Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />cash flow to the UVWUA may reduce their requirements for any substantial <br /> <br />government loans or grants for the rehabi 1 itation of the irrigation <br /> <br />system. <br /> <br />3. The AB Lateral Hydropower Project is a more economical project <br /> <br />in terms of installed cost per kilowatt capacity and in terms of annual <br /> <br /> <br />cost of production. To support this fact, a brief, simplified economic <br /> <br />analysis of the two projects was performed. The results of this analysis <br /> <br />are presented in Table IS-l below. <br /> <br />Table IS-I. Economic comparison of AB Lateral and South Canal Hydro <br />ProjectS. <br /> <br />iJua1ifier AB Latera 1 South Cana 1 <br />Estimated construction cost $46,994,250 $15,800,000 <br />Annual operation & maintenance 7D4,914 237,000 <br />Annual cost (20 yr. debt @ 13%) .- 6,689,631 2,249,130 <br />Total annual cost $7,394,545 $2,486,130 <br />Average annual production, kWh 277,415,000 83,000,000 <br />Installed capacity, kW 47,040 13,300 <br />Cost of production, mils/kWh 26.66 29.85 <br />Installed cost, S/kW $999/kW Sl,188/k W <br /> <br />Env i ronmenta 1 issues <br /> <br />1. The AB Latera 1 project wi 11 have fewer impacts to the sa 1 inity <br /> <br />problems now experienced by the Colorado River than the projects proposed <br />by competing applicants. The AB Project proposes to divert water out of <br />the Gunnison River into a lined tunnel and canal, into a lined lateral of <br /> <br />that canal, into a steel penstock, through turbines, thence into an <br /> <br />unlined tai lrace. Thus, out of the entire water supply system, only <br />about 2,000 feet flows through an unlined channel, thus resulting in a <br /> <br />IS-14 <br />