REFUSE DESTRUCTORS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11086, 3 October 1901, Page 3

REFUSE DESTRUCTORS.

VALUABLE EXPERT OPINION.

Ignoring the that the advice of some competent engineer should first be nought, the City Council, at their kst. meeting, decided by a majority of one, to accept a tender for a 150 ft chimney for the destructor, as against one of 100 ft recommended by the makers, Messrs Meldrum. The public, however, wilt no doubt be interested to learn" what is the view taken by some of the leading authorities at Home on the most recent metnods of dealing with the disposal of refuse. Wβ therefore publish the following extracts from the very Latest standard work on the subject—"The Economic Disposal of Towns' Refuse, , ' by W. Francis Goodrich, A.I. Mech.E. Mr Goodrich is probably the best authority on this question in the.United Kingdom, and his book, published only this year, sums up the most recent results of investigations at Home and abroad as to the best methods of sanitary refuse disposal. It will be 6er,n that the book is strictly "up to date'" when we mention that it coutains a reference to the acceptance of the tender for the Christchurch destructor, and a description of tie plant to bs erected here. The paragraphs quoted, it will be noticed, (bear out what "The Press" has frequently urged of late with reference to the tall chimney and the inclined way.

Mr Goodrich «ffectually dispels the notion that an enormous chimney is a necessary and valuable adjunct to a steam or power plant. "Analysis of the gases,' , lie says (page 81), "often shows that a powerful chimney is a monument of colossal waste."

The fol owing paragraphs (page 82) give some instructive details as to the tendency at the present time to reduce the height of chimneys: —'-Prominent among low chimneys for modern installations may be mentioned Aldershot, ten tons of refuse per day; chimney, 70ft. Hereford, a similar quantity per day, with a chimney only 45ft high. Plumstead Vestry, in inviting tenders for a destructor and power plant, suggest in their specification a chimijey 80ft in height. The quantity of refuse to be dealt with here will be sixty tons per day, and in addition to taking the gases from the ceils, this chimney will aiso have to serve for some supplementary boilers in connection with the electric lighting. "Thus it will be seen that the 'best modern practice is toward a low chimney, which will, of course, be amply large in sectional area. Such chimneys would not be possible if noxious fumes and nuisance were inseparable from destructors; that is obvious, and those makers who still demand a high and powerful chimney must not complain if their desire is taken as conveying that they cannot promise immunity from nuisance. Again, on page 86, Mr Goodrich, referring to the prevailing tendency to considerably reduce the height of chimneys, obj serves:—"This, I think, is likely to con- ! tinue, and . . . modern steam-raising plants, as well as power-deetructors, pxe likely to be provided with chimneys considerably reduced in height." He finds that high and powerful chimneys have been built with some modern destructor and power plants, "firstly, to pander to secondly, to over- ! come sentimental scruples; thirdly, with a view to large future extensions" (page 83). . On page 84 is another paragraph which should give the Christchurch City Council food for reflection: —"Given a free hand, some, at any rate, of the best makers of modern destructors would undoubtedly include a very moderate .chimney indeed; i but opposition is very frequently met* and, J strange to sajy it w most determined and i hostile from those who have the least knowledge of the issues involved. ,, "Th'e signal success sttained by artificial draught," adds Mr Goodrich, ''has shown *and proved conclusively ihow unnecessary the high and -powerful chimney is.' (P. 84.) . \ ' . '. Turning now to the question of inclined roadways vewus elevatore for charging the cells, w» find (p. 316) that "where cells are charged from above, the inclined, roadway has been extensively although in a few recent instaUataons? an 'alternative fchane of directly raising- the refuse from th 3 ground level by hoists or elevators has been tried." " - ,

But Mr Goodrich goes oh to pay, in the succeeding paragraph: "If i« quite safe to say that inc.ined roadways are not likely to bo used to anything like the same ex- ! tent in the fatun. In the first place, they are in tlemselves a costly item. Secondly, i considerable space is occupied; and as destructors are being erected in centrally- i situated-sits, the ground will be difficult 1 -to obtain" at all, even if the figure ie not j prohibitive. Thirdly, the inclined roadway i is ct its lest an ugly feature of a destructor work-; design it as you may, it cannot be made picturesque. i "Aga<nst the disadvantages may ba set; one ad'Vantage— tlfal of simplicity, but then the .wear and tear of horseflesh js" a ccn-* fcitieiab.e item, sud must l>2 considered." -I*, is treli to ' look at boA sides of a, que tion, and lijsre is \vbat Mr Goodrich has u> say' (p- 316) in reference to the hoist , or elevator as an alternative for an in- ' din d. way: "Here also expense has to be ■ faced. Hi- e l 3 use . considerable power, whetf er steam, electric, or hydraulic ; they roust be put down- in duplicate in view cf the evil day of breakdown and necessary stoppage .for repairs. ".Again, apart fr>m this, ample working hoh accommodation must be provided to meft a quick and constant delivery of refuse. If this"is.not d<--ne r α-uris have to stan&. about,' causing nuisansej- time is alao:lost, and tile collection arrangements aro disorganized., "Further, although the capital cost may be reduced, yet the item of depreciation must not be forgotten. When this system is decided up:n, instead of an mc.mcd roadway, on eccnrmical grounds, the purchaser ■would be well advised to h:ve good hoists; these."- - like other good things, are not cheap; a cheap hoist h usually of very little service—it is unreliable, and what is raved iv initial cost is speedily frittered away in repairs., "Generally speaking, so far hoists have fiotbeen a great sneers, due largely to the fact that cheap jobs have been often asked for and accordingly supplied." Mr Goodrich, it w>ll be seen, deals very impartially with both sides of the .question, and we have thought it right to quote "both aides. It -will be seen that he is dead against a high chimney, and, on the whole, he favours the lift in suitable cases, instead of thfe inclined way. Christchurch .is clearly a suitable place for the lift, first, because it is a flat place,- and a lift would lead to great economy in the use of horses ; secondly, because the land is too scarce aid valuable to be frittered away in an inclined roadway; and thirdly, because the power necessary is available on the spot, generated by the destructor. As to cost, we are assured that even, a good ele-. vator could be got for £200. so that, the expense, of duplicating it would not be very great. It has been shown, however, that in case of a breakdown, the small quantity of nsbbisb. we have to deal with could easily be taken out of tlhe carts by hand labour while repairs were being effected.