Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (21634)	3/18/2002 2:42:39 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Fort Peck Powerhouse Number One was completed in 1951. It has three generating units with an installed capacity of 105mw. These units were upgraded in the late 1970s to their present capacity. In 1961, Powerhouse number Two was completed. Powerhouse Number two has two generators with a total rated capacity of 80mw. Fort Peck Power Plants produce an approximately 1 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This generates between 10 and 14 million dollars per year based on firm power rates. nwo.usace.army.mil This is not a huge amount of power. On the general scenario, there's also the issue of capacity versus volume. Currently, Fort Peck Lake is at 64% of capacity, see montana.usgs.gov I wasn't able to find similar figures for the next lake down, but the capacity of Lake Sakakawea is listed at 23 million acre feet at nwo.usace.army.mil ; if it is operating at similar volume relative to capacity, it could handle quite a surge, all by itself. I'm not exactly sure why the cascading failure scenario is supposed to happen.