Min-011 PDF

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
1
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
2
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
3
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 PM-
control 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
4
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.
5
6
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 µm. Thus, the respirable dust concentration is essentially the sub-3.5 µm 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).
7
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 water-
scrubber) 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.
8
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 it’s
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 off-
highway 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.
9
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 vehicle’s duty cycle. Category B vehicles can be classified as being heavy-
duty (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-federally-
regulated, heavy-duty production equipment used in metal and nonmetal mines for the
purposes of this discussion. Examples of this equipment include scoop-trams or load-
haul-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 lead-
zinc mines, use diesel equipment with modern, turbocharged DI engines having power-
output ratings of 270 to 400 b.h.p., and in some cases exceeding 500 b.h.p. Current PM-
emission 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 heavy-
duty 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 light-
duty 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 PM-
emission 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 mass-
emissions 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 industry’s 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 (ηth), 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:
ηth,biodiesel = ηth,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
worker’s 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. The amount of PM reductions that could be realistically expected in the field

2. The current level of usage of a particular technology for PM-control in underground mines
3. The types of vehicles that the PM-control could be used with
4. 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 Engines After-
treatment
Type OEM Model Vehicle OEM Model Displace- Power Options
Classification ment (in3) (b.h.p.)
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST2D Heavy-duty, Deutz F6L- 345 82
Nonpermissible 912W
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST6C Heavy-duty, Deutz F10L- 973 231
Nonpermissible 413FW
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST6C (opt.) Heavy-duty, DDC 6043- 519 250
Nonpermissible GK32
Series 50
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST8B Heavy-duty, DDC 6063- 677 325
Nonpermissible GK32
Series 60
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST8B (opt.) Heavy-duty, Deutz F12L- 1168 277
Nonpermissible 413FW
CDPF, DOC
LHD Wagner ST15Z Heavy-duty, DDC 6063- 775 475
Nonpermissible GK32
Series 60
RFC-DPF,
Utility Getman 576 - 6 pass. Light-duty, Isuzu C240 146 57
DOC
Nonpermissible
RFC-DPF,
Utility Getman 576 - 9 pass. Light-duty, Isuzu 4BD1 238 79
DOC
Nonpermissible
Coal Jefferey 4110 Category A MWM 916-6 380 94 Water

Hauler Ramcar scrubber,
DDEF
Dry system
Category A
Coal Jefferey 4114 Caterpillar 3306 641 146 Water
Hauler Ramcar PCNA scrubber,
DDEF
Dry system
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
Design cost: (no significant difference in economic model
Installation cost: (no significant difference in economic model
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: Jeffrey 4110 and 4114 Ramcars
Life of DDEF: 3000 hours for the housing. The filter needs
replacement every shift for the 4114, and every 3
shifts for the 4110.
Capital costs: The capital cost for the housing was $5100-
$5600. Filter cost $45 each.
Labor costs: $41.44/hour for design time, $23.04/hour for
installation and maintenance.
Design cost: Labor cost of 16 hours @ 41.44/hour = $663
Installation cost: Labor cost of 16 hours @ 23.05/hour plus $50
materials cost = $419
Maintenance cost for housing: 10 hours over life of housing @ $23.05/hour /
3000 hrs = $.08/hour.
(Ambs, et al, 1994)
• 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
Biodiesel blend levels with low-sulfur 30%, 50%, 70%, 100%
Life of DOC: 9000 hours
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
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
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
Life of CDPF: 3000 hours
Capital costs: The average of 2 prices for CDPFs sized for each
vehicle, from two suppliers.
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): Light-
duty, 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: Getman 6- and 9-passenger utility vehicles
Number of hours vehicle used per year:
1500
Biodiesel blend levels with low-sulfur
30%, 50%, 100%
Life of DOC: 9000 hours
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 RFC-
DPFs:
Make of vehicle: Getman 6- and 9-passenger utility vehicles
23
Life of RFC-DPF: 3000 hours
Capital costs: The price for one RFC-DPF, sized for each
vehicle, from the lone supplier.
Maintenance cost: 150 hours over life of RFC-DPF @ $18.85/hour x
3000 hrs = $0.94/hour
(Bickel and Taubert)
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 Vehicle Emission control Biodiesel DOC cost DOC and DOC and Emission
life (yrs) use strategy blend level biodiesel cost biodiesel cost control (filter)
(hrs/yr) (%) (biodiesel @ (biodiesel @ cost
$1.50/gal) $3.00/gal)
ST2D 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $6,756 $34,000 $83,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $6,756 $55,000 $138,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $6,756 $111,000 $289,000 na
CDPF na na $63,000
ST6C 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $11,053 $75,000 $189,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $11,053 $123,000 $320,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $11,053 $255,000 $675,000 na
CDPF na na $76,000
ST6C (opt.) 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $11,053 $104,000 $271,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $11,053 $175,000 $462,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $11,053 $368,000 $981,000 na
CDPF na na $120,000
ST8B 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $11,660 $122,000 $321,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $11,660 $207,000 $547,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $11,660 $436,000 $1,165,000 na
CDPF na na $190,000
ST8B (opt.) 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $11,660 $75,000 $190,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $11,660 $124,000 $320,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $11,660 $256,000 $676,000 na
CDPF na na $120,000
ST15Z 8 3500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $15,808 $118,000 $302,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 50% $15,808 $197,000 $513,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $15,808 $409,000 $1,085,000 na
CDPF na na $191,000
Getman 12 1500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $3,527 $12,000 $27,000 na
575 - 6 pass. Biodiesel/DOC 50% $3,527 $18,000 $45,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $3,527 $36,000 $92,000 na
RFC-DPF na na $60,000
Getman 12 1500 Biodiesel/DOC 30% $3,527 $15,000 $36,000 na
575 - 9 pass. Biodiesel/DOC 50% $3,527 $24,000 $61,000 na
Biodiesel/DOC 100% $3,527 $49,000 $126,000 na
RFC-DPF na na $66,000
1
Jeffrey 8 3900 Biodiesel 30% na $44,000 $123,000 na
1
4110 Biodiesel 50% na $78,000 $214,000 na
1
Biodiesel 100% na $169,000 $459,000 na
DDEF na na $114,000
1
Jeffrey 8 3900 Biodiesel 30% na $53,000 $148,000 na
1
4114 Biodiesel 50% na $94,000 $257,000 na
1
Biodiesel 100% na $203,000 $553,000 na
DDEF na na $208,000
1
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 RFC-
DPFs.
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 Capacity HP Number Vehicle life Hours of Diesel fuel Emission
Equipment of (yrs) operation/yr use/vehicle Control
vehicles (gal/hr)
LHD 8 yd 277 3 8 3500 8.3 CDPF
LHD 6 yd 231 5 8 3500 6.9 CDPF
Haul Truck 26 T 271 6 8 3900 8 CDPF
Roof Tower na 186 2 10 2200 5.6 CDPF
Grader na 95 1 10 2400 2.8 CDPF
Drill Jumbo na 82 9 10 2300 2.5 CDPF
Roof Bolter na 82 1 9 3000 2.5 CDPF
Lube truck na 82 1 12 1500 2.5 RFC-DPF
Scaler na 82 1 12 1500 2.5 RFC-DPF
Service vehicles na 82 4 12 1500 2.5 RFC-DPF
Tractor na 52(ave) 7 10 2100 1.6 RFC-DPF
Table 3: Case study metal mine: equipment list, emission controls and
fuel use
28
Type of Capacity HP Number of Vehicle life Hours of Diesel fuel Emission
Diesel vehicles (yrs) operation/yr use/vehicle Control
Equipment (gal/hr)
Ramcar 14 T 150 5 8 3900 6.5 DDEF

Coal scoop 5T 150 2 8 3900 4.5 DDEF
LHD 1/2 yd 42 2 8 1000 1.3 RFC-DPF
Generator 200 kw 285 1 12 3000 14.8 na
Personnel 6-pass 57 2 12 1500 1.7 RFC-DPF
carrier
Lube truck na 82 3 12 1500 2.5 RFC-DPF
Crane truck na 82 2 12 1500 2.5 RFC-DPF
Forklift na 82 1 12 1600 2.5 RFC-DPF
Utility truck na 57 6 12 1500 1.7 RFC-DPF
Grader na 56 1 10 2400 1.7 RFC-DPF
Welder na 55 1 12 1400 1.7 RFC-DPF
Tractor na 16 2 10 2100 0.5 RFC-DPF
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 Competing Emission Biodiesel Fuel

Variables Selected Controls
Discount Biodiesel Biodiesel Disc. emission Particulate Disc. DOC Particulate
rate (%) cost ($/gal) blend level control and reduction with and additional reduction with
(%) additional fuel emission fuel cost Biodiesel and
cost controls DOCs
12% $1.50 30% $2,941,000 69% $1,419,000 22%
12% $1.50 50% $2,941,000 69% $2,237,000 37%
12% $1.50 100% $2,941,000 69% $4,452,000 73%
12% $3.00 30% $2,941,000 69% $3,341,000 22%
12% $3.00 50% $2,941,000 69% $5,531,000 37%
12% $3.00 100% $2,941,000 69% $11,498,000 73%
14% $1.50 30% $2,609,000 69% $1,252,000 22%
14% $1.50 50% $2,609,000 69% $1,970,000 37%
14% $1.50 100% $2,609,000 69% $3,915,000 73%
14% $3.00 30% $2,609,000 69% $2,939,000 22%
14% $3.00 50% $2,609,000 69% $4,862,000 37%
14% $3.00 100% $2,609,000 69% $10,102,000 73%
16% $1.50 30% $2,343,000 69% $1,117,000 22%
16% $1.50 50% $2,343,000 69% $1,755,000 37%
16% $1.50 100% $2,343,000 69% $3,483,000 73%
16% $3.00 30% $2,343,000 69% $2,616,000 22%
16% $3.00 50% $2,343,000 69% $4,325,000 37%
16% $3.00 100% $2,343,000 69% $8,980,000 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
70
Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

Particulate Reduction % 0.4
Reduction in ambient PM concentration
60 Disc.Cost/ T.
0.35
50
0.3
40 0.25
0.2
30
0.15
20
0.1
10
0.05
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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 heavy-
duty 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 Discounted cost over
concentration (%) life of mine
PM-control Exhaust Biodiesel Exhaust Biodiesel and
Strategy Aftertreatment and DOCs Aftertreatment DOCs
PM-controls PM-controls
Biodiesel and - 67 - $3,590,000
DOCs on heavy-
duty equipment
CDPFs on heavy- 63 - $2,042,000 -
duty equipment
Biodiesel and - 6 - $ 325,000
DOCs on light-
duty equipment
RFC-DPFs on 6 - $ 567,000 -
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 Competing Emission Biodiesel Fuel

Variables Selected Controls
Discount Biodiesel Biodiesel Disc. emission Particulate Disc. DOC Particulate
rate (%) cost ($/gal) blend level control and reduction with and additional reduction with
(%) additional fuel emission fuel cost Biodiesel and
cost controls DOCs
12% $1.50 30% $1,942,000 73% $631,000 22%
12% $1.50 50% $1,942,000 73% $1,034,000 37%
12% $1.50 100% $1,942,000 73% $2,124,000 73%
12% $3.00 30% $1,942,000 73% $1,577,000 22%
12% $3.00 50% $1,942,000 73% $2,655,000 37%
12% $3.00 100% $1,942,000 73% $5,593,000 73%
14% $1.50 30% $1,718,000 73% $557,000 22%
14% $1.50 50% $1,718,000 73% $910,000 37%
14% $1.50 100% $1,718,000 73% $1,868,000 73%
14% $3.00 30% $1,718,000 73% $1,388,000 22%
14% $3.00 50% $1,718,000 73% $2,334,000 37%
14% $3.00 100% $1,718,000 73% $4,914,000 73%
16% $1.50 30% $1,538,000 73% $497,000 22%
16% $1.50 50% $1,538,000 73% $811,000 37%
16% $1.50 100% $1,538,000 73% $1,662,000 73%
16% $3.00 30% $1,538,000 73% $1,235,000 22%
16% $3.00 50% $1,538,000 73% $2,076,000 37%
16% $3.00 100% $1,538,000 73% $4,368,000 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
70
0.4
Reduction in ambient PM concentration (%)
Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

60
Particulate Reduction % 0.35
Disc.Cost/ T.
50
0.3
40 0.25
0.2
30
0.15
20
0.1
10
0.05
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
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
Reduction in ambient PM Discounted cost over
concentrations(%) life of mine
PM-control Strategy Exhaust Biodiesel Exhaust Biodiesel
Aftertreatment Aftertreatmen
PM-controls t PM-controls
Biodiesel (no DOC) on heavy- - 47 - $ 1,133,000
duty equipment
DDEFs used on heavy-duty 60 - $ 1,042,000 -
equipment
Biodiesel and DOC on light- - 22 - $ 708,000
duty equipment
RFC-DPFs on light-duty 13 - $ 676,000 -
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 PM-
control 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 light-
duty 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 PM-
emissions, 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 certification-
style 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 PM-
emissions 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 diesel-
powered 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 Heavy-
Duty 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 Operating cost ($/hour)

Vehicle capital cost
Electric Diesel Biodiesel Other Total
power fuel fuel with operating operating
DOC costs costs
10-ton electric $208,400 $2.51 na na $8.91 $11.42
coal hauler
10-ton diesel- $239,800 na $3.78 na $10.32 $14.10
powered
coal hauler
10-ton $239,800 na na $9.31 $10.32 $19.63
biodiesel-
powered
coal hauler
1
Diesel fuel cost of $0.70/gallon.
2
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

Min-011 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Min-011 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF BIODIESEL BLENDS TO

COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE EXHAUST EMISSION

Final Report to the National Biodiesel Board

Joseph McDonald, Research Fellow

University of Minnesota - Center for Diesel Research

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES...........................................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................4

II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................7

List of Tables and Figures

In 1995, MSHA convened a committee to recommend regulations to minimize DPM exposure

Current U.S. Air Quality Regulations in Underground Mines

Certification, Approval, and Regulation of Diesel Equipment in Underground Mines

Category A (Permissible Diesel Equipment) - “Category A” certification under 30 CFR, Part 7,

Category B (Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment) - “Category B” certification under 30 CFR,

f MSHA considers “Certification” to be mandatory and “Approval” to be voluntary.

Diesel-powered Underground Mining Equipment, PM-controls, and Terminology

1) Category A equipment: This equipment is often referred to as permissible diesel

• Waterbath Exhaust Conditioners: Waterbath exhaust conditioners, more

2) Heavy-duty, nonpermissible equipment: Although some heavy-duty nonpermissible

3) Light-duty, nonpermissible equipment: This category includes most Category B

Vehicle Life and Usage

Vehicle Emissions and Emissions Controls

Fuel consumption and Costs

[QLHV * BSFC]biodiesel = [QLHV * BSFC]petrodiesel

[BSFC]biodiesel = [QLHV * BSFC]petrodiesel

Vehicle Selection for Cost Analysis

Selection of PM-Emission Controls

1. The amount of PM reductions that could be realistically expected in the field

The following four PM-emissions controls were selected:

Coal Jefferey 4110 Category A MWM 916-6 380 94 Water

Representative heavy-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with

Representative heavy-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with

Representative light-duty nonpermissible vehicles evaluated for this study with

Light-duty Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment: Biodiesel appears to be a better alternative to

1) Accept $1,000.00 today, or

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.)

Ramcar 14 T 150 5 8 3900 6.5 DDEF

Yearly fuel consumption for each type of diesel-powered equipment

Combination of Competing Emission Biodiesel Fuel

Table 7: Metal mine - combinations of discount rate, biodiesel cost, and

Effect of Discount Rates

Effect of Blend Levels and Biodiesel Cost

Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

Effect of Mine Life

Effect of Targeting Heavy-duty, Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment

Effect of Targeting Light-duty, Nonpermissible Diesel Equipment

Combination of Competing Emission Biodiesel Fuel

Table 9: Coal mine - combinations of discount rate, biodiesel cost, and

Effect of Blend Level and Biodiesel Cost

Effect of Mine Life

Effect of Targeting Category A Diesel Equipment

Effect of Targeting Light-duty (Nonpermissible) Diesel Equipment

Discounted biodiesel and DOC cost/ton

Effect of Lost Production (coal mine using DDEFs)

Biodiesel at $3.00/gal was too expensive to use with Category A, heavy-duty

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1995. Annual Reports on the

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Airborne Contaminants

Watts, W. F., Jr. University of MN. Personal communication, 1997.

Waytulonis, R. W., and K. L. Bickel. Status of Developments in Diesel Engine Control

Type of Vehicle Operating cost ($/hour)