The author points out that siting a coal-fired, electrical power generating plant has become a delicate business. This was spotlighted in Utah in the past year when two California utilities withdrew their long standing proposal to build a 3000-MW, mine-mouth generating plant in remote Kaiparowits. The highlighted question is, therefore -- where should the coal be the mine-mouth, so that the energy produced is transmitted to the demand area via high voltage line; or should the coal be transported to be burned in the demand area itself? Until most recently, if one considered urban air pollution, land costs, water availability, on the one hand, and transmission line costs, rights of way, coal transportation charges, on the other, the cost/benefit ratio might indicate mine-mouth made sense -- depending of course upon how one costed out pollution, land costs and water (these costs are seldom quantified, and for good reason... it's very difficult). In any case, lack of sufficient quantities of water where it is needed, plus the resistance of coal producing states to bearing the brunt of pollution while other states benefit are now the major obstacles to the mine-mouth concept.

  • Availability:
  • Corporate Authors:

    Business Communications Company Incorporated

    471 Glenbrook Road
    Stamford, CT  United States  06906
  • Publication Date: 1976-6

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00156901
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Engineering Index
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Aug 4 1977 12:00AM