Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"-"i:~/~-<"- -',", <br /> <br />C\1 <br />N <br />N <br />N <br /> <br />ec: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />c, '. "_~_T~.~ ~.,,~ '''''', <br />--," -,--- <br /> <br />~ .- --~~-':-~~.":"_~:':'(:-~~t':"-.< ,- ~ <br /> <br />',""'l;";.'~~~!~er,:'i'~ <br /> <br />-,:<; <br />23. <br /> <br />A. B. ROBeRTS <br />CONSULTING ~NGIN~~R <br /> <br />SWeTLAND DLDG. <br /> <br />CLl~VeLAND <br /> <br />SECTION II <br /> <br />.9! <br />REPORT BY A. B. ROBERTS <br />REVIEW OF REPORT OF H. S. SANDS <br />DATED JULY 19, 1938 <br /> <br />I have reviewed the report by Mr. H. S. Sands, <br /> <br />dl'\ted July 19, 1938, entitlild "Engineering and Financial <br /> <br />analysis of proposed Boulder C~nyon Project Adjustment Act", <br /> <br />with particular r0ferencc to th0 value of falling w~ter for <br />primary energy at Bould0r Dam, and wish to make the follow- <br />ing comments: <br />On page 11 of his report, he estim~ted ~n nver~ge <br />pe~k dem~nd of 987,500 kw. at Boulder or 903,963 kw. de- <br />livered ~t LOS Angeles, based on 8t% loss. To me0t his <br />dem~nd he assumed the full load rnting of the m~chines ~s <br /> <br />82,500 kva. e'1.ch, which g>1,ve a total "qui v.alent of twel vo <br /> <br />units. It is import~nt to note, in this conn"ction, th".t <br />during prolonged periods of low river flow, resulting in <br />low head when firm energy only must be generated, the maxi- <br />mum c~p'1.city of ench unit is 66,000 kw. Therefore, at <br />times of low wntilr theril would be required nn instnllation <br />of fifteen large units plus one sp~ril, ID3.king ~ totnl of <br />sixteen units, or fifteiln large and two smnll units, which <br />is the capacity of the gonerating stntion as planned. While <br />