Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30680
A Two-Step, Temperature-Staged Direct Coal Liquefaction Process

Authors: Reyna Singh, David Lokhat, Milan Carsky

Abstract:

The world crude oil demand is projected to rise to 108.5 million bbl/d by the year 2035. With reserves estimated at 869 billion tonnes worldwide, coal remains an abundant resource. The aim of this work was to produce a high value hydrocarbon liquid product using a Direct Coal Liquefaction (DCL) process at, relatively mild operating conditions. Via hydrogenation, the temperature-staged approach was investigated in a dual reactor lab-scale pilot plant facility. The objectives included maximising thermal dissolution of the coal in the presence of tetralin as the hydrogen donor solvent in the first stage with 2:1 and 3:1 solvent: coal ratios. Subsequently, in the second stage, hydrogen saturation, in particular, hydrodesulphurization (HDS) performance was assessed. Two commercial hydrotreating catalysts were investigated viz. NickelMolybdenum (Ni-Mo) and Cobalt-Molybdenum (Co-Mo). GC-MS results identified 77 compounds and various functional groups present in the first and second stage liquid product. In the first stage 3:1 ratios and liquid product yields catalysed by magnetite were favoured. The second stage product distribution showed an increase in the BTX (Benzene, Toluene, Xylene) quality of the liquid product, branched chain alkanes and a reduction in the sulphur concentration. As an HDS performer and selectivity to the production of long and branched chain alkanes, Ni-Mo had an improved performance over Co-Mo. Co-Mo is selective to a higher concentration of cyclohexane. For 16 days on stream each, Ni-Mo had a higher activity than Co-Mo. The potential to cover the demand for low–sulphur, crude diesel and solvents from the production of high value hydrocarbon liquid in the said process, is thus demonstrated. 

Keywords: Coal, Liquefaction, Catalyst, temperature-staged

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1109097

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1235

References:


[1] R. Salmon, H.D. Cochran, L.E. McNeese, “Status of coal liquefaction in the United States,” Fossil Energy Office – United States Department of Energy, pp. 195-205, 1979.
[2] S. Vasireddy et al., ”Clean liquid fuels from direct coal liquefaction chemistry, catalysis, technological status and challenges”, Energy Environmental Science, vol. 4, pp. 311-345, 2011.
[3] I. Mochida, O. Okuma, and S. Yoon, “Chemicals from Direct Coal Liquefaction,” ACS Publications Special Issue: Chemicals from Coal, Alkynes, and Biofuels, vol. 114, pp. 1637–1672, 2014.
[4] B.C. Gates, “Liquefied Coal by Hydrogenation,” Chemtech, pp. 97–102, 1979.
[5] Y. Gota, K. Ishida, “CoMo/NiMo Catalyst Relay System for Clean Diesel Production,” Petroleum Refining Research and Technology Center, Japan, 2000.
[6] J.J de Vlieger, “Aspects of the chemistry of hydrogen donor solvent coal liquefaction”1988.
[7] W.M. Reed at al., “The Response of High Temperature Catalytic Tetralin-Hydrogen Reaction to Free Radical Addition,” Auburn University, Department of Chemical Engineering, pp. 83-91
[8] C. Song, A.K. Saini, H.H. Schobert, “Enhancing low-severity catalytic liquefaction of low-rank coal,” Fuel Science Programme, USA, pp. 1031-1038, 1987
[9] A. W. Drews, “Manual on Hydrocarbon Analysis,” 6th edition, 1998.
[10] M. Klee, “GC Solutions #20: Calibration Curves – Part 2, Internal Standard Approach,” 2013.
[11] Bureau Veritas - South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) Testing Laboratory, 2012
[12] Sigma Aldrich, 2014