C02 & Carbon Neutral Hydrocarbons

 
We attach and enclose yet more documentation that the Carbon Dioxide by-product of our coal use industry does not have to be, like an offensively eccentric family member who's suffered a brain injury, expensively captured, trussed up and trucked away for doubtfully-effective confinement in some rich people's leaky basement, i.e., in petroleum reservoir sequestration.
 
Geologic sequestration of Carbon Dioxide is an expensive and unnecessary, and likely ineffective, waste of a potentially-valuable resource arising from our use of coal.
 
Herein, that fact is again affirmed by researchers David Keith, whom we've previously cited on the utilization of CO2 in our dispatches, of Canada's University of Calgary; and, Frank Zeman, of Columbia University, where other researchers we've previously cited have been working on similar issues.
 
Note that this is a fairly recent report presented at, and by, the prestigious, impeccable, Royal Society.
 
The excerpt:
 
"CARBON NEUTRAL HYDROCARBONS
 
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. August (2008) 366, 3901–3918 
 
BY FRANK S. ZEMAN AND DAVID W. KEITH
 
Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University,
918 S. W. Mudd, 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, USA
 
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, and Department of
Economics, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada T2N 1N4 

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector may be the most difficult aspect of climate change mitigation. We suggest that carbon neutral hydrocarbons (CNHCs) offer an alternative pathway for deep emission cuts that complement the use of decarbonized energy carriers. Such fuels are synthesized from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon neutral hydrogen. The result is a liquid fuel compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure and therefore capable of a gradual deployment with minimum supply disruption. Capturing the atmospheric CO2 can be accomplished using biomass or industrial methods referred to as air capture. The viability of biomass fuels is strongly dependent on the environmental impacts of biomass production. Strong constraints on land use may favour the use of air capture. We conclude that CNHCs may be a viable alternative to hydrogen or conventional biofuels and warrant a comparable level of research effort and support."
 
("CNHCs may be a viable alternative to" to enforced Sequestration or Cap and Trade, as well, we submit, and could, with coal-to-liquid conversion industry, lead us to domestic liquid fuel self-sufficiency, as in "fuels ... from atmospheric carbon dioxide .. (are) ... compatible with the existing transportation infrastructure.)
 
"Beyond efficiency, deep reductions in emissions from the transportation sector will require a change in vehicle fuel. Changes in fuel are challenging owing to the tight coupling between vehicle fleet and refuelling infrastructure. Economic network effects and technological lock-in arise because users demand ubiquitous refuelling, yet investments in new fuel infrastructure are typically uneconomic without a large vehicle fleet. Moreover, each of the three leading alternative fuel options, hydrogen, ethanol and electricity, faces technical and economic hurdles precluding near-term, major reductions in transportation emissions using these technologies."
 
(These researchers acknowledge a key point little discussed openly: Our world-wide transportation fleet just might be the major human-based contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. And, the primary options being promoted for vehicular emissions of CO2, "hydrogen, ethanol and electricity" are faced by economic and technical barriers that preclude "major reductions in transportation emissions" by using them.)
 
"We consider a fourth alternative: carbon neutral hydrocarbons (CNHCs).

Hydrocarbons can be carbon neutral if they are made from carbon recovered from biomass or captured from ambient air using industrial processes. The individual capture technologies required to achieve CNHCs have been considered elsewhere; our goal is to systematically consider CNHCs as an alternative and independent route to achieving carbon neutral transportation fuels.
 
We argue for the development of CNHC technologies because they offer an alternative path to carbon neutral transportation with important technical and managerial advantages. We do not claim that CNHCs are ready for large-scale deployment ... (But) ...  We do argue that they are promising enough to warrant research and development support on a par with efforts aimed at advancing the alternatives."
 
(In other words, we should put at least as much effort into carbon recycling as we are into "the alternatives",  which include, in the United States, relative to coal use, Cap and Trade and Sequestration.)
 
"CNHCs are effectively an alternative method for using carbon-free hydrogen ... Converting CO2 into fuel by adding hydrogen can be viewed as a form of hydrogen storage. Once the hydrogen is produced, a choice exists between distribution and incorporation into a hydrocarbon fuel. The latter is potentially attractive because the energy cost of centrally produced hydrogen is inexpensive compared with crude oil or gasoline at the pump."
 
(Note that "hydrogen", which might be needed in supplemental quantities for coal liquefaction and CO2 hydrogenation, is "inexpensive compared with crude oil". - JtM)

"We define CNHCs as those whose oxidation does not result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Hydrocarbon fuels can be made carbon neutral either directly by manufacturing them using carbon captured from the atmosphere, or indirectly by tying the production of fossil fuels to a physical transfer of atmospheric carbon to permanent storage. The indirect route allows for a gradual transition from the current infrastructure, based on petroleum, to a sustainable system based on atmospheric sources of carbon.
 
It is vital to distinguish negative emissions achieved by permanent physical storage from economic offsets (carbon credits) or the sequestration of carbon in the active biosphere. While the use of carbon offsets such as those allowed under the clean development mechanism may have some benefits, they are not equivalent to non-emission (Wara 2007). There are also tangible benefits to increasing stocks of carbon in soils or standing biomass, but such organic stores are highly labile and may be quickly released back to the atmosphere by changes in management practices or climate. Geological storage reservoirs for CO2 may also leak. However, the retention time for CO2 in geological reservoirs is at least 103 times longer than that for carbon stored in the biosphere. In most cases, a very large fraction of CO2 placed in geological storage is expected to be retained for time scales exceeding 108 years.
 
(So, "Geological storage reservoirs for CO2 may .. leak" and, they are trying to make it sound as if "108 years" isn't bad for keeping CO2 underground in a sequestration site. But, consider: They admit that the CO2 does leak out of sequestration and we will, sooner or later, have to deal with it all over again. Wouldn't it then be better to develop carbon recycling industry, now? And, thereby free our coal-use industries from economic burden and establish a basis for domestic, US, liquid fuel self-sufficiency?)
 
"Direct and indirect routes to CNHCs both begin by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon can be captured from the atmosphere by either harvesting biomass from sustainable plantations or direct industrial processes referred to as air capture."
 
(Thus, "direct industrial processes referred to as air capture" for the collection of Carbon Dioxide, which could be sited to utilize available environmental energies to capture CO2 from the atmosphere do exist, and coal-use facilities do not have to be expensively retrofitted with CO2 scrubbers.)
 
"The synthetic fuel pathway depends on a source of primary energy to drive the required chemical reactions including the supply of hydrogen. As with hydrogen and electricity, these synthetic hydrocarbons are an energy carrier produced from a primary energy source such as wind, nuclear power or fossil fuels with CCS. Unlike hydrogen and electricity, they are carbonaceous fuels that are nevertheless carbon neutral as they were derived from the atmosphere. 
 
We first review the technologies for capturing carbon from the air, using either biomass growth or air capture. The review is followed by discussions on transforming the carbon, in the form of high-purity CO2, into hydrocarbon fuels."
 
---------
 
Well, there it is. The authors waffle a bit in their concluding comments, as scientists often do; but, it's clear: The Carbon Dioxide arising, in a smaller way relative to natural sources such as volcanism and seasonal vegetative rot, from our use of coal can be captured from the atmosphere in places, because of natural energy sources and useable space, convenient; then, economically transformed, recycled, into liquid fuels.
 
As a post script, we reproduce, following, a selection from the authors' reference list. It is extensive, and serves to reinforce our assertion that Carbon Dioxide is a valuable resource. We shouldn't, through deception and extortion, allow ourselves to be forced into wasting it. 
 

 
Note, following, especially, such entries as: "Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change" and, from 1946: "Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air":
 
References
 
Agrawal, R., Singh, N., Ribeiro, F. & Delgass, W. N. 2007 Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4828–4833.
 
Baciocchi, R., Storti, G. & Mazzotti, M. 2006 Process design and energy requirements for the capture of carbon dioxide from air. Chem. Eng. Process. 45, 1047–1058.
 
Bandi, A., Specht, M., Weimer, T. & Schaber, K. 1995 CO2 recycling for hydrogen storage and
transportation—electrochemical CO2 removal and fixation. Energy Convers. Manage. 36, 899–902.
 
EPA 2005 Emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel.
Report no. EPA420-F-05-001, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
 
Epplin, F. M. 1996 Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion
facility in the Southern Plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 11, 459–467.
 
Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Hawthorne, P. 2008 Land clearing and the biofuel
carbon debt. Scienc express 319, 1235–1238. 
 
Farrell, A. E., Plevin, R. J., Turner, B. T., Jones, A. D., O’Hare, M. & Kammen, D. M. 2006
Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311, 506–508.
 
Galindo Cifre, P. & Badr, O. 2007 Renewable hydrogen utilisation for the production of methanol.
Energy Convers. Mange. 48, 519–527.
 
Gustavsson, L., Holmberg, J., Dornburg, V., Sathre, R., Eggers, T., Mahapatra, K. & Marland, G. 2007 Using biomass for climate change mitigation and oil use reduction. Energy Policy 35, 5671–5691.
 
Halmann, M. M. & Steinberg, M. 1999 Greenhouse gas carbon dioxide mitigation science and
technology, pp. 315–389, 1st edn. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
 
Inui, T. 1996 Highly effective conversion of carbon dioxide to valuable compounds on composite catalysts. Catal. Today 29, 329–337. 
 
Jia, G., Tan, Y. & Han, Y. 2006 A comparative study on the thermodynamics of dimethyl ether synthesis from CO hydrogenation and CO2 hydrogenation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 45, 1152–1159. 
 
Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M. & Stolaroff, J. 2006 Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air.
Clim. Change 74, 17–45.
 
Kieffer, R., Fujiwara, M., Udron, L. & Souma, Y. 1997 Hydrogenation of CO and CO2 toward methanol, alcohols and hydrocarbons on promoted copper–rare earth oxide catalysts. Catal. Today 36, 15–24. 
 
Mignard, D. & Pritchard, C. 2006 Processes for the synthesis of liquid fuels from CO2 and marine
energy. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 84, 828–836.
 
Nohlgren, I. 2004 Non-conventional causticization technology: a review. Nordic Pulp Pap. Res. J.
19, 467–477.
 
Oates, J. A. H. 1998 Lime and limestone: chemistry and technology, production and uses, p. 455.
Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
 
Petrus, L. & Noordermeer, M. A. 2006 Biomass to biofuels, a chemical perspective. Green Chem. 8,
861–867. (doi:10.1039/b605036k)
 
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D. & Yu, T.-H. 2008 Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Scienc express 319, 1238–12400. 
 
Spector, N. A. & Dodge, B. F. 1946 Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air. Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42, 827–848.
 
Steinberg, M. & Dang, V.-D. 1977 Production of synthetic methanol from air and water using controlled thermonuclear reactor power I—technology and energy requirement. Energy Convers. Manage. 17, 97–112.
 
Vitousek, P. M., Ehrlich, P. R., Ehrlich, A. H. & Matson, P. A. 1986 Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis. Bioscience 36, 368–373.

WV Delegate Supports CoalTL

In the course of our research into the very real technologies which exist, technologies that would enable us to convert our abundant coal into the liquid fuels we grow increasingly short of, it has been brought to our attention that coal conversion industry is being assertively promoted and supported by at least one active participant in West Virginia's State Government.
 
Weirton, WV's, own Delegate Pat McGeehan has been personally researching the science of coal conversion; has, we believe, visited some suppliers of coal conversion technology; and, most recently, posted the following and attached letter to West Virginia's Department of Environmental Protection, urging approval of the TransGas Coal-to-Liquid facility, about which we have reported, proposed for construction in southern West Virginia.
 
We will not append comment, but, as a forward, make note, especially, of Delegate McGeehan's statement:
 
"Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our state."
 
We could not agree more, but would, in fact, expand the statement to read: "Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our Nation."
 
Everyone in US Coal Country should heed Delegate McGeehan's words; and, they should be grateful to him for the assertive pursuit of his duties in the support of coal technology, of West Virginia, of the entire United States of America.
 


 
(Letter reproduced with permission.)
 
December 14, 2009 
 
WV Department of Environmental Protection
ATT: Secretary Randy Huffman
601-57th Street
Charleston, WV 25304
 
Dear Secretary Huffman,
 
 This Thursday, your department will hold a public hearing in Mingo County to review a permit for the Coal-to-Liquid facility proposed by TransGas. In my mind, this is the most important decision facing your government agency, as the result will determine the success of this facility—I strongly urge you to grant this permit in a speedy manner.
 
 Coal-to-Liquid technology represents the future of industry in our state and I have dedicated the past year of my life to bring a facility like the TransGas project to my own district in Weirton, WV. I have flown to multiple destinations around this country in order to recruit investors and entrepreneurs in this field, and I have also spoken with TransGas officials. I am confident their investment will perform well in our state.
 
 Furthermore, the construction of such a plant truly brings a new era to the Mountain State and will help West Virginia turn the corner on the global recession we all face. With the implementation of this technology, we bring innovation to West Virginia—innovation which will produce thousands of jobs for our residents and open the road to economic prosperity.
 
 For decades, the American steel industry has been in decline and the city of Weirton has suffered the consequences—ranging from mass unemployment to increased poverty. With little employment opportunity, our children have been forced to leave behind their families and the Mountain State altogether. As our economic conditions worsen, our population continues to dwindle and side-effects are increasingly seen, such as poorer education and increased crime rates. Naturally, the generation of investment is one crucial way we can indirectly combat these negative results.
 
 Finally, not only will Coal-to-Liquid technology usher in economic prosperity for the foreseeable future, but it will also place West Virginia cities on the “national map”. We have a comparative advantage in coal energy and these new methods of utilizing this advantage will help decrease the value our nation places on foreign oil—one of the prime threats to our national security and sovereignty.
 
 The implementation of this investment in Mingo County will not only help this region of West Virginia, but the success of this project would most certainly pave the way for others, including my own project for Weirton. I urge you to pass this permit with due haste, as the future of our state’s economy may rest with your decision.
 
      Sincerely, 

      Delegate Pat McGeehan

US Lab Extracts C02 from Atmosphere

 
In previous dispatches, we've cited and referenced work from both the Idaho National Laboratory and the University of Alberta, Canada, on both the science of coal-to-liquid conversion, and the technologies for Carbon Dioxide recycling.
 
Herein, it's documented that those entities have collaborated on improving the efficient collection, the accumulation, of Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere, as opposed to extracting it from point-source flue gas, and are thereby confirming the research of Sandia National Laboratory's Rich Diver, and others, who have reported similar findings.
 
Such developments enhance the practicality of siting Carbon Dioxide recycling facilities, using Sabatier or Carnol technologies, for instance, to make liquid fuels and raw materials for the manufacture of plastics, in locations where environmental energy - solar, wind or hydro - can be harnessed to, first, extract the CO2 from the atmosphere, and, then, to transmute the CO2 into methanol, or one of the other hydrocarbon liquid, gasoline precursors, that other research we've brought to your attention demonstrates can be synthesized directly from CO2.
 
Of special interest is that this report describes techniques for CO2 recovery which reduce the energy required for Carbon Dioxide collection by fifty percent, or more, thus making the recycling of carbon more efficient and obviating the need for environmentally unfriendly energy sources, such as nuclear reactors, which seem to be specified in the US Department of Defense patents on CO2 recycling, into liquid fuels, which we have earlier documented for you.
 
The excerpt follows; wherein, as in a similar previous report, we include their full reference list by way of further documenting the fact that the potential for CO2 recycling is quite real, and not merely a fanciful, ivory-tower concept:
 
"Low energy packed tower and caustic recovery for direct capture of CO2 from air

M. Mahmoudkhan, K.R. Heide, J.C. Ferreira, D.W. Keith and R.S. Cherry

Energy and Environment System Group, Institute for Sustainable Energy Environment and Economy University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, USA


Abstract

We used a 6.5 m tall packed tower prototype to study the capturing rate of CO2 from air. The tower was operated at a pressure drop of less than 27 pa in the packing at 0.7 m/sec air speed with a counter current flow mode and with NaOH or KOH solution as the absorbent. The tower consumed an average of not, vert, similar30 kJe per mole CO2. We found that via an intermittent operation with a 5% duty cycle, the fluid pumping work reduced by 90%. A novel process for removing carbonates ions from alkaline solutions based on titanate compounds is compared to the traditional lime cycle for the caustic recovery. The titanate process reduces the high-grade heat requirement by not, vert, similar50%. The results from experimental data of leaching and precipitation test support process design of the titanate cycle. In this paper, we also present the chemical process design.

References

[1]J.G. Canadell, et al. Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity and efficiency of natural sinks, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (47), 2007, pp. 18866–18870.

[2]N.A. Spector and B.F. Dodge, Removal of carbon dioxide from atmospheric air, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 42 (1946), pp. 827–848.

[3]J.B. Tepe and B.F. Dodge, Absorption of carbon dioxide by sodium hydroxide solutions in a packed column, Trans. Am. Inst. Chem. Eng. 39 (1943), pp. 255–276.

[4]K.S. Lackner, P. Grimes, H.J. Ziock, Capturing carbon dioxide from air, in: 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization: Clearwater, FL, 1999.

[5]R Baciocchi, G Storti and M. Mazzotti, Process design and energy requirement for the capture of carbon dioxide from air, Chemical Engineering and Processing 45 (2006), pp. 1047–1058.

[6]F. Zeman, Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air, Environmental Science & Technology 41 (2007), pp. 7558–7563.

[7]J.K. Storaloff, D.W. Keith and G.V. Lowry, Carbon dioxide capture from atmospheric air using sodium hydroxide spray, Environmental Science & Technology 42 (2008), pp. 2728–2735.

[8]F. Zeman and K. Lackner, Capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, World Resource Review  (2) (2004), pp. 157–172.

[9]X. Chen and A.R.P. van Heiningen, Kinetics of the direct causticizing reaction between sodium carbonate and titanium dioxide or sodium tri-titanate, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 32 (4) (2006), pp. 245–251.

[10]E. Kiiskilä, Recovery of sodium hydroxide from alkaline pulping liquors by smelt causticizing, Part II. Recations between sodium carbonate and titanium dioxide, Paperi ja Puu, Papper och Trä 5 (1979), pp. 394–401.

[11]E. Kiiskilä, Recovery of sodium hydroxide from alkaline pulping liquors by smelt causticizing, Part III. Alkali distribution in titanium dioxide causticizing, Paperi ja Puu, Papper och Trä 6 (1979), pp. 453–464.

[12]I. Nohlgren, Recovery of kraft black liquor with direct causticization using titanates. Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, 2002.

[13]M. Palm and H. Theliander, Kinetic study of the direct causticization reaction involving titanates and titanium dioxide, Chemical Engineering Journal 68 (1997), pp. 87–94.

[14]L. Zeng and A.R.P. van Heiningen, Pilot fluidized-bed testing of kraft black liquor gasification and its direct causticization with TiO2, Journal of Pulp and Paper Science 23 (11) (1997), pp. J511–J516.

[15]X. Zou, Recovery of kraft black liquor including direct causticization, Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, 1991.

[16]M. Mahmoudkhani, D.W. Keith, Low-energy sodium hydroxide recovery for CO2 capture from air, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, In review, 2008."
 
Without citation, we remind you of earlier research we've reported wherein wastes from wood and paper processing, i.e., "black liquor", as named in the references above, have demonstrated potential for being co-processed with coal and coal by-products in the synthesis of useful organic chemicals. Such co-processing with a botanical product from wood pulping mills, etc., would represent a further recycling, or use, of carbon extracted, in such cases via photosynthesis, from the atmosphere.
 
Also, if you recall, we recently reported on other work by Canada's David Keith, and collaborators, in the technology for CO2 recycling, as in: "CARBON NEUTRAL HYDROCARBONS", by Frank Zeman and David W. Keith.
 

USDOE Bugs Eat C02, Excrete Liquid Fuel

 
We're returning to an earlier thesis that biotechnology could help us to attain liquid fuel self-sufficiency based on coal liquefaction and carbon dioxide recycling.
 
Although we've lately been focusing more on the published research that coal can be liquefied and that carbon dioxide can be recycled into the liquid fuels we need via straightforward industrial chemical processes, please keep in mind that we have also cited research into the use of microbes to accomplish those same tasks, and to accomplish them with, perhaps, more energy efficiency.
 
Herein is further documentation of that potential. Make special note of the excerpt's final statement.   

"Engineering bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel

Monday, December 14, 2009    

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.

The research appears in the Dec. 9 print edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology and is available online.

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 infrastructure, 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.

"This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production," said team leader James C. Liao, Chancellor's Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA and associate director of the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute for Genomics and Proteomics. "Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach."

Using the cyanobacterium Synechoccus elongatus, researchers first genetically increased the quantity of the carbon dioxide–fixing enzyme RuBisCO. Then they spliced genes from other microorganisms to engineer a strain that intakes carbon dioxide and sunlight and produces isobutyraldehyde gas. The low boiling point and high vapor pressure of the gas allows it to easily be stripped from the system.

The engineered bacteria can produce isobutanol directly, but researchers say it is currently easier to use an existing and relatively inexpensive chemical catalysis process to convert isobutyraldehyde gas to isobutanol, as well as other useful petroleum-based products.

In addition to Liao, the research team included lead author Shota Atsumi, a former UCLA postdoctoral scholar now on the UC Davis faculty, and UCLA postdoctoral scholar Wendy Higashide.

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.

"We are continuing to improve the rate and yield of the production," Liao said. "Other obstacles include the efficiency of light distribution and reduction of bioreactor cost. We are working on solutions to these problems."

The research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy."

To repeat: "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."

As with the Department of Energy's extensive development of coal-to-liquid conversion technologies we have documented for you in earlier dispatches, they are also demonstrating that Carbon Dioxide can, through a multiplicity of promising approaches, be recycled, on a practical basis, into even more liquid fuels. Yet, none of us, none of us whose tax dollars paid for the research, none of us in US Coal Country, especially, has been afforded the privilege of being told about these coal-critical developments and innovations.

Apologies to USDOE

 
In an earlier dispatch, we disparaged the lack of information available from our own, US, Department of Energy concerning the technologies available for coal liquefaction into the liquid fuels and chemical manufacturing raw materials we are domestically short of.
 
Well, we guess we just had to know where to dig.
 
Following, and attached via the enclosed link, is a small catalogue of publications available from the USDOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory.
 
Truth to tell, we did try downloading some of the reports for the purposes of individual presentation and comment, but without much success.
 
Perhaps, presuming your interest, you'll have better luck. And, you should, from our earlier posts, recognize a few of the projects and technologies which we have reported on from other sources.
 
 
But, in the meantime, happy mining:
 
Gasification
Reference Shelf – Publications, Presentations & Reports - Process & Technology Studies

The following are Gasification Process & Technology Studies:

  • Independent Assessment of the Potential of Chemical-Looping in the Context of a Fischer-Tropsch Plant [PDF-1MB] (Dec 2007)
  • Alaska Coal Gasification Feasibility Studies - Healy Coal-to-Liquids Plant
    This study evaluates the feasibility of building a relatively small coal-to-liquids plant in central Alaska to provide a clean diesel product to Alaska’s refineries. The study concludes that the establishment of a 14,640 barrel per day F-T plant, using 4 million tons per year of coal, could be economic provided the price per barrel of the F-T product is at least $64 per barrel. [PDF-3.6MB] (July 2007)
  • Preliminary Feasibility Analysis of RTI Warm Gas Cleanup (WGCU) Technology [PDF-730KB] (June 2007)
  • Metal sorbents for high temperature mercury capture from fuel gas (May 2007)
    The paper “High temperature metal sorbents for mercury capture from fuel gas” was accepted for publication in the Elsevier Journal - Fuel.  It was found that palladium can adsorb large quantities of mercury from simulated syngas upon extended exposures, whereas platinum captured somewhat less mercury.  Sorbents with palladium concentrations of between 2 and 9% by weight on alumina were exposed to simulated syngas at temperatures of 204 oC – 371 oC.  X-ray diffraction analysis of the used palladium sorbents exposed at 204 oC suggests the formation of a mercury-palladium alloy, with concentrations of 12.0 - 14.4 atom percent mercury.  The large capacity for mercury by palladium sorbents bodes well for its commercial prospects in gasification systems.
  • Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study [PDF-1.3MB] (May 2007)
    The objective of this study is to prepare a source of information from which valid comparisons can be made for the water loss between the various fossil fuel power plants such as IGCC, PC , and NGCC. Previous estimates of water usage or water loss for conceptual power plant configurations have used water impacts of technology options as the basis for comparison .  However, these previous estimates were made using available flow sheet data that were generally not complete, and as a result have generated potentially misleading comparisons. It is important that any comparison be made using data from complete water balances for the flow sheets and that all uses, makeup streams, discharges, internal generation and losses be accounted for in the balance and assessment of water streams in order to establish credible conclusions. By providing the following:
    (1) an account of water usage throughout the power plant and a credible methodology that can be used for future studies,
    (2) a baseline set of cases and water loss data for assessing potential improvements and evaluating R&D programs, and
    (3) a basis for comparing water usage in various types of advanced power systems,
    this report serves as a tool for reviewing design assumptions, technology capabilities, system performance, etc. and identifying areas where new technology approaches or gasifier designs could lead to substantially lower water requirements.
  • Industrial Size Gasification for Syngas, Substitute Natural Gas and Power Production (Apr 2007) [ZIP-10MB]
  • Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility [PDF-1.3MB] (Apr 9, 2007)
  • Technical and Economic Assessment of Small-Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facilities [PDF-1.8MB] (Feb 2007)
  • Beluga Coal Gasification Feasibility Study - Phase I Final Report [PDF-4MB] (July 2006)
    This report summarizes the investigation of an IGCC system for a potential industrial setting on the Cook Inlet, in Nikiski, Alaska. Faced with an increase in natural gas price and a decrease in supply, local industry is investigating alternatives to natural gas as a feed stock for their process plants. This study evaluated a gasification plant that would supply syngas to meet the chemical needs of a local application and would also co-produce power to meet on-site demand, and possibly other byproducts for local use. The results of the study verified that conversion of a plant from natural gas to syngas is technically and economically feasible.
  • Comparison of Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne IGCC and Commercial IGCC Performance [PDF-2.5MB] (June 2006)
    This report compares the performance and cost of commercial Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants using General Electric Energy (GEE) and Shell gasifiers with conceptual IGCC plant designs using the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) compact gasifier. The PWR gasifier is also compared with the GEE gasifier in hydrogen production and carbon capture mode. With the exception of the PWR gasifier, the plants are designed with commercially available equipment to be operational in approximately 2010. All results should be considered preliminary and dictated in large part by the selected design basis.
  • PWR Gasifier Peer Review Report [PDF-44KB], Attachment 1 [PDF-12KB], Attachment 2 [PDF-287KB] (Feb 2006)
    This report presents the findings from the January 24, 2006, peer review that was performed to review the work that Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) has done to date, their technical approach for future development, and to assess the potential benefit of the PWR gasifier and feed system technologies over state-of-the art coal gasification. It also presents the peer reviewers' findings related to the DOE analysis of the PWR refractory, and a DOE system study comparing the performance and economics of the PWR gasifier to the GE and Shell gasifiers.
  • Novel Gas Cleaning/ Conditioning for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Volume I – Conceptual Commercial Evaluation Achieve Continuous Injection of Solid Fuels into Advanced Combustion System Pressures
    This final report provides the findings of the project to propose and confirm an alternative technological solution for solid fuel injection into proposed advanced combustion systems.  This project was aimed at developing the Stamet Posimetric™ High Pressure Solids Feeder to provide a simple, accurate and reliable feed system needed to maintain a lead in the U.S. in advanced combustion system design and supply.  [PDF-564KB] (July 2005)
  • Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization Task 3 - Final Report
    This study evaluates the application of Gas Technology Institute’s (GTI) fluidized bed U-GAS® gasifier at an industrial application. The first of the three subtasks in this study examines the use of the gasifier for an upstate New York industrial setting using a Southeastern Ohio coal. Both air-blown and oxygen-blown gasifier schemes are evaluated for this subtask. The next subtask of the study is to develop an advanced design for an air-blown case based on the first subtask. The third subtask of the study investigates the GTI gasifier in a stand-alone lignite-fueled IGCC power plant application, sited in North Dakota. [PDF-13.7MB] (May 2005)
  • Polygeneration of SNG, Hydrogen, Power, and Carbon Dioxide from Texas Lignite [PDF-333KB] (Dec 2004)
    The intent of this study is to investigate the feasibility of siting a lignite conversion plant in Texas at the mine mouth of the Wilcox lignite deposit. The concept is to coproduce at least three products: electric power, hydrogen or substitute natural gas (SNG), and carbon dioxide. The electric power would be sold to the grid, the hydrogen would be sent by pipeline to the Gulf Coast petroleum refineries, the SNG would be sold as a natural gas supplement, and the carbon dioxide would be pipelined to the West Texas oil fields for enhanced oil recovery.
  • Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization Task 1 and 2 - Final Report [PDF-2.7MB] (Sept 2003)
    This project developed optimized designs and cost estimates for several coal and petroleum coke IGCC co-production projects that produced hydrogen, industrial grade steam, and hydrocarbon liquid fuel precursors in addition to power.  The as-built design and actual operating data from the DOE sponsored Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project was the starting point for this study that was performed by Bechtel, Global Energy and Nexant under Department of Energy contract. This final report includes the results from Tasks 1 and 2.
  • Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization Task 2 Topical Report Coke/Coal Gasification With Liquids Co production Volumes 1 and 2
    This report describes Task 2 of a Department of Energy sponsored study (DOE contract DEAC26- 99FT40342) that extended the investigation of petroleum coke and coal fueled IGCC power plants to those that co-produce liquid transportation fuel precursors using Fischer- Tropsch hydrocarbon synthesis technology.  Task 2 was divided into three subtasks.  These subtasks dealt with converting two of the optimized plants developed during Task 1 into IGCC power plants with liquid fuels co-production. The results of Task 2 showed that adding hydrocarbon liquids co- production to an IGCC power plant can be cost effective when oil prices are relatively high. [PDF-6.9MB] (Sept 2003)
  • Task 1 Topical Report: IGCC Plant Cost Optimization [PDF-26MB] (Revised: Aug 2003)
    The "Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization" project examines current state-of-the-art coal gasification to provide baseline optimized design cases from which the Department of Energy can measure future progress towards commercialization of gasification processes and achievement of the Vision 21 program goals. This optimization focus or metric was to minimize the cost of electric power produced by IGCC plants primarily by reducing the plant capital cost, increasing the efficiency, increasing the overall system availability, coproducing products, and reducing the operating and maintenance costs.
  • Feed System Innovation For Gasification of Locally Economical Alternative Fuels (FIGLEAF) [PDF-60MB] (Feb 2003)
    The goal of the project was to identify and evaluate low-value fuels that could serve as alternative feedstocks and to develop a feed system to facilitate their use in integrated gasification combined-cycle and gasification coproduction facilities. The feasibility study undertaken for the project consisted of identifying and evaluating the economic feasibility of potential fuel sources, developing a feed system design capable of providing a fuel at 400 psig to the second stage of the E-Gas (Destec) gasifier to be cogasified with coal, performing bench- and pilot-scale testing to verify concepts and clarify decision-based options, reviewing information on high-pressure feed system designs, and determining the economics of cofeeding alternative feedstocks with the conceptual feed system design.
  • Process Screening Analysis of Alternative Gas Treating and Sulfur Removal For Gasification [1.9MB] (Dec 2002)
    This report updates a 1987 SFA Pacific, Inc. report to the Electric Power Research Institute that dealt with acid gas treating and sulfur recovery for integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power generation. Not only are the emission regulations more stringent than those prevailing at the time of the first report, but there is now sufficient commercial experience in IGCC that points the way to the processes that will meet current and potential future regulations.
  • An Environmental Assessment of IGCC Power Systems [PDF-182KB] (Sept 2002)
    This paper presents an evaluation of the environmental performance of IGCC power generation technology and compares IGCC environmental performance with other competing coal-based technologies. Information presented is extracted from a DOE report entitled "Major Environmental Issues Affecting Implementation and Operation of Gasification-Based Technologies Utilized For Power Generation."
  • Gasification-based Power Generation with CO2 Production for Enhanced Oil Recovery [PDF-179KB] (Sept 2002)
    This paper examines the expected economic and CO2 emission performance of two fossil-based technologies for providing new electric generating capacity in the State of California in the time frame 2010-2030 are compared.  The two technologies are state-of–the-art natural gas combined-cycle and coal-based integrated gasification combined-cycle.
  • The Cost of Mercury Removal in an IGCC Plant - Final Report [PDF-161KB] (Sept 2002)
    This report estimates the cost of mercury removal for applying a carbon bed filter to an IGCC plant. The carbon filter bed is assumed to achieve 99 percent reduction of mercury emissions, with outlet levels less than 1 ppbw. The cost format was based on the methodology used in the EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress while the cost estimate (capital and O&M) was based on Parsons on-site data and experience. The costs of mercury removal by a carbon bed in an IGCC are found to be much lower than from a utility boiler with carbon filter beds.
  • Hydrogen from Coal [PDF-452KB] (July 2002)
    This report examines current and advanced technologies to produce hydrogen from coal. The performance and economics of these technologies are analyzed including configurations for carbon sequestration. For comparison, the economics of producing hydrogen from natural gas and photovoltaic water electrolysis are included.
  • Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project -Project Performance Summary [PDF-2.5MB] (July 2002)
    This project, part of DOE's Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program, pioneered commercial introduction of integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power generation technology. In 1992, the resultant Wabash River Coal Gasification Repowering Project Joint Venture embarked on a demonstration of Global Energy's E-Gas ™ gasification technology in an IGCC mode at 262-MWe scale - then, the world's largest single-train IGCC.
So, our USDOE does have some CoalTL info available for us. Let's get it and start using it.