The Direct Use of Coal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Direct Use of Coal April 1979 NTIS order #PB-295797 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-600071 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 052-003 -00664-2 ii Foreword Coal production in the United States will more than double by the year 2000, to as much as 2 bilIion tons per year. The investments in facilities, man- power, and technologies for the mining, transportation, and use of such vast quantities of coal will be immense. This report assesses the benefits and risks of such a massive shift to coal and away from other fuels. It deals with the social, economic, physical, and biological impacts of such a shift. It examines the complete coal system, from extraction to combustion, including the key steps and institutions that policy can influence. The environmental impacts and possible effects on the public health are documented. Occupational and community impacts are ex- amined. Technologies under development that might reduce costs, increase convenience of use, or mitigate negative impacts are reviewed. This assessment was requested by the House Committee on Science and Technology. It is another in a series of assessments that are being provided to Congress to assist in the development of national energy policy. The Project Director for this assessment was Mr. Alan T. Crane, who was supported by the Energy Group staff and Dr. Richard E. Rowberg, Group Manager. We are grateful for the assistance provided in this assessment by the Coal Advisory Panel, chaired by Mr. Harry Perry, and the overall guidance provided by OTA’s Energy Advisory Committee, chaired by Pro- fessor Milton Katz. Daniel De Simone Acting Director .. /// Acknowledgements This report was prepared by the Energy Group staff of the Office of Technology Assessment. The staff wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the following contractors and consultants in the collection and analysis of data. Teknekron Nancy Schuh Institute for Energy Analysis Citizens for a Better Environment Arthur Squires Lee Balliet University of Oklahoma Tetra Tech Georgia Institute of Technology William T Reid Environmental Law Institute J. Philip Bromberg A. V. Slack James L. Weeks Kendrick & Company Reginald Brown Brophy Associates, Inc. Harvard University The Academy for Contemporary Problems University of Denver Environmental Policy Institute Donald Lief Maeva Marcus Joseph Mohbat Martha Spence Lawrence Miike The fo Iowing Government agencies also provided assistance: The Environ mental Protection Agency The Department of Energy The Department of Labor The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare The Congressional Research Service iv Direct Use of Coal Project Staff Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director Energy, Materials, and Global Security Division Richard E. Rowberg, Energy Group Manager Alan T. Crane, Project Director Marvin Ott, Policy Steven Plotkin, Environment and Public Health A. Jenifer Robison, Regulatory Issues Curtis Seltzer, Mining Implications and Community Impacts Joanne Seder, Research Associate Lisa Jacobson Lillian Quigg Rosaleen Sutton Supplements to Staff Robert J i meson Barbara G. Levi W, Gene Tucker L. Wiliiam Richardson Contributors Lynda L. Brothers J. Bradford Hollomon OTA Publishing Staff John C, Holmes, Publishing Officer Kathie S. Boss Joanne Heming v OTA Energy Advisory Committee Milton Katz, Chairman Director, International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School Thomas C. Ayers George E. Mueller President and Chairman of the Board President and Chairman of the Board Commonwealth Edison Company System Development Corporation Kenneth E, Boulding Gerard Piel Professor of Economics Publisher Institute of Behavioral Science Scientific American University of Colorado John F. Redmond, Retired Eugene G Fubini Shell Oil Company Fubini Consultants, Ltd. John C. Sawhill Levi (J.M.) Leathers President Executive Vice President New York University Dow Chemical USA Chauncey Starr Wassily Leontief Electric Power Research Institute Department of Economics New York University Direct Use of Coal Advisory Panel Harry Perry, Chairman Robert Lundberg Resources for the Future, Inc. Commonwealth Edison Mike Clark Paul Martinka l-fighlander Research Center American Electric Power (Retired) David Comey* David Mastbaum Citizens for a Better Environment Environmental Defense Fund A W. Deurbrouck Ken Mills Department of Eneergy Tug Valley Recovery Center Michael E Enzi Michael Rieber Mayor, City of Gillette University of Arizona Don Gasper Steve Shapiro Consolidation Coal Company United Mine Workers of America, LU 6025 W. L. Johns Ronald Surdam E. 1. du Pent de Nemours & Co. University of Wyoming Lorin Kerr Joana Underwood United Mine Workers of America INFORM George Land Ralph Perhac A MAX Coal Corporation Electric Power Research Institute Ed Light Joseph Yancik West Virginia Citizens Action Croup National Coal Association The Advisory Panel provided advice and constructive criticism throughout this project. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents. *Died January 1979. The OTA Coal Project staff expresses their sincere appreciation for the assistance and support that David Comey had contributed throughout this assessment. vi Summary Coal can be America’s most productive domestic energy source well into the 21st century. No other fuel, however, evokes such memories of environmental damage and social disruption. Although new programs, practices, and legislation have ad- dressed many of these problems, their adequacy and effectiveness are uncertain, and new concerns are emerging. Thus, coal’s future is a mixture of promise and risk. This report analyzes the role that coal combustion may play in the Nation’s energy future, the factors that will shape that role, and the impacts that may result. SUPPLY AND DEMAND A tripling of coal production and use by need upgrading and expansion. Federal coal 2000 appears to be possible without either leasing may have to resume. Conflicts between substantial regulatory relaxation or major mine labor and management could escalate to technological innovations. Such rapid growth the point where national production is com- may be in the national interest even though promised. Some communities, particularly in total energy demand will probably grow more the East, may need assistance to accommo- slowly than it has in the past. However, several date the required development. Public con- factors might inhibit this rapid rate of develop- cerns about the siting of mines, powerplants, ment Primary among these is the likelihood and other facilities may delay expansion. that demand for coal will not rise this quickly. Coal is not normally the fuel of choice unless it In addition, questions have been raised offers a large cost advantage. Many users will about the reliability of available control prefer oil and natural gas as long as they are technologies and their ability to meet en- available, despite their higher prices, because vironmental regulations. Significant problems of their greater convenience and lower capital with these technologies could constrain future investment requirements. Recent regulations coal use. The technological viability of flue- have increased the cost of mining and burning gas desulfurization (FGD) to meet proposed air coal, thus reducing its attractiveness. The 1978 pollution emission standards is a focus of this National Energy Act discourages large new fa- controversy. A growing body of evidence, how- cilities from burning gas or oil, but additional ever, indicates that this technology wiII be ade- legislation or other incentives may be required quate though expensive. Safe disposal of FGD if coal’s share of the energy system is to be fur- sludge also appears to be feasible technologi- ther increased. If demand does triple, several cally, but expensive. Finally, requirements of potential supply constraints could still in- the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act terfere with achieving a tripling of coal supply. will raise the cost of coal but should not pose Mine-to-market transportation systems will technical barriers to meeting demand. ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH This report does not identify any significant of conscious economic tradeoffs, tack of effi- violations of existing environmental standards cient control devices or insufficient enforce- that inevitably would result from a substantial ment of existing standards. For example, some rise in coal use. However, some adverse envi- underground mines wiII cause acid mine drain- ronmental impacts are likely to occur with in- age or subsidence problems long after their creased coal mining and combustion because abandonment; permanent controls for these vii problems are not available for all mining situa- tect the public health from problems resulting tions. Some emissions may prove to be inade- from long-term exposure to low levels of quately regulated because of scientific uncer- pollutants. Some controversial analyses sug- tainty concerning the cause and significance gest that current exposure levels may be re- of their effects. Emissions of sulfur dioxide, sponsible for tens of thousands of premature nitrogen dioxide, carbon dioxide (COZ) and fine deaths annually. Increases in emissions of coal particulate will all increase significantly by combustion-related pollutants could aggra- the end of the century under a high coal vate existing problems. scenario and present