The report linked above is technically "dense", and a lot of not-so-obvious information is conveyed within it. We are attempting, through excerpts and comments, to convey it's import; but, it begs reading by qualified parties who could not only make use of the facts, but explain them fully to the rest of us.
There is, though, one conclusion not obviously stated which can be drawn by anyone who has followed our posts, and who might recall one specific bit of information.
First, we have, in earlier reports, documented Japan's expertise in coal liquefaction technologies, starting in WWII when their several coal liquefaction facilities, which were manufacturing liquid fuels for their military, from coal mined in Japan and occupied Korea and China, became strategic targets of Allied bombing due to their importance.
We have also provided information about Japan's "NEDO" - New Energy Development Organization - coal conversion technology developments.
We have, further, previously documented the work undertaken by Southern Illinois University (SIU) in the development of coal conversion and utilization technologies.
Herein, it is revealed that SIU and NEDO have collaborated on the conversion of coal into pipeline-quality natural gas, i.e., methane. There are some interesting observations to be made in the body of this report, leading to some conclusions of, to us, very intriguing import, since one key fact is left unstated.
Comment is interspersed and following:
"LOW TEMPERATURE STEAM-COAL GASIFICATION CATALYSTS
Edwin J. Hippo and Deepak Tandon
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Energy Processes
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901
INTRODUCTION
Shrinking domestic supplies and larger dependence on foreign sources have made an assortment of fossil fuels attractive as possible energy sources. The high sulfur and mineral coals of Illinois would be an ideal candidate as possible gasification feedstock.
(So, "high sulfur and mineral - i.e., high ash - coals (are) "ideal candidate(s) as possible gasification feedstock". To put it plainly: Dirty coal is good for conversion processes.)
Large reserves of coal as fossil fuel source and a projected shortage of natural gas (methane) in the US, have made development of technology for commercial production of high Btu pipeline gases from coal of interest. Several coal gasification processes exist, but incentives remain for the development of processes that would significantly increase efficiency and lower cost. A major problem in coal gasification is the heat
required which make the process energy intensive. Hence, there is a need for an efficient and thermally neutral gasification process.
At the present time, natural gas (methane) reserves are sufficient to meet the demands but projections indicate a dwindling supply in the future. There is a need to develop an economical process for production of methane to ensure a steady supply. Direct methanation of high sulfur and mineral coals would not only utilize this important fossil fuel feedstock but would also be inexpensive as compared to other energy intensive gasification processes. Direct formation of methane in the gasifier would also increase the efficiency of the combined cycle power generation plant over that of an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) process, producing CO and H, only.
(Despite T. Boone Pickens' promotion of natural gas as an energy solution, "projections indicate a dwindling supply". And, "methanation of high sulfur and mineral coals would ... utilize this important fossil fuel ... (and) ... be inexpensive as compared to other ... processes.")
Catalytic steam methanation of coal is an almost thermoneutral process:
(The conclusion: They know enough about converting coal into methane, by using steam, to state categorically that it is "thermoneutral", and, that means, as we have documented previously from other sources, at least a part of the process of coal conversion is exothermic and can provide some of the energy needed to drive the total process.)
The role of the catalyst in coal and carbon gasification has been to reduce the reaction temperature and increase the rate of reaction. The main objective of these studies has been to improve the production of water gas, producer gas, or hydrogen as sources for ammonia production. Most of these works were carried out at lower pressures and have little qualitative value in assessing the catalytic effects on coal/char gasification for methane production.
(Readers who have followed our posts will recognize the terms "water gas" and "producer gas"; and will know them to be somewhat synonymous with "synthesis gas", produced from coal, which is so named because liquid fuels, higher hydrocarbons, can be "synthesized" from such coal-derived gas.)
... A majority of the elements in the periodic table have been tested as potential gasification catalysts and a number of leading candidates have been identified. Catalyst that are active at low temperatures would favor the process of direct gasification for methane production, since low temperature and high pressure favors the formation of methane.
Various oxides, halides and carbonates of both alkali and alkaline earth metals, along with transition metals have been surveyed as possible char gasification catalysts. Some of the general conclusions drawn are as follows:
(1) Catalytic effect decreases with increasing temperature;
(2) Catalysts are more effective in gasification processes if steam is present in the gasification gases;
(3) There usually is an optimum catalyst loading, beyond which either negligible or negative effects are observed;
(4) Relative effects of catalysts can differ under different reaction conditions;
(5) Gasification reactivity can be effected significantly by the method /condition of catalyst impregnation; and (6) Catalyst impregnation is more effective than physical mixing with the carbon.
It was the aim of this research to study the catalytic steam gasification of high sulfur, high mineral, agglomerating coals at elevated pressures and lower temperatures for production of methane.
The ultimate goal of this research was to develop a low temperature sulfur resistant catalyst system that would not only be efficient and economic but would also produce methane in a single step. The single-reaction process would eliminate the cost of separation, compression and recycling of hydrogen gas.
(The "recycling of hydrogen gas" is important for the hydrogenation, into hydrocarbons, of primarily carbon, i.e., coal, feed.)
Exxon catalytic gasification process produces substitute natural gas (SNG) by catalytic steam gasification of coal.
(Again: ExxonMobil know how to convert, how to gasify and liquefy, coal.)
Iron is one of the desired catalysts for steam gasification of coal. The cheap availability of iron and its salts (mainly sulfate) make it even a more promising catalyst than the alkali metals. Commercially, it is one of the best catalysts for about 10 wt.% char conversion. ... Nickel is another good catalyst ... .
(So, like Germany and Japan in WWII, in the Fischer-Tropsch and Bergius coal conversion technologies those Axis powers reduced to practice, these researchers acknowledge the utility of Iron Group metals as catalysts in coal conversion processes.)
CONCLUSIONS
1. Significant amounts of hydrogen can be produced at moderate gasification conditions.
2. Low to negligible CO concentrations and ratios of H,/CO is at synthesis gas stoichiometry.
3. Steam reforming of methane is avoided at 3-6MPa range.
4. The combination of alkali and transition metals gave significant synergistic effects."
-----
We interrupt here because one important point needs to be made, demands emphasis. The "fact left unstated" we alerted you to early on in this report:
These researchers were attempting to avoid "Steam reforming of methane", as in Item 3, above.
Why?
Because they were attempting to make a replacement for natural gas, i.e., methane, from coal in this work.
If methane, which can obviously be generated from coal, as herein, is "reformed" with steam, as we have elsewhere documented more than thoroughly to be practical, it forms, as a number of references, easily available via a quick web search will reveal, synthesis gas, "syngas", which, again if you've followed our posts, you know can then be condensed, via catalysis, into liquid hydrocarbons - that is, synthetic petroleum.
We wouldn't want that, would we?
Our conclusion is that these Illinois and Japanese researchers, for whatever suspect reason, didn't.
Coal can be converted into methane, as herein.
And, methane can be converted into liquid hydrocarbons.
As additional testimony to that fact, we present the following link:
Which connects to the report:
"DOE/MC/2 71 1 5 --4010 (DE95000082)
Direct Methane Conversion to Methanol
Annual Report October 1993 -September 1994
Richard D. Noble
John L. Falconer
Work Performed Under Contract No.: DE-FG21-90MC271 15
For
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy
Morgantown Energy Technology Center
Morgantown, West Virginia
By
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado".
(For your convenience/inconvenience, as the case might be, we have attached the complete file.)
So, we know that coal can be converted into methane, as per Southern Illinois University.
We know that methane can be converted into methanol, as per the University of Colorado - as reported to the USDOE in WVU's hometown.
One brief quote: "Results" of converting methane to methanol, using zeolite catalysts "were satisfactory".
