there are indications everywhere that this method of propulsion will
soon take a recognized place among the great transit facilities in the
United States. I feel convinced that this country will also in this
respect be far ahead of Europe before another year has passed over our
heads.

There are several popular and I may say serious objections to the
employment of storage batteries for propelling street cars. These
objections I will now enumerate, and endeavor to show how far they are
true, and in what measure they interfere with the economical side of
the question.

First objection: The loss of energy, which amounts in practice to 20
and sometimes 30 per cent. Now, every method of storing or
transmitting energy involves some waste, but in saying this we need
not condemn the system, for after all the term efficiency is only a
relative one. For instance, a 10 horse power steam engine consumes
three times as much fuel per horse power hour as a 1,000 horse power
engine does, yet this small engine must be, and is regarded as, one of
the most economical labor-saving appliances known to us. Considered as
a heat engine, the efficiency of the most economical steam motor is
but ten per cent.--90 per cent of the available units of heat
contained in coal being lost during its transformation into mechanical
energy. Thus, if we find that the storage battery does not return more
than 70 per cent, of the work expended in charging it, we ought not to
condemn it on that account until we have ascertained whether this low
efficiency renders the system unfit for any or all commercial
purposes. It is needless to go into figures in order to show that,
when compared with animal power, this objection drops into
insignificance.