Browse Topic: Coal liquefaction

Items (7)
Find
Investigation of Performance of Fischer-Tropsch Coal-to-Liquid Fuel, IPK, in a Common Rail Direct Injection Compression Ignition Research Engine with Varying Injection Timing2023-01-164310/31/2023
An investigation of the performance and emissions of a Fischer-Tropsch Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) Iso-Paraffinic Kerosene (IPK) was conducted using a CRDI compression ignition research engine with ULSD as a reference. Due to the low Derived Cetane Number (DCN), of IPK, an extended Ignition Delay (ID), and Combustion Delay (CD) were found for it, through experimentation in a Constant Volume Combustion Chamber (CVCC). Neat IPK was analyzed in a research engine at 4 bar Indicated Mean Effective Pressure (IMEP) at three injection timings: 15°, 20°, and 25° BTDC. Combustion phasing (CA50) was matched with ULSD at 10.8° and 16° BTDC. The IPK DCN was found to be 26, while the ULSD DCN was significantly higher at 47 in a PAC CID 510. In the engine, IPK’s DCN combined with its short physical ignition delay and long chemical ignition delay compared to ULSD, caused extended duration in Low Temperature Heat Release (LTHR) and cool flame formation. It was found in an analysis of the Apparent Heat Release Rate (AHRR) curve for IPK that there were multiple Negative Temperature Coefficient (NTCR) regions before the main combustion event. The High Temperature Heat Release (HTHR) of IPK achieved a greater peak heat release rate compared to ULSD. Pressure rise rate for IPK was observed to increase significantly with increase in injection timing. The peak in-cylinder pressure was also greater for IPK when matching CA50 by varying injection timing. Emissions analysis revealed that IPK produced less NOx, soot, and CO2 compared to ULSD. CO and UHC emissions for IPK increased.
Soloiu, Valentin, Willis, James, Weaver, Amanda, O'Brien, Brandon, Dillon, Nicholas, Davis, Zachary
Declarable Substances Recommended PracticeARP9536A (Current)8/5/2022
This standard applies to the aerospace and defense industries and their supply chain.
E-1 Environmental Committee
The Nozzle Flows and Atomization Characteristics of the Two-Component Surrogate Fuel of Diesel from Indirect Coal Liquefaction at Engine Conditions2018-01-16919/10/2018
Recently, all world countries facing the stringent emission regulations have been encouraged to explore the clean fuel. The diesel from indirect coal liquefaction (DICL) has been verified that can reduce the soot and NOx emissions of compression-ignition engine. However, the atomization characteristics of DICL are rarely studied. The aim of this work is to numerically analyze the inner nozzle flow and the atomization characteristics of the DICL and compare the global and local flow characteristics of the DICL with the NO.2 diesel (D2) at engine conditions. A surrogate fuel of the DICL (a mixture of 72.4% n-dodecane and 27.6% methylcyclohexane by mass) was built according to its components to simulate the atomization characteristics of the DICL under the high-temperature and high-pressure environment (non-reacting) by the Large Eddy Simulation (LES). The simulation results show that the DICL is more likely to form cavitation compared with D2, and the turbulence level at the orifice exit is larger for DICL. The liquid penetration of DICL is shorter than that of D2, while the vapor penetrations between DICL and D2 have no obvious difference. The spray cone angle of DICL is larger than that of D2. In addition, the gas-phase axial velocity of the DICL along the spray center line is slightly larger than that of D2 in the upstream of the spray. Moreover, the SMD of the DICL is larger than that of D2. Generally, this study is helpful to understand the differences in the inner nozzle flow features and the atomization characteristics between DICL and D2.
Huang, Zhong, Zhang, Wenzheng, Xia, Jin, Ju, Dehao, Han, Dong, Lu, Xing-Cai
Hydroprocessing of Direct Coal Liquefaction Product for Diesel Engine Fuel8921319/1/1989
A contemporary coal liquefaction product from the Wilsonville pilot plant was processed to make two diesel test fuels for engine research. A naphtha fraction was separated by distillation, and the diesel fraction was upgraded by hydrogenation. Processing objective was to make two stable products with acceptable ignition quality. A trial run was made over a range of pressures and residence times to establish minimum severity to meet the objective. About 85 gallons of product was made at minimum severity and 81 gallons at slightly higher severity. The products resembled petroleum diesel fuels except for marginally high viscosity and low accelerated stability. Product characterizations included 30.1 and 35.4 cetane number.
Sefer, Norman R., Erwin, Jimell
Comparative Economics of Methanol and Gasoline87206111/1/1987
The world has large reserves of crude oil and gas; but they are concentrated mainly in the Middle East. Eventually, economic and political factors will force the U.S. to use new domestic feedstocks for manufacturing liquid motor fuels. Among the possible alternatives are synthesizing methanol from natural gas or coal or making gasoline from coal by direct liquefaction. Methanol synthesized from domestic natural gas in a new, plant at current gas prices using demonstrated technology would cost 30% more than gasoline for equal vehicle miles. However, a program to make large amounts of methanol would likely raise gas prices. The higher feedstock cost would make the methanol even more expensive and possibly cause the methanol industry to move overseas where gas is cheaper. Because the U.S. has large reserves of coal, making methanol from coal is not likely to disturb existing supply arrangements nor raise the cost of coal significantly. However, processing to make methanol from coal is complicated and thermodynamically inefficient, and making methanol from coal would cost almost three times as much as gasoline for equal vehicle miles. Although research on direct coal liquefaction has been modest during recent years, it has yielded major technology improvements. Manufacturing gasoline from coal using demonstrated technology would use available domestic resources effectively and would be much more economical than manufacturing methanol from coal. Nonetheless, gasoline made from coal would be nearly twice as expensive as gasoline made from crude oil at current prices. We believe that government money being made available for promotion of alternative vehicle fuels would be better spent on improving processes for manufacturing alternative fuels--such as coal liquefaction--than on “demonstrating” vehicle performance on methanol-based fuels.
Wagner, T.O., Tatterson, D.F.
Coal Liquefaction — Impact on the Petroleum Refiner8209582/1/1982
An examination of three coal liquefaction technologies exemplified by Fischer-Tropsch, Mobil MTG and SRC-II is made with respect to product quality, yields and their ability to produce products compatible with existing refinery requirements. Indirect liquefaction via Fischer-Tropsch and Mobil MTG were found to produce acceptable products after blending but with a yield structure incompatible with the declining gasoline to distillate ratio in today’s market. Direct liquefaction while producing a more flexible boiling range product was found to be totally unacceptable to conventional refinery processing units. This would necessitate the development of dedicated upgrading technology, after which it is expected that acceptable gasoline and jet fuel could be produced.
Crowe, D., Dautzenberg, F. M.
Another Look at Alternative Fuel Options7707592/1/1977
Alternatives to petroleum-derived transportation fuels can be produced from oil shale, coal, and from a variety of carbonaceous materials including both cultivated biomass and waste materials. In the long-term, hydrogen, often mentioned as an alternative fuel, may be used as an energy carrier or transfer agent; it should not, however, be considered as an energy resource. Among the alternatives, coal-derived or shale-derived fuels could become significant in the national supply within the century. The other alternatives are long-term (post-2000), or, at least without extensive resource development, they are resource-limited. Any identifiable shale-derived fuel probably will appear as conventional finished fuel--either gasoline or distillate. More likely, however, the shale-derived component of fuels will not be identifiable because any shale oil available for the manufacture of transportation fuels within the foreseeable future will be blended with natural crude and used as refinery feedstock. Coal-derived fuels may be methanol, gasoline from methanol, or conventional gasolines or distillate-type fuels either synthesized from coal or refined from coal syncrude, i.e., a “liquefied” coal. Methanol or a methanol derivative would be produced using coal gasification as the primary conversion process. The technology for coal gasification is well established whereas that for coal liquefaction is not fully developed. For this reason methanol or methanol-derived gasoline are the alternative fuels most likely of production if non-petroleum fuels were to be required in the immediate future. The next most likely would be conventional fuels from coal synthesis by the SASOL process. The evidence available to date indicates that should gasoline or distillate be made from either coal or shale oil those fuels will not differ markedly from traditional fuels.
Hurn, R. W.
Items per page:
1 – 7 of 7