EPA-AA-SDSB-82-06
Technical Report
Exxon Donor Solvent
Coal Liquefaction Process
by
John McGuckin
February 1982
NOTICE
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of tech-
nical information and to inform the public of technical develop-
ments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction 1
II. Background 1
A. History of Process 1
B. Project Status 2
C. Operation of the 250 TPD EDS Pilot Plant 2
D. Remaining Steps to Commercialization 2
III. Process Description 2
IV. Coal Feed Flexibility 6
V. Product Yields 6
VI. Overall Energy Efficiency 9
VII. Economics 9
1. Illinois Coal 9
2. Wyoming Coal 13
VIII. Summary 16
IX. References 18
-------
I. Introduction
This report presents the technical and economic aspects of
the Exxon Donor Solvent (EDS) coal liquefaction process. First,
background information is provided by discussing the EDS process
history, project status, and commercialization outlook. Next, a
process description is provided along with a description of the
EDS flexibility in liquefying coals of different rank. Then, the
product yields and overall efficiency are discussed. Lastly, the
economics of the EDS process are presented. A discussion of feed-
ing different coals to the EDS plant will also be presented in the
section on economics.
II. Background
A. History of Process
The EDS process was developed by Exxon as a private venture
from 1966 until 1976. During this time Exxon developed and demon-
strated the process in laboratory scale reactors up to 1 ton per
day (TPD) of coal. In July 1977, ERDA (now DOE) agreed to fund 50
percent of a project to design and construct a $268 million
250-TPD pilot plant. Construction of this pilot plant in Baytown,
Texas, was completed in March, 1980, and is to be followed by a
thirty month operational program.[1][2]
B. Project Status[3][3a]
Engineering design and technology studies, bench scale
research and small pilot unit operation are being integrated to
support operation of the 250 TPD coal liquefaction pilot plant.
On June 2, 1981 an eleven month first test operation on Illinois
bituminous coal without liquefaction bottoms recycling was com-
pleted. During September, 1981 the pilot plant was restarted for
a five month operation to evaluate the suitability of Wyoming
sub-bituminous coal and to incorporate liquefaction bottoms recy-
cling into the EDS process. The bottoms recycling is expected to
boost the output of higher-value naptha and middle distillates
while decreasing the amount of heavier lower-value products.
After this period of operation, a decision will be made
whether to run with lignite or to rerun Illinois No. 6 with bot-
toms recycling, for a period of six months, until June, 1982. At
this time DOE's participation in the pilot plant venture will ter-
minate unless government funding is approved for ancillary pro-
grams such as partial oxidation and a hybrid boiler which are
under consideration for bottoms processing. This additional fund-
ing is not expected to be approved. Another bottoms process, a
planned 70 TPD FLEXICOKING prototype program has been cancelled
due to budget constraints. After June, 1982 the remaining part-
ners of the project will decide whether they will build a com-
mercial plant.
-------
-2-
C. Operation of the 250 TPD EDS Pilot Plant
Sixteen process goals were established for the first four
months of operation of which eleven were reached. The goals
reached included operation on 8 mesh coal, demonstration of the
ability to dry coal to 4 percent moisture, achievement of a 50
percent on-stream factor, and several fractionation section objec-
tives. The five goals not reached include steady operations at
conditions near the design coal feed rate and a 1/2:1 solvent-to-
coal ratio, operation of the reactor solids withdrawal system, and
operation of the slurry drier.
During the first four months of operation the plant problems
experienced were mechanical rather than process oriented. The
mechanical problems included erosion of the vacuum tower transfer
line, breakdown of the solids—handling systems and plugging of the
slurry heat exchangers. The key to successful operation was
avoiding solidification of heavy materials and solids plugging.
The service factor was strongly dependent upon the time required
to unplug the equipment after a coal outage due to solidifica-
tion-based plugging.
A preliminary observation indicated a lower plant efficiency
than expected. The reason for this has not been determined.
D. Remaining Steps to Commercialization
According to Exxon's commercialization estimates, after
operation of the 250 TPD EDS pilot plant in the 1980-1982 time
frame, a design basis for an EDS demonstration plant could be
available in 1982.[4] With a three year design and construction
period, construction of the demonstration plant could begin in
1985 and be completed in 1988 or 1989. The 13,000 TPD demonstra-
tion plant would be equivalent to one train of a 25,000 TPD com-
mercial plant. Each train includes two identical liquefaction
lines. Therefore, the commercial plant would have four liquefac-
tion lines processing 6,250 tons of coal per line. As a result,
the overall scale-up factor from the 250 TPD pilot plant to the
demonstration plant equals twenty-five. Design of a commercial
plant could begin after the demonstration plant operates one
year. This would mean beginning the design in 1989 and construc-
tion in 1992. Therefore Exxon projects start-up of its first com-
mercial plant in 1997.[4] The commercial plant start-up date is
dependent upon successful completion of all previous steps.
III. Process Description[5]
Block diagrams for two different EDS coal liquefaction com-
mercial designs are shown in Figures 1 and 2. [5] These two pro-
cessing schemes differ in the methods used to produce the hydrogen
and fuel gas required by the plant. These differences affect
plant economics and efficiency.
-------
Figure 3.
EDS COMMERCIAL PLANT STUDY DESIGN UPDATE
ILLINOIS COAL BASE CASE
_ SIMPLIFIED BLOCK plACRAM __
-* -i ,*•
Furnace t I Furnace
n"aot \ Recycle 1 HeaCl0t
Scpjr.ilo.s C.n 1 Separator
Recyclr 1 Compressor 1 |
Solvent ; 4
T ' -1 I
• '-- • .
NiDhlru +
Solvi:i<
• • : 1 .- p« T APS
Solvent .4 — ' - --....-
Hydroijcnalion 1 • . . — .-— —
• €«ce»i Jolvc.t V/DC
Solvent . " S
< ^^ 1
U F/[. vr.o |
' . BTMS ^
'-
FLEXICOKI
Coil Preparation
t
Slurry Driers
- Sim
Relm
Sim
Retro
Furnic< 1 Furnict
RMCIM Recyel. »««l0'
— *• Separitori Gis Sepiritort
Compretsor
Ntcfcie
-« Sim
Relm
Sim
Refra
1 1 ' ' 1UIVIH
.
—
1 • — ' ™' • -— ^ Niphllw
Ap«. Solv.nl - -
-,Z— — — — »-*"- — "" ^^^^ **" "•" 1 -- !. — «. Solvent •
TFIUX j-*-
' ... - - { ". ~* Hy
-------
FIGURE
EDS COMMERCIAL PLANT STUDY DESIGN UPDATE
ILLINOIS COAL MARKET FLEXIBILITY SENSITIVITY CASE
SIMPLIFIED BLOCK DIAGRAM
TRAIN NO. 1
TRAIN NO. 2
Coal Preparation
Makeup II
Liquefaction 1
Fiinace
Slurry Driers
(5 Units)
Makeup H2
Liquefaction 2
(6Gasiriers 4N/2S)
°2
Reactor
Reactor
»
Separators 1
r:.
i
Separ!
1 I
Liquefaction 3
Furnace
Reactor
Liquefaction 4
] Furnace
Reactor
1
[ Separators |
.1 ;
L~~
I
*
Separators |
Intermediate
Stooge
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
-------
-5-
In either scheme, the coal conversion plant receives coal
from three mines via conveyor belts. After cleaning the coal, the
coal is crushed and fed via enclosed belt conveyors to the corres-
ponding slurry drier. Coal to be used in the offsite boilers is
conveyed to the boiler crusher/pulverizers. In the slurry driers
the crushed coal is first dried to less than 4 weight percent
moisture (dry coal basis) and then slurried with the hydrogen
donor recycle solvent. The slurry is then pumped to reaction
pressure, treated with hydrogen and heated in the liquefaction
slurry furnace before entering the liquefaction reactors which
operate at 840°F and 2000 psig. There the coal is liquefied in
the presence of molecular hydrogen and hydrogenated donor sol-
vent.
Products from the liquefaction reactor are separated into a
gas stream and a liquid/solid stream. The gas is cooled to
separate vaporized naptha, scrubbed to remove NH3, H2, and
CO , treated with makeup hydrogen, and then compressed for
recycle to the liquefaction reactors.
The liquid/solids stream and the condensate recovered from
the gas stream are sent to atmospheric and vacuum fractionators
where naptha, a spent solvent stream, and vacuum gas oil (VGO) are
separated. The naptha is sent to light ends processing for
stabilization, the spent solvent stream is sent to solvent hydro-
genation prior to recycling, and the vacuum gas oil is removed as
the bottom sidestream of the vacuum fractionator and sent to pro-
duct tankage. Vacuum bottoms are sent to FLEXICOKING and/or par-
tial oxidation.
In the light end recovery section, naptha from: 1) liquefac-
tion, 2) solvent hydrogenation, and 3) FLEXICOKING are fed to a
conventional light end system. C^/C2 hydrocarbons are
stripped out as high-BTU gas (HBG) product, Cg and C^ hydro-
carbons are separated as LPG product, and the remaining C5/350°F
naptha stream is sent to product tankage.
Solvent hydrogenation restores donatable hydrogen to the
spent solvent stream before it is recycled to the slurry drier in
the liquefaction section.
Two different methods may be used to generate hydrogen. One
method, designated as the Base Case by Exxon, uses steam reforming
of C]^-C3 hydrocarbons from the light ends recovery section of
the plant and Cn-Co hydrocarbons from the hydrogen recovery
unit to produce hydrogen. Under this route 100 percent of the
vacuum bottoms would go to FLEXICOKING. The other method, desig-
nated the Market Flexibility Sensitivity case by Exxon, uses a
partial oxidation (POX) process to generate H2 from the vacuum
bottoms. This eliminates the need for steam reforming, which in
turn allows the sale of C^/C2 hydrocarbons as HBG and C3
hydrocarbons as LPG. About one-half of the vacuum bottoms, would
-------
-6-
be fed to the POX process with the rest being fed to the FLEXI-
COKER. The POX unit gasifies all carbonaceous material fed to
it. Oxygen is supplied to the POX by three oxygen plants (33-1/3
percent capacity/train).
The Market Flexibility Sensitivity case has been shown to
have both an economic and thermal efficiency advantage over the
Base Case. These advantages will be discussed in the efficiency
and economic section of this report.
IV. Coal Feed Flexibility[6][6a]
Lab-scale work by Exxon has shown that the EDS process is
suitable for coals of different rank. Figure 3 shows that bitu-
minous, sub-bituminous, and lignite rank coals can all be lique-
fied using the EDS process. This figure also shows that the
C3-1000°F yields for the various coals correlate with coal
rank.
One way to increase C3-1000°F liquid yields is to recycle
the 1000°F+ vacuum bottoms stream to the liquefaction reactor.
Using once-through liquefaction, bituminous coals yielded 39-46
percent liquids, sub-bituminous coals yielded 38 percent liquids
and lignite yielded about 36 percent liquids (see Figure 3). With
vacuum bottoms recycle, liquefaction of various coals resulted in
liquid yields of 55-60 percent for bituminous coals, 44-50 percent
for sub-bituminous coals, and 47 percent for lignite. The effect
of FLEXICOKING the vacuum bottoms is not included in the above
liquid yields.
The economics of feeding sub-bituminous Wyodak Coal as well
as Illinois No. 6 coal to the EDS process will be discussed in the
economics section. No economics are available for a lignite
feed. In this report all costs are based on once-through lique-
faction as these were the only detailed costs that were available
at this time.
V. Product Yields
For the average annual operation of the plant, the feedstock
(bituminous coal), product, and byproduct rates for both the Base
Case and the MFS case are summarized in Table l.[5] The C3 LPG
and C^ LPG are produced as finished products. In addition
Ci/C2 high Btu gas (HBG) is a finished product from the MFS
case. To produce transportation fuels and distillate as major
products, the naptha and fuel oil would require further downstream
processing in an upgrading facility (refinery).
The greatest difference between the product yields from the
Base Case and MFS Case is the higher yield of C^/C^ LPG and
HBG in the MFS case. This higher yield is the result of replacing
the steam reforming of C^-C^ light hydrocarbons for hydrogen
-------
CD
O
O
a
U.
o
O
O
O
o
INCREASED LIQUID YIELDS OBTAINED WITH
BOTTOMS RECYCLE COMPARED TO ONCE
THRU OPERATION
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Liquefaction Only Yields
[71 Coal Only
Bottoms Recycle
"HI
1
f.
l|
>
»
/
;
f
A
J!
Texas Wyoming Australian Pittsburgh Illinois
Big Brown Wyodak Wandoan Ireland Monterey
---Lignite
Subbituminous Bituminous—
Figiirn 3
-------
-8-
Table 1
Feedstocks and Product Yields
HHV Base Case
Btu/lb ST/CD FOEB/CD*
Feedstock
Process Coal (Dry) 12,562 19,577 83,364
Offsite Coal (Dry) 12,562 684 2,915
Total Coal (Dry) 12,562 20,261 86,279
Purchased Power - - 6,937
(Energy Equiv. )
Total 93,215
HHV
MBtu/B B/CD FOEB/CD*
Product
High Btu Gas -
C3 LPG 3.85 81 53
C4 LPG 4.34 1,948 1,433
Naptha 5.41 18,418 16,889
Fuel Oil (350-650°F) 6.36 14,611 15,750
Residual Oil (650°F+) 6.41 14,611 15,874
Total 49,669 50,000
By-products
Sulfur (ST/CD) 890
Ammonia (ST/CD) 179
Phenol (B/CD) 294
MFS Case
ST/CD
16,256
1,204
17,460
_
B/CD
8,177**
2,731
1,649
14,995
12,052
11,125
50,729
934
110
298
FOEB/CD*
69,224
5,129
74,352
6,732
81,082
FOEB/CD*
8,177
1,782
1,213
13,750
12,992
12,086
50,000
One FOEB =5.9 mBtu
** FOEB.
-------
-9-
production, with the partial oxidation of about one-half of the
liquefaction bottoms to produce hydrogen.
Much of the 650-1000°F residual product yield can be elimi-
nated by utilizing bottoms recycle liquefaction. This serves to
lighten the product slate. Table 2 shows the yield distribution
improvements which can be obtained by using bottoms recycle lique-
faction along with FLEXICOKING and coal partial oxidation instead
of just once-through liquefaction and bottoms FLEXICOKING as in
the Base Case. [7] This table shows that the residual oil can be
eliminated and the naptha yield increased to 45 percent of the
total product. It has been roughly estimated that about a 20 per-
cent reduction in product cost (with respect to the Base Case) may
be obtained by utilizing bottoms recycle liquefaction.[7]
VI. Overall Energy Efficiency
An analysis of the EDS process indicated that the thermal
efficiency is 53.64 percent for the Base Case and 61.66 percent
for the MFS case; these efficiencies do not include by-product
heating values.[5] The efficiencies are listed in Table 1. In
the Base Case 100 percent of the vacuum bottoms are sent to FLEXI-
COKING, and hydrogen is generated by steam reforming of the light
hydrocarbon gases (C2~ and LPG) produced in the plant. In the
MFS case, about one half of the vacuum bottoms stream is sent to
FLEXICOKING with the remainder sent to a partial oxidation unit
for hydrogen generation. In the Base Case the steam reforming
furnaces were the largest onsite consumer of fuel gas (low Btu
gas), whereas no fuel gas is required for the partial oxidation
unit of the MFS case. The differences between these hydrogen pro-
duction processes allows for the recovery of product GŁ- gas and
LPG in the MFS case. However, the MFS case requires more offsite
coal than the Base Case since more steam must be generated to off-
set the steam generated by the steam reforming units of the Base
Case.[5]
Overall the increase in product heat due to recovery of the
GŁ- gas in the MFS case more than offsets the increased input
heat due to its higher electric power and offsite coal require-
ments. [5] The result is a higher efficiency in the MFS case rela-
tive to the Base Case.
VII. Economics
A. Illinois Coal
There have been a number of reports and papers presented in
the literature which discuss the economics of the EDS direct
liquefaction process or simply present the cost of the EDS pro-
ducts. [8] [9] [10] [11] These reports include the ICF and ESCOE
studies. All of these reports were based on the 1975/1976 study
design prepared by Exxon Research and Engineering (ER&E).[12] All
-------
-10-
Table 2
EDS Liquefaction Product Yields[7]
(% of Total Yield)
Liquid
Ci-C2
C3-C4
Naptha
Distillate
Re sid
Once Through
Liquefaction/
Flexicoking
-
5.3
35.1
35.0
24.6
Bottom Recycle
Liquefaction/
Flexicoking/
Partial Oxidation
20.8
9.0
45.6
24.3
_
-------
-11-
of the economic figures presented here are based on the most
recent study design published by ER&E in March, 1981.[5] This
recent study design covered the conceptual design of an EDS coal
liquefaction commercial plant receiving Illinois No. 6 bituminous
coal. This design depicts the state of EDS technology in 1978 as
this technology might be applied in a commercial facility.[5]
About 20 man-years of effort were required for this work.[5]
This recent design is a complete update of the earlier, less
extensive 1975/1976 design.[5] It represents a "detailed study
design" for the onsite facilities, and a high-quality screening
type of study design for the offsites. The current capital cost
as reported by ER&E was estimated to be about twice that of their
1975/76 estimate.[5] Reasons for this increased capital cost
include:
1. An 11 percent increase due to new estimating methods
for large-job field-labor overheads.
2. A 51 percent increase due to scope changes in the study
design. The most significant scope change was a 25 percent
increase in coal feedrate to liquefaction, which required larger
process units and added 19 percent to the plant cost.
3. A 43 percent increase due to design and estimating
developments.
For the purposes of this report the total instantaneous plant
investment as estimated by Exxon was used and then placed on a
consistent economic basis with other liquefaction technologies
that have been analyzed in other reports. This included resizing
the plant to produce 50,000 FOEB/CD* of liquid products. The
economic assumptions, including the plant size scaling factor,
construction schedule, and coal cost, have been presented in a
previous report.[13] The costs presented for the Base Case and
MFS Case are based on once-through liquefaction since no detailed
costs were available for bottoms recycling.
Table 3 presents an economic summary of the capital and pro-
duct costs for the EDS direct liquefaction process. Costs based
on two different capital charge rates (CCR) (11.5 and 30 percent)
are shown for both the Base Case and the MFS Case. With a capital
charge rate of 11.5 percent, the Base Case product cost is
$50.09/FOEB and the MFS Case cost is $42.16/FOEB. With a 30 per-
cent capital charge rate the Base Case product cost is $87.22/FOEB
and the MFS cost is $71.83/FOEB. As can be seen, the MFS Case
also has a lower capital investment than the Base Case. Since the
MFS Case is both more efficient (61.8 percent vs. 53.6 percent)
* One FOEB = one fuel oil equivalent barrel =5.9 MBtu
-------
-12-
Table 3
Economic Summary of EDS Costs
(Million of Dollars)
Total Instantaneous
Investment
Total Adjusted
Capital Investment
Annual Capital
Charge
Annual Operating
Cost
Total Annual Charge
Product Cost
$/FOEB of Product*
$/Million Btu of
Product
CCR =
Base Case
3315
3759
432
482
914
11.5%
MFS Case
2649
3004
345
424
769
CCR =
Base Case
3315
3700
1110
482
1592
30%
MFS Case
2649
2956
887
424
1311
50.09
8.49
42.16
7.15
87.22
14.78
71.83
12.18
One FOEB = 5.9 million Btu.
-------
-13-
and more economical than the Base Case, it follows that the MFS
Case has been selected in this report for comparison with other
liquefaction technology costs.
Table 4 presents a breakdown of the investment and operating
costs for the MFS Case. The total instantaneous investment in
first quarter (1Q) 1981 dollars is $2.65 billion. The real 1990
total erected cost has been estimated at $3.0 billion in 1Q 1981
dollars. The total annual operating cost per year is $452 million
before taking a by-product credit of $28 million. Coal represents
about 50 percent of the operating cost while repair materials
account for 21 percent and utilities 14 percent.
Table 5 presents the annual capital charge and the various
operating costs as a percentage of product cost. With a CCR of
11.5 percent the annual capital charge accounts for 42 percent of
the product cost while coal accounts for 29 percent. With a CCR
of 30 percent the annual capital charge accounts for 65 percent of
the product cost with coal accounting for 17 percent.
In addition to the Base Case and MFS Case there are three
additional cases being investigated by Exxon Research and
Engineering, for convenience called Cases 1, 2, and 3. [7] The
differences amongst these cases involve the method used for bot-
toms processing. The main feature common to these three cases and
different from the Base and MFS Cases is the recycling of the bot-
toms stream to the liquefaction reactor. In addition to the
recycle stream, Case 1 includes coal partial oxidiation to produce
hydrogen and bottoms FLEXICOKING for plant fuel. Case 2 is iden-
tical to Case 1 except bottoms partial oxidation is used to pro-
duce the plant fuel instead of FLEXICOKING. Case 3 employs coal
partial oxidation for hydrogen production and utilizes a hybrid
boiler which burns liquefaction bottoms to provide process heat.
These alternate bottoms processing routes can significantly
affect product cost. Relative to the Base Case, product cost
reductions for Cases 1-3 were roughly estimated as follows:
Case % Cost Reduction[7]
1 20
2 22
3 28
B. Wyoming Coal Case
To determine the effect of coal type on the EDS liquefaction
process, ER&E performed a study design for sub-bituminous Wyodak
coal.[12][14][15] This design was patterned after the 1975/76
Illinois design, but done in less detail.[12] Although both of
these designs are now outdated, their comparison should give a
rough indication of the relative yields, investments, and product
-------
-14-
Table 4
MFS Case, Investment and Operating Cost,
(1st Q 1981 Dollars)
MFS Case
Investment Cost
(Millions of Dollars)
Onplot Investment
Offplot Investment
ER&E Charges
Subtotal
Contingency
Total Instantaneous
Investment
Working Capital and Startup Costs
Total Instantaneous
Capital Investment
Operating Cost
(Millions of Dollars Per Year)
Capital Related
Interest on Working Capital
Repair Materials
Raw Materials
Coal
Catalyst & Chemicals
Salaried and Related Costs
Wage Earners
Salaried
Overhead, Supplies, etc.
Utilities, Power
Gross Annual Operating Cost
By-product Credits
Sulfur
Ammonia
Phenol
50,000 FOEB/CD
1 Q 1981 $
1281
780
60
2121
309
2430
219
2649
7.1
114
210
8.6
34.7
9.1
8.8
59.7
452
12.8
5.4
10.0
Net Annual Operating Cost
424
-------
-15-
Table 5
Product Cost Breakdown, % of Cost
Annual Capital Charge
Coal
Repair Materials
Utilities
Labor
Catalyst & Chemicals
Overhead
Other
Byproduct Credit
MFS
CCR=11.5%
large 42
28.9
12.4
8.2
5.3
:als 1.2
1.1
4.8
(3.9)
Case
CCR=30%
65
17.4
7.5
4.9
3.2
0.7
0.6
2.9
(2.3)
-------
-16-
costs. The design includes a FLEXICOKER to handle vacuum bottoms
and a steam reformer to produce hydrogen. Both designs are based
on feeding the same quantity of dry coal. Yields for both cases
are shown in Table 6. The Wyoming coal case has an overall 13
percent lower product yield with the greatest difference lying in
the 400°F+ fuel oil yield. The lower product yield is expected
since Wyoming coal has a lower feed carbon content than Illinois
coal.
From a material balance Exxon performed on the Wyoming coal
case, it was expected that the major process blocks for both cases
would be approximately the same size and hence, the total invest-
ment for either an Illinois or a Wyoming EDS plant should be about
the same.[15] The total expected cost for the Wyoming coal plant
was calculated to be about 96 percent of that for the Illinois
coal plant with respect to the 1975/76 study design.[14] The pro-
duct costs for both cases were estimated to be about the same.[14]
VIII. Summary
The EDS product costs based on the MFS case will be used for
comparison with costs from other liquefaction technologies. The
real 1990 total erected cost for this case has been estimated at
about $3.0 billion (1Q 1981 dollars). The total instantaneous
capital cost has been estimated to be $2.65 billion. Total annual
operating cost before taking by-product credits is $452 million in
real 1990 dollars. Based on a CCR of 11.5 percent the product
cost is $42.16/FOEB ($7.15/MBtu); based on a CCR of 30 percent the
product cost is $71.83/FOEB ($12.18/MBtu).
-------
-17-
Table 6
Product Yields for the Wyoming and
Illinois Coal EDS Plants[14]
(lb/100 Ib. Process Coal Feed)
Wyoming Case Illinois Case
Products
C3 LPG 1.8 1.8
C4 LPG 1.8 2.0
C5/400°F Naptha 14.5 15.6
400°F+ Fuel Oil 2.6 27.3
Total 40.7 46.7
Byproducts
Sulfur 0.7 3.9
Ammonia 0.4 0.4
-------
-18-
References
1. Report to Congress, "Liquefying Coal for Future Energy
Needs, General Accounting Office," August 12, 1980.
2. "Controlling Federal Costs for Coal Liquefaction Pro-
gram Hinges on Management and Contracting Improvements," Report to
Congress, General Accounting Office, February 4, 1981.
3. Synfuels, September 4, 1981.
3a. Personal Communication with Paul Musser, DOE, German-
town, Maryland, October 1981.
4. Green, R.C., "Environmental Controls for the EDS Coal
Liquefaction Process," Presented at the Second DOE Environmental
Control Symposium, Reston, Virginia, March 19, 1980.
5. "EDS Coal Liquefaction Process Development," Phase V,
EDS Commercial Plant Study Design Update/Illinois Coal,
FE-2893-61, March, 1981.
6. Epperly, Wade, Plumlee, "EDS Coal Liquefaction Pro-
cess," ER&E, 1980 NPRA Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, March
23-25, 1980.
6a. Epperly, Wade, Plumlee, "EDS Coal Liquefaction Pro-
cess: Development Program Status III," ER&E, EPRI Conference on
Synthetic Fuels, San Francisco, CA, October 13-16, 1980.
7. Epperly, Wade, Plumlee, Donor Solvent Coal Liquefac-
tion, CEP, 77, 5, 73.
8. "Methanol From Coal: Prospects and Performance as a
Fuel and as a Feedstock," Prepared for the National Alcohols Fuels
Commission by ICF Inc., December, 1980.
9. Rogers, et al, "Coal Conversion Comparisons," ESCOE,
July 1979, FE-2468-51
10. Eccles, DeVaux, "Current Status of H-Coal Commerciali-
zation," Hydrocarbon Research, Inc., CEP 77, 5, 80.
11. "Comparison of Coal Liquefaction Processes," ESCOE,
April, 1978.
12. "Exxon Donor Solvent Coal Liquefaction Plant Study
Design," FE-2353-13
13. Heiser, D., "The H-Coal and SRC-II Processes,"
February, 1982, EPA-AA-SDSB-81-14.
-------
-19-
References (cont'd)
14. Fant, "EDS Coal Liquefaction Process Development, Phase
IIIA," Final Technical Progress Report for the Period January 1,
1976 to June 30, 1977, ER&E, Febuary, 1978, FE-2353-20.
15. "EDS Coal Liquefaction Process Development, Phase
IIIA," ER&E, October 1977, FE-2353-2.
------- |