WV Coal Member Meeting 2024 1240x200 1 1

OPEC to Recycle CO2

 
We're tempted to say that we, all of us, in Coal Country, in the US, have our heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the potentials for converting our abundant coal into liquid fuels, and for recycling the Carbon Dioxide by-product of our coal use into even more liquid fuels.
 
Sadly, we're forced to conclude that we have our heads stuck somewhere even darker and less pleasant.
 
And, unless we put an end to the compulsive practice of contemplating the inner walls of our colons, and get to work converting our abundant coal and recycling Carbon Dioxide, into the liquid fuels and chemical manufacturing raw materials we need, we are going to wind up even further behind, and in even deeper bondage to, some people with whom we don't enjoy the warmest of relations.
 
As documented herein, OPEC is making ready to recycle Carbon Dioxide into hydrocarbon products, so that they can continue to extort us after the deserts run as dry of oil as they are of water.
 
The portentous excerpt:
 
"MHI to License Flue Gas Carbon Dioxide Recovery Technology To GPIC in Bahrain -- World-class Recovery Capacity of 450 Tons/Day 
 
Article Excerpt
Tokyo, Japan, Dec 20, 2007 - (JCN Newswire) - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) has singed a license agreement for carbon dioxide (CO2) recovery technology with Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company (GPIC), a manufacturer of fertilizers and petrochemicals in Bahrain.

GPIC will use the technology to recover CO2 from flue gas emitted at its existing petrochemical plant and utilize the captured CO2 to increase urea and methanol production. The recovery units can capture 450 metric tons of CO2 per day, one of the world's largest capacities for the chemical application."
 
We shouldn't by now have to explain the utility of methanol.
 
When those of us in Coal Country, in the United States, finally wake up and pull our heads out of whatever dark place it is we have them stuck, and realize that we're paying a sheik's ransom to OPEC for a liquid fuel they're making out of the primary by-product of our coal use, that stuff we'll be wiping out of our eyes and combing out of our hair won't be some of OPEC's desert sand.

National Mining Association & CoalTL

 
We submit the enclosed publication, "Liquid Fuels From US Coal", from our own, US, National Mining Association.
 
It tells almost the whole Truth of the great potential for converting our abundant coal into the liquid fuels, and industrial chemical raw materials, we're short of.
 
File incompatibilities and our disabled circumstances prevent us from making pertinent excerpts for you.
 
But, the entire document is pertinent. It should be printed on glossy paper, in it's entirety, and inserted as a Sunday supplement in every newspaper in West Virginia, in every newspaper in Coal Country.

USAF & Morgantown/Pittsburgh DOE Convert Coal & Bio

 
We called your attention yesterday to a US DOE coal liquefaction project being undertaken in Louisiana, but being managed out of the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) offices next door to WVU, in Morgantown, WV.
 
No further comment on the self-evident paradoxes inherent in that arrangement, but herein we alert you to yet another fairly recent, publicly unheralded, undertaking by our local DOE offices, in conjunction with the US Air Force as a part of their extensive coal-to-liquid jet fuel development program, which we have been able to document for you.
 
Note that a second link, leading to the full report, is included below, following the this excerpt from the link above:
 

"Release Date: August 29, 2007

 
NETL and USAF Release Feasibility Study for Conceptual Coal+Biomass-to-Liquids Facility
Facility Would Capitalize on Domestic Energy Resources, Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 

MORGANTOWN, WV — The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE/NETL) and the U.S. Air Force have released a study that examines the feasibility of producing l00,000 barrels per day of jet fuel from coal and biomass. The coal+biomass-to-liquids (CBTL) facilities could also cut life-cycle emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, by 20 percent compared to conventional petroleum processes.

The study provides a performance baseline that can be used to show how CBTL with carbon capture and storage would capitalize on domestic energy resources, provide a buffer against rising petroleum and natural gas prices, and mitigate output of CO2.

The joint NETL/Air Force report, Increasing Security and Reducing Carbon Emissions of the U.S. Transportation Sector: A Transformational Role for Coal with Biomass, looks at a plant design that would gasify coal and corn stover (the leaves and stalks left in a cornfield after harvest), and then convert the gas to jet fuel using Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) chemistry. The report is the first of a series of feasibility and conceptual plant design studies undertaken for commercial-scale F-T plants employing co-gasification of coal and biomass.

At full capacity, a single plant, using the base-case configuration outlined in the report, would use more than 4,500 tons of high-sulfur bituminous coal and nearly 630 tons of corn stover per day. From this feedstock it would produce—

  • Nearly 7,500 barrels per day of diesel fuel or aviation jet fuel that, with additives, can be delivered to end-use customers.
  • More than 3,500 barrels per day of liquid naphtha products that can be shipped to a refinery for further upgrading to commercial-grade products or sold as chemical feedstock.
  • 11.1 megawatts of electricity that can be exported to the grid, in addition to the electricity generated for internal use.

An environmentally friendly energy producer, the conceptual plant is based on the use of “best available control technology” guidelines for sulfur, nitrous oxides, particulate matter, and mercury. In addition, CO2 will be captured and compressed for injection into a pipeline that will ship the CO2 to a sequestration site.

Current and projected high oil prices, and rising concerns about dependence on imported oil, are creating new interest in alternative fuels.  In the past, liquid fuels derived from coal have been unable to compete with the price of fuels derived from crude oil.

The report finds economic benefits for converting coal and biomass to liquids, based on the price of crude oil. At current crude oil prices of over $60 per barrel, the commercial-scale CBTL plant configurations are shown to produce products that are competitive in the liquid fuel markets.

The full report [PDF-532KB] is available on DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory’s website.


Contact: David Anna, DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory, 412-386-4646"

No comment on that fact that to get information on this study, managed, apparently, out the NETL's Morgantown, WV, office, you have to call Pittsburgh, but we did manage to track down a link to the report file for the project. Due to our technical limitations, we are unable to download the file efficiently, or make excerpts for you, but the title sure is enticing, and we bet your readers would like to have a look:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NETL-AF%20CBTL%20Study%20Final%202007%20Aug%2024.pdf

"Increasing Security and Reducing Carbon Emissions of the US Transportation Sector: A Transformational Role for Coal with Biomass
 
August 24, 2007"
 
Gosh, using coal and biomass to increase our security and reduce emissions sounds kind of nice, doesn't it? Odd that we haven't heard more about it.
 
We'll repeat a few key phrases from above, for emphasis:
 
"The study provides a performance baseline that can be used to show how CBTL with carbon capture and storage would capitalize on domestic energy resources, provide a buffer against rising petroleum and natural gas prices, and mitigate output of CO2."
 
They're still speaking of wasteful and unnecessary "carbon ... storage" nonsense here, so perhaps someone should tell the Air Force about the Navy's patented technology, which we documented for you, for recycling Carbon Dioxide and converting it into liquid fuels.
 
But even though they seem compelled to genuflect to the Green Goddess by repeating their "sequestration's" genuflections, they do note that: "The coal+biomass-to-liquids (CBTL) facilities could also cut life-cycle emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas, by 20 percent compared to conventional petroleum processes."
 
Not compared to coal, mind you, but compared to "conventional petroleum". In other words, coal plus biomass to liquid fuels would cut CO2 compared to what we have now. 
 
In any case, the Air Force's projected co-generating pilot plant, to repeat, would produce, from coal and CO2-recycling biomass:
 
  • Nearly 7,500 barrels per day of diesel fuel or aviation jet fuel that, with additives, can be delivered to end-use customers.
  • More than 3,500 barrels per day of liquid naphtha products that can be shipped to a refinery for further upgrading to commercial-grade products or sold as chemical feedstock.
  • 11.1 megawatts of electricity that can be exported to the grid, in addition to the electricity generated for internal use."
  •  
    Sounds pretty good, doesn't it: Diesel fuel, organic chemical manufacturing raw materials, and cogenerated electricity as a result of coal liquefaction with carbon-recycling biomass?
     
    It would, in the words of their own sub-headline: "Capitalize on Domestic Energy Resources, Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions".
     
    When do we start pouring the foundations?
     
    And, why haven't those of us in Coal Country heard about these recent, critical, coal-centered developments, managed as they are by our own Federal Government offices in the very heart of Coal Country?
     

    Ethanol from Coal - in Louisiana

     
    Ethanol, as we have addressed in earlier reports, though touted as a renewable solution to liquid fuel needs, has negative and serious economic and social impacts when it is, as in our and other temperate-climate nations, derived from agricultural produce.
     
    A tool for calculating the true economic value of fuels that hasn't yet been well-publicized, or even really translated into plain English, is "Energy Return on Energy Invested", or, more simply, "Energy Return on Investment", most often abbreviated variously as "EROEI" and "EROI". We might attempt a summary explanation of the concept in a later dispatch; but, in brief: It can be demonstrated that it takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than will be returned in the use of that ethanol. Corn ethanol's "EROEI", in the United States, is negative. It is an investment with a negative return that will slowly fritter what wealth we have remaining away if we put our money there.  
     
    Only in Brazil, it seems, does agricultural ethanol, as made from sugar cane, which can be grown there year-around and has higher densities of carbohydrates than corn, have a positive "energy return on energy invested", and even that isn't great, relative to fossil fuel extraction and use.
     
    Again, "EROEI" is a topic we will in future dispatches return to. But, it looks, from preliminary analyses of data provided to us by some competent assistants, that coal lies somewhere midway between petroleum, as extracted earlier in the last century, current data seems unavailable, and agricultural/other renewable sources analyzed more recently.
     
    The EROEI of coal liquids, in one web-available, though incomplete, analysis, lies slightly below the midway point between petroleum and agricultural ethanol, but the coal liquid cost was based on indirect coal liquefaction processes, which are, perhaps, more energy intensive, and thus more costly, than other technology options. We would hope that West Virginia University could provide economic analyses, the EROI, of direct coal liquefaction technologies, such as the "West Virginia Process", which should be much more favorable.
     
    In any case, Ethanol is a useful liquid fuel, with higher energy densities than some other alternatives. And, it can, through technology we've earlier documented, with more energy investment, be converted into gasoline.   
     
    If it is Ethanol we want, though, since it does offer some emissions benefits, relative to gasoline, when used as a liquid fuel, it's EROI will no doubt be higher if we synthesize it from coal. To further document that ethanol can be synthesized from coal, in support of our earlier citations, we submit the enclosed article, linked above, reporting on a project sponsored by our own, US, DOE, about which we bet no one in Coal Country has heard of.
     
    And, interestingly, though this coal research isn't being conducted in Coal Country, it is being managed from Coal Country. Check out one of the key contacts:
     
    Name: Driscoll, Daniel J.
    Telephone: (304) 285-4717
    Location: NETL
    Email Address: daniel.driscoll@netl.doe.gov
     
    The area code, 304, is West Virginia, isn't it? Our guess is he's working out of the National Energy Technology Laboratory office in Morgantown. Someone should give him a shout, drop him an email, knock on his door.
     
    Excerpt, with brief, but pointed, comment following:
     
    "Project Information
    Project ID: DE-FC26-06NT43024
    Project Title: Catalytic Processes for the Synthesis of Ethanol From Coal-Derived Syngas
    FE Program: Hydrogen from Coal
    Research Type: Basic Research
    Funding Memorandum: Cooperative Agree't (nonCCT) - Support
    Project Performer
    Performer Type: State Higher Education Institution
    Performer: Louisiana State University
    Department of Chemical Engineering
    330 Thomas Boyd Hall
    Project Team Members:  
    Project Location
    City: Baton Rouge
    State: Louisiana
    Zip Code: 70803-2901
    Congressional District: 06
    Responsible FE Site: NETL
    Project Point of Contact
    Name: Spivey, James J.
    Telephone: (919) 541-8030
    Fax Number: (919) 541-8049
    Email Address: jjspivey@lsu.edu
    Fossil Energy Point of Contact
    Name: Driscoll, Daniel J.
    Telephone: (304) 285-4717
    Location: NETL
    Email Address: daniel.driscoll@netl.doe.gov
    Project Dates
    Start Date: 10/01/2006
    End Date: 03/31/2010
    Contract Specialist
    Name: Robbins, Brittley
    Telephone: (412) 386-5430
    Cost & Funding Information
    Total Est. Cost: $2,684,478
    DOE Share: $1,779,899
    Non DOE Share: $904,579
    Project Description
    The objective of this project is to develop a catalytic process for the selective conversion of coal-derived synthesis gas to ethanol (and higher alcohols). The process will utilize a coal derived syngas feed of 2:1 H2/CO. Performance targets for the process are an ethanol yield of 45%, with greater than 95% selectivity, and a catalyst lifetime of 3 years.
    Project Background
     
    Project Milestones
    This information is currently unavailable.
    Project Accomplishments
    Title: NEPA Approval
    Date: 11/27/2006
    Description NEPA approval (CX-B) was obtained for all participants in the project - Louisiana State University, Clemson University and Conoco-Phillips. NEPA forwarded to the contract specialist (12/4/2006) to remove the NEPA work restriction.
     
    Title: Management Plan Approved
    Date: 11/16/2006
    Description
    Louisiana State University submitted a research management plan for review and approval. The plan required no modifications or corrections and was approved in its current form. This completes Task 1.0 of the cooperative agreement."
     
    If it bears emphasis: A US Government-sponsored project intended to develop liquid fuels from coal, is being conducted in Louisiana, but is, apparently, being managed from West Virginia, in an office next door to West Virginia University.

    CO2 + Iceland = New Kuwait

     
    Among the people who have told, and who have been telling, us the truth about the resource potential of Carbon Dioxide are two Nobel Prize winners, Paul Sabatier and George Olah.
     
    Though Sabatier won his Nobel for CO2 recycling early in the last century, George Olah is still very much alive and kicking, and at work on recycling Carbon Dioxide out of the University of Southern California's Loker Hydrocarbon Institute. 
     
    We have reported to the West Virginia Coal Association on both men's achievements, and the implications of those achievements for West Virginia, and for coal-producing states like her, relative to what we contend to be a disinformation campaign regarding the putative dangers of the CO2 raw material resource that arises, relative to natural sources such as volcanoes, in a very small way from our varied industrial uses of coal. 
     
    In another, unrelated, report, we quoted an official with the US Defense Department who, speaking of the very real potentials for converting coal into liquid fuels, referred to West Virginia as the "New Kuwait".
     
    Even if West Virginians, and US citizens in general, are able to clear the air, so to speak, regarding what we contend to be Big Oil's disinformation smoke screen, deepened by their, perhaps unwitting, environmentalist group proxies' smog, and start converting abundant Appalachian coal, cleanly and efficiently, as we have documented beyond argument to be feasible and practical, into liquid fuels, West Virginia might now have competition for the title of "New Kuwait".
     
    We earlier presented hard data on the measured amounts of CO2 emitted by volcanoes in Hawaii, and compared those numbers to the recorded CO2 generated by coal-fired power plants. Our little ole' coal industry was like a pygmy in a giant's nudist camp, in terms of embarrassing things that might be offensive to some.
     
    Tropical Hawaii, as it happens, isn't the only volcanic ocean island, and isn't even the most active.
     
    In the cold North Atlantic, the small nation of Iceland, roughly the size of Kuwait, might well be.
     
    And, as a result of the still-active volcanism that formed it, Iceland has an abundance of two things: Geothermal energy and Carbon Dioxide.
     
    We introduce, via the link enclosed above, a company founded to take advantage of those resources: Carbon Recycling International (CRI).
     
    Some very brief, very pertinent excerpts from that link to their web site:

    "Founded in 2006, Carbon Recycling International, Ehf, captures carbon dioxide from industrial emissions and converts carbon dioxide to renewable fuel, including renewable methanol and renewable Di-Methyl-Ether (DME). Other fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, can be derived from these feed stocks.

    CRI is a venture-backed Icelandic American company with headquarters in Iceland and operations in Iceland."

    And, they post a list of officers and "Advisors". Among them, we find:

    "Advisors

    • George Olah, Ph.D.: Nobel Prize Laureate, Chemistry, USC, USA".
    Should any of our readers need a reintroduction to the Nobel-winning Dr. Olah, we submit, following, yet another, quite recent, citation attesting to his Carbon Dioxide expertise:
     
     
     
     
    "Chemical Recycling of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol and Dimethyl Ether: From Greenhouse Gas to Renewable, Environmentally Carbon Neutral Fuels and Synthetic Hydrocarbons
     
    George A. Olah, Alain Goeppert and G. K. Surya Prakash
    [Unable to display image]Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute and Department of Chemistry, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California 90089-1661
    Journal of Organic Chemistry,2009, 74 (2), pp 487–498
    Publication Date (Web): December 8, 2008
    Copyright 2008 American Chemical Society

    Nature’s photosynthesis uses the sun’s energy with chlorophyll in plants as a catalyst to recycle carbon dioxide and water into new plant life. Only given sufficient geological time can new fossil fuels be formed naturally. In contrast, chemical recycling of carbon dioxide from natural and industrial sources as well as varied human activities or even from the air itself to methanol or dimethyl ether (DME) and their varied products can be achieved via its capture and subsequent reductive hydrogenative conversion. The present Perspective reviews this new approach and our research in the field over the last 15 years. Carbon recycling represents a significant aspect of our proposed Methanol Economy. Any available energy source (alternative energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and atomic energy) can be used for the production of needed hydrogen and chemical conversion of CO2. Improved new methods for the efficient reductive conversion of CO2 to methanol and/or DME that we have developed include bireforming with methane and ways of catalytic or electrochemical conversions. Liquid methanol is preferable to highly volatile and potentially explosive hydrogen for energy storage and transportation. Together with the derived DME, they are excellent transportation fuels for internal combustion engines (ICE) and fuel cells as well as convenient starting materials for synthetic hydrocarbons and their varied products. Carbon dioxide thus can be chemically transformed from a detrimental greenhouse gas causing global warming into a valuable, renewable and inexhaustible carbon source of the future allowing environmentally neutral use of carbon fuels and derived hydrocarbon products."

    We emphasize: "Chemical recycling of carbon dioxide from natural and industrial sources as well as varied human activities or even from the air itself to methanol or dimethyl ether (DME) and their varied products can be achieved." 

    Note how both CRI's corporate web site and Olah's very recent American Chemical Society report echo with similar words, phrases, meanings and implications. And then consider, in light of the fact that coal liquefaction technology, as well as a method for Carbon Dioxide recycling, as we've documented, both won Nobel Prizes in the first half of the last century; that we are, somehow, "short" of liquid petroleum-type fuels; and, that our coal industries are being legislated and politicized into an impotent insignificance directed towards extinction.

    Aren't we increasingly-poor citizens of Coal Country tired, yet, of having the wool pulled over our eyes and our shorts yanked up over our heads, while Big Oil and his unwitting environmentalist stooges pick our pockets and split the take with Oil Sheiks lounging under palm trees in the desert?