The costs of coal storage and its impact on disadvantaged communities

July 5, 2017, Carnegie Mellon University

While the negative health and environmental effects of mining and burning coal are well documented, simply transporting and storing coal can also adversely affect the health outcomes of individuals living near coal-fired power plants. New research explores the health and environmental costs of coal storage and transportation, finding that increases in the level of coal stockpiles held by U.S. power plants increase local air pollution levels, which in turn increases the average infant and adult mortality rates in the communities near these plants.

The new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, "Handle with Care: The Local Air Pollution Costs of Coal Storage," was written by Akshaya Jha of Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College and Nicholas Muller of Middlebury College.

"Despite the thicket of environmental regulations relevant to coal, our paper uncovers an as yet unstudied dimension of coal use that we argue requires policy intervention—the environmental consequences of the coal purchase and storage behavior of U.S. ," said Jha.

Jha and Muller utilized monthly, plant-level data on coal purchases and stockpiles provided by the Energy Information Administration as well as air quality data from the Environmental Protection Agency for the period of 2002 to 2012 to determine how coal stockpiles affect concentration of fine particulates (PM2.5) within 25 miles of coal . They assessed how increases in PM2.5 affect by studying mortality data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Using these data, they estimated that a 10 percent increase in coal stockpiles led to a 0.07 percent increase in air pollution for communities up to 25 miles away from . They next demonstrated that a 10 percent increase in PM2.5 levels causes average adult mortality rates to rise by 1.1 percent and average infant mortality rates to rise by 6.6 percent in those communities.

Finally, the authors combined their estimates for the effect of coal transportation and storage on PM2.5 and the effect of PM2.5 on mortality rates to calculate the local air pollution costs of coal procurement to areas around plants. They determined that the local environmental cost of PM2.5 increases is $182.67 per ton of coal stockpiled and the local air pollution cost per ton of coal delivered is $202.51. To put these figures in perspective, the average U.S. coal-fired power plant pays $48.00 per ton for coal, stockpiles 212,781.6 tons of coal and has 106,235 tons of coal delivered to it each month.

The authors' results suggest that most of the local air pollution costs of coal procurement and storage are borne by the communities within 25 miles of a coal plant. As stated in the paper: "as people living in census tracts with power plants have lower per-capita incomes and educational attainment on average relative to residents of census tracts without power plants, the highly localized environmental costs of coal procurement disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged communities."

The authors propose low-cost policy solutions that might help mitigate these negative effects. Requiring that coal stockpiles and railcars containing coal be covered is a less expensive and unobtrusive way to reduce PM2.5 levels and reduce the environmental costs. "These types of policies should be easier to implement relative to global anti-pollution policy initiatives since jurisdictions do not need to coordinate with one another," said Jha. "Given that the local environmental of coal storage and handling are incurred primarily by communities living near -fired power plants, we hope that local policymakers will consider these simple and easy solutions."

Explore further: Britain could see its first full day without coal

Related Stories

Power plant plan further clouds coal's future

June 3, 2014

President Barack Obama's ambitious plan to reduce the gases blamed for global warming from the nation's power plants gives many coal-dependent states more lenient restrictions—and won't necessarily be the primary reason ...

European power plants boosting coal use

April 24, 2008

High oil and natural gas prices, coupled with increased demand, are driving Europe's return to coal-fired power plants, an industry official says.

Recommended for you

Oceans of garbage prompt war on plastics

December 15, 2018

Faced with images of turtles smothered by plastic bags, beaches carpeted with garbage and islands of trash floating in the oceans, environmentalists say the world is waking up to the need to tackle plastic pollution at the ...

A damming trend

December 14, 2018

Hundreds of dams are being proposed for Mekong River basin in Southeast Asia. The negative social and environmental consequences—affecting everything from food security to the environment—greatly outweigh the positive ...

The long dry: global water supplies are shrinking

December 13, 2018

A global study has found a paradox: our water supplies are shrinking at the same time as climate change is generating more intense rain. And the culprit is the drying of soils, say researchers, pointing to a world where drought-like ...

Death near the shoreline, not life on land

December 13, 2018

Our understanding of when the very first animals started living on land is helped by identifying trace fossils—the tracks and trails left by ancient animals—in sedimentary rocks that were deposited on the continents.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

greenonions1
not rated yet Jul 05, 2017
So if you watch the video here - https://atomicins...-burner/ You see that a 3.6 GW coal plant - uses about 30,000 tons of coal per day. At $48 a ton - that is $1.44 million per day. At 75% capacity factor, the plant will produce 3.6 X 24 X.75 billion watt hours per day, or 64 billion watt hours, or 64 million kilowatt hours per day. The fuel cost is about 2.2 cents per Kwh. So the fuel cost of coal is about the same as the total cost on the cheapest wind and solar - and those costs keep dropping. Now factor in what to do with all those millions of tons of toxic coal ash that are being dumped on poor communities. http://bittersout...D_umQyM8 Why are we still digging this stuff out of the ground? Oh yeah - Willie Ward Eikka and Trump are still at the helm.... FFS...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.