CLEARING THE AIR—V In Defence of Coal: Fallacies Exposed

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32252, 21 March 1970, Page 17

CLEARING THE AIR—V In Defence of Coal: Fallacies Exposed

(Contributed by Neu> Zealand Coal Research Association)

There is no doubt that coal does contribute to air pollution in Christchurch, the most obvious contribution being smoke from the open fire. The coal industry is putting every effort into reducing this smoke emission by educating the public in better methods of tending the fire, and by encouraging the installation of the new downdraught space heaters of high efficiency and with very low smoke emission.

These efforts are confidently expected to bring a marked reduction in air pollution. It seems likely that the popularity of the open fire could gradually lessen over the years, if only because of the associated inconvenience. If this trend does occur, a swing to the use of downdraught heaters can be expected, with modern coal firing gradually replacing the timehonoured methods.

There can be no argument that sulphur oxides offer the greatest threat to the cleanliness of the Christchurch air; we have only to compare current levels in parts of Christchurch with the U.S.

criterion of dangerous levels. The results of the tests described in these articles establish that domestic coal, despite the commonly-held belief, does not contribute to this dangerous level. The coal industry’s continuing efforts in reducing the sulphur content of coals coming into Christchurch are considered sufficient to ensure that domestic coal will not be a serious offender in respect to sulphur in the atmosphere. Pollution Sources

Industrial coal inevitably is a source of sulphur oxides but to a less extent than fuel oil is. Long-term indications are that the potential for lowsulphur coal will make coal a greatly-prefegred industrial fuel over fuel oil, unless oil companies can provide a fuel of comparatively low sulphur content Air pollution comes from many sources other than coal —from the combustion of wood, rubbish, fuel oil, from petrol and diesel in internal combustion engines and from industrial fuels in general. It is quite frequently stated that all air pollution problems in Christchurch are caused by coal, and that the problems will be eliminated by eliminating coal. It is hoped that the arguments developed in these articles will reveal the fallacy in such misconceptions, and reveal the folly of embarking on a policy for the improve-

ment of air pollution based on this fallacy.

Emotion Rampant

It is very much to be regretted that coal seems to have become almost universally recognised as synonymous with air pollution in Christchurch. The complete lack of reason for this misconception does not seem to worry the vocal few, presumably well meaning, who seem unable to imagine that there could be any other source of pollution. Emotionalism is well and truly in the saddle. The emotional flames are fanned by unrestricted, irresponsible statements by ill-informed non-technical people. There seems an urgent need for some unprejudiced levelheaded person with the right technical qualifications to check some of the crazy statements which are being made. Heating At Ilain The latest of such claims —one which, stands as a glaring example of the lack of.

reason which can develop—is that electricity could replace coal for heating the University at Ham, and that the cost of using electricity would be no greater than that of using coal. Using as a basis, a coal consumption at Ham of 3000 tons a year, a boiler thermal efficiency of 75 per cent and a calorific value of the coal of 10,600 Btu/lb, any qualified person could calculate that the electrical energy required to supply the equivalent heat from electric heaters operat-

ing at 100 per cent efficiency, would be 16,200,000 kilowatt hours. The cost of the annual fuel bill for this electricity, at 1 cent per unit, would be 6162,000. The present cost of heating

the University using coal at $13.65 a ton is $41,000 —about one quarter of the cost of electricity. The present annual saving in using coal is $120,000 a year. Within five years when the library and arts block is completed, the heating requirements will be increased by more than 50 per cent The annual saving in fuel cost will then exceed $lBO,OOO. How does the statement “the price of electricity is comparable to coal” manage to go unchallenged? The University’s present

peak demand for steam (at 100 p.s.i.g. from feed water at 180 degrees Farenheit) is 26,0001 b per hour and this will increase to 40,000 —equivalent to an electrical load of 12J megawatts. The problems of finding capital for such peak demands have already been discussed, but comparison of this 121 megawatts with the generating capacity of power stations brings the matter even more quickly into its correct perspective. Lake Coleridge has a rated capacity of 34.5 megawatts. The extra capacity achieved by raising Lake Manapouri the hotly-debated 27 feet has not been definitely stated—the increased storage will obviously allow the station more easily to meet peak demands with varying water flows —but on a straight proportionate basis, the 27-foot increase in level is equivalent to only 25 megawatts!

No Serious Problem There is no serious air pollution problem arising from the Ham boiler-house. The grit arresters and the stack height have been designed to meet the health authorities’ strict specification. A low-sulphur coal is burnt. The only possible alternative .fuel which might be used at Ham is fuel oil, but its use is precluded by its sulphur content. Fuel oil would emit more than twice as much sulphur as issues from the stack at present. It is very easy for the layman to become emotional on matters of air pollution. Pure air has been the accepted right of every New Zealander and it has been with a sense of pride that New Zealanders have compared their young, 'wide-open country with some of the cramped cities over- . seas.

The expansion of New Zealand cities, however, is today bringing some of the air pollution problems found overseas. Of most serious concern is the sulphur pollution in the Auckland and Christi church areas. Naturally the

citizens are concerned, naturally something must be done to halt the noxious menace. In Christchurch domestic coal has become generally accepted as the only source of air pollution against which active steps must be taken. Emotionalism, indeed near hysteria, has demanded all sorts of corrective measures, measures which in most cases mean, the elimination of domestic coal. Men inspired by the highest ideals have seized this suggestion as a panacea to the air-pollu-tion problems, others have seized it because it has meant that at least something is being done. Others, usually unqualified technically, and lacking an understanding of the causes of air pollution, have clambered on the bandwaggon of discon-tent—quick-cure enthusiasts whose single-minded purpose is misdirecting their wellmeaning energies. It has been this unfair and unrealistic criticism of coal as the only source of pollution against which any action need be taken that has prompted this series of articles. If the statements made are too frank, it is because utter frankness is utterly essential at this point. The 1966 report recognised coal as only one of the contributors to air pollution. The coal industry expressed its determmination to reduce the contribution which coal made, and its positive actions along these lines have far exceeded those of any other organisation. The near-hysterical opposition to coal has developed since 1968. It is not hard to understand how the unreasoning accusations against coal as the only source of pollution, and the general condemnation of the coal industry, had alienated the members of the coal industry who seem now to have given up all hope of being able to present their case to a logical audience willing to listen. Thus, the requirements so essential to the solution to Christchurch air pollution—co-operative effort and calm consideration by a well-informed public of all possible contributors seem to have slid away out of our grasp. Not Sole Offender Appreciation of similar problems in Auckland, ' developing under conditions where coal definitely does not contribute, and the careful consideration of the results of measurements made in Christchurch, indicate that i coal is by no means the only source of air pollution which must be considered.

A policy proceeding on the assumption that it is can achieve nothing. On the other hand, it could adversely affect the development of an important indigenous industry, it could put up the cost of living in Christchurch to a stage that residents there will be unfavourably placed relative to other areas. Moreover, concentration of any one contaminant would delay the solution of the over-all problem until the folly of such a course were realised.

Now, before it is too late, there is an urgent need for co-operation between all parties, for» the co-ordinated

effort of a team inspired by one ideal—cleaner air. Cooperation between the coal industry and the air pollution authorities is essential, and naturally this will not be achieved in the atmosphere of mistrust that has grown up. The barriers which have developed must be broken down: people must talk to each other. Above all, let us clear the air of all this muddled emotionalism—before we take some positive and effective steps towards clearing it of its pollutants. (CONCLUDED).