Gunnison news-champion., 1911-01-13

'fttfAt|fttt1tt
tContinued from last week.
fosrth;-The next project considered
was that Of taking water from the Gun
nIson River at the Pratt bridge. The
total head available from this point t.
the present power house Is ~ feet
which. plas the 81 feet in the draft
tube, equals w / feet. The length of
TINS pipe hne would be IA, 7t1 feet
This additional length Of pipe hne A.
compared with the project Of taking
water from the c. a $ bridge, increases
the cost of the hne more than Is jasti-
liable at the present time IN proportion
to the additional power that can be de
veloped. This project is therefore 10
be recommended only as future expedi-
ent In case the power from the c. 4 5.
Rv bridge should be entirely sold and
there should be demand for additional
power 1t would then he advisable to
extend the pipe hne and put in new
head works at the Pratt bridge or there
abosts, and thus secure the necessary
additional power thereby.
FIFTH The only other project con
sidered was that of putting in dam in
Taylor River and generating power at
that point and transmitting il 10 Gunni-
son. This requires the construction Of
a transmission line approximately six
teen miles in length and the additional
cost of this transmission line, together
with the additional cost of operation on
account of having to MAINTAIN the plant
at such distance from town, more
than off sets the saving in first cost
effected by constructing the plant in
this canyon. This project is therefore
not to be recommended at the present
time.
To summarize therefore all of the
above water power projects it 10 ealy
necessary to consider the one designated
above under the heading THIRD,
that is, taking water from the G. q 3.
Ry. bridge and conveying by pipe line
from there 10 the present power hsuse
The question then to determine is
whether or not this water power plant
is to be preferred or recommended in
preference to a development of the
steam plant The cost of the steam
plant complete, as outlined above, in
cluding an item of $3060 for a reinforced
concrete reservoir, is $39, 2ls; the cost
of the water power proposition, devel-
oping $40 H. P., is $1ls, 694. This also
includes the same $3060 for the reser-
voir, as this Is a necessary item in con-
nection with any improvement of your
water works plant.
1t then becomes necessary to make
comparative estimates of cost of opera
tion in order to determine which of
these two projects rs To be recommended.
Perhaps the plainest method of present
ing these comparative estimates is to
eliminate all of the items that are COM
mon to the operation of both plants and
compute or summarize the items of diff
ference.
Take up first the question of labor.
The number of men required TO operate
the steam plant, running night and day
as is proposed. and including the hand
ling of all the coal and ashes, will he
one greater than the number of men
required to operate the water power
plant. While it may not be true that
the city will employ more men to oper-
ate the steam plant, yet the men who
operate the steam plant will be work ed
harder and their entire time will be
fully taken, whereas. the same num-
ber of men operating the water power
plant will have portion of their time
available for other duties. This will
react to the city's credit either in being
able to secure the mel. at less cost or
else in being able to utilize their spare
time in other work of value to the city.
The water power plant should therefore
be credited with the services of one
man at say an average of x75 per month,
or $500 per annum.
The question of fuel is next with the
difference in favor of the water power
plant. The present fuel bills, operating
night load only, average approximately
$1,000 per year With the addition of
the day load this will be increased To
approximately $4,000 per year, which is
another item to be credited in favor of
the water power plant.
The question of oil. waste. small sup
plies, and ordinary repairs to the pump
ing machinery and generators will be
the same for both plants.
The maintenance, insurance and de-
probation on the steam plant and in
terest on the investment may be fairly
estimated at 10 per cent per annum,
which is in round numbers, $500 per
year. This item should also be credited
in favor of the water power plant.
making total credits for the water
power plant, sss0o per year.
As against this item the water power
plant must be charged with the interest
on the cost of investment, in addition
TO the depreciation on certain parts of
the plant. In order that the bonds rnay
be saleable 1T is suggested that S per
cent bonds viii have to be- issued. The
interest on the investment therefore
per cent on Sis. 6e4 in round numbers.
is $500 per annum.
Depreciation and maintenance must
also be charged on the water power
machinery, amounting TO per cent on
m item Of 81, $50 or e4e0.
DspfeciatIon and maintenance on the
wccden pipe line should also be pFvvided
fer ct the rate of per cent Of &7e, -,
- e1els.
Dspfeeistion and maintenance on the
balance Of the water work. plant viii
MT exceed I per cent per annusn, or n