My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP06794
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
6001-7000
>
WSP06794
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:24:24 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:52:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8221.J
Description
Colorado River Basin Project
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
7/20/1966
Title
Economic Analysis: Nuclear versus Hydroelectric Power Generation Colorado River Basin Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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 />c <br /> <br /> <br />t!:' <br />00 <br />.... <br />.. . <br /> <br />ABSTRACT <br /> <br />An Economic Analysis is made of funds accumulated by the Colorado River Basin <br />Project from nuclear power generating plant alternatives with those from <br />hydroelectric generating plants at Hua.lapai Dam and Marble Canyon Dam, Two <br />nuclear alternatives were considered as representative of extremes, One <br />alternative consisted of a nuclear plant located at tidewater in the <br />Los Angeles area to meet peaking load requirements, '!he other alternative <br />consisted of a large nuclear plant located in the Los Angeles area and a <br />smaller nuclear plant located in the Phoenix-Tucson area to meet peaking <br />load requirements of Southern California and Arizona, respectively, Another <br />alternative analyzed is a variation of the latter with respect to operation, <br />Under this alternative, nuclear plants would be base loaded, displacing lesser <br />efficient area thermal plants which would then be used to meet peaking require- <br />ments. Nuclear plant capital and annual costs are presented in a format <br />comparable to that published by the Bureau of Reclamation for the hydroelectric <br />dams, Nuclear plant sizes and costs were based upon existing data, The <br />results of the Economic Analysis are summarized in the follOWing table, <br />Significantly, the hydroelectric plants contribute substantially more funds <br />to the Basin Account than any comparable nuclear plant alternative, <br />Alternative No.2, consisting of a nuclear plant located in the Los Angeles <br />Area and Phoenix-Tucson Area, has higher annual costs and, as a consequence, <br />will produce a smaller accumulation of funds to the Basin Account, <br /> <br />COLORADO RIVER BASIN PROJECT FUNDS ACCUMULATION IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS <br /> <br /> 50 Years 75 Years <br /> Interest Rate Interest Rate <br />Item Concept 3,222% ~ 3,222% ~ <br />1 Hydroelectric PlantslO 917 2219 <br />2 Nuclear Plant - Los Angeles Area -51 -82 859 192 <br /> Peaking Load Plant (-854)* (-648)* <br />3 Nuclear Plant - Los Angeles Area 168 -82 1126 415 <br /> Base Load Plant (-462)* <br />4 Nuclear Plant - Los Angeles -82 -82 662 192 <br /> Area/Phoenix-Tucson Area (-245)* (-1159 )* (-1506)* <br /> Peaking Load Plant <br />5 Nuclear Plant - Los Angeles 15 -82 940 192 <br /> Area/Phoenix-Tucson Area (-768)* (-398)* <br /> Base Load Plant <br /> <br />*Numbers in parentheses are the balance in the Basin Account if power <br />losses were included, <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />The Ralph M. Parsons Company / En/(ineers . Constructors I Los Ante/es . New York <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.