Valdez daily prospector., 1915-04-29
THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1915.
COAL AND WATER POWER.


 of anthracite in Pennsylvania is good news for everybody except the immod. crate conservationists. The Pennsyl- vania papers say that this is the sec ond recent discovery in the Bear Ridge mountain region, and the third of importance in the anthracite terri tory within few years. If we do not know the resources of so familiar and thoroughly exploited a territory as Pennsylavnia, the inference is strong that the world at large still holds unsuspected riches, even at the time that the alarm of exhaustion is raised anew. Forty years ago, when the annual production of anthracite ran about 25,O0O,00O tons, alarmists thought there would soon be no more Now the output is about fourfold, and the discoveries continue.
 The discovery of coal is nothing compared to the discovery of water power, about which a similar cry of waste is raised. Only few years ago, when MT. Burton was delivering his valedictory in the senate, he de- clared that there was thirty million horse power in the waterfalls and that the coal would be exhausted in century. Here, he said, was a double waste, the failure to utilize the water power and the consump- tion of the coal, which never would be renewed. Nothing can justify waste, either of coal or water pow CT, and conservation in reason is admirable. But the day of the ex- haustion of coal is deferred with dis coveries, and the waste of water pow CT is economy of the capital neces- sary to make it available. Even ac- cording to Senator Burton's figures it would cost six billions of dollars to harness the waterfalls, in addition to the cost of transmission lines and machinery. In short. the cost of the water power is not accurately known, and is enough to deter those who have the money and who find coal cheaper.
 The water power is perpetual, it is true, but so is the cost of making use of it. There is waste in the utiliza- tion of both coal and water power, of capital in the case of water pow CT and of mining and inefficient en- gineering in the use of coal The question of reasonable conservation in our own times lies in the comparison of these costs. If we find it cheaper to use the coal than to develop water power, we may do f. with good l conscience, for we will give to pos l terity more than we deprive 1t of. They will have the water power as l the gift of nature. As gift from ! the consumers of the coal they will ] have the developments of science. For example, the utility of water pow CT is immeasurably increased by the development of electrical transmits sion. Water power remote from transportation or markets is only worth tithe of water power annex Ted to markets and railways by the tuse of electricity for transmission to iwhere economic use can be made of carried to consumers economically.
 That is the gift of our generation, and is worth incomparably more than Ithe coal we have consumed The world is richer by the use those who Hive upon it make of it's natural wealth. We are enriching posterity rather than robbing it. Our children's children will bless us for our crea- aions more than they would if we left the coal unmined. The wiser way is to deal with each case of either waste or development upon it's individual merits and leave the az ,eregate of the decisions to make up the case for or against conservation. , Those who take views too wide or oo long for human foresight are lia-
 lie to make blunders, as we'll as those : Rho take short and individual views, md make their mistakes also h. hllibility is not for morals. Those tho aspire to advise everybody are < pt to be carried away by their en-
 Ausiasm and their good intentions lew York Times.