Laserfiche WebLink
<br />""_ry";~r_~___ <br /> <br />-~c,...--""=---~~ '-''::_--'''''_-="'''"-.,-_-_- ~-. <br />--'-;.-; <br /> <br />, ~~.~'!'----..,.,'~-~-~--j0"-). <br /> <br />- -"":'- 5'~~:'t':',~-- <br /> <br />':'~";~:;~~';O~~ _ :_~~~~~~:~~ <br />.- . -""---.';0_1" <br /> <br />1'- <br />N <br />C\.! <br />N <br /> <br />Co <br />. <br /> <br />28. <br /> <br />system set forth on this hypothetical basis. <br /> <br />Using the unit investment costs stated in Seotion <br /> <br />I of this report, I obtained the total investment costs for <br /> <br />eaoh of the following separately: machinery at Boulder, <br /> <br />transmission line including switching and reoeiving stn- <br /> <br />ticns and steam standby plant. <br /> <br />Based upon this system and <br /> <br />upon the unit investment costs and peroentage of the fixed <br />oharges set forth in Section I of this report, I followed <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the same prooedure as in my ovm study and developed the <br />oompetitive rate for primary falling water in mills per <br />kilowatt-hour at Boulder Dam based upon the average of <br />~,08C,COO,OOO kw-hrs. per year. <br />The result of this parallel study shows that <br />with fuel oil at ~O.95 per barrel and with the fixed <br />charges used by the Bureau of Power and Light, the competi- <br />tive value of primary falling water at Boulder Dam is .790 <br />mills per kw-hr. instead of 1.606 mills per kw-hr. as ob- <br />tained by Mr. Sands. <br /> <br />Mr. Sands used the unit investment oost for gene- <br /> <br /> <br />rating maohinery approximately S3C.90 per kw. of installed <br /> <br />oapacity whioh compares olosely with my figure of $30.60. <br /> <br />Mr. Sands used ~11,2CO,OOO per transmission circuit where <br /> <br />my figures show $11,965,000. Mr. Sands has used the same <br /> <br />figure that I have used for steam plant investment, namely <br /> <br />$87.50 per kw. of installed capacity, including step up <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A. B. Roberts <br />