three products can be made from coal in the Encoal(R) Process: A liquid fuel, a natural gas substitute, and a solid "boiler" fuel that's cleaner and "environmentally more attractive" than the original, "parent coal", since the sulfur has been removed and the heating value increased.  
 
But: Why was the final report of this coal conversion work, completed in 1994, not entered into the "system", and thus made publicly available, until less than a month ago, almost fifteen full years after the work was completed?

Japan Liquefies Coal with Wast Plastic


 
We are herein returning to a theme we've previously elaborated on to some extent:
 
Certain "wastes", including some waste plastics, can be liquefied with coal; and, in such co-liquefaction, the plastics (and, by extension, as we've elsewhere documented, other wastes of various sorts, including rubber and cellulose) contribute, as we have been led to understand it, some hydrogen to the overall process of hydrogenating a  material, such as coal, that is composed primarily of carbon, to form hydrocarbon gasses and liquids.
 
These Japanese coal scientists, though, notably, also used the hydrogen donor solvent, "tetralin", as we believe to be specified by WVU in their "West Virginia Process" of direct coal liquefaction.
 
In any case, for whatever reason, the co-liquefaction of coal with, supposedly waste, polyethylene plastic resulted in a synergy, as in other reference we've cited, wherein yields, as we understand the abstract, were significantly higher than would be expected if the coal and plastic were liquefied separately.
 
The excerpt:
 
"Coliquefaction of Coal with Polyethylene Using Fe(CO)5−S as Catalyst
 
Toshiyuki Kanno, Masahiro Kimura, Na-oki Ikenaga, and Toshimitsu Suzuki
[Unable to display image]Department of Chemical Engineering, Kansai University, Suita, Osaka 564-8680, Japan
Energy Fuels, 2000, 14 (3), pp 612–617
Publication Date (Web): March 7, 2000
Copyright © 2000 American Chemical Society
 
Abstract

The coliquefaction of Yallourn coal (YL) with polyethylene (PE) was carried out at 400 or 425 C under pressurized H2 in 1-methylnaphthalene or tetralin. In the coliquefaction without a catalyst, the conversion and the oil yield increased by 11−12% as compared to that of expected value from the additive values of respective runs. We considered that free radicals produced from YL coal were stabilized by the hydrogen abstraction from PE during the coliquefaction ... . The addition of a large amount of Fe ... catalyst ... increased the conversion and the hexane soluble oil yield in the homoliquefaction of YL coal or PE... ."

We were compelled to edit the abstract in the extreme, deleting much of what are, for us, far too technical details. Like much of what we have brought to your attention, the full report begs reading by qualified and competent individuals, experts who genuinely have our nation's best interests at heart. Maybe then all of us might finally benefit from the facts, that: Our domestic coal can be liquefied into the fuels and chemical manufacturing materials we need; and, from the synergies such coal liquefaction industry would offer us, including the opportunity to make productive use of some of our industrial and agricultural wastes, we could start to make the most efficient, most profitable, and cleanest, use of the resources we have been blessed with.

Australia Moves Forward

 
We've documented both the Australian plans for coal-to-liquid development, and the coal conversion expertise of Synthesis Energy Systems.
 
In this recent story, it's reported that both are now, together, planning additional coal-to-liquid projects, as in the attached and following:
 
"Friday, 04 December 2009
 
Coalworks Limited , an emerging Australian energy developer, and Synthesis Energy Systems Inc. ("SES") , a global industrial gasification company, intend to develop, through a strategic alliance, Coalworks' first coal gasification and liquefaction plant at Oaklands in New South Wales, Australia utilizing SES' proprietary U-GAS(R) gasification technology, which SES licenses from the Gas Technology Institute
 
Coalworks and SES have entered into a strategic alliance agreement which is based on the following key points:
 
  --  U-GAS(R) technology has been proven on a commercial scale with
      gasification plants in China
  --  The U-GAS(R) technology is ideal for sub bituminous coal like that is
      found in Oaklands
  --  The Oaklands coal resource is well suited for gasification and
      downstream value added products
  --  Oaklands coal would be converted to gasoline via a planned coal to
      liquids (CTL) plant
  --  The agreement provides a framework for feasibility and engineering
      design phases using commercially proven technologies and plant
      construction strategies"
 
We have previously documented the work of SES in China, and their "U-GAS"(R) coal conversion technology, which "has been proven on a commercial scale with gasification plants in China".
 
And, though the technology starts with coal gasification, don't lose sight of the fact that this is being undertaken so that "coal would be converted to gasoline via a planned coal to liquids (CTL) plant".

California Recycles CO2

 
Without preamble, the excerpt from this very recent article:

"Researchers engineer bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel

December 10, 2009 by Matthew Chin


Global climate change has prompted efforts to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels.

In a new approach, researchers from the UCLA Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science have genetically modified a cyanobacterium to consume carbon dioxide and produce the liquid fuel isobutanol, which holds great potential as a gasoline alternative. The reaction is powered directly by energy from sunlight, through photosynthesis.

This new method has two advantages for the long-term, global-scale goal of achieving a cleaner and greener energy economy, the researchers say. First, it recycles carbon dioxide, reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Second, it uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can be used in the existing energy structure, including in most automobiles.

While other alternatives to gasoline include deriving biofuels from plants or from algae, both of these processes require several intermediate steps before refinement into usable fuels.

Using the cyanobacterium Synechoccus elongatus, researchers ... engineer(ed) a strain that intakes carbon dioxide and sunlight and produces isobutyraldehyde gas (which is) easily be stripped from the system.

An ideal place for this system would be next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide, the researchers say, potentially allowing the greenhouse gas to be captured and directly recycled into liquid fuel."

-------

First of all, the gas can be readily converted into the liquid alcohol, isobutanol, which, like methanol, can  itself be used as a liquid fuel, or, again like methanol, be further converted into gasoline. Some web references indicate, we submit without citation, that commercial gasoline, which is a blend of hydrocarbons, typically contains a lot of petroleum-based isobutanol, in any case.

Second, unlike ethanol, isobutanol, without or without converting or blending into gasoline, "can be used in the existing energy structure, including in most automobiles". Not to mention the fact that the production of ethanol, from food crops and agricultural wastes, generates a lot of CO2 in the initial fermentation required by the process.

Third, we can make this useful liquid fuel, and make it directly "next to existing power plants that emit carbon dioxide".

Carbon Dioxide is a resource, and a renewable one; a valuable co-product of our coal-use industries.

We should set our sights, like these UCLA researchers, on figuring out how to use it more profitably, rather than on how to, at great and unrecoverable expense, stuff it all down leaky geologic storage rat holes.