Foreign Powers Oppose US CoalTL

 
We have earlier documented how some major oil companies hold as proprietary advanced processes for converting our coal into liquid fuel. Exxon-Mobil, with their "MTG" - methanol (from coal)-to-gasoline - technology among them. Some of those technologies are being reduced to commercial practice in other countries, as we have documented, but not in the US.
 
We also reminded you of the 1970's-era Ohio Valley Synfuel plant, which was to convert WV coal into oil, but which shut down, amid many rumors that "Big Oil" was behind the closure, very shortly after it was commissioned.
 
Now, independent observers in other nations are commenting on the fact that "Big Oil" is what's standing between the United States and liquid fuel independence based on coal. And, they're somewhat pleased by the fact that our CTL efforts have so far been thwarted, for whatever reason, but express the fear of some that we will "wake up", invest in CoalTL, and put a just end to unfriendly nations' control of oil supplies, and subsequent undo influence on international policy and financial markets.
 
You don't have to read too deep between the lines to discern the message the Indian commentator in this article is attempting to transmit.
 
An excerpt: 
 
"The Coal-to-Oil conversion is discussed in the blog of The Indic View. The comments were though not very encouraging. The techno-leader USA also might come into business with its' huge coal-reserves.

It is often said that India has all resources except the energy resources. But, after studying these, I conclude that we need to understand that there are a lot to come in energy market, and only a research oriented approach can take us to the place where a big country like India deserves to be.

The other conclusion might be a bitter truth. It's very difficult to dry out USA, even if the entire Gulf goes against them. It might lead Iran to think twice before they start talking about war and possible shortage of oil. If the gulf-oil is cut, it will probably strengthen the US grip on the world, because, it will then invest in these areas where they haven't done earlier."
 
So, it's "not very encouraging (that the) USA also might come into (the oil-making) business with its' huge coal-reserves".
 
And, a, for this Indian writer, "bitter truth" : "It's very difficult to dry out USA - (someone, by implication, wants to - JtM) - even if the entire Gulf goes against them. ... Iran (will) think twice (because) .. If the gulf-oil is cut, it will probably strengthen the US grip on the world, because, it will then invest in these areas". 
 
If it isn't clear, Mike, by "these areas" this commentator means the technologies for converting our vast reserves of coal into liquid fuel. Nations who would rather see us weak and impoverished, enslaved, don't want us to invest in those. Shouldn't that strengthen our resolve, our national will, to do precisely that?
 
Coal-to-Liquid fuel conversion technology is practical and real; so practical and real that the people out there who don't really like us all that much, but who rely on us to finance their lavish lifestyles and military adventures, are very afraid we will wake up, at last, to the fact of just how practical and real CoalTL is.

China - Coal Liqfuefaction wiht Coke Oven Gas

 
We've been documenting how the by-products of our coal use, such as Carbon Dioxide and Coke Oven Gas, can be collected, and then combined with coal to actually enhance the efficiency and productivity of coal conversion processes designed to produce, as end products, liquid fuels and chemicals, or plastics manufacturing feed stocks.
 
From China, where a truly intensive coal-to-liquid conversion industrial development is underway, comes this research result confirming that a steel-making by-product of coal use, from the coking process, Coke Oven Gas, can be combined with coal to enhance and improve the hydrogenation of coal into valuable hydrocarbons, such as liquid fuel.
 
As follows:
 
"Co-pyrolysis of coal with hydrogen-rich gases. 1. Coal pyrolysis under coke-oven gas and synthesis gas
 
Hongqiang Liao, Baoqing Li and Bijiang Zhang

State Key Laboratory of Coal Conversion, Institute of Coal Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030001, China

Abstract

To improve the economy of the hydropyrolysis process by reducing the cost of hydrogen, it has been suggested that cheaper hydrogen-rich gases (such as coke-oven gas, synthesis gas) could be used instead of pure hydrogen. Pyrolysis of Chinese Xianfeng lignite was carried out with real coke-oven gas (COG) and synthesis gas (SG) as reactive gases at 0.1–5 MPa and at a final temperature up to 650°C with a heating rate of 5–25°C min−1 in a 10 g fixed-bed reactor. The results indicate that it is possible to use COG and SG instead of pure hydrogen in hydropyrolysis, but that the experimental conditions must be adjusted to optimize the yields of the valuable chemicals."

Another point to be made is that the Chinese researchers seem to indicate that "recycling" the synthesis gas derived from the coal decomposition back into the pyrolysis of more coal also improves the hydrogenation process.

But, definitely: A coal-use by-product of steel-making, coke-oven gas, which was once a troublesome and polluting effluent, can be collected and added to coal as an additional raw material which enhances and improves the conversion of coal into liquid fuel.

Belgium - Coal Liquefaction with Coke Oven Gas

In an earlier dispatch, we reported that Coke Oven Gas could be used to facilitate the hydrogenation/liquefaction of coal. Herein a sequential series of technical articles, from Belgium, confirming that assertion.
 
The articles were published sequentially, in 1991, 1993 and 1996. As follows:
 
 
"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas: 1. Influence of temperature on the pyrolysis yields  
 

Colette Braekman-Danheux, René Cyprès, André Fontana, Philippe Laurent and Michel Van Hoegaerden

Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP165, 50, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium

Abstract

In order to improve the economy of the hydropyrolysis process by reducing the hydrogen cost, pyrolysis of coal has been carried out with a simulated coke-oven gas (55% H2, 30% CH4, 15% N2) as the reactive gas at 3 MPa and between 700 °C and 900 °C. Comparisons have been made with hydropyrolysis, pyrolysis with helium and methanolysis under the same conditions. The results indicate that there are no major obstacles to the use of coke-oven gas as the reactive gas in coal pyrolysis. The experimental conditions have to be improved to optimize the yields of the valuable chemicals."

 

"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas : 2. Influence of the coke-oven gas components on pyrolysis yields  

Colette Braekman-Danheux, René Cyprès, André Fontana and Michel van Hoegaerden

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, CP 165, 50, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium

Abstract

To improve the economics of the hydropyrolysis of coal by reducing the hydrogen cost, it has been suggested that coke-oven gas be used instead of pure hydrogen. The present paper describes the role of methane and some minor components in the coke-oven gas during pyrolysis and their influence on the oil and gas yields. Pyrolysis was conducted at 765°C under 3 MPa of various gas mixtures simulating coke-oven gas. The results clearly demonstrate the possibility of using coke-oven gas for coal pyrolysis and lead to the conclusion that synergy between metallurgical cokemaking and ‘creaming-off’ coal by hydropyrolysis will be profitable to both processes."

 
 
"Coal hydromethanolysis with coke-oven gas. 3. Influence of the coke-oven gas components on the char characteristics 
 

Colette Braekman-Danheux, André Fontana, Ali Labani and Philippe Laurent

Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Chimie Générale et Carbochimie, Faculté des Sciences Appliquées, C.P. 165, 50 Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, B-1050, Bruxelles, Belgium


Abstract

To improve the economy of the hydropyrolysis process by reducing the hydrogen cost, it has been suggested to use coke-oven gas instead of pure hydrogen. The results presented here describe some characteristics of the chars obtained by pyrolysis carried out at 765°C under 3 MPa of various gas mixtures simulating coke-oven gas composition. The char obtained after pyrolysis under coke-oven gas pressure is not fundamentally different from those obtained under inert or hydrogen pressure, at least in porosity, optical texture and oxyreactivity in fixed and fluidized beds. The results show clearly the possibility of using coke-oven gas for coal pyrolysis and lead to the conclusion that synergy between metallurgical cokemaking and ‘creaming-off’ coal by hydropyrolysis will be profitable to both processes."

We won't repeat the concluding sentence of the final abstract. These Belgian scientists have said it several times, in several ways, already. But, coke oven gas, from steel making operations, was once, like Carbon Dioxide, considered just another troublesome, objectionable waste generated by our use of coal. Both of those "pollutants", as we have documented, like coal, can be converted into liquid fuels; moreover, they enhance and increase the productivity of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion processes.

And, reclaiming CO2 and coke-oven gas to combine them with coal in the manufacture of liquid fuels would contribute to a cleaner environment.

Our use of coal doesn't generate pollutants, just valuable by-products.

CoalTL Environmental Impact


We're sending the abstract of this German study to affirm some points we've been attempting to document for you. Comment follows the excerpt:
 
 
"Title Quantitative investigations into the environmental impact of coal gasification and hydrogenation plants
Creator/Author Juentgen, H. ; van Heek, K.H. ; Kirchhoff, R. ; Klein, J.
Publication Date 1983 Feb 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 5176028
Other Number(s) Journal ID: CODEN: CHIUA
Resource Type Journal Article
Resource Relation Journal Name: Chem. Ind. (Duesseldorf); (Germany, Federal Republic of); Journal Volume: 35
 
The background and evolution of coal gasification and hydrogenation is discussed and those parameters affecting the emissions from installations of this kind, namely the feed coal, product, type of process and efficiency of the purification plant are assessed. Data are presented on several conversion techniques (Lurgi, Texaco, etc.) and three gasification processes and one hydrogenation process currently in operation are examined. The estimated emission levels are presented (SO/sub 2/, dust, etc.) and the effectiveness of the extraction methods used are discussed. An assessment is made of the long-term potential for coal gasification by application of nuclear process heat. Finally, other factors are discussed, such as plant breakdown, leakage sources and the emission of trace elements. It is concluded that coal gasification and hydrogenation on an industrial scale can generally be regarded as environmentally compatible."
 
First of all, this report is from Germany, where the technologies for coal conversion to liquids, via gasification and hydrogenation, were reduced to industrial practice in WWII.
 
Second, the report was made in 1983, but coal conversion is discussed herein as if it were a widely-known, understood and commercially-practiced technology, not some fanciful, unattainable goal only practiced by alchemists using fabled processes in distant lands.
 
But, finally, the main point we want to make herein is under-stated by the researchers, in typical Germanic fashion, in the final sentence: "It is concluded that coal gasification and hydrogenation on an industrial scale can generally be regarded as environmentally compatible."
 
To sum it up; and to repeat with some logical extrapolation: Turning coal into gasoline "can generally be regarded as environmentally compatible".
 

US EPA: CoalTL Sulfur Okay

 
Control Of Emissions From Lurgi Coal Gasification Plants.
 
 
Our own US EPA issued this report on Lurgi-type coal gasification processes - the starting point technology, as we understand it, for Sasol's extensive industrial operations which convert coal into liquid fuels.
 
Some excerpts, with one, especially, noted below: 

"The purpose of this document is to provide information on Lurgi Coal Gasification Plants, their emissions, control technologies which can be used to control emissions, and the environmental and economic impacts of applying these control technologies. This document is being issued to assist State, local, and Regional EPA enforcement personnel in the determination (on a case-by-case basis) of the best available control technology for Lurgi Coal Gasification Plants.

Descriptors:
 Air pollution; Coal gasification; Desulfurization
Date:
Reference #:
 1978
A.78.5
Availability:
 Yes
EPA Office:
 Office of Air and Radiation
Office Suboffice:
 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office Division:
 Emission Standards and Engineering Division
EPA Author:
 NR
Document Type:
 Cost Analysis
Contractors:
NR
Document Status:
Final
Pages:
118
 
Note the year this study was performed. No further comment on that, and the changing nature of US political governance during the interim. But, after 118 pages, our US EPA came to this one cogent conclusion about gasifying coal to make liquid fuels:
 
"Most of the Sulfur can be recovered as a salable product."  (Quote is directly excerpted from the report. We are unable to provide a precise citation due to the nature of published summaries available to us. - JtM.)
 
Well, at least we now know that.
 
But, as we earlier documented, some sulfur compounds, which perhaps could be derived from the raw coal itself, actually facilitate and make more efficient the actual process of coal liquefaction.
 
As we've been saying all along: Converting our abundant coal into needed liquid fuels doesn't generate pollutants. It does, though, create valuable by-products.