WSP10185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C) r: .\ (principally Arl:ans..,;) and F (principally Oklahoma) since those latter areas are roughly coincidont Hi th the areas of greatest hydro output concentration in the throe basins. ~ ClO /') 00 12. Chapt~r VI develops the cost, by aroas, of intercon- necting the proviso clause and potential plants with the regional transmission systems. It'is shown that the estimated capital costs of such addi Honal transmission line s would be about 22 million dol- lars by 1965 and about 46 million dollars by 1975. Corresponding an- nual costs arc sholm under several types of financing in table 18. The at-site valuos of the potential power and the methods of evalua- tion in accordance with adopted Aim procedures are discussed. The power values aro summarized in table 20. I Chapter VII - Potential Hydroelectric Developnent 13. Chapter VII sUllllllarizes the hydro allocated to the esti- mated 1965 and 1975 loads - tenning the firs t amount the "Early Con- struction PossibilitY" and the second - "Ultimate Developlllent Possi- bility". It is emphasized that tho summarization by future years is only to point out tha't, if the respective amounts of hydro were avail- able, those amounts could be absor.bed by the estimated loads of the year in question. It is found that the early construction possibility would involve about 1.9 milli un kilO\mtts of installed capacity and 6.7 billion kilowatt-hours of average annual energy from all types of hydro _ including existing and under construction, proviso clause, and potential. Similarly, the ultimate possi bili ty \{ould involve 3.2 million kilo\fatts and 9.3 billion kilowat t-hours. 11. is shOlm that the ultimate possi- bility, ill terms of installed capacity, is cOlnposed of existing and under construction plants - 39 percent; proviso clause plants _ 26 per- cent; and potential plants - 35 percent. Chapter VII also compares the iUnoun ts of hydro a1loca ted to Area E (principally Arlcansas) and Area F (principally Oklahoma) \lith the ostima ted 1965 and 1975 loads. It is found that the hydro capacity (691,000 kilowatts) would amount to 24 percent of tho total estimated 1975 Aroa E,load and the energy, during a minimum stream flo\{ year, ~lOu1d, amount to 8 percent of the annual re- quirements. Corresponding percentages for Area F would bo 28 and 9, respectively . 14. Chapter VII also discusses tho economic feasibility for the AWR potential projects which include hydroelectric pOlier. It is , found that 6 of the potentials - namely, Wolf Bayou, Lone Rock; Gilbert; Shenroodj Broken Bow; and the Sangre de Cristo project - appear to be economically feasible. It is concluded that - all projects require further study, and that other multiple purpose uses will dictate sched- uling of most hydroelectric construction, and that scheduling should be as far in advance as possible so as to perm t early correlation with required fuel-electric plant construction. It is recommended that all of the potential projects sholln on table 5 be included in 4