ELECTRIC POWER

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 78, 25 November 1943, Page 2

ELECTRIC POWER

10-YEAR PLAN CRITICISED FUTURE NUKUS OF DOMINION "Do the Minister and the Department emphatically’ assure the Nortli Island people that they will have completely installed plant capable of generating 3,200,000,000 units per annum continuously by 1951?” asks the “New Zealand Electrical Journal” in an editorial replying to a statement made by the Minister of Works, the Hon. R. Semple, on 11th November. “This is the important question—and only on an affirmative answer to it can the rehabilitation of our servicemen, our valuable primary industry and our commerce be made the subject of definite and dependable plans.” The journal recently published an article criticising as inadequate the Government’s 10-year plan for the provision of additional electric power. It referred particularly to two points: — “(1) The absence of any plan for dealing with power shortage in the immediate and near future, say, 1943-45; (2) that at present the (rationed) 1,400,000.000 units being generated are possible only by using standby and other similar plant as base load plant, and that there is a time limit to such a condition.” “Mr Semple severely criticises our examination of the proposed scheme, but does not in his statement touch on either of these two principal points,” says the journal in its latest article. “He says our article is ‘careless’ and ‘biassed.’ and bases these assertions on three points: (1) We had not taken the care to read the report; (2) that the Government scheme provided for a total of 3,200,000,000 units by 1951; (3) that the 50 per cent, increase in load on Government stations in 1932-33 did not indicate a similar rise if and when electricity restrictions are finally lifted this time. We can assure the Minister that his department’s report was read and studied very carefully indeed. “The Minister states (point 2 above) ‘I repeat emphatically that 3,200,000,000 units could be generated. . . Of course they ‘could’: it can as easily be said that 5,000,000,000 units ‘could’ be generated by 1951. Our difficulty is to see how, under the ‘ten-year-plan’ the amount of plant which can fc be installed by 1951 will generate more than 2,300,000,000 units (our previous figure). Of the 730,000 k.w. of plant indicated by the Government plan as being needed by 1951 only 200,000 k.w. is now installed. and after a further thorough examination of the report we are convinced that with the means and methods proposed, additional plant to generate a total of 2,300,000,000 units is the maximum possible by 1951. MODIFICATION URGED “What is really needed is a modification of the plan to provide up to 100,000 k.w. of quickly installed local steam plant, plus small local hydro plants installed with local labour and local technical guidance. These would not load additionally, but relieve existing, and now overloaded, main transmission lines—nor require, as a prerequisite, new 220,000 volt transmission lines (for the erection and maintenance of which engineers must first be sent for training overseas) before the output can be delivered for the people’s use. “Our 1951 unit figure was based on careful calculations from data in the report, knowledge of the progress being made (a) at Karapiro and Upper Waikaremoana, and (b) at other proposed schemes, and it seems the maximum which the North Island can expect—unless the ten-year plan is materially altered or a Henry Kaiser is injected into the department. Unless the full 730.000 k.w. of plant is completely installed and working in 1951, the fact that it ‘could’ generate 3,200,000,000 units is purely academic.” INCREASE IN LOAD Replying to the Minister's third point, the journal says: “There is admittedly room for two interpretations—our own and the Minister’s —but if the method of fixing future annual additions to generating plant is to be based on the annual percentage rise in units generated, then the department’s calculations and semi-logarithmic graph for the period are, to say the least, very misleading.” Till the Government took over the vvhole responsibility for bulk generation, there were two generating systems : (1) The Government’s; (2) the various smaller steam, oil and hydro plants of the supply authorities—a considerable total. The load on both was increasing, so that when the Government used supply authority plants in the Arapuni crisis the two systems were able to supplement each, other and hold the load, with some restrictions. When, however, Arapuni came in again, the supply authorities’ plants were relegated to “spare” or “stand-by” status, and the only base load plant to carry the total North Island load then 'become solely the Government plant. “The load on this Government base load plant increased by 51 per cent, in the first year after Arapuni came back, and this is clear from the Government reports for those periods,” states the journal. “The difference between that period and to-day is that during the Arapuni trouble there was not only a considerable reserve of wisely provided supply authority plant to fall back on, but the Auckland E.P.B provided in a record period of a few months, a complete new steam turbine plant installed and working. “To-day all remaining spare supply authority plant is used up—working full time to aid the Government to hold the load. ... In effect, what was switched to outside plant in 1930-32 is now switched to the ‘waiting room.’ In 1930-32 outside plant handed back a 50 per cent, increase (on Government plant) when Arapuni came on again after two years To-day ‘it is reasonable to assume . . .’ that after five or six restricted years—maybe much longer—the ‘waiting room’ will hold enough for a 50 per cent rise, perhaps more. “Most supply authorities are connecting 20 per cent, or less of their known new requests ,for current, while the published Government housing scheme for the North Island will, by 1951. need the whole output of a station approximately the size of Karapiro.” The journal states that in September, 1937, it warned the industry that the department “is not only behind in its provision for the extension of existing stations, but that there is, as yet, no sign that steps are being taken to provide for the loads of 1940-42.” “Later, in 1938. this article, like our last, was labelled not only ‘erroneous’ but ‘panicky,’” the journal contiruies. “However, by 1.941 we had electricity restrictions. and unless considerable changes in the ‘lO-year plan’ take place we will still have them, probably in a more severe form, in 1951.”