From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Page from 'The Electrical Review' journal discussing the economics of electricity supply versus gas and London wiremen's wage negotiations.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 124\3\ scan0075 | |
| Date | 12th December 1919 | |
| Vol. 85. No. 2,194. DECEMBER 12, 1919.] THE ELECTRICAL REVIEW. 739 advantage that was expected). Lord Moulton took the same view, and upon it as a text he based an attack upon the use of electricity for distributing heat. That was the only ground on which he could venture upon a comparison of gas and electricity; the truth of the matter, as he must be aware (being "the greatest living authority on the subject") is that the main purpose of the Bill is to supply power as cheaply and abundantly as possible; the Bill is the direct outcome of the report of the Committee appointed to consider the question of electric power supply. The Coal Conservation Sub-Committee pointed out that "one question which has been settled conclusively during the past 15 years is that the most economical means of applying power to industry is the electric motor"; in the munition factories put down during the war "95 per cent. of the machinery is driven by electricity, and it is only a question of time for all power to be applied in this way." Power supply is the very essence of the Bill—so Lord Moulton, learned in the law, seeks to confuse the issue and stampede public opinion by attacking the use of electricity for distributing heat. For this purpose he quotes Sir Dugald Clerk's statements, which are grossly misleading. Sir Dugald says that out of every hundred heat units in the coal consumed, gas delivers 75 heat-units to the user, whereas electricity delivers only 17.6; he does not say, however, that the latter is the net figure, capable of complete utilisation; his 75 heat units are the gross figure, which cannot be utilised to the full. In point of fact, when these combustibles are burnt, the user does not usefully receive even 17.6 heat units per 100 in the coal consumed. The coal merchant might with equal justice and greater accuracy claim to have the best system of all; for he does really deliver cent. per cent. of the heat energy contained in his coal! Such statements as these—the comparison of incommensurable quantities—cannot be regarded as bona fide; they are calculated to mislead the public, which cannot discriminate between heat units actually available and heat units in the potential or latent form. The wine merchant sells wine—the fruiterer sells grapes, from which a small percentage of wine could be made; it would be just as sensible for the latter to disparage the wares of the former as it is for the gas advocates to decry the product of the electricity works. All this is in reality a side issue, of no importance in fact; but the public is being hoodwinked, and we must therefore endeavour to open its eyes. Again, Lord Moulton attacks the scheme on the ground that centralised generation at points "connected with the localities where the users reside by many thousand miles of mains everywhere open to attack at the hands of a handful of the disaffected" opens the door to the stoppage of all our industries at a moment's notice. This preposterous statement really calls for no refutation in an electrical paper, but as it comes from "the greatest living authority" we must touch upon it. First, we again point out that the "many thousand miles of mains" are purely a product of imagination; no one proposes long-distance transmission. With this country divided into 16 areas, each containing two, three, or more big power stations, linked together, the mains would nowhere be very long, and complete interruption would be an extremely difficult matter necessitating a widespread conspiracy and elaborate organisation in each area—practically civil war or rebellion. But what is Lord Moulton's alternative? Gas, and the by-products of gas making! Gas for motor traction ("even producer gas," with less than 150 B.TH.U. per cubic foot!), gas for heating, gas for power—and what about the miles of gas mains, "everywhere open to attack"?. The discussion in the House of Lords last week led to similar misstatements. Lord Downham repeated the tales about 16 superstations and 150 millions outlay, &c., and said that if treated with justice, the electrical undertakings would agree to organise schemes under which small stations would be scrapped, larger stations used in combination, and the best use made of the undertakings to get the best possible supply of electricity. Would it surprise him very much to know that that is precisely what the Bill asks them to do? (Clause 5, 2) and that the terms of purchase in that case may be the subject of agreement? (Clause 5, 6). Lord Moulton followed with a violent attack on the principle of the Bill, apparently repeating much of his Daily Mail tirade, and secured an adjournment. We were glad to see that, in the resumed debate, the Lord Chancellor pointed out that apparently not one of the opponents of the Bill had taken the trouble to read it; and their assumptions, mostly based on Lord Moulton's remarks, had not the slightest foundation. That is the trouble, and it is not limited to members of the Upper House. It is greatly to be regretted that the consideration which led to the initiation of the electricity supply scheme is almost wholly ignored by those who discuss the subject. That consideration was the urgent necessity of economising fuel, and it is just as urgent now as it ever was. The gas advocates for their own purposes have dealt with it in their own way, invariably assuming that the coal consumed by electricity works is of the same quality as that which they themselves employ. But this is a first-class error, or worse. While gas can only be made from coal of a fairly high quality, electricity works can use low-grade coal which is practically useless for other purposes, and in many cases would either be left in the pit or thrown away. The utilisation of waste coal is just as important as that of waste heat. ELSEWHERE we give particulars of the decisions of the National Joint Industrial London Council for the Electrical Contracting Wiremen's Wages. Industry with regard to the standardisation of wages, and the division of the country into four "grades." These decisions were ratified unanimously by the Council, which consists of representatives of employers and employés in equal numbers, and therefore ought to be loyally accepted by both parties. It will be observed, however, that the schedule does not cover London, and we reproduce with it a communication from Mr. L. G.{Mr Griffiths - Chief Accountant / Mr Gnapp} Tate, general secretary to the Federation, describing the negotiations which took place between the London Section of the Federation and the London Branch of the Electrical Trades Union, from which it will be seen that they resulted in a deadlock. The matter has been under discussion since October, 1918, when the Union applied for 2s. 6d. an hour plus 12½ per cent., and double pay for overtime. On Saturday last, according to the Daily Herald, a ballot of London members of the E.T.U. resulted in an overwhelming majority "in favour of action," the conduct of affairs being entrusted to the Executive of the branch. What will follow is uncertain. A strike on the part of the E.T.U. would involve electric power stations for public and railway supply in the London area, but the recent experience of the railway strike gives good ground for believing that there would be no great difficulty in maintaining the supply with voluntary aid. As regards installation work, there is plenty of it in hand, but the public as a whole would not be materially inconvenienced by a strike. The London employers have for so long a period been subjected to endless worry and disturbance, not only by the demands of the employes, but also by their deliberate adoption of the go-slow policy, that they will probably be glad of a rest. Some of them will be inclined to close their businesses altogether and take to farming or some other trade in which life is still worth living. But we do not think there will be a general strike of wiremen just at present. | ||