potential problems was to convert the coal into coal-water
fuel (CWF) , which could utilize much of the existing
pipeline and storage facilities currently being used for
fuel oil. This would also minimize the cost and space
225
requirements of converting power plant boilers and other
fired equipment from oil to coal and permit the firing of
oil or CWF interchangeably as alternative fuels.
With this concept in mind, our engineers proceeded with
the development and testing of a coal-water slurry
technology, later designated as REOCARB, whose CWF product
would meet several major criteria:
1. It should be directly combustible as a liquid
fuel, with a high coal concentration, in the order
of 65 to 75% dry coal content, and a proper
particle size distribution to ensure good
atomization at the burners and a high combustion
efficiency;
2 . It should be stable so that it can be stored in
tankage for long periods and be shipped in tank
trucks, rail tank cars and barges without the coal
settling out;
226
3. It should be transportable in pipelines over long
distances, with reasonable pumping costs and
without the risk of plugging the system during
flow interruptions; and
4. The total cost of CWF production and
transportation to the end user should be
competitive with alternative fuels systems
involving dry coal or fuel oil.
Importantly, the "concentrated" coal-water slurry or
CWF concept differs somewhat from the "conventional"
coal-water slurry technology as currently practised in
Arizona with the Black Mesa coal pipeline. The latter
system operates on the principle of transporting and
delivering a lower concentration slurry, typically 50% coal
and 50% water, that requires at the pipeline's destination
a "dewatering" step, i.e., a separation of excess water.
This then involves the further steps of water cleanup and
disposal and a final grinding of the dried coal to reach
the particle size specification for pulverized coal (which
is today the most common form of coal being fired in large
227
power plants) . All of these steps can be avoided at the
destination when transporting CWF or "concentrated" slurry,
with the added advantages that preparing and transporting
the CWF requires less than half the amounts of water and of
pumping power as does the "conventional" slurry.
The results of Snamprogetti 's R&D work with the CWF
concept were successfully demonstrated on the pilot plant
and full scale, closed-loop pump and pipeline facilities at
Fano in Italy. The Reocarb CWF produced and tested had a
typical composition of 70% coal, 29.5% water and 0.5%
dispersant chemicals. The product was completely stable in
storage for periods of more than one month without the use
of re-mixing devices. Tests also showed that commercially
available pumping equipment can be used for CWF pipeline
systems. Quantities of CWF produced from a wide variety of
internationally traded coals have been shipped from Fano
and used in combustion tests conducted at test facilities
in the USA (Combustion Engineering and Babcock & Wilcox) ,
the United Kingdom (Peabody-Holmes) , Austria (Dumag) , and
Italy (ENEL and ENICHEM) .
228
with this background, Snamprogetti undertook the design
and construction of two 100,000 metric tons/year CWF
production plants in Italy, at Livorno (Leghorn) and Porto
Torres, Sardinia. These plants have been in commercial
operation since 1985/86. The Livorno plant supplies CWF to
the local industrial sector and Porto Torres supplies a 300
ton/hr. steam boiler on site. Other CWF plants are being
designed for Italian locations, with capacities up to
500,000 metric tons/yr.
A notable event for the CWF technology was the award to
Snamprogetti of the design and supply of a Reocarb plant
and pipeline facility for the U.S.S.R.'s commercial
prototype CWF project in Siberia. When completed in 1989,
it will have a capacity of over 5,000,000 short tons/year
of coal-water fuel containing 3,300,000 short tons/year of
dry coal. The production plant is located at the Kuzbass
mine site area of Belovo. The CWF product will be pumped
through a 20" diameter underground pipeline over a distance
of 160 miles, stored in tankage at the utility's site in
Novosibirsk and burned in six 220 MWe power plant boilers
there. The extreme winter conditions at the project sites
229
made it imperative not only to bury the pipe below the
frost line but also to use a concentrated coal-water slurry
fuel which does not require dewatering facilities and
settling ponds at the pipeline's destination.
It has been well reported in the press that the ultimate
aim of the U.S.S.R. is to transport coal and lignite from
sparsely settled Siberia to the industrial areas west of
the Ural Mountains in long distance pipelines, up to 3,000
miles. They see this as a solution to conserving that
country's oil and gas resources which more and more will be
exported to generate foreign currency income.
More detailed information on the Italian and U.S.S.R.
projects can be found in Messrs. D. Ercolani's and F.
Grinzi's technical paper, "Snamprogetti' s Coal-Water Fuel
Reocarb: A 1989 Overview," which is included as an
attachment hereto.
In the developing world, Snamprogetti is studying the
feasibility and applicability of developing coal pipeline
systems in situations such as China's, India's, and
230
U.S.S.R.'s (refer to attachment) where there are extensive
indigenous coal reserves, limited infrastructure and
inadequate rail and road transportation systems. The use
of coal-water fuels and dedicated pipeline networks
represents an attractive lower cost solution for those
countries.
In the highly industrialized countries and particularly
the U.S.A., we are confronted with a growing dilemma as we
plan our future energy needs into the next century. On the
one hand, it is clear for a number of reasons that there
will almost inevitably be an increasing use of coal as the
main source of energy in the long term; but on the other
hand, this trend has given rise to widespread concerns with
the problems of environmental pollution and acid rain
caused by the combustion of coal on an even larger scale
than now.
Several of the proposed solutions to the environmental
problems with coal combustion involve the use of coal
gasification and fluidized bed combustion equipment which
231
in many cases must be fired with ground coal, usually as a
finely powdered or pulverized material. The processing,
movement and storage of dry, pulverized coal incurs the
multiple risks of spontaneous combustion, which can cause
serious fires and explosions, and of contaminating the
surrounding areas with coal dust. It must therefore be
produced, stored and transported in air-free, sealed
systems. For these reasons, the coal is often ground at
the site of each power plant and industrial boiler in order
to minimize the problems of handling the pulverized coal
before it is burned.
A cleaner and more environmentally acceptable system
overall to feed power plant boilers, gasifiers and
fluidized bed combustors would be based on using coal-water
fuel which would have a number of decided advantages in
addressing the various problems we have been trying to
solve. With this approach, we can foresee a broad, new
concept for the processing, marketing and combustion of
coal which draws many parallels to the more highly
developed worldwide networks of petroleum refining,
distribution and consumption. A coal-water fuel quickly
232
and economically transforms dry coal from a bulky and
cumbersome material to handle, store, transport and burn,
into a liquid which is by far the preferred form of fuel
due to its ease of handling and its high energy content for
the space it occupies. The U.S. government has in the past
supported many synfuel development projects whose primary
aim is to hydrogenate coal to produce liquid and gaseous
hydrocarbon fuels. Those liquif action processes are
extremely expensive and may be justified well after the
year 2000 to make liquid fuels for automotive vehicles.
For heavy fuel applications in the 1990 's however, it makes
more economic sense to replace fuel oil with coal-water
fuels which can be made at a fraction of the cost of liquid
hydrocarbons from coal .
The question then arises of what to do about the ash
and sulfur content of the coal in the CWF product. The
preparation of CWF involves the grinding of coal to
extremely fine particle sizes, which coincidentally makes
the coal more susceptible to being benef iciated. The
beneficiation process reduces the ash and sulfur content to
a greater degree than that which can be accomplished with
10
233
benef iciation of the coarse coal at the mine head.
Grinding facilities to make pulverized coal at power plant
sites do not normally include benef iciation steps because
these invariably introduce water to the coal mix which
would then have to be dried before firing as pulverized
coal. Furthermore, electric utilities are extremely
reluctant to get involved in benef iciation and in providing
the considerable physical plot areas adjacent to their
power plants that would be needed for such equipment and
processes.
With these thoughts in mind I wrote last year a keynote
address entitled "Coal Vectorization - A Perspective,"
which I presented at the Thirteenth International
Conference on Coal and Slurry Technology, April 13, 1988.
A copy is attached to this testimony for your information
and reference. It emphasizes the need (and the lack in the
U.S. so far) of integrating and optimizing the overall
process of coal production, transportation, storage, and
utilization in more efficient and more economical
nationwide and worldwide systems.
11
234
Taking the "coal vector! z at ion" approach, we can
visualize the CWF concept germinating and growing into a
broad scenario, with a series of commercial developments
taking place as follows:
1. Large scale CWF production plants would be located
mainly at or near mine sites where such plants could
process the rejected coal fines as well as the
run-of-the-mine coal to whatever levels of ash and
sulfur that can be achieved with the appropriate
benef iciation technologies currently available.
2 . CWF products would be made in various grades that would
be oriented to the intended end user. For example,
boilers designed for oil firing would require a lower
ash CWF than equipment designed for coal-firing.
Large diesel engines would require a CWF with an even
lower ash and a finer coal particle size, Fluidized
bed combustors are designed to accept un-benef iciated
coals and the preparation of CWF for FBC use would
probably exclude a benef iciation step and the attendant
costs.
12
235
3. Tankage facilities for CWF storage would be provided at
the CWF production plant sites and at distribution
centers in industrial areas. Such storage would be
completely non-hazardous, non-volatile and
non-flammable compared with the storage of petroleum
products.
4. Shipment of CWF products, depending on the quantities
and routes, would be accomplished by several
alternative means: rail tank cars, tank trucks, river
barges, coastal vessels, and ocean carriers.
5. For continuous movement overland of larger quantities
of CWF, pipeline networks would provide in many
situations the most economical means of transportation,
except perhaps where navigable rivers are conveniently
available along an intended route. In particular,
pipelines would be most appropriate for CWF transport
from the coal mine areas to major storage/distribution
centers and direct to large power plants and industrial
consumers.
13
236
6. The potential end users of CWF products fall into many
categories, which would include but not be limited to:
- Power plant boilers
- Industrial boilers and furnaces
- Fluidized bed combustors
- Gas turbines
Coal gasifiers for power generation
- Co-generation systems of various types
Coal gasifiers for chemical plant feedstocks
Cement kilns
- Metallurgical plants
- Stationary and marine diesel engines.
Eventually, larger mobile diesel engines for heavy
mining equipment, road vehicles and railroad engines
will be able to use a highly beneficiated CWF based on
micronized coal. This specialized technology is
currently under development by several groups in the
U.S.A. and abroad, in some cases under sponsorship of
the U.S. Department of Energy.
14
237
From the foregoing it is clear that this new and
promising industrial concept of using coal-water fuel as a
clean, broad-based energy source is ready for
commercialization, but its full potential in the U.S.A. can
be realized only when the enabling "eminent domain"
legislation is passed by the U.S. Congress to provide the
rights-of-way for coal pipelines, which are an integral and
necessary prerequisite for the optimum implementation of
this emerging technology.
The debate on coal pipeline legislation has been going
on for more than ten years, but there have been some
developments recently which are worth emphasizing at this
time.
As I see it now, the debate has been conducted
primarily on two issues , which recent technical and
economic developments have diminished in importance among
the arguments to be considered in your committee's
deliberations on this legislation.
15
238
The first issue relates to the coal-water technology
per se and assumes that "conventional" coal-water slurry
will be used as the transport medium in future coal
pipelines. This assumption has raised concerns of
environmental pollution and depletion of water resources.
With the new concentrated coal-water fuel (CWF) technology,
however, these are no longer major problems for bituminous
coals which can readily be processed into stable and
combustible coal-water mixtures, using much less water and
avoiding the dewatering of the coal before it is burned.
I would emphasize the substantial advantages of
concentrated coal-water fuel (CWF) over conventional
coal-water slurry systems, which include:
1. A significant reduction in the consumption of
water and the pipeline pumping energy required per
ton of coal transported, to less than half of what
is required with "conventional" coal-water slurry;
2. The possibility of including advanced coal
benef iciation technologies in coal-water fuel
16
239
plants, so that CWF can also fill the role of an
urgently needed clean coal technology;
3. The elimination of the mechanical and
environmental problems associated with dewatering
"conventional" coal-water slurries at the
pipeline's destination, since coal-water fuels are
burned directly without dewatering;
4. And most important, the creation of a coal-water
fuel alternative which can effectively replace
fuel oil for many industrial and power plant
applications.
The second issue focuses on the railroads which have
consistently offered the strongest opposition to coal
pipelines. To the railroads and its adversaries the main
question seems to be: "Should coal be transported within
the U.S.A. by railroad or by coal pipeline?"
This may very well be an academic question. The
outlook is that even with the coal pipeline legislation in
17
240
place the railroads will continue indefinitely to carry
coal to the current and future users of dry coal . Coal
pipelines will not take much, if any, of the business of
supplying dry coal to the end-users because "conventional"
coal-water slurry technology must be used when dry coal is
the end product, and such pipeline projects will always
encounter an opposing coalition of water conservationists,
environmentalists, and the railroads along the route that
are prepared to reduce freight rates rather than lose a
substantial share of the dry coal market.
It is important to note that the lower cost
"concentrated" coal-water slurries in CWF technology cannot
be utilized to supply dry coal at the pipeline destination
because such slurries cannot readily be dewatered after
pipelining. The dispersant chemicals in the slurry have
been added to prevent settling out of the coal and would
effectively make dewatering extremely difficult and
uneconomic.
I should now like to raise again what I see is the
central issue in the debate on coal pipelines, an issue
18
241
which is more substantive and yet has hardly been discussed
in this long standing controversy. It is:
"How can the U.S.A. best replace imported
oil with domestic coal, in order to reduce
oil imports and the U.S. trade deficit?"
U.S. imports of crude oil and refined petroleum
products are increasing steadily and are approaching 8
million barrels per day which is more than half of the
U.S.A. 's total consumption. At current oil prices, this
amounts to $150 million per day or more than $50 billion
dollars per year. If and when the price of oil
re-escalates to $30 or more per barrel, sometime in the
next five or ten years, and even assuming that oil import
quantities remain at present levels, then the contribution
of imported oil to the U.S. trade deficit will rise to $80
billion or more. Further increases in oil imports plus
escalation will eventually put this figure over $100
billion. And the fact is that U.S. oil consumption and
imports are continuing to rise almost inexorably, further
aggravating this situation.
19
242
If we examine the coal-water fuel solution as one way
to mitigate this national burden, we find here an ironic
situation indeed, and an inconsistency of purpose. We
might expect that coal-water fuel and imported oil would
have the same opportunities and follow the same ground
rules in competing for the U.S. energy markets. But that
is not the situation in reality!
Today, much of the imported oil and/or its refined
products move inland from U.S. ports to refineries and
end-users via "eminent domain" oil pipelines. In the
present situation domestic coal-water fuels would be denied
that privilege and would be restricted to other means of
transport. No businessman in his sound mind would invest
in coal-water fuel facilities with such a marketing
handicap. This is also the reason why R&D work on
pipelining coal-water fuels has been neglected by U.S.
firms. There is little or no incentive to spend research
money on a dead-end situation.
By any process of logical reasoning, we are led to the
conclusion that coal-water fuels and coal pipelines are
20
243
clearly in the national interest. It would be economically
irresponsible to ignore this and to accept the specious
arguments that have been presented against the proposed
coal pipeline legislation. In fact, I have heard no
argument or concern which has sufficient validity to
override the obvious need and urgency for the U.S. to
reduce its trade deficit, avoid a further weakening of the
U.S. dollar and prevent another inflationary spiral.
The facts are: coal pipelines and coal-water fuels
will create new initiatives which will increase revenues
and jobs for coal and related industries, without taking
any away from the railroads; oil imports will be reduced;
and in a more efficient domestic environment, coal exports
will increase.
And for all this, there is hardly any price to pay —
no subsidies, no tariffs, and very little inconvenience.
Overall, and in every respect, the U.S. economy will
benefit and be strengthened.
21
244
Attachments: - "Coal Vectorization - A Perspective," by
R.M. Braca, Snamprogetti USA Inc., 13th
International Conference on Coal and Slurry
Technology, April 13, 1988, Denver,
•Colorado
- "Snamprogetti 's Coal-Water Fuel Reocarb: A
1989 Overview," by D. Ercolani and F.
Grinzi, Snamprogetti S.p.A., Milan, Italy,
Coal Trans 88, October 1988, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands
22
245
COAL VECTORIZATION
A PERSPECTIVE *
by
R.M. BRACA
President of Snamprogetti USA Inc.
and
Vice Chairman of the
Coal and Slurry Technology Association
* Keynote Address Presented
on April 13, 1988,
in Denver, Colorado,
at the
13th International Conference on Coal and Slurry Technology
Co-Sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Energy
and the
Coal and Slurry Technology Association
246
COAL VECTORIZATION - A PERSPECTIVE
I feel greatly honored to have been invited today to make the
"Keynote Address" of this 13th International Conference on Coal
and Slurry Technology. I am very pleased also to be a member of
this participating group that has for many years worked so hard
to carry forward and publicize the many efforts that are being
made to advance the converging technologies of clean coal and of
Blurry systems, which are becoming more and more important in
developing and vectoring the world's coal and mineral resources
to the benefit of a burgeoning world's population.
In this perspective I'd like to summarize some of the activities
that are going on, particularly in the development and use of
coal-water slurry and related technologies, as examples of what
I've chosen to call this subject - coal vectorization - a
concept which is currently being practiced in varying degrees by
all of us attending this conference.
In preparing this talk, I knew that I was using a term which is
not common in the industry or in the field of economics. We
couldn't find it in a dictionary of economics or in any English
dictionary, for that matter. I did find someone in the World
Bank who said they use the term there occasionally, but not
officiallyl
If the word did appear in a dictionary, it would probably
follow, by analogy, word forms such as "dramatization - the act
or process of dramatizing". And so the definition for the word
"vectorization" would be "the act or process of vectoring". The
trouble is that my old dictionaries at home do not carry the
verb "to vector", but more recent editions do, with the
definition: "to direct or to guide - a flight controller
vectors an airplane to a safe landing".
We could run a brief survey among several people to ask their
views on the meaning of "vectorization" in the context of their
professions, and we might hear the following:
1. An environmentalist says that it is the processing and
removal of waste materials from population and
production centers to sites remote from society.
(Eventually to a very large incinerator - perhaps the
sun?)
247
-2-
2. An engineer says that it is the processing and
distribution of materials and resources to meet the
needs of consumers. (Engineers always know how to do
things, but often need someone to tell them what to do.
And so the profession of economics was invented.)
3. An economist states that it is the process of finding
the "least cost solution" in a micro-economic analysis
of producing and transforming specific goods and
resources and transporting them to market. (Economists
always know what to do, but rarely know how to do it.
Fortunately, they have the engineers to do it for
them. )
In our company we use the term "vectorization" particularly when
we are trying to figure out what to do with a remote resource
for which it is not at all clear how best to develop and utilize
it and when is the best time to do these things. And so, you
can see that we are really treading on quite familiar ground in
propounding this concept.
One great advantage of using a word that is not in the
dictionary is that we can tailor the definition to the needs of
the situation and no one can dispute it.
Therefore, and for the sake of good order and this discussion,
we'll define "vectorization" as:
"the process of optimizing the overall system of developing
a product or a resource and bringing it to the marketplace,
by enhancing its form, utility and value in terms of the
convenience and economics of producing, transforming,
transporting, storing, and utilizing it as may be fitting
and beneficial to society".
This process must of course take into account such natural
economic constraints as the availability of and competition for
capital funds and the competitiveness of the alternative
products or resources that ran fill the same needs and wants of
society.
Having said all that, we may now turn to the subject at hand,
which is "coal vectorization" and the various steps and aspects
of that process which the participants will be discussing at
this conference.
248
-3-
In applying this concept to the coal industry in the U.S. for
example, we encounter two main problems:
Firstly , there is a fragmentation of effort and often a lack
of coordination among the many parties involved in the