DOCSLIB.ORG

Pres2015-0658.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pres2015-0658.Pdf "FACTS ��u FIGURES�' CONr.ERNING COAL W ASH'ING BY THE LUHRIG PROCESS: WITH NOTES ON THE MANUFACTURE OF COAL BRIQUETTES. Press of Mortimer L. Williams, No. 28 Elm Street, New York CONTENTS. -'lads anh ligUfU" concerning «oal �asVing. PAGE. INTRODUCTION, 9 THE LUHRIG COAL WASHING PROCESS, It LIST OF COAL WASHING PLANTS ERECTED IN EUROPE BY C. LUHRIG PREVIOUSLY TO DECEMBER 3 I ST, 1889, 18 LIST OF ORE DRESSING PLANTS ERECTED BY C. LUHRIG PREVIOUSLY TO DECEMBER 3 t ST, 1889, DESCRIPTION OF A NEW COAL WASHING PLANT AT FERDINAND GRUBE, KATTOWITZ, IN UPPER SILESIA, SOME 01' THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LUHRIG PROCESS, 39 4 PAGE. REPORT ON L'lJHRIG'S SYSTEM OF COAL WASHING, BY PROFESSOR KREISCHER (ROYAL SCHOOL OF MINES, FREIBERG), 47 ESTIMATES OF PROFITS, 54 (A) Saving in the Pi�, 54 (B) Saving in using up Mixed Coal, . 54 (c) Saving in Coking, 55 (D) Increase of Lump Coal, 55 (E) Recovery. of Bye-Products (Pyrites), 56 Total Savings, 56 ESTIMATE OF PROFITS AT HEINITZ COLLIERY, SILESIA, 57 ApPENDIX:- I.-TESTS MADE AT BRUCKENBERG PIT No. II., NEAR ZWICKAU, 60 n.-TABLE OF RESULTS OF DAILY ANAL­ YSES FOR ASH IN COKE MADE AT BOCHUM, 66 COAL WASHING FOR COKE MAKING, . 68 5 �tnttS .an iqe �bnnfadutt .at 'Dal �riqutfttS: PAGE. INTRODUCTION, 77 NOTES ON COAL BRIQUETTES, 79 ESTIMA TE OF PLANT, • DESCRIPTION OF MESSRS. MOWLL & MESSENGER'S MACHINE, 83 TABLE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF BRIQUETTE PRESSES, 85 TABLE OF COMPARATIVE PRICES FOR 1885,. 86 DESCRIPTION OF PRESS FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF SMALL NUT BRIQUETTES, COST OF PRODUCTION, INTRODUCTION. �t)f"t)f"t)f"t� . 11I�\,§"IIIIIIIIIIIIII"iI�I�"HE arm of this is to direct the +-: ...T..... ::::.+ pamphlet (I� � �I; public attention to the important 'subject ��III� !II� of coal washing, the numerous advan­ �i! t li� tages connected with the use of clean. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ..... ..... ..... )(+ ;(+ ;(+ )I'+� coal, and a cheap and economical pro- cess of cleaning it. THE problem of coal washing is an extremely com- plicated one, and the few words on the subject contained herein are merely intended to awaken the interest of the coal owner, the coke manufacturer, and the iron and steel master. IT is to be hoped that the Report by Professor Kreischer, an authority on all minmg matters, and especially on coal washing and ore dressing, will be of interest to mining men. Although this Report was written in 1882 it will be found to contain some quite interesting matter. Since the issue. of this Report the Llihrig System has undergone a great many improvements. THE description of the plant at Kattowitz, which contains many late improvements, sives a fair idea of the process. MOST of the figures and tables are taken from practical tests made by Professors Kreischer and Nonne. THE list of plants erected, and the map of the spread of Plants built on the Llihrig process has been revised by Mr. Llihrig himself, and is correct up to the 31st December, 1889.. 9 The Process has been extensively adopted at the largest collieries in the following countries:- ENGLAND SCOTLAND FRANCE BELGIUl\I AUSTRIA HUNGARY RUSSIAN POLAND RHEINISH PRUSSIA WESTPHALIA SAXONY UPPER SILESIA LOWER SILESIA BOHEMIA HANOVER Plant is now being erected in­ GREECE ASIA MINOR ALGIERS 144 complete plants on LUHRIG'S System have been erected by him and working previous to December 31st, r889. (See accompanying Map.) TIlE LUHRIG COAL WASHING PROCESS. the last few years coal has . mining - made it really necessary for most collieries - J coal ��! I�IIURING� to be supplied with good washing plant, and the work of the coal washing engineer has been made more and more difficult and complicated in proportion. WHILST formerly colliery managers built coal . washing plants according to their own notions and ideas, the erection of such plants is now generally put into the hands of a coal washing specialist. A G REAl' deal of machinery for use in the mechanical separation of coal is made and sold, but the arrangement of such machinery, and the general and economical disposition of it, is generally looked upon as a secondary matter by the manufacturers. In short, there is usually a 1MIlt of that systematic arrallge- men: 'which 'would b,-illg about a process sltit(lble fiir the economicai cleansing of the coal. THE perfecting of such a process has been the ex- clusive work of Mr. C. Llihrig during the last 25 years, and he has been eminently successful in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe, as both the map and list of plants erected will show. T HIS process is the result of a long and varied experience with some of the most dirty coal on the continent of Europe, and is on the gradual reduction system, that is, if the washed coal is to' be �oked it is not all crushed up in a dirty state, but gradually broken up, the shale being automatically separated from the coal by degrees. T HE process essentially consists of:- Dry separation of the run of the mine, that is, the mechanical separation of the slack or dross from the lump coal. Coal which passes between the bars of a screen about three inches apart or through a reciprocating screen of three inch to four inch mesh, is generally treated in the washer. In many cases the lump passes on to picking and loading bands, where the shale and interstratified pieces are picked out by hand. 13 All larger pieces of coal, when interstratified with shale or mixed with pyrites, are broken and again passed over the screens for reseparation. Sl'jaratioll of the slack or dross' by screening, the dross is raised into revolving screens for the purpose of sizing the coal for the production of nut, pea and fine coal. Tprashillp,- the different sizes of nut coal coming from the revolving screens, each on separate machines, so that each machine only works up coal 'of uniform size. Cmshillg the mixed or finely interstratified coal (separated by washing from the pure coal and clean refuse), for re washing on separate machines. Gradillg the fine coal from the �Is downward from the screens, and that carried by the water from the nut coal washers, into different classes ac­ cording to specific weights. TVashiizg each different grade or class of fine coal on separate washers especially constructed for the treatment of fine coal, their work being per­ fected by the help of feldspar; this was first employed by Mr. Liihrig in coal washing ma­ chinery, and has given very satisfactory results. The 1,{,(0'Z'e1), of sludge, or "schlamm," which is so difficult to retain and which often contains exactly what is' essential to coking in the case of a coking coal. This is done by means of automatic and continuous sludge recovering machinery. Filterillg tlte 'water used in washing, and cleaning it to such an extent as to enable its re-use again and again. TIle- automatic transport of the vhrious products, nut, pea, pearl and fine coal, al,so of refuse, both fine and coarse. Ecconery of bye-prodllcts, as, for instance, pyrites or brasses, which in many of Llihrig's plants pays the cost of labor. Arrangements are also made for automatically storing a considerable quantity of coal, the hoppers being so arranged that a large quantity of coal can be loaded in a short time. The dry separating portion of the plant is con­ structed so as to make as little "smalls" as possible, the screening and loading arrangements being economical, efficient and automatic. The washing arrangements are such that as much dean nut coal can be extracted as possible, and that tIlref prodllcts can be made by each machine, viz., clean nuts, seconds or nuts inter­ . (finely stratified with shale), which are raised, crushed and rewashed, and c1ean refuse. I N all of Ltihrig's plants there is a marked desire to> avoid crushing all the coal, that is, the dirty and clean coal together; this is so often done at collieries using single apparatuses. Such a system always leads­ to the productionof a great deal of unnecessary fine or dust coal, and consequently to loss of coal in the­ washed-out refuse; unless the coal is very finely inter­ stratified it is always washed previous to crushing for coking. IT should be borne in mind that it is not claimed that �his is one machine suitable for every class of coal, but that it is a process 'which call be so arranged as to meet the requirements and local conditions of eaclt coi/iery. The nature of the coal to be treated is always taken into account, also the purpose for which it is. intended to be used. IT follows that every plant is different and that copying and imitation of previously carried out designs and plans is generally faulty and disappointing. MOREOVER, success does not alone depend upon machines and apparatus, which can be made at almost any engine works, but upon the process and the system upon which the whole plant has been built and is operated. AT the same time, every part must be easily accessible, open to supervision and under complete control. IT is not possible to enter into a full discussion on this process of coal washing, but only to indicate the general principles upon which it is based; suffice it therefore to say that the process is automatic, continuous, that the cost of working is almost only nominal, and that it has been adopted by the largest and most important collieries in Europe, as will be seen by the appended map and list.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Potential Paradise Plant Retirement Project Number: 2018-34 POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee FEBRUARY 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-2256 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 5 1.6 Necessary Permits or Licenses and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Fossil Plant to Comply with the CCR Rule Requirements
    Cumberland Fossil Fossil Plant Plant CUMBERLAND CITY,CITY, TENNESSEETENNESSEE QUICKQUICK FACTSFACTS OH IN IL WV KY MO VA TN NC AR SC MS AL GA EPA CCR RULERule Groundwater GROUNDWATER Monitoring MONITORING for 2019 Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by TVA for the Output: 2,470 Megawatts TVACumberland as required Fossil Plant,by the as U.S. required Environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection ProtectionAgency (EPA) Agency (16Output: billion 2,470 kilowatt-hours) Megawatts (16 billion Coal(EPA) CoalCombustion Combustion Residuals Residuals (CCR)(CCR) RuleRule. for The the 2019EPA calendar published year. the The EPA kilowatt-hours) published the CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- Number of homes powered: CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- 1.1 MillionNumber of homes powered: fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been released to fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been 1.1 Million groundwater from active, inactive and new CCR impoundments, as well as active Wet to Dry / Dewatered releasedand new CCR to groundwater. landfills. This fact sheet addresses the EPA CCR ConversionWet to Dry /Program: Dewatered Activities Rule groundwater monitoring only. underwayConversion Program: Complete The CCR Rule establishes multiple phases of protective groundwater monitoring for fly ash and gypsum. Bottom ash Inincluding addition baseline to ongoing sampling, groundwater Detection Monitoring monitoring and Assessment required under Monitoring. TVAdewatering Wide CCR tank-based Conversion solution Program Total Spend: Corrective action may be necessary at the completion of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • (2019) EPA's Final
    Attachment to Part B Comments of Earthjustice et al., EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173 Assessment Monitoring Outcomes (2019) EPA’s Final Coal Ash Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 257.94(e)(3), requires the owners or operators of existing Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) units to prepare a notification stating that an assessment monitoring program has been established if it is determined that a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix III of the CCR Rule has occurred, without an alleged alternate source demonstration. This table identifies the CCR surface impoundments known to be in assessment monitoring and required to identify any constituent(s) in appendix IV detected at statistically significant levels (SSL) above groundwater protection standards and post notice of the assessment monitoring outcome per 40 C.F.R. § 257.95. The table includes the surface impoundments that were required to post notice of appendix IV exceedance(s), as applicable, or elected to do so as of the time of this assessment monitoring outcomes review (summer 2019). To the best of our knowledge, neither EPA nor any other entity has attempted to assemble this information and make it public. Note that this document is not confirming that the industry notifications or assessments were compliant with the CCR Rule or that additional units may not belong on this list. Assessment Monitoring Outcome # of Surface Impoundments Appendix IV Exceedance(s) 214 Appendix IV Exceedance(s), alleged Alternate Source Demonstration 16 No Appendix IV Exceedance Reported 64 Total 294 Name of Plant Appendix IV Operator CCR Unit or Site Exceedance(s) Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Ash Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Emergency Overflow Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Recirculating Pond Yes Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • EMISSIONS of MERCURY by PLANT (Based Upon Plant Reported Fuel Use and Mercury Tests)
    EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Monticello TX 1.04870 5.023 Martin Lake TX 0.68280 5.023 Limestone TX 0.48300 5.023 Big Brown TX 0.43450 5.023 Pirkey TX 0.40620 5.023 Sam Seymour TX 0.38640 5.023 J.T. Deely TX 0.25090 5.023 W A Parish TX 0.25080 5.023 Welsh TX 0.21940 5.023 Sandow TX 0.14470 5.023 Harrington Station TX 0.14190 5.023 Gibbons Creek TX 0.13210 5.023 J.K. Spruce TX 0.12040 5.023 Oklaunion TX 0.08839 5.023 Tolk Station TX 0.08001 5.023 Coleto Creek TX 0.07194 5.023 San Miguel TX 0.06693 5.023 TNP-One TX 0.01329 5.023 Hom er City PA 0.92600 4.979 Keystone PA 0.92570 4.979 Montour PA 0.60930 4.979 Bruce Mansfield PA 0.50400 4.979 Shawville PA 0.46400 4.979 Conemaugh PA 0.24730 4.979 Brunner Island PA 0.21820 4.979 Hatfield's Ferry PA 0.20700 4.979 1 EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Armstrong PA 0.15340 4.979 Cheswick PA 0.11860 4.979 Sunbury PA 0.11810 4.979 New Castle PA 0.10430 4.979 Portland PA 0.06577 4.979 Johnsonburg Mill PA 0.04678 4.979 Titus PA 0.03822 4.979 Cambria CoGen PA 0.03499 4.979 Colver Power Project PA 0.03459 4.979 Elrama PA 0.02900 4.979 Seward PA 0.02633 4.979 Martins Creek PA 0.02603 4.979 Hunlock Power Station PA 0.02580 4.979 Eddystone PA 0.02231 4.979 Mitchell (PA) PA 0.01515 4.979 AES BV Partners Beaver Valley PA 0.01497 4.979 Cromby Generating Station PA 0.00086 4.979 Northampton Generating Company L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Return Receipt Requested the Hon. Regina Mccarthy, Administrator US
    January 14, 2016 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested The Hon. Regina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Robert J. Martineau, Jr., Commissioner Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Bill Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 RE: 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, for Violations of the Clean Water Act by Tennessee Valley Authority–TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF), NPDES No. TN0005789 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) of ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) at the Cumberland Fossil Plant (“the Cumberland Plant”) in Cumberland City, Tennessee, owned and operated by 1371158_2 TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 35 TVA. The Sierra Club (“the Conservation Group”) and its members have identified serious and ongoing unpermitted violations of the CWA at the Cumberland Plant. TVA has caused and continues to cause unauthorized point source discharges to Tennessee waters and navigable waters of the U.S., and to cause unpermitted pollutant discharges to flow from the coal ash disposal areas at the Cumberland Plant directly into the Cumberland River, as well as into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Cumberland River.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts and Figures on a Fossil Fuel 2015
    1 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 HOW WE ARE COOKING THE CLIMATE 2 IMPRINT The COAL ATLAS 2015 is jointly published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, and Friends of the Earth International, London, UK Chief executive editor: Dr. Stefanie Groll, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Lili Fuhr, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Tina Löffelsend, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz Art director: Ellen Stockmar English editor: Paul Mundy Research editors: Ludger Booms, Heinrich Dubel Proofreader: Maria Lanman Contributors: Cindy Baxter, Benjamin von Brackel, Heidi Feldt, Markus Franken, Lili Fuhr, Stefanie Groll, Axel Harneit-Sievers, Heike Holdinghausen, Arne Jungjohann, Eva Mahnke, Tim McDonnell, Vladimir Slivyak Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation This publication is written in International English. First English edition, November 2015 Production manager: Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation Printed by Phoenix Print GmbH, Würzburg, Germany Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper for the block and 60 percent for the wrapper. This material is licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. FOR ORDERS AND DOWNLOAD Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de/coalatlas Friends of the Earth International, Nieuwe Looiersstraat 31, 1017 VA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.foei.org Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Versand, Am Köllnischen Park 1, 10179 Berlin, www.bund.net/coalatlas INNENTITEL 3 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 4 INHALT TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 IMPRINT 18 HEALTH FINE DUST, FAT PRICE 6 INTRODUCTION Smoke and fumes from coal-fired power plants make us ill.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company
    [Show full text]
  • Tri-2008.By-State.Pdf
    Fluoride Action Network Hydrogen Fluoride Information from the Toxic Release Inventory – 2008 Available in html at http://fluoridealert.org/tri-2008.html It’s important to note that not all industries or sources that release fluoride or fluorine into the environment are included in the U.S. EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). For example, the toxic fluoridating agents used in public drinking water fluoridation schemes, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), (or their various other names, fluosilicic acid, sodium fluosilicate, etc.), are not listed. These are toxic wastes captured in the ‘pollution controls’ from the mining of phosphate rock. The major use of the mined phosphate is for agricultural fertilizer. Also not listed in TRI are uranium and radionuclides, which are also in phosphate rock and their mined products. The 2008 TRI data for releases for hydrogen fluoride was 64,972,078 pounds, and for fluorine it was 91,874 pounds. The releases are generally self-reported, not measured, by industry. 2008 is the latest year with all data (the 2009 database is not complete). Below are the 2008 TRI data for Hydrogen Fluoride sorted by: Table 1. Industry category for releases Table 2. State ranking for releases Table 3. State releases (including Fluorine releases) by industry/town/county TABLE 1: Hydrogen Fluoride releases in 2008 as reported by the Toxic Release Inventory Category Pounds Released Coal-fired electric utilities (TRI code 221112) 50,917,693 Hazardous Waste/Solvent Recovery 5,303,483 Primary Metals 3,470,571
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Key Messages, August 2017
    Description of document: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Key Messages, August 2017 Requested date: 31-July-2017 Released date: 14-August-2017 Posted date: 21-August-2017 Source of document: FOIA Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive WT 7D Knoxville, TN 37902-1401 (865) 632-6945 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. Key Messages August 2017 Updated August 10, 2017 Key Messages for August 2017 Contents Allen Combined Cycle Plant Water Energy Efficiency, Renewable and Source ....................................................... 4 Distributed Generation ............................. 19 Allen Combined Cycle Plant Solar Grid Stability ......................................... 20 Generation ................................................. 5 Renewable Energy ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • DRR Source List June 23, 2016
    DRR Source List June 23, 2016 State Facility Name County/Parish Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority- Colbert Fossil Plant Colbert Alabama Alabama Power - Gadsden Electric Generating Plant Etowah Alabama Alabama Power - Greene County Electric Generating Plant Greene Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority - Widows Creek Fossil Plant Jackson Alabama Alabama Power - William Crawford Gorgas Electric Generating Plant Walker Alabama International Paper Company - Prattville Mill Autauga Alabama Escambia Operating Company Big Escambia Creek Plant Escambia Alabama Azko Nobel Functional Chemicals - LeMoyne Site Mobile Alabama Alabama Power Company- James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant Mobile Alabama Ascend Performance Materials -Decatur Plant Morgan Alabama Sanders Lead Company Pike Alabama Continental Carbon Company- Phenix City Plant Russell Alabama Alabama Power Company - Ernest C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Shelby Alabama Lhoist North America of Alabama - Montevallo Plant Shelby Alabama PowerSouth Energy Cooperative - Charles R. Lowman Power Plant Washington Arizona Tucson Electric Power Company - Springerville Generating Station Apache Arizona Arizona Electric Power Cooperative - Apache Generating Station Cochise Arizona Arizona Public Service Electric Company - Cholla Navajo Arkansas Flint Creek Power Plant (SWEPCO) Benton Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - Independence Independence Arkansas Futurefuel Chemical Company Independence Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - White Bluff Jefferson Arkansas Plum Point Energy Station Mississippi California Shell Martinez Refinery (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Solvay USA Incorporated (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Part of cluster) Contra Costa Colorado Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) - Cherokee Power Plant Adams Colorado Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) - Martin Drake Power Plant El Paso Colorado CSU - Ray D Nixon El Paso Colorado Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC) - Golden Jefferson Colorado Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule, Which Was Published in the Federal Register at 85
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN WATER ACTION, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT, SIERRA CLUB, WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC., NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, PENNENVIRONMENT, INC., CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, and PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK Case No. _______________ Petitioners, v. ANDREW WHEELER, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Respondents. PETITION FOR REVIEW Pursuant to Section 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 15(a), Clean Water Action, Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Center for Biological Diversity, PennEnvironment, Inc., Chesapeake Climate Action Network, and Prairie Rivers Network hereby petition this Court for review of the final action of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Andrew Wheeler entitled Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule, which was published in the Federal Register at 85 Fed. Reg. 64,650 on October 13, 2020 (Attachment 1). The agency docket number for the rule is EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819. In accordance with the Federal Register notice and 40 C.F.R. part 23, the rule was issued for purposes of judicial review on October 27, 2020. Dated: November 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, _/s Thomas Cmar__________________________ Thomas Cmar Earthjustice 311 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1400 Chicago, IL 60606 T: (312) 257-9338 E: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • COAL ATLAS Facts and Figures on a Fossil Fuel 2015
    1 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 HOW WE ARE Second Edition COOKING THE CLIMATE 2 IMPRINT The COAL ATLAS 2015 is jointly published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, and Friends of the Earth International, London, UK Chief executive editor: Dr. Stefanie Groll, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Lili Fuhr, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Tina Löffelsend, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz Art director: Ellen Stockmar English editor: Paul Mundy Research editors: Ludger Booms, Heinrich Dubel Proofreader: Maria Lanman Contributors: Cindy Baxter, Benjamin von Brackel, Heidi Feldt, Markus Franken, Lili Fuhr, Stefanie Groll, Axel Harneit-Sievers, Heike Holdinghausen, Arne Jungjohann, Eva Mahnke, Tim McDonnell, Vladimir Slivyak Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation This publication is written in International English. Second English edition, March 2017 Production manager: Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation Printed by Bonifatius GmbH Druck – Buch – Verlag, Paderborn, Germany Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper. This material is licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. FOR ORDERS AND DOWNLOAD Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de/coalatlas Friends of the Earth International, Nieuwe Looiersstraat 31, 1017 VA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.foei.org Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Versand, Am Köllnischen Park 1, 10179 Berlin, www.bund.net/coalatlas INNENTITEL 3 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel SECOND EDITION 2017 4 INHALT TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 IMPRINT 18 HEALTH FINE DUST, FAT PRICE 6 INTRODUCTION Smoke and fumes from coal-fired power plants make us ill.
    [Show full text]