COAL - ONE OF THE UK'S MAJOR ASSETS

NOTE: A basic version of this article, along with descriptions of practical tests carried out by Van Allen Research, was produced in 1985, following John's involvement in the development of solar energy collectors, which work opened his eyes to the forthcoming oil and pollution problems. He didn't actually predict global warming, but he did realize the need to take early steps to head off the problems that we are all having to face up to now, especially our need for clean air to breath. His actual technology has been held secret ever since - is anyone interested now?

Why don't we run all our cars on coal? I've had reason to ask this question of many people, so I can probably guess your reaction to it. On the other hand, suppose that I could convince you that I am sane, and that I can demonstrate, in every respect, that the idea is entirely rational! Suppose I could not only persuade you that the technology is available, and that the investment would be sound, but also that it would – in a single stroke – give the UK the cleanest urban air supply in the world. Would you then perhaps want to believe me? I'd like a clean planet as much as anyone, but supposing that I also confess that my interest is very much a commercial one. Wouldn't you at least be intrigued enough to give me a fair hearing?

During World War II, coal was seriously investigated as a source of fuel for vehicles. When the war ended, there were more important things to think about, and so the research was closed down, despite the fact that it had produced some very positive results. Had it been continued, I have little doubt that our coal industry would still be alive today.

The economic value of coal was most significantly hit by the anti-pollution laws. That these laws were "just and proper" is not really up for debate, but it was not only the widespread banning of "crude" coal as a fuel that was to blame. As if the need to reduce pollution was not enough, the "perceived" value of coal has also been seriously manipulated, first by the atomic industry, then as a cover for neglect by various governments, then finally by the 1980s insane economic policies, in support of which the "production" and "worker" sections of our community were devalued, en mass! The real value of coal should be measured in positive terms: The material's value to society as a source of energy - and not in negative terms: As a pollutant. It was not the coal that polluted, it was man's ill use and bad management of the material.

So, why don't we run our cars on coal? No, I don't mean we should revert to steam engines. I mean that we should run our internal combustion engines on coal gas.

Coal gas is the gaseous product of the distillation of coal. It is a mixture of methane (CH2) and hydrogen. An ad-man would probably describe it as, "Hydrogen enriched Methane – the cleanest and most viable fuel for the internal combustion engine". And with good reason - it happens to be reasonably true. If preferred, the two components can be easily separated, each becoming the "optimum" fuel for given engine configurations. In mixture or separately, both can give rise to entirely non-polluting exhaust. If you don't like the idea of using low pressure liquid methane, then how about methanol, which is a liquid and as stable as gasoline at normal atmospheric pressure. If you've heard that methanol is a bit feeble as a fuel (for your particular taste in cars) take a look at Indy car racing – and say no more. True, few engines are currently configured to optimise these fuels, and this is likely to give rise to argument against the above claims, but these arguments will be contrived, so ignore them, or pass them on to me for assassination.

Coal gas can be easily and economically extracted from all grades of coal, including low grade shale. Liquefied, it is safe, and could comfortably satisfy all of the UK's requirements for vehicle fuels.

The other two primary products of the distillation of coal are coke and coal-tar. I shall deal first with the coke:

Coke is a light, porous, carbonaceous rock which may be used as a combustible fuel, and which has a certain extremely valuable property. That is, its release of thermal energy can easily and inexpensively be controlled, simply by regulating the amount of oxygen with which the combustion process is fed. It is, for example, a favourite fuel of the blacksmith. By simply allowing the coke to burn slowly in the forge, energy is conserved. Then, by forcing air through the forge, it can be made to rapidly attain an energy output, sufficient to heat, or even melt, metals. An even better example is the fact that coke, a by-product of the distillation of coal, is an ideal fuel for driving its own, and many other, distillation processes. Simply by arranging for the combustion exhaust to exit via a flue, then controlling the process by baffling the input air supply, perfect control can be established. The distillation process also lends itself, with very little complexity, to continuous flow. Some of the coke so produced can be used to drive the distillation process, and the rest can be sold as a valuable fuel.

When coke is burned properly, the only pollutant is the particulate content of its exhaust which can easily be extracted by inexpensive technology, which itself can be powered directly and solely by some of the convection energy otherwise wasted in the flue. Quite literally, within a wide and useful range, the height of the flue can be set to optimise both combustion control, and pollution extraction, making the whole process free of external energy running costs.

The balance of the residue of the combustion process is the same, inert particulate. This material is also of value to the building, road-making and ceramics industries. The value of this residual component can be further enhanced by separation into particle size "grades". This separation process, too, could be driven by energy extracted from the flue gasses.

As to the possibility of coke becoming devalued by virtue of overproduction (a possibility which cannot be, and has not been, ignored) this need not happen if certain simple and rational steps are taken. Many existing operators could easily be persuaded to switch fuels if a long-term and stable economic advantage was on offer. In this age of emerging awareness, coke might well become the preferred fuel for new projects which would otherwise burn oil or gas. Provided that the package came with in-built pollution control and waste product removal (which it would) it would be an obvious short-cut to "pollution law conformity", a commercial problem which is growing more important by the day.

Aided by its light weight, and high input to waste-product ratio, coke may be used with good effect for continuous processes. This could include the provision of hot water or warm air for large buildings or organised conglomerations. There are even good arguments for the re-introduction of the steam engine for static power plants, some possibly even producing electricity. Although no serious study has been carried out, there is some persuasive evidence that certain industries which rely upon high current electricity, but for which the "stability" afforded by the national grid is of no consequence, could materially benefit from producing their own supply.

Pulverised coke (yielding a very high calorific value to mass ratio) is also a product which has been examined, not only for domestic use, but as a possible export. The technology to utilise pulverised coke is understood (albeit, perhaps not widely) and could be made available at short notice, the technology itself adding to its export value.

The particulate coke residue (the least valuable product) will not suffer from over-production, simply because of its widespread application and low yield. The building industry alone could absorb it all, and still want more.

Coal-tar is currently an underused feedstock in the chemical industry, simply because it is not readily or economically available. Make it so, and the industry will use it. Coal-tar's use in the building industry is also limited by supply and cost. Again, make it available and inexpensive, and its use will be considerably extended. The road making industry has an existing ill-served need for such a product. Finally, when further refined, coal-tar, its separated components, and many products based upon the substances, are economically viable export goods.

It is estimated that the UK has enough coal reserves to last for several hundred years. If this commodity were harnessed now, all of the North Sea oil and gas, and the distillate products of the oil could be sold into Europe, significantly adding to the wealth of our country. There are no IC engine applications which could not be satisfied by coal gas or its components. The UK would never need another teaspoonful of gasoline for any of its engines, and as I have said, the air supply, even in our highly populated areas, would be the cleanest in the world.

Sure, it would mean a lot of changes and take a good deal of time. But, be honest, is several hundred years not a good deal of time?

So why not give our miners their jobs back, clean up our horrendous vehicle exhaust pollution, and improve the economic viability of our nation?

In our (1987) study, we identified a reluctance (an embargo almost) on "outside" technology being imported into the coal mining industry. The idea that the conversion plants should be built at the mine-heads and the 'products' rather than crude coal sold into the market place was not well received. Why this should be, remains a mystery, for it is clear that the outside world does not want the black stuff. In fact the, "That's what we do – so take it or leave it", attitude was so strong that we did not pursue our argument beyond the opening gambit. Nor were they in the least interested in our pulverised coke technology. That this 'head in the sand' philosophy hasn't worked out is clear now for all to see. My guess is that instead of attempting to resuscitate the old industry, it might be easier to create a new one. After all, the coal is still there, the technology is here, and a new 'runner' might do well to avoid the fetters and short-sightedness of the old regime.

As a professional person, I have not been personally inconvenienced by the movement away from a "government of and for the nation's people" to a "government as a player on the world stage", but it has been a saddening experience to witness, for I have been able to do nothing to stem the flow. Watching our industries destroyed by the promotion of unregulated capitalism masquerading as democracy, and watching with disbelief as our assets were stripped, and many of the villains knighted for their efforts, has left me with a cynical belief that everyone expects "someone else" to keep things right, with no awareness of, or even regard for, the fact that these "someone elses" simply do not exist. Many times I have been told that this or that was "not my concern", and that I should keep my nose out of it. But never has my question, "So whose concern is it?" elicited a name. Perhaps the plight of the coal miner is not my concern, perhaps the polluted air that I breath is not my concern, perhaps the insane abuse of our natural resources is not my concern, but tell me, then, just whose concerns are they? And why aren't they doing anything about it?

There is some (founded, if not profoundly so) argument that resuscitation of the coal industry to an extent that it could oust oil in any reasonable time-scale is not viable. But this does not alter the viability of the fuel. In fact, it has long been my contention that a single source fuel supply is not logistically rational anyway. What we really need is a multi-fuel vehicle system, either with a free choice, different sectors using different fuels, or multi-fuel capability engines. All are a practical possibility. Ethanol would be an "alternative" and if this suggestion tends to decrease my credibility, I would suggest that you take a look at my particular study of the economic viability of alcohol. Then you will soon realise that it is not only coal that has been 'manipulated' by the politicians and the oil and chemical industries.

In case I have given out the wrong message, let me state that I am not in any way associated with the coal industry (although my mother did come from Cardiff) and neither am I a chemist. My relevant expertise and long term (46 years - on and off) experience is with the internal combustion engine.

John Allen