Abstract
IT is one of the characteristics of our times that science and technical effort make us largely independent of geographical circumstances. Products not occurring naturally may be synthesised, and under the plea of national self-sufficiency much may be done, even although entirely uneconomic when judged by former standards. Many things can be done with liquid fuel which are difficult or impossible with solid, and the natural result has been the development of the oil industry. The latest phase is the synthesis of liquids from coal by hydrogenation, and the technical merit of this achievement is apt to obscure the economic aspect. There are, however, still those who insist on the reversion to old standards, and a pamphlet issued by the Liberty Restoration League, 24 Essex Street, London, W.C.2, makes a plea for the return to coal and its products in place of oil for all purposes. It is claimed that the use of liquid fuels on land, sea and air is largely maintained by subsidy, open or concealed, which should be recognised and even curtailed. Much of the plea cannot be gainsaid, but neither the State nor the individual is likely to forgo powers conferred by liquid fuels. There is much to be said for greater efforts to transfer coal into products now in demand, but it is wholesome that the cost should be clearly understood.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Solid v. Liquid Fuels. Nature 137, 862 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1038/137862c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/137862c0