Liquefaction co-processing of coal shale oil at - Argonne National ...

The fate of the donatable hydroaromatic hydrogen in the solvent was
determined from the amounts in the solvent before reaction with coal
H , that remaining in the solvent after reaction with coal H , and
that The percentage donated eo the
coal H, can be calculated by differsnce:
transfered to the gas phase H .
From the values for H in Table 2 it can be seen that the
utilization of hydrogen gas efficient, as only 10% of the donatable
hydrogen was lost to the gas phase, the balance being donated to the
coal or remaining with the solvent. It is also noted from the
values of H that nearly all o'f the donatable hydrogen was depleted
from the s8lvent. In fact, experiment No. 2 with a 2:l solvent to
coal ratio was cfearly hydrogen starved, resulting in the lowest THF
and C conversions for the experiments with WGS-produced solvent.
In cohrast, experiment No. 4, with a solvent to coal ratio of 4:l
had sufficient donatable hydrogen to achieve high conversions, as
evidenced by the 20% donatable hydrogen remaining after completion
of the reaction.
PROCESS IMPLICATIONS
The results of the experiments presented in this paper clearly
demonstrate that coal can be effectively liquified without the use
of high-pressure purified hydrogen feed gas. This suggests that
substantial economic improvements in direct coal liquefaction can be
achieved. Figure 2 shows a schematic flow diagram for a two-stage
liquefaction process proposed on the basis of these results.
Notable differences between this and current two-stage processes
are: 1) elimination of high-pressure purified hydrogen for solvent
production; 2) use of low temperature in the solvent production
reactor; 3) elimination of gas-phase hydrogen and high pressures in
the thermal liquefaction reactor; and 4) selective recycle of
solvent components (primarily PAHIS). Use of this process would
eliminate the requirements for a separate WGS reactor and gas
separation units for hydrogen production, and high pressure
equipment for solvent production and liquefaction reactors. Because
these units account for approximately.ha1f of the estimated $1.5
billion capital investment of a 50,000 barrel/day plant, this
process would result in substantial savings in capital costs.
Operating costs such as those for compression of gases would also be
significantly lower.
REFERENCES
1. F. Fisher, and H. Schrader, Brennstoff-Chem. 2, 257 (1921).
2. H. R. Appell, I. Wender, and R. D. Miller, Chem. Ind. 47,
1703 (1969).
3. P. Nowacki, Coal Limefaction Processes, Noyes Data Corp.,
Park Ridge, N.J. (1979)
4. H. P. Stephens, Proceedinas of the 1985 International
Conference on Coal Science, 327 (1985).
318