Search Documents

By Joseph Harrington

It is sufficiently correct to say that domestic solid fuel is universally hand fired and it is almost as correct to state that a very large proportion of hand-fired domestic fires are extremely inefficient and smoky. This is particularly true with raw bituminous coal for the fuel. The smokeless and efficient firing of domestic coal affords one of the most difficult problems confronting the combustion engineer. This is due to the universally constricted combustion space in the domestic furnace, the complete ignorance regarding the laws of combustion on the part of the average person, and the fact that the laws of efficient combustion are almost completely nullified under these conditions. It is well to familiarize ones self with these laws. These are: 1. The gradual introduction of the fuel to the furnace. 2. The admission and mixing of the right quantity of air with the coal gases. 3. A temperature high enough to permit complete combustion, and 4. A furnace space of volume sufficient to permit of the combustion gases and the oxygen getting together within the confines of the furnace. Even a casual inspection of the domestic heater will show that none of these essential things are present in proper degree, and this is the reason why the problem of domestic firing presents such difficulties. I have analyzed these conditions in a paper published by the Black Diamond, and which has already had wide distribution, so that I will not repeat the rather lengthy discussion in this paper. A survey of the entire field indicates very clearly that a reversal of existing methods and equipment must be had before any real improvement can be expected. It is my firm belief that in this instance above all others it is necessary to build the efficiency and smokelessness into the equipment in such a manner that its performance will be entirely independent of both skill and interest on the part of the operative. To attempt to educate every man, woman and child who periodically throws coal into a domestic furnace would be literally impossible. Much can be done, however, if we could teach the householder the simple essentials of alternate firing, which I have explained at length in the above mentioned paper. This would go a long way toward making the domestic furnace problem more satisfactory, as well as efficient and smokeless. Many will argue, and with good reason, that the domestic fuel should be prepared coke and with this I agree up to the limit imposed by the practical considerations of quantity production, price and the possibility of marketing the by-products. It will be obvious that if enough raw coal should be processed to provide all of the required domestic fuel that the amount of by-products recovered during the coking process would be so great that there would be little or no market at any price which would justify the manufacture of coke. If the by-products were wasted they would not only be a tremendous economic loss, but the price charged for the coke would probably be so high that the market would be limited, and this would defeat the very idea of the whole thing. Much can be done, however, in advancing the use of coke, but I believe that much more extensive and careful experimentization should be had in order to determine the right size and quality of coke for the various domestic furnaces. If coke were to be developed for extensive domestic consumption it is more than probable that the coking process should and could be stopped at a point where the volatile content of the coke would be sufficiently high to permit of prompt ignition and combustion in low draft installations. If the volatile content were from five to ten per cent a very different kind of coke would be produced from that which is now produced with perhaps one per cent of volatile. A skillful manipulation of this feature would make coke adaptable and satis-

Jan 1, 1925

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

By Vern Pfannenstiel

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1972

Jan 1, 1999

Jan 1, 1962

? Develop a six year capital budget for future emission controls at Western Springfield Power Plant that would provide long-term operating certainty

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1994

By Fredrick D. Palmer

The World is Turning to Coal Peabody?s View ?We believe the world is increasingly energy-short, led by unprecedented demand from population centers and economic hubs in Asia, the Middle East and South America ?This occurs as:?Traditional energy sources are clearly constrained, requiring coal-based alternatives?Energy-rich nations leverage political gain from their assets, and nations urgently look to improve energy security ?In this environment:?Oil, coal and gas face a greater long-term convergence, ?Coal?s traditional regionalized nature becomes global, and ?Coal?s compact energy form becomes an attractive source for liquids and substitute natural gas ?The world is blessed with an abundance of coal to help meet all human energy needs

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 1996

By Tim Peterson

Factors Controlling Stability Stability of slopes in soft rock, waste dumps or soils is governed by three factors: ?Slope configuration ?Groundwater ?Shear strength

Jan 1, 2004

By J. Kendall Hales

Jan 1, 2005

By Don Sakata

Jan 1, 2005

Effect of Iron on ash fusion temperature and waterwall deposits FeS, H2S on tube material corrosion and erosion [ ]

Jan 1, 2005

By Bob King

Jan 1, 2005

The tenth annual Mine Resale Evaluation was held in conjunction with the RMCMI 2001 convention at the Steamboat Springs Sheraton Resort, Steamboat Springs, Colorado June 23 through 26. The purpose of the mine rescue evaluation program is to provide an opportunity for mine rescue teams to learn new skills and improve their existing ones in a non-competitive environment. Several staged ?disaster? scenarios were held where the teams are called upon to exhibit their life saving abilities. The evaluators meanwhile are offering suggestions, both verbal and written, to help the teams better understand the situations presented them. This non-competitive environment allows the teams to work together and share their knowledge with fellow mine rescue teams providing everyone with a positive learning experience. Mine Rescue Chairman Bill Balaz, Balaz & Associates, was in charge of coordinating the events. Six teams consisting of seven to twelve members each (totaling 60 members) participated in the three-day event. Each ream was required to respond to direr different real-life scenarios plus a written general knowledge test daily. Cindy Burnham has assisted Bali, for a few years. Her responsibilities include grading all of the written tests. This year's tour professional evaluators included Art Seanz (Hazardous Ma¬terials) of Western Environmental Associates ; Guy Norton (Ropes), Guy Horton Rope Rescue; Mary Bailey (Medical), MBA Training and Morley Hense (Confined Space). Carolyn Durga, BHP Coal, also assisted in hazardous materials and medical scenarios. They each provided three different challenging mock situations per day per team. The teams had no prior knowledge of what the scenarios would be as details were provided only as they arrived. Ten volunteer victims added much drama and excitement to the event. Their realistic enactment, complete with false blood makeup and severed limbs, made for some very tense scenarios. The Mine Rescue Teams participating this year were BHP LaPlata, BHP Navjo, BHP San Juan, all from Farmington, New Mexico; Bridger Coal Co., Rock Springs, Wyoming; Sabine Mining, Longview, Texas; Solway Minerals, Green River, Wyoming and Western Energy Co., Colstrip, Montana. Many new friendships were made and much knowledge shared. A swap meet was held Saturday afternoon for the teams to exchange miscellaneous equipment, hats, shirts, etc. The trams were asked to evaluate the program and the evaluators. They responded with many positive suggestions that will help improve the upcoming events in the years to come. Culmination of the Mine Rescue program was a Tuesday morning awards breakfast where the teams were presented with trophies. Each member was also given a gold pin with the words Continuing Challenge - Ropes.' The pin was the first in a series that will be given over the next few years. The participating victims and evaluators were also commended for their outstanding efforts. Special signed "Victim" shirts were given to select volunteers. Sponsors for the Mine Rescue program were Flanders Electric Motors, Magnum Metals, Rocky Mountain Electric Motors, Sedona Consulting and Balaz & Associates. Many hours of volunteer tine and effort from various family members of participants helped make the 2001 event a huge success.

Jan 1, 2001

By J. B. Forrester

In the operation of the coal mines in Utah few adverse conditions confront us. Physical conditions for the economical extraction of the coal are as near perfect as it is possible for them to be. Still several obstacles are encountered to keep up our interest and prevent us from getting in a rut. Of these I shall speak only of Burning, Wants, and Sluffing of Ribs. Should one travel the outcrop from Ivy Creek in Emery county to the Utah-Colorado line, there would be one outstanding feature indelible impressed upon one's mind. That feature is the omnipresent indications of burning in place. Viewing the eastern escarpment of the Wasatch Plateau from a distance, many splotches of dark red are plainly seen always lying above the coal floor. This stratum is a felspathic sandstone, appearing as a white line running the full length of the above escarpment and about midway between the floor of the valley and the top of the plateau. The coal bearing complex consists of shales, sandstones and coal. This complex varies from two hundred to eleven hundred feet in thickness. The number of coal seams are exceedingly variable. As a rule the argilutites form the bulk of this complex. This material is baked by the burning of the coal and the iron present is oxidized to the ferric state, coloring the shale to a dark red. This baked material forms a shingle tales that in places cover the entire complex. It is natural to expect that the most extensive burning is in the canyons facing to the south and east and on the south slopes of the ridges running to the east or west. Such, indeed, is the case. Still in this arid region many crop fires have existed upon the north slopes, especially in those canyons that face to the east. In fact today, instances are not rare where grassy north slopes, heavily timbered with balsam and fir that have attained a diameter of 14 to 24 inches, are found growing upon the disintegrated baked shingle and later development proves that the coal has been burned at least 500 feet back from the outcrop. Still these conditions are not normal. In this arid climate the south and east exposures are steep and barren, except for the scrub pine, cedar, mahogany and kindred semixerophytes. Bunch grass is also a lover of such exposures. There is very little soil found in such places; it is either blown away as fast as formed or washed away by the rare torrential rains, or the rapidly melting snow. Thus we see that the physical conditions are favorable for the starting and maintainence of outcrop fires. This brings us to the probable origin of this phenomenon. There are four probable ways' that such fires, could be started, namely:

Jan 1, 1921