A life cycle comparison of disposal and beneficial use of coal combustion products in Florida

Part 2: impact assessment of disposal and beneficial use options
REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS • COAL COMBUSTION • CASE STUDY

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Beneficial use of coal combustion products (CCPs) in industrial or construction operations has the potential to minimize environmental and human health impacts that would otherwise be associated with disposal of CCPs in the life cycle of coal used for electricity generation. To assess opportunities for reducing impacts associated with four CCP materials considered in this study, fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material, this paper reports results of expanding a life cycle inventory of raw material and emissions (part 1 of this series of papers) by performing life cycle impact assessment on five scenarios of CCP management.

Materials and methods

SimaPro 5.1 software (PRé Consultants) was used to calculate comparative environmental impacts of all scenarios using CML2001 and Environmental Design of Industrial Products 1997 midpoint impact assessment methods and Heirarchist and Individualist levels of the Eco-indicator 99 end point method. Trends were compared for global and local environmental and human health impact categories of global warming, acidification, smog formation, human toxicity, and ecotoxicity.

Results

In each impact category, beneficial use of fly ash, bottom ash, and FGD material resulted in a reduced impact compared to disposal of these materials. The extent to which beneficial use reduced impacts depended on several factors, including the impact category in consideration, the magnitude of potentially avoided impacts associated with producing raw materials that CCPs replace, and the potential impact of CCP disposal methods. Global warming impacts were reduced by the substitution of fly ash for Portland cement in concrete production, as production of Portland cement generates large quantities of CO2. However, for categories of global warming, smog formation, and acidification, impact reductions from CCP beneficial use are small, less than 6%, as these impacts were attributable, in greater part, to upstream processes of coal mining, transportation, and combustion. Human toxicity and ecotoxicity categories showed larger but more varied reductions, from 0% to 50%, caused by diverting CCPs from landfills and surface impoundments.

Discussion

When comparing beneficial use scenarios, the four impact assessment methods used showed similar trends in categories of global warming, acidification, and smog formation. However, results diverged for human toxicity and ecotoxicity categories due to the lack of consensus among methods in classification and characterization of impacts from heavy metal release. Similarly, when assessing sensitivity of these results to changes in assumptions or system boundaries, human toxicity and ecotoxicity categories were most susceptible to change, while other impact categories had more robust results.

Conclusions

Impact assessment results showed that beneficial use of CCPs presented opportunities for reduced environmental impacts in the life cycle of coal combusted for electricity generation, as compared to the baseline scenario of 100% CCP disposal, although the impact reductions varied depending on the CCPs used, the ultimate beneficial use, and the impact category in consideration.

Recommendations and perspectives

As regulators and electric utilities increasingly consider viability and economics of the use of CCPs in various applications, this study provides a first-basis study of selected beneficial use alternatives. With these initial results, future studies should be directed towards beneficial uses that promise significant economic and environmental savings, such as use of fly ash in concrete, to quantify the currently unknown risk of these applications.

Keywords

Beneficial use Coal combustion Coal combustion products (CCPs) Disposal Impact assessment Global warming potential 

References

  1. Alcordo IS, Rechcigl JE (1995) Phosphogypsum and other by-product gypsums. In: Rechcigl JE (ed) Soil amendments and environmental quality. CRC, Boca Raton, p 365Google Scholar
  2. Alva AK, Zhu B, Hostler HK, Obreza TA (1999) Citrus tree growth and fruit production response to flue-gas desulfurization gypsum amendment in sandy soils. In: Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds) Biogeochemistry of trace elements in coal and coal combustion byproducts. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2004) A life cycle inventory of coal used for electricity production in Florida. J Cleaner Prod 13(9):903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2008) A life cycle comparison of disposal and beneficial use of coal combustion products in Florida. Part 1: methodology and input and emissions inventory. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(3):202–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centrum Voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) (2001) Part 3: scientific background. In: Guinée J et al. (eds) Life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. A Report for the Ministries of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Economic Affairs, Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries, CML, Leiden University, The Netherlands, http://www.leidenuniv.nl.interfac/cml/ssp/projects/lca2/lca2.html. Accessed 23 May 2004
  6. Dienhart GJ, Stewart BR, Tyson SS (eds) (1998) Coal ash: innovative applications of coal combustion products. American Coal Ash Association, AlexandriaGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreyer LC, Niemann AL, Hauschild MZ (2003) Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001, and Eco-indicator 99—does it matter which one you choose? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(4):191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001) Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review. J Clean Prod 9:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99: a damage-oriented method for life cycle assessment. PRé Consultants, AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  10. Guinée J, Heijungs R (1993) A proposal for the classification of toxic substances within the framework of life cycle assessment of products. Chemosphere 26:1925–1944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Punshon T, Know AS, Adriano DC, Seaman JC, Weber JT (1999) Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) residue: potential applications and environmental issues. In: Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds) Biogeochemistry of trace elements in coal and coal combustion byproducts. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Spath PL, Mann MK, Kerr DR (1999) Life cycle assessment of coal-fired power production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldonGoogle Scholar
  13. Wenzel H, Hauschild MZ, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products. Vol. 1—methodology, tools, techniques and case studies. Chapman & Hall/Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, p 544Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations