Document zd810GL35ZkLLNJbxBkn4gzo7

i'.iwslN. EDITOR MARCH I9S3 ESTABLISHED ISSIfl Coal Power for the West? ------------- ------------------------- 1- I assured with TEXACO REGAL OIL (R$| As power d^nand increases, so does the importance of keeping your turbines on the Une. Your best assurance of doing (his is ro lubricate with Texaco Regal OH (R &0) -- the turbine oil that tests proved has more than lea limes the oxidation-resistance of ordinary turbine oils ... far greater ability to pre* vent sludge, rust and foam. This is because -- for decades before additive oils became papular -- Tbxaco Regal Oil was a world* famous turbine oil, and Texaco Regal Oil (R&O) is this same fine oil improved with special rust and oxidation inhibitors and specially processed to pre* vent foaming. Texero Regal Oil (R 00) has an extra-long scrv- Ice life and you can count on it to keep lubricstityfl systems dean, maintain normal bearing temper^ cures, and assure instant governor response. TTbtA* is a complete line of Texaco Regal Oils meeting the stringent requirements of all fesdiq turbine builders. jja A Texaco Lubrication Engineer will gladly hdu you select the one best suited to your particular typeJ and she of turbine and operating conditions. J*|I call the nearest of the more than 2,000 Tfexnco DhJ tributtng Plants in the 49 States, or write:- ooo The Texas Company, 155 East 42nd Street, York 17, MY. 1UNI IN . . . unto IUI IHCA1EI Kartlv NttIQN Itttt, *n UUtUlta Nniir alflih. ttEIIOtOlMia Ortl* tiSU 46 POWER ji HrXoAST BNCiNEEns will be much interested in a fpmbosal to burn coal in mammoth mine-mouth jffijg Utah.and transmit the resulting electrical energy .e than 600 miles, at 500,000 volts, to load centers on '^nL This could be a paying proposition by 1975, Irding to a study (page 90) recently made publio by ijjj/lfc&Bureau of Reclamation. By that time, the Bureau jpttdieta, the 22 slates weal of the Mississippi River will be eduumiag electrical energy el five times the present rate. {uTmost challenging segment of this study relates to ^aUforoia. By 1975, the Bureau estimates, more than half jjsf&siifomia'i power will come from coal-fircd plants! vfeiJn|l uivolve burning 54 million tons of coal per year. ^Granting this, the customary procedure would be to coal by rail to plants in California, because it has wiostvinvariably been cheaper (for long distances) to gjup|oMl than to transmit the corresponding kilowatt-hours froQ:mipe>mouth plants. groking forward to a vast load growth and great ad* ^fi^-voltage long distance transmission, and ugning other favorable conditions, the Bureau concludes >l%ir.by l975, it will be cheaper to generate the power in transmit it to California. The "shipping cost" ^rora eastern Utah to a 230,000-volt substation ^ Angeles Is given as 1.86 mills for electrical trans- mills coal haulage. ?WpSr'r*?e at the very low figure of 1.86 mills to transmit ^Vwhr 660 miles, the Bureau assumes a yearly charge on *h transmission-line investment. This ^>^nterert 3%, amortisation 0.89%, replacement of 0*74%, and "in lieu of insurance" 0.12%. As is too often the case in such comparisons, the paper savings, based on the 4.75% rate, ore largely imaginary. Take the one item of taxes, for example. Government transmission lines would necessarily displace tax-paying facilities--either privately owned transmission lines or privately owned railroad traffic. Any proper estimate of transmission costs by the use of public lines must allow for inevitable tax losses. In the national average, each dollar paid for coal freight carries about 15 cents of tax charge, direct and indirect. Granting that it is not easy to figure how much railroad tax national, state and local governments would lose by eliminating 34 million tons per year of coal shipment from Utah to California, it Is certain that on important allow ance must be mado for a fair comparison. Economists could go much deeper Into this matter and show that the other "savings" made possible by the ab normally low ioteresl and depreciation rates are largely imaginary, but this is no place for a discussion of eco nomic theory. It Is enough to point out that realistic allowances for taxes, interest and depreciation would largely invalidate the Bureau's conclusion that electrical transmission would be cheaper. Yet we would not suggest discarding this report com pletely. Much of value for futuro planning can be learned by studying its load growth and fuel-supply estimates for all the western slates. Then, too, there is alwoys the possibility that coal haul age in 1975 may be more coatly than we Imagine today, or that we shall find some way to transmit electric power more cheaply than now seems possible. ^Privately owned transmission line, to provide tor interest, etc, would have to allow 10 to Which would make the electrical transmission cost ijggj&*Bter than that of coal haulage. We must take It wv*-`+.**udy auumes Government ownership. We of Powxn would certainly not place ourselves in the position of saying that It will never pay to generate most of California's power by burning coal in Utah. We merely say that, in our opinion, the data and the comparisons in this particular study do not lead to that conclusion. *MRCH 19S3