EPA-600/2-76-049a
March 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
ELECTRICAL ENERGY AS AN ALTERNATE TO
CLEAN FUELS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
Volume I
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
E PA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-049a
March 1976
ELECTRICAL ENERGY AS AN ALTERNATE TO
CLEAN FUELS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
VOLUME I
by
R. M. Wells and W. E. Corbett
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard
P.O. Box 9948
Austin, Texas 78766
Contract No. 68-02-1319, Task 13
ROAP No. 21ADD-042
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: Walter B. Steen
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION I
2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . , 5
2.1 Conclusions 5
2.1.1 Subtask 1 - Fuel Usage Assessment .... 6
2.1.2 Subtask 2 - Definition of Alternatives. . 7
2.1.3 Subtasks 3 and 4 - Evaluation of
Energy Use Efficiency and Total
Environmental Impacts 9
2.1.4 Subtask 5 - Assessment of the Impact
of Electrical Substitution on Am-
bient Air Quality 10
2.1.5 Subtaks 6 - Projection of the Maximum
Rate of Application of Electrical
Equipment 12
2.1.6 Subtask 7 - Definition of Equipment
Costs 13
2.2 Recommendations 14
2.2.1 Recommendations Based on the Results
of this Study 14
2.2.2 Recommendations for Future Work 15
3.0 FULL USAGE ASSESSMENT 19
3.1 Energy Use in 1968 20
3.1.1 End Use Breakdown 20
3.1.2 Potential for Electricity Substitution. . 24
3.2 Present and Future Energy Use 27
3.2.1 End Use Breakdown 27
3.2.2 Potential for Electricity Substitution. . 40
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pas
4.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES 43
4.1 Methodology and Selection of Fuel Supply
Scenarios 43
4.2 Conversion of Fossil-Fuel Power Equipment
to Electrical Equipment 49
4.2.1 Residential Sector Substitution
Potential 51
4.2.2 Commercial Sector Substitution
Potential 51
4.2.3 Industrial Sector Substitution
Potential 51
4.3 Selection of End Use Modules 56
5.0 ENERGY USE EFFICIENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF FUEL SUPPLY AND END USE SCENARIOS 62
5.1 Fuel Supply Scenarios 62
5.1.1 Module Assessment Methodology 62
5.1.2 Fuel Supply Scenario Evaluation and
Ranking 67
5.2 End Use Scenarios 73
5.2.1 End Use Scenario Rankings Based Upon
Energy Use Efficiency 87
5.2.2 End Use Scenario Comparisons Based
Upon Environmental Impacts 95
6.0 DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR IMPACT OF ELECTRICAL
CONVERSION 103
6.1 Methodology 104
6.1.1 Energy Use Projections 107
6.1.2 Additional Power Plant Requirements . . . 114
6.1.3 Emission Predictions 116
6.1.4 Ambient Air Quality Predictions 117
6.2 Results 126
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7.0 PROJECTION OF THE MAXIMUM RATE OF ELECTRICAL
SUBSTITUTION , , . , , .... 128
7.1 Equipment Manufacture, ,..,..,.,,... 128
7.1.1 Residential and Commercial Space Heat
Equipment 131
7.1.2 Residential and Commercial Water
Heating Equipment 135
7.1.3 Residential and Commercial Cooking
Equipment 138
7.2 Electrical Generation Capacity Expansion .... 142
7.2.1 Methodology Used to Project
Generating Capacity Expansion Rates . . . 142
7.2.2 Factors Influencing Capacity Expansion. . 149
7.3 Projection Results 153
8.0 DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT COSTS 157
8.1 Residential Sector Equipment 158
_8^_1.1 Bases for Ej^uipjnejit Cost Calculations -
Residential Sector 159
8.1.2 Capital and Operating Costs of Residen-
tial End Use Equipment 162
8.1.3 Present Cost: Analyses of Residential
End Use Equipment Options 165
8.2 Commercial Sector 167
8.2.1 Bases for Equipment Cost Calculations -
Commercial Sector 167
8.2.2 Capital and Operating Costs of Com-
mercial End Use Equipment 169
8.3 Industrial Sector 171
8.3.1 Bases for Equipment Cost Calculations -
Industrial Sector 173
8.3.2 Capital and Operating Costs of Industrial
End Use Equipment 175
9.0 REFERENCES 177
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A great majority of the natural gas and distillate
fuel oil consumed in this country is utilized in the residential,
commercial and industrial sectors. Limitations currently being
experienced in the availability of these clean premium fuels
have led (or threaten to lead) to calls for reduced residential
usage, to slowdowns in business expansion and home construction
and to increased reliance upon more abundant "dirty" fuels
(i.e., residual fuel oil and coal) by industrial energy users.
This shortage of premium fuels has also resulted in an increasing
emphasis on the development of technologies which are capable of
producing clean fuels from abundantly available oil shale and
high-sulfur coal. Oil shale processing, coal liquefaction and
coal gasification are among the technologies which are currently
under development which could ultimately help to satisfy future
needs for clean fossil fuels.
An alternative to trying to satisfy an ever-increasing
demand for gas and distillate oil is to shift that demand to
another clean energy source; namely, electricity. An environ-
mentally attractive arrangement can be envisioned in which
electricity is generated in large central power stations, remote
from the user, which burn abundant dirty fuels and employ
suitable emission control technologies. Electricity would
then be used as a clean fuel in homes, businesses and industries
in place of gas and distillate oil. This study was intended
to define the potential benefits that might result from the
increased use of electrical energy as an alternative to the
combustion of oil and gas by stationary end users.
-------
Overall effort during this study was divided into eight
separate subtask areas. Each of these is described briefly be-
low.
Subtask 1 - Fuel Usage Assessment
Published surveys and projections were utilized to
identify and predict major end users of raw fossil fuels in the
stationary sectors at the present time and in the years 1985
and 2000. The raw fuels considered were natural gas, fuel
oil, and coal. End uses within the residential, commercial and
industrial sectors were broken down in sufficient detail to per-
mit an assessment of the degree to which electricity could be
substituted for fossil fuels. The results of this fuel usage
assessment subtask are discussed in Section 3.0.
Subtask 2 - Definition of Alternatives
For each major end use determined in the energy demand
survey, alternative fuel supply scenarios were identified which
were capable of producing the needed energy in its desired end
use form. As part of this subtask, specific items of electrical
equipment which could be installed in stationary sectors in
place of existing fossil fuel-fired equipment were defined. The
results of this subtask are described in Section 4.0.
Subtask 3 - Evaluation of Energy Use Efficiency
After all significant fuel extraction, transportation,
processing, distribution, and end use options were identified,
the energy efficiency of each unit operation or module was
defined. Then based upon the efficiencies of these individual
process units, the ultimate end use efficiency at the point of
energy resource consumption was estimated and compared for each
-2-
-------
significant fuel supply option. Alternative routes for satis-
fying each end use were ranked according to overall efficiency,
with particular attention being paid to those end uses in the
stationary sectors for which electrical alternatives exist.
The results of this subtask are discussed in Section 5.0.
Subtask 4 - Evaluation of Total Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of each significant fuel
extraction, transportation, processing, distribution, and
end use module defined in the previous subtask were estimated.
Based upon these individual module impact calculations, overall
energy supply scenario impacts were determined. The results of
this assessment subtask are discussed in Section 5.0.
Subtask 5 - Assessment of the Impact of Electrical
Equipment Substitution on Ambient
Air Quality
Ambient air pollutant concentration models were used
to estimate the ambient air impact of converting fossil fuel-
fired equipment in the stationary sectors to equivalent elec-
trical equipment. The Air Quality Control Region which includes
the Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area was used for this
analysis. The results of this subtask are summarized in Section
6.0.
Subtask 6 - Projection of the Maximum Rate of
Application of Electrical Equipment
The maximum rate at which electrical equipment could
be installed in the stationary sectors between the present and
the years 1985 and 2000 was estimated in this subtask. This
effort included not only an assessment of the rate at which
-3-
-------
new electrical equipment could be manufactured and installed
but also a consideration of the maximum rate at which new power
plants could be constructed to meet the increased demand for
electrical energy. These results are discussed in Section 7.0.
Subtask 7 - Definition of Equipment Costs
Estimates of present day installed capital and operating
costs were prepared for each of the alternative equipment items
designated in subtask 2. Cost estimates for alternative end use
equipment items are compared in Section 8.0.
Subtask 8 - Discussion of Conclusions and
Recommendations for Future Work
Conclusions which were generated based upon the
results of the seven subtask items just described are presented
in Section 2.0. Additional work which should be conducted to
enable more firm conclusions to be made regarding the potential
for the application of electrical equipment in the residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors is also discussed in that
section.
-4-
-------
2.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations resulting from
the accomplishment of the first seven subtasks described in the
introduction are presented in this section. The specific con-
clusions resulting from each subtask are discussed first and
then the general recommendations and the recommendations for
future work are presented.
2.1 Conclusions
In summary, the oil and gas shortage and the threat
of a new embargo provide clear incentives for further examina-
tion of the degree to which substitution of electricity (from
coal-fired power plants) for oil and gas usage in stationary
end use sectors can be implemented. Electrical substitution
does offer the potential for significant future reductions in
the amount of natural gas and distillate fuel oil consumed in
the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The hard-
ware and technology necessary for complete substitution of elec-
trical energy for fossil fuels in the residential and commercial
sectors and for limited substitution in the industrial sectors
/
has already been developed. However, oil and gas can generally
be produced more efficiently than electricity and with less
environmental impact. At present cost levels fossil fuel con-
sumption is definitely the cheaper alternative for the con-
sumers .
Various institutional constraints would probably
combine to make substantial electrical substitution a long-term
program. This approach would avoid problems associated with the
demonstration of the technology necessary to produce synthetic
fuels from coal however.
-5-
-------
Ignoring economics, the results of this study indicate
that using coal to produce synthetic gas and liquid fuels to
meet stationary sector end use requirements is preferable, in
many cases, from both an efficiency and an environmental view-
point, to using coal to generate electricity which could be used
to satisfy the same end use requirements.
The specific conclusions of each subtask which result
in the overall conclusions summarized above are discussed in
the following subsections.
2.1.1 Subtask 1 - Fuel Usage Assessment
The results of the fuel usage assessment, which are
discussed in detail in Section 3.0, show that the residential
and commercial sectors are the two stationary end use sectors in
which the potential for conversion from fossil fuels to elec-
tricity is greatest. Convertible fossil fuel end uses in these
two sectors accounted for 88% of the total convertible fossil
fuel end uses for the three stationary sectors considered.
Essentially all of the fossil fuel end uses in these two sec-
tors are convertible to electricity with the exception of fossil
fuels used for feedstocks in the commercial sector.
A variety of factors ranging from the large number of
distinct energy uses in this sector to the lack of availability
of electrical hardware for many end uses within the industrial
sector combine to make only 9% of the fossil fuel energy consump-
tion in the industrial sector convertible to electricity.
Conversion of all switchable stationary end uses in
the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors from fossil
-6-
-------
fuels to electricity in 1972 would have reduced consumption of
fossil fuels in those sectors by approximately 15 x 1015 Btu.
Maximum conversions by 1985 and 2000 would represent reductions
of 20 x 1015 Btu and 25 x 1015 Btu respectively. If the addi-
tional electrical energy required for these conversions were
provided by new coal-fired or nuclear power plants, these reduc-
tions in end use consumption of fossil fuels would represent a
real reduction in our national consumption of natural gas and
distillate fuel oil.
The potential reduction in consumption of these clean
premium fuels would be the equivalent of 9 x 106 barrels of oil
per day in 1985 and 12 x 10s barrels of oil per day in 2000.
Conversion of all switchable fossil fuel end uses in 1972 would
have represented a reduction in oil and gas consumption equiva-
lent to approximately 7 x 106 barrels of oil a day or approxi-
mately our present level of oil imports. While there are num-
erous institutional barriers to complete immediate conversion
to electricity (these are considered in Section 7.0 of this
report) this potential savings in oil imports is significant in
light of our expressed national goal of an immediate reduction
in oil imports of 1 x 106 barrels per day and our long term
national goal of eliminating oil imports entirely.
2.1.2 Subtask 2 - Definition of Alternatives
For each major end use identified in the fuel usage
assessment subtask, specific items of electrical equipment which
could be installed in the residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors in place of existing fossil fuel-fired equipment were
defined. Alternate fuel supply scenarios were identified for
producing the needed energy in the desired end use forms. The
definition of alternatives is presented in detail in Section 4.0.
-7-
-------
The results of this subtask showed that 99% of the
fossil fuel consumed in the residential sector was used for
four end uses - space heating, water heating, cooking, and
clothes drying. Suitable electric equipment for replacement
of fossil fuel-fired equipment was identified for each of these
end uses. The electrical equipment identified was substantially
more efficient than the comparable fossil fuel equipment for
each of the end uses.
Discounting fossil fuels used as feedstocks, 99% of-
the fossil fuel consumed in the commercial sector was also
represented by four end uses - space heating, water heating,
cooking, and air conditioning. Here again, suitable electrical
equipment for replacement of fossil fuel-fired equipment was
identified for each of the four end uses. As was the case with
the residential sector, the electrical equipment identified was
in all cases more efficient than the fossil fuel-fired counter-
parts.
Approximately 9% of the fossil fuel consumed in the
industrial sector was used for end uses which were determined
to be convertible. The balance was used in nonconvertible
areas such as process stream, feedstock, and electrical genera-
ting, or for direct heat uses for which no suitable substitute
electric equipment existed (cement kilns, petroleum stills, etc).
Because of this the industrial sector accounted for only about
12% of the total convertible fossil fuel energy in the resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The electric
equipment identified for conversion consisted mainly of electric
furnaces and ovens used in the primary metal, chemical, food
processing, stone, clay, and glass industries. As was the case
in the residential and commercial sectors, all industrial electric
end use equipment identified was substantially more efficient
than the comparable fossil fuel-fired equipment it was designed
to replace.
-8-
-------
Twelve different sources of the three end use energy
forms (electricity, distillate fuel oil, and gas) were identified,
Twelve fuel supply scenarios were prepared so that the overall
efficiencies and environmental impacts associated with alterna-
tive methods of supplying energy to convertible end uses in the
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors could be compared.
In order to prepare these scenarios, all significant fuel extrac-
tion, transportation, processing, distribution and end use opera-
tions were defined.
\
2.1.3 Subtasks 3 and 4 - Evaluation of Energy Use Efficiency
and Total Environmental Impacts
In the fuel supply and energy use scenario efficiency
evaluations and environmental assessments, which are discussed
in detail in Section 5.0, the efficiencies and environmental
impacts of each of the significant individual steps in the
fuel supply and end use scenarios were combined and the ultimate
end use efficiencies and environmental impacts were estimated and
compared. The twelve fuel supply scenarios were ranked accord-
ing to the overall efficiency of extraction, transportation,
and processing/conversion. These efficiencies ranged from 9470
for the production of distillate fuel oil from crude oil to
28% for the production of electricity from physically cleaned
coal.
- • *•
As a result of the fuel supply scenario evaluations,
it was shown that for each of the scenarios considered fossil
fuels were produced more efficiently than electricity. This
was due primarily to the low thermal efficiency of the elec-
trical power generation step. Fossil fuel supply scenarios were
also shown to be generally more attractive than electricity
supply scenarios from an environmental point of view. Gross
emissions of airborne pollutants from fossil fuel production
-9-
-------
facilities, for example, were almost always quantitatively less
than those produced as a result of the generation of an equivalent
auantitv of electrical enerev.
quantity of electrical energy.
The end use scenario evaluation showed that because
electrical end use equipment is substantially more efficient
than comparable fossil fuel-fired end use equipment, the overall
end use efficiencies for fossil fuels and electricity are very
close, although in most cases fossil fuels maintained a slight
edge. For example, the generation of high btu gas from coal
had an overall fuel supply scenario efficiency of 66% whereas
the electricity from coal supply scenario had an overall effi-
ciency of 34%. When the efficiencies of 60% and 100% for gas
space heaters and electrical resistance space heaters are fac-
tored in, the overall space heating end use efficiencies become
40% for space heating with high btu gas from coal and 34% for
space heating with electricity from coal. If an electrical heat
pump is used, the efficiency for electric space heating can be
as high as 68% due to the high efficiencies of heat pumps which
can be twice as -efficient as resistance heaters. However, this
end use efficiency difference is still not sufficient to over-
come the fact that pox^er plants emit substantially more air,
water, and solid pollutants than the combination of fossil fuel
processing/conversion plants and fossil fuel end use equipment.
2.1.4 Subtask 5 - Assessment of the Impact of Electrical
Substitution on Ambient Air Quality
Although gross air emissions from electrical end use
scenarios are typically greater than those generated by fossil
fuel end use scenarios, increased electrifica'tion of stationary
-10-
-------
sector end uses in future, years can be accomplished without
significant degradation of ambient air quality. As can be seen
from the results of the ambient air modeling of the Chicago
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), discussed in Section 6.0,
intensive electricity usage in the residential, commercial, and
industrial stationary energy end use sectors improves the rural
air quality as far as particulates, hydrocarbons, and CO are
concerned, does not change S02 levels, and slightly increases
NOX levels (9-15%). The urban air quality is improved for all
five criteria pollutants (S02, NO , hydrocarbons, particulates,
and CO) up to as much as 17% for S02. This S02 concentration
reduction is due primarily to the conversion of coal usage in
the residential and commercial sectors. If this coal usage
were not converted, then S02 levels (both urban and rural)
probably would increase with increased electrical usage. In
general, the increase in air quality with increased use'of
electricity results from the fact that power plant stack emissions
tend to be dispersed more rapidly at the high altitudes at
which they are emitted whereas, the pollutants from residential,
commercial, and industrial end use consumption of fossil fuels
are generally emitted at essentially ground level.
National Emission Data System (NEDS) data was used
in modeling the point sources for the Chicago AQCR. Standard
EPA emission factors were used for determining area source
emissions. While there"may be some doubt as to the validity of
the emission factors for small industrial and residential
sources, the results of this study are relatively insensitive to
those emissions as the point source and mobile source contri-
butions are the largest.
-11-
-------
2.1.5 Subtask 6 - Projection of the Maximum Rate of
Application of Electrical Equipment
On the basis of this study it appears that the currently
projected growth for both the utility industry and the electrical
end use equipment manufacturing industry will be sufficient to
provide a 110% increase in electrical generating capacity, a 120%
increase in the production of electrical space heating equipment,
a 60% increase in the production of electrical water heating
equipment, and a 20% increase in electrical cooking equipment over
1974 production figures by 1985. These increases would be
necessary to insure that from the present until 1985 all new
installations of end use equipment in the residential and
commercial sectors would be electrical. These increases would
not provide for replacement of existing fossil fuel-fired equip-
ment that required replacement. Existing fossil fuel-fired
equipment requiring replacement would have to be replaced by new
fossil fuel equipment. These same assumptions would require
a 330%, increase in electrical generating capacity, a 26070 in-
crease in the rate of production of electrical space heating
equipment, a 140% increase in the rate of production of elec-
trical water heating equipment, and a 50% increase in the rate
of production of electrical cooking equipment over 1974 produc-
tion by the year 2000. These increases could be met with only a
slight increase over the current projected growth in these
industries.
In order to insure that all new installations of energy
end use equipment in the commercial and residential sectors
utilize electrical equipment and that all existing fossil fuel-
fired equipment units are replaced by electrical equipment as
they are retired a considerable expansion of new power plant
construction over and above the current projected growth rate
for this industry would have to occur. The utility industry
would have to expand generating capacity by 220% over 1974
-12-
-------
production by 1985 and by 450% by 2000. This is nearly twice the
present projected growth for this period but is not inconsistent
with the 77o growth per year that was the excepted annual growth
rate for the utility industry prior to 1970. However, for a
variety of reasons, discussed in detail in Section 7.0, it does
not appear at the present time that new power plants can be built
at this rate in the future. For this reason new power plant
construction will probably be the limiting factor in determining
how fast electrical equipment can be substituted for fossil fuel
equipment in the residential, commercial, and industrial energy
and use sectors.
The 1707, increase in electrical water heating equipment
production by 1985 and the 220% expansion by 2000 could probably
be met with a slight growth over and above the historical growth
patterns for these industries. The same would be true for elec-
trical cooking equipment where a 90% increase in production over
1974 would be necessary by 1985 with a 150% increase by 2000.
In the case of electrical space heating equipment the 400% increase
in production over 1974 that would be required by 1985 could
probably not be met without artificial incentives (government
subsidies, tax write-offs, etc.). This constraint notwithstanding,
expansion of end use equipment production facilities does not
appear to be a significant constraint to increased electricity
usage in the stationary energy end use sectors.
2.1.6 Subtask 7 - Definition of Equipment Costs
In Section 8.0 of this report it is shown that both
the capital and operating costs of electrical end use equipment
are generally higher than the capital and operating costs for
comparable fossil fuel-fired equipment used in the residential,
commercial, and industrial stationary energy end use sectors.
For this reason it was concluded that significant consumer in-
centives for increased electrification of these sectors would
have to be provided before any spontaneous switching from
-13-
-------
fossil fuel fired equipment to electrical equipment would occur
at present energy cost ratios. The fact that fossil fuel costs
are increasing more rapidly at present than electricity costs
may radically change this conclusion if present pricing trends
continue. In addition, if the costs for interstate natural gas
and domestic crude oil were to be deregulated electrical alter-
natives would probably become rapidly more attractive.
2.2 Recommendat ions
Recommendations based on the results of the work per-
formed to accomplish the first seven subtasks described in the
introduction are presented below. In addition, in fulfillment
of the eighth subtask described in the introduction, recommenda-
tions for additional work that should be conducted to enable
more firm conclusions regarding the potential for the application
of electrical equipment in the residential, commercial and in-
dustrial sectors are discussed.
2.2.1 Recommendations Based on the Results of this Study
On the basis of this study, it would appear that a
special program to promote substantial increases in the rate
of electrification of the stationary energy end use sectors
should be instituted at this time. Also, emphasis should
be placed on eliminating the use of clean premium fuels for
electrical generation and other large industrial uses and on
developing coal conversion technologies. As much domestic
natural gas and oil as possible should be utilized to meet
residential and commercial sector end use demands. Electrical
energy substitution for fossil fuel consumption in these sec-
tors should" be utilized to the extent necessary to fill
the gap between supply and demand until coal conversion tech-
nologies can beg'in to fill this ever widening gap.
-14-
-------
It should be noted that these recommendations are made
without consideration for the relative economics of coal conver-
sion to liquid and gaseous fuels and coal conversion to electri-
city. These recommendations are based solely on the basis of
the results of the efficiency and environmental analyses made
as part of this study.
Although the energy efficiency of satisfying residential
space heating demands using high Btu gas produced from coal is
generally higher and the gross air, water, and solid emissions are
generally lower than those for electrical space heating, the syn-
thetic .fossil fuel route may be by far the more expensive of the
two options. If this is the case increased electrification may be-
come an attractive alternative and should be implemented for purely
economic reasons since it has been demonstrated in this study
that even though the gross air emissions from power generation
are greater than those from coal conversion there is no signifi-
cant degradation of either rural or urban air quality associated
with intensive electrical substitution in the stationary sectors.
2.2.2 Recommendations for Future Work
Radian's recommendations for additional work which
should be done, using this study as a basis, in order to enable
firm conclusions regarding the potential for the application of
increased electrical equipment usage are summarized below:
• ^"
Additional fuel usage assessments should be
made which consider the mobile sources as well
as the stationary sources. A more intensive break-
down of fuel usage in the industrial sector should
be made so that the potential for fuel switching
from one fossil fuel to another (specifically
gas or oil to coal) can be evaluated as an
alternative in addition to electrical substitution.
-------
Definitions of alternative fuel supply and end
use scenarios and alternative end use equipment
should be made which consider ways of utilizing
fossil fuels more efficiently and cleanly in
addition to considering the electrical alterna-
tives to fossil fuel end uses. An example of
this would be examining catalytic burners as a
more efficient and cleaner method of utilizing
natural gas.
An evalution of the overall fuel supply and end
use module scenarios identified in this study
should be made using the latest efficiency and
environmental impact data generated by the environ-
mental assessment studies presently being initiated
by EPA. This data should be used to expand the
scope of the environmental assessments which in
the present study d:— ' iclude such important
considerations as the emissions of carcinogens
and heavy metals. Economics should be included
in the various fuel supply scenario evaluations.
Assessments of the impact of intensive electri-
fication on urban and rural ambient air quality
should be made for additional Air Quality Control
Regions- (AQCR's). These assessments should in-
volve some replacement of mobile source fossil fuel
consumption with electricity usage. The base
case for such assessments should recognize the
fact that demand for domestic natural gas and
crude oil will exceed supply and that this demand
will be met in the future by synthetic fuel .
production. The required synthetic fuel produc-
tion facilities should be sited within the.AQCR
= 16-
-------
being modeled for a fairer comparison with
the case in which this difference is supplied
by electricity generated by power plants cited
in the AQCR.
A parametric study of the basic assumptions
used in the ambient air quality assessment made
in this report should be made. Of particular
importance would be examining the effect of
various mixes of nuclear and coal fired generating
facilities instead of using all coal fired
facilities to provide the additional electricity
required for intensive electrification as was
done in' the present study.
A more in depth analysis of the maximum rate
at which the nation's electrical generating
capacity could be expanded should be made.
The specific capital, fuel, water, and manpower
requirements, for various levels of expansion
should be assessed. The same type of intensive
analysis should be performed for the industries
which manufacture the end use equipment.
The work done in this study to define and
compare, equipment costs .for the fossil fuel and
electric end use equipment should be expanded to
include alternative fossil fuel end use equipment
that would allow fossil fuels to be utilized in
a more efficient and a more environmentally sound
fashion.
In summary, Radian recommends that EPA initiate a
study which woul-d use the work presented in this report as a
-17-
-------
basis and would expand the original scope of work of this study
to consider not only electrical substitution but also fuel
switching and fossil fuel end use equipment upgrading as part
or all of a plan for achieving national energy self sufficiency.
This program should have as a goal determining a scenario for
energy self sufficiency which is not only environmentally sound
but superior from'an economic as well as an energy efficiency
viewpoint.
-18-
-------
3.0 FUEL USAGE ASSESSMENT
As discussed in the introduction, one of the major
goals of this program was to determine the extent to which
electricity could be substituted for clean fossil fuels in
stationary use sectors at the present time and in selected years
through the year 2000. In order to accomplish this task, the
available literature was surveyed to obtain data on both existing
patterns of fossil fuel consumption in the residential, com-
mercial and industrial sectors, and projections of future fuel
demands in each of these sectors. The results of this fuel
usage survey are presented in this section.
The organization of this section reflects the
procedure used to perform this task-. In Section 3.1, a detailed
breakdown of energy end use for the year 1968 is presented.
The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report on U.S. energy
consumption patterns (ST-186) was the primary source of this
information. Since the SRI data were given for the year 1968,
it was necessary to project these consumption figures forward
to the years of interest here for purposes of assessing electrical
substitution possibilities. The results of Radian's energy use
projections are presented in Section 3.2.
It should be noted here that throughout this report,
unless stated otherwise, electrical energy is expressed as net
electricity (i.e., converted using 3413 Btu/kwh). With this
approach, electrical generation losses are charged against the
electrical generation category.
-19-
-------
3.1 Energy Use in 1968 . •
The three major energy end use categories considered
in this survey were the residential, commercial and industrial
sectors. The only stationary use sector not included in this
group is the electrical generation category.
3.1.1 End Use Breakdown - 1968
A breakdown of the energy used in the residential and
commercial sectors in the year 1968 is presented in Table 3-1.
The data reported in this table are taken directly from SRI.
It is fairly obvious from these data that an assessment of
electrical substitution possibilities in the residential and
commercial sectors can be made without any further breakdown of
the SRI figures.
This is not true in the case of the industrial sector.
Shown in Table 3-2 are the SRI figures for industrial energy
use in 1968. In this sector, the direct heat category is the
only area in which any potential for electrical substitution
exists. Unfortunately, the degree of substitution possible in
direct heating applications could not be determined from SRI
data alone. As a result, a further breakdown of the energy
used for direct heat in the industrial sector was attempted.
Radian's breakdown of energy use for direct heat in
the industrial sector in 1968 is presented in Table 3-3. Details
of the procedures used to obtain these figures are summarized
in Appendix A.
-20-
-------
TABLE 3-1
J.968 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE*
(1012 Btu/yr)
END USE
Residential
Space Heat
Water Heating
Cooking
Clothes Drying
Refrigeration
Air Conditioning
Other
TOTAL
Commercial
Space Heat
Water Heating
Cooking
Air Conditioning
Refrigeration
Feedstock
Other
TOTAL
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL
COAL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
568
_ .
-
-
-
-
-
568
568
OIL
2988
146
49
9
-
-
3192
2405
-
-
-
-
984
-
3389
6581
GAS
3236
979
325
58
5
3
4~6~M
1209
422
117
97
-
-
-
1845
6451
TOTAL
FOSSIL
FUEL
6224
1125
374
67
5
3
7795
4182
422
117
97
984
-
5802
13600
NET
ELECTRICITY
163
222
96
57
249
153
450
T39~0
-
84
8
370
244
-
373
1079
2469
TOTAL
ENERGY
6387
1347
470
124
254
156
450
9IM
4182
506
125
467
244
984
373
6881
16069 •
*Source: (ST-186)
-------
TABLE 3-2
1968 INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE*
(1012 Btu/yr)
END USE
Process Steam
Direct Heat
Feedstock
Electric Drive
Electric Process
Electric Generating
Other
TOTAL
COAL
2349
3025
147
-
-
95
-
5616
OIL
1986
808
1600
-.
-
80
-
4474
GAS
' 5797
2771
455
-
-
235
-
9253
TOTAL
FOSSIL
FUEL
10132
6604
2202'
• -
'
410
_
19348
NET
ELECTRICITY
-
130
-
1958
285
-150
80
2303
TOTAL
ENERGY
10132
6734
2202
1958
285
260
80
21651
KJ
I
*Source: (ST-186)
-------
TABLE 3-3
1968 INDUSTRIAL DIRECT HEAT BREAKDOWN*
(1012 Btu/yr)
INDUSTRY
Iron c* Steel
Aluminum
Chemicals
Refining
Food
Paper
Cement
Glass
Other
TOTAL
COAL
2147
ua
ua
-
126
-
ua
ua
ua
3025
OIL
193
ua
ua
540
71
-
ua
ua
ua
803
GAS
537
ua
ua
1070
270
4
ua
ua
ua
2771
TOTAL
FOSSIL
FUEL
2927
80
560
1610
467
4
597
108
251
6604
NET
ELECTRICITY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
130
130
TOTAL
ENERGY
2927
80
560
1610
467
4
597
108
381
6734
N>
LO
I
*Source: See Appendix A
ua - unavailable
-------
In the following section, electrical substitution
possibilities in the residential, commercial and industrial
sectors are discussed in more detail.
3.1.2 Potential for Electrical Substitution
From Table 3-1 it can be seen that all fossil fuel
use in the residential category could be converted to electricity
since some electricity is already used for each of the end uses
shown. Similar reasoning for the commercial category indicates
that all fossil fuel uses except "feedstock" could be converted
to electricity. Thus, in 1968, a possible premium fuel savings
of 12,616 trillion Btu could have been realized through electri-
fication in the residential and commercial categories.
In the industrial sector, only two end use categories
have any potential for electrical substitution. These are
the direct heat and process steam categories. Due to the
inefficiencies involved, it is unlikely that process steam would
ever be produced electrically in significant quantities. As a
result, the only reasonable industrial end use available for
conversion to electricity is the direct heat category. Re-
ferring to Table 3-3, it can be seen that total fossil fuel usage
for direct heat in the industrial sector was 6604 trillion Btu
in 1968, of which 2196 trillion Btu were coal, coke and hydro-
carbon injection gas used in blast furnaces in the iron and
steel industry (see Appendix A). Since this latter end use is
not switchable to electricity, the maximum conversion possible
in the industrial sector in 1968 was 4408 trillion Btu. It is
important to realize that this number is actually an upper bound
since all of the fossil fuel end uses shown in Table 3-3 cannot
-24-
-------
be satisfied by electricity at the present time due to a lack of
available hardware for substitution. The impact of this equip-
ment availability constraint upon switching possibilities in the
industrial direct heat category is covered in greater depth in
Section 4.0 of this report.
A summary of these 1968 fossil fuel substitution
possibilities is presented in Table 3-4. From the data shown in
this table, it can be seen that approximately half of the de-
mands which were satisfied by fossil fuels in 1968 in the sectors
considered could have been satisfied by electrical energy. The
potential for electrical substitution was greatest in the
residential sector where essentially 100% of the fossil fuel
energy consumed in 1968 could have been replaced with electricity.
The industrial category was the area in which the potential
for electrical substitution was the smallest.
-25-
-------
TABLE 3-4
FOSSIL FUEL SWITCHING POSSIBILITIES IN 1968
I
K3
CATEGORY
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
TOTAL FOSSIL
FUEL USAGE
1012 Btu/yr.
7798
5802
19348
32948
SWITCHABLE
AMOUNT ,
10 12 Btu/yr
7798
4818
<4408
<17024
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
FOSSIL FUEL USED IN
CATEGORY WHICH IS
SWITCHABLE
100
83
<23
<52
-------
3.2 Present and Future Energy Use
The 1968 fuel use breakdown described in the previous
section was used as a basis for predicting the extent of possible
electrical substitution in both present and future years. It
should be noted here that the amount of fossil fuels that are
deemed switchable in this context are based solely on the
capability of electricity to perform the same task as the
fossil fuel which it replaces. Since no consideration is given
to the rates at which electrical equipment could be substituted
or additional generating capacity installed, these estimates
must be considered to be upper bounds.
The years for which this analysis was performed are
1972, 1985 and 2000. These three years were chosen for a variety
of reasons. The year 1972 was chosen to represent the present
case since it is the latest year for which real fuel consumption
data were available. The year 2000 was defined in the contract
task order as being the final year to be considered. The year
1985 was chosen as an intermediate year for 2 reasons:
(1) Reasonably accurate predictions of
energy demands are possible for 1985.
(2) Newly developing energy technologies
will probably not have a significant
effect on energy use patterns until
sometime after 1985.
3.2.1 End Use Breakdown
Radian's projections of energy end use in the residen-
tial, commercial and industrial sectors in the years 1972, 1985
and 2000 are presented in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7. The numbers
-27-
-------
TABLE 3-5
ESTIMATED 1972 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Residential
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Clothes drying
Refrigeration
Air conditioning
Other
Total
Commercial
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Air conditioning
Refrigeration
Feedstock
Other
Total
Total residential
and commercial
Coal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
387
-
-
-
-
-
-
387
387
Oil
3000
146
49
11
-
-
-
3206
2462
-
-
-
-
1000
-
3462
6668
Gas
3722
1135
311
81
10
3
-
5262
1621
439
131
189
-
-
_
2380
7642
Total
fossil
fuel
6722
1281
360
92
10
3
-
8468
4470
439
131
189
-
1000
_
6229
14697
Electricity
345
239
98
68
318
245
500
1813
-
86
9
448
245
-
877
1665
3478
Total
net
energy
7067
1520
458
160
328
248
500
10281
4470
525
140
637
245
1000
877
7894
18175
-28-
-------
TABLE 3-5 (continued)-ESTIMATED 1972 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Industrial
Process steam
Direct heat
Iron & steel
Aluminum
Chemicals
Refining
Food
Paper
Cement
Glass
Other direct
heat
Feedstock
Elec. drive
Elec. process
Elec. gen.*
Other
Total Industrial
Coal
1386
2702
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
120
-
-
58
-
4266
Oil
2391
808
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2369
-
-
100
-
5668
Gas
6681
3181
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A74
-
-
255
-
10591
Total
fossil
fuel
10458
6691
(2891)
( 82)
( 576)
(1656)
( 480)
( 4)
( 614)
( HI)
( 277)
2963
-
-
413
-
20525
Electricity
-
147
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2101
299
-142
88
2493
Total
net
energy
10458
6838
(2891)
( 82)
( 576)
(1656)
( 480)
( 4)
( 614)
( HI)
( 277)
2963
2101
299
271
88
23018
^Generation losses are included.
-29-
-------
TABLE 3-6
ESTIMATED 1985 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Residential
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Clothes drying
Refrigeration
Air conditioning
Other
Total
Commercial
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Air conditioning
Refrigeration
Feedstock
Other
Total
Total residential
and commercial
Coal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
_
100
100
Oil
3186
250
50
30
-
-
-
3516
3684
-
-
-
-
1600
-
5284
8800
Gas
4730
1600
342
217
15
3
-
6907
2681
500
232
680
-
-
-
4093
11000
Total
fossil
fuel
7916
1850
392
247
15
3
-
10423
6465
500
232
680
-
1600
_
9477
19900
Electricity
1312
400
110
150
750
770
506
3998
-
124
22
1380
400
-
1876
3802
7800
Total
net
energy
9228
2250
502
397
765
773
506
14421
6465
624
254
2060
400
1600
1876
13279
27700
-30-
-------
TABLE 3-6 (continued) - ESTIMATED 1985 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Industrial
Process steam
Direct heat
Iron & steel
Aluminum
Chemicals
Refining
Food
Paper
Cement
Glass
Other direct heat
Feedstock
Elec. drive
Elec. process
Elec. gen.*
Other
Total Industrial
Coal
2278
2743
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
129
-
-
-
-
5150
Oil
2474
808
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
5828
-
-
20
' -
9130
Gas
9209
4331
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
472
-
-
288
-
14300
Total
fossil
fuel
13961
7882
(3472)
( 95)
( 668)
(1922)
( 557)
( 5)
( 713)
/ 10 r»\
v *-<-? i
( 321)
6429
-
-
308
•*>
28580
Electricity
-
428
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5060
669
-103
236
6290
Total
net
energy*
13961
8310
(3472)
( 95)
( 668)
(1922)
( 557)
( 5)
( 713)
( 129)
( 321)
6429
5060
669
205
236
34870
-'Generation losses are included
-31-
-------
TABLE 3-7
ESTIMATED 2000 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Residential
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Clothes drying
Refrigeration
Air conditioning
Other
Total
Commercial
Space heat
Water heating
Cooking
Air conditioning
Refrigeration
Feedstock
Other
Total
Total residential
and commercial
Coal
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
Oil
4026
316
63
38
-
-
-
4443
4655
-
-
-
-
2022
-
6677
11120
Gas
5779
1955
418
265
18
4
-
8439
3276
611
283
831
-
-
-
5001
13440
Total
fossil
fuel
9805
2271
481
303
18
4
-
12882
7931
611
283
831
-
2022
-
11678
24560
Electricity
2535
773
212
290
1449
1487
978
7724
-
239
43
2666
773
-
3625
7346
15070
Total
net
energy
12340
3044
693
593
1467
1491
978
20606
7931
850
326
3497
773
2022
3625
19024
39630
-32-
-------
TABLE 3-7 (continued) - ESTIMATED 2000 ENERGY USE PATTERN
(1012 Btu/yr)
End use
Industrial
Process steam
Direct heat
Iron & steel
Aluminum
Chemicals
Refining
Food
Paper
Cement
Glass
Other direct heat
Feedstock
Elec . drive
Elec. process
Elec. gen.*
Other
Total Industrial
Coal
2964
3568
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
168
-
-
-
-
6700
Oil
3976
1298
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9366
-
-
20
-
14660
Gas
13394
6300
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
687
-
-
419
-
20800
Total
fossil
fuel
20334
11166
(4919)
( 135)
( 947)
(2722)
( 790)
( 7)
(1009)
( 183)
( 454)
10221
-
-
439
-
42160
Electricity
-
1056
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- •
12478
1650
-146
582
15620
Total
net
energy
20334
12222
(4919)
( 135)
( 947)
(2722)
( 790)
( 7)
(1009)
( 183)
( 454)
10221
12478
1650
293
582
57780
^Generation losses are included
-33-
-------
shown in parentheses in the industrial sector listings result
from Radian's detailed breakdown of the direct heat category.
Since the totals for this category are recorded under direct
heat, the numbers in parentheses should not be added to the
other figures in the columns when calculating total industrial
sector energy use.
The energy use projections shown in Table 3-5 are based
on consumption data for 1972 obtained from the Bureau of Mines .
(BOM) (CR-067). The 1985 and 2000 projections are derived from
data published by the Department of Interior (DOI) (DU-044).
Usage patterns which were discussed in the previous section were
also used to obtain the figures shown in Tables 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7.
The BOM data and DOI energy use projections were
both broken down according to fuel type and end use. The
end use categories used by BOM and DOI are residential and
commercial, industrial, electric utility, transportation, and other,
The categories applicable to the stationary sector are residential
and commercial, industrial, and electric utility. The BOM and
DOI projections of residential and commercial, and industrial
energy use were allocated to specific end uses for 1972 and 1985
by projecting the SRI 1968 data to 1972 and 1985. This was done
by using the 1960 and 1968 data to calculate annual average
growth rates for each end use in SRI. Since the total energy
use calculated by this method tended to be somewhat high, the
results were scaled down to produce the general category totals
specified by BOM and DOI. However, before scaling, obvious
discrepancies, such as small end uses with high growth rates
resulting in unusually high uses in later years, were corrected.
The end use profile for the year 2000 was assumed to be identical
to the 1985 case so that end use consumption figures for the year
2000 were obtained by scaling up 1985 consumption data.
-34-
-------
Radian's projections of electric utility fuel usage
for the year 1972, 1985 and 2000 are presented in Table 3-8.
The 1972 data shown in the table were taken from the BOM survey
while those for 1985 and 2000 were taken from the DOI projections.
Slight modification of the DOI data base was necessitated by the
fact that their projections did not consider geothennal power
plants. Since this source of energy is now expected to produce
significant amounts- of electrical power in the future, it was
included to insure that fossil fuel usage figures would not be
unreasonably inaccurate. The additional energy attributed to
geothennal sources in Table 3-8 was deducted from the fossil
fuel usage data published by DOI in such a way that total
projected energy use remained constant. This fossil fuel re-
duction was confined to the oil and gas categories since these
are the two fossil fuels which are currently in short supply.
The amount of energy that geothennal sources are ex-
pected to provide is a hotly contested issue at present with
estimates differing as much as an order of magnitude. Three
of these estimates are shown for 1985 and 2000 in Table 3-9.
The figures shown in the projections in Table 3-8 are 1400 and 5500
trillion Btu/yr for 1985 and 2000, respectively. These numbers
resulted from assuming 19,000 MW and 75,000 MW of installed geo-
thermal generating capacity in 1985 and 2000, respectively.
A use factor of 85% and heat rate of 9861 Btu/kwh were used in
both cases to convert these geothermal electrical generating
capacity estimates into their fossil fuel consumption equivalents.
The Department of Interior's energy use projections
were chosen as bases for calculating 1985 and 2000 energy use
patterns for three reasons, First, the DOI projections speci-
fically included both years in question. Second, their fuel use
and category breakdown was the most comprehensive available.
Finally, and most importantly, the total energy projected is
approximately the median value of all projections considered.
This last point is illustrated by Table 3-10.
-35-
-------
TABLE 3-8
F.T.F.HTRTC ITTTTJ^Y ENERGY USE PATTERN^
(1012 Btu/yr)
Year
1972
1985
2000
Coal
7836
14220
17520
Oil
3134
5950
2040
Gas
4102
2750
140
Total
fossil
fuel
15072
22920
19700
Nuclear
575
11750
49230
Hydro
2912
4320
5950
Geo-
thermal
-
1400
5500
Total
gross
energy
18559
40390
80380
Electricity
distributed
5988
14090
30690
Total
generation
losses
12571
26300
49690
U)
-------
TABLE 3-9
GEQTHERMAL ENERGY PROJECTIONS
(1012 Btu/yr)
Source of projection
1985
2000
Atomic Energy Commission
(RA-166)
National Petroleum Council
(NA-179)
Historical growth
Stimulated growth
Environmental Science
and Technology (MA-400)
Lower bound
Upper bound
1500
6000
514
1395
1395 .
9692
5507
29003
-37-
-------
TABLE 3-10
ENERGY USE PROJECTIONS
(101S Btu/yr)
Source of Projection
Year
Published
1985
2000
Electrical World (FI-081)
Department of Interior
(DU-044)
Ford Foundation (FO-027)
Historical growth
.Technical fix
Zero growth
National Petroleum Council
(NA-175)
High growth
Medium growth
Low growth
National Academy of
Engineering (NA-174)
Historical Growth
With conservation
Atomic Energy Commission
(RA-166)
Historical growth
With conservation
1974
1972
1974
116
116
115
96
93
192
185
118
100
1972
130
125
112
215
200
170
1974
123
108
1974
121
106
-38-
-------
New energy sources other than geothermal were considered,
but were not included in the projections because of their limited
development potential or the lack of development of the tech-
nology required to make them feasible. These energy sources
include solar energy, energy from agriculture, tidal energy,
and municipal trash combustion. Solar energy, although widely
available, was excluded because a technological breakthrough
will be necessary before it can compete economically with
conventional energy sources in the generation of electricity.
The direct generation of electricity from solar energy using
solar cell technology presently available costs on the order
of $2 to $5 per kwh (NA-179) which is about 1000 times that of
conventional power sources. Direct- use of solar energy is not
expected to provide significant amounts of energy in the near
future. The factors limiting widespread use of solar heating
and cooling are high initial cost and the intermittent avail-
ability of the energy source.
Energy from agriculture was excluded because at present
it is a limited resource with no more than 3000 trillion (NA-179)
Btu/yr available from combustion of agricultural.residues. Al-
though the energy available from this source could be increased
significantly by planting crops to be used to make fuel, many
years of research and development would be necessary to accomplish
it. Thus, since this technology is not well defined, this form
of energy was not included in the projections.
Tidal energy was excluded because there are very few
sites in the United States where this energy could be extracted
economically. If developed to the practical limit, tidal energy
could provide only 0.270 (NA-179) of the energy required in the
U.S. in 1985.
-39-
-------
Municipal trash is another energy source that was ex-
cluded due to its limited capabilities. It has been estimated (NA-179)1
that the maximum energy available from this source is 1600 trillion
Btu/yr. However, 657o of the heating value of trash is due to its
paper content which will decrease as more paper products are sal-
vaged for recycling. Thus, since at best this energy resource
represents less than 2% of the 1985 energy requirements, it is
not included in the projections.
3.2.2 Potential For Electricity Substitution
By utilizing a procedure similar to that discussed
in Section 3.1.2, the fossil fuel uses that could be satisfied
by electricity in the years 1972, 1985 and 2000 were estimated.
These substitution possibility projections are summarized in
Table 3-11.
In general, the guidelines used to generate the figures
shown in Table 3-11 from the data presented in Tables 3-5, 3-6 and
3-7 were the following:
Fossil fuel end uses currently being
satisfied by electricity in the
residential and commercial sectors
were assumed to be convertible in
future years. All end uses except
"feedstock" in the commercial sector
were therefore considered to be
switchable in this context.
In the industrial sector, only those
fossil fuels which were allocated to the
direct heat category were considered
to be switchable.
-40-
-------
In the case of the 1968 data discussed
in Section 3.1.2, fossil fuels used
to provide direct heat for blast
furnace operation in the iron and
steel industry were not considered to
be switchable. Since detailed break-
downs of direct heat requirements
were not given in any of the sources
considered in this subtask, it was
necessary to assume that the same
fraction of fossil fuel direct heat
attributable to blast furnace operation
in 1968 also applied to the years 1972,
1985 and 2000. Industrial sector
switching possibilities shown in Table
3-11 were obtained using this basis
and the data given in Tables 3-5, 3-6
and 3-7.
As implied by the inequalities given in Table 3-11,
industrial sector figures should be considered to be upper
bounds since some of the fossil fuels used in that sector are
not switchable due to a lack of available electrical hardware
for substitution. The impact of this equipment availability
constraint upon industrial sector substitution possibilities
is discussed in detail in Section 4.0 of this report.
-41-
-------
TABLE 3-11
PRESENT AND FUTURE FOSSIL FUEL SWITCHING POSSIBILITIES
CATEGORY
1972
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
1985
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
2000
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
TOTAL
TOTAL FOSSIL
FUEL USAGE
10 12 Btu/yr.
8468
6229
20525
35222
10423
9477
28580
48480
12882
11678
42160
66720
SWITCHABLE
AMOUNT
10 12 Btu/yr.
8468
5229
<4596
<18293
10423
7877
<5334
<23634
12882
9656
<7557
<30095
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FOSSIL
FUEL USED IN CATEGORY
WHICH IS SWITCHABLE
100
84
<22
<52
100
83
<19
<49
100
83
<18
<45
-------
4.0 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES
In this section fuel supply options and end use equip-
ment alternatives are discussed. Each of these topics is covered
in separate subsections below.
4-1 Methodology and Selection of Fuel Supply Scenarios
Before an energy resource can be utilized to satisfy
the demands of major consumers, a series of operations involving
• the extraction of the resource from the ground,
• the conversion of the resource into a form
which is suitable for end use consumption, and
• the transportation of the raw or converted
resource to appropriate end use locations
must take place. All of the end use fuels consumed in this
country are produced as products of energy supply chains com-
posed of these three generalized unit steps or operations.
The results of the fuel usage assessment subtask pre-
viously discussed indicated that electricity, fuel oil, and
natural gas are the three major fossil fuel end use energy forms
consumed in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
Although this number of significant end use energy forms is
small, there exists an almost unlimited number of potential
methods of producing these fuels due to the existence of
• a variety of energy resource raw materials
which occur in multiple forms,
processing options which make it possible to
derive a wide spectrum of end use fuels from
each resource type, and
-43-
-------
• multiple options for transporting solid, liquid,
and gaseous fuels.
The analysis of any complex system that is composed of
such a variety of optional components is considerably simplified
by the use of a framework which permits the division of the sys-
tem into its component parts. In this study, such a framework
has been provided through the construction of sets of fuel supply
scenarios.
A scenario is defined here to include all of the
individual steps required to extract a raw material from the
ground, process it into the desired end use form and deliver it
to the point of end use. More specifically, each scenario is
characterized by:
(1) the source or location of the resource --
Illinois, Gulf Coast, etc.;
(2) the type of resource -- coal, oil shale,
natural gas, etc.;
(3) resource recovery method -- underground mining,
oil well, etc.;
(4) transportation mode(s) -- railway, pipeline, etc.;
(5) processing/conversion mode -- coal liquefaction,
coal-fired power plant, etc.;
(6) end use energy form -- liquid fuels, electricity,
etc.
(7) end use location -- Chicago, etc.;
-44-
-------
In some cases, fuel supply scenarios can be relatively
simple. If a resource is consumed in essentially its raxtf form
at a location close to the resource deposit, a single extraction
step folloxved by a single transportation step may be all that
is involved. On the other hand, certain fuels may require
complex processing sequences which are composed of multiple
conversion and transportation steps. Once this general method
of characterizing energy supply systems was established, specific
fuel supply scenarios had to be selected for detailed analysis in
subsequent phases of the study. The bases which were used for
this selection are summarized below.
First, all significant domestic fossil fuel resources
which could be used to satisfy stationary sector demands for
coal, fuel oil, natural gas or electricity x^ere identified.
Fossil fuel resources included in this group included coal,
oil shale, crude oil and natural gas. Next, the fuel production
technologies capable of producing the end use fuels of interest
were identified. Two general classes of technologies were
considered here:
(1) methods which are currently being widely used
to supply the end use fuels of interest, e.g.,
coal-fired power plants to produce electricity;
(2) developing technologies which are expected to
contribute significantly to the production of
these fuels in the near term future, e.g., coal
gasification to produce SNG.
By following these general guidelines, the fuel supply
options shown in Table 4-1 were generated. " It should be noted
that nuclear alternatives were not considered.
-45-
-------
TABLE 4-1
SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES FOR END USE ENERGY
PRODUCTION DURING THE PERIOD 1970-2000
Source
1. Natural Gas
2. Fuel Oil
3. Coal
4. Low Sulfur Coal
5. Low Btu Gas (Coal)
6. Physically Cleaned Coal
7. Chemically Cleaned Coal
8. Crude Oil
9. Shale Oil
10. Liquefaction (Coal)
11. Natural Gas
12. High Btu Gas (Coal)
End Use Energy Form
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Gas
Gas
46-
-------
Once this list of fuel supply options was assembled,
a basis for selecting specific resource extraction, processing
and transportation steps involved in the production of each
end use fuel had to be established. The guidelines used by
Radian to formulate specific fuel supply scenarios from the
list of options shown in Table 4-1 are summarized below.
In the ambient air impact assessment subtask which
is described in a later section of this report, the impact of
increased electrification upon the quality of the ambient air in
a typical AQCR is considered. Selected for use in that assess-
ment subtask was the AQCR which includes the Chicago, Illinois
Metropolitan Area. This selection was made for a variety of
reasons. Among these were the following:
(1) Chicago is a large, centrally located
demand center.
(2) Existing patterns of energy consumption
in Chicago are similar to national
averages.
(3) The NEDS data base for Chicago area
point sources was already available
to Radian.
The use of Chicago as the example demand center creates
an interesting set of fuel supply alternatives. Abundant re-
serves of high sulfur coal are found in Illinois. The trade-
offs involved in using this locally available "dirty fuel"
versus the alternative of burning fuel oil produced from oil
extracted in the Gulf Coast area is one example of the kind of
case study which is made possible by the use of Chicago as the
example center. In addition, since Chicago had been chosen to
-47-
-------
serve as the basis for ambient air impact assessment activities,
its use as a basis for scenario construction seemed reasonable
as well.
Specification of the resource extraction, processing,
and transportation steps needed to satisfy the fuel supply
options listed in Table 4-1 was a reasonably straightforward
exercise once Chicago was selected as the basis for scenario
construction. Shown in Table 4-2 are the specific modules which
were used by Radian to construct each fuel supply scenario.
General guidelines which were used in this effort are discussed
below.
Since the Gulf Coast area supplies a considerable frac-
tion of the gaseous and liquid fuels consumed in the Chicago
area, natural gas and crude oil were assumed to be transported
by pipeline from producing regions located along the Gulf Coast.
The source of low sulfur coal for electrical generation was as-
sumed to be Wyoming coal that was surface mined and transported
by rail. All other coal requirements were assumed to be satis-
fied by high sulfur Illinois coal that was mined underground and
transported to the Chicago area by rail. Coal slurry pipelines
were not considered here since less than 1% of the coal presently
transported in this country is moved by this method. Furthermore,
the possible extent of future coal transportation by this method
is uncertain.
To the extent that it was reasonable to do so, pro-
cessing and conversion facilities (e.g., refineries, power plants)
were assumed to be sited in the Chicago area. This was done so
that the Chicago AQCR would be burdened with emissions resulting
directly from the energy conversion activities required to pro-
duce the end use fuels consumed in that area. Although this
guideline was intended to apply mainly to the case studies which
-48-
-------
were performed as part of the ambient air impact assessment sub-
task, fuel supply scenarios were also constructed with this
general constraint in mind.
Oil shale retorting and coal cleaning operations
were exceptions to this guideline. Since it is not economically
feasible to transport raw oil shale over large distances, the
shale oil retorting and upgrading processes necessary to produce
a pipeline quality syncrude were assumed to be located at the
mine site. Since the major product of a shale oil retorting/
upgrading complex is essentially a fuel oil boiling range
material already, a syncrude refinery in the Chicago area was
not assumed to be a necessary part of this scenario. The
synthetic crude oil produced in a typical coal liquefaction
facility on the other hand, requires a considerable amount of
downstream processing to produce liquid fuels suitable for
consumption by end users.
For a variety of reasons, coal cleaning facilities are
typically located close to the mining operations which supply
their feedstock raw materials. This convention was recognized
in the construction of scenarios S6 and S7 in Table 4-2.
In. this section, the bases used by Radian to construct
representative sets of fuel supply scenarios have been summarized,
The techniques which were then used to calculate energy use
efficiencies and environmental impacts of these scenarios are
described in Section 5.0 of this report.
4.2 Conversion of Fossil-Fuel Powered Equipment to
Electrical Equipment
In this section, significant results of the end use
equipment alternative study are discussed. Within each of the
-49-
-------
TABLE 4-2
Scenario
I.D.
Number
S-l
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-10
S-ll
S-12
Resource
Gulf Coast
Natural Gas
Gulf Coast
Crude Oil
Illinois
Coal
Wyoming
Coal
Illinois
Coal
Illinois
Coal
Illinois
Coal
Gulf Coast
Crude Oil
Colorado
Oil Shale
Illinois
Coal
Gulf Coast
Natural
Gas
Illinois
Coal
Extraction
Natural Gas
Well
Oil Well
Underground
Coal Mine
Surface
Coal Mine
Underground
Coal Mine
Underground
Coal Mine
Underground
Coal Mine
Oil Well
Underground
Shale Mine
Underground
Coal Mine
Natural Gas
Well
Underground
Coal Mine
FUEL SUPPLY SCENARIOS
Transport
Pipeline
(Natural Gas)
Pipeline
(Crude Oil)
Rail
.Rail
Eail
None
None
Pipeline
(Crude Oil)
None
Rail
Pipeline
(Natural Gas)
Rail
Processing/
Conversion
None
Refinery (Chicago)
Power Plant
(Chicago)
Power Plant
(Chicago)
Low Btu Gasification
(Chicago)
Physical Cleaning
(Mine)
Chemical Cleaning
(Mine)
Refinery (Chicago)
Retort and Upgrade
(Mine)
Coal Liquefaction
(Chicago)
None
Hi-Btu Gasification
(Chicago)
Transport
None
None
None
None
None
Rail
Rail
None
Pipeline
(Fuel Oil)
None
None
None
Processing/
Conversion
Power Plant
(Chicago)
Power Plant
(Chicago)
None
None
Power Plant
(Chicago)
Power Plant
(Chicago)
Power Plant
.(Chicago)
None
None
Syn-Crude Re-
finery (Chicago)
None
None
Fuel /Energy
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
Natural Gas
Synthetic
Natural Gas
-------
three sectors studied, the potential for conversion of fossil
fuel fired equipment to electrically powered equipment is con-
sidered. Also, listings are presented which summarize specific
convertible end use equipment options.
4.2.1 Residential Sector Substitution Potential
A summary of residential fossil fuel usage in 1968
is presented in Table 4-3. For each of the fossil fuel-fired
end uses shown in the table,, electrical alternatives do exist.
These alternatives are listed in Table 4-4. Also shown in
this table are the thermodynamic efficiency values which are
considered to be representative of the performance of each
equipment item. Justification for the use of these efficiency
values is discussed in Appendix B.
4•2.2 Commercial Sector Substitution Potential
In the commercial sector, major fossil fuel end uses
with potential for conversion to electricity include: space
heating, water heating, cooking, and air conditioning. A
breakdown of commercial sector fossil fuel energy consumption
by end use is presented in Table 4-5. Fossil fuel fired-equipment
items currently in use in the commercial sector and their
electrical alternatives are listed in Table 4-6. Thermodynamic
efficiency data for each end use equipment item are also shown.
4.2.3 Industrial Sector Substitution Potential
In Section 3.0 of this report, it was shown that the
direct heat category was the only end use classification in
the industrial sector with significant potential for electrical
substitution. For the 1968 case, after eliminating the fossil
-51-
-------
TABLE 4-3
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY END USE*
I
Lr.
End Use
Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption
as Percentage of Total Fossil
Fuel Used in Sector
Fossil Fuel Usage As Percentage
of Total Energy Consumed for
Each End Use
Space Heating
Water Heating
Cooking
Clothes Drying
79%
14%
5%
1%
97%
83%
84%
57%
99% = percentage of total
fossil fuel consumed
in sector accounted for
by the four end uses
listed.
-Derived from data published by Stanford Research Institute (ST-186).
-------
TABLE 4-4
End Use
Space
Heating
Water
Heating
Cooking
Clothes
Drying
ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
Direct-Fired Fossil Fuel
Fuel Oil Nat. Gas
Equipment Eff. 70 Equipment Eff. %
Furnace 55 Furnace 60
Water 55 Water 60
Heater Heater
Stove/Oven 37 Stove/Oven 37
Clothes 50
Dryer
Ele-ctrical
Equipment Eff. %
Baseboard 100
Furnace 100
Heat Pump ' 200
Water Heater 92
Stove/Oven 75
Microwave 82
Oven
Clothes 55
Dryer
Efficiency data sources are documented in Appendix B.
-------
TABLE 4-5
COMMERCIAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY END USE*
End Use
Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption
as Percentage of Total Fossil
Fuel Used in Sector
Fossil Fuel Usage As Percentage
of Total Energy Consumed for
Each End Use
Space Heating
Water Heating
Cooking
Air Conditioning
877,
97o
270
2%
1007,
837o
94%
267o
997o = percentage of total
fossil fuel consumed
in sector accounted for
by the four end uses
listed. This analysis
excludes fossil fuels
used for feedstocks.
-'Derived from data published by Stanford Research Institute (ST-186) .
-------
TABLE 4-6
End Use
Space Heat
Heating
Water
Heating
Cooking
Air
Conditioning
ALTERNATIVE EQUIPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL SECTOR
Direct-Fired Fossil Fuel
Coal Fuel Oil Nat. Gas
Equip. Eff. % Equipment Eff. % Equipment Eff. ?„
Furnace 70 Furnace 76 Furnace 77
Water 55 Water 60
Heater Heater
Stove/Oven 37 Stove/Oven 37
Air 120
Conditioning
Electrical
Equipment
Baseboard
Furnace
Heat Pump
Water Heater
Stove /Oven
Microwave Oven
Air Conditioner
Heat Pump
Eff. %
100
100
200
92
75
82
200
200
Efficiency data sources are documented in Appendix B.
-------
fuels allocated to blast furnace operation, it was concluded that
a maximum of 4408 x 1012 Btu of fossil fuel energy could con-
ceiveably have been satisfied by electricity. This value was
expressed as a maximum because equipment availability constraints
were not considered. When these constraints are properly ac-
counted for the energy substitution possibilities shown in Table
4-7 are obtained. It can be seen from these data that only
1679 x 1012 Btu of switchable fossil fuel usage could be identi-
fied in 1968 when replacement alternatives were considered. This
amount of fuel usage represents .8.670 of the total fossil fuel
energy consumed in the industrial sector in 1968 as can be seen
from the data presented in Table 4-9. Electrical replacement
alternatives for industrial fossil fuel-fired end use hardware
items are listed in Table 4-8.
Based upon the results of this energy end use alter-
native survey, it was concluded that significant potential exists
for electrical substitution in the residential and commercial
sectors. Limited availability of electrical replacement equip-
ment in several end use categories however, severly limits in-
dustrial substitution potential. As shown by the data presented
in Table 4-9, the industrial sector accounted for only about
12% (1,679 compared to 14,295 total) of the total convertible
fossil fuel energy consumed in 1968.
4.3 Selection of End Use Modules
Assessing the incentives for converting from one
"clean" fuel to another requires an evaluation of the energy
use efficiency and environmental impact of fuel consumption
at the point of end use. The fuel usage and end use equipment
surveys previously discussed, provided a basis for defining
significant energy end uses in the residential, commercial,
-56-
-------
TABLE 4-7
01
INDUSTRIAL SECTOR FOSSIL FUEL
ENERGY USES
WHICH ARE REPLACEABLE BY ELECTRICITY
Fossil Fuel
Industrial Sector End Use Type
1. Primary Metals
a. Iron-Steel Steel Making Natural Gas,
Fuel Oil, or
LPG
Heating, Natural Gas
Annealing Fuel Oil
Space Heating Coal
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
b. Aluminum Melting, etc. All Fossil
Fuels
2. Chemical Space Heating All Fossil
Fuels
3. Food Space Heating Coal
Fuel Oil
and LPG
Natural Gas
4. Stone, Clay, Glass Melting . Natural Gas
5- Other Space Heating Natural Gas
Energy Used
1968
(1012 Btu)
102
32
304
56
18
128
41
80
42
126
71
270
108
251
Efficiency (%)
42*
42*
11"
11*
70
77
76
74
70
76
37
17*
74
TOTAL
Fuel oil, or CPG
1,679
"Calculated by assuming 95% efficiency for electrical equipment and
ratioing process energy requirements on a [Btu/wt. of product
producod 1 has Ls.
-------
TABLE 4-8
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
ALTERNATIVES IN INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
Industrial Sector
End Use
Electrical Equipment Efficiency (70)
1. Primary Metal
a. Iron-Steel Steel Making Electric Arc Steel
Heating,
Annealing
Space
Heating
Electric Arc or Electric
Induction Furnaces
Electric Furnaces
95*
95*
95
b. Aluminum Melting
Electric Arc or
Induction Furnaces
95'
2. Chemical
Space
Heating
Electric Furnace
95
3. Food
Space
Heating
Cooking
Electric Furnace
Electric Stoves/Ovens
Microwave Ovens
95
72
85
4. Stone, Clay, Glass
Glass
Electric Furnaces
95-
"'These efficiencies are assumed (based on efficiencies of other
similar equipment).
-58-
-------
TABLE 4-9
FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN 1968'"
Sector
Residential
Convertible
Fossil Fuel Total Fossil Fuel
Energy (1012Btu) Energy (10'2Btu) % Convertible
7,798
7,798.
100
Commercial
Industrial
Totals of
Above Three
Sectors
4,818
1,679
14,295
5,802
19,438
33^038
83
42
Derived from data published by Stanford Research lasritute (ST-16'6)
-59-
-------
and industrial sectors. In this section, the factors involved
in the selection of specific end use alternatives for detailed
consideration in the impact assessment (and comparison) phase
of the program are discussed.
In the residential sector, significant end uses of
fossil fuels included: space heating, water heating, cooking
and clothes drying (see Table 4-3). In the scenario assess-
ment phase of this program, however, only space heating was
considered. Elimination of the other residential sector end
uses was justified for the following reasons:
1) Space heating accounts for nearly 80% of the
fossil fuel energy consumed in the residential
sector
2) The relative therrnodynamic efficiencies of resi-
dential fossil fuel fired equipment items and
their electrical counterparts used for the other
end uses are very similar to those for space
heating (see Table 4-4). Clothes drying is an
exception but it represents only 1% of the fossil
fuel consumed in the sector.
3) Emissions resulting from the combustion of a
given fossil fuel are essentially identical for
all of the end use alternatives which utilize
that fuel.
The commercial sector is very similar to the resi-
dential sector in almost all respects, with the exception of the
higher relative efficiency of fossil fuel space heating. In
this sector, both space heating and water heating were selected
for use as representative end use modules. This decision was
based upon the following factors:
-60-
-------
1) Space heating and water heating account for
967o of the fossil fuel energy consumed in the
sector.
2) The relative thermodynamic efficiencies of
fossil fuel and 'electrically powered alternatives
for space heating and water heating are different.
Therefore, both end uses had to be selected to
properly characterize the trade-offs involved.
3) Cooking and air conditioning were the other
two most significant energy consumers in the
commercial sector. Since the relative efficiencies
(fossil fuel ys electric) of these alternatives
were similar to one of the above, these end uses
were not treated as unique cases.
Determining significant end use example cases in
the idustrial sector was complicated by the fact that space
heating was the only end use applicable to more than one of
the major industries considered. In this sector, therefore,
all end use alternatives having either
1) different relative efficiencies (fossil fuel
ys electrically powered equipment), or
2) unique combinations of environmental impacts
were given detailed consideration in the impact assessment
phase of the study.
-61-
-------
5.0 ENERGY USE EFFICIENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF FUEL SUPPLY AND END USE SCENARIOS
In this section, the methods used to calculate overall
energy use efficiencies and environmental impacts of both fuel
supply and energy end'use scenarios are described. Fuel supply
scenarios are discussed first because a number of significant
conclusions can be drawn from a consideration of fuel supply
activities independent of the effects of end use consumption
steps.
5.i Fuel Supply Scenarios
5.1.1 Module Assessment Methodology
As a first step in the scenario evaluation procedure,
the twelve fuel supply scenarios described in Section 4.1 were
broken down into their component modules. The module list
generated as a result of this activity is given in Table 5-1.
Also shown in that table are the process efficiency and environ-
mental impact data which were calculated for each module.
Impact data in Table 5-1 are expressed on the basis
of 1012 Btu/day output of useful energy. . The use of this basis
has the advantage of facilitating alternative comparisons be-
tween extraction, processing, and transportation steps. The
relative impact of generating electrical power using fuel oil
vs_ natural gas is one example of the kind of comparison which
can be made using the impact data presented in Table 5-1.
In order to generate the module data shown in Table
5-1, it was necessary to make several key assumptions to define
-62-
-------
Extraction
Surface Coal Hlne
(Western Coal)
Underground Coal Mine
(Illinois Coal)
Underground Oil Shale Win*
(Colorado Oil Shale)
Oil Well
(Gulf Coast Crude Oil)
Natural Cas Well
(Culf Const Hatural Cae)
Air Ettiaion* (lb/Hr>
12
0
.025 54
59 82.000
TABLE 5-1
MODULE SUMMARIES
(Basis-. 10" Btu/Day Primary Fuel Produced or Transported)
Water Emissions! flQ*^.b/lirI
Solid Water
Suspended Dissolved Organic Thermal Wastes Land Use Requirements
So lid a Sojjtte Hst trial (Uto/Hr) (10* Tona^Day) (10* AcfcjQ (10* Gal/Day
Occupational Health (per year)
10* Kan-day*
13
13
Etflctencie^JX)
Ancillary
Primary Tutal Energy
Product^ Products Ova TH 11 (10*^ Btu/Day)
100
100
100
99.6
99
99.5
100
.43
1.0
.54
Railroad
(Western Coal)
Railroad
(Illinois Coal)
Kailroad
(Physically Cleaned Illinois
Coal)
Pipeline
(Crude Oil)
Pipeline
(Hatural Ca«)
Tank Truck
(Fuel oil)
700 1,600 9,200
140 310 1,800
140 310 1.800
25 52 710
00 0
6 12 160
780
150
0.0064 0
0 0
0 0
5.3
0
0.79 78
.034
.0012 .035
2.9
99
100
100
100
91.6
97.4
97.4
NA
HA
' ProcessIoft/Conversion
O^ physical Co«l Cleaning
(^ (Illinois Cool) 00 0
' Chemical Coal Cleaning
(Illinois Coal) 340 1.100 3.500
Lou fttu Coal Gasification
(Illinois Coal) » 2.300 1.100
Hi Btu Coal Gasification
(Illinois CoAl} 940 10,000 7,800
Coat Liquefaction
(Illinois Coal) 610 2,000 8,500
Oil Shale Processing
(Colorado Oil Shale) 450 5,300 2,000
Domestic Crude Refinery 400 1.000 1,200
Power Plant (Chicago)
(Wcutern Coal)
(Electrostatic PreclpU.itor) 6.100 120,000 85.000
Power Plunt (Chicago)
(Illinois Coal)
(Limestone Scrubber)
Power Plant (Chicago)
(Phy. Clean 111. Coal)
(Limestone Scrubber)
(Residual Fuel Oil)
(Limestone Scrubber)
Power Plant (Chicago)
(Lo Btu Fuel Cas)
1'uwer PI.mi (Chic-}- »
(Nilturn) Cas)
9,500 74,000 97,000
5.700 41.000 93.000
63 22,000
1,700 58.000
1.700 68
83.000
68.000
68.000
32 33
410 130
340 2,600
170 2.700
130 4,100
90 3.000
4.700 1,400
5.400 1,700
5.200 1.600
5,000 1.5OO
2,400 2.400
1,900 110
1.900 110
0.30 11
0.25 9.1
0.063
0.052
.0037
.003
.12
.75
.70
3.3
5.2
4.3
3.2
29
11
.35
.32
35
35
J5
I)
13
13
2.4
.077
8.4
8.4
83.3
90
75.8
67.9
62.5
66.7
81.5
90.4
9O
83.9
67.9
62.5
7'). 7
89.5
95.4
62.5
7h-9
B7.1
94.7
35
37
0
5.6
3.5
.85
-------
bases for calculating process efficiencies and impacts. Such
factors as feedstock quality, process configuration, site spe-
cific characteristics, and control strategies used obviously
have a strong impact upon the results obtained in an analytical
task such as that described here. Specific assumptions which
were made in order to calculate the data presented in Table 5-1
are summarized in the detailed module descriptions which are
presented in Appendix C. Some general guidelines which were
followed in the formulation of key assumptions are discussed
below.
Each module was first examined from a functional stand-
point. Available technologies for accomplishing the desired ex-
traction, conversion or transportation step were determined.
These alternatives were then screened with regard to their phy-
sical similarities and differences. In cases where alternative
processes used similar approaches to accomplish a given task,
the selection of a representative or typical process configuration
was reasonably straightforward. Where significant differences
in process alternatives were noted (e.g., gasification reactor
design in the case of coal gasification processes), an arbi-
trary selection of a basis for that processing step had to be
made, with developing technologies, those which appeared to be
most advanced were selected. In other cases, processes which
had the highest efficiency or lowest cost were chosen to repre-
sent a given process step.
At the conclusion of this preliminary screening, a
specific representative process configuration was defined for
each module. Each module was then subjected to detailed process
engineering analysis. Material balances were established based
upon reviews of available data. Quantities and compositions of
potential waste streams were defined. Auxiliary facility require-
ments such as boiler plants and cooling towers were determined.
-64-
-------
These facilities were analyzed to determine their raw materials
requirements and waste production rates.
The final step in the module analysis effort in-
volved a determination of the control facilities to be applied
to potential effluent sources. Control efficiencies and energy
requirements for these facilities were established. The result-
ing controlled waste streams from all module sources were then
added and tabulated in module impact tables.
It should be noted that secondary impacts such as
emissions from steel mills required to supply materials for the
construction of a facility were not considered. Only the impacts
resulting from steady-state operation of a module facility
were considered.
Generally, particulate and S02 emission rates were
calculated by assuming compliance with Federal New Source Per-
formance Standards. When dealing with impact categories for
which no standards existed, the use of best reasonable tech-
nology which was currently available was assumed.
For all of the modules considered in this study,
three different process efficiency terms were calculated. The
basis for each of these efficiencies is explained below. The
primary products efficiency of a module is calculated as follows:
Primary Products Efficiency = ^ergy Content of Primary Module Products
Energy Content of Module Feedstock
-65-
-------
This efficiency term is best explained through the use of an
example. In a high Btu coal gasification process, SNG is the
primary fuel product. If 100 Btu of coal must be fed to the
gasification module in order to produce 65 Btu of SNG, then the
primary product efficiency of the module for this example
is 657o. This efficiency value is important because it defines
the amount of feedstock material which must be supplied to a
module to derive 1012 Btu of the desired fuel product. Since
this feedstock material must itself be produced as a product
of "upstream" modules, this efficiency value is also the factor
which must be used to scale-up the impacts of feedstock or fuel
production activities which preceded a given module in an energy
supply scenario..
The second efficiency value which was calculated for
each module was a total products efficiency. This efficiency
is defined as follows:
Total Products Efficiency =
Energy Content of all Module Products (Primary Products + By-Products)
Energy Content of Module Feedstock
In the gasification example described above, if 10
Btu of by-products (char, tars, etc.) are produced along with
65 Btu of SNG for every 100 Btu of coal feed, then the total
product efficiency in this example case is 757<>. Although this
efficiency value does not have any significance for purposes of
calculating total scenario impacts, it does give an indication
of the relative amounts of useful by-products produced by
certain modules.
The third efficiency value which is listed in Table
5-1 is referred to as an overall efficiency. This efficiency
term is calculated as follows:
-66-
-------
Overall Efficiency =
Energy Content of all Module Products (Primary Products + By-Products^
Energy Content of Module Feedstock + Ancillary Energy Inputs
This value is called the overall efficiency of the module be-
cause it properly accounts for all module energy inputs and
outputs.
5.1.2
Fuel Supply Scenario Evaluation and Ranking
The module data listed in Table 5-1 provided the basis
for subsequent calculations of overall fuel supply scenario im-
pacts. In this section, the procedures used to determine over-
all scenario efficiencies and impacts are described and rela-
tive comparisons of the various scenarios considered are made.
The procedure used to calculate overall scenario im-
pacts is best illustrated through the use of the following
example case.
Shown in Figure 5-1 is a schematic representation of
a hypothetical fuel supply scenario which is composed of the
three modules A, B and C where A is an extraction module, B
is a transportation module and C is a fuel production module.
A
^ >
r
B
PB
^
C
pc
FIGURE 5-1. ' HYPOTHETICAL FUEL SUPPLY SCENARIO
-67-
-------
For purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that:
P. , Pg and ?„ are the primary fuel products
of each module.
PPEA, PPEv, and PPEr are their primary product
A O L»
efficiencies .
I. . , I. R and I. r are the impacts resulting
1 , A 1 , O 1 , L>
from the production of 10 12 Btu/day of each
primary product. The "i" subscript is being
used here to indicate that there are several
module impact categories to be considered, e.g. ,
SOa emissions, land use, solid waste production,
etc.
For this hypothetical case, overall scenario impacts
would be calculated as:
X. = I. + i>B + i)A
i,overall i,C ppE (pPE..)X(PPEr)
scenario C B x C'
Overall scenario efficiencies were calculated by multiplying
the efficiencies of their component modules. For the example
case considered here.
PPEoverall
scenario
Other efficiency terms were handled in like fashion.
-63-
-------
The results obtained by applying these procedures
to the twelve fuel supply scenarios considered in this study
are shown in Table 5-2. It should be noted here that all
impact data shown in this table have been burdened with appro-
priate inefficiencies of "downstream" modules. In fuel supply
scenario SI, for example, the gas well impact figures were
obtained by multiplying the module emissions listed in Table
5-1 by a factor of 2.7.
.O X .37
The process efficiency and environmental impact data
shown in Table 5-2 are useful not only for purposes of comparing
overall scenario characteristics but also because they indicate
which steps in the fuel supply chains shown make the most signi-
ficant contributions to overall scenario efficiency and impact
values. In fuel supply scenario SI for example, the power plant
module is the major source of scenario particulate emissions.
The power plant is also the major cause of the low overall effi-
ciency shown for scenario SI.
Distribution of electricity through transmission lines
and natural gas through pipelines was found to have a negligible
effect on overall fuel supply scenario efficiencies and environ-
mental impacts. For this reason, a distribution module was not
included as a separate step in scenarios which produce elec-
tricity and gaseous fuels. A separate distribution module for
the fuel oil case was developed however, since the impacts
which result from this particular distribution step are not
negligible.
Calculated scenario impacts are obviously strongly
affected by the primary product efficiencies of the modules
-69-
-------
Fuel
Supply
Sccnarl
SI
S2
S3
54
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Sll
S12
'
Natural Gas Pipeline to Chicago
Natural Gas Well (Culf Coast)
Total for Scenario
Oil-Fired Power Plant (Chicago)
Crude Oil Refinery (Chicago)
Crude Oil Pipeline to Chicago
Oil Well (Culf Coast)
Total for Scenario
Coal-Fired Power Plant (Chicago)
Railroad to Chicago
Underground Coal Mine (Illinois)
Total for Scenario
Coal-Fired Power Plant (Chicago)
Railroad to Chicago
Surface Coal Mine (Wyoming)
Total for Scenario
Luw Btu Cas-i'irtd Power Plant (Chica
Low Btu Gasification (Chicago)
Railroad to Chicago
Underground Coal Mine (Illinois)
Total for Scenario
Coal-Fired Power Plant (Chicago)
Railroad to Chicago
Physical Cleaning of Coal (Mine)
Underground Coal Mine (Illinois)
Railroad to Chicago
Chemical Cleaning of Coal (Mine)
Underground Coal Mine (Illinois)
Total for Scenario
Dlstrihutlon (Tank Truck)
Crude Oil Refinery (Chicago)
Crude Oil Pipeline to Chicago
Oil Well (Culf Const)
Total for Scenario
Fuel Oil Pipeline to Chicago
Retort and Upgrade (Mine)
Underground Oil Shale Mine (Colorado
Total for Scenario
Distribution (Tank Truck)
Liquefaction Syn-Crude Refinery (Chi
Liquefaction (Chicago)
Hailr.iail to Chicago
Total for Scenario
Natural Gas Pipeline to Chicago
Natural Gas Well (Gulf Coast)
Total for Scenario
111 Htu Gasification (Chicago)
Railroad to Chicago
Underground C.inl Mine (Illinois)
0
140
1,800
63
1,100
79
I
1, 200
9,500
390
0
9.900
6,100
1,909
2,100
10,000
go) 1,700
2
480
0
2,200
5,700
390
0
0
6,100
8,900
390
980
0
10.000
6
400
28
0
430
6
25
450
) 96
580
6
cago) 460
680
270
0
1.400
0
52
52
940
200
0
1.100
Air E
SO 2
68
0
450
520
22,000
2.800
170
1
25.000
74,000
890
0
75,000
120,000
4,300
31
120.000
58.000
6,100
1.100
0
65,000
41,000
890
0
0
42,000
29,000
890
3.300
0
33,000
12
1,000
58
0
1,100
12
52
5,300
0
5,400
12
1.400
2,200
610
0
4.200
0
170
170
10.000
460
0
10.000
missions (Ih/hr)
68.000
0
5.600
74,000
83,000
3.500
2.300
1
89,000
97,000
5.100
0
100,000
84,000
25,000
440
110,000
68.000
3,100
6,400
0
78,000
93,000
5.100
0
0
98,000
89,000
5,100
10.000
0
100.000
160
1,200
790
0
2,200
160
710
2.000
0
2,900
160
1.700
19.500
3.500
0
25,000
0
2.100
2. UK)"
7.800
2,600
0
10,000
1.900
0
160
2.100
2.400
260
1.400
0
4,100
5,400
2.500
0
7.900
4,700
12,000
260
17,000
1,900
87
3.100
0
5.100
5.200
2.500
0
0
7,700
5,000
2.500
550
0
8.000
100
90
480
0
670
100
430
170
0
700
100
130
380
1.700
0
2 , 300
0
59
59
410
1.300
0
1.700
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA
(Basis: 10" Btu
Water Emissions (10
Suspended
110
0
220.000
"220,000
2,400
8,600
230
170
11,000
1,600
440
0
2,000
1.400
2,100
52
3,600
110
88
540
0
740
1.600
440
0
0
2.000
1,500
440
170
0
2,100
17
3,000
79
60
3.200
17
71
2.700
0
2,800
17
4.100
2.900
300
0
7.300
0
82 . OttO
82.000
130
220
0
350
3
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
4
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dissolved
16
0
0
16
17
26
0
0
43
17
0
0
17
16
0
0
16
16
0
0
0
16
17
0
0
0
17
0
53
0
70
0
9
n
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
11
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
TABUi 5-2
CTS OF FUEL SUPPLY SCENARIOS
Ib/hr)
Organic Thenuil
1
0
0
1
1
0.15
0.02
0
1.2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
I
1
0
0.14
0
1.1
0
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.01
0
0
0.01
0
0.06
0
0
0
0.06
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sol id
Waste
0
0
0
0
0.009
0
0
10
55
1
0.3
56
9
2
0
11
0
20
2
0
22"
32
1
31
0
34
1
13
0
48
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
0
160
0
0.004
9
1
0
10
0
0
0
a
.68
0
8.7
Land Water
Use Requirement
2
14
33
49
4
12
6.3
3.2
25
to
19
37
66
10
72
5
87
2
2.0
24
46
74
10
19
0.5
45
74
10
19
0.4
41
70
0
4
2.2
1. 1
7.3
0
2.0
2
2
6
0
5
4
13
26
48"
5
12
17
0.01
10
29
120
0
0
120
130
32
0
1)
160
130
0
0
130
120
0
0
120
120
30
0
0
"150
130
0
9
0
130
0
85
0
220
0
U
0
0
11
0
0
21
0
21
0
16
37
0
0
53
0
0
0
25
0
0
25
Occnp
y) Deaths
0.32
0.003
0.00!)
0.33
0.4
1.4
0.1
2.5
4.4
0.35
2.4
12
15
0.32
3.0
2.5
5.8
.32
1.9
3.0
15
20
0.4
2.3
4.1
14
21
0.4
2.4
HA
13
"16
NA
0.5
0.04
.89
1.4
NA
0.03
0.76
2.2
3.0
NA
0.5
0.6
1.7
7.9
11
0.01
0.81
0.82
1.0
1.2
5.9
8.9
itloual Health (per yr)
1111 ""HTin-abYfc
Injuries Lost
13
.09
210
220
15
100
9
240
360
15
230
1,200
1,400
13
270
93
380
13
38
290
1.40O
1 ", 7110
15
220
83
1.400
i . mo '
15
230
NA
It 300
1.500
NA
35
3.2
85
120
NA
2.9
79
100
180
NA
35
11
160
800
1. 000
.035
11
77 ~
61
120
600
780
5
.02
34
39
6
24
.94
40
71
6
21
43
"70
5
25
6
36
5
20
26
53
100
6
20
37
51
110
6
21
NA
47
74
NA
8
0.3
14
22
NA
0.3
0
NA
0.3
NA
8
3
14
29
"54
.008
13
13
17
II
22
50
Kffiolonciui.
Primary
37
100
100
37
35
90
100
100
32
35
99
ion
35
35
99
too
37
37
76
99
100
28
35
99
83
100
"29
35
99
90
100
31
100
90
100
100
90
100
100
67
100
67
10
8
6
9
10
5
100
~92
68
99
100
"67
Total
37
too
100
37
35
95
100
100
33
35
99
100
"35
17
99
100
"37
37
84
99
ItIO
31
35
99
83
100
29
35
99
90
too
31
100
95
100
100
95
100
100
80
100
80
101)
'JO
62
'J9
55
100
92
"92"
68
99
100
67
u>
37
95
100
35
35
95
99
100
33
35
97
9'J
34
35
92
99
34
37
84
97
99
30
35
97
83
99
28
35
97
90
99
30
100
95
99
100
94
100
77
99
75
100
87
62
97
'19
52
95
100
9~5"
68
97
99
65
NA - Not AV, '
-------
which comprise each scenario. For this reason, electrical
supply scenarios generally have greater overall impacts than
fuel oil or natural gas supply scenarios due to the low con-
version efficiency of the electrical power generation step.
Particulate and CO emissions for example, are normally highest
in those scenarios which produce electricity as an end use fuel.
S02 and NO emissions are substantially higher in most electri-
cal supply scenarios. Scenario SI, which has low S02 emissions
is an exception. Hydrocarbon emissions vary widely among the
scenarios with significant emissions occurring in scenarios SI
and Sll due to the contribution of wellhead losses associated
with natural gas production activities.
The low efficiency of the electrical generation step
(which magnifies the relative effects of upstream extraction and
processing modules) is not the only reason why electrical supply
scenario impacts are generally higher than fossil fuel supply
scenario impacts. An inspection of the figures presented in
Table 5-2 readily shows that the power plants themselves are
significant contributors to the total calculated impacts of
electrical supply scenarios. This is particularly true in the
case of the air emission figures shown. In fossil fuel supply
scenarios, processing/conversion operations (e.g., refineries,
liquefaction plants, oil shale retorting facilities) are usually
the most significant sources of both air emissions and other
impacts as well.
The twelve fuel supply scenarios considered in this
study are ranked on the basis of their overall efficiencies in
Table 5-3. It can be seen from this comparison that the fossil
fuel supply scenarios all have higher efficiencies than the
electricity supply cases shown. This is because the former are
not burdened by the low 35 to 37% efficiency of the power plant
module.
-71-
-------
TABLE 5-3
RANK OF FUEL SUPPLY SCENARIOS BY
OVERALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Overall Fuel Supply
Fuel Supply Scenario Number-' Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form _____
1 Sll - Natural Gas 95
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 94
3 S9 - Fuel Oil 75
4 S12- Natural Gas 65
5 S10 - Fuel Oil 52
6 SI - Electricity 35
7 S4 - Electricity 34
8 S3 - Electricity 34
9 S2 - Electricity 33
10 S7 - Electricity 30
11 S5 - Electricity 30
12 S6 - Electricity 28
* See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-72-
-------
The first and second ranked scenarios (Sll and S3)
are fossil fuel supply scenarios that originate at oil and gas
wells and which utilize minimum intermediate processing.
Scenarios ranked in positions 3, 4 and 5 (S9, S12 and S10)
also produce fossil fuels, however, the inclusion of a shale
oil processing or coal conversion module in these scenarios has
lowered their efficiencies.
Electricity supply scenarios all have approximately
the same overall efficiency. This is due to the fact that the
power plant modules have such low efficiencies compared to the
other modules used in these scenarios. It is important to
realize here that power plant efficiencies were assumed to be
independent of the fuel consumed by the module except for cases
where fuel quality considerations necessitated the inclusion of
a flue gas desulfurization unit. SI is the most efficient of
the electrical supply scenarios because negligible processing
of raw natural gas is required. Also, electrical conversion
energy losses are minimal for this scenario since no flue gas
treatment steps are needed.
5.2 End Use Scenarios
The analysis which was presented in the previous sec-
tion showed that fossil fuel supply scenarios are typically
more efficient 'from a fuel usage point of view than electricity
supply scenarios. In addition, fossil fuel supply scenarios
were generally more attractive from an overall impact standpoint
as well. Although this type of analysis does give an indication
of the relative attractiveness of producing a given end use fuel
by different methods, the production of an end use fuel per se
is not the ultimate objective of the fuel supply activities
considered.
-73-
-------
The significant factor which has not been treated up
to this point is the affect that end use module performance has
upon overall energy supply scenario efficiencies.and impacts.
This aspect of the energy supply picture is considered in this
section.
The criteria which were used to select representative
end use modules for detailed consideration in this phase of the
study were discussed in Section 4.3. Significant end use module
options which were defined in that section are listed in Table
5-4, also shown in the table are the calculated impacts and
efficiencies of each of the modules.
From an inspection of the data presented in Table 5-4,
it can be seen that in all cases, the electrically powered end
use equipment items listed are more efficient than their fossil
fuel fired counterparts. Effectively, this tends to penalize
fossil fuel supply scenarios relative to electricity producing
alternatives. The net effect of this factor is to bring the
efficiencies and impacts of fossil fuel and electrical end use
scenarios closer together.
The techniques which were used to calculate overall
end use scenario impacts are similar to those discussed before
for the fuel supply cases. Basically, fuel supply scenario im-
pacts were burdened by a factor of 100/PPE where PPE is the
primary product (or, more specifically, primary fuel utilization)
efficiency of the end use module being considered. Burdened
fuel supply scenario impacts were then added to the impacts of
the end use module to obtain overall end use scenario impacts.
Overall scenario efficiencies were calculated by multiplying
the efficiencies of the fuel supply scenarios and the end use
modules involved in each case.
-74-
-------
TAliLE 5-4
EM3 USE MODULE SUMMARIES
Air tfr'.-.'lfln* (l.h/llr)
:;.-um-..l r:.ss-FIrt-d
Natural (ias-FLrud
Hi I-Pi rod U'au-r lk-<
Satui.il Cas-FIivJ
1 . JUO 42
s.iCd J j,or.n
l.JIil) 4.'
5,400 LM.OOO
2I,00il(>
t>,iO(l
5, Ann
6.500
9,000
11,000
rn
1 .1* (if)
.', 71 HI
1,40(1
2,700
2.30U
4.400
spi-ndvil !>l»s»lv.-d Or^anlr
Occupational Ileulih
Efflci«icl_es.«)
Solid
Wasted
•^""'U M-.lerl.il u' Arr«i.)
000 0 0
primary Total
Product Produrr
Ancllla."'
t«erEy
Ui
I
.'.iliTal l.as-Firi-d
Sjucc Ik-Ating
i;i-i-'ii(;d Space Meeting
0,500 1,100
•).900 17,01)0 23.000 1,600
(I'iiO)*
430
1,200
5(>0
1,000 32 6.500 920 160
5.9Gi'» L 7 . UOO 2 J, 000 i. 600 1. L'OO
Oil-fired Ht-;
/•Uir.L-.il ing
1 ,800 fit) 24,0f«) 1,700
11,000 'JO ,000 4 3.000 I, SOO
(500)-
i ;.[i
-------
The results which are shown in Table 5-5 were obtained
when this procedure was used to compare alternative methods of
satisfying residential space heat demands. Calculated overall
efficiencies and impacts of other significant end use scenarios
are shown in Tables 5-6 through 5-14.
Normally there are 12 end use scenarios shown for each
end use application since 12 fuel supply scenarios were considered
in this study. The space heating category is an exception how-
ever .
Space heating is more complex than the other end uses
examined here due to the availability of an electric heat pump
(which is assumed to be twice as efficient as other types of
electrical space heating equipment - see Appendix B). For this
reason, electrical space heating scenarios can have overall
energy efficiencies and environmental impacts which vary by a
factor of two, depending on the type of end use equipment which •
is used. In order to give space heating scenarios utilizing
electrical equipment credit for the option of using a heat pump
and still examine the types of electrical equipment currently
employed at most end use sites, two groups of space heat end use
scenarios for each sector are presented. In one case, conven-
tional electrical space heating equipment is assumed to be used.
In the other, the heat pump case is considered.
The environmental impacts of electrical end use
scenarios (excluding heat pumps) are always approximately the
same as those generated by the electricity supply scenarios.
This is true because electrically powered end use equipment
items are generally about 100% energy efficient and the impacts
of electrical equipment usage are negligible. Impacts of end
use scenarios involving the combustion of fossil fuels on the
-76-
-------
TABLE 5-5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OK
Air Emissions (Ib/hr)
Scenarios
itural Cas- E ired
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Space Hunt End Use
S12 Plus Space Heal End Use
Oil-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario S8
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario S10
Totals
S3 Plus Space Heat End Use
S9 Plus Space Heat End Use
S10 Pins Space Heat End Use
Electric [Excluding Heat Pump)
. Totals
' SI Plus Space Heat End Use
52 Plus Space Heat End Use
' S3 Plus Spacu Heat End" Use
* S4 Plus Space Heat End Use
S5 Pino Space Heat End Use
36 Plus Space llfjl End Use
S7 Plus Space He.,t End Use
Electric (Utilizing Heat Pnmp)
Totals
SI Pins Space Hear F.ild Use
S2 Plus Space Heat End USB
S3 Plus Space H.-.H End Use
S4 Plus Space Heat End Use
S5 Plus Space Heat End Use
S6 Pins Space Heat End Use
S7 Plus Space Heat End Use
Part.
1,300
90
1,900
1,400
3,200
5,400
790
1,100
2,500
6,200
6,500
7 , 900
0
1,800
1,200
9,900
10,000
2,2nn
6, 100
10,000
0
910
600
4,900
5,000
1,100
3,000
5,100
SOj
42
280
18,000
320
18,000
23,000
(380)*
2 , 000
9,800
7,600
25,000
10,000
31,000
0
520
25,000
75,000
120,000
65,000
42,000
33,000
0
260
12,000
37,000
62,000
33,000
21,000
17,000
N0<
5,600
3,500
17,000
9,000
23,00(1
6,500
4,000
5,300
45,000
11,000
1 2 , 000
52,000
0
74 , 000
89,000
100,000
110,000
78,000
98,000
100,000
0
37,000
45,000
51,000
55.000
39,000
49,000
52,000
CO
1,400
98
2,800
1,500
3 , 200
2,700
1,200
1 , 300
4,200
3,900
4 , 000
0,900
0
2,100
4,100
7,900
1 7 , 000
5,100
7.700
8,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,900
8,500
2,500
3,800
4 , 000
1IC
560
140,000
580
140,000
1,100
1,600
5,800
5,000
13,000
7,400
6,600
15,000
0
220,000
1 1 , 000
2,000
1,600
740
2,000
2,100
0
110,500
5,700
1,000
1,300
370
980
1,000
RES1ULKTIAL SPACE HEAT END USE +
(Basis: 101! Btu/Duy Useful Energy Produ
Watei Emissions (10* Jli/hr) Solid
Suspended
Solids
0
•J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
Dissolved Organic
Solids Material
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
17 -02
0 .02
20 .1
17 .02
0 .02
20 .1
0 0
16 1
43 1.2
17 1
16 1
1C 1
17 1
70 1
0 0
8 1
21 1
8 1
8 1
8 1
8 1
35 1
Waste
(101 tons/day)
0
0
14
0
13
0
0
300
19
0
300
19
I)
0
10
56
11
22
64
48
0
0
5
28
5
11
32
24
red)
Land
Use
(10! acres)
0
28
4K
28
48
0
13
11
87
13
11
87
49
25
66
IJ7
74
74
70
0
24
13
33
44
37
37
35
Thermal
(Bin /In)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ujtcr
Koijitiremt'nt
(la £al/da_y|
0
0
42
0
42
0
20
38
96
20
38
9(,
0
120
160
130
120
150
140
220
0
58
81
65
58
75
70
110
Occupational Health d.t'r vc.-,rl
Deaths
NA
1
15
1
15
NA
2.5
5
20
2.5
5
20
.3'!
4
15
5.8
20
21
16
NA
.16
2
7
2.9
10
10
8
NA
.130
1,300
130
1 , JOO
NA
2^0
340
1,800
220
340
),SOO
NA
220
360
1.400
380
1,700
1,700
1,500
NA
110
180
680
190
850
830
740
101 Man Days
NA
21
113
21
83
NA
40
NA
98
40
NA
98
NA
39
71
70
'86
100
110
74
NA
20
:is
35
18
50
56
37
Overall
Efficiency
60
95
61
57
39
94
75
52
52
41
29
35
33
34
70
66
68
68
60
56
60
+Kuel supl'-ly scenarios are burdened l>y end use efficiencies.
"Combust t-m of 00'' ut . % S fuel oil produced by fuel supply scenaiio S9.
NA - Noc Available
-------
TABLE
ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL WATER HEAT END
Air Emissions
1
^J
00
1
Scenarios
Natural Gas-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Water Heat End Use
S12 Plus Water Heat End Use
OU-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario S8
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario S10
Totals
S8 Plus Water Heat End Use
S9 Plus Water Heat End Use
310 Plus Water Heat End Use
Electric
Totals
SI Plus Wute llea End Use
S2 Plus Wate llea End Use
S3 Plus Wate Heu End Use
S4 Plus Wate llea End Use
S5 Plus Wate Hea End Use
S6 Plus Wate Hca End Use
S7 Plus Wato Hca End Use
Part.
1,300
90
1,900
1,400
3,200
5,400
790
1,100
2,500
6,200
6,500
7,900
0
2,000
1,300
11,000
11,000
2,200
6,600
11,000
SO;
42
280
18,000
320
18,000
23.000
(380)*
2:000
9,800
7,600
25,000
10,000
31,000
0
560
27,000
81,000
140,000
71.000
46,000
36,000
NOX
5,600
3,500
17,000
9,000
23,000
6,500
4,000
5,300
45,000
11,000
12,000
52,000
0
80,000
97.000
110,000
120,000
82,000
110,000
110,000
<)b/hr)
CO
1,400
98
2,800
1,500
3.200
2,700
1,200
1,400
4,200
4,000
4,100
6,900
0
2,300
4,400
8,600
18,000
4,900
8,400
8,700
(Basis:
HC
550
140,000
580
140,000
1,100
1,600
5,800
5,000
13,000
7,400
6,600
15,000
0
240,000
12,000
2,200
3,900
690
2,100
2,200
10' ! BTU/day Useful Energy Produced)
Water Emissions (103 Ib/hr) Solid
Suspended
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
Dissolved
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
20
17
0
20
0
17
47
18
17
17
18
76
Organic
Material
0
0
0
0
0
0
.02
.02
. 1
.02
.02
.1
0
1
I
1
1
1
1
2
Waste
(10J tons/day)
0
0
14
0
14
0
0
300
19
Neg
290
19
0
0
11
61
10
24
70
52
USE'
T.ond
Use
<10! acres)
0
28
48
28
48
0
13
11
8/
13
11
87
0
53
27
71
55
80
30
76
Water
Thermal Requirement
iSt!iih-!l I1Q6 eal/dav)
0
42
0
20
38
96
20
38
96
0
130
180
140
130
160
150
240
_0ccupattonal Health (per year)
10 iuin Days
Deaths Injuries Lost
NA
1
15
2.5
2
20
2.5
2
20
5
16
5
22
23
17
NA
1 130
15 1,300
130
1.300
DA
220
340
1,800
220
340
1,800
240
400
1,500
370
1,900
I,-.100
1,600
NA
21
83
21
S3
40
NA
98
40
NA
98
42
77
76
28
110
120
80
95
65
57
39
94
75
52
52
41
29
32
30
31
28
+Fuel supply scenarios are burdened by end use efficiencies.
*Combusrion of .005 wt. % S fuel oil produced by fuel supply scenario S9.
NA - Not Available
-------
TAJ1U; V7
KNVIKONHKHTAL IMPACTS OF RKSIIiKNTAI. COOKING Mil USK^
Air F.nls.Hlons (Ib/hr)
Scenario:!
Natural l.'as-tlrcd
Fuul Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Cook lns tod (I.-;,-
S12 Tin:. Cooking ICnd Due
Oil -II red
Fuel Supply Scenario Sa
Fuul Supply Scenario 39
Fuel Supply Scenai lo SIO
Totals
S8 Plus Cooking tod Use
S9 Plus CookloK Knd Use
SIO Plus Cooking laid Use
electric
Tot a 1 ;,
SI Plus Cooking Kud Osc
S2 1'lus Cook! ||K End Use
SI Plus Cook Inj; bid Use
S4 Plus Cooking Kod Use
S5 Plus Cook lim Bud Use
S6 Plus Cooking Knd Use
S7 Plus Cooking tnd Use
Part .
2.100
140
3,000
i , 200
5 . 1 00
11.0(10
1 . 200
1,600
3 . aoo
'> . 200
9.600
12,000
n
2 . 400
1 ,600
13.000
1 3 . 000
2 , 900
8,100
14.000
SU^
68
450
29.000
520
29.000
3 'i OOM
3,000
15.00U
11.0110
17.IKIO
I6.0OO
45.000
0
690
33.000
100.000
170.000
n i , (loo
56,000
44.000
NOX
9,000
5,600
27.000
15.000
36,00(1
'.1,700
6,000
7,800
68.00(1
16,000
18,01X1
78,000
0
99 , (XIO
120,000
140,000
150,000
100,000
130,000
140,000
CO
2.300
16(1
4.600
2.400
6,900
4,000
1,1100
1 , 900
6,200
5. SIX)
5.900
10.000
0
2.HOO
1.400
1 1 ,000
23,000
6 DUO
10,1X10
11,000
(Hauls: 10" Bin/Day ot Useful ,.,
U.lt.T Kmli.sloos (10* Ill/la)
Suspended
IIC
900
220,000
940
220.000
1,1100
2.400
8,600
7.400
2U.OOU
10.000
9, aoo
22.000
0
290,000
15,000
2 . 700
4,800
1,000
2 , 6011
2.700
Solids
0
0
0
(I
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
I
0
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
Ulssolved
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
30
25
0
30
0
21
57
23
21
21
23
94
Organic
Material
0
0
0
II
0
0
.03
.0)
.16
.03
.03
.16
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
n-rgy rYoduied)
Solid
Haste
(Id1 titns/duy^
0
0
23
0
23
0
0
440
28
0
440
2u
0
0
13
75
15
29
lid
64
Land
Use
J_ (10* acres)
(I
46
711
4I>
;n
0
20
16
130
20
16
130
0
65
II
00
120
99
99
93
Tlierni.il
(lltu/lir)
II
0
0
0
tl
0
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
0
Water
Xi-Mulriwint
(H)1* Kill/day)
0
II
68
I)
68
I)
311
57
14(1
30
57
ISO
0
16O
220
1IMI
160
200
190
290
loiial Health
c l>uiitciiu
-------
TABLE 5-8
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE HEAT END
Air Emissions (Ib/hr)
1
oo
1
Scenarios
Natural Gas-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Space Heat End Use
S12 Plus Space Heat End Use
011-Fired
Fuel Supply Scenario S8
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario S10
Totals
S8 Plus Space Heat End Use
S9 Plus Space Heat End Use
S10 Plus Space Heat End Use
Electric (Excluding Heat Pump)
Totals
SI Plus Space Heat End Use
S2 Plus Space Heat End Use
S3 Plus Space Heat End Use
S4 Plus Space Heat End Use
S5 Plus Space Heat End Use
S6 Plus Space Heat End Use
S7 Plus Space Heat End Use
Electric (Utilizing Heat Pump)
Totals
SI Plus Spuce Heat End Use
S2 Plus Space Heat End Use
S3 Plus Space Heat End Use
S4 Plus Space Heat End Use
S5 Plus Space Heat End Use
S6 Plus Spuce Heat End Use
S7 Plus Space Heat End Use
Part.
1,000
68
1,400
1,100
2,400
5,900
570
760
1.800
6,500
6,700
7,700
0
1,800
1,200
9,900
10,000
2,200
6,100
10,000
0
910
640
4,900
5,000
1,100
3,000
5,100
SO;
32
220
14,000
250
14,000
17,000
(280)*
1,400
7.000
5,500
18,000
7,400
22,000
0
520
25,000
75,000
120,000
65,000
42,000
33,000
0
260
12,000
37,000
62,000
33,000
21,000
17,000
NO*
6,500
2,700
13,000
9,200
20,000
24,000
2,900
3.800
33,000
26.000
27,000
57,000
0
74,000
89.000
100,000
110.000
78,000
98,000
100,000
0
37,000
45,000
51,000
55,000
39,000
49,000
52,000
CO
1,100
77
2,200
1,200
3,300
1,600
880
920
3,000
2,500
2,500
4,600
0
2,100
4,100
7.900
17,000
5.100
7.7UO
8,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,900
8,000
2,600
3.800
4,000
(Basis: 1012 fltu/Day of Useful Energy Produced)
Water Emissions (103 Ib/hr) Solid
HC
430
110,000
450
110.000
880
1.100
4.200
3,600
9,600
5,300
4,800
11.000
0
220,000
11,000
2,000
3,600
740
2,000
2,100
0
110,000-
5.700
1,000
1,800
370
980
1,000
Suspended
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
Dissolved Organic
Solids Material
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
12 .01
0 -01
14 -08
12 -01
0 .01
14 .08
0 0
16 1
43
17
16
16
17
70 1
0 0
8 1
21
8
8
8
8
35
Waste
(10! tons/day)
0
0
11
0
11
0
0
220
14
0
220
14
0
0
10
56
11
22
64
48
0
0
5
28
5
11
32
24
USE*
Land
Use
(103 acres)
0
22
38
22
38
0
10
8
63
10
8
63
0
49
25
66
87
74
74
70
0
24
13
33
43
37
37
35
Thermal
(Btu/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hater
Requirements
(10* gal/day)
0
0
32
0
32
0
15
28
70
15
28
70
0
120
160
130
120
150
140
220
0
58
82
66
58
75
70
110
Occupational Health (per year)
10 Man Days Overall
Deaths Injuries Lost Efficiency (%)
NA NA
1.1 100
12 1,000
1.1
12
NA
1.8
3.6
14
l.S
3.6
14
20
21
16
.2
2
7
2.9
10
10
100
1,000
NA
160
240
1,300
160
240
1.300
220
360
1,400
380
1,700
1,700
1,500
NA
110
180
680
190
850
830
740
NA
17
65
17
65
NA
29
29
NA
71
39
71
70
36
100
110
74
20
35
35
18
50
56
37
77
95
65
73
50
94
75
52
71
57
40
35
33
34
34
30
28
10
70
66
68
68
60
56
60
+Fuel supply scenarios are burdened by end use efficiencies.
'Combustion of .005 wt Z S fuel oil produced by fuel supply scenario S9.
NA - Not Available
-------
I
00
TABI.K _
KMVIHONMKNTAL IHI'ACTK <.lt l.dMHKKlJI Ai. MATKK IIIJAT KtlD ll.'it*
Air K'HlssU'115 (Ib/li
!i,,,,.rio,
Nuturjl O.is-f lrtd
FIR:! Supply Scenario SH
Kiicl Supply Sci-uji i.) SJ2
Totals
Sll I'lus, Wjlur Hu.it End Use
S12 plu..; Ualtir llo.il l-:u,l Uiit-
Electric
Tutiils
SI I'lua U.I ur lluac tuj Use
52 Plus W.i . . llu.it End u.,u
S3 Plus U.i it Ik-at End llao
S4 Plus W.i t. Ik-at K.i.l U:.e
US I'l,, a W.I cr lie..; Cud Use
S6 Plus Ua . r II,- .it End U.,c
S; I'lui; W., er llc.,1 th,l ll:-.u
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
11
11
2
6
11
irt .
,300
,,0
,900
.400
,200
0
.000
, 100
.000
,000
. .'00
.600
,000
so,
42
280
18,000
.12(1
18,000
0
560
27,000
81,000
140,000
71,000
46,000
36,000
NO
8,300
3,500
17,000
12,000
25,000
0
80,000
97,000
HO.Otli)
120.1100
82,000
110,000
110,000
r)
1
2
1
4
2
4
a
18
4
b
a
CO
,400
98
.sou
,500
,000
o
.300
.400
,60O
.000
,yoo
.400
• ")0
(ll.iuis: 10'
IIC
Wl
140,000
580
140,000
1.100
0
240.000
12,000
2.200
3.900
690
2,100
2.200
- Ulu/B.iy of llcuful Energy I'riui
Soil, la
0
0
0
O
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
So) KU
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
47
18
17
17
18
76
H.,1 :l I..I
II
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
S.illJ
(10' tonu/ddll
O
0
14
0
14
0
0
11
61
10
24
70
•>2
l-iiid
Use
(10* acrriij.
0
28
4S>
2(1
'18
(1
53
27
71
55
no
8il
76
(III.. /l.i )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Watur OivujM
(10* K-iI/Ja^) Di-dtlis
0
0
42
0
42
0
130
180
140
130
160
150
2.'iO
NA
1
15
1
15
NA
./,
5
16
5
22
23
17
CiCM.ll lllMlltl
NA
no
1 . 300
130
1 , 300
NA
2-\U
400
1,500
3711
1,900
1,'jOll
1,600
UK M..II Oayo
MA
.'1
lii
21
111
NA
42
77
28
110
110
IIV,I., II
Klll.l.my (Z)
60
•J5
t>5
07
59
92
32
10
31
11
28
26
211
by <-ud
NA - Not Avr.ilIiiljJt:
-------
TABLE 5-10
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE HEAT END USE+
Air Emissions
1
oo
N)
1
Scenarios
Natural Gas-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plua Space Heat End Use
312 Plus Space Heat End Use
Oll-tlred
Fuel Supply Scenario S8
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario 510
Totals
S8 Plus Space Heat End Use
S9 Plus Space lluac End Use
S10 Plus Space Heat End Use
Electric (Excluding Heat Pump)
Totals
SI Plus Space Heat End Use
S2 Plus Space Heat End Use
S3 Plus Space Heat End Use
S4 Plus Space Heat End Use
S5 Plus Space Heat End Use
S6 Plus Space Heat End Use
37 Plus Space Heat End Use
Electric (Utilizing Heat Pump)
Totals
SI Plus Space Heat End Use
S2 Plus Space Heat End Use
S3 Plus Space Heat End Use
S4 Plus Space lle.it End Use
S5 Plus Space Heat End Use
S6 Plus Space Heat End Use
37 Plus Space Hu.it End Use
Part.
1,000
68
1,400
1,100
2,400
5,900
570
760
1,800
6.500
6,700
7 , 700
0
1,900
1.300
10,000
11,000
2 . 300
6,400
11,000
0
950
700
5,000
5,000
1,100
3,200
5,400
SO;
32
220
14.000
250
14,000
17,000
(280)*
1,600
7,000
5,500
18,000
7,400
22,000
0
540
26,000
79,000
130,000
69,000
44,000
35,000
0
270
13,000
39,000
66,000
34,000
22,000
1 7 , 000
N0x
6,500
2,700
13,000
9,200
20,000
24,000
2,900
3,800
33,000
26,000
27,000
57,000
0
77,000
94,000
110,000
120,000
80,000
100,000
110,000
0
47,000
54,000
60,000
41,000
51,000
55.000
(Ib/hr)
CO
1 , 1 00
77
2,200
1,200
3,. 300
1,600
880
920
3.000
2,500
2.500
4^600
0
2,200
4,300
8,300
18,000
5.4flU
8 , 100
8,400
0
1,100
2,100
4,100
8,500
2,400
2,300
4,000
(Basis:
1011 btu/duy useful
energy produced)
Mater Emissions (101 Ib/hr)
HC
430
110,000
450
110,000
880
1,100
4,200
3,600
9.600
5,300
4,800
11.000
0
230,000
12,000
2,100
3,800
780
2,100
2,200
0
120,000
6,000
1,100
1,900
390
1,000
1,100
Suspended
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
0
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
Dissolved
Solids
0
0
0
a
0
0
12
0
14
12
0
14
0
17
45
18
17
17
18
74
0
8
23
9
8
8
9
37
Organic
Material
0
0
0
0
0
0
.01
.01
.08
.01
.01
.08
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Solid Waste
(10* tons/day)
0
0
11
0
11
0
0
220
14
0
220
14
0
0
10
59
12
23
68
50
0
0
5
29
6
12
34
25
Kind Use
(103 acres)
0
22
38
22
la
0
10
8
6)
10
M
63
0
02
26
69
92
78
78
74
0
26
13
.15
46
39
39
37
Thermal
(Btu/hr)
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
Requirements
(10* gal/clay)
0
0
3.'
0
32
0
15
28
70
15
28
70
0
120
170
140
120
ISO
150
230
0
60
86
69
61
75
74
114
Occupa
Heaths
NA
1.1
12
1.1
12
NA
1.8
3.6
14
1.8
3.6
14
NA
.4
5
16
6
21
22
17
NA
2
2
8
3
10
11
8
tional Health (m.r vt-itf\
Injuries
NA
100
1,000
100
1,100
NA
160
240
1,300
160
240
1,300
NA
230
380
1,400
400
1,800
1,800
1,600
NA
1?0
190
710
200
900
880
780
10' Han-Days
I.OHt
NA
65
17
61
NA
29
NA
71
29
NA
71
NA
41
75
74
38
110
120
78
NA
20
43
37
19
5r>
60
39
live rail
Efficiency (%)
77
95
65
73
50
76
94
75
52
7 i
40
95
U3
11
'*2
32
28
27
29
190
bi>
62
64
64
*>6
54
58
+Fuel supply scenarios are burdened by end use efficiencies.
*Combusi:ion of .005 wt. Z S fuel oil produced by fuel supply scenario S9.
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 5-11
'• IAL_ML EJT t i rj e n <\y _( Z)
Natural Cas-ilred 2,000 70 14,000 1,900 340 000 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA 17
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll 140 450 5,600 160 220,000 000 0 46 ° 02 210 35 95
Fuel Supply Scenario S12 3,000 29,000 27,000 4,600 940 0 0 0 23 7« 0 68 24 2,100 130
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDUSTKIAL COOKING USE
Air Emissions (Ib/lir)
Part.
2,000
140
3,000
2,200
5,100
0
2,400
1 . 600
13.000
13.000
2,900
0,100
1 3 , 000
SO,
70
450
29,000
520
29,000
0
690
33,000
100,000
170,000
87,000
56,000
44,000
NO,
14,000
5,600
27,000
20,000
41,000
0
99,000
120,000
140,000
150,000
100,000
130,000
140,000
CO
1 , 900
160
4,600
2,100
6.500
0
2,800
5,400
11 ,00(1
23,onn
6.800
10,000
11.000
nc
340
220,000
940
220.000
1 .300
0
290,000
15,000
2,700
4 , 800
99(1
2,600
2,700
Water Em
Suspended
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
Btu/Oay of Useful KnerKV Produced)
Issions (I01 Ib/lir) Solid
Dissolved
Sol ids
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
57
23
21
21
23
94
Organic
Material
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Waste
(I01 tons/day)
0
0
23
0
23
0
0
13
75
15
29
86
64
Land
Use
dO! acres)
0
46
7"
46
7«
0
65
31
88
120
99
99
93
Thermal Hi
(Hlu/hr) (H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
.•qutreniun
I41 gal /da
0
0
68
0
6«
0
160
220
180
160
?00
190
290
Totals
Sll Plus Cooking End Use 2,200 520 20,000 2,100 220.000 000 0 46 0 02 210 35 15
S12 Plus Cooking End Use 5,100 29,000 41,000 6.500 1.300 0 0 0 23 7« 0 6« 24 2,100 130 24
NA
Totals
SI Plus Cooking End Use 2,400 690 99,000 2,800 290,000 4 21 2 0 65 0 160 .4 290 52
S2 Plus Cooking End Use 1.600 33,000 120,000 5,400 15,000 5 57 2 13 31 0 220 6 480 95 25
S3 Plus Conking End Use 13,000 100,000 140,000 11,00(1 2,700 4 23 2 75 88 0 180 20 1,800 91 26
S4 Pins Cooking End Use 13,000 170,000 150,000 23,00(1 4,800 4 21 1 15 120 0 160 8 510 48 2"
S5 Pluj Cooking Era! Use 2,900 87,000 100,000 6.800 990 4 21 2 29 99 0 200 27 2,300 130 22
S6 Plus Cooking End Use 0,100 56,000 130,000 10,000 2,600 4 23 2 86 99 0 190 28 2,200 150 21
S7 Plus Cooking End Use 13,000 44,000 140,000 11.000 2,700 4 94 2 64 93 0 290 21 2,000 99
I
00
LO +Fuel supply scenarios are burdened by e,,d use ei IJcienc-ies
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 5-12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 0V INDUSTRIAL HEATING
(Basis: 101!
Air Emissions (Ib/ltr)
Scenarios
Natural Cas-fLred
fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
S12 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
Oil-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario S8
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario SIO
Totals
S8 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
S9 Pius Heating and
Annealing End Use
| SIO Plus Heating and
QO Annealing End Use
Electric
Totals
SI Plus He.it ing and
Anneal ing End Use
S2 Plus Heating anil
Annealing End Use
S3 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
54 Plus Heal ing and
Annealing End Use
S5 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
S6 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
S7 Plus Heating and
Annealing End Use
Part.
6,800
470
10,000
7,300
17,000
41,000
3,900
5,300
13.000
45,000
46,000
54,000
0
1,900
1,3110
10,000
11,000
2,300
6,400
11,000
SII2
230
1,500
98,000
1,700
98,000
120.000
(1,900)*
10,000
49,000
38,000
130,000
51,000
160,000
0
540
26,000
79,000
130,000
69,000
44,000
35,000
NO.,
87,000
19,000
92,000
110,000
180,000
160,000
20,000
2h,000
230,000
180,000
190,000
390,000
0
78,000
94,000
110,000
120,000
B2.000
100,000
110,000
CO
6,400
540
15,000
7,000
21,000
11,000
6,100
6,400
21,000
17,000
17,000
32,000
0
2,200
4 , 300
8,300
IS, 000
5,400
a, 100
8,4011
HC
1.100
740,000
3,200
740,000
4,300
8,100
29,000
25,000
66,000
37,000
33,000
74,000
0
230,000
12,000
2,000
3,800
7 SO
2,100
2,200
Btu/Day of
AND ANNEALING
Useful Energy Produced)
Water Emissions (10! Ib/hr)
Suspended
Sol ids
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
2
0
3
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
Dissolved
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
0
100
83
0
100
0
17
45
18
17
17
18
74
Organic
Material
0
0
0
0
0
0
,09
.09
.55
.09
.09
.51
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Solid
Haste
(10' tons/day)
0
0
79
0
79
0
0
1,500
94
0
1,500
94
0
0
10
59
12
23
68
50
ESP USE*
Land
Use
(10! acres)
0
150
260
150
260
0
66
55
440
66
55
440
fl
52
26
69
92
78
78
74
Thermal
(Btu/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
Requirement
0
0
230
0
230
U
100
190
4110
100
190
48(1
0
120
170
140
120
150
150
2)0
Occupational Health (oer vear>
Deaths
NA
7
81
7
81
NA
13
25
100
13
-'i
100
NA
.4
5
16
6
21
22
17
Injuries
NA
700
7,100
730
7,100
NA
1,100
.1,700
9,000
1,100
1 , 700
9,000
NA
230
380
1,400
400
1,800
1,800
1 , 600
10' Man Days
Lost
NA
120
4'.0
120
450
NA
200
3
1,'M
2UO
1
4'Jl)
NA
«]
75
74
38
1 '.n
120
7S
Overal 1
11
95
65
10
7
( 1
9 ft
75
52
10
8
6
95
33
31
32
32
28
27
29
+Fuel supply scenarios are bui
•Combustion of .005 ut. Z S fi
NA - Not Available
dfiiiKl by end use efficiencies.
t-1 oil produced by fuel supply scenario SCJ.
-------
TABI.K 5-13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF INDUSTRIAL STEEL MA.KINO EMU USE*"
oo
Air Emissions
Scenarios
Natural Gail-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
Totals
Sll Plus Steel Making End Use
S12 Plus Steel Making End Use
Oil-fired
Fuel Supply Scenario S3
Fuel Supply Scenario S9
Fuel Supply Scenario S10
Totals
S8 Plus Steel Making Knd Use
59 Plus Steel Making End Use
S10 Plus Steel Making End Use
Electric
Totals
SI Plus Steel Making End Use
S2 Plus S eel Making End Use
S3 Plus E eel Making End Use
S4 Plus S eel Making End Use
S5 Plus S eel Making End Use
S6 Plus S eel Making End Use
37 Plus S eel Making End Use
Part.
1,800
120
2,700
1,900
4,500
11,000
1.000
1,400
3,300
12,000
12,000
14,000
0
1,900
1,300
10,000
11.000
2 . 3(10
6,400
11.000
S0;
60
400
26,000
460
26,000
30.000
(500) «
2,600
13,000
10,000
33,000
13,000
41,000
0
540
26,000
79.000
130.000
69,000
44,000
35,000
HOy
23,000
5,000
24.000
28,000
47,000
43.000
5,200
6,900
60,000
48,000
50,000
100,000
0
78,000
94,000
110,000
120,000
82 , 000
100 , 000
110.000
, Ib/hr)
CO
1,700
140
4,000
1,800
5,700
2.800
1,600
1,700
5,500
4,400
4,500
8,300
0
2.200
4,300
8,300
18,000
5,400
8, 100
8.400
(Basis: 10'* Btu/Oay of Useful
Water Emissions (10* Ih/hr)
lie
300
190,000
830
190,000
1,100
2,100
7,600
6,500
17,000
9,700
8,600
19,000
0
230,000
12,000
2,100
3,800
780
2.100
2.200
Suspended
Solids
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
3
3
3
3
4
Dissolved Organic
Solids Material
0 °
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
22 .02
0 .02
26 .14
22 .02
0 .02
26 .14
0 0
17 1
45 2
18 1
17 1
17 1
18 1
74 1
Energy Produced)
Solid Land
Waste
(101 tons/day)
0
0
21
0
21
0
0
390
25
0
390
25
0
0
10
59
12
23
68
50
Use
(101 acres)
0
40
69
40
69
0
17
14
110
17
14
110
0
52
26
69
92
78
78
74
Thermal
(Btu/hr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Water
Requirement
(10* Sal /day)
0
0
60
0
60
0
230
50
1:10
230
50
130
0
120
170
140
120
150
150
230
alth (per year)
10^ Man Days
2
21
2
21
NA
3.3
7
26
3.3
7
26
5
16
6
21
22
17
180
1.900
190
1,900
NA
280
440
2,400
2SO
440
2.400
NA
230
380
1.400
4 on
1, SOO
1,800
1,600
31
120
31
120
I
130
52
1
130
41
71
74
3U
110
120
78
42
97
65
41
27
42
94
75
39
32
22
33
31
32
32
2B
27
29
+Fuel supply scenarios are burdened by end use efficiencies.
*Combust!on of .005 wt. 2 S fuel oil produced by fuel supply scenario S9.
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE _5;14
ENV1KONMENTA1, IMPACTS_OF LN?ySTRlAl^j;I.ASS MELTING END USE*
(Uasls: 10l> Bui/Day of Useful Energy l'rodut:cd)
Air Emissions (Ib/hr)
Natural Cas-flred
Fuel Supply Scenario Sll
Fuel Supply Scenario S12
To I a la
Sll Pin:. Class Melting End Use
S12 Plus Class Melting End Use
Totals
SI Plus (;lass Melting End Use
S2 Plus Class Molting End Use
S3 Plus Class Mr-lclilK End Use
S4 Plus class Mi-It Inu. End Use
S5 Plus Clans Melting Kiic^ii£at ional_lleal_th_(per ^_ea_r)
\{>
150
2'JO
HA
5
52
5
52
NA
470
4. (.00
NA
4,600
NA
75
290
T>
2 'JO
2'10
180
1,400
It 00
1,800
1,80(1
1,600
7',
111
110
120
78
15
I I
12
32
28
27
21
GO
CT>
+Puel supply »"--
NA - Nol Aval lali
Ifos are burdened by end
efflrlem les.
-------
other hand differ significantly from the impacts calculated for
each fuel supply scenario since
(1) emissions from the end use modules themselves
are not insignificant, and
(2) fuel supply scenario impacts are burdened by
a factor of 100/Efficiency (fossil fuel end
use modules are considerably less than 100%
energy efficient).
5.2.1 End Use Scenario Rankings Based Upon Energy Use
'Efficiency
Relative rankings of space heating end use scenarios
according to their overall energy efficiencies were similar
for all of the three sectors considered. For those cases which
excluded heat pumps, fossil fuel end use scenarios generally
proved to be the most energy efficient (see Tables 5-15, 5-17
and 5-20). This implies that, although the efficiencies of con-
ventional electrical space heating equipment items are greater
than those exhibited by their fossil fuel powered alternatives,
this increase in efficiency is not sufficient to compensate for
the low conversion efficiency of the power plant module used
in electricity supply scenarios. A different situation exists
when utilizing a heat pump for space heating in the residential
sector since the high efficiency of this device more than com-
pensates for the low efficiency of the electrical conversion
step (see Table 5-16). Commercial and industrial space heating
scenarios utilizing heat pumps for the electrical cases show
mixed rankings (see Tables 5-18 and 5-21) since the increased
efficiencies of fossil fuel equipment items balance somewhat
the greater efficiency of the heat pump.
-87-
-------
TABLE 5-15
RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
(EXCLUDING ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 Sll - Natural Gas 57
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 52
3 S9 - Fuel Oil 41
4 S12 - Natural Gas 39
5 SI - Electricity 35
6 S4 - Electricity 34
7 S3 - Electricity 34
8 S2 - Electricity 33
9 S7 - Electricity 30
10 S5 - Electricity 30
11 S10 - Fuel Oil 29
12 S6 - Electricity 28
* See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-88-
-------
TABLE 5-16
RESIDENTIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
(UTILIZING HEAT PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 SI - Electricity 70
2 S4 - Electricity 68
3 S3 - Electricity 68
4 S2 - Electricity 66
5 S7 - Electricity 60
6 S5 - Electricity 60
7 Sll - Natural Gas 57
8 S6 - Electricity 56
9 S8 - Fuel Oil 52
10 S9 - Fuel Oil 41
11 S12 - Natural Gas 39
12 S10 - Fuel Oil 29
* See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-89-
-------
TABLE 5-17
COMMERCIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
(EXCLUDING ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number'1' Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 Sll - Natural Gas 73
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 71
3 S9 - Fuel Oil 57
4 S12 - Natural Gas 50
5 S10 - Fuel Oil 40
6 SI - Electricity 35
7 S4 - Electricity 34
8 S3 - Electricity 34
9 S2 - Electricity 33
10 S7 - Electricity 30
11 S5 - Electricity 30
12 S6 - Electricity 28
See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-90-
-------
TABLE 5-18
COMMERCIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
(UTILIZING HEAT PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form (%)
1 Sll - Natural Gas 73
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 71
3 SI - Electricity 70
4 S4 - Electricity 68
5 S3 - Electricity 68
6 S2 - Electricity 66
7 S7 - Electricity 60
8 S5 - Eleectricity 60
9 S9 - Fuel Oil 57
10 S6 - Electricity 56
11 S12 - Natural Gas 50
12 S10 - Fuel Oil 40
* See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-91-
-------
TABLE 5-19
COMMERCIAL WATER HEATING SCENARIO RANKING*
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number** Scenario-Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form ^
1 Sll - Natural Gas 57
2 S12 - Natural Gas 39
3 SI - Electricity 32
4 S4 - Electricity 31
5 S3 - Electricity 31
6 S2 - Electricity 30
7 S7 - Electricity 28
8 S5 - Electricity 28
9 S6 - Electricity 26
* Fuel oil is not used for water heating to any significant
extent.
** See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-92-
-------
TABLE 5-20
INDUSTRIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(EXCLUDING HEAT
Fuel Supply Scenario Number*
and End Use Energy Form
Sll
S8 -
S9 -
S12
S10
SI -
S4 -
S3 -
S2 -
S7 -
S5 -
S6 -
- Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil
- Natural Gas
- Fuel Oil
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
Electricity
PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Scenario Efficiency
(7.)
73
71
57
50
40
33
32
32
31
29
28
27
See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-93-
-------
TABLE 5-21
INDUSTRIAL SPACE HEAT SCENARIO RANKING
(UTILIZING HEAT PUMPS)
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form __^ (%)
1 Sll - Natural Gas 73
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 71
3 SI - Electricity 66
4 S4 - Electricity 64
5 S3 - Electricity 64
6 S2 - Electricity 62
7 S7 - Electricity 58
8 S9 - Fuel Oil 57
9 S5 - Electricity 56
10 S6 - Electricity . 54
11 S12 - Natural Gas 50
12 S10 - Fuel Oil 40
* See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-94-
-------
Commercial water heating is accomplished by using
either natural gas-fired or electrical equipment. According to
the data presented in Table 5-19, the natural gas case is always
more efficient.
The remaining industrial sector end uses which are
considered in Tables 5-22 through 5-25 are of less importance
than the cases which were just discussed due to their limited
potential for conversion. Some discussion of these industrial
sector cases is appropriate however.
In the steel making industry (see Table 5-22) overall
end use scenario efficiencies are very similar for the fossil
fuel and electrical cases due to the low efficiencies exhibited
by the fossil fuel powered equipment items dedicated to this
end use. For the heating and annealing end use, electrical
alternatives are considerably more attractive from an overall
efficiency standpoint. This is also true in the industrial
glass melting category. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, appear
to be more attractive fuels than electricity for the industrial
cooking case.
5.2.2 End Use Scenario Comparisons Based Upon Environmental
Impacts
In the previous section, a total of eight significant
end use applications in the residential, commercial and indus-
trial sectors were compared on the basis of their overall energy
use efficiencies. In this section, these same end uses are
considered from an environmental impact point of view. The
end use categories which are treated in greatest detail here
are the residential and commercial space heat categories, since
these categories are representative of end uses which account
-95-
-------
TABLE 5-22
INDUSTRIAL STEEL MAKING SCENARIO RANKING
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 • Sll - Natural Gas 41
2 S8 - Fuel Oil 39
3 SI - Electricity 33
4 S4 - Electricity 32
5 S3 - Electricity 32
6 S9 - Fuel Oil 32
7 S2 - Electricity 31
8 S7 - Electricity 29
9 S5 - Electricity 28
10 S12 - Natural Gas 27
11 S6 - Electricity 27
12 S10 - Fuel Oil 22
See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-96-
-------
TABLE 5-23
INDUSTRIAL HEATING AND ANNEALING SCENARIO RANKING
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number* Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 SI - Electricity 33
2 S4 - Electricity 32
3 S3 - Electricity 32
4 S2 - Electricity 31
5 S7 - Electricity 29
6 S5 - Electricity 28
7 S6 - Electricity 27
8 Sll - Natural Gas 10
9 S8 - Fuel Oil 10
10 S9 - Fuel Oil 8
11 S12 - Natural Gas 7
12 S10 - Fuel Oil 6
See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-97-
-------
RADIAN
CORPORATION
TABLE 5-24
INDUSTRIAL COOKING SCENARIO RANKING-'
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number"'"'' Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form (%)
1 Sll - Natural Gas 35
2 SI - Electricity 26
3 S4 - Electricity 26
4 S3 - Electricity 26
5 S2 - Electricity 25
6 S12 - Natural Gas 24
7 S7 - Electricity 23
8 S5 - Electricity 22
9 S6 - Electricity 21
* Fuel oil is not utilized in this end use.
** See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-98-
-------
TABLE 5-25
INDUSTRIAL GLASS MELTING SCENARIO RANKING*
Overall End Use
Fuel Supply Scenario Number** Scenario Efficiency
Rank and End Use Energy Form
1 SI - Electricity 33
2 S4 - Electricity 32
3 S3 - Electricity 32
4 S2 - Electricity 31
5 S7 - Electricity 29
6 S5 - Electricity 28
7 S6 - Electricity 27
8 Sll - Natural Gas 15
9 S12 - Natural Gas 11
* Fuel oil is not utilized in this end use.
** See Table 5-2 for scenario modules.
-99-
-------
for about 8570 of the convertible fossil fuels currently
consumed in the three sectors considered in this study.
5.2.2.1 Residential Space Heat End Use (Excluding
Electric Heat Pumps)
Quantitatively, S02 and NO emissions are significantly
X
greater than the other air emissions generated by residential
space heat end use scenarios. Exceptions to this general rule
occur in cases involving fuel supply scenarios SI and Sll.
Hydrocarbon emissions for those cases are significant due to
the wellhead losses which occur in the natural gas extraction
module. Hydrocarbon emissions from other scenarios are generally
insignificant.
Electrical space heat scenarios typically generate
more S02 and NO than fossil fuel scenarios. This is particularly
true in the case of NOV emissions due to the contributions of
X
power plant modules which generate significant quantities of NO
X
regardless of the fuel which is consumed. Greater variations in
S02 emissions are observed among the scenarios since these
emissions are directly related to the sulfur content of the
fuel burned. Since fuel sulfur content generally conforms to
the following pattern: coal -> fuel oil -»• natural gas, S02
emissions from end use scenarios follow a similar pattern.
Electrical end use scenarios all have significant
water emissions. This is due to the quantity of cooling water
blowdown required to support a cooling system capable of dissi-
pating the waste heat generated by a power plant. End use
scenarios using electrical energy produced in power plants
which require flue gas desulfurization units also produce large
quantities of solid waste. End uses requiring fuel oil genera-
ted in fuel supply scenario S9 generate large quantities of solid
-100-
-------
wastes due to the oil shale processing module. Coal conversion
scenarios (S5, S10 and S12) generate relatively moderate quanti-
ties of solid wastes.
5.2.2.2 Residential Space Heat End.Use (Utilizing Electric
Heat Pumps)
With the application of electric heat pumps in resi-
dential space heat end use scenarios, the environmental impacts
of electrical fuel supply scenarios are effectively reduced by
507o. Although this constitutes a significant reduction in the
overall environmental impacts of these scenarios, it results in
few meaningful changes in.relative end use impact rankings. The
most significant consequence of this higher end use efficiency
appears to be the reduction of electrical end use S02 emissions
to levels that are more in line with those of fossil fuel end
use scenarios.
5.2.2.3 Commercial Space Heat
Commercial space heat end use scenarios differ from
the residential space heat end use scenarios in two ways:
(1) the energy efficiencies of the fossil fuel
powered equipment items used in the commercial
sector are greater, and
(2) N0x emissions per unit of fossil fuel
energy consumed are greater.
The environmental impacts of commercial electric space heat
scenarios are identical to those calculated for the residential
sector.
-101-
-------
. As a result of these differences in commercial and
residential space heating equipment, overall impacts of fossil
fuel scenarios in the commercial sector are reduced (relative
to the residential case) except for NO emissions, which are
increased. This causes no significant change, however, in the
relative rankings of space heat scenarios based upon their
impacts. The decreases in air emissions which occur in the
fossil fuel cases, only serve to increase the gaps between
electric and fossil fuel end use scenario impacts. The increased
NO emissions which are realized bring fossil fuel NO emission
X X
levels closer to those of electrical end uses; however, elec-
trical end use NO emissions are still generally higher.
5.2.2.4 Other End Uses
Relative impacts of other significant end uses con-
sidered in this study follow the same general patterns which
were discussed above for the residential and commercial space
heating cases. For this reason, specific consideration of each
significant end use case defined in the impact summary tables
was not attempted.
-102-
-------
6.0 DEFINITION OF AMBIENT AIR IMPACT OF ELECTRICAL
CONVERSION
This section presents both the method used to
estimate the ambient air impact in a metropolitan area of
converting as many uses of fossil fuels to electricity as
possible and the results of that ambient air impact assessment.
The area modeled in this study v;as the Chicago Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR), The ambient air impact was determined
by calculating ambient air concentrations of S02, NOX, CO,
hydrocarbons, and particulates for the present time and for
the years 1985 and 2000 for two cases:
Case I - The usage of electricity versus
fossil fuels in the residential,
commercial and industrial sectors
remains in the same proportion as
it is today (i.e., usage of elec-
tricity and usage of fossil fuels
grow at the same rate).
Case II - All future installations in the
residential, commercial and in-
dustrial sectors which can use
electricity, do install electrical
equipment instead of fossil-fuel-fired
equipment. Existing fossil-fired
equipment in those sectors is re-
placed by electrical equipment,
where possible, when the existing
units are retired.
In each case, the increased electrical usage in future
years was assumed to be provided by new or expanded central
power stations at projected sites within the AQCR, but remote
-103-
-------
from population centers. These power stations were assumed
to burn coal and to employ suitable control technology to meet
Federal new source emission standards.
The ambient air concentrations used in this study are
geographic averages of the annual averages computed at the recep-
tors shown in Figure 6-1. Two geographic averages are reported:
(1) an average over the urban receptors, and (2) an average
over the rural receptors. Thus, for each case in each year
two sets of average concentrations for the five pollutants are
given - the urban geographic average set (hereafter called
"urban"), and the rural geographic average set (hereafter called
"rural").
The benefits of using this scheme are numerous. The
most notable ones are that it reduces an unmanageable set of
numbers to a manageable set while maintaining the essential
information, and it allows the use of the efficient and flexible
concentration projection approach discussed below.
6.1 Methodology
The annual average ambient air concentrations, of the
five pollutants for the years 1974, 1985 and 2000 were projected
from dispersion model runs using 1970 National Emissions Data
System (NEDS) data for the Chicago AQCR, and projected power
plant emissions. These projections were made by computing the
present and future year ambient air concentrations produced by
increased area source and point source emissions using influence
coefficients derived from dispersion modeling of the 1970 NEDS
emissions for the Chicago AQCR.
-104-
-------
380 390 400 410 420 430 440 45O 460 470 400 490 500 KM.E.
O RURAL
X URBAN
RF.CEPTOR GRID FOR CHICAGO
FIGURE 6-1
-105-
-------
This type of approach was selected because of the •
extensive savings in computer time over that required for direct
dispersion modeling of all cases, as well as, for its flexibility.
The flexibility is inherent because new emission sources do not
need to be sited specifically or completely defined. Thus this
approach is well suited to the task of predicting the future
air impact of electricity substitution.
The flexibility of this approach makes it possible to
assess the effect of changing geographic growth patterns on the
air impact of electricity substitution. To study this effect,
two extremes of geographic growth are utilized in this study.
These two extremes bound the future air impact of electricity
substitution with a relatively high degree of confidence. The
two extremes are:
Type 1 Growth - essentially no geographic growth
in emissions sources (i.e., the urban and
industrial areas do not grow in size, but
energy usage, and thus emissions, increase).
Type 2 Growth - extensive geographic growth in
emissions sources (i.e., all growth in
energy usage is on the outskirts of the
existing urban area, large new industrial
sources are located in remote rural areas in
the AQCR).
Type 1 growth would tend to occur if transportation becomes a
problem due to energy shortages, while Type 2 growth would oc-
cur where urban ambient air quality is the primary concern.
However, the actual growth pattern will probably lie somewhere
between the two.
-106-
-------
The detailed procedures used to institute the general
approach discussed above will now be addressed.
6.1.1 Energy Use Projections
The 1974 estimated energy demand pattern for the
residential, commercial and industrial sectors of the Chicago
AQCR is shown in Table 6-1. The data in this table were gathered
from several sources (US-074, FE-035, NA-148, EL-063, ST-186,
NA-200), many of which contained data for a year other than 1974.
When data for years other than 1974 were used, they were projected
to 1974 using the 1960-68 annual average energy growth rates for
the United States.
6.1.1.1 Case I - Electricity Usage
The grox\rth in energy demand of the Chicago AQCR is
assumed to be at the same average annual rates as that for the
nation as a whole. The growth rates are thus computed from the
projected national energy use patterns in Section 3.0 (Tables
3-5, 3-6 and 3-7). In keeping with the definition of Case I,
the growth rates for electricity and fossil fuels are assumed
to be the same so that the relative proportions of electricity
and fossil fuel use remain the same in future years. Separate
growth rates are used for the residential, commercial, and
industrial sector. Each of these growth rates is computed
from the total energy use of the corresponding sector. Different
growth rates are computed for the 1972-1985 period and the 1972-
2000 period. The resulting energy demand projections are shown
in Table 6-2.
-107-
-------
TABLE 6-1
ESTIMATED 1974 ENERGY DEMAND PATTERN FOR CHICAGO AQCR
Sector, fuel Annual Energy Usage (1012 Btu)
Residential,
coal 9
oil 175
gas 406
total fossil 590
electricity* 62
Commercial,
coal 1
oil 79
gas 139
total fossil 219
electricity* 88
Industrial,
coal 111
oil 96
gas 352
total fossil 559
electricity* 84
^electricity converted at 3,413 Btu/kwhr
-108-
-------
TABLE 6-2
ESTIMATED FUTURE ENERGY DEMAND FOR CHICAGO AQCR, CASE I
Annual Energy Usage (1012 Btu)
Sector, fuel
Residential,
coal
oil
gas
total fossil
electricity""
Commercial,
coal
oil
gas
total fossil
electricity*"
Industrial,
coal
oil
gas
total fossil
electricity*
1985
12
233
541
786
83
2
123
216
341
137
158
136
500
794
119
2000
17
333
773
1,123
118
2
179
314
495
199
261
226
827
1,314
197
^electricity converted at 3,413 Btu/kwhr
-109-
-------
6.1.1.2 Case II Electricity Usage
The 1985 and 2000 energy demand patterns for the Chicago
AQCR under the Case II electricity usage assumptions are computed
from the corresponding Case I energy demand patterns. This
computation is performed in three steps - (1) the switchable
amount of the growth in fossil fuel usage from 1974 levels is
computed, (2) the amount of 1974 fossil fuel usage that is con-
verted through replacement of retired units is computed, and
(3) the amount of substitute electric energy required to satisfy
the switched demand is computed. The residential and commercial
sectors are treated together due to their similarity and the
industrial sector is treated separately. It is assumed in this
section that the energy end use (eg., space heating, water
heating, etc.) patterns in the Chicago AQCR are the same as the
national average patterns reported in Appendicies A and B.
Step 1 - Table 3-11 indicates that in 1985 and in 2000,
10070 of the residential fossil fuel use is convertible to
electricity while 83% of the commercial fossil fuel use is
convertible. Since the percentages are essentially the same as
in 1974, they may be applied to the growth in fossil fuel usage
from 1974 to 1985 or 2000. This indicates that in 1985, 296 x 1012
Btu of residential and commercial fossil fuel use may be converted
while in 2000, 763 x 1012 Btu may be converted.
The industrial fossil fuel usage indicated in Table 3-11
as switchable ranges from 18% to 22%. However, this was
qualified as being a possible upper bound if equipment were
available. As shown in Appendix B, a more realistic number
for national industrial convertibility in 1968 is 1,679 x 1012 Btu.
Since the total industrial fossil fuel usage in 1968 was 19,438 x
1012 Btu, this means only 8.6% is convertible.
-110-
-------
Assuming this percentage to apply for future years, yields
20 x 1012 Btu convertible in 1985, and 66 x 1012 Btu, in 2000.
Step 2 - From Table 3-5 the following end use percent-
ages of the switchable fossil fuel use in the residential and
commercial sectors in 1972 are computed.
space heat - 82%
water heat - 13%
cooking - 4%
other - 1%
From Section 7.0 the average lifetimes of fossil fired
equipment are:
space heater - 15 years
water heater - 12 years
cook stove - 17 years
other - -vlO years
Assuming a constant replacement rate until the units
are retired, the number that will be replaced by electric equip-
ment by 1985 are:
space heaters - 73%
water heaters - 9270
cook stoves - 657»
other - . 100% . :
The amount of fossil fuel use in Chicago in 1974 in
the residential and commercial sectors that is switchable is
786 x 1012 Btu. This number is calculated'from data' in Table 6-1
assuming that the Chicago commercial sector uses 2970 of its oil
demand for feedstock as is the case in the national demand
-111-
-------
pattern (see Table 3-5). The amount of existing fossil fuel use
that is convertible by 1985 is then given by:
Convertible energy = 786 x 1012 x Z (% equipment replaced) x
end use
(7o of switchable fossil fuel use)
= 786 x 1012 [(.73)(.82) + (.92)(.13) +
(.65)(.04) +
= 593 x 1012 Btu
In the industrial sector, the average life of existing
equipment is assumed to be 20 years . Thus by 1985 the amount of
existing fossil fuel usage that is converted is 24 x 10 12 Btu.
By the year 2000 all currently existing fossil fired equipment
in the industrial sector that is convertible is assumed to be
replaced (49 x 1012 Btu).
Step 3 - To determine the amount of electrical power
required to meet the converted demand, it is necessary to consider
the efficiencies of the electrical equipment and the replaced
fossil fired equipment since the same amount of useful work is
required in both cases. The following efficiencies of the equip-
ment used in the residential and commercial sectors are taken
from Appendix B .
hardware fossil efficiency electric efficiency
space heater 60% 150%*
water heater 60%" 92%
cook stove 37%
other assume same efficiency for both
*average of resistence heating and heat pump
**combined conventional and microwave cooking
-112-
-------
Thus the weighted average ratio of fossil fuel efficiency
to electric efficiency is given by:
efficiency ratio = .82 ^ + .13 |§ + .04 yg- + .01
= 0.44
The additonal electric energy required for the resi-
dential and commercial sectors is:
1985: (593 + 296) x 1012 x .44
= 391 x 1012 Btu
2000: (786 + 763) x 1012 x .44
= 682 x 1012
A similar weighted efficiency calculation for the in-
dustrial sector using data from Tables 7 and 8 in Appendix B
yields:
efficiency ratio = 0.43
The additional electricity required in the industrial
sector is:
1985: (24 + 21) x 1012 x 0.43
= 19 x 1012
2000: (49 + 66) x 1012 x 0.43
= 49 x 1012
-113-
-------
Table 6-3 summarizes the projected energy demand for
Chicago under Case II conditions.
TABLE 6-3
ESTIMATED FUTURE ENERGY DEMAND FOR CHICAGO AQCR, CASE II
Annual Energy Usage (1012 Btu)
Sector, fuel 1985 2000
Residential and
commercial,
fossil 193** 0**
electricity* 611 999
Industrial,
fossil 749 1,199
electricity* 138 246
'-electricity converted at 3,413 Btu/kwhr
''"'"feedstocks not included
6.1.2 Additional Power Plant Requirements
The new power plants required are calculated from the
information in Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3. The amounts of addi-
tional electricity required are:
Case I - 1985: 105 x 1012 Btu = 3.08 x 1010 kwhr = 3,516 Mw
2000: 280 x 1012 Btu = 8.21 x 1010 kwhr = 9,327 Mw
Case II- 1985: 515 x io12 Btu = 1.51 x 10" kwhr = 17,237 Mw
2000: 1,011 x 1012 Btu = 2.96 x 10" kwhr = 33,790 Mw
-114-
-------
To account for transmission and distribution losses,
generation amounts are increased by 10%. Assuming that the plants
will operate at 7070 to 80% capacity factor, the amount of new
capacity required is:
Case I - 1985: 5,000 Mw @ 77% capacity
2000: 14,000 Mw @ 73% capacity
Case II- 1985: 24,000 Mw @ 79% capacity
2000: 48,000 Mw @ 77% capapity
Assuming that the new capacity is installed in 1,000 Mw
coal fired units, each with an S02 scrubber and electrostatic
precipitator, yields the following plant parameters from Appendix C
Stack height = 500 ft
Exit velocity = 60 ft/sec
Exit diameter = 34 ft
Exit temperature = 250°F
Exit flow rate = 3.28 x 106 ACFM
Heat input = 9.75 x 109 Btu/hr
Assuming a coal with 12,000 Btu/lb energy content
yields a coal rate of 406 tons/hr. Assuming the Federal new
source emission standards for SO?. , NO , and particulates are met
X
yields the following emission rates at 100% load.
Particulates 975 Ib/hr
S02 11,700 Ib/hr
N0x 6,225 Ib/hr
CO 406 Ib/hr
HC 122 Ib/hr
The CO and HC emissions are computed from EPA emission factors
for bituminous coal.
-115-
-------
6.1.3 Emission Predictions
The emissions in the Chicago AQCR for the years 1974,
1985 and 2000 were projected for Cases I and II from the 1970
NEDS data. It was assumed that in the case of area sources the
emissions growth rates were the same as the energy demand growth
rates. The emissions from "open burning" were eliminated since
this is no longer allowed in the Chicago area. The emissions
from incineration were assumed to grow at the industrial sector
energy growth rate. The controlled automotive emissions of NO ,
X.
HC and CO were assumed to follow the EPA projected national
trend . The uncontrolled auto emissions of S02 and particulates
were assumed to grow at 3% per year.
The reduction in emissions in Case II for the residential
and commercial sectors was assumed to be 10070 when full conversion
was attained. This implicitly assumes that the commercial
feedstocks, which are not convertible, contribute negligable
emissions.
The new point source emissions were assumed to be 50%
less than that which they would be if they grew at the industrial
sector energy use growth rate. This reduction in emissions is
assumed to be provided by emission controls applied to new sources.
It should be noted that the emissions of existing
electric utilities were removed from the point source total
emissions before the latter were projected and then added back
in afterwards. This was necessary since the new electrical
generation requirements are met in all cases by the power plants
discussed in the previous section.
-116-
-------
The emissions of each power plant were reduced from the
100% levels given in the previous section by the capacity factor
which is also given in the previous section.
Table 6-4 indicates the projected emissions for the
Chicago AQCR.
6.1.4 Ambient Air Quality Predictions
The predictions of future ambient air quality were
made using influence coefficient projections of the concentra-
tions in the Chicago AQCR. from concentrations predicted by dis-
persion modeling of the 1970 NEDS data for the AQCR. The dis-
persion model used is similar to the Climatological Dispersion
Model (COM) recently developed by EPA. This model, which is
described more fully in Appendix D, was used to compute the
annual average concentrations of the five pollutants at 100
receptors located in the AQCR (see Figure 6-1). Thirty-four
of these receptors are located in the urban area and 66 are
located in the rural area.
Prior to exercising the model the NEDS point source
data were extensively edited to ensure a consistent input set.
The sources with missing stack parameters were checked and where
possible stack parameters were estimated using the guidelines
derived by Engineering Sciences Inc. (EN-027). To reduce
computer time, sources at the same location with the same stack
parameters were combined into a single source with the same
stack parameters but increased emission rates.
The area source data in the NEDS data base were used
to define the,emissions of the area source grid shown in Figure
6-2. The emissions of each area source are proportional to the
population inside the area.
-117-
-------
TABLE 6-4
oo
i
Case, Year, Source
1974,
Point Source
Area Source
Case I, 1985
Point
Area
New Elec
Case I, 2000
Point
Area
New Elec
Case II, 1985
Point
Area
New Elec
Case II, 2000
Point
Area
New Elec
PROJECTED EMISSIONS FOR THE CHICAGO AQCR
Particulates
400,028
206,579
486,895
293,922
18,187
678,878
471,795
48,249
462,489
256,998
89,510
621,028
402,618
174,488
(tons/yr)
S02
857,866
302,842
943,294
435,043
197,297
1,132,952
667,364
523,734
919,484
303,415
971,624
1,075,882
444,889
1,894,052
NOX
234,947
314,451
258,217
214,011
181,974
309,876
330,887
483,059
251,732
162,016
896,163
294,331
245,514
1,746,951
HC
103,686
442,204
126,597
183,458
6,845
177,461
262,057
18,171
120,205
173,489
33,711
162,156
245,010
65,715
CO
841,633
1,668,609
1,029,106
509,935
2,056
1,445,311
802,363
5,457
976,863
480,666
10,125
1,320,072
751,708
19,737
-------
4710 - 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 4
KM. N. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
4700-
4690-
4600-
4670-
4660-
4650-
4640-
4630-
4620-
4610-
4600-
4590-
4580-
4570-
4560-
4550-
1
8
15
MC HE
22
30
38
46
55
KANE
64
74
87
KENO
CQUM
100
113
126
2
9
16
NRY C
23
31
39
47
56
COUN
65
75
33
4LL
[Y _
101
114
127
3
10
17
OUNT
24
32
r-
i
4o| —
48
57
FY 1 0
66" ~~
1
76
89
•H
I02j
115,
1
1
RUNOY COUNTY.
4540-
4
1
II
1
18,
' 1
25
5
12
13
.AKE
26
iv.-.s'. '.-!-
33 ^ 34j: fe
6
•,
20 =
:OUMT
I
TV —
i
21
Y::\
[•x::\
felBI
29
\
cj :•:•:•:•{:•:•:•:•:• ••'•• •'••••••••••••••'••••••X-X-H-X-X-V
•\ : x:x:ix:::x: COOK COUfJT tM:-\
49 ;
4 2-~y
50:: :>::
•('••*
•r
79J t:
92
105
118
LL CC
131
138
143
-------
The dispersion modeling of the emissions was done in
a piecemeal fashion to facilitate the calculation of the influ-
ence coefficient for the various source categories. The point
sources were split into two groups - electrical generation and
non-electrical generation, and the area sources were separated
into urban area sources and rural area sources. Each of these
four source types was modeled separately for the urban receptors
and the rural receptors. The average concentrations for each
of the two receptor types were then computed. When the average
concentrations (urban or rural) of each of the four source types
are added, the result is the total concentration due to all sources
Also computed using the dispersion model were the con-
centrations produced by the additional power plants required in
1985 and 2000 for Case I and Case II. To perform this modeling
it x^as necessary to site the power plants. This was done using
the guideline that "increased electrical usage in future years
will be provided by new or expanded central power stations at
projected sites within the AQCR, but remote from population
centers". Except for this constraint, the. power plants were
arbitrarily located. The locations and sizes are shown in
Figure 6-3 through 6-6. The large number of relatively small
(1,000 Mw) power stations used for Case I xvas chosen in deference
to concern over significant deterioration while in Case II it
was assumed that for practical reasons larger installations would
be used.
Influence coefficients for point sources were calcu-
lated by dividing each point source produced average pollutant
concentration (both rural and urban) by the respective point
source emissions. A similar procedure was used for area sources
that affected receptors not directly under them (e.g., urban
area sources affecting rural receptors). In the case of area
sources overlying the receptors (e.g., urban area sources affec-
ting urban receptors) the pollutant concentration was divided by
the average strength (emissions per unit area) of the overlying
area sources.
-120-
-------
370 380 300 400 410 /,20 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 KM.E.
• ' ' ' III! , , ,|
•HOOOMW PLANT
POWER PLANT LOCATIONS - 1985 CASE I
FIGURE 6-3
-121-
-------
4710 -
370 380 390 400 410 4EO 430 440 4SO 460 470 -480 400 500 KM.E.
I , I | I I I ' ' I ' I I '
4670 -
4660 ~
4650 -
4640 -
4630 -
4620 -
4610 -
4600 -
4590 -
4580 -
4070 -
45GO ~
4550 -
o
o
AQCR BOUNDARY
*v:;-1 vj>
O 2 0 0 0 M W PLANT
POWER PLANT LOCATIONS - I9Q5 CASE
FIGURE 6-4
-122-
-------
4710 ~
370 380 390 100 410 420 430 440 45" 460 470 '460 490 500 KM.E.
I I
I I
4700 -
4630 -
4680 -
4G70 -
4660 -
4650 -
4640 -
4630 -
4620 -
POWER PLANT LOCATIONS - 200O CASE I
FIGURE 6-5
-123-
-------
4710 - I
4700 -
4690 -
4080 -
4570 -
4060 ~
4650 -
4640 -
4630 -
380 390 400 410 420 430 440 45O 460 470 480 ^90 500 KM.E.
, , I ' I I • ' I ' ' • '
4620:-
4610 -
4600 -
4590 -
6.07.
4000MW PLANT
POWER PLANT LOCATIONS - 2000 CASE II
FIGURE 6-6
-124-
-------
These influence coefficients were used in conjunction
with the projected emissions for Cases I and II in the years 1985
and 2000 to predict the ambient concentrations produced by all
area sources and point sources except for the electrical genera-
tion sources. The concentrations due to electric generation (both
existing and projected) were added in after having been deter-
mined by dispersion modeling.
The concentrations for the above noted cases and years •
were computed for two types of geographic distributions of emis-
sions. The first type, which results from essentially no geo-
graphic growth (Type 1 growth), has all point and area source
emissions emanating from the same relative locations as at pres-
ent. The second type, which results from extensive geographic
growth (Type 2 growth), has all new point source emissions emana-
ting from rural areas and new area source emissions emanating
from the outskirts of the present urban area.
The air quality projections for Type 1 growth were
made using the point and area source influence coefficients dis-
cussed above. The air quality projections for Type 2 growth
were made using point source influence coefficients computed
from the twelve 4,000 Mw power plants and area source influence
coefficients as before. The power plant influence coefficients
were used for the new point sources because they are more repre-
sentative of large point sources located in rural areas.
In the Type 1 growth projections the urban area re-
mained constant at 3,326 km2 through the year 2000 while for Type
2 growth the urban area was 4,604 km2 in 1985 and 8,801 km2 in
2000.
-125-
-------
6.2 Results
The ambient air pollutant concentrations derived using
the previously discussed methodology are shown in Table 6-5, and
the concentration reductions (from corresponding Case I levels)
due to increased electrical use are shown in Table 6-6. The
negative entries in Table 6-6 indicate that the concentrations
of those pollutants increased rather than decreased.
In Table 6-6 it can be seen that intensive electricity
usage improves the rural air quality as far as particulates,
hydrocarbons, and CO are concerned, does not change S02 levels,
and increases NOX levels. The urban air quality is improved
for all pollutants up to as much as 17% for S02. This S02
concentration reduction is due primarily to the conversion of
coal usage in the residential and commercial sectors. If this
coal usage were not converted, then the S02 levels (both urban
and rural) probably would increase with increased electrical
usage.
The beneficial effects of increased electrical usage
tend to be greater in the Type 1 growth cases than in the Type
2 growth cases. However, it is interesting to note that the
growth patterns have a larger effect on ambient air quality than
intensive electrical substitution.
-126-
-------
TABLE 6-5
COMPUTED AMBIENT
AIR QUALITY
(yg/m3)
Urban Receptors
Particulates SO2
1974
Type
1985
1985
2000
2000
Type
1985
1985
2000
2000
(Baseline)
1 Growth*
Case I
Case II
Case I
Case II
2 Growth**
Case I
Case II
Case I
Case II
131
170
157
255
227
135
128
143
135
128
172
146
252
208
137
122
147
136
NOV
96
74
66
111
98
58
54
63
63
HC
128
65
60
90
84
49
47
49
47
CO
529
254
242
379
352
199
193
212
204
Rural Receptors
Particulates S02 NOY
34
45
42
67
61
42
40
56
53
42
56
56
82
82
54
54
76
77
28
23
25
35
39
23
25
33
38
HC
34
18
17
26
24
17
17
24
22
CO
134
65
62
96
90
61
59
87
82
* No geographic growth in emission sources
** Extensive geographic growth in emission sources
1985 Type 1 Growth
2000 Type 1 Growth
1985 Type 2 Growth
2000 Type 2 Growth
TABLE 6-6
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION DECREASE DUE TO INTENSIVE ELECTRICAL USE
Particulate
13
28
7
8
(8%)
(11%)
(5%)
(6%)
Urban
SO 2
26
44
15
11
(15%)
(17%)
(11%)
(7%)
yg/m3 (% reduction)
Receptors
NO*
8
13
4
0
(11%)
(12%)
(7%)
(0%)
HC
5 (8%)
6 (7%)
2 (4%)
2 (4%)
CO
12
27
6
8
(5%)
(7%)
(3%)
(4%)
Rural Receptors
Particulates S02
3
6
2
3
(7%)
(9%)
(5%)
(5%)
0
0
0
-1
(0%)
(0%)
(0%)
(-1%)
NOV
-2
-4
-2
-5
(-9%)
(-11%)
(-9%)
(-15%)
HC
1 (6%)
2 (8%)
0 (0%)
2 (8%)
CO
3 (5%)
6 (6%)
2 (3%)
5 (6%)
-------
7.0 PROJECTION OF THE MAXIMUM RATE OF ELECTRICAL
SUBSTITUTION
This section presents an estimate of the rate at which
electrical equipment would have to be manufactured and installed
in order to provide for replacement of direct-fired fossil fuel
equipment between the present and the years 1985 and 2000. The
rate at which new power plants would have to be constructed in
order to meet the increased demand for electrical energy which
would result from this substitution is also considered. These
requirements were evaluated based on historical and projected
activity in equipment manufacture and power plant construction
including an assessment of the impact on these two industries
of attaining various levels of fossil fuel equipment replace-
ment. Primary consideration was given to end use applications
in the residential and commercial sectors as more than 9070
of the convertible fossil fuel is consumed in these sectors.
7.1 Equipment Manufacture
Three different cases were utilized to assess the
impact of the rate of electrical equipment manufacture on
replacement of direct-fired fossil fuel equipment with elec-
trical equipment. The basis for these three cases are des-
cribed below:
Case I: Historical trends in the manufacture
of electrical equipment will continue
in the future. When existing equipment .^
is retired it will be replaced
-128-
-------
by similar equipment (fossil fuel
by fossil fuel, electrical by
electrical). There are no artifically
imposed incentives for conversion to or
installation of electrical equipment.
In other words, the status quo will be
maintained through the year 2000.
Case II: All new installations will be electrical
equipment. When existing equipment is
replaced, similar replacement equipment
will be used (fossil fuel will be replaced
by fossil fuel, electrical will be replaced
by electrical).
Case III: All new installations will utilize electri-
cal equipment. Existing fossil fuel equip-
ment will be replaced by electrical
equipment as the existing fossil fuel
units are retired, and electrical equip-
ment will be replaced by electrical
equipment.
For each case, the total number of required units
(fossil fuel and electric) required for new installations are
assumed to be 1.5 million per year based on historical data
and projections of new housing construction by the Department
of Commerce (HO-188). The Department of Commerce's statistics
(Figure 7-1) cover only new housing neglecting some of the
equipment demands in the commercial sector (office buildings,
etc.). As a result, 1.5 million new installations per year
is probably a somewhat conservative figure'; nevertheless, the
conclusions of this section should not be altered as the
relative rates of production for each case study would remain
about the same.
-129-
-------
2.54
2.0 4-
1.5 JL
10s
Housing
Starts
O
I
i.o 4-
0.54-
0
0
O
0
0
H-
°
Year
1970
o
0
0
1974
FIGURE 7-1 NEW HOUSING STARTS
-------
7.1.1 Residential and Commercial Space Heat Equipment
Space heat accounted for 74% of the total convertible
fossil fuel consumed in 1968, and since more than 9870 of the space
heating in the residential and commercial sectors was accomplished
by fossil fuels, conversion of this end use to electrical
equipment would have by far the greatest impact on the electrical
equipment manufacturers.
Figure 7-2 presents the rates at which electrical,
natural gas, and oil space heating equipment have been manu-
factured betxveen 1960 and the present. This plot indicates the
relative trends of equipment manufacture for the three types of
space heat equipment included in this study (electrical, natural
gas-fired, and fuel oil-fired). By assigning a finite lifetime
to each type of equipment, manufacturing requirements to meet
replacement demands due to retired units can be projected.
For example, in 1985 it was assumed that electrical replace-
ment units would have to be produced for each electrical unit
manufactured and installed in 1965 (see Figure 7-2) . The life-
times used for the various equipment types are electrical —
20 years, natural gas - 15 years, and fuel oil - 15 years
(DA-122, GR-139, EQ-002). Obviously, not every electrical
space heating unit produced in 1965 will be replaced in 1985;
some will be replaced sooner, others later. Nevertheless,
assigning finite lifetimes to each type of space heating equip-
ment should not affect the relative rate of production required
for the three cases examined.
Figure 7-3 presents a projection of the required rate
of manufacture of electrical equipment between the present and
the year 2000 for each of the three cases being considered.
For Case I it was assumed that one-half of all nex^ installations
will be electrical space heating equipment (KI-093). Therefore,
-131-
-------
Type of Equipment
/\ Electric
<£> Fuel Oil
n Natural Gas
106
units
3 -f
D
I-1
U>
N>
I
2.J.
m
D
D
D
D
p
o
D D
i 4
o
o o o o o o o
A
A
O
o o
—I-
1975
1960
1965
1970
Year
FIGURE 7-2 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION OF SPACE HEATING EQUIPMENT
-------
6 ..
106
units
5 -•
4 ..
3..
2-.
/I-
A Case I
O Case II
D Case III
D
D
4-
D
n
o
A
D
O
1974
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Year
FIGURE 7-3 PROJECTION OF REQUIRED PRODUCTION OF SPACE HEATING EQUIPMENT
-------
the required rate of production in year X between 1975 and 2000
is projected to be .75 million (one-half of the 1.5 million new
installations each year) plus replacement units for electrical
equipment installed in year X-20 (see Figure 7-2). In 1985,
this would result in a projected required production rate of
.75 million new installations plus .4 million replacement units
(electrical equipment installed in 1965, see Figure 7-2) for a
total of 1.15 million units. For the year 2000, the projected
required rate would be .75 million new installations plus .8
million replacements (projected installations in 1980, see
Figure 7-3) for a total of 1.55 million units.
For Case II, all new installations would be electric
(1.5 million units per year) with replacements being the same
type of space heater as the retired equipment. Therefore,
the projected required rate of production for electrical units
in any given year between 1975 and 2000 is 1.5 million new
installations plus the number of electrical space heaters in-
stalled in the year X-20. In 1985 the projected required rate
of manufacture is 1.5 million plus .4 million (installations
in 1965, see Figure 7-2) for a total of about 1.9 million.
The projected required rate of production for 2000 is about
3.4 million units (Figure 7-3).
Case III assumes that all new installations will be
electrical equipment and that existing fossil fuel- equipment
will be replaced by electrical equipment as the fossil fuel
units are retired. Electrical space heaters will have electrical
replacements as in Case I and II. Therefore, for any given year
X between 1975 and 2000, the projected required rate of pro-
duction of electrical space heat equipment is 1.5 million new
installations plus the electrical units installed in the year
X-20 plus the fossil fuel units (natural gas and fuel oil-fired)
installed in the year X-15. Case III results in a projected
-134-
-------
required rate of manufacture in 1985 of 1.5 million new instal-
lations plus .4 million electric replacements plus 2.9 million
fossil fuel replacements for a total of about 4.8 million
electric space heaters. By 2000 the projected required rate of
production would be about 5.25 million units.
7.1.2 Residential and Commercial Water Heating Equipment
Water heating accounted for about 11% of the total
convertible fossil fuel consumed in all three sectors in 1968
with over 83% of the water heating in the residential and
commercial sectors accomplished using direct-fired fossil fuel
equipment. Conversion of this end use to electrical equivalents
would have the second greatest impact on the electrical equip-
ment manufactures.
Figure 7-4 presents the rates at which electrical and
natural gas water heating equipment have been manufactured
between 1960 and the present. Fuel oil equipment was not in-
cluded as less than 10% of the total fossil fuel consumed for
this use in the residential and commercial sectors in 1968 was
fuel oil (see Table 3-1). This plot indicates the historical trends
of equipment manufacture for the two types of water heating equip-
ment considered, and with assignment of a finite lifetime to each
type of equipment, allows projection of manufacturing require-
ments to meet replacement demands due to retired units. The
lifetimes used are the same for electric and natural gas water
heaters - 12 years (GR-139).
Projections of the required rate of production of
electrical water heating equipment between the present and
the year 2000 for each of the three cases discussed previously
is presented in Figure 7-5. For Case I it was assumed that
-135-
-------
3.0 -.
a a G
2.5 --
D
a
D
a
a
a a
a
A
A
A
D
2.0 -.-
106
units
i
M
LO
I
1.5 1
1.0 --
A
0.5 --
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
Type of Equipment
A Electric
Q Natural Gas
1960
1965
Year
1970
FIGURE 7-4 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION OF WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT
1975
-------
I
h-'
U>
I
8
7 -
6 -
5-
106 4-
units
3-
2-
1-
D
D
Q
0
o
o °
A
A A
O
A
A
& Case I
O Case II
Q Case III
1 1 1 1 1 : 1
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
FIGURE 7-5 PROJECTION OF REQUIRED PRODUCTION OF WATER HEATING EQUIPMENT
-------
one-half of all new installations will be electric units (TE-177)
These projections were determined for each case in a manner
analogous to that for space heating. Case I projections of
required manufacturing rates for any year X between 1975 and
2000 are .75 million new installations (one-half the 1.5 million
new installations per year) plus replacements for electrical
equipment installed in the year X-12 (see Figure 7-4). There-
fore, the projected required rate of production of electric
water heaters is about 3.2 million units in 1985 and about 3.6
million units in 2000.
For Case II the projected rate for any year X between
1975 and 2000 would be 1.5 million new installations plus re-
placements for electrical units installed in the year X-12.
In 1985 the projected required rate of manufacture is about 4
million units and in 2000 about 5.4 million units.
For Case III, the projected rate for any year
X between 1975 and 2000 would be 1.5 million new installations
plus replacements for electrical units installed in X-12 plus
replacements for natural gas units installed in X-12. This
would result in a projected required rate of production of about
6.6 million electric water heaters in 1985 and about 8 million
in 2000.
7.1.3 Residential and Commercial Cooking Equipment
Cooking accounted for about 3.8?0 of the total con-
vertible fossil fuel consumed in all three sectors in 1968
with over 867o of the cooking in the residential and commercial
sectors accomplished using direct-fired fossil fuel equipment.
The impact of conversion of this end use to electrical equip-
ment would be the third largest for the manufacturers in relation
to other end use conversions examined.
-138-
-------
The historical rates at which electric and natural gas
cooking equipment have been produced from 1960 to 1974 are pre-
sented in Figure 7-6. Since less than 1070 of the total fossil
fuel consumed for this end use in the residential and commercial
sectors in 1968 was fuel oil, cooking accomplished with fuel
oil was not included (see Table 3-1). Relative trends of equip-
ment manufacture for the two types of cooking equipment included
are indicated by these plots, and with assignment of a finite
lifetime to each type of equipment, a projection of production
requirements to meet replacement demands as units are retired
is possible. For electrical cooking units the lifetime is
20 years and for natural gas units the lifetime is 17 years
(GR-139).
Figure 7-7 presents projections of the required rate
of manufacture of electrical cooking equipment between the present
and the year 2000 for each of the three cases. One-half of all
new installations are assumed to be electrical units in Case I
(TE-177). As for end uses previously discussed, projected re-
quired production for any year X between 1975 and 2000 is the
sum of new installations (.75 million per year and replacements
(electrical units installed in the year X-20). Therefore, the
Case I projected required rate of manufacture of electric cooking
equipment for 1985 is about 2.8 million units and for 2000
about 3.5 million units.
The sum of 1.5 million new installations and replace-
ments for electrical equipment installed in the year X-20 gives
the projected required rate of production based on Case II
assumptions for any year X between 1975 and 2000. As can be
seen from Figure 7-7 the projected rate is approximately 3.5
million units in 1985 and approximately 4.5 million units in
2000.
-139-
-------
5 J-
Type of Equipment
A Electric
4 ..
Natural Gas
O
1
3 --
106
units
D
A
D
A
O.
A
D
A
D
A
D
A
A D
D D
D
A
n
A
D
-f-
1960
1965
1970
Year
1975
FIGURE 7-6 HISTORICAL PRODUCTION OF COOKING EQUIPMENT
-------
7 T
6 --
5 --
D
D
D
O
a
O
3 --
2 ..
O
A
O
A
O
A
A
A
i --
A Case I
O Case II
D Case III
1975
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
FIGURE 7-7 PROJECTION OF REQUIRED PRODUCTION OF COOKING EQUIPMENT
-------
For Case III, the projected required rate in any year
X is the sum of 1.5 million new installations, and electrical
replacements for electrical equipment installed in the year
X-20 and fossil fuel equipment installed in X-17. By 1985
the projected required annual production rate would be about
5.6 million units and about 6.8 million units by 2000.
7.2 Electrical Generation Capacity Expansion
Any conversion of direct-fired fossil fuel equipment
to electrical equipment will result in an increased demand
for electricity and, therefore, will require new construction
of electric generating facilities. The ability of the power
industry to meet these increased demands must be considered in
projection of a maximum practicable rate at which electrical
equipment can be applied in the residential, commercial, and
industrial sector. Sufficient electrical energy must be avail-
able if an efficient conversion to electrical equipment is to
be accomplished.
Electric generating capacity requirements were eval-
uated based on projected activity in power plant construction
including an assessment of the impact on this industry of
attaining various levels of fossil fuel equipment replacement.
7.2.1 Methodology Used to Project Generating Capacity
Expansion Rates
As in Section 7.1 three separate cases were utilized
to assess the impact of the rate of central power plant con-
struction and expansion on the rate of conversion to electrical
equipment . These three cases are described below:
-142-
-------
Case I: Literature projections of electric
generating capacity were assumed to
represent the capacity required to
satisfy the assumptions described for
Case I in Section 7.1. No artificially
imposed incentives for expansion of
construction were assumed to exist.
Case II: Electricity demand was determined by
assuming that the increased fossil fuel
usage as projected for 1985 and 2000
was due to new installations that
would be converted to electrical
equipment. This calculated additional
demand represents the effect of
the assumptions described for Case II
in Section 7.1. Conversion of this
fossil fuel consumption to electric
generating capacity is described
in a later section.
Case III: For the year 1985, generating capacity
required to meet the additional demand
resulting from the Case III assumptions
previously discussed in Section 7.1 were
determined by summing the fossil fuel
usage for each pertinent end use in the
year (1985 - end use equipment life-
time) and conversion to equivalent gen-
erating capacity. This additional
increment of capacity was then added to
the Case II projection. For the year
2000, it was assumed that all fossil
-143-
-------
fuel equipment in the residential and
commercial sectors had been replaced by
electrical equipment. Therefore,
the required additional generating
capacity was determined by conversion
of this fossil fuel energy requirement
to equivalent generating capacity.
This additional capacity was added to the
Case I projection rather than the Case II
projection, as the Case II additional
increment is included in the total
fossil fuel usage in the year 2000.
These projections include a load factor of 64% for
1985 and 66% for 2000 in calculation of installed generating
capacity (HI-048). The relative efficiencies of the electrical
and fossil fuel equipment were considered in the conversion of
fossil fuel usage to equivalent electric generating capacity.
Transmission losses were felt to be negligible since the average
transmission distance was assumed to be 30 miles.
7.2.1.1 Case I Requirements
Projections of generating capacity vary with the source
depending on several factors such as the date of the study and
the basis for the projection. Figure 7-8 presents the projec-
tions of Radian, Electrical World, Hittman, and the Federal
Power Commission. Radian's Case I projection is assumed to
represent the required generating capacity necessary to satisfy
the demand resulting from Case I criteria since Radian's study
(see Section 3) is the most recent and is in good agreement with
the other projections. The required' generating capacity for
1985 is about 750 x 103 megawatts (Mw) and for 2000 about 1500
x 103 Mw.
-144-
-------
1500-
1000 _
Generating
Capacity
103Mw
500(
19
A
D
O
O
Q
o A
0
D
)
/\ Radian Case I Projection
O Electrical World Case I Projection (SL-05
Q] Hittman Case I Projection (HI-048)
\/ Federal Power Commission Case I Projectio
1 1 | ||
IS 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
FIGURE 7-8 PROJECTION OF REQUIRED GENERATING CAPACITY
-------
2000 _ _
-P-
CTv
I
1500 _; .
Generating
Capacity
103 Mw
1000 _ .
500
1980
a
o
A
1985
a
o
A Radian Case I Projection
O Radian Case II Projection
EU Radian Case III Projection
1990
Year
1995
2000
FIGURE 7-9 PROJECTION OF REQUIRED GENERATING CAPACITY
-------
7.2.1.2 Case II Requirements
Case II requires that increased consumption of fossil
fuels in the residential and commercial sectors (which would
primarily result from new installations) be converted to elec-
trical energy. If the increased fossil fuel consumption in the
residential and commercial sectors between 1972 and 1985 and
1972 and 2000 (as presented in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7) was
due to installation of new equipment, this increase could be
converted to equivalent required generating capacity to satisfy
the demands of additional electrical equipment. This generating
capacity was added to the projection of Case I to determine the
Case II projection of required generating capacity of 1972 and
1985 and 2000 (as presented in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7) was
due to installation of new equipment, this increase could be
converted to equivalent required generating capacity to satisfy
the demands of additional electrical equipment. This generating
capacity was added to the projection of Case I to determine the
Case II projection of required generating capacity of 1985 and
2000 (Table 7-3).
The relative efficiencies of the electric and fossil
fuel equipment were included in the conversion to equivalent
generating capacity. This calaculation was made separately
for each primary end use and then summed for 1985 and 2000. An
example calculation for space heat is presented below for the
years 1985 and 2000.
The increase in fossil fuel use for residential space
heat per year between 1972 and 1985 is 1194 x 1012 Btu (Tables
3-5 and 3-6). Using conversions of 3413 Btu per kwhr and a
64% load factor
1194 x 1012 — x kwhr x ^ = 4 1 x 10" Mw
iiy^ x lu yr x 3413 Btu x 8760 hr ^--L x lu nw
-147-
-------
/ i in 7 i 60% fossil fuel efficiency 0 c , nlf ...
4'lxl° kw x 100% electric efficiency = 2.5 x 10 Mw
2.5 x 107 kw 7
"64 load factor -"' A ^
of generating capacity are required to meet the demand due to
increased residential electric space heating in 1985.
Between 1972 and 2000, the increase is 3083 x 1012 Btu.
Using conversions of 3413 Btu per kwhr and a 66% load factor
3083 x 1012 5£u wr yr = i i x
JU8J x iu yr x 3413 Btu x 8760 hr X
i i me i 607o fossil fuel efficiency _ /• o , int M
1'1 x 10 kw x 100% electric efficiency ~ 6'3 X 10 Mw
6". 3 x 107 kw _ n c .. m*
.00 load factor
= 9.5 x 10" Mw
of generating capacity are required to meet the demand due to
increased residential electrical space heating in 2000.
The installed electric generating capacity required
to satisfy the assumptions made for Case II was determined by
summing the increased generating capacities required for 1985
and for 2000 and adding this to the Case I projections for
1985 and 2000 respectively. Using this method the required
generating capacity production for 1985 was 900 x 103 Mw and
the projection for 2000 was 1800 x 103 Mw.
-148-
-------
7.2.1.3 Case III Requirements
Two separate approaches were necessary to project 1985
and 2000 required generating capacity for Case III. By the year
2000 all equipment would be electric so the projection for that
year was simply a conversion of the total primary fossil fuel
usage for the year 2000 (Table 3-7) to generating capacity.
As in Case II, the relative efficiencies of the types of
equipment were considered but no peak margin for the new
capacity was added.
Projecting the 1985 generating capacity was more dif-
ficult as not all of the fossil fuel equipment would have been
retired and replaced by electrical equipment by 1985. Therefore,
additional generating capacity to meet only the demands of the
retired fossil fuel equipment were necessary. This additional
generating capacity was determined based on the lifetime of the
fossil "fuel equipment and the historical fossil fuel usage of the
primary end uses. Space heat and cooking fossil fuel consumption
in 196S (Table 3-1) and water heating fossil fuel consumption
in 1972 (Table 3-5) were converted to equivalent generating
capacity using the same methods as for 2000. Assuming finite
lifetimes of 15, 17, and 12 years for space heat, cooking,
and water heating respectively, fossil fuel consumption that
would be replaced by electrical energy by 1985 was estimated
using available data for the years 1968 and 1972.
For 1985 the projected required generating capacity was
1300 x 103 Mw and for 2000 it was 2300 x 103 Mw.
7.2.2 Factors Influencing Capacity Expansion
Some factors in addition to demand that might be con-
sidered in projections of the maximum rate of power plant ex-
pansion are discussed below.
-149-
-------
7.2.2.1 Availability of Capital
The electric utility industry is the most capital
intensive industry in the United States. About 12% of the total
U. S. investments each year are channeled to the power industry.
An annual rate of expenditure of over $30 billion, more than
triple the $10 billion invested in 1970, has been estimated as
the capital requirement for the utility industry between the
present and 1985 (NA-174, TI-026).
7.2.2.2 Availability of Water
Thermal power plants require substantial amounts of
water for cooling purposes. The principle effect of this water
use is the evaporation of about five pounds of water for each
kwhr of electricity produced (NA-174). As a result, the avail-
ability of water is a major factor in the siting of a generating
facility (TI-026). Also, the mode of cooling is of prime im-
portance as it directly affects fuel cycle efficiency to produce
electrical power (ST-198).
There has been increasing concern over water use,
particularly in certain areas of the United States. Typical
of this concern is recently enacted legislation by the state of
Montana imposing a three-year moratorium on water allocations
from the Yellowstone River basin (NA-174). Substantial portions
of the nations coal reserves are located west of the Mississippi
River, where a relative scarcity of water exists and about 90%
of the existing available water is used for agriculture.
-150-
-------
7.2.2.3 Availability of Fuel
Fuel availability is an extremely complex and crucial
factor affecting expansion of the utility industry. Utilities
have opted for various fuels to fire new units depending on
government policy, environmental requirements, fuel supply, and
economic factors (NA-174). Presently, the power industry is in
a state of uncertainty as far as which fuel should be used for
future plants. Potential constraints are associated with each
type of fuel so that no clear solution is apparent. The natural
gas and fuel oil supply is very uncertain, and coal fired and
nuclear plants are encumbered with environmental problems.
Lack of transportation facilities could affect the
availability of fuels to the power industry. Important shifts
in regional transportation requirements might result from the
development of Alaskan oil and gas and Western coal. The great-
est potential problem is probably the railroads (the primary
coal carrier) as they have encountered financial difficulties
leading to reduced hauling capacity (FE-076).
7.2.2.4 Environmental Impacts
As long as natural gas and low sulfur fuel oil supplies
were plentiful, environmental concerns were not considered a
critical factor in the expansion of the utility industry. How-
ever, as a major portion of future expansion and new construction
will probably involve coal-burning units, the environmental impacts
of generating stations will become a primary factor in determining
the rate of expansion of generating capacity. Likewise, the
development of raw energy resources necessary for utility expan-
sion might be slowed down by environmental considerations (TI-026).
-151-
-------
7.2.2.5 Lead Time Requirements
Very sizeable lead times are required to bring new
plants on line. Typical new plant lead times (go-ahead to bene-
ficial operation)_experienced in 1973 are shown in Table 7-1
below.
TABLE 7-1
TYPICAL 1973 OVERALL PROJECT TIMES
(from go-ahead to production)
Type of Facility Years
Coal-fired power plant ' 5-8
Surface coal mine 2-4
Underground coal mine 3-5
Uranium exploration and mine 7-10
Nuclear power plant 9-'10
Hydroelectric dam 5-8
Produce oil and gas from new fields 3-10
Produce oiland gas from old fields 1-3
Source: (NA-174)
-152-
-------
Current lead times for other types of energy facilities are
given below.
TABLE 7-2
Estimated Facility Lead Times
(years from decision to start-up)
Type of Facility Years Lead Time
Geothermal Electric Plants 5
Oil Electric Plants 5
Synthetic Fuel Plants
Low Btu Gas 5
Pipeline Gas 5
Liquefaction 5
Shale Oil Plants 6
Source: (FE-095)
7.3 Projection Results
The production rates of end use equipment for the years
1960 to 1974 indicate a 200% increase in production rates for
electrical space heating and water heating equipment and a 10070
increase for electrical cooking equipment relative to 1960
production figures for each. The increase in installed electric
generating capacity was about 100% for the same time period.
The following results consider increases in production or gener-
ating capacity* relative to 1974 figures.
Based on Case I assumptions, the equipment manufacturers
would have to increase production about 10% by 1985 for each end
use and about 60% for space heating, 80% for water heating, and
30% for cooking by 2000. The utility industry would have to
increase its installed generating capacity about 80% by 1985
and about 270% by 2000 (Table 7-3).
-153-
-------
TABLE 7-3
INCREASES IN ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTION AND UTILITY GENERATING CAPACITY
.(RELATIVE TO 1974 .FIGURES)
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURE
1985
CASE I
CASE II
CASE III
2000
CASE I
CASE II
CASE III
SPACE
HEATING
10%
120%
400%
60%
260%
480%
WATER
HEATING
10%
60%
170%
80%
140%
220%
COOKING
10%
20%
90%
30%
50%
140%
UTILITY
GENERATING
CAPACITY
80%
110%
220%
270%
330%
450%
-154-
-------
Using Case II criteria, production rates would increase
120% for space heating, 60% for water heating, and 20% for
cooking by 1985. The corresponding increase of installed gener-
ating capacity is 110%. By the year 2000 production rates for
space heating would increase 260%, for water heating 140%, and
for cooking 50% along with a 330% jump in electric generating
capacity.
For Case III, a 400% increase in space heater produc-
tion rates, a 170% increase for water heating, and a 90% increase
for cooking would be required by the year 1985. The utility
industry as a result would have to expand generating capacity
by 220% by 1985. By the year 2000, the manufacturing rates
would increase by 480% for space heaters, 220% for water heaters,
140% for cooking equipment, and the generating capacity would
have to increase 450%.
Assuming that the equipment manufacturers and utility
industry attain rates of increase in production and capacity
equal to their historical growth previously discussed, an overall
rate of application of electrical equipment falling between the
Case I and Case II projections might be feasible. Some equip-
ment such as cooking and water heating might even attain a Case
III rate of application.
The most serious constraint on the rate of application
of electrical equipment is probably the rate at which utilities
can expand and construct new facilities. Practicable solutions
to the problems faced by the power industry such as capital,
water and fuel availability, and the environment must be found
if utilities are to grow even at the Case I projected rate.
A significant influence would probably have to be exercised
over the utility industry for the electric demand resulting from
Case II guidelines to be met. Also, some influence might have
-155-
-------
to be exercised over the electrical space heating manufacturers
to enable this industry to meet the requirements resulting from
a Case II replacement rate.
The electricity demand in the years 1985 and 2000
was estimated in Section 3.0. This demand is converted to 103
Mw of generating capacity using 3413 Btu per kwhr and a 64%
and 66% load factor in 1985 and 2000 respectively. The esti-
mated installed generating capacity in 1985 is about 740 x 103 Mw
and in 2000 about 1500 x 103 Mw. Based on the projections of
Table 7-3, the installed generating capacity in those years may
exceed this projected demand thus providing electrical energy
to fill "gaps" in clean fuel availability which may exist in the
future.
-156-
-------
8.0 DEFINITION OF EQUIPMENT COSTS
This section presents an economic comparison of fossil-
fuel fired equipment and electrical equipment used in the resi-
dential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The residential
and commercial sectors are discussed in considerable detail since
a high percentage of the total fossil-fuel energy utilized in
these sectors may be switched to electricity (100 and 8370 res-
pectively) . Less emphasis is given to the industrial sector
since only 97<> of the fossil fuel energy used in that sector is
switchable. Capital and operating costs for both 1972 and 1974
are presented. 1972 is the base year used throughout this study.
1974 cost data are presented so that recent trends in fuel costs
and electric and fossil-fuel fired equipment costs may be con-
sidered.
Cost comparisons were made for items in each of the
sectors that are used in processes where either fossil fuels
or electricity may be used to supply the energy. In the resi-
dential sector, these processes include space heating, water
heating, air conditioning, clothes drying, and cooking. Refrig-
eration is not included because gas powered refrigerators are
no longer manufactured. In the commercial sector the processes
considered are space heating, water heating, cooking, and air
conditioning. The equipment considered in the industrial sec-
tor is classified by industry type. The industries discussed
include steel making, aluminum processing, glass production,
chemical industries, and food processing. The processes con-
sidered are melting, heating and annealing, cooking, and space
heating.
-157-
-------
8. 1 Residential Sector Equipment:
The energy end uses in the residential sector which
may be switched from fossil-fuel fired equipment to electri-
cally operated equipment are space heating, water heating, air
conditioning, clothes drying, and cooking. The discussion of
capital and operating costs for this equipment is divided into
three sections. First the bases and assumptions used in
determining the capital and operating costs for the various
equipment types used in the residential sector are discussed.
This includes natural gas, oil, and electric rates, and methods
and assumptions used to estimate capital and operating costs
direct information was not available.
The 1974 capital and operating costs for residential
equipment are presented in the second section along with the
capital and operating costs for 1972. Costs are presented for
both 1972 and 1974 to show recent trends in capital and opera-
ting costs for the various types of residential equipment.
These costs are discussed in a comparative manner so that the
economic advantages and disadvantages of both electric and
fossil-fuel powered equipment may be considered.
The third section contains a present cost analysis
for several of the residential sector equipment types. In
some cases a comparison of present day capital and operating
costs does not clearly indicate which alternative is least
expensive over the life of the equipment. This situation
arises when alternative X has a higher capital cost than alter-
native Y, but alternative Y has a higher operating cost. This
situation may also occur if the price of one energy source is
rising faster than the price of another, as is the case of
natural gas and electricity (the price of natural gas is rising
faster than the price of electricity) . A present cost analysis
-158-
-------
is presented to give' a more accurate picture of the relative
costs of fossil fuel and electric equipment. The detailed
cost calculations may be found in Appendix E.
8.1.1 Bases for Equipment Cost Calculations - Residential
Sector
The capital costs for residential equipment for 1974
were estimated by obtaining the total number of units shipped
and the installed value of the units (TE-177, EN-221). The
1974 capital cost for each item is then given by:
r •+• i r +- Installed Value of 1974 Shipments
Capital cost - Number of Units Shipped
This type of information was available for all items except
gas air conditioners, A 1974 capital cost estimate for this
item was obtained from the American Gas Association (AM-126).
The capital costs for 1972 were obtained in the same
manner as the 1974 capital costs except for space heaters and
air conditioners. The 1972 capital costs for these two items
were obtained in the following manner:
1972 Capital Cost = 1974 Capital Cost x R
where R is the average 1972/1974 capital cost ratio for the
type of equipment considered (electric, oil, or natural gas).
The value of R for electric equipment is 0.935 and the value
for fossil fuel equipment is 0.928.
The operating costs for each type of residential
equipment previously identified depend upon the amount of
energy consumed by each piece of equipment and the cost of
that energy (electricity, oil, or natural gas). The 1972
-159-
-------
and 1974 national average electric, oil, and natural gas rates
(AM-124, AM-125, FE-090, RE-123, RE-124) used in calculating
the operating costs for residential equipment are shown in
Table 8-1.
TABLE 8-1
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY COSTS ($/106 BTU)
1972 1974
Electricity 7.03 8.26
Natural Gas 1.19 1.42
No. 2 Fuel Oil 0.71 1.84
The average yearly energy consumption for each type
of residential electric equipment except space heaters is
shown in Table 8-2.
TABLE 8-2
AVERAGE YEARLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Equipment Type 106BTU/YR SOURCE
Clothes Dryer 3-39 HO-176
Microwave Oven 0.65 HO-176
Electric Oven 4.0 HO-176
Water Heater 14.4 HO-176
Air Conditioner, room 4.74 AI-018
Air Conditioner, . 23.7
Central (assume
5 rooms)
The average space heating energy requirement for gas heating is
119 x 106 Btu/yr (AM-126). The energy required for an electric
space heater may be calculated as follows. Assuming efficiencies
-160-
-------
for the fossil-fuel and electric heaters of 60%, and 10070 res-
pectively (See Appendix B), the electric space heater energy
requirements is:
119 x 106 Btu/yr x f§|p = 71 x 106 Btu/yr
The average annual energy requirement for the
residential gas powered equipment was calculated based on
equipment efficiencies as defined in Appendix B. The relative
efficiencies used in calculating the energy requirements for
the gas fired equipment are shown in Table 8-3.
TABLE 8-3
ENERGY USE EFFICIENCIES FOR FOSSIL-FUEL AND
ELECTRIC RESIDENTIAL EQUIPMENT
Efficiency
Equipment Type Fossil-Fuel Electric
Clothes Dryer 49% 55%
Oven 37% 75% (32%)'
Water Heater 60% 92%
Air Conditioning 30% 50%
Space Heater 60% 95%
* Microwave Oven
The gas powered equipment energy requirements were calculated
using these efficiencies as follows:
EG = EE x
where :
EQ = gas-powered equipment energy requiremeiit
Eg = electric equipment energy requirement
-161-
-------
rig = efficiency of electric equipment
T\Q - efficiency of gas-powered equipment
Once the energy required for each piece of equipment
and the cost for that energy is known, the yearly operating
costs for each item may be calculated as follows:
Operating Cost
= (Energy Requirement) x (Cost per Energy Unit)
In the case of air conditioners, however, the capital
costs obtained were for central units, whereas the energy
requirements were for window units. It was assumed that one
central unit is equivalent to five rooms cooled by window
units so that the total energy requirement for a central air
conditioning system is five times that shown in Table 7-1 for
a room air conditioner.
8.1.2 Capital and Operating Costs ofResidential End Use
Equipment
The capital and operating costs for residential
equipment which may be either electric or fossil-fuel powered
(air conditioner, space heater, stove/oven, clothes dryer, and
water heater) were calculated using the assumptions and
methodologies described in the previous section. Table 8-4
presents a summary of the capital and operating costs for
residential equipment for 1972 and 1974. A comparison of the
capital costs for electric equipment to the capital costs for
natural gas powered equipment for 1972 shows that electric
air conditioners and clothes dryers are less expensive than
natural gas powered air conditioners and dryers (38% and 1470,
respectively). However, natural gas powered space heaters,
-162-
-------
TABLE 8-4
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR ELECTRIC AND
CAS POWERED RESIDENTIAL EQUIPMENT
1972 Costs
Electric Natural Gas Oil
Equipment Type Capital Coat. $ Operating Cost. $/yr Capital Cost. $ Operating Cost. S/yr Capital Cost. $ Operating Cost. $/vr
Air Conditioner, Central 857 167 1,390 47 - -
Space Heater 502 503 477 . 141 526 ,86.9
Stove/oven 219 (400)* 28 (4.6)* 212 9.6 -
Clothes Dryer 169 24 196 4.6
Water Heater 90 101 85 26 -
1974 Coats
_ Electric _ _ Natural Gas _ , _ Oil _
_ Equipment Type _ Capital Cost. $ Operating Cost. $/yr Capital Cost. $ Operating Cost. $/yr Capital Cost. $ Operating Cost. $/yr
Air Conditioner, Central 917 196 1,500 56 - -
Space Heater 541 591 514 169 567 225
Stove/oven 240 (367)* 33 (5.4)* 229 12 -
Clothes Dryer 181 28 .210 5.5
Water Heater 97 119 92 31
*Microwave Oven
-------
stove/ovens, and water heaters are less expensive than their
electric counterparts by 6%, 3%, and 6%, respectively. The
oil-fired space heater is 5% more expensive than the electric
space heater and 10% more expensive than the gas-fired heater.
Also, the gas stove/oven is 41% cheaper than the microwave
oven.
A comparison of the operating costs of electric and
natural gas equipment shows a quite different cost profile than
the comparison of capital costs. The only electric equipment
which is less expensive than its gas counterpart on an operat-
ing cost basis is the microwave oven. The average annual
operating cost for a microwave oven is 52% less than that of
a gas stove/oven ($4.6/yr versus $9.6/yr). All of the other
electric equipment operating costs are greater than their fossil
fuel equivalents' costs. Gas powered air conditioners and
space heaters are both 72% less expensive to operate. A gas
stove/oven is 65% less, a dryer is 81% less, and a water heater
is 74% less expensive to run than their electric substitutes.
This is because electricity is a more expensive energy source
than natural gas ($7.03/106 Btu versus $1.19/106 Btu, based
on 1972 prices). However, as natural gas becomes more difficult
to obtain, the price of natural gas probably will rise much
faster than that of electricity, and may make electric equip-
ment more attractive.
The operating cost of a microwave oven is less than
that of a gas stove/oven but the capital cost is greater.
However, from 1972 to 1974 the capital cost of a microwave oven
dropped from $400 to $367. Continued decreases in microwave
oven capital costs coupled with increasing natural gas prices
may make electric cooking with microwave ovens more attractive.
-164-
-------
8.1.3 Present Cost Analyses of Residential End Use Equipment
Options
Capital and operating costs for each of the five types
of residential equipment were presented above. Of these five
types of equipment, three (microwave ovens, gas air conditioners,
and gas clothes dryers) have higher initial costs and lower
operating costs than their substitutes. In order to more ade-
quately define the cost differentials between these types of
electric and fossil-fuel powered equipment, a present cost analy-
sis is presented in this section. Table 8-5 summarizes the re-
sults of the present cost calculations. The details may be found
in Appendix E.
Three cases were considered. In Case 1, natural gas
and electricity prices were assumed to remain constant and an
interest rate of 8% was used. In Case 2 it was assumed that
natural gas and electricity costs increased.at the same rate as
they have from 1972 to 1974 (9.87% and 8.75%, respectively) and
that the interest rate was 8%. Case 3 has the same assump-
tions as Case 2 except that the interest rate was assumed to
be 12%. For all three of these cases an equipment life of 20
years was assumed.
The present cost calculations for cooking equipment
(see Table 8-5) show that for 1972, in all cases the gas stove/
oven is the least expensive and the electric stove/oven is the
most costly, with the microwave oven intermediate. For Case 2,
the microwave oven is 45% more expensive than the gas stove/
oven. Case 2 shows that it is 167o more expensive and Case 3
shows the microx^ave oven to be 30% more expensive than a gas
stove/oven. For the 1974 calculations, Case 1 and Case 3 show
the microwave oven to be more expensive than a gas stove/oven
(237o and 10% respectively). However, Case 2 shows that the
microwave oven is cheaper than a gas stove/oven by 1.770. The
lowering of the capital cost of the microwave oven from $400
-165-
-------
TABLE 8-5
PRESENT COST ANALYSIS FOR VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL EQUIPMENT
Present Cost. $
Equipment Type
Stove/oven, electric
Microwave oven
Stove/oven, gas
Dryer, electric
Dryer, gas
i
Case 1(1)
496
445
307
403
241
o\
f Air conditioner, electric 2,497
Air conditioner, gas
' ' Case 1: Based on
constant
' 'Case 2: Based on
1,851
1972
Case 2(2) Case 3 (3)
777
490
423
641
297
4,162
673
462
356
495
265
3,145
2,419 2,094
equipment lifetime of 20 years, interest rate
electricity and natural gas prices.
equipment lifetime of 20 yr., interest rate of
1974
Case 1<1> c*,e2(2>
565
420
342
456
264
2,841
2,050
of 8%
8% pe
896
473
481
735
330
4,796
2,726
per year. , and
r yr. , cost of
Case 3 (3)
694
441
402
565
292
3,602
2,338
(3)
electricity increases 8.75% per yr., and natural gas cost increases at a rate
of 9.87% per yr. (1972-1974 average increases).
Case 3: Same assumptions as Case 1 except the interest rate is 1270 per yr.
-------
in 1972 to $367 in 1974 resulted in a decrease in cost
differential between the microwave oven and the gas stove/oven.
The present cost calculations for clothes dryers and
air conditioners show that the higher operating costs for the
electric items are more than enough to offset the higher capi-
tal costs for the gas powered equipment, making the electric
equipment more expensive in all cases.
8.2 Commercial Sector
The major energy end uses in the commercial sector
which may be sx^itched from fossil-fuel powered equipment to
electric equipment are space heating, water heating, cooking,
and air conditioning. The following discussion of capital
and operating costs for commercial equipment consists of a
description of the bases and assumptions used to determine
the costs and a presentation and discussion of the results of
the cost calculations.
8.2.1 Bases for Equipment Cost Calculations - -Commercial
Sector
This section contains a discussion of the assumptions
and methodologies used to obtain cost estimates for the commer-
cial equipment identified above. The fuel costs used for the
estimations are shown below in Table 8-6.
TABLE 8-6
COMMERCIAL ENERGY COSTS ($/106 BTU)
1972 . 1974
Electricity 9.96 11.4
Natural" Gas ' 0.91 1.10
No. 2 Fuel Oil 0.71 1.84
-167- 4
m
-------
Since no average energy requirements for commercial
equipment were found, the operating costs were defined on a
usable energy output basis as follows:
Cost ($/Btu) = - x P
where:
n = equipment efficiency
P cost of fuel, $/106 Btu
The operating cost for a microwave oven was calculated on an
equivalent energy basis as follows:
EM
CostM ($/Btu) = CostE x g-i
E
where:
Cost., = operating cost for a microwave oven
Costg = operating cost for an electric stove/
oven = 1/n
EJ.J = average annual energy requirement for a
residential microwave oven
Eg = average annual energy requirement for a
residential electric stove/oven
-168-
-------
The ratio of the microwave oven energy requirement to the
electric stove/oven energy requirement for commercial equip-
ment was assumed to be the same as that for residential
equipment.
Capital costs for commercial equipment were not
readily available except for stove/ovens. The 1974 capital
costs of electric and gas commercial ranges (EN-221) were
obtained as follows:
r • t. T r <_ _ Retail Value of Commercial Shipments
Capital Lost Number of Units Shipped
No capital cost data were found for the other commercial items
The detailed calculations for the commercial capital and
operating costs are presented in Appendix E.
8.2.2 Capital and Operating Costs of Commercial End Use
Equipment
As previously mentioned, the only capital cost data
found for commercial equipment were for gas and electric
ranges. These values were $609 and $637, respectively. The
ratio of electric to gas capital costs for ranges is approxi-
mately the same as the residential ratio. This is probably
true for the other commercial equipment also, since the commer-
cial items are essentially the same as residential equipment
with larger capacities. Assuming that the capital costs of
these types of equipment follow the logarithmic relationship
known as the "six-tenths factor",
o . G
Cc = Cr(r)
-169-
-------
where:
Cc = commercial equipment cost
Cr = residential equipment cost
r - capacity ratio of commercial equipment to
residential equipment
the electric to gas equipment cost ratio can be written as
cc,e = cr,e(r) _ Cr>e
C " Cc,g = Cr(g(r)«- ' C^ ' «r •
where:
Rc - electric to gas ratio for commercial
equipment
Cc,e = cost of commercial electric equipment
CCjg = cost of commercial gas equipment
Cr>e = cost of residential electric equipment
Cr,g - cost of residential gas equipment
Rr = electric to gas ratio for residential
equipment
If this relationship is true for the commercial equipment,
then the same conclusions made in the residential sector
discussion concerning relative capital costs for each of the
types of equipment may be made for the commercial sector.
On this basis, electric space heaters and water heaters are
-170-
-------
probably about five to six percent more expensive than their
gas powered counterparts.
The operating costs for commercial equipment which
may be either fossil fuel or electric powered are shown in
Table 8-7 on a usable energy basis. As in the residential
sector, the only electrical equipment that has a lower oper-
ating cost than gas powered equipment is the microwave oven.
This is because electricity is considerably more expensive
than natural gas on a common energy basis (cost/Btu). The
difference in efficiencies of electric and gas equipment
(electric is in general more efficient) is not significant
enough to make up for the fuel cost differentials. However,
as natural gas becomes more difficult to obtain and prices
rise, electrical equipment in the commercial sector may become
more attractive.
8.3 Industrial Sector
Section 4.0 and Appendix B present a detailed
breakdown of the fossil-fuel energy end uses in the industrial
sector which could be satisfied by electrical equipment in
1968. The end uses that were identified are space heaters,
steel making furnaces, equipment for heating and annealing
of steel, aluminum melting furnaces, glass melting furnaces,
and cooking equipment used in the food processing industry.
This section presents a discussion of the assumptions and method-
ologies used to calculate the industrial sector costs and the
results of the cost calculations.. A comparative discussion of
the various alternatives is also included in this section. The
detailed calculations for the industrial sector are presented in
Appendix B.
-171-
-------
TABLE 8-7
COMMERCIAL OPERATING COSTS
197A
Oil Operating Gas Operating Electric Operating Oil Operating Gas Operating Electric Operating
Equipment Type Costs. $/10* Btu Costs. $/10*Btu Costs. $/10aBtu Costs. $/10*Btu Costs. $/106Btu Costs. S/lo'Btu
Space Heater 0.96 1.18 10.45 2.48 1.44 12.0
Water Heater - 1.51 10.80 - 1.84 12.39
Cooking - 2.45 13.25 (2.14)* - 2.99 15.20 (2.46)*
Air Conditioning - 3.02 19.87 - 3.68 22.80
*Mlcrow»ve oven
-------
8.3.1 Bases for Equipment Cost Calculations - Industrial
Sector
No values for capital costs were found for the
industrial sector equipment. However, a relative description
of the cost advantages and disadvantages of electric furnaces
as compared to fossil-fuel fired furnaces is given below.
Operating costs may be estimated using the energy
requirements for each process along with the energy costs.
The energy requirements for each of the previously mentioned
industrial processes were presented in Section 4.0 and
Appendix B. These requirements are shown in Table 8-8. The
energy requirements for space heating and cooking were calcu-
lated on a usable energy basis as follows:
Energy Required/Usable Btu = —
where:
n = equipment efficiency
Average fuel costs for natural gas, electricity,
distillate oil (No. 2) and residual oil (low sulfur) were
obtained for 1972 and 1974 (AM-124, AM-125, FE-090, RE-123,
RE-124) and are shown in Table 8-9. Once the energy require-
ments and the energy costs are known, the operating costs may
be calculated as follows:
Operating Cost = R£ * G£
-173-
-------
TABLE 8-8
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL SECTOR PROCESSES
Process
Steel-making
Heating and Annealing of Steel
Aluminum Melting
Energy Requirements (Btu/ton)
Electric Fossil Fuel
1.9 x 10
2.1 x 10°
2.1 x 10'
4.3 x 10
19.0 x 10s
4.7 x 10J
Glass Melting
2.9 x 10
]6.0 x 10"
TABLE 8-9
AVERAGE INDUSTRIAL FUEL COSTS ($/106 BTU)
Fuel Type
Electricity
Natural gas
No. 2 fuel oil
Low sulfur resid
1972
6.74
.45
0.71
0.61
1974 Source
8.26 FE-090
.66 AM-124, AM-125
1.84 RE-123, RE-124
1.96 RE-123, RE-124
-174-
-------
where:
RF = energy requirements
Cp = energy costs
8-3.2 Capital and Operating Costs of Industrial End Use
Equipment
Although no actual capital cost figures for the
industrial equipment discussed previously were found, the
capital costs for electric furnaces are generally higher
than the costs for open hearth or other types. This is mainly
due to the higher costs of auxiliary equipment, electrodes,
and refractories (US-187).
Operating costs for the industrial equipment
identified above are presented in Table 8-10. The operating
costs for electric space heating are higher for both 1972
and 1974 although the gas and oil operating costs are rising
faster than the electric heating costs.
For steel making furnaces, aluminum and glass melting,
and heating and annealing of steel, the gas fired equipment
operating costs are less than those of the electric and oil
fired equipment. For 1972, the oil fired equipment operating
costs are in general between the gas and electric costs, but
in 1974, the oil fired equipment costs are higher than both
of the other types for heating and annealing, and glass melting.
This is because the cost of oil increased much faster than
that of gas or electricity betx^een 1972 and 1974. The con-
tinued increase in oil costs will tend to make oil fired
equipment less attractive. Also, as natural gas prices increase
because of lack of availability, electrical equipment may be-
come more competitive with natural gas fired equipment.
-175-
-------
TABLE 8-10
ON
I
INDUSTRIAL OPERATING
COSTS
1972 Operating Costs
Process Type
Space Heating, $/106Btu
Steel Making
Furnaces, $/ton
Heating, Annealing, $/ton
Aluminum Melting, $/ton
Glass Melting, $/ton
Food Industry s
Cooking, $/10 Btu
^'No. 2 Fuel Oil for space h
Gas
0.58
1.93
8.53
2.11
7.18
1.21
eating,
Electric
7.09
12.80
14.15
14.15
19.54
8.99
low sulfur
Oil'1'
0.96
2.52
11.15
2.76
9.39
0.77
residual
1974
Gas
0.85
2.82
12.48
3.09
10.51
1.77
Operating Costs
Electric
8.65
15.64
17.29
17.29
23.87
10.98
Oil'1'
2.48
8.05
35.60
8.81
29.98
2.46
oil for all other processes.
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
AI-018 Air Conditioning Heating & Refrigeration News, 27
January (1975).
AM-124 American Gas Assoc., Dept. of Statistics, 1972 Gas
Facts, Arlington, VA (1973).
AM-125 American Gas Association, Dept. of Statistics, Private
Communication, (April 1975).
AM-126 American Gas Association, Private Communication
(April 1975).
CO-129 Council on Environmental Quality, Energy and the
Environment; Electric Power, Washington, B.C. (1973).
CR-067 Crump, Lulie H. and Charles L. Reading, Fuel and
Energy Data. United States and Regions, 1972,
Washington, D.C., BuMines (1974).
DA-122 Damon, John, Private Communication, Edison Electric
Inst., (March 1975).
DU-044 Dupree, Walter G., Jr. and James A. West, U.S. Energy
Through the Year 2000, U.S. Dept. Interior, Washington,
D.C. (1972).
EL-063 Electrical World Directory of Electric Utilities,
1973-1974, 82nd ed., NY, McGraw-Hill (1973).
EN-027 Engineering-Science, Inc,, Exhaust-Gases from Combustion
and Industrial Processes, Washington, D.C, (1971).
-177-
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
EN-187 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Enerj
Management in Manufacturing: 1967-1990. Vo1. 1,
Summary report, draft, Arlington, VA (1974).
EN-221 "Environmental Confort Appliances," Appliance
Manuf. 1973, (December).
EQ-002 "Equipment Sales in 1972," Fuel Oil and Oil Heat 32
(6), 42 (1973).
FE-035 Federal Power Commission, S_ta. t i s_t i cs _qf Pri va tely
Owned Electric Utilities in the United States, 1970,
Classes A and B Companies, Washington, D.C. (1971).
FE-057 Federal Power Commission, 1970 National Power Survey,
4 pts., Washington, D.C. (1971).
FE-076 Federal Energy Administration, Project Independence
Report, Washington, D.C. (1974),
FE-090 Federal Power Commission, Typical Electric Bills,
Washington, D.C. (December 1974).
FE-095 Federal Energy Administration, Energy Independence
Act of 1975 and Related Tax Proposals, Draft, Environ-
mental Impact Statement, Washington, D.C. (March 1975).
FI-081 Field, Stanford, "U.S. Energy Balance, 1985," Elec.
World 181, (11), 97 (1974).
FO-027 Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project, Exploring
Energy Choices, Preliminary Report, Washington, D.C.
(1974).
-178-
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
GR-139 Griffith, Robert G., Private Communication, American
Gas Association (April 1975).
HA-177 Hanson, Richard J. and Charles L. Lawson, "Extensions
and Applications of the House-holder Algorithm for
Solving Linear Least Squares Problems", Mathematics
in Computation 23., 787-812 (1969) .
HI-048 Hittman Associates, Inc., Electrical Power Supply and
Demand Forecasts for the United States Through 2050,
Columbia, Md., 1972.
HO-176 "How to Cut Fat Out of your Home Energy Budget",
Smithsonian March 1974, 54.
HO-188 "Housing", Construction Review 21(1). 30 (1975).
KI-093 "Kilowatt Hour Sales Growth will be Tempered by
Fuel Costs and Conservation", Elec. World L5 Sept.
1974, 49.
KR-073 Kruger, Paul and Carel Otte, eds., Geothermal Energy,
Resources, Production, Stimulation, Stanford, Ca.,
Stanford University Press, 1973.
MA-400 Malin, H. Martin, Jr., "Geothermal Heats Up", Env.
Sci. Tech. 7(8), 680-81 (1973).
-179-
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
NA-112 National Petroleum Council, Committee on U.S. Energy
Outlook, U.S. Energy Outlook: An Initial Appraisal
1971-1985. 2 Vols. (Vol 2 - Task Group Repts.),
Washington, C.D. (1971).
•
NA-148 National Coal Association, Steam-Electric Plant Factors,
1973. 23rd ed., Washington, D.C. (1974).
NA-174 National Academy of Engineering, (Task Force on Energy),
U.S. Energy Prospects: An Engineering Viewpoint,
Washington, D.C. (1974).
NA-175 National Petroleum Council, U.S. Energy Outlook:
A Summary Report of the National Petroleum Council,
Washington, D.C. (1972).
NA-179 National Petroleum Council, U.S. Energy Outlook:
New Energy Forms, Washington, D.C. (1973).
NA-200 National Emissions Data System (NEDS) Computerized
Data Base, Environmental Protection Agency.
PE-093 Pederson, John A., ed., Future Energy Outlook, 1972
Proceedings of the Mineral Economics Symposium,
American Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists and 1968
Proceedings of the Fuels Symposium AAPG, Colorado
School of Mines Quart, 68(2) (1973).
RA-166 Ray, Dixie Lee, The Nation's Energy Future, Report to
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States,
Washington, D.C., Atomic Energy Commission (1973).
-1RO-
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
RE-123 "Refihed-Products Prices", Oil Gas J. 17 July 1972, 151
RE-124 "Refined-Products Prices", Oil Gas J. 15 July 1974.
107.
SL-057 "Slower Growth in Sales and Peaks Sparks Sharp Cut
In Expansion Plans and Cost", Elec. World 15 Sept.
1974. 54.
ST-186 Stanford Research Institute, Patterns of Energy Consump-
tion in the United States, Menlo Park, CA, Stanford
Research Inst. (1972).
ST-198 Stork, K. E., ed., The Role of Water in the Energy
Crisis, Conference, Lincoln, Nebraska, Oct. 1973,
Proceedings, PB 232 404, Lincoln, Nebraska, Nebraska
Univ., Water Resources Research Inst. (1973).
TE-177 "The Ten Year Tables: A Look at Product Sales Growth
and Performance", Merchandising Wk. 24 Feb. 1975, 24.
TI-026 A Time to Choose America's Energy Future, Ford Energy
Policy Project, Cambridge, Mass., Ballinger (1974).
US-074 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Fuels and
Electric Energy Consumed, 1972 Census of Manufacturers
Special Report Series, MC 72 (SR)-6, Washington, B.C.
(1973) .
US-187 United States Steel Corporation (USS), The Making,
Shaping and Treating ofSteel, Harold E. McGannon, ed.,
8th ed., Pittsburgh, PA (1964).
-181-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleat read Instructions on tlie reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-049a
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOfcNO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Electrical Energy as an Alternate to Clean Fuels
Stationary Sources; Volume I
for
5. REPORT DATE
March 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
R. M. Wells andW.E. Corbett
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
8500 Shoal Creek Boulevard (P.O. Box 9948)
Austin, Texas 78766
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ADD-042
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1319, Task 13
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 6/74-10/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project officer for this report is Walter B.Steen, Ext 2825.
16-A8STRACTThe report' gives results of an examination of technical and environmental
incentives for increased electrification in stationary use sectors. It compares the
impacts which result from the production and consumption of equivalent quantities of
natural gas, fuel oil, and electricity. It also examines several alternative methods of
producing each end-use fuel and considers technical and economic barriers to incr-
eased electrification. It concludes that incentives for increased electrification are
associated with the potential of this technique to reduce fossil fuel demands per se
since direct consumption of fossil fuels appears to be more attractive from an energy
efficiency and an environmental impact viewpoint. Most of the natural gas and dis-
tillate fuel oil consumed in the U.S. is in the residential, commercial, and indus-
trial sectors. Currently experienced shortages of these clean premium fuels are
providing incentives for the development of new energy sources for these markets.
Among apparent alternatives are increased exploration for new sources of oil and
gas, and production of clean synthetic fuels from the more abundant (but less
environmentally attractive) fossil fuels such as coal or oil shale. Increased use of
electrical energy is another option for satisfying future stationary sector energy
demands.
17.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.JOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Croup
Air Pollution
Energy
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Economics
Evaluation
Coal
Oil Shale
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Clean Fuels
Electrical Energy
13B
20C
20D
05C
14A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
186
20 SECURITY CLASS tTMs narr<
Unclassified
?2. PFIICg
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-132-
------- |