REMOVING RUBBISH.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LV, Issue 13947, 30 April 1909, Page 2

REMOVING RUBBISH.

Napivr is one of the ile:)He^t towns in New Zealand, nml it ouft'ht to be if, us stated :is an argument in favour of a loan foi n destrurtor, it costs i'l-'MU a I year to remove rubbish from the town. On Wednesday the rarepayers authorised a loan for this, purpose among others, anil the fact should encourage those here who believe that the solution of the rubbish problem here lies in the erection of a destructor. The tip system, under which all kinds of waste material, such as empty tins, scrap iron, bottles, broken crockery, waste paper, packinjr of various descriptions, old clothes, indeed all kinds of refuse, are deposited on vacant sections within the borough labelled "Rubbish Tip." Sometimes these are in close proximity io dwellings, and as they ure not only insanitary, but ulso harbour rats, it is, everyone will admit, an objectionable method of disposing of the rubbish which accumulates in the town. A few weeks ago the Wanganui Borough Council obtained a report from Mr. F. Talboya regarding municipal refuse disposal, and it is worth while quoting from that report for the information of local ratepayers. Mr. Talboys estimated that a population of 10,000 would supply about 15^ tons of refuse per day to a destructor, and he valued this for fuel jit 57.3 shillings. This would yield, he calculated, 1490 brake horse power per ,day, equivalent to 1117.5 kilowatts, which is just double the power required for the present tramway system in Wanganui, allowing 35 kilowatts per hour for sixteen hours. Mr. Talboys Tecommended the installation of a destructor with a rated capacity of 36 tons per 24 hours, costing in all £6300— £4000 for the boiler and accessories and £2300 for the necessary building and chimney. He estimated the cost of collection of refuse at three shillings per ton, or £720 a year, the cost of burning at Is 3]d per ton, or £310 per year. Interest, depreciation, etc., biought his total estimated annual expenditure up to £2644. Against this he set down £888 as the coal value of the refuse, £269 as tbe value of resulting clinker for street purposes, and £60 as the proceeds from sale of rags, bottles, etc., making a total return of £1217, leaving the net cost to the borough £1427 per annum. There are, however, one or two details hi the report which seem to require explanation. It is quite clear that the cost of collecting and burning the rubbish supplied by a population of 10,000 is estimated at £1030 per annum, also that the return in coal value, etc., is estimated at £1217 pei annum. But Mr. Talboys allows interest, depreciation, etc., at the rate of 8 per cent, on the building, making £184 per annum, and at the rate of 22 per cent, on £4000, the cost of the boiler and accessories, making £880 per annv.m. In addition he sets down] £550 as interest, depreciation,! etc., at the rate of 22 per c-Vnt. on £2500, cost of plant to take advantage of the heat value of refuse, when utilising part of existing Works. Apparently thpn the capital outlay required would be £8800 if the heat value of the refuse was to be made use of for power. But it is not clear whether in this case there would, in addition to the return mentioned above, also be power enough to supply the tram system twice over. At any rate the report is interesting, and should set some member of our own Borough Council inquiring whether it might not be wise to instal :i destructor here.