Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />fIDoom~rr. <br /> <br />Power <br /> <br />An incremental benefit-cost analysis was made to determine if addition <br /> <br />of a powerplant to the Narrows Unit would be economically justified. As <br />shown in table 2, power would not be economically justified as a Federal <br />development. <br /> <br />The benefit analysis valued firm energy, which would be generated in <br />June, July, and August, at 54 mills/kWh and nonfinn energy generated <br />the remainder of the year at 29 mills/kWh. In addition, a $5/kW/month <br /> <br />benefit for dependable capacity was claimed for June, July, and August. <br /> <br />A 7.375 percent plan formulation rate and a 100-year period of analysis <br />are reflected in table 2. <br /> <br />Table 2.--Benefit-cost analysis <br />Narrows powerplant addition <br /> <br />Construction cost <br />Interest during construction (7.375 percent) <br />Net project investment <br /> <br />Annual costs: <br />Equivalent of investment (100 years) <br />Annual OM&R <br />Total annual costs <br /> <br />$1,000 <br />$6,241 <br /> 691 <br />$6,932 <br />$ 512 <br /> 35 <br />$ 547 <br />$ 254 <br /> 213 <br /> 35 <br />$ 502 <br /> 0.92 <br /> <br />Annual benefits <br />Finn energy (4,710,000 kWh x $0.054/kWh) <br />Nonfirm energy (7,350,000 kWh x $0.029/kWh) <br />Dependable capacity (2310 kW x S5/kW/month x 3 months) <br />Total annual benefits <br /> <br />Benefit-cost ratio <br /> <br />As displayed in table 3, a financial analysis was conducted for the <br />potential Narrows Unit powerpl ant to estimate the annual amount of <br /> <br />9 <br />