Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.,qo;~'~<:_":"--'~ <br /> <br />CO) <br />c <br />N <br />N <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />':,~-~,::7"'?'"---~:1_--'i<",,:{,--'__::'" - <br /> <br />, )::~?:,'~{ -~:<;"':-- ": <br /> <br />" r~,"o~-:-'~" <br /> <br />.-~', -.,----:~_--'5~_:_~~-.~-r'"'''' .:_~~':,~~~ <br /> <br />. ~~~~~;-: <br /> <br />.>)~~'~~'7fP~~'~ <br /> <br />- ~ <br /> <br />to pay for a definite quantity 0# firm energy at 1.63 mills <br />per kWThr., whether used or not, and under the Third Cir- <br />cuit Contract, for a definite quantity cf secondary energy <br />until May 31, 1945, at the rate of .5 mills. The incre- <br /> <br />mental cost of energy in excess of the commitment, up to <br />the total option for secondary energy, is at the rate of .5 <br />mills for seoonfu,ry, whereas, if the Bureau owned the hydro <br />pl~nt, the total incremental cost at Boulder power plant in <br />dollars would be unappreciable, or even zero. <br />A. H. Uarkwart, Vice President of the PacifiC Gas <br />and Eleotrio Company (in the September 1, 1930 issue of <br />"Sleotrical "'estll), made an economic study to determine the <br />proportions in whioh steam plants and hydro plants should <br />be built to serve ~owing load in order to realize maximum <br />overall system economy based upon an annual system load <br />factor of 60%, and his study indicated that 70% of the peak <br />should be carried by hydro and 30% by steam. I have made a <br />similar study, using for the hydro the special costs per- <br />taining to the Boulder Canyon Project which shows that the <br />minimum coat per kw-hr. delivered would be obtained under <br />the follOWing conditions: <br /> <br />For a oharge of 1.63 mills/ <br />kw-hr. for falling water at <br />BGulder <br /> <br />Percent of Peak Demand <br />Carried by Steam <br /> <br />100% <br /> <br />If the charge for falling <br />water is reduced to 1.~0 mill <br /> <br />30,% <br /> <br />A. B. Roberta <br />