MERCURY VAPOUR LIGHTS.

Waipawa Mail, Volume LXVI, Issue 140, 22 August 1938, Page 2

MERCURY VAPOUR LIGHTS.

COST OF LAMPS DISCUSSED BY POAVER BOARD. Letters from the AVaipawa and AA’aipukurau Borough Councils objectI in to the charge of £l3 per annum for the mercury' vapor lamps were considered at Friday’s meeting of the Central Hawke’s Bay Power Board. The AA'aipukurau letter pointed out that the charge made by the Dannevirke Power Board was £ll. The figure of £l3 had been arrived at as follows, stated the engineer:— Depreciation on fittings £1 9s 3d, energy' £4, lamp replacements £6 10s, interest and sinking fund £1 Bs, total £l3 7s 3d. Mr F. J. AA’itherow considered that the boroughs had no right to dictate the price of the lamps. The Board knew nothing about Dannevirke, or whether their lighting was a paying proposition or not. The boroughs were not trying to dictate, said Mr A. C. Holms. There mijght be some special reason for Dannevirke’s rate of charge, but they naturally wondered at the difference. The engineer: The difference between the efficiency of the old and the mercury-vapor lamps is 6| times and that is the reason why the latter arc being purchased throughout the Dominion. Mr L. AV. Simpson suggested asking the Dannevirke Board for particulars concerning their charge of £ll per lamp, and the inquiring councils could be furnished with the information. The chairman: It is not the duty of the Board to take a lead from others and it is not for others to dictate to us. AVe have a vast territory to coyer and, despite greatly increased costs, we are endeavoring to do our utmost for the consumers. If the Dannevirke Board does send the information, it does not mean that we should aeoept