EPA-450/5-83-005b
RESIDENTIAL WOOD AND COAL COMBUSTION
TASK 2
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FUEL USE PROJECTIONS
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FUEL USE PROJECTIONS
Prepared by:
DEL GREEN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Environmental Technology Division
P.O. Box 13446
Salem, Oregon 97309
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Research and Development
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Project Officer
Rayburn Morrison
February, 1984
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Del Green Associates, Inc., Environmental Technology Division, P.O. Box
13446, Salem, Oregon 97309, in partial fulfillment of Purchase Orders
No. 2D3878YASA and 4D1274NASA. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from Del Green Associates, Inc. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency. This report may be reviewed
at EPA libraries, or may be obtained for a fee, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/5-83-005b
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
1. Executive Summary 1
2. Introduction 2
3. Background 3
4. Residential Wood Combustion Use Projections 4
5. National Wood Use Projections 6
6. Regional Wood Use Projections 9
7. Residential Coal Use Trends 14
References 21
Personal Contacts 23
iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The most likely scenarios for residential wood and coal combustion
in the next 20 years show a slight increase in wood and a steady coal
use. Residential wood combustion is projected to increase from 0.7 to
0.8 quads in 1980 (quad - one quadrillion BTU's - 10*5 BTU's - 56 million
cords wood - 58 million tons wood) to about 1.0 quads in the year 2000.
Residential coal combustion is expected to remain at about 0.1 quads
until the year 2000 (1 quad - 45 million tons coal).
Projections for residential wood and coal combustion should be used
with caution. They are largely dependent on the relative cost to the con-
ventional fuels, which can only be roughly estimated at this time. A
major increase in oil prices or disruption in oil supplies would have
a substantial impact on both wood and coal combustion levels. Coal in
particular is available in relatively large quantities if there is a
demand for it by the residential sector. Wood, on the other hand, is
expected to be a supply limited resource, with increasing competition
for such uses as lumber, particleboard, pulp, and boiler fuel.
A major study by Norman Marshall (Dartmouth College) on residential
wood use nationally and by region has been completed, but is still under
review. It is expected to be available in January, 1983. This study
appears to be far more sophisticated than previous residential wood use
projections, and should be used as the most accurate projection for resi-
dential wood use. There are no major residential coal combustion pro-
jections known to be under development at this time, beyond the annual
projection done by the U.S. Department of Energy for all major fuels and
users.
-------
INTRODUCTION
This century has seen a steady shift in residential space heating
from coal and wood to oil, gas, and electricity. By the early 1970's, the
use of wood and coal in individual homes had virtually disappeared.
With the recent large cost increases and supply uncertainties associated
with the conventional fuels, however, many people have expressed interest
in switching back to coal and wood. This is of particular concern to
air pollution control planners, since these two solid fuels are associated
with substantial particulate, hydrocarbons (including polycyclic organic
matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (coal only) emissions, and
visibility reduction.
This report gathers together the various residential fuel use pro-
jections for the next 20 years for coal and wood, both on a national and
regional basis. The projections will be briefly evaluated as to the
major assumptions, and the major strengths and weaknesses of each pro-
jection. These, fuel use projections were located through a limited
literature search and by personal contact with the agencies or groups
most likely to have made such projections.
-------
BACKGROUND
Fuel use projections are made on a regular basis for the major fuels
and users by the U.S. Department of Energy. These projections are
generally based largely on economic factors, including projected energy
prices and estimated growth in the Gross National Product. Projecting
either residential wood or coal use with such economic factors presents
special problems. Both solid fuels have relatively high transportation
costs, which result in localized markets only. These local markets
make it much more difficult to determine national fuel use. Coal sold
for residential use is not tracked separately, making it even more
difficult to accurately project the use of this fuel. Wood has the
additional problem that much of the wood used is cut by the user, so
that it does not pass through even a local market where it could be
quantified.
A number of non-economic factors also can be expected to have
major impacts on projected coal or wood use. Negative factors include
the additional inconvenience and time required to burn the solid fuels;
the dirt and odors associated with wood and coal; the perceived pollution
problems and possible restrictions by air pollution control agencies;
and safety hazards from house fires and wood gathering and preparation.
Other non-economic factors can have the effect of increasing the
use of wood in particular. These include the positive feelings of
independence from oil and electric companies, the enjoyment of the
outdoors during firewood gathering, the aesthetic pleasure from a. fire,
and the value of the exercise involved.
The major area of uncertainty in all energy use projections is
the price and availability of oil. We are still feeling the effects
of major oil price increases and embargoes of the 1970's, in the shifting
of energy sources in various sectors. Further major disruptions or
price increases can be expected to cause further shifts in energy use
that are not anticipated in the energy use projections made to date.
For all these reasons, it should be understood that fuel use
projections for residential coal and wood combustion should be used with
caution. They are educated guesses of what will happen in the future
and are more useful as indications of general fuel use trends and the
major factors influencing them, than as actual predicted levels of fuel
use at any given time.
-------
RESIDENTIAL WOOD COMBUSTION USE PROJECTIONS
In these days of rapidly changing prices for various fuels, it is
difficult to predict the future use of even the conventional fuels
such as natural gas or oil. Predicting residential wood use includes
additional areas of uncertain data as well. Factors that will affect
the amount of residential wood combustion in each region include:
. How much wood is available "free" for the taking?
. How far away is the wood source (transportation costs become
become significant over 50-100 miles)?
. Is there a "woodburning ethic" which views firewood gathering
as recreational, or a positive responsible conservation measure?
. How much competition is there now and will there be in the
future for existing firewood (i.e. use of wood residue by pulp
or particle-board mills)?
. What value is placed on the additional time required by the
resident to heat with wood?
. How serious a problem do users consider the litter and dirt
which results from burning wood?
. How expensive are wood stoves, is there a tax credit for
installing them, and will pollution problems require more
expensive, cleaner stoves?
. How expensive is wood for those not getting it "free", and how
does this cost compare to that of gas, oil, and electricity
including rate of price changes for the various fuels?
. What are the heating needs for a particular area, including
weather, housing age, house size, number of houses?
. What changes in wood stove efficiencies, improvements in burning
practices, lowering of heating level expectations, and increase
in insulation levels can be expected over time?
What increases and geographical shifts in population are
expected?
. How much wood is actually being burned, and how much wood is
potentially available now and in the future for firewood?
-------
. What effect will rising costs and increased education about
combustion efficiencies have on fireplace use (common now, but
generally not an efficient heat source)?
. How secure are wood supplies perceived to be relative to
conventional fuel supplies?
. Will changes in national priorities for our forests (building
materials versus firewood versus wood fuel for power plants
versus wildlife) result in increases or decreases in fuel wood
availability?
An illustration of the limitations in accuracy of wood use
trends is the wide divergence of estimates of current wood usage. The
U.S. Forest Service estimated 1978 residential wood use at 0.12 "quads'
(quadrillion BTU's), with an unknown basis for this estimate1. The
U.S. Department of Energy estimated 1978 residential wood use at 0.6
quads, using wood stove sales and an average amount of wood burned per
unit . A Gallup survey of 3108 households resulted in an estimate of
0.9 quads wood burned in 1978 . This wide range and lack of agreement
on current wood use, which should be much better known than wood use
ten or twenty years from now, is an indication that any projection
should be used with care.
-------
NATIONAL WOOD USE PROJECTIONS
The two major groups showing a continuing interest in residential
wood use trends are the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE). The DOE makes regular reports on projected energy
uses for all significant fuels and users, as well as special reports
for specific uses. The USFS is interested in the significant demands
placed on American forests. Other groups sponsoring or making national
wood use projections are the Office of Technology Assessment (U.S.
Congress) and the Solar Energy Research Institute. The studies are
summarized in Table 1.
Four different studies sponsored by four different offices within
DOE over the last three years were found. These four studies showed very
different results, even for the 1980 figures (0.2 to 0.7 quads wood
burned - see Table 1). Assuming that the Gallup survey results showing
0.9 quads burned in 1978 is the most accurate estimate, and assuming
that residential wood combustion has not substantially decreased since
1978, the highest DOE projections are probably the most accurate of
these four DOE studies. Unfortunately, the group within DOE dealing
with biomass has seen considerable cuts in funding and high turnover, and
the person responsible for the higher projections is no longer at DOE, and
left no documentation behind as to the methodology he used in making his
estimate. This projection shows wood use gradually increasing from 0.7
to 1.0 quads by 2000, and then remaining constant for the following 20
years?. This leveling off is ascribed to wood supply limitations and
the inability to move wood long distances economically.
Another study, done by Brookhaven National Laboratory under contract
to DOE, is due in draft form in November, 1982. This study is reported
to be an econometric model which deals only with wood that is purchased
(it is assumed that the use of "free" wood will remain constant).
According to the Task Manager, Frederick Lipfert of Brookhaven, his
model is driven strictly by the relative price difference between wood
and other fuels and does not consider non-economic factors such as
inconvenience. David Moses is the DOE Project Manager for this wood
use study. The U.S. Forest Service published wood use trend data in late
1981 which appear quite low, showing an increase in wood use from 0.1
quads in 1980 to 0.3 quads in the year 2000. The basis for these figures
are past wood use trends, population and fuel price trends, and fireplace
and wood stove sales trends.
A much more sophisticated and detailed computer simulation model
has been developed by Norman Marshall (Dartmouth College) under contract
to the USFS. Marshall used a version of this model to project New
England residential wood use last year (see the following section for
-------
•
•
c
o
o
ai
•«->
o
a.
a;
—• o
o
§ «
OJ
-o
c
o
L.
»—
CO
e
o
u
3
O
1
41
«
3
U.
O
3
a
c
c
e
o
o
l/l
p
i
4
1
e
-•o -a
VI C 3
T3 4> 4^
C 4J ^
4-> 41 4
O P—
4) — p~
3 O. VI
4J p- C N
VI « 41 Q
«B 3 U. O
a. <»- 4-> ca
"S _ o
m 4J co co
CO u •»» JV.
— Q. — <
X
41
VI 41 1/1 (U o
a/ u O > >J
1/1 l/t I/I I/I •*»
2 O O
?
Norman Marshall
"An Assessment of the Forest and
Rangeland Situation in the U.S."
Energy From Biological Processes
o J; 4i 41 *<
,s E £.= Je 5
ifc-t 5 0.3--SS
. .,- 4j *- 4J »- i. vi j> c
&-«S « S-S.5..8
. _ 1_ C o — •» O <->•>.
-co."" <•> 4-i c o •— c
15 0 •» 0 T» 0 •» —
V, e "•- — • -p- «) I. •}
• CJ Ol.- -p- 41 4-1 OI Ol 3 S
T[ 1_ *" — WCCC1-4I
J S 41 '*"" 4ICO 4» <0 «•• •-
C 41 W O« «* » .C C •
1 U 01 W 3— .0 C U U V«P-
103 °* 5 3 3 .E S~
I "".5 .1? C -5 ^ T3 U I
4-1 C *- VI -O VI O •»
. 1. O IP *• 4JOCO
1 O *»• t» 41 •— £ O •»"• X P— O
0. 4-* 41 .C t3 3X**-*-
no.cs o» 4» ""^fi— *•**
34tO ••-I. VI <•- 4» P— 3 *»
5 > — x u < o u « i- u
o O ro o m
t
ca p** o -* o
i • • i i
O O
in o o PJ co f>
P-* *"*
<*-CO "O «J'— g «-> «-" 1- VI
O*^O « — ' O i« VI *^ 3
•O — vi E — 5 U C vi O
w-^-o^ "i«u •• o> ^
O -M 4) C <-> •— C*OI
4I4IVI ig vl»— ^-<^VIWC
L Q. Q. <0 E CO laS^C —
XE4I 41 -^Q. COC4ICC
, U1 OJ O 1- -O O U 41 U I. o
-O U U • <-" — U B V- 3 —
C -C Ol Vl-^ <-» O S 3 J3 "
4i vi*o-*- c «*v c.auu'Oia
i. Tg4j •»- ^-41 4*-*-O*—
•*-» CVI-OVIW *«L. >-3_»O3
4>« -^OO
4-* 4-*CO4> C O«^ WL.OIU-
•0 C — 0 — U S »•> CO.CCVI
— 4IXU4I O VI- 41 — COW
3 U 6 — £ C •O4J-— . U ,- W o — VI
0. UOI-lk.4-' ^ OVI>I U 41 «— «J 3
O 3UO^-O C OOC 334t«-*3O
00 CO CO f^ r<^
rr CO (>J — • — i
Ql C t_ 4) Q> ifc. >>t 4) *^ ^ i*- •" ••— *«• >« >^
O 44 ^ C ^ *-* i*» u CT> i/l C *-* *J **• ^ C **" Ql^~
^EC UJU3 O — C •— LU*oin O<«3vi OU-fl
Q 1/1 o ^- *-* ^ '^* i/> 6 ••" ••" E S Q.C-— o-^c: coO*J LIJ
OJl^^ O4JC O **- -— C OC-O--- O*«- is Q1*-!^
t— *f. t/lGC— QOO-< Q««t*-» Oo^^tO QO3
XI U L.
19 C ••- •«
41 fr- 1. L. 41
•— 3 O >-
C 40 4J 1- 13 *G -^ >~
•r- ^ ^ 4J o T 4J
n & -Soc
4-1 41 C 4I34I.-O
3 5 0 ^ — ^"J"
l/l 4J T3 L. O T3 O U. o 4J
•^> o O U -*• CO 41 41
•a — tvi a a.i/1 -o — :
— 4-1 OO 4> 4) • O O T3
.^4) uo» ec »-i « 4JQ6 »• ^ •a
C3 Ui — 3 C*-O. OC^-KAJ-»3V*
OU UO —l 4JTJ-— -^O
0.4* tu o ao viwcT€4>^-o
ajc co en vti.ciQ.c4jo
aeuj ujcvj — •
-------
discussion of this model). He has since revised the model and put in
data from different regions to come up with national fuel use trends,
as well as regional trends. This study has been completed, but is
undergoing review at this time and will not be available until January,
1983. It is expected that these results will be far superior to the other
estimates done to date.
The Office of Technology Assessment projects residential wood use
in 2000 to be between 1.0 and 2.0 quads, depending on governmental
support for RWC and conventional energy prices^. These projections
are reported to be based on wood stove sales, installation costs, tax
credit policies, and population trends.
The Solar Energy Research Institute presented testimony before
a Congressional Committee showing a rise in wood use to 1.5 to 2.0
quads in 1990, dropping to 1.0 quads in the year 20005. The 1990 figure
was developed using extrapolation of current trends, with the subsequent
drop attributed to increasing competition for wood and increased stove
efficiencies.
-------
REGIONAL WOOD USE PROJECTIONS
Only two major regional studies were found - Marshall's study on
New England** and Battelle Northwest study on the Pacific Northwest
done for DOE. In addition, EPA Region X conducted a study on three
Pacific Northwest cities and the Bonneville Power Administration did
a study on electrically heated homes for the Pacific Northwest.
As previously discussed, the Marshall computer simulation model was
the most complex encountered. The major assumptions of this model are
listed in Table 2. A disadvantage to this model is that factors
affecting wood supply are not included.
Marshall's wood use projections for New England show a slight decrease
in wood use by 1990, with an increase after that. The projected decrease
by 1990 is the result of increased wood stove efficiency and improved
insulation. Marshall notes that under the most likely scenario, wood
fuel prices will increase in real terms 50% by the year 2000, whereas
conventional fuel prices will increase by 90%. The growth in wood stove
use is slowed by several factors: later installations are presumed to
be more expensive (i.e., the cheaper installations occur first); the
availability of "free" wood will decrease; and people not wanting the
inconvenience of wood heating will resist switching to wood (i.e.,
those not minding the inconvenience will switch earlier).
One of the significant advantages of Marshall's model is the good
data available for actual wood use in New England in the 1970's,
gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This data allows
the model to be calibrated (or tested), by starting with 1970 data and
comparing the models' projections for 1970-1980 with the actual levels
of woodburning that occurred.
It is interesting to compare Marshall's projections in the year
2000 with the national projections. According to the DOE's Estimates
of U.S. Wood Energy Consumption from 1949 to 1981 , New England burned
about 7.7% of the residential wood used in the U.S. as of 1980.
Assuming that New England maintains that share until 2000, then Marshall's
projections for New England correspond to a national total of 1.0 quads
in the year 2000. This is the same figure as several of the more likely
national projections previously discussed.
Marshall did run his computer model with several variations or
possible scenarios to determine the model sensitivity in final wood use
figures. For example, high and low conventional energy price scenarios
were used (DOE figures). These variations showed the year 2000 wood
use figures to be 64% higher (high energy prices) and 19% lower (low
-------
TABLE 2: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF WOODSTOV-2 MODEL BY NORMAN MARSHALL
Residential Sector
. Wood-heating equipment may be installed in new housing units or
retrofitted into existing housing.
. Decisions to invest in wood-burning equipment are made on the
basis of marginal costs and benefits.
. The decision to install wood heating equipment in new housing is a
function of fuel savings and non-economic factors.
The decision to retrofit wood-heating equipment in new housing is a
function of economic payback period and non-economic factors.
. The economic payback period is equal to installation cost divided
by annual fuel savings.
. Installation cost reflects the amount of the housing with installed
capacity, the fraction of the household's heating needs met by the
wood-heating capacity, and by the level of pollution abatement.
. The least expensive installations will in general be performed first.
Therefore, as the market is penetrated, installation cost increases.
. Early adopters with their own wood supply will have a lower per-
ceived wood-heating cost than later adopters who oust purchase all
of their wood.
. Non-economic factors incorporated into the model are convenience and
pollution.
Consumers for whom convenience is not a major issue will in general
install wood-burning equipment first. Therefore, as the market is
penetrated, inconvenience cost increases.
. Fuel prices, the size of the housing stock, heating efficiencies, and
household heating requirements are all exogenous inputs into
WOODSTOV-2.
Stove usage may displace a greater quantity of fuel than if the same
quantity of heat were provided by a central furnace.
(continued)
10
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued!
Coal Module
. Coal and wood are interchangeable fuels in many instances.
If wood-heating cost grows substantially above coal-heating cost,
many wood users may switch to coal.
Pollution Sector
Farticulates from air-tight stoves are significant potential sources
of emissions.
. Pollution regulation could take the form of either area bans or
performance standards for new stoves.
. Performance standards could increase the cost of installing wood-
burning equipment.
11
-------
energy prices) compared to the base or most likely prices. The results
from the alternate scenarios are presented in Table 3. When the number
of variables and assuptions that were used are considered with their
possible errors, it is clear that care should be used with wood use
projections.
Projections for three Pacific Northwest cities were made in 1981
under a contract from EPA Region X. These projections were for Portland,
Oregon, Seattle and Spokane, Washington. Norman Marshall's model was
used. These projections show a substantial increase in the early 1980's,
followed by a slight decline by 1990, and then further increases
until the year 2000 for Portland. The Seattle figures predict a sharp
increase by 1985, followed by fairly constant annual usage through the
year 2000. The Spokane projections are for a slight increase by 2000.
The three regional studies discussed are summarized in Table 4.
12
-------
I
I
II
I
I
I
m
UJ
_ i
CD
•o
o
0
3
-0
4->
C
01
«4
u
•r"
I/)
OJ
f^
Ufc
•o
c
(Q
"01
c
LU
2
cu
z
i.
rt
°
i/i
c
o
• pat
. _i
+^
a
cu
••-5
O
i-
rt
m
1-
ra
f~
^M-
00
cr^
1—4
1.
>1
^
in
T3
10
3
o-
i.
>,
in
T3
Ct
U9
o
f-^
i_
>1
— .
in
T3
fO
3
o-
i-
>,
in
^•*
\^
O
IO
O
f— (
s_
>^
in
•a
Q
3
o-
I_
>>
in
T3
»i
(A
0
i— 1
s_
>,
-»»
in
-o
*O
3
cr
u
>i
in
-a
fj
10
0
l£>
r~^
O
CM
CM
^T
in
i£>
O
PO
IO
PO
oo
in
o
•*
CM
CO
,— t
IO
o
o
^1-
PO
ai
(/>
T3
CO
CM
«3-
O
IO
OO
CM
m
•<3-
0
CM
in
CM
co
«r
0
oo
IO
CM
in
in
O
CO
0
PO
in
at
u
•r«-
i_
a.
^
CD
s_
ai
c
UJ
2
O
_J
o
IO lO
o o
in CM
oo PO
PO PO
r»» 10
IO IO
o o
*r in
r-» 10
PO PO
r— «
oo
cn
in
at c
(J •!-
•^
i. 4-1
a. •,-
•o
>, 01
05 i-
S_ «_)
ai
c x
UJ (t>
i—
x:
cn a^
•- 0
I PO
r-.
PO
0
oo
o
CM
.
CM
C
o
4->
10
>
i-
cu
in
c
o
0
.c
CD
•r—
•^
ro
crv
O
in
^H
in
^r
r~»
O
CM
^>
PO
VO
o
ao
*r
PO
PO
IO
o
oo
^f
PO
at
o
i.
OL.
T3
O
O
3
S
O
— 1
PO
in
o
PO
cn
CM
o
m
o
P-.
r>.
CM
cn
^>
o
o
r»>
CM
IO
in
o
CM
«-H
PO
at
o
i.
a.
T3
o
o
3
.C
cn
O
ro
c
O
•r"
•M
Itt
1_
4->
at
c
at
a.
_
fO
o
o
in
r-.
O
in
•— <
^r
«r
10
0
in
in
PO
IO
in
o
o
i— i
PO
P~
in
0
cn
f— i
PO
E
at
JO
o
s_
a.
c
o
4->
3
_
O
a.
-------
in
C
o
u
co
•<—>
o
t-
a.
cu
i/>
=3
•a
o
o
LU 03
in
CU
oc
C
cu
-o
in
.f»
t—
>^
•o
3
+J
00
O LT)
co cn
0
cvj
CM
^^
^-j
•4-^
^.
0
ft
OJ
cr>
C\J
c
c
u
CL OO OO
O
m
vo
PO
O
vf
CM
ro
O
0
^f
CO
1
1
cu
z
J_
.^~
•* f~
CU (/I
0
in
*^-
*->
^
o
0-
o
--1
-t— '
^
o
Q.
O
OO
^J-
-4_>
t.
O
0-
o
^^
CO
s_
o
Q.
J
O
•u in C
t_> •"-> C7
CO 4-1 (U
C CU S-
C V) O
O 3
O .C
O ^3
•» (^ c
"O (/> rt3
CZ l/> ^^
0
0
CsJ
rt3
CU
OO
IT)
cn
TS
CD
OO
IT)
cn
r— 4
*o
cu
oo
IT)
to
. — I
r<3
cu
00
CO
c
03
•>^L
o
Q.
OO
oO
CO
^«
4-J
cn
C\J
^H
o
a
L
00
lO
cs
o
Q.
oo
kO
CM
i — I
O
a
00
t — 1
CM
i — I
O
CL
00
C
o
4nf
CT
C
•t—
(
)
C Q- fO ITS 4J 4-> .C
••- e
££
•o
c
r-t ^^
0} CT
••- c
+-> LU
c
cu 3
-o cu
in
cu c
Q£ •!—
4- CU
O in
^^
in
O >!
•t- O1
E i.
ro CU
C C
>•, LU
O 1
T3
CO O
-C O
1— 3
— z: «-
i/l O
•— • =8 a.
10
J= C
in O
i- »r-»
Ifl ^*^
3C in
3
C ^^
03 e
E O
s_ o
o
z -o
o
>> o
-a 3
•« r—
0 •f
o +->
CM cr
•
o
t-
Q.
CO
in
•=>
r—
CO
3
U.
T3
O
O
3
>^
-o
3
4^
OO
I/I
3
CO
•o
c
3
>l
03
O
T3
C
T3
CO
C
CO
CO
s_
CD
>>
.0
^
c
o
•f—
s
o
o
in
in
4->
(_J
O3
S_
-U
c
o
0
-------
RESIDENTIAL COAL USE TRENDS
By 1974, the use of coal in the residential sector had virtually
disappeared except near coal fields . Residential coal combustion
continued at a low level until the late 1970's, when oil and electricity
prices had risen to the point where coal again was cost competitive,
at least in New England. During the winter of 1980-81, a serious
shortage occurred of anthracite in the sizes most often used in resi-
dential units in the Northeastern United States. The 1981-82 heating
season showed a continued demand for residential coal, but no shortages
as appeared the previous winter. The March 22, 1982 issue of Coal Week
attributes the decrease in home heating oil prices as a partial reason
for the lack of the expected residential coal shortage. Figures 1,
2, and 3 show Pennsylvania anthracite use during the last 25 years in
the sizes most often used in residential coal stoves. Bituminous coal
is used in many regions of the country. However, similar data to that
shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 was not available.
Despite some renewed interest in residential coal combustion,
from an overall energy standpoint this coal use is still insignificant
both in terms of percentage of energy use in the residential sector
(less than 1%) and of total coal use (less than 0.3%). For this reason,
no special studies aimed directly at residential coal use projections
have been completed either by the U.S. DOE or by major coal industry
groups. DOE is currently completing a study on expected residential
coal use in the 1981-84 period, and a projection of market potential
(not actual projected use) until 1995 or 2000. The draft report was
due in November, 1982.
Two projections have been completed by DOE, showing fairly different
results. The first study, Energy Projections to the Year 2000°,
shows residential coal use at a constant level of 0.1 quads from 1980 to
2000. The basis of the first study is to project the total coal use
for all sectors based on the GNP and projected relative energy prices,
and then to break it down to residential use based on other demand
studies and judgment. Twenty years actual data were used to calibrate
this model. The 1981 Annual Report to Congress also includes such
factors as improvements in technology, the effect of governmental
programs, and equipment price, but starts with 1975 data. Since actual
coal use in 1980 was 0.065 quads and this study projects 0.26 quads
for 1980, the accuracy of the other years' figures are open to question.
The third study, by the Office of Technology Assessment (U.S. Congress)
is based on the 1977 Annual Report to Congress by DOE, and is expected
to be less accurate than the 1981 Annual Report to Congress simply
because the data inputs are older. The three studies are summarized
in Table 5.
15
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
FIGURE 1
Distribution of Pennsylvania Anthracite, Sizes Pea and Larger,
to the Middle Atlantic States (NO, NY, PA) and Total United States
12 r
10
c
o
u
O
c/2
a;
c
o
2 -
— Total United States
Middle Atlantic States
1960
1965 1970
Year
1975
1980
From Residential Coal Use, presented by Dr. Jerry Pell, U.S. DOE, at the 1982
International Solid Fuel Tradt ohow & Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey,
April 6, 1982.
16
-------
II
I
I
p
FIGURE 2
Distribution of Pennsylvania Anthractite, Sizes Pea and Larger,
to the Lake States (IL, IN, MI, NM, OH, WI) and to States Other
than New Enqland, South Atlantic, Lake , or Middle Atlantic
*
*
p
p
p
n
p
p
p
p
p
p
1
en
c
o
E-
o
f.
300 r
250
200
Lake States
Other States
^ 150
09
•o
as
CO
O
Si
100
50
\
\
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
Year
From Residential Coal Use, presented by Dr. Jerry Pell, U.S. DOE at the 1982
International Solid Fuel Trade Show & Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey,
April 6, 1982.
17
-------
0
t
f
H
f
t
t
P
P
P
P
P
P
CO
c
o
H
u
o
t/)
e
«
0)
o
FIGURE 3
Distribution of Pennsylvania Anthracite, Sizes Pea and Larger,
to the New England States (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT)
and to the South Atlantic States (DE, MO, VA, WV)
1200
1000
800
600
200
\
\
I- \
New England States
South Atlantic States
I960
1965 1970
Year
1975
1980
From Residential Coal Use, presented by Dr. Jerry Pell, U.S. DOE, at the 1982
International Solid Fuel Trade Show & Conference, Atlantic City, New Jersey
April 6, 1982.
-------
o
(U
•>->
o
1.
a.
10
UJ
CO •—
<
•o
=
vi
vi
c
0)
g
3
§
o
CM
Ul
at
o
at
at
ui
CO
ai
0
00
at
c
3
Nf
8
-»
B
i_
u
3
st
rt
O
a
c
o
>»•*•»
3 *
3 U
n ^~
-O
^
VI
o
^
u
Ot
•*-]
o
a.
CT
V
LU
O rt) C
g — 3 C
cu w c
vt . 3 o ,
L. •*- «O
u ai o •*-
^ >i CO O
t. o — > >,
3 tM CU
_l >
J C7I • U
0 C 01 3
•»* VI VI
J VI 3
} ••• O
= TJ 01 Q
01 3 u
*>4-> •*- S 41 r
-a o vi c
3 U ~- \. 3 -
t-o n +-
3— 3 —
t« U v» 3
u 19 a »- :
•« o
3 C
< 0
3 C
- CN
) C
4 f
> c
• f
> c
c
01 0
•a j
t5«l Z
L. Of 3 it
Ol 1. i --
c oi a
0> O -O 4J L
4-> C
Of U 01
> c oi fs a
n o 5 Si u
« t3 O T3
— • .* 3 C
oi « c -»n a
U 0| O
L. T3 V!
•o en -o c e
c oi ia o
IQ VI •*•
- « vi 4.
Z S •- E
a
-•• L.
X 0>
•- C — U
2|5 ^
O CU 5 O
in
OJ
L.
a
c
0
(J
o
4^
O
OJ
QC
fl
3
C
C
CO
r-«
=> § "
0 "• S r;
T* •— iT> ,_„, A
-1°. = Z
U <0 O 0)
U • 0> CU
>% TO *~ C VI
aj *J u vi
U 4-> 3 01
/I u C jO . —
TJ or -o
3 '-I J= X 01
0 « — J3
/I L. »—
0 Q. 1- <8 O
Of 3 4^
n vi jc 4->
^ «^» at f)
> O
>
1
)
1
VI *-
C 4J 01
1 CU C U
g cu —
01 I W
> C Q. o
O U 4.1
• U 01 4J
a. > c <-*
"** S
a. a.
• • • — u
VI Ss 3 CX L
ai at C7 t
U O Of f— ^
••- — <9
U O * 3
a. c v. e
-c 6 e
t >l e i
o *o :
— w ». t
** *» o <
*a vi ^
g= ss
III 51
4_l
U
01
a-c
O M
w
a. c
c
*-» t
O 'T
f J
a
ot c
VI
=3 u
4-» 4
U >—
Of JZ
fc. c
aa
01 "C
1- «
Of
u
C 4J
VI J3
VI U
of >a
^ «(—
3 £
VI VI
v e
> 0
•a of >Q
VI 4V
Of *O *O
VI U
e •— cu
4J — O
u
m
&
jt
a
71
3
J
1 v.
S4J VI
71 C 01
' e o»
! •; c
! of u
!<3
»
J
)
I
)
c
o
3
|
o-
01
1
•a
a
u
- Si
1
c
o
E
tn
I
-------
All three studies are "driven" by expected relative fuel costs.
Obviously, a major increase in oil prices or uncertainty about oil
supplies could result in a substantial switch to other fuel uses.
If demand for coal in the residential sector increased, the delivered
price for coal might actually decrease because of reduced transportation
costs . Because of the low demand, most residential coal is now bought
in small quantities from the smaller mines. It is expected that
transportation and handling costs could be reduced if the demand for
residential coal increased.
Some factors that could substantially affect the shift to coal
from residential space heating are not included in these projections.
These include public reluctance to switch to coal, even with a cost
advantage, because of perceived safety problems, image problems (dirty
and old-fashioned fuel), inconvenience/time required with coal and
possible air pollution agency restrictions such as the sulfur
content of coal.
No major regional projections were found for residential coal
use.
20
-------
REFERENCES
1. An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the
United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service,
October, 1981.
2. Estimates of U.S. Wood Energy Consumption from 1949 to 1981,
U.S. Department of Energy, August, 1982.
3. Wood As A Viable Home Heating Alternative; A National Survey
Conducted By the Gallup Organization, Inc., June - July, 1979,
Analysis by John Davies and Paul Cohen, Garden Way, Inc.
4. Energy From Biological Processes, Office of Technical Assessment
(Congress of the United States), July, 1980.
5. Report on Building a Sustainable Energy Future, Solar Energy
Research Institute, 1981.
6. Energy Projections to the Year 2000 - July, 1982 Update, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis,
August, 1982.
7. 1981 Annual Report to Congress, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, Volume 3, Supplement 2, Supplement 3,
February, 1982.
8. The Dynamics of Residential Wood-Energy Use in New England
1970 - 2000, Norman Marshall, Dartmouth College, October, 1981.
9. The Use of Wood as Fuel; Historical Series and Projections to
the Year 2000, Bradburd, Over, Schneider, and Art; Williams College.
Contract to U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Use Analysis,
10. Assessment of Proposed Federal Tax Credits for Residential Wood
Burning Equipment. Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., contract to U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Building & Community Systems,
November, 1979.
11. The Direct Use of Coal: Prospects and Problems of Production and
Combustion, Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the
United States, April, 1979.
12. Residential Coal Use. Jerry Pell, U.S. Department of Energy,
Division of Coal Utilization Resources Development, at the 1982
International Solid Fuel Trade Show & Conference, Atlantic City,
New Jersey, April 6, 1982.
21
-------
13. Residential Combustion of Coal and Wood: Equipment and Fuel
Supply, TRC under contract to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, August, 1979.
14. Source Assessment; Residential Combustion of Coal, DeAngelis
and Rezink, Monsanto Research Corporation for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1979.
22
-------
PERSONAL CONTACTS
1. Terry Esvelt, Bonneville Power Administration, 10/05/82
2. Frederick Lipfert, Brookhaven National Laboratory
3. Brian Patton, Dartmouth College
4. Norman Marshall, Dartmouth College, 10/18/82 and 11/17/82
5. Ralph Bradburd, Williams College, 11/04/82
6. David Moses, U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Programs,
9/28/82
7. Alex Haynes, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy, Planning
and Analysis, 11/30/82
8. Ken Skog, U.S. Forest Service, 9/22/82
9. Nick Sundt, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress,
Oceans and Environmental Program, 9/23/82
10. Foy Harris, Tennessee Valley Authority, 9/22/82
11. Meryl Marshall, Bureau of Land Management (Portland, Oregon)
12. , Electric Power Research Institute, 9/22/82
13. John Stone, Energy Resources Company, 9/22/82
14. , National Coal Association, 9/16/82
15. , Pennsylvania Coal Mining Association, 9/16/82
16. Dane Bickley, Governor's Energy Council (Pennsylvania), 9/16/82
17. Dr. Jerry Pell, formerly of U.S. Department of Energy, 9/16/82
18. Howard Feibus, U.S. Department of Energy, 9/20/82
19. , Wood Heating Alliance, 9/22/82
20. Mark Bailey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics,
and Cooperative Service, 9/22/82
23
------- |