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

Part 1: Methodology and inventory of materials, energy, and emissions
Case Study Reducing Environmental Impacts: Coal Combustion


Background, Goal, and Scope

Currently, only 40%, or 44.5 million metric tons, of coal combustion products (CCPs) generated in the United States each year by electric utilities are diverted from disposal in landfills or surface impoundments and recycled. Despite promising economic and environmental savings, there has been scant attention devoted to assessing life cycle impacts of CCP disposal and beneficial use. The objective of this paper is to present a life cycle inventory considering two cases of CCP management, including the stages of coal mining and preparation, coal combustion, CCP disposal, and CCP beneficial use. Six beneficial uses were considered: concrete production, structural fills, soil amendments, road construction, blasting grit and roofing granules, and wallboard.


Primary data for raw material inputs and emissions of all stages considered were obtained from surveys and site visits of coal-burning utilities in Florida conducted in 2002, and secondary data were obtained from various published sources and from databases available in SimaPro 5.1 (PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands).


Results revealed that 50 percent of all CCPs produced, or 108 kg per 1,000 kg of coal combusted, are diverted for application in a beneficial use; however, the relative amounts sold by each utility is dependent on the process operating parameters, air emission control devices, and resulting quality of CCP. Diversion of 50% of all CCPs to beneficial use applications yields a decrease in the total raw materials requirements (with the exception of gravel and iron) and most emissions to air, water, and land, as compared to 100% disposal.


The greatest reduction of raw materials was attributed to replacing Portland cement with fly ash, using bottom ash as an aggregate in concrete production and road construction in place of natural materials, and substituting FGD gypsum for natural gypsum in wallboard. The use of fly ash as cementitious material in concrete also promised significant reductions in emissions, particularly the carbon dioxide that would be generated from Portland cement production. Beneficial uses of fly ash and gypsum showed reductions of emissions to water (particularly total dissolved solids) and emissions of metals to land, although these reductions were small compared to simply diverting 50% of all CCPs from landfills or surface impoundments.


This life cycle inventory (LCI) provides the foundation for assessing the impacts of CCP disposal and beneficial use. Beneficial use of CCPs is shown here to yield reductions in raw material requirements and various emissions to all environmental compartments, with potential tangible savings to human health and the environment.

Recommendations and Perspectives

Extension of this life cycle inventory to include impact assessment and sensitivity analysis will enable a determination of whether the savings in emissions reported here actually result in significant improvements in environmental and human health impacts.


Coal combustion beneficial use coal combustion products (CCPs) disposal emissions coal combustion Florida Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    American Coal Ash Association (2003): 2001 Coal Combustion Product Production and Use. Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Halverson RR, Boggs B, Enyart J, Madden G (2001): Accelerated Nonpozzolanic Reactions of High Volume Coal Fly Ash Concrete. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Management and Use of Coal Combustion Products. American Coal Ash Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Stewart BR (1999): Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use. Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Combustion Byproducts. Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Gainer K (1996): Commercial Use of Coal Combustion Byproducts: Technologies and Markets, Report E-78. Business Communications Company, Inc., Norwalk, CTGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Iyer RS, Scott, JA (2001): Power Station Fly Ash — A Review of Value-Added Utilization Outside of the Construction Industry. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 31(3) 217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Dienhart GJ, Stewart BR, Tyson SS (eds) (1998): Coal Ash: Innovative Applications of Coal Combustion Products. American Coal Ash Association, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Joshi RC, Lohtia RP (1997): Fly Ash in Concrete: Production Properties and Uses. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Mills RH (1990): The Practitioner’s View of Fly Ash Utilization. Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal VI. Day RL, Glasser FP (eds), Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Pratt PL (1990): The Use of Fly Ash in Concrete: A European View. Fly Ash and Coal Conversion By-Products: Characterization, Utilization and Disposal VI. Day RL, Glasser FP (eds), Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Gadalla AM, Saylak D, Lindner AS (1990): Comparison of Strength Development in Waste Industrial Gypsum Produced by the Hemihydrate and Dihydrate Processes. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 73(8) 2255–2260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ferguson G, Levorson SM (1999): Soil and Pavement Base Stabilization with Self-Cementing Coal Fly Ash. Alexandria, VA: American Coal Ash AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Shirazi H, Eck RW (1999): Field and Laboratory Evaluation of the Use of Lime Fly Ash to Replace Soil Cement as a Base Course. Transportation Research Record 1652(1) 270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Butalia TS, Wolfe WE (2000): Market Opportunities for Utilization of Ohio Flue Gas Desulfurization and Other Coal Combustion Products. The Ohio State University; Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Butalia TS, Wolfe WE, Lee JW (2001): Evaluation of a Dry FGD Material as a Flowable Fill. Fuel 80(6) 845–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Taha R, Seals R, Tittlebaum M, Saylak D (1995): Environmental Characteristics of By-product Gypsum. Transportation Research Record 1486(10) 21–26Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Srivastava RK, Jozewicz W, Singer C (2001): SO2 Scrubbing Technologies: A Review. Environmental Progress 20(4) 219–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    National Gypsum Company (2003): 〈www.nationalgypsum.com/about/howmade.html〉 (accessed April 14, 2003)Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Bretz EA (1991): Innovation Key to Finding Unusual Ash Disposal Options. Electrical World 205, 56–57Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Demir I, Hughes RE, DeMaris PJ (2001): Formation and Use of Coal Combustion Residues from Three Types of Power Plants Burning Illinois Coals. Fuel 80(11) 1659–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2005): A Life Cycle Inventory of Coal Used for Electricity Production in Florida. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(9) 903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1994): Report on Combustion By-Products in Florida. Provided courtesy of the Florida Electric Utility Coordinating Group, Tallahassee, FLGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Adriano DC, Page AL, Elseewi AA, Chang AC, Straughan I (1980): Utilization and Disposal of Fly ash and Other Coal Residues in Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Review. Journal of Environmental Quality 9, 333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Khandekar MP, Bhide AD, Sajwan KS (1999): Trace Elements in Indian Coal and Coal Fly Ash. Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Combustion Byproducts. Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Mukherjee AB, Kikuchi R (1999): Coal Ash from Thermal Power Plants in Finland. Biogeochemistry of Trace Elements in Coal and Coal Combustion Byproducts. Sajwan KS, Alva AK, Keefer RF (eds), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Benetto E, Rousseaux P, Blondin J (2004): Life Cycle Assessment of Coal By-products Based Electric Power Production Scenarios. Fuel 83(7/8) 957–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    International Organization of Standardization (ISO) (1997): Environmental Management — Life Cycle Assessment — Principles and Framework. International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (International Standard ISO 14040:1997(E)). [26a] Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. [26b] Lifecycle impact assessment. [26c] Life cycle interpretationGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Goedkoop M, Oele M (2001): SimaPro Database Manual. PRé Consultants, Amersfoot, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2001): Allocation in ISO 14041 — A Critical Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 9(3) 197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Spath PL, Mann, MK, Kerr DR (1999): Life Cycle Assessment of Coalfired Power Production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Gagnon L, Bélanger C, Uchiyama Y (2002): Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options: The Status of Research in the Year 2001. Energy Policy 30(14) 1267–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Nomura N, Inaba A, Tonooka Y, Akai M (2000): Life-cycle Emission of Oxidic Gases from Power Generation Systems. Applied Energy 68(2) 215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Castellanos-Barzaga L, Neufert R, Kayser G, Markert B (2001): Life Cycle Assessment of the Selective Catalytic Reduction Process for Power Plants. Int J LCA 4(6) 329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Kim S, Dale D (2005): Life Cycle Inventory Information of the United States Electricity System. Int J LCA 10(4) 294–304Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Di X, Nie Z, Yuan B, Zuo T (2007): Life Cycle Inventory for Electricity Generation in China. Int J LCA 12(4) 217–224Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2003a): Emissions Data and Compliance Reports. Clean Air Markets-Progress and Results. Washington, DC, 〈http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/emissions/index.html〉 (accessed March 3, 2003)
  36. [36]
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2003b): Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program. Washington, DC, 〈http://www.epa.gov/tri/〉 (accessed March 16, 2003)
  37. [37]
    May J, Brennan D (2003): Application of Data Quality Assessment Methods to an LCA of Electricity Generation. Int J LCA 8(4) 214–225Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2003): Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2001. U.S. Emissions Inventory 2003, Washington, D.C. 〈http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsGHG EmissionsUSEmissionsInventory 2003.html〉 (accessed February 19, 2003)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Engineering SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations