Coal. Deadly?

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Michaelangelica, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aerosols near by a coal fired thermal power plant: Chemical composition and toxic evaluation.

    Chemosphere. 2009 Mar 3;
    Authors: Jayasekher T


    Industrial processes discharge fine particulates containing organic as well as inorganic compounds into the atmosphere which are known to induce damage to cell and DNA, both in vitro and in vivo.
    Source and area specific studies with respect to the chemical composition, size and shape of the particles, and toxicity evaluations are very much limited.
    This study aims to investigate the trace elements associated with the aerosol particles distributed near to a coal burning thermal power plant and to evaluate their toxicity through Comet assay.
    PM(10) (particles determined by mass passing an inlet with a 50% cut-off efficiency having a 10-mum aerodynamic diameter) samples were collected using respirable dust samplers.
    Twelve elements (Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, Se, Hg, and As) were analyzed using ICP-AES. Comet assay was done with the extracts of aerosols in phosphate buffered saline (PBS).
    Results show that Fe and Zn were found to be the predominant elements along with traces of other analyzed elements.
    Spherical shaped ultrafine particles of
     
  2. Wingen_Miner

    Wingen_Miner Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Re: Coal. Deadly?

    If the vegetation which formed the coal in question contained trace amounts of these elements, then they are often concentrated in the coal also. (most soils,plants, living things contain radioactive elements....... they are however only found in trace amounts).

    Quite often, it is the ash content which dictates which coals are exported. Disposal of ash after the coal has been consumed in a power station is a major problem for countries which either do not have an industry large enough to process all of the ash (concrete making etc) or have limited real estate available to dispose of it in landfill (generally only required if the chemical properties of the ash do not suit the downstream industries...... it is a natural product after all, and can be highly variable). With these limitations in mind, most of these power stations are built to optimise coal of a particular quality.... thereby enabling the electicity supplier to produce the most energy for the lowest input costs. Moisture content is another limiting factor to whether a particular coal can be exported. (less moisture -> more energy can be utilised for electricity generation..... much like dry wood vs wet wood).

    I cannot speak for the Central Coast, but the Bayswater/Liddell power stations in the upper Hunter Valley often use coal (for their feed blends) which is of a higher ash content than what is shipped out of Newcastle for export. This is likely due to the close proximity to hunter coal mines (coal is delivered direct from the mine to the power station via overland conveyor) and the ability to utilise the fly ash for industry, or dispose of it easily in nearby mine voids should the ash not be suitable for re-use.


    Since the mining of coal in Australia is conducted by mining companies, a large % are certainly owned by OS multinationals. Most are listed on the ASX (Xstrata aside which is listed in Switzerland and London). Their size and geographical spread is often a required buffer against business risk when trading in a commodity which is valued in $US/tonne.

    I guess it raises the argument of which is preferred choice for the workers in uncertain times...... a multinational which can keeps its door open (by offsetting some loses in one part of the globe and/or commodity with a different part of its business), or a locally owned company (with fewer commodities/localities which may go have to downsize/close due to the same poor market conditions).
     

Share This Page

-->