The Sun WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1915. NATIONAL WASTE.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume II, Issue 565, 1 December 1915, Page 6

The Sun WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1915. NATIONAL WASTE.

Under the above caption, an engineer with an international reputation discusses interestingly in the current "Bulletin" the possibilities attaching to manufacture of the byproducts of Australian coal. Germany's enterprise in this direction has returned her ample dividends in peace, and has rendered her armies inestimable service since the British Fleet blockaded German ports, and thinking Australians;have been moved to look into the matter to sec if it is not possible for the Commonwealth, with its great coal supply, to strike out for itself in retrieving the by-products of this amazingly prolific mineral. The expert referred to, basing his figures on the official statement that last year over 300,000,000 tons of coke were produced in New South Wales, calculates that, as this represents a consumption of 4j50,000,000 tons of coal, the by-products wasted would exceed in value over £200,000. These figures and accompanying facts are convincing to the lay mind. Of the £200,000 which, is annually lost to the Mother State, sulphate of ammonia accounts for £60,000, and the balance is made up of benzol, carbolic acid, creosote, naphtha, pitch, etc. Japan, Java, and Mauritius offer regular markets for sulphate of ammonia. The value of benzol as a motor fuel is beyond argument. These facts having been ascertained, the question arises as to whether the recovery of the by-products is for Australia a practicable venture. There would seem to be no more serious obstacle to such an enterprise than political indifference and political and popular ignorance. There appears to' be no doubt as to the quality and quantity of the by-products of Australian coal, and, touching on the manufacture of the coke, the writer suggests a co-operative system—the establishment of large central works where "there would be a sufficient yield of gas" to supply all the fuel for heating the coke ovens, leaving a surplus sufficient to generate all the electrical energy, at a cost of about l-3d per unit, to supply all the power required at the collieries % . . . and enough to supply light and power to the towns and villages in the neighbourhood, and possibly local tramways as well." This scheme appears on the surface to; b£ over ambitious, but the writer declares it to be an ascertained fact. As indicating the use to which Germany has put her practical monopoly of this trade, it is pointed out that between the year 1881 and 1909, two German firms alone erected 25,000 ovens. Each oven, it is computed, will produce on an overage 1500 tons of coke per annum, which gives an annual production of 40,000,000 tons. As there are now (or were before the war) some six or eight large firms in Germany building coke oven plants, the maximum output of that country prior to the war must have approached the 100,000,000 mark. The writer continues: "Added to this is the enormous yield: of by-products and the revenue from them. Is it to be wondered that that country has been able to export coke to all parts of the world— Australia, China, and Japan, New Caledonia, Chili, Mexico, and Peru? Most of these could and should be supplied from Australia." If the war has done nothing- else of value it has forced on conservative Britain and British people the recognition of the stern fact that, industrially speaking, while they slumbered Germany toiled assiduously. Here in the colonies our eyes are only now being opened to the wasted op-

portunities which industrial Germany so avidly seized. We have too long been content to allow other countries lo do for us what we should do for ourselves. For instance, what are the Government's intentions in respect to the steel industry? Australia has at last begun the manufacture on a large scale of steel rails and general goods. Are New Zealand's wealthy iron deposits to go untended indefinitely?