vestment in plants and equipment likely will be much lower than for techniques based on hydrogénation. Energy costs, too, are expected to be lower since reaction temperatures are low. The important considerations in evaluating the economic feasibility of the process, Lederman says, are the cost of the monomer, how much monomer is needed, and the extent of conversion of the coal to soluble form. Efforts to pin down and to improve these conditions are under way. PolyGulf has research quantities of the solubilized coal available for sale to companies interested in developing the procedure further and in licensing the technology. Potential applications fall into three categories. It can be used to make a liquid fuel that could serve as a substitute for petroleum fuels, to extend petroleum fuel by dispersing coal in it, and as a cleanup technique either for conventional coal or in conjunction with other processes to liquefy coal. Probably the most immediately applicable use will be as a fuel extender for utilities and home heating, since the solubility of the material in crude oil and other petroleum-based solvents already has been demonstrated. A related possible application is in a mixture with kerosine to make a substitute for diesel fuel. Its heating value of 16,000 Btu per lb is comparable to that of coal liquefied by hydrogénation. Soluble coal also may have a role as a chemical feedstock. PolyGulf speculates that it could be introduced into a cracking tower in much the same way that petroleum is to separate useful chemical feedstocks derived from coal. And one chemical company already has expressed interest in exploring its possible use as a raw material for carbon fiber production. If economics permit, it seems technically possible to use chemical grafting as a final step in other processes aimed at liquefying coal to remove sulfur and complete the liquefication. Rebecca L. Rawls, C&EN Washington
Poll indicates public confused on energy A nationally recognized public opinion pollster says that the public is "concerned but cynical and confused" about the U.S. energy situation. These attitudes manifest themselves, he says, in the public's overwhelming desire to do something about energy, the perception of many that the oil shortage of 1974 was the result of oil company conspiracy, and the public's conflict between the desirability of continued development of nuclear power and misgivings about nuclear safety. Speaking at an Atomic Industrial Forum meeting on energy policy in Washington, D.C., Burns W. Roper, president of the Roper Organization, a private, public opinion research firm, said t h a t as recently as last summer three fourths of those polled said that the government should make major efforts to develop new energy sources and find
Roper: most still blame oil companies better ways to conserve fuel. About the same number said that their Congressmen and Senators should give more attention to developing a national energy policy, and they placed energy well ahead of action on national health insurance, control of toxic chemicals, or reducing unemployment through government work programs. Paradoxically, although seven out of 10 people favor continued development of nuclear energy to help alleviate shortages, as of last fall the American public by a 3 to 2 margin saw nuclear power plants as a safety hazard if they were located "near here." In other words many did not want to live near one. Roper says this response reverses an opinion trend of recent years that nuclear plants were safe rather than dangerous. He concedes, however, that this reversal may be the result of last fall's spate of antinuclear referenda and the attendant publicity. Roper detects public cynicism about energy in the fact that 57% of those polled still blame the major oil companies for causing the oil shortage, whereas only 37% fault the Arab countries. Asked another way, about half of those polled affirmed that there was never a real oil shortage—it was contrived for economic and political reasons. At the same time only one in four believes that there is a real oil shortage and that the problem will get worse during the next five to 10 years. These responses haven't changed appreciably since 1974. That the public is confused about energy is evident in responses about the short-term (five years) remedies the U.S. could turn to in the event that oil imports were cut off, Roper believes. Nuclear energy was cited most often, coal second, and solar energy third. "The fact that one out of five thinks that solar energy could substitute for oil over the next five years, I think, is some evidence of confusion," he says. "The fact that more than a third of the public thinks that we could get by without serious problem if all imports were to cease is evidence of confusion at best, and total ignorance at worst." D
Heavy water/ deuterium gas Norsk Hydro, the Norwegian company first in the world to produce heavy water on a commercial scale, is still prepared to supply these two products in quantities suitable for research applications. D20 99,8% D2 Ο 99,95% D2 gas min. 99,7% Available in standard con tainers directly from stock at our Norwegian factory.
Oxygen isotopes Water: H 2 0 1 8 D2018 H2017 D2017 H2016 D2016
Gases: CO™ C0218 S0218 0218 0217
Delivery normally from stock at our factory. For further information - prices, leaflets, quantities etc. - contact
( ( ( Norsk Hydro iûm( Sales Corporation 800 Third Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022
Jan. 24, 1977 C&EN
27
