GAS AND ELECTRICITY.

Nelson Evening Mail, 19 September 1916, Page 3

GAS AND ELECTRICITY.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I have lead with much interest the various letters published on Uas versus Electricity, and with two exceptions thev may be summed up as "twaddle. "■Gas Every Time" certainly jnade mistakes in his comparisons, but "Fair Play" and the individual who signs himself "Put Out the Gas" make mistakes in favour of electricity, as they are unfamiliar with modern lighting systems. Now. Sir, "Fair Play" and "Put Out the Gas" state that the electric consumption may be taken at one Watt per candle hour. And also mention the •§ Watt lamp, and, as we are aware, theory and practice do not- always run hand m hand as per example. The consumption p?r candle hour of the so-called 'l-Watt lamp" is in practice found to be 1.4-Watt and the j.-Watt lamp -7-Watts. The gas consumption per hour of a burner giving 125 candle-power is 3Jr c.f., as tested bv meter and photometer. There is also what is known as the high pressure system of gas lighting, which has proved such a successful competitor of electric lighting as to oust it from many of London's principal streets and elsewhere. Now let us make a few simple calculations, taking the candle-power and hours burning already quoted by other correspondents : 70 c.p. x 1000 x 1.4. 98 units. . •. 98 units x 7d. £2 17s 2d. The so-called lamp will cost £1 8s 7d to run 1000 hours giving 70 c.p. Taking the gas consumption, at the figure quoted the cost of a 12-5 candlepower burner burning 1000 hours would be £1 Os sd. By reducing the candlepower to 70 for comparative purposes the following results are obtained : 70 c p electric metallic filament lamp consuming 1.4 Watts for 1000 hours, £2 17s 2d ; 70.7 Watt do do £1 8s 7d. 125 c.p. gas burner consuming 3i c.f. per hour and burning 1000 hours, £1 0s 5d ; 70 c.p. do do, burning 2£ c.f. per hour, 14s 7d. From the above figures, which are authentic it will be clearly seen that coal gas as an i'luminant is very far from being a hack number, as even with the much talked of £-Watt lamp it can more than hold its own. The consumer actually pavs 14s 7d more for a 70-candle-power electric lamp than lie would by using gas. I presume that is for the P r, ~ of switching the current on and off In cooking and heating coal gas has nothing to fear from electricity, as up to the present 1 have yet to learn where in this Dominion electricity is sold to the ordinary consumer at Id per unit. The usual method of making concessions to large consumers is to adopt the_ maximum demand system, and as this only benefits the large consumer to any appreciable degree, it is very misleading to the untechnical mind t-o quote electric current for lighting at Id per unit, which would be utterly impossible so far as a municipal undertaking is concerned. Now, Sir, it is auite evident that the City- Fathers of Nelson have their hands full to overflowing in improving the various city undertakings, viz., drainage, water, and gas works, and to spend 20 or 30 thousand pounds on a luxury would be a suicidal policy for this small but progressive city. Nelson- has in the past had its fair name stained, to a degree by meddling amateur engineers. So Tet us put our present ventures on a sound footing, and then if the advocates of electricity are in the majority—obtain the services of a really competent hydroelectric engineer to formulate if possible a paying scheme. —I am, etc.. 1 UNBIASSED. 17th August, 1916.