ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF BIODIESEL BLENDS TO COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNDERGROUND MINES

Final Report to the National Biodiesel Board

University of Minnesota
Kenneth L. Bickel Joseph McDonald Center for Diesel Research Jerry E. Fruin Douglas Tiffany Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics January 1997
Contact: Ken Bickel, Research Fellow E-mail: bick006@tc.umn.edu Telephone: 612-725-0760, Extension 4581 Joseph McDonald, Research Fellow E-mail: mcdon049@tc.umn.edu Telephone: 612-725-0760, Extension 4535 University of Minnesota - Center for Diesel Research 125 M.E. 111 Church St. S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455-0111 Facsimile: 612-725-0800

Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...........................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4 I. PROJECT OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................7 II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................7 CURRENT U.S. AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS IN UNDERGROUND MINES ....................................................................7 CERTIFICATION, APPROVAL, AND REGULATION OF DIESEL EQUIPMENT IN UNDERGROUND MINES ..........................8 PM-EMISSION CONTROL FOR DIESEL EQUIPMENT IN UNDERGROUND MINES..........................................................11 III. COMPETING PM-EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR DIESEL UNDERGROUND MINING EQUIPMENT.............................................................................................................................................................12 DIESEL-POWERED UNDERGROUND MINING EQUIPMENT, PM-CONTROLS, AND TERMINOLOGY ..............................12 IV. SOURCES OF DATA FOR COST ANALYSES.............................................................................................15 VEHICLE LIFE AND USAGE .......................................................................................................................................15 VEHICLE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS CONTROLS.....................................................................................................15 FUEL CONSUMPTION AND COSTS..............................................................................................................................16 LABOR COSTS ..........................................................................................................................................................16 V. EQUIPMENT LIFE CYCLE COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROLS VERSUS BIODIESEL .....................18 VEHICLE SELECTION FOR COST ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................18 SELECTION OF PM-EMISSION CONTROLS.................................................................................................................18 PM-EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR THE EQUIPMENT LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS ...............................................20 RESULTS FROM EQUIPMENT LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS .......................................................................................25 VI. METHODS OF CONDUCTING DISCOUNTED COST ANALYSES OF AN UNDERGROUND COAL MINE AND AN UNDERGROUND METAL MINE..............................................................................................27 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................................27 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY MINES .........................................................................................................................28 METHODS OF ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................................................29 DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................32 VII. RESULTS FROM METAL MINE DISCOUNTED COST ANALYSIS.....................................................34 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................34 EFFECT OF DISCOUNT RATES ...................................................................................................................................34 EFFECT OF BLEND LEVELS AND BIODIESEL COST ....................................................................................................35 EFFECT OF MINE LIFE ..............................................................................................................................................36 EFFECT OF TARGETING HEAVY-DUTY, NONPERMISSIBLE DIESEL EQUIPMENT ........................................................36 EFFECT OF TARGETING LIGHT-DUTY, NONPERMISSIBLE DIESEL EQUIPMENT ..........................................................36 VIII. RESULTS FROM COAL MINE DISCOUNTED COST ANALYSIS ......................................................38 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................38 EFFECT OF DISCOUNT RATE.....................................................................................................................................39 EFFECT OF BLEND LEVEL AND BIODIESEL COST ......................................................................................................39 EFFECT OF MINE LIFE ..............................................................................................................................................39 EFFECT OF TARGETING CATEGORY A DIESEL EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................39 EFFECT OF TARGETING LIGHT-DUTY (NONPERMISSIBLE) DIESEL EQUIPMENT ........................................................39 EFFECT OF LOST PRODUCTION (COAL MINE USING DDEFS) ....................................................................................41

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 42 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 42 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 44 REFERENCE LIST .................................................................................................................................................. 45 APPENDIX I: COMPARISON OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR ONE ELECTRIC COAL HAULAGE VEHICLE VERSUS ONE DIESEL AND ONE BIODIESEL-POWERED VEHICLE ................ 48

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1: EQUIPMENT IDENTIFIED FOR THE LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS, AND EXHAUST AFTERTREATMENT OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION AND TYPE OF DIESEL EQUIPMENT......................................................... 19 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF VEHICLE LIFE CYCLE COSTS FOR EMISSION CONTROLS AND BIODIESEL FUEL WITH DOCS ..... 25 TABLE 3: CASE STUDY METAL MINE: EQUIPMENT LIST, EMISSION CONTROLS AND FUEL USE ...................................... 28 TABLE 4: CASE STUDY COAL MINE: EQUIPMENT LIST, EMISSION CONTROLS, AND FUEL USE ....................................... 29 TABLE 5: EXAMPLE OF A SPREADSHEET FOR A RAM-CAR USING DDEFS..................................................................... 30 TABLE 6: EXAMPLE OF A SUMMARY SPREAD-SHEET FOR THE CASE-STUDY METAL MINE USING BIODIESEL WITH DOCS.33 TABLE 7: METAL MINE - COMBINATIONS OF DISCOUNT RATE, BIODIESEL COST, AND BLEND LEVEL............................ 34 FIGURE 1: METAL MINE: BLEND LEVEL VERSUS REDUCTION IN AMBIENT PM CONCENTRATION AND DISCOUNTED BIODIESEL AND DOC COST/SHORT TON OF ORE PRODUCED. ............................................................................... 35 TABLE 8: METAL MINE VEHICLE FLEET PM REDUCTIONS AND DISCOUNTED COSTS OVER THE 24 YEAR MINE LIFE USING NEAT BIODIESEL VS. FILTERS ON HEAVY-DUTY AND LIGHT-DUTY EQUIPMENT.......................................... 37 TABLE 9: COAL MINE - COMBINATIONS OF DISCOUNT RATE, BIODIESEL COST, AND BLEND LEVEL ............................... 38 FIGURE 2: COAL MINE: BLEND LEVEL VERSUS REDUCTION IN AMBIENT PM CONCENTRATION AND DISCOUNTED BIODIESEL AND DOC COST/SHORT TON OF ORE PRODUCED. ............................................................................... 40 TABLE 10: COAL MINE VEHICLE FLEET PM REDUCTION AND DISCOUNTED COSTS USING NEAT BIODIESEL VS. FILTERS ON HEAVY-DUTY AND LIGHT-DUTY EQUIPMENT OVER A 24 YEAR LIFE OF THE MINE........................................... 41 TABLE A1: CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS FOR ONE 10-TON ELECTRIC COAL HAULER VERSUS ONE DIESEL AND BIODIESEL-POWERED COAL HAULER ................................................................................................................... 48

Executive Summary
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends that whole diesel exhaust be regarded as a "potential occupational carcinogen," and that reductions in workplace exposure would reduce carcinogenic risks. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has recently adopted new approval and certification regulations for diesel equipment, and proposed more stringent air quality regulations including a proposal to regulate diesel particulate matter (PM). In 1995, MSHA convened a committee to recommend regulations to minimize DPM exposure and consider a possible permissible exposure limit for PM, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists added PM to the List of Intended Changes for 1995-96 with a threshold limit value (TLVTM) recommendation of 0.15 mg/m3. If MSHA were to adopt this TLVTM for underground mines many mines using diesel equipment in the U. S. would be out of compliance. Typical mean concentrations of DPM in mines range from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/m3. This TLVTM would impose limitations on the current and future use of diesel equipment unless improved emission control strategies are developed for the mining industry. Biodiesel is a common term for a number of different alkyl mono-esters of fatty acids that can be used as diesel fuel or blended with petroleum diesel fuels. Neat biodiesel fuels and blends of biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuels can be used to lower PM-emissions. The fuel-bound oxygen of biodiesel fuels considerably reduces the formation of the carbon-soot constituents of PM. The prices of likely biodiesel fuels are higher and more volatile than petroleum diesel fuels. Biodiesel fuels offers the potential for substantially reducing PM-emissions without the need for miner training, or the maintenance and replacement of hardware required by other PM-emissions control strategies. For that reason, the National Biodiesel Board initiated a project with the University of Minnesota - Center for Diesel Research to compare the costs of using a common, neat biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel blends to the costs of using other types of emissions controls in underground mines. The overall objective of this project was to compare the cost of using neat biodiesel fuel and blends of biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuel to the cost of using other emission controls that may be used in underground mines. The specific goals were to evaluate the equipment life cycle costs of converting mine equipment to different types of emission controls, and to develop two case study examples of the net present value costs of converting mining equipment to biodiesel and emission controls. This report reviews emission control technology for underground diesel-powered equipment, and compares the life cycle costs of using emission controls and biodiesel and biodiesel blends for ten mine vehicles. It also gives the results from two discounted cost analyses of using biodiesel and emission controls in a metal mine and a coal mine. The equipment life cycle analyses indicated that biodiesel at $1.50/gal may be a viable PMcontrol strategy for light-duty nonpermissible equipment, and some types of permissible equipment. It does not look competitive on heavy-duty nonpermissible equipment. The use of

exhaust filters for PM-control will result in ambient PM reductions exceeding 65%, and mine operators would need to use straight biodiesel with catalytic converters to get comparable reductions. Based on the discounted cost analyses, it appears that biodiesel will need to fall below $2.00/gal to be competitive with filters for coal mines, and below $1.25/gal for metal mines. However, biodiesel has advantages that filters do not. The use of biodiesel in mines would be easy to implement, and would not require miner training. There are no new maintenance procedures introduced, whereas machines are pulled out of production to replace, regenerate, or perform maintenance on filters. These procedures will undoubtedly introduce "hidden costs" not completely accounted for in this study. Cost will be one factor mines will consider when choosing PM-emissions control strategies, but the amount of PM reduction required, and the simplicity and ease with which the method of control can be implemented and used will also be important factors for mines to consider. Further research involving the use of biodiesel fuels in underground mines is needed. The report recommends that 1) further laboratory and field evaluations be conducted to quantify PM reductions using biodiesel blends and modern engines, 2) the market for biodiesel be determined that will allow the price of biodiesel to drop below $2.00/gal, and 3) the cost of biodiesel use for different sized mines with differing complements of equipment be investigated.

I. Project Objectives
The overall objective of this project was to compare the cost of using neat biodiesel fuel and blends of biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuel to the cost of using other emission controls that may be used in underground mines. The specific goals were to: List available and pending emission controls that could be used by mine operators over the next five years to reduce emissions. Evaluate the equipment life cycle costs of converting mine equipment to three presently available emission controls. Evaluate the equipment life cycle costs of converting mine equipment to one emission control that will soon become available. Develop two case study examples of the net present value costs of converting mining equipment to biodiesel versus the most competitive current or potential emission control.

II. Introduction
Current U.S. Air Quality Regulations in Underground Mines Air Quality - Ambient air quality standards for surface and underground mines in the U.S. are regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) through the establishment and enforcement of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for a number of air contaminants (30 CFR, Parts 56, 57, 70, 71, 74)a. MSHA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor currently responsible for the regulation of worker health and safety in the U.S. Current PELs in force for the underground mining industry in the U.S. reference the TLVTM concentrations for airborne contaminants as given in the 1973 edition of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Handbook (ACGIH 1973). Many constituents of diesel exhaust have PELs established by MSHA, including NO, NO2, CO, CO2, and formaldehyde. In underground coal mines, there is an additional PEL for respirable dustb of 2.0 mg/sm3. In underground coal mines that utilize continuous mining machines and diesel haulage, approximately 50% of the respirable dust is due to particulate matter (PM)c emissions from diesel equipment. There is currently no separate MSHA PEL established for PM from diesel exhaust in the U.S. In 1988, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended that whole diesel exhaust be regarded as a "potential occupational carcinogen," and that reductions in
a References are cited within parentheses and in italics. A complete reference list has been included at the end of this report. b Respirable dust is defined by the sampling method described in 30 CFR, Part 74. To summarize, it is the particle mass collected using a personal dust sampler incorporating an approved cyclone pre-classification stage with a 50% cutpoint diameter of 3.5 m. Thus, the respirable dust concentration is essentially the sub-3.5 m aerodynamic-diameter ambient PM concentration. c Many sources of particulate matter exist within underground mines. All references to PM pertain to particulate matter formed by diesel combustion. It will be referred to either as PM-emissions (EPA laboratory dilution tunnel measurement methods) or as ambient PM (ambient concentrations determined using USBM, MSHA, CANMET, or NISOSH sampling procedures).

workplace exposure would reduce cancer risks (NIOSH). In 1989, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared that diesel engine exhaust is probably carcinogenic to humans (IARC). In 1995, the ACGIH added PM to the List of Intended Changes for 1995-96 with a TLVTM recommendation of 0.15 mg/m3 (ACGIH 1995). In 1994, MSHA convened the Diesel Advisory Committee to recommend regulations to minimize PM exposure and consider a possible permissible exposure limit for PM (61 FR 208). Recommendations have been submitted to the Secretary of Labor from the Diesel Advisory Committee, but actions to limit PM from diesel equipment in mines are still pending. Typical mean concentrations of PM in mines range from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/sm3 (Watts, 1995). If MSHA were to adopt the TLV of 0.15 mg/sm3 as an exposure limit for ambient PM concentrations in underground mines, nearly all mines using diesel equipment in the U. S. (approximately 82 % of 468 mines) would be out of compliance (Watts, 1997). Regulation of ambient PM concentrations have the potential to severely limit current and future use of diesel equipment in underground mines unless improved emission control strategies are developed for the mining industry. Certification, Approval, and Regulation of Diesel Equipment in Underground Mines On November 1, 1996, new rules were established with regards to the certification and approval of diesel equipment used in underground coal mines (61 FR 208). The 30 CFR, Part 7 final rule eliminated 30 CFR, Part 32 (voluntary approval of diesel equipment for metal and nonmetal mines), and superseded certification of permissible diesel coal mine under 30 CFR, Part 36. Diesel equipment used in underground coal mines must now be certified for use by MSHA under the provisions of Title 30 CFR, Part 7. The new Part 7 rules established two categories of diesel equipment for underground coal mines, modified the calculation of ventilation rates for diesel equipment, modified the fuel requirements for underground coal mines, and otherwise modified or updated federal regulations pertaining to the use of diesel equipment in underground coal mines. Category A (Permissible Diesel Equipment) - Category A certification under 30 CFR, Part 7, is required for diesel equipment operated in underground mines that contain potentially explosive mixtures of methane gas and/or coal dust in the air. In the U.S, this would be primarily in underground coal mines near the mine face (or in-by)d areas. The equipment (diesel or otherwise) operated under these conditions is commonly referred to in the mining industry as permissible equipment. Permissible diesel equipment must be certified to meet a number of MSHA requirements. The equipment must be explosion proof, and the temperatures of surfaces must be maintained below 150 C. Exhaust temperatures are restricted and the equipment must utilize a means of arresting potential sparks from the intake or exhaust systems. Current permissible diesel equipment designs use a water jacketed exhaust system, an air-intake spark arrestor, and a water-bath exhaust conditioner (commonly referred to as a waterscrubber) to meet temperature, spark arrestment, and explosion-proofing requirements. A means
d In typical underground coal mining practice, the in-by area is the area inside of the last open cross-cut, towards the face area of the mine. The out-by area is the entire region outside of the last open cross-cut, away from the face.

of rendering the safety device tamper-proof, such as the low-water engine cut-off used with water scrubbers, is also necessary. Permissible diesel equipment using water-scrubbers are required to maintain their exhaust temperature at or below 76 C.e Permissible exhaust cooling systems for diesel equipment that eliminate the water bath and its maintenance requirements have been under development for over 10 years (Waytulonis and Bickel, 1988). These systems are referred to within the mining industry as dry exhaust conditioning systems or dry-scrubber systems. Two systems were recently certified by MSHA for retrofit usage on two particular coal haulage vehicles. Dry exhaust system safety requirements are the same as for other Category A diesel equipment, with the exception that higher exhaust temperatures are allowed (150 C vs. 76 C) and that a separate exhaust spark arrestor is necessary. Category A diesel equipment is primarily heavy-duty production equipment, such as coal haulage vehicles, with naturally aspirated, indirect injection diesel engines rated between 50 and 150 brake-horsepower (b.h.p.). Category B (Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment) - Category B certification under 30 CFR, Part 7, is required for diesel equipment operated in areas of coal mines not regulated under Category A. Areas of the mine further away from the mine face (the out-by area) have lower concentrations of methane gas and coal dust, and thus the use of permissible equipment is not considered necessary. Equipment used in underground metal and nonmetal mines is also often referred to as nonpermissible equipment since they are not typically operated in an explosive environment. Metal and nonmetal diesel mining equipment are not currently regulated under federal law in the U.S. Nonpermissible, Category B diesel equipment does not require the extensive exhaust cooling and surface temperature measures of Category A equipment. Category B equipment is comprised primarily of light-duty diesel equipment, such as personnel transports. Ventilation Requirements - A mine ventilation rate for each piece of Category A or Category B diesel equipment is determined from gaseous exhaust emissions. The gaseous emissions are monitored as the engine is operated over the ISO 8178-C1 steady-state test-cycle (61 FR 208). This particular test cycle is also used for EPA, CARB, and EU compliance testing of offhighway diesel engines. The ventilation rates necessary to dilute NO, NO2, CO, and CO2 to their respective MSHA PEL values are calculated for each steady-state operating condition. The highest ventilation rate (rounded to the nearest 500 or 1000 scfm) is then assigned as the ventilation rate for the engine. The ventilation rate is recorded on a certification tag affixed to the engine. When operated in an underground coal mine, each piece of diesel equipment must be supplied with a ventilation rate at least equivalent to the ventilation rate assigned to the engine. A particulate index ventilation rate is also calculated from monitoring PM-emissions over the ISO 8178-C1 test cycle, but it is only used as a recommended guideline for ventilation until an MSHA PEL is established for PM-emissions. Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines - Although metal and nonmetal mines are excluded from the requirements of Category B certification, many state statutes require approval testing
eThe temperature limit of 76 C is approximately the adiabatic saturation temperature of 500 C diesel exhaust. It was by chosen by MSHA to ensure proper operation of the water-scrubber design.

and assignment of a ventilation rate under by MSHA under 30 CFR, Part 32. As originally conceived, 30 CFR, Part 32 did not carry the force of federal law. It was established as a guideline of good engineering practices when using nonpermissible diesel equipment in underground metal and nonmetal mines. The 30 CFR, Part 32 guidelines included the calculation of a ventilation rate based on gaseous exhaust emissions using a similar test procedure to those described in the Part 7 rules. The respective engines were then assigned an approval tag by MSHA stating the recommended ventilation ratef. The 30 CFR, Part 32 approval procedure has been eliminated and totally superseded by 30 CFR, Part 7. The Part 7 rules currently do not apply to noncoal mine applications. The effect of these recent changes to 30 CFR on state statutes is still uncertain. Engine manufacturers for underground metal and nonmetal mining applications are now in the process of certifying engines under Category B of 30 CFR, Part 7, even though many of these engines will likely never be used in coal mine applications. Some of the reasons for voluntarily obtaining Part 7 certification for diesel applications not regulated under federal law include: 1. New, underground metal and nonmetal mines must submit a ventilation plan to MSHA prior to beginning mining operations. Many noncoal mines will not consider using uncertified engines because of the difficulty in gaining MSHA approval of ventilation plans. The ventilation plans rely heavily on ventilation rates calculated from the MSHA tag assigned to each piece of equipment used. The ventilation rates provided with Part 32 approval tags or by voluntarily submitting the engine to compliance testing for assignment of a Part 7 certification tag allow new mines to reference these ventilation numbers to MSHA as part of the ventilation plan. 2. States statutes that currently refer to the now superseded 30 CFR, Part 32 may eventually be modified to reference 30 CFR, Part 7, Category B certification. 3. Engine and equipment manufacturers realize the advertising value of seeking MSHA ventilation rate tags for their equipment. Many mines only buy equipment with MSHA approval or certification tags because it is considered to be a good engineering practice. Fuel Requirements - The new 30 CFR, Part 7 rules require the use of low sulfur (< 0.05 mass %) diesel fuel in underground coal mines. The fuel flashpoint must be 38 C, and the fuel must not contain any additives not currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 79. If used as a fuel additiveg for underground coal mine applications, biodiesel fuels would either need to be currently registered with the EPA as an additive, or special permission from MSHA would be required prior to its use (Saseen). For use as an alternative fuelh in coal mines, special permission from MSHA would be required (Saseen). These restrictions do not apply to underground metal or nonmetal mines.

f MSHA considers Certification to be mandatory and Approval to be voluntary. g Less than 50 %, (by mass) blended with approved petroleum diesel fuel. h Neat (100%) biodiesel or a blend of more than 50% (by mass) biodiesel with approved petroleum diesel fuel.

10

PM-Emission Control for Diesel Equipment in Underground Mines Mined materials occur in a wide variety of situations. Many physical, geologic, environmental, legal, and economic circumstances dictate the mining method used to recover the material mined. These circumstances determine the required production level, production rate, size of openings, and other factors that dictate the type and the size of mining equipment selected. Many other factors influence how mining is conducted, how equipment is used, and the extent to which miners are exposed to air contaminants, thus each mine is nearly unique. A mine might select any combination of methods for limiting exposure to air contaminants, and the methods selected could be unique to that particular mine. These methods include proper ventilation, good engine selection and maintenance, the use of quality fuels, and modification of the fuel injection rate of diesel engines. Different types of PM-emission control devices are also used to reduce exposure to ambient PM in underground mines. The performance of emission controls is heavily dependent on exhaust temperature. In coal mine applications, the exhaust temperature on Category A vehicles cannot exceed 150oC. Exhaust temperatures on Category B equipment can vary widely, and are heavily dependent on the vehicles duty cycle. Category B vehicles can be classified as being heavyduty (with consistently high exhaust temperatures) or light-duty (with consistently low exhaust temperatures). Different emission control devices have been developed for Category A, Category B heavy-duty, and Category B light-duty equipment. Similarly, the exhaust temperatures and PM-emission control devices of diesel equipment used in underground metal and nonmetal mine applications varies widely, depending on the duty cycle, size, and type of equipment used. Biodiesel is a common term for a number of different alkyl mono-esters of fatty acids that can be used as diesel fuel or blended with petroleum diesel fuels. Neat biodiesel fuels and blends of biodiesel and petroleum diesel fuels can be used to lower PM-emissions. The fuel-bound oxygen of biodiesel fuels considerably reduces the formation of the carbon-soot constituents of PM. The prices of likely biodiesel fuels are higher and more volatile than petroleum diesel fuels. Biodiesel fuels offers the potential for substantially reducing PM-emissions without the need for miner training, or the maintenance and replacement of hardware required by other PM-emissions control strategies. For that reason, the National Biodiesel Board initiated a project with the University of Minnesota - Center for Diesel Research to compare the costs of using a common, neat biodiesel fuel and biodiesel fuel blends to the costs of using other types of emission controls in underground mines.

11

III. Competing PM-emission Control Strategies for Diesel Underground Mining Equipment
Diesel-powered Underground Mining Equipment, PM-controls, and Terminology The different classifications and regulated categories of diesel equipment in underground mines can be quite confusing for readers who are not intimately familiar with the underground mining industry. Three very broad equipment classifications can be drawn from the federally regulated equipment categories and from industry-wide practices in underground coal, metal, and nonmetal mines: 1) Category A equipment: This equipment is often referred to as permissible diesel equipment, or as coal-mine diesel face-equipment. For the purposes of this discussion, the authors will extend the definition of Category A to include older equipment certified under 30 CFR, Part 36 in addition to the usual definition of newer equipment certified under 30 CFR, Part 7, Category A. This category consists primarily of coal haulage equipment. Examples include the Jeffrey 4110 and 4114 Ramcars. Indirect injection (IDI), naturally aspirated diesel engines rated between 50 and 150 b.h.p. are typically used. Current and potential PM-emission controls include: Waterbath Exhaust Conditioners: Waterbath exhaust conditioners, more commonly known as water scrubbers, are safety devices designed to cool the exhaust and arrest flames and sparks. They are used on Category A permissible equipment operating in the in-by areas of coal mines and gassy noncoal mines. They are an incidental emission control because they remove up to 30 pct of diesel exhaust aerosol. Dry Exhaust Conditioning System: The dry exhaust conditioning system is being developed to replace water scrubbers and to lower PM-emissions from Category A diesel equipment. Units already in production combine a catalyst, a heat exchanger, a flame arrestor, and a disposable filter into one unit (Brezonick). The catalyst oxidizes carbon monoxide (CO) and FID-hydrocarbons (HC) present in the diesel exhaust. Although the catalyst assists in reducing the amount of soot fouling within the heat exchanger, a water spray system has been incorporated into the heat exchanger to periodically clean the heat exchanger surfaces. Exhaust is cooled in one section of the heat exchanger by engine coolant flowing through the other section. Because of the additional heat load on the engine cooling system, a much larger radiator and fan must be installed on the mining equipment. After the heat exchanger a mechanical flame arrestor is used to prevent exhaust flames from exiting the system. Finally, a DDEF is used to remove PM-emissions from the engine exhaust. The DDEF also acts as a spark arrestor in the dry conditioning system, thus the dry system must use the DDEF in order to maintain 30 CFR, Part 7, Category A compliance. The PM removal efficiency is essentially that of a DDEF. Currently, dry systems have found only

12

limited use in underground mines. This is primarily due to the cost and the complexity of dry systems compared to wet scrubbers. Disposable Diesel Exhaust Filter (DDEF): The DDEF is similar to an intake air filter used on heavy-duty over-the-road trucks. It is placed downstream of a water scrubber in order to filter the cooled engine exhaust. The DDEF can only be used on Category A vehicles equipped with water scrubbers. The DDEF is discarded after being loaded with PM. Tests of the DDEF at two underground coal mines resulted in 70 to 95 pct reduction in diesel exhaust aerosol (Ambs, et al, 1994). A commercial system is now manufactured for Jeffrey 4110 and 4114 Ramcars.

2)

Heavy-duty, nonpermissible equipment: Although some heavy-duty nonpermissible equipment is used in coal mines, this equipment category will refer to non-federallyregulated, heavy-duty production equipment used in metal and nonmetal mines for the purposes of this discussion. Examples of this equipment include scoop-trams or loadhaul-dump vehicles (LHDs), drills, roof-bolters, haulage trucks, and front-end-loaders. The duty-cycle, size, and type of this category of equipment can vary widely. Engines are typically IDI, either naturally aspirated or turbocharged, and are rated between 80 and 270 b.h.p. Some mines, including some underground salt mines, nickel mines, and leadzinc mines, use diesel equipment with modern, turbocharged DI engines having poweroutput ratings of 270 to 400 b.h.p., and in some cases exceeding 500 b.h.p. Current PMemission controls include: Ceramic Wall-flow Diesel Particulate Filter (CDPF): Laboratory evaluations have shown that of CDPFs have the potential to reduce PM-emissions by up to 90 pct. However, two evaluations of CDPFs in underground metal mines measured PM reductions of about 70% (Watts, et al, 1995). Exhaust passes through the walls of the CDPF, trapping PM and slowly increasing engine back pressure and exhaust temperature. Eventually, the regeneration temperature of the CDPF is reached. The use of CDPFs is limited to nonpermissible heavy-duty mine vehicles with sufficiently high exhaust temperatures to sustain regeneration. Regeneration is the burning off of accumulated particulate matter to clean the filter. Regeneration temperature is usually lowered by the application of a catalyst or regeneration is assisted by the use of on and off-board regeneration systems. The high exhaust temperatures required for regeneration limit the application of CDPFs to heavy-duty non-permissible vehicles in noncoal mines. Better methods to ensure regeneration are required if CDPFs are to be used successfully on a wide array of mine vehicles (Baz-Dresch et al., Bickel and Majewski). Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOCs): DOCs are flow-through devices that pass hot exhaust gases through a honey-comb shaped monolith containing precious metal catalysts that drive reactions to oxidize carbon monoxide and organic gases to carbon dioxide and water vapor. DOCs can be used on light-duty or heavyduty non-permissible vehicles. DOCs are particularly well suited for oxidizing the organic compounds generally associated with the disagreeable odor of diesel exhaust. Degradation of the air quality is likely to occur when fuel containing moderate or high sulfur is used because the sulfur is oxidized to form sulfate (primarily sulfuric acid aerosol), which increases PM-emissions. High fuel sulfur 13

content can eventually degrade the performance of DOCs via storage of sulfate compounds by the precious-metal catalyst. DOCs oxidize compounds that, upon adsorption and condensation, contribute to the soluble organic fraction (SOF) of PM. DOCs are also very effective at oxidizing organic compounds that contribute to gas phase, FID-HCs. Some of these organic fractions of diesel exhaust contain known or suspected carcinogens, such as PAH and nitro-PAH compounds. New catalyst technology and existing EPA requirements for the use of low sulfur fuel in on-highway applications bode well for the expanded use of DOCs on underground mine vehicles (McClure, et al, 1992). 3) Light-duty, nonpermissible equipment: This category includes most Category B equipment in coal mines, and has been extended to include non-federally-regulated lightduty equipment in metal and nonmetal mining applications. These types of equipment were placed in the same category due to the industry-wide similarity of these equipment types, and the similarity of their current or potential PM-emissions controls. Examples include personnel transports, specialized utility vehicles, converted agricultural-type tractors, and diesel-powered light-duty pick-up trucks. Current and potential PMemission controls include: Regenerable Fiber Coil Diesel Particulate Filter (RFC-DPF): The RFC-DPF is a new PM-emission control technology currently under development for use with light-duty industrial diesel engine applications. Prototype versions of this control technology for light-duty, nonpermissible diesel equipment are currently under development. The RFC-DPF is made from high temperature 3M Nextel ceramic fibers wound around a perforated metal support tube. The RFC-DPF has superior mechanical and thermal durability when compared to the CDPFs. Each cartridge contains its own heating element so self-regeneration and catalysts are not required. The filter is "plugged in" to an off-board power source for regeneration. This allows the system to be used on vehicles which do not operate with hot enough exhaust temperatures for unassisted regeneration (Taubert and Cordova). DOCs (as previously described)

This terminology will be used in all further discussions of diesel equipment applications and potential strategies for controlling PM-emissions from these categories of mining equipment.

14

IV. Sources of Data for Cost Analyses

Vehicle Life and Usage Power Systems Research, Inc., under contract with the NBB, recently completed a survey of the underground mining market (Power Systems Research). The survey results indicated that the typical life for diesel-powered equipment in underground mines was 10-11 years, with haulage equipment having somewhat shorter lifetimes than utility equipment due to their more continuous usage and heavier duty-cycles. For the cost analyses, equipment lifetimes of 8-12 years were assumed based on the number of hours of equipment usage per year. The Power Systems Research survey also reported the average number of hours different types of equipment operate per year. These yearly averages were used for the cost analysis and were rounded to the nearest hundred hours per year. Vehicle Emissions and Emissions Controls Emissions data published by manufacturers, the USBM, and emissions data from engines tested at the CDR were used to estimate baseline particulate matter emissions on petroleum diesel fuels. Emissions from engines for which no published data existed were predicted based on engine design and regulatory requirements. Particulate matter reductions for the biodiesel fuel, the biodiesel fuel blends, and the exhaust aftertreatment devices were calculated from composites of laboratory and field data from the CDR, USBM, and others (Ambs, Bickel and Majewski, Bickel and Taubert, McDonald et al. 1997, McDonald et al. 1995). The baseline emissions and emissions reductions were used to model expected reductions in ambient PM concentrations for the various emissions control strategies. In cases where insufficient ambient PM data existed for a particular control, laboratory data was substituted by estimating a correction factor for the relative differences in organic PM between typical ambient PM samples and typical PM samples taken from laboratory dilution tunnels (Reichel et al.). An average soluble organic fraction of 40% at a dilution ratio of 15:1 was assumed for the laboratory dilution-tunnel measurements of PM-emissions based on previous transient and steady state emissions data (McDonald et al. 1995, Purcell et al.). Ambient dilution with ventilation air was estimated to be approximately 40:1 by comparing laboratory measurements of engine exhaust flow for a 75 kW IDI diesel engine over a 90% duty-cycle (Purcell et al.) to the MSHA ventilation rate for the engine (U.S. Dept. of Labor-MSHA). The correction factor for PM massemissions from laboratory to ambient dilution was then estimated using the condensation/adsorption model presented in Reichel et al. It should be noted that no field data currently exists for the levels of ambient PM reduction possible using biodiesel blends in underground mines. Only field data for neat, soy-methyl-ester biodiesel and laboratory data for both neat biodiesel and biodiesel blends (for numerous types of mono-ester biodiesels) currently exists. It is quite possible that actual ambient PM reductions for the biodiesel blends will differ from those projected by the model used for this study. Research is currently under way to directly determine the ambient PM reductions possible using biodiesel fuel blends (DEEP).

15

Emission control capital costs were obtained from suppliers of the controls and from mine vehicle manufacturers. If possible, the assumed life and maintenance requirements for the emission controls were based on information obtained by the CDR or the USBM during in-mine evaluations of emission controls. Durability issues were also discussed with emission control suppliers. Fuel consumption and Costs Diesel fuel consumption data was obtained from Western Mine Engineering (Western Mine Engineering-1, 1996). This is the mining industrys standard reference for cost estimating. A diesel fuel price of $0.70/gal was assumed for the analysis based on the current contract price of low sulfur diesel fuel as delivered to a large metal mine in the upper Midwest in May, 1996. A fuel consumption penalty of 3% was assumed when machines are equipped with DDEFs due to increased exhaust back-pressure from the DDEFs loading with PM (MacDonald and Simon, Pischinger et al.). Biodiesel fuel consumption relative to that of petroleum diesel fuel has been previously demonstrated to be closely related to its net energy content with no relative difference in cycle thermal efficiency (McDonald et al. 1995, Schmidt and Van Gerpen, Last et al., Needham and Doyle). Because the fuels perform with equivalent cycle thermal efficiency (th), biodiesel fuel consumption can be accurately estimated if the brake-specific fuel-consumption (BSFC) and lower heating value (QLHV) for a particular combination of engine and petroleum diesel fuel is known: th,biodiesel = th,petrodiesel [QLHV * BSFC]biodiesel = [QLHV * BSFC]petrodiesel [BSFC]biodiesel = [QLHV * BSFC]petrodiesel [QLHV]biodiesel Biodiesel fuel consumption for this study was estimated by comparing the lower heating value of distilled Proctor and Gamble soy-methyl-esters (37.1 MJ/kg) to that of a commercial grade of low sulfur (<0.05 mass % S), moderate aromatic diesel fuel distributed by Amoco (42.8 MJ/kg) (Purcell et al.). The cost of biodiesel fuel was projected over a range from $1.50/gallon to $3.00/gallon. A price of approximately $3.00/gallon represents the lowest commercial price quote for shipment of 5000 gallons of soy-methyl-ester from an NBB-approved biodiesel fuel supplier. The informal price quote, including shipment of the biodiesel to Minneapolis, was obtained in May of 1996. The $1.50/gallon price was projected from a Congressional Research Service report, representing a projected price of biodiesel from multiple feedstocks, in volume production for fuel usage (Fletchner and Gushee). Labor Costs Labor rates used for estimating the design, installation, and maintenance costs of the emission 16

control devices were obtained from 1996 salary cost surveys (Western Mine Engineering-2 and Western Mine Engineering-3, 1996). The labor costs included company-provided benefits such as vacation, health and life insurance, and sick leave, as well as mandated benefits such as workers compensation, unemployment insurance, social security, and Medicare.

17

V. Equipment Life Cycle Costs of Emission Controls versus Biodiesel

The evaluation of equipment life cycle costs of using biodiesel compared to other emissions controls was conducted by first selecting different types of vehicles for evaluation, reviewing emission control technologies, selecting appropriate types for analysis and determining the life cycle costs of using biodiesel and biodiesel blends versus emissions controls on selected vehicles. Vehicle Selection for Cost Analysis Different models of the three types of equipment were chosen (table 1). The particular models of diesel equipment chosen for this study were representative of the basic types of permissible and nonpermissible mining equipment typically used in underground coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. Two coal haulers, common in coal mines that use diesel haulage, were selected as the Category A, permissible vehicles. Six heavy-duty nonpermissible vehicles, all LHDs made by one manufacturer, were selected because they represent the broad range of equipment sizes that occur in this category of equipment in underground metal and nonmetal mines. Two utility vehicles made by Getman Corporation were selected to represent typical light-duty, nonpermissible vehicles. The Getman vehicles are typical in their class, are widely used in underground mines, and the authors have experience with the emissions and PM-emission controls for this particular type of equipment. Selection of PM-Emission Controls The following factors were considered in selecting which emissions controls would be compared within this study: 1. 2. 3. 4. The amount of PM reductions that could be realistically expected in the field The current level of usage of a particular technology for PM-control in underground mines The types of vehicles that the PM-control could be used with The availability of data pertinent to practical use and effectiveness of the emissions control strategy in underground mines

Included in table 1 are the current or near-term emissions control strategies considered for each vehicle, excluding the use of biodiesel fuels or blends. The following four PM-emissions controls were selected: DDEF: Currently used on for Category A equipment. CDPF: Currently used on heavy-duty nonpermissible equipment. DOC: Currently widely used on heavy-duty and light-duty nonpermissible equipment. For these analyses, it was assumed that DOCs would always be used with biodiesel or biodiesel blends. RFC-DPF: For light-duty vehicles. This new type of filter is under development and could be available for mine applications within five years.

18

Equipment
Type LHD LHD LHD OEM Wagner Wagner Model ST2D ST6C Vehicle Classification Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Light-duty, Nonpermissible Light-duty, Nonpermissible Category A OEM Deutz Deutz DDC

Engines
Model F6L912W F10L413FW 6043GK32 Series 50 6063GK32 Series 60 F12L413FW 6063GK32 Series 60 C240 4BD1 916-6 Displace- Power ment (in3) (b.h.p.) 345 973 519 82 231 250

Aftertreatment
Options CDPF, DOC CDPF, DOC CDPF, DOC

Wagner ST6C (opt.)

LHD

Wagner

ST8B

DDC

677

325

CDPF, DOC

LHD LHD

Wagner ST8B (opt.) Wagner ST15Z

Deutz DDC

1168 775

277 475

CDPF, DOC CDPF, DOC

Utility Utility Coal Hauler

Getman 576 - 6 pass. Getman 576 - 9 pass. Jefferey 4110 Ramcar

Isuzu Isuzu MWM

146 238 380

57 79 94

RFC-DPF, DOC RFC-DPF, DOC Water scrubber, DDEF Dry system Water scrubber, DDEF Dry system

Coal Hauler

Jefferey

4114 Ramcar

Category A

Caterpillar

3306 PCNA

641

146

Table 1: Equipment identified for the life-cycle cost analysis, and exhaust aftertreatment options considered for each classification and type of diesel equipment.

19

PM-Emission Control Strategies for the Equipment Life-Cycle Analysis Each of the three general types of vehicles and the emissions controls selected for this study are discussed below. The assumptions made for the equipment life cycle analysis are also listed. Biodiesel Fuel and Fuel Blends (Category A Equipment): Laboratory testing at the CDR has shown that VOC from biodiesel fuel usage is largely (>70%) removed within the water scrubber of Category A diesel engine power-packs used for underground coal mine applications. Therefore, the use of a DOC in these types of applications is not necessary and would not result in further PM reductions over the use of biodiesel fuels with an exhaust water scrubber alone (McDonald and Spears). PM reductions exceeding 50% (compared to petroleum diesel fuel) were observed during laboratory testing of neat biodiesel fuel using a Category A diesel engine power-pack incorporating a water scrubber (McDonald and Spears). Only power-packs with naturally aspirated, IDI diesel engine have been certified by MSHA to date. These IDI engines offer the ability to use biodiesel blend ratios of up to 100% (neat) biodiesel with only minimal modifications to fuel system components.i Representative Category A diesel equipment evaluated for this study with biodiesel fuel and fuel blends (no DOC): Make of vehicle: Jeffrey 4110 and 4114 Ramcars Vehicle life: 8 years Number of hours vehicle used per year: 3900 Biodiesel cost: $1.50 to $3.00 / gallon Biodiesel blend levels with low-sulfur 30%, 50%, 100% petroleum diesel fuel (limited analysis also performed with a continuously variable 0-100% blend ratio) Particulate reduction: 70% Capital costs: (no significant difference in economic model compared to the uncontrolled case) Labor costs: (no significant difference in economic model compared to the uncontrolled case) Design cost: (no significant difference in economic model compared to the uncontrolled case) Installation cost: (no significant difference in economic model compared to the uncontrolled case) Fuel consumption: 6.2 or 7.5 gal/ hour. (McDonald and Spears) DDEFs (Category A): The disposable diesel exhaust filter, designed to be used with a water scrubber has been used as a PM-control in underground coal mines for about 5 years. Data is available on its performance, and PM reductions exceeding 90 % can be expected using DDEFs. Representative Category A diesel equipment evaluated for this study with DDEFs:
i Replacement of incompatible elastomers in soft fuel-lines and some fuel pump seals.

20

Make of vehicle: Vehicle life: Number of hours vehicle used per year: Life of DDEF: Particulate reduction: Capital costs: Labor costs: Design cost: Installation cost: Maintenance cost for housing: Fuel consumption: (Ambs, et al, 1994)

Jeffrey 4110 and 4114 Ramcars 8 years 3900 3000 hours for the housing. The filter needs replacement every shift for the 4114, and every 3 shifts for the 4110. 90% The capital cost for the housing was $5100$5600. Filter cost $45 each. $41.44/hour for design time, $23.04/hour for installation and maintenance. Labor cost of 16 hours @ 41.44/hour = $663 Labor cost of 16 hours @ 23.05/hour plus $50 materials cost = $419 10 hours over life of housing @ $23.05/hour / 3000 hrs = $.08/hour. 5.4 or 6.5 gal/ hour.

DOC with Biodiesel Fuel and Fuel Blends (Heavy-duty Nonpermissible Equipment): Neat biodiesel fuel has been tested extensively with heavy-duty engines typical of underground mining applications by the USBM and CDR. Tests have included laboratory testing of biodiesel fuel and fuel blends with permissible and nonpermissible engine configurations, and field testing of an LHD in a large metal mining operation using neat biodiesel fuel. Laboratory testing has shown that significant PM reductions with biodiesel fuels in nonpermissible applications require the use of a DOC for control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) that contribute to the formation of condensed and adsorbed organic PM. Reductions in PM-emissions exceeding 70% were observed during field testing of neat biodiesel fuel with a DOC (McDonald et al. 1997). The majority of equipment in this market segment utilize engines with IDI combustion systems. Representative heavy-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with Biodiesel and a DOC Make of vehicle: Wagner 2-15 yd3 LHDs Vehicle life: 8 years Number of hours vehicle used per year: 3500 Biodiesel cost: $1.50 to $3.00 / gallon Biodiesel blend levels with low-sulfur 30%, 50%, 70%, 100% petroleum diesel fuel (limited analysis also performed with a continuously variable 0-100% blend ratio) Life of DOC: 9000 hours Particulate reduction: 70% Capital costs (DOC): The average of 3 prices for DOCs sized for each vehicle, from three suppliers, for each specific application. Labor costs (DOC): $30.38/hour for design time, $18.85/hour for 21

installation and maintenance. Design cost (DOC): Metal: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 30.38/hour = $304 Installation cost (DOC): Labor cost of 10 hours @ 18.85/hour plus $50 materials cost = $239 Maintenance cost (DOC): 20 hours over life of DOC @ $18.85/hour / 9000 hrs = $0.04/hour Fuel consumption: 4.2-17.3 gal/ hour, depending on the vehicle. 100% biodiesel with a DOC (McDonald et al. 1997) CDPFs (Heavy-Duty Nonpermissible Equipment): The catalyzed ceramic filter has been used on nonpermissible heavy-duty equipment for a number of years. It was chosen for evaluation because its currently available, data is available on its performance, and PM reductions of 70% or greater can be expected when this device is used for an appropriately selected application. Representative heavy-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with CDPFs: Make of vehicle: Wagner 2-15 yd3 LHDs Vehicle life: 8 years Number of hours vehicle used per year: 3500 Life of CDPF: 3000 hours Particulate reduction: 70% Capital costs: The average of 2 prices for CDPFs sized for each vehicle, from two suppliers. Labor costs: $30.38/hour for design time, $18.85/hour for installation and maintenance. Design cost: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 30.38/hour = $304 Installation cost: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 18.85/hour plus $50 materials cost = $239 Maintenance cost: 20 hours over life of CDPF @ $18.85/hour/3000 hrs = $0.13/hour Fuel consumption: 3.7-15.1 gal/ hour, depending on the vehicle. (Watts, et al, 1995) DOC with Biodiesel Fuel and Fuel Blends (Light-duty Nonpermissible Equipment): Lightduty, nonpermissible equipment predominantly utilizes IDI diesel engines, allowing the use of high-percentage blend ratios of biodiesel fuel. Although no testing of biodiesel with these particular engines has occurred to date, biodiesel fuel and fuel blends have been tested with heavy-duty, high-speed IDI diesel engines with similar fuel and combustion systems (McDonald et al. 1995, Purcell et al.). Emissions results for the high-speed, light-duty IDI engines were generally comparable to laboratory emissions test results for heavy-duty IDI diesel engines. Representative light-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with Biodiesel and a DOC: 22

Make of vehicle: Vehicle life: Number of hours vehicle used per year: Biodiesel cost: Biodiesel blend levels with low-sulfur petroleum diesel fuel

Getman 6- and 9-passenger utility vehicles 12 years 1500 $1.50 to $3.00 / gallon 30%, 50%, 100% (limited analysis also performed with a continuously variable 0-100% blend ratio) Life of DOC: 9000 hours Particulate reduction: 70% Capital costs (DOC): The average of 3 prices for DOCs sized for each vehicle, from three suppliers, for each specific application. Labor costs (DOC): Metal: $30.38/hour for design time, $18.85/hour for installation and maintenance. Coal: $41.44/hour for design time, $23.04/hour for installation and maintenance. Design cost (DOC): Metal: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 30.38/hour = $304 Coal: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 41.44/hour = $414 Installation cost (DOC): Metal: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 18.85/hour plus $50 materials cost = $239 Coal: Labor cost of 10 hours @ 23.05/hour plus $50 materials cost = $281 Maintenance cost: 20 hours over life of DOC @ $18.85/hour x 9000 hrs = $0..04/hour Fuel consumption: 2.1 or 2.9 gal/hour. 100% biodiesel with a DOC (McDonald et al. 1997) RFC-DPFs (Light-duty, Nonpermissible Equipment): The NBB requested the inclusion one new PM-emissions control technology in order to include comparison with an emerging technology as part of this study. The RFC-DPF was selected as a new PM-emission control strategy for comparison in this study because it presently is the only option, besides the use of DOCs, available for light-duty, nonpermissible, diesel-powered, underground mining equipment. It has been evaluated previously using light-duty diesel-powered forklifts in enclosed warehouses in Germany. A prototype system for use with light-duty nonpermissible diesel mining equipment is currently under development. The authors have some experience evaluating this device on a mine utility vehicle, and have some data on PM reductions using this device. Little is known about its long-term durability of the RFC-DPM if used underground. Durability of the device was conservatively estimated from durability data of this device in forklift applications. Representative light-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with RFCDPFs: Make of vehicle: Getman 6- and 9-passenger utility vehicles Vehicle life: 12 years 23

Number of hours vehicle used per year: Life of RFC-DPF: Particulate reduction: Capital costs: Labor costs: Design cost: Installation cost: Maintenance cost: Fuel consumption: (Bickel and Taubert)

1500 3000 hours 65% The price for one RFC-DPF, sized for each vehicle, from the lone supplier. $30.38/hour for design time, $18.85/hour for installation and maintenance. Labor cost of 40 hours @ 30.38/hour = $1215 Labor cost of 24 hours @ 18.85/hour plus $100 materials cost = $552 150 hours over life of RFC-DPF @ $18.85/hour x 3000 hrs = $0.94/hour 1.8 or 2.5 gal/ hour.

24

Results from Equipment Life Cycle Cost Analysis Table 2 summarizes the results of the life cycle analyses. It gives the costs for the competing PM-emissions controls, including 3 blends of biodiesel fuels, over the life of the machine. The cost is not discounted, and the cost for biodiesel does not include the cost for diesel fuel that the machine would have used if emissions controls were used.
Vehicle Vehicle life (yrs) Vehicle use (hrs/yr) 3500 Emission control strategy Biodiesel blend level (%) 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% DOC cost DOC and DOC and Emission biodiesel cost biodiesel cost control (filter) (biodiesel @ (biodiesel @ cost $1.50/gal) $3.00/gal) $34,000 $83,000 na $55,000 $138,000 na $111,000 $289,000 na na na $63,000 $75,000 $189,000 na $123,000 $320,000 na $255,000 $675,000 na na na $76,000 $104,000 $271,000 na $175,000 $462,000 na $368,000 $981,000 na na na $120,000 $122,000 $321,000 na $207,000 $547,000 na $436,000 $1,165,000 na na na $190,000 $75,000 $190,000 na $124,000 $320,000 na $256,000 $676,000 na na na $120,000 $118,000 $302,000 na $197,000 $513,000 na $409,000 $1,085,000 na na na $191,000 $12,000 $18,000 $36,000 na $15,000 $24,000 $49,000 na $44,000 $78,000 $169,000 na $53,000 $94,000 $203,000 na $27,000 $45,000 $92,000 na $36,000 $61,000 $126,000 na $123,000 $214,000 $459,000 na $148,000 $257,000 $553,000 na na na na $60,000 na na na $66,000 na na na $114,000 na na na $208,000

ST2D

ST6C

3500

ST6C (opt.)

3500

ST8B

3500

ST8B (opt.)

3500

ST15Z

3500

Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC CDPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC RFC-DPF Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC Biodiesel/DOC RFC-DPF Biodiesel 1 Biodiesel 1 Biodiesel DDEF 1 Biodiesel 1 Biodiesel 1 Biodiesel DDEF
1

$6,756 $6,756 $6,756 $11,053 $11,053 $11,053 $11,053 $11,053 $11,053 $11,660 $11,660 $11,660 $11,660 $11,660 $11,660 $15,808 $15,808 $15,808 $3,527 $3,527 $3,527 $3,527 $3,527 $3,527 na na na na na na

Getman 575 - 6 pass.

12

1500

Getman 575 - 9 pass.

12

1500

Jeffrey 4110

3900

Jeffrey 4114

3900

DOC not required due to presence of water scrubber

Table 2: Summary of vehicle life cycle costs for emission controls and biodiesel fuel with DOCs

25

Category A Diesel Equipment: Two ramcars were evaluated. The cost for using DDEFs on the smaller ramcar was $114,000, while neat biodiesel at $1.50/gal cost about $172,000. On the larger machine, however, the cost for using DDEFs and neat biodiesel (at $1.50/gal) was virtually identical. The disposable filter needs to replaced once every three shifts on the smaller machine, and once per shift on the larger ramcar. This accounts for the significant cost difference between the two machines. Heavy-duty Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment: The costs for using CDPFs on these machines ranged from $63,000 to $191,000, depending on the size of the machine. With biodiesel at a cost of $3.00/gal, the cost of neat biodiesel and blends was higher than the cost for CDPFs in each instance. With biodiesel at $1.50/gal, the cost of neat biodiesel was higher than the cost of CDPFs by a factor of two or more, except for the smallest machine. The ambient PM reductions in an underground mine using CDPFs and neat biodiesel are estimated to be comparable at approximately 70%. From a strictly cost standpoint, biodiesel does not look like a good alternative for PM-control on this type of equipment. Light-duty Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment: Biodiesel appears to be a better alternative to filters on this class of equipment. The cost for using RFC-DPFs exceeded $60,000 for each machine, and exceeded the cost for neat biodiesel, with biodiesel at $1.50/gal. The ambient PM reduction using neat biodiesel fuel is also projected to be better, at 73% versus, 65% using RFCDPFs. Note from the Authors: A brief comparison of the capitol and operating costs of using electric versus diesel underground coal mining equipment for coal haulage is given in Appendix I.

26

VI. Methods of Conducting Discounted Cost Analyses of an Underground Coal Mine and an Underground Metal Mine
Background The expected fuel and emissions controls costs for a mine s vehicle fleet over the operating life of the mine must be estimated if competing emission control strategies are to be accurately compared. The expected reductions in ambient PM concentrations in the mine using different emissions control strategies must also be considered. A case study of a coal mine and a metal mine was developed in order to compare the costs for using competing emission controls (DDEFs, CDPFs, and RFC-DPFs) to biodiesel fuels and fuel blends. For the initial analysis, it was assumed that the mines would choose to use the emissions controls on all their machines. The comparisons in this case would be between the use of biodiesel (with a DOC in nonpermissible cases) in their entire fleet or the competing exhaust aftertreatment devices in the entire fleet. Mining can occur over relatively long periods of time, and it was assumed that the methods selected (filters or biodiesel) would be used over the life of the mine. Costs associated with alternative technologies can be compared by discounting the annual expenditures over the life of the mine. In this way, the timing as well as the magnitude of expenses can be fairly considered. The basic assumption behind the use of discounting is that it is preferable to accept income sooner and defer expenditures to later periods, whenever possible. The net present value represents the worth of one or more payments in the future to a mining company today, given the expected interest or discount rate available. The selection of an appropriate discount or interest rate reflects this notion and helps measure the net present value of competing choices of flows of revenues and expenditures. For example, which choice is superior if a firm s discount rate is 12%? 1) Accept $1,000.00 today, or 2) Accept $3,000.00 ten years from today Answer: $1,000.00 today is superior. The $3,000 to be received in ten years must be discounted to its present value. The formulas for the computations appear below: Present Value = (1+ r)-n (where r =discount rate, n = periods)

Present Value = (1.12)-10 x $3,000 Present Value = 0.3219732 x $3,000 Present Value = $965.92 (Therefore, it is better to receive $1,000 today.) Present value discounting was used throughout the coal and metal mine analyses to fairly consider both the timing and magnitude of expenditures over the life of the operations.

27

Selection of Case Study Mines MSHA has obtained data from some metal and all coal mines throughout the United States related to the use of diesel-powered equipment at individual mines. The data includes all of the diesel-powered vehicles at a mine, the type and/or make of the vehicles, the engines used in them, and the type of MSHA certification or approval given to the machine. A case study coal mine and a metal mine were selected after reviewing over 100 sets of data from individual mines. The mine equipment populations were selected based on three criteria; 1) A mine of moderate size: Both mines chosen had production levels of about 500,000 short tons of ore or coal per year. The metal mine had 40 diesel vehicles, the coal mine had 25 vehicles and one generator. 2) Completeness of data: The data on the vehicles and engines for both case study mines was virtually complete. Few assumptions on the size and type of engines used had to be made. 3) Type of equipment and engines: Some of the of the vehicles used at the case study mines were the vehicles evaluated during the equipment life cycle analysis. Data on the mine vehicle equipment populations are given in Tables 3 and 4. The PM-emissions control strategy for each type of machine is given. The types of emission controls evaluated, and the assumptions made for the evaluation, are the same as those made for the equipment life cycle analysis described above. The life of the vehicles chosen varied from 8-12 years. A mine life of 24 years was assumed, so that the vehicles were replaced 1 or two times over the mines life. It was assumed that each mine operated 2 10-hour shifts, five days a week, 52 weeks per year.
Type of Diesel Equipment LHD LHD Haul Truck Roof Tower Grader Drill Jumbo Roof Bolter Lube truck Scaler Service vehicles Tractor Capacity HP Number of vehicles 3 5 6 2 1 9 1 1 1 4 7 Vehicle life (yrs) 8 8 8 10 10 10 9 12 12 12 10 Hours of Diesel fuel operation/yr use/vehicle (gal/hr) 3500 3500 3900 2200 2400 2300 3000 1500 1500 1500 2100 8.3 6.9 8 5.6 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.6 Emission Control CDPF CDPF CDPF CDPF CDPF CDPF CDPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF

8 yd 6 yd 26 T na na na na na na na na

277 231 271 186 95 82 82 82 82 82 52(ave)

Table 3: Case study metal mine: equipment list, emission controls and fuel use

28

Type of Diesel Equipment Ramcar Coal scoop LHD Generator Personnel carrier Lube truck Crane truck Forklift Utility truck Grader Welder Tractor

Capacity

HP

Number of vehicles 5 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 6 1 1 2

Vehicle life (yrs) 8 8 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 10

Hours of operation/yr 3900 3900 1000 3000 1500 1500 1500 1600 1500 2400 1400 2100

Diesel fuel use/vehicle (gal/hr) 6.5 4.5 1.3 14.8 1.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.5

Emission Control DDEF DDEF RFC-DPF na RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF RFC-DPF

14 T 5T 1/2 yd 200 kw 6-pass na na na na na na na

150 150 42 285 57 82 82 82 57 56 55 16

Table 4: Case study coal mine: equipment list, emission controls, and fuel use Methods of Analysis The discounted cost analyses were conducted using standard spreadsheet software. Four spreadsheets were constructed for the following situations: Metal mine using biodiesel with DOCs Metal mine using filters Coal mines using biodiesel with DOCs Coal mines using filters All the data for each type of diesel-powered equipment were entered into separate categories within each spreadsheet model. Each spreadsheet also contained a summary of the data for the entire vehicle population at that mine. Categories within each spreadsheet included the costs associated with the operation of each machine along with the year when the expenditure would occur. The following possible cost items were considered and discounted over the life of the mine: Capital cost of the PM-emissions control Design labor cost Installation parts and labor Maintenance parts and labor Replacement costs for emissions controls Fuel Costs (for diesel fuel or biodiesel and biodiesel/diesel blends) Cost for lost production (coal mine using DDEFs only) An example of one spreadsheet for a Ramcar using DDEFs is given in Table 5. In addition, the expected PM-emissions from each vehicle, and the expected reduction in ambient PM due to the use of the competing PM-control strategies for the entire fleet, were calculated.

29

Table 5: Example of a spreadsheet for a ram-car using DDEFs.

30

31

Data Analysis The spreadsheets were constructed so that a number of variables could be changed, and the discounted cost for each of the PM-control scenarios over the life of the mine could then be calculated to determine the relative effects of the changes. This allowed the testing of numerous sets of assumptions in order to obtain a good understanding of the costs of reducing ambient PM concentrations in underground mines. The discounted total cost for PM-emissions control over the life of the mine for the mine s diesel fleet under assumed conditions was the primary result summarized within each spreadsheet. This is the discounted cost for additional fuel consumed and emissions control costs, over and above the standard fuel costs using low sulfur, petroleum fuel. Other data summarized within the spreadsheets included the following: Yearly fuel consumption for each type of diesel-powered equipment Fuel costs, nominal and discounted, for each type of equipment Projected reduction in ambient PM concentrations achieved for each combination of diesel equipment and relevant PM-emission control strategy Nominal and discounted emissions control costs for each combination of diesel equipment and relevant PM-emission control strategy Table 6 gives an example of a data summary for a metal mine using biodiesel with DOCs.

32

Table 6: Example of a summary spread-sheet for the case-study metal mine using biodiesel with DOCs.

33

VII. Results from Metal Mine Discounted Cost Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis Table 7 gives discounted costs over the life of the coal mine, and the expected PM reduction for biodiesel versus the competing PM-emissions control strategies for 18 combinations of discount rates, blend levels, and biodiesel costs. The discounted emissions control and fuel costs ranged from $2,343,000 to $2,941,000 for mines with fleets of equipment using the CDPFs (heavy-duty) and RFC-DPFs (light-duty). By comparison the discounted emissions control and fuel costs for biodiesel with a DOC ranged from $1,419,000 to $11,498,000. The broad range of costs for biodiesel reflects the effects of blends from 30% to 100% and biodiesel prices from $1.50 to $3.00 . The reduction in ambient PM concentrations using CDPFs and RFC-DPFs was 69 %. The ambient PM reduction using biodiesel fuel blends ranged from 22 to 73 %, depending on the blend ratio. Combination of Variables Selected
Discount rate (%)

Competing Emission Controls

Biodiesel Fuel

Biodiesel Biodiesel Disc. emission cost ($/gal) blend level control and (%) additional fuel

cost
12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% $2,941,000 $2,941,000 $2,941,000 $2,941,000 $2,941,000 $2,941,000 $2,609,000 $2,609,000 $2,609,000 $2,609,000 $2,609,000 $2,609,000 $2,343,000 $2,343,000 $2,343,000 $2,343,000 $2,343,000 $2,343,000

Particulate Disc. DOC Particulate reduction with and additional reduction with emission fuel cost Biodiesel and controls DOCs
69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% $1,419,000 $2,237,000 $4,452,000 $3,341,000 $5,531,000 $11,498,000 $1,252,000 $1,970,000 $3,915,000 $2,939,000 $4,862,000 $10,102,000 $1,117,000 $1,755,000 $3,483,000 $2,616,000 $4,325,000 $8,980,000 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73%

Table 7: Metal mine - combinations of discount rate, biodiesel cost, and blend level Effect of Discount Rates Discount rates of 12%, 14%, and 16% were tested. Because mining is considered a risky enterprise, higher threshold rates are required to recruit investment than into some other economic activities with more predictable flows of income (economic studies of oil exploration have frequently used discount rates of 18%). Varying discount rates from 12% to 16% for neat biodiesel at a price of $1.50/gal resulted in discounted total costs that vary from $4,452,000 to 34

$3,483,000. The discounted costs of using neat biodiesel were approximately 50% higher than those achieved using CDPFs and RFC-DPFs. The discounted total costs are not particularly sensitive across this range of discount rates because of the long life of mine and the cost structure of the two competing PM-control strategies. As a result, a discount rate of 14 % was selected for further analyses. Effect of Blend Levels and Biodiesel Cost One of the advantages of biodiesel is that a specific blend level could be selected to achieve specific target levels of ambient PM concentrations. The effect of blend levels on ambient PM concentrations in the mine can be seen in Figure 1. PM reductions of 69% can be achieved when the entire complement of vehicles use CDPFs and RFC-DPFs. This same level of PM reduction could be accomplished by using a biodiesel blend level of 94%.
80 0.5 0.45 Particulate Reduction % Reduction in ambient PM concentration 60 Disc.Cost/ T. 0.35 50 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 20 0.1 10 0.05 0 100 0.4 Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

70

40

30

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Biodiesel Blend Level (%)

Figure 1: Metal mine: blend level versus reduction in ambient PM concentration and discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/short ton of ore produced. Initially, prices of $1.50 and $3.00 per gallon were tested for biodiesel. At $3.00 per gallon, the discounted fuel cost of 100% blend would vary from $8,980,000 to $11,498,000, depending upon the discount rate. At $1.50 price for biodiesel, a 100 % blend varied from $3,483,000 to $4,452,000. The discounted cost for using CDPFs and RFC-DPFs was under $3,000,000 in each case. Further analysis revealed that biodiesel would have to be priced at $1.18/gal to equal the cost of CDPFs and RFC-DPFs, assuming a 14 % discount rate and that neat biodiesel fuel at 35

$1.50/gal was used. The discounted cost per ton of ore produced versus blend level is also shown in Figure 1. At a discount rate of 14 %, the additional cost for the PM reduction varies from about $0.02/ton (the cost for DOCs using petroleum diesel fuel) to about $0.33/ton (neat biodiesel fuel with DOCs). Note that higher production costs per ton are associated with the higher percentage reductions in PM. Effect of Mine Life In order to the evaluate the effect of the life of the mine, the spreadsheets were used to simulate a life of mine of six years versus twenty-four years. With a discount rate of 14% and a life of mine of more than 6 years, using neat biodiesel fuel would cost $2,229,000 versus $1,563,000 for CDPFs and RFC-DPFs, or 43% higher for biodiesel. The life of mine did not have a large effect on the cost difference between using neat biodiesel fuel and the use of CDPFs and RFC-DPFs. Assuming the 24 year life of mine scenario, the cost for biodiesel was $3,915,000 versus $2,609,000 for the CDPFs and RFC-DPFs, or 50% higher for biodiesel. Effect of Targeting Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment One possible solution mine operators might consider would be to use biodiesel on the heavyduty machines only. Such an approach would result in reductions of ambient PM concentrations of 67%. The discounted cost of DOCs and biodiesel would be $3,590,000. If mine operators were to use CDPFs with diesel fuel on heavy-duty machines only, they would achieve PM reductions of 63% at a cost of $2,042,000 (table 8). Effect of Targeting Light-duty, Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment As expected from the equipment life cycle analyses, biodiesel costs less than filters on light-duty machines (table 8). The use of filters costs 75% more than use of biodiesel in light-duty machines. However, targeting light-duty machines accounted for a PM reduction of only 6 % of the total PM emitted by all machines in the metal mine.

36

Reduction in ambient PM concentration (%) PM-control Strategy Biodiesel and DOCs on heavyduty equipment CDPFs on heavyduty equipment Biodiesel and DOCs on lightduty equipment Exhaust Aftertreatment PM-controls Biodiesel and DOCs 67

Discounted cost over life of mine Exhaust Aftertreatment PM-controls Biodiesel and DOCs $3,590,000

63 -

$2,042,000 -

$ 325,000

6 $ 567,000 RFC-DPFs on light-duty equipment Table 8: Metal mine vehicle fleet PM reductions and discounted costs over the 24 year mine life using neat biodiesel vs. filters on heavy-duty and light-duty equipment

37

VIII. Results from Coal Mine Discounted Cost Analysis

Sensitivity Analysis A discussion of results that is similar to the metal mine case follows, with two exceptions. The coal mine equipment population contained a generator that burned a large amount of fuel. It was assumed that the mine would use a DOC on the generator, and that the generator could burn 100% biodiesel. In addition, the use of DDEFs on coal production equipment could adversely impact production when a mine is working at or close to capacity. The cost of lost production was estimated for the situation of a coal mine using DDEFs. Table 9 gives discounted costs and the expected ambient PM reduction for using biodiesel fuel versus DDEFs (heavy-duty) and RFC-DPFs (light-duty) for 18 combinations of discount rates, blend levels, and biodiesel costs. The discounted costs for fuel and PM reduction ranged from $1,538,000 to $1,942,000 for mines with equipment using DDEFs and RFC-DPFs. The discounted biodiesel costs ranged from $497,000 to $5,593,000. The broad range of costs for biodiesel reflects the effects of blends from 30% to 100% and also biodiesel prices from $1.50 to $3.00 . Combination of Variables Selected
Discount rate (%)

Competing Emission Controls

Biodiesel Fuel

Biodiesel Biodiesel Disc. emission cost ($/gal) blend level control and (%) additional fuel

cost
12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% 30% 50% 100% $1,942,000 $1,942,000 $1,942,000 $1,942,000 $1,942,000 $1,942,000 $1,718,000 $1,718,000 $1,718,000 $1,718,000 $1,718,000 $1,718,000 $1,538,000 $1,538,000 $1,538,000 $1,538,000 $1,538,000 $1,538,000

Particulate Disc. DOC Particulate reduction with and additional reduction with emission fuel cost Biodiesel and controls DOCs
73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% 73% $631,000 $1,034,000 $2,124,000 $1,577,000 $2,655,000 $5,593,000 $557,000 $910,000 $1,868,000 $1,388,000 $2,334,000 $4,914,000 $497,000 $811,000 $1,662,000 $1,235,000 $2,076,000 $4,368,000 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73% 22% 37% 73%

Table 9: Coal mine - combinations of discount rate, biodiesel cost, and blend level The reduction in ambient PM concentrations using DDEFs and RFC-DPFs was 73 %, and the PM reduction using biodiesel fuel blends ranged from 22 to 73 %, depending on the fuel blend ratio.

38

Effect of Discount Rate Discount rates of 12%, 14% and 16% were tested. Varying discount rates for 100% biodiesel at $1.50/gal result in total discounted costs that vary from $2,124,000 to $1,662,000. The total discounted costs of using the neat biodiesel option were approximately 10% higher than using DDEFs and RFC-DPFs . Discounted total costs are not particularly sensitive across this range of discount rates because of the long life of mine used and the cost structure of the competing technologies. Consequently, 14% was the discount rate used for further analyses. Effect of Blend Level and Biodiesel Cost Blend levels of 30%, 50% and 100% biodiesel were used as model inputs. An estimated reduction in ambient PM concentrations of approximately 70% can be achieved using 100% biodiesel or using DDEFs and RFC-DPFs. Figure 2 shows the level of PM reduction and discounted cost per ton using biodiesel with DOCs. Because these levels of PM reduction are almost equivalent, the blend level of 100% for biodiesel allows a convenient cost comparison of the fuel to the cost of DDEFs and RFC-DPFs at the same level of performance. At $3.00 per gallon, the discounted fuel cost of neat biodiesel would vary from $4,368,000 to $5,593,000, depending upon the discount rate. At $1.50 price for biodiesel, the cost would vary from $1,662,000 to $2,124,000. The discounted cost of using DDEFs and RFC-DPFs would vary from $1,538,000 to $1,942,000. Effect of Mine Life Assuming a six year life for the coal mine, DDEFs and RFC-DPFs represent a less costly approach to achieving ambient PM reductions in the mine. The costs would be about 8% higher using biodiesel to achieve the same level (70%) of PM reductions as DDEFs and RFC-DPFs. This is a similar to the result for the 24 year mine life, and indicates that the life of the mine has little effect on the cost of the two different methods. Effect of Targeting Category A Diesel Equipment Coal mine operators might consider using either biodiesel or DDEFs on the Category A machines only. In this coal mine they are the ramcars and coal scoops. The use of biodiesel would result in ambient PM reductions of approximately 47%, at a discounted cost of $1,133,000 (table 10). If mine operators were to use DDEFs on permissible machines, they would achieve PM reductions of 60%, at a discounted cost of $1,042,000. Effect of Targeting Light-duty (Nonpermissible) Diesel Equipment As in the metal mine case, biodiesel was found to be cheaper than RFC-DPFs on light-duty vehicles. Biodiesel would cost $708,000, and would result in a ambient PM reduction of 22%. It would cost nearly as much ($676,000) to achieve a 13% reduction using RFC-DPFs. It would cost (present value) $53,000, on average, to buy a percentage point of ambient PM reduction with RFC-DPFs and only $28,000 to buy a percentage point of PM reduction with the biodiesel and DOC s.

39

80

0.5 0.45 0.4

70 Reduction in ambient PM concentration (%)

60 Particulate Reduction % 50 Disc.Cost/ T. 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 20 0.1 10 0.05 0 100 0.35

40

30

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Biodiesel blend level (%)

Figure 2: Coal mine: blend level versus reduction in ambient PM concentration and discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/short ton of ore produced.

40

Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

Reduction in ambient PM concentrations(%) PM-control Strategy Exhaust Aftertreatment PM-controls 60 Biodiesel

Discounted cost over life of mine Exhaust Aftertreatmen t PM-controls $ 1,042,000 Biodiesel

Biodiesel (no DOC) on heavyduty equipment DDEFs used on heavy-duty equipment Biodiesel and DOC on lightduty equipment

47 22

$ 1,133,000 $ 708,000

13 $ 676,000 RFC-DPFs on light-duty equipment Table 10: Coal mine vehicle fleet PM reduction and discounted costs using neat biodiesel vs. filters on heavy-duty and light-duty equipment over a 24 year life of the mine. Effect of Lost Production (coal mine using DDEFs) If one were to consider a coal mine operated with no excess production capacity (no idle labor or production equipment), then one could apply penalties for the reduced production due to time taken to replace disposable filter elements on the permissible vehicles equipped with DDEF systems. The production lost due to the time necessary to change filters was calculated and cost penalties were derived based upon a mine mouth price for coal of $20.00/ ton. It was assumed that each ramcar would be idle between each ten hour shift, and each vehicle s production would be reduced by one load of coal per day. This would result in 140 coal loads of production lost per ramcar per year. The mine s annual production would be reduced to 486,350 tons. The value of the coal production lost could be determined by multiplying the lost production by $10.00 per ton ( mine mouth costs of $20/T minus $10.00 operating costs per ton), or $137,000 of lost production per year. If the lost production is treated as a cost or penalty, the discounted cost of neat biodiesel and the discounted cost using DDEFs would be equal at a biodiesel cost of $1.89/gallon, when demand is greater than the mine capacity. Therefore, at biodiesel prices less than $1.89/gallon, mine operators can use biodiesel more economically to reduce ambient PM concentrations than by using petroleum based diesel fuel at $0.70/gallon with DDEFs.

41

IX. Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions The equipment life cycle analyses indicated the following: Biodiesel at $3.00/gal was too expensive to use with Category A, heavy-duty nonpermissible, or light-duty nonpermissible mining equipment. Biodiesel in this equipment market is not competitive strictly on the basis of cost with existing and expected PM-control technologies. Biodiesel at $1.50/gal was too expensive for heavy-duty nonpermissible equipment. The cost for CDPFs was much lower than neat biodiesel. Blends of 30 and 50% biodiesel were less expensive in some instances, but gave much lower reductions in PM. Biodiesel looks like a viable PM-control strategy compared to filter PM-control strategies on light-duty equipment. RFC-DPFs are relatively costly to buy, install and operate, and light-duty equipment burns less fuel than heavy-duty. At $1.50/gal, the cost of burning biodiesel was about 25-40% lower than using RFC-DPFs on the two utility vehicles evaluated. There was a large disparity in the cost of using DDEFs on the two ramcars, giving much different results when the cost of biodiesel is compared to using DDEFs. Biodiesel costs almost one and one half times as much as DDEFs on the 10 ton hauler, while the costs were identical on the larger machine. Coal mines using the larger haulers may wish to seriously consider using biodiesel rather than DDEFs. The equipment life cycle analyses indicated that biodiesel at $1.50/gal may be a viable PMcontrol strategy for light-duty nonpermissible equipment, and some types of Category A equipment. It does not look competitive on heavy-duty nonpermissible equipment. The use of exhaust filters for PM-control will result in ambient PM reductions exceeding 65%, and mine operators would need to use neat biodiesel with DOCs to get comparable reductions. The discounted cost analyses, where the cost for using biodiesel for the entire fleet of vehicles at a coal mine and metal mine were evaluated, revealed that the cost of biodiesel will have to drop to under $2.00/gal to be competitive with exhaust filters. The following conclusions were drawn from the discounted cost analyses: Filters give ambient PM reductions in underground mines on the order of 70%, and neat biodiesel would need to be used in order to achieve comparable reductions. In both the coal and metal mine case, the discount rate did not significantly impact the percentage difference in price of the two different strategies for lowering PM concentrations in underground mines. This is due to the fact that the timing of expenditures over the life of the mine is similar if filters or biodiesel is used. For the same reason, the mine life did not significantly impact the differences in cost. In metal mines, biodiesel is not competitive with filters if large PM reductions are needed. For the case study metal mine, the price of biodiesel would have to be about $1.18/gal to break even with the price of filters. The outlook for biodiesel looks better for coal mines. For the case study coal mine, the 42

price of biodiesel would have to be about $1.43/gal to break even with the price of filters. If lost production is considered, that price increases to 1.89/gal. Mines should consider "targeting" heavy-duty equipment for PM-emissions control. These machines are larger, have heavier duty cycles, and burn much more fuel than lightduty equipment, and thus emit most of the PM into the mine atmosphere. The cost of controlling PM on light-duty equipment may not be worthwhile at many mines because of the relatively low contribution of PM from light-duty equipment to the overall PM concentrations in the mine. Based on the mine discounted cost analyses, it appears that biodiesel will need to fall below $2.00/gal to be competitive with filters for coal mines, and below $1.25/gal for metal mines. However, MSHA has not yet adopted a TLV for PM due to diesel equipment usage. If the TLV is very low, mines may need to control PM-emissions from all their machines. It is conceivable that a standard could not be met using filters alone, and mines might need filters and alternate fuels to meet a standard. The reductions in ambient PM concentrations using biodiesel and DOCs were projected from laboratory evaluations of neat biodiesel and biodiesel blends (for numerous types of mono-ester biodiesels) and one field evaluation of neat biodiesel at a metal mine. No field data currently exists for the levels of ambient PM reduction possible using biodiesel blends in underground mines. Higher than projected reductions in ambient PM-emissions for the biodiesel fuel blends might have a significant result in the discounted cost analysis. Research is currently under way to directly determine the ambient PM reductions possible using biodiesel blends (DEEP). The different types of exhaust aftertreatment devices that would compete against biodiesel fuels in these markets are efficient at lowering ambient PM concentrations, but have several disadvantages. CDPFs are for use on equipment with consistently heavy-duty cycles that produce exhaust temperatures adequate for regeneration. If the exhaust temperatures are not high enough, special measures may have to be taken to clean the CDPF. RFC-DPFs need to be "plugged in" for regeneration, and disposable filters need to be replaced once every 1-3 shifts. DDEFs must be thrown away, which requires additional handling after they are used. These requirements mean that special training of vehicle operators and maintenance personnel is required, and that monitoring of the condition of the filters is necessary. The vehicles cannot perform productive activities while maintenance is being performed on the filters. It is possible discarding DDEFs could be treated as disposal of a potentially hazardous waste material. This is not current practice for most underground coal mines that use DDEFs, and thus the costs associated with DDEF disposal were not considered. These factors will introduce "hidden costs" not completely accounted for in this study. For many mines, these considerations make filters an undesirable method for reducing PM concentrations in the mine air. Biodiesel has advantages that filters lack. The use of biodiesel in mines would be easier to implement than the use of filters, and would not require miner training. There are no new maintenance procedures introduced. Cost will be one factor mines will consider when choosing emissions control strategies, but the amount of emissions reduction required, and the simplicity of the strategy and ease with which it can be implemented and used will also be important factors that mines will consider. 43

Traditionally, indirect-injection engines have been used in underground mines because of lower emissions of NOx and CO. Direct injection engines for on-highway and some off-highway applications have been developed that have much lower PM-emissions than indirect injection engines, and better fuel consumption. Modern engine technologies, such as turbocharged, aftercooled, direct injection diesel engines with high pressure fuel injection systems, are now being adapted to underground mining applications. If vehicles use engines that have lower PMemissions, smaller reductions in PM-emissions will be needed to meet a PEL. This is an advantage for biodiesel, since a specific blend can be used to target a specific PM-emissions reduction. In addition, the higher fuel efficiency of modern engines would reduce the cost of using biodiesel. Recommendations Further research involving the use of biodiesel fuels in underground mines will be needed in the following areas, especially after the promulgation of new MSHA PEL standards for diesel PM are established: 1. Further field testing is necessary to determine the true effect of biodiesel blends with petroleum diesel fuel on ambient PM concentrations. The only field testing completed to date utilized neat biodiesel fuel. The only testing completed to date utilizing blends of biodiesel were laboratory studies that determined the PM-emissions using EPA certificationstyle measurement procedures. Significant differences have been found between laboratory measurements of PM from dilution tunnels (dilution ratios of 10-20 : 1) and field measurements of ambient PM (dilution ratios of well over 50:1) for both neat biodiesel and other methods of PM-control (McDonald et al. 1997). 2. Determine how large the market for biodiesel fuels must become to reach economies of scale in production and distribution that achieve price levels between $1.50 and $2.00 per gallon. 3. Biodiesel blends are potentially an attractive option for new engines with lower PMemissions being adopted for use underground. Laboratory testing of these engines is needed to quantify the effect of biodiesel and biodiesel blends on engine performance, fuel consumption, and emissions. 4. Discounted cost analyses of larger and smaller mines, with different complements of dieselpowered equipment, should be conducted. 5. The effect of different fuel consumption rates on the cost of using biodiesel, such as might be expected from modern engines, should be also be investigated.

44

Reference List
Ambs, J. L., B. K. Cantrell, W. F. Watts, Jr., and K. S. Olson. Evaluation of Disposable Diesel Exhaust Filters for Use on Permissible Equipment. Bureau of Mines RI 9508, 1994, 8 pp. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1995. Annual Reports on the Committees on Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices. Notice of Intended Changes for 1995-1996. ACGIH Today 3(2):1. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Airborne Contaminants Committee. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom Air Adopted by ACGIH for 1973. ACGIH, 1973. Baz-Dresch, J. L., K. L. Bickel, and W. F. Watts, Jr. Evaluation of Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters Used in an Underground Metal Mine. BuMines RI 9478, 1993, 13 pp. Bickel, K.L., W.A. Majewski, Evaluation of a Catalyzed Ceramic Diesel Particulate Filter and Catalytic Converter on an Underground Mine Vehicle, In Proceedings of the 7th U.S. Mine Ventilation Symposium, Lexington, KY, Jun 5-7, 1995, pp. 117-122. Bickel, K.L., and T.R. Taubert. Preliminary Screening Evaluations of Particulate Matter Emissions from a RFC-DPF-Equipped Getman Transport. USBM Internal Report, 1995. Brezonick, M. Lowering Emissions in Mine Engines. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. Vol. 59, No. 9, pp. 72-73, Sept. 1993. Diesel Emission Evaluation Program (DEEP). Program Description. Available from: Dr. Bruce Conard, DEEP Steering Committee, c/o INCO Limited, Sudbury, Ontario. Federal Register. Oct. 4, 1989. U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. 30 CFR Parts 7, 70. and 75 "Approval Requirements for Diesel-Powered Machines and Approval, Exposure Monitoring, and Safety Requirements for the Use of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines; Proposed Rules. V.54, No. 191, pp. 40950-40997. Federal Register (61 FR 208). Oct. 25, 1996. U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. 30 CFR Parts 7, et al. "Approval, Exhaust Gas Monitoring, and Safety Requirements for the Use of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines; Final Rule. V.61, No. 208, pp. 55411-55534. Fletchner, M.K., and D.E. Gushee. Biodiesel Fuel: What is it? Can It Compete? Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Report No. 93-1027 S, December 10, 1993. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Diesel and Gasoline Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, v. 46, 1989, 458 pp. 45

MacDonald, J.S. and Gerald M. Simon. Development of a Particulate Trap System for a HeavyDuty Diesel Engine. Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Report 880006, 1988, 25 pp. McClure, B. T., S. T. Bagley, and L. D. Gratz. The Influence of an Oxidation Catalytic Converter and Fuel Composition on the Chemical and Biological Characteristics of Diesel Exhaust Emissions. Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 920854, 1992, pp. 271 - 288. McDonald, J.F., B.K. Cantrell, W.F. Watts, Jr., and K.L. Bickel. Evaluation of a Soybean Oil Based Diesel Fuel in an Underground Gold Mine. Publication Pending, 1997. McDonald, J.F., D.L. Purcell, B.T. McClure, and D.B. Kittelson. Emissions Characteristics of Soy Methyl Ester Fuels in an IDI Compression Ignition Engine. SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 950400, 1995. McDonald, J.F., and M. Spears. Laboratory Emissions Evaluation of Soy Methyl Ester Fuel with a Jeffrey 4110 Ramcar Power Pack, in: Field Trials of Soy Methyl Esters as a Fuel for Diesel-powered Equipment in Underground Mines, Part 2. Final Report to the National Biodiesel Board prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, CRDA No. 6200-0063, January 10, 1996. NIOSH. Carcinogenic Effects of Exhaust Exposure to Diesel Exhaust. CIB 50, DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 88-116, 1988, 30 pp. Pischinger, F., G. Lepperhoff, G. Huthwohl, U. Pfeifer, and K. Egger. Modular Trap and Regeneration Systems for Buses, Trucks and Other Applications. Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Report 900325, 1990, 8pp. Power Systems Research. Biodiesel Fuels for Underground Mines. Power Systems Research, Eagan, MN. 1995. Reichel, S., F.F. Pischinger, G. Lepperhoff. Influence on Particles in Diluted Diesel Engine Exhaust Gas. SAE Technical Paper Series, No. 831333, 1983. Saseen, George. Personal correspondence with George Saseen, Physical Scientist, Diesel Certification, U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, January 24-28, 1997. Referenced comments are for informational purposes only. Current MSHA policies towards the acceptability of specific fuels or fuel additives for underground mine usage are available by formal written request only. Taubert, T. R. and C. G. Cordova. Application of Urban Bus Diesel Particulate Control Systems to Mining Vehicles. In BuMines IC 9324, 1992, pp. 83-90. U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Approval and Certification Center. Listing of Approved Products, 1993.

46

Watts, Jr., Winthrop F. Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Emissions. Chapt. in Diesel Exhaust: A Critical Analysis of Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge IL, 1995, pp 109-123. Watts, W. F., Jr., B. K. Cantrell, K. L. Bickel, K. S. Olson, L. L. Rubow, J. J. Baz-Dresch, and D. H. Carlson. In-Mine Evaluation of Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Filters at Two Underground Metal Mines. BuMines RI 9571, 1995, 14 pp. Watts, W. F., Jr. University of MN. Personal communication, 1997. Waytulonis, R. W., and K. L. Bickel. Status of Developments in Diesel Engine Control Technology. In Proceedings of Mining Convention '88, American Mining Congress, Denver, CO, Sept. 25-28, 1988. pp. 123-126. Western Mine Engineering. Mine and Mill Costs, An Estimators Guide. Western Mine Engineering, Inc. Spokane WA. 1996. 147 pp. Western Mine Engineering. U.S. Metal and Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages and Benefits, 1996 Survey Results. Western Mine Engineering, Inc. Spokane WA. 1996. 148 pp. Western Mine Engineering. U.S. Coal Mine Salaries, Wages and Benefits, 1996 Survey Results. Western Mine Engineering, Inc. Spokane WA 1996. 99 pp.

47

Appendix I: Comparison of Capital and Operating Costs for One Electric Coal Haulage Vehicle Versus One Diesel and One Biodiesel-powered Vehicle
Historically, coal mining companies have used electric equipment in their underground mines. In the 1970's, an articulated coal hauler was introduced into underground coal mines and the use of diesel equipment in underground coal mines has grown ever since. Now, there are over 2,000 underground diesel vehicles used in about 180 coal mines. The primary alternatives to diesel-powered vehicles are battery, cable reel, or trolley-wire electric equipment. The proper selection of equipment involves health, safety and economic issues, based on specific mining conditions, methods and operational considerations. Equipment options, specifications, availability, along with capital, operating, maintenance, and replacement costs are all considered in selecting equipment. The choice of using electric or diesel-powered vehicles is based on what is suitable for a specific operation. A direct comparison of the costs for using electrical versus diesel equipment cannot be done easily, and is beyond the scope of this study. The choice of the type of equipment will affect the mine layout and ventilation scheme, affecting mine development and ventilation costs. Diesel equipment is typically more productive than electric equipment because it can travel faster and is not restricted by trolley cables or the need to recharge batteries. Electric equipment is typically cheaper to purchase and operate than diesel equipment of the same payload capacity. It is informative to compare the capital and operating costs for two vehicles that have the same capacity, one electric and one diesel or biodiesel-powered. The capital and operating costs for a 10 ton coal hauler and a 10 ton diesel-powered vehicle are given in Table A1 (Western Mine Engineering-1, 1996). Type of Vehicle Vehicle capital cost Operating cost ($/hour) Electric Diesel power fuel 10-ton electric coal hauler 10-ton dieselpowered coal hauler 10-ton biodieselpowered coal hauler
1 2

$208,400 $239,800 $239,800

$2.51 na na

na $3.78 na

Total Other Biodiesel fuel with operating operating costs costs DOC na $8.91 $11.42 na $9.31 $10.32 $10.32 $14.10 $19.63

Diesel fuel cost of $0.70/gallon. Biodiesel fuel cost of $1.50/gallon.

Table A1: Capital and operating costs for one 10-ton electric coal hauler versus one diesel and biodiesel-powered coal hauler

48

The electric vehicle costs less to purchase and operate than the diesel-powered hauler. It is interesting to note that the use of straight biodiesel at $1.50/gal results in an increase in operating cost of $5.53/hour, compared to the diesel-powered vehicle, and costs $8.21/hr more to operate than the electric vehicle.

49