Fuel Processing Technology: Co-Processin gof Agricultural & Biomass Waste with Coal


We submit the enclosed article: 
 
"Co-processing of agricultural and biomass waste with coal",
 
both as further confirmation that biomass can be added to coal as feed stock for a suitably designed coal-to-liquid fuel conversion process, thus offsetting some of the CO2 which might be generated by the conversion, and as additional example of West Virginia University's leadership role in developing these alternative liquid fuel technologies.
 
The excerpt:
 
"Alfred H. Stiller, Dady B. DadyburjorCorresponding Author Contact Information, Ji-Pemg Wann, Dacheng Tian and John W. Zondlo

Department of Chemical Engineering, West Virginia University, PO Box 6102, Morgantown, WV 26506-6102, USA

Abstract

The liquefaction of Blind Canyon seam coal in the presence of one of four different types of co-liquefaction agents (CLAs) was studied at 350°C and 1000 psi (cold) hydrogen pressure. The role of tetralin as a solvent was studied. The four CLAs used include sawdust, horse manure, cow manure and commercial “Super Manure”. The conversion and the asphaltene-plus-preasphaltene yield were obtained by successive dissolution in tetrahydrofuran and hexane, respectively, with the oil-plus-gas yield obtained by difference. Results (on a dry, ash-free basis) are reported as both the overall values of conversion and yields, as well as the incremental differences in conversion and yields, relative to separate liquefaction of coal and the CLA. With or without the addition of tetralin, the overall conversion with cow manure is the smallest for the four co-liquefactions. In the absence of tetralin, the asphaltene-plus-preasphaltene yields are all similar. The presence of tetralin increases the overall conversions and the asphaltene-plus-preasphaltene yields. A study of the incremental differences in conversions and yields indicates that the four CLAs interact with coal and tetralin in different ways. The incremental conversion and the asphaltene-plus-preasphaltene yield appear to be related to the amount of hemi-cellulose in the CLAs, while the incremental oil-plus-gas yield appears to be related to the amount of lignin. Added inorganic compounds appear to negate incremental improvements in the oil-plus-gas yield when tetralin is present."

"Tetralin" - the word is a contraction of the compound's full name - is cited frequently in the literature as an agent that can promote the direct liquefaction, the dissolution, of coal, and apparently some organic matter, as well. This is an example, we believe, of "direct" coal liquefaction, as opposed to "indirect" liquefaction wherein syngas is first generated from coal via controlled thermal decomposition, and then is condensed back into liquid through the mediation of a suitable catalyst.

Make note of the "agricultural wastes" that can be included in the feed. They include sawdust and manure, confirming our previous, documented, assertions that both cellulose and, by inference, sewage sludge, can be included in the feed stock of suitably-designed coal-to-liquid conversion facilities.

And, again, West Virginia University is demonstrating it's leadership in developing these alternative, liquid fuel technologies, using our abundant coal resources coupled with renewable agricultural products that can compensate for emissions of carbon, and provide a sustainable source of raw material.

 

Coal-to-Oil Could Possibly Yield $35 a Barrel Oil?


We sent you some of this info previously in a link to one of the Dallas, Texas, newspapers which reported on the work of WVU and UTA, and their cooperative effort to develop coal-to-liquid fuel technology that works both on Texas lignite and on higher-BTU West Virginia bituminous coal.
 
The excerpt:
 
"Coal-to-Oil Could Possibly Yield $35 a Barrel Oil?

Researchers at the University of Texas Arlington have succeeded in producing Texas intermediate-quality crude oil from lignite, an abundant and cheap variety of coal. Their discovery, which was reported in Sunday’s Dallas Morning News, is a major step toward converting the country’s enormous coal reserves into a transportation fuel and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil.

By using relatively inexpensive microrefineries that cost $5 million a piece (versus the $800 million to $6 billion cost for a traditional refinery), the researchers’ believe they can generate two barrels of oil from each ton of lignite. With lignite forecast to cost $12 to $14 a ton, this equates to $35 a barrel oil.

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the United States has the world’s largest known coal reserves, about 263.8 billion short tons. This is enough coal to last approximately 225 years at today’s level of use. In 2006, the amount of coal produced at U.S. coal mines reached an all-time high. Coal is mined in 27 states. Wyoming mines the most, followed by West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The largest lignite deposits can be found in Texas and the Dakotas."

WVU's participation with UTA is unfortunately not mentioned in this release, but they are documented to be working together, and it is likely to be WVU's patented "West Virginia Process" of direct coal liquefaction they are working to commercialize.

And, once again, we'll note that this lignite from which they are expecting to extract 2 barrels of oil per ton. We could expect higher yields from higher-quality West Virginia bituminous coal.

More CoalTL By-Product Uses

 
We have documented how some wastes, by-products, of the coal-to-liquid conversion process, most especially Carbon Dioxide, can be efficiently, and even profitably, recovered from process streams and recycled into additional products of value.
 
Herein we document that yet another by-product, "phenol", of coal conversion, and other coal use technologies, can be effectively recovered and profitably utilized.
 
And, we will note that "phenols" generically, are common organic compounds. There is nothing particularly unique or threatening about them, but their generation by coal utilization processes has prompted environmentalist objections to the increased use of coal, especially when it is employed to make liquid fuels.
 
First, an excerpt from the phenol extraction patent linked above, and it's an important one:
 
"The waste water to be treated originates for instance from the gasification of coal, and in particular from the gasification of coal in a fixed bed, or from the hydrogenation or carbonization of coal."
 
So, the inventors, who seem to be German, as they are listed in the attached file, but who have no readily-discernible corporate or government affiliations, acknowledge the industrial gasification of coal, the initial step of liquefaction processes, and the "hydrogenation" of coal, which is the direct chemical process of liquefying it, and specify those processes as the prime reasons for developing a phenol extraction process.
 
And, note the following:
 
"It is the object underlying the invention to save energy when extracting phenols by means of a solvent mixture, and to flexibly effect the distillative separation of the phenols and the separation of the solvent mixture prior to its reuse."
 
They are, apparently, also looking at efficiencies in the process. The objective is to "save energy" and recycle, "reuse" the solvent.
 
Once we have efficiently recovered the phenol, it has quite a lot of commercial utility, as follows in a brief excerpt from our own, US, EPA's web site: 

"Uses (of phenol):

  • The primary use of phenol is in the production of phenolic resins, which are used in the plywood, construction, automotive, and appliance industries.
  • Phenol is also used in the production of caprolactam and bisphenol A, which are intermediates in the manufacture of nylon and epoxy resins, respectively.
  • Other uses of phenol include as a slimicide, as a disinfectant, and in medicinal products such as ear and nose drops, throat lozenges, and mouthwashes."
And, to further confirm that phenols, as might be found in the wastes of coal-to-liquid conversion plants, do have value, and can be efficiently recovered, and are worth recovering, here is yet another patent for that purpose:
 
"Title:
Extraction of phenol-containing effluent streams
United States Patent 6972345

Abstract:
A process for extracting phenol from a phenol-containing aqueous solution is disclosed."
 
We submit this second patent for phenol extraction toward the end of demonstrating the compound's value. This phenol extraction process was developed, and the patent is held, by Bayer. They make a lot of resins and plastics of the kind the EPA specifies; and, the construction, automotive and appliance industries are among the largest customers they serve. It might be valid to suppose they are recovering phenol from waste streams so that they can use it as a raw material for further resin and chemical manufacturing purposes.
 
Otherwise, there would be little value in developing, and patenting, a process centered on treating or recovering just one organic compound from a complex waste stream. Other methods exist for precipitating or removing entire, undifferentiated groups of chemicals. These enclosed patents are methods for "mining" a valuable substance from effluents.
 
As we've said previously, our use of coal, whether for the generation of power or conversion into liquid fuels, doesn't generate wastes or pollutants, but by-products which can be profitably harvested and used.

Japan Improvement of Coal Liquefaction Process

 
We submit this as further evidence that the science of converting our coal into much-needed liquid fuels is advanced, even sophisticated. We had earlier alerted you to some process refinements which supported that concept, and herein is yet another.
 
We became alerted to this particular issue in our research by frequent mention of molybdenum as a component of CTL processes.
 
The excerpt:
 
Title;Improvement of Coal Liquefaction Process by Using the Ultra Fine Particles of Molybdenum Sulfide.
Author;KURIKI YASUNORI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.)   UCHIDA KUNIO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.)   OSHIMA SATOSHI(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.)   YUMURA MOTOO(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.)   IKAZAKI FUMIKAZU(National Inst. Materials and Chemical Res.)   
Journal Title;Journal of Japan Society for Safety Engineering
 
"Abstract;Coal derived oil is produced by the reaction of hydrogen and coal slurry which is mixture of pulverized coal, recycle solvent and catalyst particles. In the coal liquefaction equipment, the slurry causes erosion of the valves and blockage of the pipeline. The following were carried out as a prevention: design change of equipments and improvement on operation technology. The erosion is thought to be caused by the ash of coal and the hard particles of iron used as a catalyst. Therefore, the effect of the use of ultra fine particles of soft molybdenum sulfide instead of the use of pyrite particles as a iron catalyst was investigated. The control of the erosion of the valves was expected. This molybdenum sulfide catalyst showed the high activity and the generation of carbon dioxide using this catalyst was suppressed. We think this catalyst improve the process of the coal liquefaction."
 
We're down, to the fine-tuning point of controlling internal erosion of coal-to-liquid conversion equipment; and, as a bonus, we get some conversion efficiencies that reduce co-generation of carbon dioxide.
 
As we've said before, of other developments we've reported to you, this is pretty detailed and sophisticated stuff. Coal-to-Liquid conversion technology is much further advanced, much more efficient and more highly "developed", than we, the "public", know, have been allowed to know.
 

 
An excerpt:
 
"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia."
 
Look, you know our stance on CO2 - it can, and should be, captured and recycled. The technology exists to do that, as we have documented in our posts. CO2 could be, and should be, seen as a valuable by-product of coal-use processes, a resource we shouldn't waste.

DOE/BP Liquify Alabama Coal

 
 
We'll repeat the title, as it appears in the link, and our comment follows the abstract:
 
 
"Analyses of Illinois no. 6 Coal Liquefaction results generated in the Wilsonville, Alabama Unit

VALENTE A. M., CRONAUER D. C. 

BP Products North America, Incorporated, Warrenville, Illinois 60555

Abstract

A database was set up to correlate the coal liquefaction results generated at the Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Two-Stage Coal Liquefaction Facility in Wilsonville, AL. Published information available in the public domain was used, centering on runs made with Illinois No. 6 seam bituminous coal with two reactors in a close-coupled mode. A linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of process variables on conversions and product yields. Bimodal catalysts were more effective than a unimodal catalyst, as indicated by 10 wt % higher resid + unconverted coal conversion, 1 wt % greater hydrogen consumption, 19 wt % greater C4-1000 °F liquid production, and 14 wt % lower resid yield. Another significant result was a lower coal conversion, hydrogen consumption, C1-C3 yield, light (IBP-350 °F) distillate yield, and C1-C3 selectivity, when using half-volume reactors rather than full-volume reactors under similar conditions, including space velocities. This was apparently due to flatter reactor temperature profiles and lower catalyst-to-thermal volume ratios. Overall preferred processing conditions for converting coal to distillate liquids included the use of EXP-AO-60 catalyst, high reactor temperatures (>810 °F, 432 °C) and a high process solvent resid concentration (>50 wt %, if mechanically possible). The space rate of coal in the reactors is best set at a point where resid production is minimized, if justifiable by process economics."
 
You will, perhaps, by now have received our previous dispatch relating the Supreme Court's ruling against Amoco, in a case involving coal-to-liquid conversion rights. The BP operating unit involved in the DOE/Alabama project detailed in this submission is, in fact, an old Amoco division acquired by BP, as part of their merger with Amoco. Other sources document Amoco executives' interest in coal conversion technology, and their intent to pursue it, prior to the merger.
 
Based on the Supreme Court case, it might not be injudicious to assume that BP acquired proven coal conversion technology in the Amoco merger, and are now looking for places to try it out, using Federal, DOE, subsidies to fine-tune and commercialize it prior to commercialization at the site of a major coal holding.