Referring to Figure 2, the States that have natural-gas consumers are shown by the stars. EFFECT OF HOME ECONOMICS TEACHING. In many towns more than one-half of the gas consumers are carried at a loss because they use so little gas that the cost of standing ready to render service and delivering the gas is more than the income received. Most of this is due largely to our disintegrated home-life situation and habits of makeshift meals. Of the three essentials of family life-food, shelter, and clothing-food is the most important; therefore, the better and more economical preparation of the food is vital to the family. Since the life of our Nation depends on the preservation of our family life and, therefore, the stemming of the tide of indifference to and distaste of real home making and lack of appreciation that woman's greatest career is a home maker, anything that makes home meal service more attractive is worth while. The teaching of home economics in the schools and elsewhere is growing at a rapid rate. In the United States at the present time there are 30,000 trained teachers of home economics teaching this subject in the schools; from 50,000 to 75,000 students of home economics in institutions of collegiate rank; and 800,000 to 900,000 pupils in the high schools and grammar grades taking either home economics or domestic science work." This must result in better living conditions, more bathing, greater use of hot water, increasing use of home-cooked foods, and the realization that the cost of gas for cooking is a small part of the total meal cost, as shown in Figure 3. These changes will result in an increasing use of gas for all domestic purposes, and the gas industry must meet this growing demand. GAS SMALL PART OF TOTAL MEAL COST. The relative cost of the food and gas in preparing a dinner consisting of a thick or Swiss steak, escalloped potatoes, spinach, bread, butter, rice pudding, coffee, cream, and sugar, with portions for six people, as cooked on the ordinary gas range, is shown in Figure 3. The costs in cents are given opposite the respective items. The relative per cent, represented by each of the items, is shown by the 100 per cent diagram at the right-hand side. The food costs are based 2 Mary E. Sweeny, executive secretary, American Home Economics Association, Baltimore, Maryland. Based on tests made by Dr. Minna C. Denton, Office of Home Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. on current market prices, with manufactured gas at $1 for each thousand cubic feet. A similar meal was cooked in an insulated oven where the gas cost was reduced to 2 cents. DINNER -100 GAS----3.3¢ This is shown in Figure 4, where the portions are for five people. The cereals are based on current market prices, with manufactured gas at $1 for each thousand cubic feet. The total costs for five people are shown in cents at the left. The cereal costs alone are shown by the black areas and the gas costs for the "homecooked" cereals by the shaded areas. The cereals were cooked in the ordinary double boiler. Another test was also made in which the cereals were cooked in a fireless cooker and with this the gas consumption was one-half of that shown in Figure 4. RELATIVE COST OF VARIOUS FUELS.* The relative cost of various fuels for cooking a dinner consisting of a thick or Swiss steak, escalloped potatoes, spinach, bread, butter, rice pudding, coffee, cream, and sugar, with portions for six people, is shown in Figure 5. The figures at the left indicate the fuel cost for each meal in cents at the respective unit prices of the various fuels. 90 Based on tests made by Dr. Minna C. Denton, Office of Home Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Based on data from Office of Home Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., and department of home economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 39277-23-2 ELECTRICITY CAN NOT REPLACE GAS. There has been a temporary and unwarranted faith in the possibilities of electricity replacing manufactured gas for cooking and house heating. People generally are hopeful and expectant when any theory is advanced or any suggestion made as to the possibilities of improvement or development FIG. 4.-RELATIVE COST OF HOME-COOKED AND READY-TO-SERVE CEREALS. " of electric service. So many wonderful results have been attained by electrical experts in the past that the public mind is prepared for anything short of an actual miracle. When it is asserted that soon practically all the drudgery of labor will be eliminated by means of electrical appliances, and that heat will $199 MANUFACTURED GAS INSULATED OVEN 24 $100 MANUFACTURED GAS ORDINARY STOVE 3.34 27 GASOLINE 4.6¢ $13.00 COAL 54 34 ELECTRICITY 5.14 154 COAL OIL 5.4 + FIG. 5.-RELATIVE COST OF VARIOUS FUELS FOR COOKING A DINNER. be released for our homes by simply turning an electric switch, with no dust or dirt, no laying in a supply of coal and no worrying over stoves and furnaces, there is a ready response in the public mind, accepted more readily, no doubt, because the wish is father to the thought." Public Utilities Commission of Idaho, Opinion on Electric Heating, Oct. 17, 1919, pp. 7 to 21. A comprehensive study of the problem must make irresistible the conclusions that a. Electric cooking is a luxury for a limited few for whom reduced rates except for quantity used-can not be justified in social justice and nondiscrimination to all consumers. b. Electric heating of houses would be a gross waste rather than a conservation of fuel resources and so prohibitive in cost to users as to be beyond all consideration. Therefore gas and not electricity must be depended upon for the cooking and house-heating service of the urban public for the future and the manufactured-gas industry must meet this increasing publicservice obligation. The possibilities of hydroelectric power are greatly overrated by the public generally. Hydroelectric power is not of itself, and under all conditions, even when the water power is widely available, more economical and cheaper than steam power. Water-power development can not, therefore, substantially change the electric cost situation. HOW ELECTRIC COOKING AND HEATING WOULD WASTE COAL.' A week's series of 21 meals, all of different menus, each for five people, were cooked with electricity. Exactly the same meals were then cooked with manufactured gas. The total weekly fuel consumptions for the 21 meals were as follows:7 Electricity Manufactured gas (515 B. t. u.). 44 kw. h. 532 cu. ft. Pounds of coal. Taking the average coal consumption-allowing for transmission losses and low load factor conditions at 4 pounds to the kilowatt hour as delivered at the consumer's appliance-the electric range requires 4 times 44_ On the basis of complete gasification and 40,000 cubic feet of manufactured gas to the ton of coal, or 20 cubic feet of gas to the pound of coal, manufactured gas requires 532 divided by 20.... 176 27 Therefore about 6 pounds of coal would be required for electric cooking to 1 pound for manufactured-gas cooking. The effect of the general use of electricity for cooking and heating on the Nation's fuel problem is shown in the following: Total coal mined in the United States. Million tons of coal. 640 Total coal required to generate electricity for cooking and heating service 750 82 Coal now used by all domestic consumers of coal in the United States___ 106 For further discussion see Salient Features of Electric Cooking, Electric Hot-Water Heating and Electric House Heating, by Samuel S. Wyer, Columbus, Ohio, 31 pp. 7 Department of Home Economics, University of Washington, reported in the Journal of Home Economics, February, 1923, pp. 71 to 80. WASTE OF GAS COALS IN BEEHIVE COKE OVENS. At the present time, under average conditions, the beehive coke ovens in the United States waste annually about 240 billion cubic feet of gas, as shown in Figure 6, that could be used for public-utility service. Since the total annual manufactured gas sold is 326 billion cubic feet, as shown in Figure 6, this beehive coke oven waste is equivalent to nearly three-fourths of the gas sold. There is little wonder that the foreigner has referred to us as "butchers" in connection with the misuse of our own -ANNUAL BILLION CUBIC FEET MANUFACTURED GAS USED BY IN PENNSYLVANIA 120 The United States Bureau of Standards has for several years been testing manufactured-gas appliances, ascertaining defects, and securing data for needed improvements.8 The Office of Home Economics of the United States Department of Agriculture, in its experimental kitchen, has been carrying on extensive tests on actual cooking operations with gas under varying conditions of use. These tests have all brought out the many ways in which improvements may be made to bring about correct and safe use of manufactured gas. The results of these tests are reflected in the directions for correct use in part 2 of this bulletin. FIG. 6.-COMPARISON OF GAS For further discussion see Technologic Paper No. 193, entitled Design of Atmospheric Gas Burners, 62 pp., U. S. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. |