WASTE OF FUEL. NECESSITY FOR ECONOMY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 62, 10 September 1910, Page 9

WASTE OF FUEL. NECESSITY FOR ECONOMY.

POSSIBILITIES OF COALITE. COMMENT BY GAS ENGINEER. Of late years there has been an increasing tendency among scientific men to dwell on the waste of natural resources and the need of a better economy in the household of man on earth. They point out that habitable land on this planet is limited, and that there may come a time — not very far away either— when the supply of daily bread will not equal the demand. They forecast the terrors of a world-famine. As in food, so in fuel, only more so. There can only be a fixed quantity of coal, for instance, within reach of man, and this he is burning at ever increasing rates — something like a man, with all his capital in banknotes, burning his money. But when ■ the prodigal son has burnt all he has and wants to return to the family fireside and fatted calf, he won't find any fireside or any fatted calf, .because "there ain't going to be none," as the little boy said when asked for the core of his apple. There is only so much land aud so much coal on this earth. EKE OUT SUPPLIES. So the scientific men. foregather annually and issue warnings, and counsel economy. If there is only so much coal, best make it last out as long as possible. Why send it up in smoke and poison yourself with your own extravagance? Hence the cable messages yesterday and the day before in The Post giving the opinions of speakers at the British Association for the Advancement of Science now meeting in Sheffield. Professor' H. E. Armstrong, of the City and Guilds of London Central Institute, speaking before the British Association, deplored the waste of coal that was going on in homes and in the manufacture »i gas. He advocated the compulsory making of coke at a low temperature, thereby saving a variety of valuable gases. Soft ceke would . prove better and hotter fuel and rid the towns of smoke. COALITE, THE NEW FUEL. What does Professor Armstrong actually mean? The message is brief, but hardly explicit. Mr. A. Dougall, engineer to the Wellington Gas Company, was consulted by a Post reporter on the matter. "I think," said Mr. Dougall, "that the process referred to by Professor Armstrong i<\ what is known as the' Coalite process. It has been in use j in England in two stations at lea-st for the last few years— ;-one at Plymouth, and the other at Barking. It is run by a powerful syndicate, but has never really taken with the public there yet. I shouldn't wonder if the professor himself were connected with the business." A SIMPLE PROCESS. "The process is simple enough," continued the engineer. "Instead of distilling the coal at a high temperature, as nearly all gas companies do, to get. the maximum, of gas out of it, the coalite? people put ifc through at a much lower temperature. The products are somewhat different. At a low temperature a very rich gas is produced, but in much smaller quantities than by the usual . process of manufacture. The residue of soft coke is coalite, the fuel in question." , "Don'b you think such a process would pay" ? Mr. Dougall was asked. "Well, it doesn't sem to pay in the Old Country. If you. could get a market for coalite at the price of coal, it might pay, bub not otherwise. It is certainly an excellent fuel and, I believe, kindles quite readily — quite as easily as coal — and it is smokeless. But you see, if we were to make by this process bhe quantity of gas we now supply we should require twice tb<* quantity of coal. Besides, there is no need for such rich gas — more than 20 candle-power gas. People would not have it, as it would clog the burners with soot. The introduction of the incandescent burners necessitates the use of a gas poorer in illuminating value by itself." "Bub could you not, as ifc were, water j the gas down?" NOT A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. Mr. Dougall did not think it feasible. The present system was the most economical from every point of view. There was practically no waste. The ga-s, the coke, the tar and the bye products in ammonia and other chemicals were all recovered. There might be a small saving in heating the retorts o.fc a lower temperature. With the coalite process there would be more " hydrocarbons taken off — the valuable gases, probably, mentioned by Mr: Armstrong — more tar and more liquids. As the heat was increased, the gaseors products were richer in hydrogen and po »er in carbon. The principle was much the same as in the fractional distillation of crude petroleum, with benzine, petrol, and the lighter hydrocarbons coming off first. With a high temperature in the destructive distillation of coal there was one substance, napthalene, which, by crystallising in gas pipes, often caused obstructions. This was one of ihe chief troubles in gas making. The yield of ammonia is higher with a higher temperature also. So also were sulphuretted hydrogen and carbon bisulphide. DEPENDS ON PRICES. Mr. Dougall summed the whole matter up by saying that .the economical value of such a process as that of making coalite depended entirely on the prices obtained for the coke and other bye-products. He admitted the wastefulness of the ordinary domestic grate j burning bituminous- coal. The only v real cleansing of the atmosphere of large towns would come when this fuel was replaced by coal from which the smoke forming constituents had climated and by gas. It would be interesting to try some of this coalite.