Lignites - Their Occurrence, Production and Utilisation PDF

Lignites: Their Occurrence,
Production and Utilisation
Clifford Jones
Federation University Australia
Whittles Publishing
Published by
Whittles Publishing,
Dunbeath,
Caithness KW6 6EG,
Scotland, UK
www.whittlespublishing.com
© 2016 J. C. Jones
ISBN 978-184995-180-7
All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, recording or otherwise
without prior permission of the publishers.
Print managed by Jellyfish Solutions

Preface
The writing of this book has been a deeply satisfying experience. Lignites are a fuel
resource upon which there has been heavy reliance for a long time in several parts
of the world, and a comprehensive text on them at a time when there is such urgency
on two fronts – awareness of the finiteness of energy reserves and the need to control
greenhouse gases – is timely and, indeed, a welcome challenge to the writer.
The research literature has been extensively drawn on, and the fact that the literature
contains a good deal of recent work on lignites is evidence of the place they have in
world energy supply in the second decade of the 21st century.
Thanks are due to Whittles Publishing, with whom I have by now had a very good
working relationship for 20 years. I also acknowledge advice from Professor Roy
Jackson and Dr Marc Marshall.
Clifford Jones
Churchill, Victoria
xvii
Contents
Preface ................................................................................................................................ xvii
CHAPTER 1
The nature of lignites
1.1 Lignite in popular conception ............................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background on coal formation ............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Brown coals vis-à-vis black coals ........................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Calorific values .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Hardness .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Thermal decomposition ........................................................................................... 4
1.4 Moisture and its removal ....................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Concluding remarks................................................................................................................ 6
1.6 References ............................................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2
Petrography
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Maceral groups and examples from lignite usage .............................................................. 9
2.3 Examples of applications to lignites ................................................................................... 10
2.4 Lithotypes ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Subsea lignite........................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 Autochthonous and allochthonous lignites ....................................................................... 13
2.7 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................. 13
2.8 References ............................................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 3
Lignite/brown coal in pre-industrial times and early in
the industrial era
3.1 Examples ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.3 References ............................................................................................................................. 18
vii
CHAPTER 4
Electricity generation I – Germany
4.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 German power stations using lignite ................................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 20
4.2.2 Offleben and Buschhaus power stations ............................................................. 21
4.2.3 Grevenbroich-Neurath power station .................................................................. 21
4.2.4 Frimmersdorf power station ................................................................................. 22
4.2.5 Lippendorf power station ..................................................................................... 24
4.2.6 Jänschwalde power station ................................................................................... 25
4.2.7 Boxberg power station .......................................................................................... 26
4.2.8 Niederaussem power plant [42] ............................................................................ 26
4.3 Further comments ................................................................................................................ 27
4.4 Lignite in Austria .................................................................................................................. 28
4.5 References ............................................................................................................................. 29
Appendix to Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................ 32
Supercritical steam and its application to steam turbines in power generation................... 32
References in the Appendix ....................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER 5
Electricity generation II – Other European countries
5.1 The Czech Republic ............................................................................................................... 33
5.1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 33
5.1.2 Lignite deposits ....................................................................................................... 33
5.1.3 Prunéřov power stations ........................................................................................ 33
5.1.4 Hodonin power station .......................................................................................... 34
5.1.5 Opatovice power station ........................................................................................ 35
5.1.6 Other major lignite-fired power stations in the Czech Republic........................ 35
5.2 Poland ................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 35
5.2.2 Polish lignites .......................................................................................................... 35
5.2.3 Bełchatów power station....................................................................................... 36
5.2.4 Pątnów power station ........................................................................................... 36
5.2.5 Turów power station .............................................................................................. 37
5.2.6 Adamów power station ......................................................................................... 37
5.2.7 Proposed Legnica power station........................................................................... 38
5.2.8 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................... 38
5.3 Greece ................................................................................................................................. 38
5.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 38
5.3.2 Ptolemaida power station ..................................................................................... 38
5.3.3 Agios Dimitrios power station............................................................................... 39
5.3.4 Megalopolis power station.................................................................................... 40
viii
5.3.5 Amyntaio power station ........................................................................................ 41
5.3.6 Kardia power station ............................................................................................. 41
5.4 Bulgaria ................................................................................................................................. 42
5.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 42
5.4.2 The Maritza complex.............................................................................................. 43
5.4.3 The Bobov Dol coalfield and power generation there from .............................. 43
5.5 Hungary ................................................................................................................................. 43
5.5.1 Brown coal deposits................................................................................................ 43
5.5.2 Matra power plant ................................................................................................. 44
5.6 Turkey ................................................................................................................................. 44
5.7 Romania................................................................................................................................. 45
5.8 The former Yugoslavia ......................................................................................................... 45
5.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 45
5.8.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina ........................................................................................ 45
5.8.3 Slovenia ................................................................................................................... 46
5.8.4 Serbia ....................................................................................................................... 46
5.8.5 Kosovo ..................................................................................................................... 47
5.8.6 Montenegro ............................................................................................................ 47
5.8.7 Macedonia (Republic of)........................................................................................ 47
5.8.8 Croatia ..................................................................................................................... 47
5.9 Italy ................................................................................................................................. 47
5.10 Other European countries.................................................................................................. 48
5.11 References ........................................................................................................................... 48
CHAPTER 6
Electricity generation III – North America
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 56
6.2 North Dakota (ND) ............................................................................................................... 56
6.2.1 ND lignites ............................................................................................................... 56
6.2.2 Coal Creek power station ...................................................................................... 56
6.2.3 Coyote power station and R.M. Heskett power station ..................................... 56
6.2.4 Leland Olds and Antelope Valley power stations ............................................... 57
6.2.5 Milton R. Young power station ............................................................................. 57
6.2.6 Spiritwood power station ...................................................................................... 57
6.2.7 Coal balls in ND ....................................................................................................... 58
6.3 Montana (MT) ...................................................................................................................... 58
6.4 Texas (TX) .............................................................................................................................. 58
6.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 58
6.4.2 Petrographic comments ......................................................................................... 58
6.4.3 Luminant Oak Grove and Sandow power plants................................................. 59
6.4.4 Luminant Big Brown power plant ......................................................................... 59
6.4.5 Luminant Martin Lake power plant ...................................................................... 59
ix
6.4.6 Luminant Monticello power plant ........................................................................ 60
6.4.7 San Miguel Electric Cooperative Inc. power plant [39] ....................................... 60
6.4.8 AEP Southwestern Electric Power Co. power plant (the ‘Pirkey power plant’) 61
6.5 Mississippi (MS)..................................................................................................................... 61
6.5.1 MS lignites ............................................................................................................... 61
6.5.2 Red Hills power plant, Chactow County............................................................... 61
6.5.3 Kemper County ....................................................................................................... 62
6.6 Louisiana (LA) ....................................................................................................................... 62
6.7 Arkansas (AR)........................................................................................................................ 63
6.8 Further comments ................................................................................................................ 63
6.9 Canada ................................................................................................................................. 63
6.9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 63
6.9.2 Boundary Dam ........................................................................................................ 64
6.9.3 Other lignite-fired power stations in Canada...................................................... 64
6.9.4 Concluding remarks................................................................................................ 65
6.10 Mexico ................................................................................................................................. 65
6.11 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................................ 65
6.12 References ................................................................................................................ 65
CHAPTER 7
Electricity generation IV – Asia
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 70
7.2 China ................................................................................................................................. 70
7.2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 70
7.2.2 Examples of electricity generation in China from lignites.................................. 70
7.2.3 Concluding remarks................................................................................................ 71
7.3 Japan ................................................................................................................................. 72
7.4 Thailand ................................................................................................................................. 72
7.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 72
7.4.2 Mae Moh ................................................................................................................. 72
7.4.3 ’Thai-Lao Lignite’ .................................................................................................... 73
7.5 Laos and Vietnam ................................................................................................................. 73
7.6 Malaysia ................................................................................................................................. 74
7.7 Indonesia ............................................................................................................................... 74
7.8 Myanmar ............................................................................................................................... 74
7.9 Israel and bordering countries ............................................................................................ 75
7.11 References ............................................................................................................................ 75
x
CHAPTER 8
Electricity generation V – The Indian sub-continent
8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 78
8.2 Some scenes of lignite usage in power generation in India ............................................ 78
8.2.1 Rajasthan ................................................................................................................ 78
8.2.2 Tamil Nadu .............................................................................................................. 79
8.2.3 Gujurat .................................................................................................................... 80
8.2.4 Goa .......................................................................................................................... 80
8.2.5 The Kashmir Valley................................................................................................. 80
8.3 Pakistan ................................................................................................................................. 81
8.5 References ............................................................................................................................. 82
CHAPTER 9
Electricity generation VI – The Former Soviet Union
9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 84
9.2 Russia ..................................................................................................................................... 84
9.3 Kazakhstan............................................................................................................................ 86
9.4 Uzbekistan ............................................................................................................................ 86
9.5 Belarus ................................................................................................................................... 86
9.6 Georgia .................................................................................................................................. 86
9.7 Concluding remarks.............................................................................................................. 86
9.8 References ............................................................................................................................. 87
CHAPTER 10
Electricity generation VII – Australia
10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 89
10.2 Victoria ................................................................................................................................ 89
10.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 89
10.2.2 The coalfields and power stations ...................................................................... 89
10.3 South Australia ................................................................................................................... 91
10.4 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................... 91
10.5 References ........................................................................................................................... 92
xi
CHAPTER 11
Briquettes
11.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 94
11.2 Briquette production by region ........................................................................................ 94
11.2.1 Europe and the states of the FSU ........................................................................ 94
11.2.2 North America....................................................................................................... 96
11.2.3 Mongolia ............................................................................................................... 96
11.2.4 Australia................................................................................................................. 97
11.2.5 New Zealand.......................................................................................................... 97
11.2.6 India ....................................................................................................................... 97
11.3 Briquettes made from lignite plus biomass...................................................................... 97
11.5 References ........................................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER 12
Carbonised products
12.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 101
12.2 Some principles of lignite carbonisation ........................................................................ 101
12.3 Uses of lignite char ........................................................................................................... 102
12.3.1 Introduction and background ........................................................................... 102
12.3.2 Lignite-derived activated carbons .................................................................... 103
12.4 Hard chars ......................................................................................................................... 106
12.5 Char briquettes ................................................................................................................. 106
12.6 Char combustion............................................................................................................... 107
12.7 Concluding remarks.......................................................................................................... 108
12.8 References ......................................................................................................................... 108
CHAPTER 13
Gasification
13.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 110
13.2 Town gas............................................................................................................................ 110
13.3 Synthesis gas ......................................................................................................................112
13.4 Synthetic natural gas ........................................................................................................ 114
13.5 Lignite char gasification ................................................................................................... 116
13.6 Producer gas from lignite ................................................................................................ 116
13.7 Gasification with supercritical water ...............................................................................117
13.8 Co-gasification ...................................................................................................................117
13.9 Underground gasification of lignite ............................................................................... 119
13.9.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 119
xii
13.9.2 Angren, Uzbekistan ............................................................................................ 119
13.9.3 Current projects in underground gasification of lignite................................. 119
13.10 Coal-bed methane from lignites ................................................................................... 120
13.10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 120
13.10.2 Examples ............................................................................................................ 120
13.11 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................ 122
13.12 References ....................................................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER 14
Conversion to liquid fuels
14.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 126
14.2 F-T activity in Germany at the time of World War II ..................................................... 126
14.3 Bergius hydrogenation activity in Germany at the time of World War II ................... 127
14.4 More recent F-T activity ................................................................................................... 128
14.5 Hydrogenation by donor solvents .................................................................................. 128
14.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 128
14.5.2 Summary of selected investigations ................................................................. 129
14.5.3 Hydrogenation with carbon monoxide and water.......................................... 131
14.6 Other activity in liquid fuel production ......................................................................... 132
14.7 Concluding remarks.......................................................................................................... 132
14.8 References ......................................................................................................................... 133
CHAPTER 15
Chemical substances from lignites
15.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 135
15.2 Montan wax ...................................................................................................................... 135
15.2.1 Production ........................................................................................................... 135
15.2.2 Uses ...................................................................................................................... 136
15.3 Use of supercritical fluids ................................................................................................. 136
15.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 136
15.3.2 Examples.............................................................................................................. 136
15.4 Chemicals from solvent extraction ................................................................................. 138
15.5 Specialised products ......................................................................................................... 140
15.5.1 Drilling fluid additives ........................................................................................ 140
15.5.2 Carbon electrodes .............................................................................................. 140
15.5.3 Jet ......................................................................................................................... 141
15.6 Treatment with oxidising reagents ................................................................................. 141
15.7 Use of lignite fly ash in carbon sequestration ............................................................... 142
15.8 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................... 143
15.9 References ......................................................................................................................... 143
xiii
CHAPTER 16
Unworked lignite deposits
16.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 147
16.2 Examples ........................................................................................................................... 147
16.3 Evaluation of the utilisation potential of the unworked lignite .................................. 149
16.5 References ......................................................................................................................... 150
CHAPTER 17
Hazards with lignites
17.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 151
17.2 Seam fires at lignite mines ............................................................................................... 151
17.2.1 Examples .............................................................................................................. 151
17.2.2 Further example: Hazelwood, Victoria, Australia 2014................................... 151
17.2.3 Further comments............................................................................................... 152
17.3 Dust explosions ................................................................................................................. 152
17.3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 152
17.3.2 Literature survey ................................................................................................. 152
17.3.3 Case studies ......................................................................................................... 153
17.4 Spontaneous heating ....................................................................................................... 154
17.5 Concluding remarks .......................................................................................................... 154
17.6 References ......................................................................................................................... 154
CHAPTER 18
Leonardite
18.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 156
18.2 Sources of leonardite ....................................................................................................... 156
18.3 Review of selected literature on leonardite .................................................................. 157
18.5 References ......................................................................................................................... 158
CHAPTER 19
Examples of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at lignite-
utilising plants
19.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 160
19.2 Examples............................................................................................................................ 160
19.3 Electrical output penalty ................................................................................................. 162
xiv
19.5 References ......................................................................................................................... 163
CHAPTER 20
Co-combustion of lignites with other fuels
20.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 164
20.2 Co-combustion with biomass .......................................................................................... 164
20.3 Co-combustion with solid wastes ................................................................................... 165
20.4 Co-combustion with higher rank coals .......................................................................... 165
20.5 Co-combustion with peat ................................................................................................ 166
20.7 References ......................................................................................................................... 166
CHAPTER 21
Comparisons with peat
21.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 168
21.2 Petrographic comparison ................................................................................................. 168
21.3 Calorific values and combustion ..................................................................................... 169
21.4 Ash-forming constituents ................................................................................................ 170
21.5 Carbonisation and gasification potential ....................................................................... 170
21.6 Conversion to liquid fuels ................................................................................................. 171
21.7 Wax from peat .................................................................................................................. 171
21.8 Supercritical extractions................................................................................................... 172
21.9 Hazards with peat............................................................................................................. 172
21.10 White peat ....................................................................................................................... 172
21.11 Sapropels.......................................................................................................................... 172
21.12 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................ 172
21.13 References ....................................................................................................................... 173
CHAPTER 22
Comparison with sub-bituminous coals
22.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 176
22.2 Petrographic composition ............................................................................................... 176
22.3 Carbonisation and gasification ....................................................................................... 177
22.4 Coal-bed methane from sub-bituminous coals ............................................................. 178
22.5 Conversion to liquid fuels ................................................................................................ 178
xv
22.6 Humalite ............................................................................................................................ 178
22.7 Amounts of lignite and of sub-bituminous coal mined ................................................ 178
22.8 Hazards with sub-bituminous coals ................................................................................ 178
22.10 References ....................................................................................................................... 179
CHAPTER 23
Lignite originating in isolated or undeveloped locations
23.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 181
23.2 Examples ........................................................................................................................... 181
23.4 References ......................................................................................................................... 185
CHAPTER 24
National and international standards appertaining to
brown coals and lignites
24.1 Selected standards and comments .................................................................................. 187
24.2 References .......................................................................................................................... 191
CHAPTER 24 ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................ 193
xvi
CHAPTER 1
THE NATURE OF LIGNITES
1.1 Lignite in popular conception

Lignite is also known as brown coal, and a comment on the equivalence or otherwise
of the two terms is made later in the chapter. Irrespective of formal definitions it is a
fact that lignites are brown, and it sometimes surprises people to be informed not only
that there is coal which is brown in colour but that there is heavy dependence on it in
many countries.1
There are differences other than in colour between brown coals and black coals and an
account of these follows. It will be preceded by the important information that lignite
accounts for 23% (tonnage basis) of the known coal reserves of the world [1].
1.2 Background on coal formation

Coalification is the process by which, on a timescale of tens or hundreds of millions
of years [2], vegetation is converted to coal. The maturing of coal on this timescale
from one rank to another is termed the coalification sequence, details of which are well
known. A graphic representation of it can be found in [3] and summarised: vegetation
→ peat → lignite → sub-bituminous coal → bituminous coal → anthracite.
The first step is that vegetation becomes immersed in water where, by the action of mi-
croorganisms, it is converted to peat. Biochemical action ends there and factors in the
advance along the coalification sequence are pressure, temperature and time. The next
stage beyond that is lignite a.k.a. brown coal and the subject of this book. The coalifi-
cation sequence from vegetation to anthracite indicates how compression accompanies
increase in coal rank. That is the meaning of ‘rank’ in coal science – degree of advance
along the peat-to-anthracite sequence. Hence a lignite is a low-rank coal and a bitumi-
nous coal a high-rank one. In some conventions the terms are used in their comparative
forms: a lignite is a lower rank coal and a bituminous or anthracite a higher rank coal.
The term ‘low-rank coals’ used generically takes in sub-bituminous. In a few countries,
as will be mentioned in the text, a distinction is made between brown coal and lignite but
this is the exception rather than the rule, and a reader who wishes to do so will be able
to confirm that the two terms are widely used synonymously.
When a lay person is informed that there is such a thing as brown coal, to enquire
whether it is ‘like peat’ is a natural and indeed an intelligent response. The difference is
clear enough on close comparison of the respective substances. The plant material evi-
dent in the peat is present in lignite but with a changed appearance, having undergone
what some coverages of the subject call ‘organic metamorphism’ [4], itself an effect of
the compression referred to. This takes the discussion into the realm of coal petrog-
1 Black coal is a recognised term in coal science, denoting coals from bituminous upwards in the
coalification sequence, that is, bituminous to anthracite.
1
LigniTEs: THEiR OCCuRREnCE, PROduCTiOn And uTiLisATiOn
raphy which, as it relates to lignites, has a chapter to itself later in the book. There is
return to this theme in section 21.2.
1.3 Brown coals vis-à-vis black coals

1.3.1 Calorific values
Differences are major and include the highly important property of calorific value. Se-
lected values from the literature are given in Table 1.1 and must be viewed in the light of
the following. A brown coal in the ‘bed-moist’ state, that is, in the coalfield before min-
ing, will be at least 40% moisture and possibly as high as 65%. Water loss simply by nat-
ural evaporation on standing after being mined will double the calorific value, or more
than double it. With any rank of coal, the calorific value depends on the ash content.
Table 1.1 Calorific values of selected coals.
COAL CALORIFIC VALUE

< 10 MJ kg–1.
Victorian brown coal, bed-moist
65% moisture in the raw state
[5]
(see comments on moisture in text)
Coal received at 38% moisture dried to 29% moisture.
Lignite from Coal Creek, North
Calorific value raised from 6200 to 7100 Btu lb –1 ≡ 14.5
Dakota, USA [6]
to 16.6 MJ kg–1
Lignites from Mae Moh, In the range 9.1–12.7 MJ kg–1.
Thailand [7] Ash contents in the range 13–45%
Sub-bituminous coal from
8683 Btu lb –1 ≡ 20 MJ kg–1
Powder River Basin, USA [8]
28.5 MJ kg–1.
Pittsburgh bituminous [9]
Value corresponding to a sample 9% in ash
German anthracites [11] 27–35 MJ kg–1
Iranian anthracite [12] 32.6 MJ kg–1
Tuncbilek lignite, Turkey [13] 20 MJ kg–1
Victorian brown coals have two features which to some degree offset the high moisture
in potential for usage and marketability: they are low in ash and in sulphur. The contents
of the second row of the table require no comment beyond that non-SI units are still prev-
alent in the USA. Moving on to the next row, the Thai lignites were only up to about 15%
water as tested. Clearly the low calorific value is due to the extremely high ash. There is
more on the lignites from Mae Moh in Chapter 7. The Powder River Basin is partly in
Wyoming and crosses the state border with Montana. The coal from there is 6.6% in ash
and this is one of the factors in the quite high calorific value. Higher still is the value for
a Pittsburgh bituminous coal. Up to and including the penultimate row the entries in the
table are in ascending order of rank, and the increase in calorific value with rank is clear
although this trend can be obscured by uncommonly high ash. There are bituminous
2
THE nATuRE OF LigniTEs
coals of 15% or more ash content, notably in South Africa [10]. The table continues with
the range of values for anthracites occurring in Germany. That for the anthracite in the
following row is as high as one will encounter. The moisture content of the Turkish lignite
which features in the final row had been reduced to 10% from the bed-moist state.
It is evident that ash is a major factor in the calorific value of coal of any rank. It derives
from minerals and inorganics in the coal. The plant life from which coal is derived contains
a small proportion of inorganic material, and to that is added minerals present in the en-
vironment in which decomposition of the vegetation took place [14]. Anticipating the next
chapter, uptake of minerals occurs during ‘maceration’ (see section 2.1 for a definition).
1.3.2 Hardness
A contrast between brown coals and black coals almost as marked as the obvious one of
colour is that the former are soft and the latter hard: ‘soft coal’ and ‘hard coal’ are quite
acceptable terms distinguishing lignites from bituminous coals or anthracites. The
hardness of any particular coal is determined quantitatively as the ‘grindability’, meas-
urable as the Hardgrove index [15]. ‘Grindability’ is perhaps the more useful term, as
many coals are destined to be burnt as pulverised fuel with particle sizes of ≈ 100 μm.
In the conceptually and experimentally simple Hardgrove index determination a known

weight of the coal under examination is subjected to a specified amount of energy by
manual application of a ball mill. Size analysis of the resulting particles is carried
out, and the coal having been tested is placed on a scale from 30 (high resistance to
grinding) to 100 (low resistance to grinding). The standards bodies (see Chapter 24)
make available for purchase materials of particular Hardgrove index for calibration
[16]. Table 1.2 gives some Hardgrove indices from lignites and some from hard coals
for comparison.
Table 1.2 Hardgrove indices.
COAL HARDGROVE INDEX

TX lignite [17] 48
Victorian brown coal briquettes [18]2 40–45
Anthracites, in general [19] 35–40
Indian lignite ‘as received’ [20] 84
Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa, anthracite [21] 57
Set of 30 Turkish lignites [22] 30–66
The value given for ‘TX lignite’ is one which has been taken to apply approximately to
all lignites in Texas, and in [17] it is pointed out that for any coal the Hardgrove index
has a significant dependence on moisture content. The remarkably high value for the
Indian lignite should be seen as reflecting its ‘as received’ condition, which means that
2 Briquetting is compaction of crushed coal and moulding to make coal pieces of regular shape, and is
fully discussed in a later part of this book.
3
large quantities of moisture had been retained. This figure, of intrinsic interest though
it is, cannot be compared with the figure for Victorian brown coal briquettes where
there would have been moisture loss before (by evaporation) and during (by pressure)
the briquetting process. The fifth entry in the table is an example of application of one
of the certified standards referred to above and the value is unexpectedly high for an
anthracite. It was chosen for inclusion as an example of such an anomaly. Note that
the range for 30 Turkish lignites in the following row goes beyond the value for the
South African anthracite in the previous row. Yet there is no consensus amongst coal
scientists that the Hardgrove index is imprecise. Quite the contrary! Several standards
bodies have made it the basis of standards. The negative correlation of the index with
coal rank is not as evident as intuitively expected and, as recognised by the standards
bodies in the sample preparation which they require, a great deal depends on the con-
dition of a coal when tested. Hardgrove indices of lignites feature later in the book, for
example for Serbian lignites in section 5.8.4. The Hardgrove index as it relates to the
performance of a coal mill, for the preparation of pulverised fuel (p.f.) from pieces of
lignite, features in section 4.2.8.
1.3.3 Thermal decomposition

Moving left to right along vegetation → peat → lignite → sub-bituminous coal →
bituminous coal → anthracite, volatile matter yield on heating diminishes. Vegetation
will lose most of its weight on heating to say 800°C under conditions precluding burn-
ing (of which more later): anthracite will lose something like 5% of its weight in such
a heating trial. This section is concerned with brown coals compared to black coals in
this regard. The material lost on thermal decomposition is called volatile matter or sim-
ply volatiles. Moisture in the coal is not classified as a volatile (it is sometimes called
‘inherent moisture’), but water from decomposition reactions is.
There are standards and locally followed practices for determining volatile matter in
coals. Speight [14] states that in general tests are in the range 875–1050°C. The proce-
dure is as follows. A lidded porcelain crucible containing a known weight of the coal,
specified by whatever procedure or standard is being followed, is placed in an electric
furnace at a set temperature which will be in the range given above. Safety measures
apply. On commencement of decomposition of the volatiles, the air in the crucible is
driven off and an inert atmosphere is created and sustained by evolution of the volatile
matter which includes heavy components such as tars. After a pre-determined time in
the furnace the crucible is removed, allowed to cool and weighed. Clearly the volatile
matter can be determined by subtraction, and can be expressed on an ash-free basis in
the way described in the box. First note that the ash content will have been determined
separately. Volatile matter, moisture content, ash content and ‘fixed carbon’ when de-
termined for a particular coal constitute ‘proximate analysis’. ‘Fixed carbon’ has been
put in inverted commas because it is not composed solely of carbon but contains an
appreciable amount of hydrogen. It is what remains of the coal when the volatiles have
been removed by heating. These terms make an appearance in later parts of this book
including section 6.9.3.
4
A lignite having been dried in a desiccator is subjected to a volatile matter

determination in a quantity of 10 g. The lignite is 5% ash. If the weight of solid
remaining after the test is 5.2 g determine the volatile content on an ash-free basis.
The fact that the coal has been dried means that in this example ‘ash-free basis’
also means ‘dry, ash-free basis’.3 Loss of 4.8 g of coal substance was from:
(10 × 0.95) g organic coal substance = 9.5 g
So the volatile matter content is (4.8/9.5) × 100% = 51% ash-free basis.
Table 1.3 gives volatile matter values for three lignites and three black coals. They have
intentionally been taken from the more recent literature.
Table 1.3 Volatile matter determinations for brown and black coals.
COAL VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT

A Victorian brown coal [23] 49.4% dry basis
A North Dakota lignite [24] 47.9% dry basis
An Indonesian lignite [25] 37.1%
23% dry, ash-free basis.
An Indian bituminous coal [26] A ‘medium volatile bituminous’ according to the
classification in [27]
Anthracite from Vietnam [28] 6.4%
Anthracite from China [29] < 10%
It is clear from Table 1.3 that volatile matter declines very sharply with progression
along the coalification series. One consequence of this relates to utilisation. A particle
of pulverised fuel on entering the hot environment of a furnace will release its volatiles
rapidly, and for a lignite these will provide at least as great a proportion of the total
calorific value as the residual char.
1.4 Moisture and its removal

It was emphasised in section 1.3.1 that lignites as mined are very high in moisture. Wa-
ter removal is therefore required in most applications. Methods for moisture removal
from lignites have recently been reviewed [30]. What follows draws on the review.
Moisture removal can be evaporative or non-evaporative. In the former the heat of

vaporisation of the water is provided. An obvious and widely practised means of evap-
orative drying at power stations is use of heat from the flue gases. Redirection of the
flue gases requires fans and the like with a not insignificant electricity requirement
which subtracts from the output of the power station. Sometimes heat for drying is
3 There have been criticisms of reliance on a conventional desiccator totally to dry a coal sample. The
alternative is heating at about 105°C which, even if it is done under nitrogen, can cause weight loss by
chemical reaction.
5
obtained not from the post-combustion gas but from a separate natural gas burner. This
applies in particular to dryers of the rotary type (although use of flue gases with these
is possible).
Non-evaporative moisture removal methods include mechanical thermal expression

(MTE), which works by application of mechanical pressure. With mechanical meth-
ods of drying the lignite is likely to have been heated to soften it before application
of pressure. Typical conditions are 150–200°C and 6 MPa of applied pressure. An-
other non-evaporative approach is hydrothermal dewatering (HTD). In this the lignite
is heated to a temperature in the approximate range 250–310°C. Resultant shrinkage
forces the water, in liquid form, out of the lignite particles. There is a patented process
for low-rank coal drying called K-Fuel®. By heat and pressure this process removes
water, but it does more than just remove water. It removes mercury, emission of which
with flue gases after combustion is harmful. Conditions are sufficient for the structure
of the coal to be changed to the enhancement of combustion performance.
Changes to the coal structure also occur with a continuous form of HTD which is at the
demonstration stage in Australia amongst other countries. It removes 60% of the mois-
ture as well as bringing about decarboxylation. There is also hot water drying (HWD),
originating in North Dakota. In this the coal is heated to about 240°C, and there is sat-
uration pressure of water vapour. Decarboxylation occurs, and carbon dioxide release
breaks open the pores and in exiting the particle takes water with it. The presence of
water vapour prevents ejection of tars and oils which are immiscible with water. That
would of course affect the calorific value. Application of MTE and HTD to a particular
brown coal from Australia is discussed in section 10.2.2.
There is also the screw conveyor dryer as a means of drying lignite. In this, as coal is
conveyed it receives heat across a metal boundary. This process, which is of course in
the evaporative category, is currently only exploratory, as is the use of microwaves in
lignite drying. This is not so for fluidised bed drying, long a way of removing moisture
from coals of any rank. There is R&D into fluidised bed drying of lignites, including
bed pulsation at around 40 Hz to invigorate processes at the particle–gas interface.
Use of superheated steam in drying, by direct contact with the lignite, also takes place,
conditions being such that there is no return of the steam to saturated conditions. It has
been found that increased grindability is obtained as a bonus when superheated steam
is used in drying.
1.5 Concluding remarks

This introductory chapter has dealt with physical properties such as calorific value and
hardness as well as with drying. It will be followed by one in which the petrographic
side of the subject is introduced. All of these are required for a holistic coverage of
the topic.
6
1.6 References
[1] International Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040, United States Energy Infor-
mation Administration (2013)
[2] http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/what-is-coal/
[3] https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-uYR5IS2tPy0/TWp2wlStO1I/AAAAAAAAALY/KeR-
rKl6R9EQ/s1600/coalification.jpg
[4] http://geology.com/rocks/coal.shtml
[5] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/dennisvanpuyvelde/2013/07/05/reduc-
ing-emissions-brown-coal
[6] DryFining™ Fuel Enhancement Process, Great River Energy (2014)
[7] Rattanakawin C., Tara W. ‘Characteristics of Mae Moh lignite: Hardgrove grindability
index and approximate work index’, Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology 34:
103–107 (2012)
[8] http://www.cba-ssd.com/Applications/knowledgeBase/PRBcoal/PRBcoalProperty.htm
[9] http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs004-02/fs004-02.html
[10] Jeffrey L.S. ‘Characterization of the coal resources of South Africa’, Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy February: 95–102 (2005)
[11] http://toolkit.pops.int/Publish/Annexes/A_28_Annex28.html
[12] Pourhoseini S.H., Moghiman M. ‘Effect of pulverized anthracite coal particles injection
on thermal and radiative characteristics of natural gas flame: an experimental study’, Fuel 140:
44–49 (2015)
[13] Varol A.M., Atimtay A.T. ‘Combustion of olive cake and coal in a bubbling fluidized bed
with secondary air injection’, Fuel 86: 1430–1438 (2007)
[14] Speight J.G. The Chemistry and Technology of Coal, 3rd edition, CRC Press (2012)
[15] http://www.sgs.com/Mining/Analytical-Services/Coal-and-Coke/Hardgrove-Grindabili-
ty-Index-HGI.aspx
[16] http://www.energy.psu.edu/HGI/index.html
[17] Schobert H.H. Lignites of North America, Elsevier (1995)
[18] http://www.gilgames.com.au/coalspec.html
[19] Sherry A., Beck J.S., Cruddace A.E. Modern Power Station Practice, Elsevier (2014)
[20] Rayaprolu K. Boilers for Power and Process, CRC Press (2009)
[21] Coal Hardgrove Grindability Index Certificate of Analysis Standard Reference Material
002 (2013)
[22] Özbayoglu G., Özbayoglu M.E. ‘A new approach for the prediction of ash fusion tempera-
tures: a case study using Turkish lignites’, Fuel 85: 545–552 (2006)
[23] Mollah M.M., Jackson W.R., Marshall M., Chaffee A.L. ‘An attempt to produce blast
furnace coke from Victorian brown coal’, Fuel 148: 104–111 (2015)
7
[24] Mangena S.J., Bunt J.R., Waanders F.B., Baker G. ‘Identification of reaction zones in a
commercial Sasol-Lurgi fixed bed dry bottom gasifier operating on North Dakota lignite’, Fuel
90: 167–173 (2011)
[25] Zhao H., Yu J., Liu J., Tahmasebi A. ‘Experimental study on the self-heating characteris-
tics of Indonesian lignite during low temperature oxidation’, Fuel 150: 55–63 (2015)
[26] Awasthi S., Awasthi K., Ghosh A.K., Srivastava S.K., Srivastava O.N. ‘Formation of
single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes and graphene from Indian bituminous coal’, Fuel
147: 35–42 (2015)
[27] Thomas L. Coal Geology, John Wiley (2002)
[28] Muraoka M., Tominaga H., Nagai M. ‘Iron addition to Vietnam anthracite coal and its
nitrogen doping as a PEFC non-platinum cathode catalyst’, Fuel 102: 359–365 (2012)
[29] http://www.fsanthracite.com/enarticle.php?Cid=11&TypeID=2
[30] Nikolopoulos N., Violidakis I., Karampinis E., Agraniotis M., Bergins C., Grammelis P.,
Kakaras E. ‘Report on comparison among current industrial scale lignite drying technologies
(A critical review of current technologies)’, Fuel 155: 86–114 (2015)
8
CHAPTER 2
PETROGRAPHY
2.1 Introduction
It is to Marie Carmichael Stopes that we owe the basis of the science of coal petrogra-
phy, although her place in history probably has more to do with her activity in another
sphere altogether. She coined the term ‘maceral’, the organic analogue of ‘mineral’. The
concept has been fruitful in enabling coals to be characterised on a petrographic basis
but there is one important distinction [1]: a maceral, unlike a mineral, does not have a
precise chemical composition. To ‘macerate’ something is to soften it by steeping it in
water, which is what happens at the initiation of coalification when vegetation becomes
immersed in a swamp, and that is the origin of the term. Further introductory discus-
sion follows.
2.2 Maceral groups and examples from lignite usage

Table 2.1 gives some details of coal constituents and below follows a discussion of how
they apply to lignites in particular. The basic form of the table is taken from [2], and
will be expanded upon by reference to other sources. The terms in the left-hand column
refer to groups of macerals as explained in [3].
Table 2.1 Outline of coal constituents on a petrographic basis.
CONSTITUENT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

Vitrinite Occurs as bands Assessed in terms of reflectance
Higher content of hydrogen than
Liptinite Resinous
inertinite (see below)
Unresponsive to thermal
Inertinite Charcoal-like
decomposition
Including clay (mineral)
Minerals and inorganics and calcium ions Ash-forming constituents
(inorganic)
Sub-grouping of macerals is carried out and frequently reviewed and modified, and
terminology well exceeds in complexity and precision the summary given here. Even
so, the level of petrography in this section will enable a reader to grasp the petrography
content of literature on such topics as combustion, gasification, pyrolysis and liquefac-
tion of lignites and provide him or her with the wherewithal if necessary to go more
deeply into the subject.
‘Vitrinite reflectance’ measurements are routine in laboratories concerned with coals

of any rank. Their determination involves microscopic examination under plane polar-
ised light [4] and is quite simply the percentage of the incident light that is reflected by
9
the vitrinite onto which the plane polarised light is focused. Liptinite can also be ex-
amined by reflectance. A standard for vitrinite reflectance measurements is mentioned
in section 24.1. Vitrinite is very often the most plentiful of the maceral groups in a
particular coal. Inertinite is the least reflective of the three groups. It is noted in [5] that
whereas in a particular coal liptinite has a higher hydrogen content than inertinite, that
of vitrinite can be higher or lower than that of liptinite. Minerals are distinct from yet
analogous to macerals as explained in the opening paragraph. Their relevance to coal
utilisation is the negative effect of their creating ash. Extraction of groups of macerals
from a coal, for example by centrifuging, is routine laboratory practice (e.g. [6]). ‘Mac-
eral concentrates’ for laboratory use are obtained in this way.
A further important concept is ‘gelification’, expressible as the gelification index (GI)

which is calculable from amounts of particular macerals. The GI of a number of the lig-
nites which feature in this book have been determined and are given in their due place.
In its simplest form the index is [7]:
huminite macerals (% volume) ÷ inertinite macerals (% volume)

although this is often modified for particular deposits of lignite to incorporate specific
macerals and not groups as in the above expression. That is so of the two examples of GI
calculations – one for a Bulgarian lignite and one for an Indian lignite – later in this book.
Gelification involves loss of woody texture in going from peat to lignite, there being an
intermediate state which is colloidal.
2.3 Examples of applications to lignites

Selected literature is drawn on to exemplify the application of the principles expressed
in quite a basic way in the previous section to utilisation. Tabular presentation (Table
2.2) followed by comments is believed to be the most suitable approach. Obviously later
parts of the book will be anticipated, for example where petrographic composition is
correlated with liquefaction. Cross-references will be made as necessary.
10
PETROgRAPHY
Table 2.2 Research reports on lignites in which petrography features.
REFERENCE DETAILS
Victorian brown coal examined for interaction with a hydrogen-
[8] donating solvent (tetralin) and effects on the huminite group of
macerals examined
Lignites from North Dakota, Texas and Saskatchewan (two)
[11]
examined for potential for conversion to liquid fuels
[12] Vitrinite reflectances for a range of Chinese lignites
A ‘Beulah Zap’ lignite4, as well as other coals of different rank,
[14] examined for combustion behaviour in a thermal analysis system
with mass-spectrometric analysis
[15] Three Turkish lignites separated into maceral groups
[17] See comments in the main text
[19] See comments in the main text
With reference to the first row of the table, the term ‘huminite’ needs to be clarified,
and is an example of variation in nomenclature. ‘Huminite’ is described in [9] as being
equivalent to vitrinite, though applicable only to brown coals/lignites. Reference [10]
goes as far as to say that ‘huminite is a synonym for vitrinite in lower rank coals’ and
invokes an Australian standard in so doing (see also sections 4.2.2, 18.2 and 24.1).
That being said, the term ‘huminite’ is sometimes applied to sub-bituminous coals
(see section 21.2). This is an example of the inconsistency which arises from maceral
classification which is, to some degree, arbitrary.
In [8] a plasticising effect on the huminite macerals in gelified material is noted. There
was no such effect for huminite in ungelified part. Indeed, the point is made in [8] that
the effect of the tetralin on the huminite macerals is similar to that on vitrinite macerals
when tetralin is applied to higher rank coals. In [11] (following row) vitrinite reflectance
across four lignites examined was in the range 0.24–0.36%. In the same piece of work
ten sub-bituminous coals from Alberta were included, vitrinite reflectances for which
were in the range 0.33–0.51. Moving on to the following row, the vitrinite reflectances
for the four Chinese lignites were in a narrow range: 0.41–0.46%. There are different
approaches to reporting vitrinite reflectance results, and they include maximum reflec-
tance and random reflectance, multiple measurements having been made in either case
[13]. The authors of [12] used random reflectance.
In considering [14] we first return to the statement above that vitrinite is the most abun-
dant maceral group in any one particular lignite. The maceral analysis for the Beulah
lignite [14] is vitrinite 80%, liptinite 5% and inertinite 15% volume basis. The vitrinite
reflectance is 0.18%. The authors of [14] were interested in CO/CO2 ratios from the
burning of the coals and the maceral concentrates in an atmosphere of 20% oxygen
balance helium. (Use of air is of course precluded by the fact that carbon monoxide and
4 As is also pointed out in Chapter 4, Beulah Zap is a zone of the nearby Freedom Mine.
11
nitrogen have the same molar masses so cannot be distinguished on a mass spectrum.)
The ratio of peaks for mass number 28 (CO) to mass number 44 (CO2) for the Beulah
lignite was 0.22, lower than the value for some of the higher rank coals.
In summarising reference [15] we note that it uses the term ‘exinite’ instead of ‘lipt-
inite’, the former being an obsolescent term (reference [15] is from 35 years ago) syn-
onymous with the latter. In this study lignites from five sources within Turkey were
subjected to maceral analysis. The sources were Can, Seyitomer and Tuncbilek. The
resolution was into the three maceral groups and introduces a point not previously
made in this chapter: that coals from the same source having different particle densi-
ties will, as would intuitively be expected, have different maceral compositions. This
is however highly apparent for the Tuncbilek lignite, where the less dense particle had
88.9% vitrinite and the denser one 54.5%. This becomes less difficult to understand if it
is compared with classical ‘float-sink’ and ‘heavy media’ procedures for preparing coal
for utilisation [16], an approach the authors of [15] themselves take. The principle of
that is sinking of the mineral-rich particles and floating of the particles low in minerals
to give floats, sinks and middlings. The Tuncbilek lignite which had become so deplet-
ed in vitrinite was 43.1% in ash compared with 7.8% for the less dense form. Otherwise
the trends for the three Turkish lignites were as one would expect, with vitrinite (apart
from the anomalous example described above) in the range 82.2–88.9%, exinite in the
range 1.1–5.5% and inertinite in the range 1.3–8.8%.
In [17] it is asserted that in lignites inorganic elements are present as dissolved salts in
the macerals and that this is less so for higher rank coals. There is a point of contact be-
tween this and a contribution to the literature from 25 years earlier when it was argued
that for brown coals ‘minerals’ and ‘inorganics’ should be distinguished in analysis
reporting [18], a point which was touched on in Chapter 1. In [19] the point is made, by
citation of independent work, that when isolated macerals are examined for pyrolysis
they do not always perform equivalently to the same macerals when in co-existence in
the coal. This obviously indicates interaction between them in pyrolysis.
2.4 Lithotypes
In newly created surface in a brown coal deposit from which most of the water has
evaporated, bands of quite perceptibly different shades of brown become apparent
and these are called lithotypes. They are given descriptors accordingly, such as ‘dark’,
‘pale’, ‘medium-dark’ and so on. Their existence is due partly to the degree of gelifica-
tion and also to variations in the structure and composition of the plant life at the outset
of maceration. Classification according to colour and other macroscopic properties is
frequently applied to lignites [9] and is quantified as a ‘colour index’ determinable by
microscopic means. The older classification due to Stopes is on the basis of visible
‘bands’ termed vitrain, clarain, durain and fusain and has a petrographic basis; there
are variants on these terms. This is applied to higher rank coals but also sometimes to
lower rank ones. For example, such information for the Beulah Zap mine is given in
[20]. Petrographic information based on lithotype features in later parts of the book
including sections 4.2.4 and 21.2.
12
PETROgRAPHY
2.5 Subsea lignite

Coal deposits often extend beyond coastal boundaries. As long ago as 1860 there was
mining of coal under the sea off Japan, an extension of the Takashima coal mine [21],
and there has been subsea coal mining much more recently than that in many places
including England and Nova Scotia. It is well known that the Kent coalfield in south-
east England extends beyond the Thames estuary to the English Channel, and also that
there is coal under Sydney Harbour.
During a subsea drilling operation for oil in the 1970s, a lignite deposit was discov-
ered beneath the Indian Ocean [22] at Ninety-East Ridge. There is lignite beneath the
Marmara Sea in Asia Minor [23]. There is subsea lignite at Sozopol Bay, off Bulgaria.
These few examples could of course be multiplied many times.
2.6 Autochthonous and allochthonous lignites

The former occur at the site of the original plants, whilst the latter occur at sites to
which the plant material has moved by the agency of water or of wind [24]. Although
all of the lignites in current use in the USA are autochthonous [25], Arkansas lignite
(see section 6.7) is allochthonous [20]. Where the plant debris without being moved
away from the deposition site has been moved internally by circulating water, the term
hypautochthonous applies. These terms are used at later stages of the book in relation
to particular lignites; see in particular section 5.10.

The above, drawing on literature accounts, will have helped a reader of this book in two
ways: by providing an introduction to nomenclature and by introducing him or her to
the role of macerals – the fundamental unit in coal petrography – in several operations
involving lignites all of which feature later in the book. Terminology is sometimes
uncertain, as is discussed more fully in Chapter 21. It is emphasised again that the
terms presented previously – vitrinite (huminite in lower rank coals), liptinite (a.k.a.
exinite) and inertinite –represent only groups of macerals. An authoritative breakdown
of groups into individual macerals is in [26], which is a publication of the United States
Geological Survey and which is drawn on in later parts of this book. It should how-
ever be applied with an awareness that some maceral names are restricted to coal of
certain rank. The huminite/vitrinite identity previously described in this paragraph is
an example of that. Other geological terms are introduced as necessary throughout the
book. Vitrinite reflectance has received some coverage in this chapter, and occurs in
several later chapters. The in some ways complementary method of microfluorescence
photometry is deferred until Chapter 21.
13
2.8 References
[1] Jones J.C. ‘The nature of macerals’, Fuel 89: 1743 (2010)
[2] http://www.coalmarketinginfo.com/advanced-coal-science/
[3] http://www.coaltech.com.au/InfluenceofCoalProperties.html
[4] http://www.astm.org/Standards/D7708.htm
[5] http://www.coaltech.com.au/InfluenceofCoalProperties.html
[6] http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef00034a005?journalCode=enfuem
[7] Davis R.C., Noon S.W., Harrington J.W. ‘The petroleum potential of Tertiary coals from
Western Indonesia: relationship to mire type and sequence stratigraphic setting’, International
Journal of Coal Geology 70: 35–52 (2007)
[8] Shibaoka M. ‘Behaviour of huminite macerals from Victorian brown coal in tetralin in
autoclaves at temperatures of 300–380°C’, Fuel 61: 265–270 (1980)
[9] Flores R.M. Coal and Coalbed Gas: Fuelling the Future, Newnes (2013)
[10] Li C-Z. Advances in the Science of Victorian Brown Coal, Elsevier (2004)
[11] Parkash S., Du Plessis M.P., Cameron A.R., Kalkreuth W.D. ‘Petrography of low-rank
coals with reference to liquefaction potential’, International Journal of Coal Geology 4:
209–234 (1984)
[12] Wilson M.A., Vassallo A.M., Liu Y.L., Pang L.S.K. ‘High resolution solid state nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy of Chinese maceral concentrates’, Fuel 69: 931–933 (1990)
[13] http://www.coalpetrography.com/blog1/services/vitrinite-reflectance/
[14] Varey J.E., Hindmarsh C.J., Thomas M.K. ‘The detection of reactive intermediates in the
combustion and pyrolysis of coals, chars and macerals’, Fuel 75: 164–176 (1996)
[15] Dogru A.R., Gökcen S.L. ‘Determination of dominant macerals from some Turkish Ter-
tiary lignites by means of heavy-liquid separation: a case study’, Fuel 59: 355–356 (1980)
[16] http://www.sgs.com/Mining/Production-and-Plant-Services/In-Plant-and-Operation-
al-Support/Preparation-Plant-Services/Float-Sink-and-Washability-Testing.aspx
[17] Teixeira P., Lopes H., Gulyurtlu I., Lapa N. ‘Use of chemical fractionation to understand
partitioning of biomass ash constituents during co-firing in fluidized bed combustion’, Fuel
101: 215–227 (2012)
[18] Kiss L.T., King T.N. ‘The expression of results of coal analysis: the case for brown coals’,
Fuel 56: 340–341 (1977)
[19] Bragato M., Joshi K., Carlson J.B., Tenório J.S.S., Levendis Y.A. ‘Combustion of coal,
bagasse and blends thereof. Part I: Emissions from batch combustion of fixed beds of fuels’,
Fuel 96: 43–50 (2012)
[21] McKelvey V.E. Subsea Mineral Resources, United States Geological Survey (1986)
[22] http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/85/8/1219.abstract
[23] Okay A.I., Kaslilar-Ozcan A., Imren C., Boztepe-Guney A., Demirbag E., Kuscu I. ‘Ac-
14
PETROgRAPHY
tive faults and evolving strike-slip basins in the Marmara Sea, northwest Turkey: a multichan-
nel seismic reflection study’, Tectonophysics 321: 189–218 (2000)
[24] O’Keefe J.M.K., Bechtel A., Christanis K., Dai S., DiMichele W.A., Eble C.F., Esterle J.S.,
Mastalerz M., Raymond A.L., Valentim B.V., Nicola Wagner N.J., Ward C.R., Hower J.C. ‘On
the fundamental difference between coal rank and coal type’, International Journal of Coal
Geology 118: 58–87 (2013)
[25] Cross A.T., Phillips T.L. ‘Coal-forming plants through time in North America’, Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 16: 1–46 (1990)
[26] http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal/OrganicPetrology/PhotomicrographAtlas/OPTICCoalMacer-
alClassification.aspx
15
CHAPTER 3
LIGNITE/BROWN COAL IN PRE-
INDUSTRIAL TIMES AND EARLY IN THE
INDUSTRIAL ERA
3.1 Examples
Table 3.1 gives examples of lignite coal discovery and usage over a period encompass-
ing ad 0; comments on the table follow.
Table 3.1 scenes of early discovery and usage of lignites.
LOCATION AND REFERENCE DETAILS

Brown coal dug out for heating and cooking in
Westphalia, Germany [1] Roman times. Scene of the current ‘Tagebau
Hambach mine’
Archaeological site in Texas which indicates
North America [3] burning of lignite by the Clovis peoples,
possibly interchangeably with firewood
Discovery of a formation comprising ‘many
Louisiana Territory5, USA [5]
horizontal strata of carbonated wood’
Small-scale use of lignite by indigenous
North Dakota6, USA [7] Americans ‘centuries before the settling [by
whites] of North Dakota [in c.1860]’
Amsdorf, Germany [8] Lignite mining from 1691
A record dated AD58 of an accidental fire
Roman Province of Germania Inferior,
initiated at a lignite deposit. Heavy damage to
close to modern Cologne [9]
crops and structures
Silesia [10] Lignite mining in the 17th century
Lignite mines extensively worked by the mid
The Urals [11]
18th century
Cannanore (a.k.a. Kannur), south-western Discovery of lignite in 1830, the first such
India [14] discovery in the whole of India
A sample of lignite from Ereğli taken to
Ereğli, Black Sea coast [15]
Istanbul for evaluation. No immediate follow-up
Grevenbroich, Germany [17] Discovery of lignite in 1858
With reference to the deposit in Westphalia (row 1), we note [2] that Tagebau means
‘open cast mining’. (Correspondingly, ‘Untertagebau’ means ‘underground mining’
5 A location which was later in idaho Territory, then in Montana Territory then in the state of Montana.
6 Once part of the Louisiana Purchase.
16
LigniTE/BROWn COAL in PRE-indusTRiAL TiMEs And EARLY in THE indusTRiAL ERA
[2].) Use of the deposit in modern times dates only from 1978. This was at least in part
due to opposition to the destruction of settlements necessitated by development of the
deposit. The Clovis peoples (next row) are believed to have lived ≈ 15 000 years ago [4],
taking the timeline of this discussion into prehistory. The next row is concerned with
an event in 1805, by which time the industrial era had begun though the events being
described were certainly not in an industrial setting. In April that year Meriwether
Lewis and William Clark (both US Army, on an expedition commissioned by President
Jefferson) reported the discovery of what they termed carbonated wood as noted and
they conducted a simple ‘burn test’ on the substance. Later investigation confirmed that
‘carbonated wood’ was classifiable as lignite according to criteria which at the time
applied. The names of Lewis and Clark are perpetuated in many ways, their contribu-
tion to US cartography having been major. One such ‘memorial’ is the Lewis and Clark
Power Station in Montana [6]. This uses lignite from the Savage mine, which straddles
the border between Montana and North Dakota. The mine has an output of 0.35 meg-
atonnes of lignite per year not all of which goes to the Lewis and Clark Power Station.
Reference [7] informs a reader that the earliest white settlers in North Dakota were
shown the lignite deposits by the indigenous Americans who had previously made use
of them. At Amsdorf (following row) lignite provided the heat needed for salt produc-
tion. Salt had an important role in community health at that time, being used more to
protect foodstuffs from microbial contamination than to flavour them. Lignite produc-
tion at Amsdorf has been uninterrupted from the date given in the table to the present
time and there is now a major electric power utility there. We are informed in reference
[9] that by the time of the discovery lignite was seen both as an asset and as a hazard
by reason respectively of its use as a fuel and its propensity to fire. Silesia (following
row) was not unique in replacing wood with lignite as a general-purpose source of heat
at that time, there being such substitution, for example, in central Germany in the early
1670s [10]. To the production of lignite in the Urals in the 18th century noted in the fol-
lowing row can be added other examples from countries which we now refer to as the
Former Soviet Union. Highly interestingly [12], the Donets Coal Basin, part of which is
in what is now the Ukraine and the remainder in Russia, contains coal across almost the
whole range of rank from lignite to anthracite. Coal was discovered there in 1721. The
lignite is at depths of about 600 m, the hard coal at depths up to about three times that
[13]. At the time of the discovery of lignite at Cannanore (following row), India had not
been partitioned so contained what later became Pakistan, where there is an abundance
of lignite. The year 1830 is surprisingly late for the initial discovery of lignite in India;
there was black coal production in India by 1775. For the last 60 years coal winning at
Cannanore has been in the hands of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation.
In its bed-moist state lignite from Cannanore is about 50% moisture [16]. Fairly obvi-
ously the lumps of lignite shown in the illustration have been air dried. This is a suita-
ble point at which to discuss the meaning of ‘air dried’ more generally. Sometimes it is
identified with phase equilibrium between the coal’s moisture content and the humidity
of the atmosphere in which the coal has been placed. If the coal water was entirely
in pores, acting as simple receptacles for the water, that would mean an atmosphere
having the saturated vapour pressure of water at the temperature of the coal and its en-
17
vironment. The realism of this raises questions in the mind of a coal analyst, but there
is in any case a further fundamental point to be made. Not all of the moisture content
is in the pores. Some is imbibed in the cross-linked structure of the coal in a process
analogous to being dissolved. Atmospheric water in equilibrium with the imbibed wa-
ter would have a pressure lower than the saturation value and would be impossible
to estimate. So the matter of the moisture content of a coal when ‘air dried’ has this
conceptual complication. The matter of imbibition by coal of an introduced chemical
agent will feature later in the book when the storage of sequestrated carbon dioxide in
disused mines is discussed.
Returning to Table 3.1, the discouraging response to attempts to introduce Ereğli lig-
nite in 1822 (following row) were followed seven years later [15] by a more positive
outcome, and production began in 1835. Ereğli is one of a number of coal mines in the
province of Zonguldak. Some of the others are productive of hard coal. Throughout the
period of coal production in the region, the coastal location has made for ease of export.
More information on the deposit at Grevenbroich (final row) follows in the next chapter.

The applications of lignite in this chapter pre-date oil availability and usage, though in
some cases not by much. In the following chapters applications of lignites, in particular
electricity generation, are discussed. Concurrently with its production from lignites
and other ranks of coal, electricity has, over the period of interest, been produced with
oil or natural gas as fuel. There will be coverage in a later chapter of the conversion
of one to the other, that is, of the production of liquid fuels from lignites. A series of
chapters on electricity generation from lignite in recent times now follows. Sometimes
when such generation for a particular country is discussed there is digression into parts
of the country having lignite without using it to make electricity.
3.3 References
[1] http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/germany_to_expand_brown_
coal_mines/
[2] http://dictzone.com/german-english-dictionary/tagebau
[3] http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/faq/
[4] http://www.crystalinks.com/clovis.html
[5] http://www.lewis-clark.org/article/1570
[6] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/lewis-clark-station/
[7] https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_ZzUGlayhuYC&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&d-
q=north+dakota++indigenous+americans+lignite&source=bl&ots=bt-mNmMih6&sig=x-
eq2Qbmkv1qGZLzdI4L3uq9wEM4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XHfRVIaTN4XxmAWhnIL-
gAQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=north%20dakota%20%20indigenous%20
americans%20lignite&f=false
18
LigniTE/BROWn COAL in PRE-indusTRiAL TiMEs And EARLY in THE indusTRiAL ERA
[8] http://www.wachs-und-mehr.de/index.php/en/unternehmen/historie
[9] http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&-
source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bund-nrw.
de%2Ffileadmin%2Fbundgruppen%2Fbcmslvnrw%2FPDF_Dateien%2FBraun-
kohle%2F2013_10_12_Lignite_mining_in_the_rhineland_Garzweiler_II_web.pdf&ei=htnS-
VI3sG8G0mwWW7IGoDQ&usg=AFQjCNHjNeHtil0iDpTnRT3ernEmMzA0vw
[10] http://www.geo-sounds.de/komposition
[11] Shoemaker M.W. Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Rowman & Little-
field Education, Lanham, MD (2014)
[12] Coal Mining in the Ukraine: Opportunities for Production and Investment in the Donetsk
Coal Basin, US Environmental Protection Agency (2001)
[13] http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Donets+Coal+Basin
[14] http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/neyveli-lignite-corporation-ltd-history/
[15] Guney M. ‘Underground mining operations in Zonguldak coal mines’
(1966). Accessible at: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&-
source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.
net%2Fpublictopics.PublicPostFileLoader.html%3Fid%3D548dd629d4c118a8358b46ae-
%26key%3Df07eae0c-9794-4c02-83f9-5c3f003ab1b5&ei=8EXUVIK_OebOmwX2hoD-
IBQ&usg=AFQjCNFsm33g6-DGDdSt6y-1yBVLOAwBwQ
[16] http://www.slideshare.net/santhoshsachithanantham/neyveli-lignite-corporation-limited
[17] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/60110/rwe-power-ag/locations/lignite/neurath-power-plant/
19
CHAPTER 4
ELECTRICITY GENERATION I – GERMANY
4.1 Background
Germany, both before and during the division into West and East and since its reunifi-
cation, has been noted for lignite utilisation for power generation. In Germany lignite
is called ‘braunkohle’ (see footnote 7). It is reported in [1] that 162 billion kW-hour of
electricity was produced in Germany from braunkohle in 2013.
There was mine illumination using electricity from brown coal in Germany in 1884
[2]. We are informed in [3] that at the beginning of the 20th century the whole of the
industrial base of central Germany relied on electricity made from brown coal. In [4]
it is stated that two brown coal fired power stations in Germany came into being in
response to wartime conditions. One was that at Zschornewitz and the other that at
Knapsack (Goldenberg). The one at Zschornewitz came into operation on 14 December
1914, sixteen months into World War I. At that stage it had six steam turbines with a to-
tal output of electricity of 16 MW and was fuelled by brown coal from a local open cut
[5]. It was at that time the largest lignite-fired electricity generating utility in the world.
It was close to Leipzig, and therefore in the German Democratic Republic during the
years of separation. Indeed, its closure was the result of general restructuring after the
two zones of Germany were allowed to reunite [6]. The power station at Knapsack/
Goldenberg near Cologne had entered operation the previous year. These introductions
at the outset of World War I betokened a huge increase in power generation capacity in
Germany at that time. At the beginning of the war, Germany produced more electricity
than England, France and Italy combined [7] and obviously the ready availability of
brown coal was a major factor in that. Harbke (see next section) is another example.
It is recorded in [1] that for the same year hard coal – of which there is an abundance in
Germany additional to the braunkohle – produced 116.4 billion kW-hour of electricity.
The respective contributions to the total are 25.8% and 19.7%, the balance being elec-
tricity generation with fuel oil. Selected German plants for power generation will be
discussed in turn. The usual combustion technique for lignite in power generation is as
pulverised fuel (p.f.), which comprises particles having been milled to a mean diameter
of typically 50–100 µm. These are entrained in air and taken to a burner where the
resulting flame in several important ways resembles a gaseous jet flame and can be an-
alysed analogously to that. Fluidised beds also find applications to lignites and selected
examples of these will feature later in the text.
4.2 German power stations using lignite

4.2.1 introduction
Details of major generating activity from lignite in Germany are given in what follows.
It is good for the specialist in lignite to be aware that there is also major power genera-
tion from locally mined black coal in Germany.
20
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn i – gERMAnY
4.2.2 Offleben and Buschhaus power stations

These are both in Lower Saxony, and lignite-fired. Offleben commenced operations in
1954 replacing Harbke power station [8,9] which, on division, was positioned within
the DDR. Offleben was closed down in 2002, because of depletion of the nearby lignite
pit from which it drew its fuel. The story with Buschhaus is much more positive. A
390 MW utility commissioned in 1980, Buschhaus is in the Helmstedt lignite mining
area [10]. The existence of ‘light’, ‘medium light’ and ‘dark’ lithotypes in lignite from
Helmstedt has been noted [11] and correlated with maceral analysis. Liptinite and in-
ertinite feature in the analysis, as do for example ‘humodetrinite’ and ‘humocollinite’
which are precursors to vitrinite and are sub-classifications of ‘huminite’.
The performance of Buschhaus in 2012 was 2.3 TW-hour. There is use of supercritical
steam, a full discussion of which is given in the next section.
4.2.3 grevenbroich-neurath power station

It was noted in the previous chapter that braunkohle was discovered at Grevenbroich in the
1850s. Even so, power generation did not commence there until 1972 [12], and the pow-
er station is known as Grevenbroich-Neurath (G-N). Its nameplate output is 2200 MW,
although it is operated at this rating only for a very small proportion of the time. The
facility is owned by Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG (RWE AG).
The Grevenbroich-Neurath power station sources its braunkohle from a number of

mines in that part of Germany including that at Hambach. Braunkohle from these
sources are called collectively ‘Rhineland lignites’7 or ‘Rhenish lignites’ [13] and range
in moisture content, when bed-moist, from 50 to 60%.
Expansion at Hambach of the area over which mining occurs, currently 35 km 2, will
be necessary if targets for generation of electricity are to be realised. It has been not-
ed and commented upon [14] that this would involve the destruction of trees. G-N is
however making its contribution to carbon dioxide emission reductions. The efficiency
of the Rankine cycle, the basis of a steam turbine, can be raised in a number of ways,
and the higher the efficiency the lower the carbon dioxide emission per unit energy of
electricity yielded. The (ideally) isentropic change in a turbine from superheated steam
to predominantly liquid water is the basis of the production of work, and from analysis
of a Rankine cycle (e.g. [15]) the greater the extent of superheating the greater the effi-
ciency of conversion of heat to work. This is well known and occurs widely in texts on
the laws of thermodynamics (e.g. [15]).
A typical Rankine cycle at a power station will operate at up to about 35% conversion
of heat to work. At G-N the most recently installed turbines are attaining 43% effi-
ciency. This is by use of supercritical steam, an introduction to the thermodynamics
of which forms an appendix to this chapter. The appendix concludes by explaining
how and why the ‘ultra-supercritical’ denotes degree and does not have a scientifically
7 note that the traditional term in german usage braunkohle has in many instances been changed to
‘lignite’.
21
rigorous distinction from simply ‘supercritical’. Use of supercritical steam at G-N ne-
cessitated turbine construction of materials which can withstand the conditions [16].
The carbon mitigation accruing from the increased Rankine efficiency at G-N can be
estimated without difficulty, and such a working is shown in the box. Numerical values
other than the efficiencies are the author’s estimates. Readers can if they wish repeat
the calculation with other values for these quantities.
We take it that the lignite as fired has a calorific value of 15 MJ kg–1 and that its
percentage carbon in the air-dried state is 60%. The basis of the calculation will
be electricity generation at 500 MW.
A 500 MW turbine in operation round-the-clock would, in 30 days’ usage,

produce an amount:
500 × 106 J s–1 × (30 × 24 × 3600) s = 1.30 × 1015 J
At a Rankine efficiency of 35% the heat required would be:
(1.30 × 1015/0.35) = 3.71 × 1015 J
At a Rankine efficiency of 43% the heat required would be:
(1.30 × 1015/0.43) = 3.02 × 1015 J
The saving in heat is then 0.69 × 1015 J
At a calorific value of 15 × 106 J kg–1 the fuel saving is:
= 4.60 × 107 J or 46 000 tonnes
The reduction in carbon dioxide is then:
0.6 × 4.60 × 104 × (44/12) tonne = 100 000 tonnes approx. in a 30-day period.
At a 2015 carbon credit price of 18 Great British Pounds (GBP) per tonne [17],
the financial saving is GBP 1.8 million over the 30-day period of generation at
500 MW.
That use of supercritical steam in the turbines at G-N yields major financial benefits is
therefore clear. One would expect intuitively that the payback time on the introduction
of (ultra-)supercritical steam would not be too long to make for viability.
4.2.4 Frimmersdorf power station

This power station began operations in 1953 which, we will note in passing, was one
year before the sovereignty of Germany was restored after World War II. It is reason-
able to suppose that the occupying allies had a role in setting it up. The power station
replaced one at the same site which, with lignite as fuel, had commenced operation in
1926 [18] and produced at a rate of 26 MW.
22
The nameplate capacity is 1665 MW and there is some use of supercritical steam. In
an RWE publication from a decade ago [20] it is reported that at two 300 MW steam
turbines at Frimmersdorf paper sludge is co-fired with lignite. It is best to analyse this
in fairly general terms, using estimates for the quantities required, rather than to restrict
the analysis to Frimmersdorf. Such a working is shown in the box, and we first note
that paper sludge, unlike lignite, is carbon-neutral. Only carbon dioxide from fossil fuel
combustion causes the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere to rise. To burn a car-
bon-neutral substance is to put the carbon back where it was before removal by plant life.
We assign calorific values to the respective fuels as follows:
Lignite 15 MJ kg–1
Paper sludge 7 MJ kg–1
At an efficiency of 35%, 600 MW of electricity requires:
600/0.35 MW of heat = 1700 MW of heat approx.
If it is desired to raise 1% of the heat from the sludge instead of from the lignite,
0.99 kg of lignite has to be co-fired with a quantity of the sludge capable of
releasing as much heat as 0.01 kg of the lignite.
Assigning the lignite a carbon content of 40%, when 1665 MW [19] of heat are
produced from the lignite alone the annual production of carbon dioxide is:
0.4 × (1665 × 106 J s–1/15 × 106 J kg–1) × (44/12) × (365 × 24 × 3600) s year–1 × 10 –3
tonne kg–1
= 5.134 million tonnes
When lignite-sludge is used as the fuel, the fossil fuel derived carbon dioxide is 0.99
of that, or 5.083 million tonnes for electricity generation at 1665 MW over one year.
The difference is 0.051 million tonnes with a value in carbon credit terms of
≈ GBP 0.93 million.
This working is for substitution of the carbon-neutral fuel for the lignite only to an
extent of 1%. Much higher percentages can in fact be used. The calculation is taken a
little further in the second box.
The amount of sludge thermally equivalent to 0.01 kg of lignite is:
(0.01 × 15/7) kg = 0.021 kg
So the co-firing requires a proportion of sludge:
[0.021/(0.99 + 0.021)] = 0.021 or 2.1%
23
Although the calculation was intended to be general, it will be noted that reference [20]
informs us that the sludge was present at 1–2%. The figure expressed in GBP for the
carbon credits accruing over a year’s generation at 600 MW converts to $US 1.42 mil-
lion. There is a return to co-combustion of lignite with other fuels more generally in
Chapter 20.
Lignite for Frimmersdorf is from the Garzweiler opencast mine in the Rhineland,
which also supplies other local power stations. Its contains up to 60% water in the bed-
moist state, and its calorific value in that state is about 9 MJ kg–1 [21].
The overburden – matter requiring excavation and removal – at Garzweiler contains

major amounts of pyrite (FeS2, a very common mineral in coals) [22] and this is typical
of low-rank coal deposits in the Rhineland. Overburden has to be dewatered before
excavation and assembly as a pile. The quantity of pyrite in the overburden is a major
factor. Pyrite oxidises in air to form sulphuric acid according to:
2FeS2 + 7O2 + 2H2O → 2FeSO4 + 2H2SO4

and water pollution by the sulphuric acid, commonly referred to as acid mine drainage,
ensues. In [22] proposals to control this at Garzweiler by neutralisation of the acid with
limestone or with fly ash are made and tested. Water in contact with samples of over-
burden on a laboratory scale gave a pH reading of 3.4 without any neutralising reagent.
The action of fly ash is due to its hydroxyl ions, and can be enhanced by bubbling in
some carbon dioxide. Fly ash with carbon dioxide raised the pH to 6.4, and limestone
alone raised it to 6.2. This theme continues in section 4.2.6 where mining at Jänschwal-
de is discussed.
Petrographic analysis of Rhineland brown coals has been on the basis of lithotype, and
a coverage of this from the 1980s [23] makes considerable use of a term not introduced
in section 2.3 of the present text: xylite, a term like so many others in the subject area
used by Marie Stopes. The term refers to bands in the coal, and in [23] the presence
of xylite in Rhineland brown coals is linked to the milieu of the original vegetation. A
drier setting leads to less xylite than wetlands do.
4.2.5 Lippendorf power station

This is nine miles from Leipzig, therefore in East Germany over the period of division
of Germany. It was built over the period 1964–68, therefore during the regime of the
DDR. Modernisation took place in the late 20th century. Owned jointly by Vattenfall
and Energie Baden-Wurttemberg AG [24], it uses lignite from the reserve at Verein-
igtes Schleenhain and has a nameplate capacity of 16 000 MW. Vereinigtes Schleen-
hain lignite is 4.3% in sulphur. It has 52.4% volatiles (dry basis) and 11.6% ash (also dry
basis) [25]. Yellow-brown bands have been observed in the coal seams [26].
The sulphur content of the coal used at Lippendorf is fairly high as noted above, and the
ash content is also fairly high. It was noted in section 1.3.2 that brown coal for power
generation is often burnt in the form of pulverised fuel (p.f.), and the ash from that is of
24
particle size microns or lower (‘fly ash’). At Lippendorf as in other such plants release
of fly ash with the flue gases is prevented by the well-proven technique of electrostatic
precipitation, which removes > 99% of the fly ash particles [27]. Desulphurisation is
also performed at Lippendorf. Sulphur in any fuel goes, in stoichiometric yield, to
sulphur dioxide in the flue gases. The technique used in its removal at Lippendorf is
reaction with lime, achieving 95% removal of sulphur dioxide from the flue gases [27].
The reaction leads to gypsum, a saleable product [28].
4.2.6 Jänschwalde power station

Close to the border between Germany and Poland, Jänschwalde is also territorially
within the former DDR. The plant, having been commissioned in 1988, was an en-
terprise of East Germany subsequently brought up to western standards in terms of
emission control. The owner is Vattenfall. It now has a capacity of 3000 MW, from
six 500 MW steam turbines. It uses lignite from mines including Jänschwalde and
Cottbus-Nord. Having originally been in the DDR, Jänschwalde had to be retrofitted
with flue gas desulphurisation equipment.
Jänschwalde is in the region of Germany known as Lusatia, and a review of the several
lignite deposits in Lusatia arguably belongs to this part of the book. That at Vereinigtes
Schleenhain has been discussed above at length. Others are listed in Table 4.1, com-
ments on which follow below. The important matter of lignite mining dumps features
en passant in this section.
Table 4.1 Lignite deposits in the Lusatia region of germany.
LIGNITE RESERVE DETAILS

Jänschwalde Planned cessation of production in 2020 [29]
Cottbus-Nord First producing in 1978. Future use only to 2018 [33]
Welzow-Süd Production expected to continue at least until 2030 [34]
Sulphur content being examined [37]. Lignite from this
Nochten deposit currently in use, 0.7% sulphur in the bed-moist state
[38]
Scheduled closure of the Jänschwalde lignite mine in 2020 is due to community re-
sistance to expansion of the mine. The mine has featured in the research literature of
the 21st century on a number of accounts including the following. Effects on the envi-
ronment of the water resulting from mining at Jänschwalde are examined in [30]. The
thrust of this work is prevention of damage to previously existing aquifers by water
from mining activity, which is heavy in solutes. The ‘dumping’ theme continues into
[31], in which pyrite oxidation features. It is recorded in [31] that at mines in Lusatia
overburden depths are 44 ± 20 m. Some oxidation of pyrite to iron II sulphate occurs,
and the ‘turnover rate’ – percentage of the pyrite so reacted – is relevant to the com-
position of mining dumps. In [30] the view is taken that 4–5% of the pyrite in a mine
dump will be so oxidised. For Cottbus-Nord and Nochten (later rows of the table) a
value of 6–7% is used. This is the ‘turnover rate’ over whatever time elapses between
25
initiation of the oxidation of the pyrite in mining and the occasion of examination of the
dump for possible dismantlement or whatever. The sale of gypsum from the Lippendorf
power station featured in the previous section. In [32] the gypsum from Jänschwalde
is compared for quality with that produced at a number of other German lignite-fired
power stations.
Cottbus-Nord (next row) has over its 37 years of existence led, through expansion, to
loss of residential land. A town called Lakoma was completely lost to the Cottbus-
Nord mine. The site of the mine will be flooded on closure, becoming ‘Cottbus East
Lake’ which, it is hoped, will have visual appeal and become a habitat for wildlife [32].
Welzow-Süd could have featured in Chapter 3, as there was limited lignite production
there in the 19th century. What is now known as the Welzow-Süd mine came into being
in 1959 [35]. A photograph of it can be seen in [36].
4.2.7 Boxberg power station

This came into service in the DDR in 1971 [39] and under that regime grew to a total
output of 3520 MW. After reunification modernisation of the facility, directed at in-
creasing turbine efficiency and reducing emissions, was implemented. A Vattenfall
facility, it uses lignite from Lusatia. It uses supercritical steam, and turbine efficiencies
of 42% have been reported.
Boxberg is an example of a power plant in the DDR needing modifications, including

the installation of a desulphurisation facility, and Jänschwalde is referred to for the
same reason in [40]. As at Lippendorf amongst many other power facilities, lime is the
basis of the removal. At Boxberg the upgrading to supercritical steam has been carried
out with newly developed metallic construction materials [41]. The Boxberg power
station is alongside the Nochten mine.
The siting of power stations close to brown coal deposits is of course a widely followed
practice at places including the Latrobe Valley. For the next German power station to
be considered there will be a return to the Rhineland.
4.2.8 niederaussem power plant [42]

An RWE facility, this entered service in 1963. Since then some units have been decom-
missioned and new ones have been introduced, and the current capacity is 2840 MW.
Situated near Cologne, it uses Rhenish lignite. The matter of pulverising the lignite in
readiness for firing has featured in previous sections of this chapter, and will be devel-
oped for Niederaussem. The power plant at Niederaussem has acquired a Loesche coal
mill of type LM 28.3 D [43]. An illustration forms Figure 4.1.
26
Figure 4.1 Loesche LM 28.3 d

coal mill.
(courtesy Loesche innovative
Engineering, düsseldorf,
germany)
Loesche manufacture a range of coal grinding mills the power input for which has a
known dependence on the milling rate required. It ranges from 400 kW for a grinding
rate of ≈ 50 tonnes per hour to 2400 kW for a grinding rate of ≈ 300 tonnes per hour
[44]. The weight is of milled coal not of raw coal; the difference is due to moisture loss
in milling. The LM 28.3 D coal mill requires 800 kW. The precise grinding rate de-
pends upon the Hardgrove index and upon the size range of the coal as fed to the mill.
Loesche themselves classify a coal as having ‘easy grindability’ if it has a Hardgrove
index of 90 or higher [45]. This can be compared with values in Table 1.2.
There are nine units at the power plant at Niederaussem one of which, called K unit,
uses supercritical steam and consequently achieves 43% efficiency [46]. Some of the
lignite used at Niederaussem is subjected to fluidised bed drying [47]. This uses heat
from the flue gases. It is pointed out in [47] that the heat of vaporisation of the water
would otherwise have had to come from the coal, to the reduction of heat release and
therefore of electricity output.
4.3 Further comments

A number of other lignite power stations in the reunified Germany could have fea-
tured above. These include the Schwarze Pumpe power station. Commissioned in
27
1996, it postdates some such facilities in Germany by a century (see also section 14.2).
Schwarze Pumpe uses a grinding mill supplied by Loesche, the LM 35.3 D model.
Reference to [44] reveals that this requires 1000 kW of power and delivers p.f. at a rate
in a range overlapping with that of the LM 28.3 D used at Niederaussem. At Schwarze
Pumpe there is a fluidised bed dryer for the lignite. This can receive 10 tonnes per hour
of raw coal [48].
Schkopau uses 6 million tonnes per year of lignite from the deposit at Profen [40].
Profen is owned not by the operators of the power station but by the mining corpora-
tion MIBRAG [49] who themselves have plans to set up a power station in that part of
Germany. There is a very long way to go with this undertaking by way of permits and
no firm decision to build has yet been made. Even so, MIBRAG have released a stylised
image of the Profen power station on their web pages (see [49]). MIBRAG also own a
lignite mine at Vereinigtes Schleenhain in the same part of Germany. Lignite from this
source is used for a combined heat and power (CHP) unit at Lippendorf.
In addition to the modern lignite-fired power plants identified so far in this section,
there are many which have been taken out of service. These include Offleben power
station which ceased activity in the early 2000s having been in service for about half
a century.
Lignite therefore continues to be a major source of fuel for power generation in Germa-
ny. Germany once led in lignite utilisation, and combustion practices developed there
were followed for example in Australia’s Latrobe Valley, which has major coverage
later in this book. It is hard to see how carbon mitigation should be more difficult for
lignites in such usage than for hard coals. Both can be co-fired with biomass. Carbon
dioxide sequestration methods can be applied with either. Perhaps the continued activ-
ity in lignite in Germany, not of course to the exclusion of ‘renewables’, follows from
such musings. As power plants in Germany are being replaced there is an increasing
move to supercritical steam which, it is argued in a later chapter of the book, is motivat-
ed by carbon mitigation as an alternative to carbon capture and storage (CCS).
4.4 Lignite in Austria

The neighbouring country Austria has lignite at places including the Köflach Voitsberg
deposit which takes in the Oberdorf open cut mine [50]. The dominant lithotype is
xylo-detritic coal which, in the petrographic terminology defined in [50], means dark
rather than pale in colour and banded (see section 4.2.4 above) with some xylite evident.
The calorific value ranges from 12 to 13 MJ kg–1 and the moisture content from 35 to
40%. Anticipating section 15.5.3, the lignite reserves of Austria contain major amounts
of jet [51].
There was once lignite mining in Austria, and it began to decline in the 1960s [52].
There has been no production of any rank of coal in Austria since 2006. She currently
imports all of her coal, and this includes some lignite. She imports some electricity
from Germany.
28
4.5 References
[1] http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=15019
[2] The Discovery of Electricity: Early Days of Brown Coal, Powercor Australia (n.d.)
[3] http://www.erih.net/regional-routes/germany/saxony-anhalt/saxony-anhalt-detail/print.html
[4] Hughes T.H. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930, JHU Press
(1993)
[5] http://cosplaxy.com/index.php?lan=DE&key=1Ntzyi8fVdJBIaO8hqC+Iwdn8PGjukP9P7g-
choL7Lyc
[6] http://www.industrielles-gartenreich.de/english/03_projekte/314_kolonie.htm
[7] Topik S.C., Wells A. Global Markets Transformed, Harvard University Press (2014)
[8] http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=186508
[9] http://www.divisionleap.com/pages/books/22990/photo-albums/photo-album-document-
ing-the-1922-renovation-of-the-harbke-power-plant
[10] http://www.euracoal.org/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=72
[11] Winkler E. ‘Organic geochemical investigations of brown coal lithotypes: a contribu-
tion to facies analysis of seam banding in the Helmstedt deposit’, Organic Geochemistry 10:
617–624 (1986)
[12] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/60110/rwe-power-ag/locations/lignite/neurath-pow-
er-plant/
[13] http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/rhineland/
[14] http://www.foeeurope.org/Forest-must-not-cleared-coal%20mine-say-green-groups-141112
[15] Jones J.C. The Principles of Thermal Sciences and their Application to Engineering,
Whittles Publishing, Caithness and CRC Press, Boca Raton (2000)
[16] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/12068/rwe-power-g/locations/lignite/kw-neurath-
boa-2-3/
[17] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/24/european-carbon-emissions-trad-
ing-market-reform-set-for-2019
[18] http://cache.worldlibrary.net/articles/frimmersdorf_power_station
[19] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/9002/rwe-power-ag/locations/lignite/frimmersdorf-pow-
er-plant/
[20] Frimmersdorf and Neurath Power Plants: Electricity from Rhenish Lignite, RWE Power
(2005)
[21] Lignite Mining in the Rhineland Garzweiler II, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz
Deutschland, Dusseldorf (2013)
[22] Obermann P., Wisotzky F. ‘Acid mine groundwater in lignite overburden dumps and
its prevention – the Rhineland lignite mining area (Germany)’, Ecological Engineering 17:
115–123 (2001)
[23] Hagemann H.W., Wolf M. ‘New interpretations of the facies of the Rhenish brown coal of
29
West Germany’, International Journal of Coal Geology 7: 335–348 (1987)

[24] http://powerplants.vattenfall.com/powerplant/lippendorf
[25] Zhong S., Baitalow F., Nikrityuk P., Gutte H., Meyer B. ‘The effect of particle size on the
strength parameters of German brown coal and its chars’, Fuel 125: 200–205 (2014)
[26] http://www.laop-consult.de/en/projects/evaluation_of_a_coal_seam_sequence_in_the_
surface_mine_v_schleenhain/
[27] http://www.power-technology.com/projects/lippendorf/
[28] http://fam.de/english/News/newsarchive/news.20.html
[29] http://www.lausitzer-braunkohle.de/english.php
[30] Hoth N., Wagner S., Hafner F. ‘Predictive modelling of dump water impact on the sur-
roundings of the lignite dump site at Jänschwalde (Eastern Germany)’, Journal of Geochemical
Exploration 73: 113–121 (2001)
[31] Graupner B.J., Koch C., Prommer H., Werner F. ‘Process oriented quantification of mine
dump pollutant inventories on the large scale – the case of the lignite mining district Lusatia,
Germany’, Journal of Geochemical Exploration 112: 161–173 (2012)
[32] Hansen B.B., Kiil S., Johnsson J.E. ‘Investigation of the gypsum quality at three full-scale
wet flue gas desulphurisation plants’, Fuel 90: 2965–2973 (2011)
[33] http://ejatlas.org/conflict/lignite-mining-cottbus-nord-lakoma-germany
[34] http://www.iba-see2010.de/en/projekte/projekt8
[35] http://www.erih.net/nc/countries/detail.html?user_erihobjects_pi2%5B-
showUid%5D=16742
[36] http://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Energie/Bilder/WeichbraunkohleWelzow_Bild1_g.
jpg?__blob=normal&v=2
[37] http://www.laop-consult.de/en/projects/mapping_of_sulfur_content/
[38] http://www.infomine.com/news/newsletters/websites/editorials/suppliers/00
[39] http://powerplants.vattenfall.com/powerplant/boxberg
[40] Hansen U. ‘Restructuring the East German energy system’, Energy Policy 24: 553–562
(1996)
[41] http://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featuresupercritical-pressure-pow-
er-plants-a-progress-report/
[42] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/60132/rwe-power-ag/locations/lignite/niederaus-
sem-power-plant/
[43] http://www.mining-technology.com/contractors/crushers/loesche/press6.html
[44] http://www.loesche.com/en/products/dry-grinding-plants/coal-for-cement/
[45] Loesche Mills for Solid Fuels, Loesche GmbH, Dusseldorf (2012)
[46] https://online.platts.com/PPS/P=m&s=1029337384756.1478827&e=1096495472414.22400
23308785804128/?artnum=x2F004ShER07261656F2X4_1
30
[47] http://kraftwerkforschung.info/en/lignite-drying/
[48] http://www.bbs.bilfinger.com/en/innovation/lignite-drying/
[49] http://www.mibrag.de/index.php?id=3217#
[50] Kolcon I., Sachsenhofer R.F. ‘Petrography, palynology and depositional environments of
the early Miocene Oberdorf lignite seam (Styrian Basin, Austria)’, International Journal of
Coal Geology 41: 275–308 (1999)
[51] Bechtel A., Gratzer R., Sachsenhofer R.F. ‘Chemical characteristics of Upper Cretaceous
(Turonian) jet of the Gosau Group of Gams/Hieflau (Styria, Austria)’, International Journal of
Coal Geology 46: 27–49 (2001)
[52] Pedraza J.M. Electrical Energy Generation in Europe, Springer (2015)
31
APPEndiX TO CHAPTER 4
SUPERCRITICAL STEAM AND ITS APPLICATION TO
STEAM TURBINES IN POWER GENERATION
Referring to the phase diagram for water in Figure A4.1, at a higher temperature than 374°C
(647 K) and a higher pressure than 218 bar (22 MPa) water is in the supercritical state.
Figure A4.1 Phase diagram for water show-

ing the supercritical region. Taken from [1].
A steam turbine using supercritical steam can be analysed by the Rankine cycle, which
of course is the basis of turbine operation when saturated or superheated steam is used.
Quite simply, in a cycle using supercritical steam the point of origin of the work-pro-
ducing step represents steam at some point in the supercritical region of the diagram
above. Supercritical steam is not, of course, restricted to power plants which use lig-
nite as fuel. The term ‘ultra-supercritical’ denotes steam in the supercritical state dis-
tant from the critical point. As already pointed out, there is no fundamental difference
in thermodynamics between supercritical and ultra-supercritical steam. An arbitrary
definition is that supercritical steam above about 600°C is ultra-supercritical. The term
‘highly supercritical’, used in [2] in discussions of developments at German power sta-
tions generally, is probably preferable to ‘ultra-supercritical steam’ though much less
frequently used. By analogy the term ‘ultra-superheated steam’, which one frequently
encounters for example in accounts of gasification technologies, simply means steam
having a high degree of superheating being a long way from saturation conditions.
The point might legitimately be made that pulverised fuel combustion was starting
to become a dated combustion technique until the introduction of supercritical steam
stimulated a revival.
References in the Appendix

[1] http://cnx.org/resources/daad6e60f1896a0016876b4f0448456b/Figure_14_05_05.jpg
[2]http://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featureultra-supercritical-chp-get-
ting-more-competitive/
32
CHAPTER 5
ELECTRICITY GENERATION II – OTHER
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
5.1 The Czech Republic

5.1.1 introduction
The Czech Republic is a major producer and exporter of electricity. Generation in 2012
was 87.57 billion kW-hour [1]. It is noted in [2] that in the Czech Republic a distinction
is made between lignite and brown coal, whereas almost everywhere else the terms
are used synonymously and interchangeably. Even so they are lumped together for the
purposes of the analysis in [1]. The distinction is on the basis of estimated geological
age, not of properties such as calorific value and moisture content. The section will also
take in the Slovak Republic, where such a distinction also applies as it does in parts of
the former Yugoslavia (see section 5.8.1).
5.1.2 Lignite deposits

Seventeen lignites from the Czech Republic are discussed in a fairly recent addition to
the literature [3]. These are classified into sapropelic coal, liptobiolith coal, xylite-rich
coal and matrix coal. ‘Sapropelic coal’ and ‘liptobiolith coal’ are distinguished from the
‘humic coals’ which constitute the peat to anthracite series [4]. Liptobiolites are derived
from material such as pollen, spores and resins. In [3] as in other work in the area sap-
ropelic coal and liptobiolith coal are classified as lithotypes along with xylitic coal and
matrix coal, the latter being a widely used term denoting amorphous material also called
groundmass. Sapropelic coal and liptobiolith coal both contain mineral matter. In fact
kerogen, the organic component of shale which can be retorted to make oil products, is
sapropelic. The 17 coals studied in [3] were taken from five deposits, and the approach
taken in this section will be a description of power generation with coal from the re-
spective deposits. Sapropelic coals often occur as layers within humic coals (see section
5.2.3). There is sapropelic coal at the Austrian deposit discussed in section 4.4 and other
sapropelic coals are identified in later parts of the book. Sapropels, the precursor to sap-
ropelic coals, are discussed in Chapter 21 on account of their analogy to peat.
5.1.3 Prunéřov power stations

Note the plural in the heading. Prunéřov comprises two power plants significantly
spaced in age: Prunéřov I which commenced operations in 1967–68 and Prunéřov II
which commenced operations in 1981–82. Prunéřov is now operated by ČEZ (head-
quarters in Prague). It is fuelled by brown coal from the Nástup Tušimice mines which
are part of the North Bohemian Basin [5,6]. Prunéřov I has an output of electricity
of 660 MW between three equivalent units. Prunéřov II has 1050 MW, between five
equivalent units. The Nástup Tušimice mines produce 13.5 million tonnes of lignite
annually. Noted in [5] as well as in other sources is the need to homogenise the lignite
33
from this source before milling it to make p.f. There has been recent introduction of
supercritical steam at Prunéřov. The enhanced efficiency which supercritical steam
provides for obviously reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
At the Tušimice mine brown coal is homogenised. The method works by stacking the
coal vertically and removing it for use from horizontal layers. It is not difficult to un-
derstand in semi-quantitative terms how this homogenising process works. Vertical
drop in stacking will provide some segregation of particles according to their mineral
matter content, as mineral matter is more dense than organic ‘coal substance’. This
means that in a stack so created a horizontal layer will have much less variation in den-
sity than the coal before stacking, which is why there is removal of the coal for boiler
furnace entry in horizontal slices as noted. The higher the mineral matter content, a
measure of the non-combustibles within a coal particle, the lower the calorific value.
The effect of inhomogeneity of the coal input would be flame instability. Even where
the coal is not sufficiently inhomogeneous to require special measures this can happen,
and a common solution is to use briquettes instead of or additionally to unprocessed
coal for as long as it takes to stabilise the flame at the p.f. burner. In such a contingency
the briquettes are of course milled before admittance to combustion plant.
Each of the Prunéřov power stations has sulphur dioxide release control by reaction of
the sulphur dioxide in the flue gas with limestone. This is a classical but by no means
obsolete means of sulphur dioxide emission control. This control measure at Prunéřov
has been in place since the mid 1990s, a few years after the new regime in the Eastern
bloc countries came into being.
5.1.4 Hodonin power station

This is one of the oldest power plants in the Czech Republic, having come into service in
the 1950s [7]. Its siting was intentionally close to a lignite deposit, though this fuel was
unsatisfactory and sometimes had to be replaced by lignite from Sokolov in northern
Bohemia, one of the deposits featuring in [3]. The difference between the two coals was
probably in their grindability, a quantity routinely determined for coals of all ranks by
means of the Hardgrove index as explained in Chapter 1. This is of course relevant to the
milling of coal to obtain p.f. Important to p.f. performance in terms of flame stability is
the particle size distribution and a particular distribution, notably the Rosin–Rammler
distribution [8], is often aimed for. It might have been that at Hodonin initially the mill-
ing conditions gave a good particle size distribution with the coal from Bohemia but less
so with that from Moravia. It is noted in [7] that the difficulties were in drying and mill-
ing, supporting the hypothesis above that grindability was the origin of the difference.
The company Lignit Hodonin, which had a monopoly in lignite production, went into
insolvency and as a result there was no production of lignite in the Czech Republic in
2010 [9]. At the present-day Hodonin power station there are, in addition to the p.f.
boilers, two boilers using fluidised beds. Fluidised beds using coal of any rank require
particle sizes of the order of 1 mm, an order of magnitude higher than the particles in
p.f. The fluidised beds at Hodonin have used lignite–biomass co-firing, and now one of
34
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn ii – OTHER EuROPEAn COunTRiEs
the fluidised beds uses biomass alone. This is consistent with the view that co-existing
coal and biomass combustion has an important role in carbon dioxide reductions and
that this stimulates rather than restricts developments in coal utilisation. Moravian lig-
nite also features in section 15.6.
5.1.5 Opatovice power station

This uses fuel from the central part of the North Bohemian Basin (NBB) [10]. Com-
bined heat and power (CHP) is practised at this power station, which in 2008 (the most
recent year for which the information is available) produced 2241 GW-hour or, equiv-
alently, produced at:
2241 × 109 J s–1 hour/(24 × 365) hour = 255 MW

and the nameplate capacity is about 40% higher than this [11,12]. There are two new
desulphurisation units at Opatovice [12], each of which uses lime.
5.1.6 Other major lignite-fired power stations in the Czech Republic

These include the Melnik power station [13], which is the closest in distance to the na-
tional capital Prague and uses fuel from the NBB. Built in parts coming into service at
quite widely separated times, it has a capacity of 1072 MW. There is also the Komořany
power station, capacity 239 MW, which is situated at Most in the north-west part of the
Czech Republic close to the border with Germany and uses fuel from Tušimice [14].
The Nováky Power Plant is the only such utility in the Slovak Republic to use brown
coal, and it is local. It is noted in [15] that the Slovak Republic has a billion tonnes of
brown coal. Even so > 20% of that used is imported from the Czech Republic. Analysis
figures of Slovakian brown coals collectively are given in [15] and these include water
contents in the range 24–36%. Brown coals originating in Slovakia are up to 2.5%
sulphur. This is reflected in the fact that in the 1990s new desulphurisation plant was
installed at the Nováky Power Plant, bringing the standards in terms of sulphur dioxide
release to those in western Europe.
5.2 Poland
5.2.1 introduction
The same approach will be taken as for the Czech Republic: background on the nature of
Polish lignites drawing on suitable recent literature followed by linkage of the informa-
tion on the lignites to their use in power generation at power plants selected for discussion.
5.2.2 Polish lignites

In [16] the order of reactivity for maceral groups:
vitrinite/huminite > liptinite > inertinite
35
is given as well-known background, and the identity of vitrinite with huminite previ-
ously noted in this book applies. The lignites studied were from deposits in the ‘Polish
Lowland’ and were found to be typically 89% in huminite.
5.2.3 Bełchatów power station

Having commenced operations in the 1980s, Bełchatów now delivers 5 GW of electrici-
ty and supplies a fifth of Poland’s electricity. Situated near Lodz, it has established itself
as the largest non-nuclear power station in Europe. It uses p.f. obtained from lignite from
the Polish Lowlands at a mine known as the Bełchatów mine. The fly ash from burning
the lignite as p.f. is micron or sub-micron in particle size. Fly ash can sometimes be used
as an ingredient for manufacture of cement, concrete and bricks. It is reported in [17,18]
that fly ash from Bełchatów holds promise for such use. This is probably due to the cal-
cium content. Fly ash from black coal tends to be more suitable for cement production
than that from brown coal [19]. It is worth noting that in bids for building contracts for
the US Federal Government use of materials containing fly ash is seen as a plus.
Bełchatów lignite is a major reserve having been the subject of investigations varied
in nature and reported in the peer-reviewed literature. In [20], which is concerned with
methane sorption by Polish lignites, we are told that its maceral analysis is dominated by
huminite (consistently with what is reported in [16]) and that there is significant xylite.
The need – common to usage of all lignites – to effect drying is the subject of [21] in
which superheated steam at 110–170°C is used on a test scale to dry Bełchatów lignite
in spherical particles of 5 mm and of 10 mm, representing of course particles before
pulverisation. It was noted that formation of cracks in the particles altered their surface
areas, and that this was a factor in drying performance. This theme continues in [22]
in which, for the drying of a Bełchatów lignite, equilibrium between applied steam and
coal moisture content is examined. It is clear from these few arbitrarily chosen examples
that advances in lignite utilisation are being applied to the coal from Bełchatów, which
has an important role in Poland’s future energy supply. The term sapropelic was intro-
duced earlier in the chapter in the description of Czech lignite. The deposit at Bełchatów
contains some sapropelic lignite as layers within humic coal, as well as xylite [23].
Returning to the power station at Bełchatów, it emits 30 million tonnes per year of
carbon dioxide [24]. Mitigation measures are in hand, and they include an advanced
process involving reaction of the carbon dioxide with amine, intrinsically a standard
approach. A photograph of the Bełchatów power station can be found in [24].
5.2.4 Pątnów power station

Expanded in stages since its initial use in 1967, this power station now has a capacity
of almost 1.7 GW.
Pątnów uses lignite from the Konin mine in the Zittau basin in central Poland [26].8
Coal from Konin as mined has a calorific value of 9 MJ kg–1 and is high in sulphur.
8 The Zittau basin extends across more than one country, and enters north Bohemia.
36
As with Germany and the Czech Republic, by drawing on hopefully judiciously

chosen research literature some facts about Konin lignite will be gleaned. In its
lithotype analysis [27], bands in a vertical section of the coal deposit of the order of
20 cm in width are assigned names as follows. There is xylitic lignite, a term having
previously featured in this text. There is detritic lignite with an internally highly
consolidated (‘massive’) structure though not free from fractures, also detro-xylitic
lignite and xylo-detritic lignite. In fact the coal studied in [27] was ‘in the vicinity
of Konin’ and the same is true of the work in [28] which treats Konin as a ‘basin’
in the ‘midlands of Poland’ (see also section 5.2.6). It is to the east of the Polish
Lowlands previously referred to. Additionally to analysis on the basis of detritic
lignite and xylitic lignite and so on, [28] gives huminite reflectances for 18 lignites
from the ‘Konin basin’. These are in the range 0.16–0.27. The fly ash from Pątnów
has been evaluated for another fairly common application [29]: blending with soil
to the enrichment of elements including phosphorus and calcium. Sometimes this
process has the further beneficial effect of raising the porosity of the soil to which
the fly ash is added.
5.2.5 Turów power station

This is in south-west Poland and has a capacity of 2 GW. It uses as fuel lignite from
the Turoszów basin, which is approaching 15% in ash. The set-up at Turów is what is
known as a mine mouth power station, a self-explanatory term, and the present name-
plate capacity is 1698 MW [30].
Turoszów features alongside Konin in reference [28], where it is recorded that 19 lig-
nite samples from Turoszów range in huminite reflectance from 0.18 to 0.35%. A paper
concerned with pyrolysis of a group of low-rank coals [31] gives as background the
calorific value of a Turoszów lignite on a dry, ash-free basis as 18.6 MJ kg–1. The same
source gives the volatile matter content as 48.6%. The ash content is given as 10.2%,
lower than for some coals from Turoszów. On the pollution front, it is stated in [32] that
at a time about ten years earlier emissions of lead from Turoszów had harmed tree life.
There is at Turów concurrent use of p.f. and several fluidised beds [33,34], and the
steam generated by the fluidised bed is in the supercritical state. Turów was one of the
earliest power plants to use supercritical steam raised by fluidised bed combustion. The
power station began operations in 1962, so renewal as well as expansion are taking
place. A new 430–450 MW unit is to be built [35] and a unit of approximately equiva-
lent rating is to be withdrawn from service. The new unit will of course receive lignite
from Turoszów.
5.2.6 Adamów power station

This, like Turow, is getting long in the tooth having been generating since 1966. It
draws lignite from the Adamów mine, adjacent to Konin; they are sometimes referred
to as the Konin-Adamów basin [36]. Details for Adamów lignite amongst others from
Poland are given in [37]. Such details include the fact that it is high in huminite and
37
also that it is low in ash. In [20], previously cited in relation to Bełchatów lignite, it is
stated that the petrographic analysis of Adamów lignite is 75% and that the huminite
reflectance is 0.27–0.28%.
The Adamów power station does have a limited future: it is expected to cease opera-
tions in 2024 [38]9, which is probably why there has been no recent expansion.
5.2.7 Proposed Legnica power station

There are plans for a new power station at Legnica in Lower Silesia [39] which, if it is
completed, will draw lignite from a deposit of the same name. Irrespective of whether or
not the Legnica power station comes to fruition, the Legnica lignite mine is seen as an
important supplier of fuel for the future power industry in Poland [40]. In terms of litho-
type analysis, Legnica lignite is detritic with a small amount of xylite (see section 5.2.3)
and it is high in huminite [41]. That the Legnica power station proposal will go ahead
is not certain. Even more speculative is power generation at Gubin-Mosty in western
Poland, where there is a deposit of quite sufficient size to supply a major power station.
5.2.8 Concluding remarks

Heavy dependence on lignite in post-communist Poland is clear. It is increased by a
very striking point regarding Poland’s energy mix: there are no nuclear power plants
in Poland. By contrast the Czech Republic – also formerly ‘Eastern Europe’ – has two
nuclear power stations, one with four reactors and the other with two. These have a
combined capacity of 3.8 GW. Hungary (see section 5.5) receives 46% of its electricity
from its nuclear power station at Paks. So whither Poland in the matter of lignite pro-
duction utilisation?
5.3 Greece
5.3.1 introduction
We are informed in [42] that Greece ‘boasts’ 4.7 billion tonnes of lignite and that in
2012 electricity was generated from it at a rate of 11.2 GW, this being 68% of the total
rate of generation in that year. Below, selected major power stations will be discussed
in turn as for Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland above.
5.3.2 Ptolemaida power station

This was the first such facility in Greece to use lignite as fuel, and will accordingly be
described below. It entered service in 1959 [43] which represents a late start; there were
lignite-powered power stations in other countries long before then. The power station
produces at 495 MW and a further unit which will more than double that is expected
to start producing in 2019. The Florina power station, close to Ptolemaida, produces
9 ‘Poland remains committed to lignite power generation’, Energy Post 17 november 2014. Accessible
at: http://www.energypost.eu/wishing-away-lignite-eu-climate-policy-ignores-elephant-room/
38
330 MW. The mine of the same name, though a.k.a. the Ptolemaida-Florina Mine, pro-
duces 49 million tonnes per year of lignite. Lignite from the deposit is of low calorific
value, 5–6 MJ kg–1 when in situ at the mine [44]. This is a direct consequence of the
unusually high ash content, reported in [45] as being 38.4% dry basis. Use in power
generation of coal from this basis produces annually 8 million tonnes of fly ash [44].
The new unit at Ptolemaida will occupy space at a now depleted part of the lignite
deposit. Construction of the new unit at Ptolemaida will be by Hitachi [46], who have
constructed new capacity for a number of lignite-fired power stations including two
having featured previously in this text: Lippendorf and Boxberg. Opposition to the new
unit was inevitable and in a protest by World Wildlife Fund [47] the point is made that
the expected efficiency of 40.6% in the new unit at Ptolemaida (obtained of course by
use of supercritical steam) is below the efficiencies which are realised at some Vattenfall
and RWE generating facilities using lignite. This argument merits close consideration,
but that is not true of such utterances as that in [48] which describes the extension at
Ptolemaida as being ‘anachronistic’, following that with a header ‘Lignite has serious
impacts’. This disregards the obvious point that standards of emission control can be
high or low with any fuel and that the term ‘clean coal’ has more to do with combustion
practices and emission control than with the coal itself, a point reiterated in section 16.4.
5.3.3 Agios dimitrios power station

Having entered service in 1983 at a capacity of 600 MW, this facility now has five
300 MW turbines, the nameplate capacity of 1.5 GW making it a ‘big player’ amongst
the power plants in the Mediterranean countries. It utilises 65–70 thousand tonnes per
day of South Field lignite [49]. As in section 4.2.6 which dealt with lignites from Lusa-
tia, mine dumps will feature in the discussion of South Field lignite.
Over the period 10 May to 15 July 2004, there was movement of a pile of waste at South
Field [50]. Internal destabilisation is believed to have involved movement of the order
of 40 Mm3 of matter in the pile. A quantity equal to about a fifteenth of this exited the
dump zone. Factors in the incident were the high water content of the substances within
the pile and exacerbation of water effects by the existence of a spring at the base of the
pile [50].
As mined, South Field lignite has a calorific value as low as about 5 MJ kg–1, again be-
cause of the ash content which ranges from 28 to 44% [51]. An interesting point arises
in relation to sulphur in lignites at South Field. The sulphur content is about 0.4%. No
sulphur dioxide is emitted because there is sufficient calcium in the coal to trap the
sulphur as calcium sulphate [52]. This same effect has been reported for Australian
brown coals [53].
Recent promotional literature on Agios Dimitrios [54] says: ‘Lignite is a somewhat inef-
ficient fuel due to its low heat value.’ That of course applies to Greek lignites in particu-
lar because of their high ash contents as noted. The statement continues: ‘Still, having
[lignite] mines of our own nearby has an advantageous effect on the production costs.’
39
5.3.4 Megalopolis power station

This draws on a lignite mine of the same name as well as on two other mines. Its ex-
pected production for 2020 [55] is 6 million MW-hours equalling, in round-the-clock
operation, a generation rate of:
6 × 106 MW-hour/(365 × 24) hour = 685 MW

Megalopolis has five mills for pulverising, each capable of delivering 180 tonnes per
hour. Electricity for this power station services a number of the Greek islands.
A good deal has been written about radioactivity at the deposit from which the Mega-
lopolis power station sources its lignite, so it is appropriate in this section to discuss this
issue in general terms with Megalopolis as the background. There is often measurable
radioactivity in lignites, originating with the mineral content. In Victoria, Australia, a
device was once developed which guided the operators of the dredger at a brown coal
open cut. The principle of operation was that a radioactive meter fitted to the dredger
would give a response dependent on the mineral matter of the coal being accessed,
which will vary across the open cut [56]. The operators were thereby alerted if the
dredger had entered an area particularly high in mineral matter, and could re-position
it so as to avoid coal high in mineral matter and therefore productive of ash on burning.
The focus of investigations of these effects at Megalopolis has been radioactivity in the
soil close to the power station itself and at the scenes of fly ash disposal [57]. Measure-
ments were taken at six sites none more than 5 km from the boundary of the power sta-
tion, which comprises five units all using lignite as fuel. A little necessary background
on units and definitions in radioactivity is given in the box.
• The term ‘Roentgen equivalent man’ (rem) is ‘the dosage rads that will cause the
same amount of biological injury as one rad of X rays or gamma rays’ [58].
• One rad is the dose which causes 0.01 joule of energy from the radiation to be
absorbed per kilogram of the (usually human) receiver.
• One Sievert (Sv) is 1 J kg–1 of received energy, resulting from a dose of 100 rad.
• With a radionuclide, 1 Becquerel is one disintegration per second. Signifying one

event per second it is equivalent to unit frequency viz. 1 s –1.
In the study at Megalopolis, the six sites ranged from 180 to 500 nSv hour –1 of gamma
radiation. Measurements were taken 1 m above the ground. There were also measure-
ments of three particular radionuclides from soil taken from each of the sites: 226Ra,
232
Th and 40K. Across the six sites 226Ra ranged from 80 to 593 Bq kg–1, 232Th from 32 to
44 Bq kg–1 and 40K from 300 to 524 Bq kg–1. Note that with the radionuclides the meas-
urements are per kilogram of releaser not per kilogram of receiver as with the gamma
ray measurements.
40
The particular study being examined [57] concluded that scenes of fly ash disposal did
not exceed in radioactive content adjacent areas where there had been no such dispos-
al. There are on the internet innumerable sources of information on gamma radiation
emission levels and radionuclide disintegration levels from particular substances and
at particular locations, and these the interested reader can readily access. He or she can
draw on the contents of this section for an introduction to the formalism of radioactivi-
ty and for a ‘feel’ for the dosage and emission rates which would apply to fly ash.
5.3.5 Amyntaio power station

Known locally as the Filotas Steam Electric Station, this produces at 600 MW from
two equivalent units. Its emission factor for carbon dioxide for 2011 is given as 1349 kg
per MW-hour of electricity [59], and this is compared with the values for some other
Greek lignite-fired power stations including Ptolemaida (1577 in the same units) and
Florina (1210 in the same units). By way of comparison, the factor across coals of all
ranks in the USA is 1020 kg per MW-hour [60].
Simple calculations apropos of the carbon dioxide emissions at Amyntaio are presented
in the box.
600 MW round-the-clock is annually:
[600 MW × (365 × 24) hour] MW-hour, productive of:
[600 MW × (365 × 24) hour] × 1349 × 10–3 tonne of carbon dioxide
= 7 090 344 tonnes of carbon dioxide according to the emission factor of

1349 kg (MW-hour)–1 given in [59].
In [61] the total carbon dioxide release for the two 300 MW (= 600 MW)
units at Amyntaio is given as 5 124 545 tonnes, a figure 28% lower, simply
indicating that the units are not working at full capacity the whole of the time.
Data from the two sources [59,61] therefore hang together.
That there are serious environmental difficulties in the Municipality of Amyntaio,

home to the ‘Filotas Steam Electric Station’, is clear from [62], in which it is
pointed out that there was in the area no investment in renewables until 2009.
5.3.6 Kardia power station

This produces at 1250 MW, using in p.f. form coal from the Kardia field of calorific value
5.5 MJ kg–1 and 31.5% ash content. Superheated steam is used. In a study from 2007, twen-
ty-six samples of lignite from the Kardia field were examined [63]. In the air-dried state,
the samples ranged from 9 to 25% moisture. On a dry basis, ash ranged from 13 to 29%.
Carbon dioxide from devolatilisation at 550°C ranged from 1 to 16% dry basis. Dominant
constituents of the ash included SiO2 and Al2O3. Arsenic was surprisingly prevalent as a
41
trace element, up to 127 μg per g coal. Strontium was present in even larger amounts. In
view of the high ash content, that slagging and fouling are a difficulty is no surprise and
the deleterious effects of these at the Kardia power station are reported in [64]. There are
electrostatic precipitators there which were upgraded in the early 2000s [65]. Kardia and
Agios Dimitrios have come under criticism (e.g. [66]) on account of their emissions.
Returning to the matter of devolatilised carbon dioxide, this arises from the fact that the
oxygen content of a lignite represents parts already oxidised and is conceptually distinct
from that arising from combustion. This has to be accounted for in a mass balance. In
section 1.4 it is mentioned that two particular drying procedures for low-rank coal also
achieve decarboxylation. This is of course beneficial in carbon dioxide emission terms.
When a lignite from the Amynteon-Ptolemaida deposit was studied for petrographic prop-
erties [67] it was concluded that within the inertinite group of macerals there was both au-
tochthonous and allochthonous material. The 10% of inertodetrinite was judged to be alloch-
thonous whilst the remainder of the inertinite macerals were judged to be autochthonous.
The gelification index (GI – see section 2.2) for coal from this source was also reported.
It was defined as:
GI = (ulminite + humocollinite + densinite)/(textinite + attrinite + inertinite)

Whilst the huminite macerals are lumped together in the denominator, all of the other
quantities are for particular macerals, and the calculation was performed for 20 sam-
ples from the deposit. As an example, one sample was inertinite 0.5%, attrinite zero,
textinite 6.8%, ulminite 60.6%, densinite 17.4% and humocollinite 1.9%. Substitution
gives a GI value of 10.9. By contrast another sample was inertinite 57.5%, attrinite zero,
textinite 0.3%, ulminite 15.0%, densinite 18.4% and humocollinite 1.9%, giving a GI
value of 0.6. In the first the degree of gelification is high and in the second low. The
cut-off between highly and less highly gelified coals was set at GI = 2, and all of the
samples except two were highly gelified on this criterion.
5.4 Bulgaria
5.4.1 introduction
The leading lignite mining operator in Bulgaria is Mini Maritza Iztok Ead [68], the
country’s largest employer. It supplies the power stations discussed below. Some of the
properties of Maritza lignite are summarised in [69], in which we are told that the ash
content on a dry basis is 14.5%. There is a high proportion of sulphur – organic and as
pyrite – which together account for over 3.5% of the coal weight. The calorific value on
a dry, ash-free basis is 25.5 MJ kg–1. On the petrographic front, the following macerals
have been separated from lignites from Maritza [70]: resinite, humoresinite, textinite,
ulminite, semifusinite and fusinite.10
10 A reader might wish to consult reference [26] in Chapter 2, which was cited as a reference for
maceral nomenclature.
42
5.4.2 The Maritza complex

This comprises three lignite-fired power stations: Maritza East 1 ME-1, Maritza East 2
ME-2, and Maritza East 3 ME-3. They all use lignite from the Maritza East mines [71].
They are mine mouth plants.
Power generation at the complex began in the early 1960s. There was once a lignite
drying plant, but this went out of service. Instead, raw lignite is combined with bri-
quettes, which are milled together to give p.f. of enhanced calorific value. Maritza
East 1 ME-1, 250 km south-east of Sofia [68], currently generates at 670 MW [72]. It
is being evaluated for expansion in environmental terms, reflecting Bulgaria’s ongoing
commitment to lignite.
Maritza East 2 ME-2 has evolved to its current performance and level of capitalisa-
tion over a period of a little over 50 years [71]. It has eight generating units with a
combined production of 1465 MW. As at other power plants featuring in the book,
gypsum is a saleable product from the desulphurisation of the flue gases. Maritza
East 3 ME-3 has been in service for 35 years [73]. Its expected electricity production
for 2020 [73] is 6 049 210 MW-hour which signifies power production round-the-
clock of 690 MW. In section 5.3.5 the carbon dioxide emission factor for the Amyn-
taio power station in Greece was examined and a value for power stations in the USA
was also given. Reference [73] gives a predicted 6 163 230 000 kg of carbon dioxide
from Maritza East 3 ME-3 in 2020. This gives a carbon dioxide emission factor of
1018 kg per MW-hour of electricity. This compares favourably with the value of
1349 kg per MW-hour of electricity for the Amyntaio power station and just about
equals the value of 1020 kg per MW-hour for power plants using coal of all ranks
across the USA (see section 5.3.5).
5.4.3 The Bobov dol coalfield and power generation there from
This reserve in south-west Bulgaria consists of 100 million tonnes [68]. There are dif-
ferences in reporting of its rank. For example, it is described in [68] as a brown coal and
in [74] as a sub-bituminous coal.
Power generation at Bobov Dol commenced in 1974 [75]. Its projected supply for 2020
is 1 999 300 MW-hour ( ≡ 228 MW of power) and its expected carbon dioxide emission
factor for the same year is 1187 kg per MW-hour of electricity.
5.5 Hungary
5.5.1 Brown coal deposits
In Hungary brown coal far exceeds higher ranks of coal in abundance [76]. The
three scenes of brown coal mining in Hungary are Visonta, Bükkábrány and Márk-
ushegy: the first two are open cut and the third underground. Márkushegy provides
not more than 10% of the total electricity. Visonta brown coal is 25% in ash, with
silica the dominant constituent of the ash [77]. Its calorific value in situ at the mine
43
is 6.6 MJ kg–1, and sulphur is 0.86% [78]. Márkushegy is another example of uncer-
tainty over rank: classified in [76] and in other sources (e.g. [79]) as brown coal or as
lignite, it is seen by the authors of [80] as being sub-bituminous. A reserve can dis-
play sufficient variations in properties for such uncertainties to arise, a point which
emerges several times in this book including section 10.3 where, with an Australian
low-rank coal as an example, the ASTM11 classification of coal ranks is applied to a
reserve showing variation.
5.5.2 Matra power plant

This is in Visonta and uses lignite from the mine there and from Bükkábrány. An
output of 876 MW is realised by five non-equivalent units using lignite, and 66 MW
is available as required by way of top-up from a turbine using natural gas. It was an-
nounced in March 2015 that the major international concern Alstom (headquarters near
Paris) had been awarded a contract to renovate several of the steam turbines at Matra
[81]. Here again commitment to continued lignite usage is evident. Indeed, extended
life for Matra is being ensured in a number of ways [82]. These include new desulphur-
isation units and modified burners to control NOx and SO2 emissions. There are also
plans for ash disposal in the following way. It will be mixed with an equivalent weight
of water to form a pumpable paste, and taken that way to a suitable disposal site. Hun-
garian lignites feature in two further parts of this book: section 11.2.1 (briquetting) and
section 15.3.2 (supercritical extraction).
5.6 Turkey
There is in the literature an abundance of material on Turkish lignites. Across a group
of 24 lignites from Turkey examined in [83] ash contents ranged from 7.6 to 43.3% and
calorific values on a dry basis from 15.63 to 30.37 MJ kg–1. It is noted in [84] that only
6% of the known lignite reserves of Turkey – >13 million tonnes – have calorific values
exceeding about 12 MJ kg–1.
The planned Soma Kolin power station [85] is being built close to Ankara, and will
comprise two 225 MW generating units fired by lignite from Denis (a.k.a. Soma Den-
is), Evciler, Kozluören and Türkpiyale. The lignite at Soma Kolin will be burnt not as
p.f. but in fluidised beds, heat from which will raise steam for turbine passage, and
there will be flue gas desulphurisation. There is both a hopper and an electrostatic
precipitator for ash control. There is a 457 MW lignite-fired power station in Sivas,
central Turkey, which draws on the Kangal lignite deposit [86]. The lignite at Kangal
is hypautochthonous [87], there having been movement within the bed of deposited
plant debris.
There is a return to the burning of lignites from Turkey in section 20.2, where their
co-firing with biomass is considered.
11 American society for Testing and Materials. see also section 24.1.
44
5.7 Romania
Romania mines black coal and lignite, and all of it is used in power generation [88].
Selected lignite power stations are described in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Lignite-fired power stations in Romania.
POWER STATION DETAILS

2310 MW of electricity, the largest power plant in
Turceni
Romania [89]
Rovinari Four 330 MW units [91]
Mintia-Deva 1285 MW [92]
Craiova 300 MW [93]
Turceni (row 1) is a major polluter, and applications for financial aid to modernise and
upgrade have run into difficulties [90]. Alstom (see section 5.5.2) are to provide flue
gas desulphurisation for Rovinari (next row). Mintia-Deva began producing in 1969,
and has been expanded several times. Over that time it has produced 194 TW-hour of
electricity, giving a mean production over an approximate 45-year period of:
[194 × 1012 W-hour/(45 × 355 × 24) hour] × 10 –6 MW = 500 MW

or just under 40% of its current nameplate capacity. Alstom are also involved at Craiova
(following row) where, as at Rovinari, they will install flue gas desulphurisation.
5.8 The former Yugoslavia

5.8.1 introduction
In Yugoslavia before re-organisation the southern regions were scenes of lignite pro-
duction [94], and lignite is more abundant within the borders of the former Yugoslavia
than bituminous coal. The most important centre of activity was the Tito mines com-
plex in Tuzla, now in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was noted in section 5.1.1 that within
the former Yugoslavia a distinction is made between lignite and brown coal, as it is in
the former Czechoslovakia.
5.8.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina

There is large-scale use in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) of lignite in electricity gen-
eration [95]. The power generator Elektroprivreda BiH (EPBiH) owns power plants at
Tuzla and at Kakanj of capacity 715 and 460 MW, respectively, and each uses lignite
fuel. Elektroprivreda RS (EPRS) owns Ugljevik (300 MW) and Gacko (300 MW) power
plants, also lignite fired. The power plant at Tuzla entered service in 1959. New units
were added and some in turn decommissioned [96]. Tuzla obtains its lignite from a num-
ber of sources, and it is co-fired with 25% of black coal [97]. Kakanj coal is extremely
high in ash at 41%, though only moderate in sulphur (0.26%) [98]. Some of the ash is
45
diverted to cement manufacture [99] as at Bełchatów, above. Coal from Ugljevik is as

high as 4–6% in sulphur [95] whilst that from Gacko is around 1% [100]. Lignite produc-
tion at Dobrnja in BH, and the grave accident there in 1990, are discussed in Chapter 17.
5.8.3 slovenia
The most important lignite mine in Slovenia is that in the Šaleška Valley, a.k.a. the Ve-
lenje basin. This supplies the Šoštanj power plant. It came into operation over 50 years
ago, and the units initially present are closed down. A new unit recently came into
operation which uses supercritical steam [101].
Until 2013 an underground lignite mine at Trbovlje, Slovenia was producing [102] and
supplied the power station of the same name. Entering service in 1966, this power sta-
tion has a capacity of 250 MW from steam turbines plus an extra 64 MW from two gas
turbines [103]. The term sapropelic coal was introduced in section 5.1.2 and, in section
5.2.3, applied to lignite from Bełchatów. Lignite from Trbovlje is also sapropelic [104].
5.8.4 serbia
Table 5.2 gives details of some lignite-fired power stations in Serbia.
Table 5.2 Power stations in serbia.
LOCATION AND
DETAILS
REFERENCE
A new unit installed which, using supercritical steam, will
Kostolac [105] achieve an efficiency of 40.8% and produce 600 MW of
electricity
245 MW from lignite.
Kolubara [106]
Plans for Kolubara B, a 750 MW facility, unfulfilled [105]
The largest power plant in Serbia. Six units. Lignite from
Nikola Tesla [108]
Kolubara
Entered service in 1969. Capacity 125 MW. Lignite from
Morava [109]
Kolubara and from Rembas (see main text)
Lignite for the Kostolac power station is from the basin of the same name, and petro-
graphic details of this are given in [107]. Across a range of 13 lignite samples from the
deposit the huminite content, which in [108] is resolved into individual macerals, varies
from 60.7 to 74.0%. The Hardgrove index is remarkably consistent at 41–45. The same
details are given for Kolubara coal. They are, for a range of 11 samples, total huminite
57.2–85.7% and Hardgrove index 35.8–56.9.
The annual production at Nikola Tesla is 8 billion kW-hours [109], giving a production
rate of:
8 × 1012 W hour/(365 × 24) hour = 915 MW
46
which can be compared with the installed capacity of 1650 MW given in [108]. The
Morava power plant (next row) has been producing steadily for 45+ years though at a
low rate. There are proposals for a lignite-fired power station at Despotovac in Serbia,
which will use lignite from the Rembas mine [110] some of which will go to Morava.
5.8.5 Kosovo
Kosova (note the ‘a’) A and B power stations, both in Obilić, use as fuel lignite from the
Kosovo basin. Kosova A and B have a combined capacity of 1478 MW [111]. Lignite is
by far the biggest contributor to electricity generation in Kosovo. Lignites are not all of
the same degree of coalification or maturity, and vitrinite or huminite reflectance is a
measure of this. By geochemical analysis lignites from the Kosovo basin were deduced
to be less mature than many [112].
5.8.6 Montenegro
Pljevlja is the only lignite-fired power station in Montenegro, providing about 30% of
the country’s electricity needs [113]. Its capacity is 210 MW, enabling it to produce in
a year:
210 × 365 × 24 MW-hour = 1.8 TW-hour

Its actual annual output is given as 1.1 TW-hour. There have been proposals for expan-
sion [114]. Compliance with EU limits for emissions from power plants is one of many
issues to be faced by Montenegro before her admittance to the EU becomes a reality.
5.8.7 Macedonia (Republic of)

Lignite-fired power stations at Bitola and Oslomej contribute 800 MW to the electricity
generation capacity of the Republic of Macedonia [115]. The lignite is obtained from
the mine at Suvodol. Suvodol lignite and Florina lignite (above) have been compared
for performance in power generation, especially with regard to emissions [116].
5.8.8 Croatia
Croatia does not currently produce lignite, though the part of Yugoslavia which is now
Croatia did up to c.1975, at mines at Dobra and Istria [117]. It was used at the Plomin
power station, and supply of lignite to there by import from Kolubara has been dis-
cussed without yet being a reality.
5.9 Italy
A notable lignite reserve is that at Sulcis, Sardinia [118]. Under the Mussolini regime,
when Sulcis was producing > 1 million tonnes annually, a town nearby was renamed
Carbonia. Proximate analysis figures for Sulcis coal are given in [118] as volatile matter
35.6%, fixed carbon 40.1%, moisture 8.2% and ash 16%. The ash then is moderately
low. The petrographic analysis, using figures in [119], is vitrinite 82.0%, liptinite 12.3%
47
and inertinite 5.6%. Its vitrinite reflectance is given in [120] as 0.48%. Sulcis is another
lignite sometimes classified as sub-bituminous like those from Bobov Dol (see section
5.4.3) and that from Márkushegy (see section 5.5.1) amongst others. In [119] it is con-
cluded, on the basis of infra-red analysis and the occurrence of bands signifying humic
acids, that Sulcis coal is a lignite.
There is also lignite at Baccinello in Tuscany, central Italy [121], a comment on which
is made in section 21.2. Lignite from the Tiberino basin, also in central Italy, has been
characterised as being autochthonous [122].
5.10 Other European countries

Spain no longer produces lignite, although it does feature later in the book for example
in section 15.3.2 where supercritical extraction is the topic. In Catalonia there is a thin
deposit of lignite known to be allochthonous [123]. It has plant debris identifiable with
roots, often a characteristic of an allochthonous deposit. Detailed information on Me-
quinenza lignite from north-east Spain was published a little over 20 years ago [124].
Its volatile matter on a dry basis is 43.3%, its ash 21.6%. Its huminite reflectance is
0.35%. It is hypautochthonous to autochthonous (see section 2.6).
Portugal features later in the book when briquettes are discussed. Northern Ireland
has over a billion tonnes of lignite, and its use to make electricity has long been under
discussion [125]. Lignite recently discovered in France [126] awaits characterisation.
At Aix Island, off the French west coast, the existence of lignite was first noted in
1817. Gardanne lignite from southern France has been reported as having a vitrinite
reflectance of 0.48% [127] and has been described as a ‘high rank lignite’ [128]. At Ar-
jusanx in south-west France there is a lignite mine where possible utilisation has been
discussed [129]. The lignite there is less mature than that at Gardanne.
The Limburg coalfield in the Netherlands once produced lignite amongst other ranks of
coal [130]. Lignite from Limburg is now depleted. Such lignite as is known to exist in the
British Isles is discussed in Chapter 23, and the discourse now moves to North America.
5.11 References
[1] http://www.indexmundi.com/czech_republic/electricity_production.html
[2] Czech Republic: Inventory of Estimated Budgetary Support and Tax Expenditures for Fos-
sil Fuels, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris (2010)
[3] Havelcová M., Sykorová I., Trejtnarová H., Šulc A. ‘Identification of organic matter in
lignite samples from basins in the Czech Republic: geochemical and petrographic properties in
relation to lithotype’, Fuel 99: 129–142 (2012)
[4] Dexin H. Coal, Oil Shale, Natural Bitumen, Heavy Oil and Peat. Volume 1: Coal Geology,
EOLSS (2010)
[5] http://www.cez.cz/en/power-plants-and-environment/coal-fired-power-plants/cr/prunerov.
html
48
[6] http://www.sdas.cz/posts/the-nastup-tusimice-mines--doly-nastup-tusimice.aspx
[7] http://www.cez.cz/en/power-plants-and-environment/coal-fired-power-plants/cr/hodonin.
html
[8] Jones J.C. Combustion Science: Principles and Practice, Millennium Books, Sydney (1993)
[9] http://www.euracoal.com/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=70
[10] http://www.euracoal.com/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=70
[11] http://coal.steelguru.com/other_asia/337/eph_claims_czech_coal_supply_contract_termi-
nation_unjust
[12] http://www.tractebel-engineering-gdfsuez.com/reference/opatovice-coal-fired-pow-
er-plant-desulphurization-unit/
[13] http://www.cez.cz/en/power-plants-and-environment/coal-fired-power-plants/cr/melnik.
html
[14] http://www.cez.cz/edee/content/micrositesutf/odpovednost2011/en/environment/vyro-
ba-tezba-a-vystavba.html
[15] Skvarekova E., Kozakova L. ‘The issue of brown coal quality on the basis of physico-
chemical parameters’, The Holistic Approach to Environment 4: 163–167 (2011)
[16] Bielowicz B. ‘Preliminary assessment of the usefulness of the Polish lignite in the gasifi-
cation process according to its petrographic composition’, 64th Annual Meeting of the ICCP,
Beijing (2012)
[17] http://www.cwb-czasopismo.pl/en/?s=11&action=getArticle&aid=481&t=Proper-
ties+of+cements+with+calcareous+fly+ash+addition
[18] Hall J.S. ‘CSIRO research in ash pelletising’, The Miner August: 10–11 (1982)
[19] Aalbers T., van der Sloot H.A., Goumans J. (eds) Environmental Aspects of Construction
with Waste Materials, Elsevier (1994)
[20] Macuda J., Nodzeński A., Wagner M., Zawisza L. ‘Sorption of methane on lignite from
Polish deposits’, International Journal of Coal Geology 87: 41–48 (2011)
[21] Komatsu Y., Sciazko A., Zakrzewski M., Kimijima S., Hashimoto A., Kaneko S., Szmyd
J.S. ‘An experimental investigation on the drying kinetics of a single coarse particle of Belcha-
tow lignite in an atmospheric superheated steam condition’, Fuel Processing Technology 131:
356–369 (2015)
[22] Kokocinska M., Pakowski Z. ‘High pressure desorption equilibrium of lignite obtained by
the novel isochoric method’, Fuel 109: 627–634 (2013)
[23] Worobiec G., Szynkiewicz A. ‘Betulaceae leaves in Miocene deposits of the Bełchatów
Lignite Mine (Central Poland)’, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 147: 28–59 (2007)
[24] http://www.power-technology.com/projects/belchatow-plant/
[25] http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-16/issue-7/features/pow-pat-
now-goes-supercritical.html
49
[27] Widera M. ‘Lignite cleat studies from the first Middle-Polish (first Lusatian) lignite seam
in central Poland’, International Journal of Coal Geology 131: 227–238 (2014)
[28] Fabiańska M.J., Kurkiewicz S. ‘Biomarkers, aromatic hydrocarbons and polar compounds
in the Neogene lignites and gangue sediments of the Konin and Turoszów Brown Coal Basins
(Poland)’, International Journal of Coal Geology 107: 24–44 (2013)
[29] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-in-soil/
[31] Jones J.M., Kubackia M., Kubica K., Ross A.B., Williams A. ‘Devolatilisation character-
istics of coal and biomass blends’, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 74: 502–511
(2005)
[32] Zuna M., Mihaljevi M., Sebek O., Ettler V., Handley M., Navrátil T., Golias V. ‘Recent
lead deposition trends in the Czech Republic as recorded by peat bogs and tree rings’, Atmos-
pheric Environment 45: 4950–4958 (2011)
[33] Nowak W., Muskala W., Krzywanski J., Czakiert J. ‘The research of CFB boiler operation
for oxygen enhanced dried lignite combustion’, 10th International Conference on Circulating
Fluidized Beds and Fluidization Technology, Engineering Conferences International (2011)
[34] Johnson F. ‘Fluidized bed combustion for clean energy’, 12th International Conference on
Fluidization – New Horizons in Fluidization, Engineering Conferences International (2007)
[35] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-poland-budimex-hitachi-capital-idUS-
BREA2H1V820140318
[37] Bielowicz B. ‘A new technological classification of low-rank coal on the basis of Polish
deposits’, Fuel 96: 497–510 (2012)
[38] Gawlik L., Grudzinski Z. ‘Coal has a future’, Focus on Mining and Power Production
1(21): 16–19 (2009)
[39] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Legnica_Power_Station
[40] Ghose A.K., Bose L.K (eds) Mining in the 21st Century: Quo Vadis? Volume 1, CRC Press
(2003)
[41] Bielowicz B. ‘Petrographic composition of Polish lignite and its possible use in a fluidized
bed gasification process’, International Journal of Coal Geology 116: 236–246 (2013)
[43] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-08-08/greece-s-power-generator-tests-eu-
ro-fitness-amid-blackout-threat
[44] Kaldellis J.K., Zafirakis D., Kondili E. ‘Contribution of lignite in the Greek electricity
generation: review and future prospects’, Fuel 88: 475–489 (2009)
[45] Koukouzas N., Hamalainen J., Papanikolaou D., Tourunen A., Jantti T. ‘Mineralogical and
elemental composition of fly ash from pilot scale fluidised bed combustion of lignite, bitumi-
nous coal, wood chips and their blends’, Fuel 86: 2186–2193 (2007)
[46] http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/130409a.html
50
[47] http://www.wwf.gr/ptolemaida5en/
[48] https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=ER4KVYf7DKeN8QeXyYHQAQ&gws_
rd=ssl#q=greek+lignite+anachronistic
[49] https://books.google.com.au/books?id=FCNCcCY_pzIC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&d-
q=Agios+Dimitrios+++lignite+sulphur&source=bl&ots=DqGBdE4Xim&sig=0fNOZEoXN-
5SopBQVt-2NKM2r1y0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xx7hVP7TD4SymAW-yYG4DQ&ved=0CB0Q6A-
EwAA#v=onepage&q=Agios%20Dimitrios%20%20%20lignite%20sulphur&f=false
[50] Steiakakis E., Kavouridis K., Monopolis D. ‘Large scale failure of the external waste
dump at the South Field lignite mine, Northern Greece’, Engineering Geology 104: 269–279
(2009)
[51] Kavouridis K., Roumpos C., Galetakis M. ‘The effect of power plant efficiency, lignite
quality and inorganic matter on CO2 emissions and competitiveness of Greek lignite’, Gór-
nictwo I Geoinżynieria 31: 355–369 (2007)
[52] Proceedings of the International Workshop in Geoenvironment and Geotechnics, Milos
Island, Greece (2005)
[53] Jones J.C., Stacy W.O. ‘SO2 and NOx emissions from the combustion of Victorian brown
coals’, Proceedings of the Second Australian Coal Science Conference pp. 424–430, Australi-
an Institute of Energy (1986)
[54] ‘Transformation from the inside’, Automation 2: 25–27 (2008)
[55] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Megalopolis_Powerplant
[56] Mathew P.J. The Natural Radioactivity of Brown Coal in the Latrobe Valley and its
Application to Exploration and Grade Control in Coal Winning, CSIRO Division of Mineral
Physics, Melbourne (1979)
[57] Karangeloa D.J., Rouni P.K., Petropoulos N.P., Anagnostakis M.J., Hinis E.P., Si-
mopoulos S.E. ‘Radioenvironmental survey of the Megalopolis power plants’ fly ash
deposits’, Bulletin from the National Technological University of Athens. Accessible at:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0C-
CIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnuclear.ntua.gr%2Farcas%2Fresearch%2Fradmaps%2F-
meg_deposits.pdf&ei=D03hVMSdE8S6mAWLpoHYAQ&usg=AFQjCNGpPHdFkZ9KIsrjs-
J2SxGw-JOkXLA&bvm=bv.85970519,d.dGY
[58] http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/rem-roentgen-equivalent-man.html
[59] Kaldellis J.K., Kapsali M. ‘Evaluation of the long-term environmental performance of
Greek lignite-fired power stations’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31: 472–485
(2014)
[60] http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html
[61] Vatalisa K.I., Charalampidesa G., Platiasa S. ‘CCS Ready innovative technologies in
coal-fired power plants as an effective tool for a Greek low carbon energy policy’, Procedia
Economics and Finance 14: 634 – 643 (2014)
[62] ‘Rural Web Energy Network for Action’, eReNet, March 2013
[63] Adamidou K., Kassoli-Fournaraki A., Filippidis A., Christanis K., Amanatidou E.,
Tsikritzis L., Patrikaki O. ‘Chemical investigation of lignite samples and their ashing products
51
from Kardia lignite field of Ptolemais, Northern Greece’, Fuel 86: 2502–2508 (2007)
[64] Panagiotidis I., Vafiadis K., Tourlidakis A., Tomboulides A. ‘Study of slagging and
fouling mechanisms in a lignite-fired power plant’, Applied Thermal Engineering 74: 156–164
(2014)
[65] http://www.metka.com/en/projects/projects-of-metka-group/10
[66] http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-05-16-wwf-report-save-the-planet-or-start-
praying-for-a-new-one/#.VQtRDW8cSUk
[67] Mavridoua E., Antoniadisa P., Khanaqab P., Riegelb W., Gentzis T. ‘Paleoenvironmental
interpretation of the Amynteon-Ptolemaida lignite deposit in northern Greece based on its
petrographic composition’, International Journal of Coal Geology 56: 253–268 (2003)
[69] Maes I.I., Mitchell S.C., Yperman J., France D.V., Marinov S.P., Mullens J., Van Poucke
L.C. ‘Sulfur functionalities and physical characteristics of the Maritza lztok Basin lignite’,
Fuel 75: 1286–1293 (1996)
[70] Siskov G.D., Petrovat R. ‘Infrared spectra of coal macerals separated from Bulgarian
Iignites’, Fuel 53: 236–239 (1974)
[71] http://see-industry.com/industrial-statiieng.aspx?br=44&rub=234&id=622
[72] http://www.aecom.com/What+We+Do/Energy/Energy+Planning,+Environmen-
tal+and+Economics/_projectsList/AES+Maritza+East+1+Power+Plant
[73] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Maritza_East-3_Powerplant
[74] Vassilev S.V., Vassileva C.G. ‘Comparative chemical and mineral characterization of some
Bulgarian coals’, Fuel Processing Technology 55: 55–69 (1998)
[75] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Bobov_Dol_Powerplant
[77] Barna J. ‘Humic substances-clay complexes in Hungarian coals’, Fuel 62: 380–388 (1983)
[78] Meggyes A. ‘NOx and SO2 emissions of Hungarian electric power plant boilers’, Perjodica
Polytechnica Ser. Mech. Eng. 35: 177 (1991)
[79] http://www.energiapolitika.eu/index.php/en/a-project-en/background-of-the-project-3
[80] Bechtel A., Hámor-Vidó M., Sachsenhofer R.F., Reischenbacher D., Gratzer R., Püttmann
W. ‘The middle Eocene Márkushegy subbituminous coal (Hungary): paleoenvironmental
implications from petrographical and geochemical studies’, International Journal of Coal
Geology 72: 33–52 (2007)
[81] http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/03/alstom-wins-contract-at-hungarian-
coal-fired-power-plant.html
[82] Extended Life of Hungary’s Matra Power Station, RWE Power International, Swindon,
England (2008)
[83] Kuqukbayrak S., Durus B., Mericboyu A.E., Kadioglu E. ‘Estimation of calorific values of
Turkish lignites’, Fuel 70: 979–981 (1991)
52
[85] http://www.power-technology.com/projects/soma-kolin-thermal-power-plant-ankara/
[86] http://www.industrialinfo.com/news/abstract.jsp?newsitemID=233470
[87] Erik H.Y. ‘Hydrocarbon generation potential and Miocene–Pliocene paleoenvironments of
the Kangal Basin (Central Anatolia, Turkey)’, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences 42: 1146–1162
(2011)
[89] http://www.lahmeyer.de/projekte/energie/konventionelle-stromerzeugung/single/article/
turceni-thermal-power-plant-units-3-to-6-romania.html
[90] http://bankwatch.org/news-media/for-journalists/press-releases/ebrd-suspends-loan-roma-
nian-coal-plant-turceni
[91] http://www.hadek.com/project-reports/rovinari-power-station
[92] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Mintia-Deva_Power_Station
[93] http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2012/9/alstom-to-supply-air-quality-control-systems-
in-taiwan-and-romania/
[94] http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14861.html
[95] Dimitrijevic Z., Tatic K. ‘The economically acceptable scenarios for investments in desul-
phurization and denitrification on existing coal-fired units in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Energy
Policy 49: 597–607 (2012)
[96] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tuzla_Thermal_Power_Plant
[97] Dellantonio A., Fitz W.J., Custovic H., Repmann F., Schneider B.U., Grunewald H.,
Gruber V., Zgorelec Z., Zerem N., Carter C. Markovic M., Puschenreiter M., Wenzel W.W.
‘Environmental risks of farmed and barren alkaline coal ash landfills in Tuzla, Bosnia and
Herzegovina’, Environmental Pollution 153: 677–686 (2008)
[98] Kazagic A., Smajevic I. ‘Synergy effects of co-firing wooden biomass with Bosnian coal’,
Energy 34: 699–707 (2009)
[99] http://www.elektroprivreda.ba/eng/page/tpp-kakanj
[100] Thomas L., Frankland S. ‘Mining at Gacko open-cast mine Bosnia-Herzegovina – a
question of economics’, Geologica Belgica 7: 267–271 (2004)
[101] http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/news/topical_briefs/2013-march-01/tes-thermal-pow-
er-plant-sostanj-project-slovenia.htm
[102] http://www.euracoal.be/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=80
[103] http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-slovenia.htm
[104] Slejkovec Z., Kanduc T. ‘Unexpected arsenic compounds in low-rank coals’, Environ-
mental Science and Technology 39: 3450–3454 (2005)
[105] http://www.nama-database.org/index.php/Construction_of_a_Super-critical_Lignite_
Power_Plant_TTP_Kostolac_B
[106] Životić D., Bechtel A., Sachsenhofer R., Gratzer R., Radić D., Obradović M., Stojanović
53
K. ‘Petrological and organic geochemical properties of lignite from the Kolubara and Kostolac
basins, Serbia: implication on Grindability Index’, International Journal of Coal Geology 157:
165–183 (2015)
[107] http://wikimapia.org/6625400/T-E-Kolubara-Powerplant
[108] RWE Identified Potential Improvements in Serbian Electricity Supply, RWE, Swindon
and Koeln (2008)
[109] http://www.tent.rs/en/pp-qmoravaq
[110] http://serbia-energy.eu/serbia-coal-mine-rembas-expands-exploration-to-new-pit/
[111] Hasania F., Shala F., Xhixha G., Xhixha M.K., Hodolli G., Kadiri S., Bylyku E., Cfarku
F. ‘Naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs) generated from lignite-fired power
plants in Kosovo’, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 138: 156–161 (2014)
[112] Fuel and Energy Abstracts May 1997, p. 134
[113] http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-bosnia-montenegro.htm
[114] http://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/pljevlja-ii-lignite-power-plant-montenegro
[115] http://bankwatch.org/campaign/coal/macedonia
[116] Proceedings of the International Workshop in Geoenvironment and Geotechnics, Milos,
Greece, Heliotopos Conferences (2005)
[117] Richardson M. Effects of War on the Environment: Croatia, CRC Press (2002)
[118] King R. The Industrial Geography of Italy, Routledge (2015)
[119] D’Alessio A., Vergamini P., Benedetti E. ‘FT-IR investigation of the structural changes
of Sulcis and South Africa coals under progressive heating in vacuum’, Fuel 79: 1215–1220
(2000)
[120] Amorino C., Bencini R., Cara R., Cinti D., Deriu G., Fandinò V., Giannelli A., Maz-
zotti M., Ottiger S., Pizzino L., Pini R., Quattrocchi F., Sardu R.G., Storti G., Voltattorni N.
‘CO2 geological storage by ECBM techniques in the Sulcis area (SW Sardinia Region, Italy)’,
Second International Conference on Clean Coal Technologies for our Future, Sardinia (2005).
Accessible at: http://www.cct2005.it
[121] Harrison T.S., Harrison T. ‘Palynology of the late Miocene Oreopithecus-bearing lignite
from Baccinello, Italy’, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 76: 45–65 (1989)
[122] Basilici G. ‘Sedimentary facies in an extensional and deep-lacustrine depositional sys-
tem: the Pliocene Tiberino Basin, Central Italy’, Sedimentary Geology 109: 73–94 (1997)
[123] Sanjuan J., Martín-Closas C. ‘Charophyte palaeoecology in the Upper Eocene of the
Eastern Ebro basin (Catalonia, Spain): biostratigraphic implications’, Palaeogeography, Palae-
oclimatology, Palaeoecology 365: 247–262 (2012)
[124] White C.M., Collins L.W., Veloski G.A., Irdi G.A., Rothenberger K.S., Gray R.J.,
LaCount R.B., Kasrai M., Bancroft M., Brown J.R., Huggins F.E., Shah N., Huffman G.P. ‘A
study of Mequinenza lignite’, Energy & Fuels 8: 155–171 (1994)
[125] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00578261
[126] Néraudeau D., Allain R., Ballèvre M., Batten D.J., Buffetaut E., Colin J.P., Dabard
54
M.P., Daviero-Gomez V., El Albani A., Gomez B., Grosheny D., Le Loeuff J., Leprince A.,
Martín-Closas C., Masure E.M., Mazin J-M., Philippe M., Pouech J., Tong H., Tournepichem
J.F., Vullo R. ‘The Hauteriviane Barremian lignitic bone bed of Angeac (Charente, south-west
France): stratigraphical, palaeobiological and palaeogeographical implications’, Cretaceous
Research 37: 1–14 (2012)
[127] Duxbury J. ‘Prediction of coal pyrolysis yields from BS volatile matter and petrographic
analyses’, Fuel 76: 1337–1343 (1997)
[128] Come B., Chapman M.A. Natural Analogues in Radioactive Waste Disposal, Springer
Science & Business Media (2012) [a Google ebook]
[129] Woodruff S.D. Methods of Working Coal and Metal Mines: Planning and Operations,
Volume 3, Elsevier (2013) [a Google ebook]
[130] Wintle M. An Economic and Social History of the Netherlands 1800–1920, Cambridge
University Press (2000)
55
CHAPTER 6
ELECTRICITY GENERATION III – NORTH
AMERICA
6.1 Introduction
We are told in [1] that North Dakota and Texas are the main lignite-producing states of
the USA. North Dakota has made an appearance in sections 1.3.3, 1.4, 2.3 and 3.1 of
the book and ‘Beulah Zap’ in particular has been referred to. Although it is exceeded in
lignite production by Texas, North Dakota is sometimes seen as being the USA’s lignite
producer par excellence. Accordingly the first part of this chapter will focus on North
Dakota. Other lignite-utilising states will follow.
6.2 North Dakota (ND)

6.2.1 nd lignites
Limited petrographic information was given in Chapter 2. An ‘average quality of com-
mercially shipped’ ND lignite is reviewed in [2]. This gives a value of 10 603 BTU lb –1
(24.7 MJ kg–1) for the calorific value on a dry basis and 14.4% for the ash content, also
dry basis. The sulphur content, dry basis, is given as 1.3%. Production of lignite in ND
in 2014 was 28.7 million tons (26.0 million tonnes) [3]. Major power stations in ND will
now be considered in turn.
6.2.2 Coal Creek power station

The largest power plant in ND, this has two 550 MW units [4,5] and takes lignite from
ND’s Falkirk mine (see Table 1.1) which it burns as p.f. All of the electricity produced
at Coal Creek is sold to Minnesota.
One of the 550 MW units at Coal Creek began operation in 1979 and the second in 1980
[5]. The two units use between them 22 000 tons (19 954 tonnes) of lignite per day. It
uses superheated (not supercritical) steam.
Coal Creek was the scene of development of the DryFiningTM process [6] the concept
of which is simple: heat from the turbine on fluid exit is used partially to dry the lignite
before firing. The calorific value of the lignite as fired has in this way been raised from
14.5 to 16.6 MJ kg-1.
6.2.3 Coyote power station and R.M. Heskett power station

These are being considered together as they both use lignite from the Beulah mine.
Coyote has one 420 MW unit [7,8] and is in its 35th year of operation. The flue gases
from the power station contain significant mercury [9]. To the use of fly ash in building
materials previously described can be added another such use. Fly ash can be used to
56
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn iii – nORTH AMERiCA
consolidate drill cuttings from newly created oil wells to make them easier to dispose
of, and fly ash from Coyote is so used [10]. It is sold, not passed along at handling cost,
to the oil field operator.
The R.M. Heskett power station in Mandan ND has two non-equivalent units providing
100 MW [11]. The two units, which were installed at times almost a decade apart, do
not use the same combustion technique and neither uses p.f. One of the units uses a
spreader stoker, which discharges lumps of fuel as required onto a grate for combus-
tion. The other unit at R.M. Heskett is a fluidised bed.
6.2.4 Leland Olds and Antelope Valley power stations

The Leland Olds power station near Stanton ND uses lignite from the Freedom mine
(see footnote 4), a few miles from Beulah [12]. The power station generates 656 MW
from two non-equivalent units. Its environmental control measures include low-NOx
burners. Some of the electricity from Leland Olds is exported to South Dakota. The
Antelope Valley power station, also using lignite from the Freedom mine, is consider-
ably larger. It produces 900 MW from two equivalent units. Freedom mine is, in terms
of annual production, the largest lignite mine in the USA and supplies several facilities
in addition to the Leland Olds and Antelope Valley power stations [13].
6.2.5 Milton R. Young power station

This has a nameplate capacity of 705 MW [14] from two non-equivalent units using
lignite from the mine in Center ND [15]. Reference [16] gives the calorific value of
Center lignite on an as-received basis as 15.3–16.4 MJ kg–1. This information together
with data from [14] provides a basis for the semi-quantitative calculations shown in
the box.
We use the mid value of the calorific value range, which is 15.9 MJ kg–1. The power plant
uses ≈ 4.5 million tons – 4.1 million tonnes – of lignite annually from Center mine to
produce 705 MW. A generating efficiency will be calculated from these data as:
work out/heat in
In one year, work out = 705 × 106 J s–1 × (365 × 24 × 3600) s = 2.22 × 1016 J
In one year, heat in = 4.1 × 109 kg × 15.9 × 106 J kg–1 = 6.52 × 1016 J
Efficiency = 34%
6.2.6 spiritwood power station

Also using ND lignite, this plant had been in mothballed status for three years by the
time it came into service in November 2014 [17,18]. It has an output of 99 MW of elec-
tricity, and is a CHP facility [17].
57
6.2.7 Coal balls in nd

A coal ball is a consolidated inorganic structure, principally carbonate or pyrite and
possibly silica, enclosing peat. The most notable examples are perhaps those found in
the higher rank coal deposits of Pennsylvania. Coal balls have been identified in ND
lignite beds. The coal balls from Beulah Zap were found to be entirely calcite in their
inorganic part [19], and differed from those from elsewhere in ND and from coal balls
generally in that plant debris is absent from the enclosed peat.
6.3 Montana (MT)

Bordering to the east with ND, MT has a much more limited programme of lignite
utilisation and only one lignite mine being worked, that at Savage on the MT–ND
border [20]. This services the well-known Lewis and Clark power plant in MT [21,22],
to which there is reference in Chapter 3. The power station has been in existence for
over 60 years, and operates at 57 MW. At the time of commencement of its operations,
the Lewis and Clark power plant exceeded in capacity that of any other lignite-fired
plant in the USA.
6.4 Texas (TX)

6.4.1 introduction
Moving from states having a border with Canada to one on the Gulf Coast, we go
on to consider Texan lignite, of which there is an enormous quantity and which has
been mentioned in the introductory part of this book, this being an indication of its
magnitude. The 2011 figure for production of lignite in Texas is 45.9 million tons
(41.6 million tonnes) [23]. As with ND, lignite-fired power plants in TX will be con-
sidered in turn.
6.4.2 Petrographic comments

North Dakota and Texas are the main lignite-producing states of the USA as noted,
and in [24] the maceral analyses of a group of six TX lignites and those of a group
of six ND lignites are presented side by side for comparison. In four of the six TX
lignites huminite was the dominant maceral group, the range being 47.3–82.0%. With
the ND lignite huminite dominated in all but one of the six, and was in the range
22.6–89.5%. For the TX group the huminite reflectance was in the range 0.29–0.36%:
for the ND group it was in the range 0.21–0.28%. The two groups therefore differ
measurably in this regard and that the TX lignites had attained greater maturity than
the set from ND, in the sense of advance along the peat-to-anthracite series, is the
obvious explanation. Continuing the comparison into Hardgrove index, that for a par-
ticular TX lignite was presented in Table 1.2. Those for ND lignites as mined [16] are
in the range 54.7–87.8 [16].
58
6.4.3 Luminant12 Oak grove and sandow power plants

Oak Grove is a new facility, having begun generation and supply in 2010. It uses su-
percritical steam and has two units each generating at 800 MW [25]. Lignite for Oak
Grove is obtained from the nearby Kosse mine [25]. In 2010, the year the Oak Grove
plant started up, 6.2 million tons (5.6 million tonnes) of lignite were mined at Kosse.
Sandow power plant has been in service since 1953, when it had a single 121 MW unit.
It evolved between then and 1981, by the acquisition of new units, to 950 MW [26].
In 2009 – just as Oak Grove was coming into being – a new unit was started up there
which added 580 MW to the capacity making it 1534 MW.13 Lignite for Sandow is ob-
tained from the Three Oaks mine, which was bought by Luminant from Alcoa in 2007.
The point is made in [27] that production at Kosse to service Oak Grove and increased
production at Three Oaks to service the new unit at Sandow required heavily expanded
activity at the two mines at the same time, and that this was achieved smoothly.
6.4.4 Luminant Big Brown power plant

This is fired by lignite which is supplemented by sub-bituminous coal from Powder
River Basin.14 Its capacity is 1150 MW. The lignite is from two mines: Big Brown and
Turlington. It was announced in August 2014 [28] that Turlington will close in 2018,
and its products be replaced by Powder River Basin coal. This and other curtailment
on lignite-fired power generation in TX is due to an Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) rule requiring reductions in emissions [29].
Though dating only from the 1970s, Big Brown power plant is the oldest solid fuel fired
power generating facility in TX [30]. It is described a little ruefully in [30] how, as state
and federal emission regulations bear down more and more on such facilities as the Big
Brown power plant, their viability is brought into question.
6.4.5 Luminant Martin Lake power plant

This has a capacity of 2250 MW, and here again the fuel is local lignite plus Powder River
Basin coal. The lignite mines are Beckville, Liberty, Oak Hill and Tatum. Cessation of pro-
duction at Beckville is imminent and this will be followed immediately by commencement
of land reclamation [31]. In a research paper from 25+ years ago, at which time Beckville
lignite was being used at Martin Lake as it still is at the time of going to press, its properties
are listed [32]. These include a calorific value of 10 000 BTU lb–1 ( ≡ 23.3 MJ kg–1) for the
lignite when dry. The ash content is given as 19.4%, and the paper is largely concerned with
a reduction of that by methods such as those referred to in section 2.3 of this book. Reduc-
tion to 10% was in fact reported [32]. Tatum lignite, and its use at Martin Lake, features
in a relatively recent peer-reviewed paper on account of the fly ash [33], which is 48.7% by
weight SiO2. SiO2 and Al2O3 together comprise 65.3%. There was very small (< 1%) ‘loss on
ignition’ with the Tatum fly ash, indicating minor amounts of unburnt carbon.
12 Luminant is the biggest supplier of electricity in Texas. not all of its power plants use lignite. The
total capacity of Luminant, across a mix which includes nuclear, is > 15 gW.
13 Luminant owns only units 4 and 5 at sandow.
14 s ee Table 1.1.
59
Luminant started to work the Liberty mine as recently as the fall of 2014 [34] and coal
from there will replace that from Beckville. It will supply 3 million tons (2.7 million
tonnes) of lignite annually. With reference to the safety awards it has attracted, Oak
Hill has been described as the ‘most decorated’ mine in East Texas [35]! One unit at
Martin Lake was withdrawn from service over part of 2013–14, not because of any
environmental issue but because natural gas had become cheap and coal-fired stations
like Martin Lake were having to cut back to compete with gas-fired ones. A surge in
natural gas prices saw a return to full capacity at Martin Lake in February 2014 [36].
Over the same period and for the same reason, one unit of the Luminant Monticello
power plant (see below) was out of service.
6.4.6 Luminant Monticello power plant

This is of nameplate capacity 1880 MW, having drawn on lignite from the Thermo and
Winfield mines as well as on Powder River Basin coal. There has been intermittent
operation of Monticello at reduced capacity, in 2013–14 as noted above and at other
times. For example, mining at Thermo ceased over the period 2011–14 [37] and selected
units at Monticello were out of service over that time. Projected electricity production
at Monticello for 2020, into which increased use of Powder River Basin coal has prob-
ably been factored, is 16 500 000 MW-hour [38] and it is easily confirmed by a simple
calculation like the one performed in section 5.3.5 for the Amyntaio power station
that this signifies production at full capacity. The expected carbon dioxide for 2020 is
16 692 200 000 kg, giving an emission factor of 1012 kg per MW-hour which, again,
can be compared with information in section 5.3.5. All of the lignite-fired power sta-
tions operated by Luminant have been covered over sections 6.4.3 to 6.4.6.
6.4.7 san Miguel Electric Cooperative inc. power plant [39]

This 400 MW plant draws on lignite from the San Miguel deposit at Christine, in
southern Texas, a very remote location. Information on San Miguel lignite is given in
[40], where the ash content is given as 22% (see below). The calorific value is 7497 BTU
lb –1 ( ≡ 17.5 MJ kg–1) and the sulphur content 2.2%.
There has been a fouling difficulty at this power plant [41]. Steam is generated by heat ex-
change between the hot post-combustion gases and incoming water. The fouling referred
to is due to deposition of ash from the hot gases to the heat exchanger tubes at the hot gas
side. Such deposition is promoted by the presence of sodium in the inorganic content of
the lignite fuel. It is noted in [40] that San Miguel lignite ash is 4.8% in sodium measured
as Na2O. It is not difficult tentatively to interpret the fouling difficulty at San Miguel. In
the presence of sulphur and oxygen (having regard to the fact that excess oxygen is used
in such plants) the sodium content of the coal becomes sodium sulphate. This in molten
form diffuses through previously unconsolidated layers of ash giving them the tenacity
that is implied by ‘fouling’. Such behaviour is very well documented, for example in re-
ports of the former State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Australia.15
15 see section 10.1.
60
6.4.8 AEP16 southwestern Electric Power Co. power plant (the ‘Pirkey
power plant’)
Of 721 MW capacity [42,43], this uses lignite from the South Hallsville mine. It com-
menced generation in 1985 and uses superheated steam. Properties of South Hallsville
lignite are given in [44] as ash 9%, calorific value 23.2 MJ kg–1, sulphur 1%, all on a dry
basis. In 2007 (the most recent year for which the information is available) the Pirkey
power plant generated 4 824 785 MW-hour of electricity. Round-the-clock operation at
full capacity would, on the basis of the numerical information at the beginning of this
paragraph, have raised 6 315 960 MW-hour.

The significant role of lignite in the energy mix for Texas, pre-eminently an oil state,
is clear from the above. The discussion continues with Mississippi, another Gulf
Coast state.
6.5 Mississippi (MS)

6.5.1 Ms lignites
It is noted in [45] that the lignites of MS account for about 25% of the known lignite
reserves of the Gulf Coast states. Details of a lignite from Panola County MS are given
in [45] as the prelude to a report on an investigation of pyrolysis. That MS lignite more
than most displays composition variations is commented upon in [45], and it is recorded
that across eight samples from the same source the volatile matter ranged from 37.9 to
48.9%. Ash was in the range 28.9–40%.
Lignite for the power plant at Choctaw County in MS (see below) is from the Red Hills
deposit, and is mined and supplied by the Mississippi Lignite Mining Company. Prop-
erties of it are given in [46].
6.5.2 Red Hills power plant, Chactow County

Entering service in 2001, this generates at 440 MW, and burns the lignite fuel in a flu-
idised bed [47]. Ash production annually is 607 700 tonnes [48], some of which finds
application to road building.
Red Hills lignite as mined, at which stage it has a moisture content of 42%, has a
calorific value of 13 MJ kg–1. The ash is 11% and the sulphur content 0.4%. The low
sulphur is of course a plus in utilisation terms. It is noted in [49] that the Mississippi
lignite is part of a band of lignite extending across several states including Louisiana
and Tennessee. The entire electricity production of the Red Hills power plant is sold to
the Tennessee Valley Authority [50].
16 American Electric Power. ‘southwestern Electric Power Co.’ is sometimes written sWEPCO, e.g. [41].
61
6.5.3 Kemper County

Part of the ‘band’ referred to above comprises the Kemper County MS lignite deposit.
This has a calorific value in its moist state of 5290 BTU lb–1 ( ≡ 12.3 MJ kg–1), 12% ash and
1% sulphur [51]. Under development at Kemper County [52,53] is an integrated gasifica-
tion combined cycle (IGCC) facility which will use the local lignite to produce power at
582 MW. The principles of IGCC are not intrinsically difficult to grasp. The fuel, in the case
of Kemper County lignite, is gasified and the combustible gas resulting is used to generate
electricity at a gas turbine along the principles of the Brayton cycle. The exit gas from that
is used to raise steam, and to generate electricity at a steam turbine along the principles of
the Rankine cycle.
6.6 Louisiana (LA)

Lignite production in Louisiana began in 1985 at Dolet Hills. This was followed in 1989
by coal winning at another lignite mine in the state, namely the Oxbow mine [54]. Lignite
from both goes to the Dolet Hills power plant, which is the only electricity generation
facility in LA which uses lignite [55]. Consumption is up to 3.6 million tonnes of lignite
annually and this provides 650 MW of electricity. The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) has, over a long period, authorised a procedure for estimation of the
calorific value of a fuel not by measurements on the laboratory scale but by performance
monitoring over a significant period of plant running time. This is sometimes called the
boiler-as-calorimeter method and is the subject of the standard ASME PTC 34.
ASME PTC 34 would use temperature measurements at various stages of steam pro-
cessing as a basis for determining the calorific value of the fuel. Herein we shall use
the power generation rate as a means of determining the calorific value of the lignite as
fired at Dolet Hills.17 The calculation is shown in the box.
Using a plant efficiency of 35%, 650 MW of electricity requires (650/0.35) MW

of heat = 1860 MW of heat.
3.6 million tonnes annually of the lignite is equivalent to:
3.6 × 109 kg/(24 × 3600 × 365 s)
= 114 kg s–1
Calling the calorific value of the lignite Q MJ kg–1:
1860 MW = Q MJ kg–1 × 114 kg s–1
↓
Q = 16.3 MJ kg–1
which is within the range of values expected for a lignite ‘as fired’.
17 The principles incorporated in AsME PTC 34 are being applied without any assertion that lignites
come within the scope of the standard. One would intuitively expect it to apply to a lignite with a high
degree of variation of composition.
62
AEP-SWEPCO is joint owner, with Cleco, of Dolet Hills. Dolet Hills is one of ten
power plants which use solid fuel and, as noted, the only one which uses lignite. Of the
other nine, five use sub-bituminous coal and, interestingly, four use petroleum coke
(‘petcoke’). Louisiana has a crude oil refining capacity of 3 million barrels per day [56],
so that there should be petcoke available in large amounts is not surprising.
6.7 Arkansas (AR)

There is not, and never has been, significant power production from lignite in Arkan-
sas. Even so there are large reserves and their utilisation is constantly being raised as a
possibility. Brief coverage here, drawing mainly on [57], is therefore appropriate.
There was very limited use of lignite from Ouachita County AR for steam raising –
stationary plant and locomotives – in about 1900. ‘Oils’, comprising pyrolysis products,
were made from lignite from the same source in the first half of the 20th century and
there was other very limited chemical manufacture. Projects in the 1970s and 1980s
into steam raising with AR lignite never attained commercial viability. On a dry, ash-
free basis AR lignite has a calorific value of 16 MJ kg–1.
Of course, if AR lignite is ever developed its direct burning to make electricity is not
the only possible use. With reference to the lignite in Ouachita County gasification
has been looked into [58], with possible input from the Dakota Gasification Co. who
feature later in this book. Montan wax production, on an experimental basis, from
AR lignite features in section 15.2. That Arkansas lignite is allochthonous was noted
in section 2.6. The same is believed to be true of the undeveloped lignite reserves of
Kentucky [59].
6.8 Further comments

Utilisation of lignite for power generation in the USA is limited without being insig-
nificant. Figures for 2011 are 73.6 million tonnes of lignite produced in the USA [60],
compared with 450 million tonnes of bituminous coal and 462 million tonnes of sub-bi-
tuminous coal [61]. Even so expansion of power generation is evident, as already noted
for example in relation to Kemper County. Lignite in Alaska is described in section 23.2.
6.9 Canada
6.9.1 introduction
In 2012, Canada produced 10 467 550 tons (9.5 million tonnes) of lignite [62]. There are
major amounts of lignite in Alberta and Saskatchewan (which has a border to the south
with North Dakota, USA). There is lignite in British Columbia, but no production at this
time. Far exceeding in quantity the lignite in Saskatchewan is that in Alberta, and the
Province is also rich in higher rank coal. The Atikokan power plant in north-west Ontario
once utilised lignite from western Canada but since 2012 has used entirely biomass [63].
63
6.9.2 Boundary dam

This plant in Saskatchewan is approaching completion and will burn lignite as p.f. to
produce electricity at 110 MW with accompanying CCS [64]. A recent research paper
[65] concerned with lignite from Boundary Dam gives as background information a
calorific value of 23.2 MJ kg–1 and an ash content of 15.3%, both dry basis. Also con-
cerned with a Saskatchewan lignite was a petrographic study reported in [66]. The
breakdown into maceral groups was huminite 73%, liptinite 7% and inertinite 11%.
Boundary Dam was conceived and developed as an IGCC project with CCS, and the
choice of lignite as fuel was on the basis of its proximity and abundance [67]. It was not
chosen in preference say to natural gas for any other reason. There is more on Bound-
ary Dam in Chapter 19.
6.9.3 Other lignite-fired power stations in Canada

A selection of these is listed in Table 6.1, and comments follow below.
Table 6.1 selected lignite-fired power stations in Canada.

Two 615 MW units utilising, when working at nameplate
Poplar River, Saskatchewan capacity, 488 tonnes of lignite per hour from the Poplar River
mine [68]
Fuel from the nearby Genesee lignite mine.
Genesee, Alberta
See main text
Shand, 276 MW [73].
Saskatchewan Lignite from the Estevan mine [74]
The Poplar River plant long pre-dates Boundary Dam, having commenced generation
in 1981. The Poplar River mine is near Coronach, south-central Saskatchewan [69].
Analysis details for Poplar River lignite are given in [70]. On a dry basis these are vol-
atiles 45.1%, fixed carbon 34.5% and ash 20.4%. The figures for Poplar mine are in [69]
compared with those for Freedom mine in ND (see section 6.2.4). Genesee (next row)
has three lignite-fired units the third of which, commissioned about a decade ago, was
the first coal-fired generator steam turbine in Canada to use supercritical steam [71]. It
is soon to be extended by two units providing between them about a gigawatt, which
will use not lignite but natural gas [72].18
In section 4.2.3 lignites from Hambach, Germany featured, and in [75] lignites from Ger-
man sources including Hambach and Canadian sources including Estevan (row 3 of the ta-
ble) are compared in petrographic terms. Vitrinite reflectances were reported. For the three
lignites taken from Estevan these were in the range 0.27–0.33%. The two from Hambach
gave reflectances of 0.23 and 0.24%. This result was reproduced across the other lignites:
the Canadian ones had a rank margin over the German. Another important result was that
the German coals were higher in macerals of the vitrinite group than the Canadian ones.
18 On saskatchewan lignite, see also Table 12.2.
64

Lignites are a contributor to the Canadian energy scene, which in some ways is differ-
ent from those of other major countries by reason of the tar sands. These have long been
a major source of liquid fuels in Canada but not many countries have such a resource.
There is scope for discussion of equivalence or otherwise of the tar sands to the bitu-
men sands of Nigeria for example or even, in some respects, to the ‘heavy crudes’ of
Venezuela. Their relevance here is that the place of lignite in Canada’s energy mix is
influenced by them. Lignites occurring in the Hudson Bay Lowland are discussed in
section 23.2.
6.10 Mexico
In 2010, Mexico produced 8.5 million tonnes of lignite [76] and imports briquettes.
Mexico also has a deposit of leonardite, one of fewer than ten leonardite deposits world-
wide [77]. Leonardite [78], like lignite, has gone beyond the peat stage of coalification,
but instead of undergoing the geochemical steps which, on a geological timescale, con-
vert the peat to lignite has remained and been oxidised in situ. Leonardite is covered
in Chapter 18.

Sustained usage of lignite in North America is clear, as is the fact that carbon seques-
tration is having to accompany established and new facilities for power generation
from this source as explained more fully in a later chapter. The fact that internationally
lignite is so widely encountered in geological exploration is discussed in Chapter 23.
We conclude this chapter with a mention first of a thin lignite deposit at Ocean Beach
in San Francisco [79]. There are around the world many more such deposits of lignite
fuel the use of which would never be considered. There is a small deposit of lignite at
Brandon, Vermont, which has attracted attention amongst geologists largely on ac-
count of its woody nature [80]. (Vermont has no coal mines and no coal-fired electricity
[81].) A Brandon lignite petrographically examined [82] had a maceral analysis of 66%
huminite. The dominant maceral in the huminite group was attrinite (see section 22.2).
The lignite is high in macerals of the liptinite group at 32%. In analysis of an extract
from the coal using toluene-acetone-methanol, aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons
were identified. Alkanes in the extract were found to be largely unbranched, and chains
comprising of odd numbers of carbons were in preponderance.
6.12 References
[1] http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2670
[2] Quality Guidelines for Energy System Studies: Detailed Coal Specifications, DOE/NETL-
401/012111, United States Department of Energy (2012)
[3] http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/147336/north-dakota-coal-production-increases-4-per-
cent-in-2014/
[4] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/8465/
65
[5] http://www.greatriverenergy.com/makingelectricity/coal/coalcreekstation.html
[6] DryFiningTM Fuel Enhancement Process, Great River Energy (2014)
[7] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/8465/
[8] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/coyote-station/
[9] Benson S.A., Laumb J.D., Crocker C.R., Pavlish J.H. SCR catalyst performance in flue
gases derives from sub-bituminous and lignite coals. Fuel Processing Technology 86: 577–613
(2005)
[10] http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/coyote-getting-into-hot-water-with-
coal-generated-steam/article_62b44796-d511-11e1-94ae-0019bb2963f4.html
[11] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/r-m-heskett-station/
[12] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/leland-olds-station/
[13] https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=x6sQVaWRNLPu8wf5_oHwBQ&gws_
rd=ssl#q=freedom+lignite+mine+north+dakota
[14] https://www.lignite.com/?id=74
[15] http://www.bnicoal.com/
[17] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/spiritwood-station/
[18] http://www.startribune.com/business/281121792.html
[19] Keighin C.W., Flores R.M., Rowland T. ‘Occurrence and morphology of carbonate concre-
tions in the Beulah-Zap coal bed, Williston Basin, North Dakota’, Organic Geochemistry 24:
227–232 (1996)
[20] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/lewis-clark-station/
[21] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/mines/savage-mine/
[22] http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-usa-mt-wy.htm
[23] Clower T.L., Reyes M. Coal Mining and Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas: Econom-
ic and Fiscal Impacts, Center for Economic Development and Research, University of North
Texas, Denton, TX (2013)
[24] Parkash S., Carson D., lgnasiak B. ‘Petrographic composition and liquefaction behaviour
of North Dakota and Texas lignites’, Fuel 62: 627–631 (1983)
[25] http://www.powermag.com/luminants-oak-grove-power-plant-earns-powers-highest-hon-
or/
[26] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sandow_Station
[27] Energy Future Holdings 2008–2012 Review
[28] http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/20140829-east-texas-coal-mine-closing.ece
[29] http://www.luminant.com/news/spotlight/detail.aspx?FtID=23
[30] http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/10/sierra-club-escalates-push-against-lumi-
66
nant-coal-p/
[31] http://www.news-journal.com/news/2014/sep/24/beckville-coal-mine-to-play-out-in-2015/
[32] Gollakota S.V., Lee J.M., Davies O.L. ‘Process optimization of close-coupled integrated
two-stage liquefaction by the use of cleaned coals’, Fuel Processing Technology 22: 205–216
(1989)
[33] Diaz E.I., Allouche E.N., Eklund S. ‘Factors affecting the suitability of fly ash as source
material for geopolymers’, Fuel 89: 992–996 (2010)
[34] http://pov.energyfutureholdings.com/2014/10/investing-rusk-county/
[35] http://dailysentinel.com/news/local/article_f1312151-eb0c-5bdf-8a2f-20a54ac12dc0.html
[36] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/utilities-luminant-coal-idUSL2N-
0L91YK20140204
[37] http://www.myssnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25970:lu-
minant-says-thermo-mine-will-reopen-this-summer&catid=93:local-news&Itemid=376
[38] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Monticello_(tx)_Powerplant
[39] http://www.kiewit.com/projects/mining/contract-mining/san-miguel-lignite-mine/
[40] Tillman D.A., Duong D.N.B., Harding N.S. Solid Fuel Blending: Principles, Practices and
Problems, Elsevier (2012)
[41] http://www.powermag.com/clinker-minimization-at-san-miguel-electric-co-op/
[42] https://www.swepco.com/info/news/viewRelease.aspx?releaseID=169
[43] http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-usa-tx.htm
[44] Lu X., Wang T. ‘Investigation of low rank coal gasification in a two-stage downdraft
entrained-flow gasifier’, International Journal of Clean Coal and Energy 3: 1–12 (2014)
[45] Farage D.L., Williford C.W., Clemmer J.E. ‘Pyrolysis of Mississippi lignite in a fixed bed’,
Fuel Processing Technology 16: 35–43 (1987)
[46] Yongue R.A., Laird R. Gasification of High-moisture Mississippi Lignite at the Power
Systems Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Wilsonville, AL (2010)
[47] http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/research/NCEID/Profiles/Mini_Sites/Red_Hills.html
[48] Hawkey G.M. ‘Beneficial applications of circulating fluidised bed ash at Mississippi
Lignite Mining Company’s Red Hills Mine’, Paper presented at the OSM Forum in the 2005
World of Coal Ash, Lexington, KY
[49] Yongue R.A., Laird R. Gasification of High-moisture Mississippi Lignite at the Power
Systems Development Facility, Southern Company Services, Wilsonville, AL (2010)
[50] http://www.energyjustice.net/map/displayfacility-69603.htm
[51] ‘CO2 capture at the Kemper County IGCC Project’, 2011 NETL CO2 Capture Technology
Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA (http://energy.nd.edu/events/2011/08/22/5613-2011-co2-capture-tech-
nology-meeting/)
[52] https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html
67
[53] http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kemper-county-integrated-gasification-com-
bined-cycle-igcc-power-plant-mississippi/
[54] http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=305#plants
[55] https://www.cleco.com/-/power-plants
[56] http://www.lmoga.com/industry-sectors/
[57] http://www.geology.ar.gov/energy/lignite.htm
[58] http://www.teamcamden.com/index.php/partnership-home/119-energy/57-south-arkan-
sas-rich-in-lignite-resources
[59] Hower J.C., Rich F.J., Williams D.A., Bland A.E., Fiene F.L. ‘Cretaceous and Eocene
lignite deposits, Jackson Purchase, Kentucky’, International Journal of Coal Geology 16:
239–254 (1990)
[60] https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=United+States+datamart%5BEDATA%5D&d=EDATA-
&f=cmID%3ALN%3BcrID%3A840
[61] http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0702
[62] http://knoema.com/atlas/Canada/topics/Energy/Coal/Production-of-Lignite-Coal
[63] http://www.opg.com/generating-power/thermal/stations/atikokan-station/Pages/atiko-
kan-station.aspx
[64] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/project/boundary-dam-integrated-carbon-cap-
ture-and-sequestration-demonstration-project
[65] Karimipour S., Gerspacher R., Gupta R., Spiteri R.J. ‘Study of factors affecting syngas qual-
ity and their interactions in fluidized bed gasification of lignite coal’, Fuel 103: 308–320 (2013)
[66] Beaton A.P., Goodarzi F., Potter J. ‘The petrography, mineralogy and geochemistry of a
Paleocene lignite from southern Saskatchewan, Canada’, International Journal of Coal Geolo-
gy 17: 117–148 (1991)
[67] https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/boundary_dam.html
[68] http://www.townofcoronach.com/powerplant.html
[69] http://westmoreland.com/location/poplar-river-mine-saskatchewan/
[70] Pavlish J.H., Holmes M.J., Benson S.A., Crocker C.R., Galbreath K.C. ‘Application of
sorbents for mercury control for utilities burning lignite coal’, Fuel Processing Technology 85:
563–576 (2004)
[71] Watanabe S., Tani T., Takahashi M., Hidetoshi F. ‘495-MW Capacity Genesee Power Gen-
erating Station Phase 3: First Supercritical Pressure Coal-fired Power Plant in Canada’, Hitachi
Review 53: 109–114 (2004)
[72] http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/capital-power-announces-construc-
tion-plans-genesee-4-5-acquisition-portfolio-renewable-tsx-cpx-1974069.htm
[73] http://www.saskpower.com/our-power-future/our-electricity/our-electrical-system/
[74] http://westmoreland.com/location/estevan-mine-saskatchewan/
[75] Kalkreuth W., Steller M., Wieschenktimper I., Ganzt S. ‘Petrographic and chemical char-
68
acterization of Canadian and German coals in relation to utilization potential. 1. Petrographic

and chemical characterization of feed coals’, Fuel 70: 683–694 (1991)
[76] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/mexico/lignite+brown+coal,+production
[77] http://mininglink.com.au/mine/maddingley
[78] Jones J.C., Russell N.V. Dictionary of Energy and Fuels, Whittles Publishing, Caithness
and CRC Press, Boca Raton (2007)
[79] Carter R.M., Abbott S.T., Graham I.J., Naish T.R., Gammon P.R. ‘The middle Pleistocene
Merced-2 and -3 sequences from Ocean Beach, San Francisco’, Sedimentary Geology 153:
23–41 (2002)
[80] Stout S.A., Spackman W. ‘Notes on the compaction of a Florida peat and the Brandon
lignite as deduced from the study of compressed wood’, International Journal of Coal Geology
11: 247–256 (1989)
[81] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Vermont_and_coal
[82] Stout S.A. ‘Aliphatic and aromatic triterpenoid hydrocarbons in a Tertiary angiospermous
lignite’, Organic Geochemistry 18: 51–66 (1992)
69
CHAPTER 7
ELECTRICITY GENERATION IV – ASIA
7.1 Introduction
Certain countries of Asia are now very strong as manufacturing bases, and for the role
of lignites in that to be evaluated is an obvious approach for this chapter which will
review several Asian countries one by one starting with China.
7.2 China
7.2.1 introduction
China has a wealth of fuels of many kinds including oil, but has of late had such a
moribund infrastructure that only with outside help has she been able to benefit from
them. China was seen as the ‘lucky country’ at an international meeting on world coal
at about the time of World War I, largely because of her anthracite mines. At that time
there were only two ways in which coal could be utilised: by burning it or by gasifying
it to make fuel gas or synthesis gas. For either of these anthracite was superior to lower
rank coals. China’s current reserves of lignite are estimated as 17.8 billion tonnes [1].
Vitrinite reflectance results on a suite of four Chinese lignites are reported in Chapter
2. Mongolia (an ‘autonomous region’ within China) has an abundance of lignite. This
includes the reserves at Zhungeer [2] where 10 million tonnes per year are produced.
There is no integrated coal production and power generation at Zhungeer. The lignite is
sold to bodies such as the Shanghai Boiler Company which uses the lignite at a power
plant that produces 600 MW. At 1.5 billion tonnes of accessible lignite, Zhungeer ranks
amongst the ten largest coal deposits in the world [3]. The other parts of China where
lignite occurs in significant quantities are in the north. In spite of having major resourc-
es, China imports some lignite, largely from Indonesia.
7.2.2 Examples of electricity generation in China from lignites

As in some previous parts of the book, the information is presented in a table (Table
7.1) with notes following.
70
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn iV – AsiA
Table 7.1 selected lignite-fired power stations within China.
NAME/LOCATION OF POWER
DETAILS
STATION
Test unit of 600 MW having performed as
Liaoning Province
hoped for [4]
5 GW from bituminous coal [5]. A
demonstration project on the same site in which
Shanghai Waigaoqiao power station
lignite is used for power generation and to
produce briquettes [6]
Total capacity 1000 MW across four non-
Longkou power station, Shanxi Province equivalent units [7]. Use of blends of higher
rank coals with lignite at two of the units
Huolinhe Zhanute power station, Inner Commencement of operations at 400 MW.
Mongolia Producing only since 2013 [8]
Proposals to generate power with brown coal in
Shanghai the form of briquettes manufactured in Victoria,
Australia [11]
The lignite-fired unit in Liaoning Province uses ultra-supercritical steam. Having been
built with the help of experts from the USA, this facility belongs to China Power Inter-
national [4]. The demonstration project referred to in the next row uses 150 000 tonnes
per year of lignite, and superheated steam is used. The blending of black coal with
brown at Longkou is a practice also followed at certain US power plants. Such blending
is of increasing importance generally, and challenges facing those developing these
blends include a sufficiently high calorific value and avoidance of a blend susceptible
to spontaneous combustion if stockpiled [9]. At Huolinhe Zhanute power generation
has only just begun, and a capacity of 5.7 GW is imminent. Lignite from Huolinguole
will continue to be the sole fuel. A recent contribution to the literature [10] gives some
details of this lignite resource, for example that it is 21.3% ash on a dry basis and 1.1%
in sulphur. The eventual rating is expected to be 5280 MW. Six additional 660 MW
units are currently being installed. A stacker ‘reclaims’ stockpiled coal for utilisation.
In general such plant will have a capability of the order of kilotonnes per hour of coal
‘reclaimed’ [11].
With reference to the next row of the table, it should be noted that there is no export of
briquettes from Victoria at the present time [12].

The point is made in [13] that the usage of lignite in China, and R&D into such us-
age, have both been light over the decades. Reconstruction is the keynote of China’s
activity and that lignite, domestic or imported, will make a major contribution to the
energy requirements for that is expected. The huge investment at Huolinhe Zhanute
is evidence of this. Details of a recent research investigation conclude the coverage
71
of China in this chapter. In section 6.11 Brandon lignite from the USA was similarly
dealt with though in a less detailed way.
There is lignite at Zhaotong in south-west China [14], and by drawing on a recent study
of this [15] some points relevant to the carbon structure of lignites generally can be
made. Tools including carbon-13 n.m.r., Fourier-transform infra-red, mass spectrome-
try and thermogravimetry were used in [15] to determine details of the organic struc-
ture of the lignite. The carbon content from ultimate analysis was 52.5%, dry, ash-free
basis. Major findings include the fact that 42% of the carbon is present as aromatic
rings, largely in pairs as in naphthalene. A difference from naphthalene is that in the
lignite the hydrogens in the aromatic rings are heavily substituted. The most abundant
group in the aliphatic part is methylene CH2. The lignite is approximately 40% in oxy-
gen, dry, ash-free basis. The oxygen atoms in the coal are largely attached to aliphatic
carbons. Nitrogen (1% dry, ash-free basis) is present in structures including five-mem-
bered heterocyclic rings. (See also section 15.6.)
7.3 Japan
Japan has not mined coal of any rank since 2002 and is not currently importing any
lignite [16]. As noted above, brown coal briquettes from Victoria (Australia) are not
being exported at all at present because of a regime in the Latrobe Valley (see later
chapter) different from the earlier one, which persisted for decades, where brown coal
production was integrated with electricity production. At that time some coal was
diverted to the briquette works close to one of the power stations. Prior to this recent
injunction there was major export of briquettes from Victorian brown coal. Japan
imports huge amounts of black coal from Australia but is currently unable to import
brown coal from there for the reason given above. Even so, R&D into making pellets
from Victorian brown coal for use in power generation in Japan in the longer term is
under way [16].
7.4 Thailand
7.4.1 introduction
In 2012 Thailand produced 20 million tons (18.3 million tonnes) of lignite [17]. The
first use of Thai lignite in power generation was in 1953 when the mine mouth gen-
erating station at Mae Moh came into being [18]. Since then the facility has been ex-
panded and, in around 2000, reduced as units were decommissioned. It now operates
at 2400 MW.
7.4.2 Mae Moh

Reference [19] gives for Mae Moh lignite the analysis figures of 38.2% volatiles, 22.3%
fixed carbon and 39.5% ash, which can be compared with the information on Mae Moh in
Table 1.1. The sulphur content is around 3%. The high sulphur in particular has made for
difficulties. The year 1992 is usually regarded as that in which the environmental difficul-
72
ties with Mae Moh came to the notice of the world. In October that year a concentration of
sulphur dioxide of 3418 μg m–3 was measured close to Mae Moh when the standard which
applied was 1300 μg m–3. These are converted to different units in the box.
1300 μg m–3 = (1300 × 10 –6)/64 mol = 2.0 × 10 –5 mol m–3
1 m3 of any gas or gas mixture at 1 bar, 298 K contains 40 moles. The amount
of sulphur dioxide on a parts per million (p.p.m.) basis is then:
(2.5 × 10 –5/40) × 106 = 0.5 p.p.m.
3418 μg m–3 therefore corresponds to 1.3 p.p.m.
That human beings were being exposed to > 1 p.p.m. of sulphur dioxide was a grave
matter. Ambient standards of parts per hundred million are aimed for by enforcement
bodies. (The figures above, appertaining to sites close to the power station, will be
emission standards which are of course higher than ambient standards.) Measures were
taken to implement flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) at Mae Moh. By 2001 FGD effi-
ciencies of 90–97% were being achieved there [20]. The FGD required 446 137 MW-
hour of electricity, about 3% of the 15.5 TW-hour of electricity generated at Mae Moh
that same year [20]. As with other FGD operations described in this book, there was
gypsum as a product.
All of the present units at Mae Moh have electrostatic precipitators achieving > 99%
removal of fly ash, and all are equipped with low-NOx burners [21]. Alstom (see sec-
tions 5.5.2 et seq.) are to install ultra-supercritical steam plant at Mae Moh, making
it the first lignite-fired power plant in Asia to use ultra-supercritical steam [22]. This
obviously signifies heavy investment in the future of Mae Moh and therefore of lignite
utilisation in the region.
7.4.3 ’Thai-Lao Lignite’

This term relates to lignite from Hongsa in Laos, close to the border with Thailand [23].
In the early 1990s when Thailand needed to increase her electricity production, ‘Thai-
Lao Lignite’ was formed. The intention was that this body would build a power plant
near Hongsa, electricity from which would be sold to Thailand. For legal and other rea-
sons it was not a success. Activity at the Hongsa mine however continues (see below).
7.5 Laos and Vietnam

Laos has 500 million tonnes of known lignite reserves [24]. A power plant at Hongsa,
constituted in commercial and legal terms differently from the previous one, is now
being commissioned and commencement of power generation began in mid-2015 [25]
and will use local lignite as fuel. By March 2016, by which time all of the three units
comprising the plant will be working, nameplate capacity will be 1878 MW. Purchasers
of the electricity will include the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT),
making the electricity an export, and the local provincial authority in Laos.
73
Cambodia has lignite reserves [26] and also imports it in modest quantities [27]. There
is no lignite-fired power station in Cambodia and only one using coal of any rank [28].
In Vietnam there is lignite at the Na Duong mine and this has been used in power gen-
eration since 2005 [29]. Its current capacity between two units, each with a fluidised
bed, is 100 MW and plans by the operator Vinacomin to install another 100 MW of
capacity, also with a fluidised bed, have government approval.
7.6 Malaysia
The 2012 figure for lignite production by Malaysia was nil [30]. She imports coal
heavily from Indonesia and from Australia [31]. Sarawak in eastern Malaysia is
productive of coals across the range of rank and this includes lignite. In Mukah in
east Malaysia there is a proposed new power station [32,33] which will use locally
won lignite.
7.7 Indonesia
A former member of OPEC, Indonesia has oil as well as coal, the latter having become
a major product only since the 1980s. The 2010 figure for production of lignite in Indo-
nesia was > 160 million tonnes [34]. The comment has been made [35] that mine mouth
power generation with lignite, for a very long time the practice in many countries, is
only just beginning in Indonesia. The most promising parts of Indonesia for develop-
ment of this are Sumatra and Kalimantan, and proposals are in place. One such pro-
posal is the AEL-Sumatra Lignite Based Thermal Power Plant [36]. In an article in the
Jakarta Post [37] as recently as October 2014, the hope that projects like it will become
a reality is strongly expressed. Indonesia has a very low per capita electricity consump-
tion: 680 kW-hour, compared with 13 246 kW-hour for the USA and 10 712 kW-hour
for Australia [38]. Simple calculations which the interested reader can perform for him/
herself will demonstrate that to meet a significant proportion of that with lignite will
not require heavy capitalisation in terms of generating capacity. This gives credence to
the viability of proposed lignite-fired power generation in Indonesia.
7.8 Myanmar
An article in The Straits Times in 1920 [39] quotes a contributor to the Rangoon Times
as lamenting the fact that the only known coal reserves of Burma (later to become
Myanmar) were lignite, correctly described in [39] as being young coal. It goes on to
mention in a very positive spirit that German lignites had shown potential as the basis
of liquid fuel manufacture. This was probably with reference to the Bergius process,
which as reported in section 14.3 began in 1913. A hope that this might be extended
to lignites from Burma is expressed, and it is noted that by the time of the article tri-
als with lignite from Burma as pulverised fuel in electricity generation had delivered
promising results. There is only minor lignite usage in Myanmar, where a mere 13%
[40,41] of the population have access to domestic electricity.
74
7.9 Israel and bordering countries

Arguably belonging in the chapter on European countries in view of its coast with the
Mediterranean, Israel, being in western Asia, formally belongs to this part of the book.
There is lignite at the Hula basin in northern Israel. It is up to 70% water when in the
bed, and consequently has a calorific value as mined as low as 3 MJ kg–1 [42]. The ash
contents are moderate at 15–20%. The reserves at Hula have been estimated as being
sufficient to generate 1200 MW of electricity for 30 years [43]. Close to Hula is Lake
Kinneret, the only natural freshwater lake in Israel. Its protection would be paramount
were power generation at Hula to commence.
The term from geology ‘carbonate platform’ is fairly self-explanatory. One such in
Lebanon contains a deposit of lignite [44] which is viewed as a perturbation of the ba-
sic geological milieu attributable to entry of plant debris suspended in a swamp. This
point is further developed in Chapter 21. Egypt, which also has a border with Israel, is
considered in section 16.2.

Reference [45] declares Thailand to be the only lignite-producing country in SE Asia.
The contents of this chapter essentially confirm that, though where there is very minor
use of lignite in power generation (as in Laos) or an aspiration to larger scale use (as
in Indonesia) that is of interest and has therefore been recorded. The Philippines has
41 million tonnes of lignite reserves, but no significant usage as yet. Japanese lignites,
which are not currently utilised, include Nakayama lignite [46], which is 37.4% vol-
atiles on an as-received basis and 7–8% in ash. There is also lignite at Ropponmatsu
in Fukuoka Prefecture. There is significant lignite within a clay formation in central
Japan and its dehydroabietic acid content has been noted [47]. This substance is a con-
stituent of ‘resin acids’, used in soaps and disinfectants.
The chapter began with China, and different parts of Asia followed. The parts of cen-
tral Asia in the Former Soviet Union, for example Kazakhstan, will be considered in a
later chapter.
7.11 References
[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/China_and_coal
[2] Overcoming Production Deadlock at Zhungeer Coal Mine, RWE Power International (2008)
[3] http://www.mining-technology.com/features/feature-the-10-biggest-coal-mines-in-the-
world/
[4] http://asian-power.com/project/news/china%E2%80%99s-first-lignite-fired-usc-passes-test
[5] https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=EwLtVNXfAqfu8wem8IHoBg&gws_
rd=ssl#q=shenfu+dongsheng+coalfield+bituminous
[6] http://en.kytl.com/news/news.aspx?ID=31
[7] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Huadian_Longkou_power_station
75
[8] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Huolinhe_Zhanute_power_station
[9] Clarke M.C. ‘Low rank coal/lignite upgrading technologies’, Australian Power Technologies
October–December: 50–53 (2013)
[10] Lu J-H., Wei X-Y., Qing Y., Wang Y-H., Wen Z., Zhu Y., Gao Y-G., Zong Z-M. ‘Insight
into the structural features of macromolecular aromatic species in Huolinguole lignite through
ruthenium ion-catalyzed oxidation’, Fuel 128: 231–239 (2014)
[11] van Vianen T., Ottjes J., Lodewijks G. ‘Simulation-based rescheduling of the stacker–re-
claimer operation’, Journal of Computational Science 10: 149–154 (2015)
[12] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/200-jobs-under-threat-briquette-
maker-warns-20120501-1xx40.html
[13] http://knoema.com/qbasfqc/imports-by-country-of-origin-solid-fuels-annual-data?t-
sId=1262400
[14] http://en.sxcoal.com/1756/DataShow.html
[15] Li Z-K., Wei X-W., Yan H-L., Zong Z-M. ‘Insight into the structural features of Zhaotong
lignite using multiple techniques’, Fuel 153: 176–182 (2015)
[16] Perkins E., Tsukasaki Y., Chaffee A.L. ‘Low-temperature oxidation study of brown coal
and dried brown coal products’, Proceedings of the 10th Australian Coal Science Conference
Paper 5.2, Australian Institute of Energy (2013)
[17] http://knoema.com/atlas/Thailand/topics/Energy/Coal/Production-of-Lignite-Coal
[18] http://www.egat.co.th/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Item-
id=117
[19] Chareonpanicha M., Boonfuenga T., Limtrakul J. ‘Production of aromatic hydrocarbons
from Mae-Moh lignite’, Fuel Processing Technology 79: 171– 179 (2002)
[20] Sampattagul S., Kato S., Kiatsiriroat T., Widiyanto A. ‘Life cycle considerations of the flue
gas desulphurization system at a lignite-fired power plant in Thailand’, International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 9: 387–393 (2004)
[21] http://www.scribd.com/doc/163386356/The-Mae-Moh-Plant-Review-With-EGAT#scribd
[22] http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2015/3/alstom-to-build-the-first-ultra-supercritical-lig-
nite-fired-power-plant-in-asia/
[23] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hongsa_power_station
[24] Watcharejyothin M., Shrestha R.M. ‘Effects of cross-border power trade between Laos and
Thailand: energy security and environmental implications’, Energy Policy 37: 1782–1792 (2009)
[25] http://www.hongsapower.com/index.php?model=cms&view=news_page&layout=news_
page&id=123#ad-image-0
[26] http://metalbureau.com/Asia_News_Minerals_Of_Cambodia.html
[27] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/cambodia/lignite+brown+coal,+imports
[28] Shearer C., Ghio N., Myllyvirta L., Nace T. Boom and Bust: Tracking the Global Plant
Pipeline, The Sierra Club (2015)
[29] http://finland.org.vn/public/default.aspx?contentid=197064&culture=en-US
76
[30] http://knoema.com/atlas/Malaysia/topics/Energy/Coal/Production-of-Lignite-Coal
[31] http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/11/23/Swak-holds-nearly-allof-nations-coal-
reserves/
[32] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Balingian_New_power_station
[33] http://www.sarawakenergy.com.my/index.php/about-us/what-we-do/generation-portfolio
[34] http://energy.about.com/od/Coal/a/Lignite.htm
[35] http://www.asiaminer.com/news/regional-news/5287-igniting-south-sumatra-s-low-rank-
coal.html#.VRYeP28cSUk
[36] http://www.marketreportsonline.com/239676.html
[37] Accessible at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/06/coal-wire-sumatra-java.
html
[38] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
[39] ‘Burma lignite’, The Straits Times 7 September 1920. Accessible online at the time of going
to press.
[40] Kyaw W.W., Sukchai S., Ketjoy N., Ladpala S. ‘Energy utilization and the status of sustain-
able energy in Union of Myanmar’, Energy Procedia 9: 351–358 (2011)
[41] Sovacool B.K. ‘Confronting energy poverty behind the bamboo curtain: a review of chal-
lenges and solutions for Myanmar (Burma)’, Energy for Sustainable Development 17: 305–314
(2013)
[42] Kafri U., Gersh S., Dosoretz C. ‘Corrections to calorific values of lignites of the Hula Ba-
sin, Israel, for contained CaCO3’, Fuel 59: 787–789 (1980)
[43] Shuval H. Water Quality Management Under Conditions of Scarcity, Elsevier (2012)
[44] Noujasim Clark G., Boudagher-Fadel M.K. ‘The larger benthic foraminifera and stratigra-
phy of the upper Jurassic/lower Cretaceous of central Lebanon’, Revue de Micropaleontogie 44:
215–232 (2001)
[45] Ewart D.L. ‘South East Asia Coal Review’, World Coal February 2003
[46] Mashimo K., Kiya K., Sato S., Tsuchiya H., Wainai T. ‘Hydrogenolysis products of pyri-
dine extract of a Japanese lignite’, Fuel 63: 1417–1421 (1984)
[47] Sawada K., Nakamura H., Arai T., Tsukagoshi M. ‘Evaluation of paleoenvironment using
terpenoid biomarkers in lignites and plant fossil from the Miocene Tokiguchi Porcelain Clay
Formation at the Onada mine, Tajimi, central Japan’, International Journal of Coal Geology
107: 78–89 (2013)
77
CHAPTER 8
ELECTRICITY GENERATION V – THE
INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT
8.1 Introduction
Discovery of lignite in Cannanore (a.k.a. Kannur), south-western India, in 1830 was
mentioned in Chapter 3. There has also been reference to the Neyveli Lignite Corpora-
tion. Some significant reserves in the sub-continent are described below.
8.2 Some scenes of lignite usage in power generation in India

8.2.1 Rajasthan
These include the Barsingsar mine in the Indian state of Rajasthan, where there has
been mine mouth generation by Neyveli at 250 MW since 2009 [1]. Combustion at the
Barsingsar facility is by two equivalent fluidised beds. The analysis of Barsingsar lig-
nite is given in [2] as 10.9% ash and 39.8% volatiles on an air-dried basis. The calorific
value on the same basis is 21.4 MJ kg–1. The sulphur, also on an air-dried basis, is 1%.
These figures are auspicious for the prospects of the fairly new plant. In addition to
servicing the power station there, Barsingsar lignite is sold to local companies as fuel.
The Giral power plant, also in Rajasthan, like Barsingsar generates at 250 MW [3,4].
It is owned by RVUN who have been generating electricity in that part of India since
1949, and uses local lignite. In [5] it is emphasised not only that this lignite is very high
in ash but also that the mineral content is 8–10% pyrite/marcasite, each FeS2. On com-
bustion sulphur dioxide from this source can add to that from organic sulphur as was
noted, for example, in fairly recent work involving a lignite from Australia [6]. The two
units at Giral were commissioned respectively in February 2007 and December 2008.
It uses 6000 tonnes of lignite a day. Lime is used in FGD at Giral. RVUN have a port-
folio of several thermal power units. Giral is the only one which uses lignite.
The VS lignite plant in Rajasthan [7] generates at 135 MW using lignite from the Gurha
(East) lignite mine. Very detailed information on the performance of this power gener-
ating facility is in the public domain [8]. It includes atmospheric sulphur dioxide meas-
urements at sites known distances from the generating facility. Over a period of a month
the levels were in the range 5–7 μg m–3, equivalent to 0.002–0.003 parts per million.
JSW Energy’s Barmer power plant in Rajasthan is in a different league from any of those
featuring so far in this section, producing, with lignite as the sole fuel, 1080 MW from eight
135 MW units [9].19 It obtains its lignite from the Jalipa and Kapurdi mines, the estimat-
19 it has recently been described as ‘the best lignite thermal power plant in india’:
http://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-best-lignite-based-thermal-power-plant-in-india
78
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn V – THE indiAn suB-COnTinEnT
ed reserves of which are 466 million tonnes [10]. The properties of Kapurdi lignite were
thoroughly researched over 20 years ago [11]. The moisture content of lignite in the bed is
37–45% and the ash in the range 6–28%. The magnitude of this reserve is noted imme-
diately above, and such variations in properties for samples at widely differing positions
within the basin and at different depths are not unexpected. The samples particularly high
in ash contained visible bands of clay. Such information is of course of value in production
(see section 5.3.4). Huminite is the dominant maceral group in lignites from this reserve.
8.2.2 Tamil nadu

Moving to a totally different part of India from Rajasthan, there are two lignite mines
in Neyveli in Tamil Nadu. They are run by the company of the same name (the Neyveli
Lignite Corporation) whose only other mine is that in Rajasthan mentioned in the pre-
vious section. ‘Neyveli lignite’ is described in [12] as being 8% in ash on a dry basis
and of calorific value 24.9 MJ kg–1. The sulphur content is given as 2.3%, and the domi-
nant maceral group is huminite. The huminite reflectance is 0.39%. Note the enormous
advantage over the Rajasthan lignites of the low ash.
Lignite-fired power production at Tamil Nadu began in 1962 at a plant which, between
then and 1970, was expanded to a total capacity of 600 MW. Further expansion took
place in 1996. The second plant commenced operations in 1978 and has a nameplate
capacity of 1470 MW. It supplies beyond Tamil Nadu to parts of India including Pondi-
cherry [13]. The older power plant is to be replaced by the Neyveli New Thermal Power
Plant (NNTPP) which also uses lignite [14,15]. It is being commissioned at the time of
going to press and uses supercritical steam in plant supplied by Alstom.
Pulverisation at this plant is by 16 beater wheel mills, manufactured by Alstom at their

Indian facility [16]. A beater wheel mill, in addition to pulverising the coal, acts as a
supplier of air to the fuel, and air and fuel from it go directly to the burner [17], the
air, before its role in supporting the combustion, acting as a carrier gas for the p.f. An
approximate calculation is shown in the box.
Having regard to the fact that supercritical steam is used at the plant the efficiency
will be taken to be 0.43, so 1000 MW of power requires 2325 MW of heat.
Assigning a calorific value for the coal as fired of 12 MJ kg–1 the coal require-
ment is 195 kg s –1 or 700 tonnes per hour. Each of the 16 beater wheel mills is
therefore producing 44 tonnes per hour of pulverised fuel.
To the very limited degree that a comparison is valid, this is at the low end of
the range for Loesche mills given in section 4.2.8.
Also in Tamil Nadu is a 250 MW lignite-fired plant owned by TAQA [18]. This has
been in service since 2002 and sells its electricity to the Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO).
79
8.2.3 gujurat
In western India, this region has lignite deposits which include the Vastan lignite mine
block, 300 km from Mumbai. A recent contribution to the research literature which
is concerned with possible underground gasification of Vastan lignite [19] gives as
background information a moisture content when in the bed of 43%. The ash content
is given as 4.7%. The mine is supplied by the Gujurat Industries Power Company Ltd.,
whose portfolio does not consist exclusively of lignite-fired facilities. It uses lignite at
the Surat Lignite Power Plant (SLPP), which has four units [20]. Fluidised beds are the
combustion technique; lignite enters the bed as pieces of about 10 mm size together
with lime to capture the sulphur dioxide. The bed temperature is controlled so as to
limit formation of NOx. Expansion of SLPP is planned, retaining lignite as fuel [21].
Gujurat lignite as an ingredient of drilling fluid at oil wells is discussed in section
15.5.1.
A lignite from Gujurat has been examined for petrographic characteristics including
gelification index (GI) [22]. As noted in section 2.2 this is determined from maceral
analysis. There is no one definition in these terms; that used in [22] was:
GI = ulminite/(textinite + detrohuminite + semifusinite +

inertodetrinite)
each percentage volume basis. All of these macerals are described in reference [26]
of Chapter 2 (that is not so for the Greek lignite similarly evaluated in section 5.3.6).
Across a set of 12 coal samples, the GI values reported in [22] were in the range 0.2–1.5.
The range was widened by two outliers, and all of the samples except those had a value
close to 1.0.
8.2.4 goa
There is lignite production in Goa which is in the minerals business widely, its products
including iron ore, manganese ore and bauxite. Production of lignite at Goa in June
2014 [23] was 43 lakh tons ≡ 4.3 million tons or 3.9 million tonnes.
8.2.5 The Kashmir Valley

Lignite occurs in this part of India where local reserves are believed to be 60 lakh tons
( ≡ 5.4 million tonnes) [24]. It is used in heating. There is a return to lignite from this
region in Chapter 23.

It is clear from the selection above that lignite is seen as one of the fuels of the future
for power generation in India. Several of the facilities discussed are undergoing re-
placement or expansion whilst retaining lignite as fuel. India has a per capita annual
electricity consumption of 684 kW-hour [24], almost exactly the same as that of Indo-
nesia. The comments made in section 7.7 apropos of Indonesia – that at that level of
demand lignite can make a significant contribution – apply to India. One of the most
80
encouraging points noted in this chapter so far is the introduction of supercritical steam
to the lignite-fired power generation scene in India. This makes for efficient production
and for carbon dioxide mitigation.
8.3 Pakistan
The Thar desert lignite deposit, of which the present author has written briefly else-
where [25], contains according to a recent quantitative survey 160 billion tonnes of
lignite [26]. The per capita annual electricity consumption in Pakistan is even lower
than that of India at 449 kW-hour [27].
The Thar lignite field was discovered only in the 1980s. One can discuss power gener-
ation there only in terms of the future, though certainly the near future as electricity
production from the Thar field is expected to commence in 2017 [28]. Initial production
will be at 660 MW and details are as follows [29].
Lignite from the part of the mine drawn on will be of ash content just under 10% and
calorific value as mined 12.6 MJ kg–1. The sulphur on an as-received basis will be 1.4%.
There will be two 330 MW units each with a fluidised bed. Steam will be at 175 bar
and 541°C, which represents the superheated state as the temperature corresponding
to saturated steam at that pressure is 355°C [30]. Rankine efficiency will be enhanced
by steam re-heating, giving a value of 37% which, for sub-critical steam, is high. Ash
removal from the flue gases by electrostatic precipitation will be of > 99.9% efficiency.
Sulphur dioxide removal from the flue gases will be > 90%.
There is lignite, as well as coals of higher rank, in the part of Pakistan known as Ba-
lochistan. At present lignite from Balochistan is used to make fertilisers via synthesis
gas (see section 13.3). Development into power generation is hoped for, and in [29] an
extremely important point is made in favour of lignite over higher rank coals in Paki-
stan. The latter have to be mined from beneath the ground, and in Pakistan the record
of accidents in coal mining is dismal. Lignite from Balochistan can be mined in an
open cut fashion, eliminating the hazards of below-ground mining such as methane
explosions (see also section 17.3). That is not of course to say that there need not be
close attention to safety in open cut mining, simply that at an open cut the setting is
inherently safer. In [31] the lignites of Balochistan are numbered amongst the others
in Pakistan which if utilised in power generation could produce, on the estimate given
in [32], 100 GW for 30 years, providing ≈ 900 TW-hour annually. It might be noted in
conclusion that electricity consumption in Pakistan in 2011 was 90 GW-hours [33], over
60% of it from oil and natural gas. It is evident from [28] that comparisons are being
made along these lines.
At Lakhra, 30 miles from Hyderabad, there is generation in a small and erratic way
from lignite [34]. The rating is 150 MW although it has sometimes produced at as little
as 20 MW. In [29] lignites from Lakhra are declared to be for utilisation purposes com-
parable to those from Thar, low ash being common to the two.
81

Such lignite reserves as there are in Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, are not seen
as being of value [35]. That is not to say that there is not scope for exploration. The
only coal-fired power station in Bangladesh is Barapukuria which uses locally sourced
higher rank coal. Sri Lanka has one coal-fired power station with a second one under
construction. Nepal has no coal-fired power stations at all, although Nepalese lignite
does exist at Lukundol in the Kathmandu basin [36].
There is very limited lignite-fired electricity generation in the Indian sub-continent,

but what there is is a long way from being obsolescent or moribund and, as pointed out
previously, commitment to lignite usage in that part of the world is evident and expan-
sion expected. Bhutan, a landlocked country enclosed largely by India, is discussed in
Chapter 23.
8.5 References
[1] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Barsingsar_Thermal_Power_Project
[2] Selvakumaran S., Bakthavatsalam A.K. ‘Effect of chemical composition of ash on sintering
of lignites in Circulating Fluid Bed Combustion and successful operation of large CFBC boil-
ers’, Applied Thermal Engineering 85: 135–147 (2015)
[3] http://www.cctindia.org/india-power-map/article/14-giral-lignite-power-plant.html
[4] http://rvunl.com/GiralLTPP.html
[5] Srivastava S.K. ‘Recovery of sulphur from very high ash fuel and fine distributed pyritic
sulphur containing coal using ferric sulphate’, Fuel Processing Technology 84: 37– 46 (2003)
[6] Yani S., Zhang D. ‘An experimental study into pyrite transformation during pyrolysis of
Australian lignite samples’, Fuel 89: 1700–1708 (2010)
[7] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=VS_Lignite_Plant
[8] Half-yearly Report for the period October 2011 to March 2012, V.S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd.
[9] http://www.jsw.in/energy/barmer-plant
[10] http://rsmm.com/blmcl.htm
[11] Mukherjee A.K., Alum M.M., Mazumdar S.K., Haque R., Gowrisankaran S. ‘Physi-
co-chemical properties and petrographic characteristics of the Kapurdi lignite deposit, Barmer
Basin, Rajasthan, India’, International Journal of Coal Geology 21: 31–44 (1992)
[12] Irdi G.A., Booher D.V., Martello D.V., Frommell E.A., Gray R.J. ‘The petrography and
mineralogy of two Indian coals’, Fuel 72: 1093–1098 (1993)
[13] http://www.nlcindia.com/index.php?file_name=about_01e
[14] http://www.nlcindia.com/index.php?file_name=about_01h
[15] http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/neyvelis-oldest-power-
plant-to-close/article6181818.ece
[16] http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/alstom-india-ltd/directorsreport/companyid-3714.cms
82
[17] Bajric R., Zuber N., Sostakov R. ‘Relations between pulverizing process parameters and
beater wheel mill vibration for predictive maintenance program set-up’, Maintenance and
Reliability 16: 158–163 (2014)
[18] http://www.taqaglobal.com/our-regions/india/overview?sc_lang=en
[19] Bhaskaran S., Anuradda Ganesh A., Mahajani S., Aghalayam P., Sapru R.K. Mathur D.K.
‘Comparison between two types of Indian coals for the feasibility of Underground Coal Gasifi-
cation through laboratory scale experiments’, Fuel 113: 837–843 (2013)
[20] http://www.gipcl.com/plant.php?id=CDE46A14910D102B90E20202030C33DC
[21] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Surat_Lignite_Power_Plant
[22] Singh A., Mahesh S., Singh H., Tripathi S.K.M., Singh B.D. ‘Characterization of Mangrol
lignite (Gujarat), India: petrography, palynology, and palynofacies’, International Journal of
Coal Geology 120: 82–94 (2013)
[23] http://goanreporter.com/mineral-production-during-june-2014/
[24] http://koausa.org/geography/chapter3.2.html
[26] Siddiqui F.I., Pathan A.G., Ünver B., Tercan A.E., Hindistan M.A., Ertunç G., Atalay F.,
Suphi Ünal S., Kıllıoğlu Y. ‘Lignite resource estimations and seam modelling of Thar Field,
Pakistan’, International Journal of Coal Geology 140: 84–96 (2015)
[27] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC
[28] http://www.dawn.com/news/1084003
[29] Thar Coal Block II Power Project Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Final
Report, Hagler Bailly, Pakistan, 21 January 2014
[30] http://www2.spiraxsarco.com/uk/resources/steam-tables/saturated-water.asp
[31] http://ummc.webs.com/apps/documents/
[32] Jaffri G., Zhang J. ‘Catalytic gasification of Pakistani Lakhra and Thar lignite chars in
steam gasification’, Journal of Fuel Chemistry and Technology 37: 11–19 (2009)
[33] https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=jp4YVdisH6ru8we2_oCACQ&gws_
rd=ssl#q=pakistan++electricity++consumption+import+export+2014
[34] http://www.dawn.com/news/1172656
[35] http://www.banglapedia.org/HT/L_0114.htm
[36] Goddu S.R., Appel E., Gautam P., Oches E.A., Wehland F. ‘The lacustrine section at
Lukundol, Kathmandu basin, Nepal: dating and magnetic fabric aspects’, Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences 30: 73–81 (2007)
83
CHAPTER 9
ELECTRICITY GENERATION VI – THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION
9.1 Introduction
Countries of this vast and highly varied region of the world will be examined in turn for
evaluation of their power generation with lignite. The countries of the Former Soviet
Union (FSU) will be covered in descending order of population. Countries not produc-
ing lignite or using it in power generation do not feature. These include the second most
populous country in the FSU – the Ukraine – where in spite of large reserves lignite
mining is very minor at present, and that which is produced is not used in power gener-
ation. By the same token some countries do feature which have no current lignite-fired
power stations but have had in the fairly recent past, especially if published policy
statements indicate an interest in revival. The most obvious example of this is Georgia.
9.2 Russia
Table 9.1 gives some details of lignite-fired power stations in Russia, and comments
follow below.
Table 9.1 Lignite-fired power stations in Russia.

Now owned and operated by E.ON and uses
Berezovskaya, eastern Siberia, Russia [1]
supercritical steam. 1600 MW from two units
Output of 1210 MW with lignite from a deposit of
Nazarovo, Russia [3]
the same name nearby
Nameplate capacity 208 MW. Owned by the
Krasnoyarsk [6,7] Siberian Generating Company and in service
since 1979
Nameplate capacity 2650 MW. Entered service in
Ryazan [8]
1973. See also comments in the main text
Uses brown coal from eastern Siberia. Capacity
Novo-Irkutsk [9]
655 MW between several units
Originally (1920) ran on peat. The fuel mix over the
Shatura [11]
years has included lignite. Now acquired by E.ON
The lignite-fired power station at Berezovskaya was acquired by E.ON in 2007. Its orig-
inal commissioning straddles in time Perestroika: unit 1 came into service in 1988 and
unit 2 in 1991, each producing at 800 MW. A planned unit 3 did not come to fruition.
Such failure at a time which took in, for example, the August Coup is not surprising.
84
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn Vi – THE FORMER sOViET uniOn
Berezovskaya draws fuel from the lignite deposit of the same name. This is part of
the Kansk-Achinsk lignite basin. At the time that this lignite deposit came into use it
was reported [2] that its calorific value in the bed was 1000–3000 kcal kg–1 (4–12.5 MJ
kg–1). In the same report the proposed building of the Berezovskaya power station was
discussed, the target capacity of which – 6400 MW – had not been achieved. A plus for
the Kansk-Achinsk reserve is its proximity to the Trans-Siberian railway.
The Nazarovo power plant (next row) is also in Siberia and has been in service for
over 50 years. It draws on lignite from a nearby deposit of the same name, also part
of the Kansk-Achinsk basin. Properties of lignite from Nazarovo are given in [4] as
5.5% ash, 49.1% volatiles and a calorific value of 13.2 MJ kg–1. The coal supplying the
Nazarovo power plant, and the power plant itself, are in a steppe zone comprising grass
and shrubs. In a steppe zone trees are either totally absent or present only as widely
separated colonies. The ecosystem of a steppe is vulnerable, and where there is thermal
power generation that calls for particularly close attention to such things as ash dispos-
al. A scene close to the Nazarovo power plant is shown in [9] and an interesting point
follows from it. In spite of the very low ambient temperatures a lake close to the plant
does not freeze [5]. The heat from the power station prevents it from doing so and keeps
it at about +12°C.
At Krasnoyarsk (following row) only one of three installed units is currently in ser-
vice. That at Ryazan supplements the primary lignite fuel with natural gas and fuel
oil. The expected quantity of electricity from the plant in 2020 is 7 519 970 MW-hour
and the expected carbon dioxide production 6 478 240 000 kg [10], giving an emis-
sion factor of 860 kg per MW-hour. This can be compared, for example, with those in
section 5.4.2.
Since Shatura (final row of the table) began producing electricity in 1920, one can as-
sume that its construction commenced during the reign of Tsar Nicholas II (1868–1918).
It is 150 km from Moscow.
There is lignite at Sakhalin [12]. The isolation of Sakhalin makes for expensive instal-
lation and operation of infrastructure, and a lignite from Sakhalin costs much more to
mine and transport than one from Siberia other things being equal [13]. A new power
station there is expected to be powered by lignite [14], although there have been pro-
posals that natural gas be used instead. Its proximity to a future liquefied natural gas
(LNG) train will be of benefit to both parties. The power plant can receive natural gas
from the same source as the LNG train, and can itself supply the LNG train with its
considerable electricity requirements [15].
It is in some ways surprising that lignite should be used in power generation in pres-
ent-day Sakhalin, which is one of the key hydrocarbon production centres of the world.
Such a view does not however put things in the right perspective. The new power sta-
tion replaces one which was commissioned at a time when the people of Sakhalin relied
on such things as forestry, fishing and crop husbandry for their livelihoods, as some
still do.
85
9.3 Kazakhstan
The very large coalfield at Ekibastuz in north-eastern Kazakhstan supplies the pow-
er station of the same name with coal [16]. The rank of the coal has been variously
described as sub-bituminous [17], as lignite [18] and as brown coal [19]. It is surface
mined and extremely high (40%) in ash. The point made at the end of section 5.5.1 on
variation of rank is relevant here. Quite unequivocally lignitous in rank is the coal of
the Turgay basin in central Kazakhstan where mining is expected to begin in 2020 [20]
at a rate eventually sufficient to supply a 2000 MW power plant [21].
9.4 Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan has about 1.7 billion tonnes of lignite. Even so production is very low, ≈ 3
million tonnes annually [22]. At Angren in eastern Uzbekistan there is a power station
which with lignite as fuel generates at 484 MW [23]. The lignite used is sourced from
the Angren lignite mine near the national capital Tashkent [23]. The facility is set for
expansion, beyond which it will continue to draw on lignite from the Angren mine and
will also use higher rank coal from a different part of Uzbekistan. The chief activity at
Angren is underground gasification of the lignite and this is covered in section 13.9.2.
9.5 Belarus
Belarus produces lignite which is converted to briquettes. Briquettes per se have a
chapter later in the book. What is relevant here is production of electricity from lignite
briquettes originating in Belarus. In 2011, 143 000 tonnes of lignite briquettes were
used in power generation in Belarus [24]. It is straightforward to show that this would
have provided of the order of 30 MW of electricity. Plans for a 400 MW lignite-fired
facility in Belarus have been announced [25]. It is noted in [25] that in that region of
the world small coal- or lignite-fired power generation facilities are frequently encoun-
tered. The sapropel reserves of Belarus feature in section 21.11.
9.6 Georgia
The lignite deposit at Akhaltsikhe in south-western Georgia contains > 70 million
tonnes [26]. It is 36% ash, and its calorific value is given in [21] as 13.6–18.9 MJ kg–1.
The mine is now owned by Saknakhsiri LTD [27] who also own another lignite mine
in Georgia, that at Tkibuli-Shaori. In the 20th century lignites from these mines were
used inter alia in power production, in particular Akhaltsikhe which supplied the pow-
er station at Gardabani. At the present time coal does not feature in the electricity
mix of Georgia, which is mainly hydroelectric with some natural gas. It is clear that
reintroduction of lignite-fired power generation is on the agenda, including a proposed
160 MW facility at Gardabani [28].

Again, lignite usage is limited without being insignificant and its place in the future
energy supply of the FSU is assured, largely because of the involvement of E.ON.
86
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn Vi – THE FORMER sOViET uniOn
9.8 References
[1] https://www.thinkproject.com/tr/projeler/proje-ayrinti-sayfasi/project/lignite-fired-power-
station-bgres-3/pa/show/?tx_tpprojectdatabase_projectdb%5Bindustry%5D=5&tx_tpproject-
database_projectdb%5Bcountry%5D=0
[2] ‘Soviet Union harvests Siberian coal’, New Scientist 14 February 1985
[3] http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-russia-siberia.htm
[4] Boiko E.A., Pachkovskii S.V., Dididhin D.G. ‘Experimental and numerical technique for es-
timating kinetic processes of thermochemical conversion of solid organic fuels’, Combustion,
Explosion, and Shock Waves 41: 47–56 (2005)
[5] http://blogs.voanews.com/photos/files/2012/02/reuters_russia_fish_farm_10Feb12-878x519.
jpg
[6] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Krasnoyarsk-2_Powerplant
[7] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Krasnoyarsk-2_Powerplant
[8] http://www.ogk2.ru/eng/about/branch/ryazanskaya/
[9] http://en.irkutskenergo.ru/qa/959.2.html
[10] http://enipedia.tudelft.nl/wiki/Ryazan_Sdpp_Powerplant
[11] http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-20/issue-8/features/shatu-
ra-sets-a-new-efficiency-standard-in-russia.html
[12] Nalivkin D.B. The Geology of the U.S.S.R., Elsevier (2013)
[13] Minakir P.A., Freeze G.L. The Russian Far East: An Economic Handbook, M.E. Sharpe (1994)
[14] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sakhalin_GRES-2_power_station
[15] http://www.downstreamtoday.com/News/ArticlePrint.aspx?aid=40097&AspxAutoDetect-
CookieSupport=1
[16] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ekibastuz-2_power_station
[17] Thomas L. Coal Geology, John Wiley, New York (2002)
[18] Gordon R.L. World Coal: Economics, Policies and Prospects, Cambridge University Press
(2010)
[19] http://www.easternblocenergy.com/kazakhstan-energy-monthly/
[20] http://www.coalage.com/features/3047-kazakhstan-prepares-to-grow-coal-production.
html#.VRoupG8cSUk
[21] http://www.tendersinfo.com/details/18826318
[22] http://knoema.com/EIAIES2014/international-energy-statistics-2014?tsId=1162330
[23] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Novo-Angren_power_station
[24] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/belarus/lignite-brown+coal+briquettes,+conver-
sion+in+thermal+power+plants
[25] http://en.eic.in.ua/content/belarus-will-build-lignite-fired-thermal-power-station
87
[26] http://www.ifsdeurope.com/popup/coal.html
[27] http://www.gig.ge/en/investment-portfolio/saqnakhshiri
[28] ‘Other EU Member States and Energy Community Stakeholders’, Coal Industry across
Europe 2013 pp. 60–71
88
CHAPTER 10
ELECTRICITY GENERATION VII –
AUSTRALIA
10.1 Introduction
Australia’s Latrobe Valley in the region of the state of Victoria called Gippsland has
been making electricity from brown coal20 since 1924 and this has served the popula-
tion of Melbourne as well as rural areas of the state over that time. Prior to that bitumi-
nous coal was brought from New South Wales for use at the City of Melbourne power
station in central Melbourne. The State Electricity Commission of Victoria came into
being in 1918, so responsibility for power generation was transferred to it from the
City of Melbourne. There is also usage of brown coal for electricity purposes in South
Australia. These will be covered in turn.
10.2 Victoria
10.2.1 introduction
Though its beginning is outside living memory, electricity generation from Victorian
brown coal is as strong as it ever was. This is partly because in recent years hydroelec-
tricity did not perform as hoped as a result of droughts [1].
10.2.2 The coalfields and power stations

The power stations of the Latrobe Valley are described in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1 Power stations in the Latrobe Valley.

Commencement of power supply from brown coal in 1924
Yallourn [2]. Water content of the coal in the bed-moist state ≈ 60%.
1480 MW total capacity
Coal from the Morwell open cut. Generation at 1675 MW
Hazelwood
[5]
Two plants, Loy Yang A and Loy Yang B. Combined power
Loy Yang
generation 3250 MW
Anglesea (see comment in the 150 MW from brown coal, to supply an aluminium
main text re location) production plant [10]
Energy Brix Adjacent to Morwell
20 ‘Brown coal’ is the term used in the Latrobe Valley, very rarely if at all ‘lignite’. This might be due to
extensive consultations with germany during the development of power generation from brown coal in
Victoria. The term ‘braunkohle’ was probably anglicised to ‘brown coal’.
89
As would be expected from the period of its large-scale usage, Yallourn coal has fea-
tured in the literature frequently. Reference [3], published at a time when there had
been electricity production from Yallourn coal for 25 years, gives useful details of it.
The proximate analysis figures (see section 1.3.3) are given as volatiles 51.4%, fixed
carbon 47.5% and ash 1.1%. The huminite maceral group is divided into six macerals.
These a reader can identify from reference 26 in Chapter 2, cited there as an authorita-
tive source for maceral classification.
Since the commencement of power generation at Yallourn noted in the table there has
been decommissioning of units and installation of new ones. Now owned by Energy
Australia, Yallourn now has four 1480 MW steam turbines [4] all of which use super-
heated steam. There is enough coal at the open cut for the power facility to deliver at its
current rate until 2032 [4]. In 2013 Yallourn used 13.72 million tonnes of coal from the
open cut and produced electricity in a quantity of 7.774 TW-hour.
Hazelwood power station (next row) entered service in 1964 [5]. It produces 10 TW-
hour annually, and how close it operates to nameplate capacity can be calculated as:
10 TW-hour/[1675 × 10 –6 TW × (365 × 24) hour] = 0.68

so it produces at just under 70% of its rated output, which is typical. The water content
of bed-moist Morwell coal is given in sources including [6], in which a value of 61% is
reported. The ash content is given as 1.6% dry basis. The Hardgrove index is given in
[7] as 113, a value higher than any of those in Table 1.2. Hydrogenation of Morwell coal
is discussed in section 14.5.2. Hazelwood features in section 17.2.2.
Loy Yang, close to the township of Traralgon in the Latrobe Valley, is the most recent
of the three brown coal fired power plants in the Valley to have come into operation
having been commissioned in the 1980s. The power station draws on Loy Yang coal,
use of which up to 2027 is expected [8]. A research publication from 1996 [9] – about a
decade after power generation at Loy Yang began – gives the following values for the
properties of Loy Yang coal. The ash is 1% dry basis, and the sulphur 0.3% dry, ash-
free basis. By far the dominant maceral group is vitrinite at 91%. There is 9% exinite
and a trace only of inertinite. Loy Yang coal has been investigated for non-evaporative
drying by MTE and HTD (see section 1.4) [11]. HTD was found to be more effective at
300°C than at 200°C. Changes other than moisture reduction were observed, including
the following: HTD is accompanied by decarboxylation; MTE and HTD both affect the
pore structure, though not to the same extent.
The Victorian town of Anglesea (next row in the table) is not in the Latrobe Valley,
but 170 miles west of it. The power station at Anglesea is expected to continue after
the aluminium production plant which it currently serves closes down, its product be-
coming part of the national supply. Energy Brix (following row) is situated at Morwell,
and generates power and heat for the manufacture of briquettes [12]. That there was
autochthonous deposition in the formation of Victorian brown coal has been noted in a
number of studies [e.g. 13,14].
90
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn Vii – AusTRALiA
The matter of overburden was raised in section 4.2.4 with a German lignite as an exam-
ple. In the Latrobe Valley overburden depths are 10–20 m, atop a coal deposit in places
over 200 m deep [15]. The ‘overburden ratio’ is therefore low. It is stated in section 4.2.6
that the overburden at lignite mines in Lusatia, Germany is 44 ± 20 m in depth.
10.3 South Australia

A recent report [16] into energy matters in South Australia contains two references to
Kemper County MS, which features in Chapter 6 of this book. In the report the term
‘sub-bituminous brown coal’ is used to describe the coal at Leigh Creek SA. This re-
sembles the terminology used in Kazakhstan reported in section 9.3.
In the 1950s a power station was built at Port Augusta SA. By now there are two power
stations at Port Augusta which draw on Leigh Creek coal. These are described in Table
10.2.
Table 10.2 Power stations at Port Augusta using coal from Leigh Creek.

Northern [17] 544 MW, commissioned 1985
Playford [17] 240 MW, commissioned 1963
Reserves at Leigh Creek are sufficient for a third power station of around 250 MW.
Leigh Creek coals are high both in ash and in moisture, and it was because of this that
activity did not begin until the 1950s as noted above. In [18] the vitrinite reflectances of
three coals from Leigh Creek are presented alongside those from three coals from the
black coal basin in Cranky Corner NSW. The ranges are Leigh Creek 0.43–0.49% and
Cranky Corner 0.40–0.48%. The advanced rank of Leigh Creek coals can be inferred
from this. The overlap of coal rank within a particular deposit is recognised in the
ASTM scheme for coal classification, which also uses sub-divisions of the ranks [19].
Leigh Creek coal has been so classified as lignite A to sub-bituminous B [20]. (See also
section 24.1.)

In 2012, brown coal supplied 47 555 GW-hours of electricity within Australia [21],
a figure which presumably aggregates the generation in the Latrobe Valley and that
in South Australia. The figure is 19.1% of the total supply, comparable to the 20.5%
from natural gas. The latter is preferable in carbon dioxide emission terms. It was
noted above that the operators of the South Australia power facilities using brown coal
are following, with a view to adopting, developments in CCS techniques for low-rank
coals, which will help brown coal maintain its place in the electricity mix. A final point
is that the author has noted no mention of supercritical steam in his examination of
facts and figures for this section. Introduction of that is an obvious way of increasing
the acceptability in greenhouse gas terms. The author was anticipated in making this
point, and has since seen it expressed in a consulting report which, being on the in-
91
ternet, can be assumed to be in the public domain [22]. At the time of the report there
was no supercritical steam at brown coal fired power stations in Australia. There was
supercritical steam at certain Australian black coal power stations by then.
Tasmania has lignite, though in small reserves widely separated from each other. In a
newspaper article from 75 years ago (by which time there was major activity in Vic-
toria, which the Tasmanians were perhaps hoping to emulate) it was reported that the
isolation and the high ash precluded major utilisation [23].
10.5 References
[1] http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/energy/sustainable-energy/hydroelectricity
[2] http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au/places/result_detail/11491?print=true
[3] Takahashi R., Sasaki M. ‘Automatic maceral analysis of low-rank coal (brown coal)’, Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology 14: 103–118 (1989)
[4] http://www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/what-we-do/generation-assets/yallourn-pow-
er-station
[5] http://www.gdfsuezau.com/about-us/asset/Hazelwood
[6] Bongers G.D., Jackson W.R., Woskoboenko F. ‘Pressurised steam drying of Australian
low-rank Coals: Part 2. Shrinkage and physical properties of steam dried coals, preparation of
dried coals with very high porosity’, Fuel Processing Technology 64: 13–23 (2000)
[7] Woskoboenko F. ‘Explosibility of Victorian brown coal dust’, Proceedings of the Second
Australian Coal Science Conference pp. 118–128, Australian Institute of Energy (1986)
[8] http://www.miningoilgas.com.au/index.php/products/a-z?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&-
catid=12&sobi2Id=242
[9] Strugnell B., Patrick J.W. ‘Rapid hydropyrolysis studies on coal and maceral concentrates’,
Fuel 75: 300–306 (1996)
[10] http://www.alcoa.com/australia/en/info_page/anglesea_coal.asp
[11] Fei Y., Artanto Y., Giroux L., Marshall M., Jackson W.R., MacPhee J.A., Charland J-P.,
Chaffee A.L., Allardice D.J. ‘Comparison of some physico-chemical properties of Victorian
lignite dewatered under non-evaporative conditions’, Fuel 85: 1987–1991 (2006)
[12] http://www.hrl.com.au/energy-brix-australia-corporation/w1/i1001173/
[13] Verheyen T.V., Johns R.B., Bryson R.L., Malciet G.E., Blackburn D.T. ‘A spectroscopic
investigation of the banding or lithotypes occurring in Victorian brown coal seams’, Fuel 63:
1629–1635 (1984)
[14] Anderson K.B., Mackay G.M. ‘A review and reinterpretation of evidence concerning the
origin of Victorian brown coal’, International Journal of Coal Geology 16: 327–347 (1990)
[15] http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/victorias-earth-resources/coal
[16] South Australian Fuel and Technology Report, Australian Energy Market Operator, Janu-
ary 2015
92
ELECTRiCiTY gEnERATiOn Vii – AusTRALiA
[17] https://alintaenergy.com.au/about-us/power-generation/flinders
[18] Li Z., Ward C.R., Gurba L.W. ‘Occurrence of non-mineral inorganic elements in low-rank
coal macerals as shown by electron microprobe element mapping techniques’, International
[19] Standard D 388 ‘Standard Classification of Coals by Rank’, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia
[20] Ward C.R. ‘Mineral matter in Triassic and Tertiary low-rank coals from South Australia’,
International Journal of Coal Geology 20: 185–208 (1992)
[21] Australian Energy Update, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, Canberra (2014)
[22] Campisi A., Woskoboenko F. Brown Coal R&D Scoping Study, HRL Technology, Mul-
grave, Vic. (2009)
[23] The Advocate (Burnie, Tasmania), 13 May 1940
93
CHAPTER 11
BRIQUETTES
11.1 Introduction
By ‘briquette’ is of course meant ground brown coal moulded into a regular shape for
distribution as a general-purpose solid fuel. Sometimes a binder is used, sometimes not.
Briquette production is a major part of lignite utilisation. Use of briquettes to stabilise

a p.f. flame was noted in section 5.1.3.
11.2 Briquette production by region

11.2.1 Europe and the states of the Fsu
Germany is the world’s largest producer of briquettes [1] having entered the business in
the 19th century. The word is spelt ‘brikett’ in the German language.
The Knappenrode brikett factory [2] was in operation from 1928 to 1993. It had its peak
production year in 1965, when it produced 1.5 million tonnes of briquettes. It was (is: it
now exists as a historical building) in Lusatia where, as emphasised in Chapter 4, large
amounts of lignite are produced. At Frechen there has been briquetting since 1891. The
plant is now operated by RWE and produces 1 million tonnes annually of briquettes [3].
Up to the year 2000 briquettes manufactured in this region were made from lignite
from the Bergheim open cut mine [4]. The mines now providing lignite feedstock for
briquettes are Hambach, Garzweiler and Inden [5]. Pressures in the briquetting process
are of the order of 100 MPa [6], a figure which in [6] is expressly applied to binderless
briquetting of German lignites. The point is made that the drying of the raw lignite to
make it suitable for the briquette press, which is accompanied by some particle shrink-
age, eliminates some of the natural cohesion. The manufactured briquette owes its
mechanical stability to controlled re-introduction of water and the moulding pressure.
Bulgaria has been a major producer of briquettes [7]. The briquette works at Galabovo,
where there was disruption of supply in 2012 through flooding [8], uses Maritza coal. The
future of the briquetting plant has been in doubt [9] for environmental reasons. Poland
produced 122 000 tonnes of lignite briquettes in 1990, declining by a factor of five by 2000
[10]. There is major production at Bełchatów and some useful comments on the briquetting
of lignite from this source are made in [11] in which it is noted that water removal by crush-
ing increased the calorific value of the coal from 15.4 to 16.8 MJ kg–1. In compressing the
coal the proportion of the initial coal bulk volume retained as a function of applied pres-
sure was determined for the Bełchatów lignite. For example, compression to three quarters
of the original bulk volume was attained at an applied pressure of 2 kN cm–2 ≡ 20 MPa or
200 bar. Brown coal briquettes from Hungary are manufactured at a moulding pressure of
16–17 MPa [12] and will retain their consolidation for about three months.
94
BRiQuETTEs
In the Czech Republic there has been no lignite briquette production since 2010. Coal
from the Antonin seam in the Sokolov basin has been examined with a view to its
briquetting in the future [13]. Results were inconclusive in terms of the viability of
manufacture, though one of them is of a property not having featured in this chapter
previously, the compressive strength. For the briquettes in [13] this is given as 5.6 MPa
( ≡ N mm–2) for a briquette of width 182 mm. Semi-quantitative comparison is possible
with values of the same quantity for prepared samples of a German brown coal which
across diameters in the range 0.5–5 mm varies in the approximate range 27–2.5 MPa
[14]. This encompasses the value for the Czech lignite briquette reported in [13]. Simi-
larly, the compressive strength for a briquette made from a lignite originating in Turkey
is given, as a function of water content, in [15]. For a briquette having experienced in
production a pressure of 150 MPa the compressive stress ranges from 8 to 15 MPa
across the moisture content range 8–13%. The compressive strength was also measured
for briquettes made from a Turkish lignite blended with a Siberian higher rank coal.
The greater the proportion of the Siberian coal the lower the compressive strength. For
briquettes prepared at a pressure of 566 MPa the compressive strength was just under
30 MPa when the composition was lignite only, dropping sharply to ≈ 5 MPa for a 50:50
composition with the higher rank coal [16].
At the Rio Maior mine in Portugal [17] briquette production ceased to be competitive
with imported coal.
In Russia brown coal from the Kansk-Achinsk basin is briquetted with bitumen, from
oil refining residue, as a binder [18]. Not only does this raise the cost of manufacture,
but the bitumen is productive of black smoke when the briquette is burnt. There have
been on a development basis attempts to eliminate the bitumen in one of two ways: by
using lignin as a ‘milder’ binder, and by blending the brown coal with a higher rank
coal in such proportions that binderless briquetting becomes possible [18]. A break-
down of lignite briquette usage for Belarus in 2010 is given in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1 Breakdown of brown coal briquette usage for Belarus –

consumption by different sectors, in 1000 tonnes. information from [19].
AGRICULTURE ENERGY HOUSEHOLDS ‘HOUSEHOLDS INDUSTRY AND ‘OTHER ‘OTHER INDUSTRIES

SECTOR AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION CONSUMERS’ AND
CONSUMERS’ CONSTRUCTION’
11 0 568 704 29 125 29
The figures relate to use within Belarus. Belarus is next only to Germany as an exporter
of brown coal briquettes [19]. Other Eastern bloc countries with significant exports
of brown coal briquettes include Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia and
Poland. The 2010 figure for Germany was 12500 metric tonnes.
There is no lignite briquette production in Kazakhstan [20]. There are reports in the
research literature (e.g. [21]) of the use of binders in briquettes made from lignites
originating in Turkey. Binders tested in [21] included molasses, crude oil and benton-
ite, a substance widely used in drilling fluids at oil fields and inorganic (see also the
95
final paragraph of this section). Obviously this will raise the ash content of the bri-
quettes on burning. In the Republic of Ireland there is small-scale production of lignite
briquettes and sale as domestic fuel [22]. Montan wax from Irish lignite is discussed
in Chapter 15.
There is production of brown coal briquettes in Serbia [23], just over a million tonnes in
2011 [24]. In Bosnia and Herzegovina there has been briquette production from brown
coal at Mostar [25], where brown coal was discovered in the mid 19th century. Elek-
troprivreda BiH (see section 5.8.2) generate 75 MW of electricity at Mostar [26]. In the
Republic of Macedonia, lignite from the Suvodol mine has been examined closely for
briquetting potential, with encouraging results [27].
The point was made above that use of an inorganic binder decreases the calorif-
ic value. It is possible however that there is an effect beyond simple dilution of
the organic substance. When bentonite and cement were each used as binders in
the briquetting of a Turkish lignite on a trial basis [28] the kinetic parameters for
combustion were found to have been influenced by the presence of the inorganics.
Less surprisingly the organic binders tested, which included molasses, also influ-
enced the kinetics. The activation energy for oxidation of the briquettes in total
absence of a binder was 42.8 kJ mol –1. With the binding agents it was in the range
35.7–46.1 kJ mol –1.
11.2.2 north America

On a historical note, in Texas in 1906 a ‘rubbery’ asphalt was being tested as a bind-
er for briquettes from lignite [29] and compared with pitch for effectiveness. Neither
would have helped towards a clean burn. In a publication from 1914 recently reprinted
[30] it is stated that the briquette industry had not by then developed rapidly in the
USA, and in fact it never was to. Since 2010 there has been production of lignite bri-
quettes at the facility at South Heart ND, operated by GTL Energy [31]. It is close to a
newly developed lignite open cut of the same name where there has also been interest
in gasification.
11.2.3 Mongolia
As described in Chapter 7, in Mongolia lignite is used to a considerable degree in
power generation. Lignite from the deposit at Baori in Inner Mongolia has been used
to make briquettes. In an experimental study [32] it is reported that the briquetting of
this lignite reduces the moisture content from 24 to 8%, and no binder is involved. In
a further piece of work [33] briquettes from the same source are examined for water
resistance, this property being correlated with oxygen functional groups including
carboxyls in the lignite structure. To the content of section 7.2.3 can be added the fact
that power generation from Baori lignite is planned at a target production of 1200 MW
[34]. Lignite from Baganuur, Mongolia features in Chapter 13 where there is an aside
on the mechanism of coalification. Lignite from Ulanqab, Mongolia features in sec-
tion 17.2.3.
96
BRiQuETTEs
11.2.4 Australia
Briquetting of Victorian brown coal began at about the same time as power generation
from it. German methods were followed, and Yallourn coal had the bonus of not requiring
a binder. The manufacturer of the briquettes was the State Electricity Commission (SEC)
of Victoria, and it comprised a significant proportion of the Commission’s business.
It was noted in section 7.2.2 that no Victorian brown coal briquettes are being exported
at present. In fact at the time of writing this book no Victorian brown coal briquettes
are even being produced, and two briquetting plants in the Latrobe Valley are in moth-
balled status [35]. Introduction of the carbon tax in Australia in 2012 was seen as jeop-
ardising the viability of briquette production and sales, and that has led to the current
situation. The carbon tax has since been repealed. Production, on a regional scale, of
fuel gas from Victorian brown coal briquettes is discussed in section 13.2.
11.2.5 new Zealand

The North Dakota facility [31] previously described was the scene of a production
trial for briquetting of New Zealand lignite by arrangement with Solid Energy, NZ. A
quantity of raw NZ lignite was taken to the plant and the trials successful in producing
briquettes which later underwent combustion trials, also at the ND facility. This led
to briquette production from lignite at New Zealand’s New Vale mine. This became
non-viable, and the state of affairs in late 2013 was that the briquettes were being re-
turned to the mine [36].
11.2.6 india
Coal from Rajasthan featured in Chapter 8, where lignite-fired power generation in
India and neighbouring countries was the topic. In [37], tests on a Rajasthan lignite for
briquetting suitability with a miscellany of binders including bentonite and guar gum
are reported. The findings were positive enough, but the scope of the work limited to
small-scale production in rural areas. Lignite from the state of Jammu and Kashmir
(see sections 8.2.5 and 23.2) is briquetted, and the products used in building heating.
The Thar field in Pakistan is under development as noted in section 8.3, and briquette
production concurrently with power generation is hoped for [38]. Pakistan currently
imports major amounts of higher rank coal, and that this could be at least in part offset
by briquettes from Thar is a sound idea.
11.3 Briquettes made from lignite plus biomass

To blend a lignite with biomass in the preparation of a briquette has the advantage not
only of stretching the lignite supply but, more importantly, of introducing some car-
bon-neutral fuel into the briquette. The information in this section can be considered
alongside that in section 20.2, where co-combustion of lignites with biomass is con-
sidered. The difference of course is that they were burnt together, not combined into
a single solid fuel before burning. Table 11.2 gives details of briquettes composed of
lignite plus biomass. Comments on the table follow below.
97
Table 11.2 Briquettes made from lignite and biomass.
REFERENCE DETAILS
Turkish lignite blended with one of the following: pine
[39] cone, olive refuse, sawdust, paper mill waste, and cotton
refuse. Briquetting pressures 50–250 MPa
Thai lignite. Rice husk and sawdust, each previously
[40] treated with sodium hydroxide, as biomass briquette
constituents
Turkish lignite (from Elbistan) briquetted with hazelnut
[41] shell, with olive residue and with sunflower shell.
Binders including molasses used
In the work in the first row compressive strength of the briquettes was of major inter-
est. A value of 17.5 MPa for the lignite alone was increased to over 30 MPa with 30%
sawdust or paper mill waste and to 25 MPa with 30% of pine cone. Cotton refuse had
hardly any effect on compressive strength. The briquettes were in the usual sense bind-
erless; no binder such as starch was introduced. It is believed however that the biomass
acted as a binder in those briquettes in which it was present. It was noted in section
11.2.1 that lignite briquettes sometimes incorporate lignin purely as a binder. In [39]
molasses were also used in blends with the lignite and these might have been expected
to function as a binder. The molasses were however high in moisture as blended, and
that together with the lignite’s own considerable moisture content had the opposite ef-
fect and the briquettes containing molasses were not mechanically strong. Compressive
strength was also the thrust of the work originating in Thailand (row 2). The briquettes
were either 50:50 lignite–rice husk or 50:50 lignite–sawdust, and the compressive
strength was found to depend on the time of prior ‘digestion’ of the biomass by sodium
hydroxide solution. With rice husk as the biomass material compressive strengths of
up to 30 MPa were achievable, and with sawdust values up to about 20 MPa. Elbistan
(following row) also has a mention in Table 20.1. In this work, in contrast to the experi-
ence reported in [40] and summarised above, molasses were an effective binder as was
starch and waste from paper pulping.

Lignite briquette production is only moderate internationally, yet this observation
needs to be considered alongside sustained production at high levels by Germany and
Belarus. It was noted in earlier chapters that several countries including India and parts
of the FSU have capitalised in plant for lignite-fired power generation, for example by
incorporating supercritical steam. That at some such places there will be a demand for
concurrent briquette production is obviously possible. Briquettes are sometimes car-
bonised, or made from lignite which has been carbonised. A discussion of these follows
in the next chapter. There is also a little more on briquetting in section 20.3.
98
BRiQuETTEs
11.5 References
[1] Mills S.J. Global Perspective on the Use of Low Quality Coals, IEA Clean Coal Centre
(2011)
[2] http://www.pbase.com/libelletje/knappenrode_brikett
[3] http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/de/60166/frechen/
[4] Naeth J., Asmus S.C., Littke R. ‘Petrographic and geophysical assessment of coal quality as
related to briquetting: the Miocene lignite of the Lower Rhine Basin, Germany’, International
[5] http://www.euracoal.be/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=72
[6] Naundorf W., Wollenberg R., Schubert D. World of Mining 58: 32 (2006)
[7] http://www.factfish.com/statistic/lignite-brown%20coal%20briquettes,%20production
[8] http://www.novinite.com/articles/136409/Floods+in+Southern+Bulgaria+Hit+Coal,+Bri-
quette+Production
[9] http://www.energoproekt.bg/index.php?id=158
[10] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/poland/lignite-brown+coal+briquettes,+produc-
tion
[11] Dzik T., Marciniak-Kowalska J., Madejska L. ‘Pressure agglomeration of hard and brown
coals’, Chemik 66: 445–452 (2012)
[13] Buryan P., Bucko Z., Mika P. ‘A complex use of the materials extracted from an open-cast
lignite mine’, Archives of Mining Sciences 59: 1107–1118 (2014)
[14] Zhong S., Baitalow F., Nikrityuk P., Gutte H., Meyer B. ‘The effect of particle size on the
strength parameters of German brown coal and its chars’, Fuel 125: 200–205 (2014)
[15] Gibiiz Beker O., Kucukbayrak S. ‘Briquetting of Istanbul-Kemerburgaz lignite of Turkey’,
[16] Gurbuz-Beker U.I., Sadriye Kucukbayrak S., Ozer A. ‘Briquetting of Afsin-Elbistan lig-
nite’, Fuel Processing Technology 55: 117–127 (1998)
[17] http://www.mindat.org/article.php/1301/Rio+Maior+Lignite+and+Diatomite+Mines
[18] Kuznetsova P.N., Anatoly S., Maloletnev A.S., Kolesnikova S.M. Journal of Siberian
Federal University: Engineering and Technologies 3: 271–275 (2008)
[19] http://www.factfish.com/country/belarus
[20] http://knoema.com/EIAIES2014/international-energy-statistics-2014?tsId=1148960
[21] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1011915829632
[22] http://www.hayesfuels.ie/wood-briquette-and-turf-products-for-sale-in-the-republic-of-
ireland.php
[23] Karakosta C., Doukas H., Flouri M., Dimopoulou S., Papadopoulou A.G., Psarras J. ‘Re-
view and analysis of renewable energy perspectives in Serbia’, International Journal of Energy
and Environment 2: 71–84 (2011)
99
[24] http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=EDATA&f=cmID%3ALB%3BtrID%3A083
[25] http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/company-reports/74262698/rudnik-mrkog-uglja-mos-
tar-doo
[26] Dimitrijevic Z., Tatic K. ‘The economically acceptable scenarios for investments in desul-
phurization and denitrification on existing coal-fired units in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Energy
Policy 49: 597–607 (2012)
[27] https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:31005900
[28] Altun N.E., Hicyilmaz C., Bagci A.S. ‘Combustion characteristics of coal briquettes. 1.
Thermal features’, Energy & Fuels 17: 1266–1276 (2003)
[29] Professional Paper – United States Geological Survey (1906)
[30] http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Conservation_of_Coal_in_Canada_With_
Notes_on_the_Principal_Coal_Mines_1000690640/35
[31] https://www.lignite.com/news-events-public/news-releases/gtl-energyr-
squos-clean-coal-technology-proves-successful/
[32] Mo C., Shifeng Z., Yanyan Y.I., Yunpeng D. ‘Characteristics of pyrolysis products of Bori
[sic] lignite briquette’, Energy Procedia 16: 307–313 (2012)
[33] http://zh.scientific.net/AMR.560-561.550
[34] Typical Projects, China Engineering Co. Ltd.
[35] http://environmentvictoria.org.au/media/latrobe-valley-brown-coal-plant-mothballed#.
VSRi7W8cSUk
[36] https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/briquette-mothballed/
[37] Mishra S.L., Sharma S.K., Agarwal R. ‘Briquetting of lignite for domestic fuel’, Journal
of Scientific and Industrial Research 59: 413–416 (2000)
[38] http://en.crrssh.com/wysc/28576.html
[39] Yaman S., Sahan M., Haykiri-Acma H., Sesen K., Kucukbayrak S. ‘Fuel briquettes from
biomass–lignite blends’, Fuel Processing Technology 72: 1–8 (2001)
[40] Chaiklangmuang S., Supa S., Kaewpet P. ‘Development of fuel briquettes from biomass–
lignite blends’, Chiang Mai Journal of Science 35: 43–50 (2008)
100
CHAPTER 12
CARBONISED PRODUCTS
12.1 Introduction
Any coal on thermal decomposition will yield three classes of product: solid (coke or
char), liquid (tars and oils) and gaseous. The gaseous product will be combustible with
a calorific value about a third that of natural gas. This gas when manufactured on an
industrial scale is called ‘retort coal gas’.
One of the most widely known facts about lignites is that they do not, on decomposing,
leave a hard product like coke but a powdery one called a char. By contrast a coking coal
produces on decomposition a solid which is fused and hard and therefore suitable for use as
a metallurgical reductant. Note that whilst it is true that all coking coals are bituminous in
rank, vice versa is not true: not all bituminous coals produce on carbonisation a fused solid
product suitable for use in a blast furnace. There is a time-honoured test for determining
the propensity to coking of a particular bituminous coal. It is called the Gray–King assay
and has become an ISO standard [1] (see Chapter 24). The standard would never be applied
to a lignite, which would be outside its scope. Ion exchange sometimes precedes carbon-
isation of a lignite. A point of semantics is that ‘carbonisation’ means enriching the solid
substance in carbon to the loss of oxygen in the tars and gases. These might however in a
particular application be of more interest than the residual solid, and the term ‘pyrolysis’ is
really preferable. If the desired product is a solid its likely use is as an adsorbent in which
case the most important properties are the internal surface area and the porosity.
12.2 Some principles of lignite carbonisation

This will take the form of information from selected literature in tabular form (Table
12.1), accompanied by comments.
With reference to the tar from Neyveli lignite in the first row, we first note that it is an
example of ‘carbonisation’ where the primary product is liquid. We further note that if
the empirical formula of the tar was CH2 it would correspond to C29H58. Its molar mass
of about 400 g is much lower than that of asphaltenes from crude oil, which have molar
masses of typically 1500 g. We note in passing that in the 1970s there were several
flash pyrolysis projects into lignites, that is, rapid pyrolysis the liquid products of which
could be assessed for conversion to liquid fuels.
101
Table 12.1 Carbonisation studies of lignites.
REFERENCE AND THEME DETAILS

Solvent extraction of wax from the tar
Lignite from Neyveli mine in Tamil Nadu. Tar product of pyrolysis. Wax of melting
from pyrolysis at 650°C refined to obtain wax [2] point 62–64°C and corresponding to a
molar weight of 399 g
Kansk-Achinsk lignite pyrolysed in a fluidised bed Product required a carbon residue of
with catalysts derived from slag [3] good porosity and internal surface area
Lignites from Montana and North Dakota Char internal surface areas up to ≡
pyrolysed at 808°C in a flow furnace [4] 500 m 2 g–1 obtained
Required product a metallurgical
Pyrolysis of briquetted lignite [5]
reductant
Briquetting and carbonisation of coal from Tamil
An activity of Neyveli
Nadu [6]
Carbonisation products obtained at
Lignite from Konin (see section 5.2.4) [7]
500–700°C reacted with urea at 350°C
By contrast with the work on the Neyveli lignite, in that on the Kansk-Achinsk lignite
(following row) it was the solid product that was of interest. The emphasis is on the
cheapness (see also Table 14.2). No commercial catalysts were used only slags, for
example slag from a blast furnace and slag from the combustion in a furnace of Kansk-
Achinsk lignite itself. Silica, alumina and lime were dominant constituents of the slags.
The resulting carbon residues had internal surface areas of up to 419 m 2 g–1 and poros-
ities up to 0.61 cm3 g–1 making them quite suitable for use as adsorbent carbons. The
internal surface areas of the chars from the coals from North Dakota and Montana in
the following row were dependent on pyrolysis time, which could be controlled by rate
of passage of particles through the reactor. Pyrolysis of briquettes, alluded to at the end
of the previous chapter, features in the final two rows. The most common ‘metallurgical
reductant’ (antepenultimate row) is coke from black coal, and a substitute for it has to
have the hardness of coke. The idea of reacting a carbonised lignite with urea (final
row) was raising of its nitrogen content. The findings were that the greatest surface
area was obtained by carbonisation, activation and urea treatment rather than by urea
treatment preceding activation. Internal surface areas of 3000 m 2 g–1 were obtained by
this means, and the area was largely in the micropores.
12.3 Uses of lignite char

12.3.1 introduction and background
In the previous section an example of adsorbent carbon production from lignite was
examined. There the adsorbent carbon was a direct product of fluidised bed pyrolysis.
More often, the char so obtained has to be activated for use as an adsorbent carbon.
The large surface area is achieved by steam (a ‘steam activated carbon’) or by treatment
with a chemical agent such as phosphoric acid (a ‘chemically activated carbon’). An
102
CARBOnisEd PROduCTs
activated carbon can have an internal pore surface area as high as 1000 m2 g–1 and this
can be measured by adsorption of a gas or vapour by the carbon being so evaluated.
The two most obvious applications of activated carbons are as a decolourising agent in
the chemical industry and in air purification. There is also industrial application, for
example removal of particular constituents such as SO2 from flue gas. As background
to what follows, pores within an activated carbon come in three ranges of size: micro-
pores, mesopores and macropores, in ascending order of pore diameter. The perfor-
mance of an activated carbon in a particular application depends not only on the total
pore volume but also on the distribution of the pores across the three categories of pore
size. The pore size distribution in a particular activated carbon can be routinely deter-
mined by mercury porosimetry. Instruments are available which will measure surface
area and pore size distribution simultaneously.
12.3.2 Lignite-derived activated carbons

Table 12.2, which is accompanied by comments, gives examples. Surface areas of acti-
vated carbons such as that given in the first row of the table are measured by the Brun-
auer, Emmett and Teller (BET) method, details of which can be found in any standard
text on physical chemistry, and are called ‘BET areas’.
103
Table 12.2 Applications of lignite-derived activated carbons.
APPLICATION AND REFERENCE DETAILS

Removal of crystal violet dye by the
Activated carbon from a Turkish lignite used to
activated carbon, which had a surface
decolourise an aqueous product [8]
area of 921 m 2 g–1
Positive results for removal of organic
Activated carbon from a ND lignite used in a substances from previously untreated
trial study of water purification [9] water by the activated carbon derived
from ND lignite
Activated carbon from TX lignite
effective in elemental mercury removal
at temperatures in the range 100–150°C.
Activated carbons from TX and ND lignites
Mercury as sulphates and/or nitrates,
evaluated in terms of mercury removal from flue
from reactions with SOx and NOx,
gas [10]
believed to have been present on the
surface of the activated carbon from the
ND lignite
Toluene adsorption promoted by high
Ca2+ and low Na+, and by low Na+ and
Toluene adsorption from water by activated
low Ca2+
carbons from ND lignite [11]. BET areas in
the range 245–370 m 2 g–1. Varying amounts of
Toluene was chosen to represent
cations (Na+, Ca2+) in the activated carbons
disinfection by-products in drinking
water
Chemically activated adsorbent carbons from
See comments in the main text
two Polish brown coals [13]
A range of products for water and gas
German lignite HOK® carbonised [14]
cleaning
Saskatchewan lignite examined for SO2
adsorption in untreated, carbonised and See comments in the main text
carbonised and steam activated forms [15]
Rise in calorific value from 22.9 MJ kg–1
Baori lignite (see section 11.2.3) carbonised in
for the dry lignite to 28.6 MJ kg–1 for a
the temperature range 400–1000°C [16]
char prepared at 1000°C
In [8] (first row of the table) it is noted that the adsorption process is endothermic.
The activated carbon from the ND lignite in row 3 had a BET area of 245 m 2 g–1, a
low value. This is attributed [10] to loss of micropores in the activation process with
steam. In the entry in the next row, the dependence on cation amount is believed to
be due to the effects of these on surface area after carbonisation. Calgon F400 [12], a
commercial adsorbent carbon made from bituminous coal, was used as a benchmark
in [11].
104
CARBOnisEd PROduCTs
One of the brown coals in the Polish study in the next row was from the Konin mine (see
section 5.2.4). The activated carbons were prepared in a process which involved several
steps: ammoxidation of the starting material; carbonisation; chemical activation with
potassium hydroxide; further ammoxidation. ‘Ammoxidation’ simultaneously oxidises
the carbon and adds to its nitrogen content.21 Moving to the next and final row of the
table, HOK means ‘Herdofenkoks’, rotary-hearth furnace coke. In the German lan-
guage ‘koks’ means any solid carbonisation product of coal, whether a coke or a char.
So ‘braunkohle koks’ means char from brown coal. The contents of the following row
are concerned with SO2 adsorption by a Saskatchewan lignite in three forms as noted.
The performance is summed up below:
Untreated lignite 15 mg SO2 per g of lignite

Lignite char 26 mg SO2 per g char.
17 mg per g of original lignite
Steam activated char 93 mg SO2 per g of steam activated product
A related simple calculation is given in the box.
On the hypothetical basis that in the activated carbon the adsorbed sulphur
dioxide is present as a monolayer and using a surface area of 0.35 × 10 –18 m2
for a single sulphur dioxide molecule [17], the internal area of 1 g of the steam
activated char is:
Avogadro’s number
(93 × 10 –3 g/64 g mol–1) × 6.02 × 1023 mol–1 × 0.35 × 10 –18 m2 = 305 m2
The result is lower than expected by a factor of three, which probably reflects
the assumption of a monolayer. However, on the same basis the lignite without
carbonisation has an internal surface area of about 50 m2 g–1 which intuitively
seems about right. Quite possibly the monolayer assumption is correct for the
lignite but not for the activated product with its much more developed pore
structure and the loss of oxygen atoms which carbonisation involves.
In the work on the Baori lignite (following row) the chars were for use in slurries as
liquid fuels, so the calorific value was of major importance. The surface area (meas-
ured by BET) was highest for the char prepared at 800°C, having a value of 216 m 2
g–1. The decline to 135 m 2 g–1 for the char prepared at 1000°C is attributed to block-
age of pores and consequent loss of access to part of the surface area, a previously
well-documented effect.
21 Ammoxidated carbons are being investigated for carbon dioxide capture, e.g. https://www.infona.
pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-ee63c95d-6568-3d38-a494-febce98dc6a6
105
Lignites then are a major feedstock for the manufacture of activated carbons via the
chars which they form on heating. In terms of the organisation of this text two further
points have to be made at this stage. One is that there is also a gaseous product when a
brown coal is carbonised, and this will feature in the chapter on gasification. The other
is that chars can be gasified with air or with steam, and this too will be discussed in the
gasification chapter.
12.4 Hard chars

Lignites under most conditions of carbonisation produce a char which, almost by defi-
nition, is powdery and lacking the mechanical strength for metallurgical use. This has
naturally led to R&D into making a hard, lumpy char from lignites, especially in places
lacking coking coal yet requiring a carbon substance for the processing of metal ores.
Such R&D into Victorian brown coals is reported in [18] in which it is acknowledged
that hard chars had, long before the work described in [18], been made from Victori-
an brown coal. Though these did find important uses in applications including ‘Heat
Beads®’, they were not suitable as a replacement for coke in blast furnaces. This was
due not to lack of mechanical strength as with a powdery char but to difficulties with
control: in a blast furnace these chars react with the metal ore much more rapidly than
coke does.
The R&D in [18] is therefore directed at production of a char mechanically strong

enough for use as a metallurgical reductant and having the same reactivity towards
the ore as coke from a higher rank coal. The brown coal was in powdered form de-
rived either from previously untreated coal or powdered briquettes. In either case a
tar binder was used to make pellets for the carbonisation, which was under nitrogen
and at a programmed temperature eventually rising to 950°C. Carbonisation times
at that ceiling temperature were either 2 hours or 5 hours. Carbonised product from
the unbriquetted coals gave better compressive strengths, depending on the amount
of tar binder and the carbonisation time, up to 60 MPa. This very high value can be
compared with the compressive strengths of lignite briquettes from various countries
given in the previous chapter.
12.5 Char briquettes

The attraction of such briquettes is that, having been denuded of most of their volatiles,
they burn with less smoke than coal not having been carbonised. Manufacture of char
briquettes is surprisingly limited at present, and there is an obvious reason for that.
Being coal derived they are not carbon-neutral, unlike chars prepared from pyrolysis of
biomass which are of course carbon-neutral. Coal char briquettes do require a binder,
starch being a common choice.
In [19] chars (called ‘semicokes’), from the carbonisation across a range of temper-
atures of a Turkish lignite and a Turkish sub-bituminous coal, were combined with
coal tar pitch. The interesting point is made that in carbonisation inert macerals help
bind reactive ones, so in this work the chars simulate the inert macerals and the pitch
106
CARBOnisEd PROduCTs
the reactive ones. Discs of the pitch were placed on top of pieces of the char, and the
combined pair of substances placed in an oven at temperatures in the range 60–140°C.
This led to softening of the pitch and entry into the char structure. Final products of
up to about 5% by weight in pitch were obtained, there being a dependence of the pitch
uptake on the carbonisation temperature of the char. This dependence differed between
the lignite and the sub-bituminous coal.
12.6 Char combustion

There are in the literature many accounts of lignite char combustion. Table 12.3 gives
some selected examples.
Table 12.3 summary of selected literature on lignite char combustion.
COMBUSTION CONDITIONS AND

DETAILS
REFERENCE
Chars from 25 Turkish lignites in original
and demineralised form studied by The minerals found to have a strong
thermogravimetry [20]. Determination of positive effect on combustion rates
mineral content by ISO-602 [21]
Millimetre-size particles of Beulah Zap lignite ‘Oxidation time’ defined and measured as
burnt, and volatiles combustion and char the interval between cessation of volatiles
combustion observed separately. A range of air combustion and total burnout. Oxidation
pressures and temperatures [22] times in the range 188–446 s
Lignite from Kangal, Turkey, in demineralised
At 1073 K, volatiles burnout time 75.5 s.
form, burnt. Time resolution of volatiles and
Char burnout time 922 s
char burning [23]
Chars from two Spanish lignites carbonised
at 900°C. Reaction rates in air and in carbon See comments in the main text
dioxide compared [24]
In the work described in the first row, the effect of the minerals in the original lignite on the
combustion rate is marked. As a typical example, a char from a particular lignite showed
an ignition temperature of 759 K whilst one from the same lignite in demineralised form
having been prepared under the same carbonisation conditions showed an ignition temper-
ature of 774 K. This trend was, with one exception, consistent for the char pairs so studied,
25 in all. In the work summarised in the following row the time for volatiles combustion
was always much shorter than that for char oxidation. For the trial where the ‘oxidation
time’ was 188 s the time for volatiles combustion was 19 s. The oxidation time of 446 s
corresponds to a volatiles combustion time of 24 s. The study was of chars per se, not of
coal combustion. The initial envelopment of the char by volatiles and their rapid combus-
tion is alluded to in section 1.3.3. The same trend – rapid volatiles burnout and much more
sluggish char burnout – is evident in the results in the next row on Kangal lignite. Kangal
lignite actually features in section 5.6, where it was noted that it is hypautochthonous. This
is probably the reason demineralisation was required before burning as noted in the table.
107
Hypautochthonous coals sometimes are high in ash, and when this is so it is due to inorgan-
ic substances conveyed by the water which ‘tumbles’ the plant deposition (see section 2.6).
The Spanish work in the following row compares the reactivity of the chars in air and in
carbon dioxide. Reaction in carbon dioxide is of course relevant to gasification:
CO2 + C → 2CO
Reaction rates in air were, in mass loss terms, about half an order of magnitude higher
than those in carbon dioxide. Hydrogenation of Spanish lignites is discussed in section
14.5.2. Production of chemicals from a Spanish lignite by supercritical extraction is
discussed in section 15.3.2.

As already pointed out, formation of a char is always accompanied by gas and liquids
(tars and oils). The former features in the part of the book on gasification which follows.
12.8 References
[1] ISO/FDIS22 502: Coal, determination of caking power. Gray–King coke test.
[2] Tiwari K.K., Banerji S.N., Bandopadhyay A.K., Bhattacharya R.N. ‘Recovery of wax from
Neyveli lignite tar and its structural characterization’, Fuel 74: 517–521 (1995)
[3] Shchipko M.L., Kuznetsov B.N. ‘Catalytic pyrolysis of Kansk-Achinsk lignite for produc-
tion of porous carbon materials’, Fuel 74: 751–755 (1995)
[4] Nsakala N.Y., Essenhigh R.H., Walker P.L. ‘Characteristics of chars produced from lignites
by pyrolysis at 808°C following rapid heating’, Fuel 57: 605–611 (1978)
[5] Gupta R.C. Theory and Laboratory Experiments in Ferrous Metallurgy, PHI Learning Pvt.
Ltd (2010)
[6] http://cuddalore.tn.nic.in/neyveli.htm
[7] Pietrzak R., Wachowska H., Nowicki P. ‘Preparation of nitrogen-enriched activated car-
bons from brown coal’, Energy & Fuels 20: 1275–1280 (2006)
[8] http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82583802/adsorption-crystal-violet-from-aque-
ous-solution-activated-carbon-derived-from-g-lba-lignite
[9] Stepan D.J. et al. Powdered Activated Carbon from North Dakota Lignite: An Option for
Disinfection By-Product Control in Water Treatment Plants, Energy & Environmental Re-
search Center (1995)
[10] Olsen E.S., Laumb J.D., Benson S.A., Dunham G.E., Sharma R.K., Miller S.J., Pavlish
J.H. ‘Comparison of the mercury flue gas-sorbent interactions on carbons from ND and TX
lignites’, ACS Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 47: 482 (2002)
[11] Olson E.S., Sharma R.S., Eylands K.E., Stepan D.J. ‘Effects of lignite cation content on
22 ‘Final draft of international standard’.
108
CARBOnisEd PROduCTs
the performance of activated carbon products’, ACS Fuel Chemistry Division Preprints 47: 473
(2002)
[12] Filtrasorb® 400 Granular activated carbon, Product Bulletin, Calgon Carbon, Pittsburgh,
PA
[13] Pietrzak R., Nowicki P., Wachowska H. ‘Ammoxidized active carbons as adsorbents for
pollution from liquid and gas phases’, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 19: 449–452
(2010)
[14] http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/hok-activated-lignite-efficient-filter-technolo-
gy-for-environmental-sector-successful-around-the-world-152937025.html
[15] Chattopadhyaya G., Macdonald D.G., Bakhshi N.N., Soltan Mohammadzadeh J.S., Dalai
A.K. ‘Adsorptive removal of sulphur dioxide by Saskatchewan lignite and its derivatives’, Fuel
85: 1803–1810 (2006)
[16] Li Y., Wang Z-H., Huang Z-Y., Liu J-Z., Zhou J-H., Cen K-F. ‘Effect of pyrolysis temper-
ature on lignite char properties and slurrying ability’, Fuel Processing Technology 134: 52–58
(2015)
[17] http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sulfur_dioxide
[18] Mamun Mollah M., Jackson W.R., Marshall M., Chaffee A.L. ‘An attempt to produce blast
furnace coke from Victorian brown coal’, Fuel 148: 104–111 (2015)
[19] Arslan V. ‘Investigation of bonding mechanism of coking on semi-coke from lignite with
pitch and tar’, Energy & Fuels 20: 2137–2141 (2006)
[20] Haykiri-Acma H., Ersoy-Mericboyu A., Kucukbayrak S. ‘Effect of mineral matter on the
reactivity of lignite chars’, Energy Conversion and Management 42: 11–20 (2001)
[21] http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=4705
[22] Bateman K.J., Germane G.J., Smoot L.D., Blackham A.U., Eatough C.N. ‘Effect of pres-
sure on oxidation rate of millimetre-sized char particles’, Fuel 74: 1466–1474 (1995)
[23] Yilgin M., Pehlivan D. ‘Volatiles and char combustion rates of demineralised lignite and
wood blends’, Applied Energy 86: 1179–1186 (2009)
[24] Olivella M.A., de las Heras F.X.C. ‘Study of the reactivities of chars from sulphur rich
Spanish coals’, Thermochimica Acta 385: 171–175 (2002)
109
CHAPTER 13
GASIFICATION
13.1 Introduction
Gasification of coals was taking place in the 19th century, when the required product
was fuel gas for supply to homes and businesses, often at that time –and more recently
– referred to as town gas. There were and are a number of ways of producing such a
gas, one of which was to decompose coal in a retort. This gas would be accompanied
by by-products, a carbonised solid and tars/oils. Similarly where the primary product
was coke as a metallurgical reductant, the by-product gas, called coke-oven gas, would
be suitable for use as town gas and this happened in places including Pittsburgh. The
preceding two sentences relate to bituminous coal. In the next section we shall examine
town gas production from lignites.
13.2 Town gas

In most parts of the developed world this has been replaced with natural gas. Even so
a discourse on gasification of lignite requires that town gas production be given its due
place and accordingly two examples follow (see Table 13.1).
Table 13.1 Examples of town gas from lignite.
LOCATION DETAILS
Boulder CO [1] In 1902, the first utility to make town gas from lignite
Production of town gas from brown coal briquettes
Victoria, Australia
from 1956 to 1969
It is recorded in [1] that in about 1920 the plant at Boulder took on an extra process
which was by then common at gasification plants for higher rank coals. Gas obtained
by reacting steam with lignite gives a product the calorific value of which is recorded
in [1] as 300–350 BTU per cubic foot. Taking the middle of the range of 325 BTU per
cubic foot, this is equivalent to 12 MJ m–3. The gas was then ‘carburetted’ by vaporising
oil from petroleum and blending that with the gas, and was raised in calorific value to
about 20 MJ m–3.
This is a suitable point at which to discuss Colorado lignites. They occur in the Denver
basin, which extends beyond the borders of Colorado and contains higher rank coals as
well as lignite. A deposit of lignite within it is called the Denver lignite zone [2]. Within
the lignite zone is the lignite E bed, also known as the Watkins bed. It is also sometimes
called the Watkins field or the Watkins lignite area. At 54.5 feet this is the thickest of
the lignite deposits in the Denver basin. There is also the Wolf bed (28 feet thick) and a
number of thinner lignite beds. Reference [2] gives the following ranges for properties
of lignites from the Denver basin: calorific value 4000–7000 BTU lb –1 (9–16 MJ kg–1);
ash 8–30%; sulphur 0.2–0.6%.
110
gAsiFiCATiOn
At the Leyden lignite mine in Colorado there was a fire in 1910 which caused ten deaths
[3]. The mine, owned by the Leyden Lignite Company, remained productive until 1959.
At cessation of activity 4 million cubic metres of space had been created by coal remov-
al, and there were proposals to use this for gas storage [4].
Moving to row 2 of the table, Morwell coal (see section 10.2) town gas was made from
brown coal by the Lurgi process [5], which involves treatment with steam and water
under high pressure (≈ 30 bar). In this process steam and oxygen are admitted to a fixed
bed of coal, and the following reactions occur:
C + O2 → CO2
CO2 + C → 2CO
H2O + C → CO + H2
There was also a substantial bonus by way of some methane which arose by one or both
of the following mechanisms: coal devolatilisation and tar cracking. At the beginning
of its operation the Lurgi plant in Victoria produced 15 million cubic feet (0.4 million
cubic metres) per day and by this means serviced the population of a city which at
that time had a population of a little under 2 million. Having been piped to Melbourne
the gas was blended with gas from the previously existing gas works which had used
black coal brought from New South Wales, and this practice continued. The calorific
value of the gas as supplied was 500 BTU ft–3 ≡ 19 MJ m–3. The Lurgi gasifier in its
first year of operation produced 2.2 million gallons of liquid products [6]. In the fiscal
year 1960–61, 123 709 tons (≈ 11 000 tonnes) of briquettes were gasified at the Morwell
facility [7]. Some musings on these figures are given in the box.
Taking the gas to be composed of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane and
noting that the calorific values of these are23 respectively 11, 11 and 37.5 MJ m–3:
37.5 x + 11(1 – x) = 19
where x is the proportion of methane
x = 0.30
The composition of the gas is then 35% H2, 35% CO and 30% methane.
Molar equivalence of CO and H2 has been assumed on the basis of the

chemical equation immediately above, a point addressed at the end of the
calculation.
23 The calorific values on a volume basis of carbon monoxide and hydrogen differ by 1% so can be
treated as equal in fuel technology calculations. This is not of course so if they are expressed on a
weight basis.
111
The molar mass of the product gas is:
[(0.35 × 2) + (0.35 × 28) + (0.3 × 16)] g = 15.3 g.
This is close to the molar mass of the least abundant constituent, methane.
1 cubic metre of any gas or gas mixture at 25°C, 1 bar pressure contains
40 moles. The weight of the initial annual production of the gasification plant
was then:
0.4 × 106 m3 day–1 × 365 day year –1 × 40 mol m–3 × 0.0153 kg mol–1 × 10 –3
tonne kg–1
= 90 000 tonnes.
Addressing the 2.2 million (Imperial) gallons of liquid products referred to,
this converts to 10 000 cubic metres and, at a density of about 900 kg m–3,
a mass of 9000 tonnes or 10% of the amount of gas. This is an intuitively
reasonable result.
Adding the masses together gives 99 000 tonnes, which can be compared with
the 11 000 tonnes of briquettes used in 1960–61, four to five years into the
operation of the plant. So the figures fit together semi-quantitatively.
A more precise approach would involve examination of the hypothesis that

the CO and H2 are equimolar in the product gas. Amounts of these from
devolatilisation would be expected to be small.
It was intended that the gasification plant at Morwell would be in service for much
longer than it actually was. This of course was due to the availability of natural gas and
applies also to Germany, where once there was major town gas production from brown
coal. Of much more importance in the 21st century is synthesis gas from lignite and
discussion of this follows.
13.3 Synthesis gas

By ‘synthesis gas’ (a.k.a. syngas) is meant conversion of a liquid (e.g. heavy fuel oil) or solid
fuel to gas as a route to chemicals production. The basic reaction is of carbon with steam:
H2O + C → CO + H2
To produce say methanol from the gas the proportions of carbon monoxide and hydro-
gen would need to be adjusted, so that methanol could be formed according to:
CO + 2H2 → CH3OH
For a particular proposed synthesis therefore the synthesis gas composition needs to be
controlled. Anticipating a later chapter, for Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) synthesis a H 2:CO ra-
tio of about 2 is required. F-T requires synthesis gas as reagent, and syngas production
112
gAsiFiCATiOn
is the theme of this section. F-T per se features in a later chapter as does the other route
to liquid fuel production, which is hydrogenation. The scope of chemical production
from syngas has extended and there is significant current use of lignites in this way. Ta-
ble 13.2 gives examples, some of which are up-and-running plants and some of which
are smaller scale investigations.
Table 13.2 synthesis gas from lignites.
LOCATION AND
DETAILS
REFERENCE
Char from lignite converted to syngas with steam in the
Indonesia [8] presence of a potassium carbonate catalyst. Laboratory
scale. The highest H2:CO ratio 1.682
Schwarze Pumpe site, Syngas made from waste mixed with lignite used to
Germany [9] manufacture methanol
Experimental-scale steam gasification of lignite from
Mongolia [10]
Baganuur in original and ion-exchanged form
North Dakota [11] Ammonia from synthesis gas made from lignite
Development proposals for urea production from synthesis
gas made from brown coal. Target production 0.5 million
Victoria, Australia [14] tonnes per annum.
Urea production involves the reaction of ammonia obtained
from synthesis gas with carbon dioxide
In [8] pyrolysis of the lignite was at 850°C, and referring back to section 12.3.2 it is of
interest to note that its surface area (BET) was 168 m2 g–1. The point made above that
F-T requires an H2:CO ratio of about 2 is also made in [8], and the value most closely
approaching 2 was achieved at a steam/carbon molar ratio of 2.2. The yield of this gas
was 0.353 mol per g char, and a mass balance is attempted in the box.
A gas of H2:CO ratio 1.682 has proportions 0.627 of H2 and 0.373 of CO.
The molar mass is then: [(0.373 × 28) + (0.627 × 2)] g = 11.7 g.
0.353 mol of the gas has a mass of 4.1 g and was obtained from 1 g char which,
approximated to pure carbon, is 1/12 mol = 0.083 mol.
Moles of steam = 2.2 × 0.083 = 0.183 mol or 3.3 g.
Total mass of reactants = 4.3 g.
Mass of product = 4.1 g.
The difference of 5% can be attributed to side reactions.
At Schwarze Pumpe (second row) municipal and industrial wastes mixed with lignite
from Lusatia are gasified in oxygen. Conversion of the syngas so produced to meth-
113
anol is in a catalytic reactor. The annual quantity of methanol yielded at the plant is
120 000 tonnes. In the work on Baganuur lignite (next row) the minerals removed on
acid treatment were believed to have promoted H2 and CO2 production and to have in-
hibited CO production. Scope for syngas composition control by varying the amounts
of minerals in the feedstock lignite is indicated. Ammonia production from North Da-
kota lignite via synthesis gas (next row) uses coal from the Freedom mine to make
synthesis gas. The reaction:
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
takes place, and this is followed by carbon dioxide removal. The hydrogen is reacted in
a suitable proportion with nitrogen to form ammonia, and this is of course well known.
Modern features of the North Dakota plant include synthesis gas cleaned by the Rec-
tisol® process [12]. The plant produces 400 000 tonnes per year of ammonia and can
be viewed in [10].
One of the major current uses of ammonia is as a refrigerant, and that it should be
supplied in an anhydrous state is important for that. Ammonia from synthesis gas is
expected to be anhydrous. Even so, in considering ammonia from coal gasification it
has to be remembered that pyrolysis is also, correctly, referred to as partial gasification,
so any ammonia formed by that route needs to be considered. One report from nearly a
century ago addresses this point in relation to lignite from Louisiana [13]. It is reported
that under proximate analysis conditions ‘aqueous ammonia’ was yielded at 20–30%.
A digression into Baganuur lignite, which features in Table 13.2, follows. It was point-
ed out in a number of earlier sections including 10.3 how uncertainties in classification
between lignite and sub-bituminous coal can arise. In [15] this matter was addressed in
relation to Baganuur where lignite and sub-bituminous coal co-exist. Different samples
from Baganuur having widely varying carbon contents (from 66.7 to 84.3%) and oxy-
gen contents (from 11.6 to 27.4%) were examined using carbon-13 n.m.r. By compari-
son of the spectra for samples high in carbon with those from samples lower in carbon
and observation of changes in skeletal carbon structure, conclusions on the mechanism
of oxygen loss in going from lignite to sub-bituminous could be drawn. The mecha-
nism involved loss of methoxy phenols and of dihydric phenols. Model compounds rep-
resenting these would be respectively mequinol (4-methoxy phenol) and pyrocatechol
(o-dihydroxy benzene).
13.4 Synthetic natural gas

The Dakota Gasification Company produces daily 145 million cubic feet (4 million
cubic metres) of synthetic natural gas (SNG) with lignite as feedstock [16]. Some back-
ground on the production of synthetic natural gas is needed.
First, the carbon content of the lignite is gasified with steam according to:
C + H2O → CO + H2
114
gAsiFiCATiOn
Reaction of hydrogen with the CO gives:
CO + 4H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

There are variants on the above chemical equations, including invocation of a reaction
between carbon dioxide and hydrogen, but such details are not seen as important in
a discussion such as this. More important is the source of the hydrogen. Where does
it come from? It can in fact easily be made by steam reforming of low-value refinery
products. Such a product will have an elemental composition approximating to CH2,
and hydrogen can be made from it by:
‘CH2’ + H2O → CO + 2H2

That of course is not the only way of getting elemental hydrogen for chemical process-
ing: electrolysis is another. Other examples of SNG production from lignites are given
in Table 13.3.
Table 13.3 Examples of sng production by gasification of lignites.
LOCATION DETAILS
Beulah, North Dakota [17]
24
14 500 tonnes per day of lignite converted to SNG
Plant under construction which will produce
Eastern Mongolia [18] 4 billion cubic metres annually of SNG from
locally mined lignite
Kemper County, Mississippi [19] Conversion of local lignite to SNG
In the introduction to this section it was mentioned that carbon dioxide sometimes fea-
tures in the process, and this is so at Beulah where carbon dioxide is reacted with
hydrogen over a catalyst to form methane (‘methanation’). However, the process is set
up so that there is, so to speak, carbon dioxide to spare, and this is pipelined across the
border to Canada for enhanced oil recovery. Use of pre-SI units is still prevalent in the
USA, and we are told in [17] that the SNG produced from the Beulah lignite has calo-
rific value 975 BTU per cubic foot, which converts to 36.9 MJ m–3. The plant in Beulah
pre-dates that operated by the Dakota Gas Company and was in fact the first such plant
in the world. It began production in 1984.
Moving on to the next row, it should be noted that at the plant in eastern Mongolia there
will be a tar by-product. This is not uncommon in gasification of low-rank coals and is
recorded above to have occurred at the Morwell gasification plant in Australia where
the desired product was town gas. The next row is concerned with Mississippi, where
the SNG produced will be blended with conventional natural gas in power generation.
The pie chart in Figure 13.1 originates in North Dakota [20] and shows the breakdown
of lignite usage there. Electricity generation accounts for over three quarters. Fertiliser
24 see also section 6.2.
115
(ammonia) and SNG production each require synthesis gas. The pie chart links this
section to section 6.2.
Figure 13.1 Pie chart showing breakdown of lignite usage. Taken from [20].
13.5 Lignite char gasification

In considering lignite char separately from lignite, one has to be aware that carbonisa-
tion is part of lignite gasification and either precedes it or occurs simultaneously with
it. Even so it is of interest to consider gasification with starting material already carbon-
ised. A carefully selected and fairly recent example of such a study will be drawn on
here [21]. Three lignite chars and three chars from bituminous coals25 were examined
for reactivity in gasification with steam by means of a fluidised bed and a thermo-
balance. The desired reaction was simply:
C + H2O → CO + H2
and this chemical equation recurs in this chapter. The authors of [21] are quite une-
quivocal in asserting the higher reactivity of the lignite char vis-à-vis the bituminous
coal coke. This is a general trend: the difficulty of using lignite char as a metallurgical
reductant because of its high reactivity was noted in section 12.4.
13.6 Producer gas from lignite

Producer gas came into use in the 19th century. It is made by passing air or air/steam
through a bed of coal or coke. Because air is used the fuel gas resulting is heavily dilut-
ed with nitrogen, and its calorific value is around 5 MJ m–3. Over the period 1870–1940
producer gas became the mainstay of certain industries including glass manufacture,
25 Reference [21] describes those from the bituminous coals as chars, but according to the
nomenclature in section 12.1 of this text they would be better described as ‘cokes’ or perhaps as ‘coke
particles’.
116
gAsiFiCATiOn
but it had diminished in importance by about 1950 by which time natural gas and LPG
had become available. There has been a resurgence of interest in recent years, and R&D
has focused on producer gas from biomass starting material so as to produce a gas from
which carbon credits can be generated.
Articles on producer gas in the present-day literature are few and far between. It is
probably better to examine a report from the hey-day of producer gas for discussion,
and the one chosen is [22] in which lignites from Texas, North Dakota and Arkansas
feature. Here it is reported that ND lignite proved, at a United States Geological Sur-
vey test facility, to be a good feedstock for producer gas, and its adoption by electricity
producers is advocated. Usually when producer gas is used in power plant a gas turbine
rather than a steam turbine is in operation. This is so with the modern applications of
producer gas, previously referred to, where carbon mitigation is required [23].
13.7 Gasification with supercritical water

In very recently reported work [24] hydrogen production by gasification of a lignite
from Inner Mongolia is described. Gasification was with steam as 560°C, 25 MPa,
conditions which approach ultra-supercritical according to the definition given in the
Appendix to Chapter 4. Hydrogen was formed by the steam–carbon reaction and by the
water gas shift reaction. With a suitable reactor residence time it was possible to obtain
gas of up to 65.6% molar basis hydrogen, balance carbon dioxide.
13.8 Co-gasification
Co-gasification of lignite with other substances including plastic waste and house-
hold waste takes place at the Schwarze Pumpe methanol plant in Germany. It produces
140 000 tonnes per year of methanol [25] by passing the synthesis gas so made over a
catalyst. Wood waste is sometimes co-fired with the lignite. This provides for methanol
to some degree ‘carbon-neutral by paternity’ and one would expect that to be a plus in the
price received for the methanol. At Berrenrath in Germany there has been, on a demon-
stration basis, co-gasification of local lignite with household waste [26] again to make
methanol. It was concluded that gasification of a 50:50 lignite–household waste blend was
viable. Here again there could be a bonus in terms of carbon neutrality as some of the com-
ponents of household waste including paper and cardboard are themselves carbon-neutral.
There has been interest in Greece in co-firing lignite with waste materials in the pro-
duction of electricity [27]. The waste proposed for use is refuse-derived fuel (RDF),
household waste having been treated by drying, shredding and pelletising.
Reference [28] describes laboratory-scale co-gasification of a lignite and a petroleum

coke at 1000°C, as well as gasification of the two separately. Heating to that temper-
ature was under nitrogen, whereupon the atmosphere was changed to carbon dioxide.
In some tests the solid mixture was dry at the commencement of heating, there being
gasification by pyrolysis only up to 1000°C. In other tests the solid was in the form of
a slurry in water, so pyrolysis was accompanied by the reaction:
117
C + H2O → CO + H2
Once the temperature was at 1000°C it was held there for 100 minutes and the nitrogen
was changed for carbon dioxide, enabling the reaction:
C + CO2 → 2CO
to occur. At time 100 minutes the petroleum coke only had lost only about 20% of its
weight. Petroleum coke and lignite in a dry blend showed about a 60% weight loss.
Petroleum coke and lignite as a slurry showed about 90% weight loss whilst the lignite
lost its entire organic content after one hour, only ash remaining. A trend can be dis-
cerned in these results. The petroleum coke is capable only of very limited pyrolysis,
and the reaction with carbon dioxide falls a long way short of being complete. Lignite
only is reactive towards pyrolysis and its char towards reaction with carbon dioxide.
Blends of the two show the expected intermediate behaviour.
The point was made in section 13.3 that pyrolysis – the basis of carbonisation – is also
partial gasification. In [29] a Thai lignite is pyrolysed with corncob, and the product of
primary interest is gas, so this is also describable as co-gasification. The investigation,
on a laboratory scale with a thermogravimetric analyser, co-pyrolysed a lignite from
Thailand with corncob in ratios from 90% lignite to 10% lignite at temperatures up to
600°C. As would be expected total gas yield was greater for corncob alone than for
lignite alone, a 50:50 blend coming in between. Gas components which will make for a
fuel gas are carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane. Methane is particularly desira-
ble as it has a calorific value on a molar basis three times that of the other two. At 400°C
the 50:50 blend showed a surprisingly high yield of methane, higher than for either the
lignite or the corncob alone. Even so methane yields were about an order of magnitude
lower than carbon monoxide yields.
Another example of lignite–biomass gasification was of wood pellets with Rhenish lig-
nite in a fluidised-bed gasifier [30]. Gasification temperature was 850°C, and coal:wood
mass ratios were across a range. In going from 100% wood to 100% lignite in the feed-
stock, the hydrogen content of the gas increased linearly from just under 35% to ≈ 50%.
The carbon monoxide decreased from 35% to ≈ 30%, whilst methane decreased from
10% to just over 5%. The highest calorific value would have been for the gas from wood
pellets only because of the high methane, and there is the bonus that this methane, be-
ing derived from biomass, is carbon-neutral.
Co-gasification in a fluidised bed of Loy Yang brown coal with pelletised biomass from
an algae species is reported in [31]. Both macroalgae and microalgae were so used at
10% of the coal weight and comparisons were made with results from gasifying the coal
only. With the macroalgae pellets there were rises in the hydrogen and carbon monoxide
contents of the product gas, with lowering of the carbon dioxide. The microalgae pellets
had the effect of lowering the total yield of gas, an effect clearly due to the remarkably
high ash content (37.8%) of the pellets from the microalgae used which was of the genus
Scenedesmus. With neither type of biomass pellet was the methane content affected.
118
gAsiFiCATiOn
13.9 Underground gasification of lignite

13.9.1 introduction
This section will first examine a scene of underground gasification of lignite which
has been active for over half a century. More modern projects into such gasification in
various parts of the world will then be discussed.
13.9.2 Angren, uzbekistan

Reference to this activity was made in section 9.4. The underground gasification of coal
(UGC) plant at Angren is one of only two remaining in the FSU. Previously there were a
large number, the products of which have been replaced by natural gas. The plant at An-
gren, which uses lignite, came into operation in 1961 [32]. Gasification is with air, so the
quality of the gas is no higher than that of producer gas. This is confirmed in [33] where
the calorific value of the gas is given as 800–1000 kcal m–3 ≡ 3.4–4.2 MJ m–3. The point is
made even more strongly when it is stated that the gas is about 50% nitrogen. This does
not of course preclude use of the gas in electricity generation; this follows from what was
said about producer gas in section 13.6. However, in [34] it is stated that heat from the gas
produced at Angren costs 3 roubles per Gcal. Calculations are given in the box.
Noting that [33] was published in 2013, we compare the cost given with that of
the average Henry Hub price for natural gas for the middle of that year, which
was $US3.7 per million BTU of heat [35]. We also note that 106 BTU ≈ 1 GJ.
The price therefore is $US3.7 per GJ.
Using a factor of 0.02 for conversion of the rouble to the US dollar, the cost
given in [33] for heat from the manufactured gas converts to $US0.25 per GJ.
It is clear that purely on a heat basis the gas from Angren compares well. Use of Henry
Hub as a benchmark is reasonable, as at any one time Russian natural gas will be sell-
ing on world markets for a price not widely different from Henry Hub. However, there
are other factors to be considered. One is that unit heat from natural gas costs about a
fifth of unit heat from a distillate from crude oil [36], and that is why so much natural
gas used to be flared before greenhouse gas mitigation placed restrictions on the prac-
tice. Notwithstanding the factor of 13 between the Henry Hub price and that of Angren
gas on a heat basis, the author of [34] declares that Angren gas is not competitive with
natural gas.
13.9.3 Current projects in underground gasification of lignite

In Turkey lignite from the Thrace basin is being evaluated for underground gasifica-
tion. Chemical and petrographic details of two lignites from Thrace are given in [37].
Each has an ash content in excess of 20% and a sulphur content of 1–2%. In both,
huminite at about 70% is by far the dominant maceral group. The primary activity at
Thrace is natural gas production, and the lignite there was discovered whilst drilling
for gas [38].
119
Plans for underground gasification of brown coal in Victoria, Australia are clearly fo-
cused on synthesis gas rather than fuel gas [39]. This is possibly a factor relevant more
widely than just to Victoria: the product of underground gasification of coal is likely to
be more saleable as a chemical feedstock than as a gaseous fuel. It therefore competes
with feedstocks from petroleum. In Victoria methanol production, ammonia produc-
tion and F-T are all seen as uses to which the syngas could be put. In South Australia,
Leigh Creek coal has been considered for underground gasification. There was a study
into it as far back as 1983, and revived interest in the early 21st century, for example
[40] where results of the 1983 study were invoked in making a case that gas from this
source would be cheap. Experience in the FSU was similarly drawn on.
In North Dakota, Harmon lignite from the west of the state has recently been evaluated
for underground gasification [41]. The emphasis is less on the nature of the coal than on
the identification of suitable sites in the deposit for the gasification process. Relevant to
this is the point expressed in [42] that the cavity within the coal deposit at which gasi-
fication takes place functions as a chemical reactor. In Mongolia there is underground
gasification of lignite at the Dayan deposit (see section 15.3.2). In the part of the former
Yugoslavia now called Slovenia there was once interest in underground gasification
of the lignite at Velenje (see section 5.8.3), and an investment study was carried out
in 1960 [43]. The idea faltered because of competition from oil and natural gas, and in
1968 a government decision was taken not to continue.
13.10 Coal-bed methane from lignites

13.10.1 introduction
Coal-bed methane (CBM) is one of the great facts of our era, major activity in it having
coincided with the introduction of tight gas from inorganic geological structures. There
is a major difference between CBM and gas from an inorganic formation whether tight
or conventional: the former contains no condensate, and this can be a factor in the via-
bility of its collection. This section will be concerned with CBM from lignite deposits.
13.10.2 Examples
Table 13.4 gives details of CBM in lignite deposits in various parts of the world. The
table also has one entry of the production of methane from lignite by bacterial action.
120
gAsiFiCATiOn
Table 13.4 Coal-bed methane in lignite deposits.

Exploratory drilling for CBM at scenes
Louisiana, USA [44]
including Dolet Hills
No CBM production at the present time.
North Dakota, USA
Large quantities known to exist in the
[45,46]
Williston basin
Experimental studies with methanogenic
Thar field, Pakistan [47]
bacteria. See main text
75–100 billion cubic metres of methane
Kazakhstan [48] believed to exist at Ekibastuz (see section
9.3)
Leigh Creek coal examined for CBM
South Australia [50]
potential with positive results
Biogenic CBM from six newly drilled
Sumatra, Indonesia [52]
wells in a lignite deposit
The investigation in Louisiana involved desorption analysis of methane from lignite sam-
ples, for which a figure of 11 standard cubic feet of methane per ton of dry, ash-free lignite
was determined. This converts to 0.34 cubic metres of methane per tonne of lignite. The
Williston basin in ND (next row) contains both lignite and sub-bituminous coal in an
estimated total quantity of 530 billion tons. The CBM obtainable from it is estimated as
13 Tft3. This converts to 0.76 cubic metres of methane per tonne of coal. A lignite field
will contain pockets of methane which will, on a solubility model of coal–gas interaction,
be in phase equilibrium with methane in the lignite structure. That is one reason why the
figures for desorbed gas and total gas differ, with the latter obviously being higher.
The term ‘methanogenic bacteria’ is fairly self-explanatory: these microorganisms pro-

duce methane in the course of their metabolism of an organic medium, and require
anaerobic conditions to do so. When tested with methanogenic bacteria, lignite from
the Thar deposit yielded methane in the range 2.13–16.33 standard cubic feet per ton of
coal equivalent to 0.07–0.5 cubic metres per tonne of coal. These are of the same order
as the range of the figures given in the previous section, though it must be remembered
the two sets of numbers relate to different phenomena so the basis for comparison is
limited. CBM can be either biogenic or thermogenic in origin. Thermogenic CBM oc-
curs at greater depths into a deposit than biogenic.
Any CBM from Kazakhstan (following row) could obviously be exported by means of
the Central Asia to China gas pipeline [49], adding to the other gas conveyed by that
facility which has a capacity of 55 billion cubic metres per annum. In fact the prospects
of particular sources of CBM depend on proximity to pipelines installed for conven-
tional natural gas and their ability to take extra capacity. Moving on to the Leigh Creek
coal, the question is raised in [50] of the extent to which the high moisture content of
the coal will act against methane containment, and a start in addressing this is the fact
121
that bituminous coals from Kentucky were found to yield 1.3–1.7 cubic metres of CBM
per tonne [51], higher than the values given for Louisiana lignite but not by anything
like an order of magnitude. A wider and deeper survey of CBM yields for coals of dif-
ferent rank would need to be on a multivariate basis, taking in water content as well as
quantities relevant to the solubility approach briefly referred to above. These include
the solubility parameter of a particular coal and how close it is to that of methane. In
reference [52] in the final row there is mention of the practice of nutrient injection into
a well to promote biogenic methane formation.
A North Dakota lignite was examined for methane release in work described in [52], the
purpose of which was an investigation of the mechanism of CBM formation. Samples
of the coal were pyrolysed across a range of temperatures and the methane yield meas-
ured. At the highest pyrolysis temperature of 727 K, the production of methane scaled
from laboratory amounts to industrial was 1560 standard cubic feet per ton (48 m3 per
tonne). This of course exceeds the values given previously in this section because of
the high temperature. The authors of [52] point out that this figure can be scaled to bed
temperatures from chemical kinetic information.
In [53] changes in the coal as a result of methane production were also monitored, there
being an awareness of the high atomic ratio of hydrogen (4:1) in methane. According-
ly methane loss in the experiments was accompanied by increased apparent maturity
manifest as huminite reflectance, a quite dramatic rise from an initial value of 0.31 to
1.61 for the coal having experienced 727 K.

The next chapter, on liquid fuel production from lignite, follows naturally from this
one. The point has been made that F-T, a major route to liquids from coal, requires
synthesis gas as reactant. The overlap of content is therefore clear.
13.12 References
[1] http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-11230-boulderrss-town-gas-processes-and-the-re-
sulting-contamination.html
[2] Nichols D.J. Summary of the Tertiary Coal Resources of the Denver Basin, Colorado, Pro-
fessional Paper 1625-A, United States Geological Survey (1999)
[3] http://historicleyden.org/?q=node/9
[4] Meddles R.M. ‘Underground gas storage in the Leyden lignite mine’, 1978 Symposium
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists pp. 51ff.
[5] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/122944/coal-utilization/81733/The-Lurgi-sys-
tem
[6] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1300&dat=19561206&id=jlBVAAAAIBAJ&s-
jid=dpUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6348,817523&hl=en
122
gAsiFiCATiOn
[7] Eleventh Annual Report, Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria, Melbourne, Vic. (1961)
[8] Supramonoa D., Tristantinia D., Rahayua A., Suwignjoa R.K., Chendraa D.H. ‘Syngas
production from lignite coal using K 2CO3 catalytic steam gasification with controlled heating
rate in pyrolysis step’, Procedia Chemistry 9: 202–209 (2014)
[9] McPhail S.J., Cigolotti V., Moreno A. Fuel Cells in the Waste-to-Energy Chain: Distributed
Generation Through Non-Conventional Fuels and Fuel Cells, Springer (2012)
[10] http://rlhxxb.sxicc.ac.cn/EN/abstract/abstract18160.shtml#
[11] http://www.dakotagas.com/Gasification/Ammonia_Plant/
[12] http://www.linde-engineering.com/en/process_plants/hydrogen_and_synthesis_gas_
plants/gas_processing/rectisol_wash/index.html
[13] Glenk R. Louisiana Lignite, Bulletin No. 8, Department of Conservation, Division of
Economic Geology, State of Louisiana, New Orleans (1921)
[14] http://www.latrobefertilisers.com.au/project_latrobe.html
[15] Erdenetsogt B., Lee I., Lee S.K., Ko Y., Bat-Erdene D. ‘Solid-state C-13 CP/MAS NMR
study of Baganuur coal, Mongolia: oxygen-loss during coalification from lignite to subbitumi-
nous rank’, International Journal of Coal Geology 82: 37–44 (2010)
[16] http://www.dakotagas.com/Gasification/
[17] http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/great-plains
[18] http://www.chinagasholdings.com.hk/siteen/aspx/News_Infor.aspx?id=649
[19]
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/99399-mississippi-power-to-process-in-state-coal-to-
fuel-gas-fired-kemper-county-unit
[20] https://www.lignite.com/about-lignite/lignite-uses/
[21] Song B., Zhuy X., Moon W., Yang W. ‘Steam gasification of low-rank coal chars in a ther-
mobalance reactor and a fluidised bed reactor’, 13th International Conference on Fluidization:
New Paradigm in Fluidization Engineering, Engineering Conferences International (2010)
[22] Professional Paper – United States Geological Survey, Issue 100 USGS (1917)
[23] Rabou L.P.L.M., Grift J.M., Conradie R.E., Fransen S., Verhoeff F. ‘Micro gas turbine
operation with biomass producer gas’, 15th European Biomass Conference, Berlin (2007)
[24] Jin H., Guo L., Guo J., Ge Z., Cao C., Lu Y. ‘Study on gasification kinetics of hydrogen
production from lignite in supercritical water’, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 40:
7523–7529 (2015)
[25] http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2006/11/08/1104202/sustec-schwarze-pumpe-re-
starts-methanol-plant/
[26] Gasification Technologies, ThyssenKrupp Uhde (n.d.)
[27] Koukouzas N., Katsiadakis A., Karlopoulos E., Kakaras E. ‘Co-gasification of solid waste
and lignite – a case study for Western Macedonia’, Waste Management 28: 1263–1275 (2008)
[28] Zhan X., Jia J., Zhou Z., Wang F. ‘Influence of blending methods on the co-gasification
123
reactivity of petroleum coke and lignite’, Energy Conversion and Management 52: 1810–1814
(2011)
[29] Sonobea T., Worasuwannaraka N., Pipatmanomaia S. ‘Synergies in co-pyrolysis of Thai
lignite and corncob’, Fuel Processing Technology 89: 1371–1378 (2008)
[30] Kern S., Pfeifer C., Hofbauer H. ‘Co-gasification of wood and lignite in a dual fluidized
bed gasifier’, Energy & Fuels 27: 919–931 (2013)
[31] Zhu Y., Piotrowska P., van Eyk P.J., Boström D., Kwong C.W., Wang D., Cole A.J., de Nys
R., Gentili F.G., Ashman P.J. ‘Co-gasification of Australian brown coal with algae in a fluid-
ized bed reactor’, Energy & Fuels 29: 1686–1700 (2015)
[32] http://www.lincenergy.com/acquisitions_yerostigaz.php
[33] http://www.eioba.com/a/1ws2/underground-coal-gasification-in-republic-of-uzbekistan
[34] Simeons C. Coal: Its Role in Tomorrow’s Technology, Elsevier (2013)
[35] http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdw.htm
[37] Toprak S. ‘Petrographic properties of major coal seams in Turkey and their formation’,
International Journal of Coal Geology 78: 263–275 (2009)
[38] http://www.linknovate.com/publication/underground-coal-gasification-and-applicabili-
ty-to-thrace-basin-lignite-in-turkey-2378581/
[39] http://www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/energy/about/publications-and-resources/
low-emission
[40] Walker L.K. ‘The future role for underground coal gasification in Australia’, National
Conference, Australian Institute of Energy (2006)
[41] Pei P., Zeng Z., He J. ‘Characterization of the Harmon lignite for underground coal gasifi-
cation’, Journal of Petroleum Science Research 3: 136–144 (2014)
[42] http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/underground-coal-gasification/
[43] Zvezi P.R.V., Premoga S.P.U., Slovenij V. ‘Overview of energy studies on UCG in Slove-
nia’, Journal of Energy Technology 7: 55–56 (2014)
[44] Breland F.C. Selected Presentations on Coal-Bed Gas in the Eastern United States (P.D.
Warwick, ed.) pp. 27–35, United States Geological Survey (2004)
[45] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12915&page=19
[46] http://pttc.mines.edu/casestudies/williston/index.html
[47] Haider R., Ghauri M.A., Jones E.J., San Filipo J.R. ‘Methane generation potential of Thar
lignite samples’, Fuel Processing Technology 126: 309–314 (2014)
[48] CMM Country Profiles – 20 Kazakhstan
[49] http://www.cnpc.com.cn/en/FlowofnaturalgasfromCentralAsia/Flowofnaturalgasfrom-
CentralAsia2.shtml
[50] Sansome A., Nitschke L., Tingate P.R. ‘Coal seam methane potential of South Australia’,
124
gAsiFiCATiOn
MESA Journal 47: 11–13 (2007)

[51] http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/cbm.htm
[52] http://www.naturalgasasia.com/next-fuels-china-indonesia-coal-to-gas-pilot-well-up-
date-5031
[53] Tang Y., Jenden P.D., Nigrini A., Teerman S.C. ‘Modeling early methane generation in
coal’, Energy & Fuels 10: 659–671 (1996)
125
CHAPTER 14
CONVERSION TO LIQUID FUELS
14.1 Introduction
This chapter will examine carefully selected accounts of the production of liquid fuels
from lignites over the 70 or more years that this has been taking place. Fischer-Tropsch
(F-T) and hydrogenation by the Bergius method will both be considered.26 As recorded
in section 13.3, the F-T process starts with synthesis gas which can be made from coal,
from liquid hydrocarbons or from natural gas. Steps involved in going from synthesis
gas to hydrocarbons include:
nCO + (2n + 1) H2 → CnH2n+2 + nH2O

and the reader is referred to basic coverages of the topic (e.g. [1,2]) for details of the
other reactions occurring. F-T always requires a catalyst, and continuing research into
it has been largely on the catalysis side.
This is a suitable place to discuss yields of oil in F-T processes involving lignites. The
calculation shown in the box is very rough but gives a ball-park figure on yields expected.
A lignite in its bed-moist state will have a carbon content in the neighbourhood
of 50%. A tonne of lignite in this state therefore contains 500 kg of carbon.
A reliable rule in stoichiometric calculations and the like is that all petroleum
fractions approximate to CH2 in empirical formula. So when a tonne of the
lignite undergoes F-T the process can be summarised:
500 kg C → (14/12) × 500 kg liquid hydrocarbon = 585 kg liquid hydrocarbon.
Products of F-T are less dense than those of crude oil and a value of 800 kg m–3
is reasonable. So the liquid yielded is in volume terms:
(585 kg/800 kg m–3) = 0.73 m3
Recalling that a barrel is 0.159 m3 the above becomes 4.6 barrels.
The author has found only one web source against which to check this calculated result.
Reference [3] says that in F-T, one ton (US ton) gives on F-T processing ‘3 to 4 barrels
of oil’. So the above rough calculation errs a little on the high side.
14.2 F-T activity in Germany at the time of World War II

Over the period of interest in this section, Bergius hydrogenation was found to be more
suitable as a means of making liquid fuels from German lignites than F-T. Even so F-T
26 Of course F-T is itself a hydrogenation process, but the term when applied to liquid fuel production
from coal usually means application of the Bergius process, to be discussed later.
126
COnVERsiOn TO LiQuid FuELs
did take place on a major scale, and Table 14.1 summarises lignite conversion to liquid
fuels in Germany by F-T at that time. Catalysts were iron or cobalt based.
Table 14.1 scenes of liquid fuels production from lignites by F-T in germany.
LOCATION DETAILS
Commencement of operations in 1927. Production over the first
Leuna, Lower Saxony year 30 000 tons (27 200 tonnes) of liquid fuel [4]. (See also the
note on Leuna in the opening paragraph of section 14.3)
Lützkendorf, near Mücheln 29 320 tonnes of liquid fuel product in 1944 [5]
Schwarzheide, Lusatia 164 600 tonnes in 1942 [7]
Bohlen, close to Lippendorf See comments in the main text
The quantity of product over the first year given in the table converts to ≈ 200 000 bar-
rels. The Lützkendorf–Mücheln facility (following row) sourced lignite from the nearby
Lützkendorf pit. There was a catalyst production facility there, which produced co-
balt-based catalysts for other F-T plants [6]. The facility at Schwarzheide was operated
by Brabag27 [8], formed when a group of lignite producers, under duress, financed the
production of liquid fuels from lignite in readiness for war.
It was described in section 13.2 how the Lurgi process in Victoria yielded signifi-
cant amounts of liquid products. This is also sometimes true of F-T, especially with
high-volatile coals which of course lignites are almost by definition. At Bohlen (row 4
of the table) tars resulting in this way were hydrogenated to make motor fuels [9].
14.3 Bergius hydrogenation activity in Germany at the time of

World War II
The Bergius process, the centenary of which was in 2013, can be summarised [10]:
nC + (n + 1) H2 → CnH2n+2
and conditions of high temperature (400–500°C) and pressure (up to 700 bar) are in-
volved as well as a catalyst. Jointly with C. Bosch, Bergius received the 1931 Nobel
Prize in Chemistry [11]. Another collaborator was Matthias Pier (1882–1965), and the
Bergius process is sometimes referred to as the Bergius–Pier process. In reviewing
the information in the previous section and in this one, a reader should be aware that
at some industrial centres in Germany at the period of interest both F-T and Bergius
processes, each using lignite, were taking place. This is actually true of Leuna and of
Bohlen [12]. Plants in Germany at that time which produced liquid fuels by hydrogena-
tion of lignite or of lignite tars, obtained from carbonisation, include that at Magdeberg,
operated by Brabag, where lignite tar from low-temperature carbonisation to make
‘granular coke’28 was hydrogenated by the Bergius process [13]. The capacity of the
27 Braunkohlen Benzin Ag.

28 see section 12.3.2 for clarification of terminology.
127
plant was 230 000 tons (≈ 1.5 million barrels) per year. There was also a plant at Wesse-
ling in Rheinland which, using previously unprocessed lignite, produced a comparable
quantity [14]. In ‘whole coal’ hydrogenation the petrographic composition is relevant;
vitirine/huminite promotes hydrogenation [15]. In concluding this section we note that
production of liquid fuels from lignites in Europe did not stop with ‘cessation of hostil-
ities’. For example, during the German occupation of Czechoslovakia a brown-coal-to-
liquid plant was set up there, and this was producing until the 1960s.
There is considerable current interest in making liquid fuels from lignite tar, exempli-
fied by a recent contribution to the literature originating in the Czech Republic [16].
This work used several lignites from the Czech Republic including more than one from
Sokolov (see section 5.1.4). The Czech lignites were pyrolysed, producing under the
conditions used tar in yields between 7 and 19% of the original coal weight. These were
processed in hydrogen gas at vessel admittance pressures up to 3 MPa in the presence
of a cobalt–molybdenum catalyst manufactured by BASF. Emphasis was on analysis
of organic compounds in the hydrogenated material, and it was recorded that organic
compounds corresponding to those in the naphtha fraction from crude oil distillation
had been identified.
14.4 More recent F-T activity

This includes an enterpise at Kazakhstan currently on the demonstration scale [17].
At the time of going to press the plant produces 0.8 tonnes per day of liquid fuel from
the lignite deposit near Yerementau in central Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is a major oil
producer, in contrast to New Zealand where there is interest in liquid fuels from lig-
nites from Otago in the South Island via F-T [18]. There is also investigative activity in
Australia’s Latrobe Valley. There has also been interest in liquid fuels from lignite via
F-T in Mongolia where Shenhua have been conducting trials.
All of the above are however at most at the development stage, sometimes only the
planning stage. In fact there is only one F-T coal-to-liquids facility in the world which
operates on a full-scale, commercial basis. That is the SASOL plant at Secunda in the
Transvaal, South Africa, which uses sub-bituminous coal. The reason for the lack of
interest elsewhere is that gas-to-liquids processes, starting with natural gas, are strong-
ly preferred at present.
14.5 Hydrogenation by donor solvents

14.5.1 introduction
About 40 years ago the Exxon Donor Solvent Coal (EDS) liquefaction process came
into being and its early findings are reported in [19]. It is applicable to all ranks of coal.
The author of [19] makes the statement:
That the Bergius process was a technological success is unquestionable; whether it was
an economic success is debatable.
128
In the EDS process the donor solvent is generated in situ by hydrogenation of a petrole-
um-derived recycle solvent [20]. The procedure does then involve elemental hydrogen,
but under milder conditions than in the Bergius process. Since then R&D into coal-to-
liquids by this approach has abounded, and lignites have had an important place in this.
The authors of [21] state that the role of the donor solvent is in ‘shuttling hydrogen from
the gas phase to the coal’. A catalyst can also have a shuttling role.
14.5.2 summary of selected investigations

Table 14.2 gives examples of research into lignite hydrogenation by donor solvents.
Obviously selection of work for inclusion has had to be arbitrary. It is at least intended
that all of the regions of the world engaged in such activity will be represented and that
there will be links to scenes of lignite activity described earlier in the book.
Tetralin (1,2,3,4-tetrahydronapththalene) is widely used in coal hydroliquefaction. In

the work in row 1, products were distributed between pre-asphaltenes, asphaltenes and
‘oil and gas’. The distinction between pre-asphaltenes, asphaltenes and oil is on the
basis of solubility in certain solvents. For example, a pre-asphaltene is insoluble in
benzene: an asphaltene is soluble in benzene and insoluble in n-pentane. Asphaltenes
are of course present in crude oil.
In the work from the FSU in the second row, there is some emphasis on the effective-
ness of the respective catalysts. These included haematite and magnetite, and were all
obtained from iron ore and therefore inexpensive. In the work on the Chinese lignite
in the following row catalyst performance was, again, of major interest. High yields
in the gas and oil category of product were favoured by a catalyst composed of iron II
sulphide with some added sulphur.
Petrographic factors are referred to in rows 4 and 5. Reference [26] goes on to say that
no such correlation is apparent for Texas lignites treated under the same conditions,
and the tentative conclusion is drawn that for them macerals other than those in the
vitrinite group are involved in hydrogenation reactions. The same source states that for
many US lignites ammonium molybdate is the most suitable catalyst. An investigation
of hydrogenation of a higher rank coal with ammonium molybdate as a catalyst [27]
used hydrogen gas only, and it is stated that there was no solvent as a ‘vehicle’. This is
of course another way of expressing what was described above as the shuttling role of
a solvent. Clearly in [27] this was fulfilled by the catalyst alone.
Findings on a Canadian lignite, from the same source, follow in row 6. Reference [26]
states that increasingly strong reaction conditions – up to 30 MPa with tetralin and a
catalyst – will enable all of the petrographic components to be converted with the ex-
ception of fusain and opaque attritus. We are informed in [28] that the fusain macerals
belong to the inertinite group as does opaque attritus, and there is only minor variation
on the terminology in reference [26] of Chapter 2 which, thus far in the book, has been
the source drawn on for petrographic nomenclature. These macerals then are too unre-
active to respond even to the most vigorous hydrogenation conditions applied to the US
lignites within the scope of the discussion in [26].
129
Table 14.2 Investigations of hydrogenation of lignite by donor solvents.
ORIGIN OF THE LIGNITE

DETAILS
AND REFERENCE
Two lignites, one from Tuncbilek (see Table 1.1), treated in
tetralin at temperatures in the range 325–425°C under nitrogen
Turkey [22] at 50 bar. One-litre reactor. Iron, molybdenum and iron oxide
catalysts. Conversions in the approximate range 60–70%,
depending on the temperature, catalyst and reacting time
Kansk-Achinsk lignite (see section 9.2 et seq.) treated with
FSU [23] hydrogen gas at 12 MPa and a solvent at ≈ 400°C. Conversions
in the range 20–90%. Several catalysts tested
Treatment with tetralin and hydrogen gas (5 MPa) at 400°C.
Yunnan Province, China Various catalysts. Reacting times in the range 30–60 minutes.
[24] Conversions up to 90%, resolved into pre-asphaltenes,
asphaltenes and ‘oil and gas’
Treatment with tetralin and hydrogen of four lignites.
Temperature 400°C. A 60 cm3 vessel (‘microreactor’).
Spain [25] Good conversion rates promoted by high vitrinite content.
Distribution of products across the categories not affected by
petrographic composition
Hydrogenation with tetralin and hydrogen at 5.5 MPa at 430°C
North Dakota [26] of a set of lignites. Linear correlation between the amounts of
soluble products and the huminite content of the parent coal
Estevan mine, Saskatchewan
57% conversion with tetralin at 3 × the lignite weight at 400°C
[26]
Evaluation of this newly developed lignite resource (see
section 8.3) for hydrogenation potential. Factors noted include
the following:
Thar field, Pakistan [29] Huminite, liptinite and inertinite contents averaged across 32
samples 88.7%, 9.0% and 2.3%. Huminite reflectance 0.33–
0.4%. Within the huminite group, gelinite and ulminite the
most reactive towards hydrogenation
Five brown coals reacted with hydrogen and a donor solvent
South Banko and
in the presence of a nickel–molybdenum catalyst and
Kalimantan, Indonesia [30]
added sulphur
Banko, Indonesia [31] Use of amines as additives
Morwell, Victoria, Australia
Hydrogenation tests on lithotypes
[32]
Loy Yang, Victoria,
Australia [33]
Kolubara, Serbia (see Good conversion. Product high in substances soluble in
sections 5.8.4 and 24.1) [34] n-heptane
130
In the evaluation of Thar lignite in the following row, emphasis is very much on the
petrographic analysis. One of the points under consideration in the work on Indone-
sian brown coals in the following row was added sulphur and whether it enhanced
conversion. This point is touched on earlier in this section in discussion of the Chinese
lignite. In [30] it is reported that addition of sulphur to a nickel–molybdenum catalyst
did not conclusively improve conversion of the Indonesian lignites being studied. In
[31] Banko coal from Indonesia is hydrogenated in tetralin with a pyrite catalyst in
the presence and absence of an amine. As an example of the findings, n-hexylamine
at 0.4 g per g lignite raised the conversion from 65% to > 80%. Several other amines
were used, and it was found that the chain length of the amine had an influence on the
pre-asphaltene and asphaltene proportions of the liquid product.
The work in the following row, from almost 35 years ago, was the precursor to a
great deal more on the hydrogenation of Victorian brown coals. It has been chosen
for inclusion here because of its fundamental nature: hydrogenation tests of a set
of coals of different lithotype (see section 2.4). Five different brown coal samples
from Morwell were hydrogenated in tetralin at 380°C with a cobalt molybdate
catalyst. Conversions were consistently 80%, with no lithotype dependence. This
was at that time seen as a positive finding, as it opened the way to hydrogenation
of coal as mined without regard to lithotype. Loy Yang coal, also from Victoria’s
Latrobe Valley, features in the next row. The work in [33] is strictly outside the
scope of the table as there was no solvent, only hydrogen gas at 6 MPa, 400°C.
Two catalysts were used, one nickel–molybdenum and the other sodium–nickel–
molybdenum. Reacting times were either 30 minutes or 60 minutes. Conversions
in the range 72–96% are reported [33]. Asphaltene yields were up to 25% of the
original coal weight.
It is clear from the limited work reviewed above that catalyst and petrographic
composition are influential in donor solvent hydrogenation of lignites. There is a
great deal of related work in the recent literature. Realisation of the R&D by way
of liquid fuel manufacture by this means is hoped for and will depend on patterns
in oil prices.
14.5.3 Hydrogenation with carbon monoxide and water

A CO/H2O mixture is an alternative to hydrogen with or without a ‘shuttle’ in the
hydrogenation of lignites. The process is not new: it is stated in [35] that it was devel-
oped by Fischer in 1921. Returning to reference [30], additionally to treatment with
hydrogen and a solvent, hydrogenation with CO/H2O was carried out. Conditions were
3 MPa of carbon monoxide and temperatures of 365 or 400°C applied to a 35 cm3 re-
actor the initial contents of which were coal, NaAlO2 catalyst and liquid water. Final
reactor conditions were sustained for 30 minutes. Across the range of coals in the
study conversions of 60–70% were attained in this way.
131
A mechanistic account of the process is given in [26]. It consists partly of the water gas
shift reaction:
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
producing hydrogen for reaction with the lignite. There is also reduction of carbonyl
groups in the coal by the carbon monoxide and generation of atomic hydrogen by reac-
tion between the carbon monoxide and water in the coal structure.
14.6 Other activity in liquid fuel production

Table 14.3 gives details of some further investigations into the production of liquid
fuels from lignites. They differ from examples previously covered in the use of meth-
ane and of synthesis gas respectively. Each is on a laboratory scale.
Table 14.3 investigations into liquid fuel production from lignites.
REFERENCE DETAILS
Leigh Creek coal (see section 10.3) treated with methane at 5 MPa,
temperature up to 400°C, without a catalyst, with an aluminophosphate
[36] catalyst and with such a catalyst also incorporating lead.
Aluminophosphate alone the more effective catalyst in terms of liquid
yield
A Victorian brown coal (Morwell) treated with tetralin in a synthesis
[37] gas (CO/H2) atmosphere at 405°C, reacting pressure up to 24 MPa.
Several catalysts examined. Conversions up to 94% of the coal weight
In the work on Leigh Creek coal in the first row the most marked effect of the catalysts
was on the hydrogen distribution in the liquid, either catalyst causing a reduction in the
proportion of aromatic hydrogen. In the work on Morwell coal in the next row there
was some emphasis on catalysis. Copper, nickel or cobalt were added to the coal as ions
in solution. Aluminium was added as sodium aluminate and silicon as sodium silicate.
Magnesium acetate was also added. Copper, nickel or cobalt with sodium aluminate
was the most powerful at increasing yield.

The methods with which the chapter opened – F-T and Bergius – have not become
obsolete, though they have been followed by procedures involving solvents. Neither
the lignite nor the expertise to provide huge amounts of liquid fuels from it is lacking.
All of the major oil companies have a programme into coal-to-liquid fuels. Addition-
ally to the EDS coal liquefaction process there is activity by Shell, a senior official
of which has said, in relation to Shell’s endeavours in this area, ‘that while the com-
pany had proven the technology works, the economic viability of such projects is not
guaranteed’ [38].
132
14.8 References
[1] Fischer-Tropsch Fuels, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Albany, OR (2011)
[2] http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/BIOS/bios_1697.htm
[3] http://www.coaltooil.com/. See also http://www.usmexenergy.com/
[4] http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/BIOS/bios_1697.htm
[5] Davis B.H., Occelli M.L. (eds) Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis, Catalysts and Catalysis, CRC
Press (2009)
[6] http://www.scribd.com/doc/20294935/Fischer-Tropsch-Synthesis#scribd
[7] de Klerk A. Fischer-Tropsch Refining, John Wiley (2012)
[8] Braun A. The German Economy in the Twentieth Century, 1st edition (1990)
[9] http://tera-3.ul.cs.cmu.edu/NASD/4dcb85c3-9fee-4c83-9e6d-fe6ce5522b59/China/
disk4/75/75-3/31005882/HTML/00000062.htm
[10] http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/5466751/100th_Anniversary_Bergius_Pro-
cess.html
[11] http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1931/bergius-bio.html
[12] http://memim.com/brabag.html
[13] The Engineer 1 April 1938, p. 365
[14] http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-USAF-SynFuels.html
[15] Shulyakovskaya L.V. ‘Quantitative characteristics of hydrogenation reactivity of macerals
of lignite from Kansk-Achinsk field – coals of the Itatskoe deposit’, Fuel and Energy Abstracts
38: 5 (1997)
[16] Kusy J., Andel L., Safarova M., Vales J., Ciahotny K. ‘Hydrogenation process of the tar
obtained from the pyrolysis of brown coal’, Fuel 101: 38–44 (2012)
[17] http://member.zeusintel.com/ZSRR/news_details.aspx?newsid=33009
[18] https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.wordpress.com/lignite/
[19] Neavel R.C. ‘Exxon donor solvent liquefaction process’, Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London A300: 141–156 (1981)
[20] Schlosberg R.H. Chemistry of Coal Conversion, Springer (1985)
[21] Shui H., Cai Z., Xu C. ‘Recent advances in direct coal liquefaction’, Energies 3: 155–170
(2010)
[22] Karacaa H., Ceylana K., Olcayb A. ‘Catalytic dissolution of two Turkish lignites in tetra-
lin under nitrogen atmosphere: effects of the extraction parameters on the conversion’, Fuel 80:
559–564 (2001)
[23] Sharypov V.I., Kuznetsov B.N., Beregovtsova N.G., Reshetnikov O.L., Baryshnikov S.V.
‘Modification of iron ore catalysts for lignite hydrogenation and hydrocracking of coal derived
liquids’, Fuel 75: 39–42 (1996)
[24] Wang W., Shui H., Zhang D., Gao J. ‘A comparison of FeS, FeS + S and solid superacid
133
catalytic properties for coal hydroliquefaction’, Fuel 86: 835–842 (2007)

[25] Cebolla V.L., Martínez M.T., Miranda J.L., Fernández I. ‘Effects of petrographic composi-
tion and sulphur in liquefaction of Spanish lignites’, Fuel 71: 81–85 (1992)
[27] http://www.wvcoal.com/research-development/penn-state-writes-coaltl-qbookq.html
[28] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/354359/maceral
[29] Ahmad A., Chaudry M.N., Shabbir A., Ali M. ‘Thar coal, Sindh, Pakistan: a potential
candidate for liquefaction’, Pakistan Journal of Hydrocarbon Research 23: 41–49 (2013)
[30] Artantoa Y., Jackson W.R., Redlich P.J., Marshall M. ‘Liquefaction studies of some Indo-
nesian low rank coals’, Fuel 79: 1333–1340 (2000)
[31] Arso A., Lino M. ‘Effect of the addition of n-alkylamines on liquefaction of Banko coal’,
[32] Hatswell M.R., Hertan P.A., Jackson W.R., Larkins F.P., Marshall M., Rash D. ‘Direct
hydrogenation of Victorian brown coal lithotypes’, Fuel 60: 544–545 (1981)
[33] Hulston C.K.J., Redlich P.J., Jackson W.R., Larkins F.P., Marshall M. ‘Nickel molyb-
date-catalysed hydrogenation of brown coal without solvent or added sulphur’, Fuel 75:
1387–1392 (1996)
[34] Fuel and Energy Abstracts January 1995, p. 14
[35] Cassidy P.J., Jackson W.R., Larkins F.P., Sakurovs R.J., Sutton J.F. ‘Hydrogenation of
brown coal. 8. The effect of added promoters and water on the liquefaction of Victorian brown
coal using hydrogen, carbon monoxide and synthesis gas’, Fuel 65: 374–379 (1986)
[36] Yang K., Batts B.D., Wilson M.A., Gorbaty M.L., Maa P.S., Long M.A., He S.X.J., Attalla
M.I. ‘Reaction of methane with coal’, Fuel 76: 1105–1115 (1997)
[37] Cassidy P.J., Jackson W.R., Larkins F.P., Sakurovs R. ‘Hydrogenation of brown coal. 10.
Multi-element promoters for the liquefaction of wet Victorian brown coal in synthesis gas’,
Fuel 65: 1057–1061 (1986)
[38] Linda Cook, quoted in: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal-to-Liquids
134
CHAPTER 15
CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES FROM LIGNITES
15.1 Introduction
The gasification processes covered in Chapter 13 also produce liquids, which have been
put to use. The use of supercritical fluids to obtain extracts from lignites is an important
further means of obtaining chemicals. In this chapter discussion of that will be preced-
ed by a section on Montan wax.
15.2 Montan wax

15.2.1 Production
This is extracted from lignite, and a case study involving an Irish lignite will be given [1].
Montan wax was extracted from a Co. Antrim lignite using toluene, xylene and metha-
nol. The best results – wax in a quantity of > 10% the coal weight – were obtained with
toluene at 90°C. With a charge of 1 kg of the lignite, the extraction time was three hours.
Montan wax is manufactured in countries including Germany, where it is made from

lignite originating at Amsdorf [2].
Germany is the major producer of Montan wax, which it exports to countries including
Australia. To the example from Ireland above will be added accounts of a number of oth-
er research endeavours into Montan wax production. A number of Greek lignites includ-
ing one from Megalopolis (see section 5.3.4) were examined for Montan wax yield [3]
using various solvents and solvent mixtures. Those from the Megalopolis coal treated
with benzene had a melting point in the range 64–70°C, whilst those from the same coal
extracted in benzene/methanol had a melting point in the range 77–83°C. Comparisons
are made with Montan waxes from other lignites. For example, a Montan wax from an
Arkansas lignite had a melting point in the range 80–83°C and one from a Czech lignite
had a melting point of 73–75°C with benzene-only extraction in each case. The corre-
sponding values for extraction in benzene/methanol are 96–103°C and 72–75°C.
Two Turkish lignites were tested for Montan wax production by extraction work de-
scribed in [4]. One of them, from Elbistan, gave a yield of about 1.5% of wax when
Soxhlet-extracted in benzene. On the basis of solubility criteria the products were re-
solved into resin, asphalt and pure wax, respectively 20.1, 2.0 and 77.9% of the weight
of extracted substance. Solvents other than benzene were used, for example toluene,
which gave a product distribution of resin 11.7%, asphalt 19.3% and pure wax 69.0%,
so when the solvent was changed for a similar one the effects on product distribution
were quite major. Refining of Montan wax involves removal of the resin and the asphalt
[5]. In evaluating a particular Montan wax for use, whether it blends satisfactorily with
paraffin wax made from crude oil is a factor (see following section).
135
15.2.2 uses
A great deal of Montan wax finds its way into polishes, although there are some ap-
plications much less general than that requiring precise product specification. These
include lubricants for machinery. A novel application is to wood preservation. Boron
compounds are used as wood preserving agents, and there have been difficulties due to
loss of these from the wood by leaching under wet conditions. It is reported in [6] that
this difficulty can be mitigated if the boric acid preservative as applied is not simply in
aqueous solution, the procedure commonly followed, but in a Montan wax emulsion.
Montan waxes have also been evaluated for protecting wood from termites [7]. Esters
made from Montan wax by treatment with an alcohol have been used as a food additive,
being applied to the surface of fresh fruits [8].
The next application to be described involved beads made from 25% Montan wax and
75% paraffin wax. Beads of this composition were applied to manufacture of reinforced
concrete for road and pavement construction [9]. A difficulty had been encountered
whereby salt used in de-icing had permeated the concrete and contacted steel reinforce-
ment bars, hastening their corrosion. Additional to this effect per se is the fact that the
steel on corrosion expands, leading to a spalling effect of the concrete. In the work de-
scribed in [8] the composite Montan–paraffin wax in bead form was incorporated into
the concrete. After the concrete had been cured it was heated to a temperature slightly
above the melting point of the wax beads, the liquid so resulting closing the route which
would have been taken by the salt solution to the steel bars which are thereby protected
from corrosion. A similar application [10] is the possible use of Montan wax as the base
of a grout material for containment barriers at hazardous waste sites.
It is clear then that there have been and continue to be important uses to which Montan
wax can be put. Even in these days of word processors, ‘carbon paper’ has not com-
pletely disappeared (35 years ago or less, no office would have been without it). Montan
wax is sometimes used in the manufacture of that, in one instance in the USA with
Montan wax imported from Germany [11].
15.3 Use of supercritical fluids

15.3.1 introduction
Supercritical fluids were explained in an appendix to Chapter 4 with reference to
steam. A major branch of chemical technology is use of supercritical fluids in the
extraction of chemicals. This as it relates to lignites is summarised below with suit-
able examples.
15.3.2 Examples
Table 15.1 gives some examples, and comments follow below. Here again an endeavour
has been made to include lignites from sources having been referred to previously in
the book.
136
CHEMiCAL suBsTAnCEs FROM LigniTEs
Table 15.1 supercritical extractions involving lignite.
REFERENCE DETAILS
Four lignite samples from Soma, Turkey (see section 5.6) with
and without prior demineralisation. Water at 400°C, 235 bar; at
[12] 450°C, 330 bar; at 500°C, 405 bar. 2 g samples in a 106 cm3 vessel.
Conversions of ≈ 35–40% at 400°C, declining to 30–35% at 500°C. Gas
yields up to 660 cm3
Supercritical toluene extraction from four Turkish lignites. Liquid
[13] yields of ≈ 10–20%. Yields raised by pre-treatment such as swelling in
pyridine or removal of metal ions by acid exchange
[14] Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction from Beulah (ND) lignite
Lignite from Dayan, Inner Mongolia. Extraction with supercritical
water at 24 MPa and 30 MPa, temperatures up to 550°C. Conversions
[16]
(gas + liquid) of up to 54%. Extract distributed between oil, asphaltenes
and pre-asphaltenes
Five Victorian brown coals subjected to supercritical water. See
[18]
discussion in the main text
Spanish lignite. Extraction from 50 g samples with supercritical
methanol and supercritical ethanol.
Critical points:
Methanol 239°C, 8.1 MPa.
[19]
Ethanol 241°C, 6.3 MPa.
Temperature range with methanol in [19] 250–350°C. Pressure range
8.6–15.2 MPa. Same temperature range with ethanol, pressure range
7.1–15.2 MPa
Hungarian lignites treated in supercritical toluene at a range of
[20]
pressures and temperatures. At 400°C, 16 MPa extract yields 25–30%
Two Turkish lignites – Gayniik and Tuncbilek – treated in supercritical
[21]
water at 550°C, 30 MPa. Conversion 68% for both
Liptobiolith coal of lignite rank originating in Russia. Treatment with
[22] supercritical water in the temperature range 300–470°C. Up to 23%
extract yield
One can easily confirm from the figure in the appendix to Chapter 4 that the tempera-
ture–pressure pairs in the first row correspond to the supercritical state. One factor in
the decline of conversion with increasing temperature is believed to be polymerisation
of the carbon structure under the more vigorous extraction conditions. In other words,
the decline in conversion is better understood as an increase in the carbon content
of the residue. Gaseous product, the yield of which is given in the table, comprised
C1→4+ hydrocarbons as well as carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The second row is also
concerned with Turkish lignites, with toluene as the fluid in the supercritical state.
The critical temperature of toluene is 319°C, and in [13] the toluene was just into the
supercritical region at 330°C. In the work summarised in the following row supercrit-
137
ical carbon dioxide was the extracting fluid, at a pressure of 40.5 MPa. A reader can
consult the phase diagram for carbon dioxide [15] to deduce how far above the critical
pressure of carbon dioxide this is. Applications of the lignite from Dayan (next row of
the table, and also referred to in section 13.9.3) include underground gasification [17].
Victorian brown coals feature in the next row. Three of them were from open cut mines
having already featured in this text, Yallourn, Morwell and Loy Yang. One was from
Gelliondale and one from Coolungoolun; these coals are not used in electricity gener-
ation. The Gelliondale coal was tested at 22 MPa – close to the critical pressure – at
temperatures in the range 380–460°C. Conversion was ≈ 55% and extract yields ≈
22%. Oils exceeded asphaltenes and pre-asphaltenes in the liquid product. Under con-
ditions very close to the critical point for water, the Loy Yang coal gave 51% conver-
sion, the Coolungoolun coal 42%, the Yallourn coal 54% and the Morwell coal 82%.
The remarkably high conversion for the Morwell coal was roughly half-and-half gas
and extract. Moving to the next row where the supercritical fluid is methanol or ethanol,
we note that the wider pressure range was possible with ethanol because of its lower
critical pressure compared with methanol. The point is made in [19] that when the ex-
tracting liquid is organic it can add to the carbon content of the product, and anomalous
mass balances exceeding 100% are observed. By contrast, when Victorian brown coals
are treated with supercritical water (previous row) mass balances tend to close below
100% because of unaccounted for moisture losses from the coal.
The work in reference [21], in common with that in reference [16], uses sub-critical wa-
ter as well as supercritical and a brief comparison is helpful. We recall that the critical
point for water is 374°C, 21.8 MPa making the conditions given in the table supercrit-
ical. At the same temperature and at a pressure of 2.5 MPa the conversion is 55.5%.
The term liptobiolith coal (final row) was introduced in section 5.1.2. Products from the
supercritical extraction of this Russian example included asphaltenes and resins [22].
These had molar masses respectively up to ≈ 1000 g and ≈ 300 g.
15.4 Chemicals from solvent extraction

The title of this section means of course extraction by solvents under sub-critical con-
ditions. Table 15.2 gives details of studies of solvent extraction of chemicals from lig-
nites. The volume of literature on this is huge, and more recent work has been selected.
Extraction from a Brandon lignite, discussed in section 6.11, could equally appropriate-
ly have been included in this section.
138
Table 15.2 solvent extraction from lignites.
LOCATION AND
DETAILS
REFERENCE
Extraction from 2 g samples with carbon disulphide, acetone
and ethanol. GC-MS analysis.
Compounds in the CS2 extract largely aliphatic up to about
Hulunbeier, Inner C30. The most abundant single compound C28H58 at 6.2%.
Mongolia [23] Oxygenated compounds exceeding aliphatic hydrocarbons in
amount in the acetone extract. Major aliphatics and oxygenates
in the ethanol extract. Small amounts of heterocycles with all
three solvents
Extraction by solvents including 1-methyl naphthalene (1-MN).
Loy Yang, Victoria [24]
Extraction into a toluene–methanol mixture. Carbon content of
the extract 77.7% compared with 63.1% for the parent coal. The
Xianfeng lignite [25]
extract treated with tetrahydrofuran (THF). The THF-soluble
part separated into fractions in a column of silica gel and eluted
Extraction in 1-MN and mixtures of 1-MN with polar solvents
Shengli lignite [26] at 360°C. Yield of 30% of the coal weight with 1-MN only,
increasing to 81% with 1-MN–15% ethanol
Extraction of humic substances into potassium hydroxide
Spanish lignite [27]
solution
In work on Loy Yang coal (row 2 of the table) fractions of coal were obtained by use of
different extraction temperatures in 1-MN: 200–250°C, 250–300°C, 300–350°C and
> 350°C. The carbon content of the coal before extraction was 66.9%, and this in-
creased over the fractions to 76.8% for those at the highest temperatures. Irrespective
of any value of the chemicals extracted, this represents beneficiation of the coal. The
increase in carbon content is obviously accompanied by the presence of oxygenated
substances in the extracts. At the highest temperatures the yield of extracted material
was 45.3% of the coal weight.
Moving to the next row, the fractions obtained when the THF-soluble part of the extract
from the Xianfeng lignite was eluted had carbon contents in the range 50.8–82.7%.
Compounds identified on analysis included aliphatics up to C30 and aromatics up to C27.
Amongst the oxygenated substances were esters. The model of coal as a polymer is
applied to the work on the Shengli lignite in the following row. Between 360 and 380°C
with 1-MN only as the solvent there is a dramatic increase in the yield of extract from
30% of the coal weight as noted to 81% and this is attributed to loss of the polymer
structure. An alternative view would be that it is due to breakdown of the cross-linked
part of the coal. Shengli lignite features later in the chapter. In the extraction of humic
acids into an aqueous medium (final row), yields, expressed as a percentage of the total
carbon content, were up to 80%.
139
It is clear from the very limited number of studies examined that points of interest and
possible application in solvent extraction of lignites are the miscellany of organic com-
pounds produced and the high carbon content of the solid residue.
15.5 Specialised products

15.5.1 drilling fluid additives
Specialised products from lignites are many, and include fluid loss additives for drilling
fluids used at oil fields [28]. A difficulty with the use of drilling fluids is their loss to the
outside of the drill tubes, and the use of lignites in the fluid has been found to control this.
This requires selection of lignite from close to an exposed surface at the mine, so that there
has been some oxidation to acids [29]. Alternatively it is spread out so as to oxidise in the
atmosphere. The action of the lignite as a fluid control additive depends on its ability to
dissolve, and this is brought about by alkali which will enable the acid content referred to
to enter the aqueous phase, and one criterion for the acceptability of a lignite additive to
an aqueous drilling fluid is that there should be 75% dissolution [29]. Sometimes lignite
for such use is mixed with caustic soda for this reason, being known as causticised lignite.
An example of causticised lignite is GLO CLZ 1000, a product of Global Drilling

Fluids and Chemicals Ltd. in Gujurat, India [25]. It is of particle size such that its bulk
density is 900–1000 kg m–3. Amounts in which it is added to a drilling fluid depend on
requirements, as it not only affects fluid loss as noted but is also a factor in the viscos-
ity and the operating temperature range. In [30] it is recommended that it is added in
amounts in the range 2.85–28.5 kg per cubic metre of drilling fluid. Prior dispersion in
water alone is sometimes necessary.
Other lignite products are made available by Global Drilling Fluids and Chemicals
Ltd. One is plain lignite powder, coded GLO LIG 1000, and it is clear from the opening
paragraph of this section that this is closer to being a norm than a causticised product.
Another is potassium lignite GLO KLIG 1000 which by introducing potassium ions
into the drilling fluid influences its rheology [31].
Fluid loss control additives for drilling fluids can also be made from lignite which has
been treated with an amine. Having regard to the fact that amines are bases, their ac-
tion on lignites is broadly similar to that of alkalis. In view of what was said in section
6.10 about leonardite – that it has undergone oxidation in the bed – it is not surprising
that this also has been used in drilling fluids. Imprecision of word usage is evident in
related literature, and leonardite for such use is sometimes referred to as ‘lignite’. Coal
near the surface of a lignite mine displaying some oxidation has also been referred to
as ‘leonardite’. There is much more on this in Chapter 18.
15.5.2 Carbon electrodes

A notable example of production of carbon electrodes with a lignite starting material is
Rockdale TX [32]. Production there began in preparation for the Korean war. The US
140
Air Force needed more planes. Aluminium production for their construction materials
required carbon electrodes in large volume. There have been investigations into elec-
trode production from Loy Yang coal in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley [33]. It is noted in
section 10.2 that there has been aluminium production in Victoria.
15.5.3 Jet
‘Jet’ or ‘lignite jet’ is a form of lignite [34], and frequently finds application as the basis
of a gemstone. In England it occurs in a deposit in East Yorkshire, and commercially
this is one of the world’s major sources. There are also reserves in countries including
Spain, the USA, Sweden and Germany.
The process of jet formation over geological time is called ‘jetification’. In laboratory
simulations on wood [35] it has been shown that humid and oxygen-rich conditions in
which there is also exposure to light promote the transformation to a shiny, black ma-
terial and this can be taken to represent events leading to the formation of jet deposits.
Exposure to light is believed to be particularly important. Table 15.3 gives some prop-
erties of jet samples.
Table 15.3 Properties of jet.
PROPERTY VALUES AND REFERENCES

Density 1.32 g cm3 at typical value [35]
Hardness 2.5–4 on the Mohs scale [37]
Refractive index 1.64–1.68 [39]
The density in row 1 of the table is within the range of true densities, a.k.a. helium
densities because they are determined by displacement of helium, of lignites. Schobert
[36] gives values for Darco (PA), Zap (ND) and Harmon (ND) lignites of respectively
1.30, 1.40 and 1.45 g cm–3. That oxygen-rich conditions, promoting jetification as not-
ed, would be accompanied by compression is counterintuitive, so that jet has about
the same density as lignite is not surprising. The hardness range of jet on the Mohs
scale can be compared with 1.25 for gypsum, 7 for granite and 10 for diamond [38].
Amongst materials used in making jewellery, pearl has a Mohs hardness of 2.5–3.5,
tortoiseshell 2.5 and ivory 2–3 [39,40]. Jet has a lower thermal conductivity than most
such materials.
Siberian lignite featured centrally in the part of the book concerned with power gen-
eration in the FSU. Jet occurs in eastern Siberia, where it has also been classified as
sapropelic coal [41] consistently with the absence of a banded structure. There is jet in
Tibet, and significant trade in artefacts made from it [42].
15.6 Treatment with oxidising reagents

That there is current interest in chemicals from lignites via oxidation with hydrogen
peroxide is evidenced by recent major publications on the topic, a selection of which
141
will be reviewed here. Carboxylic acids were the dominant class of product when a
Chinese lignite was reacted with hydrogen peroxide and acetic anhydride at 50°C [43].
Malonic acid (CH2(COOH)2) and succinic acid ((CH2COOH)2) were by far the domi-
nant products, accounting for over 40% of the total carboxylic acid yield. It was con-
cluded that these originated from -CH2- and -CH2CH2- linkages in the lignite structure.
Malonic and succinic acids were also dominant products when a lignite from Moravia
was oxidised with hydrogen peroxide [44] at temperatures in the range 30–70°C. Selec-
tivity of the process to these products is noted in [44]. The lowest temperature led to the
highest yield of malonic acid, and the proportions of malonic to succinic were strongly
dependent on reacting temperature.
A lignite from Shengli was oxidised with hydrogen peroxide in work described in [45],
in which tests with sodium hypochlorite as oxidant were also carried out as was ruthe-
nium ion-catalysed oxidation, in which the oxidant is sodium periodate, NaIO4. Ru-
thenium ion-catalysed oxidation is seen as a route to production of organic chemicals
from lignite on a larger scale. With ruthenium ion-catalysed oxidation, succinic acid
hugely dominated the products. (On a large scale, the high cost of ruthenium would be
a factor in the viability of its use as a catalyst.) With hydrogen peroxide there were in
the oxidation products carboxylic acids containing methoxy and hydroxyl groups in the
carbon structures. Oxidation with sodium hypochlorite yielded carboxylic acids with
more than one carboxyl group on a benzene ring, for example benzene tetracarboxylic
acids, C6H2(COOH)4.
15.7 Use of lignite fly ash in carbon sequestration

It was mentioned in previous sections including 5.2.3 that fly ash from lignite combus-
tion does sometimes find a use, for example in brick manufacture. A further use is in
carbon sequestration, when the fuel from which the carbon dioxide comes may or may
not have been a lignite but in general will not have been. That will be discussed in this
chapter, where the fly ash will be viewed as a ‘chemical substance’ for subsequent use
obtained from the lignite. Carbon capture and sequestration from lignite fuels are the
subject of Chapter 19. Some such applications of fly ash from lignite are given in Table
15.4, and comments follow below. Obviously an important part is played by the calcium
oxide and magnesium oxide contents of the fly ash, which can react with carbon dioxide
to form carbonates, a process sometimes described as carbonation.
142
Table 15.4 Lignite fly ash in carbon sequestration.
REFERENCE DETAILS
Fly ash from three Polish lignite-fired power plants: Turów,
Bełchatów and Pątnów (see section 5.2.3 et seq.). CO2 uptakes of
[46] respectively 8.81, 4.12 and 7.87 g per 100 g fly ash after 240 hours
of exposure of the CO2 to a shaken aqueous suspension of the fly
ash
Carbonation of fly ash from the burning of a Rhenish lignite (see
[47] section 4.2.3). Fly ash made into a slurry with water. Uptakes of up
to 4.8 mmol per g of fly ash (21 g per 100 g fly ash)
Fly ash from Victorian brown coal. Aqueous conditions. Conversion
of CaO to Ca2+ with acetic acid. Formation of magnesium
[48] bicarbonate – Mg(HCO3)2 – as an intermediate in the formation of
magnesium carbonate. Uptakes up to 264 kg CO2 per tonne of fly
ash (26.4 g CO2 per 100 g fly ash)
In the work in the first row of the table, shaking of the fly ash suspension was found to
be a major factor in the extent of carbon dioxide uptake. About 6 million tonnes of fly
ash are captured annually in the lignite-fired power plants of Poland [42], so using a
value of say 6 g of CO2 per 100 g fly ash the potential for sequestration is 0.36 million
tonnes, a calculation which a reader can easily confirm for him/herself. In the work
described in the second row the slurry was stirred, and there was a dependence of the
carbonation performance on the stirrer speed as well as on the solids loading of the
slurry. The fly ash used in the work in the third row was taken from the Hazelwood
power station (see section 10.2.2).

This chapter has covered chemicals production by extraction, and extended that to
oxidation as well as to drilling fluids and to carbon electrodes. This chapter was also
seen as the natural place to discuss lignite jet. What the chapter has not been concerned
with is chemicals production via synthesis gas. This of course was the subject of Chap-
ters 13 and 14, and the ‘chemicals’ so produced are liquid fuels or products other than
fuels from synthesis gas. An example of manufacture of an important product other
than liquid fuels obtained from synthesis gas itself made from lignite will conclude
this chapter. In wartime Germany, the manufacture of nitrile rubber (‘Buna’) from
lignite-derived synthesis gas by the German giant I.G. was next only in importance to
the production of aviation fuel from the same source. More details can be found in [49].
15.9 References
[1] McKay G., Alien S.J., McGookin C. ‘Montan wax extraction from Northern Ireland lig-
nite’, Fuel 67: 1703–1705 (1988)
[2] http://www.wachs-und-mehr.de/index.php/en/unternehmen
143
[3] Kampouris E.M., Constantinoglou C., Prounias N., Sideropoulos T. ‘Extractable waxes
from Greek lignites’, Fuel 52: 47–51 (1973)
[4] Gurkan T., Gurer S. ‘Investigation of parameters affecting atmospheric extraction yields
and extract qualities of two Turkish lignites’, Fuel Processing Technology 10: 19–31 (1985)
[5] Wei X., Yuan C., Zhang H., Li B. ‘Montan wax: the state-of-the-art review’, Journal of
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 6: 1230–1236 (2014)
[6] Lesar B., Kralj P., Humar M. ‘Montan wax improves performance of boron-based wood
preservatives’, International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 63: 306–310 (2009)
[7] Scholz G., Militz H., Gascón-Garrido P., Ibiza-Palacios M.S., Oliver-Villanueva J.V., Peters
B.C., Fitzgerald C.J. ‘Improved termite resistance of wood by wax impregnation’, International
Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 64: 688–693 (2010)
[8] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources
added to Food, Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Montan acid esters (E 912) as a food
additive. EFSA Journal 11 (2013), 21pp.
[9] Geishauser C.B., Cady P.D. ‘A study of the heat treating cycle for internally sealed concrete
containing Montan–paraffin wax beads’, Cement and Concrete Research 7: 85–94 (1977)
[10] International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts
33: 173 (1996)
[11] http://www.strohmeyer.com/montanwax.html
[12] Sert M., Ballice L., Yüksel M., Saglam M. ‘Effect of mineral matter on product yield in
supercritical water extraction of lignite at different temperatures’, Journal of Supercritical
Fluids 57: 213–218 (2011)
[13] Simsk E.H., Karaduman A., Caliskan S., Togrul T. ‘The effect of pre-swelling and/or
pre-treatment of some Turkish coals on the supercritical fluid extract yield’, Fuel 81: 503–506
(2002)
[14] Louie P.K.K., Timpe R.C., Hawthorne S.B., Miller D.J. ‘Determination of elemental
sulphur in coal by supercritical fluid extraction and gas chromatography with atomic emission
detection’, Fuel 72: 225–231 (1993)
[15] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_dioxide_pressure-temperature_phase_
diagram.svg
[16] Hu H., Guo S., Hedden K. ‘Extraction of lignite with water in sub- and supercritical
states’, Fuel Processing Technology 53: 269–277 (1998)
[17] Zhanga H., Zhoua X. ‘Speciation variation of trace metals in coal gasification and com-
bustion’, Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability 21: 93–97 (2009)
[18] Kershaw J.R. ‘Extraction of Victorian brown coals with supercritical water’, Fuel Process-
ing Technology 13: 111–124 (1986)
[19] Garcia R., Moinelo S.R., Snape C.E. ‘A spectroscopic study of structural changes occur-
ring in supercritical gas extraction of a Spanish lignite with alcohols’, Fuel 72: 427–433 (1993)
[20] Fuel and Energy Abstracts May 1998, p. 168
[21] Canel M., Missal P. ‘Extraction of solid fuels with sub- and supercritical water’, Fuel 73:
144
1776–1780 (1994)
[22] Fedyaeva O.N., Vostrikova A.A., Shishkina A.V., Fedorovab N.I. ‘Liquefaction of lipto-
biolith coal in supercritical water flow under non-isothermal conditions’, Russian Journal of
Physical Chemistry B 8: 1054–1063 (2014)
[23] Tahmasebi A., Jiang Y., Yu J., Li X., Lucas J. ‘Solvent extraction of Chinese lignite and
chemical structure changes of the residue during H 2O2 oxidation’, Fuel Processing Technology
129: 213–221 (2015)
[24] Ashida R., Morimoto M., Makino Y., Umemoto S., Nakagawa H., Miura K., Saito K.,
Kato K. Fractionation of brown coal by sequential high temperature solvent extraction, Fuel
88: 1485–1490 (2009)
[25] Wang Z., Shui H., Pan C., Li L., Ren S., Lei Z., Kang S., Wei C., Hu J. ‘Structural charac-
terization of the thermal extracts of lignite’, Fuel Processing Technology 120: 8–15 (2014)
[26] Shui H., Zhu W., Wang W., Pan C., Wang Z., Lei Z., Ren S., Kang S. ‘Thermal dissolution
of lignite and liquefaction behaviors of its thermal dissolution soluble fractions’, Fuel 139:
516–522 (2015)
[27] Garcia D., Cegarra J., Roig A. ‘Effects of the extraction temperature on the characteristics
of a humic fertiliser obtained from lignite’, Bioresource Technology 47: 103–106 (1994)
[28] http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/en/Terms.aspx?LookIn=term%20name&filter=lig-
nite
[29] Ven News March 1991, Venture Chemicals, Lafayette, LA
[30] http://www.globaldrillchem.com/products/index/causticized-lignite_3853.html
[31] http://www.universaloilfield.org/Universal%20Oil%20FieldsB/RESINATED-LIGNITE.
php
[32] http://www.usgwarchives.net/tx/milam/history/pg016.htm
[33] Gardner H.J., Waters P.L., Watts A. ‘Production of electrode carbon from brown-coal char
and gaseous hydrocarbons’, Preprints of Papers, National Conference on Chemical Engineer-
ing pp. 80–85, Institution of Engineers Australia (1976)
[34] Dill H.G. ‘The “chessboard” classification scheme of mineral deposits: mineralogy and
geology from aluminium to zirconium’, Earth Science Reviews 100: 1–420 (2010)
[35] Kool J., Poole I., van Bergen P.F. ‘How jet is formed: an organic geochemical approach
using pyrolysis gas chromatography–mass spectrometry’, Organic Geochemistry 40: 700–705
(2009)
[37] https://cycleback.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/a-tool-for-identifying-materials-the-mohs-
scale-of-hardness/
[38] http://www.rauschgranite.com/resources/hardness-of-natural-stone/
[39] Read P.G. Gemmology, Elsevier (2013)
[40] http://www.gemdat.org/gem-9355.html
[41] ‘Siberian sapropelic coal: a unique type of workable jet’, Fuel and Energy Abstracts Sep-
145
tember 1995, p. 324

[42] http://www.crystalsrocksandgems.com/Healing_Crystals/Jet.html
[43] Liu J., Wei X-W., Wang Y-G., Zhang D-D., Wang T-M., Lv J-H., Gui J., Qu M., Zong Z-M.
‘Mild oxidation of Xiaolongtan lignite in aqueous hydrogen peroxide–acetic anhydride’, Fuel
142: 268–273 (2015)
[44] Doskoč L., Grasset L., Válková D., Pekar M. ‘Hydrogen peroxide oxidation of humic acids
and lignite’, Fuel 134: 406–413 (2014)
[45] Liu F-J., Wei X-Y., Zhu Y., Gui J., Wang Y-G., Fan X., Zhao Y-P., Zong Z-M., Zhao W. ‘In-
vestigation on structural features of Shengli lignite through oxidation under mild conditions’,
Fuel 109: 316–324 (2013)
[46] Uliasz-Bocheńczyka A., Mokrzyckia E., Piotrowskib Z., Pomykałab R. ‘Estimation of
CO2 sequestration potential via mineral carbonation in fly ash from lignite combustion in
Poland’, Energy Procedia 1: 4783–4789 (2009)
[47] Bauer M., Gassen N., Stanjek H., Peiffer S. ‘Carbonation of lignite fly ash at ambient
T and P in a semi-dry reaction system for CO2 sequestration’, Applied Geochemistry 26:
1502–1512 (2011)
[48] Sun Y., Parikh V., Zhang L. ‘Sequestration of carbon dioxide by indirect mineralization
using Victorian brown coal fly ash’, Journal of Hazardous Materials 209: 458–466 (2012)
[49] Borkin J. The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben, Free Press (1978)
146
CHAPTER 16
UNWORKED LIGNITE DEPOSITS
16.1 Introduction
Some countries have lignite/brown coal reserves without ever having mined it to a signifi-
cant degree. Details will be given, and comments on the prospects of development of such
reserves in the future will be offered. ‘Unworked’ has to be understood as ‘having never been
the scene of major production’. So often at a deposit seen as unworked there has at some time
been local use. This is emphasised below with Ecuador as an example. Greenland is used as
an example of a country having in the distant past had moderate lignite production.
16.2 Examples
Table 16.1 gives some examples.
Table 16.1 Lignite deposits awaiting development.
LOCATION DETAILS
500 million tonnes of known reserves [1]. No current production
Argentina
[2,3]
Sweden See comments in the main text
Chile 155 million tonnes of known reserves [1]. No current production [5]
Colombia 380 million tonnes of known reserves [1]
Ecuador 22 million tonnes of known reserves [1]
Japan 10–15 million tonnes of known reserves [1]
Egypt 22 million tonnes of known reserves [1]
Greenland 183 million tonnes of known reserves [1]
Nigeria 169 million tonnes of known reserves [1]. No current production
0.3 billion tonnes at Hula: estimated by the author from information
Israel
in section 7.9
The Neuquen basin in Argentina is a major source of natural gas and also contains
some lignite. This is also true of the Thrace basin (see section 13.9.3). The lignite re-
serves of Sweden are of the order of thousands of tonnes, not meriting investment, but
the country has been included for the following reason. Vattenfall (see section 4.2.5 et
seq.), which is very active in lignite-fired power stations in Germany and in Greece,
is 100% owned by the government of Sweden. The government is now requiring the
company not to expand its activity with lignite in Germany [4].
In Chile (following row) the Pecket deposit contains both lignite and sub-bituminous
coal. This is quantified in [6] as vitrinite reflectance in the range 0.28–0.42%. Lignites
in Colombia include those from Aránzazu. A relatively recent study of a lignite from
147
this source [7] revealed a surprisingly high liptinite content, 26.2%, and a correspond-
ingly low vitrinite content of 50.6%. The mineral content was predominantly pyrite and
kaolinite (Al2Si2O5(OH)4).
Although the reserves of lignite in Ecuador (next row) are an order of magnitude lower
than those of Argentina and Colombia they exceed those of Ethiopia where, as de-
scribed earlier in the book, there is activity. An obvious point of contrast, influencing
the viability of lignite usage, is that Ecuador, a member of OPEC, produces a great deal
more oil than Ethiopia does; they rank respectively 29th and 114th in oil production on
a world basis [8]. The coal reserves of Ecuador are sub-bituminous and lignite. There
was over 50 years ago very minor production at the Azogue-Biblian lignite mine in
Ecuador with hand, not mechanical, methods. Similarly lignite from the Loja basin in
Ecuador has supplied local industry [9].
Japan (following row) has coal reserves across the ranks, but no longer mines coal,
finding it better to import it from Australia and Indonesia. In the 21st century the most
important point in relation to the lignite resources of Japan is the effect of earthquakes
on abandoned lignite mines. The degree of resistance to earthquake damage of lignite
mines in Japan has been correlated with the original method of mine construction [10].
Moving on to Egypt (next row), lignite occurs in Sinai and comprises ≈ 10 cm layers
within kaolin, which is much more abundant than the lignite [11]. In Greenland lignite
was mined at Qullissat up to about 45 years ago [12]. Note the high reserves, in spite of
which Greenland imports in small quantities lignite briquettes. A picture of Qullissat
forms Figure 16.1. Past lignite production in Iceland is discussed in section 23.2.
Figure 16.1 Qullissat, greenland, once the scene of lignite mining. Courtesy of greenlandphotos.net
148
unWORKEd LigniTE dEPOsiTs
With reference to Nigeria (following row), lignites from Ogwashi–Asaba in the An-
ambra basin have recently been characterised [13]. Seven samples were found to vary
in moisture content from 22.2% to 43.6% and in ash from 5.2% to an extraordinary
69.4%. Sulphur varied from too low to detect to 7.7%. Points of interest emerge from
the petrographic analysis, including variation in macerals of the huminite group from
84% down to 10%. The sample having 10% huminite macerals had 87% of liptinite
macerals. Huminite reflectances were in the range 0.24–0.36.The sample having very
high ash had a mineral matter content in which clay was prevalent.
16.3 Evaluation of the utilisation potential of the

unworked lignite
The figures in the right-hand side of Table 16.1 add up to a quantity of the order of
2000 million tonnes. This probably represents bed-moist lignite, so will be divided by
two to give 1000 million tonnes of lignite suitable for burning, gasifying or converting
to liquid fuels. It was stated in section 14.1 that in a F-T conversion one ton (equate to
one tonne for a rough calculation) of lignite produces 3–4 barrels of liquid product. The
1000 million tonnes of lignite in the table could, if hypothetically converted to liquid
fuel, realise about 4000 million barrels of liquid product. This is a long way short of be-
ing a staggering figure, equating to world needs for seven weeks. The Ghawar oil field
in Saudi Arabia contains a quantity of crude oil an order of magnitude higher than this.
Similarly, 4000 million tonnes of lignite could produce about 4 × 1019 J of electricity or
about 11 200 TW-hour.
These figures have a negative suggestion about them, but in any case the word ‘hypo-
thetically’ in the previous paragraph cannot be emphasised too much. Utilisation of all
of the lignite to make liquid fuels or to generate electricity is impossible to conceive in
realistic terms.

Lignites are seen as being heavily polluting fuel (e.g. [14–16]), although counter views
have been expressed [17]. Obviously, when a fuel is seen as being ‘dirty’ (a word which
recurs in the references cited) the method of burning it is at least part of the origin of
the difficulty. Standards of combustion hygiene can be high or low with any fuel. A
calculation to show that lignite produces more carbon dioxide per unit energy released
than oil products and natural gas do is too elementary to merit reproduction here. Ar-
guments against lignite usage on this basis disregard two factors: the advanced meth-
ods there are for CCS and, perhaps more importantly, the fact that any country has to
balance high releasers of carbon dioxide with lower releasers and with non-releasers in
its energy mix.
149
16.5 References
[1] http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=EDATA&f=cmID%3ALB%3BtrID%3A1511
[2] http://knoema.com/atlas/Argentina/topics/Energy/Coal/Production-of-Lignite-Coal
[3] http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/lignite-coal-production-as-of-worldwide-pro-
duction/argentina
[4] http://treealerts.org/region/europe/2014/10/lausitz-lignite-expansion-in-doubt-as-swed-
ish-government-signals-shift-to-renewables/
[5] http://treealerts.org/region/europe/2014/10/lausitz-lignite-expansion-in-doubt-as-swed-
ish-government-signals-shift-to-renewables/
[6] Hidalgo E., Helle S., Alfaro G., Kelm U. ‘Geology and characterisation of the Pecket coal
deposit, Magellan Region, Chile’, International Journal of Coal Geology 48: 233– 243 (2002)
[7] López I.C., Ward C.R. ‘Composition and mode of occurrence of mineral matter in some
Colombian coals’, International Journal of Coal Geology 73: 3–18 (2008)
[8] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2241rank.html
[9] http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/EcoNatRes/EcoNatRes-idx?type=turn&id=Eco-
NatRes.MinYB1963v4&entity=EcoNatRes.MinYB1963v4.p0307&isize=text
[10] Aydani O., Tano H. ‘The damage to abandoned mines and quarries by the Great East
Japan Earthquake on March 11th 2011’, Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Engineering Lessons Learned from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, 1–4 March 2012,
Tokyo, Japan, pp. 981–992
[11] Baioumy H. ‘Hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of sedimentary kaolin deposits,
Egypt: paleoclimatic implications’, Applied Geochemistry 29: 182–188 (2013)
[12] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/485710/Qeqertarsuaq
[13] Ogala J., Siavalas G., Christanis K. ‘Coal petrography, mineralogy and geochemistry
of lignite samples from the Ogwashi–Asaba Formation, Nigeria’, Journal of African Earth
Sciences 66: 35–45 (2012)
[14] http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_road_to_green_energy_germany_detours_on_dirty_
coal/2769/
[15] http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-02-27/in-europe-dirty-coal-makes-a-come-
back
[16] https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/europe-to-burn-dirty-filthy-lignite-in-
stead-of-clean-fracked-natural-gas-or-nuclear/
[17] http://www.energypost.eu/wishing-away-lignite-eu-climate-policy-ignores-ele-
phant-room/
150
CHAPTER 17
HAZARDS WITH LIGNITES
17.1 Introduction
The primary hazards are coal seam fires, dust explosions and spontaneous heating in
storage. These will be dealt with in turn.
17.2 Seam fires at lignite mines

17.2.1 Examples
One of the best known examples of such a fire at a lignite deposit is that at Hoher Meiss-
ner in Hesse, Germany [1]. It is not very distant from other German lignite reserves
discussed in this book; Frankfurt am Main, the principal city of Hesse, is 120 miles
from Cologne. The fire at Hoher Meissner began centuries ago. A major difficulty with
all coal seam fires is of course the combustion products, including sulphur dioxide, and
their release into the atmosphere.
Another example of combustion at a lignite deposit is Smoking Hills, in Canada’s

North West Territory [2]. The fire was discovered about 90 years ago but is believed to
have been burning in the early 19th century.
Smoking Hills is close to Franklin Bay, which receives water from the Franklin
River. The water has become acidified through the sulphur dioxide emissions. In
East Kalimantan, Indonesia there is a lignite seam fire and it is believed to have
initiated a forest fire [3]. One might expect that a coal seam fire close to a forest
would have a further harmful effect: few things are more damaging to tree life than
acid rain which, of course, is formed from sulphur dioxide. This example of a lig-
nite seam fire and the previous one both highlight the destructive potential towards
the environment.
17.2.2 Further example: Hazelwood, Victoria, Australia 2014

The seam fires discussed in the previous section have been burning for very long pe-
riods and, with the exception of the one in East Kalimantan, have become part of the
natural scenery and even tourist attractions. The fire at Hazelwood in 2014 was alto-
gether different. That Hazelwood is the scene of lignite-fired electricity generation was
stated in section 10.2.2. A fire at the mine began on 9 February 2014. After firefighting
and extinguishment procedures it was handed back to the operators on 25th March [4].
It is widely held that ignition at Hazelwood was by an external heat source in the form
of embers from a nearby fire [5]. The chief impact of the Hazelwood fire was of course
on the atmosphere, and it is noted in [5] that ash particles were of particular concern in
assessing community health effects.
151
17.2.3 Further comments

Laboratory simulation of a lignite seam fire is reported in [6]. It uses lignite from Ulan-
qab in Inner Mongolia. The lignite was crushed and dried, and 80 g samples placed in
an electrically heated furnace at temperatures in the range 600–1000°C. Of particular
interest was the formation of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and these were found
to be most abundant at a furnace temperature of 800°C. There was also a dependence
of the PAH yield on the lignite particle size, larger particles yielding more PAH.
17.3 Dust explosions

17.3.1 introduction
These can occur where lignite is being handled, and briquette factories are an obvious
example. Smoking materials are in today’s world not allowed in workplaces anyway,
but when they were they were prohibited at briquette factories. In about the 1930s man-
agement at the briquette factory in Victoria, Australia (see section 10.2.2) declared that
any employee caught smoking in the factory would not be merely dismissed but also
prosecuted. (There is a return to Victoria in section 17.3.3.) The flammability limits of
lignite in air are usually in the range 0.09–7 kg m –3 with a particle size dependence [7].
17.3.2 Literature survey

Table 17.1 gives details of some literature on dust explosions with lignites. Some back-
ground information is required. A dust explosion in air from any substance (suscepti-
ble materials include ground pharmaceuticals, sugar, wood and cork) is expressed in
terms of two quantities. One is the maximum pressure Pmax. The other is the index Kst
defined by:
Kst = (dP/dt)max × V1/3

where (dP/dt)max is the maximum rate of pressure rise and V the vessel volume. The
units of Kst are bar m s–1 and a particular dust is after testing placed in one of the fol-
lowing categories [8]: ST class 0, Kst value = 0; ST class 1, Kst value less than 200 bar
m s–1; ST class 2, Kst value between 200 and 300 bar m s–1; ST class 3, Kst value greater
than 300 bar m s –1. One international standard amongst a number for determination of
Pmax and Kst is BS EN 14034.
The Kst values in the first row of the table signify four samples at ST class 1 and one
at class 2. Reference [8] also gives values of Kst for higher rank coals and for biomass.
These include a Pittsburgh bituminous coal, for which Kst is 41 bar m s –1 and Pmax
6.7 bar. ‘Wood dust’ gives a Kst of 208 bar m s –1 and a Pmax of 9.4 bar. In the entire
compilation for about 50 materials in [8] – coals and biomass – none is in an ST class
higher than 2. Moving now to the work in the second row, the lower value for the char
reflects the loss of volatiles during carbonisation. In reference [9] the Kst value for an
anthracite is given as 1 bar m s –1. This is due to the same effects, an anthracite being
very low in volatiles. It will however also lack the pore structure of a brown coal
152
HAZARds WiTH LigniTEs
char, which is why its Kst is so much lower than that for the char. The results in row
4 were obtained in a 20 litre vessel. From this and the (dP/dt)max value it is possible
to calculate Kst as:
325 bar s–1 × (0.02)1/3 bar m s–1 = 88 bar m s–1

a value almost equal to that for Yallourn coal. Moving to the fifth row, the LOC for a
Spanish lignite is given as 8%, that for a German lignite as 10% and that for a Victorian
brown coal as 13%. These of course have to be compared with the value of 21% for air.
The term ‘no development of combustion’ in the table means that the kernel of suspend-
ed coal in air surrounding the scene of ignition does not respond to the ignition; in other
words there is ignition but not propagation. In reference [13] (row 5) it is noted that a
bituminous coal examined in the same way displayed a somewhat higher temperature,
actually 1170–1350 K.
Table 17.1 Research investigations of dust explosions with lignites.
REFERENCE DETAILS
The following information from cited literature given:
Kst /bar m s –1 Pmax /bar
--------------------------------
Sapis, Italy lignite 162 6.8
[9]
Spanish lignite 107 8.8
German lignite 105 8.7
Morwell brown coal 220 7.6
Yallourn brown coal 91 6.7
Victorian brown coals
Morwell: Kst 220 bar m s –1
[10]
Yallourn: Kst 91 bar m s –1
Brown coal char: Kst 64 bar m s –1
[11] Lignite (source not stated): Kst 196 bar m s –1
Two lignites from Sulcis (see section 5.9), one from North Dakota.
[12] (dP/dt)max for the ND lignite ≈ 325 bar s –1. For all three lignites Pmax
in the approximate range 6–6.5 bar
Limiting oxygen concentration (LOC), below which there is no
[13]
development of combustion, given from independent literature
Spanish lignite. Methane present with the air at up to 6%. Temperature
[14]
at the propagating front of a dust explosion between 950 and 1100 K
17.3.3 Case studies

An account of dust explosion hazards at the briquette works in Yallourn, Victoria is
given in [15]. A 48-year-old man died at an explosion at the briquette works in Yal-
lourn in 1953, and there were several non-fatal injuries [16]. Mining safety featured
en passant in section 8.3 where the increased inherent safety of open cut mining over
153
underground was referred to. Lignite from the underground mine at Dobrnja in Bosnia
and Herzegovina was supplied to the power plant at Tuzla (see section 5.8.2). In 1990
there was an explosion at the mine which caused 180 deaths [17]. The initial explosion,
which was caused by methane, occurred at a depth of about 450 m.
17.4 Spontaneous heating

There has been a huge amount of work on the spontaneous heating of lignites in storage
and transportation, for example [18]. Reference [18] is from almost 25 years ago, but
there is work long pre-dating it including that by the US Bureau of Mines. Here a few
major points will be made. Low-rank coals are more susceptible than higher rank ones
to spontaneous heating in stockpiles and shipping holds. Whenever a lump of brown
coal is broken so that new surface is created, that exacerbates the spontaneous heating
hazard. Fines in a stockpile area are a particular spontaneous heating hazard, another
reason why breakage during stockpile assembly should be avoided. Water entering the
pores in the internal structure of a lignite particle can, by releasing its heat of wetting,
promote spontaneous heating. Incipient spontaneous heating can sometimes be detect-
ed by the human olfactory sense.

Seam fires, dust explosions and spontaneous heating have received attention in this
chapter. Of course, the processes discussed previously such as hydrogenation have their
particular hazards and are subject to the requirements of process safety including risk
assessment and compliance with the requirements of regulatory bodies.
17.6 References
[1] http://madmikesamerica.com/2012/06/underground-coal-fire-in-the-mountain/
[2] http://mining.about.com/od/Coal/a/Minor-Coal-Fires-Hotspots-Bring-Major-Damage.htm
[3] Guhardja E. Rainforest Ecosystems of East Kalimantan, Springer Science & Business
Media (2000)
[4] http://hazelwoodinquiry.vic.gov.au/
[5] Teague B., Catford J., Petering S. Hazelwood Mine Fire Inquiry Report, Victorian Govern-
ment Printer (2014)
[6] Liu S., Wang C., Zhang S., Liang J., Chen F., Zhao K. ‘Formation and distribution of poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) derived from coal seam combustion: a case study of the
Ulanqab lignite from Inner Mongolia, northern China’, International Journal of Coal Geology
90: 126–134 (2012)
[7] http://www.tsmpacific.com/products/lc.htm
[8] http://www.explosiontesting.co.uk/explosion_ind_10.html
[9] Medina C.H., MacCoitir B., Sattar H., Slatter D.J.F., Phylaktou H.N., Andrews G.E., Gibbs
B.M. ‘Comparison of the explosion characteristics and flame speeds of pulverised coals and
154
HAZARds WiTH LigniTEs
biomass in the ISO standard 1 m3 dust explosion equipment’, Fuel 151: 91–101 (2015)
[10] Woskoboenko F. ‘Explosibility of Victorian brown coal dust’, Fuel 67: 1062–1068 (1988)
[11] Klippel A., Scheid M., Krause U. ‘Investigations into the influence of dustiness on dust
explosions’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26: 1616–1626 (2013)
[12] Continillo G., Crescitelli S., Furno E., Napolitano F., Russo G. ‘Coal dust explosions in a
spherical bomb’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 4: 223–229 (1991)
[13] Mittal M. ‘Limiting oxygen concentration for coal dusts for explosion hazard analysis and
safety’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 26: 1106–1112 (2013)
[14] Torrent J.G., Fuchs J.C., Borrajo J.L. ‘On the combustion mechanism of coal dust in the
presence of firedamp’, Combustion and Flame 87: 371–374 (1991)
[15] Fletcher, M. Digging People Up for Coal – A History of Yallourn, Melbourne University
Press (2002)
[16] http://www.virtualyallourn.com/node/27140
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/27/world/178-miners-feared-dead-in-yugoslav-explo-
sion.html
[18] Jones J.C., Vais M. ‘Factors influencing the spontaneous heating of low-rank coals’, Jour-
nal of Hazardous Materials 21: 203–212 (1991)
155
CHAPTER 18
LEONARDITE
18.1 Introduction
Leonardite has featured in sections 6.10 and 15.5.1 of this book. In this chapter its oc-
currence, nature and uses will be considered. The ability of leonardites to dissolve in
alkali is their most notable feature. This is due to their humic acid content. Leonardite
is so named after Dr A.G. Leonard, North Dakota’s first State Geologist.
18.2 Sources of leonardite

A selection of such sources is given in Table 18.1.
Table 18.1 sources of leonardite.
LOCATION OF DEPOSIT
DETAILS
AND REFERENCE
Victoria, Australia [1] 400 million tonnes of leonardite at the mine at Maddingley
Significant areas of leonardite within Estevan (see section
Saskatchewan [2]
6.9.3)
Leonardite between layers of clay at a deposit near
Williston (see section 13.10.2). Major mining activity. Also
North Dakota [3]
leonardite mining at Scranton ND [4] and at Harmon (see
section 15.5.3)
Greece [5] Leonardite mines at Achlada and Zeli
Thailand [6] See comments in the main text
Wyoming [7] Major production at Converse Country
New Mexico [8] Production at the San Luis mine
Germany See comments in the main text
Spain [12] Leonardite in the Maestrazgo basin
Leonardite is rich in humic acids as noted above, and consequently finds application
as an organic fertiliser. Leonardite from Maddingley is used for this purpose. It is
noted in reference [2] that leonardite is also believed to exist in British Columbia. The
high quality of leonardite from the deposit near Williston is attributed to the layers of
clay, which have prevented migration of contaminants into the leonardite layers. The
leonardite from near Williston is used inter alia in drilling fluids. Wyoming also has
leonardite reserves.
Reference [5] gives detailed information on the two Greek leonardites including
petrographic analyses. In both the huminite group of macerals by far dominates,
96.7% for Achlada and 93.7% for Zeli (volume basis). They are significantly differ-
ent in liptinite: Zeli 6.3% and Achlada 2.3%. Inertinite was measured in Achlada
156
LEOnARdiTE
only as being 0.6%. The proximate analysis gave ash contents of 56% for Achlada
and 58% for Zeli.
From the second and third rows of the table it is clear that leonardite and lignite often
occur together, and this is true at Mae Moh in Thailand (see section 1.3.1 et seq.) where
the leonardite is viewed as a waste. Mae Moh leonardite with and without carbonisation
has been used on a trial basis as an adsorbent. In reference [7] attention is drawn to the
fact that as a drilling fluid loss additive leonardite replaced quebracho, an extract from
the Quebracho tree, which the US oil industry up to World War II imported from South
America. It is pointed out in [9] that a substance to stain wood has been produced from
New Mexico leonardite.
Leonardite from Germany is the basis of the manufacture of Powhumus®WSG 85, a

plant growth stimulant obtained by alkali extraction from leonardite [10,11]. There are
other ‘commercial leonardites’. The point about uncertainty in rank made in section
5.5.1 and again in section 9.3 is relevant to the Maestrazgo basin (following row), coal
from which has been called ‘black lignite’. There are commercial leonardites originat-
ing in Spain [13].
18.3 Review of selected literature on leonardite

Table 18.2 gives details of some selected research studies of leonardites. Points of inter-
est are brought out in the discussion which follows.
Table 18.2 Research investigations on leonardites.
REFERENCE DETAILS
North Dakota leonardite studied alongside a lignite and a peat.
Sufficient difference in humic acid composition between the
[14]
lignite and the leonardite to provide the basis of a distinction
between the two
Leonardite from North Dakota. Humic acid analysis alongside
[15]
that of a lignite from the Maestrazgo basin (see Table 18.1)
Pyrolysis of a North Dakota leonardite to form an activated
[16]
carbon
Three North Dakota lignites and two others examined by thermal
[17]
analysis in air
Leonardite from Thailand, seen as a waste (see Table 18.1, row
[18] 3 and comments thereon). Carbonisation to make an adsorbent
product
In the work in the first row, the peat was readily distinguishable from the lignite and the
leonardite by its higher proportions of oxygen-containing functional groups in the hu-
mic acids, including carboxyl and phenol. Even so, as pointed out in the table the lignite
and the leonardite could be distinguished from each other. The work in the second row
157
has a similar theme: humic acid analyses of a lignite and a leonardite. Anomalously,
in this work the humic acid from the leonardite was less oxidised than that from the
lignite, though as the two were from different deposits this is probably insignificant.
The leonardite humic acids contained more high molecular weight material than did
those from the lignite. In the thermal analysis work (row 4) each lignite examined in
the thermogravimetric unit displayed two peaks. Across the five, the first peak began
at a temperature in the range 246–308°C and the second peak in the range 391–437°C.
Overlap of devolatilisation and combustion, each with its kinetic scheme, is likely to
be the origin of the behaviour whereby there are two maxima in the thermogravimetric
trace. The following row is concerned with leonardite from Thailand, pyrolysed at
temperatures up to 800°C to make an adsorbent material. The effect reported in section
12.3.2 for carbonisation of a Baori lignite was reported for the Thai leonardite: a lower
surface area at the highest carbonisation temperatures. The leonardite chars in [18] had
surface areas up to 66 m2 g–1.

Clearly the value of leonardites is in their humic acid content, which makes them suita-
ble for their primary applications as organic fertilisers and in drilling fluids as loss ad-
ditives. Distinction is not always made between leonardite deposits and upper layers of
lignite deposits showing some oxidation, and whilst the former is a resource the latter
is not generally seen as being although, as we saw in relation to the Mae Moh deposit
in Thailand, it can be put to use.
18.5 References
[1] http://www.hiwtc.com/photo/products/10/00/13/1307.jpg
[2] Hoffman G.L., Nikols D.J., Stuhec S., Wilson R.A. Evaluation of the Leonardite (Humalite)
Resources of Alberta, Open File Report 1993-18, Alberta Research Council
[3] http://www.leonarditeproducts.com/AboutUs.aspx
[4] Minerals Yearbook 2007, Volume 2 Area Reports, Domestic, US Department of the Interior
[5] Kalaitzidis S., Papazisimou S., Giannouli A., Bouzinos A., Christanis K. ‘Preliminary
comparative analyses of two Greek leonardites’, Fuel 82: 859–861 (2003)
[6] Katanyoo S., Naksata W., Sooksamiti P., Thiansem S., Arquero O-R. ‘Adsorption of zinc
ions on leonardite prepared from coal waste’, Oriental Journal of Chemistry 28: 373–378
(2012)
[7] Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management Casper Field Office, Wyoming (2004)
[8] http://mines.findthedata.com/d/p/Leonardite
[9] Shomaker J.W., Hiss W.L. ‘Humate mining in north western New Mexico’, New Mexico
Geological Society 25th Field Conference, Ghost Ranch, NM, pp. 333–336 (1974)
[10] http://www.humintech.com/001/agriculture/products/powhumus.html
158
LEOnARdiTE
[11] Danuta Sugier D., Kołodziej B., Bielińsk E. ‘The effect of leonardite application on Arnica
montana yielding and chosen chemical properties and enzymatic activity of the soil’, Journal
of Geochemical Exploration 129: 76–81 (2013)
[12] Olivella M.A., Gorchs R., de las Heras F.X.C. ‘Origin and distribution of biomarkers in
the sulphur rich Utrillas coal basin – Teruel mining district – Spain’, Organic Geochemistry
37: 1727–1735 (2006)
[13] Cavani L., Ciavatta C., Gessa C. ‘Identification of organic matter from peat, leonardite and
lignite fertilisers using humification parameters and electrofocusing’, Bioresource Technology
86: 45–52 (2003)
[14] Francioso O., Sanchez-Cortes S., Tugnolic V., Marzadoria C., Ciavatta C. Spectroscopic
study (DRIFT SERS and 1H NMR) of peat, leonardite and lignite humic substances, Journal
of Molecular Structure 565: 481–485 (2001)
[15] Garcia D., Cegarra J., Abad M. ‘Comparison between alkaline and decomplexing reagents
to extract humic acids from low rank coals’, Fuel Processing Technology 48: 51–60 (1996)
[16] Fuel and Energy Abstracts September 1995, p. 335
[17] Francioso O., Montecchio D., Gioacchini P., Ciavatta C. ‘Thermal analysis (TG–DTA) and
isotopic characterization (13C–15N) of humic acids from different origins’, Applied Geochemis-
try 20: 537–544 (2005)
[18] Chammui Y., Sooksamiti P., Naksata W., Thiansem S., Arqueropanyo O. ‘Removal of
arsenic from aqueous solution by adsorption on leonardite’, Chemical Engineering Journal
240: 202–210 (2014)
159
CHAPTER 19
EXAMPLES OF CARBON CAPTURE AND
STORAGE (CCS) AT LIGNITE-UTILISING
PLANTS
19.1 Introduction
Carbon mitigation has featured in a number of previous sections of this book including
4.3. It was also noted that such reduction is one of the motivations for use of super-
critical steam in power generation. This chapter is concerned with lignite-fired plants
which use CCS or are developing it, and these are few and far between. None of the ND
or TX plants covered in Chapter 6 carries out carbon capture at this time. Plans for CCS
at Antelope Valley ND (see section 6.2.4) were cancelled [1] although plans for CCS at
South Heart ND are on track (see Table 19.1).
19.2 Examples
Table 19.1 gives some examples of carbon capture at lignite-utilising enterprises.
Table 19.1 Carbon capture and storage at lignite-fired utilities.

CO2 capture by Shell Global Cansolv at
Boundary Dam, Saskatchewan [2] one of the several power production units
comprising the power plant
Quintana South Heart Project, North Dakota IGCC. Carbon capture expected to begin in
[4–6] 2018
Hazelwood, Victoria, Australia [7] (see Demonstration project. CO2 capture by the
section 10.2.2 et seq.) locally developed UNO Mark 3 process
Schwarze Pumpe power plant, Germany (see
section 4.3 et seq.) [8]
The entry in the first row gives details of carbon capture at Boundary Dam additional to
those in section 6.9.2. Shell Global Cansolv involves reacting the carbon dioxide in the
post-combustion gases with an amine [3], the chemistry being quite classical:
CO2 + 2(R-NH2) → R-NHCOO – + R-NH3+

and a modified chemical equation applies for a tertiary amine. The simplicity of the above
however does less than justice to the Shell Global Cansolv approach, which as well as
being applied in ways most suitable for particular situations enables the carbon dioxide
to be regenerated and used in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or, if that is not its intended
destiny, to be collected in readiness for sequestration. At Boundary Dam, where capture
160
EXAMPLEs OF CARBOn CAPTuRE And sTORAgE (CCs) AT LigniTE-uTiLising PLAnTs
began in October 2014, most of the 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide captured over the
first year will be directed at EOR. It is the world’s first CCS on a full size (not pilot or
demonstration scale) coal-fired plant. That it should be at a lignite-fired plant is in a way
auspicious for the future of lignite utilisation.
At the Quintana South Heart Project (following row) the lignite fuel is gasified to make
hydrogen according to:
C + 2H2O → CO2 + 2H2

and the carbon dioxide is removed at that stage. The hydrogen is burnt in an IGCC
arrangement. At Quintana South Heart performance figures expected for 2018 are as
follows [5]: 175 MW of electricity; hydrogen production at 4.7 million cubic metres
per day; 2.1 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide. Simple calculations will be
attempted for Quintana South Heart to see how the data given fit together. These are
shown in the box.
4.7 × 106 m3 of hydrogen per day will release, using a calorific value of
11 MJ m–3:
4.7 × 106 × 11 × 106 J = 5.2 × 1013 J per day
For round-the-clock operation this is a rate of heat supply of:
[5.2 × 1013/(24 × 3600)] W = 600 MW
Now carbon dioxide capture and removal have their energy requirements and
this obviously reduces the overall efficiency of an IGCC process. Such energy
has to be deducted from that which becomes the saleable product of the power
plant. Details and practices vary, and so therefore do overall efficiencies.
There is no generic value for the efficiency of an IGCC plant with CCS. What
is clear is that the efficiency of an IGCC process without CCS is measurably
higher than that of one with CCS, and that the difference depends inter alia on
the electricity production rate. Now using the 175 MW of electricity reported
for Quintana South Heart and the 600 MW of heat calculated above, the
efficiency would be:
(175/600) × 100% = 29%
and this, depending on the energy requirements of CCS as noted, is in the

correct neighbourhood. The matter of losses through carbon dioxide capture is
further examined in section 19.3.
Quintana South Heart is an example of pre-combustion capture of carbon dioxide. Its

intended use is EOR for which pipelining will be needed. The compression which this
requires has a not insignificant energy requirement.
161
At Hazelwood (next row) carbon dioxide removal is by contact with a solution of potas-
sium carbonate, effecting conversion to the bicarbonate according to:
K 2CO3(aq) + H2O(l) + CO2(g) → 2KHCO3(aq)

Now the solubility of potassium carbonate in water at 40°C is 117 g per 100 g water.
That of potassium bicarbonate at the same temperature is 47.5 g per 100 g water. In the
chemical equation above, therefore, there is movement towards slurry conditions, and
it is in the form of a slurry that the bicarbonate is concentrated by means of a cyclone.
The carbon dioxide on the left-hand side of the chemical equation above has been very
effectively ‘captured’ in what, as noted in the table, is called the UNO Mark 3 process.
There is also activity at Hazelwood into pipeline transfer to offshore storage sites of
carbon dioxide not having been so captured.
In moving to Schwarze Pumpe on the following row, we have to note that its operator
Vattenfall have ceased all activity into carbon capture [9]. Capture at Schwarze Pumpe
was to have involved oxy-fuel combustion [8]. In oxy-fuel combustion the fuel is supplied
with oxygen, nitrogen having been removed from the oxidant supply. The post-combus-
tion gas is therefore composed entirely of carbon dioxide plus water, the latter having of
course originated from the lignite’s own moisture content. The flue gas is therefore more
concentrated in carbon dioxide than that from combustion with air, and separation of the
water is very easy, relying only on elementary dew point principles. The carbon dioxide
can then be stored for subsequent sequestration, use in EOR or whatever.
19.3 Electrical output penalty

The loss of output of power due to the requirements of CCS were examined above for
an IGCC plant. Calculated results for conventional lignite-fired power station perfor-
mance are given in [9]. Across six sets of conditions leading to power ranging from
527 to 569 MW (mid range value 548 MW) the daily capture of carbon dioxide was
5000 tonnes, representing about 35% capture. The electricity penalty for capture of one
tonne was in the range 233–284 kW-hours, a mid range value 259 kW-hours. Using the
mid range values, the proportion of the electricity generated required for capture is:
[5000 × 0.259 MW-hours/(548 × 24 MW-hours)] = 0.1 (10%)

In many cases the penalty is considerably higher than this. Reference [10] states that
16% is common. This figure is for capture only: sequestration will obviously add to it.
The ‘electricity penalty of capture’ does not equate to the electricity required for cap-
ture. Regeneration of the amine reagents requires steam, therefore there is less steam
for generation which consequently drops [11].

Removal of carbon dioxide from flue gases is important as the world moves towards
greater control of carbon dioxide emissions. Such techniques will be greatly helped by
162
EXAMPLEs OF CARBOn CAPTuRE And sTORAgE (CCs) AT LigniTE-uTiLising PLAnTs
improved efficiencies of combustion, as already noted, and one wonders whether that is
where there is really the most promise. The suspension of CCS research by Vattenfall
was noted above. To this we can add that RWE Power has put on hold its development
of CCS at Hurth [12]. To interpret this in broad terms is difficult, but from what has
been said in this paragraph one might speculate that Germany, long a leader in mat-
ters relating to lignite utilisation, is heading for the ‘increased combustion efficiency’
approach to carbon mitigation. It is in any case clear that newly installed lignite-fired
power plants in Germany will use supercritical steam.
19.5 References
[1] https://www.lignite.com/mines-plants/power-plants/antelope-valley-station/
[2] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/project/boundary-dam-integrated-carbon-cap-
ture-and-sequestration-demonstration-project
[3] http://www.shell.com/global/products-services/solutions-for-businesses/globalsolutions/
shell-cansolv/shell-cansolv-solutions/co2-capture.html
[4] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/project/quintana-south-heart-project
[5] http://www.zeroco2.no/projects/south-heart-igcc
[6] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Quintana_South_Heart_Power_Project
[7] http://www.co2crc.com.au/research/uno_mk3_process.html
[8] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/clean-coal/vattenfall-ditches-carbon-cap-
ture-and-storage-research
[9] Nikolopoulos N., Violidakis I., Karampinis E., Agraniotis M., Bergins C., Grammelis P.,
Kakaras E. ‘Report on comparison among current industrial scale lignite drying technologies
(A critical review of current technologies)’, Fuel 155: 86–114 (2015)
[10] Hammond G.P., Spargo J. ‘The prospects for coal-fired power plants with carbon capture
and storage: a UK perspective’, Energy Conversion and Management 86: 476–489 (2014)
[11] http://www.rh.gatech.edu/news/60072/steam-process-removes-carbon-dioxide-regener-
ate-capture-materials
[12] http://www.zeroco2.no/projects/rwe-igcc-plant-with-co2-storage
163
CHAPTER 20
CO-COMBUSTION OF LIGNITES WITH
OTHER FUELS
20.1 Introduction
There are many examples of co-combustion of lignites with other solid fuels. With car-
bon dioxide emission reduction such a pressing issue internationally, the most impor-
tant is co-combustion of biomass with lignite. The basis of this was explained in section
4.2.4, where the co-firing of lignite with paper sludge at Frimmersdorf was described.
In this chapter co-combustion is examined more widely.
20.2 Co-combustion with biomass

Table 20.1 gives details of some such enterprises, and comments on it follow below.
Table 20.1 Examples of lignite–biomass co-combustion.

Five lignites, including one from Tuncbilek and one
from Elbistan, co-combusted with sunflower seed
Turkey [1]
shells in a thermogravimetric analyser (TGA) at
temperatures up to 900°C
Spruce sawdust co-combustion with lignites (one
Bosnia and Herzegovina [2]
from Kakanj: see section 5.8.2)
Kardia power plant (see section 5.3.6): proposal for
Greece [3,4] co-firing lignite with cardoon (Cynara cardunculus),
a thistle-like plant
The possibility of co-firing Leigh Creek coal (see
South Australia [6]
section 10.3) with olive husks examined
In the work in row 1, the effect of the biomass on the lignite burnout yields was the point
of greatest interest. Effects varied across the set of samples studied, in one case increasing
the degree of burnout but for the other four decreasing it. The matter of ‘unburnt carbon’
in the ash from coal combustion is of course a highly classical one appertaining to such
things as travelling grate stokers and their simulation in a pot furnace, and the results in
[1] are relevant to that for whatever combustion plant is proposed for the co-combustion
on a full scale. Two lignites were examined in the work described in the following row
although one is classified as a brown coal. It was noted in sections 5.1.1 and 5.8.1 that
the distinction persists respectively in the Czech Republic and in the former Yugoslavia.
The lignite other than that from Kakanj was one used at Tuzla (see section 5.8.2). For the
Karanj coal sulphur dioxide emissions were measured, and the well-known effect report-
ed in section 5.3.3 for a Greek lignite – the trapping of sulphur dioxide as a solid sulphate
by the calcium content of the lignite – was observed. This effect does not usually occur
164
CO-COMBusTiOn OF LigniTEs WiTH OTHER FuELs
to the full extent possible, that is, the calcium is not quantitatively sulphated. With the
Karanj coal it was found that the extent of sulphation was higher in the presence of the
biomass, a favourable effect reducing sulphur dioxide emissions. The reason for this is
probably the effect of the biomass on the combustion temperature.
Choice of biomass is one point of interest in the activity directed at the Kardia power
plant (following row). When biomass is being used in electricity generation the regu-
latory bodies are entitled to know its origin and, if it involves the felling of trees, to
satisfy themselves that new plantings are replacing whatever is harvested as a fuel [5].
Cardoon (Cynara cardunculus) for such use in Greece is being cultivated for the pur-
pose, not reaped from the wild, but its occurrence is by no means restricted to Greece.
Olive husks were the form of biomass considered for use with Leigh Creek coal (final
row of the table). It is noted in [6] that olive husks are dense and, having naturally a
low water content, have a calorific value about the same as that of the Leigh Creek
coal. These two factors will minimise the need for plant modification in the event that
co-firing is adopted. (See also section 11.3.)
20.3 Co-combustion with solid wastes

Research investigations into this include one involving Mae Moh lignite from Thai-
land, which has featured several times previously in this book. In [7] Mae Moh lignite
is co-fired with municipal solid waste (MSW) in a test scale fluidised bed. MSW was
present at up to 40% by weight. With increasing proportions of MSW the bed temper-
ature decreases, whilst the temperature above the bed increases. Clearly this is due to
devolatilisation of the MSW constituents within the bed and their burning above the
bed. Components of the MSW displaying ready devolatilisation will include paper and
cardboard, and quite possibly products above the bed will be accompanied by hydro-
carbon gases originating from breakdown of the plastics. As recorded in section 7.4.2,
Mae Moh lignite is high in sulphur. There is no reason why MSW should be, so one
expects that co-combustion will reduce the sulphur dioxide yield. This was indeed
so, reductions of up to 18% in the sulphur dioxide being observed when MSW was
co-combusted with the lignite. This is a significant bonus.
Notwithstanding the total absence of coal-fired power plants in Nepal referred to in

section 8.4, there has been interest there in making solid fuels by combining a lignite
with combustible solid waste [8]. Briquettes were manufactured from blends of lignite
and polythene, the latter simulating the plastic component of MSW. Polythene was
present at up to 30% by weight, and briquetting pressure was 3.12 tons per square cm
(≡ 275 MPa), and this can be compared with briquetting pressures given in section 11.2.
The calorific value of the briquettes rose with polythene content. They were binderless
and their mechanical durability was not high.
20.4 Co-combustion with higher rank coals

The co-firing of Texas lignite with sub-bituminous coal from Powder River at two
power plants operated by Luminant was discussed in section 6.4.4. Co-firing of lignites
165
and bituminous coals is described in [9], which uses p.f. in a furnace producing 15 kW
of heat. The work uses an Indonesian lignite and bituminous coals from Indonesia and
Canada and emphasis is on NOx production. Co-combustion of bituminous coal with
lignite leads to a drop in NOx because of the reducing atmosphere created by the vola-
tiles from the lignite. To the above should be added the point made in section 11.2.1 that
higher ranks coals are sometimes used as binders in lignite briquettes.
20.5 Co-combustion with peat

This was examined in [10], where a Newfoundland peat and Canadian lignite were
co-fired as a blend in a pilot scale furnace. The peat is much lower in ash than the
lignite (see section 21.4) therefore co-firing with lignite did reduce the ash resulting
from combustion but not in the simple way that might have been predicted from blend
composition as other effects were operating. These include the formation of calcium
chloride as a result of the unusually high (0.2%) chlorine content of the peat.

One can hope for developments in co-firing lignites with other fuels. The importance
of co-firing with biomass has already been emphasised, and co-firing with MSW has
the potential to expand. Several power plants co-firing MSW with higher rank coal are
already up and running and supplying to the grid [11].
20.7 References
[1] Haykiri-Acma H., Yaman S. ‘Effect of biomass on burnouts of Turkish lignites during
co-firing’, Energy Conversion and Management 50: 2422–2427 (2009)
[2] Kazagic A., Smajevic I. ‘Synergy effects of co-firing wooden biomass with Bosnian coal’,
Energy 34: 699–707 (2009)
[3] Karampinis E., Nikolopoulos N., Nikolopoulos A., Grammelis P., Kakaras E. ‘Numerical
investigation Greek lignite/cardoon co-firing in a tangentially fired furnace’, Applied Energy
97: 514–524 (2012)
[4] http://www.lignite.gr/abstracts/c_12GreekLignite.htm
[5] Jones J.C. Global Trends and Patterns in Carbon Mitigation, Ventus Publishing, Fredricks-
berg (2013)
[6] Dally B., Mullinger P. Utilization of Olive Husks for Energy Generation: A Feasibility
Study Final Report, South Australian State Energy Research Advisory Committee (2002)
[7] Suksankraisorn K., Patumsawa S., Vallikul P., Fungtammasan B., Accary A. ‘Co-com-
bustion of municipal solid waste and Thai lignite in a fluidized bed’, Energy Conversion and
Management 45: 947–962 (2004)
[8] Shrestha A., Singh R.M. ‘Energy recovery from municipal solid waste by briquetting pro-
cess: evaluation of physical and combustion properties of the fuel’, Nepal Journal of Science
and Technology 12: 238–241 (2011)
166
CO-COMBusTiOn OF LigniTEs WiTH OTHER FuELs
[9] Moon C., Sung Y., Eom S., Choi G. ‘NOx emissions and burnout characteristics of bitumi-
nous coal, lignite, and their blends in a pulverized coal-fired furnace’, Experimental Thermal
and Fluid Science 62: 99–108 (2015)
[10] Shao Y., Wang J., Xu C., Zhu J., Preto F., Tourigny G., Badour C., Li H. ‘An experimental
and modeling study of ash deposition behaviour for co-firing peat with lignite’, Applied Energy
88: 2635–2640 (2011)
[11] Jones J.C. Thermal Processing of Wastes, Ventus Publishing, Fredricksberg (2010)
167
CHAPTER 21
COMPARISONS WITH PEAT
21.1 Introduction
In the earliest parts of the book it was explained how peat is the precursor to coal, and
how in people’s minds a similarity is naturally perceived between lignite and brown
coal. This chapter will compare peat point by point with lignites. Again, research liter-
ature will be drawn on.
21.2 Petrographic comparison

Maceral formation is commonly seen as the result of organic metamorphism as ex-
plained in section 1.2. The maceral concept is however sometimes applied to peats, not
arbitrarily but on the basis of observation. For example [1], an examination of a particu-
lar peat from Sumatra, revealed huminite macerals. These conformed in every respect
to the criteria for classification. Literature pre-dating [1], for example [2,3], refers to the
huminite content of peats. A peat from India when petrographically examined gave a
vitrinite reflectance of 0.22 [4].
In [5] there is discussion of an immature brown coal and a peat which occur in the same
basin in China. For 13 peat samples from this basin and for four brown coal samples,
breakdown into maceral groups is given. For the peat samples the huminite content is
in the range 75–98% and the reflectance in the range 0.10–0.19%. For the brown coal
samples the huminite reflectances are in the range 0.28–0.33%. Distinction of a peat
from a brown coal by huminite reflectance is therefore clear. The acceptability of this
view is increased by the fact that in the work under discussion the peat and the brown
coal are from the same basin, as noted.
The authors of [5] go on to define another maceral group which they call liptohuminite,
distinguished from huminite on the basis of its higher reflectance and its colour when
viewed in white light. There is an important further distinction when microfluores-
cence photometry is applied. The maceral sporinite29, a member of the liptinite group,
is capable of fluorescing when exposed to short-wavelength visible or u.v. light. That
means that it emits light, and the fluorescence intensity decreases with rank. In [5] the
fluorescence intensities for the liptohuminite macerals were higher than for the humi-
nite macerals. Across the peat samples the percentage of liptohuminite ranged from 1
to 20. It was determined for only one of the brown coals, at 2%.
Sporinite is in the liptinite group of macerals. It has been noted [6] that in hydrogenation
sporinite reacts very sluggishly in contrast to resinite. This has been widely observed
and was commented upon in relation to lignite from Martin Lake TX (see section 6.4.5).
The effect is exacerbated by the fact that Martin Lake lignite is 13% inertinite.
29 sporinite features in schemes for petrographic classification of coals including reference [26] in
Chapter 2.
168
COMPARisOns WiTH PEAT
In reference [7] peat and lignite from the same basin in Spain are examined, largely
from the point of view of the oxygenated organic compounds they contain. There was
found to be no non-arbitrary demarcation between the peat and the lignite. This is ex-
pressed in [7] by the term ‘gradient in maturity’.
There is a great deal of subsea peat. One place where it has been gathered in sample
quantities and examined [8] is the North Sea, off the Shetland Islands, also a major
scene of oil and gas production.
The timescale of formation of peat reserves is millennia (e.g. [9]) in contrast to that
of the formation of lignites, which is expressed in mega years (My or Ma) [10]. As
examples, Bełchatów lignite belongs to the Miocene epoch [11], which was from 5.3
to 23 million years ago [12]. Louisiana lignite is more mature, belonging to an epoch
bracketed by time from 36 to 66 Ma [13]. Either of these is many orders of magnitude
higher than the time required for peat formation. Lignites from a Miocene deposit
in Kalimantan, Indonesia when examined petrographically [14] were deemed to have
advanced along the peat-to-lignite sequence only to a partial degree. The lignite in
Tuscany referred to in section 5.9 is dated 8.5–9 Ma, which classifies it as Miocene.
A lignite has never ‘arrived’: at most it has coalified to a degree where its distinction
from sub-bituminous becomes unclear. The uncertainty in classification on the basis
of age has been noted in relation to Beauchêne Island, one of the Falklands group,
where a ‘lignitic’ deposit is, at an estimated age of 1250 years, declared to be ‘several
hundred times too young to be a true lignite’ [15]. It was noted in Chapter 3 that the
Clovis people had used lignite about 15 000 years ago. This is about the timescale for
peat deposit formation. The lignite at Legler, New Jersey also co-exists with peat [16]
and has sometimes not been distinguished from the peat in descriptions of the deposit.
The lignite shows variations in colour, probably not a genuine lithotype effect but due
to high mineral contents. It was observed that layers of clay above or below those of
lignite contain some plant debris. Peat and lignite co-exist at many other places includ-
ing Hula, Israel (section 7.9).
21.3 Calorific values and combustion

As is clear from Table 1.1, the calorific value of a lignite depends on the extent of mois-
ture loss from the initial condition in the bed. The same is true of peat, which in the
bed-moist state can have a moisture content of 90%. Table 20.1 gives some reported
calorific values for peats.
169
Table 21.1 Calorific value of selected peats.
ORIGIN OF THE PEAT AND CONDITION OF THE PEAT AND ITS CALORIFIC
REFERENCE VALUE
Canada [17] Fully dried: 22.5 MJ kg–1
Finland [18] Fully dried: 23.8 MJ kg–1
Canada [19] Moisture content 25%: 15.9 MJ kg–1
Ireland [20] Moisture content 25%: 16.3 MJ kg–1
Indiana, USA [21] Dry: 20.9 MJ kg–1
The calorific values are of course relevant to power generation. Power generation with
peat occurs, for example, in Ireland [22] where fluidised beds are used for the combus-
tion. There has been electricity generation from peat in Finland since the 1970s, when it
replaced imported fuel. For example [23], at Ilomantsi in Finland, near the border with
Russia, there is electricity generation at 3.5 MW from the co-firing of peat with wood
chips in a CHP arrangement. Fuel pellets comprising peat and wood waste are also
made there. Internationally there is significant peat briquette production [24].
Peat, like lignite, is usually burnt in pulverised form when used to raise electricity (al-
though, of course, fluidised beds can be used with either). A hammer mill can be used to
pulverise peat [25]. Loesche (see sections 4.2.8 and 4.3), a major supplier of mills for pul-
verising lignite in Germany, also manufacture a mill which can be used to grind peat [26].
21.4 Ash-forming constituents

It is clear from Table 1.1 as well as from certain subsequent parts of this book that
lignites can be very high in ash. That from Mae Moh in Thailand is an obvious ex-
ample. In considering the ash contents of peats vis-à-vis those of lignites, it has to
be remembered that the inorganic substances in peat are only those from the original
plant deposition [27]. In coals of any rank, that can have been added to over geological
time by marine incursion or by volcanic debris. Proximate analysis figures for peat are
available in the literature. One such set of figures gives an ash content of 4.17% for a
Russian peat in air-dried condition [28]. Another gives 3% for a Canadian peat [29]. In
reference [27] it is noted that, in electricity generation using peat, slag formation can
be sufficient to necessitate shut-down. Section 5.3.6 can be consulted for a comparison
with such behaviour with lignites. Briquetting of peat is widely practised.
21.5 Carbonisation and gasification potential

Activated carbons from peat are commonplace. Peat can of course be used to make syn-
thesis gas which can then be converted to liquid by F-T. The view that liquid fuels from
peat via synthesis gas and F-T is likely to be viable in Finland has been expressed [30].
A Finnish peat, a Rhenish lignite and pine sawdust were examined for gasification
performance in a fluidised bed in work reported in [31]. Gasification was in air and
170
steam at temperatures up to 1000°C. Peat and biomass are the only locally available
fuels in Finland. Depending on the proportion of air and the reacting pressure, carbon
conversions with the peat were up to 95%. They were about the same as this for the
sawdust and the lignite. Yields of gas were up to 3.5 m3 per kg of peat, 2.5 m3 per kg
of sawdust and 4 m3 per kg of lignite. There were significant amounts of methane and
of C2 hydrocarbons in the gaseous products, which obviously had the effect of raising
their calorific values. With all three starting materials there was tar production, as high
as 15% for the peat at the lower end of the temperature range; the tar yield with lignite
was lower though not insignificant, and there is a basis for comparison with the liquid
products from Victorian brown coal gasification described in section 13.2.
21.6 Conversion to liquid fuels

The suitability of peat for conversion to liquid with carbon monoxide is discussed in
[32]. This corresponds to conversion of lignite to liquid with carbon monoxide and wa-
ter, discussed in section 14.5.3; the peat as examined experimentally in [32] was 90%
moisture, so this provided the water reagent. The conclusion was expressed that the
most important factor in determining the suitability of a particular peat for conversion
by this means is calorific value. Hydrogenation has also been looked into. For example,
in [33] a Canadian peat treated with hydrogen gas gave 76% conversion to liquids with
asphaltenes and oil in the products (cf. Table 14.2).
It is clear from the preceding two sections, brief though they are, that there has been in-
terest in these methods for peats concurrently with their interest in relation to lignites.
Production of chemicals follows.
21.7 Wax from peat

Table 21.2 gives details of some investigations into obtaining wax from peat.
Table 21.2 Examples of wax production from peat.
ORIGIN OF THE PEAT AND

DETAILS
REFERENCE
Solvent extraction of wax from air-dried peat. Across
Minnesota, USA [34]
a set of five peats wax yields ≈ 3%
Wax deposition during drying at a peat-fired power
Finland [35]
plant
Finland [36] Wax yields of 35–60 kg per tonne of peat
In [35] it was found that the melting points of the waxes had a dependence on the solvent
used to extract them meaning, of course, that the composition also had such a dependence.
There is continuity between the contents of the second row of the table and the mention ear-
lier in the chapter of electricity production from peat in Finland. Oxygenated compounds
– carboxylic acids, phenols and alcohols – were found to dominate in the wax composition.
171
21.8 Supercritical extractions

Work from about 30 years ago [37] describes supercritical extraction of chemicals from
peat sourced in Minnesota. The fluids were water, methanol–water mixtures and ac-
etone–water mixtures. Yields were in the range 19–50%. When peat originating in
Canada was treated with supercritical water the products were oil and gas, distribution
depending on whether a catalyst was or was not used [38]. A product identified as being
particularly useful was the gas obtained when the process was catalytic, which had a
calorific value of 27.7 MJ kg–1. The gas produced under non-catalytic conditions had a
calorific value on a weight basis only about a tenth of this.
21.9 Hazards with peat

Peat can undergo spontaneous heating, in which case it displays the same phenomenol-
ogy that lignites do [39]. Fires frequently occur in beds of peat [40]. The propensity of
dried peat to dust explosions has been noted in Finland [41].
21.10 White peat

The term possibly originates from the fact that such peat is to be found close to the
White Sea off Russia [42]. White peat is applied to horticulture [43] and is less ad-
vanced in conversion from the original plant deposition than most peats.
21.11 Sapropels
The precursor to a sapropelic lignite, several of which have featured in earlier parts of
the book, is not peat but sapropel (Greek: sapros ‘decayed’, pelos ‘mud’). This is formed
from aquatic plants and from other freshwater life including plankton. One respect in
which sapropels differ from peats is their lower humic acid content [44]. In Belarus the
reserves of 3 billion cubic metres of sapropel are seen as an important resource [45].
There are large amounts in Russia, where it is used as a fertiliser as it is in many other
countries including the UK. The timescale of formation of sapropels is the same as that
for peats (section 21.2). For example, a range of sapropels from beneath the Black Sea
have been judged to be between 3000 and 7000 years old [46]. The calorific value of a
sapropel from Lithuania when dried has been reported as being 20.6 MJ kg–1 [47].

With reference to the above two sections it is clear again that what has been done for
lignites has, not necessarily to the same degree, been done for peat. That is the conclu-
sion a reader studying this chapter will reach. Yet another similarity is that lignites and
peats are both used in drilling fluids [48]. Sapropels have also been so used [49].
172
21.13 References
[1] http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/286/63.abstract
[2] Vačeva S.P. ‘Reflectance of macerals from bright brown coal, Pernik basin’, Fuel 58: 55–58
(1979)
[3] McCartney J.T., Teichmüller M. ‘Classification of coals according to degree of coalification
by reflectance of the vitrinite component’, Fuel 51: 64–68 (1972)
[4] Mukherjee A.K., Alam M.M., Ghose S. ‘Microhardness characteristics of Indian coal and
lignite’, Fuel 68: 670–673 (1989)
[5] Kuili J., Yong Q. ‘Coal petrology and anomalous coalification of Middle and Late Pleisto-
cene peat and soft brown coal from the Tengchong Basin, Western Yunnan, People’s Republic
of China’, International Journal of Coal Geology 13: 143–170 (1989)
[6] Cronauer D.C., Joseph J.T., Davis A., Quick J.C., Luckie P.T. ‘The beneficiation of Martin
Lake Texas lignite’, Fuel 71: 65–73 (1992)
[7] del Rio J.C., Gonzalez-Vila F.J., Martin F. ‘Variation in the content and distribution of
biomarkers in two closely situated peat and lignite deposits’, Organic Geochemistry 18: 67–78
(1992)
[8] Hoppe G. ‘Submarine peat in the Shetland Islands’, Geografiska Annaler Series A, Physical
Geography 47: 195–203 (1965)
[9] Towards an Assessment of the State of UK Peatlands, Report No. 445, Joint Nature Conser-
vation Committee, Peterborough (2011)
[10] http://www.geosociety.org/TimeUnits/viewComments.asp
[11] Drobniak A., Mastalerz M. ‘Chemical evolution of Miocene wood: example from the
Belchatow brown coal deposit, central Poland’, International Journal of Coal Geology 66:
157–178 (2006)
[12] Levin H.L. The Earth Through Time, 10th edition, John Wiley (2013)
[13] Lignite Resources in Louisiana, Public Information Series No. 5, Louisiana Geological
Survey (2006)
[14] Dwiantoro M., Notosiswoyo S., Anggayana K., Widayat A. ‘Paleoenvironmental interpre-
tation based on lithotype and macerals variation from Ritan’s lignite, Upper Kutai Basin, East
Kalimantan’, Procedia Earth and Planetary Science 6: 155–162 (2013)
[15] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v309/n5969/abs/309617a0.html
[16] Rachelle L.D. ‘Palynology of the Legler lignite: a deposit in the tertiary Cohansey forma-
tion of New Jersey, USA’, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 22: 225–252 (1976)
[17] Oren M.J., MacKay G.D.M. ‘Peat–water–oil mixture as a low cost liquid fuel’, Fuel 69:
1326–1327 (1980)
[18] Björnbom E., Olsson B., Karlsson O. ‘Thermochemical refining of raw peat prior to lique-
faction’, Fuel 65: 1051–1056 (1986)
[19] Haanel B.F. Final Report of the Peat Committee, Governments of the Dominion of Canada
and the Province of Ontario (n.d.)
173
[20] O’Donnell S., New Scientist 4 July 1974, pp. 18–19

[21] Lyons R.E., Carpenter C.C. ‘A chemical examination of and calorimetric test of Indiana
peats’, Journal of the American Chemical Society 30: 1307–1311 (1908)
[22] Sarkki J., Griffin F., Scully S., Flynn T. ‘CFB technology in ESB peat burning power
stations’, 21st International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion (2012)
[23] CHP and Pellet Factory in Ilomantsi, Infocard 5, Northern Wood Heat (n.d.)
[24] http://www.peatsociety.org/peatlands-and-peat/global-peat-resources-country
[25] Wahlstrom F., Kortela U. ‘Combustion stabilisation and improvement of the efficiency in
a peat power plant’, Real Time Digital Control Applications (A. Alonso-Concheiro, ed.) pp.
173–182 (1983)
[26] http://en.siringos.com.mx/crushingplant/loesche-coal-grinding-roller-mill.php
[27] Heikkinen R., Laitinen R.S., Patrikainen T., Tiainen M., Virtanen M. ‘Slagging tendency
of peat ash’, Fuel Processing Technology 56: 69–80 (1998)
[28] Kim J.W., Lee H.D., Kim H.S., Park H.Y., Kim S.C. ‘Combustion possibility of low rank
Russian peat as a blended fuel of pulverized coal fired power plant’, Journal of Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry 20: 1752–1760 (2014)
[29] Shao Y., Xu C., Zhu J., Preto F., Wang J., Tourigny G., Badour C., Li H. ‘Ash and chlorine
deposition during co-combustion of lignite and a chlorine-rich Canadian peat in a fluidized
bed – effects of blending ratio, moisture content and sulfur addition’, Fuel 95: 25–34 (2012)
[30] Kirkinen J., Soimakallio S., Makinen T., Savolainen I. ‘Greenhouse impact assessment of
peat-based Fischer–Tropsch diesel life-cycle’, Energy Policy 38: 301–311 (2010)
[31] Kurkela E., Stahlberg P. ‘Air gasification of peat, wood and brown coal in a pressurized
fluidized-bed reactor. I. Carbon conversion, gas yields and tar formation’, Fuel Processing
Technology 31: 1–21 (1992)
[32] Björnbom E., Björnbom P. ‘Some criteria for the selection of peat as a raw material for
liquefaction’, Fuel 67: 1589–1591 (1988)
[33] Cavalier J-C., Chornet E. ‘Fractionation of peat-derived bitumen into oil and asphaltenes’,
Fuel 57: 304–308 (1978)
[34] Spigarelli S.A., Chang F.H., Kumari D. ‘Bitumen and wax yields from wet-carbonized,
hydrolyzed and untreated peats’, International Journal of Coal Geology 8: 123–133 (1987)
[35] Fagernas L., Sipil K. ‘The behaviour of waxy compounds in the drying system of a peat
power plant’, Fuel Processing Technology 21: 189–200 (1989)
[36] Spedding J. ‘Peat’ (Review), Fuel 67: 883–900 (1988)
[37] Scarrah W.P., Scarrah P., Myklebust L. ‘The supercritical fluid extraction of peat using
water and aqueous organic solutions’, Fuel 65: 274–276 (1986)
[38] Xu C., Donald J. ‘Upgrading peat to gas and liquid fuels in supercritical water with cata-
lyst’, Fuel 102: 16–25 (2012)
[39] Jones J.C. ‘The oxidation of peat and its thermal accompaniment’, Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology 45: 223–229 (1989)
174
[40] http://www.environxsolutions.com/about-peat-fires
[41] Eckhoff R. Dust Explosions in the Process Industries: Identification, Assessment and
Control of Dust Hazards, Gulf Professional Publishing (2003)
[42] Filatov N., Pozdnyakov D., Johannessen O.M., Pettersson L.H., Bobylev L.P. White Sea:
Its Marine Environment and Ecosystem Dynamics Influenced by Global Change, Springer
(2007)
[43] http://www.substrate-consulting.com/substrates/peat/
[44] Sokolov G., Szajdak L., Simakina I. ‘Changes in the structure of the nitrogen-containing
compounds of peat-, sapropel- and brown coal-based organic fertilisers’, Agronomy Research
61: 149–160 (2008)
[45] http://www.sectsco.org/EN123/Belarus.asp
[46] Brown S.D., Chiavari G., Ediger V., Fabbri D., Gaines A.F., Galletti G., Karayigit A.I.,
Love G.D., Snape C.E., Sirkecioglu O., Toprak S. ‘Black Sea sapropels: relationship to kero-
gens and fossil fuel precursors’, Fuel 79: 1725–1742 (2000)
[47] Kozlovska J., Valančius K., Petraitis E. ‘Sapropel use as a Biofuel Feasibility Studies’,
Research Journal of Chemical Sciences 2: 29–34 (2012)
[48] http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-107/issue-9/drilling-production/special-re-
port-new-olefin-based-drilling-fluid-improves-operational-environmental-profile.html
[49] Lishtvan I.I., Lozhenitsyna V.I., Lerman A.S., Lobov A.I., Artamonov V.Y. ‘Sapropel
drilling-mud infiltration into a porous medium’, Journal of Engineering Physics 55: 1123–1127
(1988)
175
CHAPTER 22
COMPARISON WITH SUB-BITUMINOUS
COALS
22 .1 Introduction
The previous chapter was concerned with peat, the substance preceding lignite in
the coalification sequence. It was shown how the two are sometimes indistinct, and
that this is so at the boundary between lignite and sub-bituminous coal has already
been mentioned, for example in sections 5.4.3 and 5.5.1. The co-firing of a lignite with
sub-bituminous coal from Powder River Basin was described in section 6.4.4.
22.2 Petrographic composition

Sub-bituminous coals are more mature than lignites. Table 22.1 gives details of some
sub-bituminous coal deposits, with such information as vitrinite reflectance.
Table 22.1 details of selected sub-bituminous coals.
LOCATION DETAILS
Permian (251–299 Ma). Vitrinite reflectance 0.32–0.47%
[1]. Maceral analysis: vitrinite 37–57%; liptinite
Collie, Western Australia 8–14%; inertinite 23–48% [1]. A different source [2]
gives a wider range of vitrinite contents: 26–79%.
Calorific value as received 20 MJ kg–1
Oaklands, New South Wales Permian. Vitrinite reflectance 0.40 [4]
Permian. Vitrinite reflectances ≈ 0.45 [5]. Significant
Talcher, India
sporinite (see section 21.2)
Classifications into lithotypes: ‘dull’, ‘banded dull’,
Central Alberta, Canada
‘banded’, ‘banded bright’, ‘bright’ [6]
Waikato, New Zealand Sub-bituminous coal having vitrinite reflectance 0.4 [7]
Maryvale, New Zealand See comments in the main text
Information on Collie coal in the first row establishes its higher rank than lignite. The
Hardgrove indices of a number of Collie coals and blends thereof have been meas-
ured [3] as being in the range ≈ 48 to 58 when air dried. Coal from Collie is used
at two power stations in Western Australia, with combined capacity approximately
1500 MW. The same contrast with lignites is evident in the case of Oaklands coal in
the following row. Talcher coal (row 3) has been identified as being suitable to make
synthesis gas for ammonia production. Lithotype, and its variation with depth, is used
as a basis for classification with the Canadian coal in the next row, a common factor
with lignites.
176
COMPARisOn WiTH suB-BiTuMinOus COALs
The sub-bituminous coal from Maryvale, New Zealand [8] is particularly high in a
particular maceral of the huminite group, detrogelinite. This is in the range 49.8–53.5%
of the total macerals across a range of four Maryvale coals studied. The term ‘detroge-
linite’ does not feature in reference [26] in Chapter 2, which has been used as a source
for such terminology previously in the book. One has to consider the nature of macerals
generally in clarifying this, in particular the fact that maceral composition changes as
a deposit advances along in degree of coalification. The precursor to detrogelinite is
attrinite/densinite [9] and this does feature in the source previously drawn on. The ar-
bitrariness of terminology in coal petrography has to be justified by two factors. First,
a maceral, unlike its inorganic counterpart a mineral, does not have a precise compo-
sition, a fact to which the present author has drawn attention previously [10]. Secondly,
maceral analysis is by microscopic examination and differences in the appearance of a
particular maceral across ranks of coal might justify a name change. The background
of a maceral over geological time is for many purposes less important than its accurate
description in the present. It is this factor which has led to the differing formulations of
gelification index which have been given in this book.
It sometimes happens at a deposit that there is a boundary between sub-bituminous

coal and lignite [11]. The best example of this is the interface (‘merger’) of the Powder
River Basin with the Fort Union area lignite deposit in Montana [12], for a cartographic
representation of which a reader should go to [13]. Coal from Rosebud County Montana
originates at the Powder River Basin. It has a nameplate capacity of 41.5 MW [14].
Examination of the Energy Information Administration map of ‘Coal-bearing areas of

the United States’30 reveals that a lignite deposit in Colorado is encircled by sub-bitu-
minous coal, the latter forming an annulus around the former. This is in the Denver
basin (see section 13.2). The same map shows a major deposit of sub-bituminous coal
in New Mexico where the boundary with bituminous coal almost coincides with the
state boundary with Colorado. Similarly, at the large sub-bituminous coal reserve at
Kuznetsk in western Siberia there is co-existence with bituminous coal [15].
This section then has related petrographic details for typical sub-bituminous coals to
those for lignites. Carbonisation and gasification follow.
22.3 Carbonisation and gasification

Sub-bituminous coals when carbonised produce a char, not a coke. The distinction is of
course that a coke is hard and fused, and is made by carbonising a suitable bituminous
coal. By ‘suitable’ is meant one with a high coking propensity, which by no means
all bituminous coals have. Activated carbons can be made from sub-bituminous coal.
There have been investigations of UGC at sub-bituminous deposits including that at
Hoe Creek, Wyoming [16]. The gas so manufactured was of composition hydrogen
37.5%, CO 23.5%, methane 5.5%, balance non-combustibles. It is left as an exercise for
the reader to show that such a gas would have a calorific value of 9 MJ m –3.
30 Accessible online.
177
22.4 Coal-bed methane from sub-bituminous coals

There is abundant methane at Powder River [17]. The same is true of some other de-
posits of sub-bituminous coal including that at Waikato (see Table 22.1) [18], where the
methane content is typically 2.5 m3 tonne –1 of coal.
22.5 Conversion to liquid fuels

A Wyoming sub-bituminous coal examined in gaseous hydrogen at 6 MPa in a nickel–
molybdenum catalyst gave a conversion of over 60% [19]. This work has been chosen as
the basis of this section as a brown coal from Loy Yang was treated in the same way for
comparison, and showed a conversion of up to 80%. Conversions were lower for both
when a cobalt–molybdenum catalyst was used.
22.6 Humalite
This is the analogue for sub-bituminous coal of leonardite for lignites, being sub-bi-
tuminous coal partly oxidised. It occurs in Alberta [20] whence the name is derived:
Hum(ic)Al(berta)-ite. There is considerable trade in it as a soil additive. Like lignites
and peats, it is used in the production of drilling fluid additives [21].
22.7 Amounts of lignite and of sub-bituminous coal mined

In the USA sub-bituminous coal well exceeds lignite in production, 47% of the total
tonnage of coal as compared to 7% for lignite [22]. The balance is bituminous with a
very small (0.2%) amount of anthracite. Powder River supplies 90% of the sub-bitumi-
nous coal in the USA [23].
The differential in US production of lignite and sub-bituminous coal to some degree re-
flects world production of the two ranks of coal. It was reported in Chapter 1 that lignite
accounts for 23% of the world’s coal production on a tonnage basis. Sub-bituminous
accounts for about 30% [24].
22.8 Hazards with sub-bituminous coals

They can display spontaneous heating, showing the same criticality behaviour that
lignites and peat do. They can cause dust explosions, and ignition in layers. In each of
these, lignites show greater reactivity attributable to their higher volatile content.

Continuity of geology between the two ranks of coal has been emphasised in this and
previous chapters, and in summing up it is sufficient to comment that this is reflected
in continuity of properties.
178
COMPARisOn WiTH suB-BiTuMinOus COALs
22 .10 References
[1] Mishra H.K. ‘Comparative petrological analysis between the Permian coals of India and
Western Australia: paleoenvironments and thermal history’, Palaeogeography, Palaeoclima-
tology, Palaeoecology 125: 199–216 (1996)
[2] Kershaw J.R., Taylor G.H. ‘Properties of Gondwana coals with emphasis on the Permian
coals of Australia and South Africa’, Fuel Processing Technology 31: 127–168 (1992)
[3] Vuthaluru H.B., Brooke R.J., Zhang D.K., Yan H.M. ‘Effects of moisture and coal blending
on Hardgrove Grindability Index of Western Australian coal’, Fuel Processing Technology 81:
67–76 (2003)
[4] Shiboaka M. ‘Genesis of micrinite in some Australian coals’, Fuel 62: 639–644 (1983)
[5] Mishra H.K., Chandra T.K., Verma R.P. ‘Petrology of some Permian coals of India’, Inter-
national Journal of Coal Geology 16: 47–71 (1990)
[6] Demchuk T.D. ‘Epigenetic pyrite in a low-sulphur, subbituminous coal from the central
Alberta Plains’, International Journal of Coal Geology 21: 187–196 (1992)
[7] Glombitza C., Mangelsdorf K., Horsfield B. ‘Structural insights from boron tribromide
ether cleavage into lignites and low maturity coals from the New Zealand Coal Band’, Organic
Geochemistry 42: 228–236 (2011)
[8] Crosdale P.J. ‘Coal maceral ratios as indicators of environment of deposition: do they work
for ombrogenous mires? An example from the Miocene of New Zealand’, Organic Geochemis-
try 20: 797–809 (1993)
[9] Diessel C.F.K. Coal-Bearing Depositional Systems, Springer (2012)
[10] Jones J.C. ‘The nature of macerals’, Fuel 89: 1743 (2010)
[11] Thomas L. Coal Geology, John Wiley (2002)
[12] Final Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Federal Coal Leasing Program, US
Department of the Interior (1975)
[13] http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/gif/I054.GIF
[14] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Rosebud_Power_Plant
[15] Kuztneztsov P.N., Ilyushechkin A.Y. ‘Coal resources, production and use in the Russian
Federation’, The Coal Handbook: Towards Cleaner Production (D. Osborne, ed.) Chapter 7 pp.
148–168, Elsevier (2013)
[16] Cooper B. The Science and Technology of Coal and Coal Utilization, Springer (2013)
[17] http://www.powderriverbasin.org/coalbed-methane/
[18] Zarrouk S.J., Moore T.A. ‘Preliminary reservoir model of enhanced coalbed methane
(ECBM) in a subbituminous coal seam, Huntly Coalfield, New Zealand’, International Journal
of Coal Geology 77: 153–161 (2009)
[19] Redlich P.J., Hulstona C.K.J., Jackson W.R., Larkins F.P., Marshall M. ‘Hydrogenation of
sub-bituminous and bituminous coals pre-treated with water-soluble nickel–molybdenum or
cobalt–molybdenum catalysts’, Fuel 78: 83–88 (1999)
[20] http://canadianhumaliteinternational.com/
179
[21] http://www.blackearth.com/downhole/
[22] http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=2670
[23] http://what-when-how.com/energy-engineering/coal-supply-in-the-u-s-energy-engineer-
ing/
[24] International Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040, United States Energy Infor-
mation Administration (2013)
Note added in proof: Readers might benefit from consulting 'Sub-bituminous coals: An Over-
view' by J.C. Jones, published as an e-book by Ventus in 2015. Downloading is free.
180
CHAPTER 23
LIGNITE ORIGINATING IN ISOLATED OR
UNDEVELOPED LOCATIONS
23.1 Introduction
There are other countries and locations meriting mention whose inclusion in the main-
stream discussion was precluded by geographical location and isolation from major
centres of activity in lignite utilisation. Such regions are discussed in this chapter, as
well as a few others where lignite discovery was an almost incidental result of a geolog-
ical survey, prospects of utilisation being extremely small. This point was touched on in
section 6.11, where the lignite deposit at Ocean Beach in San Francisco was mentioned.
23.2 Examples
Examples are shown in Table 23.1, and comments follow below.
Table 23.1 Lignite originating in isolated or undeveloped locations.
COUNTRY OR REGION DETAILS

Significant reserves, not mined since the
early 1990s [1]. The three major deposits
1 South Africa
– those at Koekenaap, at Bergrivier and at
Kraaifontein – are in Cape Province [2]
Major deposits of lignite, and plans to
2 Ethiopia place a power station close to one of them
[3]
Lignite discovered in Trinidad in the mid
3 Trinidad and Tobago 19th century [4]. Never commercially
developed
4 Falkland Islands See section 21.2
5 Madagascar Significant lignite [5]
Lignite (about 2 million tonnes) to the
6 Malawi
exclusion of higher rank coals [6]
Lignite in small quantities [9]. No
7 Guam (US territory)
utilisation
Some lignite, only ever mined on a very
8 Eritrea
small scale [10]
9 Jamaica Some lignite, used for heating [11]
Lignite in addition to higher rank coals.
10 Eastern Arctic Archipelago (Canada) 15 000 million tonnes of lignite in the
area surveyed in [13]
Contʼd…
181
Table 23.1 Contʼd…
Kerguelen Islands, French Southern and

11 Lignite known to exist [14]
Antarctic Lands
12 Jammu and Kashmir See comments in the main text
Lignite discovered during a geological
13 West of Mertz Glacier, Antarctica
survey [17]
Lignite known to exist in the Lake Eyre
14 Australian interior
Basin [18]
Lignite discovered near Zurmat in the
15 Afghanistan
19th century [19]
16 Bhutan See comments in the main text
Lignite, noted in [22] to have been not yet
17 Hudson Bay Lowland
utilised
Lignite in north-eastern PNG [23] and in
18 Papua New Guinea (PNG)
the west [24]
Lignite at the Tjörnes Peninsula in
northern Iceland [25]. Lignite once mined
19 Iceland
in very small amounts in a different part
of Iceland [26]
Approximately 70 million tonnes of
20 Dominican Republic lignite [28]. Also lignite in neighbouring
Haiti
‘Lignite debris’ in a mineral formation
21 Off Barbados
[30]
22 Alaska See comments in the main text
Lignite found in exploration wells for oil
23 Nicaragua, Atlantic coast
and gas [34]
With reference to South Africa, it is interesting to note that stoppage of production

coincided with the dismantling of Apartheid with all that that meant in terms of inter-
national trade. The lignites in South Africa are ‘lenticular’ [22], and consistently with
what has been said earlier there is evidence of their being allochthonous. Even so there
are roots evident, and this points to an autochthonous contribution.
Ethiopia (population 94 million) at present has 792 MW of installed power almost all
of it hydroelectric. The proposed power plant, to be known as the Yayu Coal Mine and
Thermal Power Plant, will be at Achibo which is about 340 miles from Addis Ababa.
Its location was obviously determined by that of the lignite reserve. It will contribute
100 MW which, as well as boosting the national capacity by 12.5%, will help ease the
almost total dependence on hydro. The project has stalled more than once over the
years since its inception through lack of government backing, partly caused by aware-
ness that being lignite-fired the plant would add to carbon dioxide emissions.
182
LigniTE ORiginATing in isOLATEd OR undEVELOPEd LOCATiOns
Madagascar (row 5) is an example of a country where development of utilisation has

been prevented by lack of funds. The lignite in Malawi would be sufficient to produce
2 TW-hour of electricity. This is almost exactly equal to the annual electricity produc-
tion of the country [7] most of which is hydroelectric [8]. This is also by coincidence
the annual production in Guam (following row) where generation is entirely thermal
with imported fuels. In [10] it is noted that the lignite in Eritrea was deemed unsuitable
for steam locomotive use. This mirrors experience in Victoria, Australia where in the
days of steam trains brown coal from the Latrobe Valley was evaluated for locomotive
use with a negative outcome.
It is stated in [12] that there are no commercially viable bituminous coal reserves in any
of the Caribbean countries, only lignite. In Jamaica peat is seen as having more poten-
tial for electricity production than lignite. The lignite in the Eastern Arctic Archipelago
(next row) ranges in vitrinite reflectance from 0.19 to 0.29%. At 15 billion tonnes the
quantity is immense. The comment at the beginning of the chapter that isolated plac-
es having lignite will be covered is taken to an extreme in the case of the Kerguelen
Islands (11th row of the table), the 2012 population of which was 130. A point can be
made in connection with this and the previous row of the table which is concerned with
an Arctic location. When, as would be expected to have happened long before the 21st
century, there has been a geological survey of such places it is close to being ‘par for the
course’ that some lignite will be found. The lignite at the Kerguelen Islands is enclosed
by basalt, an inorganic formation. The matter of occurrence of lignite in an inorganic
formation was discussed in section 7.9. There is an Antarctic example later in the table.
The existence of ≈ 5 million tonnes of lignite in the Kashmir Valley was noted in sec-
tion 8.2.5. That part of India more widely, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, contains
tens of millions of tonnes of lignite [15,16]. Notwithstanding the Himalayan setting and
very limited use, the lignite reserves of Jammu and Kashmir do feature in cartographic
accounts of the lignite reserves of India.
The Lake Eyre Basin (row 14) takes in parts of Queensland, South Australia and the
Northern Territory. Lignite there is adjacent to swamps (see section 7.9). To the infor-
mation on Afghanistan in the following row of the table can be added the fact that there
is a lignite mine at Safed Koh in the eastern part of the country [20].
In geology the term ‘lens’ is frequently used to mean a deposit that resembles a convex
lens in shape, being thin at the edges and wide in the middle. (The word in its adjectival
form was used above in the discussion of lignite from South Africa.) Lignite in Bhutan
(following row) has been described as being in ‘lenses’ within inorganic formations
comprising inter alia sandstone and clay [21]. The lignite close to Hudson Bay (follow-
ing row) as yet has no place in the lignite production of Canada, discussed in section
6.9. Papua New Guinea (following row) is not producing coal of any rank at the present
time. The lignite in the west of the country has a maceral content 96.8% in vitrinite.
This deposit has been identified for possible future mining to make electricity. In Iceland
(following row) there were a century ago efforts to bring the lignite reserves at Stalfjall
into use [27]. There would have been both local use and export to Norway. At that time
183
Iceland had purchased mining rights at Spitsbergen in Norway, where the coal is bitumi-
nous in rank. Lignite in Haiti (next row) has been evaluated for briquetting [29].
There is a return to the Caribbean in the following row of the table. The point made
previously that water ingress into a formation will over geological time lead to lignite
formation in the form of a ‘lens’ leads one to expect that a mineral formation might
contain lignite fragments only where water entry has been in a very small degree.
This is true of the formation off Barbados referred to in the table. Such fragments at
Limburg in the Netherlands (see section 5.10) have been called ‘splinters’ [31]. Whether
in a lens or on a smaller scale as fragments, such lignite is clearly allochthonous (see
section 2.6).
In Alaska (next row of the table) there is a town called Lignite, of population 0.32 mil-
lion, so named because of its proximity to a lignite deposit which is called Lignite
Creek. Coal from Lignite Creek is high in huminite, low-to-moderate in liptinite and
low-to-moderate in inertinite [32]. Coal at Lignite Creek was discovered in 1898, just
over 30 years after the USA bought Alaska from Russia. In a geological survey from
about 70 years ago [33] the coal at Lignite Creek was classified as sub-bituminous C
and lignite, and the total amount estimated as 0.953 billion tons (0.86 billion tonnes).
Discovery of lignite whilst drilling for oil and gas at the Nicaragua coast (final row) can
be related to the account in section 2.5 of the discovery of lignite beneath the Indian
Ocean during hydrocarbon exploration.

Table 23.1 could be hugely increased in length, and the point made earlier in this chap-
ter and in a previous one will be repeated with emphasis: water carrying plant debris
into an inorganic formation will, over geological time, become lignite which as a result
occurs in very many places. It is only where it occurs in large quantities close to a
centre of population that it can be seen as an asset. By contrast small amounts of crude
oil in isolated locations (‘stranded oil’) can be viable to recover, and there have been
introduced such things as pumps and derricks which are not permanent installations
but can be moved from one scene of stranded oil to another. That such measures will be
taken for lignites in isolated locations is not expected.
The lignite reserves of Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) were mentioned
in section 5.10. Although England is certainly not an ‘isolated’ or ‘undeveloped’ place
(the same is true of Alaska, discussed above), those terms do apply to its lignite depos-
its which are minor and have only ever been drawn on locally. They will accordingly
receive brief coverage here. Lignite occurs in the Bovey basin in south Devon [35]. The
Bovey basin is a source of clay for the pottery industry, and the lignite that occurs with
it has been used in the kilns [36]. Beneath parts of south London there is allochthonous
lignite (see section 2.6) [37]. There is also allochthonous lignite on the Isle of Wight
[38]. As long ago as 1839 a discovery of lignite in the southern England county of Sus-
sex was reported [39]. Scotland’s Moray Firth is the centre of major offshore oil pro-
duction. Onshore the Firth there is lignite in co-existence with sandstone and silt [40].
184
LigniTE ORiginATing in isOLATEd OR undEVELOPEd LOCATiOns
23.4 References
[1] http://www.factfish.com/statistic-country/south+africa/lignite+brown+coal,+additional+re-
sources
[2] Cole D.I., Roberts D.L. ‘Lignite from the western coastal plain of South Africa’, Journal of
African Earth Sciences 23: 95–117 (1996)
[3] http://www.lahmeyer.de/projekte/energie/konventionelle-stromerzeugung/single/article/
yayu-coal-mine-and-thermal-power-plant-ethiopia.html
[4] http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2014-08-24/age-coal-trinidad
[5] Pryor F.L. Malawi and Madagascar, Oxford University Press (1990)
[6] http://malawi.opendataforafrica.org/bglwlwd/malawi-coal-reserves
[7] http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Malawi/Energy
[8] Gamula G.E.T., Hui L., Peng W. ‘An overview of the energy sector in Malawi’, Energy and
Power Engineering 5: 8–17 (2013)
[9] Beardsley C. Guam Past and Present, Tuttle Publishing (1964)
[10] Uhlig S. (ed.) Proceedings of the XVth International Conference of Ethiopian Studies,
Otto Harrassowitz Verlag (2006)
[11] Hudson B.J. Waterfalls of Jamaica: Sublime and Beautiful Objects, University of the West
Indies Press (2001)
[12] Goodbody I., Thomas-Hope E.M. Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Devel-
opment in the Caribbean, Canoe Press (2002)
[13] Bustin R.M. ‘Tertiary coal resources, Eastern Arctic Archipelago’, Arctic 33: 38–49 (1980)
[14] http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/kerguelen.html
[15] http://koausa.org/geography/chapter3.2.html
[16] Qazi S.A. Systematic Geography of Jammu and Kashmir, APH Publishing (2005)
[17] Davey F.J. ‘The Antarctic margin and its possible hydrocarbon potential’, Tectonophysics
114: 443–470 (1985)
[18] Habeck-Fardy A., Nanson G.C. ‘Environmental character and history of the Lake Eyre
Basin, one seventh of the Australian continent’, Earth Science Reviews 132: 39–66 (2014)
[19] The Imperial Gazetteer of India, Trubner, London (1885)
[20] http://www.mindat.org/loc-30582.html
[21] Pareek H.S. ‘Petrography and rank of the Bhangtar coals, southeastern Bhutan’, Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology 15: 219–243 (1990)
[22] Martini I.P. ‘The cold-climate peatlands of the Hudson Bay Lowland, Canada: brief
overview of recent work’, Peatlands: Evolution and Records of Environmental and Climate
Changes (I.P. Martini, A. Martinez-Cortizas, W. Chesworth, eds), Elsevier (2006)
[23] Weiler P.D., Coe R.S. ‘Rotations in the actively colliding Finisterre Arc Terrane: paleo-
magnetic constraints on Plio-Pleistocene evolution of the South Bismarck microplate, north-
eastern Papua New Guinea’, Tectonophysics 316: 297–325 (2000)
185
[24] Weiler P.D., Coe R.S. ‘Geochemistry and petrology of selected coal samples from Suma-
tra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua, Indonesia’, International Journal of Coal Geology 77:
260–268 (2009)
[25] Verhoeven K., Louwye S. ‘Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and biostratigraphy with
marine palynomorphs of the Plio-Pleistocene in Tjörnes, Northern Iceland’, Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 376: 224–243 (2013)
[26] van Hoof J., van Dijken F. ‘The historical turf farms of Iceland: architecture, building
technology and the indoor environment’, Building and Environment 43: 1023–1030 (2008)
[27] ‘The lignite beds of Iceland’, Scottish Geographical Magazine 33: 75 (1917)
[28] Perello-Aracena F., Hassis H.D., Rentz O. ‘Future development of the energy sector in the
Dominican Republic’, Energy 15: 1029–1034 (1990)
[29] Stevenson G., Wilson T.D., Jean-Poix C., Medina N. Coal Briquetting in Haiti: A Market
and Business Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (1987)
[30] Faugores J.C., Gonthier E., Masse L., Parra M., Pons J.C., Pujol C. ‘Quaternary deposits
on the South Barbados accretionary prism’, Marine Geology 96: 247–267 (1991)
[31] Bosma H.F., Van Konijnenburg-Van Cittert J.H.A., Van der Ham R.W.J.M., Van Amerom
H.W.J., Hartkopf-Fröder C. ‘Conifers from the Santonian of Limburg, The Netherlands’, Creta-
ceous Research 30: 483–495 (2009)
[32] Merritt R.D. ‘Petrology of Tertiary and Cretaceous coals of southern Alaska’, Internation-
al Journal of Coal Geology 9: 129–156 (1987)
[33] Barnes F.F., Wahrhaftig C., Hickcox C.A., Freedman J., Hopkins D.M. Coal Investigations
in South-Central Alaska 1944–46, US Department of the Interior (1951)
[34] Martinez Tiffer E.J., Eventov L., Chilingarian G.V. ‘A review of the petroleum potential
of the Caribbean margin of Nicaragua’, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 5:
337–350 (1991)
[35] Hall P.L., Angel B.R., Braven J. ‘Electron spin resonance and related studies of lignite and
ball clay from South Devon, England’, Chemical Geology 13: 97–113 (1974)
[36] http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/BoveyTracey/Lignite1862.html
[37] Ellison R.A., Knox R.W.O’B., Jolley D.W., King C. ‘A revision of the lithostratigraphical
classification of the early Palaeogene strata of the London Basin and East Anglia’, Proceedings
of the Geologists’ Association 105: 187–197 (1994)
[38] Radley J.D., Barker M.J. ‘Molluscan palaeoecology and biostratinomy in a Lower
Cretaceous meanderplain succession (Wessex Formation, Isle of Wight, southern England)’,
Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 111: 133–145 (2000)
[39] Mantell G.A. The wonders of geology; or, A familiar exposition of geological phenomena;
the substance of a course of lects., from notes taken by G.F. Richardson [now a Google ebook]
[40] Mudge D.C., Copestake P. ‘Revised Lower Palaeogene lithostratigraphy for the Outer
Moray Firth, North Sea’, Marine and Petroleum Geology 9: 53–69 (1992)
186
CHAPTER 24
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
STANDARDS APPERTAINING TO BROWN
COALS AND LIGNITES
24.1 Selected standards and comments

Standards relating to coal, carefully chosen, are listed in the table below. Standards are
regularly reviewed and sometimes updated. When in this chapter there is reference to
use of a standard in the research literature such use is not necessarily of the standard
in its current form.
ASTM D388-12 sub-classifies lignites into lignite A and lignite B. The difference
is on the basis of calorific value on a moist, mineral matter free basis which for
Lignite B is in the range 6300 to 8300 BTU per lb (14.7 to 19.4 MJ kg-1). Lignite A
has a calorific value outside this range at the low end. It is noted in the rubric to the
standard that it does not apply to coals high in liptinite or inertinite macerals. Such
coals, it is claimed, can be identified by visual inspection from the absence of bands.
The ISO standard in the following row is partly based on vitrinite reflectance, and
a lignite is classified as such if it has a reflectance below 0.4%. A recently published
application is to a Serbian lignite [3] with vitrinite reflectance 0.3. For an ISO stand-
ard and a national one to be one and the same as with this is not uncommon [5]. The
Australian standard in the next row also uses, amongst other quantities, calorific
value as a basis for classification. A ‘brown coal’ according to this standard has a
calorific value below 19.0 MJ kg-1 which can be compared with the ASTM classifi-
cation in the same terms.
Applications of ASTM D-3175 to lignites are legion in the research literature, and in-
clude volatile matter measurements across a range of 21 lignites from Turkey [7]. They
were in the range 22.2 to 46.4% when expressed as a percentage weight of the entire
coal. That having a value of 22.2% has an extremely high ash content, and the percent-
age volatiles on an ash-free basis is 37.4%. The ISO standard for humic acid content in
the next row involves heating of a sample of the lignite for 2 hours in a sodium hydrox-
ide solution, followed by induced precipitation of the humic material and centrifuging.
It has been applied [9] to a group of 12 Greek lignites, the humic acid contents of which
range from 14.3 to 40.4% of the dry coal weight. A point of possible relevance to the
content of Chapter 22 is that five sub-bituminous coals, also from Greece, examined in
the same study had humic acid contents in the range 9.6 to 22.2%, a range overlapping
with values for the lignites.
The Indian standard in the following row is concerned with definitions. It does not
distinguish between a brown coal and a lignite but gives one definition for the two.
The ASTM standard in the next row applies to lignites as well as to higher rank coals.
Carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen analysis are in a single instrument, approved by ASTM
187
STANDARD REFERENCE
ASTM31 D388 – 12
[1]
Standard Classification of Coals by Rank.
ISO32 11760:2005
Classification of coals. [2]
Also BS33 11760:2005.
AS34 2096-1987 (R2013)

[4]
Classification and coding systems for Australian coals.
ASTM D-3175-11
Standard Test Method for Volatile Matter in the Analysis Sample of [6]
Coal and Coke.
ISO 5073:2013
[8]
Brown coals and lignites - Determination of humic acids.
BIS35 IS 3810-2:2003
Solid Mineral Fuels - Vocabulary - Part 2: Terms Relating To Sampling, [10]
Testing and Analysis.
ASTM D5373
Standard Test Methods for Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen and
[11]
Nitrogen in Analysis Samples of Coal and Carbon in Analysis Samples of
Coal and Coke.
ASTM D4239
Standard Test Method for Sulfur in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke [13]
Using High-Temperature Tube Furnace Combustion.
JIS36 M 8813:2004
Coal and coke - Determination of constituents. [15]
Also ISO 925:1997.
ASTM D2798 - 11
Standard Test Method for Microscopical Determination of the Vitrinite [17]
Reflectance of Coal.
ISO Standard 1928:2009
Solid mineral fuels - Determination of gross calorific value by the
[18]
calorimeter bomb method, and calculation of net
calorific value, including automated methods. See also ČSN ISO 1928.
DIN37 51719:1997
[20]
Determination of ash in solid mineral fuels.
ASTM D6542 - 05(2010)
[22]
Standard Practice for Tonnage Calculation of Coal in a Stockpile.
PSQCA38 935-1989
[23]
Brown Coal and Lignites, Determination of the Yield of Toluene Soluble Extract.
188
nATiOnAL And inTERnATiOnAL sTAndARds APPERTAining TO BROWn COALs And LigniTEs
ISO 5069:1983
Brown coals and lignites - Principles of sampling
Part 1: Sampling for determination of moisture content and for general analysis. [24]
Part 2: Sample preparation for determination of moisture content and for
general analysis.
CEN39/TR 15840:2009
[26]
Evaluation of conformity of fly ash for concrete.
Standard: GOST40 25543
Brown coals, hard coals and anthracites: Classification according to [27]
technological parameters.
ASME41 PTC 34 (2007) See section 6.6,

and qualifying
Waste Combustors with Energy Recovery. footnote.
PN42 EN 14658:2009
Continuous Handling Equipment And Systems - General Safety
[30]
Requirements For Continuous Handling Equipment For Opencast Lignite
Mining.
ČSN43 ISO 1928

Solid mineral fuels — Determination of
[31]
gross calorific value by the bomb calorimetric method and calculation of
net calorific value.
GB44/T 2559-2005
[34]
Analysis of lignite wax.
ISO 602:2015
[35]
Coal - Determination of mineral matter.
SABS45/T C 027/80 06
[36]
Coal classification.
BS46 1016-112:1995
Methods for analysis and testing of coal and coke. Determination of [37]
Hardgrove grindability index of hard coal.
BS EN 14034-1:2004
Determination of explosion characteristics of dust clouds. Determination [38]
of the maximum explosion pressure Pmax of dust clouds.
(e.g., [12]), which works by burning the coal at 950oC. Water (from the coal hydrogen)
and carbon dioxide (from the coal carbon) are measured by infrared, and nitrogen by a
thermal conductivity detector. The instrument is subjected to calibrations checks with
model compounds such as ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) at intervals spec-
ified in the standard [12]. Full analysis by element (‘ultimate analysis’) also requires
189
that sulphur be determined, and this is in any case important because of sulphur diox-
ide emissions. This is by means of ASTM D4239 (following row), which can also be
applied across a range of rank. It involves heating of the coal sample in a tube furnace
at 1350oC under flowing oxygen, to convert all of the coal sulphur to oxides of sulphur
which can be quantitatively determined. Both of these standards were applied in pub-
lished work on a North Dakota lignite [14], for which the results were as follows: C
79.3%, H 3.8%, N 1.2%, S 1.6%, O by difference 14.1%, all dry ash-free basis. Oxygen
is always by difference in such analyses.
The Japanese standard is applied to two ‘standard coals’ from the Japan Coal Energy
Center [16] to give a proximate analysis for each. It is by means of another Japanese
standard – JIS M1002 – that the two standard coals are classified as being brown coals.
The ASTM standard for vitrinite reflectance in the following row is also for higher
rank coals as well as for lower rank ones. A recent published application [18] is to a
Texan lignite, reflectance values for multiple samples of which were in the range 0.22
to 0.47%.
The ISO standard in the following is concerned with calorific values, and in its ISO
guise has in recently published work [19] been applied to an Indonesian lignite the cal-
orific value of which was 19.8 MJ kg-1 when the coal moisture was 27%. The German
standard in the next row has been applied to braunkohle from two mines in Bavaria
[21]. Coal from one had ash in the range 13.2 to 48.6% depending on the position in the
bed from which the sample was taken. The other had ash contents from 4.3 to 34.6%.
The ASTM standard in the next row is for monitoring the amount of coal remaining in a
stockpile after removals for sale. It applies to all ranks of coal and is based on stockpile
geometry. The moisture content of the coal in a particular stockpile is factored in. The
PSQCA standard in the following row is one of a number issued by that body relating
to coal science and utilisation. Another is PSQCA 757-1989 ‘Method for Determination
of Yield Tar Water, Gas and Coke Residue by Low-Temperature Distillation of Brown
Coal and Lignite’.
The ISO standard in the following row, in two parts, is invoked in very recent work
on lignite from the Most basin in the Czech Republic (see section 5.1.6) [25]. GOST
is the standards body of countries in the Former Soviet Union where there is huge
lignite production as described in Chapter 9. GOST 25543 has recently been applied
to lignite from the Moscow region [28]. Like its ASTM counterpart (row 1), GOST
25543 provides for classifications within coal rank [29] and the Russian lignite in [28]
is assigned descriptor 2B.
The Polish standard in the following row is also a European standard and is sometimes
cited either as that alone or with the affiliation of another European country, for exam-
ple as DIN EN 14658:2009 or as UNE47 EN 14658:2009. The standard is concerned
with the conveyance of lignite and also of overburden when removal of that is taking
place. Movement of equipment such as that shown on the book cover comes within the
scope of the standard.
190
The Czech standard in the next row is also an ISO standard as indicated. Applications
are many, and include on to a New Zealand lignite [32] the lower heat value (disregard-
ing the heat released by condensation of water in the combustion products) of which
was measured as 17.3 MJ kg-1. Within the Czech Republic the standard has been ap-
plied, with its ČSN prefix, to biomass [33].
Over the remaining rows of the table the South African and British standards bodies
are introduced. In section 1.3.2 it is stated that the Hardgrove index has become the
basis of national standards. The entry in the final row is an example of this.
24.2 References
[2] https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:11760:ed-1:v1:en
[3] Životić D., Stojanović K., Gržetić I., Jovančićević B., Cvetković O., Šajnović A., Simić V.,
Stojaković R., Scheeder G. ‘Petrological and geochemical composition of lignite from the D
field, Kolubara basin (Serbia)’ International Journal of Coal Geology 111 5-22 (2013).
[4] http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/details.aspx?ProductID=258517
[5] Jones J.C. ‘The standards bodies and applied chemistry’ Chemistry in Australia March 2013
p. 28.
[6] http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/Details.aspx?ProductID=1464450&gclid=CPis--y
F6MUCFRAJvAod-6kAUA
[7] Kucukbayrak S. ‘Influence of the mineral matter content on the combustion characteristics
of Turkish lignites’ Thermochimica Acta 216 119-129 (1993).
[8] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm
?csnumber=20458
[9] Giannouli A., Kalaitzidis S., Siavalas G., Chatziapostolou A., Christanis K., Papazisimou
S., Papanicolaou C., Foscolos A. ‘Evaluation of Greek low-rank coals as potential raw material
for the production of soil amendments and organic fertilizers’ International Journal of Coal
Geology 77 383-393 (2009).
[12] ‘Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Coal’ Application note, LECO Corporation, Saint Jo-
seph MI.
[14] Mangena S.J., Bunt J.R., Waanders F.B. ‘Physical property behaviour of North Dakota lig-
nite in an oxygen/steam blown moving bed gasifier’ Fuel Processing Technology 106 326-331
(2013).
191
[16] Kashiwakura S., Takahashi T., Nagasaka T. ‘Vaporization behavior of boron from standard
coals in the early stage of combustion’ Fuel 90 1408-1415 (2011).
[18] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=41592
[19] Cheng J., Zhou F., Wang X., Liu J., Zhou J., Cen K. ‘Physicochemical properties of Indo-
nesian lignite continuously modified in a tunnel-type microwave oven for slurribility improve-
ment’ Fuel 150 493-500 (2015).
[20] http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=DIN+51719%3A1997
[21] Dehmer J. ‘Petrographical and organic geochemical investigation of the Oberpfalz brown
coal deposit, West Germany’ International Journal of Coal Geology 11 273-290 (1989).
[23] http://www.psqca.com.pk/e-catelog/disprec.asp?disprec=935-1989
[24] http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics
.htm?ics1=73&ics2=40&ics3=&csnumber=11091
[25] Havelcová M., Sýkorová I., Mach K., Trejtnarová H., Blažek J. ‘Petrology and organic
geochemistry of the lower Miocene lacustrine sediments (Most Basin, Eger Graben, Czech Re-
public)’ International Journal of Coal Geology 139 26-39 (2015).
[26] http://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:105:0
[27] http://runorm.com/product/view/2/11087
[28] Kus J. ‘Application of confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) to autofluorescent or-
ganic andmineral matter in peat, coals and siliciclastic sedimentary rocks — A qualitative ap-
proach’ International Journal of Coal Geology 137 1-18 (2015).
[29] http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-104/fsucoal/html/readme.htm
[30] http://infostore.saiglobal.com/EMEA/Portal.aspx?publisher=PKN
[31] http://csnonlinefirmy.unmz.cz/html_nahledy/44/42115/42115_nahled.htm
[32] Saw W.L., Pang S. ‘Co-gasification of blended lignite and wood pellets in a 100 kW dual
fluidised bed steam gasifier: The influence of lignite ratio on producer gas composition and tar
content’ Fuel 112 117-124 (2013).
[33] Brant V, Pivec J., Fuksa P., Necka´ K., Kocourkova´ D., Venclova V. ‘Biomass and energy
production of catch crops in areas with deficiency of precipitation during summer period in
central Bohemia’ Biomass and Bioenergy 35 1286-1294 (2011)
[35] http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030314896
[36] https://www.sabs.co.za/
192
CHAPTER 24 EndnOTEs
31 American society for Testing and Materials. HQ in Philadelphia PA.
32 isO. HQ in geneva.
33 British standards institution. HQ in London.
34 standards Australia. HQ in sydney.
35 Bureau of indian standards. HQ in new delhi.
36 Japanese industrial standards. HQ in Tokyo.
37 d eutsches institut für normung. HQ in Berlin.
38 Pakistan standards and Quality Control Authority. HQ in Karachi.
39 Comité Européen de normalisation, HQ in Brussels.
40 g osudarstvennye standart state. HQ in Moscow.
41 Formerly American society of Mechanical Engineers now called just AsME. HQ in new York.
42 Polish Committee for standardisation. HQ in Warsaw.
43 Czech standards institute. HQ in Prague.
44 guobiao standard, issued by standardization Administration of China.
45 south African Bureau of standards. HQ in Pretoria.
46 British standards institution. HQ in London.
47 una norma Española. HQ in Madrid.
193
Dedicated to the memory of my father
Jack Bryan Jones
for the centenary of his birth
INDEX
Index Terms Links
activated carbon from lignites 102–106

allochthonous lignites 13 42 48
63 182 184
Antarctic 182–183
ash content (see also fly ash)
constituents of 9 170
dependence of the calorific value on 2–3
factoring of into analysis 9
ISO standard for determination of 190
of Adamów lignite 37
of Akhaltsikhe lignite 86
of Barsingsar lignite 78
of Beckville lignite 59
of Colorado lignites 110
of Ekibastuz lignite 86
of Hazelwood brown coal 90
of Huolinguole lignite 71
of Kakanj coal 45
of Kansk-Achinsk lignite 85
of Kapurdi lignite 79
of Kardia lignite 41
of Leigh Creek coals 91
of lignite burnt at Boundary Dam 64
This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.

Index Terms Links
ash content (Cont.)

of lignite from Israel 75
of Loy Yang coal 90
of Maritza lignite 42
of Mequinenza lignite 48
of Mississippi lignites 61
of Nakayama lignite 75
of Neyveli lignite 79
of Nigerian lignites 149
of North Dakota lignites 56
of Poplar River lignite 64
of San Miguel lignite 60
of Sulcis coal 47
of South Field lignite 39
of South Hallsville lignite 61
of Tasmanian brown coal 92
of Thar lignite 81
of Tuncbilek lignite 12
of Turkish lignites 44 119 187
of Turoszów lignite 37
of two Greek leonardites 157
of Vastan lignite 80
of Vereinigtes Schleenhain lignite 24
of Visonta brown coal 43
of Yallourn brown coal 90
autochthonous lignites 13 42 48
90 182
Baganuur, co-existence of lignite and

sub-bituminous coals at 114
Index Terms Links
Beater wheel mill, pulverisation of lignite with 79

bed-moist brown coal 2–3 17 21
25 75 79
80 89–90 126
149 169
Bergius process 74 126–128 132
Beulah lignite 11 12 56–58
107 115 137
Boundary Dam 64 160
briquettes 3 4 34
43 48 65
71–2 86 90
94ff 102 106
110–112 148 152
165–166 170
calorific value 2–5

ASME method for indirect determination of 62
for Akhaltsikhe lignite 86
for Arkansas lignite 63
for Austrian lignite 28
for Baori lignite 104
for Barsingsar lignite 78
for Beckville lignite 59
for briquettes from Belchatów 94
for Bulgarian lignite 42
for coal from the Denver Basin 110
for coal from Visonta 43
for garzweiler lignite 24

Index Terms Links
calorific value (Cont.)

for Kansk-Achinsk lignite 85
for Kemper County lignite 62
for Konin lignite 36
for lignite from the Kardia field 41
for lignite from the Ptolemaida-Florina Mine 39
for lignite occurring in Israel 75
for lignite used at Boundary Dam 64
for Neyveli lignite 79
for North Dakota lignites 56–57
for San Miguel lignite 60
for South Hallsville lignite 61
for Thar lignite 81
for Turkish lignites 2 44
for Turoszów lignite 37
ISO standard for direct determination on 188
moisture content and 6 169
carbon dioxide sequestration 28 65
at Boundary Dam 160–161
at Hazelwood 162
at Quintana South Heart 161
electrical penalty of 162
use of fly ash in 142–143
carbon credits, generation of in lignite usage 22–24
Caribbean countries, lignite in 183
Central Asia to China gas pipeline, possible
conveyance of coal-bed methane by 121
char 5 101 102–108
113 116–117 152–153
158 177

Index Terms Links
clay, co-existence of with lignite in

Devon, England 184
coal-bed methane 120ff 178
cotton refuse, incorporation of into
lignite briquettes 88
Cynara cardunculus, co-fring with Greek lignite 165
Dobrnja lignite mine, fatal explosion at 154

drilling for oil, encounters with lignite during 119 184
TM
DryFining process, in North Dakota 56
dust explosions 151–154
Eastern Arctic Archipelago 181 183

Egypt, lignite in 148
Ekibastuz, ambiguity of rank of coal from 86
England, lignite in 184
Eritrea, lignite in 181 183
Ethiopia, lignite in 148 181–182
Exxon Donor Solvent Coal (EDS)
liquefaction process 128–129
fly ash 24 25 36–41

56–57 59 73
142–143 189
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis 112 126–127
Frechen, briquetting at 94

Index Terms Links
gelification 10 11 12
42 80 177
grindability see Hardgrove index
Hardgrove index 3–4 27 34

46 58 90
191
Herdofenkoks, definition of 105
Himalayas, lignite in 183
Humalite 178
humic acids 48 139 156
157 172 187–188
hydrogen peroxide, as an oxidant for lignites 142
hydrogen shuttle 129
hydrothermal dewatering 6
of Victorian brown coal 90
hypautochthonous, meaning of 13
Isle of Wight, allochthonous lignite at 184
jet 28 141–142
K-Fuel® 6

Index Terms Links
Kerguelen Islands, lignite at 183

Knappenrode brikett factory 94
Lake Eyre Basin, Australia 182

Lakoma Germany, loss of to mine expansion 26
lens, the term as it applies to lignite deposits 182–184
Leonardite 65 140 156ff
Leyden lignite mine, fatal explosion at 111
Lignite Creek, Alaska 184
Lippendorf, lignite desulphurisation at 25
Liptobiolith coal 33
lower heat value 191
Luminant power plants 59–60 165
Lurgi process 111 127
liquid by-products 111
macerals
absence of a precise composition of 177
ASTM standard for classification of 187
etymology of the term 9
grouping of 9–12
in Brandon lignite 65
in Bulgarian lignites 42
in Collie coal 176
in Helmstedt lignite 21
in Indian lignites 79–80
in lignite from Amynteon-Ptolemaida 42

Index Terms Links
macerals (Cont.)
in Nigerian lignites 149
in PNG lignites 183
in Polish lignites 35–36
in Serbian lignites 46
in Texan lignites 58 129
in Thrace lignite 119
in Saskatchewan lignite 64
in Victorian brown coals 90
introduction of the concept by Marie Stopes 9
role of in carbonisation 106–107
Mae Moh, lignite from 2 72 73
158
Márkushegy, ambiguity in rank of coal from 43–44
mechanical thermal expression 6 90
mega years (Ma or My) 169
Miocene defined according to 169
Permian defined according to 176
microfuorescence photometry 13 168
microwave drying 6
minerals and inorganics 3 9 12
molasses, as a binder for lignite briquettes 98
Montan wax 63 96 135–136
Moray Firth, lignite at 184
municipal solid waste, co-combustion of
with lignite 165
Na Duong lignite mine 74

Nepalese lignite 82

Index Terms Links
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, lignite at 65 181

overburden 24–25 91 190
peat
activated carbons from 170
application of the maceral concept to 168
at the Shatura power station 84
briquetting of 170
co-combustion with lignite 166
co-existence with lignite 168–169
comparisons with lignite 168ff
in coal balls 58
in coalification sequence 4 10 33
65
in Jamaica 183
maceral concept applied to 168
precursor to lignite 1
use in drilling fluid additives 178
producer gas 116–117 119
proximate analysis 4
of Achlada leonardite 157
of Poplar River lignite 64
of Sulcis coal 47
of two brown coals used in Japan 190
of Yallourn coal 90
of Zeli leonardite 157

Index Terms Links
pulverised fuel
grinding energy requirements for 26–27
particle size range of 20 34
rank, definition of 1
Rhenish lignites 21 26 118
143 170
Sakhalin, lignite at 85
sapropelic coal 33 36 141
172
seam fires 151
Shanghai Boiler Company, use of lignite by 70
Shell Global Cansolv, for carbon dioxide removal 160
(see also Boundary Dam)
Shetland Islands, peat at 169
spontaneous heating 154
sporinite 168 176
stacker 71
steam locomotives, use of lignites in fring 63 183
stockpiling of lignite 71 154 188
190
Stopes, Marie Carmichael 9 12
stranded oil, contrast with isolated lignite 184
subsea lignite 13 169
supercritical fluids, treatment of lignites with 108 135 136–138
172

Index Terms Links
supercritical steam, use of in plant raising

electricity from lignite
at a power station in the Liaoning Province, China 71
at Berezovskaya 84
at Boxberg 26
at Buschhaus 21
at Frimmersdorf 22–23
at Genesee 64
at Grevenbroich-Neurath 21–22
at Kostolac 46
at Mae Moh 73
at Neyveli 79
at Niederaussem 27
at Oak Grove 59
at Pruné ov 34
at Ptolemaida 39
at Šoštanj 46
at Turów 37
turbine construction materials for 26 41
superheated steam 6 21 32
36 41 61
71 81 90
synthesis gas, from lignite 70 81 112–122
132–134
nitrile rubber from 143
synthetic natural gas (SNG) from lignite 114–116
tars from lignites 4 6 101

102 108 110–111

Index Terms Links
tars from lignites (Cont.)

115 127 128
171 190
Tetralin, action of on lignites 11 129 130
131 132
town gas, from lignite 110–111
Tsar Nicholas II, Russian lignite utilization
during the reign of 85
Turgay basin 86
ultimate analysis 72 189

ultra-supercritical steam
explanation of the term 21–22 32
use of at German lignite-fired power stations 32
use of at Liaoning 71
use of at Mae Moh 73
underground gasification of lignite 80 86 119–120
138
Vattenfall 24 25 26
39 147 162
163
vitrinite/huminite reflectance 9–11
for Chilean lignite 147
for Chinese lignites 11 70 168
for Gardanne lignite 48
for Hambach lignite 64

Index Terms Links
vitrinite/huminite reflectance (Cont.)

for Kosovo lignite 47
for Leigh Creek coal 91
for Mequinenza lignite 48
for Neyveli lignite 79
for Nigerian lignite 149
for Polish lignites 37–38
for Serbian lignite 187
for Sulcis coal 48
for Texan lignite 58
for Thar lignite 130
ISO Standard for determining 187
sub-bituminous coals, for comparison 176–177
volatile matter, correlation of with the
coalification sequence 4
water, phase diagram for 32

wax, solvent extraction of 102 135 171
Yerementau, production of liquid fuels from

lignite at 128

Lignites - Their Occurrence, Production and Utilisation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lignites - Their Occurrence, Production and Utilisation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lignites - Their Occurrence, Production and Utilisation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lignites: Their Occurrence,

Production and Utilisation

All rights reserved.

Print managed by Jellyfish Solutions

Preface ................................................................................................................................ xvii

1.1 Lignite in popular conception

1.2 Background on coal formation

1.3 Brown coals vis-à-vis black coals

Table 1.1 Calorific values of selected coals.

COAL CALORIFIC VALUE

In the conceptually and experimentally simple Hardgrove index determination a known

Table 1.2 Hardgrove indices.

COAL HARDGROVE INDEX

1.3.3 Thermal decomposition

A lignite having been dried in a desiccator is subjected to a volatile matter

(10 × 0.95) g organic coal substance = 9.5 g

So the volatile matter content is (4.8/9.5) × 100% = 51% ash-free basis.

COAL VOLATILE MATTER CONTENT

1.4 Moisture and its removal

Moisture removal can be evaporative or non-evaporative. In the former the heat of

Non-evaporative moisture removal methods include mechanical thermal expression

1.5 Concluding remarks

2.2 Maceral groups and examples from lignite usage

Table 2.1 Outline of coal constituents on a petrographic basis.

CONSTITUENT DESCRIPTION COMMENTS

‘Vitrinite reflectance’ measurements are routine in laboratories concerned with coals

A further important concept is ‘gelification’, expressible as the gelification index (GI)

huminite macerals (% volume) ÷ inertinite macerals (% volume)

2.3 Examples of applications to lignites

Table 2.2 Research reports on lignites in which petrography features.

2.5 Subsea lignite

2.6 Autochthonous and allochthonous lignites

2.7 Concluding remarks

Table 3.1 scenes of early discovery and usage of lignites.

LOCATION AND REFERENCE DETAILS

3.2 Concluding remarks

4.2 German power stations using lignite

4.2.2 Offleben and Buschhaus power stations

4.2.3 grevenbroich-neurath power station

The Grevenbroich-Neurath power station sources its braunkohle from a number of

A 500 MW turbine in operation round-the-clock would, in 30 days’ usage,

500 × 106 J s–1 × (30 × 24 × 3600) s = 1.30 × 1015 J

At a Rankine efficiency of 35% the heat required would be:

(1.30 × 1015/0.35) = 3.71 × 1015 J

At a Rankine efficiency of 43% the heat required would be:

(1.30 × 1015/0.43) = 3.02 × 1015 J

The saving in heat is then 0.69 × 1015 J

At a calorific value of 15 × 106 J kg–1 the fuel saving is:

= 4.60 × 107 J or 46 000 tonnes

The reduction in carbon dioxide is then:

4.2.4 Frimmersdorf power station

We assign calorific values to the respective fuels as follows:

Paper sludge 7 MJ kg–1

At an efficiency of 35%, 600 MW of electricity requires:

600/0.35 MW of heat = 1700 MW of heat approx.

= 5.134 million tonnes

The amount of sludge thermally equivalent to 0.01 kg of lignite is:

(0.01 × 15/7) kg = 0.021 kg

So the co-firing requires a proportion of sludge: