Calendar of Events
| Mine Drainage: An Alternative Source of Water for Power Producers |
|
|
|
| Saturday, 12 June 2010 15:42 |
|
by Robert L. Zick The use of mine pool water can provide significant advantages for new or expanded steam electric power plants that need to turn to non-traditional, alternative sources of water. New water treatment technology can now produce water that meets these strict specifications at significantly less chemical cost and sludge production than conventional treatment approaches. Although mining practices often vary greatly according to the material produced and the value of the deposit, one common denominator is that mining of materials containing sulfide minerals creates acid mine drainage (AMD). AMD is one of the mining industry’s major environmental challenges. A number of drivers influence the process selection for treating mine drainage waters. These include environmental regulations and the public’s growing demand for increased environmental stewardship. A growing number of local and regional initiatives also demand that bioaccumulative chemicals of concern, both inorganic and organic, be treated to ever-lower levels. Consideration of AMD discharge is a major factor that influences treatment option decisions, including the purpose for which the water is to be treated and the method selected for disposal of the concentrated waste. In some cases, new water treatment technologies can efficiently allow for the marketing of mine pools as valuable resources. New or expanded steam electric power plants frequently need to turn to non-traditional alternate sources of water for cooling. For example, six power plants in northeastern Pennsylvania currently use mine pool water as cooling tower makeup water (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006). Besides cooling tower makeup, there is a growing interest in providing the additional treatment required for AMD water to be used as boiler feed at steam electric power plants. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the steam electric power industry withdrew about 136 billion gallons per day of fresh water in 2000 (USGS 2005). With many areas of the United States facing fresh water shortages, and with the increasingly stringent target levels for discharge of treated mine drainage water, the beneficial reuse of this water for cooling and other purposes at steam electric power plants is becoming increasingly attractive to many mine operators and power producers. Requires Additional Treatment Although the use of mine drainage water as makeup water for power plants with closed-cycle cooling technology can often provide a number of advantages, including lower costs and a sustainable water source of sufficient capacity, this beneficial use option requires additional treatment to meet the water quality requirements. The problems experienced with mine waters often include: • High salinity, frequently in the range of 2 g/l to 10 g/l. • Dissolved and precipitated metals. These can be iron, manganese, aluminum, copper, zinc, cadmium, nickel, selenium and boron, to name a few. • High levels of sulfate concentration, due to the oxidation of sulfide minerals contained in the ore. • Water 100% saturated in calcium sulfate, or in some cases much higher. Determining the optimized process for the particular circumstances requires analytical data on the source water as well as both bench scale testing and pilot testing to ensure the processes selected are reliable and easy to operate. A power plant being constructed in Pennsylvania, for example, recently evaluated the use of AMD water for the purpose of providing cooling water and boiler feed water. The water supply under consideration came from a number of inactive mines in the area that require treatment of AMD to prevent pollution. The salinity of the water varies between 7,000 and 13,000 mg/L TDS. Dual treatment trains are currently in place to treat the water using a High Density Sludge (HDS) process. Pilot Study The calculated chemical cost for the AMDRO technology was significantly less than that from the conventional process, (See Table 1) although capital costs were very similar. Less equipment was required with the AMDRO process, but a higher grade material of construction was needed to enable the system to operate at the low pH of 2.5. |




