Utah Confirms WVU CTL Research

 
We've sent you several references, one most recently from WVU, confirming that waste automotive tires, and, by extension, other rubber, plastic and polymeric wastes; some, such as natural latex, renewable and thus inherently carbon recycling, can enhance and improve the process of coal conversion into raw materials suitable for manufacturing liquid fuels and plastics.
 
Herein, from the University of Utah, is yet more documentation of that fact:

"An Effective Coal Liquefaction Solvent Obtained from the Vacuum Pyrolysis of Waste Rubber Tires

Edward C. Orr, Yanlong Shi, Qin Ji, Lian Shao, Melizza Villanueva, and Edward M. Eyring
[Unable to display image]Department of Chemistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
Energy Fuels, 1996, 10 (3), pp 573–578
May 21, 1996
Copyright © 1996 American Chemical Society
 
Oil derived from vacuum pyrolysis of waste rubber tires was used as a coal liquefaction solvent with a high-volatile A bituminous coal and a Mo catalyst. The vacuum-pyrolyzed tire oil along with the Mo catalyst was found to convert over 90% (daf) of the coal to gas, oil, and asphaltenes. Reactions were carried out in tubing reactors heated to 430 °C under 1000 psig (cold) of hydrogen gas. The vacuum-pyrolyzed tire oil (PTO) obtained from waste rubber tires contained various polyaromatic molecules which have been shown to be beneficial in coal liquefaction. Coal conversion was found to be hydrogen pressure dependent for reactions where coal and PTO were coprocessed together. Conversion results show that most of the coal reacted within the first 10 min of coprocessing. Electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) detected the presence of Mo inside coal particles after 20 min of coprocessing coal and PTO."
 
So, again, it is confirmed that "tire oil" can help to convert "over 90%" of coal into what are, essentially, crude petroleum products.  And, we'll submit that substances very similar to such "tire oil", which can be so "beneficial in coal liquefaction", can be extracted from other materials, as well, including various waste plastics and, again, botanical, carbon-recycling latex.

WVU Improves CTLYield with Waste Tires

 
This submission, at the risk of redundancy, supplements earlier reports we've made, which documented West Virginia University's achievements in improving the technology for converting our abundant coal into needed liquid fuels by utilizing other materials, in this case, as in other reports from other independent researchers we've cited, waste automotive tires.
 
Brief comment follows:
 
"Effect of process conditions on co-liquefaction kinetics of waste tire and coal 

Ramesh K. Sharma, Jianli Yang, John W. Zondlo and Dady B. Dadyburjor

Department of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University, PO Box 6102 Morgantown, WV 

June 1998.

Abstract

Thermal and catalytic liquefactions of waste (recycled) tire and coal were studied both separately and using mixtures with different tire/coal ratios. Runs were made in a batch tubing bomb reactor at 350–425C. The effect of hydrogen pressure on the product slate was also studied. Mixtures of tire components and coal were used in order to understand the role of the tire as a solvent in co-liquefaction. In the catalytic runs, a ferric-sulfide-based catalyst impregnated in situ in the coal was used. Both the tire components and the entire tire exhibit a synergistic effect on coal conversion. The extent of synergism depends on temperature, H2 pressure and the tire/coal ratio. Experiments with coal and tire components show that the synergistic effect of tire is due to the rubber portion of the tire and not the carbon black. The synergism mainly leads to an increase in the yields of asphaltenes, which are nearly double those in the coal-only runs at 400°C. The conversion of coal increases dramatically using the catalyst, but the catalytic effect is attenuated somewhat in the presence of tire, especially at high tire/coal ratios. The data were analyzed using a consecutive reaction scheme for the liquefaction of coal to asphaltenes and thence to oil+gas, both reactions being of second order; a second-order conversion of tire to oil+gas; and an additional synergism reaction when both coal and tire are present, first-order in both coal and tire. Parallel schemes were assumed for thermal (uncatalyzed) and catalyzed reactions. The uncatalyzed liquefaction of coal has a low apparent activation energy, 36 kJ/mol, compared to those for the synergism reaction (84 kJ/mol) and the catalytic coal liquefaction (158 kJ/mol). The conversion of asphaltenes to oil+gas is relatively independent of temperature and of the presence of the catalyst. The catalyst appears to play a significant role in the conversion of coal to asphaltenes, but a negligible role in the synergism reaction."

Again, as with the other research we've cited, adding scrap auto tires to coal in a liquefaction process improves the yield of liquid fuel raw material; the practice is "synergistic". And: "the synergistic effect of tire is due to the rubber portion of the tire and not the carbon black"; a conclusion drawn by other researchers, wherein the "rubber" contributes hydrogen to the hydrogenation and liquefaction reaction, and can reduce the amount, and associated costs, of synthetic hydrogen donor solvent, such as tetralin, or others, which might otherwise be needed to hydrogenate the coal.

So effective is the addition of "rubber" to coal, that it can "increase in the yields of asphaltenes, which are nearly double those in the coal-only runs". In other words, by adding "waste" rubber to coal in a liquefaction process, we can "nearly double" the production of liquid fuel raw materials from coal.

We were careful above to use the word "rubber" parenthetically, since modern tires can be made of either natural or synthetic polymers. But, we must note that, where natural rubber tire waste would be used in a coal co-liquefaction process, such use would represent yet another route of atmospheric carbon dioxide recycling, via the initial photosynthetic production of botanical latex.

Exxon Liquefies Low Rank Coal

We present herein a sequence of two reports from Exxon, who was, as we have earlier documented, inexplicably allowed to coordinate US DOE research, conducted by even more Big Oil-related entities, into the development of coal liquefaction technologies in the 1970's and 1980's.
 
Following are the links and excerpts, with comment appended:
 
 
Title: Performance of low rank coals in the Exxon Donor Solvent Process
 
Authors: Mitchell, W.N.; Trachte, K.L.; Zaczepinski, S.
 
Affiliation: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Baytown, TX
 
Publication: US Department of Energy and University of North Dakota Biennial Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks, ND, May 1979; Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and Development; vol. 18, December, 1979; p. 311-314
 
Abstract: The Exxon Donor Solvent Coal Liquefaction Process (EDS) handles a full range of coals ranging from bituminous through subbituminous to lignites. The overall process performance based on the 50 lb/day Recycle Coal Liquefaction Unit (RCLU) and the 1 ton/day Coal Liquefaction Pilot Plant (CLPP) is summarized as a function of process conditions and coal rank. Special emphasis is placed on the conversion and yield response of the range of coals demonstrated in the EDS process to date. In addition to the liquefaction potential, the operability issues associated with operating on low rank coals are addressed. More specifically, the relationship between the operating severity and the liquefaction bottoms viscosity is explored in detail. Also, the calcium carbonate scale deposition and agglomerates formation in the process reactors is covered. As part of this discussion, process and mechanical solutions to this problem are summarized.
 
 
Title: Exxon Donor Solvent Liquefaction Process
 
Author: Neavel, R.C.
 
Affiliation: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Baytown, TX
 
Publication: Royal Society, Discussion on New Coal Chemistry, London, England, May 21, 22, 1980. Royal Society (London), Philosophical Transactions, Series A, vol. 300, no. 1453, Mar. 20, 1981, p. 141-156; Discussion, p. 156. Research supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Electric Power Research Institute, Japan Coal Liquefaction Co., Phillips Petroleum Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., Ruhrkohle AG, and Exxon Corp. Published March, 1981.
 
Abstract: The Exxon donor solvent (EDS) coal liquefaction system is a direct liquefaction procedure. Coal is chemically reacted and dissolved in a recycle solvent that is hydrogenated between passes to the liquefaction reactor. More than 2.6 barrels of a synthetic crude boiling below 1000 F are produced per ton of dry, high volatile coal feed. Other ranks of coal can be effectively liquefied. The process development has proceeded to a 250 ton/day pilot plant stage that went into operation in June 1980. The presentation addresses the chemical reactions and process conditions that result in ease of operability and flexibility of the EDS process."
 
Clearly, a major Big Oil player was entrusted with research into a key technology of coal utilization that is now critical to our national security; and which was, even back when the research was being conducted, of critical US domestic economic importance.
 
And, also clearly: The fact that developments which resulted "in ease of operability and flexibility of" a coal-to-liquid fuel conversion process, which were supported by "the U.S. Department of Energy, Electric Power Research Institute ... Phillips Petroleum Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., ... and Exxon", were presented in the blindingly obscure "Philosophical Transactions" of London, England's "Royal Society", should serve as absolute confirmation that Someone didn't want Anyone - especially anyone in US Coal Country - to know Anything about it.
 
It's far, far past time Everyone - especially everyone in US Coal Country - knew Everything.

UK, Russia, Poland & Bio/CoalTl

 
Scientists from three nations herein confirm that biologically-derived and carbon-recycling alcohol can serve to enhance and improve the efficiency of direct coal liquefaction processes.
 
Comment follows the excerpt, from researchers we have previously cited:
 
"The nature of the synergistic effect of binary tetralin-alcohol solvents in Kansk-Achinsk brown coal liquefaction
 
Peter N. Kuznetsov, Jan Bimer, Piotr D. Salbut, Evgeny D. Korniyets, Ludmila I. Kuznetsova and Colin E. Snape

Institute of Chemistry and Chemico-Metallurgical Processes, 42 K. Marx Str., Krasnoyarsk 660049, Russia

Institute of Organic Chemistry, 44 Kasprzaka Str., Warszawa 01-224, Poland

University of Strathclyde, Thomas Graham Building, 295 Cathedral Str., Glasgow G1 1XL, UK


May 1996

Abstract

Kansk-Achinsk brown coal hydrogenation and swelling in tetralin, in low molecular alcohols, in other solvents and in binary mixtures were studied. Tetralin was found to be the most effective liquefaction solvent, but methanol and ethanol were the active ones in coal swelling. Synergistic effects were observed when the mixtures of tetralin and methanol or ethanol were used for liquefaction and swelling. The effect of binary solvents was shown to be due to the ability of alcohol components to cause brown coal to swell improving the availability of the fragments of coal matter for the reactive hydrogen donor tetralin molecules."

This study confirms, first, the efficacy of the hydrogen donor solvent, tetralin, as specified by West Virginia University in their "West Virginia Process" for direct coal liquefaction.

It also demonstrates, as has other research we've cited, that ethanol, as derived from biological fermentation, serves to enhance the coal liquefaction solvent abilities of tetralin.

Unstated is the fact that ethanol can be, and most usually is, produced from the fermentation of botanical produce, i.e., purpose-grown crops, including algae, or agricultural and forestry wastes, and it's carbon content, recycled into liquid fuel, is all extracted, via photosynthesis, from the atmospheric load of carbon dioxide.

The contribution ethanol might make to overall atmospheric carbon reduction, if used for the purpose of enhancing coal liquefaction, might be relatively small. But, it could be a piece of the total environmental solution, especially when we accept the fact that our human contributions to atmospheric carbon, relative to some natural processes, such as volcanism, are relatively small. Moreover, if you recall other research we've cited, biological cellulose, another carbon-recycling botanical material, can be converted, alongside coal, into liquid fuel products in processes just like the one cited in this dispatch. 

And, perhaps at this time more importantly, ethanol, by improving the efficiency of coal conversion processes, can help us to better utilize our vast coal resources in making the liquid fuels we need domestically, rather than continuing to transfer our wealth overseas to unfriendly foreign petroleum powers, and thereby continuing to impoverish our own, United States, citizens..

Yale - Machine Recycles CO2

 

A long time ago now, we reported on the developments at Sandia National Laboratory, where scientist Rich Diver and his colleagues have refined technology that would enable us to capture Carbon Dioxide, as emitted from coal combustion or coal conversion facilities, among many other sources, and convert it into liquid fuels and organic chemical raw materials.
 
Today, news of that achievement was re-published, as follows:
 
"23 Nov 2009: Researchers Develop Machine To Recycle Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel
 
U.S. researchers have demonstrated a technology that uses the sun’s heat to convert carbon dioxide and water into the building blocks of traditional fuels, a reverse combustion process that may emerge as a practical alternative to sequestration of CO2 emissions from power plants. The prototype “Sunshine to Petrol” system, developed by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, uses concentrated solar energy to trigger a thermo-chemical reaction in an iron-rich composite located inside a two-sided cylindrical chamber. The iron oxide is designed to lose an oxygen molecule when exposed to 1,500 degree C heat, and then retrieve an oxygen molecule when it is cooled down, essentially converting an incoming supply of CO2 into an outgoing stream of carbon monoxide. Additionally, when researchers pump water into the chamber rather than CO2, the machine produces hydrogen. Combining those retrieved gases — hydrogen and carbon monoxide — they are able to create syngas, which can be used as a fuel. While researchers say the technology likely will not be ready for market for 15 to 20 years, it could one day become a practical way to recycle CO2. “It’s a productive utilization of CO2 that you might capture from a coal plant, a brewery, and similar concentrated sources,” said James Miller, a Sandia chemical engineer."
 
Well, "ready for market for 15 to 20 years" might not sound all that encouraging. But, how soon might it be "ready" if just one-tenth of the money that will be wasted through Cap&Trade regulations, or worse than squandered through geologic sequestration to help Big Oil scrounge more of the stuff he extorts us with out of the ground, were dedicated instead to developing this new carbon dioxide recycling technology - a technology that would not only free our coal industries from unproductive costs, but help free all of us from the vast and counter-productive wastes of buying OPEC petroleum and defending the lavish lifestyles of tyrannical, unfriendly OPEC regimes?
 
Moreover, what isn't emphasized perhaps as much as it should be in this release from Yale, except in the phrase" "uses the sun’s heat to convert carbon dioxide", is the fact that Sandia's CO2 recycling technology is conceptualized and designed to operate on environmental energy. They specify solar thermal and photovoltaic power in their concepts, but hydroelectric and wind power, as well, might find genuinely practical use in such an application.
 
And, finally, why do we have to learn about these developments in a news organ published by a bastion of liberal learning, whom we seriously doubt we could call a "Friend of Coal" without being laughed at or publicly stoned by them, and not in the Coal Country news media?