HOW TO HEAT THE HOME
By ALFRED C. BOSSOM, M.P.
ALRCHITECTS and engineers, City Fathers and local authorities, and equally all women's organisations, should consider and discuss the Report on our " Domestic Fuel Policy," published last week. Simply and concisely this comprehensive statement sets forth reasons why our present heating services are inadequate ; the objectives to be achieved in urban and rural areas, and recommenda- tions for further research into fuels and appliances, smoke abatement and our long-term programme.
To ensure adequate standards of heating in the home means, from every man's point of view, providing fuels and appliances, of quality at an appropriate price. From every woman's point of view, it means conditions of greater health and comfort for all her family with the minimum of dirt and labour. Not so long ago I touched on district heating in the columns of The Spectator, and showed how large district heating-plants supplying heat and hot water to a number of buildings would burn bituminous coal in their boilers with a working efficiency of 85 per cent. or more, as against the domestic fire's
efficiency of 20 per cent. or less, whilst our atmosphere need no longer be polluted by columns of smoke and grit, not to mention the sulphurous and ammonia gases.
In addition to district heating, the Report recommends that "central heating plants should be accepted as the main means of heating blocks of flats or single large houses." Take, for instance, a large block of flats which I know in London containing over 1,30o flats, and housing about 5,000 people. If such a block had been built before World War I, it is almost certain that each tenant would have had to make arrangements for heating his water as well as providing separate fires wherever. needed in the other rooms. Think of the tons of coal being carted around that building ; of the housewives each cleaning grates and clearing ashes ; of all the additional washing and room-cleaning because of those individual fires. As it is, this small self-contained township has a central-heating plant installed which is worked by a series of boilers in its own boiler-house. These boilers consume 5,000 tons of coke a year, or the extraordinarily low amount of one ton of coke per head for all the heat and hot water needed for that community. The boilers have a capacity of 40,000,000 British Thermal Units per hour, and can cope with the maximum demand for heat and hot water, which has, of course, been worked out mathematically by the engineers.
Even greater efficiency will result when central heating, run by thermostatically controlled gas boilers, has been brought down to a more economic level. At present, scientists and industrial experts are constantly endeavouring to cut down costs in each new installation ; but in spite of its being a little expensive, there are many thousands of plants in operation today in London alone. The advantage of such a system is that it cuts out all transport costs—driver's time and wages, petrol, tyres, lorries and so forth—as well as being one of the most economical methods of heating known as far as loss of heat is concerned, because such losses can be watched and controlled.
In present-day circumstances there is no reason why modern gas works cannot be erected adjacent to or near the pithead and make a further saving of transporting coal in bulk. If we can build a " Pluto " pipeline from Liverpool to the Rhine, there is no reason why gas should not be brought to urban areas by similar methods, thus avoiding the obnoxious fumes from and unsightliness of a modern gasworks in the midst of congested and built-up areas. I know one gas company that sells 4,000,000 therms of gas a year for gas central heating alone. This is a terrific figure because one therm of gas contains too,000 British Thermal Units. If this heating was done by solid fuel, it would amount to at least 20,000 tons. Again, think of the traffic congestion saved because this source of heat goes quietly through underground mains instead of through our busy city streets.
In Great Britain about one-third of our families still have to heat their bath water in saucepans, kettles and other small containers. Even so, this country had before the war a considerably higher fuel consumption per house than Germany, and very little less than the U.S.A. In spite of this high consumption, it is generally agreed that our homes are on an average much cooler than German homes, whilst they are certainly a lot colder than American. This is chiefly because of the wastefulness and inefficiency of our heating systems on which I have already touched, and also because houses, abroad are better insulated_ If the external walls, ground floor .and roof, windows and doors of a dwelling are properly insulated, the full value of a heating system can be both calculated and realised, whether it be by gas, electricity, oil or by a large central-heating plant. The U.S.A. has probably carried insulation in the homes farther than any other country. There, " weather-stripping "— which means placing a thin inter-locking strip of sheet metal around all doors and windows to seal the frames against draughts and leakage of heat—and double- sheet-glass windowpanes—which prevent the leakage of heat by radiation through the exterior of buildings, have not only brought the heating of divellings under the control of occupants, but enabled annual fuel costs, upkeep of appliances, replacements, etc., to be estimated correctly and in relation to the input and output of heat.
In present conditions, the average home in this country loses 8o per cent. of its heat either up the chimney or through single-glass window-panes, doors, walls, floors and roof. In other words, if your coal costs you £4 a ton, you enjoy only r6s. worth of heat from it. Can we continue to afford the hardship and discomfort of such waste?
By far the most important consideration, however, in connection with the heating of our homes, offices and factories, is the health of their occupants, which, in turn, is largely dependent upon the purity of our atmosphere. The age of industry and speed has meant that objectionable gases, and even solid particles, are belched forth into our atmosphere, almost wholly as a result of the burning of coal and its by-products. Its ill-effects on plant and animal life, on materials and on our buildings are incalculable. The most important ill-effects of atmospheric pollution are :—damage to crops and loss of yield ; increase of rickets and respiratory diseases ; loss of daylight and ultra-violet light, loss of visibility ; deterioration of buildings and materials ; extra amount of cleaning and laundry, and extra labour involved.
It is estimated that the cost of pollution for which domestic coal fires are responsible probably amounts to as much as 7s. per head of our population, and the cost of redecoration in a city like Man- chester, 3s. per head per annum. Extra laundry for industrial working-class households is estimated at 6d. per head per week more for soap and cleaning materials for a Manchester family as compared with an agricultural family. If Manchester parks existed under rural conditions, replacement of dead plants would amount to only about £8o a year ; whereas the actual cost, under prevailing industrial conditions, is kr,5oo a year. The annual national cost of damage due to smoke is about £2r,000,000 ; to damage by sulphur dioxide about £20,000,000 ; and to loss due to unburnt smoke about £4,000,000. This conservative estimate of £45,000,000 is almost wholly attributable to, and can be divided equally between, railway and industrial activities on the one hand, and domestic heating—the coal fire—on the other.
Smoke abatement has been tackled strenuously and successfully in New York. The line taken there is to encourage the use of smokeless fuels ; to insist that all new or reconstructed heating apparatus be submitted for approval to a Smoke Prevention Depart- ment ; to carry out a continuous campaign by Press and radio, and to encourage district heating. As a New York expert reports, " Both sulphur and soot will keep coming from thousands of small fires so long as these exist. The best thing is to discourage them, to encourage further use of electricity, gas and public service steam. This concen- trates as much coal burning as possible in a few large plants, where inspection is easy and large scale devices for fume and smoke reduc- tion can be used." If we wish to keep this land of our green and pleasant, now is the time for those responsible to do something about it.
Previous page
