LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONIZATION [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SM,—T trust
that such letters as the one you published in your last "week's issue from your correspondent, Mr. Hill, will not deter you from continuing your advocacy of the Principle of low-temperature carbonization of coal. At this juncture it is greatly to be deplored that efforts to develop this process should be diseOuraged. It is the one pronn'sing solution of the present impasse in the coal problem, in spite of much inspired opposition.
Mr. Hill may be right in saying that shale conversion is not a commercial proposition, but the conversion of British coal into smokeless fuel and oil and rich gas, provides three revenues, and each of these commodities can compete with present methods of production. If the Germans can convert low- grade lignite into marketable fuels and oils, as they have been doing for some years by low-temperature treatment, surely we can do the same with our high quality coal. There are several, British methods more suitable to our needs than the German processes, and if Mr. Hill will read the reports of the Fuel Research Board he will convince himself.
Briefly answering Mr. Hill's question, one ton of coal of average quality will furnish 14 cwt. of smokeless fuel of equal value to the, coal from which it was made, plus 5,000 cubic feet of rich gas that needs no costly enrichment as at present is the practice, plus 20 gallons of crude oil, which on fractiOna- tion yields about 3 gallons of light spirit which the Royal Air . Force has tested and reported upon in highly encouraging manner, and other products—Diesel oil, eresylic acid, &e. But even in, its crude state this low-temperature oil, in com- petition with free oil (crude petroleum) has been sold on the open market in large quantities, and obtained much higher prices than those prevailing for ocean-borne oil on which this country perilously depends. Let us double the market value of our coal and our problem is solved.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
