THE COST OF POWER.

Shannon News, 19 May 1922, Page 3

THE COST OF POWER.

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER’S VIEW

After .the meeting of the Horowhenua Electric Power Board on Tuesday, the Engineer, Mr T. R. Overton, addressed the Board on several aspects of the new motive' force which had been made possible by cheap waterpower, Many people, he said, would talk about the power not being cheap. They were to get it at, £lO per horsepower right where they required it tor a possible 24 hours a day on 365 days a year. What cheaper form of power was provided than that. The objective to be aimed at was a good load factor. They had to strive to use the* power as many hours out ot the 24 as possible, and it was wise to encourage that by selling the power at lower and mjorie (attractive rates during the hours when the demand on the supply was lighter. It would be found, in that case, that hydroelectric power would displace, all ctiler systems of lighting and power. The charges made were quite adequate for the! main branch lines and low tension lines up to ihe consumer’s boundary. The consumer had to pay tor the lines necessary inside his boundary. These payments could be made straight out or spread over a period of years, say five. The cost of the service lines was from £2 10/ to £3 a chain. That was the first expense the consumer was put fi> in taking electric power.- The next expense was the installation of the motor or lighting facilities. Mr Overton quoted the following • actual figures as to the cost of this. A 2h.p., motor for milking purposes, displacing a petrol engine, cost £49. A 3h.p. motor and nine lights cost £6O. A 2h.p. motor, with countershaft, pulleys, belting aud shafting, a light in the cow-shed and five lights and an electric iron in the 1 house cost £66. Coming to the installations purely for lighting i imposes, these coul.d be estimated at £2 per point. That was the average they had been getting around Hamilton. It was no use doing shoddy jobs or letting contractors do them, because they only came back on the consumer is about two years’ time. Be had known jobs cost three times as much as they should cost through having to ; be renewed within five years. A lot of country people were anxious to know vvliat it was going to cost ior milking. Already this country had been Sco ed £SOOO a year in petrol by electric gower, and that money was kept circulating here instead of going to a country where the pound note had omy been worth 13/ until recently, fiwctric power Was cheaper than petrol, though there might be isolated cams ol a very efficient engine used to milk,, say, 20 cows, where petrol compared wed with eiectnc power. .Mr uverton then quoted some actual figures <n cost. Milking, say, 50 -cows m the flush of the season would cost 1/9 per day with electric power, m anotner case lighting and power to milk 100 cows was costing per day. Replying to questions' the Engineer said electric power was quite satisfactory for dairy factories, and was used by them to advantage. It could be utilised for heating water. The Board’s revenue from sale of power could be collected for it by the various local bodies lor 2 \ per cent commission, which obviated the opening ot offices throughout the district.

The chairman said it seemed obvious that the oil companies would make a fight by reducing their charges to have petrol engines retained. Mr Seifert said they would bring the oil in tanks and store it in bulk.

The Engineer explained that where possible a dozen farms could be grouped for their own reticulation, and the money advanced with repayments spread over three years.

The chairman said it seemed to him that, in times like these, it would be necessary to give people some assistance in putting in the power by advancing; them the money. They would have to keep that in view when iheir loan was being raised. As the money was repaid by the consumers it could be used fo extend the reticulation.