Document OJa7EBMr8Z3gybKvGOnzk7xre

F A L L . POWERFAX . 1 9 3 S Piring aisle in the boiler mom. daily from meters, which record in order that each institution-can the service supplied each building, be charged with its proportional share of the plant operating costs. Complete daily records are kept and an analysis made each month on operation and costs. Requirements ofthis station are: steam--approximately 120,000 lbs. per hour: electrical energy-- about 1250 kw., and the equiva lent of 100 tons refrigeration to serve the cold storage space throughout the various buildings (at present a little more than 25,000 cubic feet), as well as cold drinking water service for the en tire group. The present peak re quirement for domestic hot water service amounts to about 25,000 gallons per hour. We are indebted to the BaumesMcDevitt Company for the infor mation here given and for the photographs reproduced. It might further be stated that in addition to the Euclid Avenue plant, described above, the Wash ington University also operates a Campus plant, located several miles away, where an Elliott 300kw. turbine-generator has been in service for a number of years. I i were 51% utsiead of he leading article in the tional investment to install a more TJune, 1932 POWERFAX told the story back ol the economical plant was $140,000. It should have been pointed out power and heat supply of an tuhna t this $140,000 was the total named industrial plant. In analyz new investment to cover both ing the cost of a new plant and steam and power generation balancing this cost against sav equipment. This would mean, ings, the statement was made that therefore, that the difference be the existing steam plant was in tween $140,000 and $80,000, or adequate and that $80,000 would $60,000, would be the actual in have been required for steam plant vestment chargeable against pow changes and additions in anyevent. er generation. Then it was stated that the addi Therefore, on an estimated sav- ing of $30,665, the saving to be expected was 51.2%, rather than. 22%, as stated in the article. After the first year's operation, as stated at the end of the article, the actual savings were $31,200, or a little better than anticipated, and if nor mal plant operation had been pos sible, the saving would surely have been $40,000, or a saving of66% on the capita] investment of $60,000, which shows the profitable nature of the revamped power plant. 19] CRIMDEBN00000306