ELECTRIC AUXILIARIES ON MERCHANT SHIPS. 175 



Calculating boiler evaporation at 13 pounds per pound of fuel, to supply steam for 

 this winch operated under above conditions would require a minimum fuel con- 

 sumption per hours of (lbs.) 92.3 



To determine the amoimt of steam consumed in the above operation, exhaust steam 

 from this winch alone was condensed into a specially constructed measuring tank. 



In comparison with the above, the following report on the performance of the motor 

 ship Kennecott is quoted. The Kennecott is a 6,000-ton deadweight vessel equipped with 

 Diesel engine main propulsion, all engine-room and deck auxiliaries being electrically driven 

 from auxiliary Diesel engine-driven generating sets. Deck equipment includes eight 25- 

 horse-power dynamic lowering type electric cargo winches : 



Vessel was at Seattle pier for a period of ten days, during which time 3,000,000 feet 

 of lumber were loaded. During this period of ten days the engineer's log shows 

 that but 31 barrels of fuel oil were used for all purposes, including auxiliary 

 Diesel engine generating set consumption for operating engine-room auxiliaries 

 and cargo winches. Average daily fuel consumption (barrels) 3.1 



Later reports of the Kennecott show that — 



Under average operating conditions engine-room and auxiliary equipment in opera- 

 tion twenty-four hours per day, deck winches in operation from eight to nine 

 hours per day. Average daily fuel consumption (barrels) 4j^ 



The above data are evidence of the economy to be effected in the use of electrically op- 

 erated deck auxiliaries, but of course cannot be used as a comparison of fuel consumption 

 for engine-room or other auxiliaries. 



In giving these figures I made no attempt to make a detailed comparison or make any de- 

 ductions. You may make your own deductions, but the figures I have given are unques- 

 tionable evidence of the possibility of economy, and, taking these figures, you can work it 

 out on any basis you wish, and it will result in showing very decidedly in favor of elec- 

 tric auxiliaries. 



Mr. William W. Smith, Member: — Mr. President and gentlemen, on page 160 the 

 author states that the cost of electrical deck machinery is little if any higher than steam ma- 

 chinery ; I have found the reverse to be true to a very marked degree. For example, the cost 

 of the steam deck machinery for a 10,000-ton cargo vessel was $33,000, whereas for elec- 

 trical machinery, to perform exactly the same work, the cost was $80,000. It may also be 

 pointed out that the cost of a 5-ton steam winch was about $1,500, whereas for an electric 

 winch of the same capacity the cost was about $4,300. In view of these figures it is difficult 

 for me to understand the author's assertion. 



Referring to the comparison given on pages 167 to 169, I would suggest that the author 

 add a brief description of these installations to give a better understanding of the comparisons. 



On page 167 the author states that the excess auxiliary exhaust steam is by-passed to the 

 condenser. Thus all of the available energy in this steam is wasted, which is not done in prop- 

 erly designed installations. Approximately 4,550 pounds of auxiliary steam are condensed in 

 the feed heater. This leaves 7,950 pounds which could develop power in a low-pressure tur- 

 bine under efficient conditions. Since there are no data for the turbine referred to, let us 



