How to produce coal from fluegas

I. THE ENERGY SITUATION

39%, or 6,600 billion kilowatt-hours, of the electricity produced in the world comes from turbines powered by coal.[1] As the most abundant fossil fuel in the U.S., coal-fired plants accounted for 50% of the electricity consumed domestically and, in order to meet domestic consumption, U.S. miners produced 1.145 billion short tons in 2007. Although considered a nonrenewable resource, coal is the largest source of electrical power because the massive amount of coals reserves make it an affordable source of electricity in comparison to its closest competitors, natural gas and nuclear energy. Because it is so inexpensive, the Steel industry uses a type of coal baked in a furnace, known as coking coal, to manufacture iron into steel. As a result, coal offers a cheap and abundant way to produce electricity and steel.

Coal power plants are the cheapest energy producers (0.05 – 0.08 US dollar/kwh) but they produce the largest quantity of the global warming gas, CO2. Solar energy plants are the cleanest but their cost of investment is very high (2,500 – 3,500 US dollar/kw). Electrical energy is the best form of energy for the industry but storing big amounts through long times is insolvable at a low price.

The biggest energy users of the globe can be found in the northern temperate zone. The biggest amount of sunbeam reaches the area of the equator, the northern parts of Africa, the United States and the southern region of China.

This problem is being solved by producing energy where there is much sunbeam and then being transported by tubes to places where it is needed the most.

But the costs of this method are enormous. (The German DESERTEC, for example, advises a system for transporting the energy from the Middle East to the European Union which would cost 20 billion euros and it could transport up to 10GW energy. It means that it would cost 2000 euros/1 Kw. That is approximately as much as the price of the solar collector system which produces the energy. In other words, the transportation of the energy produced by the solar collector system would double the investment costs. This problem does not occur with a photovoltaic element system becasue its investment costs are so much higher that the transportation costs do not make a big sense.)

In the temperate zone, the annual dispersion of the energy is not adequate either. Most of the energy is needed in the winter, however the sunbeams are the least effective in the winter. In the summer the number of sunbeams is too much, in the winter it is too few. The situation is the same at the named energy producing areas too.

The real solution would be producing the energy in the summer where it is needed, and then storing it till winter. But there haven’t been any effective or profitable methods for doing this yet.

There are only a few methods for storing the energy for a few hours. With electrical energy even this is impossible.

II. THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM

If you ask one of your, well-trained chemist acquaintances, whether there is a chemical reaction that can, from the fluegas of coal-fired power plants, produce coal in aqueous solution, without external energy, on atmospheric pressure and at room temperature, the answer is going to be, there is no such reaction.

On the website (www.europeanscience.net) there is presented – amongst others – EOW, and a video made of the experiment mentioned within.

This video, of course, could be manipulated, so I offer a proof attempt.

With one or more of your chemist friends, we can go to any place where we can buy soda water. You should bring two empty and clean test tubes. Then we should do everything the EOW intends for, i.e. I pour tap water in one of the test tubes, and in the other I pour soda water. Then I add the “panacea” to both vials. We wait approximately 15 minutes and then we take a look at the result. After that I wash the precipitated black substance before your eyes. Then we together bring it to a laboratory you trust, and there they examine whether it is coal or not.

This could be an essentially important sensation of basic research, environment and economy.

Why this is fundamentally new discovery?

Nowadays, scientists work out hundreds of new reactions daily. So a new one is not such a significant discovery. The oxidation of coal is a highly exothermic process (the most popular burn), its reversal is i.e. strongly endothermic. So endothermic, than the thermal decomposition of carbon-dioxide start only over 2500 Celsius degree. For this reaction to still occur, a really strong reducing effect is needed. But not too strong! There are reactions known for reducing carbon-dioxide. Even to methane. But there is no such reaction known, that goes to coal and nowhere further.

Now that is why!

Below I describe its economic significance.

1. It is feasible anywhere on the Earth, and this really can’t be told about too many energy supplying processes.

2. The only technology that not only doesn’t increase carbon-dioxide emission, but it decreases it.

The processes that produce energy from fossil energy carriers also release carbon-dioxide into the environment. The renewables don’t, but they reduce carbon-dioxide emission only by substituting them. Technologies related to storing carbon-dioxide only “hide” it.

3. The only technology that manufactures conventional, high quality fossil fuel (and also valuable products such as material for the production of car tires).

With this technology such cycle can be formed, that converts the energy of the sun optionally into either electric or heat energy, without the enormous investment costs and the land need of the so called renewable energies, and the consumption of the fossil energy carriers.

4. The only technology that can terminate the carbon-dioxide emission of the biggest carbon-dioxide emitter.

That way there is no need of the closure of thermal power plants and there is no need of some really expensive technology to replace them, and last, there is no need to tolerate the harm they do with their carbon-dioxide emission.

5. There is no security risk. (Neither because of a natural disaster, nor because of terrorism.)

I think after Fukushima, I don’t need to emphasize its significance.

6. It frees important countries from the dependence of energy transports transported from riskful countries.

After the closure of the oil-bearing after the Russan-Ukranian gas debates, I don’t need to accent on its importance either.

7. It is a product that can be stored for unlimited time, securely and with low costs.

That is why it can be used whenever it is necessary. There is no need of such expensive, ant not everywhere feasible solutions such as the mountain aquifer. There are no problems when the solar radiation is not appropriate or the wind isn’t blowing enough. And there is no need of complex and expensive dispatching like at the electrical network.

8. It is a product that can be sent anywhere, without building up an expensive infrastructure.

It is unlike the solutions planned for utilizing the energy of solar radiation or the plans about the cross-continent electrical networks.

Based on these, I believe it has place -if my proof attempt verifies my statement- that you support the development of the details on a fitting level and in a proper way which I can even contribute with.

Dr. Endre Simonyi