Browsing by Author "Garver, Rodrick J."
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Hydropower Development alternatives at the Minnesota Falls Dam MN 00152(1982-04-02) Rindels, Alan J.; Gulliver, John S.; Garver, Rodrick J.The Minnesota Falls Dam is located on the Minnesota R.iver near Granite Falls, Minnesota. The existing dam and 'powerhouse were originally cc;mstructed in 1905 by the Minnesota Valley Power Company. The ownership of the dam and powerhouse has been" transferred' and the current owner is Northern States Power Company. The generation of electric power was discontinued and the powerhouse demolished in 1961. The purpose of this study is to estimate the cost of redeveloping the hydropower potential of the Minnesota Falls Dam, and the energy and power' that a hydropower facility would produce. The economic analysis required to determine project feasibility will be undertaken by the sponsor.Item Hydropower Feasibility At The Kettle River Dam MN00513(St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, 1981-07) Gulliver, John S.; Knowlton, Robert J.; Garver, Rodrick J.The Kettle River Dam is located on the Kettle River near Sandstone, Minnesota. The existing dam and powerhouse were originally constructed in 1908 by the Kettle River Power Company for power production. The ownership of the dam and powerhouse has been transferred several times, and the current owner is the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation Division. The generation of electric power was discontinued in 1963. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of redeveloping hydropower production facilities at the Kettle River Dam.Item Hydropower Feasibility at the St. Cloud Dam(1981-09-01) Knowlton, Robert J.; Garver, Rodrick J.; Gulliver, John S.; Renaud, RichardThe Mississippi River Darn MN 00506 is located on the Mississippi River in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Power generation at the original darn was discontinued in 1967, at which time ownership was transferred from Northern States Power to the City of St. Cloud and plans were made to construct the present darn. The existing darn, completed in 1972, replaced the original darn which was constructed in 1887. The existing powerhouse and facilities were removed. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of redeveloping hydropower production facilities· at the St. Cloud Darn.Item Intake and recycle modification model study Prarie Island nuclear generating plant(1984-07) Stefan, Heinz G.; Garver, Rodrick J.The thermal-hydraulic model study reported herein was conducted to study why a nonuniform temperature distribution in front of the screenhouse of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant occurs when warm water is recycled, and how the temperature distribution could be made uniform. The study was conducted for Northern States Power Company (NSP) in cooperation with Stone and Webster, Inc., Denver, Colorado. When the original skimmer wall cooling water intake for the Prairie Island Plant was studied in a physical' model at the St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory in 1971, it was already observed, that recycled warm water and incoming cold water would not fully mix. (See External Memorandum No. M-128, "Model Studies on Cooling Water Intake Channel of Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant," 1971.)Item Jim Falls Hydropower Model Study(1985-08) Stefan, Heinz G.; Lindblom, Karen L.C.; Voigt, Richard L. Jr.; Garver, Rodrick J.The Jim Falls hydroelectric power plant is located on the Chippewa River at the town of Jim Falls, Wisconsin. An aged 11 MW existing facility at the location is being replaced by a more efficient 48 MW peak power plant. The new design includes a much larger headwater pool which is to be formed by a new earth embankment (see Fig. 1.1). The new powerhouse is situated approximately 0.2 miles upstream of the existing facility. The project is being developed by Northern States Power Company (NSP), Wisconsin, in conjunction with NSP, Minnesota. Project design is being undertaken by B1ack & Veatch, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri; Mead and Hunt headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin; and Motor Columbus, headquartered in Baden, Switzerland. Hydraulic model studies were conducted at the St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory, University of Minnesota. The purpose of these experiments was to evaluate and test various design alternatives for major hydraulic structures of the project. This report summarizes and documents that activity. A videotape (27 min.) supplements this report and shows actual flow conditions in the 1:60 scale model. The Jim Falls Hydro Redevelopment Project includes a two unit powerhouse, new headwater pool with pilot channel, tailrace channel and an auxiliary spillway next· to the powerhouse. This new spillway has three tainter gates topped with flaps for debris sluicing. The auxiliary spillway design flow is 65,000 cfs. The proposed headwater. pool will include a portion of the existing diversion canal (Fig. 1-1) and. will extend into the Chippewa River below the existing bridge.Item Preliminary Analysis Of Hydropower Production Feasibility At Twenty-One Existing Dam Sites In The State Of Minnesota(Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, 1980-08) Gulliver, John S.; Garver, Rodrick J.; Arndt, Roger E. A.; Bowers, C. EdwardA preliminary estimate of hydropower production feasibility was made for twenty-one existing dam sites in the State of Minnesota. The purpose of the preliminary analysis was to determine whether a comprehensive feasibility study is justified for the site. The expected annual energy production and initial project cost were estimated for each site. Initial cost estimates include turbine, generator, transmission line, and other electromechanical features as well as the civil features of hydropower retrofitting. Initial cost does not include dam rehabilitation, since the required information is not available for 19 of the 21 sites. The "relative cost" of the project was defined as the initial cost divided by the annual energy production, and was calculated for each site. The relative cost and general curves for payback period were used to estimate hydropower feasibility at each site. The results of the preliminary analysis are: 5 sites have good or very good hydropower feasibility, 6 sites are marginal, and 10 sites have poor hydropower feasibility. Estimates of the cost of a comprehensive feasibility study are included for each site.