Commercial-Scale Demonstration of the

Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process

TOPICAL REPORT NUMBER 11 APRIL 1999
TOPICAL REPORT NUMBER 11

A report on a project conducted jointly under

a cooperative agreement between:

The U.S. Department of Energy and

Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P.

April 1999

Commercial-Scale

Demonstration of the

Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Process

Commercial-Scale

Demonstration of the

Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Process

Executive Summary........................................................................................... 5

Background........................................................................................................ 6

Project Description ............................................................................................ 8

Operating History ............................................................................................ 13

Cost/Demonstration Schedule ......................................................................... 15

Integration of LPMEOHTM with IGCC Power Production ............................. 16

Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 19

Bibliography .................................................................................................... 20

Contacts for CCT Project and U.S. DOE CCT Program ................................. 23

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................. 24 Cover image: Photo of LPMEOHTM

Project at Kingsport,

Tennessee
Executive Summary

The Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program

is a government and industry co-funded effort

to demonstrate a new generation of innovative coal-utilization processes in a series of

“showcase” facilities built across the country.

These projects are carried out on a sufficiently

large scale to prove commercial worthiness

and generate data for design, construction,

operation, and technical/economic evaluation

of full-scale commercial applications.

The goal of the CCT Program is to furnish

the U.S. energy marketplace with a number of

advanced, more efficient, and environmentally

responsible coal-based technologies that can

overcome the economic and environmental

impediments that limit the full utilization of

coal. To achieve this goal, beginning in 1985,

a multiphased effort consisting of five separate

solicitations was administered by the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE). Projects selected

through these solicitations have demonstrated

technology options with the potential to meet

the needs of energy markets while satisfying

relevant environmental requirements.

This report discusses the demonstration

of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.’s Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process.

The LPMEOHTM Process is designed to convert

synthesis gas derived from the gasification of

coal into methanol for use as a chemical intermediate or as a low-sulfur dioxide and lownitrogen oxides emitting alternative fuel.

Synthesis gas, frequently referred to as syngas,

is basically a mixture of hydrogen and carbon

monoxide; but, depending upon how it is produced, it may contain other gases, such as carbon dioxide. Since gasifiers can handle a wide

range of coal types and produce a variety of

syngas compositions, virtually any coal can be

gasified to produce syngas as feedstock for the

LPMEOHTM Process.

The LPMEOHTM Process differs from traditional methanol processes in that it uses a slurry

bubble column reactor (SBCR) instead of the

usual fixed-bed reactor. In the SBCR, powdered

catalyst is suspended in an inert oil rather than

catalyst pellets being loaded into beds or tubes,

as is the case in a gas-phase, fixed-bed reactor.

The SBCR has several advantages over a

fixed-bed reactor. First, it has excellent temperature control, which is critical because the

methanol production reactions are highly exothermic. Second, catalyst can be added to and

removed from the reactor during operation,

which permits high unit availability, maintenance of constant catalyst activity, and achievement of optimum catalyst activity level for a

given set of operating conditions. In addition,

higher syngas conversion levels are possible,

and a wide range of gas compositions can be

fed to the reactor.

The LPMEOHTM Process was developed

during the 1980’s with the financial support

of DOE. The concept was proven in over

7,400 hours of operations in the DOE-owned

Alternative Fuels Development Unit located

in LaPorte, Texas. Although the LPMEOHTM

Process can be utilized as a stand-alone unit,

a major driving force behind its development was to enhance the performance of

Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

(IGCC) power generation.

An important feature of the LPMEOHTM

Process is its highly stable character. The slurry

reactor is suitable for rapid ramping, idling, and

even extreme start/stop operations. The thermal

moderation provided by the liquid in the reactor

acts to buffer short, transient operations such as

changes in syngas composition that would

not normally be tolerable in a gas-phase

methanol synthesis reactor. This characteristic

is especially advantageous in the environment of electricity demand load-following

in IGCC facilities.

Another differentiating feature of the

LPMEOHTM Process is that it can produce

a high-quality methanol product directly from

syngas rich in carbon oxides. Gas-phase methanol synthesis, which must rely on hydrogen-rich

syngas, yields a crude methanol product with

4 to 20% water by weight. The product from

the liquid phase process, when feeding carbon

monoxide-rich syngas, typically contains only

1% water by weight. As a result, raw methanol,

coproduced with electricity in an IGCC facility,

is suitable for many uses at a substantial savings

in purification costs.

Potential applications for the methanol are

as a source of hydrogen or syngas for small fuel

cells or industrial applications, as a feedstock

for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and other

chemicals, as a clean-burning fuel, and as a

source of peaking power for an IGCC plant.

The LPMEOHTM Demonstration Project

is located at Eastman Chemical Company’s

chemicals-from-coal complex at Kingsport,

Tennessee. There are a number of advantages

to this site. In addition to producing syngas, the

gasification complex at Kingsport also produces

hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-rich gas

streams. By mixing these gases in different

proportions, a wide range of feed compositions

were produced during the demonstration, thus

simulating the feed gas from a variety of commercially available gasifiers. Another advantage

is that Eastman is able to use the methanol produced as feedstock for downstream processes.

DOE selected the LPMEOHTM project in

CCT Round III, and the cooperative agreement

was awarded in 1992. Construction began in

October 1995 and was completed in January

1997. The first production of methanol occurred

on April 2, 1997, and nameplate capacity of

260 tons per day (TPD) was achieved on April

6, 1997. Production rates of over 300 TPD of

methanol have been achieved, and availability

for the demonstration unit has exceeded 96%

since startup.

As part of the demonstration, as-produced

methanol from the LPMEOHTM project is being

tested at off-site locations for a variety of applications, including as fuel for buses, light

vehicles, fuel cells, and stationary turbines.
Commercial-Scale

Demonstration of the

Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Process

Background

The Clean Coal Technology (CCT)

Program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is a government

and industry co-funded technology development effort conducted since 1985 to

demonstrate a new generation of innovative coal-utilization processes.

Although coal is our most abundant

fossil energy resource, it has the reputation of being a dirty fuel. The CCT

Program is dispelling that perception

by demonstrating technologies that

utilize coal in an environmentally

responsible way.

The CCT Program involves a series

of “showcase” projects, conducted on

a sufficiently large scale to demonstrate

commercial worthiness and to generate

data for design, construction, operation,

and technical/economic evaluation of

full-scale commercial applications.

The goal of the CCT Program is to

furnish the U.S. energy marketplace with

advanced, more efficient coal-based technologies, technologies that are capable of

mitigating some of the economic and environmental impediments that inhibit the use

of coal as an energy source.

The CCT projects can be divided into

four major categories: advanced electric

power generation, environmental control

devices, coal processing for clean fuels,

and industrial applications. The Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Demonstration Project described in this report falls in

the coal processing for clean fuels category.

The feed to the LPMEOHTM Process

is synthesis gas (frequently referred to as

syngas), a mixture of hydrogen and carbon

monoxide. This mixture is called synthesis

gas because it is the starting point for the

manufacture of a wide variety of fuels and

chemicals, ranging from hydrogen through

methanol, ammonia, acetic anhydride,

dimethyl ether (DME), methyl tertiary butyl

ether (MTBE), liquid hydrocarbons, and
Eastman Chemical Company’s

chemicals-from-coal complex waxes. Syngas can also be burned directly at Kingsport, Tennessee.

as a fuel. An important way to make syngas

is by partial oxidation of coal in a gasifier.

In addition to the versatility of the products that can be made from it, a major

advantage of using syngas as a feedstock

is that during its production, the sulfur and

nitrogen in the coal are converted to hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, which are easily

removed from the syngas by a variety of

readily available processes. Furthermore,

particulates are removed in the gasifier

complex. Thus, the syngas which is produced is essentially free of contaminants.

Consequently, the products made from the

syngas are also free of contaminants. A final

advantage is that almost any carbonaceous

material can be converted to syngas, thus

providing a great deal of gasifier feedstock flexibility.

In a stand-alone application, the as-produced methanol from the LPMEOHTM

Process can be used directly in certain fuel

and chemical applications; it can also be

upgraded to chemical-grade methanol,

as required. The LPMEOHTM Process can

enhance Integrated Gasification Combined

Cycle (IGCC) power generation by converting part of the syngas from the gasifier

to methanol, which can either be sold as

a value-added product or used as a peakshaving fuel.

The LPMEOHTM technology was developed by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

during the 1980’s with financial support

from the DOE. The concept was proven

in over 7,400 hours of test operations in

the DOE-owned, 10-ton-per-day Alternative Fuels Development Unit (AFDU)

located at LaPorte, Texas.

In 1989, the LPMEOHTM Process

was selected under DOE’s CCT Program

for commercial-scale demonstration.

The project is being carried out under

a cooperative agreement between DOE

and the Air Products Liquid Phase Conversion Company, L.P. (a partnership

between Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

and Eastman Chemical Company), which

was formed to conduct the demonstration.
View of LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit with

building housing catalyst facilities in foreground.

Project Description

The demonstration unit, which occupies

0.6 acres, is integrated into the existing

4,000-acre Eastman chemicals-from-coal

complex located in Kingsport, Tennessee.

The Eastman complex employs approximately 12,000 people. In 1983, Eastman

constructed a coal gasification facility

utilizing Texaco technology.

Syngas generated by this gasification

facility is used to produce carbon monoxide and methanol. Both of these products

are used to produce methyl acetate and

ultimately cellulose acetate and acetic acid.

The availability of this highly reliable coal

gasification facility was the major factor in

selecting this location for the LPMEOHTM

Process Demonstration.

Three different feed gas streams (hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and balanced gas)

are diverted from existing operations to

the LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit, thus

providing the range of coal-derived syngas

ratios (hydrogen to carbon monoxide)

needed to meet the technical objectives

of the demonstration project.

Technology Description

There are many characteristics that distinguish the LPMEOHTM Process from

conventional methanol-production technology, the most important being:

• Carrying out the synthesis in a slurry

bubble column reactor (SBCR)

employing a powdered catalyst

suspended in an inert mineral oil.

• The stable nature of the LPMEOHTM

Process, which accommodates rapid

changes in feed rate and composition without operational problems

or catalyst damage.

• The ability to operate on a syngas

rich in carbon oxides and produce
LPMEOHTM Slurry Bubble Column Reactor Schematic. In a SBCR, reactants from

the gas phase dissolve in the liquid and diffuse to the catalyst surface, where they

react. Products then diffuse through the liquid back to the gas phase. Heat is removed

by generating steam in an internal tubular heat exchanger.

Syngas

Feed

Steam

Catalyst Powder

Slurried in Oil

Disengagement Zone

Unreacted Syngas

+ Methanol Product (vapor)

Liquid

Catalyst

H2

CH3OH

Boiler

Feedwater

Vapor

Bubble CO

Vapor

Bubble

a product that does not require further

purification before being used as a fuel.

• Excellent temperature control and

heat removal capabilities.

• The ability to add and withdraw

catalyst while on-stream.

Methanol synthesis in a liquid medium

is the main feature that differentiates the

LPMEOHTM Process from conventional

methanol-production technology. Conventional methanol reactors use fixed beds

of catalyst pellets and operate in the gas

phase, but the heart of the LPMEOHTM

Process is the SBCR. In a SBCR, powdered

catalyst is suspended in an inert liquid to

form a slurry, and feed gas is introduced

into the bottom of the reactor through

a distributor. The upward flowing gas

bubbles provide the energy to keep the

slurry highly mixed.

In the LPMEOHTM Process, the slurry

medium is an inert mineral oil. The mineral oil acts as a temperature moderator

and facilitates heat removal by transferring

the heat of reaction from the catalyst surface to boiling water in an internal tubular

heat exchanger. The heat transfer coefficient on the slurry side of the heat exchanger

is relatively large. Thus, a relatively small

heat transfer area is required, and the heat

exchanger occupies only a small fraction

of the cross-sectional area of the reactor.

This ability to efficiently remove heat

and maintain a constant, highly uniform

temperature throughout the entire length

of the reactor allows the SBCR to achieve

high syngas conversion.

The LPMEOHTM reactor’s excellent

temperature control capability allows the

direct processing of syngas rich in carbon

oxides (carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide). Gas-phase methanol technology,

which uses fixed-bed reactors, requires

such a feedstock to undergo stoichiometry adjustment by the water gas shift reaction (to increase the hydrogen content)

followed by carbon dioxide removal

(to reduce the excess carbon oxides).

In conventional gas-phase reactors,

either cool, unreacted gas is injected

between catalyst beds, or the catalyst

is loaded into tubes, and a cooling medium is circulated on the outside of the

tubes to control temperature. With these

schemes, conversion per pass is limited

because of the limited heat removal capabilities of conventional reactor designs.
Chemistry of Methanol Production

Methanol is produced by the hydrogenation of carbon oxides over

a suitable catalyst, according to the following reactions:

CO + 2H2 <----> CH3OH

CO2 + 3H2 <----> CH3OH + H2O

Typical reaction conditions are a temperature of 225-270oC and a pressure of 725-1,450 psia. Because the volume of the products is less than

the volume of the reactants, higher pressures favor higher conversion.

Both these reactions are highly exothermic; the first reaction liberates

21.7 kcal of heat per gram mole of carbon monoxide converted, and

the second reaction gives off 12.8 kcal per gram mole of carbon dioxide

reacted. One of the most difficult design problems of methanol synthesis

is removing the heat of reaction while maintaining precise temperature

control to achieve optimum catalyst life and reaction rate. Catalyst life

is seriously reduced by excessive temperatures.

The LPMEOHTM technology is particularly well suited to coal-derived,

carbon monoxide-rich syngas. In general, for syngas with a high carbon

monoxide content, conversion is limited by hydrogen availability. If a

higher conversion is desired than the hydrogen content of the syngas

permits, one option is to utilize the inherent shift conversion activity

of the methanol catalyst. This is done by adding steam to the reactor feed.

The steam reacts with some of the carbon monoxide to form additional

hydrogen as shown below:

CO + H2O <----> H2 + CO2

The hydrogen thus produced reacts with carbon monoxide to form

additional methanol. The extent of this reaction is equilibrium limited,

and if syngas conversion in excess of 50% is required, then a carbon

dioxide removal unit can be used in conjunction with steam addition.

The Alternative Fuels Field Test Unit, containing state-of-the-art equipment,

is used to determine the effect of poisons on catalyst performance and life.

Typically, a gas-phase reactor is limited to about 16% carbon monoxide in

the reactor inlet gas. In contrast, for the

LPMEOHTM Process, carbon monoxide

concentrations in excess of 50% have

been routinely processed in the laboratory and at the AFDU in LaPorte without

any adverse effect on catalyst activity.

The features just discussed make the

LPMEOHTM Process very stable and,

thus, suitable for rapid ramping, idling,

and even extreme start/stop operations.

The thermal moderation provided by

the liquid inventory in the reactor acts

to buffer rapid transients that could not

normally be tolerated in a gas-phase

methanol synthesis reactor.

Another important characteristic of

the LPMEOHTM Process is its ability to

produce a high quality methanol product

directly from a syngas rich in carbon

oxides. Gas-phase methanol synthesis,

which relies on hydrogen-rich syngas,

results in a crude methanol product with

4 to 20% water by weight. The fuel-grade

product from the LPMEOHTM Process

typically contains only 1% water.

This fuel-grade methanol is suitable

for many applications without purification at a substantial cost savings. However, if chemical-grade methanol is

desired, sufficient steam is available

from the reactor heat exchanger to achieve

the required purity by distillation.

The ability of the LPMEOHTM Process

to withdraw spent catalyst slurry and add

fresh catalyst while on-stream facilitates

uninterrupted operation while simultaneously maintaining a high productivity

level in the reactor. The catalyst replacement rate can be set to optimize reactor

productivity. Typically, catalyst replacement should be set to maintain the activity in the reactor at about half the fresh

value, but the choice is ultimately an

economic optimization of catalyst usage

versus reactor productivity.
Gas Phase Reactor

Catalyst in Tubes

Gas Phase Reactor

Catalyst in Beds

Although there are many potential

applications for the LPMEOHTM Process, a major driving force for its development was to enhance IGCC power

generation. LPMEOHTM combined

with IGCC allows power and methanol

to be coproduced.

The Project Site

The LPMEOHTM Demonstration

Project is located at Eastman’s

Kingsport, Tennessee, chemicalsfrom-coal complex.

Eastman began coal gasification

operations at Kingsport in 1983. Texaco

gasifiers are used to convert about 1,000

tons per day (TPD) of high-sulfur, eastern bituminous coal into syngas for the

manufacture of methanol, acetic anhydride, and associated products. Oxygen

for gasification is supplied by pipeline

from an Air Products air separation unit.

The crude syngas is quenched, sent to

a shift converter to convert part of the

carbon monoxide into hydrogen, and

then subjected to acid gas (carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) removal.

Part of the syngas is processed in

a cryogenic separation unit to produce

separate hydrogen-rich and carbon monoxide-rich streams. The hydrogen-rich

stream is combined with clean syngas

that bypasses the cryogenic unit to produce a stoichiometrically balanced feed

for a conventional gas-phase methanol

synthesis unit. Methanol from this unit

is reacted with acetic acid to produce

methyl acetate. Finally, the methyl acetate is reacted with the carbon monoxide stream to produce acetic anhydride.

Because clean, balanced syngas, carbon monoxide-rich, and hydrogen-rich

streams are individually available, the

LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit was

designed with the capability to blend

these streams and mimic the gas compositions of a range of gasifiers.

Off-site Testing and

Product-Use Demonstration

Although most of the methanol

produced by the LPMEOHTM Demonstration Project is being used onsite by Eastman, some as-produced

product, that is, product with only the

light gases removed, is being shipped

to a number of off-site locations for

testing in a variety of applications.

The objective of this fuel-use testing is to demonstrate commercial

market applications for the as-produced methanol as a replacement fuel

and as a fuel supplement. Economics

will be determined for the as-produced methanol for use as a fuel

in municipal, industrial, and utility

applications, and as a supplement

for gasoline, diesel, and natural gas.

A wide range of uses are being evaluated, including fuel for a flexible fuel

vehicle, stationary turbines, buses,

light-duty vehicles, and a fuel cell.

Syngas

Feed

To Heat

and

Product

Recovery

Syngas

Feed

Boiler

Feedwater

Steam

To Heat

and

Product

Recovery

Fixed-Bed Reactor

Schematics.

In gas-phase reactors,

the catalyst is either

placed in beds in the

reactor shell or else

placed in tubes. If the

catalyst is in beds,

then temperature is

controlled by injecting

cold syngas between

the beds. If the catalyst

is in tubes, then water

is circulated outside

the tubes, and heat

is removed as steam.
LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit Process Flow Diagram.

Demonstration Unit Process Flow Description

Recycle Syngas Purge Gas To Fuel

To Vent Scrubber

Refined

Methanol

Crude Methanol

Condensate Return

Steam Import/Export

Boiler Feed Water

Fresh Catalyst

Oil Feed

Spent Catalyst

to Reclaiming Syngas

Oil

Return

Slurry Addition

and Withdrawal

Oil

Separator

Steam

Drum

Cyclone

Unreacted Syngas

Condensers

Guard Compressor Bed

Economizer

Day

Storage

Methanol

Distillation

Section

Refined

Methanol

Methanol

Separator

H2 Feed Gas

Balanced Feed Gas

CO Feed Gas

LPMEOHTM

Reactor

Catalyst

Reduction

Vessel Hot Oil

Nitrogen

In the LPMEOHTM Demonstration, approximately half of the

syngas from the gasification facility

is diverted from the existing methanol unit to the LPMEOHTM Unit.

Two other feed streams are supplied to the demonstration unit,

a high-purity carbon monoxide

stream from the gasification facility

and a hydrogen-rich stream from

the existing methanol unit. Since

the hydrogen-rich gas stream is at

a lower pressure than the other two

feed streams, it is combined with

the LPMEOHTM recycle gas, and

the combined stream is compressed in the recycle compressor.

The carbon monoxide and fresh balanced syngas are combined and passed

through the carbonyl guard bed, which is

packed with activated carbon to remove

possible contaminants in the feed gas.

The combined fresh feed and recycle are

preheated in the feed/product exchanger.

The preheated feed gas is introduced

into the LPMEOHTM reactor, where it

mixes with the catalyst slurry and is partially converted to methanol vapor. The

heat of reaction is absorbed by the slurry

and transferred to the internal heat exchanger, where steam is generated. The

slurry temperature of about 250°C is controlled by varying the steam pressure in

the heat exchanger tubes.

Disengagement of the product gas

from the catalyst/oil slurry occurs in the

vapor space above the slurry in the upper part of the reactor. Any entrained

slurry droplets in the gas leaving the top

of the reactor are collected in a cyclone

separator. The product gas from the

cyclone is cooled in the feed/product

exchanger, and any condensed oil is

collected in the high pressure oil

separator and returned to the reactor

along with the entrained slurry from

the cyclone separator.

The product gas is further cooled to

condense the methanol product, which

collects in the methanol separator.

Inerts are purged from the system,
Erection of the reactor vessel at the

LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit.

Operating History

After checkout during the first quarter

of 1997, the LPMEOHTM reactor was

charged with nine batches of catalyst

activated in the catalyst reduction vessel.

This corresponds to about 50% of the design catalyst loading in the reactor. The activation procedure went very well, with the

carbon monoxide usage for each batch being within 5% of the stoichiometric value.

Syngas was first introduced into the unit

on April 2, 1997, and by April 6, 1997, the

design production rate of 260 TPD of

methanol had been reached. Four days

later, on April 10, 1997, a production

rate of more than 300 TPD was achieved.

Rapid progression from first introduction of syngas to operation at greater than

design rate is an indication of the inherent

stability of the LPMEOHTM Process.

Much of the 1997 operating period was

dedicated to confirming design and scaleup assumptions that had been based on

laboratory and LaPorte AFDU data. Since

startup, the heat removal performance

of the LPMEOHTM reactor has been outstanding. The heat transfer coefficient for

the internal heat exchanger has exceeded

the design value, and there has been little

indication of fouling.

Temperatures throughout the reactor

have been quite uniform, with the difference between the maximum and minimum

temperatures being only a few degrees.

Measurements from pressure-differential

transmitters located at regular intervals

along the length of the reactor showed

that hydrodynamics matched the predictions of correlations developed from

LaPorte AFDU data.

Some initial operational problems

related to slurry flows and solids accumulation within the demonstration unit

were resolved with minor piping modifications and additional flush connections.

and the remainder of the unreacted

syngas is recycled.

The condensed methanol is sent

to a two-column distillation train.

In the first column, light impurities

are removed. In the second column,

chemical-grade methanol is recovered, along with a crude methanol

bottoms stream containing higher

alcohols, water, and traces of process oil. This bottoms stream is sent

to the distillation system in Eastman’s

existing gas-phase methanol plant for

recovery of the methanol it contains.

As-produced, fuel-grade methanol for

off-site product-use testing is produced at limited times by using only

the first distillation column.

In addition to the equipment

already discussed, the LPMEOHTM

unit contains catalyst activation

facilities, consisting of an agitated

catalyst reduction vessel, where

powdered catalyst in oxide form is

combined with mineral oil to produce

by weight containing 30% catalyst

slurry. After the agitator is stopped,

reducing gas, consisting of a blend

of nitrogen and carbon monoxide,

is introduced into the reduction vessel via a gas distributor. The carbon

monoxide reacts with the oxide form

of the catalyst to convert it to the

active metallic form.

During reduction, slurry temperature is carefully increased while the

consumption of carbon monoxide is

monitored to determine when complete reduction has occurred. After

reduction, the catalyst is pumped to

the LPMEOHTM reactor. Before fresh

slurry is added to the reactor, an

equivalent amount of spent slurry is

removed and sent to metals recovery

or safe disposal.
Block Flow Diagram showing integration of the LPMEOHTM Process

with existing facilities at the Eastman chemicals-from-coal complex.

Refined

Methanol

Crude Methanol

Wastewater

Sulfur

Slag

Wastewater

to Treatment

Water

Balanced

Gas

To Chemicals

Production

Pure Methanol

Coal

Oxygen

Gasifier

CO2 Existing

Guard

Bed

LPMEOHTM

Plant

Existing

Methanol

Plant

Gas

Clean-up Clean

Balanced

Gas

CO

CO Gas

H2 Gas

These modifications are expected to result

in significant benefits for future designs,

including significant capital cost savings,

increased operating flexibility, and lower

maintenance costs.

Throughout its operation, overall performance of the LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit has been monitored to determine

the change in activity as the catalyst is exposed to the trace contaminants present in

coal-derived syngas. Determining catalyst

life is one of the major goals of the demonstration project.

Initial catalyst activity was excellent,

confirming the validity of the activation

procedure for the catalyst, but during the

first month of operation the rate of deactivation was much higher than expected.

However, from June through November

1997, the deactivation rate declined to a

value more typical of laboratory results.

Analyses of catalyst samples from the

LPMEOHTM reactor indicated that, for

unexplained reasons, a large increase

in the concentration of iron on the catalyst

occurred during the initial six weeks of

operation. Although arsenic levels were

also higher than expected, arsenic poisoning does not appear to totally account for

the deactivation observed.

Because the initial catalyst charge had

experienced significant deactivation, the

reactor was drained, and a new charge of

fresh catalyst was activated during December 1997. At the same time, to determine

if there was any unusual concentration of

catalyst poisons in the Kingsport syngas, the

Alternative Fuels Field Test Unit (AFFTU),

containing state-of-the-art testing and analytical equipment, was installed on a slip

stream of the feed to the LPMEOHTM Unit.

The initial performance of the fresh

catalyst charge at a slightly reduced temperature of 235°C was excellent, with

methanol production again exceeding

nameplate capacity. No rapid decrease in

activity occurred during the initial month
The demonstration phase,

which began in April 1997 and will extend

into the first quarter of 2001, has a number of

objectives, including:

• Determination of catalyst aging rate when feeding coal-derived syngas.

• Operation with syngas simulating various gasifiers, such as Texaco, Destec, BGL,

and Shell, as well as syngas from natural gas reforming.

• Operation at high gas velocity and high syngas conversion.

• Gaining experience with the addition and withdrawal of catalyst

while on-stream.

• Simulation of load-following operations (turndown, ramping, on/off tests).

• Production of fuel-grade methanol for off-site product-use tests.

• Determination of maximum allowable catalyst concentration and

maximum reactor productivity.

• Operation with steam addition.

• Operation with an alternative catalyst.

• Identification of modifications to equipment and operations that will improve

performance and decrease costs (some have already been implemented).

• Collection of a large body of operating data that will be available for the benefit

of DOE, project participants, and others.

on-stream, as had happened in the first

startup in April 1997. Furthermore, the rate

of activity decline was slightly less than in

the parallel AFFTU, although the deactivation rate was measurably greater than

in the LaPorte AFDU.

This is thought to be the result of

higher levels of catalyst poisons (iron,

sulfur, arsenic, etc.) in the coal-derived

syngas at Kingsport compared to the natural gas-derived syngas used at the LaPorte

AFDU, which experienced a very slow

loss of activity with time.

A very successful 24-day operating

period ended on July 14, 1998. During this

operation at 235°C, the catalyst deactivation rate was only 0.2% per day, which is

less than half the target rate from the tests

at the LaPorte AFDU.

In test runs using carbon monoxiderich feed gas, the hydrogen-to-carbon

monoxide molar ratio of the reactor feed

was varied between 0.4 and 0.8. The methanol production rate was as expected, and

the catalyst deactivation rate was equivalent to that with hydrogen-rich feed gas.

From April 1997, when initial operations began, to December 1998 the

LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit achieved

an availability in excess of 96%. This includes a period of 94 days in which the

unit was continuously available.

Since startup, the hydrogen-to-carbon

monoxide ratio in the reactor feed stream

has varied from 0.4 to 5.6 with no negative effect on performance. Important parameters, such as reactor inlet superficial

gas velocity, expanded slurry-bed level,

and the overall heat transfer coefficient of

the internal heat exchanger, have been

shown to be satisfactory at 115 to 120%

of design feed rate. On-line catalyst addition has been performed successfully.

Over 32 million gallons of methanol have

been produced, and product purity has

consistently met Eastman’s requirements

for downstream chemical processing.

Cost/Demonstration

Schedule

The estimated total project cost is $214

million, of which DOE’s share is $93 million or 43%.

A 40-month schedule was developed,

which includes basic and detailed design,

permitting, fabrication, construction,

tie-ins, and program management. After

receipt of the required permits, construction was started in October 1995 and was

completed in January 1997. Startup operations began following completion of construction, and syngas was first introduced

to the unit on April 2, 1997. Operation at

design capacity of 260 TPD of methanol

was reached on April 6, 1997.
Coal/Other Fuel

Oxygen Gasification

Syngas

Cycling

Baseload

Fuel

Gas

Once-Through

Methanol

(LPMEOHTM)

Methanol

Storage

Peaking

Power

Remote

Peaking

Power

Methanol

Sales

Peak

Customer

Peak

Combined

Cycle

Power

Back-up

Fuel

Integration of the LPMEOHTM Process

with IGCC for coproduction of methanol

and electric power.

Integration of

LPMEOHTM with

IGCC Power

Production

In IGCC power production, coal is

first converted to syngas in a gasifier.

After the syngas has been cleaned by

removal of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,

and particulates, it is burned in a combustion turbine. The hot exhaust gas from

the turbine is sent to a heat recovery

steam generator, and the steam raised

is sent to a steam turbine for additional

power production.

IGCC offers great potential for high efficiency, environmentally responsible power

generation from coal. The LPMEOHTM Process can be effectively coupled with IGCC

to further improve efficiency and flexibility. The advantages of the LPMEOHTM

Process discussed previously, particularly

its ability to operate over a wide range

of carbon monoxide-rich feed gases

and its ability to handle rapid fluctuations

in feed rate, make it ideal for integration

with IGCC.

Several options are available for integrating methanol production with IGCC.

In one concept, clean syngas from the

gasifier is first sent to the LPMEOHTM

unit, which operates in a once-through

mode, that is, without recycle of unconverted feed. Syngas that is not converted

to methanol in the LPMEOHTM unit is

sent to power production. Operating

costs are reduced by operating methanol

production in a once-through fashion.

As an alternative, instead of operating

continuously, the methanol unit can be

operated only during periods of off-peak
View of LPMEOHTM Unit’s 700-HP syngas recycle compressor.

Market Potential

The encouraging results obtained

from the LPMEOHTM Demonstration

Project are expected to generate significant commercial interest in the technology. Because of its operational flexibility,

the LPMEOHTM Process can be a very

effective technology for converting a

portion of an IGCC power plant’s coalderived syngas to methanol.

Because of its excellent fit with IGCC,

design studies for the LPMEOHTM Process have focused principally on IGCC

applications. For a given gasification

plant size, the IGCC coproduction plant

can be designed to accommodate a range

of methanol to power output ratios. For

example, a gasification plant with two

gasifiers of 1,735 million Btu (HHV)

per hour output each could be sized for

baseload power output of 426 MWe of

electricity and for methanol coproduction

of 500 TPD.

power demand to consume the syngas not

required for power production. This allows

the gasifier, which is the IGCC’s major

capital asset, to operate at full baseload

capacity regardless of the power demand;

thus, the gasifier is always fully utilized.

In either baseload or cycling operation, partial conversion of between 20% and 33%

of the IGCC plant’s syngas is optimal, with

conversions of up to 50% being feasible.

In the simplest configuration combining

LPMEOHTM technology with IGCC,

syngas at maximum available pressure

from the gasifier in the IGCC facility is

fed to the LPMEOHTM unit, operating in

once-through mode. In the LPMEOHTM

unit, the syngas is partially converted to

methanol, and unreacted gas is fed to the

IGCC power plant’s combustion turbines.

If requirements of a specific project make

greater syngas conversion desirable, various design options are available to accomplish this.

One of these is feed gas compression.

Since the reaction rate is increased at

higher pressure, if the feed from the gasifier is not available at a sufficiently high

pressure, a compressor can be added to

boost feed gas pressure. Another option

is to use partial recycle of the unconverted

gas to increase conversion.

Still another option for improving

reactor performance is to use staged reactors, that is, reactors in series rather than

a single reactor. Potential advantages of

staged reactors are the ability to optimize

operating conditions for each reactor, being able to operate with only one reactor

during low syngas availability (high power

demand) situations, and the possibility of

adding fresh catalyst to the second reactor

and cascading the displaced catalyst to the

first reactor, so that the first reactor acts as

a partial guard bed, thus increasing catalyst

life and productivity.
The DOE-Owned Alternative Fuels Development Unit (AFDU) at LaPorte, Texas,

where the test operations for the LPMEOHTM Process were conducted.

If the baseload fuel gas value is taken

to be $4.00 per million Btu, then 500 TPD

of methanol can be coproduced from coal

for under $0.50 per gallon. This compares

with new methanol plants which, based on

natural gas feed at $0.50 to $1.00 per million Btu, produce chemical-grade methanol

delivered to the U.S. Gulf Coast at $0.55

to $0.60 per gallon.

Methanol coproduction, using the oncethrough LPMEOHTM Process in conjunction with IGCC, does not require a large

methanol plant size to achieve good

economies of scale. Since the gasification

plant is necessarily at an economic scale

for power generation, the syngas manufacturing economies of scale are already

achieved. Also, methanol storage and transport economies can be realized by serving

local markets, thus decreasing freight costs

over methanol shipped from the U.S. Gulf

Coast or other remote locations.

Applications for the Coproduced

Methanol

As discussed previously, economic

evaluations have indicated that the

LPMEOHTM Process can coproduce

a clean, high-quality methanol product

at less than $0.50 per gallon from coal,

an abundant local fuel source that is not

likely to show rapid price increases.

The methanol coproduced at an IGCC

electric power plant could serve local

markets for a variety of applications,

such as:

• An economical hydrogen source for

small fuel cells for transportation applications. Fuel cells are a new technology under rapid development and

offer the potential of high efficiency

and low emissions. Methanol is easily

reformed to hydrogen and is much

more easily stored and transported

than hydrogen.

• As a feedstock for the manufacture

of MTBE. MTBE is added to gasoline as an octane improver and as an

oxygenate to meet clean air mandates.

• As a clean-burning fuel for a variety

of applications, such as spark ignition engines, diesel engines, gas

turbines, etc.

• Methanol can be reformed under mild

conditions to provide a source of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, or syngas

for small industrial applications.

• As a source of peaking power at the

IGCC plant where the methanol is

produced. Methanol produced during

off-peak periods could be burned in

combustion turbines to produce

power during peak periods.
LPMEOHTM Demonstration Unit.

Conclusion

Design, construction, and startup of the

LPMEOHTM Demonstration Project went

quite satisfactorily, the only significant

problem being a later-than-scheduled

delivery of the reactor. Although there

were some initial problems, which have

been overcome with piping modifications,

operations have also proceeded smoothly.

Within ten days of first introducing

syngas to the LPMEOHTM reactor, the

unit was exceeding the design methanol

production rate. All the methanol produced

has met Eastman’s purity requirements for

downstream processing. Unit availability

has exceeded 96% since startup, and exceeded 99% during operation in 1998.

Catalyst aging with coal-derived syngas

was initially higher than with natural-gasderived syngas, but due to operational improvements, the deactivation rate has now

met or improved upon the target rate.

Successful demonstration of the

LPMEOHTM technology will add significant flexibility and dispatch benefits

to IGCC electric power plants, which

have traditionally been viewed as strictly

a baseload power generation technology.

The LPMEOHTM Process can provide

commodity methanol from any carbonaceous feedstock, such as coal which is

an abundant local fuel source that is not

expected to increase significantly in price.

Economic studies have shown that this

methanol, even at small methanol plant

sizes, is competitive with methanol from

large remote gas projects and has a freight

and cost advantage in local markets.
Bibliography

Bhatt, B.L., et al., “Adsorptive Removal

of Catalyst Poisons from Coal Gas for Methanol Synthesis,” Separation Science and Technology (Vol. 26, No. 12, pp 1559-1574), 1991.

Bhatt, B.L., et al., “Coal Gas Clean-Up

for the Liquid Phase Methanol Process,”

Twelfth North American Meeting of the

Catalysis Society (Lexington KY), May 1991.

Bhatt, B.L., et al., “Recent Developments

in Slurry Reactor Technology at the LaPorte

Alternative Fuels Development Unit,” Eighteenth International Technical Conference on

Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, April 1993.

Bhatt, B.L., et al., “Recent Results from the

LaPorte Alternative Fuels Development

Unit,” First Annual DOE Joint Power and

Fuel Systems Contractors Conference

(Pittsburgh PA), July 1996.

Brown, D.M., et al., “LPMEOH: Beyond

LaPorte - Next Steps to Commercialization,”

EPRI Fifteenth Annual Conference on Fuel

Science and Conversion (Palo Alto CA),

June 1990.

Brown, D.M., et al., “A Novel Liquid Phase

System for Methanol Synthesis,” First Tokyo

Conference on Advanced Catalytic Science

and Technology (Tokyo, Japan), July 1990.

Brown, D.M., et al., “Clean Oxygenated

Fuels from Coal,” ASME International Joint

Power Generation Conference and Exposition

(San Diego CA), October 1991.

Brown, D.M., “Government and Industry Partnership in Developing New Technologies for

Fuels and Chemicals,” 1994 International

Symposium on Gas Conversion and Utilization

(Florham Park NJ), May 1994.

Brown, W.R., et al., “Coproduction of Electricity and Methanol,” Eighth EPRI Coal

Gasification Contractors Conference

(Palo Alto CA), October 1988.

Brown, W.R., and Frenduto, F.S., “Fuel and

Power Coproduction: The Integrated Gasification/Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Demonstration Project,”

First Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference (Cleveland OH), September 1992.

Brown, W.R., and Moore, R.B., “Flexible

Electric Power Generation: The Integrated

Gasification/Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Demonstration Project,”

Third Annual Clean Coal Technology Conference (Chicago IL), September 1994.

Cook, S.L., “Commercial-Scale Demonstration of a Liquid-Phase Methanol Process,”

209th ACS National Meeting (Anaheim

CA), April 1995.

Drown, D.P. et al., “Fuel and Power

Coproduction - The Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Process Demonstration at

Kingsport,” Fifth Annual DOE Clean Coal

Technology Conference (Tampa FL),

January 1997.

Frank, M.E., “Methanol Production Scenarios,” Fourteenth Annual EPRI Fuel Science Conference (Palo Alto CA),

May 1989.

Frenduto, F.S., et al., “Liquid Phase Methanol Energy Storage with Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Generation,” Joint

ASME/IEEE Power Generation Conference

(Kansas City KS), October 1993.

Frenduto, F.S., et al., “Cost-Effective

Dispatchable Power from a Gasification

Combined-Cycle System: Liquid Phase

Methanol Energy Storage,” Power-Gen ‘93

Conference (Dallas TX), November 1993.

Frey, J.H., et al., “Further Process Improvements at the LaPorte Liquid Phase Methanol Facility,” DOE Indirect Liquefaction

Contractors Review Meeting (Pittsburgh

PA), November 1988.

Golden, T.C., et al., “Removal of Trace

Iron and Nickel Carbonyls by Adsorption,”

I&EC Research (Vol. 29, pp 502-507),

1991.

Henderson, J.L., et al., “Operating Experience at the LaPorte LPMeOH PDU,” ASME

Joint Conference on the Development and

Introduction of Methanol as an Alternate

Fuel (Columbus OH), June 1986.

Heydorn, E.C., et al., “Liquid Phase Methanol Process Demonstration,” Industrial

Catalyst News, May 1998.

Heydorn, E.C., et al., “Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Initial Operating Experience,” The 15th Annual World Methanol

Conference (Tampa FL), December 1997.

Heydorn, E.C., et al., “Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Project Operational Experience,” EPRI Gasification Technologies

Conference (San Francisco CA),

October 1998.

Heydorn, E.C., et al., “Liquid Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Project Start-Up,” EPRI

Gasification Technologies Conference

(San Francisco CA), October 1997.

Hsiung, T.H., et al., “Recent Research

Advances on the LPMeOH Process,” DOE

Indirect Liquefaction Contractors Review

Meeting (Pittsburgh PA), November 1988.

Hsiung, T.H., et al., “Demonstration of a

Slurry Phase Shift Process in the Alternative Fuels Development Unit,” DOE Contractors Conference (Pittsburgh PA),

September 1992.
Lewnard, J.J., and Hsiung, T.H., “Temperature Effects on Catalyst Activity in the

Liquid Phase Methanol Process,” Tenth

North American Catalysis Society Meeting

(San Diego CA), May 1987.

Mednick, R.L., and Klosek, J., “Progress

in the LaPorte LPMeOH PDU Project,”

AIChE Spring 1986 National Meeting

(New Orleans LA), April 1986.

Mednick, R.L., et al., “Design Issues

for Once-Through Methanol Using the

LPMeOH Process,” Eleventh Annual EPRI

Clean Liquid and Solid Fuels Contractors

Conference (Palo Alto CA), May 1986.

Moore, R.B., et al., “Economies of the

Integrated Production of Electricity and

Clean Liquid Fuels,” EPRI Conference

on Technologies for Generating Electricity

in the Twenty-First Century

(San Francisco CA), November 1989.

Moore, R.B., “Coproduction of Power and

Methanol Via IGCC and LPMeOH,” 1989

World Methanol Conference (Houston TX),

December 1989.

Osterstock, E.R., “Dispatchable IGCC

Facilities: Flexibility Through

Coproduction,” Power-Gen Europe ‘97

Conference (Madrid, Spain), June 1997.

Rao, P., et al., “Recent Laboratory Activities Towards Developing the Liquid Phase

Methanol Process,” DOE Indirect Liquefaction Contractors Review Meeting (Pittsburgh PA), December 1986.

Roberts, G.W., et al., “Catalyst Poisoning

During the Synthesis of Methanol in a

Slurry Reactor,” Chemical Engineering

Science (Vol. 45, No. 8, pp 2713-2720),

July 1990.

Roberts, G.W., et al., “Catalyst Deactivation

During the Synthesis of Methanol in

a Slurry Reactor,” Eleventh International

Symposium on Chemical Reaction Engineering (Toronto, Canada), July 1990.

Schaub, E.S., et al., “An Update on Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Technology

and the Kingsport Demonstration Project,”

Fourth Annual DOE Clean Coal Technology

Conference (Denver CO), September 1995.

Stein, V.E., et al., “Commercial Scale Demonstration of the Liquid Phase Methanol

(LPMEOHTM) Process: Initial Operating

Experience,” Sixth Clean Coal Technology

Conference (Reno NV), April-May 1998.

Studer, D.W., et al., “An Update of the

LaPorte Liquid Phase Methanol Program,”

DOE Indirect Liquefaction Contractors

Review Meeting (Pittsburgh PA),

December 1987.

Studer, D.W., et al., “Status of the Development of Methanol Synthesis by the LPMeOH

Process,” DOE Indirect Liquefaction Contractors Review Meeting (Pittsburgh PA),

November 1989.

Studer, D.W., et al., “Status Report on the

Liquid Phase Methanol Process,” Fourteenth

Annual EPRI Fuel Science Conference (Palo

Alto CA), May 1989.

Studer, D.W., and Brown, D.M., “Current

Development and Future Commercial Demonstration of the LPMeOH Process,” Sixteenth

International Conference on Coal and Slurry

Technology (Clearwater FL), April 1991.

Tijm, P.J.A., et al., “Overview of the Liquid

Phase Methanol (LPMEOHTM) Process

Demonstration at Kingsport,” AIChE Spring

1997 Meeting (Houston TX), March 1997.

Tijm, P.J.A., et al., “Advances in Liquid

Phase Technology,” ACS 1997 Spring

Meeting (San Francisco CA), April 1997.

Toseland, B.A., et al., “Flow Patterns

in a High Pressure Slurry-Bubble-Column

Reactor Under Reaction Conditions,” Second

International Conference on Gas-LiquidSolid Reaction Engineering, March 1995.

Tsao, T.R., and Heydorn, E.C., “LPMeOH

PDU Results,” DOE/FE Indirect Liquefaction Contractors Review Meeting,

December 1985.

Tsao, T.R., and Rao, P., “Development of

LPMeOH Process: An Update,” Eleventh

Annual EPRI Clean Liquid and Solid Fuels

Contractors Conference (Palo Alto CA),

May 1986.

Underwood, R.P., and Hsiung, T.H., “Syngas

Conversion to Mixed Alcohols in a Slurry

Reactor,” AIChE Summer National Meeting

(Pittsburgh PA), August 1991.

Waller, F.J., et al., “Development of Alternative Fuels from Coal-Derived Syngas,”

DOE Contractors Conference

(Pittsburgh PA), September 1991.

Waller, F.J., “Conversion of Syngas to

Chemicals,” ACS 1996 Spring Meeting

(New Orleans LA), March 1996.

Weimer, R.F., et al., “Laboratory Kinetics

and Mass Transfer in the LPMeOH Process,”

AIChE National Meeting, November 1987.

Weimer, R.F., et al., “Recent Research

and Field Modifications for the LaPorte

LPMeOH Program,” Thirteenth Annual EPRI

Conference on Fuel Science and Conversion

(Palo Alto CA), May 1988.
The Clean Coal Technology Program

The Clean Coal Technology (CCT)

Program is a unique partnership between the federal government and

industry that has as its primary goal

the successful introduction of new

clean coal utilization technologies into

the energy marketplace. With its roots

in the acid rain debate of the 1980s,

the program is on the verge of meeting

its early objective of broadening the

range of technological solutions available to eliminate acid rain concerns

associated with coal use. Moreover,

the program has evolved and has been

expanded to address the need for new,

high-efficiency power-generating technologies that will allow coal to continue to be a fuel option well into the

21st century.

Begun in 1985 and expanded in

1987 consistent with the recommendation of the U.S. and Canadian Special

Envoys on Acid Rain, the program

has been implemented through a

series of five nationwide competitive

solicitations. Each solicitation has

been associated with specific government funding and program objectives.

After five solicitations, the CCT Program comprises a total of 40 projects

located in 18 states with a capital

investment value of nearly $6 billion.

DOE’s share of the total project costs

is about $2 billion, or approximately

34% of the total. The projects’ industrial participants (i.e., the non-DOE

participants) are providing the remainder—nearly $4 billion.

Clean coal technologies being demonstrated under the CCT Program are

establishing a technology base that

will enable the nation to meet more

stringent energy and environmental

goals. Most of the demonstrations are

being conducted at commercial scale,

in actual user environments, and

under circumstances typical of commercial operations. These features

allow the potential of the technologies

to be evaluated in their intended commercial applications. Each application

addresses one of the following four

market sectors:

• Advanced electric power

generation

• Environmental control devices

• Coal processing for clean fuels

• Industrial applications

Given its programmatic success,

the CCT Program serves as a model

for other cooperative government/

industry programs aimed at introducing new technologies into the

commercial marketplace.
Contacts for CCT Project

and U.S. DOE CCT Program

U.S. Department of Energy

Contacts

Thomas A. Sarkus

Director

Major Projects & Agreements Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Energy Technology Center

P.O. Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 892-5981

(412) 892-4775 fax

sarkus@fetc.doe.gov

Robert M. Kornosky

Project Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Energy Technology Center

P.O. Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 892-4521

(412) 892-4775 fax

kornosky@fetc.doe.gov

C. Lowell Miller

Director

Coal Fuels & Industrial Systems

U.S. Department of Energy

FE-24 Germantown Bldg.

Germantown MD 20874-1290

(301) 903-9451

(301) 903-2238 fax

lowell.miller@hq.doe.gov

This report is available on the Internet

at U.S. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy’s home page: www.fe.doe.gov

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

Contact

Edward C. Heydorn

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.

7201 Hamilton Blvd.

Allentown PA 18195-1501

(610) 481-7099

(610) 706-7299 fax

heydorec@apci.com

Eastman Chemical Company

Contact

Barry T. Street

Eastman Chemical Company

P.O. Box 511

Kingsport TN 37662

(423) 229-6062

(423) 229-7268 fax

btstreet@eastman.com

To Receive

Additional

Information

To be placed on the Department

of Energy’s distribution list for future

information on the Clean Coal

Technology Program, the demonstration projects it is financing,

or other Fossil Energy Programs,

contact:

Robert C. Porter, Director

Office of Communication

U.S. Department of Energy

FE-5

1000 Independence Ave SW

Washington DC 20585

(202) 586-6503

(202) 586-5146 fax

robert.porter@hq.doe.gov

Otis Mills

Public Information Office

U.S. Department of Energy

Federal Energy Technology Center

P.O Box 10940

Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940

(412) 892-5890

(412) 892-6195 fax

mills@fetc.doe.gov
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFDU ...................................................... Alternative Fuels Development Unit

AFFTU .................................................... Aternative Fuels Field Test Unit

CCT ......................................................... Clean Coal Technology

DME ........................................................ Dimethyl Ether

DOE ......................................................... Department of Energy

HHV ........................................................ Higher heating value

IGCC........................................................ Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

LPMEOHTM ............................................ Liquid Phase Methanol Process

MTBE ...................................................... Methyl tertiary butyl ether

SBCR ....................................................... Slurry Bubble Column Reactor

TPD.......................................................... Tons per day