TRANSPORTING COAL

But it would seem that these luminaries have been delinquent in their helmsmanship, for the OTA has been turning out surprisingly good work. We have already quoted from their report on Devonian shale (Jan. 78), and this month we turn to two further highly informative reports.

The first of these presents the issues connected with coal slurry pipelines. which it does more readably and less lengthily than the voluminous study prepared by the U. of Ill. for the US Bureau of Mines last year.

Coal slurry pipelines transport coal from mine to power plant, often over very long distances. The coal is ground to the size of granulated sugar and mixed with an about equal amount of water; the resulting slurry is then pumped through a buried pipeline (from 4 inches to 3 ft in diameter), with pumping stations every 50 to 150 miles, depending on the pipe diameter and the terrain.

At the destination, the slurry is "dewatered;" the coal can be stored, transported by other means, or introduced directly into a power plant or other user's system. The water, too, can be used at the receiving end, for example, as coolant for the same power plant .

Technologically, slurry pipelines are proven. The Black Mesa pipeline from the Four Corners area across the breadth of Arizona to the southern point of Nevada is already operating, and a 1,036mile pipeline from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to White Bluff, Arkansas, is now ready to be constructed. The 38 inch pipeline is to deliver 25 million tons of coal a year to Middle South Utilities, and to other customers on the way.

Environmentally, slurry pipelines are superior to railroads they do not pollute, do not block traffic, do not cause range fires, present no hazards at grade crossings, and are generally noiseless, safe and invisible. With their usual iron logic, the "environmentalists" therefore vigorously oppose them in favor of railroads and barges the latter have the advantage of being immobilized in frozen rivers when the coal is most urgently needed.

Economically, the picture is not completely clear, for slurry lines have never been allowed to compete freely against railroads. But most experts agree that even under present conditions slurry lines are more economic for distances of 1,000 miles or more. However, the real economy of slurry lines is rooted in the fact that about 70% of their cost is the capital to build them; once in place, the operating costs are comparatively low, in particular, only about 1/8 of the labor force is needed compared to transporting the coal by rail. In other words, Slurry lines are far more inflation-proof, and that is one of the prime economic considerations in a government manipulated economy.

On the other hand, the single use of a slurry line makes it economically vulnerable: The "market" (usually a single utility) is immediately saturated, and there is little room for economies of size or additional sales volume, whereas railroads transport coal only to 20% of their total ton miles transported.

The question of resource conservation, particularly water, is greatly overblown. The Wyoming Arkansas line will conserve almost 800,000 tons ot steel over the first 30 years compared with the equivalent rail capacity (including worn out rails, cars, wheels, etc.). As usual, the free market would allot resources more efficiently than the computer simulators, let alone the environmental crystal ball gazers.

As for water, a mine mouth power plant consumes about eight times as much water for every ton of coal it burns as a pipeline needs for every ton of coal it moves. (If the idea were not absurd for other reasons, Wyoming could actually conserve water by importing its electricity from Arkansas plants burning Wyoming coal.) More important, water is closely tied to energy - given enough energy, one can pump or produce water, up to and including the virtually limitless amounts obtainable by desalinating sea water.

To this general viewpoint one might add local peculiarities. For example, the water which will be withdrawn from 3,000 ft below the surface in Wyoming for the line to Arkansas is quite uneconomic for agricultural use and is not being used by anybody; withdrawal does not even affect the water table, because the water used in the area lies above impervious rock, unconnected with the water pumped into the pipeline below.

In the unlikely event that all goes well, the Wyoming/Arkansas slurry line will go into operation in 1983. If so, it will have been built according to the now familiar schedule of American enterprise and technology: 3 years in construction, after at least 8 years in the courts, congressional lobbies, and regulatory agencies where yawning secretaries manicure their fingemails.

[More: OTA Report on Coal Slurry Pipeline Issues, Jan. 1978, $5 from US Govt. Printing Off., Washington, DC 20402; E. Guccione: "Railroads vs. Pipelines: There's room for both," Coal Mining & Proc., Feb. 1978.]