Passing from the labor phase of the coal situation to the larger aspect
of our coal supply as related to the whole problem of the economical
production of light, heat, and power, which Sir William Crookes has
characterized as "first among the immediate practical problems of
science," we find ourselves both rich and wasteful, following the
primrose path, heedless of the morrow and not yet conscious that the
morrow is to be a day of battle.
In the first place we treat coal as if it were a thing which was
exclusively for home use, a nonexportable commodity which must be used
"on the farm," whereas it should be treated with profound respect,
because we know from Paris that sacred treaties and national boundaries
turn on its presence. The world wants our coal, envies us for having it,
fears us because of it. It is not only useful to us, but it has a cash
value in the markets of the world. Therefore it should be saved.
In the next place we treat coal as if it were all alike, not selected by
nature for specific uses; whereas we should choose our coal with as
scientific a judgment as we choose our reading glasses. There is coal
for coke and coal for furnaces and coal for house use and coal adapted
for one kind of boiler and a different kind of coal for a different kind
of boiler. Therefore we should discriminate in coal.
And again we have shown little willingness to dignify coal by seeking to
draw out by improved mechanical processes all the stored content of heat
in this lump of carbon. Instead we content ourselves by giving it a mere
pauper touch, driving off the greater volume of its value into the air.
This is a task for the mechanical engineer.
Then, too there is the problem of using coal in the form of steam or in
the more exalted form of electric current. The lifting, bobbing lid of
James Watt's teakettle did not speak the last word in power. We are only
beginning to know how we may move on from one form of motive power to
another. The wastefulness of steam power as contrasted with electric
power is a real challenging problem in conservation by itself.
And then we naturally ask, Why this long haul over mountains and through
tunnels and across bridges and along streets and into houses, by
railroad, truck, and on the backs of men, when at the very pit mouth, or
within the mine itself, this same coal might be transformed into
electricity and by wire served into factories and homes 100, 200, 300
miles from the mine? Why burden our congested railroads with this
traffic? Why strew our streets with this dirt? This may be a practicable
thing, a wise thing; it deserves study if coal is worth conserving.
Are there no substitutes for coal which we can use and can not export?
This question immediately raises the water-power possibilities of our
land, of which only the most superficial study has been made. Sell coal
and use electricity would appear a thrifty policy.
As petroleum is being used as a substitute for coal--and inasmuch as
the whole problem of fuel supply is one--we are ultimately compelled to
an investigation of the ability of our petroleum supply to meet its
present drain and to meet the expansion in its use, which is the most
surprising development of our day in the study of power creation.
This spells a program of development and conservation which should
challenge the ambitions of this Nation, and on a few of its features
perhaps a few further words would be justified.