Production of High-Hydrogen Content Coal-Derived Liquids

 

Production and Optimization of Coal-Derived, High-Hydrogen Content Fischer-Tropsch Liquids

 

We won't even attempt editing the following excerpts from the two links above, or adding much comment, except:

 

Our own US DOE has developed coal-to-liquid fuel technology with a variety of independent corporate contractors. These are not the only projects "out there".

 

Where are the reports of all this work? What is the status? Where are we headed now?

 

This is the US GUV at work, and they work for us, or are supposed to.

 

Way past time our employees delivered all of us, especially those of us in Coal Country, a progress report, don't you think?

 

There are some contact names, telephone numbers and emails included in the excerpts below. It's time, way past time, the bosses checked up to see what their employees have been up to lately.

 

Excerpts as follows:

 

 

United States Department of Energy

Office of Fossil Energy

Project Fact Sheet

Project Information
Project ID:	DE-FC26-06NT42449
Project Title:	Production of High-Hydrogen Content Coal-Derived Liquids
FE Program:	Coal Fuels - Liquid Fuels
Research Type:	Engineering Development
Funding Memorandum:	Cooperative Agree't (nonCCT) - Tech R&D
Project Performer
Performer Type:	For-profit Organization
Performer:	Integrated Concepts & Research Corporation 41150 Technology Park Drive Suite 103
Project Team Members:
Project Location
City:	Sterling Heights
State:	Michigan
Zip Code:	48314-4156
Congressional District:	10
Responsible FE Site:	NETL
Project Point of Contact
Name:	Bergin, Steve P.
Telephone:	(586) 799-1780
Fax Number:	(586) 991-0950
Email Address:	sbergin@icrcsolutions.com
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:	07/01/2005
End Date:	06/30/2010
Contract Specialist
Name:	Harshman, Angela (Delmastro)
Telephone:	(412) 386-5038
Cost & Funding Information
Total Est. Cost:	$3,477,494
DOE Share:	$2,779,168
Non DOE Share:	$698,326
Project Description
The objective of this project is to evaluate and compare intrinsic differences between cobalt (Co) and iron (Fe) catalysts for Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis utilizing coal-derived synthesis gas. Specific parameters to be evaluated include: the effect of contaminants contained in coal-derived syngas on catalyst activity and lifetime, the required H2/CO ratios for efficient conversion, the required level of syngas cleanup to maintain catalyst reactivity and raw product upgrading requirements to produce high-hydrogen content coal-derived liquids.
Project Background
BACKGROUND F-T plants that have used coal as their feedstock have virtually all used iron catalyst systems for F-T synthesis. When coal is gasified, it produces syngas that has a much lower hydrogen content than syngas obtained by reforming other hydrocarbons. For example, methane typically produces syngas with a H2/CO ratio of ~2, or about double that typically obtained with coal. Iron F-T catalyst systems are generally considered to be much more tolerant of syngas with coal's low H2/CO ratios because the iron system can catalyze a significant amount of water-gas shift, and thus increase the effective H2/CO ratio at essentially the same time as it catalyzes F-T synthesis. This means that the raw F-T products synthesized from coal-derived syngas using iron catalysts need not be as deficient in hydrogen as might be implied by the initial H2/CO ratio of the syngas. Cobalt F-T catalyst systems need their incoming syngas to have a H2/CO ratio of about two to produce the highest quality products. If coal is the feedstock, the H2/CO ratio of the syngas must be increased for a cobalt catalyst system. This adds cost and complexity, but the cobalt catalyst system may (or may not) provide other advantages that more than compensate overall. This project provides the unique opportunity for combining and evaluating, in a single R&D project, real-world, in-depth studies of all the primary or core elements required for the integration of the full-range of F-T synthesis technologies (with both cobalt and iron catalyst systems) using coal-derived syngas. The work will provide a detailed comparison between cobalt and iron catalysts, evaluate the catalysts sensitivity to various contaminants and poisons, assess possible gas cleanup scenarios, and produce and test experimental quantities of coal-derived F-T liquid fuels.
Project Milestones
This information is currently unavailable.
Project Accomplishments
Title:	Revised Agreement
Date:	09/19/2008
Description	A revised agreement with a modified SOW was put in place on July 10, 2008.
Title:	Status/Accomplishments
Date:	04/01/2006
Description	A Cooperative Agreement was awarded to Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation on March 30, 2006.

 

Production and Optimization of Coal-Derived, High-Hydrogen Content Fischer-Tropsch Liquids

 

Methanol-to-gasoline vs. DME-to-gasoline. II: Process comparison and analysis

 

We have thoroughly documented that a wide variety of liquid fuels, and commercially-valuable organic chemicals, can be directly and efficiently synthesized from coal. And, we are in the process of documenting for you that the Carbon Dioxide by-product of our coal-use industries can also be efficiently collected and recycled, into the same liquid fuels and valuable organic chemicals.

 

We have also documented that very useful, though somewhat intermediate products, methanol and dimethyl ether (DME), are generated from both coal and Carbon Dioxide conversion processes.

 

As we have reported, both methanol and DME are useful fuels in their own right, aside from being valuable precursors for plastics, and other, manufacture. We have also confirmed that commercial processes exist, such as ExxonMobil's MTG (r) technology, whereby methanol, once synthesized from coal, or CO2, can be further tweaked into the gasoline we all know and love. 

 

Since, in future dispatches, we will be referencing additional technologies for producing both methanol and DME from both coal and CO2, we wanted to document, once again, that either of those coal conversion or carbon recycling liquid products can, indeed, be easily transformed into the gasoline we're all so desperate for.

 

Herein, from another of our domestic US institutions of higher learning, is confirmation of that fact:

Document title

Methanol-to-gasoline vs. DME-to-gasoline. II: Process comparison and analysis

Authors

SUNGGYU LEE ; GOGATE M. ; KULIK C. J. ;

Affiliations

Univ. Akron, dep. chemical eng., process res. cent., Akron OH 44325-3906, ETATS-UNIS

Abstract

Methanol can be converted into gasoline boiling range hydrocarbons over zeolite ZSM-5 catalyst using the Mobil MTG process. Methanol feed in the MTG process can be derived from coal or natural gas based syngas. The Mobil MTG process involves the conversion steps of syngas-to-methanol and methanol-to-gasoline. Dimethyl Ether (DME), a product of methanol dehydrocondensation, is an intermediate species in the methanol-to-gasoline conversion. Syngas can be directly converted to DME using the Liquid Phase Dimethyl Ether Synthesis (LP-DME) process developed at the University of Akron in conjunction with Electric Power Research Institute. This direct one-step conversion of syngas-to-DME can then be an ideal front end for further conversion to gasoline. This substitution (syngas-to-methanol by syngas-to-DME) is justified because DME results in an identical hydrocarbon distribution over the ZSM-5 catalyst as methanol. The DME-to-Gasoline (DTG) process thus involves the conversion steps of syngas-to-DME and DME-to gasoline. The UA/EPRI DTG process offers advantages over the Mobil MTG process in several areas. These include heat duty and heat of reaction, adiabatic temperature rise, hydrocarbon product yield and selectivity, syngas conversion, and overall process efficiency. The conceptual benefits of the DTG process have been demonstrated experimentally in a fluidized bed reactor system operative at the University of Akron. The salient features of the DTG process and process comparison to the Mobil MTG process are discussed in this paper."

 

Don't lose sight of the fact, in all the technical jargon, that "Methanol feed in the MTG process can be derived from coal", as can DME.

 

And, again, both methanol and DME can be converted into gasoline.

Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #6274529

 

This peculiar artifact from our DOE contains the following, both exculpatory and incriminating, disclaimer:

 

"Portions of this document are illegible in microfiche products. Original copy available until stock is exhausted."

 

It was first published in early December, 1985.

 

The details:

 

"Title: "New technology concept for two-stage liquefaction of coal: conceptual commercial plant design and economics"

 

Authors: Abrams, L. M.; Caruso, R.; Duddy, J. E.; MacArthur, J. B.; Srouji, M.

 

Affiliation: Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ (USA)

 

Report: DOE/PC/60017-T2

 

Contract: AC22-83PC60017 

 

Abstract:

 

Hydrocarbon Research, Inc. (HRI) is conducting a program for the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for evaluation of a ''New Technology'' concept for Catalytic Two-Stage Liquefaction of coal. HRI has demonstrated greatly improved coal liquefaction process performance by Catalytic Two-Stage Liquefaction (CTSL). (Bench-scale screening studies identified an improved set of operating conditions for Illinois No. 6 (Burning Star Mine) coal and a demonstration run (227-20) at these conditions has been completed. Results from this run were used as a basis for this conceptual plant design and economics study.) The purpose of this study is to identify the economic incentive for CTSL over the conventional single-stage H-Coal Process. This information will be used to guide future experiments for further process optimization. Preliminary designs for CTSL (based on Run 227-20) and the H-Coal Process liquefaction sections are developed based on HRI's design experience from the Breckinridge Project and H-Coal Pilot Plant operations at Catlettsburg. Complete conceptual commercial plant designs are developed for grassroots facilities using HRI's Process Planning LP Model. Product costs are calculated and economic sensitivities are analyzed. Results of the economic evaluation show CTSL reduces the product costs by 12% compared to the single-stage H-Coal Process. 140 refs., 9 figs., 55 tabs."

 

So, like the Oklahoma research we earlier reported, we have herein more government-sponsored research into the technology for converting coal into the liquid fuels our nation needs, in a state that has no coal. And, we again have mention of Kentucky's Breckinridge and Catlettsburg coal-to-liquid conversion projects, but no linkage, no references, no access to reportage.

 

But, we do have a CTL process, somewhere, that "reduces the product costs by 12% compared to the single-stage H-Coal Process".

 

We earlier reported what we could of the Kentucky "H-Coal Process", and managed to find a little more on that coal conversion effort - in Greece, or Turkey. A separate report on that will follow. 

 

In any case, like the Oklahoma research we earlier brought to your attention, herein we have yet more US Government-sponsored research being performed on the conversion of coal into the liquid fuels our nation needs, in a state that has no coal.

 

Again: What's up with that?

??e?t?????? ?????f???s?, ?e?µ????s? & ??ß???????

 

The lengths to which the petroleum powers will go to hide and obfuscate the facts of coal-to-liquid conversion technology would be amusing, if the issue weren't of such critical economic importance to the US, and, especially, to the people of Coal Country. The fact that we allow those oily gangsters to get away with it all is more than a little bemusing.

 

We've reported on Amoco Oil's GUV-sponsored fox-guarding-the-henhouse development of the "H-Coal", coal liquefaction, technology at a pilot plant in Catlettsburg, Kentucky. 

 

It's been darned tough to find out anything substantive about that project. The DOE has a few modest quarterly reports that might, or might not, be available. But, to get the full story on converting Kentucky coal  into domestic liquid fuels for the United States, we had to go to Greece - we think. Maybe it's Turkey. Might as well be Mars, for all the good it's done for those of us in Coal Country.

 

Check it out, seriously, and tell us with a straight face nobody's trying to hide anything.

 

The excerpt:

 

	Επίδειξη του Tίτλου:     10 από 10
Doc ID	PAPYR-2876
Doc Type	Report
Author	Vasalos, Iacovos A.
Title	Study of ebullated bed fluid dynamics for H-Coal. Quarterly progress report No. 1, August 22 - November 30, 1977
Related Documents	1. Study of ebullated bed fluid dynamics for H-Coal. Quarterly progress report No. 4, September 1 - November 30, 1978 (1978)    2. Study of ebullated bed fluid dynamics for H-Coal. Quarterly progress report No. 3, March 1, 1978 - May 31, 1978 (1978)    3. Study of ebullated bed fluid dynamics for H-Coal. Quarterly progress report No. 2, December 1, 1977 - February 28, 1978 (1978)    4. Study of ebullated bed fluid dynamics for H-Coal. Quarterly progress report No. 6, March 1 - May 31, 1979 (1979)
Pages	1 - 22
Issue	1
Year	1977
Organization	Amoco Research Center
Abstract	The H-Coal process, developed by Hydrocarbon Research, Incorporated (HRI), involves the direct catalytic hydroliquefaction of coal to low-sulfur boiler fuel or synthetic crude oil. The 200-600 ton-per-day H-Coal pilot plant is being constructed next to the Ashland Oil, Incorporated refinery at Catlettsburg, Kentucky under ERDA contract to Ashland Synthetic Fuels, Incorporated. The H-Coal ebullated bed reactor contains at least four discrete components: gas, liquid, catalyst, and unconverted coal and ash. Because of the complexity created by these four components, it is desirable to understand the fluid dynamics of the system. The objective of this program is to establish the dependence of the ebullated bed fluid dynamics on process parameters. This will permit improved control of the ebullated bed reactor. The work to be performed is divided into three parts: review of prior work, cold flow model construction and operations, and mathematical modelling. The objective of this quarterly progress report is to outline progress in the first two parts during the first three months of the project.
Keywords	Coal liquefaction ; Liquefaction ; Thermochemical processes ;
Other Author(s)	Bild, E. M.     / Amoco Research Center Evans, T. D.     / Amoco Research Center Shields, S. E.     / Amoco Research Center Tatterson, David F.     / Amoco Research Center Wallin, C. C.     / Amoco Research Center
Language	English"

 

Well, they did give up contact links to a whole flock of US Amoco researchers. If anybody's really interested in the story, there's a place to start - if any of 'em will fess up to speaking English.