Energy Citations Database (ECD) - - Document #7150506

 

Preconversion processing of bituminous coals: New directions to improved direct catalytic coal liquefaction.

 

We submit this supposedly DOE-sponsored report with some caution. No individual authors were named, and we can as yet find no trace of a BCR National Lab in Pittsburgh. All the other "National" Labs we're familiar with have their own web sites, and published third-party descriptions available. But not, apparently, "BCR".

 

However, we send this along because it is an explication of the process for direct coal liquefaction, the technique which, we believe, is at the heart of WVU's "West Virginia Process" for coal-to-liquid conversion.

 

Excerpt, with comment following:

 

 

"Publication Date 1992 Oct 01 OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 7150506; Legacy ID: DE93006439 Report Number(s) DOE/PC/91041-T4; BCRNL-L--1668 DOE Contract Number AC22-91PC91041 Other Number(s) Other: ON: DE93006439 Resource Type Technical Report Research Org BCR National Lab., Pittsburgh, PA (United States) Sponsoring Org DOE; USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)

 

Abstract:

 

Soaking coal in coal liquids at 300-400[degrees]C (high-tenperature soaking) has been studied for coal dissolution prior to liquefaction in the previous task. Two high-volatile bituminous coals, Illinois No. 6 and Pittsburgh No. 8, were examined in three different coal liquids. The high-temperature soaking was effective to solubilize more than 70 wt% cf these coals. The mechanism of disintegration of coal by the high-temperature soaking was investigated under various soaking conditions. The products was also analyzed with solvent swelling. These results were rationalized that coal is solubilized primarily by physical disintegration. The derived mechanism was consistent with the new concept of coal structure: A significant portion of coal is physically associated, not three-dimensionally cross-linked. Radically-induced scission reactions were proposed to prorate breakage of coal moleculs by the combination of the high-temperature soaking before liquefaction. In this term, the effect of radical initiators were investigated under the conditions of the high-temperature soaking and liquefaction. Illinois No. 6 coal and a coal liquid derived from the same coal were used. The first section reports the effect of radical initiators on coal disintegration, and the second section reports the effect of a radical initiator on coal liquefaction. Radical initiators had a positive effect on disintegration. However, the effect was highly temperature-dependent and had a negative effect on liquefaction at high temperatures."

 

Our take is that this report is supposed to be part of a series, given the first-sentence passage "has been studied for coal dissolution prior to liquefaction in the previous task". However, we can find no reports of previous, or subsequent, tasks; and, no substantiating documentation that a "BCR", or any other, "National Lab" exists in Pittsburgh.

 

Lacking such documentation,  we submit it only because the DOE was the reported sponsor, and because of the similarities in this process description to what we know of the WV CTL Process. Too, if valid, the report confirms that there has been a lot of US effort put into the development of coal liquefaction processes, which, like the several CTL plants put into operation immediately after WWII, and in the several decades following, we just haven't heard much about.

 

Gasification of coal liquefaction residues

  

Yet another relatively-ancient artifact, from the 1970's, which, unearthed, reveals that the technology for converting coal into liquid fuels was much further advanced, and more broadly disseminated, than even we had thought.

 

In essence, a pilot plant was being operated by a major petroleum company - so you shouldn't have to wonder why you haven't heard about this previously; in California - the very heart of Coal Country where news of advanced use of coal would be met with raucous jubilation; to convert, notwaste left behind by coal that had already been converted into liquid fuel, into the raw materials to make even more liquid fuel. coal into the raw materials for liquid fuel making, but, to convert the still-carbonaceous

 

Coal is generous in that respect, we guess. It's like olives and grapes - bountiful fruits that, even after having been gently expressed for their light oil and sweet juice, can be further ground and compressed to yield even more.

 

You're an old West Virginia hillbilly, Mike. Certainly, you've heard of "second squeezin's" from corn intended to make moonshine. That is exactly what this is. Like olives, grapes and corn, coal is so good we really don't want to waste any of it. 

 

As follows:

 

"Title:		Gasification of coal liquefaction residues
Authors:		Robin, A.M,; Schlinger, W.G.
Affiliation:		AA(Texaco, Inc., Montebello Research Laboratory, El Monte, Calif.), AB(Texaco, Inc., Montebello Research Laboratory, El Monte, Calif.)
Publication:		In: Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 13th, San Diego, Calif., August 20-25, 1978, Proceedings. Volume 1. (A79-10001 01-44) Warrendale, Pa., Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 1978, p. 431-437. Research supported by the Electric Power Research Institute;
Publication Date:		00/1978
Category:		Energy Production and Conversion
Origin:		STI
NASA/STI Keywords:		COAL LIQUEFACTION, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, GASIFICATION, PILOT PLANTS, RESIDUES, ASHES, DIAGRAMS, FEASIBILITY, HYDROGENATION, RECYCLING
Bibliographic Code:		1978iece....1..431R

Methods for the gasification of high-ash-coal liquefaction residues are considered and a pilot plant process flow diagram is presented. Particular attention is given to the feed preparation system, gasifier operation, the removal of molten slag, char recovery, and water recycling procedures. Six coal liquefaction processes are listed noting the capacity, plant type, and plant location of each. Primary physical and chemical properties of twelve residues are presented. Preliminary and extended evaluations are made for pilot plant test runs."

 

Seems both perverse and appropriate that they would go after coal's second squeezins in California wine country, where they would have a lot of experience gettin' goodies out of already-pressed grape skins, doesn't it?

 

Please don't be distracted by the seemingly frivolous metaphor. In plain truth, coal is so productive, so rich in it's potential to provide the raw materials for liquid fuel, the overseers of our shadowed Synthetic Fuels program were led to develop what is well-known in the ore-extraction and chemical-processing industries as "second pass" technology.

Methanol derivation from North Dakota lignite and use as a fuel

 

Another, seemingly forgotten, artifact of the 1970's confirming, if more confirmation was needed, subsequent to our report that Methanol can remove Sulfur from coal, that we can make the Methanol from coal.

 

The excerpt:

 

"Title:		Methanol derivation from North Dakota lignite and use as a fuel
Authors:		Glass, E.C.: Freeman, A.L.; Wentworth, T.O.
Affiliation:		AA(Northern States Power Co., Minneapolis, MN
Publication:		(U.S. Department of Energy and University of North Dakota, Biennial Lignite Symposium, 10th, Grand Forks, N. Dak., May 1979.) I & EC - Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Product Research and Development, vol. 18, Dec. 1979, p. 288-291.

 

Abstract

Methanol has the potential for a significant replacement of oil in the U.S. Its utilization by electric and gas utilities and by industry appears favorable. Methanol has an advantage over oil where a very clean flame is required. It can also be converted to gasoline at a modest cost. A process design firm has performed an engineering evaluation and a study of economic feasibility of a plant producing 2.5 billion gallons of methanol annually from North Dakota lignite. A range of costs for methanol from $18 to $28/bbl (1978 $) of oil equivalent is indicated depending mainly on type of financing."

 

Note, especially: "Methanol ... can also be converted to gasoline at a modest cost.".

 

Please keep in mind, as we've said before, lignite is a lower-quality, lower-Btu coal compared to WV bituminous. It might compare in those respects to some older accumulations of WV coal mine refuse, with implications for the potential value of those "wastes".

 

And, once again, Methanol is both a perfectly-serviceable liquid fuel in it's own right, after the Sulfur it has cleaned from the coal is removed, as per our earlier dispatch on that subject; or, it can itself be converted, through known and established processes, into both gasoline and/or raw materials for plastics manufacturing.

 

As we all know, Sulfur is an objectionable component in some coals, and coal liquids, intended for combustion or chemical manufacturing. Although, as we've documented, Sulfur can improve the coal liquefaction process.

 

Should, however, Sulfur need to be reduced in coal being fed into a coal liquefaction facility, a major product, Methanol, of coal-to-liquid conversion itself can be used, in the initial processing of the raw coal, to recover much of the Sulfur that might be present, as a salable product.

 

Other methods of desulfurization exist and are commercially employed. But, we find this concept to be most intriguing since it might allow a more integrated design of the coal conversion plant, and actually reduces costs relative to having to add separate, auxiliary installations, such as the Klaus units we've previously reported, to recover the Sulfur.  

 

As follows: 

"Document title

Coal desulfurization with methanol/water and methanol/KOH

Authors

RATANAKANDILOK S.; NGAMPRASERTSITH S. ; PRASASSARAKICH P.;

Authors Affiliation

Department of Chemical Technology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, THAILANDE

Abstract

Mae Moh coal from northern Thailand was desulfurized by leaching with methanol/water and methanol/KOH in a batch reactor. The effect of methanol concentration, KOH concentration, coal particles, reaction temperature and reaction time on the removal of ash and sulfur was investigated. Depending on the desulfurization conditions, the reductions ranged from 36 to 74% in pyritic sulfur, 20 to 42% in organic sulfur and 33 to 62% in total sulfur. Methanol/KOH enhanced the desulfurization process in which the inorganic and organic sulfur were removed preferentially. KOH addition can improve the sulfur removal. The kinetics of the oxidation of pyritic sulfur was investigated for Mae Moh coal. The rate of reaction was found to be well represented by a continuous reaction model that was second order with respect to pyritic sulfur."

 

Our supposition is that the Methanol and the Sulfur can be separated from each other subsequent to extraction, and then directed into commercial outlets. Sulfur could well be an additional profit center for a coal-to-liquid conversion facility, and thus help to improve the overall economics of CTL industry.