Угольная тема - развейте сомнения плиз

[Рудут]

Из резюме горного инженера:

responsible for the initial planning of a new large 6 mln tonne per annum underground and surface mine mouth 3000 MW power station

вот думаю, строят ли электростанции в устьях шахт? :))) или как ЭТО у них, у шахт, называется? :))

[10-4]

Вероятно это ТЭЦ, которую снабжает данное угледобывающее предприятие. Mouth похоже стоит вместо with. По крайней мере сочетание surface mine mouth выглядит непонятно.

[2p]

связка угледобывающего предприятия с ТЭС, работающей на угле, может быть.
нашлось coal mine mouth power plant -
http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&q="mine+mouth+&lr=
Типа рядом расположены, чтоб долго не возить - добыл - и в топку.

http://www.google.ru/search?hl=ru&q="mine+mouth+&lr=
вот статейка на тему - не читал - HTH
Mine-Mouth Power Plants: Convenient Coal Not Always a Simple Solution

BY KATHRYN HEIDRICH

Coal Age, Jun 1, 2003 Brought to you by:

Print-friendly format
E-mail this information

In the 1960s and 1970s, when the demand for electricity was increasing, many utility companies decided that the best way to economically meet that growth was to build large power plants directly at the source of the coal used to fuel them. The thinking was that burning coal mined in the immediate vicinity of the plant would: (1) result in minimized transportation costs and (2) achieve greater supply security, because fuel was nearby and immediately available. Called mine-mouth plants, these generating stations were built literally next to the coal mines that were constructed exclusively to serve them. The plants were then connected to major population centers via high- capacity transmission lines. The concept proved economic and applicable in many regions, evidenced by plants being constructed in many different coalfields in the United States.

While the operating performance of the more than 20 mine-mouth plants built before 1990 remains high, due to favorable coal market economics, the concept took on a new look by the mid-1990s. Due to more stringent clean air laws and changing conditions in the coal market, many of the mine-mouth plants began to turn away from their captive sources and started to take coal from more distant locations. In many cases, the power plant had outlasted the reserve of coal that originally had been designated to supply it, or that coal had been legislated out of existence by emission-control regulations at the plant. For some mine-mouth plants, the change meant simply tapping coal resources that were nearby. However, for others, it meant a complete switch, taking coal from mines more than 1,000 miles away. In many of these situations, the changes required the construction of coal transport receiving facilities, which had not been considered in the original design. This shift has become a real boon to railroads, barge, and truck operators, which suddenly had a brand-new — and large — customer.

Evidence of this move away from local sources of coal can be seen in numerous situations. Platts Research & Consulting highlighted five large and geographically diverse plants, and found that those facilities, on a combined basis, had reduced their take of the original mine-mouth coal from a 78% share to 22% (See Figure 1).

While the trend away from the mine-mouth sources is fairly common, reasons for the migration differ. Largely a function of the plant and its coal use, those differences can be separated into three major categories:

Reserve depletion and escalating operating costs at mine-mouth sources;

Environmental regulation that limits or prohibits the use of original coal; and

Attempts to diversify supply sources to better meet market needs.

The profiles of the five plants provide examples of the challenges facing plant owners when making the change to a new coal source and should prove helpful to developers now contemplating building a second generation of new mine-mouth plants. Figure 2 shows the profiled power plants and the mines they were originally constructed to utilize.

The Homer City 1,884-megawatt (mw) power plant in west-central Pennsylvania, currently owned and operated by Edison Mission Energy and first on-line in 1969, was constructed with the intent to take delivery from a collection of large underground mines adjacent to the plant. They included the Helen mine, first owned by North American Coal Co. and then Valley Camp Coal; and the Lucerne mines, originally developed by R&P Coal before being sold to CONSOL Energy. But by the mid-1990s, after the Helen mine closed and CONSOL was making plans to close the Lucerne mines — both because mining costs had become too high and reserves were depleted — plant owners had to start looking for other sources of coal. This eventually forced the plant owners — Pennsylvania Electric and New York State Electric & Gas — to begin taking the majority of their coal from other Pennsylvania mines. Making the situation even more difficult was that the plant could not receive coal by railroad, and had to construct a rail unloading facility about 15 miles from the plant, where trains are unloaded and the coal trucked in for final delivery. While the Homer City plant has successfully made the switch, the complexities of receiving remote coal likely will remain a challenge. Environmental regulations are a major market uncertainty for coal-fired generators. To overcome that uncertainty, generators must gain access to a variety of coal types, which can allow a power plant to maintain operation and comply with the regulations without installing expensive equipment. A case in point is the 1,774-mw Baldwin plant in Illinois, now owned and operated by Dynegy's Midwest Generating. This plant came into service in 1970, before the mandate to install scrubbers to control SO2. From its inception through 1999, the plant burned high-sulfur coal, the majority of which came from a series of Peabody-owned mines in the vicinity of the plant. However, with passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Baldwin's owners faced a major decision whether to construct a scrubber or switch to a low-sulfur Powder River Basin (PRB) coal. Even with the PRB coal more than 1,100 miles from Baldwin, the decision became obvious, and the plant now burns PRB coal exclusively. This forced Peabody closing its mines in Illinois and shipping coal from its PRB mines instead. As for Baldwin, it required the plant to construct some new track and rail unloading capabilities, as well as certain modifications to the boiler.

For the third category, many plants determined that their ongoing fuel requirements would be best met by diversifying supply sources. While use of mine-mouth coal would continue, coals from more distant locations would supplement it. This has been the case for the 1,343-mw Centralia power plant in Washington state, operated by TransAlta and in service since 1972. Beginning in the early 1990s, this plant began taking coal from the PRB to supplement what it received from the adjacent Centralia surface mine. While coal from the Centralia mine still meets the majority of the plant's fuel requirement, roughly 20% consistently is being delivered by the BNSF Railroad from PRB mines.

The other profiled plant that has been diversifying its coal sourcing is the Monticello power plant, a 1,885-mw generator operated by TXU generation in northeast Texas. The plant began taking delivery of PRB coal in 1996. The PRB coal now accounts for 25% of the annual fuel requirement at a cost that is either equal or slightly lower than the locally produced lignite.

Developers contemplating construction of new mine-mouth generating plants should consider each of the three market factors that have impacted existing plants. In particular, developers would be well advised to devise strategies to keep costs from escalating to the point where the economic advantages of a mine-mouth location are lost. One option would be to plan for the capability to receive coal from other sources, if only as a check on costs and supply reliability. Even with these problems, several organizations are continuing development plans for mine-mouth plants, convinced of the supreme economic advantages. Peabody Energy, for example, expects to have its 1,500-mw coal-fired Thoroughbred plant in western Kentucky on-line in 2006 with coal supplied from a mine it plans to develop at an adjacent reserve. Even though Peabody found the fuel supply certainty of a mine-mouth plant attractive, it has planned ahead for other coal supply options by locating near river, rail, and highway access as well as installing emissions-control equipment.

To maintain an economic advantage, a new mine-mouth plant project must ensure that it remains cost competitive. This includes the ability to adjust to changing environmental regulations in an efficient manner, the opportunity to receive coal from a mine that operates at competitive margins, and multiple transportation options at the plant. To prevent escalating mine costs in a completely captive situation, contract mechanisms could be used to prohibit lethargic mines by allowing the mine to have a stake in the plant's profitability or by limiting the contract escalation. Convenient coal may be easy to receive but could limit a power plant's long-term competitiveness. A power plant with a nearby reserve prepared to produce coal for the long haul can be successful, but is not the only element needed to ensure the long generating life of a coal-fired plant.
Heidrich is an associate at Platts Research & Consulting in Boulder, Colo.
COALdat Market Indicators

[Рудут]

Спасибо, Иван, а как перевести underground and surface mine ?
подземно-наземная шахта? карьер?

[2p]

получается, что это типа угольный разрез и шахта(ы), снабжающие топливом ТЭС и расположенные рядом. Типа комплекс.

[Рудут]

ВАУ, Юра, Вы хотите, чтобы я ЭТО ВСЕ ПРО УГОЛЬ прочитала???? :))))

[Рудут]

ой, а еще, я в этом ничччего не понимаю:

cooper/silver/gold mine operated in a steep (85 градусов) orebody using "open stoping" methods with LDH points and ore passes.

И это все в Зимбабве :)

[2p]

LOL - можно ведь find "mouth", тоды и читать не надо.
попытка вырулить...
разработка проекта строительства ТЭС мощностью 3000 МВт, работающей на угле, добываемом расположенными поблизости угольными шахтами и разрезами (общий объем добычи 6 млн. т в год)

[2p]

кстати, в лингве нашлось
mine-mouth power plant электростанция на территории шахты или рудника

[2p]

а вот что сказал на mine mouth товарисч мультилекс :)
I buttoned my mouth and refused to talk — я наотрез отказался говорить (см. button II)

the sight of food made my mouth water — при виде еды у меня слюнки потекли (см. make II)

I shouldn't have opened my mouth — мне надо было молчать (см. mouth I)

my mouth waters — у меня слюнки текут (см. mouth I)
the words were hardly out of my mouth when … — не успел я произнести эти слова, как … (см. out of)
Не пора ли отобедать....

[Googler]

"Приустьевая/пришахтная ТЭС" - годицца?

[10-4]

ТЭЦ, а не ТЭС. Это традиция - теплоэлектроцентраль.
RE: underground and surface mine - подземная и наземная разработка, шахтно-карьерная разработка

[2p]

Иван, можно, конечно, и ГРЭС сказать по традиции. Но ТЭС тоже существуют. Например, новая Сочинская ТЭС. тепловая электростанция. Правда, пояснений нет про когенерацию, поэтому может быть и ТЭЦ. Но скорее всего ТЭС или ГРЭС.

[10-4]

ГРЭС - это где то на реке, типа вариант ГЭС? Я знаю только Конаковскую ГРЭС, она на Волге.

[Рудут]

Господа, минуточку, а это почему игнорируем?

cooper/silver/gold mine operated in a steep (85 градусов) orebody using "open stoping" methods with LDH points and ore passes.

ну-ка собрались с мыслями!.... :)))

[10-4]

Медно-серебряно-золотой рудник, разрабатывающий крутопадающее (85°) рудное тело с применеием "выемки открытым забоем", [точек LDH ??? see acronymfinder] и рудоспусков.

[Рудут]

Иван, благодарна безгранично!

и последнее, на десерт:
название публикации:
Scavenging Remnant Underground Coal Pillars

?????????

[10-4]

ИМХО Подземная разработка угольных целиков