Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T09:53:13.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal Use of Smokestack Scrubber By-Product

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Diane Hite ,
D. Lynn Forster  and
Jon Rausch
Diane Hite
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University
D. Lynn Forster
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University
Jon Rausch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Federal legislation mandates substantial reduction of air pollution emissions from electric utilities. Utilities in Appalachia that use locally mined high-sulfur coal must choose among abatement options such as fuel mixing and smokestack scrubbing technologies. Wet scrubbers are the most frequently adopted abatement technology in Ohio. This paper investigates beneficial reuses of by-product from wet scrubbers. By-product is most often disposed of in landfills, resulting in large external costs. We combine social cost and benefit transfers with a linear optimization model to investigate potential benefits of by-product recycling. Results suggest that significant incentives exist to find beneficial uses for by-product.

Keywords

by-product recyclingenvironmental economicsflue gas desulfurization technologysocial costsbenefits
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , April 1999 , pp. 123 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyle, K. J. and Bergstrom, J. C.. “Benefits Transfer Studies: Myths, Pragmatism and Idealism.” Water Resource Research 29(1992):657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claussen, E. “Acid Rain: The Strategy.” EPA Journal. 17:1(January/February 1991):21–23.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, S. R., Feather, P. M., and Hellerstein, D. R.. “The Benefits of Protecting Rural Water Quality.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics Research Service, Agricultural Report No. 701, 1995.Google Scholar
Deng, Y., Ennich, N., and Hite, D.. “Cost Benefit Analysis of FGD By-product: A Case Study of Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District.” ESO #2000, Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University, 1992.Google Scholar
Driscoll, P., Alwang, J., and Dietz, B.. “Welfare Analysis When Budget Constraints are Nonlinear: The Case of Flood Hazard Protection.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(1994): 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helme, N. and Neme, C.. “Acid Rain: The Problem.” EPA Journal 17:1(January/February 1991): 18–20.Google Scholar
EPA Office of Public Affairs. “ACID RAIN: An EPA Journal Special Supplement.” EPA Journal 12:5(June/July 1986).Google Scholar
Friedman, L. and Hitzhusen, F.. “Hedonic Price Estimation of Strip Mine Impacts on Lakeside Property Values: Some Policy and Appraisal Implications.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1996.Google Scholar
Hite, D. “Estimation of an Environmental Disamenity in the Urban Real Estate Market.” PhD Dissertation, The Ohio State University, June 1995.Google Scholar
Hite, D. “Transferring the Social Costs of Land-filling FGD By-Product in the State of Ohio.” Working Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1995.Google Scholar
Kiel, K. A. and McClain, K. T.. “House Prices through Siting Stages: The Case of an Incinerator from Rumor through Operation.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25(1995):241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), personal communication.Google Scholar
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), personal communication.Google Scholar
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Ohio Solid Waste Facility Data Report. Columbus, OH, 1997.Google Scholar
U.S. Economics and Statistics Administration and Bureau of the Census. The American Almanac: Statistical Abstract of the United States 1993–1994, Table 958. The Reference Press, Austin, TX, 1994.Google Scholar