|
<br />01',0; C\ l'> "l
<br />D.. oJ~" i)
<br />
<br />Alternatives, Including Proposed Action
<br />
<br />2- t3
<br />
<br />Table 2.1. Physical Parameters of Development Alternatives
<br />Parameter No Action E-! E-2 E-3
<br />
<br />Gunnison River datal
<br />Below Crystal Dam, cfs
<br />Diverted, cfs
<br />Average flow entering Canyon, efs
<br />Tunnel Capacity, cfs
<br />Average Penstock Diameter'
<br />Plant data
<br />Turbine design flow, cfs
<br />Average annual flow, cfs
<br />Rated capacity, kW
<br />Average annual energy, MWh
<br />Estimated Facility Cost'
<br />Construction, 4 in $1000
<br />Annual Operations, in $1000
<br />
<br />Notes:
<br />I. Flow data are average annual flows.
<br />2, Penstock diameters are preliminary and subject to change,
<br />3, Cost estimates are based on preliminary bids and quotes received by the Sponsors for various
<br />portions of the project. Construction costs include environmental mitigation measures. Operating
<br />expenses include environmental monitoring costs along with technical operations and maintenance,
<br />insurance, and property taxes.
<br />4. Primary savings would occur in pipe. turbine, and powerhouse costs.
<br />
<br />2.2
<br />
<br />1,658
<br />509
<br />1,149
<br />1,100
<br />N/A
<br />N/A
<br />
<br />1,658
<br />904
<br />754
<br />1,100
<br />Approx, 9 ft.
<br />
<br />1,658
<br />875
<br />784
<br />1,100
<br />Approx. 8 ft.
<br />
<br />850
<br />610
<br />41,100
<br />251,163
<br />
<br />$72,905
<br />$920
<br />
<br />1,658
<br />842
<br />816
<br />1,100
<br />Approx, 8 ft.
<br />
<br />750
<br />577
<br />37,200
<br />242,215
<br />
<br />$69,233
<br />$865
<br />
<br />Alternatives Dismissed from Consideration
<br />
<br />2.2.1
<br />
<br />Smaller Projects
<br />
<br />950
<br />661
<br />47,100
<br />264,991
<br />
<br />N/A
<br />
<br />$79,414
<br />$970
<br />
<br />In the PElS, projects smaller than 700-cfs peak capacity were determined not
<br />economically feasible. In the 700- to 900-cfs range, projects were determined possibly
<br />feasible; however, margins were so slim that there were "insufficient profits to justify the
<br />risks inherent in building and operating the facility. As such, the smaller projects did not
<br />represent viable alternatives," (FEIS, 1990)
<br />
<br />Since that time, there have been numerous market changes, both positive and negative,
<br />including: construction cost escalation, changing power values, utility deregulation,
<br />opening of new transmission and power markets, and declining interest rates. In addition,
<br />the finance market for independent power facilities has matured, leading to different
<br />expectations from banks and lenders. Finally, anticipated changes in Aspinall regulation
<br />may change available flow patterns, particularly in the winter,
<br />
<br />AS Lateral Hydropower Project
<br />
<br />July 2000
<br />
<br />4f, --: ~/> "-~,6'_' -'","
<br />
|