Abstract
Purpose
This study’s aim was to understand the effect of mine characteristics on cradle-to-gate life cycle impacts of surface coal mining in the USA. Five bituminous coal strip mines were used as case studies. The study assessed the life cycle water use, land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts.
Methods
The study employed the general principles of the ISO 14040-49 series LCA standards, modifying them where necessary. The functional unit was defined as “one tonne of processed coal at the mine gate.” The relative mass–energy–economic value method, with some modification, was used to scope the product system. Data were obtained from environmental impact statements, coal mining permit applications, government reports, and published literature. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) included classification and characterization but no normalization, grouping, or weighting, to avoid ambiguity. In this work, mid-point characterization models were preferred over damage-oriented (end-point) characterization models because of their high levels of uncertainties. The LCIA also included sensitivity analysis.
Results and discussion
For the studied mines, life cycle potential water use impact is 178 l/tonne of processed coal at the mine gate. The potential land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts range from 3 to 10 m2 year/tonne, 97 to 181 MJ/tonne, 7.8 to 9.4 kg Sb-eq./tonne, and 38 to 92 kg CO2-eq./tonne, respectively. Land use impacts depend mainly on land for coal extraction activities and the climatic conditions of a region, which affects the vegetation recovery rate, following reclamation. Economies of scale significantly influence land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts. Geology, which determines stripping ratio, coal quality, and coalbed methane, affects land use, climate change, and energy use impacts, particularly energy for overburden removal, reclamation, and beneficiation.
Conclusions
The data show that large-scale mining operations have lower life cycle impacts due to economies of scale, which results in lower energy use. Also, land use impacts, measured by land occupation, are affected by geologic conditions. This study provides insight into sources of variability in life cycle impacts of coal mining. The authors recommend timely reclamation to minimize land occupation impacts, as well as adoption of large-scale production, where appropriate, for efficient use of land occupied by mine facilities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Stripping ratio is the ratio of overburden (material overlying the coal seam) to the amount of coal.
References
Aimone CT (1992) Blast design. In: Hartman HL (ed) SME mining engineering handbook, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Society for Mining Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, pp 722–746
Argonne (2009) Operating manual for GREET. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne
Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2005) A life cycle inventory of coal used for electricity production in Florida. J Clean Prod 13:903–912
Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitetteratur, Lund
Chinh LD, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S (2007) Integrated environmental assessment and pollution prevention in Vietnam: the case of anthracite production. J Clean Prod 15:1768–1777
Czaplicka-Kolarz K, Wachowicz J, Bojarska-Kraus M (2004) A life cycle method for assessment of a colliery’s eco-indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:247–253
Day SJN, Carras JN, Fry R, Williams DJ (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from Australian open-cut coal mines: contribution from spontaneous combustion and low-temperature oxidation. Environ Monit Assess 166:529–541
Ditsele O (2010) Application of life cycle assessment to estimate environmental impacts of surface coal mining. Missouri University of Science & Technology, Rolla
EIA (2009a) Electric power monthly: March 2009, DOE/EIA-0226 (2009/03). US Energy Information Administration website. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02260903.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2011
EIA (2009b) Annual coal report 2008, DOE/EIA-0584 (2008). US Energy Information Administration. Washington, DC. September 2009. Retrieved on 09/19/2009 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf
EIA (2009c) Annual energy outlook 2009: with projections to 2030, DOE/EIA-0383(2009). US Energy Information Administration website. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo09/pdf/0383(2009).pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2011
EIA (2010) Coal news and markets: average weekly coal commodity spot prices. US Energy Information Administration website. Retrieved on 04/01/2011 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html
EPA (2005) Emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. EPA420-F-05-001. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm. Accessed Mar 11, 2011
EPA (2009) The emissions & generation resource integrated database: eGRID 2007 Version 1.0. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnerships, Division, EP-D-06-001, April 2009, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/egrid. Accessed 16 Mar 2011
Froese RE, Shonnard DR, Miller CA, Koers KP, Johnson DM (2010) An evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation options for coal-fired power plants in the US Great Lakes States. Biomass Bioenerg 34:251–262
Guinée JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to ISO standards. Kluwer Academic, Secaucus
Infomine (2009) Mine and mill equipment cost. Infomine USA, Spokane Valley
IPCC (2007) In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New York
Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle inventory information of the United States electricity system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:294–304
Lindeijer E (2005) How far should we improve impact assessment methodology for metal mining? Illustrated with a biodiversity LCIA method. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life-cycle assessment of metals: Issues and research directions. SETAC, Raleigh, pp 123–131
Mangena SJ, Brent AC (2006) Application of a life cycle impact assessment framework to evaluate and compare environmental performances with economic values of supplied coal products. J Clean Prod 14:1071–1084
OSMRE (2008), Black Mesa project: final environmental impact statement, Vol. I, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Report #: OSM EIS-33. http://www.wrcc.osmre.gov/Current_Initiatives/Black_Mesa_EIS/BMEIS/BlackMesaProjectFinalEIS-VolumeI.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2011
PE International (2006) “GaBi Databases 2006”—documentation. http://documentation.gabi-software.com/ProfessionalDatabase.html. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Raynolds M, Fraser R, Checkel D (2000) The relative mass–energy–economic value (RMEE) method for system boundary selection—part I: a means to systematically and quantitatively select LCA boundaries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:96–104
Ruether JA, Ramezan M, Balash PC (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from coal gasification power generation systems. J Infrastruct Syst 10:111–119
Schreiber A, Zapp P, Kuckshinrichs W (2009) Environmental assessment of German electricity generation from coal-fired power plants with amine-based carbon capture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:547–559
Spitzley DV, Tolle DA (2004) Evaluating land-use impacts: selection of surface area metrics for life-cycle assessment of mining. J Ind Ecol 8:11–21
World Coal Institute (2005) The coal resource: a comprehensive overview of coal. Available at World Coal Institute’s website. http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/wci-publications/. Accessed 25 Feb 2011
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ditsele, O., Awuah-Offei, K. Effect of mine characteristics on life cycle impacts of US surface coal mining. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 287–294 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0354-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0354-y