Test Results

We have tested the technology on a scaled-down version. The independent test was completed by the Wyoming Analytical Laboratories, Inc. The results showed significant reduction in toxins found in coal. The test results are found in the following pages. We will publish our updated test results once we have completed and tested our larger retort unit.

Important Test Result Notes

Original scaled-down version test

The original test was completed using the original patented process. With enhancements to the design and technology, Renuva Energy will build a larger-scale retort to validate the original test results. Renuva Energy fully expects the results to be significantly better.

Tonnage/Mass Reduction

For comparison purposes of our summary numbers and percentages, the removal of moisture and the low volatiles during the char process has decreased the original mass to 1/3 of its original tonnage. For example, 1/3 ton of char is equivalent to 1 ton of the original lignite or Powder River Basin (PRB) coal.

Heating Values Considerations

Presented in this report are “dry basis” values for heating. While heating values (BTU's) appear to have remained close to original values it is important to remember that for the char, the moisture is already gone, so no energy will be necessary or expended to remove moisture in the power plant.
There is considerable savings and better quality in the amount of volatiles and environmentally harmful products created from the charring process of coal. This will allow the utilization of world’s lower forms of coal such as lignite to yield a similar BTU content with less volume of harmful chemicals being released into the air.
Starting from the raw coal extracted from the ground, in consideration of the whole, (one hundred percent), it is understood that once the coal is dried, there is generally one third less volume left in the coal remaining. This, we found, is in particular the case with Texas Lignite coal. Texas Lignite holds more moisture than that of PRB and the Combined Texas Lignite/PRB blend.
In the Final Report of the char-to-ash (ash is what remains after the char is burned in the coal-fired plant) sequence, the mass remaining is indicative of a 67% decrease in volume on the Texas Lignite, a 63% decrease in volume on the PRB, and a 62% decrease in volume on the Composite Blend, respectively. We were able to estimate the volume and makeup of the gas stream that would be coming through the flue gas of each chemical and materials as a result of the char-to-ash process. Keep in mind that we are unable to equate actual real-time power-plant conditions as we are unaware of the percent of oxygen utilized in the combustion process, the amount of time the coal is processed, under what pressure or temperatures, etc.

Considerations for Mercury

In many cases, as in the case with Mercury, there are only trace amounts left in the char. Mercury is a very volatile element. After the drying process, there is one third less Mercury present. After the charring process, there is approximately 50 percent less volume; showing a total Mercury reduction of approximately 85 percent overall.

Considerations for Sulfur

Coal contains three classes of Sulfur. These are Pyretic, Sulfate, and Organic. Pyretic and Organic Sulfur are the most volatile of the three. Sulfate is a dormant form of sulfur and is not found to be particularly harmful to the environment. During combustion, Organic Sulfur and Pyretic Sulfur are oxidized to form Sulfur dioxide (S02), and with the right combustion conditions, some small amount of sulfur trioxide (S03) can be formed. The sulfate forms usually represent a small percentage of the total Sulfur in coal and have little to do with the combustion or contributions to SOX emissions. Under the laboratory test conditions, the sulfates seem to have increased at levels higher than the mass loss levels observed.

Combustion conditions often change the more volatile types of sulfur discussed; pyretic and organic. The amount emitted of SOx is complicated due to combustion conditions differing from plant to plant. Our tests show in the case of the lignite and PRB coal that the Pyretic Sulfur values showed significant loss while sulfate and organic species increased. It appears some Pyretic Sulfur was converted to Sulfate. The organic species appear to have been mostly retained during the mass reduction by charring.

It has been determined that a slower heating process tends to bind the Sulfur and turn higher percentages into Sulfate, a better form of Sulfur. It is also possible to add Calcium to the process. Calcium will bind the Sulfur and keep much of it from forming into SOx.

During the charring process, it was found that some of the more volatile forms of Sulfur were still residing long enough in the gas streams to recombine with elements such as calcium to form stable Sulfates.

Considerations for Nitrogen

Overall Nitrogen, as in the case of overall Sulfur, without the presence of Oxygen decreasing during the charring process by virtue, again of the decreased volume remaining to yield the similar BTU.

NOx formation from the combustion process comes from two mechanisms: Thermal NOx is primarily a function of the 3 T's (Time Temp and Turbulence).

Chemically bound nitrogen is oxidized in the combustion process. Here the Temperature is also a factor. This is also known as fuel NOx. Argon was utilized in the lab as a secondary chemical process when charring the coal. There seemed to be no significant changes in the process of Nitrogen production. However, after the charring process the remaining oxygen is minimal and has been reduced considerably, reducing the total NOx potential.

Again, however, the charring process has reduced the volume by an additional one-third, yielding approximately the same BTU, so ultimately showing a decrease in harmful materials in the air as the result.

Consideration for Carbon

Carbon combustion, thus the creation of Carbon Dioxide (C02) from coal processing is blamed for much of the greenhouse gasses the environmental groups are concerned about at present time. There is a considerable decrease of the overall Carbon and Oxygen during the charring process as a result of decreased volume. However, when the char is again combusted at the plant it becomes an issue related to particular plant efficiencies and their particular plant processes to determine Carbon Dioxide Percentages.

Carbon Dioxide is important in the energy transfer. Without it we do not have the equivalent BTU necessary to create the energy. Again, when discussing the C02 potential, the oxygen has been reduced considerably in the char, but depending on combustion techniques within the plant site this re-oxygenation potential can vary somewhat in various equipment.

Extracts from the Coal During the Process

Lignite coals show primarily single-ring systems largely comprised of 0-functional groups. Many Hydrogen bonds are linked. Many Alkanes and Alkenes also exist here. Approximately 2.5 ml from 5 grams of crude were extracted from the lignite coal. This equates to 2.85 barrels of oil per short ton of dried product extracted. An average sized power plant uses 7,500 tons of coal each day. This results in CTI’s ability to produce 21,375 barrels of crude oil to sell, per day.

This analysis has confirmed that burning straight Texas Lignite Char versus burning Raw Dried Composite is an overall reduction of 9% Volatile, 5% Fixed Carbon, 9% Carbon, 11% Hydrogen, 15% Nitrogen, 11% Oxygen, with a 19% increase in overall Sulfur.

Burning Texas Lignite (TL) Char vs. Burning Composite Raw Coal

Mercury- 85% reduction
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)- 33% reduction
Sulfur Oxide (SOx)- 31% reduction
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)- 67% reduction
Volatiles- 32% reduction
Fixed Carbon- 30% reduction
Carbon- 27% reduction
Total Sulfur- 19% increase
Oxygen- 67% reduction
Hydrogen- 35% reduction

Mercury (Hg) Comparison

Raw Composite, 0.35

Raw T/Lignite, 0.35

Raw PRB, 0.189

T/Lignite Char, 0.051 85% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 0.051 73% reduction

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Comparison

Raw Composite, 229.0

Raw T/Lignite, 244.0

Raw PRB, 210.0

T/Lignite Char, 163.48 33% reduction

Fixed Carbon Comparison

Raw Composite, 40.77

Raw T/Lignite, 40.54

Raw PRB, 40.81

T/Lignite Char, 28.52 30% reduction

Carbon Comparison

Raw Composite, 62.59

Raw T/Lignite, 62.69

Raw PRB, 66.60

T/Lignite Char, 45.54 27% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 45.54 32% reduction

Sulfur Oxide (SOx) Comparison

Raw Composite, 102.16

Raw T/Lignite, 102.20

Raw PRB, 89.29

T/Lignite Char, 34.72 66% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 34.72 61% reduction

Sulfur Comparison

Raw Composite, 1.57

Raw T/Lignite, 1.10

Raw PRB, 1.11

T/Lignite Char, 1.87 19% increase

T/Lignite Char, 1.87 70% increase

T/Lignite Char, 1.87 68% increase

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Comparison

Raw Composite, 101.94

Raw T/Lignite, 102.36

Raw PRB, 89.64

T/Lignite Char, 33.73 67% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 33.73 62% reduction

Nitrogen Comparison

Raw Composite, 1.35

Raw T/Lignite, 1.26

Raw PRB, 0.96

T/Lignite Char, 0.88 35% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 0.88 30% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 0.88 8% reduction

Hydrogen Comparison

Raw Composite, 2.53

Raw T/Lignite, 2.35

Raw PRB, 2.88

T/Lignite Char, 1.65 35% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 1.65 30% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 1.65 43% reduction

Oxygen Comparison

Raw Composite, 33.53

Raw T/Lignite, 33.70

Raw PRB, 29.56

T/Lignite Char, 10.95 67% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 10.95 68% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 10.95 63% reduction

Total Volatiles Comparison

Raw Composite, 44.94

Raw T/Lignite, 45.42

Raw PRB, 50.42

T/Lignite Char, 30.50 32% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 30.50 33% reduction

T/Lignite Char, 30.50 40% reduction