Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information - Sponsored by OSTI

 

Subsequent to our post concerning the US EPA's up-to-speed issuance of guidelines for coal liquefaction industry, we wanted to send along one of the most recent artifacts we've been able to unearth from the US Department of Energy. As with seemingly all of their coal liquefaction efforts, despite the urgency and immediate importance of the issue, it is more than a decade old. But, the full information should be available, somewhere. If it is not, then someone really needs to start asking some hard questions.

 

Herein we present what we have so far been able to mine concerning the United States Department of Energy's project, Number AC22-91PC91056: "Molecular Catalytic Coal Liquid Conversion".

 

We enclose a link to the report, as well as an attached file.

 

Our questions and comments, as is our usual practice, and which you should be able to predict as you read the excerpt, questions and comments which we think all coal-concerned patriots should have, are appended following the excerpt:

 

"Quarterly Progress Report
Molecular Catalytic Coal Liquid Conversion
United States Department of Energy Grant
#DE-AC22-91PC91056 

Leon M. Stock - Principal Investigator

 

Carlos Cheng, Michael Ettinger - Research Staff

 

March 31, 1993

 

DISCLAIMER

 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility
for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

 

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED

 

Quarterly Progress Report
Molecular Catalytic Coal Liquid Conversion

 

United States Department of Energy Grant
#DE-AC22-91 PC91056

 

LeonM, Stock, Principal Investigator

 

Carlos Cheng
Michael Ettinger
Research Staff

 

March 31, 1993  

Molecular Catalytic Coal Liquid Conversion

 

I. Abstract
Last quarter, substantial progress has been made in the two general tasks advanced in our research proposal. The first task consists of the development of molecular homogeneous catalysts that can be used in the hydrogenation of coal liquids and in coal conversion processes. The second task concerns the activation of dihydrogen by basic catalysts in homogeneous reaction systems. With regards to the first task, we have prepared two organometallic rhodium (I) catalysts.

 

These are the dimer of chloro-penta-methyl-cyclo-pentadienyl-rhodium, [RhCI2(CsMes)], and the dimer of

chloro(1,5-hexadiene)rhodium. We have subsequently investigated the hydrogenation of various aromatic organic compounds using these organometallic reagents as catalysts. Results showed that both catalysts effected the hydrogenation of the aromatic portions of a wide range of organic compounds, including
aromatic hydrocarbons and aromatic compounds containing the ether group, alkyl groups, amino and carbonyl groups. However, both compounds were totally ineffective in catalyzing the hydrogenation of sulfur-containing aromatic organic compounds. Nevertheless, both rhodium catalysts successfully catalyzed the hydrogenation of naphthalene even in the presence of the coal liquids. With regards to base-activated hydrogenation of organic compounds, we have found that hydroxide and alkoxide bases are capable of activating dihydrogen, thereby leading to the hydrogenation of phenyl-substituted alkenes. Thus far, we are the first group to apply this unusual method towards the successful hydrogenation of olefins.

 

More specifically, tetrabutylammonium hydroxide, potassium tert-butoxide and potassium phenoxide were successfully used to activate dihydrogen and induce the hydrogenation of trans-stilbene. Potassium tert-butoxide was found to be slightly more effective than the other two bases in accomplishing this chemistry.  

(There is an involved dissertation regarding organometallic catalysts, which we don't include here, but which invites reading by qualified coal partisans.)

 

The second task will concern the activation of dihydrogen by basic catalysts in homogeneous reaction systems. This elementary concept finds clear precedenting early experimental work, in more recent fundamental gas phase research, in the demonstration that the water gas shift reaction can be catalyzed by bases, and in theoretical analyses of the chemistry. In essence, it has been established that the hydroxide ion,OH-, converts dihydrogen, He,to a hydride-equivalent reagent, [0H.H_-, that is capable of transferring
hydrogen to organic molecules under relatively mild conditions. We shall investigate whether basic catalysts ranging from hydroxide to hydrosulfide ion can accomplish the addition of dihydrogen to coal liquids and the removal of heteroatoms from them.

 

(They are confirming earlier and less clear research we have not yet cited for you, that some hydroxides, simple, well-known chemically reactive compounds related to the active ingredients in such mundane products as Drano(r), can help to facilitate coal conversion reactions in "relatively mild", i.e., lower-temperature, lower-energy, lower-cost processing "conditions".)

 

Observations

 

A. Metal-Catalyzed Hydrogenation
This phase of the project essentially consists of preparing organometallic reagents which are known or have been reported to act as homogeneous hydrogenation catalysts of aromatic hydrocarbons and studying their properties as homogeneous hydrogenation catalysts under various conditions with the ultimate objective of using these compounds to catalyze the conversion of coal liquids. 
 

Furthermore, we have carried out an experiment ...  to determine whether the sulfur-containing coal liquid would inhibit the hydrogenation of naphthalene (itself a coal-derived liquid) and measure the extent of inhibition. ... the results showed that 91% of the naphthalene was hydrogenated ... . to give 85% tetralin and 5% decalin. ... (and) ... this result indicate that the ... hydrogenation still proceeds to a large degree. This is a most encouraging result, since it suggests that the sulfur in coal liquid will not completely inhibit hydrogenation of the aromatic portions of the coal liquid.

 

(Many complex details of the chemistry of this "most encouraging result", which a qualified reader might find informative, are presented in the report. - JtM) 

II. Base-Catalyzed Hydrogenation

Our second task is to investigate the chemistry of base-catalyzed hydrogenation of organic compounds with the ultimate objective of applying the chemistry behind this novel concept to the catalytic conversion of coal liquids.

 

It is not generally known that bases such as the hydroxide ion are capable of activating dihydrogen to form "solvated hydride" or hydride-like species which can effect hydrogenation reactions under the appropriate conditions. Research during the first half of this century has amply demonstrated the feasibility of this concept

 

(Again, they reiterate the effectiveness of the simple "hydroxide ion" in promoting "hydrogenation reactions"; a fact apparently "amply demonstrated" during the early 1900's. Demonstrated, but not publicized. - JtM)

 

Overall, the four experiments confirmed the possibilities of this kind of chemistry."

 

---------

 

In other words, these DOE researchers "confirmed the possibilities" of low-energy, catalyzed coal liquefaction, in a "Quarterly Progress Report" of research into "Molecular Catalytic Coal Liquid Conversion".

 

Where, is the "Full Report"? .  

 

These researchers confirmed lower-energy coal liquefaction for the US DOE. The DOE hasn't yet, though, in turn, confirmed it to, and for, those of us who most deserve to know:

 

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s11.pdf

 

We earlier documented that our own US Department of Energy, knows that our abundant domestic coal can be transformed into the standard liquid fuels for our transportation fleet, which we are currently being extorted for the supply of; but it isn't, for whatever suspect reasons, talking very openly, or apparently doing much, about the fact.

 

Now, our coal industry doesn't seem to have a lot of fondness for the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the EPA isn't exactly suffering from a case of unrequited love.

 

But, in their zealousness to protect the environment, God bless them, they have officially stated the Truth that we can use our coal to supply our liquid fuel needs.

 

The enclosed report from the EPA was published this year, so it is more current, by decades, literally, than anything we have so far been able to mine from the clenched bowels of the US Department of Energy. 

 

We won't openly conjecture as to why that might be so, having been warned against such offensive behavior, but will, instead, just give thanks that at least one agency of the Federal Government, the primary defender against pollution, hasn't itself been polluted.

 

Whether they like coal, or not, they are being honest in admitting that coal can be converted into liquid fuels; they recognize and acknowledge that we need liquid fuels derived from coal; and, they are demonstrating a willingness, within the confines of their idealistic charter, to help coal liquefaction industry become a reality in the United States.

 

Herein, an excerpt from this very recent report from these genuine patriots. We'll insert a few comments and append some comment following, but, before we do, here is one excerpt, a "preview" if you will, that should, as we have previously documented and suggested, be front-page on every newspaper in WV and have everyone in US Coal Country asking hard and open questions of their press and elected representatives:

 

"Expected to come into operation in the near future is a major CTL complexdeveloped in conjunction with the University of West Virginia, uses direct liquefaction technology. It is expected to convert 3.5 million tonnes of coal per year into 1 million tonnes of oil products when operational, predominantly diesel for transportation." at Erdos, Inner Mongolia that will be run by the Shenhua Group, China’s largest coal miner. This plant,

 

That jumped out at us, though we've previously reported on it. It should jump out at everyone in US Coal Country.

 

Here's some more:

 

"Technical Support Document  

Coal-to-Liquids Products Industry Overview  

Proposed Rule for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases  

Office of Air and Radiation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
January 28, 2009  

Coal-to-Liquids Product Suppliers Technical Support Document

 

Table of Contents

 

Page

 

1.0. Introduction..............................................................................................................1
1.1. Purpose........................................................................................................1
1.2. Organization of this Report...........................................................................1
2.0. Overview of the Coal-to-Liquids Industry..................................................................1
2.1. Three Technologies......................................................................................2
2.1.1 Fischer-Tropsch (FT)....................................................................................2
2.1.2 Methanol to Gasoline (MTG)........................................................................5
2.1.3 Direct Liquefaction .......................................................................................5
2.1.4 Products.......................................................................................................7
3.0. Plants. .....................................................................................................................8
3.1. Existing Plants..............................................................................................8
3.2. Planned Plants.............................................................................................9
4.0. Carbon Content of Products.....................................................................................9 
 

List of Exhibits

 

Page

 

Exhibit 1: Coal Liquefaction Technologies.......................................................................3
Exhibit 2: Coal to Liquids Flow Diagram (Fischer Tropsch Synthesis).............................4
Exhibit 3: Coal to Liquids Flow Diagram (Direct Liquefaction) .........................................6
Exhibit 4: Sasol CTL Synthetic Jet Fuel...........................................................................9

 

This document provides an overview of the status of the emerging coal-to-liquids (CTL)
industry both in the United States and elsewhere. The analysis here is part of a larger
effort to develop guidelines for mandatory reporting requirements for greenhouse gases
(GHGs). In December 2007, Congress enacted an omnibus appropriations bill that
directs EPA to develop and publish a rule requiring measurement and reporting of GHG
emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy. The bill
mandates that EPA publish a proposed rule within nine months and a final rule within 18
months. Understanding the information that fuel suppliers already generate and report
to federal agencies is a first step in developing mandatory GHG reporting requirements.

 

Since CTL is a nascent industry in which the only operational plants are overseas this
document focuses more on the status of the industry, the emerging technologies, and
identifies the operational plants and those that are planned.

 

Existing research and development (R&D) work indicates that the carbon content of the
products from a CLT plant, particularly a plant using Fischer Tropsch technology, have a
different and potentially lower carbon content compared to those from a conventional
petroleum refinery. However, data are difficult to identify and the current approach, until
further knowledge is available, is to use the petroleum default table in Subpart MM
Petroleum Suppliers to calculate the carbon content of CTL derived products.

 

Organization of this Report
To provide context for the CTL sector, section 2 provides an overview of the industry and
focuses on the two dominant technologies, the indirect Fischer Tropsch and direct
liquefaction of coal. There is too a brief discussion of Mobil’s methanol-to-gasoline
(MTG) process. There is also some discussion of the type of products that come from a
CLT plant and whether or not they need further processing. Section 3 discusses the
existing plants, plants that are under construction and planned plants. Since this is a
nascent industry the discussion is not confined only to the United States. Finally,
Section 4 focuses on what is known about the carbon content of CTL products.

 

Overview of the Coal-to-Liquids Industry
Coal-to-Liquids technology has been known and used for a long time. The underlying
technology, coal gasification, was developed in the 19th century, the product being “town
gas” which was used for lighting and cooking. Use of town gas became widespread in
both Europe and the United States. In the 1920s the Fischer-Tropsch process was
developed to convert the main constituents of the gas, hydrogen and carbon monoxide
to liquid fuels.

 

At the beginning of the 20th century the direct liquefaction process was first done by
reacting coal with hydrogen and process solvent at high temperatures and pressure to
produce liquid fuels. This direct liquefaction process was used to produce high octane
aviation gasoline by Germany during World War II. The Fischer Tropsch technology  

was also used in Germany in the war. However, given the costs of the technology and
the very low prices of petroleum its only use came towards the end of the Nazi regime in
Germany and during the period of apartheid in South Africa. Sanctions and war cut off
most petroleum to these two countries so that need rather than prices determined the
use of the technology.

 

Although research into CTL has continued, apart from the South African plants no other
plants were planned before the substantial increase in crude oil prices commencing after
2000. The substantial increase in crude oil prices, combined with concern over
geopolitical instability in the major producing areas, and the increasing competition for
limited resources has resulted in attention once again turning to alternative sources for
transportation fuels, whether biofuels, gas to liquids, coal gasification, or coal to liquids.
Oil prices, driven by burgeoning global demand have reached a high enough level that
these alternative sources, despite the unprecedented increase in capital and operating
costs, can be deemed economic as well as technically feasible. CTL is the subject of
increasing attention as coal resources are widespread and voluminous.

 

Although there has been limited application of these alternative fuel sources, the front
end technology of gasification has advanced considerably. Between 2000 and 2007, 27
new coal gasification facilities became operational around the world. Three of these
plants produce electrical power using a combination of steam and gas, and the others
are used to produce synthesis gas for the manufacture of chemicals, particularly
ammonia and methanol. Consequently, there have been significant advances in coal
gasification.

 

Three Technologies
There are currently three established technologies for CTL plants: the indirect
method in which coal is first gasified and then converted to liquid fuels through
the process of Fischer Tropsch synthesis; the MTG process, which is a subset of
the indirect method; and the direct method in which coal is directly converted to
liquid fuels with the help of hydrogen and heavy oils. Exhibit 1 lists all the current
component technologies for CTL.

 

 Fischer-Tropsch (FT)
Exhibit 2 presents a flow diagram of the Sasol CTL process. Sasol has
developed two technologies based on the Fischer Tropsch process: 1) the High
Temperature Fischer Tropsch process which can be used to produce a slate of
light products as well as the building blocks of high value added chemicals, and
2) the Low Temperature Fischer Tropsch process that is used for producing
diesel from coal.

 

Exhibit 2 represents the Low Temperature process. As the exhibit shows coal is
fed to gasifiers to produce raw gas which is then purified into the synthesis gas (a
mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) which is then fed into the Fischer  

Tropsch synthesis and converted to heavy hydrocarbons in the presence of a
catalyst.

 

(1 The Rand Corporation, Producing Liquid Fuels from Coal, 2008)

 

One of the advantages of the FT process is that the synthesis gas can be made
from a variety of feedstocks other than coal. Commercial development over the
past 20 years has centered around using various deposits of stranded gas. The
resulting various Gas-to-Liquids plants all use a variation of the FT process.
Considerable work has also been done examing adding biomass to the coal
feedstock as a means of reducing stationary source greenhouse gas emissions.

 

The products can be upgraded by hydrocracking, chemical workup or by refining
through a conventional petroleum refinery depending on the product slate
required.

 

Exhibit 1: Coal Liquefaction Technologies

 

1.Mild Pyrolysis Single-Stage Direct Liquefaction
2.Two-Stage Direct Liquefaction
3. Co-Processing and Dry Hydrogenation
4. Indirect Liquefaction
5. Liquids from Coal (LFC) Process
6. Encoal Coal Technology Corporation
7. Univ. of North Dakota Energy and Environmental Center (EERC)/AMAX R&D Process 
8. Institute of Gas Technology
9. Char Oil Energy Development (COED) - (FMC, ARCO - JtM)
10. Solvent Refined Coal Processes (SRC-I and SRC-II) Gulf Oil
11. Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) Process
12. H-Coal Process – HRI
13. Imhausen High-Pressure Process
14. Conoco Zinc Chloride Process
15. Kohleoel Process – Ruhrkohle
16. NEDO Process (Japan - JtM)
17.Consol Synthetic Fuel (CSF) Process
18. Lummus ITSL Process
19. Chevron Coal Liquefaction Process (CCLP)
20. Kerr-McGee ITSL Work
21. Mitsubishi Solvolysis Process
22. Pyrosol Process – Saarbergwerke -Catalytic

23. Two-Stage Liquefaction Process – DOE and HRI
24. Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) Process 
25. British Coal-Brown Coal Liquefaction (BCL) Process

26. NEDO
27. Amoco CC-TSL Process
28. Supercritical Gas Extraction (SGE) Process 
29. British Coal -MITI Mark I and Mark II

Co-Processing
30. Cherry P Process – Osaka Gas Co.
31. Solvolysis Co-Processing – Mitsubishi
32. Mobil Co-Processing
33. Pyrosol Co-Processing 
34. Saabergwerke

35. Chevron Co-Processing
36. Lummus Crest Co-Processing
37. Alberta Research Council Co-Processing
38. CANMET Co-Processing
39. Rheinbraun Co-Processing 
40.  TUC Co-Processing
41. UOP Slurry-Catalysed Co-Processing
42. HTI Co-Processing
43. Sasol
44. Rentech
45. Syntroleum

46. Mobil Methanol-to-Gasoline (MTG) Process
47. Mobil Methanol-to-Olefins (MTO) Process
48. Shell Middle Distillate Synthesis (SMOS)

 

January 28, 2009 3

 

(Following this revelation, by our thankfully thorough EPA, that, as of this year, there exist NEARLY 50 established and demonstrated coal-to-liquid conversion technologies world-wide, the names of many which you should recognize, if you've been following our posts, comes an additional cogent presentation, an overview, of some of those coal liquefaction technologies, their products and their economics. Following are some excerpts selected just to give an assurance that their is at least someone in government who understands these things and is willing to talk about them. Our excerpts are abbreviated in the extreme. - JtM) 

Coal-to-Liquids Product Suppliers Technical Support Document

 

2.1.2 Methanol to Gasoline (MTG)
The front end of a MTG plant encompassing coal gasification would be identical
to that of a CTL plant. However, the coal gasification has to produce a synthesis
gas with a hydrogen-to-carbon monoxide ratio suitable for methanol synthesis.
Once the methanol is produced it is dehydrated to produce dimethyl ether. The
latter is then converted to a mix of hydrocarbons in the presence of special
catalysts. The hydrocarbon mix that results from this is very similar to that found
in raw gasoline. Products from the MTG process are about 90 percent gasoline
with the rest being LPG. Both products can be sold directly into the market.

 

(In other words, converting coal via gasification-methanol synthesis-catalysis yields "90 percent gasoline with the rest being LPG" - i.e., Liquid Petroleum Gas, we presume. And, those "can be sold directly into the market". - JtM)

 

Methanol is one of the major chemicals necessary for an industrialized economy.
Commercial methanol is largely produced by natural gas-derived synthesis gas.
There is, however, one commercial plant in the United States where methanol is
produced from coal derived synthesis gas. In these cases the product desired is
methanol, but a commercial scale MTG plant operated in New Zealand from
1985 to 1995 and produced 14,500 barrels per day of gasoline.

 

2.1.3 Direct Liquefaction 
 

Compared to Fischer Tropsch synthesis direct liquefaction requires harsh
process conditions (3500psi/230bar+ and 750F/400C compared to 375psi/25 bar
and 400-630F/200-340C) and expensive feedstocks. In addition, more advances
have been made to the Fischer Tropsch process technology and catalysts than
to direct liquefaction.

 

FT Products

 

CTL plants produce a wide range of products from gasoline to waxes. The Sasol
Low Temperature process maximizes diesel fuel, while the High Temperature
process maximizes gasoline. Generally speaking the focus has been to produce
transportation fuels and chemical feedstocks, but naphthas and waxes are
always produced irrespective of the process. Considerable work has been done
in South Africa and in the United States on jet fuels for both commercial and
military aircraft.

 

Since 1999 Sasol has supplied a mixture of CTL components and conventional
kerosene to international airlines operating out of Johannesburg Airport. In April
of 2008 international aviation authorities approved Sasol’s fully synthetic CTL jet
fuel as Jet A-1 for commercial use in all turbine aircraft. Currently ASTM is
working to incorporate the synthetic jet fuel in ASTM D1655-08a Standard
Specifications for Aviation Turbine Fuels. A blend of conventional JP8 and FT jet
fuel has recently (2006) been certified for use by the U.S. Air Forces.

 

The synthetic jet fuel is ultra low sulphur (<5ppm) with 8% to 25% aromatics. It is
fully fungible with petroleum-based jet fuel. Testing on FT jet fuel has revealed
significantly reduced particulate emissions compared to conventional and military
jet fuels.3 Exhibit 4 shows the flow diagram for the manufacturing process in the
High Temperature Fischer Tropsch process.

 

In the United States the Department of Defense has been working with Rentech
to produce a new Fischer Tropsch fuel that will meet all of the agency’s needs
and that will be fungible with petroleum based products and thus able to use the
existing infrastructure.

 

FT diesel fuel is very high quality. Sulfur constitutes less than 1 ppm. FT diesel
has less than 1 percent aromatics and thus has a high cetane value, generally
from 70 to 80. In general high cetane-number fuels reduce hydrocarbon and
soot emissions from cold starts and reduce nitrogen oxide and particulate
emissions from a warm engine. FT diesel can be sold as a premium product or
can be blended with conventional diesel fuel to improve its qualities. Currently,
there is no approved ASTM test for FT diesel, but apparently ASTM is working on
a test that it is not yet ready to publish.4

 

MTG products

 

MTG gasoline would be free of all sulfur. From what is known, MTG gasoline
would be equal or superior to conventional gasoline and would have positive
effects on air quality relative to benzene and Reid vapour pressure.

 

About 10 to 12 percent of the plant output would be LPG, mostly butane and
propane. This LPG could either be sold directly into the market or to the
petrochemical industry, or could be used at the plant itself to generate electricity.

 

Direct liquefaction products

 

The principal products from a coal-based direct liquefaction plant would be
naphthas and middle distillates. There is considerable variation in the properties
of these products, depending of course on the configuration of the plant, but
unlike the products of either FT plants or MTG plants, these products cannot be
sold directly in to the market place. In general direct liquefaction products
contain more aromatics and cyclic hydrocarbons and they may have an overall
lower hydrogen content. These products would either have to be upgraded at
the plant or sent to a refinery for further upgrading.

 

Currently the only operational CTL plants are in South Africa. Sasol One, now
Sasol Chemical Industries became operational in the late 1950s. Sasol Two and
Three at Secunda were built in 1974 and 1978. The two plants, now combined
into one, produce approximately 160,000 b/d of mostly transportation products.
Both plants use the Fischer Tropsch indirect CTL technology.

 

Expected to come into operation in the near future is a major CTL complex at
Erdos, Inner Mongolia that will be run by the Shenhua Group, China’s largest
coal miner. This plant, developed in conjunction with the University of West
Virginia, uses direct liquefaction technology. It is expected to convert 3.5 million
tonnes of coal per year into 1 million tonnes of oil products when operational,
predominantly diesel for transportation.

 

In addition, Shenhua is working with Sasol to conduct a feasibility study to build
two Fischer Tropsch CTL plants in the provinces of Shaanxi and Ningxia. Two
smaller CTL plants are also under construction in China as is one in Indonesia.

 

January 28, 2009 8

 

Coal-to-Liquids Product Suppliers Technical Support Document

 

Exhibit 4: Sasol CTL Synthetic Jet Fuel
3.2. Planned Plants
Currently there are fourteen CTL plants under consideration in the United States.
Three are at the design stage with the others still being studied for feasibility.
While most are CTL plants a number of the Rentech proposed plants will be
more complex with feedstock varying from waste to biomass to petroleum coke
as well as coal. Whether any will come to fruition remains to be seen.

 

4.0. Carbon Content of Products
There is very little hard data on the carbon content of the products of CTL plants.
The literature does seem to imply that the Fischer Tropsch products will have
lower CO2 emissions when combusted. FT products contain very little aromatics
which would indicate that the carbon content of FT products may be lower than
that of conventional petroleum products. In testimony before the Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives the following
statement was made by a senior scientist from Rentech:

 

January 28, 2009 9

 

Coal-to-Liquids Product Suppliers Technical Support Document

 

F-T fuels offer numerous benefits to aviation users. The first is an
immediate reduction in particulate emissions. F-T jet fuel has been shown
in laboratory combusters and engines to reduce PM emissions by 96% at
idle and 78% under cruise operation. Validation of the reduction in other
turbine engine emissions is still under way. Concurrent to the PM
reductions is an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions from F-T fuel. F-T
fuels inherently reduce CO2 emissions because they have higher energy
content per carbon content of the fuel, and the fuel is less dense than
conventional jet fuel allowing aircraft to fly further on the same load of fuel.

 

Given that there is a dearth of hard data and that there is, as yet, no operational
CTL plant in the United States, EPA is proposing that, until more data becomes
available, reporters from future CTL plants use the default table in Subpart MM –
Suppliers of Petroleum Products of the rule.

 

A number of CTL products may be sent to refineries for further upgrading,
especially those products from direct liquefaction plants. Given that petroleum
refineries are required under the rule to keep track of all non-crude feedstocks
that enter the refinery there should not be any double counting. If CTL products
are imported either they will go straight to the market place or to a refinery for
upgrading. In either case there will be little possibility of double counting."

 

That's it for the body of our excerpt, but allow us to recap a few key points:

 

First, again: China is working towards a liquid fuel independence based on coal, with the indispensable help of West Virginia University. China wants their open help, but not the United States?

 

There are a lot of things that should be highlighted and emphasized, but we're forced to conclude with a negative, even sorrowful, note sounded by our own EPA:

 

"Currently there are fourteen CTL plants under consideration in the United States. ... Whether any will come to fruition remains to be seen."

 

Even though the technology is proven, the economics have been demonstrated and the coal is there.

 

http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/14_4_CHICAGO_09-70_0042.pdf

 

We've posted several reports on FMC Corporation's Government-sponsored New Jersey project, wherein they used their "COED" process to liquefy coal.

 

Herein, linked above, is a report from Atlantic Richfield - the ARCO we should all be familiar with - documenting that oils derived from coal via FMC's COED process can, as earlier documentation we've submitted attests, be refined into "standard" liquid fuel products via established petroleum refining technology.

 

Comment follows the excerpt:

"Hydrogenation of COED Coal Oils

 

Harry E. Jacobs; Atlantic Richfield Company, Harvey, Illinois

 

J. F. Jones and R. T. Eddinger; FMC Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey

 

Introduction

 

The Office of Coal Research, Department of the Interior, has sponsored several projects having as one of their objectives, the production of oil from coal. One of these, project COED, conducted by FMC Corporation, produces oil by low temperature pyrolysis of coal. The Atlantic Richfield company, which had been con-
ducting hydrogenation experiments on coal derived oils, was requested by the Office of Coal Research to hydrotreat some COED oils. Accordingly, the following work was carried out by ARC0 in cooperation with FMC.

 

Raw oils from the COED process have a low hydrogen content and high concentrations of oxygen, nitrogen, and sulf'ur. Hence, hydrotreating is required before the oils can be used in present day petroleum refining processes. In the COED process, the oil product is taken from the reactors as a vapor, leaving the residual ash and char to be withdrawn separately as a fluidized solid. Any entrained solids in the oil vapor are removed by cyclones and by filters. Consequently the COED oil, being virtually solids free, can be hydrotreated in fixed bed reactors.

 

The equipment used by the ARC0 laboratories is a typical bench scale high-temperature, high-pressure continuous unit of the type used in petroleum process research. The unit is shown schematically in Figure 1. The oil in a heated, gas blanketed charge tank is circulated by a low pressure, positive displacement pump. This serves to maintain a uniform mixture in the feed tank and to supply a positive pressure at the suction of the high pressure feed pump. The oil is combined with hydrogen and preheated before passing downflow through the 1b inch catalyst bed. The product is cooled and separated into gas and liquid fractions for sampling and analysis.

 

The double pumping system reduced the problem of interruption of flow. COED oil, being a pyrolysis product, can form polymers and coke at temperatures above 600'F. This is not a problem as long as liquid flow is maintained. However, if the flow is interrupted, the oil does not drain from the reactor fast enough to avoid
coking.

 

The catalyst used is commercially available HDS-3A manufactured by American Cyanamid. It (contains) NiO and ... MoO3 on alumina."

 

Note the needed catalysts used herein by ARCO are commercially available, and consist of Nickel and Molybdenum compounds supported on alumina; all, as previously documented from other sources, known to be effective in the refining of coal-derived liquids.

 

We'll not include the tables, or lengthy technical dissertations, in this excerpt. However, the three coals used were examples from Utah, Illinois and the Pittsburgh seams. The detailed processing and analyses described by ARCO documents that the techniques required for refining coal oils are well-understood and, in fact, don't differ much from established petroleum refining processes. 

 

As we have documented previously, coal liquids produced by at least some established coal liquefaction technologies can be refined into standard liquid fuel products through the existing petroleum refining industrial infrastructure.

 

That is affirmed in ARCO's conclusion about the processing of these three coal-derived oils:

"Conclusion

 

In summary ...The product oils ... can be processed by conventional petroleum refining methods."

 

In  other words, as this petroleum major confirms: We can make oil from coal, and we can refine that coal oil into standard, commercial liquid fuel products using petroleum refineries already in place.

 

Again, this work by ARCO follows the FMC coal liquefaction project that was, as we've earlier documented, funded, at least in part, by the US Department of the Interior.

 

In other words: The Petroleum Industry and our Federal Government know that our abundant coal can be converted on a practical basis into the liquid fuels, and petrochemicals, we grow increasingly short of.

 

Why haven't we the people, most especially we the people of US Coal Country, been so informed?