A WAY OUT FOR THE MINES
WE wrote recently on the Report of the Committee of the Privy Council on Scientific and Industrial Research, and we dwelt particularly on that part of the Report which dealt with the work of the Fuel Research Board. Now the special Report of the Fuel Research Board itself has been published and we make no apology for returning to this subject. By far the most important part of the work is research into the question of the low-temperature carbonization of coal. Everybody knows that the low-temperature carbonization of coal is a process whereby ordinary raw coal can be split up into (a) gas, (Ii) a tar from which motor fuel and other valuable derivatives can be taken, and (c) a solid fuel very suitable for induStrial and commercial purposes, with the enor- mous advantage over raw coal that it is smokeless.
No imagination is needed 'to grasp what a revolution in our national life the perfecting of such an invention would. mean. On the. one hand we should have no need to depend as now upon imported fuel for our internal-combustion engines, while On the other we should achieve without any irksome restrictive legislation that greatest of all technical reforms, the cleansing of our skies. Simultaneously, great new markets would be opened up for our coal, the mining industry would be saved and an industrial conflict between mine-owners and men would be avoided.
Naturally the public is extremely anxious to know the truth about coal carbonization. We are often told by the manufacturers of carbonization plant that the process is an accomplished fact. Leaders of the miners, like Mr. Hodges, sometimes assert that it is only the obscurantism and obstruction of individual coalowners which prevent the large scale adoption of pithead carbonization. The coalowners, however, say that though they are ready to adopt any device which can restore their menaced fortunes as soon as it is proved practical, low-temperature carbonization is still in its infancy. Amid this clamour of the interested parties, it is refreshing to turn to the official, and impartial, Report of the Fuel Research Board, which is interested in neither the commercial nor political aspect of the question, but is wholly concerned with ascertained fact.
It is not possible to say from reading the Report either that the process can be regarded as a commercial success or that success is impossible. Perhaps the most satisfactory method will be to quote the two most relevant passages from the Report itself. Of the main experiment we are told :— "A simple continuous vertical retort has now been elaborated, which is working smoothly and producing tar and cokes at low temperatures, while the labour required to run the plant is reduced to an amount comparable with ordinary gasworks practice. Though this plant appears very hopeful, a concluded opinion cannot be formed on its industrial value until it has been working steadily for a long period, as only after considerable experience under steady working conditions will it be possible to estimate at all closely the cost of working and the depreciation of the plant."
The Report goes on to say that various private com- panies have erected, or arc erecting, plant for low- temperature carbonization on a commercial scale. At Barugh, Barnsley, a plant capable of carbonizing 100 tons of coal a day is already working. It is indicated that these plants are technically satisfactory, but we are told that the " industrial value of all these plants, as contrasted with their technical performance over relatively short periods and under variable conditions, can be determined only by prolonged experience."
In 1922 in its last Report the Board expressed the opinion that " a conditional yes " might be the reply which could be given in a few years to the question whether a new industry based on the carbonization of the tens of millions of tons which were being burnt every year in the raw state could be established. We are now told that the work done since that date " shows a definite advance, but even now the question formulated in the earlier Report cannot be answered finally." We are warned that a system will not necessarily be a commercial success on a national scale " because it has proved a success in an isolated plant, even though this plant be of a large size." So there the matter stands for the moment. But we must remember that the present Report takes account only of work done up to the end of 1924. Perhaps the last nine months have shown further developments. At all events, it is sincerely to be hoped that the Coal Commission is taking the fullest cognizance of the latest developments in low-temperature carbonization. The net impression- that one gathers from the Report is that the process is technically established to a high degree' of certainty. But at present prices the yield of the three products obtained by carbonization is only very slightly greater per ton than the yield of a ton of raw coal. And in many, instances the margin is not sufficiently wide to cover the cost of the carbonization process. Therefore, until either the cost of the process can be reduced, or a movement in , coal and oil prices increases the gain to be derived from carbonization, the process will not be installed, if we allow " the free play of economic forces " to operate. The strict economist will say that this is as it should be. But are there not considerations other than economic which are relevant to this question ?
For instance, would it not be proper to place the iamage done to buildings and to human life by the ;moke of our great cities against any increased cost of carbonization ? Even though it might mean a loss of millions. of pounds for the nation to carbonize its :.oal supply, might we not find that this loss .was more than offset by the vast gain in human efficiency that we should obtain by letting the sunlight into our cities ? Is it even good business to spend a thousand pounds in the support of a child who has been crippled for life by, ricketts produced from lack of sunlight in order to save five hundred pounds on the production of so many tons of fuel ? But quite apart from the tragic wastage of human life which goes on under the smoke pall of our cities, enormous savings can be made, if smoke is prevented, not only on buildings which are now eaten away by, acids, but on such apparently trivial things as the national washing bill. A million shirts and collars would last a day longer in a smokeless city! We wish that some of our anti-smoke enthusiasts such as Mr. E. D. Simon or our contributor, "Crusader," would compute the national saving which might be effected by the abolition of smoke. They might then give evidence before the Coal Commission and suggest that the nation would suffer no economic loss if it spent at least this sum on low-temperature carbonization.
There are two ways in which we could, in effect, subsidize low-temperature carbonization. - First, if the Coal Commission reports in favour of some form of unification among our three thousand odd mining com- panies, it might suggest that such unification should go hand in hand with a national low-temperature carboniza. tion scheme. Each group of companies might supply one big plant and the Government might make a grant towards the erection of these national low-temperature carbonization stations. But even if no scheme of unification is contemplated for the immediate future it would not be difficult, by selective taxation, to make carbonization an economic proposition. One method would be to place a tax upon each ton of coal sold in a raw state ; thus we should at any rate make those who pollute our skies pay something for the privilege of doing' so. But there are several alternative methods. Perhaps the best was suggested by Sir Richard Redmayne in his evidence before the Coal Commission last week. He suggested that a small duty should be placed on all imported oil. The present unscientific motor tax on horse-power might be abolished and this import duty on petrol be substituted for it. Home-produced motor spirit derived from low-temperature carbonization of coal would, however, be duty free and would thus enjoy an economic advantage. Sir Richard .-Redmayne con- sidered that such an arrangement would give a great stimulus to low-temperature carbonization. This sounds a thoroughly practical PropOsal, and we trust it will receive serious consideration. - As •Free Traders we fend no objection to it. For the import duty would.. not be imposed for ordinary economic reasons but- in . order to buy great advantages. We believe as strongly . as ever that tariffs -will never make the _nation richer by a single halfpenny. Indeed they must invariably cause some economic waste ; but when their object is' the safety and health of the nation, then they are a legitimate instrument of government.
Previous page
