LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
COAL INTO OIL
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] am sure the thanks of everyone interested in low- temperature carbonization, using the word in the broadest sense, are due to you for your article, " Coal Into Oil—The Great ' If,' " in the issue of May 30th. Quite naturally, and correctly, you take up the attitude " if it could only be done," and perhaps I might be allowed to mention briefly what has already been accomplished. The principle of the low temperature so as to avoid cracking " and decomposition of the gaseous and volatile matter evolved from coal, &c., with the maximum production of oil, has been in the minds of many investigators throughout the world for the past seventy-five years, although the first real systematic attempt to make solid smokeless free burning low-temperature fuel was that commenced by Thomas Parker over twenty years ago, which we know to-day as the "Coalite " process.
Most people who write and talk adversely about low- temperature carbonization seem to possess only the most fragmentary idea as to the work that has already been under- taken. It is difficult, of course, for me to try to correct this impression in the space of an ordinary letter, but I may say I am personally acquainted with the details of over eighty different processes and with the contents of probably nearly one thousand patents. To-day there are in Great Britain the following processes with which large-scale experimental experience has been obtained :—" Coalite," " Maclaurin," " Mem and McLellan," " Fusion Retort," " Nielsen," " Power Gas Corporation," " Pure Coal Briquette," and " Richards- Pringle," whilst very important work has also been carried out by a large number of people, including Illingworth, G. P. Lewis, F. Lamplough, the Midland Coal Products Co., Ltd., and the Fuel Research Board. In the United States there is the " Smith Carbocoal," Greene-Lauckes," " Summers," and the " MeEwen " pulverized fuel process (the latter, how- ever, being a British method), as well as the fine work of Professor Parr, of Illinois University ; whilst the most elabor- ate large-scale work in the carbonization of lignite has been undertaken by the Canadian Lignite Utilization Board at Bienfait in Saskatchewan, chiefly in connexion with the " Stanfield " and " Hood-Odell " processes. Then in Ger- many we have—again to mention a few only—the " A. V. G.," " Dobbelstein," " Fellner-Ziegler," Lurgi," " Meguin,"
" Pintsch," " Stinnes," and " Thyssen " methods, as well as the very valuable work carried out by Franz Fischer, for example, and the epoch-making investigations of Bergius and his co-workers into the hydrogenation and liquefaction of coal. I can only say again that it is difficult to convey any idea of the vast amount of experience that is represented by the processes mentioned alone, and I can assure you that we are very near practical success with more than one method. I read a paper the other week on " Pulverized Fuel and Low- Temperature Carbonization " before the Manchester Geological and Mining Society (Institution of Mining Engineers), in which I tried to point but that the advances during the last three or four years in the science of pulverized fuel firing mean a revolution in low-temperature carbonization, since for the first time we can burn any residual fuel available, irrespective of its heating value, volatile matter, mechanical condition, ash, coking properties, sulphur, and friability, at the highest efficiency under steam boilers. Many low-temperature carbonization processes have been struggling to obtain a satisfactory fuel to go along with the liquid products, but this is no longer an important matter, since this country consumes on stationary land boilers alone 90,000,000 tons of coal per annum, whereas the household consumption—in which hard smokeless fuel is a necessity— is only 35,000,000 tons. I have suggested to the colliery industries that they should take up co-operatively without delay an exhaustive investigation into the whole subject of low-temperature carbonization, with a view to eventually adopting this method at many collieries and selling the smokeless fuel, liquid products, and gas or equivalent power obtained. There is no need for me to emphasize the revolution that will result in Great Britain if such methods are adopted, but it can only be done co-operatively, and it is almost useless to expect any individual coal or iron and steel concern to embark on such a matter single-handed. The whole question of national fuel economy in this country is really an appalling one, and although some of us have been shouting about it for years from the house-tops, it is only just beginning to receive adequate attention. I will simply say that if Great Britain were to adopt scientific methods in the utilization of raw coal alone, even apart from low-temperature carbonization, we could save certainly over 40,000,000 tons of coal per annum.
Finally, I should like to point out that the Govcrmnent of this country have apparently squandered enough money on wild goose chases for petroleum all over the world to have solved the whole question of low-temperature carbonization years ago.—I am, Sir, &c., DAVID BROWNLIE.
46 Grange Road, Ealing, London, W. 5.
Previous page
