UNEMPLOYMENT AND COAL [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Your article under the above heading in your issue of June 20th prompts me to make one or two observations. Firstly, pace Mr. Hodges, low temperature carbonization as a process of treating raw coal to commercial advantage on a large scale is still " non proven." I quote the words of the Secretary for Mines, who is well known to be giving every encouragement to the development of the process :-
" The development of these processes (low temperature ear; bonization plants) is still mainly in the experimental stage."— (Hansard, May 5th, 1925.) And Dr. Lander, the Director of Fuel Research at the' Government Station at Greenwich, has himself written in his book, Low Temperature Carbonization :- " litany of the excellent results obtained from materials in the laboratory are unquestioned, but before the same results can bed produced by a plant on a commercial scale many technical problems' have to be solved and much large scale experimental work under--; taken."
You appeal for " a piece of bold industrial initiative "1
to carry out such large scale work—but is this not really and appeal for a Government subsidy, which must add yet anotheri
burden to those already carried by industry and the tax- payer ? It is probable that low temperature carbonization( has a future. It is certain that the various processes hav been and are being continuously investigated by colliery proprietors and others, but it does not follow that a Govern- ment subsidy in aid of these experiments would have any appreciable effect upon unemployment. Moreover, the fact that a process produces satisfactory results from an experiment
with one particular quality of coal, very carefully selected because it was known to be the most suitable, is not proof that the same results can be obtained from similar treatment of the inferior qualities of coal—which is the real problem. And it is known that a large proportion of British coals are utterly unsuitable for such treatment.
You say that " we should get cheaper oil for motor transport,' for sea and air transport, for the future is with the oil engine." Now Dr. Haldane, no mean authority, has just stated emphatic- ally that the future is with the steam engine, and that the fuel of the future will be either pulverized coal or coal gas. But even on the cost of the oil I would refer you once again to Dr. Lander. He says :-
"This product will always have to face competition with imported oils, and the price, therefore, in the absence of some measure of protection, is always dependent upon factors outside the control of those interested in low temperature carbonization. In this connexion, however, it has been found that several groups interested in low temperature carbonization have experienced no difficulty in disposing of all the oil produced at a price of abut 18. a gallon, and this at a time when fuel oil from foreign sources was available at a price in the neighbourhood of fourpence:
Similarly with regard to electric power. There is a con- siderable difference of opinion amongst the experts as to whether it is better to generate the power at the pithead or at the point of distribution, and still more as to the effect of the cost of - electric power upon unemployment. Power on the north-east coast is as cheap as in Chicago and twice as cheap as in Switzerland, yet unemployment is perhaps worse there than in any part of the country.
You say that the essential thing is to get the system going-- " to make the dust fly." But what if it is the wrong system
that is got going ? I do not write this letter in any attitude of hostile criticism to developments either in low temperature carbonization or electrical undertakings, or because I advocate a policy of " do nothing." In fact many things are being done in both directions, and will continue to be done. It is certain also that capital will be readily forthcoming as the various developments are shown to be commercially profitable. My object is to prevent the " flying dust " obscuring the real requirements of the situation which, I submit, are individual thrift, national economy and a universal will to work.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We have also received a letter on this subject from Sensible Heat Distillation, Ltd. (100 Victoria Street, S.W. 1), who claim that the Nielson process for the distillation of carbon- aceous materials " has been proved to be technically, practi- cally and economically sound."—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
