A Life Cycle Analysis of Electricity Generation Technologies Health and Environmental Implications of Alternative Fuels and Technologies

Introduction

The electricity industry is undergoing significant changes due to two major and contentious issues: the shift towards deregulation and increasingly stringent environmental regulations Although termed deregulation, the reality is that regulation is evolving rather than diminishing, forcing generators to make investment decisions without guaranteed returns Simultaneously, environmental standards are tightening, particularly concerning carbon dioxide emissions, along with stricter regulations on SOx, NOx, and mercury discharges, driven by PM2.5 and ozone standards While the USA has yet to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the likelihood of stringent regulations emerging in the next decade appears high.

Generation owners face critical decisions regarding significant investments to extend the lifespan of existing facilities and to develop new capacity in response to rising demand and the decommissioning of aging plants While current environmental regulations are established, emerging rules often arise from advancements in scientific understanding, such as the study of PM2.5 or new interpretations of data regarding mercury To effectively anticipate future regulations and influence sound policy, comprehensive analysis of all environmental discharges and their impacts is essential Investors must be well-informed about the life cycle health and environmental effects of various fuels and generation technologies available now or in the near future Although the life cycle implications of these options cannot be determined with absolute certainty, the uncertainty can be mitigated through the careful application of existing analytical methods.

A generation shortage of electricity would have significant societal costs, as nearly every aspect of daily life relies on it, from heating and cooling to powering electronics and mass transit Unlike other energy sources, a shortage in electricity means that large segments of the population could lose access entirely, as supply and demand must be balanced instantaneously Even a small excess in demand can lead to voltage sags, and if demand exceeds supply, the entire system may fail, resulting in widespread outages For example, California faced electricity shortages in 2001, leading to rolling blackouts that disrupted traffic flow in major cities like San Francisco Ultimately, electricity shortages can have severe consequences for society.

This article explores the evolution of life cycle analysis methods, highlighting significant advancements since the initial electricity life cycle studies of the 1970s It provides a historical overview of research literature, with a particular emphasis on the coal fuel cycle, which accounts for 52% of electricity generation in the US The discussion includes a review of the methodologies and analytical challenges associated with life cycle analysis Additionally, it presents a comprehensive examination of modern studies conducted in the USA, focusing primarily on coal before addressing other available fuels The article concludes with key insights and reflections on the findings.

2 Methods for Life Cycle Analysis

Life cycle analysis plays a crucial role in guiding decision makers in selecting alternative fuels and technologies for electricity generation To make informed choices, it is essential to evaluate the entire life cycle, encompassing fuel extraction, transportation, generation, and post-generation activities This comprehensive analysis should also consider the necessary investments and the associated occupational and public health impacts, including disease and trauma, alongside the environmental consequences of these processes.

Modern Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) consists of four key phases: Scoping, discharge inventory, impacts, and improvement Conducting a thorough analysis is challenging, as it is impractical to evaluate every health, energy, material, and environmental impact linked to both direct and indirect elements of each life cycle stage Therefore, each LCA must clearly define what will be included in the assessment and what will be excluded.

The initial Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) primarily concentrated on the generation and extraction phases, occasionally considering transportation, while overlooking the construction of facilities and other significant investments, such as infrastructure development and maintenance costs These studies emphasized direct impacts, including occupational fatalities, diseases, and public health consequences stemming from air pollution and ionizing radiation emissions However, they faced challenges due to the limited understanding of the effects associated with current ambient levels of air pollution and ionizing radiation.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerged in the 1990s in response to increasing public interest in the environmental impacts of various products, ranging from paper cups to automobiles Developed by the EPA and the Society of Environmental Toxicologists and Chemists (SETAC), LCA methods utilize principles from chemical engineering to conduct mass and energy balances throughout the product's life cycle A key achievement of LCA is its ability to encourage a holistic view of a product's entire life cycle However, the quantitative estimates derived from LCA can be uncertain and controversial, as results may vary based on the scope of the analysis Conducting detailed energy and materials balances can be challenging, often requiring a narrowly defined scope, which can lead to time-consuming and costly assessments.

Similar challenges have emerged in the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of electricity technologies Notably, Holdren (1978) criticized previous studies for neglecting crucial factors and for lacking thoroughness in their analyses.

A new approach to LCA was developed using the national Input-Output table 1 (Lave ,

Hendrickson's reference serves as a notable representation of eiolca, offering a quick and cost-effective approach However, this method's limitation lies in its aggregate level analysis, particularly as it pertains to the 500 sector US input-output matrix.

We now turn to a brief review of published studies.

The examination of electricity generation's life cycle began in the early 1970s, marked by parallel studies from Lave and Freeburg (1972, 1973) and Leonard Sagan (1973, 1974) Lave and Freeburg's work was initiated through a Sierra Club invitation to assist in formulating an environmental policy focused on optimal fuels and technologies for electricity generation Meanwhile, Sagan's research was conducted under the Electric Power Research Institute to aid utilities in selecting new generators.

Both studies yielded similar findings, concentrating on the operations of existing plants rather than exploring the potential of new technologies They provided data on current operations but could only speculate on the implications of future developments The research assessed environmental discharges and aimed to quantify occupational and public health impacts, referencing earlier studies on air pollution and ionizing radiation to estimate cancer risks from exposure to pollutants Lave and Freeburg highlighted the health burdens associated with coal combustion, while Sagan pointed out the significant public fatalities linked to coal transportation by rail.

Both studies revealed significant environmental and health impacts associated with coal mining, transportation, and combustion In contrast, oil and natural gas were determined to have considerably lower environmental and health costs Additionally, light water reactors exhibited an even reduced health burden; however, the studies did not evaluate the environmental and health implications of managing spent fuel or the decommissioning of aging reactors.

Sagan translated the health burdens into dollar terms, assuming that a premature death costs society $300,000 He found that coal had larger health costs ($1.2 million) than nuclear

Recent studies have established a lasting ranking of fuels, yet they fell short in thoroughly assessing the entire fuel cycle and failed to quantify the environmental impacts associated with each fuel type.

1 Hendrickson, C., A Horvath, S Joshi and L.B Lave, "Economic Input-Output Models for Environmental Life Cycle Analysis," Environmental Science & Technology, April, 1998, Vol, 32 Iss, 7 pp 184 A-191 A.

Morgan, Barkovich, and Meier (1973) evaluated the social costs of coal-based electricity production, focusing on the societal impacts of coal extraction and combustion Their study considered critical factors during the extraction phase, including land use, mining hazards, and health issues like black lung and mine accidents In the generation phase, they assessed the four most harmful pollutants from coal electricity production: sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, and heavy metals such as mercury However, the study did not address CO2 emissions, heat dissipation, or the broader global effects of particulate matter and NOx For a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), these additional factors and phases of coal electricity production must be included.

Boundaries

When defining study boundaries, it's crucial to align them with the study's objectives, particularly in the context of the SETAC method Factors such as data availability, cost, and time constraints significantly influence the extent of the study's boundaries In contrast, the eiolca approach adopts a comprehensive perspective, encompassing the entire economy without excluding any sector.

The following discussion is divided into fuel cycles and the specific issues that need to be addressed in each case specifically.

Coal

Power Plant Characteristics

This analysis examined two hypothetical sites in the United States, selected to highlight the impact of varying socioeconomic and environmental conditions on coal plant studies The chosen locations served as a constant for future investigations into different fuel cycles, allowing for comparative results Below is a summary of the plant characteristics for the sites included in this study.

Oak Ridge - Details of Hypothetical Plants Studied

 Benchmark plant - a conventional steam electric power plant and is assumed to be a 500 MW facility producing

 Represents a plant completed in 1990 and having performance specifications such that the plant can meet the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

 Particulates are controlled by an electrostatic precipitator (ESP)

 A wet lime/limestone scrubber is used to control SO x emissions

 Plant has capacity factor or 75% with an efficiency rating of 34.5%

 The coal feed requirements for the plant at the Southeast Reference site are 1.36 million tons of eastern bituminous coal

 The Southwest Reference site require 1.9 million tons of western sub-bituminous coal

 It is assumed that the existing capacities in other stages of the fuel cycle will be sufficient to meet the needs of the additional power plant

This study examined three pulverized coal boiler systems, including a representative plant that reflects the average emissions and efficiency of existing coal-fired power plants in the U.S (the status quo) and a new coal-fired power plant designed to comply with the New Source Performance Standards.

Performance Standards (NSPS) and a highly advanced coal-fired power plant utilizing a low emission boiler system (LEBS) The New Source Performance Standards are summarized in the table below:

New Source Performance Standards for Fossil-Fueled Power Plants

G/GJ heat input, HHV (lb/MMBtu)

Similarly, the low emission boiler system has the following emissions standards: NOx and SOx emissions are 1/6 of those specified by NSPS and particulate matter emissions are 1/3 of NSPS.

This study highlights that power plants across the US utilize a variety of coal types based on emissions regulations and economic factors Notably, all three analyzed plants focused on Illinois No 6 coal, which is a widely available bituminous coal that has been extensively studied.

A summary of the assumptions in terms of the details of the construction and decommissioning of these power plants can be seen in the following table:

NREL - Summary of Construction and Decommissioning Assumptions

 Construction – 2 years – startup at 30% in year one – 60% other years

 Construction – particulate matter high due to land prep, drilling and blasting, ground excavation, earth moving, building of the power plant – equipment traffic

 Particulate and asphalt emissions, air emissions and energy required from the processing

 Concrete, steel, iron aluminum – consumed in that order

 Construction of the barge train and truck material – all attributed to the life cycle in question?

 Credits given for 75% of some materials being recycled (both vehicles and building construction

This study compared two integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) plant designs utilizing the Shell entrained-flow gasifier, referencing a previous analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) The first design, termed the "co-product case," utilized high-sulfur Illinois #6 coal to generate both electricity and hydrogen (H2) as energy carriers In contrast, the "base case" involved a conventional IGCC power plant that emitted CO2 through the combustion of synthesis gas in a gas turbine Key findings from the IEA study are summarized in the table titled “Comparison of Plant.”

Performance for Three Power Cycles”.

Power plant construction and demolition, as well as construction of hydrogen and CO2 transportation pipelines were examined in this study.

A summary of the details of the plants in this study are summarized in the following table:

Argonne - Summary of Assumptions for Plant Details

 Gasifier sections for these plants were identical

 Fuel use and emissions from the production of the construction materials were estimated based on the energy required to produce the materials

 Decommissioning involves some expenditure of energy, depending on the future use of the site

 Assumed life of plant is 30 years for both

 Construction of H 2 and CO 2 pipelines is included in the scope of the analysis

 Both H 2 and CO 2 pipelines are assumed to be 100 km long

 Assume pipelines will not be demolished

 Bulk construction materials required are steel, cement, and aggregates in the ratio of 1:1:6

 Other materials include aluminum, copper, glass, and iron, but in insignificant amounts compared to the first three materials

 the construction of both types of plants require equal amounts of construction materials

Further details of the plant and the emissions for the Argonne are summarized in the table below:

Comparison of Plant Performance for Three Power Cycles

Item Base Case Co-Product Case IEA Case

Gasification Shell Gasificaiton with cold gas cleanup Raw gas is produced at 1844 F and 352 psia.

Texaco gasification with cold gas cleanup Raw gas is produced at

788 F Ash Removal This is a slagging gasifier with slag quench.

Air Separation Cryogenic air separation with partial integration (N2 used as diluent for combustion turbine) High-temp gas cooling/particulate removal

Used to raise high- pressure, superheated steam

Also used for combustion turbine fuel gas preheat

Used to raise high-pressure, superheated steam

COS hydrolysis Single stage to form H2S and CO2 Not Applicable

Shift Reaction Not Applicable Two-stage shift to convert raw gas to high H2 and CO2 content

Three-stage shift to convert raw gas to high H2 and CO2 content

H2S Recovery MDEA Glycol used for improved selectivity (H2S vs CO2)

Acid Gas Treatment Clasu-SCOT using filtered raw gas as SCOT reagent

Claus-SCOT using H2 Product as reagent

CO2 Removal Not applicable Glycol Glycol/ether

H2 purification Not applicable Pressure Swing

Synthesis gas cleansed of sulfur and particulates

Residual gas rejected by PSA

Synthesis gas cleaned of sulfur and particulates

Steam cycle heat source Gas turbine exhaust Gas turbine exhaust and heat recovery from shift reaction

Gas turbine exhaust and heat recovery from shift reaction

The details of the Oak Ridge and NREL studies have been summarized in terms of plant details in the following table:

Choosing just one or two actual or hypothetical locations does not accurately reflect the diverse combinations of available choices and options for coal-based electricity production, each with varying environmental impacts.

Mining…

Coal extraction methods vary based on the depth, thickness, and configuration of coal seams In 2001, 62.5% of coal mined in the U.S was through surface mining, with the remainder from underground methods Surface mining, typically more cost-effective per ton than underground mining, can be applied to flat, shallow deposits Among surface mining techniques, strip mining is the most economical, involving the removal of coal and overburden in parallel, with the overburden returned to fill the excavated space Open pit mining, another surface mining method, utilizes traditional quarry techniques to extract thick coal seams.

Mountain top mining, a specific technique within surface mining, involves removing the summit of a mountain to access underlying coal deposits This method employs various surface mining techniques to extract coal, while the overburden is typically relocated to nearby valleys Gaining traction in states like West Virginia, where 99% of electricity is generated from coal and abundant low sulfur coal is available, this mining practice has sparked significant discussion due to its environmental impact and economic implications.

33 World Bank Group Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook Coal Mining and Production July 1998.

34 Office of Surface Mining Bureau of U.S Department of the Interior Tonnage Reported for Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm

35 World Bank Group Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook Coal Mining and Production July 1998.

36 Coal Age Coal Industry Hails Supreme Court Ruling March 2002 p6.

Comparison of Power Plant Characteristics

Ref Site Average NSPS LEBS

Technology PC PC PC PC PC

404 MW (net, 100%capacity) Operating Capacity

Type of Plant Specific SiteSpecific SiteAvg Nat’l Data

Mountain top mining has become a contentious issue due to its significant environmental implications, which differ greatly from those of traditional mining methods Despite extensive research on mining practices, previous studies have overlooked the unique challenges posed by mountain top mining Given the potential for more severe environmental consequences, it is crucial to incorporate this form of mining into future research frameworks.

Most studies have failed to capture the extent of variability that exists in the mining of coal used in coal-fired power plants

This study focuses on surface mining technology for two hypothetical sites, aligning with the types of plants considered However, it is essential to explore all mining methods and their environmental impacts to avoid an incomplete analysis Despite this limitation, the study effectively addresses the externalities associated with coal mining.

 Coal Mining Accidents – occupational injuries and fatalities to coal miners

 effect of radon on health

 effect of coal dust on health

 ecological impacts of coal waste management and mine drainage

 injuries and fatalities from coal transportation

 injuries and fatalities from truck transportation

This study examines the effects of longwall underground mining and strip surface mining, focusing on their impact on resources, environmental emissions, and energy consumption related to coal excavation.

Underground mining was considered for this study

The processing stage, while not extensively covered in the reviewed studies, is highlighted in the NREL study, which recommends a jig cleaning method for coal beneficiation This process utilizes a pulsating water flow to separate lighter coal particulates from heavier refuse, with clean coal exiting from the top of the jig and refuse from the bottom Key considerations for this method include the electricity and water consumption, along with the amount of refuse that ultimately requires landfilling.

The Argonne study assumed that coarse cleaning occurred at the mine mouth, with refuse returned to the mine.

The majority of cleaning and beneficiation processes take place at the mine's entrance, resulting in minimal environmental impact Consequently, current data from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) integrates this information with mining statistics.

The studies on coal fail to adequately address the significant variability in coal composition across the United States, which can differ based on extraction location and regional conditions For instance, moisture content in US coal ranges from 2% to 40%, while sulfur content varies between 0.2% and 8%, and ash content spans from 5% to 40% The primary types of coal include two categories of bituminous coal, sub-bituminous coal, and lignite This composition variability directly influences the emissions of key pollutants such as SO2 and NOx, resulting in differing costs associated with burning various coal types.

Different types of coal require distinct control technologies, which significantly influence the environmental impact of power plants Consequently, selecting a mid-range coal composition, such as Illinois No 6, is inadequate It is essential to choose a coal type that accurately reflects the local coal characteristics or to evaluate multiple coal types to assess their relative impacts on overall environmental outcomes.

Coal transportation occurs via rail, barge, and truck, making it essential to assess the environmental impacts of each method Key considerations include the quantity and type of fuel used, emissions generated from fuel consumption, vehicle production and maintenance, and the associated human health effects Understanding these factors is crucial for evaluating the overall sustainability of coal transport.

The issue of fatalities associated with coal transport by rail has been largely overlooked in many studies According to the Oak Ridge study, significant insights and estimates regarding these deaths have emerged, highlighting the need for further investigation into this critical area.

Number of Deaths/Injuries From Southeast Reference Site/Year

A comparison calculation can be made using the Federal Railroad Administration data for 2000 which lists the number of rail-related fatalities in 2000 as 937 38 The number of deaths attributed

37 World Bank Group Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook Coal Mining and Production July 1998.

38 Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data 2000 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Index/Default.asp to the transport of coal is estimated in the following calculation.

Data Used in Quick Calculation

-The proportion of freight to passenger trains (based on fuel consumed in 1995) is 96.6% 39 905 deaths are attributed to freight trains

-The proportion of coal shipped to other freight (based on class I railroad carloads originated) is 43.6% 40 = 394 deaths attributed to the shipment of coal (per year)

The Oak Ridge calculation indicates that the addition of their southeast reference site for carloads originated results in a relative increase in burden of 0.064%, translating to approximately 0.25 deaths annually due to coal shipments at that location.

When calculating the percentage of coal shipped by rail that is utilized for electricity production, it is important to note that this percentage is not 100% Therefore, the previously obtained value should be multiplied by this significant fraction, which remains relatively high.

This calculation simplifies the process by utilizing the number of carloads originated to determine the annual death toll, without providing a breakdown of the various types of deaths involved.

The comparison calculation yields a value lower than the minimum estimated from the Oak Ridge study, yet it is crucial to recognize that nearly 400 deaths annually are linked to this phase of the coal fuel cycle This significant impact on public health should be incorporated into future research regarding electricity production from coal.

Transportation

Coal transportation occurs via rail, barge, and truck, making it essential to assess the environmental and health impacts of each method Key considerations include the quantity and type of fuel used, emissions generated from fuel consumption, vehicle production and maintenance, and the associated human health effects.

The impact of coal transport by rail on mortality rates is a largely overlooked topic in existing research According to the Oak Ridge study, significant estimates highlight the concerning link between rail coal transport and associated deaths.

Number of Deaths/Injuries From Southeast Reference Site/Year

A comparison calculation can be made using the Federal Railroad Administration data for 2000 which lists the number of rail-related fatalities in 2000 as 937 38 The number of deaths attributed

37 World Bank Group Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook Coal Mining and Production July 1998.

38 Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data 2000 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Index/Default.asp to the transport of coal is estimated in the following calculation.

Data Used in Quick Calculation

-The proportion of freight to passenger trains (based on fuel consumed in 1995) is 96.6% 39 905 deaths are attributed to freight trains

-The proportion of coal shipped to other freight (based on class I railroad carloads originated) is 43.6% 40 = 394 deaths attributed to the shipment of coal (per year)

The Oak Ridge calculation indicates that the addition of their southeast reference site results in a relative increase in burden of 0.064%, translating to approximately 0.25 deaths annually attributed to coal shipments at that location.

When calculating the percentage of coal transported by rail for electricity production, it's essential to recognize that this figure is not 100% Therefore, the previously obtained value must be multiplied by this fraction, which remains notably high.

This calculation simplifies the process by using the number of carloads originated to determine the annual death toll, without providing a detailed breakdown of the various types of deaths that occur.

The comparison calculation reveals a value that is lower than the minimum estimated figure from the Oak Ridge study Nonetheless, it is crucial to recognize that nearly 400 deaths annually are linked to this phase of the coal fuel cycle, highlighting a significant impact of coal-based electricity production that warrants attention in future research.

This study analyzed the transportation of coal via barges, trains, and trucks, focusing on the percentage contribution of each mode and the distance from mines to the utilities they serve Specific case studies were selected to calculate the environmental impacts of these transportation methods It was assumed that trucks operate on diesel fuel, trains utilize light fuel oil, and barges rely on heavy fuel oil, with trucks primarily used for local mine operations and chemical transport.

The Argonne study focused exclusively on coal transportation to power plants via rail, accounting for emissions from diesel fuel consumption and the use of open rail cars carrying crushed coal However, it did not factor in the emissions related to the production of diesel fuel or the manufacturing and maintenance of rail cars.

Generation

The Oak Ridge study investigated the following factors related to the generation of electricity:

39 U.S Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines Locomotive Fuel Consumption by Service Category (10 6 gal/year) www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv 1995.

40 Association of American Railroads Policy & Economics Department Industry Statistics 2000 Class I

Railroads http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf.

Summary of Factors investigated for the Generation of Electricity

 Global warming potential and other effects of CO 2

 Effects of SO 2 on health-impacts on morbidity, effects on mortality

 Fertilization benefits of SO 2 and NOx emissions

 Effects of SO 2 on materials

 Effects of SO 2 (with NOx and particulate matter) on visibility

 Effects of NOx on health

 Effects of particulates on mortality, morbidity, materials

 Effects of acidic deposition on recreational fisheries, acidic and ozone on crops, ozone on forests, materials

 Effects of ozone on crops

 Effects of mercury on aquatic resources and human health

 Effects of lead on health

 Effects of air toxics on health

 Water use and generation plants

 Effects of the generation plant and landfill on land use

 Effects of plant construction and operation on employment

 Energy security externalities and fuel cycle comparisons

The following factors were considered in the generation stage for this study:

The essential resources for the process include coal sourced from the beneficiation plant, lime for waste treatment, limestone, copper oxide for effective gas clean-up, ammonia for nitrogen oxide (NOx) removal, and natural gas utilized to regenerate the copper oxide sorbent.

 Emissions – NOx, SOx, CO, CO2, particulates, VOCs

 Solid Wastes – GFC waste, ash

 Recycling of power plant flue gas clean-up waste and ash- landfilling these considered

 Energy Consumption – average energy required per kWh of net electricity produced (broken down by process step)

 Resources Consumption – coal, limestone, oil, natural gas, iron ore, iron scrap

 Solid Waste – e.g ash, FGC waste – dry- landfilled, copper, boron, selenium etc.

Transmission

The life cycle stage of electricity transmission has been overlooked in major studies, with the assumption that all electricity has similar environmental impacts regardless of its generation method However, this perspective fails to consider the varying distances between fuel sources, power plants, and consumers, leading to incomplete comparisons and neglecting a significant phase that can influence overall environmental impact.

Other studies have attempted to evaluate the environmental impacts of transmitting electricity

Linke and Schuler (1988) examine advancements in electricity transmission technology but overlook the environmental implications associated with this phase of the electricity life cycle.

DeCicco, Bernow, and Beyea (1992) evaluate the often-overlooked environmental impacts of power transmission in North America, emphasizing the need to consider local effects on regional, national, and international levels They highlight the significance of potential human health risks associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF) and advocate for end-use conservation to meet reliability and economic demands The authors also discuss the motivations behind transmission expansion, cautioning that such expansions may not always yield net societal benefits and could distract from conservation efforts Ultimately, the paper serves as a guide for energy policy, though it notes that the environmental impacts discussed are not quantified or compared.

Kalkani and Boussiakou (1996) identify key environmental impacts of high-voltage transmission lines, such as landscape disruption, visual effects on natural scenery, bird collisions, and potential health risks from electromagnetic fields Their review of electromagnetic field (EMF) studies reveals that 30% suggest a link to cancer, while 70% find no evidence of such a connection The paper primarily focuses on environmental policies established in UNIPEDE countries to ensure transmission systems are developed with minimal ecological impact, emphasizing the necessity of conducting an environmental impact assessment prior to project initiation.

Knoepfel (1996) conducts a study similar to that proposed below 44 He develops and tests a framework for comparing the environmental impacts associated with various methods of

41 Linke, S Schuler, R.E Electrical-Energy-Transmission Technology: The Key to Bulk-Power-Supply Policies Annual Review of Energy Vol 13 pp 23-45 1988.

42 DeCicco, J.M Bernow, S.S Beyea, J Environmental Concerns Regarding Electric Power Transmission in North America Energy Policy Vol 20 Iss 1 pp 30-52 Jan 1992.

A study published in the Journal of Environmental Engineering highlights the environmental benefits of transporting energy in Europe via high-voltage transmission lines, particularly for coal It found that generating electricity early in the fuel cycle and using these transmission lines can significantly reduce impacts compared to traditional coal transport methods like barges and trains While the findings for oil and gas were less definitive, there remains potential for environmental improvements The paper examines various impact categories, including fossil energy consumption, air emissions, land use, audible noise, and visual impacts, providing a valuable framework for comparison with the U.S context.

A life cycle analysis framework can address the critical question of whether coal should be transported to generators near the load or if generation plants should be located near mines, with electricity then shipped to consumers Each year, the transportation of coal to generating plants results in hundreds of billions of ton-miles, requiring significant energy, generating pollution emissions, and contributing to over 100 fatalities at rail crossings Notably, 30% of U.S coal is mined in the Powder River Basin (PRB), with 330 million tons shipped to 27 states in 2001, including 50 million tons to Texas alone The cost of coal at the PRB mine is about $5 per ton, but by the time it reaches Texas, it escalates to approximately $25 per ton, indicating that shipping costs dominate the overall price Additionally, current rail capacity is limited, meaning any substantial increase in unit trains would necessitate new infrastructure Conversely, transporting energy as electricity also incurs costs and has health and environmental impacts, including land use, noise, visual effects, and resource consumption for building and maintaining transmission lines.

Resources

The main resources considered in each study are those required to build the power plant

However, some studies went into more detail than others The emissions and impacts associated with these materials were also included in this study

This study identified the essential materials for constructing power plants, including steel, concrete, land, and water It also evaluated the coal feed requirements to assess the environmental impacts of mining, transportation, and generation, particularly focusing on accidents, road damage, and NOx emissions The coal feed analysis helped differentiate the technologies and efficiencies examined Although the study acknowledged that new coal mines might be necessary for future power plants, it assumed that existing coal mines could satisfy the current demand, thus not factoring in the construction materials for new mines or the equipment needed for mining operations.

44 Knoepfel, I.H A Framework For Environmental Impact Assessment of Long-Distance Energy Transport Systems Energy Vol 21 Iss 7/8 pp 693-702 1996.

This study evaluates the essential plant materials for electricity generation, focusing on concrete, steel, aluminum, and iron It also examines the resources needed for coal-based electricity production, including coal, limestone, oil, natural gas, iron ore, and iron scrap A detailed analysis of the mining and transportation phases of the fuel cycle is included, highlighting the materials necessary for manufacturing transportation vehicles and mining equipment.

This study focused on key resource inputs including coal, water, MDEA, and Selexol for the removal of H2S and CO2 from flue gas It also examined catalysts for converting H2S to elemental sulfur through the Claus process, as well as catalysts for the chemical reduction of SO2 to H2S in the SCOT process, enhancing overall sulfur removal in the Claus plant, alongside the use of auxiliary electricity.

Emissions…

This study categorized quantified emissions based on their environmental impact, with a significant focus on upstream emissions Key upstream emissions examined included mining accidents, radon emissions from coal mines, coal dust, mine waste and drainage, transportation accidents involving coal, and the deterioration of road pavement caused by coal trucks.

The analysis of air emissions focused on the fuel cycle's extraction and operational phases, examining pollutants such as CO2, NOx, SOx, particulates, CO, hydrocarbons, and aldehydes Additionally, trace metals including arsenic, cadmium, manganese, lead, and selenium were assessed, specifically during the construction stage.

The water pollutants identified include dissolved substances, suspended solids, sulfates, and contaminants from cooling tower blowdown, such as pH levels and trace metals like chromium Groundwater emissions are composed of various heavy metals, including chromium, barium, cadmium, lead, silver, nickel, titanium, arsenic, selenium, and mercury Solid emissions encompass dust, sludge, coal waste, iron oxides, and both fly and bottom ash It is important to note that emissions related to plant preparation and water usage, including fugitive dust and exhaust from fossil fuel equipment, were not assessed Furthermore, it is assumed that hazardous wastes will be managed in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.

This analysis focuses on two primary emission categories: air and water Air emissions encompass a range of pollutants, including carbon dioxide (CO2) categorized by process, sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), and non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), along with a detailed table of trace elements and compounds such as aldehydes, ammonia, and copper that contribute to air pollution.

The study revealed that water emissions primarily stem from mining and power generation, with pollutants such as chlorides, cyanides, oils, and organic dissolved matter identified However, the total volume of water pollutants was relatively low compared to other emissions Notably, treated wastewater discharged from the facility is excluded from the assessment of water emissions.

This study identifies key products from the process, including electricity, hydrogen, CO2, and sulfur as a by-product It evaluates solid waste comprising coal slag, spent Claus and SCOT catalysts, and dewatered sludge from raw water coagulation Liquid waste is analyzed, including gasifier blowdown, scrubbing processes blowdown, HRSG blowdown, cooling tower blowdown, and water treatment unit blowdown Additionally, air emissions assessed in this report include SO2 and CO2 from the SCOT plant stack (base case only), stack gas from the combustion turbine, de-aerator vent, N2 from the air separation unit, and solid particulate drift from the cooling tower.

The report suggested that CO2 should be considered a waste stream for underground storage; however, if CO2 were treated as a product, the analysis would become significantly more complex.

This summary highlights that various studies have assessed and quantified emissions from distinct stages of the life cycle Notably, NREL delivered the most comprehensive and clearly presented quantification of emissions, suggesting that their analytical approach should be adopted in future assessments.

Impacts

This study summarizes various impacts, as detailed in the accompanying table While the table highlights key findings, it is important to note that the discussion includes additional impacts, some of which were explored qualitatively.

Summary of Impacts considered in Oak Ridge Coal Study

Coal mining poses significant occupational hazards, leading to injuries and fatalities among miners, with risks associated with radon exposure, coal dust inhalation, and improper management of coal waste and mine drainage Additionally, coal transportation presents its own dangers, including accidents on railways and injuries from truck transport, which also contribute to road damage.

Generation - -electric power generation accidents

-global warming potential and other effects of CO2

-effects of SO2 on health-impacts on morbidity, effects on mortality

-fertilization benefits of SO2 and NOx emissions

-effects of SO2 on materials

-effects of SO2 (with NOx and particulate matter) on visibility

-effects of NOx on health

-effects of particulates on mortality, morbidity, materials

-effects of acidic deposition on recreational fisheries, acidic and ozone on crops, ozone on forests, materials

-effects of ozone on crops

-effects of mercury on aquatic resources and human health

-effects of lead on health

-effects of air toxics on health

-water use and generation plants

-effects of the generation plant and landfill on land use

-effects of plant construction and operation on employment

-energy security externalities and fuel cycle comparisons

This study distinguished between human health and ecological health when discussing the impacts associated with the production of electricity The following impacts were generally discussed in this study:

Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Production

 Formation of ozone, aldehydes and peroxyacetal nitrate

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the human and ecological impacts associated with various occurrences, highlighting their significance However, it lacks a quantitative connection to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and does not attempt to estimate the valuation of these impacts Furthermore, the research does not clarify the relative significance of each case study examined.

This study examines the impacts of environmental changes across three main categories: the natural environment, human health, and natural resources Key environmental impacts include acidification, eutrophication, smog, global climate change, and ecotoxicological effects on both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems Human health concerns focus on toxicological effects, inhalation of PM10 particles, and carcinogenic risks Additionally, the study addresses the depletion of fuel resources and water consumption as significant impacts on natural resources However, the analysis remains general without specifying the relative levels of these impacts.

Data Sources

The significance of data sources and the date of information used in life cycle analysis cannot be overstated It is crucial that the data originates from reputable and accurate sources, as outdated information can result in misleading conclusions Given that technology and process methods can evolve rapidly, using current data is essential for obtaining reliable and valid results in life cycle assessments.

This study's analysis of coal and other fuel cycles heavily relies on previous research conducted by various organizations, including Pace, Tellus, Hohmeyer, Victoria, and the Union of Concerned Scientists Notable contributions also come from Delucchi and the Pace University Center for Environmental Legal Studies, particularly the 1990 report on the Environmental Costs of Electricity, which was prepared for the New York State Research and Development Authority and the U.S Department of Energy by Oceans Publications, Inc in New York.

The Meridian Corporation provided much of the emissions data for this analysis This information was supplemented by reports from the DOE, EPRI and EPA.

The generation phase of the analysis relied on the following sources: FETC (Utility Data

Institute, 1993, 1993, & 1996; Keeth et al, 1983; U.S EPA, 1985, Schultz and Kitto, 1992, Combustion Engineering, Inc., 1981, Ladino et al, 1982, Walas, 1988, Collins, 1994, Larinoff,

The amounts of materials and energy required for power plant construction and demolition activities, as well as emissions associated with these activities came from Gorokhov, V., et al.,

“Life Cycle Assessment of Gasification-Based Power Cycles,” Proceedings of the 2000

International Joint Power Generation Conference, Miami Beach, Fla., July 23-26, 2000.

The mining requirements for both surface and underground mining were based on previous studies by the Bureau of Mines (surface-Sidney et al 1976 and underground-Duda and

Hemingway, 1976) This information is dated and the technology used in mining has changed significantly since the 1970’s Therefore, more recent information should be used in future studies

This study primarily utilizes data from Ecobalance, a private company that also supplied the software and database structure essential for the analysis The software, released in 1995, contains information predominantly covering the period from 1988 to 1994.

Emissions from selected power plants were determined by calculating the total coal-generated emissions of specific pollutants in kilograms and dividing this figure by the total electricity generated from coal in kilowatt-hours in the United States, according to the Utility Data Institute (1996).

The quantities of materials, consumables, and effluents linked to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) operations, along with the associated pollutant emissions, were sourced from a variety of references These include Aspen simulations, supplemental mass and energy balances, the LCAdvantage database, LCA analysis reports, literature, EPA resources, and insights from industry experts.

Summary of Results…

COAL Comparison of Emissions (tons/GWh)

Electricity generation leads to many other impacts Some examples are shown below.

Abandoned coal mines are prevalent across the United States and present serious risks to both human health and the environment To address these dangers, Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act plays a crucial role in regulating and managing the reclamation of these hazardous sites.

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) established the national Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Program under the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) under the U.S Department of the Interior maintains an updated inventory of abandoned mines across the United States Following the 1990 amendment to the Act, OSM expanded the data collection on Abandoned Mine Land (AML) reclamation programs Reclamation projects are funded through a tax of 35 cents per ton of coal mined, which is allocated to each state However, the revenue generated from this tax is insufficient to cover the costs of reclaiming high-priority sites.

Pennsylvania alone has $15 billion worth of restoration work to do to reclaim the land damaged by coal mines 46 However, the tax money from the AML project only provides approximately

$21 million per year for such projects 47

Locations of AML Problems Eligible for OSM Funding http://www.osmre.gov/aml/intro/zintro2.htm

The types of problems that are monitored and recorded by the OSM fall into several categories

“High Priority” problems refer to issues that endanger the health, safety, and overall well-being of individuals Legally, these are the sole problems that must be systematically documented.

45 Office of Surface Mining Bureau of U.S Department of the Interior Tonnage Reported for Fiscal Year 2001. http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm.

46 Pennsylvania Coal Association Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/Coal_Mining_in_Pennsylvania.htm

The Office of Surface Mining, part of the U.S Department of the Interior, reported various issues related to coal mining, noting that some information may be incomplete due to reporting requirements These issues are categorized into different types for better understanding and management.

The article addresses various categories of issues related to coal mining, including "Emergencies," "Environmental," "Other Coal Mine Related Problems," and "Non-Coal Mine Related AML Problems." The Environmental category encompasses concerns such as industrial and residential waste dumps, mining equipment and facilities, gob piles, highwalls, haul roads, mine openings, as well as open pit and strip pit operations.

The OSM monitors 17 categories of "High Priority" problems, providing two summary tables for these issues One table details the unreclaimed areas and their associated reclamation cost estimates, while the other highlights the AML projects that have successfully reclaimed abandoned mine sites.

OSM - Unreclaimed Public Health and Safety Coal Related Problems - By Problem Type

Problem Description Measured As Units UnreclaimedCost of Reclaiming

Polluted Water: Agri & Indus.Count 535 101,265

The Abandoned Mine Land Inventory, along with various programs such as the Acid Mine Drainage Plan and Coal Interim Site Funding, plays a crucial role in addressing environmental challenges associated with abandoned mines Additional funding sources, including Coal Insolvent Surety Site Funding and the State Emergency Program, support remediation efforts Furthermore, Pre-SMCRA Coal State/Indian Tribe Grant Funding enhances initiatives aimed at restoring affected areas.

Acid mine drainage, while not explicitly listed in this inventory, is the primary contributor to water pollution affecting agricultural, industrial, and human consumption This significant issue stemming from mining operations leads to severe consequences for biological activity in contaminated streams In 1995, 2,400 instances of this problem were documented, highlighting its widespread impact.

In Pennsylvania, 54,000 miles of streams have been contaminated by acid mine drainage, making it the state's leading cause of water pollution Currently, 4,688 miles of waterways are still impacted, with reclamation costs estimated at around $3.8 billion for those affecting human consumption and industrial use However, some organizations suggest that total reclamation costs could reach up to $15 billion Previous studies have highlighted the significant environmental consequences of acid mine drainage, underscoring the need for ongoing research to address the lasting effects of past and present mining activities.

Coal mine fires represent a significant concern, as highlighted by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) These fires primarily manifest as hazardous or explosive gases and underground fires, with surface fires being managed more swiftly Underground mine fires, however, can remain undetected for long periods, are unpredictable, and cover larger areas, making them challenging to extinguish Currently, the OSM reports that approximately 4,163 acres are burning in the U.S., threatening human health Additionally, there are 94 sites emitting hazardous gases from underground fires, posing risks to nearby populations The estimated cost for extinguishing these fires stands at $860 million, though this figure can be misleading since most fires are monitored rather than extinguished unless they pose an immediate danger to people In some cases, efforts focus on reducing or diverting the fire rather than complete extinguishment.

48 Pennsylvania Coal Association Bituminous Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/Bituminous_Coal_Mining.htm.

49 Pennsylvania Coal Association Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/Coal_Mining_in_Pennsylvania.htm

50 Pennsylvania Coal Association Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/Coal_Mining_in_Pennsylvania.htm

Coal mine fires in the US are primarily caused by illegally dumped burning trash in abandoned mines, along with self-heating and natural events like lightning strikes and nearby forest fires affecting exposed coal seams These fires pose significant risks, including environmental damage, air quality deterioration, and potential health hazards for nearby communities.

The impacts of underground coal fires vary significantly based on several factors, including the size and condition of the coal mine, proximity to human populations, remaining coal reserves, and oxygen availability These fires can produce extreme temperatures, reaching thousands of degrees Celsius at their core, which may also elevate surface temperatures above the mine by a few degrees Even slight temperature increases can adversely affect local vegetation, wildlife, and human health.

Underground fires in coal mines are sustained by the remaining coal, which was originally left as structural support in the form of pillars and walls These fires increase the risk of subsidence above the mine, potentially displacing natural gas lines and leading to explosions Additionally, the subsidence can create cracks and fissures that allow more oxygen to reach the fires, further intensifying the blaze.

Underground coal fires, similar to those in power plants, release hazardous gases such as carbon monoxide and other toxic substances into the environment through tunnels and mine openings These emissions can infiltrate nearby buildings, leading to serious health risks including asphyxiation and long-term respiratory issues Additionally, the combustion of coal generates harmful particulates and greenhouse gases like CO2, NOx, and SOx, which pose environmental and health threats to those exposed The fires can spread to mine openings and adjacent coal seams, potentially endangering nearby homes and forests With an estimated 40 million tons of coal still present in Centralia, these fires not only pose a risk to public safety but also result in the loss of valuable resources when mines are reopened to extract remaining coal.

Firefighters frequently drill bore holes and inject foam and various chemical agents to suppress or extinguish fires However, the use of these chemicals raises concerns about potential groundwater contamination.

Other Fuel Cycles

Natural Gas

Natural gas is emerging as a key player in the future energy landscape due to its low costs for facility construction, operation, and fuel procurement Additionally, it is widely regarded as a more environmentally friendly option compared to other fossil fuels, making it an attractive choice for sustainable energy solutions.

In the 1970s, numerous studies on electricity fuel cycles overlooked natural gas, as it was thought that limited reserves would prevent it from becoming a significant source for electricity generation in the United States.

A recent study indicates that coal-fired power plants account for approximately 38% of global electricity generation, while another research suggests that fossil fuels contribute to 46% of the world's electricity supply.

The NREL study titled “Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System” highlights that natural gas accounts for 22% of energy consumption in the U.S., with a DOE prediction that by 2020, it will contribute to 33% of electricity generation The assessment examines various life cycle stages, including the construction and decommissioning of power plants, natural gas pipeline construction, natural gas production and distribution, ammonia production, NOx removal, and power plant operation It evaluates emissions of CO2, CH4, NMHCs, NOx, and SOx throughout these stages.

CO, particulate matter, and benzene This study also considers the GWP (global warming

56 Williams, A Role of Fossil-Fuels in Electricity-Generation and Their Environmental Impact Vol 140 Iss 1. pp 8-12 Jan 1993.

57 Prusheck, R Future Coal-Fired Power Plants BWK Vol 53 Iss 12 pp 40-50 2001.

58 Williams, A Role of Fossil-Fuels in Electricity-Generation and Their Environmental Impact Vol 140 Iss 1. pp 8-12 Jan 1993.

A life cycle assessment of a natural gas combined-cycle power generation system conducted by Spath and Mann (2000) revealed that upstream processes consume more energy than the electricity produced The study identified natural gas as the primary resource consumed, with coal, iron ore, oil, and limestone also contributing significantly Water pollutants were found to be minimal, primarily consisting of oils and dissolved matter, while solid waste mainly originated from pipeline transport and natural gas extraction, with spent catalysts being the primary waste from the power plant The research highlighted that power plant efficiency and natural gas losses are critical factors influencing the overall results.

A recent study titled "Substitution of natural gas for coal: Climatic effects of utility sector emissions" examines whether the reduction in CO2 emissions from switching from coal to natural gas justifies the change The research focused on a complete transition from coal to natural gas over a continuous period of 100 years The findings indicate that initially, replacing coal with natural gas may lead to a temporary warming effect due to reduced SO2 emissions and potential increases in CH4 emissions However, over time, the study concludes that there would be a net decrease in temperature as a result of lower CO2 emissions and fewer black carbon particles.

The 1998 Oak Ridge study, titled “Estimating Externalities of Natural Gas Fuel Cycles,” examines the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of natural gas combined cycle power plants A summary of the emissions and their qualitative effects is presented in the table below.

60 Hayhoe, K Kheshgi, H.S Jain, A.K., Wuebbles, D.J Effective Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal: ClimaticEffects of Utility Sector Emissions Climatic Change Vol 54 Iss 1-2 pp 107-139 July 2002.

 Offshore-produced water (total suspended solids, oil and grease, benzene, bis(2- ethylexyl-phthalate), ethylbenzene, naphthalene, phenol, toluene, zinc, drilling muds, drill cuttings

 global warming potential and other effects of CO2

 effects of SO 2 on health, fertilization, on materials, on visibility

 effects of NOx on health, visibility, fertilization

 effects of particulates, on mortality, on materials

 acidic deposition on recreational fisheries, on crops, ozone on forests, ozone on materials, on crops

 potential explosions due to deteriorated pipelines or during the exploration and extraction stages

The emissions (in tons/GWh) from the natural gas fuel cycle in this study can be seen in the following table:

Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) 642 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Negligible Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 0.499

A simplified diagram of the life cycle of electricity using natural gas can be seen below:

Gas Exploration Drilling Processing Gas Transport and Storage

CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, HC -drilling fluids and muds

-CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, HC, -waste -waste water -land use -leakage of Nat Gas

-CO2, CO, NOx, SO2, HC, -waste -waste water -land use

This paper concludes that particulate matter and ozone are the primary sources of damage associated with the gas fuel cycle The extent of this damage is influenced by the population's size and proximity to gas power plants While the gas fuel cycle produces lower net CO2 emissions than other fossil fuels, it still emits more than renewable energy sources Additionally, significant environmental risks include the potential for pipeline fires and explosions, along with issues related to drilling mud.

The following is a table summarizing the results of recent studies

(MT CO2 equiv.) kt (IGCC)

Hydro

Hydroelectric power has long been viewed as a clean and environmentally friendly source of electricity However, recent critiques argue that it may actually represent one of the most damaging fuel cycles for the environment.

Despite growing environmental concerns, many still advocate for hydropower's role in future electricity generation Critics argue that environmental awareness may have exaggerated the negative impacts of hydropower, particularly in regions outside the US For instance, Malaysia aims to increase its hydropower contribution from 10% to 30% by 2020 Meanwhile, Pakistan possesses a substantial 40,000 MW of hydroelectric potential, yet only 5,000 MW has been harnessed, with plans for further development on the horizon.

Hydropower offers two significant advantages: it utilizes a renewable and inexhaustible fuel source that is readily available on-site, eliminating the need for mining or transportation, and it operates without combustion However, the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of hydropower plants differ greatly from those of traditional fuel cycles, necessitating careful attention to these implications Additionally, making a proper comparison between the environmental effects of hydropower and those of conventional energy sources can be challenging.

A study indicates that most major waterways in the United States suitable for hydroelectric generation have already been utilized, making the construction of new large-scale hydroelectric facilities unlikely However, there is potential for retrofitting existing dams and developing smaller diversion structures While the US has over 80,000 dams, only 2,500 currently have power facilities, suggesting that more than 77,000 dams could be harnessed for hydroelectric power development.

The Oak Ridge study entitled “Estimating Externalities of Hydro Fuel Cycles” was published in

1994 and deals with the environmental implications of these last two projects Much of the analysis in this report is derived from the 1990 Pace report The Oak Ridge study acknowledges

61 March, P.A Fisher, R.K It’s Not Easy Being Green: Environmental Technologies Enhance Conventional Hydropower’s Role in Sustainable Development Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 24 pp. 173-188 1999.

62 Adams, P Hydro’s Future in Canada International Journal on Hydropower and Dams Vol 7 Iss 3 pp 24-

63 Sharp, T Hymalayan Hydro on the Horizon International Water Power and Dam Construction Vol 52 Iss 9. pp 16-17 Sept 2000.

The article by Acreman (1996) discusses the environmental impacts of hydroelectric power generation in Africa, highlighting the potential consequences of artificial floods It emphasizes the need for careful management of water resources to mitigate ecological disruptions while balancing energy needs The study provides insights into the intricate relationship between hydropower development and environmental sustainability, urging for strategies that protect aquatic ecosystems and support local communities.

65 Zutshi, P Bhandari, P.M Costing Power-Generation – A Case of Large-Scale Hydro and Nuclear-Plants in India Energy Policy Vol 22 Iss 1 pp 75-80 Jan 1994.

66 Masjuki, H.H Choudhury, I.A Saidur, R Mahlia, T.M.I Potential CO 2 Reduction by Fuel Substitution to generate Electricity in Malaysia Energy Conversion and Management Vol 43 Iss 6 pp 763-770 April, 2002.

67 Bhutta, S.M Bhutta, N.M Opportunities and Challenges for Hydro Development in Pakistan International Journal on Hydropower and Dams Vol 9 Iss 1 pp 41-44 2002.

The Pace report has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it adopts an overly uncritical stance in its estimation of damages.

This study conducts a quantitative analysis of emissions during the construction phase of the fuel cycle While the economic valuation of life cycle impacts was addressed, much of the discussion remained qualitative A summary table highlights the emissions and impacts examined in this report.

 Temperature change; gas super saturation

 Change in Habitat/Human Environment from Altered Land Use – ecological impacts, recreational and cultural impacts

 Degradation of water quality and loss of fish and aquatic habitat from construction – ecological impacts

 Loss of fish and fish habitat impacts from flow alteration

 Changes in tail water quality and aquatic biota resulting from decreases in aeration

 Fish mortality from impingement and turbine entrainment

 Interference with upstream fish passage

This study highlights the improbability of new large-scale projects emerging in the United States in the future However, it emphasizes a quantitative analysis centered on the construction phase of these large-scale plants.

The diagram below shows a simplified version of the life cycle stages involved in the hydroelectric fuel cycle.

-suspended sediments -land use change -CO2, SO2, NOx, Part.

The emissions from the hydroelectric fuel cycle in this study can be seen in the following table:

Summary of Emissions from Hydroelectric Fuel Cycle (tons/GWh)

Emissions Secondary Emissions From Manufacture of

Materials for Hydroelectric Fuel Cycle

These values represent the emissions experienced in producing the materials to construct the hydroelectric power plant.

Oil

As of 1999, petroleum accounted for 3.3% of electricity generation in the US, with no new oil-based power plants constructed since 1981, according to an Oak Ridge study Despite this stagnation, the percentage of electricity produced from oil remains comparable to or exceeds that of certain renewable energy sources Furthermore, the environmental impacts linked to the petroleum fuel cycle are significant, warranting its consideration in future energy analyses.

The Oak Ridge study entitled “Estimating Externalities of Oil Fuel Cycles” was published in

In 1996, a study examined a proposed plant intended for construction in 1990, assuming the implementation of highly effective pollution abatement technologies The research meticulously broke down the fuel cycle into detailed stages for comprehensive analysis.

69 U.S Department of Energy Electricity Net Generation, 1949-2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/tab0802.htm.

Summary of Oil Life Cycle Stages

 Treatment and storage of crude at production sites

 Crude transport from production sites to central storage terminals

 Crude storage in central storage terminals

 Crude storage in refining plants

 Storage of residual oils in refineries

 Storage of fuel oils in power plants

A summary of the emissions, impacts and indirect impacts addressed at least qualitatively in this study can be seen in the following table.

(arsenic, benzene, boron, sodium, chloride, mobile ions)

 Offshore-produced water (oil and grease, benzene, bis(2- ethylexyl-phthalate), ethylbenzene, naphthalene, phenol, toluene, copper, nickel, silver, zinc, drilling muds, drill cuttings, HC

 global warming potential and other effects of CO2

 effects of SO2 on health, fertilization, on materials, on visibility

 effects of NOx on health, visibility, fertilization

 effects of particulates, on mortality, on materials

 acidic deposition on recreational fisheries, on crops, ozone on forests, ozone on materials, on crops

A summary of the results of this study in terms of emissions can be seen in the following table:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) tons/GWh 844

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) g/sec 39.63Carbon Monoxide (CO) g/sec 9.85

Nuclear

As of 1997, the United States had 107 nuclear power plant facilities, but no new construction permits have been issued in recent years, and there are currently no pending applications Meanwhile, other countries are actively building nuclear power plants, while some existing facilities in the US have undergone re-permitting.

Many nuclear facilities in the United States are approaching the end of their operational permits, prompting the reissuance of permits for an additional 20 years This trend is expected to continue as more facilities undergo similar processes to extend their operational lifespan.

The environmental life cycle of facilities, typically lasting around 20 to 30 years, may be impacted by potential expansions of existing plants rather than the construction of entirely new facilities Significant construction activities could be necessary within current plants to meet the requirements for re-permitting.

Nuclear power offers a significant advantage over fossil fuels by eliminating traditional pollutants associated with electricity generation; however, concerns persist regarding the treatment and storage of radioactive waste Historical analyses from the 1970s indicated that nuclear power generally poses less risk to humans and the environment compared to coal and oil Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge that while the risks of nuclear power are infrequent, their potential consequences can be catastrophic.

In the 1970s, two significant studies, Sagan '71 and Abrahamson '72, examined the nuclear fuel cycle The Abrahamson study identified three primary concerns: the potential release of radioactivity into the environment, the risk of nuclear fuel diversion for weaponization leading to proliferation by various groups, and the societal changes necessary to address these issues.

Since the 1990s, however, very little assessment has been done in the US 73 However, throughout the rest of the world, many studies have been published and the environmental

70 Cohon, J Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Personal Communication 2002.

71 Sagan, L.A Human Costs of Nuclear Power Science Vol 177 pp 487-493 1972.

72 Abrahamson, D.E Environmental and Social Issues Associated With the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Energy and the Environment: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Proceedings of a Conference Geological Survey of Canada Atlanta, GA, USA Pp 178-196 1976.

The ongoing investigation into the consequences of nuclear power remains crucial, particularly in light of its continued utilization A comparative assessment of the environmental and health impacts of various electricity-generating systems highlights the importance of understanding these implications Research by Rashad, Hammad, and others in "Applied Energy" emphasizes the need for thorough evaluation of nuclear power's effects on both the environment and public health, ensuring informed decision-making in energy policies.

In countries like Korea there is a lack of domestic energy and therefore, different consideration of fuel options occur than in the US 80

A comprehensive review has been undertaken to assess the contrasting perspectives on the role of nuclear power in future electricity generation This analysis examines arguments from both proponents and opponents while also showcasing emerging technologies that may support the continued relevance of nuclear energy in the future.

The 1995 Oak Ridge study, "Estimating Externalities of Nuclear Fuel Cycles," examined two hypothetical pressurized water reactor plants, representing typical technology used in the US today Although not cutting-edge, the study approached the analysis as if a new plant utilizing this technology were being constructed.

The nuclear fuel cycle encompasses several key stages, including uranium mining and milling, conversion to uranium hexafluoride, enrichment, fabrication into fuel elements, and utilization in power plants to generate electricity Following power generation, the cycle concludes with power plant decommissioning and the disposal of spent fuel, marking the end of the fuel's life cycle.

The study highlights the potential release of radioactive material at any stage of the life cycle, emphasizing the distinct impacts compared to other fuel cycles It categorizes the analysis into normal operation and severe accident scenarios Recent developments in nuclear waste disposal and security discussions regarding potential attacks on nuclear facilities are also noted Furthermore, ongoing debates about the environmental implications of nuclear waste disposal in the US could significantly enhance the findings of this report in future research.

Biomass

74 Wu, Z.X Siddiqi, T.A The Role of Nuclear-Energy in Reducing the Environmental Impacts of China Energy Use Energy Vol 20 Iss 8 pp 777-783 Aug 1995

75 Gulden, W Cokk, I Marback, G Raeder, J Petti, D Seki, Y An update of Safety and Environmental Issues for Fusion Fusion Engineering and Design Vol 51-52 pp 419-427 Nov 2000.

76 Fisk, D.J The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Power Nuclear Energy – Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society Vol 39 Iss 2 pp 123-127 April 1999.

77 Al-Rashdan, D Al-Kloub, B Dean, A Al-Shemmeri, T Environmental Impact Assessment and Ranking the Environmental Projects in Jordan European Journal of Operational Research Vol 118 Iss 1 pp 30-45 Oct. 1999.

78 Aumonier, S Life Cycle Assessment, Electricity Generation and Sustainability Nuclear Energy Vol 37 No.

79 Ion, S.E Bonser, D.R Fuel Cycels of the Future Nuclear Energy – Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society Vol 36 Iss 2 pp 127-130 Apr 1997.

80 Lee, Y.E Lee, K.J Lee, B.W Environmental Assessment of Nuclear Power Generation in Korea Progress in Nuclear Energy Vol 37 no 1-4 pp 113-118 2000.

81 Beck, P.W Nuclear Energy in the Twenty-First Century: Examination of a Contentious Subject Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 24 pp 113-137 1999.

Biomass is a renewable energy with a lot of potential for replacing a portion of the current electricity production 82

The scientific community is increasingly interested in this fuel cycle as a viable option for electricity generation However, significant controversy surrounds the scientific evaluation of this fuel cycle, leading to a surge in recent studies aimed at assessing its environmental implications.

A study comparing an integrated gasification combined cycle plant using dedicated energy crops, such as poplar short rotation forestry, to a conventional power plant confirmed findings from the Oak Ridge study, demonstrating that CO2 emissions from biomass combustion are equivalent to CO2 absorption during plant growth The research concluded that biomass has a lower environmental impact across various eco-indicators, although it acknowledged that modifications in biomass production processes could further reduce this impact The most significant environmental effects were linked to the use of chemicals and fertilizers, suggesting the need for optimization Additionally, the study recommended using biodiesel in agricultural machinery to decrease CO2 emissions, highlighting the effective presentation of eco-indicators throughout the research.

A study utilizing a life cycle analysis method evaluated the sustainability of ten potential energy crops across four European regions, including rape seed, sugar beet, winter wheat, silage maize, hemp, miscanthus, poplar, willow, and grass fallow The findings indicated that using these crops for electricity generation is more ecologically and socio-economically favorable than using them as transport fuels Specifically, annual crops like hemp should be prioritized for electricity production in the Netherlands due to their ecological and economic benefits Additionally, the study highlighted the necessity of financial incentives to enhance the competitiveness of these crops as fuels for electricity generation.

A study in the Netherlands examined the externalities of biomass electricity production compared to coal power generation, focusing on economic activity and employment impacts through input/output and multiplier tables The findings revealed that the average private costs associated with biomass were nearly twice as high as those for coal power generation.

The analysis of the coal fuel cycle focused on the indirect economic effects and CO2 emissions of coal and another fuel type, intentionally excluding coal mining from the evaluation, which may have influenced the overall results.

82 Wyman, C.E Biomass Ethanol: Technical Progress, Opportunities, and Commercial Challenges Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 24 pp 189-226 1999.

83 Rafaschieri, A Rapaccini, M Manfrida, G Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Production From Poplar Energy Crops Compared with Conventional Fossil Fuels Energy Conversion and Management Vol 40 pp 1477-

84 Hanegraaf, M.C Biewinga, EE Van der Bijl, G Assessing the Ecological and Economic Sustainability of Energy Crops Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 15 pp 345-355 1998.

The study by Faaij et al (1998) analyzes the externalities associated with biomass-based electricity production in the Netherlands, comparing it to coal power generation The research highlights the environmental impacts, economic factors, and social considerations of biomass energy, emphasizing its potential benefits over traditional coal power The findings suggest that while biomass can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a comprehensive assessment of its external costs is essential for informed energy policy decisions.

Numerous studies examine the greenhouse gas emissions associated with biomass fuel cycles, emphasizing the importance of ecological and socio-economic sustainability in understanding these cycles Comparative analyses have been conducted on co-combustion of various biofuels with hard coal, as well as the electricity production from hard coal alone Additionally, research has also contrasted biomass with both coal and natural gas.

The 1998 Oak Ridge study, "Estimating Externalities of Biomass Fuel Cycles," examined two hypothetical biomass plants and highlighted how assessing the costs and benefits of externalities could alter the perceived potential of biomass fuel.

The impacts considered in this study include the following:

Tree Plantations  change in habitat from altered land uses

 health risks to members of public Truck Traffic  Truck traffic

Biomass Combustion  ozone on agricultural crops

The study revealed significant differences in damages and externalities across various sites, with benefits from erosion reduction varying by a factor of three, and highlighted the advantages of advanced biomass conversion technologies, which can significantly lower NOx emissions compared to traditional wood burners Additionally, the biomass fuel cycle was found to have near-zero CO2 emissions Consequently, the study concluded that biomass is a more environmentally friendly fuel cycle than fossil fuels in terms of its impact on global climate change.

86 Jungmeier, G Spitzer, J Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Bioenergy From Agriculture Compared to Fossil Energy for Heat and Electricity Supply Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Vol 60 Iss 1-3 pp 267-273 2001.

The study by Spath and Mann evaluates the net energy and global warming potential of coal-fired electricity with CO2 sequestration in comparison to biomass power, utilizing a life cycle approach Presented at the 5th Biomass Conference of the Americas in Orlando, FL, this research highlights the environmental impacts and energy efficiency of these energy sources, contributing to the ongoing discussion on sustainable energy solutions.

88 Hartmann, D Kaltschmitt, M Electricity Generation From Solid Biomass Via Co-combustion with Coal – Energy and Emission Balances From a German Case Study Biomass and BioEnergy Vol 16 pp 397-406 1999.

89 Spath, P.L Mann, M K Life Cycle Assessment Comparisons of Electricity from Biomass, Coal and NaturalGas Conference: 5 th Biomass Conference of the Americas, Orlando, FL (Usa), 17-21 September 2000.

Wind

Wind power has been harnessed by humanity for thousands of years, with small-scale electricity generation beginning in the early to mid-1900s By 1995, the United States had approximately 17,000 commercial wind turbines, primarily converting wind energy into DC current One of the key benefits of wind energy is its lack of harmful emissions during electricity generation However, several challenges must be addressed for large-scale implementation, including the uneven distribution of wind resources, variable wind speeds, and the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing wind turbines and the land they occupy.

A recent review aimed to clarify the uncertainties and variability in environmental impact results from prior studies on wind turbines The study includes a comprehensive table detailing various aspects of these studies, such as the year, location, system type (conceptual or operational), energy and CO2 intensity, power rating, system lifetime, load factor, analysis type, scope, turbine specifications, and notable remarks Despite the similarity in structure and technology of modern wind turbines globally, the life cycle assessments vary significantly due to differences in material content evaluation, national fuel mixes, and methodological approaches To reduce these uncertainties, the study recommends adopting input-output based hybrid techniques and implementing standardized assessment methods.

A general review of the technology, design, trends and their subsequent environmental impact have also been conducted 92

Solar

The sun serves as the Earth's primary energy source, making it essential to explore its potential for fulfilling global electricity needs.

90 Hazen, M.E Alternative Energy: An Introduction to Alternative & Renewable Energy Sources Prompt Publications 1996.

91 Lenzen, M Munksgaard, J Energy and CO 2 Life-Cycle Analyses of Wind Turbines – Review and Applications. Renewable Energy Vol 26 Iss 3 pp 339-362 2002

92 McGowan, J.G Connors, S.R Windpower: A Turn of the Century Review Annual Review of Energy and theEnvironment Vol 25 pp 147-197 2000.

The sun emits approximately 2.1 x 10^15 kWh of energy daily in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be harnessed through solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies Solar thermal systems utilize this radiation to heat water or generate steam, while photovoltaic systems convert sunlight directly into electricity A key advantage of solar energy is that its conversion process produces no harmful emissions; however, environmental concerns arise from the manufacturing and disposal of solar cells and related equipment Currently, solar energy is not widely implemented on a large scale, making it challenging to evaluate its life cycle impacts compared to conventional fuels Many studies focus on the contribution of fuel cycles to global warming, but failing to consider other environmental effects, such as the use of toxic chemicals in solar product manufacturing, may lead to misleading conclusions about their overall environmental impact.

Numerous studies have sought to assess the environmental impacts of various electricity generation methods, comparing them to the effects of conventional electricity generation that relies on fossil fuels like coal.

A study conducted a life cycle analysis to assess the atmospheric pollutants emitted during the manufacturing of solar water heating systems, comparing these emissions to those from conventional power plants in Greece The findings revealed that the gaseous pollutant emissions from producing solar water heating systems are significantly lower than those associated with traditional electricity generation methods.

A recent study assessed the environmental life cycle of a nanocrystalline dye-sensitized solar cell in comparison to a natural gas combined cycle power plant, specifically analyzing CO2 and SO2 emissions per kWh The findings revealed that the gas power plant emitted nearly ten times more CO2 than the solar cell Additionally, the research highlighted that the primary environmental impact of the solar cell originated from the energy consumed during the production of the solar cell module.

A recent study analyzed the life cycle energy costs of photovoltaic generators in comparison to traditional fuel generators, such as kerosene and diesel The findings revealed that, based on current market conditions, photovoltaic systems offer a more cost-effective energy solution over their lifespan.

93 Hazen, M.E Alternative Energy: An Introduction to Alternative & Renewable Energy Sources Prompt Publications 1996.

94 Hazen, M.E Alternative Energy: An Introduction to Alternative & Renewable Energy Sources Prompt

95 Norton, B Eames, P.C Lo, S.N.G Full-Energy Chain Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions For Solar Thermal Electric Power Generation Systems Renewable Energy Vol 15 Iss 1-4 pp 131-136 Sep-Dec 1998.

96 Mirasgedis, S Diakoulaki, D Assimacopoulos, D Solar Energy and the Abatement of Atmospheric Emissions. Renewable Energy Vol 7 no 4 pp 329-338 1996.

A study by Greijer et al (2001) highlights the environmental benefits of electricity generation using nanocrystalline dye-sensitized solar cells, indicating that these photovoltaic systems can be as cost-effective or even cheaper than traditional fuel generators This finding underscores the potential of renewable energy sources in reducing environmental impact while maintaining economic viability.

A recent study examined the environmental impact of electric power plants, creating a global warming effect index that summarizes emissions contributing to global warming throughout a power plant's lifespan The findings revealed that a medium-sized photovoltaic plant (1MW capacity) generates a global warming effect that is eight times lower than that of a coal plant over its operational life.

Photovoltaic (PV) power systems raise concerns regarding the toxic and flammable gases used in manufacturing, such as silane, phosphine, germane, and cadmium While recycling cell materials is feasible, the environmental implications must be carefully evaluated Additionally, the depletion of rare materials and the use of hazardous compressed gases in PV production are significant issues The trend towards thinner, more efficient cells reduces material usage, yet other greenhouse gases like SF6 and CF4 remain in manufacturing processes Energy consumption during production is the primary contributor to emissions, with the fuel mix for electricity varying by location A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of solar systems should incorporate system integration aspects, including energy storage and trade dynamics The Utrecht Workshop concluded that solar energy's environmental impacts are minimal compared to fossil fuels, focusing on energy use, resource depletion (notably indium and silver), climate change, health and safety risks from hazardous material releases, waste management, and land use This highlights the necessity of a life-cycle approach to assess the environmental aspects of PV power systems, as most impacts occur outside the operational phase.

The study on PV power systems highlights that current environmental control technologies effectively manage waste and emissions during production and end-of-life processes It concludes that the immediate health and ecological risks associated with PV module production and operation are minimal and manageable Key factors influencing energy pay-back times include cell technology, application, and irradiation, with recent data indicating that while energy pay-back times for current systems can be high, they remain well below the expected lifespan of PV systems Previous life cycle assessments (LCA) identified that most emissions stem from the electricity used in PV production, emphasizing that the comparison baseline significantly affects results For instance, comparing emissions from a PV power plant to an older coal-fired plant reveals substantial emission savings compared to a comparison with a new natural gas power plant.

98 Pacca, S Horvath, A Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building and Operating Electric Power Plants Submitted for Publication 2002.

A recent study revealed that the health and safety risks associated with solar energy systems significantly exceed those linked to conventional or nuclear fuel technologies.

A new solar chimney project is being developed in Australia, promising distinct environmental benefits compared to earlier solar technologies, particularly if implemented on a large scale Conducting a life cycle analysis of this innovative technology will shed light on its potential for renewable energy, address related infrastructure challenges, and evaluate its competitiveness within the renewable fuels sector.

The following is a summary of recent studies

8.0 Conclusions (This still needs to be re-written!)

Extensive research has been conducted on the life cycle analysis (LCA) of electricity, establishing a foundational framework and methodology for assessing environmental impacts associated with different fuel cycles This body of work is crucial for informing current discussions on the ecological implications of electricity production While existing studies have thoroughly evaluated various fuel cycles, there is room for improvement in future research by integrating the best practices from prior analyses It is essential to align these studies with contemporary policy and decision-making questions regarding fuel selection and electricity generation technologies Additionally, addressing previously overlooked impacts and employing the eiolca method will enhance the LCA's relevance and provide more insightful results.

99 Hartman, J Structures: Solar Structure Would Be World’s Tallest Civil Engineering Vol 72 No 4 April 2002.

Horvath Proops Oak Ridge Pacca

Wind Solar Hydroelectric Natural Gas

Comparison of Emissions (tons/GWh) - Other Fuels

1 Abrahamson, D.E Environmental and Social Issues Associated With the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Energy and the Environment: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Proceedings of a Conference Geological Survey of Canada Atlanta, GA, USA Pp 178-196 1976.

2 Acreman, M.C Environmental Effects of Hydro-Electric Power Generation in Africa and the Potential for Artificial Floods Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and

Environmental Management Vol 10 Iss 6 pp 429-435 Dec 1996.

3 Adams, P Hydro’s Future in Canada International Journal on Hydropower and Dams Vol.

4 Al-Rashdan, D Al-Kloub, B Dean, A Al-Shemmeri, T Environmental Impact

Assessment and Ranking the Environmental Projects in Jordan European Journal of

Operational Research Vol 118 Iss 1 pp 30-45 Oct 1999.

5 Alternative Energy Institute, Inc Coal Fact Sheet 2002 http://www.altenergy.org/2/nonrenewables/fossil_fuel/facts/coal/coal.html.

6 Association of American Railroads Policy & Economics Department Industry Statistics

2000 Class I Railroads http://www.aar.org/PubCommon/Documents/AboutTheIndustry/Statistics.pdf.

7 Aumonier, S Life Cycle Assessment, Electricity Generation and Sustainability Nuclear Energy Vol 37 No 5 pp 295-302 October, 1998.

8 Beck, P.W Nuclear Energy in the Twenty-First Century: Examination of a Contentious Subject Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 24 pp 113-137 1999.

9 Bhutta, S.M Bhutta, N.M Opportunities and Challenges for Hydro Development in

Pakistan International Journal on Hydropower and Dams Vol 9 Iss 1 pp 41-44 2002.

10 Bjork, H Rasmuson, A Life Cycle Assessment of an Energy-System with a Superheated Steam Dryer Integrated in a Local District Heat and Power Plant Drying Technology Vol

11 Bolin, B The Impact of Production and Use of Energy On the Global Climate Annual Review of Energy Vol 2 pp 197-226 1977.

12 Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2000 http://www.bts.gov/FOTD/archive0202.html

13 Carnevali, D Suarez, C.E Electric Power and the Environment: An Analysis of Pollutant Emissions at Argentine State-Owned Electric Power Stations Natural Resources Forum Vol 15 Iss 3 pp 215-219 Aug 1991.

14 Comar, C.L Sagan, L.A Health Effects of Energy Production and Conversion Annual Review of Energy pp 581-600 1976.

15 Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative, Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (http://www.eiolca.net/).

16 Carver, J.A.Jr Federal Land and Resource Utilization Policy Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 727-741 1976.

17 Center for Economics Research, Research Triangle Institute Incorporating Environmental Costs and Considerations into Decision-Making: Review of Available Tools and Software

A Guide for Business and Federal Facility Managers September 1995 http://www.epa.gov/ opptintr/acctg/rev/toc.htm.

18 Coal Age Coal Industry Hails Supreme Court Ruling March 2002 p6.

19 Cohon, J Nuclear Waste Management and Disposal Personal Communication April 2002.

20 DeCicco, J.M Bernow, S.S Beyea, J Environmental Concerns Regarding Electric Power Transmission in North America Energy Policy Vol 20 Iss 1 pp 30-52 Jan 1992.

21 Doctor, R.D Molburg, J.C Brockmeier Medelsohn, M CO2 Capture for PC-Boilers using Flue-Gas Recirculation: Evaluation of CO2 Recovery, Transport, and Utilization Argonne National Laboratory January 2002.

22 Doctor, R.D Molburg, J.C Thimmapuram, P.R Oxygen-Blown Gasification Combined Cycle: Carbon Dioxide Recovery, Transport, and Disposal Energy Conversion and

Management Energy Conversion and Management Vol 38 pp S575-S580 1997.

23 Dones, R Ganter, U Hirschberg, S Environmental Inventories for Future Electricity Supply Systems for Switzerland International Journal of Global Energy Issues Vol 12 no 1-6 pp 271-282 1999.

24 EIA-DOE Table 2 U.S Electric Power Industry Summary Statistics Electric Power Monthly http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmt02p1.html Viewed Sept 10, 2002.

25 El-Kordy, M.N Badr, M.A Abed, K.A Ibrahim, S.M.A Economical Evaluation of Electricity Generation Considering Externalities Renewable Energy Vol 25 Iss 2 pp 317-328 Feb 2002.

26 Energy Information Agency, US Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickcoal.htm.

27 Faaij, A Meuleman, B Turkenburg, W Van Wijk, A Bauen, A Rosillo-Calle, F and Hall, D Externalities of Biomass Based Electricity Production Compared with Power Generation From Coal in the Netherlands Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 14 No 2 pp 125-147 1998.

28 Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data 2000 http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Index/Default.asp

29 Fisk, D.J The Environmental Impact of Nuclear Power Nuclear Energy – Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society Vol 39 Iss 2 pp 123-127 April 1999.

30 Golueke, C.G., McGauhey, P.H Waste Materials Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp

31 Gregory, D.P Pangborn, J.B Hydrogen Energy Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 279-310 1976.

32 Greijer, H Karlson, L Lindquist, S-E Hagfeldt, A Environmental Aspects of Electricity Generation from a Nanocrystalline Dye Sensitized Solar Cell System Renewable Energy Vol 23, no 1 pp 27-39 May 2001.

33 Gulden, W Cokk, I Marback, G Raeder, J Petti, D Seki, Y An update of Safety and Environmental Issues for Fusion Fusion Engineering and Design Vol 51-52 pp 419-427. Nov 2000.

34 Hammons, T.J Environmental Implications and Potential of International High-Voltage Connections Electric Power Components and Systems Vol 29 pp 1035-1059 2001.

35 Hanegraaf, M.C Biewinga, EE Van der Bijl, G Assessing the Ecological and Economic Sustainability of Energy Crops Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 15 pp 345-355 1998.

36 Hartman, J Structures: Solar Structure Would Be World’s Tallest Civil Engineering Vol

37 Hartmann, D Kaltschmitt, M Electricity Generation From Solid Biomass Via Co- combustion with Coal – Energy and Emission Balances From a German Case Study

Biomass and BioEnergy Vol 16 pp 397-406 1999.

38 Hayhoe, K Kheshgi, H.S Jain, A.K., Wuebbles, D.J Effective Substitution of Natural Gas for Coal: Climatic Effects of Utility Sector Emissions Climatic Change Vol 54 Iss 1-2 pp 107-139 July 2002.

39 Hazen, M.E Alternative Energy: An Introduction to Alternative & Renewable Energy Sources Prompt Publications 1996.

40 Hendrickson, C.T Horvath, A Joshi, S Klausner, M Lave, L and McMichael, F.C

Comparing Two Life Cycle Assessment Approaches: A Process Model- vs Economic Input- Output-Based Approach, 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the

Environment, San Francisco, CA, May 1997.

41 Hendrickson, C., A Horvath, S Joshi and L.B Lave, "Economic Input-Output Models for Environmental Life Cycle Analysis," Environmental Science & Technology, April, 1998, Vol, 32 Iss, 7 pp 184 A-191 A.

42 Hendrie, J.M Safety of Nuclear Power Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 663-683 1976.

43 Holdren, J.P Coal in Context: Its Role in the National Energy Future Houston Law

44 Holdren, J.P Morris, G Mintzer, I Environmental Aspects of Renewable Energy Sources Annual Review of Energy Vol 5 pp 241-291 1980.

45 Ion, S.E Bonser, D.R Fuel Cycels of the Future Nuclear Energy – Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society Vol 36 Iss 2 pp 127-130 Apr 1997.

46 Inhaber, H Comparison of Risk of Various Electrical Energy Sources Thermal Reactor Safety: Proceedings of the American Nuclear Society/European Nuclear Society Topical Meeting, April 6-9, 1980, Knoxville, Tennessee pp 356-362 1980.

47 Inhaber, H Risk of Energy Production Rep AECB 1119 Ottawa, Ontario: Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada 1978.

48 Inhaber, H Risk with Energy from Conventional and Non-Conventional Sources Science Vol 203 pp 718-723 1979.

49 Jungmeier, G Spitzer, J Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Bioenergy From Agriculture

Compared to Fossil Energy for Heat and Electricity Supply Nutrient Cycling in

50 Kalhammer, F.R Schneider, T.R Energy Storage Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 311-343 1976.

51 Kalkani, E.C Boussiakou, L.G Environmental Concerns for High-Voltage Transmission Lines in UNIPEDE Countries Journal of Environmental Engineering pp 1042-1045 Nov.1996.

52 Karlsson, R Inventory Analysis Methodology for Electricity Doktorsavhandlingar vid Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola Iss 1409 1998.

53 Knoepfel, I.H A Framework For Environmental Impact Assessment of Long-Distance Energy Transport Systems Energy Vol 21 Iss 7/8 pp 693-702 1996.

54 Koner, P.K Dutta, V Chopra, K.L A Comparative Life Cycle Energy Cost Analysis of Photovoltaic and Fuel Generator For Load Shedding Application Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells Vol 60 Iss 4, pp 309-322 2000

55 Kostov, I An Input-Output Analysis of the Environmental Implications of Coal-Based Electricity Generation A Course Project – 45-931 January 2002.

56 Kruger, P Geothermal Energy Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 159-182 1976.

57 Kuemmel, B Nielsen, S.K and Sorensen, B Life Cycle Analysis of Energy Systems Fredriksberg Benmark: Roskilde University Press, 1997 ISBN 87-7867-031-4.

58 Lave, L B Freeburg, L.C Health effects of electricity Generation form coal, oil and nuclear fuel Nuclear Safety Vol 14, pp 409-428 1973

59 Lave, L.B Seskin, E.P Analysis of Association Between United States Mortality and Air Pollution Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol 68 Iss 342 pp 7 1973.

60 Lave, L.B Seskin, E.P Does Air Pollution Cause Ill Health? Biometrics Vol 28 Iss 3 pp 0 1972.

61 Lave, L.B Silverman, L.P Economic Costs of Energy-Related Environmental Pollution Annual Review of Energy pp 601-628 1976.

62 Lee, Y.E Lee, K.J Lee, B.W Environmental Assessment of Nuclear Power Generation in Korea Progress in Nuclear Energy Vol 37 no 1-4 pp 113-118 2000.

63 Lenzen, M Munksgaard, J Energy and CO2 Life-Cycle Analyses of Wind Turbines – Review and Applications Renewable Energy Vol 26 Iss 3 pp 339-362 2002

64 Linke, S Schuler, R.E Electrical-Energy-Transmission Technology: The Key to Bulk- Power-Supply Policies Annual Review of Energy Vol 13 pp 23-45 1988.

65 Major, S.J Natural Gas and the Environment: A Victorian Perspective International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Vol 17 Iss 6 pp 459-464 June 1992.

66 Mann, M.K Spath, P.L Life Cycle Assessment Comparisons of Electricity From Biomass, Coal and Natural Gas NREL Conference: 5 th Biomass Conference of the Americas, Orlando, FL (USA), 17-21 September.

67 March, P.A Fisher, R.K It’s Not Easy Being Green: Environmental Technologies Enhance Conventional Hydropower’s Role in Sustainable Development Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 24 pp 173-188 1999.

68 Masjuki, H.H Choudhury, I.A Saidur, R Mahlia, T.M.I Potential CO2 Reduction by Fuel Substitution to generate Electricity in Malaysia Energy Conversion and Management Vol

69 Matsuno, Y Inaba, A Betz, M Schuckert, M Life Cycle Inventory for 1kWh of

Electricity Distributed by 10 Electric Company in Japan NIHON Enerugi Gakkaishi Vol

70 McGowan, J.G Connors, S.R Windpower: A Turn of the Century Review Annual

Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 25 pp 147-197 2000.

71 Mirasgedis, S Diakoulaki, D Assimacopoulos, D Solar Energy and the Abatement of Atmospheric Emissions Renewable Energy Vol 7 no 4 pp 329-338 1996.

72 Morgan, M.G Barkovich, B.R Meier, A.K The Social Costs of Producing Electric Power from Coal: A First-Order Calculation Proceedings of the IEEE Vol 61 No 10 pp 1431-1442 Oct 1973.

73 Morgan, M.G Morris, S.C Meier, A.K Methodology for Characterizing Uncertainty in Estimation of Health Effects of Coal Fired Power Plants EOS: Transactions of The

American GeoPhysical Union Vol 57 Iss 12 pp 894-894 1976.

74 Morris, S.C Environmental Effect of Fossil Fuels Energy and the Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis Geological Survey of Canada pp 318-329 1976.

75 Morris, S.C Moskoqitz, P.D Sevian, W.A Silberstein, S Hamilton, L.D Coal

Conversion Technologies – Some Health and Environmental Effects Science Vol 206 Iss

76 Morse, F.H Simmons, M.K Solar Energy Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 131-

77 Moskowitz, P.D Morris, S.C Albanese, A.S The Global Carbon-Dioxide Problem – Impacts of United-States Synthetic Fuel-Fired and Coal-Fired Electricity Generating Plants Journal of Air and Waste Management Vol 30 Iss 4 pp 353-357 1980

78 Moxon, Suzanne Big Burden For Small Shoulders International Water Power and Dam Construction Vol 52 Iss 6 p 23 June, 2000.

79 Nieuwlaar, E Alsema, E PV Power Systems and the Environment: Results of an Expert Workshop Progress in Photovoltaics Vol 6 Iss 2 pp 87-90 1998.

80 Norton, B Eames, P.C Lo, S.N.G Full-Energy Chain Analysis of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions For Solar Thermal Electric Power Generation Systems Renewable Energy Vol

81 Norton, B Renewable Electricity – What is the True Cost? Power Engineering Journal Vol 13 Iss 1 pp 6-12 Feb 1999.

82 Office of Surface Mining Bureau of U.S Department of the Interior Tonnage Reported for Fiscal Year 2001 http://www.osmre.gov/coalprodindex.htm

83 Pacca, S Horvath, A Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Building and Operating Electric Power Plants Submitted for Publication 2002.

84 Pace University Center for Environmental Legal Studies, 1990, Environmental Costs of Electricity, prepared for New York State Research and Development Authority and U.S DOE, Oceans Publications, Inc., New York.

85 Pennsylvania Coal Association Bituminous Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/

86 Pennsylvania Coal Association Coal Mining in Pennsylvania http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/enved/go_with_inspector/coalmine/

Coal_Mining_in_Pennsylvania.htm

87 Peters, R Methods for Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Electricity Supply Options Performer: Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority P 46 1994.

88 Post, R.F Nuclear Fusion Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 213-255 1976.

89 Proops, J L, et al The Lifetime Pollution Implications of Various Types of Electricity Generation Energy Policy, Vol 24, No 3, pp 229-237, 1996.

90 Prusheck, R Future Coal-Fired Power Plants BWK Vol 53 Iss 12 pp 40-50 2001.

91 Rafaschieri, A Rapaccini, M Manfrida, G Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity

Production From Poplar Energy Crops Compared with Conventional Fossil Fuels Energy Conversion and Management Vol 40 pp 1477-1493 1999.

92 Rashad, S.M Hammad, F.H Nuclear Power and the Environment: Comparative

Assessment of Environmental and Health Impacts of Electricity-Generating Systems

Applied Energy Vol 65 Iss 1-4 pp 211-229 Jan-Apr 2000.

93 Rattien, S Eaton, D Oil Shale: The Prospects and Problems of an Emerging Energy Industry Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 183-212 1976.

94 Revkin, A.C Underground Fires Menace Land and Climate New York Times Jan 2002.

95 Sagan, L.A Human Costs of Nuclear Power Science Vol 177 pp 487-493 1972.

96 Sagan, L.A Health Costs Associated with the Mining, Transport, and Combustion of Coal in the Steam-Electric Industry Nature Vol 250 pp 107-111 1974.

97 Schmidt, R.A Hill, G.R Coal: Energy Keystone Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 p37-

98 Seip, K.L Thorstensen, B Wang, H Environmental Impacts of Energy Facilities: Fuel Cell Technology Compared with Coal and Conventional Gas Technology Journal of Power Sources Vol 35 Iss 1 pp 37-58 June 1991.

99 Sharp, T Hymalayan Hydro on the Horizon International Water Power and Dam

Construction Vol 52 Iss 9 pp 16-17 Sept 2000.

100 Smil, V Energy in the Twentieth Century: Resources, Conversions, Costs, Uses, and Consequences Annual Review of Energy and the Environment Vol 25 pp 21-51 2000.

101 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) http://www.setac.org/lca.html.

102 Somers, E.V Berg, D Fickett, A.P Advanced Energy Conversion Annual Review of Energy Vol 1 pp 345 – 389 1976.

103 Spath, P.L Mann, M K Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle Power Generation System NREL – Life Cycle Assessment September 2000 NREL/TP- 570-27715.