Fuel Policy
SIR,—I confirm all that was written by Mr. C. J. M. Alport, M.P., in his timely article, and believe that some amplification of his remarks will be of interest. It is hardly necessary to make further comment on the National Coal Board, because many facts concerning its affairs are now widely known and cause great anxiety. However, it is pertinent to point out that nearly five years ago Sir Eric Young, who was at that time the only mining expert on the National Coal Board, published some interesting observations. He indicated that the solution to the N.C.B.'s problem lay in the reduction of voluntary abstention from work on the part of the miners, the provision of greater incen- tives to work, and " at all levels the organisation of the National Coal Board will have to be so arranged_ that mining engineers are given executive authority to carry out the functions delegated to them."
Evidence published in A National Fuel Policy issued by the Federa- tion of British Industries (February,. 1952) shows that national coal- consumption is expected to exceed national production by some 50 million tons in ten years' time, and, of this total, 27-} million tons will be required by the B.E.A. to meet the increased demands necessi- tated by its programme for power-station construction. The Authority's stations at present shotv an average thermal efficiency of under 22 per cent., although it is expected that this value will reach 26 per cent. by 1960. It is a fact that, today, more than three quarters of the heat-value in the coal is wasted.
Technically, large savings can be made by industry, without any doubt whatever. It is only thus that Britain's economic survival can be ensured. Why has so little progress been made in this matter since the war ? There are two answers. Excessively high taxation, as well as price and profit limitation, has made it impossible for most businesses to plough back an adequate proportion of so-called profit to enable real capital to be maintained The second hindrance has been the attitude of the electricity supply industry in relation to standby charges, thereby often killing possible schemes for the instal- lation of highly efficient private generating plant.
Every encouragement should be given to the extended use of back- pressure generating sets. Far more can be done in the matter of the modernisation of stoking equipment, so that low-grade fuels can be burned efficiently. There is no reason why, in this respect, factory boiler plants cannot compete on equal terms with public power-stations, thanks to modern developments in mechan-ical-stoker design. The private back-pressure plant, using such fuels, can often show at least twice the efficiency of any B.E.A. station. It is startling to record, but nevertheless true, that American coal is being burned today in certain B.E.A. power-stations. The proportion may not be large, but this fact is in itself an alarming reminder of the present position.
Much, too, could be achieved by providing wider facilities for training stokers. Hand-firing can be efficient, but in far too many cases it is not so, often; as a result, making the plant burn twenty per cent. more coal than is necessary. Virtually no capital expenditure is required to achieve such savings. The value of the insulation for buildings should be more widely appreciated; otherwise the value of a good boiler-house may be neutralised. In many circumstances there is also a strong case for installing Diesel generating plant. and much more should be done in this field.
There is no doubt that a sane and vigorous fuel policy would be supported by many Members of the Opposition. The views of Mr. Noel Baker. Mr. Alfred Robens and others on this subject are well
Previous page
