"Enrivonmentally Benign Urethane and Urea Synthesis in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
"The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1931
Presentation Speech
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Under Alfred Nobel's will, the Nobel Prizes are to be awarded to those who have been of the greatest benefit to mankind and, particularly in respect of the Prize for Chemistry, it is stipulated that this shall go to the person who has made the most important discovery or improvement in chemistry.
By virtue of this, the Academy wishes to thank you and congratulate you, and requests you to receive the distinction from the hands of His Majesty the King."
First of all, let's make note of the fact that, even as early as 1931, several problems had, as we have tediously documented and pointed out to be possible, been solved by the technology of converting coal into liquid fuels: The petroleum shortage, recognized even then, was "obviated" by the ability to liquefy coal. Sustainability was addressed through the applicability of coal conversion technology to, as we have many times documented to be practical, renewable resources, as in: "The ease with which the (technology) can be adapted to the various problems of the petroleum industry is obviously of the utmost importance. As far as our country is concerned, the possibility of obtaining oils from timber by high-pressure processing is of particular importance."
That potential of sustainability, of course, is in addition to the Committee's earlier award of the Nobel to Paul Sabatier for demonstrating that Carbon Dioxide could be recycled into methane.
In sum, it is clear: As early as 1931, the pending "oil crisis" and the issue of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide had both been, as confirmed by the unimpeachable Nobel Committee, solved. Coal could be converted into liquid fuels, and CO2 could be recycled.
Why, almost a century later, is that news not broadly known? And, why, now, are we not doing something about it all?
"OIL: Synthetic
Out of St. Louis one day last week glided a diesel-powered Burlington train with a cargo of bigwigs from the coal, oil and auto industries and the Department of the Interior. The big diesel was burning oil made from coal—the first time in U.S. railroading that a train has ever run on synthetic fuel.
The train swung 188 miles up the Mississippi to the sleepy, picturesque town of Louisiana, Mo. There the passengers witnessed the dedication of two plants, developed by the Bureau of Mines at a cost of $15 million, to convert coal into oil. This was the biggest step the U.S. had yet taken to create a synthetic oil industry against the possibility of war or of exhaustion of petroleum reserves.
The plants which made the oil that drove the dedication train will turn out about 400 gallons a day—at least ten times as much as has been produced in any of the 15-odd smaller pilot plants so far built by Government and industry. But it was still far short of the 10,000-gallon daily production of a full-sized commercial plant on the scale of those that powered Germany's Luftwaffe during World War II.
RESEARCH: Chemicals from Coal
Monday, May. 12, 1952
It is different in another way. Built and operated by the huge Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., it is the only commercial plant in the world that uses coal as a direct raw material for producing chemicals. By means of hydrogenation, a method of pulverizing coal and combining it with hydrogen under extreme pressure, it produces cheap hydrocarbons.
With the new plant, Union Carbide opens the door to an infinite variety of new products. From a new abundance of such coal-hydrogenation chemicals as toluene, xylene, napthalene and phenol, predicted Union Carbide's President Morse Dial, will come an endless stream of new medicines and drugs, long-wearing and fireproof fabrics, new paints and detergents, better weed-killers and insecticides.
Saving Time. Hydrogenation of coal is not a Union Carbide invention; the Germans used a similar method to produce gasoline during World War II, and the U.S. Government is also using it at a synthetic liquid-fuel plant at Louisiana, Mo. (TIME, May 23, 1949). But Union Carbide is the first to build such a plant as a source of chemicals. After long research, it has succeeded in cutting the hydrogenation process from an hour to a few minutes, reducing the amount of high-cost hydrogen needed and boosting production of such chemicals as phenol (a base for plastics) and aniline (a base for dyestuffs) as much as 500 times the output by previous methods based on coke.
More Expansion. Until now, these and other "aromatic" chemicals (also used in perfumes, synthetic rubber, explosives and drugs) have been based on raw materials drawn from byproducts of the steel industry's coke ovens. Yet demand for them is growing at an average rate of 30% a year, while the supply has been growing by less than 5%. With the information gained from the new pilot plant, Union Carbide hopes soon to build a full-scale hydrogenation plant which will help solve this raw-materials problem for good."
So, out of Institute, WV, we learn that a "full-scale" coal "hydrogenation plant" could "solve" a major chemical manufacturer's "raw-materials problem for good". And, out of St. Louis, MO, we learn that diesel fuel made from coal can power a full-size locomotive. Keep in mind, as well, that coal can provide fuel for airplanes, too - Jennings Randolph's small one and "Germany's Luftwaffe during World War II".
Speaking of the Luftwaffe, to range even further, let's not forget army tanks. You will, hopefully, recall our documentation of General Patton's use of captured, German, coal-derived synthetic fuel to power his armored columns across the remains of the Third Reich.
We seem to have known a lot more about making liquid fuels out of coal for our planes, trains, automobiles and army tanks back in the 1940's than we do now. Anyone know, or care to speculate on, why that might be?