ELECTRIC POWER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 17 June 1936, Page 11

ELECTRIC POWER

(To The Editor) Sir, —“True Economy” merits full consideration and I agree with his plan under certain conditions. The nature of the extension of our plant depend,? on the length of time we are likely to have to depend on it. If we are to be deprived of cheap hydro power for say 12 years, the 1500 k.w. set is needed, (but installed as “True Economy” advocates for the 750; there being ample room and a chance of saving £4000). Then suppose we have only about seven years to wait, “True Economy’s” scheme is Al. But if the Government does the right thing and makes hydro possible within three years, steam is out of the question. No sane person would advocate a fully staffed steam station being maintained on the off chance of being required perhaps one hour per week. If it were not permanently staffed it would take 12 hours to put into commission, whereas one engineer could start a diesel engine in as many minutes. The whole staff would consist of four substation attendants. I cannot agree with the engineer’s report insofar as the comparative costs of steam and diesel plants are concerned, but even conceding that the examples given are fair comparison it is no criterion as to their merits as stand-by plant. If we instal a large steam plant it is goodbye hydro; dear juice forever! And don’t forget, our nest egg belongs to the longsuffering consumers and cannot rightly be used for capital expenditure.—l am etc. PUSH BUTTON. P.S. —1 believe the old 250 k.w. generators could be converted to diesel drive and as such may be worth considering by the Power Board.—P.B. Nelson, 16th June.