My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00271
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00271
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:13:30 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:37:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.102.01.A
Description
Aspinall (AKA Curecanti)
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/1953
Title
Project Overview Articles Summaries and Statements
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Project Overview
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />., ;=' <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />..men the 8~ to 9-mile tunnel length between reservoir and power <br />plant is considered. ~Iith the 14.3 foot tunnel and appropriate <br />indices the tunnel cost was estimated at over 23 million dollars, <br />at mininn.un head would be 16! feet. <br /> <br />",;I.",,,K <br />2! The cost of a 115 kil~"att line from Curecanti to Gunnison, <br />Montrose, and Grand Junction with step-up and steP:':down transforma- <br />tion was estimated at $4,652,000 which is $95 per ~ and represents <br />an energy cost of only .8 mills per kwh. The cost ~f alternate <br />stea;n used for benefit-cost analysis includes transmission and sub- <br />station co sts totalling $60 per kw and was based on two eeparate <br />25,0)0 kw steam plants located at the best points to serve the <br />local lIk'l.rket area. <br /> <br />~ The annual cost of O&M and replacement shown for the dam, <br />tunnel and transmission system should be increased to compensate <br />for the increased construction costs. The O&M and replacement cost <br />for '_he powerplant of 68,000 kilowatts of $201,356 is much too low <br />but is some.mat higher than the $184,500 estimated for the 48,000 <br />kilo',att plant size that can be justified with this type of <br />d ev elo pment . <br /> <br />W Their item 19 under cost comperison gives a vallie of <br />1,551,460 for amortization of $49,880,000 at 2~ percent interest <br />over 50 years. This was computed wrong--a factor of .,l03~)e .oaSaS8 <br />should be used which when used with their cost would give <br />$1,758,670. <br /> <br />2/ This is the annual equi valent of the present worth of sal- <br />vage at the end of 50 years for the co sts shown under Bureau <br />adjustment . <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.