Best Mining Solutions For Everyone, Get a Free Quote.

Zhengzhou, China

[email protected]


  1. Home
  2. Bucket Elevator
  3. high end environmental coal bucket elevator in abadan

high end environmental coal bucket elevator in abadan

Bucket Elevator

Bucket Elevator

Chute feeder is a kind of feeding equipment which is earlier used in storage trough and it is suitable for the short-distance transport of metallic and non-metallic materials.
[email protected]
Sent Message Chat Online

We Provide You The Highest Quality Mining Machine That Meets Your Expectation.

Need A High Quality Mining Machine For Your Project?

Contact With Us

You May Also Like

coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power

The paper demonstrates that without nuclear power, it will be even harder to mitigate human-caused climate change and air pollution. This is fundamentally because historical energy production data reveal that if nuclear power never existed, the energy it supplied almost certainly would have been supplied by fossil fuels instead (overwhelmingly coal), which cause much higher air pollution-related mortality and GHG emissions per unit energy produced (ref. 2)

Likewise, we calculated that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009 (see Fig. 3). This is about 15 times more emissions than it caused. It is equivalent to the past 35 years of CO2 emissions from coal burning in the U.S. or 17 years in China (ref. 3) — i.e., historical nuclear energy production has prevented the building of hundreds of large coal-fired power plants

To compute potential future effects, we started with the projected nuclear energy supply for 2010-2050 from an assessment made by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency that takes into account the effects of the Fukushima accident (ref. 4). We assume that the projected nuclear energy is canceled and replaced entirely by energy from either coal or natural gas. We calculate that this nuclear phaseout scenario leads to an average of 420,000-7 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions globally (the high-end values reflect the all coal case; see Figs. 1 and 3). This emissions range corresponds to 16-48% of the "allowable" cumulative CO2 emissions between 2012-2050 if the world chooses to aim for a target atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm by around the end of this century (ref. 5). In other words, projected nuclear power could reduce the CO2 mitigation burden for meeting this target by as much as 16-48%

coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power

Our findings also have important implications for large-scale "fuel switching" to natural gas from coal or from nuclear. Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollutants and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced (ref. 2)

Also, such fuel switching is practically guaranteed to worsen the climate problem for several reasons. First, carbon capture and storage is an immature technology and is therefore unlikely to constrain the resulting GHG emissions in the necessary time frame. Second, electricity infrastructure generally has a long lifetime (e.g., fossil fuel power plants typically operate for up to ~50 years). Third, potentially usable natural gas resources (especially unconventional ones like shale gas) are enormous, containing many hundreds to thousands of gigatonnes of carbon (based on ref. 6). For perspective, the atmosphere currently contains ~830 GtC, of which ~200 GtC are from industrial-era fossil fuel burning

coal pollution and the fight for environmental justice

As its director of "climate justice," Jacqueline Patterson is leading the NAACP’s campaign to shut down coal-burning power plants in minority communities. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she talks about the skepticism she faces from her own constituents

When the NAACP recently released a report on the disproportionate effects of coal-fired plants on minorities, Jacqueline Patterson led the efforts to spread its message that these facilities were “killing low-income communities and communities of color.”

Patterson is the Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the venerable civil rights organization — a job whose purpose is sometimes questioned by the NAACP’s own constituents. As Patterson puts it, “Some of the communities I work in were like, ‘Well, we’re dealing with double digit unemployment and people dying of AIDS, people being racially profiled, high murder rates. How is melting ice caps and polar bear extinction going to become a priority for us?’”

In an interview with Yale Environment 360 contributor Diane Toomey, Patterson discusses how she answers that thorny question and outlines the reasons behind the NAACP’s campaign to shut down coal-fired plants. She also talks about the often-difficult relationship between environmental justice organizations and major U.S. green groups. “We need to have tough conversations around organizational culture,” she says. “And we need more joint strategizing on how we can collaborate more effectively.”Yale Environment 360: A few months ago, the NAACP released a report entitled “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People.” It examined the effects of coal-fired plants on minority communities in the U.S. Paint a picture of who is most likely to live near these power plants.Jacqueline Patterson: Thirty-nine percent of the people living near coal-fired power plants are people of color, so what’s absolutely true is that there are a disproportionate number of people of color living next to these plants. Seventy-eight percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. We also discovered that Latino communities, as well as indigenous communities and low-income communities, are more likely to live next to coal-fired plants.e360: The report assigned a so-called environmental justice performance score to 378 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. The score was based on the amount of sulfur dioxide and NOx [nitrogen oxide] emissions, the number of people living within three miles of the plant, and the median income and percentage of people of color in that population. Seventy-five of these plants were found to be failing. Define “failure” for me in this context.Patterson: We used an algorithm based on those five factors, and then we ranked them according to the score they received. The ones that were failing were the ones that had the worst EJ [environmental justice] score, the ones that were emitting the most sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide to the most people, and with the greatest proportion of people who are of color and low-income

coal pollution and the fight for environmental justice

e360: The report focuses on the effects of three pollutants coming from these plants: sulfur dioxide, NOx, and particulates — all of which have known health consequences, including asthma and other respiratory problems. Talk about the incident rate of these illnesses in minority communities compared to white communities.Patterson: An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks than a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke. When we did a road tour to visit the communities that were impacted by coal pollution, we found many anecdotal stories of people saying, yes, my husband, my father, my wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. And these are people who are living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited

So both statistically, in terms of health surveillance data, and anecdotally, in terms of what you’re hearing from community members, we see that there is a higher incident of the very diseases that are impacted by these pollutants in African American communities.e360: Have there been enough well-designed studies done on the health of communities living in very close proximity to coal-fired plants?

sulfur in coal and its environmental impact from yanzhou

Sulfur is one of the hazardous elements in coal. The concentrations of sulfur are relatively high in coal. The major forms of sulfur in coal are pyritic, organic and sulfate. Pyritic and organic sulfur generally account for the bulk of sulfur in coal. Elemental sulfur also occurs in coal, but only in trace to minor amounts. When coals are burned, leached and washed, sulfur will be released in the form of sulfide and H2S, which then react with O2, water and other substances to change into vitriol, and in some places it may form acid rain. And they will impact water environment, acidify the soil and do great harm to plants and human health. In this paper, on the basis of the data from the Yanzhou mining district, the distribution and concentrations of sulfur are analyzed and the existing forms of sulfur are studied. The variation of sulfur and its impact on the environments also are described when coal is used

Bottrell, S.H., P.K.K. Louie, R.C. Timpe, and S.B. Hawthorne, 1994, The use of stable sulfur isotope ratio analysis to assess selectivity of chemical analyses and extractions of sulfur in coal: Fuel, v. 73, n. 10, p. 1578–1582

Conzemus, R., T. Welcomer, and H. Svec, 1984, Elements partitioning in ash depositories and material balances for a coal burning facility by spark source mass spectrometry: Environmental Science Technology, v. 18, p. 12–18

Gasagrande, D.J., K. Siefert, C. Berschinski, and N. Sutton, 1977, Sulfur in peat-forming systems of the Okefenokee Swamp and Florida Everglades: origin of sulfur in coal: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta, v. 41, p. 161–167

sulfur in coal and its environmental impact from yanzhou

Gayer, R.A., M. Rose, J. Dehmer, and L. Y. Shao, 1999, Impact of sulfur and trace element geochemistry on the utilization of a marine-influenced coal—case study from the South Wales Variscan foreland basin: International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 40, p. 151–174

Gutta, D.C., 1999, Environmental aspects of selected trace elements associated with coal and natural waters of Pench Vally coalfield of India and their impact on human health: International Journal of Coal Geology, v. 40, p. 133–149

Recent Posts