Understanding Additron Technologies Propriety Nano enhanced Process for the Non - Scientist

May 23, 2008 - PRLog -- Our scientist can make liquid fuel from low grade coal.

We started looking at the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis as a way of converting solid hydrocarbons or natural gas into liquid fuel. The great advantage is energy security: Fischer–Tropsch technology allows domestic coal to replace foreign oil, which is pretty attractive if you're sitting in Beijing. Another potential advantage is environmental: the fuel produced by Fischer–Tropsch methods can be made to burn more cleanly than diesel. It could thus ease or eliminate the adaption of cars with efficient diesel engines in countries, such as the China.

The obvious drawback, though, has been environmental. The process of converting coal into liquid and using it for transportation releases nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as burning diesel made from crude oil does. In a world conscious of climate change, that excess carbon is a problem. "If you make liquids from coal and don't capture carbon dioxide in the process, you're effectively doubling emissions," says Eric Larson, a research engineer at Princeton University's Environmental Institute in New Jersey.

One way round this problem might be to take the carbon dioxide and bury it underground. Another would be to replace fossil-fuel feedstock with biomass. That is in some ways an attractive option — but it is also, as yet, an immature technology. We at Additron have developed a process that reduces carbon emmissions by up to 80% during production and that is by using our Propriety Nano enhanced formula that uses intense heat and steam to trap the carbon dioxide almost in its entirety.

Expense is another issue. To date, Fischer–Tropsch has always been rather costly, and thus something people normally start to do only when they have no alternatives. Its first major use was during the Second World War, when the blockaded Nazis produced about 90% of their diesel and aviation fuel with the technologies originally developed by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Coal Research in 1923. South Africa began liquefying coal in response to apartheid-era sanctions, and in part as a result of its investment back then, continues to derive about 30% of its fuel from liquefied coal. When we started investigating the CTL process in the mid nineties we saw a huge shortage of crude oil within the decade and invested huge amounts of funds into research and development.

Well guess what – Oil has just topped $127 per barrel. For our process to be cost effective oil should be more expensive than $65 per barrel. It is now almost twice that and we are perfectly placed to lead and revolutionize the energy sector with our answer and process which is economical and environmental.

To make liquid fuel from coal, you first shatter the long hydrocarbon chains into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide using high temperatures and intense pressure. This is also the first step for the "integrated gasification combined cycle" plants, seen by many as the future of coal-fired generation — a technology that has many synergies with coal-to-liquids. In Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, the gas is not burned but channelled to a reactor where catalysts reunite the carbon and hydrogen to form hydrocarbon chains of varying lengths, including diesel and petrol. During both phases — gasification and liquefaction — some carbon is given off as carbon dioxide. Our process traps that carbon dioxide in tiny tubes and steam is forced in which basically soaks up the carbon dioxide.

Because contaminants such as mercury and sulphur can inhibit the reaction, we have a built-in incentive to remove impurities from the gas before liquefying it. And the choice of catalyst allows the make-up of synthetic fuel to be tailored to an extent. As a result, diesel, petroleum and jet fuel produced by the Fischer–Tropsch process is quality stuff. It contains less sulphur and fewer contaminating aromatic compounds, such as benzene and toluene, and releases fewer particulates when burnt than regular diesel fuel does.

Capturing carbon

In China — which, like the United States, is not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, and which has vast coal reserves — carbon sequestration is more likely. Yong-Wang Li, director of Synfuels China in Shanxi, says that there are two coal-to-liquid industrial plants under consideration in China and that, at present, Additron Tech seems the most likely candidate to supply their Propriety formula.

The advantage of using plant biomass as a feedstock from which to make synthetic fuel, on the other hand, is that no sequestration is necessary — the emitted carbon is carbon that came from the air in the first place. If one were to add sequestration to a biomass-to-liquids plant, the result could be 'carbon negative', in that the net effect on the atmosphere would be to draw down the level of carbon dioxide as some of the carbon dioxide fixed by the plant would be sequestered into the planet's crust. What's more, Fischer–Tropsch methods could complement, at the very least, some other biomass technologies.

Biomass boost

Nevertheless Chevron, Shell and Exxon have all invested in development of Fischer–Tropsch technologies, as has the biggest US coal company, Peabody Coal, which is working on Schweizer's Roundup plant with Rentech of Denver, Colorado. "Some of the big players are willing to take a low rate of return just to establish a technology position," says Bartis. "Once you build a first plant, you're going to learn by doing, and subsequent plants are going to cost less." Another strategy is to concentrate on people who might pay a premium for domestic hydrocarbons. Syntroleum of Tulsa, Oklahoma, recently provided samples of its natural-gas-derived jet fuel, made with technology licensed from Exxon Mobil, to the US Air Force for testing.

That is why, until biomass supply and technology are scaled up, there is still the appealing option of spiking coal feedstock with biomass. Coupled with carbon sequestration, this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions without requiring much change to existing technology, says Robert Williams, a researcher at Princeton University's Environmental Institute. Williams has calculated that a mixture of 89% coal and 11% biomass could reduce carbon emissions by 19% relative to using the same process with coal only.

Because they can't yet make money, current Fischer–Tropsch projects often involve a complex mix of industry partners and government subsidies. Sasol of South Africa, a veteran in the easier gas-to-liquids game, considers government subsidies crucial. Sasol is conducting feasibility studies for coal-to-liquid projects in China and India, and has partnered with oil giant Chevron in Europe. But it is waiting to see what develops with government subsidies, according to chief executive Pat Davies, before committing to any US projects.

So far, the US federal government has proposed tax credits for coal-to-liquid programmes, and provides grants to interested companies. States are also pitching in: Pennsylvania, for example, is guaranteeing $465 million in loans and $47 million in tax credits for a proposed plant in Schuylkill County. Elsewhere in the world — in China, India and the Philippines, for example — liquefaction projects have received pledges of strong government support. And in Germany, biomass-derived fuels are exempt from the heavy taxes levied on other fuels.