Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

cost of $475,000,000-35 percent of $475,000,000 would be about $185,000,000.

Colonel PARKER. This is the 3-plant system that we are talking about, and not the ultimate 10, the allocation that we have made is for 3 plants alone, and that involves a total expenditure of only $94,000,000 for the multiple-purpose developments; whereas the sum for single purposes would have been $160,000,000, so that we are dealing with those figures, and not with the larger ones.

Representative JENKINS. Of course your figures, when I say it is perfectly possible to have a more satisfactory economy by an increased cost, that is perfectly possible, many times; that is the theory upon which all of these big mass production organizations produce or operate; it is purely a big organization like that can produce more cheaply, but here is the trouble with all of that-when Henry Ford begins his mass production program he finances it with his own money and begins it without any regard he is not restricted by any constitutional provisions of any kind, and the law is not against him, but when you start out on a shoestring, as it were, and the powereverybody knows that the power in this program just barely slips in and it has no legal sanction or constitutional sanction whatever, and it is just an incidental, and then whenever you commence to build up an economy like you say and justify it, when you don't have an honest, legal, constitutional basis, of course it is perfectly easy to say that you could build all of these, it would be more economical if the Government would go into the power business all over the Nation, and take over all of the power plants, and then we would have, of course, the Government in the power business, and the Government could probably operate the grocery stores in this country cheaper than Kroger does, and the A. & P., and the rest of the big chain stores, but so far we haven't gone into the grocery business. That is my idea. Applying that philosophy to your program, don't you think that your program falls down, and doesn't have justification?

Colonel PARKER. I was just trying to make a single point of economy, that the money which the Government is spending on this project is actually securing returns which are unusually economical, and which, as measured by the equivalent single-purpose cost, is extraor dinarily economical. That is, it is not a program, as I should say, which can be defended successfully; it is a program which cannot only be defended successfully; it is one upon which one can get together a lot of enthusiasm.

Representative JENKINS. Of course, you engineers can, when you have an unlimited Treasury and no regard for what you are doing to the other fellow; there is no question that the T. V. A. project down there is going to be a better power project than any of the power companies have down there; it is unified and modern and it has the benefit of the best brains, of many of the best engineers of the country, like yourself, but that is not the problem. The ultimate problem with us is, when you say you defend the economy of it, you don't look over and see what destruction you have wrought and will work in the destruction of other economies, that are constitutional, and legal, and American, and thoroughly so.

I understand that you are presenting your side of it purely as a factual engineering proposition, and without any regard to the constitutionality but simply with regard to the matter of the producing of a fine plant cheaply.

Colonel PARKER. I am just covering my own end of it. I have been assured that the legal aspects are entirely satisfactory.

COMPARATIVE COSTS RE AUTHORITY PROJECTS AND OTHER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS

Mr. BIDDLE. I think that I asked you a question as to a comparative basis. Are you ready to answer that? The $141, the present kilowatt production, compares with certain other figures. Will you pick out some of the most comparable of those?

Colonel PARKER. I have a list here of a large number of plants, with varying heads. I should say that in general the cost of hydroelectric plants varies inversely with the head; the higher head plants are cheaper, and these plants of ours, on the main river, are what is known as low-heads; the plants such as Norris and Hiwassee are known as intermediate, or high heads. I will read a list of such plants with the heads, and the cost per kilowatt.

Mr. BIDDLE. Then your total dam system would include high head and low head dams.

Colonel PARKER. With an emphasis on the low heads, in general. Mr. BIDDLE. Which are somewhat more expensive per kilowatt production.

Colonel PARKER. Yes, sir.

Representative JENKINS. Let me ask you a question there: Hasn't that what you are going to talk about-I forgot this morning to bring out what provision does the Wilson Dam have to carry this extra footage for flood control?

Colonel PARKER. There is very little flood control at Wilson; practically none.

Representative JENKINS. I think that you just said that the policy has been to have the dams that are in the main river, the main channel, they are low head dams; that is as compared to the Hiwassee and the Norris.

Colonel PARKER. The Wilson Dam although it is higher than the other main river dams, is located in such a steep part of the river bed that the area of the reservoir is only about 15 miles long, and the area of the pool is so small that its storage is comparatively small, as compared with the other reservoirs.

Representative JENKINS. That is what they call the Shoals?
Colonel PARKER. So steep and so short.

Representative JENKINS. While I am talking about that, the two main dams that have the highest heads to hold back the greatest part of the water, are the Hiwassee and the Norris, is that right? Colonel PARKER. That is right.

Representative JENKINS. Each of these is on the headwaters of a

river?

Colonel PARKER. That is right.

Representative JENKINS. Neither of these has any navigation facilities whatever, no locks in connection with either one of them? Colonel PARKER. Not at present.

Representative JENKINS. Well, it would be impossible to have locks at Norris Dam without tremendous expense, wouldn't it?

Colonel PARKER. Yes; it would, but they have certain provisions made there, I believe, for the installation of a conveyor of some kind. Representative JENKINS. But that would be new, and has never been tested out. Here is what I am coming to there. Then Hiwassee and Norris both, they prevent any navigation up the river past that? Colonel PARKER. Yes.

Representative JENKINS. They block off the river completely? Colonel PARKER. Well, they block off these respective tributaries which are side streams. Norris being here, and Hiwassee being here, there are just these small ends of the small streams.

Representative JENKINS. There are no locks and no facilities for anything to go up the river past those places?

Colonel PARKER. That is correct.

Representative JENKINS. And for that reason, you built them high. Now, then, you built them much higher than would be necessary for navigation, haven't you?

Colonel PARKER. Well

Representative JENKINS. There hasn't been any navigation?

Colonel PARKER. Their extra height, in these dams, is utilized for flood control. I think, in mentioning navigation, Professor Woodward suggested to me that it is only appropriate to mention that at the present time there are something like 800 boats on Norris Lake. Representative JENKINS. Pleasure boats?

Colonel PARKER. I presume so, but it is getting to be quite a considerable factor in the country.

Representative JENKINS. I don't think that you claim that there is any navigation above that; any commercial navigation, and there couldn't be above Hiwassee at all.

Just let me ask you this question: Here are the two principal dams of your whole system, Hiwassee, and Norris, and it wouldn't be fair to say that they had any navigation, and any navigation facilities at all, except that they hold back a head of water that you could let down when the other places or other parts of the river get shallow. Colonel PARKER. That has been a very important factor the last few years.

Representative JENKINS. Well, it couldn't be very important if there were no boats down there to be floated. You know, Colonel, it might be if you had some traffic down there, but as long as there is none down there it couldn't be very important, and of course that is my complaint, that you spend all of this money, and build these gigantic structures up there at the heads of these little creeks, nothing more than creeks, you might say, and for no other purpose than power and pleasure.

Colonel PARKER. Flood control.

Representative JENKINS. Well

Colonel PARKER. That is one of our objectives, Mr. Jenkins; we have been instructed by Congress to build these dams for flood control. Representative JENKINS. It looks good on paper, but it is not

very

Chairman DONAHEY. Any further questions of the witness?

Mr. BIDDLE. Will you give those comparative figures?

Colonel PARKER. Green Island project, 14 feet, cost, $268 per kilowatt.

Mr. BIDDLE. Would you designate which are municipal or governmental and which are private, if you know?

Colonel PARKER. I don't know in every case. I will designate where I know that they are municipal-shall I designate?

Mr. BIDDLE Designate whenever you know, whatever they are. Colonel PARKER. Green Island project, 14-foot head, cost $268, privately owned. Henry Ford owns it. Wallenpaupack project, 370 feet head, privately owned, cost $230.

Mr. BIDDLE. Would you also-I assume that these are all power dams, unless you otherwise designate them, am I correct?

Colonel PARKER. That is correct; yes. These are in the eastern part of the country, this first group. Saluda, 183-foot head, cost $160 per kilowatt. That is privately owned.

Mr. BIDDLE. State where it is, too.
Colonel PARKER. South Carolina.

Bartlett's Ferry, between Georgia and Alabama, on the Chattahoochee River. Privately owned, 114-foot head, cost $175 per kilowatt.

Mr. BIDDLE. Are these figures taken from the books or the material from the books of the corporations which constructed them?

Colonel PARKER. These figures I obtained from this article which has been written by Prof. H. K. Barrows.

Mr. BIDDLE. Where did Barrows obtain them?

Colonel PARKER. He obtained his information from the records of the Federal Power Commission.

Representative JENKINS. Colonel, may I ask you a question? You probably have stated what you are trying to prove here? Are you trying to prove the higher the head the cheaper the power?

Colonel PARKER. I was attempting to show that this figure which I had indicated, of $141 per kilowatt, was a low figure as compared to hydroelectric developments in general in this country, and I was reading a list, and I simply introduced the head as an indication of the comparative status, because those having rather high heads will be found to be considerably cheaper.

Representative JENKINS. Generally.

Colonel PARKER. The head is the measure, in general, of the character of the development.

Representative JENKINS. Generally the engineers accept that, as a sort of a general rule, the higher the head the cheaper the power?

Colonel PARKER. Yes. The reason is that the power being a prodtuct of head and quantity of water, for a given amount of power, when the head is greater, the amount of water required is correspondingly less, so that the water passages required to handle that water are smaller, and the whole physical size of the hydraulic equipment and powerhouse become much smaller, and consequently cheaper.

Mr. BIDDLE. What is the formula of head and volume, if there is such a formula for purposes of describing power?

Colonel PARKER. The power is simply equivalent to head in feet times the quantity of water; not necessarily in feet, of course. The

power is equal to the head times the quantity of water, in cubic units, multiplied by the weight of the cubic unit divided by a constant in order to determine your answer in proper units. That is in English units, the horsepower is equal to head times the number of cubic feet of water per second times the weight of a cubic foot of water divided by a constant, in this case 550 times the efficiency of the installation, which gives the power development.

Representative JENKINS. I just want to know for my own information, it wouldn't be safe to say that the power is proportionately in line, in proper ratio, with the head. Volume is more important than the head, the volume back of the dam is a factor, too, because it would be perfectly easy to have one dam with a head of 100 feet, on a shoal, and the volume back of it wouldn't be very much as compared if it were a more gradual grade, where the lake would be back of it 20 miles in one case, and in another case only 1 mile.

Colonel PARKER. That volume affects the storage only and it wouldn't affect the power which is the product of the head and flow only. As long as you have a certain head, a certain quantity of water flowing, it will produce a definite amount of power.

Representative JENKINS. Regardless of the lake, the height of the lake is the only important factor, and not the amount?

Colonel PARKER. As far as the amount of power generated and the amount of energy you can store is dependent upon the size of the lake. |: Mr. BIDDLE. Give two or three more of those, and then we will offer it as an exhibit.

Colonel PARKER. Jackson Bluff, which I believe is in Alabama.
Mr. BIDDLE. Private?

Colonel PARKER. A privately owned plant. Has a head of 33 feet and cost $333 per kilowatt.

The Wyman Dam, which is in Maine, on the Kennebec, privately owned, head of 139 feet, cost $195 per kilowatt.

The Conowingo Dam, which is privately owned, is in Maryland, very large development. Has a head of 89 feet, and cost $197 per kilowatt.

Safe Harbor Dam, on the same river, on the Susquehanna just above that, has a head of 55 feet, and cost about $152 per kilowatt.

Then, some of these, just to indicate what the effect of head is, the plant at Waterville, which is privately owned, has a head of 860 feet, and cost only $128 per kilowatt, a much higher head.

Some of these western plants with extremely high heads run down to such figures, but in general, any plant having a head less than 200 feet, if it costs less than $200 or less than $175, is rather phenomenal. Mr. BIDDLE. This exhibit, which I will now have marked for identification, contains a list of certain hydroelectric plants, on which is also noted the head in feet and the total cost per kilowatt capacity, is that correct-and that is taken from an article of H. K. Barrows, Hydro-Generated Energy-the proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, in April 1938, from figures of the Federal Power Commission, which you will later have.

Would you mark this?

(Whereupon the document above referred to was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 496.")

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »