Home
Events
News
Latest News
News Archive
Research & Development
Blog
Archive
Spruce Mine Permit
NMA/EPA Lawsuit
HR 2018
Industry News Feeds
Media
Media Links
Ringtones
The Coal Seam
2011 Symposium Photos
Symposium Presentation Videos
Logos
Friends of Coal
Legislative
Legislative Summary 2011
Legislative Calendar
Register to Vote
Contact Your Legislator
Resources
Coal Facts
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Taxes
Links
Education
Mining 101
What is Moutain Top Mining?
Valley Fill Construction Basics
Contour Surface Mining
State of Coal
West Virginia Mining Methods
Underground Coal Mining
Room and Underground Pillar
Longwall Underground Mining
Surface Coal Mining
Surface VS Underground
Contour Surface Mining
Area Surface Mining
Mountain Top Remove Surface Mining
Auger VS Highwall Surface Mining
Mining Complexes
Fill Construction & Coal Mining
Fill Construction & Underground Mining
Fill Construction & Suface Mining
Coal Education
About
Who We Are
Our Members
General Members
Associate Members
Our Board
Our Staff
Contact

wvcoal_header6.jpg
USDOE Says Coal Liquefaction Economically Viable Now
Wednesday - November 02, 2011
Share

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/hydrogen_clean_fuels/refshelf/presentations/CTL%20Tec%20Cicero%20June%2008.pdf

Our own United States Department of Energy actually declared, publicly, the science and technology for converting our abundant Coal into liquid hydrocarbon replacements for anything that we currently derive from natural, conventional Petroleum sources to be economically and technically viable fully three years ago.

That USDOE statement was made in the form of a graphic presentation delivered to an audience at the "CTLtec Americas 2008" conference, held, with a sadly notable lack if public press fanfare, in one of the very hearts of United States Coal Country.

More about that conference can be learned via one lonely acknowledgement of the event, as accessible via:

Coal may hold solution to gas prices:

"Monday, June 23, 2008; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette;

Later this year, a plant in China will begin churning out liquid fuel made from coal, a technology that -- if all breaks right for the coal industry -- is headed to American shores.

From the CTLtec Americas 2008, which begins today at the Omni William Penn Hotel, Downtown, to Capitol Hill, coal-to-liquids is a popular topic, spurred by rising gasoline prices and this country's ever-present need to wean itself from oil imports.

Coal-to-liquid proponents insist that the technology would strengthen national security and be a cheaper alternative than current petroleum. Estimates vary widely, but Richard Bajura, director of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University, said liquid coal could be produced for $60 to $70 a barrel. Last week, oil prices approached $140 a barrel."

---------------------

Well, in honesty, based on our own experience over the past several years, we don't have any idea how much of a "popular topic" Coal liquefaction really is; but, the numbers presented above jibe with others we have documented for you previously, showing that: yes, given the current average prices for US Coal, and, the costs of operating known and commercial Coal liquefaction technologies, as exemplified by the Sasol operations in South Africa, we darned-well can make substitute liquid Petroleum, from Coal, at "$70 a barrel", and maybe even a little less.

The fact that liquid hydrocarbon fuels made from Coal were more than competitive with those made from natural petroleum was confirmed by one presentation, in particular, made at that Pittsburgh conference; a presentation made by our own, modestly authoritative, United States Department of Energy.

Comment follows excerpts from the initial link in this dispatch to:

"Coal-to-Liquids in the United States: Status and Roadmap

Daniel C. Cicero, Technology Manager, Hydrogen and Syngas

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Slide 5: CTL is technically and economically viable under present conditions of world oil price.

Slide 7: Air Force Synthetic Fuel Initiative: By 2016, be prepared to obtain 50% of contiguous United States aviation fuels from domestic sources capturing and reusing CO2.

(Note the above: "capturing and reusing CO2". As seen in just one of our earlier reports, as accessible via:

US Air Force 1965 CO2 to Fuel Conversion | Research & Development; concerning: "Catalytic Reduction of Carbon Dioxide to Methane and Water; 1965. This report summarizes the work accomplished .. for research on catalytic reduction of carbon dioxide to methane and water This work was performed under project 6146, "Atmosphere and Thermal Control",- and task 614622, "Oxygen Recovery From Carbon Dioxide." The work was monitored by ... (the) Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Research and Technology Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio";

the US Air Force has been attending to the task of "capturing and reusing CO2" for half a century.)

Slide 8: Barriers to Creation of US CTL Industry: Needed Incremental Investment in Infrastructure.

Large quantities of coal needed will drive significant expansion of U.S. coal mining.

(How, and why, pray tell, is a "significant expansion of U.S. coal mining" considered a "barrier"?)

Current railroads/railcars and barge capacity inadequate.

Mine mouth coal-fuel plants will need pipeline connects.

(Darn!)

Does he mean, that, to make liquid fuels out of our abundant Coal, and thereby, among other things, increase domestic US employment; cut back on what are, essentially, OPEC nation economic subsidies; and, reduce our overseas military obligations; we will need to employ even more US citizens to build "railroads (and) railcars and barge(s) - Oh, my! - and, build "Mine mouth coal-fuel plants " and "pipeline"s?

Oh, the horror!

Instead of doing all of that, and thus providing good employment to every mother's son and daughter in US Coal and Steel Country, maybe we should all just get used to wearing kaftans and turbans. They are comfortable, we hear, and, every Presidential election year, just cast our votes for whichever candidate was born in Texas.

Be much simpler, at least, and the clothing options would be more comfortable, that way.)

Slide 10: Coal with Biomass As A Carbon Control Strategy:

Increasing Security and Reducing Carbon Emissions of the U.S. Transportation Sector: A Transformational Role for Coal with Biomass

DOE/NETL-2007/1298 This work was jointly sponsored by the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory and the Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force August 24, 2007

Coal/Biomass-to-Liquids (CBTL: DOE-DOD joint feasibility study; jet fuel with 20% less CO2 emissions than conventional petroleum refinery

Concluded: System to reach 20% below conventional petroleum is technically and economically feasible

(We've previously documented such Coal-Biomass co-processing potentials, as in:

Combined Coal/Biomass Pyrolysis | Research & Development; concerning: "Co-pyrolysis of Biomass and Coal in a Free-Fall Reactor; State Key Laboratory of Fine Chemicals; China"; and, more portentously:

Exxon Co-Gasifies Coal and Carbon-Recycling Biomass | Research & Development; concerning: "US Patent Application 20100083575 - Co-gasification Process for Hydrocarbon Solids and Biomass; 2010; ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company; Abstract: A process for the co-gasification of carbonaceous solids (coal) and biomass ... wherein the solid carbonaceous particles comprise coal (and) wherein the biomass comprises biological matter selected from wood, plant matter, municipal waste, green waste, byproducts of farming or food processing waste, sewage sludge ... and algae";

and, in doing so noted not just the Carbon Dioxide-recycling nature of such technologies, but, the potentials for establishing a basis of long-term sustainability, and, for conserving at least some of our now-abundant Coal - for use both in other applications and by future generations.

To what should be the delight of any green weenies in our audience, note that, according to our USDOE, all of that can be done with a "20%" reduction in Carbon Dioxide emissions, relative to, as current, just "conventional petroleum".)

Slide 17: Congressional Activities -110thCongress

S.154 “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007”−DOE provide loan guarantees for CTL plants−DoD to purchase, test, and integrate fuels into SPR and military−Status: Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Jan 4, 2007)

S.155 “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act”−S. 154 + expand investment tax credits;extend Fuel Excise Tax credit, and expand credit for CCS equipment−Status: Senate Finance Committee (Jan 4, 2007)

H.R.370 “Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act”−House version of S.155−Status: House Armed Services Committee (Feb 1, 2007)

(Note, that, as far as we know, all of those US Congressional Coal liquefaction initiatives, and some others related, as explained in the full presentation, have remained stalled "in committee" for more than four years.

Why?)

Slide 21: S. 2827 Inhofe and Hensarling introduced bills for a simple repeal of Section 526. (April 7, 2008)

(For an explanation of what an obvious bit of blatant obstructionism "Section 526" is, see our report:

Repeal 526 Anti-Coal Liquefaction Bill | Research & Development. Then, call immediately call your own United States Senators, and, ask them if they're on board with Senators Inhofe and Hensarling.)

Slide 23: H.6170 Clean Coal-Derived Fuels for Energy Security Act of 2008 (June 5, 2008) To require the inclusion of coal-derived fuel at certain volumes in aviation fuel, motor vehicle fuel, home heating oil, and boiler fuel."

-------------------

Which final excerpt sums it all up rather nicely.

Our own United States Department of Energy officially confirmed, three years ago, that we can, in a way that reduce both Oil imports and overall emissions of Carbon Dioxide, relative to our as-current production and use of liquid fuels, convert our abundant Coal, along with Carbon-recycling and renewable Biomass, together, on an economically-competitive basis, into "aviation fuel, motor vehicle fuel, home heating oil, and boiler fuel."










“The West Virginia Coal Economy 2008”

Since the discovery of coal in Boone County in 1742 by John Peter Shirley, West Virginia has substantially benefited from the coal mining industry. Coal mining has been a significant part of West Virginia’s economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product4, employment, wages, and tax revenues. The scope of this report is to quantify the economic impact of the coal mining industry on the West Virginia economy with special emphasis on 2008.

Download PDF

West Virginia Coal Economy Joint Finance Committees Presentation - Download PDF







West Virginia Coal Association - PO Box 3923 - Charleston, WV 25339 | 304-342-4153 | website developed by brickswithoutstraw