DISCLAIMER s report was prepared M q accomt of work SPOnSOd by m agency of the United States Government. Neither the Umted States Gov*nt nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or mphed, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness: or usefulness of any information, appara~, produq or process disclo~or represents that Its use wotid not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial produc~process, or service by trade name, trademark manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsemenr ecommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. * SUppiy cooling water to the APT heat exchangers from the existing river water system using 681-6G pump house at PAR pond. This option was not evaluated due to the fact that the 681-6G pump house has not been maintained, and thus the equipment condition was suspect. The cost and feasibility associated with this option is essentially identical to Alternative 2 above. The primaly difference would be the additional cost in restoring the * A once through cooling system utilizing well water supply. This alternative is not considered feasible as the number of wells required to meet the demand would be cost prohibitive and the permitting risk associated with this production rate was considered to be extremely high. These alternatives cover the most common and frequently used types of systems. Other alternatives or variations may exist, but were not considered in this report. 4,0 Basis for Evaluation and Selection: Alternatives are evaluated on technical feasibility, direct capital costs, operating and maintainability costs, and permitting risks. Technical feasibility is evaluated on a gojno go basis, and all of the alternatives evaluated herein are technically feasible in that they can provide the required cooling given that the proper equipment (either new or modified) is in place. The remaining criteria will be assigned a numerical value or score based on a performance scale of O to 5 such that 3 is the rating of the base alternative (Alternative 2) with higher numbers increasin~yly better than the base and lower numbers increasingly worse. For the purpose of this study the criteria were weighted as: direct capital cost-20°/0, operat~r~g and maintainability costs-30°/0, and permitting risk-50°/0. 5,0 Evaluation of Alternatives for APT Site #2: 5.1 River Water Makeup (Alternative #1) Descri~tion of SVstem: This scenario relies on mechanical drafi cooling towers as the primary means of transferring heat from APT to the atmosphere. Makeup water is required to account for evaporative losses and continuous blowdown. Preliminary calculations indicate that approximately 6000 gpm of makeup water will satis& the peak demand for APT. This 6000 gpm could be supplied using a portion of the...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.