« PreviousContinue »
Available and Developed Totals: The recorded power available through the Dominion, under conditions of ordinary minimum How and within the limitation set out in the foregoing, is 18,255,000 H.P. The water power available under estimated flow for maximum development, that is, dependable for at least six months of the year, is 32,076,000 H. P.
There are installed throughout the Dominion water wheels and turbines to the extent of 2,471,000 H.P. However, it would not be correct to place this figure in direct comparison with the minimum or maximum available power figures quoted above and, therefore, reduce the percentage of the available water power resources developed to date. An allowance must be made for the average ratio between the water wheels installed and the power available.
An analysis of the water power plants scattered from coast to coat, concerning which complete information is available as to turbine installation and satisfactory information as stream flow, gives an average machine installation 30 per cent greater than the six months' flow maximum power. Applying this, the figures quoted above therefore indicate that the at present recorded water power resources of the Dominion will permit of a turbine installation of 41,700,000 H.P. In other words, the resent turbine installation represents only 5.9 per cent of the present recorded water power resources.
Progress During Past Year: The total hydraulic power development installed during the past year and now nearing completion represents approximately 560,000 H.P. of installed capacity. This figure includes only the initial installation of plants under construction, not their ultimate designed capacity. It is evidence of the manner in which the water power resources of the Dominion are being put to effective and productive use.
Future Growth and Utilization of Water Power: Considering the history of water power utilization in Canada during the past few years in conjunction with the present activity with a view to making some reasonable forecast as to its probable future growth, the following may be deducted. Should the rate of water wheel installation during the past 15 years be maintained, there will be installed, in 1925, 3,360,000 H.P.; in 1930, 4,110,000 H.P.; in 1935, 4,860,000 H.P.; and in 1940, 5,600,000 H.P. There is every reason to anticipate that the rate of growth in utilization will be accelerated rather than retarded. Reference to the foregoing totals of water power available will indicate that this anticipated increase in utilization will not seriously reduce the total reserve. Canada possesses sufficient reserves of water power to meet the anticipated demands for many years to come.
(V) St. Lawrence River Project There has been suggested a waterway from Lake Ontario to the Gulf of St. Lawrence which, coupled with a power development, proposes to produce 6,625,000 horse-power, at a cost of $1,300,000,000, or without the power development at a cost of $650,000,000.
Since the Canadian and United States Commission is about to report on the “St. Lawrence River to Sea" waterway and has estimated that a channel 30 feet in depth can be developed for $250,000,000, further description of this project does not seem warranted in this report.
(VI) Great Lakes to Hudson Ship Canal A deep waterway is proposed to be located in New York State between Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and from Lake Ontario to the Hudson River. The details have not been fully developed and as the project does not seem to have attracted the favorable attention of the engineers familiar with the conditions involved, further report is, therefore, deferred at this time.
SUMMARY 1. There are at present at Niagara Falls Hydro-Electric developments under United States control totaling 486,000 H.P., of which amount practically none is available for railroad electrification.
2. There are being developed at Niagara Falls under existing Treaty revisions 660,000 additional H.P., of which 210,000 is on the American side. Of this latter amount 100,000 H.P. is available for railroad electrification and is sufficient for local requirements only.
3. There are possibilities, subject to Treaty revisions, of developments on the American side of 600,000 additional H.P., of which the greater part may be available for railroad electrification. This would be sufficient to furnish power to a large portion of the steam railroads within economical transmission distance.
4. There are existing, or under development, other installations, such as the Canadian Chippawa-Queenston project and that at Shawinigan Falls. Power from these plants is not available for railroad electrification in the United States.
5. There are under contemplation other projects, such as the Niagara Falls Junior and the St. Lawrence Waterway. While such power would be available for railroad electrification, it is not believed that such projects have yet reached the stage where this Committee can report as to their applicability.
6. The transmission of power developed at Niagara Falls is limited in distance only by ability to economically construct and safely insulate the transmission lines.
7. Power from Niagara Falls can be delivered to large consumers, within economical transmission distance, at approximately 1 cent per K.W. Hr., which figure is sufficiently attractive as compared with present cost of steam production to warrant serious consideration as to its use for railroad electrification.
8. Hydro-electric power from Niagara Falls is constant because of the enormous storage reservoir afforded by the Great Lakes. None of the Niagara plants are augmented by steam electric stations common to many other hydro-electric installations.
MARTIN SCHREIBER, Chairman; A. E. OWEN,
W. M. VANDERSLUIS,
Sub-Committee. Your Committee has co-operated during the past year with the American Committee on Electrolysis and can report that substantiai progress has been made. The American Committee on Electrolysis have completed a comprehensive report which has the unanimous approval of all the representatives of the following organizations:
American Railway Engineering Association.
The report will be distributed before the March meeting of the American Railway Engineering Association in Chicago.
The members of the American Committee on Electrolysis have agreed that its report is complete and up to date and that they have gone as far as is practical until further investigations are made by the Sub-Committee on Research. For the time being the following SubCommittees' work is therefore complete:
Sub-Committee “A”—Principles and Definitions.
The American Committee on Electrolysis further decided that its activities for the present should be confined to the work of the Research Sub-Committee co-operating through the Bureau of Standards. The American Railway Engineering Association has a representative on this Sub-Committee. The American Committee on Electrolysis approved two resolutions of the Research Sub-Committee, subject to the ratification of the parent bodies. Below are the resolutions :
First: That. the Research Sub-Committee make studies of the cost of railway systems designed to minimize track drop, and the American Electric Railway Association be requested to take sponsorship for this study, working in co-operation with the Research Sub-Committee.
Second: That it is the sense of the Research Sub-Committee that the work of the Committee can best be financed by asking each organization's representative on the American Committee on Electrolysis, except the Bureau of Standards, to contribute or secure $2,500.00 per year for two years. The former fund to defray expenses of the program of work formulated by the Research Committee.
Your Committee recommends the approval of the first resolution but not the second, which involves a contribution on the part of your Association of $2,500.00 annually for use of the Research Sub-Committee. We believe, however, that your Association should otherwise lend its support to the program. This subject is an important one and we believe the report will show that great progress has been made and this progress, as well as future progress, is only possible through the co-operation of all the organizations forming the American Committee on Electrolysis.
The Committee has nothing to report this year upon the Effect of Electrolysis on Reinforced Concrete, other than to say that experiments have been continued in the laboratory of Swarthmore College and it is hoped that interesting results may form the basis of next year's report on this subject.
ITEM (5) CO-OPERATION WITH THE U. S. BUREAU OF
E. B. Katte, Chairman :
L. S. WELLS,
The Committee was directed to continue co-operating with the U. S. Bureau of Standards in the revision of the National Electrical Safety Code. The third revision of this Code is dated October 31, 1920, and was distributed in April of this year, printed in two volumes of the "Handbook Series" of the Bureau of Standards. The first volume contains the rules and the second is, a discussion or an explanation of the rules. This edition of the Code is more convenient in form than previous editions, although there are still many cross-references which renders the Code difficult to comprehend without expert study.
The Bureau of Standards has not accepted all of the recommendations made by your Committee referred to in its report contained in Volume 21, No. 221, and Volume 22, No. 231, of the Bulletin, dated, respectively, November 1919 and 1920. The most important of the unaccepted recommendations pertain to the crossing of overhead wires and cables over railroad rights-of-way and involve a reduction by the Bureau of Standards of established railroad standards for structural strength and for clearances.
The Committee has prepared with considerable care the following Commentary on the National Electrical Safety Code, with the object of acquainting the members of the Association with the manner in which it can be used to advantage and wherein the Code requirements differ from accepted railroad practice.
National Electrical Safety Code Third Edition Scope and Intent: The Code is a compilation of rules intended to state the minimum requirements for spacings, clearances and strength of construction for electrical appliances (p. 78). They are not complete specifications, but are intended to embody the requirements which are most important from the standpoint of safety, to employes and the public (p. 77). They may be varied from particular requirements when circumstances warrant different practice (p. 10). More ample spacings and clearances or greater strength of construction may be provided if other requirements are not neglected in so doing (p. 78). NOTE—The page numbers refer to the Code.