Coke Oven Gas to Synfuel

We have documented in some general detail the indirect processes, such as Fischer-Tropsch, for coal liquefaction.
 
In brief summary, a "syngas" is generated by the thermal decomposition of coal in a low-oxygen atmosphere, which is then passed over an Iron-group metal or zeolite catalyst that condenses the syngas into liquid hydrocarbons, which, like crude oil, can then be refined into ethanol, methanol, diesel, gasoline, and other useful liquids.
 
That's a gross over-simplification, of course, but captures the rough outline of the process.
 
We're certain you're at least generally familiar with "coke" - the high-carbon residue produced by the low-oxygen roasting of coal - which is used in traditional steel-making processes.   
 
Coke ovens in steel and coal country were once fairly common sights, especially visible at night, when they appeared as dull orange spots glowering on the dark hills.  
 
The purpose of "coking" was to drive off the volatile components, including impurities like sulfur, so that a more pure, less contaminating, carbon product was produced for refining iron ore and making steel.
 
The volatile gases, driven from the coal by the coking process - the "coke oven gas" - are flammable. They were at first vented to the atmosphere - "flared"; but, later refinements allowed for them to be captured and used, either as fuel for the coke ovens themselves or as supplemental fuel for the steel mill furnaces.  
 
The coking process does generates other products, and the following link, from which the table below it is extracted, can provide more detail; with additional comment following:
 
 
 
Stream Destination Typical quantities, based on 1 million tons per year coke
Coke Oven Gas Used as fuel gas at the coke oven battery and steel works 50 million std.cu.ft./day
Flushing Liquor Recirculated back to the coke oven battery Varies with plant design
Waste Water Discharged to treatment plant Varies with plant design
Tar Sold as product 29,000 gallons/day
Ammonia/Ammonium Sulfate Sold as product 12 tons/day (as ammonia)
Light Oil (if recovered) Sold as product 12,500 gallons/day
Sulfur/Sulfuric Acid (if gas is desulfurized) Sold as product Varies with coal properties and local requirements
 
 
Our focus is on the organic products of coking, but you can see that other useful by-products are also generated.
 
Next, we direct your attention to:
 
 
An excerpt:

"The 120 000 t/a methanol project based on coke oven gas designed by the Second Design Institute of Chemical Industry started production in Kingboard (Hebei) Coking Co., Ltd. on Sept. 5. The product reached the standard for AA-grade products in the United States. The capacity of this unit is 40 000 t/a higher than the first methanol unit based on coke oven gas in China complete in Qujing, Yunnan province in December 2004."

What all this adds up to is this:  

In both indirect and direct (i.e., WVU's West Virginia Process) technologies for converting coal into liquid hydrocarbons suitable for fuel and plastics manufacturing, the coal, and it's intermediate products, must be "hydrogenated". WVU, in their direct coal liquefaction technique, as we understand it, use the solvent tetralin as the hydrogen donor. 

Indirect CTL processes, such as Fischer-Tropsch and Bergius, use hydrogen derived from the coal itself, but there isn't enough to "go around". Much carbonaceous "slag" is generated, and a lot of the carbon is wasted. It has been suggested, perhaps in some places experimented with or reduced to practice, that the inclusion of biomass, or even pure hydrogen electrolyzed from water, could enable the necessary hydrogenation.

Herein, we have illustrated the possibility that an otherwise objectionable, hydrogen-rich by-product of coal use in the steel industry, coke oven flue gas, can be captured and recycled, as is, according to the above citation, apparently being done in China, into the process of converting coal into liquid hydrocarbon fuels.

We'll note also the co-production of  fertilizer (ammonia), as well as other materials from which potential fuels could be derived - tar and light oil - in the coke-making process.

So, the possibility exists, as might be being realized in China, given the steel-making companies publicly known to be involved in their massive CoalTL industrialization program, to site, in an efficient and environmentally-beneficial way, a coal-to-liquid conversion facility next to a steel mill with an integral coking plant, to utilize coke oven gas as a co-feed in the synthesis of liquid hydrocarbon fuels, such as methanol, from coal.

As we've said many times: Our use of coal doesn't generate pollutants, just valuable by-products.

B-52 Bombers Fly on Coal

 
We had earlier reported the US Air Force's synthetic fuel development program; documented some test flights that had been made in the C-17 using coal-derived synfuel; and referred you to some universities where the program's research has been underway.
 
Herein, we document that the venerable B-52 bomber is now certified to operate on a blend of standard jet fuel and Fischer-Tropsch fuel made from coal.
 
The extended excerpt, with comment following:
 
- - "8/8/2007 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne announced the completion of the Air Force's certification of the Fischer-Tropsch fuel blend in the B-52H Stratofortress during a signing ceremony here Aug. 8.

The signing ceremony certified that the blended FT and JP-8 fuel is safe for operational use in all B-52H aircraft and marked the formal conclusion of testing.

"The demonstration approach approved by Secretary Wynne in April 2006 identified five execution steps," said Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, Air Force Flight Test Center commander. "The final execution step began on Sept. 19, 2006. A B-52 was flown at Edwards with two engines running synthetic fuel and the remaining six engines on JP-8 fuel. On Dec. 19 2006, the B-52 was flown with all eight engines on the FT blend."

The B-52H was chosen as the test platform because of key advantages such as its eight engines, he said. The fuel system can simultaneously isolate, carry and manage both a test fuel and the standard JP-8 fuel.

The Air Force plans to test and certify every airframe to fly on a domestically produced synthetic fuel blend by early 2011.

"When I asked that this development be done, the people at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, and the Air Force Flight Test Center were excited to push this technology on behalf of the Air Force and America," said Secretary Wynne.

Every time the price of fuel goes up $10, it costs $600 million for the Air Force, he said.

"It causes angst to know that we're faced with a commodity that some might use against us," Secretary Wynne said. "We want to provide our nation a look forward to something else and to essentially join with numerous researchers who are looking for alternatives whether it is ethanol, switch grass, biomass or Fischer-Tropsch and finding the solution. I think it is going to be a tremendous partnership across the board."
One of the things planners are looking forward to is a clean coal to liquid manufacturing process, he said.

"It may involve several manufacturing steps to essentially neutralize carbon usage and get us to what we want," Secretary Wynne said. "We want a synthetic blend that will not interrupt the flow of fuel in our aircraft and airfields and will be a viable substitute."

A 50 percent blend appears to be the right answer, he said.

There are universities across the country trying to determine why we stopped at 50 percent, Secretary Wynne said.

"So the question is how do you bring this all to fruition?" he said. "For many years into the future, it is going to be very difficult to get more than a 50/50 blend on a real basis and not in a laboratory."

Testers are very pleased with the FT fuel's performance thus far, he said. The fuel may also reduce maintenance needs.

The next aircraft to be certified for FT fuel is the C-17 Globemaster III.

"This will be a bridge into the commercial arena," Secretary Wynne said. "We are being watched by many of our airline colleagues who are not only partnering with us, but researching our data. We have developed a rigorous process to qualify this fuel and any manufactured, processed synthetic fuel and blend."

The Air Force manual is being rewritten to highlight that there is a process to qualify alternative fuels within the Air Force, he said.

Recently, the Air Force ordered 281,000 gallons of synthetic fuel for further testing on the C-17 and B-1 Lancer engines in the coming year. NASA is also interested in synthetic fuels and will receive 9,000 gallons of synthetic fuel from the Air Force so they can begin evaluating its use in various engines and systems.

"This is the tip of the spear for national energy independence and cleaner energy," Secretary Wynne said. "It is doing well for the Air Force and the nation.""--
 
We won't repeat Secretary Wynne's final sentence, but every one of our elected reps should commit it to memory, with the understanding that by "it", Wynne means "coal".
 
We do want to repeat one passage that echoes other reports on FT fuel performance we have cited:
 
"Testers are very pleased with the FT fuel's performance thus far, he said. The fuel may also reduce maintenance needs."
 
If you've followed our dispatches thus far, you'll know it to be a frequent observation that coal-based, "FT", liquid fuels deliver better fuel economy and result in less engine wear than their petroleum-based counterparts.

Sulfur Aids Coal Liquefaction

Liquid sulphur dioxide — a reagent for the separation of coal liquids
 
We submitted earlier reports which indicated that the presence of Sulfur was actually something positive, in terms of coal liquefaction. Sulfur can, through several established commercial processes, be reclaimed from effluent gasses and liquids, and then be profitably sold into several existing markets for it. More than that, it's presence seemed, according to those earlier reports, to facilitate the conversion of coal into liquids.
 
Herein is more documentation of it's beneficial effect on the coal-to-liquid process.
 
The excerpt:

"Ralph A. Zingaro, C.V. Philip, Rayford G. Anthony and Argentina Vindiola

Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843 U.S.A.



Received 30 June 1980; 
accepted 23 September 1980. 
Available online 12 August 2003.


Abstract

Liquid sulfur dioxide has been found to be an excellent solvent for coal derived liquids. The higher alkanes and mineral matter are insoluble in this solvent and they are effectively separated. The sulfur dioxide-soluble fraction is very low in ash content. However, no improvement is achieved with respect to sulfur content. The soluble fraction has been separated by gel permeation chromatography and a large number of components have been identified."

First, when SO2  - which we presume could be extracted and made from the coal feed itself - is used to "clean" liquids derived from coal, it would, we think, be expected that "no improvement is achieved with respect to sulfur content".However, minerals and other, perhaps unwanted, substances "are effectively separated".

And, this report comes from Texas A&M University. Again, we question the now-obvious decentralization of coal-to-liquid conversion development and research; and, the fact that so much of it has seemingly been performed by institutions not geographically situate at the center of our US coal universe.

Finally, though, this is another "dated" report - from 1980 - which has no apparent broad publication credits. Why, would you speculate, has there been so little apparently achieved since then?

If you do look for an answer, perhaps you should check out back. Maybe somebody hid one in the Bushes.

CoalTG and CoalTL Advantages

 
 
Yet more evidence that we've known how to convert our coal into liquid fuels, and how beneficial that would be, for a long time.
 
It's saddening to realize the truth of that has to have been, for whatever reason, and by whoever, deliberately suppressed. We can think of no other reason we don't already have a flourishing CoalTL industry in the United States. As we've documented, we can make liquid fuels from coal, we can make plastics and other useful chemicals from coal, and we can support a renewable bio-based energy industry with the by-products from coal.
 
The excerpt:
 
"Title:   Coal gasification and its alternatives
Authors:   Huffman, R. L.
Affiliation:   AA(Cities Service Gas Co., Oklahoma City, Okla.)
Publication:   In: Annual Conference on Energy, 4th, Rolla, Mo., October 11-13, 1977, Proceedings. (A79-14676 03-44) Rolla, Mo., University of Missouri-Rolla, 1978, p. 46-55.
Publication Date:   00/1978
Category:   Energy Production and Conversion
Origin:   STI
NASA/STI Keywords:   ALTERNATIVES, COAL GASIFICATION, COST ESTIMATES, ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS, ENERGY TECHNOLOGY, SYNTHETIC FUELS
Bibliographic Code:   1978umor.conf...46H

Abstract

The paper discusses six groups planning Lurgi coal gasification plants with capacities of about 250 MMCFD of synthetic gas. The present efficiencies and costs of natural gas and electricity are given in terms of production efficiency, transmission and distribution, and delivered energy efficiency. Estimates of the cost of space heating and cooling equipment are presented for a typical home having 1,800 square feet of living space. In contrast to nuclear energy, it is shown that coal has direct applications to industry, for the generation of electric power, and for the production of synthetic fuels. It is demonstrated that synthetic gas from coal is less costly and more efficient than electricity made from the same coal from the point of view of the residential consumer."
 
So, coal conversion, in this case to a "synthetic" replacement for natural gas, is a better technology than nuclear energy alternatives. And, perhaps even more interestingly, according to the author, converting coal into synthetic fuels is more efficient and less costly, in terms of delivering energy to the end consumer, than burning it in power plants to generate electricity - which we seem to do a lot of.
 
And, who were the six groups working on Lurgi-type coal conversion, and what has become of their projects? The full paper, which we will be unable to acquire, would likely reveal the details should anyone have interest in finding out.
 
Finally, although this paper concerns the manufacture of a natural gas substitute from coal, once that substitute - syngas - is manufactured, only a pass over one of a variety of catalysts is required to convert that gas into liquid fuels compatible with our current transportation fleet and infrastructure.

Russia and Vietnam


Gazprom to supply coal gasification technology to Vietnam

 
Following is the text of the release, excerpted in it's entirety:
 
"DATE: May,18, 2009 
 
Dow Jones quoted that Vietnam's Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment said Russia's OAO Gazprom signed an agreement to supply its underground coal-gasification technology to Vietnam.

The ministry said in a statement that he agreement was signed in Hanoi with Vietnam's Dong Duong Co. Dong Duong will use the technology for gas production in the Red River coal basin in northern part of the country.

The ministry said it supports the idea of using Gazprom's gasification technology to extract gas from the Red River coal basin as it is environmental friendly.

Details about the agreement weren't provided."
 
In earlier dispatches, we have documented the participation of Australia's Coal-to-Liquid and Gas conversion experts, Linc Energy, in Vietnam's coal conversion activities.
 
Russia, as we've documented, has coal conversion technology of their own.
 
Vietnam's coal reserves are generally described as "stranded", meaning they're relatively small and isolated, and can't be easily or economically mined using standard practices.  Based on other reports we've located, UCG - underground coal gasification - appears to be a viable alternative to extracting - actually mining - the coal for processing only when the coal deposits are too thin, too deep, or too limited in extent to make physical extraction a practical option.
 
But, the real point is what Vietnam intend doing with the coal gas. Other reports document that they plan to convert it, like the Chinese with the help of WVU and others are doing, into liquid fuels and chemicals, though detailed news out of Vietnam is sparse and difficult to track down.