874 



REPORT — 1900* 



power generation to adopt for extensions of the old, is no longet so simple as wten 

 only one method of power generation in large units was open to him. 



It is no doubt true that the choice between the three possible sources of power 

 is one which in many cases will be settled purely by local considerations ; and the 

 proximity of a large waterfall or of an extensive coalfield to the factory, will be 

 held to point to the turbine or to the steam engine as the most economical power 

 generator. In a great number of cases, however, especially when the decision of 

 the engineer covers the choice of a site for the factory, the problem is capable of 

 no such easy solution ; and the most economical source of power can only be 

 determined after an exhaustive study of comparative costs data. 



The aim of the writer in the present paper has been to collect and arrange in 

 compai'able form some of the more important figures bearing on the cost of power 

 generation. Full references are given to all the original articles from which these 

 figures are drawn.' 



Taking the best figures for each of the three sources of power dealt with above, 

 and bringing them all to a common basis of comparison, namely, the cost of the 

 E.H.P. year of 8,760 hours, the author obtained the figures given below. 



Table VII. — Comparative Costs of Electrical Foiucr. 



The figures in the table support the opinion, now generally held, that water 

 when developed without excessive capital expenditure is the cheapest source of 

 mechanical or electrical energy. When, however, the hydraulic engineering 

 expenditure has been heavy, or when the power after generation has required to be 

 transmitted over long distances, the margin between the relative costs of water and 

 steam power is greatly narrowed, and in some Cases disappears. 



Electrical energy generated hy falling water is costivg more at Eheinfelden, at 

 Zurich, and at Buffalo than it would cost in South Lancashire if generated by 

 steam poxcer 171 large iinits ; and the margin between the actual charge for power ^ 

 at Niagara and the estimated cost of steam pou-er in large generating stations in 

 South Lancashire is only 12s. Id. per E.H.P. year. 



In this connection it is interesting to note that the charge for electric power 

 in Buffalo is 13s. 6^. per E.H P. year higher than at Niagara; and the excessive 

 charge to small consumers in the same city (25/. lis. per E.H.P. year) would seem 

 to indicate that the cost of transmission between Niagara and Butlalo represents at 

 least 20s. per E.H.P. year on the power sent into that city. 



Turning now to a consideration of the relative position of gas power, the ques- 

 tion of the practicability of large engines may be taken as settled. If they do not 

 cost excessive sums for maintenance and repairs, large gas engines, in conjunction 

 with coke ovens and blast furnaces, may entirely alter the present position of 

 affairs ; and the new industries which at present are being established in the 

 neighbourhood of water-power stations may find themselves m severe competition 

 with similar manufactures carried on in the coal and iron districts of the older 

 manufacturing countries. 



It has been calculated that 2,000,000 H.P. is annually wasted in the gases 

 issuing from the blast furnaces of the United Kingdom. If these waste 



' Tables I. to VI. contain details of sixty-five actual or estimated costs of steam, 

 ■water, or gas power per H.P. year of 8,760 hours. 



