Introduction• Coal to liquid (CTL) or Coal Liquefaction is the process of producing alternate fuels (synthetic crude oil) from coal.• Due to the expensive nature of the process it was not economically viable when oil price was low, but after oil-shock in 1970’s many countries have taken active interest in this particular process.• CTL is best suited to the countries who have vast reserves of coal but rely heavily on other countries for oil imports (like India, China ,US).• Fuels like: 1. F-T (Fischer-Tropsch) Diesel, 2. Cleaner cooking fuels such as DME (Di-methyl Ether)
Why Coal To Liquid?• As per the BP statistical review 2012 , coal’s market share was 30.1% in 2011 and world primary energy consumption grew by2.5%.• Unfortunately it oil and gas reserves are depleting.• Moreover majority of oil reserves are in politically unstable countries.• In addition growing global competition for petroleum as India and China continue their economic expansion. Source: BP Energy Outlook 2030, January 2011
Why Coal To Liquid?Source: Individual Images from BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012 and Survey of Energy Resources, World Energy Council
Increase in Oil ImportSource: http://nguoilotgach.blogspot.in/2011/02/chinas-maritime-ambitions-implications.html
VISION• Economic Fuel.• Low GHG emissions.• Zero local pollutants• Consumer acceptance
Under What Conditions is CTL Viable?• Oil remains at above $45 to $50/barrel (2005)• Coal prices at less than $20 to $25/ton• Reasonable cost of capital.• Viable processes and solid business case convincing to the investment community• Short/streamlined permitting process
Coal To Liquid• CTL process takes place by these methods: • Direct liquefaction • Indirect liquefaction • Hybrid Concept
Direct Coal Liquefaction• Also called Bergius process, developed by Friedrich Bergius of Germany in 1913.• In this process, dry coal is mixed with heavy oil recycled from the process.• Catalyst is typically added to the mixture.• The reaction occurs at between 400 °C(752 °F) to 500 °C (932 °F) and 20 to 70 MPa hydrogen pressure.• The reaction can be summarized as follows: n C + (n + 1) H2 → CnH2 n + 2
Direct Coal LiquefactionSource.: Presentation by Daniel C. Cicero at International Energy Agency Workshop on Coal-to-Liquids, 2 November 2006
Indirect Coal LiquefactionSource: Adapted from ASERTTI 2006 Winter Meeting report, February 6, 2006, Washington, DC
FT Diesel – an ultra clean fuel•Cetane No. >70•Zero Sulfur•No aromatics Source: Adapted from presentation by Theo L.K. Lee, Headwaters Technology Innovation Group, Nov 11/04, Washington D.C
Hybrid Coal LiquefactionSource:Adapted from U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy Report 2008
Coal To Liquid : Environmental Concerns• A major environmental concern • Carbon footprint of CTL plant• The plant-level CO2 in a CTL process can be offset using carbon capture and storage(CCS) technology, in which the captured CO2 is compressed and transported to a deep geological formation, where it is sequestered.
Source: Mantripragada & Rubin_Eval of CTL_Energy Policy_2011
SHENHUA Project• Shenhua Group took the lead in the process in August 2004. The project is designed to have an annual capacity of 5 million tons.• The first phase, designed to produce 3.2 million tons of oil products, is scheduled for production by 2007.• The second phase is scheduled for production by 2010, with a designed annual production capacity of 2.8 million tons.
Indian Scenario• Oil India Limited (OIL) carried out in-depth studies regarding conversion of various shales and coals from North-East India into liquid fuel and found that the high sulfur, low ash bituminous coal of India is quite amenable for liquefaction.• Oil India Limited (OIL) had embarked on coal liquefaction project based on HRI’s Coal oil co processing technology and setup a 25Kg/day pilot-plant in Duliajan, Assam.
Coal Liquefaction Pilot PlantSource: Adapted from Mohammed Kabiruddin’s Coal liquefaction
Barriers to Coal-To-LiquidsTechnical •Integrated operations of advanced CTL technologies have never been demonstrated •Lack of robust coal transportation infrastructure.Economic •Uncertainties about future world oil production •High capital and operations costs •Energy price volatility •Factors such as labor, equipment, product transportation, environmental risk, feedstock issues and others. •Various assumptions such as oil price assumptions, capital cost assumptions, labor assumptions, equipment assumptions, siting and permitting assumptions, transportation assumptions and othersEnvironmental •CO2 and other pollutant emissions •Expansion of coal production and requisite infrastructure (railroads, railcars, etc.) will lead to more pollution.
Coal To Liquid Proposed or Announced Projects• Rentech partnerships: 57,000 bpd plant in Kentucky, 12,000 bpd in Medicine Bow WY (Minemouth), 10,000 bpd plant in Mississippi, and a project in Colorado to convert former coal- to methanol plant into Coal To Liquid plant.• Pennsylvania: Consortium formed to purchase fuel and construct 10,000 bpd Coal To Liquid plant in partnership with Sasol.• West Virginia: State announcement in 2005 to build Coal To Liquid plant.
Coal To Liquid Proposed or Announced Projects • Montana: State announcement in 2005 to build CTL plant near PRB coal fields. • Kentucky: Office of Energy Policy/Division of Energy announcement in 2006 to build CTL plant. • China: Multiple plants in partnership with Sasol and Headwaters. Approximate capacity of17 million bpd by 2020. • Indonesia: 80,000 bpd CTL plant by 2008. • India/Pakistan/Africa: Multiple plants in partnership with Sasol
Conclusions• Global Energy security is threatened due to amalgamation of different factors such as geopolitical tension, depleting reserves of crude oil (Peaking of Oil) and other factors.• Coal can play a key role in this situation and has potential to resuscitate the energy reserves.• Although technologies of converting coal to oil do exist innovative breakthroughs on both technological as well as environmental front is imperative.
References• Mantripragada & Rubin Eval of CTL Energy Policy 2011• BP Energy Outlook 2030, January 2011• BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2012• www.e-metaventure.com• www.asertti.org/• gcep.stanford.edu/• www.wyopipeline.com