September 2014
|
World Coal
|
39
showing, for example, speed profiles of
trucks and haulage cycle times.
Costs and environment
Taking into account costs and
environmental considerations,
Mining-Calculator ensures the basic
parameters regarding these are
requested for all machines. This
general data input is followed by
machine-specific forms for all loaders,
haulers and/or belt conveyors. This is
necessary for cost calculation and
determination of CO
2
emissions of the
different systems.
The most important elementary data
consists of the fuel price, the electricity
tariff and power consumption, as well
as the levels of CO
2
emissions,
depending on different types of power
generation.
Fuel consumption of
diesel-powered, mobile equipment
covers a wide range and is significantly
influenced by the operational
conditions of the project. Under poor
conditions, the diesel consumption of
trucks can almost double in comparison
with optimum conditions. Since the
conditions are the same for all
previously calculated and selected
machines, a flat default of the fuel
consumption for both loaders and
trucks can be set in three categories:
minimum, medium or maximum. This
value is used as an indicator for the
consumption rate of specific machines
later on.
Since the power consumption for
belt conveyor systems is explicitly
based on the calculated drive power
and operating hours, at this point no
input for continuous transport systems
is required.
Diesel-powered equipment does not
have alternatives for fuel. Calculations
of CO
2
emissions are therefore based on
a fixed value of 2.65 g of CO
2
/l of
combusted diesel. CO
2
emissions of
electric equipment are directly related to
the type of power generation, which can
be chosen from a list or entered as a
specific project value.
All individual machines within the
selected equipment combinations
are listed in individual folders.
Machine-specific data must be edited as
the base for the economic and
Figure 3.
Input of capital and operating costs.
Figure 4.
Dual bar chart visualisation of project cost structure.
Figure 5.
Comparison of the cost structure of two project variants.
