THE GREY RIVER ARGUS THURSDAY DECEMBER 4, 1924. TOO MANY COOKS.

Grey River Argus, 4 December 1924, Page 4

THE GREY RIVER ARGUS THURSDAY DECEMBER 4, 1924. TOO MANY COOKS.

It is at least very doubtful if the Power Board’s inconsistency in switch--1 ing off suddenly its original hydroelectrical scheme in order to embrace the Dobson proposition is going to be commended to the community in any degree by the resolution passed at Tuesday’s meeting of the Harbour Board by a majority of members who included two of the. Power Board personnel. The fact that the Board has an interest in the Dobson coal measures would not in itself justify that • body’s endorsement of the steam alternative to the original hydro proposal. In bringing up the resolution (which | did not appear on the Order Paper ’ for the meeting) the Chairman of the Harbour Board (Mr J. Steer) had to admit that the course of action taken at the outset by the Power Board met with his own disapproval; while his seconder, Mr D. Tennent, who was the chief defender of the Power Board (of which he is a member) on the occasI ion, was obliged to acknowledge that there exists 11 still a. great deal of misunderstanding about town” on account of the contrast, between the Power Board’s original professions, and its subsequent decisions. It. could not have been otherwise. Mr Tennent reiterated his own opinion that steam offered the best proposition for the district, contending 1000 kilowatts from Dobson will meet present, requirements, at a cost of about £70,000, and that, except the Arnold proposition, none of the hydro schemes suggested is worth considering. Now, if it can he shown that as much power as the Dobson steam plant will give is obtainable from hydro generation nt a smaller cost—and there arc opinions as export, as Mr Tennent’.s that such is the ease—can the Board claim

tv have given adequate consideration i to all the alternatives before it. suddenly decided fur Dobson or nothing? Nobody would deny that a steam plant should do at least as well on the West Coast as it would anywhere. Therefore, engineering opinions to that effect are not at all decisive as against hvdro general ion because their comparison is not between hydro and steam here but between steam here and steam elsewhere. Foal certainly should be a cheaper item locally than in towns at a far greater distance from > the coalfields but is it not a fact that, without exceptions, the cities and towns are in all directions tending to use and rely upon water power? The teaching of our day is that the cheapest and most durable scheme is one which is permanently and cheaply sustained by a natural agency. Had the district lacked an abundance of hydro alternatives, the decision to concentrate on steam would be logical, but the only one of several hydro propositions considered has been very variously reported upon, so that there is still much uncertainty about its real potentiality. The Power Board assumes the only “standby” installation must be one of steam, but that assumn tion is questionable. There was no real answer given to Air J. McLean’s questions at the Harbour Board meeting as to what right or reasons that Board has for interfering in this power controversy and as to why Dobson should be selected as the only suitable site for a steam plant. Certainly, Mr Tennent pointed out that this site docs not pin down the Board to the use of Dobson coal, since other fuel can be landed there practically as cheap as it. would be anywhere obtainable. Consequently, when the same can be said for a site in Greymouth. the argument that Dobson has any particular fuel advantage, is px plowed. It. is probable a steam plant here would cost loss on the whole, than one anywhere. being nearer the centre of demand. The Dobson mine manager (who is also a member of the Harbour Board) pointed out that the water for the steam plant would be brackish at Greymouth, but has the Board compared the cost of clarifying the water from the river here, with the cost of transmitting power here from Dobson? If so. no evidence of the con,parison has boon publishsod. Has it looked for artesian waler? As already remarked, a. steam scheme should duns Well on the Coast as it would anywhere, and is doubtless in itself i good proposition, but the question in .which the public are interested, is not so much as to whether it is a good but. whether it is the best available having regard to the future. as well as the immediate present. The lesson of American development, as indeed of the New Zealand Government’s enterprise, is that hydro power is the best proposition, and since the West Coast is naturally as- well adapted for hydro generation as any part of the Dominion, the public, therefor? want to know why its natural facilities are being neglected. Evervbody now knows that the Arnold River in the first place did not receive, an adequate examination; and nobody claims any other of the hydro propositions has received one. That is the whole point. The public belief is that the Board, having decided, without adequate data, on steam, is now disposed to banish the idea of hydro generation into the problematical and even distant future, and that it is not disposed to take or to countenance any step which might reflect adversely on its Dobson commitment. In fact, it is safe to say that, no matter what may be ( the immediate upshot the public mind never will be adequately assured until such time as the hydro potentialities of the district receive a fair and impartial investigation by means of absolutely impartial ami eminently capable expert ability. The Harbour Board and any other locaj body may, from notions of expediency, pass endorsements, more or less unanimously, upon the Power Board’s Dobson policy, but they cannot expect the public to accept such expressions of lay opinion ns being authoritative or decisive in the way that an exhaustive expert study of the position would certainly be.