Thar coal mining project in Pakistan | Updates & Discussions.

[niaz]

Did somebody see the TV programs on Thar coal project last few days, on AAJ and Dawn news, Dr. Samar also came on Dawn, and what he said looked promising. No pollution, clean flame, and then the b-products could be used for fertilizers and all.

But just one question. On AAJ program Bolta Pakistan, the host said that the BTU for thar gas is around 150 TU, while in the Sui gas and all the gas reaching our stoves is around 1000 BTU. But I saw some documents http://fossil.energy.gov/international/Publications/cwg_april06_ucg_reliance.pdf, on the link, Page 5. The flowchart indicates that the BTU of around 150 is used all over the world. I am don't have much knowledge in this area, can anybody shed some light on this?

Electrical generation on the flowchart is 100-180 BTU, for fields all over the world (Australia, Ukraine, Poland, South Africa etc etc)

So, did the program host make a mistake? And also by saying that nowhere in the world is electricity produced like this, while it is being produced in countries mentioned above, and total output in the world is around 80,000 MW.

So, reporter got it wrong just to score some points?

I didnot see the programme and thus am not in a postion to clarify the question raised in the above post. My comments are:

BTU per cubic foot (cft) or per cubic meter (cbm) depends upon the percentage of combustible materials as well as nature of the combustible materials present in the fuel. BTU values of fuels normally used for burning are noted below:

Methane 1,011, Ethane 1,783, Butane 3,225, Acetylene 1,498, Typical Natural gas 1,150, Propane (main component of LPG or the cooking gas in cylinders) 2,572, Carbon monoxide 323, Hydrogen, 325, coal gas 149, Sewage/biogas 690,

Sui gas is about 94% Methane thus BTU/cft should be about 1000. Syngas produced thru UCG process is primarily a mixture of Hydrogen, Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Methane and water vapours (steam). Since Carbon dioxide and water vapours don’t burn, it is therefore logical to expect low BTU product.

I have no information on the BTU value of gas produced thru UCG of Thar Coal. However, I am aware that simple gasification process which uses air as the reactive agent and converts coal/char into gas produces a fuel gas with 150 to 200 BTU per cft.

Despite the low BTU value, there is no problem in burning syngas into boilers or gas turbines/gas engines and producing electricity. You just need to burn more of the low BTU gas (compared to high BTU gas) to produce the same amount electricity. There are quite a few low BTU gas generators available in the market and low BTU gas is used all over the world for power generation. There is no reason why it can't be used at Thar.

Dr AQ Khan and Dr Mubarakmand are old rivals from their Atomic Energy days. Without any disrespect to Dr AQ Khan (He is and will remain my hero); the fact is that Pak nuclear project was a team effort, certainly not a one man show. The press and the public on the other hand has showered all the praise and glory on one man; Dr AQ Khan.

UCG project primarily involves Geochemistry/Geophysics, fuel technology and mining. A metallurgist (Dr AQ Khan) is therefore not better qualified than a Nuclear Engineer (Dr Mubarakmand) as claimed in Dr AQ Khan's article.

 

[v9s]

Dr AQ Khan and Dr Mubarakmand are old rivals from their Atomic Energy days. Without any disrespect to Dr AQ Khan (He is and will remain my hero); the fact is that Pak nuclear project was a team effort, certainly not a one man show. The press and the public on the other hand has showered all the praise and glory on one man; Dr AQ Khan.

I don't think anyone thinks that the Nuclear project was a one man show.

In retrospect, A.Q. Khan was the main guy rallying for the Nuclear project and if it wasn't for his efforts, we might've gone nuclear much later on, and that's why I think the press and the public showers most of the praises on him.

 

[Jango]

I didnot see the programme and thus am not in a postion to clarify the question raised in the above post. My comments are:

BTU per cubic foot (cft) or per cubic meter (cbm) depends upon the percentage of combustible materials as well as nature of the combustible materials present in the fuel. BTU values of fuels normally used for burning are noted below:

Methane 1,011, Ethane 1,783, Butane 3,225, Acetylene 1,498, Typical Natural gas 1,150, Propane (main component of LPG or the cooking gas in cylinders) 2,572, Carbon monoxide 323, Hydrogen, 325, coal gas 149, Sewage/biogas 690,

Sui gas is about 94% Methane thus BTU/cft should be about 1000. Syngas produced thru UCG process is primarily a mixture of Hydrogen, Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Methane and water vapours (steam). Since Carbon dioxide and water vapours don’t burn, it is therefore logical to expect low BTU product.

I have no information on the BTU value of gas produced thru UCG of Thar Coal. However, I am aware that simple gasification process which uses air as the reactive agent and converts coal/char into gas produces a fuel gas with 150 to 200 BTU per cft.

Despite the low BTU value, there is no problem in burning syngas into boilers or gas turbines/gas engines and producing electricity. You just need to burn more of the low BTU gas (compared to high BTU gas) to produce the same amount electricity. There are quite a few low BTU gas generators available in the market and low BTU gas is used all over the world for power generation. There is no reason why it can't be used at Thar.

So, what are the cons of having low BTU gas as found by UCG in Thar gas?

It is reported to be around 150 BTU.

Dr. Samar said that the flame will be lit very soon and electricity generation is only a little time away. (testing only I think).

 

[niaz]

So, what are the cons of having low BTU gas as found by UCG in Thar gas?

It is reported to be around 150 BTU.

Dr. Samar said that the flame will be lit very soon and electricity generation is only a little time away. (testing only I think).

I don't see any 'Cons'. What matters is how much investment is required to produce one Kilowatt of elecricty and the cost of production per KWH.

Don't think you can compete with the hydel power but as long as it is cheaper than what we produce thru burning furnace oil, it would do fine. Only other consideration would be underground water pollution.

 

[ziaulislam]

i think what dr abdul qadeer means that it is low qaulity coal and thus has low BTU which is true and is accepted by many experts but even with such a low BTU its good for electricity generation and after some treatment as good for general purpose as it wills til be cheaper than oil based plants and will save huge chunk of foreign exchange that we need desperately.

however the claims that we can get diesel at cheap rates is little exaggerated. i think even after all those treatment we may get diesel but nearly at same price as imported plus it would waste a lot of coal.

 

[niaz]

i think what dr abdul qadeer means that it is low qaulity coal and thus has low BTU which is true and is accepted by many experts but even with such a low BTU its good for electricity generation and after some treatment as good for general purpose as it wills til be cheaper than oil based plants and will save huge chunk of foreign exchange that we need desperately.

however the claims that we can get diesel at cheap rates is little exaggerated. i think even after all those treatment we may get diesel but nearly at same price as imported plus it would waste a lot of coal.

I am no expert in the conversion of coal to liquid hydrocarbons but having spent nearly all my working life in the petroleum industry; any technology that produces cheap hydrocarbon is of interest to me.

To the best of info, only place that is currently producing commercial quantities of hydrocarbons from coal is Sasol's main plant in the province of Mpumalanga- South Africa that produces about 150 000 barrels of synthetic fuel per day. The cost of production is about $45 per barrel as vast quantities of coal are available nearby.

Understand B/E point versus imports is about $50 per bbl crude price. With crude price in excess of $100 per bbl, the CTL (coal to liquid) technology is now commercially viable.

Another hurdles is the initial investment. To get an idea of the investment required, kindly refer to the following article

Quote
Energy and chemicals group Sasol would make an investment decision on what could be a $10-billion coal-to-liquids (CTL) project in China during the 2010 calendar year, CEO Pat Davies reported on Monday.
The project, which had been reconfigured from an 80 000-bl/d plant to a 90 000-bl/d facility, would be the JSE-listed group's first CTL investment outside South Africa, where the technology is used to produce about 40% of the country's fuel.
Sasol and its partner, the Shenhua Group, had focused their attention on a potential project in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
Sasol to make investment call this year on $10bn China CTL project
Unqoute

Conclusion: UCG is commercially viable as well as the CTL process to covert the fuel gasses into liquid hydrocarbons. However all of this comes at a cost but then what is cheap in life?

 

[Jango]

...
Conclusion: UCG is commercially viable as well as the CTL process to covert the fuel gasses into liquid hydrocarbons. However all of this comes at a cost but then what is cheap in life?

Dr. Samar has been saying this point, that it is viable, while some corners shout no.

According to Dr. Samar, only little work is done now, to prove that it is going fine on the pilot stage, and then a company can come in and generators and all.

 

[Redbull]

Dr samar said for $1bn he can make 1000 megawatz electricity. I wonder how much would be needed for 1 million barrels day.

 

[ziaulislam]

Hong Kong Company shows interest in Thar Coal Project
PPI | 18 hours ago
0







Thar coal reserves- File Photo

KARACHI: Jong Tai Energy Corporation of Hong Kong has showed its keen interest in investment in Thar Coal Project, Chairman Sindh Investment Board Muhammad Zubair Moti Wala said.

According to an official hand out on Sunday a meeting in this connection was held between Samson Pan, Chairman Jong Tai and Muhammad Zubair Moti Wala in which the matter was discussed.

Jong Tai Energy Corporation is interested in commencing of a project of producing fuel from coal in Thar by using Coal Water Slurry Technology which is not only effective but also environment friendly.

This technology would reduce 50 percent of the cost of production.

During the meeting Chairman Sindh Investment Board welcomed Jong Tais interest in the project, offered it provision of all necessary facilities and said that coal reserves in Thar were one of the best reserves of coal in the world.
Hong Kong Company shows interest in Thar Coal Project | DAWN.COM

Coal-water-slurry- a new source of Hydrogen?
Dirty coal is still a popular choice for power generation around the world, irrespective of the status of the country, whether industrially advanced or backward. The abundant availability and cheap cost, makes coal more attractive from investor&#8217;s point of view; they care less for the environment, while Governments turn a blind eye to all the emissions and pollutions. It is a question of survival for millions of people who work in coal mines and industries. It is one of the toughest challenges many Governments are facing. Take for example India; about 65% of power generation still comes from coal. The import of coal increases year after year and there is no immediate solution in sight. Indian coal is a low grade coal with very high ash content. Each coal-fired power plant generates huge amount of fly ash and they stockpile them; supposed to be used in the production of Portland cement. It is a big business. China and Indonesia too uses coal as a major fuel for power generation. But they have come out with an innovative and pragmatic method of using coal. They use coal-water-slurry (CWS), a finely pulverized high grade coal (calorific value 5100-6100Kcal/kg) in water. They use some chemical additives that make the slurry a homogeneous fluid, similar to a Hydrocarbon such as Heavy fuel oil (HFO).The advantage with CWS is it can be easily pumped and injected into a furnace or boiler using ceramic nozzles, obviously to avoid erosion due the abrasive nature of coal, just like firing diesel or heavy oil. According to the literature, 1.8 -2.2 tons of CWS is equivalent to 1 ton of Heavy fuel oil (HFO) and it costs the same. It cost only US$ 62 million to retrofit an existing coal fired power plant with CWS system and the yearly savings are estimated at US$ 41 mil per year, an attractive rerun on investment. The beautiful aspect of this method is it generates Hydrogen rich Syngas according to the following chemical reaction. 2C + O2+2 H2O -------- 2H2+2 CO2, when the mixture is subject to gasification instead of mere combustion. The combustion efficiency is about 96-99% and the boiler efficiency of more than 90%. It generates less Sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen oxide emissions and good for the environment compared to conventional coal- fired power plants. It is a good technology that needs the attention of Governments especially India, China and Indonesisa.Even coal rich countries like US, Australia should focus on this technology apart from their persuasion such as carbon sequestration. In fact, this will open up new avenues for India and China to switch over to Hydrogen economy, without making substantial investments. The coal-water-slurry fluid has a property similar to a Hydrocarbon as shown below. Density 65-70% ,Viscosity 1000Cp, Size d< 50 microns, Ash content <7, Sulfur<0.5%. It is easier to handle a liquid than solid coal. Pulverised coal is pneumatically conveyed and fired in rotary cement kilns for so many years. There is nothing new about it. Similarly coal water slurry can be a game changer for the power industry if it is combined with Gasification and combined cycle. It will lead into Hydrogen based power generation industries using Fuel cell such as Molten Carbonate Fuel cell (MCFC). I believe there is a clear opportunity for the Governments and private industries to seriously look into CWS technology which I believe, is a &#8216;precursor&#8217; for Hydrogen economy of the future.

 

[Nishan_101]

Dr. Mubarakmand befooling nation on Thar Coal: Dr. Qadir

Islamabad: Reiterating his opinion about ineligibility of Dr. Samar Mubarakmand in operating Thar Coal Project, Pakistan national hero Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan says Dr. Mubarmand is only befooling the nation.

“You see, as I am a Doctor in Metallurgy and this is my field of expertise so naturally I could work efficiently in my field only,” he said in an interview.

“Similarly, he (Dr. Mubarakmand) is an expert in Nuclear Physics and not in mineral sciences to work on projects like Thar Coal,” he added.

The leader of founding team of Pakistan’s nuclear program, Dr. Qadir is a strong critic of Dr. Mubarakmand over his stance on producing power from Thar Coal and digging out gold from Recodec in Balochistan.

“Billions have been spent on producing energy from coal but this is not the way to work,” he says in sarcastic tune.

“A Chinese firm Shen Hua had been working on generating electricity from Thar coal which was ready to invest billion of dollars on the direction of Chinese government.”

“But then prime minister Shaukat Aziz had made this willing company to run away from Pakistan with delaying tactics.”

When he was asked about Dr. Mubarakmand’s opinion that he has not been provided funds to produce electricity, Dr. Qadir reaffirmed his opinion that Dr. Mubarak has failed in generating coal power and now he was only leveling claims.

“Producing gas flame doesn’t mean that you actually are in the position to generate electricity,” the national scientist added.

I think the KRL and A.Q Khan should be given a chance n doing R&D on Thorium Reactors as well as on Thar and Bhawalpur Coal too.

 

[The Great One]

Man. It is really shocking to see that Pakistan wants to depend on Coal to meet it's future energy needs. Why do you want to increase the already dangerous problem of greenhouse effect. The Day After Tomorrow wasn't enough?

 

[Jango]

Man. It is really shocking to see that Pakistan wants to depend on Coal to meet it's future energy needs. Why do you want to increase the already dangerous problem of greenhouse effect. The Day After Tomorrow wasn't enough?

The current emphasis is on UCG, which is not a pollutant.

 

[Edevelop]

Man. It is really shocking to see that Pakistan wants to depend on Coal to meet it's future energy needs. Why do you want to increase the already dangerous problem of greenhouse effect. The Day After Tomorrow wasn't enough?

There are lots of easy ways to produce energy. But what is needed is some brains...

Apart from Coal:

- Nuclear Technology
- Wind Turbines in coastal Sindh and in coastal Balochistan
- Solar power (lots of sunshine is available all over Pakistan)

 

[niaz]

I have read the article as posted by Hon Zial Islam and find it strange that people are making so much fuss about coal water slurry technology applicable to Thar Coal.

The article clearly states

Quote

They use coal-water-slurry (CWS), a finely pulverized high grade coal (calorific value 5100-6100Kcal/kg) in water.

Unquote.

I don&#8217;t have data on the cal. value of Thar Lignite, however that it is a scientific fact that lignite coal does not have the calorific value in the 5, 100 Kcal/kg range.

Depending upon quality, lignite coal&#8217;s calorific value ranges between 8,000 KJ/kg and 15,000 KJ /kg. 1 Kcal = 4.186KJ. This means that lignite coal has max cal. value of 3,583 Kcal/kg. Good quality bituminous coal on the other hand has cal value of about 5,500 Kcal/kg.

Based on the above this process cannot be used with Thar Coal.

Additionally, all this process does is to produce &#8216;syngas&#8217;. Dr Mubarkmand UCG experiment is also producing syngas as chemical reaction is the same.

Don&#8217;t you think it is ironic that while we already have a project in place to produce syngas, we don&#8217;t fund it but look towards something altogether new?


Hon Great One,

About 40% of all the world's energy is produced by coal. In some countries such as South Africa & Poland it is higher than 90%. To the best of my info about 70% of all electricity production in India is coal based. Whereas in Pakistan it is less than 1%.

It is natural to base the strategy on something that we have. Besides, unlike India, we don&#8217;t have the luxury of nuclear technology assistance from the US.

 

[ziaulislam]

that coal has low caloric value but it can be used in variety of ways including open pit mining,water coal and underground gasification..all are proven and useful.