Vízügyi Közlemények, 1981 (63. évfolyam)

4. füzet - Mátrai István: A Duna-Tisza összeköttetés változatai

558 Mátrai István safe navigation. The transfer of lower discharges would no affect substantially the costs of construction, whereas higher discharges would involve canal dimensions well in excess of the requirements of navigation and consequently much higher costs of construction. In alternative "A" a 4.8 km long gravitational canal would convey water from the Danube to pumping station No. 1. This would raise the water into a 10 million m

3 reservoir situated 24 m higher. From the reservoir a connecting canal would lead to pumping station No. 2, which would discharge against a head of 68 m through a 2.7 km long delivery pipe to the divide. In addition to the two main porpuses, alternative "E" would also be suited to store 350 million m

3 of water, while alternative "F" would generate 64 million kWh annually. As regards water transfer, alternative A/d would be equivalent to the alternatives "B" to "F". The principal technico-economic parameters, such as quantities, constructionand annual costs, pumping power, etc., are summarized in Table 2. The non-recurring construction- and the annual costs, as well as the cost of transferring 1 m

3 of water are shown graphically for the various alternatives in Fig. 6, as a function of the operating hours of the project in a normal- and in a dry year. A comparison of the construction costs will reveal that the cost of the singlepurpose water transfer project (alternative A/d) would amount to 4.5 thousand million Ft, while that of the most desirable multi-purpose project (alternative "C") to 15.2 thousand million Ft. If the 4.5 thousand million Ft cost of the single-purpose alternative is subtracted — as an equivalent investment — from the latter, then 10.7 thousand million Ft remain as the share of navigation. Further round 3 thousand million Ft are to be allocated to navigation for ports, barge fleet, etc., which are essential for water transport. The equivalent investment costs of storage and power development have been subtracted from the costs of alternatives "E" and "F" as well. The cost of water vs. annual utilization relation is shown in Fig. 7. Alternative "A" is seen to be the optimum solution, since this can readily be expanded. For evaluating the alternatives including a waterway, detailed economic analyses are suggested to compare water transport with other equivalent modes.