Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coal to Liquids Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fossil Energy

Abstract

Like oil and natural gas, coal is a fossil resource and as such is not what first comes to mind when considering sustainable fuel sources. Coal contributes to sustainability as a complement to maintaining continuous availability of sufficient fuel to meet growing global demand[3].

This chapter was originally published as part of the Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology edited by Robert A. Meyers. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Coal-to-liquids (CTL):

The conversion of coal to liquid fuels and/or chemicals

Coprocessing (of coal):

The simultaneous conversion of coal and waste carbonaceous feedstocks such as petroleum-based residual oil or tar, plastics, or rubbers via once-through direct liquefaction into liquid, solid, and gaseous hydrocarbonaceous materials intended primarily for use as fuel.

Direct coal liquefaction (DCL):

The conversion of coal to liquids via dissolution and/or hydroprocessing, without first gasifying the coal.

DOE:

United States Department of Energy.

Fischer–Tropsch reaction:

The catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to primarily hydrocarbons, the discovery being credited to Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch.

Gasification (of coal):

The conversion of coal to primarily synthesis gas plus ash at elevated temperature and pressure of oxygen and steam.

Indirect coal liquefaction (ICL):

The conversion of coal to liquids via the intermediacy of synthesis gas.

Light distillate:

A distillation cut of low molecular weight and low boiling range, obtained from refining of hydrocarbonaceous feedstocks, used to produce liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), gasoline, and naphtha.

Middle distillate:

A distillation cut of mid-range boiling point, obtained from refining hydrocarbonaceous feedstocks, containing hydrocarbons ranging from C5 through about C20 or C22. When further distilled, the portion of middle distillates containing C5 through about C15 is often referred to as naphtha, and the portion containing C16 through up to C22 is referred to as diesel. The naphtha is often distilled further to produce gasoline and kerosene/jet fuel, or can be used as feed for a naphtha cracker unit to make light olefins. (Less commonly, the gasoline cut is initially collected along with the light distillates).

Pyrolysis (of coal):

A mild gasification process wherein coal is heated in the absence of oxygen at sufficiently mildly elevated temperature as to produce a mixture of hydrocarbonaceous gases, liquids, and solids suitable for use as chemical precursors or fuel.

Synthesis gas (syngas):

A mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced by gasification or reforming of hydrocarbonaceous materials, used to synthesize fuels or chemicals.

Water gas shift reaction:

The chemically reversible, catalyzed conversion of water and carbon monoxide to hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Appert O (2008) CTL could provide long-term, transport-fuel supply. Syngas Refiner, IV 9:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  2. Gray D, White C, Tomlinson G, Ackiewicz M, Schmetz E, Winslow, J (2007) Increasing security and reducing carbon emissions of the US transportation sector: a transformational role for coal with biomass. DOE/NETL-2007/1298, p 61

    Google Scholar 

  3. De Klerk A (2009) Overview of coal-to liquids technology. In: De Klerk (ed) Beyond Fischer–Tropsch. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 1. Arno de Klerk comments, “Coal-to-liquids technology started as an ironic twist of fate seen against the present day drive to move towards renewable sources of energy, since coal replaced whales as feed material for the production of lamp oil (kerosene). Coal is not a renewable energy source, except when viewed on a geological time scale, but whales are, yet, the whaling industry came close to making whales a non-renewable resource by converting all whales into oil.” The anecdote illustrates a growing understanding among energy experts, that even with conservation global demand for energy is growing and can best be met by careful use of both renewable and nonrenewable resources. On this point, see also Crane et al

    Google Scholar 

  4. Crane H, Kinderman E, Malhotra R (2010) A cubic mile of oil. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thomson E (2002) The Chinese coal industry: an economic history. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lister G (1944) Chronological records of coal mining, transport etc. In: Northumberland and Durham from A.D. 1180 to 1839. Ramsden Williams, Consett

    Google Scholar 

  7. Perry H (1974) Coal conversion technology. Chem Eng 81(15):88–102

    Google Scholar 

  8. Murakushi N (1981) The transfer of coal-mining technology from Japan to Manchuria and manpower problems: focusing on the development of the Fushun coal mines. Japanese Experience of the UNU Human and Social Development Programme series, p 47

    Google Scholar 

  9. NEDO (2006) Clean coal technology in Japan. 4A1. Coal liquefaction technology development in Japan, pp 57–58. www.nedo.go.jp/kankobutsu/pamphlets/sekitan/cct2006e.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010

  10. Sugawara A, Kurosawa S, Hatori H, Saito K, Yamada, Y, Sugihara M, Wasaka S, Yoshida H, Seo T, Susuki T, Inoguchi M, Sohnai M (1998) Coal conversion technologies on the new sunshine program in Japan. Preprints of symposia – American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 43(2): 330–334

    Google Scholar 

  11. NEDO (2006) Clean coal technology in Japan. 4A2. Bituminous coal liquefaction technology (NEDOL), pp 59–60. www.nedo.go.jp/kankobutsu/pamphlets/sekitan/cct2006e.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010

  12. Ghosh TK, Prelas MA (2009) Energy resources and systems: volume 1: Fundamentals and non-renewable resources. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dry ME (2002) The Fischer–Tropsch process: 1950–2000. Catal Today 71:227–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jager B, Espinoza R (1995) Advances in low temperature Fischer–Tropsch. Catal Today 23(1):17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Radtke K, Heinritz-Adrian M, Marsico C (2006) New wave of coal-to-liquids. An opportunity to decrease dependency on oil and gas imports and an appropriate approach to a partial revival of domestic coal industries. VGB PowerTech 86(5):78–84

    Google Scholar 

  16. Williams RH, Larson ED (2003) A comparison of direct and indirect liquefaction technologies for making fluid fuels from coal. Energy Sustain Dev VII(4):103–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grant-Huyser M, Maharaj S, Matheson L, Rowe L, Sones E (2004) Ethoxylations of detergent-range oxo alcohols derived from Fischer–Tropsch alpha-olefins. J Surfactants Deterg 7(4):397–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Price JG (2004) Chemicals from synthesis gas. US 6740683 to Sasol Technology, 25 May 2004

    Google Scholar 

  19. Degnan TF Jr, Chen NY, Somorjai GA (2009) Heinz Heinemann’s legacy at ExxonMobil: an illustrious career in industrial catalysis. Catal Lett 133(1–2):227–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brown D, Bhatt B, Hsiung T, Lewnard J, Waller F (1991) Novel technology for the synthesis of dimethyl ether from syngas. Catal Today 8:279–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sardesai A, Lee S (2005) Alternative source of propylene. Energy Sources 27(6):489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Larson ED, Yang H (2004) Dimethyl ether (DME) from coal as a household cooking fuel in China. Energy Sustain Dev, VII 3:115–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones G, Jr Holm-Larsen H, Romani D, Sillis R (2001) DME for power generation fuel: supplying India’s southern region. PETROTECH-2001 January 08–12, New Delhi, India

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bhatt B, Schaub E, Heydorn E (1993) Recent developments in slurry reactor technology at the LaPorte alternative fuels development unit. In: International technical conference on coal utilization & fuel systems, Clearwater, April 26–29, pp 197–208

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shikada T, Ohno Y, Ogawa T, Ono M, Mizuguchi M, Tomura K, Fujimoto K (1998) Direct synthesis of dimethyl ether from synthesis gas. In: Parmaliana A, Sanfilippo D, Frusteri F, Vaccari A, Arena F (eds) Studies in surface science and catalysis (Natural Gas Conversion V) 119: 515–520

    Google Scholar 

  26. Miller CL, Cicero D, Ackiewicz M, Anderson J, Schmetz E, Winslow J (2006) Coal conversion – a rising star? In: 23rd international Pittsburgh coal conference, Pittsburgh, September 25–28

    Google Scholar 

  27. White LC, Frederick JP (1995) ENCOAL mild coal gasification project. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international Pittsburgh coal conference, Pittsburgh, pp 151–156

    Google Scholar 

  28. US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (2002) The ENCOAL® mild coal gasification project. A DOE assessment. DOE/NETL-2002/1171

    Google Scholar 

  29. McMillen DF, Malhotra M (1989) The role of hydrogen transfer in bond-cleavage and bond-forming processes during coal conversion. In: Schindler HD (ed) Coal liquefaction. A research needs assessment DE-AC01-87ER30110 final report, v2, ch 4, US Department of Energy, pp 30–49

    Google Scholar 

  30. Haenel MW (2008) Catalysis in direct coal liquefaction. In: Gerhard E (ed) Handbook of heterogeneous catalysis, vol 6, 2nd edn. Wiley-VCH Verlag, Weinheim, Germany, pp 3023–3036

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miller L (2008) Coal conversion technology. Congressional noontime briefing. Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC, April 24

    Google Scholar 

  32. Eccles RM, DeVaux GR (1982) H-coal commercialization: current status. Energy Progress 2(2):111–115

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cleaner Coal Technology Programme (1999) (PDF). Technology status report 010: coal liquefaction. Department of Trade and Industry. http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file18326.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010

  34. Styles GA (1982) The Wilsonville advanced coal liquefaction R&D facility – accomplishments and process evolution. Energy Progress 2(3):160–162

    Google Scholar 

  35. Valente AM, Cronauer DC (2003) Progress in coal liquefaction including a discussion of Wilsonville. Preprints of symposia – American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 48(1): 147–148

    Google Scholar 

  36. Burke FP, Brandes SD, McCoy DC, Winschel RA, Gray D, Tomlinson G (2001) Summary report of the DOE direct liquefaction process development campaign of the late twentieth century: topical report. DE2002-794281/XAB; DOE/PC-93054-94 Department of Energy, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nolan P, Shipman A, Rui H (2004) Coal liquefaction, Shenhua group, and China’s energy security. Eur Manage J 22(2):150–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stohl FV, Lott SE, Diegert KV, Goodnow DC (1996) Results of hydrotreating the kerosene fraction of HTI’s first proof of concept run. US DOE, SAND–96-0990C; CONF-960807–2

    Google Scholar 

  39. Friedrick F, Strobel BO (1983) The KOHLEOEL experimental plant at Bergbau-Forschung. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European coal utilisation conference, Amsterdam, pp 227–235

    Google Scholar 

  40. Strobel BO, Loering R (1992) IGOR – taking the short cut in coal hydrogenation. Preprints of papers – American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry 37(1):448–455

    Google Scholar 

  41. NEDO (2006) Clean coal technology in Japan. 4A3. Brown coal liquefaction technology (BCL), pp 61–62. www.nedo.go.jp/kankobutsu/pamphlets/sekitan/cct2006e.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010

  42. Ramdoss PK, Tarrer AR (1997) Modeling of two-stage coal coprocessing process. Energy Fuels 11(1):194–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wender I, Tierney JW (1995) Effect of pretreating of host oil on coprocessing. Final report. DOE/PC/91054–T15, Contract Number AC22-91PC91054, Oct. 1 1995 Oct 01

    Google Scholar 

  44. Miller RL, Giacomelli GF, McHugh KJ, Baldwin RM (1989) Coprocessing of coal and residuum under low-severity reaction conditions: effect of basic nitrogen promoters. Energy Fuels 3(2):127–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Smith R, Asaro M, Naqvi S (2008) Fuels of the future: technology intelligence for coal to liquids strategies. SRI Consulting, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  46. Koornneef J, Junginger M, Faaij A (2007) Development of fluidized bed combustion – an overview of trends, performance and cost. Prog Energy Combust Sci 33(1):19–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Senapati PK, Das D, Nayak A, Mishra PM (2008) Studies on preparation of coal water slurry using a natural additive. Energy Sources A 30(19):1788–1796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. SRI Consulting (2006) Coal gasification. Process Economics Program report 154A, ch 4, SRI Consulting, Menlo Park, pp 4–46

    Google Scholar 

  49. Davis BH (2001) Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: current mechanism and futuristic needs. Fuel Process Technol 71(1–3):157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Leckel D (2005) Hydrocracking of iron-catalyzed Fischer–Tropsch waxes. Energy Fuels 19:1795–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Davis BH (2007) Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: comparison of performances of iron and cobalt catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(26):8938–8945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith R, Asaro M (2005) Fuels of the future: technology intelligence for gas to liquids strategies. SRI Consulting, Menlo Park

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bukur DB (2005) Attrition studies with catalysts and supports for slurry phase Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Catal Today 106(1–4):275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bukur DB, Carreto-Vazquez VD, Pham HN, Datye AK (2004) Attrition properties of precipitated iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts. Appl Catal, A 266(1):41–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Dry M (2004) Chemical concepts used for engineering purposes. In: Steynberg A, Dry M (eds) Studies in surface science and catalysis 152: Fischer–Tropsch technology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 215

    Google Scholar 

  56. Donnelly TJ, Yates IC, Satterfield CN (1988) Analysis and prediction of product distributions of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. Energy Fuels 2:734–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Smith R (2009) SRI Consulting Coal to gasoline. Process Economics Program report 271, SRI Consulting, Menlo Park. Data for the figure were obtained from reference 58

    Google Scholar 

  58. Donnelly TJ, Satterfield CN (1989) Product distributions of the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis on precipitated iron catalysts. Appl Catal 52(1):93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Dry M (2004) Chemical concepts used for engineering purposes. In: Steynberg A, Dry M (eds) Studies in surface science and catalysis 152: Fischer–Tropsch technology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 196–257

    Google Scholar 

  60. Jager B, Kelfkens RC, Steynberg AP (1994) A slurry bed reactor for low temperature Fischer–Tropsch. In: Curry-Hyde HE, Howe RF (eds) Natural gas conversion II. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 419–425

    Google Scholar 

  61. Adeyiga AA, Bukur DB, Carreto-Vazquez V, Ma W, Nowicki L (2004) Attrition resistance and catalytic performance of spray-dried iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts in a stirred-tank slurry reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 43(6):1359–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Bai L, Chang J, Hao Q, Li Y, Liu F, Wang H, Xiang H, Xu B, Yi F, Zhang C (2007) Effect of reduction temperature on a spray-dried iron-based catalyst for slurry Fischer–Tropsch synthesis. J Mol Catal A: Chem 261(1):104–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Bartholomew C, Bukur DB, Datye AK, Nowicki L, Pham HN, Xu J (2003) Attrition resistance of supports for iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts. Ind Eng Chem Res 42(17):4001–4008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhao R, Goodwin JG, Jothimurugesan K, Gangwal K, Spivey JJ (2001) Spray-dried iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts.1. Effect of structure on the attrition resistance of the catalysts in the calcined state. Ind Eng Chem Res 40(4):1065–1075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Demirel B, Bohn MS, Benham CB, Siebarth JE, Ibsen MD (2005) Method and apparatus for regenerating an iron-based Fischer–Tropsch catalyst. US 6838487 to Rentech, 4 January 2005

    Google Scholar 

  66. Benham CB, Bohn MS, Yakobson DL (1996) Process for the production of hydrocarbons. US 5504118 to Rentech, 2 April 1996

    Google Scholar 

  67. van der Merwe W (2010) Conversion of spent solid phosphoric acid catalyst to environmentally friendly fertilizer. Environ Sci Technol 44(5):1806–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. AsiaPulse News (2009) SHENHUA NINGXIA COAL, SASOL’S COAL LIQUEFACTION PJT BEGINS 2010. Yinchuan, 22 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  69. Peng X, Toseland B, Underwood T (1997) A novel mechanism of catalyst deactivation in liquid phase synthesis gas-to-DME reactions. In: Bartholomew C, Fuentes GH (eds) Catalyst deactivation. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  70. Gogate M, Lee S (1991) A single- stage, liquid-phase dimethyl ether synthesis process from syngas. I. Dual catalytic activity and process feasibility. Fuel Sci Technol Int 9(6):653–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Cornthwaite D (1972) British patent 1296212 to Imperial Chemicals Inc. (ICI)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Espino RL, Plezke TS (1975) Methanol production. US 3888896 to ChemSystems, 10 June 1975

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sherwin M, Blum D (1979) Liquid-phase methanol. Final report. Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI-AF-1291

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lee S, Sardesai A (2005) Liquid phase methanol and dimethyl ether synthesis from syngas. Top Catal 32(3–4):197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company (2004) Commercial-scale demonstration of the liquid-phase methanol (LPMEOH) process. DOE/FE-0470, US Department of Energy

    Google Scholar 

  76. Joo O, Jung K, Han S (2002) Modification of H-ZSM-5 and gamma-alumina with formaldehyde and its application to the synthesis of dimethyl ether from syn-gas. Bull Korean Chem Soc 23:1103–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lee S, Parameswaran VR, Wender I, Kulik CJ (1989) Roles of carbon dioxide in methanol synthesis. Fuel Sci Technol Int 7(8):1021–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Cai Y, Davies S, Wagner J (2003) Water gas shift catalyst. US 6627572 to Süd-Chemie, 30 September 2003

    Google Scholar 

  79. Kim J, Park MJ, Kim SJ, Joo O, Jung K (2004) DME synthesis from synthesis gas on the admixed catalysts of Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 and ZSM-5. Appl Catal, A 264(1):37–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tijm PJ (2003) Development of alternative fuels and chemicals from synthesis gas. DOE contract number FC22-95PC93052, final report

    Google Scholar 

  81. NEDO (2006) Clean coal technology in Japan. 4A4. Dimethyl ether production technology (DME), pp 63–64. www.nedo.go.jp/kankobutsu/pamphlets/sekitan/cct2006e.pdf. Accessed 10 April 2010

  82. Hayashi H, Todoroki A, Yasuto A, Ohno Y (2002) NKK DME diesel vehicle development and fleet test in Japan. In: International symposium on alcohol fuels, Sao-Paulo, November 12–15

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ohno Y, Tanishima S, Aoki S (2005) Coal conversion into dimethyl ether as an innovative clean fuel. In: International conference on coal science and technology, ICCST, Okinawa, Japan, October 09–14

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mogi Y, Ohno Y, Ogawa T, Inoue N, Shikada T (2000) Development of slurry phase dimethyl ether synthesis technology. In: Pittsburgh coal conference, Pittsburgh, September 11–14, pp 398–408

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ohno Y, Yagi H, Inoue N, Okuyama K, Aoki S (2007) Slurry phase DME direct synthesis technology – 100 tons/day demonstration plant operation and scale up study. In: Noronha FB, Schmal M, Sousa-Aguiar EF (eds) Studies in surface science and catalysis: natural gas conversion VII. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  86. Liu Z (2005) Clean coal technology: direct and indirect coal-to-liquid technologies. InterAcademy Council. http://www.interacademycouncil.net/Object.File/Master/10/335/CleanCoaltechnology_coalliquefaction.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2010

  87. Probstein RF, Hicks RE (2006) Synthetic fuels. Dover, Mineola

    Google Scholar 

  88. Gray D, Salerno S, Tomlinson G, Marano JJ (2004) Polygeneration of SNG, hydrogen, power, and carbon dioxide from Texas lignite. Mitretek technical report for the DOE, MTR-04-2004-18

    Google Scholar 

  89. Camm F, Bartis JT, Bushman CJ (2008) Federal financial incentives to induce early experience producing unconventional liquid fuels. Report prepared for the United States Air Force and the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the DOE. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR586/, RAND corporation. Accessed 10 April 2010

  90. Kohler LPFD, Du Plessis GH, Du Toit FJ, Koper EL, Phillips TD, Van Der Walt J (2006) Method of purifying Fischer–Tropsch derived water. US 7153432 to Sasol Technology, 26 December 2006

    Google Scholar 

  91. US Department of Energy (2006) Emerging issues for fossil energy and water. DOE/NETL-2006/1233

    Google Scholar 

  92. Boardman R (2007) Gasification and water nexus. Presented March 14, 2007 at the GTC workshop on gasification technologies, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  93. Wei W (2003) Current issues of China’s coal industry: the case of Shanxi. In: Coate B, Brooks R, Fraser I, Xu L (eds) Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of the association for Chinese economics studies Australia (ACESA), RMIT (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology) Business Research Development Unit, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  • Dry ME (2001) High quality diesel via the Fischer–Tropsch process – a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 77(1):43–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan CJ (1976) Method of power generation via coal gasification and liquid hydrocarbon synthesis. US 3986349 to Chevron Research Company, 19 October 1976

    Google Scholar 

  • Furstner AE (1995) Active metals: preparation characterization applications. In: Furstner A (ed) Supported metals. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Iglesia E, Reyes S, Madon RS (1993) Selectivity control and catalyst design in the Fischer–Tropsch synthesis: sites, pellets, and reactors. Adv Catal 39:221–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iglesia E, Reyes S, Soled S (1993) Reaction-transport selectivity models and the design of Fischer–Tropsch catalysts. In: Becker ER, Pereira CJ (eds) Computer-aided design of catalysts and reactors. Marcel Dekker, New York, p 640

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Wang J, Wang T (2007) Slurry reactors for gas-to-liquid processes: a review. Ind Eng Chem Res 46(18):5824–5847

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien R, Xu L, Bao S, Raje A, Davis B (2000) Activity, selectivity and attrition characteristics of supported iron Fischer–Tropsch catalysts. Appl Catal, A 196(2):173–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahmin II (2008) GTL, CTL finding roles in global energy supply. Oil Gas J 24:22–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane D (2008) Clean coal technologies accelerating commercial and policy drivers for deployment. International Energy Agency/Coal Industry Advisory Board, p 70

    Google Scholar 

  • Tijm PA, Waller F, Brown D (2001) Methanol technology developments for the new millennium. Appl Catal, A 22(1–2):275–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams A, Pourkashanian M, Jones JM (2001) Combustion of pulverized coal and biomass. Prog Energy Combust Sci 27:587–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, 94025, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Marianna Asaro

  2. SRI Consulting, 4300 Bohannon Drive, 94025, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Ronald M. Smith (Senior Consultant)

Authors
  1. Marianna Asaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marianna Asaro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chemistry & Chemical Engineering Lab., SRI International, Menlo Park, USA

    Ripudaman Malhotra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asaro, M., Smith, R.M. (2013). Coal to Liquids Technologies. In: Malhotra, R. (eds) Fossil Energy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5722-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5722-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5721-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5722-0

  • eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation