By DONALD S. KLINE
Associate professor of administration at Sangamon State University, he has degrees in business. Foreign trade, and social science. Kline recently taught a course dealing with the national and global energy situation.

Solid black gold: Illinois' coal and America's energy-economy-ecology dilemma

ON A CLEAR DAY, if you look carefully south from the State Capitol in Springfield you can see the twin, 500-foot stacks of the Kincaid power plant of Commonwealth Edison. The stacks and the plant are, in many ways, symbols of what The New York Times called America's "energy-economy-ecology" (EEE) dilemma.

A problem of systems
There is a growing awareness and, indeed, consensus among decisionmakers in both public and private organizations that the reductionist, fragmented way of viewing the world, people and problems will not do for the 1980's. In the last four years there has been a shift in values in our society from what scholar George Cabot Lodge calls "scientific specialization and fragmentation" to "a new consciousness of the interrelatedness of all things." In applying this systems approach, if one takes the long view of the solution to energy dilemma of the United States, the inevitable answer is atomic fusion power and solar power. These are 21st century solutions. I and many of you reading this will probably be dead by then. But how do we cope with energy demands of the next five or twenty-five years? In the short run, it appears that we will have to rely on some uncertain combinations of oil, gas, and—most important—coal.

But there are problems. U.S. production of crude oil topped out in 1970 and has been declining since. As energy demand increased during the 1960's, the necessary increase in oil imports gave the oil exporting nations (OPEC) an increased share of power in the global market place. Thus, the 1973 embargo and the establishment of the oil cartel has resulted in an historically unprecedented, massive shift of wealth from the United States, Japan and Western Europe to the oil exporters. The World Bank estimates that, at current prices, the cumulative wealth shift will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars by 1980.

Since this massive outflow could not be tolerated by our present financial system, "Project Independence" was articulated by President Nixon as a necessary solution. The notion of independence from Mideast oil sources has been further pursued by President Ford in his 1975 economic messages.

The short-term solution to the high cost of foreign oil lies in (1) the rapid development of existing domestic coal reserves and (2) a stimulus to U.S. offshore explorations for oil and gas. Obviously, the former is of greatest concern for Illinois.

Coal in Illinois
In 1973 coal production in the United States was just under 60 million tons. Of this, some 380 million tons came from just four states: Kentucky (127 million tons). West Virginia (115), Pennsylvania (77) and Illinois (62). But, future coal production comes from present estimated reserves. The table shows coal reserves, defined as coal in seams more than 28 inches thick if located deeper than 150 feet and in seams more than 18 inches if located 150 feet deep or less.

Coal deposits vary in quality from high energy anthracite to low energy lignite with the varieties of bituminous in between. As the table shows, lower energy coal (sub-bituminous and lignite) tends to be located in the states west of the Mississippi and high energy coal (anthracite and bituminous) in the states east of the Mississippi. Since the area of greatest industrial activity in the United States lies east of the Mississippi, this situation would appear favorable. But much of the high energy coal in the East contains high percentages of sulfur (see the chart on page 305), and sulfur is just what federal and state environmental officials say must not be released into the atmosphere in large quantities. Eastern industry then needs low sulfur Western coal, but these industries obviously are not pleased with the coal's relatively low energy content, not to speak of the transportation costs involved.

Currently, alternative solutions to this problem are complicated by two factors. First, on June 1, 1975, new air pollution standards went into effect. Second, a strip-mining bill, passed by Congress for the second time, was vetoed by President Ford for the second time. On June 10, 1975, the House of Representatives failed to override the President's veto by three votes.

Taking into account these two constraints, some of the alternative solutions to the EEE dilemma may be viewed as short-term and temporary. Low sulfur coal can be imported, at a high cost, from Montana. High sulfur Illinois coal can be "washed," to a degree to remove sulfur, before it is burned. Stacks can be built, at great expense, to the 800-foot level in order to dissipate emissions over a wider area. Other solutions are longer term and even higher in cost. Gas scrubbers can be installed. High sulfur coal can be gasified or liquified at the mine mouth.

Illinois coal is high sulfur
Most of Illinois' vast bituminous reserves have a high sulfur content. As noted above, high energy coals seem to be high sulfur coals and vice versa. The

302 / Illinois Issues / October 1975

The short-term solution to the energy crisis may be coal, and Illinois has 140 billion tons in reserve near the nation's industries. But, there is a dilemma. Examine the case of Kincaid power plant and Peabody # 10 mine

energy demands of the country are often in conflict with its environmental requirements, but never more so than in the matter of coal. When the Clean Air Act of 1972 was partially implemented in June of this year, high sulfur coal could still be mined at Peabody Coal Company's # 10 mine just west of the Kincaid plant, but could not be burned at the plant. What can the State of Illinois and Commonwealth Edison do about this perplexing situation?

Kincaid fossil fuel plant
The case for or against coal can be clarified by examining the specific case of the Kincaid power plant and the nearby Peabody Coal Company # 10 mine. It is necessary to look at the Kincaid plant in greater detail, both in terms of its similarities to and differences from other fossil fuel plants within the Commonwealth Edison system. Consider the similarities.

Kincaid, like all fossil fuel plants, generates large amounts of ash. Bottom ash is easily and periodically shoveled out of the boilers. Airborne fly ash is a different problem. All coal fired units have installed electrostatic precipitators which act as giant magnets in attracting ash particles. These devices remove 98 per cent of the fly ash. In newer installations the precipitators are above 99 per cent effective.

Coal-burning plants like Kincaid also face the problem of sulfur oxide emissions. Different grades of coal contain varying amounts of sulfur, as the chart shows. Some plants have switched to lower sulfur Western U.S. coal; others have installed gas-stack "scrubbers."

Another similarity of Kincaid and all fossil plants is their balanced draft boiler operations. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) legislation required these improvements to eliminate gases from the boiler room. This is an obvious gain in plant safety.

The Kincaid plant is also unique in several respects. First, Kincaid serves as a link to other regional U.S. electric power generating systems within MAIN (Mid-America Interconnected Network). The plant was built to and stands ready to handle excess energy demand from the South and East (American Electric Power system), the West (St. Louis system), and from the North (Commonwealth Edison).

Second, Kincaid gets its entire supply of coal from the Peabody Coal Company # 10 mine located just a few miles to the west. This mine is the largest in the world in terms of total tonnage taken out of one hole. By early 1974, after 23 years of operation, 100 million tons of coal had been mined. The average seam thickness is six feet and the depth of the mine below ground surface averages 300 feet. The length of the mine is 12 miles, and a 30-mile continuous conveyor belt allows direct movement of the coal from the mine to the Kincaid plant. The recovery rate of coal at Peabody is 52 per cent (compared with about 75 per cent in the strip mining operations of the West), but the remaining coal could be recovered via coal gasification at the mine mouth. Within the last six months a "Serpentix" system has been installed to allow the direct transfer of coal from the mine

Coal reserves by thirteen leading states by energy category, estimated 1965 (Billion short tons—2,000 pounds)

Western states	Anthracite	Bituminous	Sub- Bituminous	Lignite	Total
North Dakota	—	—	—	351	351
Montana	—	79	132	87	298
Wyoming	—	13	108	—	121
Alaska	2	21	71	—	94
Colorado	—	62	18	—	80
Missouri	—	79	—	—	79
New Mexico	—	11	51	—	62
Subtotal % of U.S.	2 13%	265 36%	380 98%	438 98%	1,085 69%

Eastern states
Illinois	—	140	—	—	140
West Virginia	—	103	—	—	103
Pennsylvania	12	58	—	—	70
Kentucky	—	66	—	—	66
Ohio	—	42	—	—	42
Indiana	—	35	—	—	35
Subtotal % of U.S.	12 80%	444 61%	— —%	— —%	456 29%

 

Thirteen states Subtotal	14	709	380	438	1,541
% of U.S.	93%	97%	98%	98%,	98%
TOTAL U.S.	15	729	388	448	1,580

SOURCE: National Air Pollution Control Administration Pub. No., AP-52, 1969.

October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 303

Coal-fired plants will have to meet federal standards on sulfur oxide emissions. Their choice is between importing low sulfur, low energy coal from the West or using Eastern high sulfur, high energy coal, but only after investing in a method to decrease the sulfur

face to the continuous conveyor. Such a system can now move coal around right angles within the mine, something not possible before the "Serpentix" installation.

The Kincaid plant uses some four million tons of high (about 4.2 per cent) sulfur, bituminous coal a year from the mine. This unique marriage of Kincaid and Peabody # 10 provides some insulation against the need to import Western coal if' (a) Kincaid receives a continuance of its emissions variance already granted by both federal and state environmental protection agencies, or (b) a coal gasification process can be installed.

Third, the function of the Kincaid plant is to "bulk transmit" electricity out of its own generating area. Other fossil plants in the Commonwealth systems were built in the areas they serve (e.g. the Powerton plant at Pekin). The Kincaid plant was built in 1967 at a cost of about $145 million, specifically to tie into the MAIN system. Because of this, extra miles of high voltage transmission lines had to be erected—345,000 volt lines into the MAIN network and 765,000 volt lines feeding into other transmission systems. Because so many other areas are dependent on Kincaid's power, it illustrates perfectly Lodge's point about "the interrelatedness of all things."

Finally, the Kincaid plant has its own cooling lake—Lake Sangchris.

There are no easy solutions
The federal EPA has established desired air standards for sulfur oxide emissions at two levels: (1) primary standards to protect public health at .03 parts per sulfur oxide for one million parts of air: and (2) secondary standards to protect public welfare at .02 parts of sulfur oxide per one million parts air. The "health" standard of .03 parts per million went into effect on June 1, 1975. This controls 90 per cent of all sulfur oxide emissions.

The Kincaid plant is the only fossil plant in the Commonwealth system which does not at present "wash" coal burned to reduce sulfur content. Early in 1975, the company obtained a "variance" to operate the Kincaid plant in the face of new sulfur oxide emission standards coming into effect in June. By the spring of 1976, it is planned that all coal from Peabody # 10 burned at Kincaid will be "washed." This will reduce the sulfur content by 0.6 to 0.8 of one per cent—close to the maximum permissible level under the new legislation.

Five courses to follow
Given the new federal emission standards, there are basically five courses of action for coal-fired plants: (1) burn low sulfur (less than 1 per cent content); import low energy coal from the Western states; (2) "wash" Illinois high sulfur coal to reduce sulfur content; (3) go to intermittent control systems of tall (over 800-foot) stacks; (4) rapidly install costly gas "scrubbers"; (5) remove sulfur by a "front-end" process of coal gasification or liquefaction (conversion to low sulfur oil).

Course of action No. 1 means that, as, the chart shows, much of Illinois bituminous coal cannot be burned and low sulfur coal must be imported at high cost. People in Illinois get clean air. What do people in Montana get? Here is the essential and crucial nature of a systems approach to the problem. Strategic decisions must be made which optimize benefits to society as a whole. The strip mining of Western coal for the benefit of Eastern states would have an unknown but significant impact on the fragile ecology of the great prairie states. The second veto of the strip mining bill by President Ford recently—he said we need the coal—may very well' result in Congress passing an even stronger bill by a margin that is veto-proof. The great argument was over how much coal production would be lost if the bill were passed. No one can know that. At this time, there are no plans to import Western coal for burning in the Kincaid plant. At present rates Peabody can produce coal steadily until 2070 A.D.

Course of action No. 2, "washing," as mentioned above, is to be implemented by spring of 1976. It is a solution which is uniquely suited to Kincaid. Peabody coal will still be shuttled by conveyor directly from the mine to the boilers, but it will be washed en route. However, "washing" coal will take large amounts of water, water which, starting in 1980 may be supplied by Lake Springfield II, presently in the planning stage. Furthermore, there are problems of potential water pollution and solid waste disposal with regard to the large amounts of toxic substances which would be "washed" out of the coal.

Course of action No. 3, 800-foot stacks, may appear to be the best solution, but in reality it only substitutes one problem for another. Pushing the sulfur oxide emissions to very high altitudes by the use of these tall stacks merely removes the pollutants from one small geographic area (Springfield) to another (depending upon prevailing winds—Eastern Illinois, Indiana, Northern Kentucky). This course of action may permit the burning of Peabody high sulfur coal and therefore aid the economy of the state by providing energy. This is the benefit, but the systems approach to the EEE dilemma requires that the cost to other parts of the system be considered as well as the costs to society as a whole. A few years ago, when Apollo astronauts flew over the United States they commented that large parts of the entire Colorado plateau were hidden not by nature's clouds but by man's smog. One explanation for the smog was the burning of coal in huge thermal generating plants in the Four Corners section of the Southwest to furnish electricity to the Los Angeles basin. Los Angeles had earlier decided that it did not want the pollutants in its air. In the finite system of our planet—referred to as Spaceship Earth—one of the basic laws of ecology is that "everything has to go somewhere."

304 / Illinois Issues / October 1975

Course of action No. 4. the "gas scrubber, "is currently a source of great controversy. The federal EPA has slated that "gas scrubbers" are the "most immediately promising control system for sulfur dioxide." The issue is, like most today, technically complex. First, chemicals such as calcium sulfate and calcium sulfite are formed in the scrubbing or washing process. These "outputs" of the process plug spray nozzles and valves and every few days must be removed by high pressure hoses or even a man with a hammer. In some extreme cases plant shutdowns are required. Second, sludge byproducts must be disposed of. This sludge contains high concentrations of sulfur and there is a strong probability that it will seep from the disposal beds into underlying water tables. Also, shipping sludge from urban areas is quite costly. Thus, air pollution could be—given unknown lag times—converted into dangerous water pollution. The question of the gas scrubber also arose in a controversy between City Water Light and Power (CWLP) in Springfield and the Illinois EPA over the construction of the Dallman III fossil fuel plant. One difference between CWLP and Commonwealth Edison is that, by Illinois law. publicly owned utilities like CWLP can burn only Illinois coal.

Still other problems Course of action No. 5, gasification or liquefaction, appears to be no better and may even be far worse depending on what kind of coal or lignite is gasified or liquified at which location. One obvious possibility is to gasify the subbituminous and lignite at the mine mouth in Montana and Wyoming. Two ecological problems emerge. The first is the devastation to the fragile lands mentioned earlier. Secondly, massive amounts of water are required for the gasification or liquefaction process. The water needed for a network of, say 50 of these plants, would very rapidly begin to compete with the agricultural water needs of the vast Western wheatlands. Further, as the water is circulated through the degasification system it too has to be purified or else it will rapidly contribute to water pollution in those lands. On the other hand if the "frontend" gasification of liquefacfion process were to take place in Illinois, the water requirements could be more easily met. There are many other problems surrounding the FEE dilemma not the least of which is capital financing. In February 1975, Commonwealth Edison announced cancellation of plans to build coal gasification facilities at both the Powerton (Pekin) and Kincaid stations. To attach gasification systems to the four generating stations at the two sites would cost $1.7 billion—three limes the estimated cost of a year earlier. Said James Fancher, director of air quality for Commonwealth Edison, "We still believe large scale coal gasification will prove to be technically and economically feasible if time is allowed for its orderly development. But it is clear that installing such systems on a crash basis during early stages of the technology would not be prudent." Mr. F.E. "Bud" Stauffer, superintendent of the Kincaid station, concurred, saying, "Gasifiers are not far enough along to process soft coal—a lot has to be learned." 

October 1975 / Illinois Issues / 305