WV Coal Member Meeting 2024 1240x200 1 1

Exxon to Recycle CO2


 
We have cited numerous references for you confirming that Carbon Dioxide from our processes of coal use can be, and should be, reclaimed and recycled.
 
Now, a petroleum industry giant confirms our assertions by putting their money where our mouths have been.
 
A few excerpts from this very recent story:
 
"Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. is making a major jump into renewable energy with a $600 million investment in algae-based biofuels."
 
"Exxon is joining a biotech company, Synthetic Genomics Inc., to research and develop next-generation biofuels produced from sunlight, water and waste carbon dioxide by photosynthetic pond scum."
 
If you have followed our posts on coal-to-liquid technology, and how it's by-products, especially Carbon Dioxide, can be reclaimed and profitably recycled, you'll be familiar with Exxon's partner in this new endeavor: Geneticist Craig Venter, and his company, Synthetic Genomics.
 
Shell Oil, as well, is getting into this industry, and we'll follow up with news of their developments. But...
 
Keep in mind that both Exxon, with their MTG Process, and Shell, are very active, as we have documented, in the "energy conversion" business. It could well be that they are developing these CO2 recycling technologies as part of fundamental strategies to move, cleanly, as they should, into the business of converting coal into needed liquid fuel and valuable chemicals currently, for the most part, derived from petroleum.
 
Whether they do proceed with full development of CTL and the associated opportunities inherent in it's by-products, such as CO2, or not, though, these demonstrated technologies can be harnessed by others to enable all of us to use our vast coal resources in a responsible and profitable way that will lead us into a new era of truly sustainable growth, and liquid fuel self-sufficiency.

Poland Liquefies Coal

 

The enclosed report, from Poland, provides even more confirmation of the practical reality of coal-to-liquid conversion and, specifically, of the direct coal liquefaction technology, intensively studied and developed by West Virginia University, which utilizes "tetralin" as the active agent in coal liquefaction and hydrogenation for the synthesis of liquid fuels.    
 
Brief comment follows the excerpt: 

"Document title

Effects of pressure on hydrogen transfer from tetralin to coal macerals

Author(s)

PAJAK Janusz ; SOCHA Lukasz 

Authors Affiliations

Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry, Opole University of Technology, Luboszycka 5, 45-036 Opole, POLOGNE
Institute of Coal Chemistry, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sowinskiego 5, 44-121 Gliwice, POLOGNE
Department of Physical Chemistry and Technology of Polymers, Faculty of Chemistry, Silesian University of Technology, Strzody 9, 44-100 Gliwice, POLOGNE

Abstract

The influence of pressure (within a range of 5-100 MPa) on the rate of hydrogen transfer from tetralin to various coal macerals has been studied. Ten maceral concentrates (five vitrinites, three inertinites, and two liptinites) were used. The reactions were conducted at a temperature of 310 or 320 °C, depending on sample reactivity. The progress of reaction was followed by measuring tetralin dehydrogenation with gas chromatography. Vitrinite concentrates with high oxygen content are the most reactive, and the rate of their reaction with tetralin is accelerated by pressure. Pressure effects suggest a bimolecular transition state for most vitrinite/tetralin reactions. The reaction rate of inertinite concentrates is unchanged or even slowed by the change in pressure. These results suggest the increased contribution of the radical capping mechanism or the reaction path, in which tetralin reacts with low-energy coal radicals. As the pressure increases, the reaction rate of one liptinite sample is accelerated while the reaction of the other liptinite is retarded."
 
Please don't be distracted by some of the technical-sounding terms. "Macerals", for instance, just means, in essence, the various components, physical parts, observable in coal, while the various and several "ites" just refer to whether those coal components, the various macerals, are believed to have arisen from plant stems and tree trunks, or leaves and flowers, or mostly unidentifiable stuff like completely rotted plant parts and pollen. It's all coal, and for now that, and the fact that we can make liquid fuels from it, is all we really need to know.
 
In any case, the Poles are, directly or indirectly, helping to refine WVU's process for converting coal into liquid fuel components with the tetralin-based direct liquefaction process. The kind of coordinated, world-wide effort we've documented to be directed towards that end would not be taking place if the technology were not real, and, in a practical and profitable way, achievable.
 

Korea Affirms Coal-Used Tire Liquefaction Efficiencies

 
 
We'll not provide excerpts from this study, but we invite you to explore it. Although the report is published and maintained by our own National Energy Technology Laboratory, the four researchers who performed the research are from four separate entities, two universities and two corporations, in South Korea.
 
In sum, the researchers discovered that, when they combined Alaskan sub-bituminous coal with used auto tire waste, and some other, unspecified, plastics, in the presence of tetralin, the coal conversion catalyst specified by West Virginia University, the tire wastes helped contribute hydrogen to the coal, and hydrocarbon liquid production increased by more than 20% over coal converted alone.

WVU - Coal Liquefaction with Ferric Sulfide

 
 
Herein is reported the results of more research, by West Virginia University, into some rather fine points of coal-to-liquid fuel conversion technology.
 
It's important work, but, in essence, they're just jiggling some atoms and molecules to hone in on the highest-possible efficiencies of coal-to-oil production.
 
An analogy you might draw is that these mechanics already have the engine up and running pretty good, they're just fiddling with carburetor's mix to tweak out a few extra horsepower.
 
A brief note follows the excerpt: 

"Direct Liquefaction of Coal Using Aerosol-Generated Ferric Sulfide Based Mixed-Metal Catalysts

R. K. Sharma, J. S. MacFadden, A. H. Stiller, and D. B. Dadyburjor
[Unable to display image]Department of Chemical Engineering, P.O. Box 6102, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6102
 
The activity of aerosol-generated ferric sulfide based mixed-metal catalysts for direct coal liquefaction was studied at 400 °C and nominally 2000 psi hydrogen pressure. Aluminum, cobalt, copper, lead, silver, and tin were used in turn as the second metal. The typical fraction of the second metal was 10 atom % of total metal, although the concentration was varied in some cases. The catalysts were prepared in an aerosol reactor at 250 °C and 70 psi and were characterized in terms of their skeletal density, surface area, pyrrhotite/pyrite ratio, and X-ray diffraction. Of the catalysts tested, only those in which Al (and perhaps Pb) was used as the second metal cause an increase in conversion compared to the iron-alone catalyst. Selectivity to oil-range products is higher for catalysts containing Ag, Co, Cu, or Pb than for the iron-alone catalyst and is highest for the Fe−Pb−S catalyst. Hence, the Fe−Pb−S catalyst appears to be the one most suitable. The relative size of the ions of the second metal may be important for the performance of the catalyst. These aerosol-generated catalysts are slightly less active (in overall conversion) than the corresponding catalysts impregnated in situ in coal but are slightly more selective (to oil-range products)."
 
Again, they're just tweaking the process, and there's nothing too exotic in the mix, with the very minor exception of silver, which apparently doesn't work that well, anyway. The Fe-Pb-S catalyst, which seems to be the best, is just a combination of iron and lead sulfides - which are relatively common and naturally-occurring minerals that won't break the bank.
 
We submit this just as more evidence that the processes of converting our abundant coal into needed liquid fuel are well-developed and well-understood.

WVU and Liquid Fuels from Coal


Enclosed is a link to the proceedings of the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, held this past November, in Philadelphia.
 
The agenda, if you'll spend a little worthwhile time exploring it, indicates that some quite interesting topics were addressed.
 
Outstanding among those interesting topics is this submission from West Virginia University.
 
"Solvent Extraction of Low Grade Coals for Clean Liquid Fuels
Elliot B. Kennel, Mayuri Mukka, Alfred H. Stiller, and John W. Zondlo. Department of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University, PO Box 6102, Morgantown, WV 26506-6102"

"Solvent extraction of bituminous coals has been used as a means of coproducing clean liquid transportation fuels as well as solid fuels for gasification. Coal solvents are created by hydrogenating coal tar distillate fractions to the level of a fraction of a percent, thus enabling bituminous coal to enter the liquid phase under conditions of high temperature (above 400 oC). The pressure is controlled by the vapor pressure of the solvent and the cracked coal. Once liquefied, mineral matter can be removed via centrifugation, and the resultant superheavy crude can be processed to make pitches, cokes as well as lighter products."
 
(Gosh, we wonder what those "lighter products" might be.)

"Low emission liquefaction processes are particularly important in a scenario in which greenhouse gas mitigation is essential. Likely such scenarios will emphasize the use of technologies such as wind and nuclear power for central station power, while hydrocarbons will be increasingly reserved for liquid transportation fuel applications."

(In other words, we'll want more innovative "renewable" energy installations for power supply, like New Martinsville's hydroelectric retrofit of the Hannibal Locks.)

"Lower rank coals such as sub-bituminous coal and lignite are desirable feedstocks for this process due to their low cost, high hydrogen to carbon ratio and high aliphaticity compared to bituminous coals, which can result in superior transportation fuels. However, these advantages are partially offset by the high moisture content and high ash content which typically accompany lignite and sub-bituminous coals. In particular, ash content of approximately 20% is problematic because centrifugation might not succeed in increasing the ash content of the tails. Hence, much of the liquid product would be contained in the nominal tails rather than in the separated liquid centrate, if conventional centrifugation techniques were utilized."

(We've no idea what "higher aliphaticity" means, but, when it comes to lignite versus WV-type bituminous as feed stock for liquid fuel production, it sounds like the plusses and minuses might balance out. That bodes well not only for WV's bountiful stores of bituminous coal, but for some of her mine waste accumulations, as well, many of which are composed in part of highly carbonaceous material that wasn't, when it was mined, considered to be of high-enough quality for the market.)

"In order to overcome this inherent difficulty, a more complete liquid separation can be accomplished by vacuum distillation. Mineral matter is further heat treated to produce a value-added slag product. Solids separation can be over 90% effective using this technique depending upon the degree to which coal molecules are broken down during the solvent extraction process. The result is correspondingly higher yield of lighter products such as transportation fuels, with lower yield of heavy hydrocarbon products such as pitches and coke precursors."

So, they can get a higher yield of "transportation fuels", and another, "value-added", by-product with this advance in coal-to-liquid conversion technology.

As with some of the other reports we've submitted, this work from WVU makes it seem as if coal-to-liquid conversion technology is not only well-known and thoroughly understood, but is undergoing continuous refinement, which should make of it an even better commercial replacement for petroleum-based fuels than our South African friends, Sasol, discovered it to be some decades ago. The "solvent extraction" technique implies that the "West Virginia Process" might be quite different from the pyrolytic methods of coal reduction that have been traditionally employed to obtain syngas from coal for Fischer-Tropsch conversion into liquids.