Past and Future of Coal Energy

#### **Chapter 1**

## Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco?

*Oluwafikemi Iji*

#### **Abstract**

There is an urgent need to address the ever-growing concerns about the long-term impacts of coal mining as a cheap energy source in the 21st century because the consequence of inaction threatens the health of the environment, which is inextricably linked to human health. The discovery of the world's largest solid fuel no doubt brought about industrial and modern technology revolution, but its cost on air, water, land, ecosystem, animal, and human health has brought about new realities that intreat urgent action. As humans, we sit on top of the food chain perpetuating our dominance over other species and studies have shown that with regards to the battle for the earth, human needs come first. To maintain a sustainable ecosystem, we need to foster a mutually beneficial relationship that promotes both the health and sustainability of our environment. A targeted transition away from coal to cleaner forms of energy will undeniably benefit the ecosystems, however appropriate measures are needed to continually reduce the environmental footprint, of the most available energy source so we can protect both the environment and human health.

**Keywords:** coal, mining, pollution, environment, global warming

#### **1. Introduction**

There are numerous economic and immediate benefits arising from coal mining [1] because it is a cheaper energy source and power drives the economy, hence, increased demand by many countries despite mounting evidence that using coal as an energy source poses serious threats to both humans, animals, and the environment, we share [2].

All phases of coal utilization involve many hazardous aspects [3]. Coal mining processes require major earth movements which disrupt and/or damage vegetation and topsoil, leaving mined areas prone to erosion. When coal is burned it also releases harmful pollutants into the atmosphere and this contributes to the climate change crisis, acid rain, and various respiratory health problems, and its left-over waste also poses the risk of water pollution and loss of habitat to wildlife [4, 5].

Coal is a non-renewable energy resource [6], which when mined, becomes difficult to clean up. It leaves an undesirable, long-term effect on the environment as many old mines are abandoned when it is no longer profitable to mine, desperately leaving the sites needing reclamation and/or remediation.

#### **1.1 History of coal mining**

The "black gold" as it was called when it was first discovered, is the most abundant fossil fuel on earth [7]. Coal mining, by definition, is the extraction of coal deposits from the surface of the earth and from underground. History showed that this energy source powered the Industrial Revolution. Large-scale exploitation of coal deposits was largely responsible for industrialization that occurred in that era: between the 18th–19th century.

Archeological evidence from the bronze age period from 3000 to 4000 years ago suggests the use of coal in funeral pyres in Wales. The Chinese earliest mentions of a coal mine being opened was over 3000 years ago and the Romans were the first recorded to have used coal more extensively; they used coal as fuel to heat baths, ornaments, iron forging, and for religious ceremonies and coal was used to worship the goddess of wisdom, Minerva [7, 8].

Around the 1700s due to the population boom, the demand for coal exploded. The invention of the steam engine helped the mining companies overcome the issue of flooded mines as water could be pumped out, which allowed coal mines to delve deeper into the ground [8]. The mines became not only deeper, but also more dangerous, with other threats arising from explosives, poisonous gases, and possible collapse of coal mines [9]. Nowadays, coal continues to be used directly (heating) and indirectly (producing electricity). It is used as fuel around the world, and in developing countries, it is the leading choice of energy [10].

Individual households and industrial furnaces use coal directly through burning. Widespread indirect use involves the use of coal to generate electricity [11]. Coalfired power plants are arguably the most popular ways to produce and distribute electricity. Coal-fired power plants combust coal to power boilers whose steam is used to turn turbines to activate generators that produce electricity [12]. Likewise, the use of metallurgical coke for steelmaking has been a major driver for technological innovations [13]. Many countries generate electricity through coal-fired plants [14]. There is no denying the contribution and importance of coal to the world's energy budget. Its relative ease of extraction and ubiquitous nature, make it desirable for use as an energy source [15]. Coal production is not weather dependent, and upon mining it becomes very readily available for use all year round.

#### **1.2 What is coal?**

Coal is made up of trapped carbon and hydrogen-rich material, whose energy is released following combustion. Coal is a sedimentary rock that is usually either black or brownish-black in color [16]. Coal formation began hundredths of millions of years ago when plants, which were once alive, die with their stored solar energy acquired through photosynthesis [17]. The plants then began the process of decay. And this process of decomposing becomes intercepted for thousands of years, allowing for pressure and heat buildup on top of the plant remains and also for further physicochemical changes, which force oxygen out, such that its remains turn into coal [18].

Since coal is subjected to different phases of carbonization over millions of years, it is usually found at different stages of development [19]. There are several types of coal ranked according to how much it has changed over time. The general rule is that the deeper the coal seam, the more the temperature and pressure the coal becomes subjected to, and the greater its transformation into carbon [20].

*Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

#### *1.2.1 Types of coal*

Lignite - This coal is the lowest rank of coal. It contains low amounts of energy its carbon content is about 25–35%. It comes from relatively young coal deposits. Lignite contains more moisture than other types of coal, usually crumbly brown and susceptible to fortuitous combustion.

Sub-Bituminous Coal - Contains more carbon than lignite, about 35–45%. In many parts of the world, sub-bituminous coal is considered "brown coal," along with lignite. Like lignite, sub-bituminous coal is mainly used as fuel for generating electricity.

Bituminous coal is formed under more heat and pressure and is usually between 100 and 300 million years old. It is named after the sticky, tar-like substance called bitumen and contains about 45–86% carbon. There are three types: smithing coal, coking coal, and cannel coal. Anthracite - This is referred to as the peak coal. With the most abundant carbon (97%), it contains the most energy. It is harder, denser, and glossier than other types of coal. It burns cleanly with very little soot and is used in water-filtration systems. (Source: Coal 101, Student Energy, www.studentenergy.org).

#### **2. Coal form an ego standpoint**

The worldwide consumption of coal as an energy source is quite extensive [14]. In South Africa 93% of electricity is generated by coal [21]. About 45% of the US national grid is coal driven while countries like China, India, Russia, and Australia are also heavily reliant on coal-powered energy [22]. The economics that drives the coal mining industry is huge, providing millions of people worldwide with jobs. Many of them have a wide range of knowledge and skills, ranging from miners to chemists, engineers, geologists, etc.

The coal industry is deemed critical to development in both the developed and developing world. Although as non-renewable energy, we cannot add to the world's coal, and it may not be available forever. However, with approximately 11 trillion tons of coal distributed worldwide, and recoverable coal estimated at 760 billion tons (Europe 49%, North America 29%, Asia 14%, Australia 6%, Africa, and South America 1% each), coal mining would still be around for a long time [7].

While coal by far is considered the dirtiest fossil fuel there is in terms of carbon emissions and air pollution [23], arguments to support its use as a way of life from a cultural and political standpoint continues to be made, despite evidence of the environmental cost and the health care cost [24], especially in comparison to other energy sources like natural gas and renewables like solar and wind.

In the US, some lawmakers continue to make the case for coal by appealing to people's sense of history and heritage. Blocking legislation that would speed the country's transition away from coal to other clean energy sources, and advocating to relax environmental legislations that hold them accountable for pollution, serves only the interests of the energy-producing companies [25]. The argument that the environmental cost of coal extraction pales in comparison to the economic toll, is one that many environmentalists find insupportable because they believe that this threat is beyond economic, and should, first and foremost, be a moral issue; an obligation owed to the planet.

Coal amongst other energy sources is a necessity for the developed world to maintain their prosperity and the developing ones to push to lessen poverty. It is pivotal to economic growth, infrastructural development and urbanization [26]. The demand for roads, airports and housing drives those of electricity, steel and cement typically rely on coal to fuel their production. Coal retains its prominence because of the global energy demand.

#### **2.1 The energy-manipulating machine**

There is no doubt that the world has largely become a consumerist society, especially in the developed countries where the means, the purchasing power, and the resources are replete.

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) the British Philosopher, termed energy as being fundamentally responsible for material inequities between societies. The richer countries produce and have access to more energy than they need when compared to the poorer countries. There was the belief that a society that harnessed the most energy from its resources was by far superior [27].

Historically, Wilhelm Ostwald described energy transformation from its crude form into its useful form as the base for all social change "a guideline for cultural development" [28]. The race to exploit these natural resources was seen as a means of emancipation and empowerment [29–31]. so much so that even leaders of the communist revolution in Russia, thought electrification could be an agenda towards "true communism" [32]. The Germans on the other hand, through their engineers, were innovators in the field of electric power generation and transmission, they promoted the idea of surpassing profit with efficiency, making efficiency the primary regulator of the economy [33].

Whatever ideology drove massive energy production, profit was at its core, some ideologies even subscribed to the use of energy as a form of currency to replace gold [34]. Energy producers designed ways to market their products in a way that interacted with societies, cultures, economics, and the environment [35]. The societies measured value based on what was owned; soon the race to possess numerous gadgets which required power to run, became a fad. Unaware, the public was successfully programmed into making consumption a way of life.

In Germany for example, there was an economic boom post-WWII, and increasing the sales of electricity became part of the social construct for nation-building, due to mass consumption. An assortment of electricity advertisements marketed modernity, freedom, leisure, and progress as their subtexts. France on the other hand, marketed a new social order reinforced by electricite de France, promoting a rapid accumulation of appliances in households, for comfort and then later, as lifestyle objects [36].

Many high-energy consuming countries were not formed through cultural exemplifications of energy alone, but also, by the actual consumption patterns. Electricity utility companies envisioned households as a part of their production and marketing strategy and used appliances to shape consumer practices.

#### **2.2 Making a case for coal**

There's undoubtedly, a huge skepticism when it comes to clean coal and quite frankly, it sounds paradoxical to use the label 'clean coal,' considering how inherently dirty and destructive the mining process is, from extraction to utilization. There has been a concerted effort since the first coal-fired generator began running in England back in the late 1800s to find cleaner ways to burn coal and this continues to develop.

#### *Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

Progress has been made from burning coal inside homes to moving power plants with tall smokestacks outside of cities, thus, reducing the immediate problem of inhaling soot. Further advancement came with the technology of installing filters to retain particulates and scrubbers to trap the sulfur gases that were generating acid rain [37]. The newest technological advances are now able to capture CO2, preventing its release into the atmosphere. The trace metals and sulfur are concentrated as coal waste stored in slurry ponds or landfills as fly ash and gypsum. However, occasionally due to flooding or procedural mishap, some of this waste spill into rivers.

Although the older coal power plants were more notorious for releasing pollutants, some people continue to make the case that deploying higher-tech plants with lower emissions, such as the ultra-supercritical plants, which also have lower operational and maintenance costs technologies may be beneficial, the downside is that they are more capital intensive [38]. In general, as operations become more advanced in tech, they become cleaner and more efficient, and require less human involvement, thus reducing potential hazards to miners and the workforce.

Advocating for stricter emission standards has been the view of many environmental stakeholders. In China, for example, there has been a steady tightening of pollution emissions standards as Beijing rolled out a new air quality monitoring system that provides real-time information on air quality across the nation [39], pressured by its citizens, authorities abandoned the previously subjective air quality reporting system [40]. Currently, China's new air pollution emissions standards for new and existing coal-fired power plants are sturdier than those from the European Union and the United States [41].

One of the strongest advocacies for the continued interest in coal mining has been that the world's economy may collapse if we move away since power drives the economy. The livelihoods of many people depend on the extractive industries and even for some, it is an identity and a way of life. China's newer power plants are becoming more efficient in terms of labor, employing fewer human hands [42]. The coal sector in China was expected to lay off approximately 1.3 million workers between 2016 to 2020 [43]. Similar pattern is recounted in the US where coal mining employment has been experiencing a steady decline [44–46]. A shift from labor-intensive underground mining in the East to highly mechanized surface mining in the West is responsible for the decline in employment [47]. Other associated factors are the falling demand for coal and electricity, price drop for natural gas, solar, and wind which serve as alternative renewable sources, and the rising energy efficiency [48].

The simple fact shows that in the United States new jobs are being added in the renewable energy sector [49], which competes favorably with coal-fired electricity generation—particularly shale gas, wind, and solar. Similarly, U.S. electric utility executives are directing their business models towards renewable options—and away from coal [50]. Some visionary leaders are making strategic choices in the direction they want their country to go especially in China, where the political will is rooted in both international and domestic pressure, however just like in the rest of the world, vested interests serve as a political clog in the wheels of accelerated progress.

Coal remains abundant and cheap as an energy source, the question then arises if the fact justify the true cost paid by the people whose lives are profoundly altered through exposure to hazardous materials, or the communities who breathe air polluted by coal or mining dust, or drink water contaminated by coal mines or coal combustion residues [51–53]. The scale of pollution that coal generates at every step when compared to other sources make it an environmental liability. If new technologies

were adequate to remove air and other forms of pollutants from coal, if CO2 were captured and stored safely in underground reserves, perhaps there would be less call to shift from fossil fuels to alternative sources.

#### **3. Coal form an eco-standpoint**

One of the most powerful tools for many fossil fuel energy companies has been the power of denial. The intentional and persistent denial of the link between their activities and the climate change crisis. There is an alleged campaign of deception and misinformation which has been since the early 1990s. The World Coal Institute's position was that: "model-based projections are controversial, uncertain, and without confirmation, and that scientists were divided in their opinion about the likelihood and consequences of climate change" [54].

With almost 40% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions arising from burning coal, the environmental effects of the coal industry seem harmful, producing gases such as carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur trioxide (SO3), nitric oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) [55, 56]. A report suggested that considering the severe damaging effects on human health and environmental health, that it needs to be addressed as a public health issue [57]. Occupational hazards to miners resulting from accidents and also to their health are of serious concern, an example is black lung disease (coal workers' pneumoconiosis) [58].

Although many corporations are largely not held accountable for the damage they create, by releasing lead, mercury, selenium, and other toxicants into the environment, this raises serious moral and ethical issues because it puts humans and the planet at risk. At the least, these threats should trigger precautionary measures even if direct cause and effect correlation has not been fully elucidated [59]. The onus probandi then lies with the coal industry that no harm is caused [60].

#### **3.1 Environmental concerns and consequences**

#### *3.1.1 Land*

The environmental impacts of coal mining are dramatic. Due to major earth movements, the landscape is torn apart, destroying habitats and entire ecosystems. Mining also causes landslides and subsidence (when the ground begins to sink or cave in), thus reducing the value of the natural environment in the surrounding land [61], or rendering the land completely unusable.

Vegetation, wildlife, and habitat, general topography are usually sacrificed in areas subjected to mining [62]. Paleontological, cultural, and archeological loss may ensue due to the blasting, ripping, and excavation processes [63]. Heavy hauling of soil and coal increases dust dispersal during mining operations which degrade air quality and impacts vegetation. Waste piles accumulate, and there is a loss of topsoil, forming large infertile wastelands [64]. The whole sight, sound, and smell of a mined area may become affected.

#### *3.1.2 Water*

Coal mining activities can constitute a major and persistent source of pollution to water bodies either directly or indirectly. This presents harmful consequences

#### *Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

to aquatic animals, poses risks to humans who are downstream end users, hinders aquatic activities, and impairs the quality of water for use [65]. Other changes may affect the physicochemical and biological characteristics of the water bodies in a manner that potentially threatens the organisms inhabiting the water, the aquatic ecosystems, and biodiversity [66] which may then upset ecological and ecosystem services, disturbing its quality and productivity.

One major way coal mining activities usually contribute to water pollution is by promoting an acid mine drainage environment. It happens when chemical changes occur from weathering of minerals (pyrite) which contacts water and air, then discharges with the resultant release of metals, generating acidity (sulfuric acid) to receiving waterbodies [67]. Waste piles also contribute to the deterioration of water quality, groundwater contamination, toxic trace elements, and the presence of highly dissolved solids. Coal-fired boilers, using either coal or lignite rich in limestone also contribute to salinity in water bodies [68].

#### *3.1.3 Air*

Burning coal releases gases and particulates that are harmful to the environment. Hazardous air pollutants emitted from coal-fired plants include toxic heavy metals (e.g., As, Pb, Cd, Se, Hg), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and radioactive elements (e.g., uranium, radium, thorium) [69].

Particulates (fly ash), and fugitive dust released are a risk to humans, animals, and the environment. Coal dust are respiratory irritants that have been linked to black lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and silicosis [70]. Likewise, the potential health impacts of nanoparticles generated during coal mining and coal combustion continue to raise questions [71], and reports of increasing human morbidity and mortality in people living near and far from coal power plants owing to air pollution are disturbing [72].

The extraction and burning of coal releases sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, which leads to a build-up of greenhouse gases responsible for climate change and global warming [73]. Coal fires emit tons of greenhouse gases, and due to their combustible nature, coal seams can self-ignite and burn underground threatening valuable infrastructures [74]. Lightning, wildfires, and explosives used in the extraction process may also start coal fires which release deleterious gases.

#### **3.2 Global warming and climate change**

Greenhouse gases produced by human activities have been implicated in global warming and rising climate-related surface level air warming [75] which occurs at the rate of 0.8 to 1.3°C, and this assertion is unequivocal. Burning fossil fuel releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, causing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise along with CH4 and to a lesser extent, NO [76]. The observed impact within the scientific community is shifting from that of concern to threats.

Changing weather patterns are significantly changing the timing of the seasons and affecting species and their ecology [77]. The disappearance of glaciers is forcing migration towards the poles to maintain temperature stability. A study showed that since the start of the twentieth century, animals' reproduction and migration occurred earlier than they did when the average global temperature was 1°F cooler [78]. Scientists observed the earlier arrival of migrant birds, the earlier appearance of butterflies, earlier spawning in amphibians, and the earlier flowering of plants [79].

Evidence suggests a broad range of organisms with different geographical distributions have been affected by climatic changes.

Climate change issues have resulted in food and water shortages, and increased the risk of flooding, particularly for those living in poverty [80], and countries that cannot afford the infrastructures to accommodate floods, droughts, severe storms, and epidemics of disease that make them vulnerable. It is projected that by 2065, the community of property reinsurers' losses from climate impacts on the global economy may tend towards bankruptcy if we do not act now to mitigate the risks [81]. Extremes of temperature are reported to account for 9.4% of global deaths (up to 5 million annually) between 2000 and 2019 [82].

#### **4. Human health impact**

#### **4.1 Occupational hazard**

Historically, coal mining is thought to be a very dangerous activity, with attending historical disasters arising from wall failures and vehicle collisions, the danger of suffocation, gas poisoning, and explosions. Many miners die annually, either directly from accidents in coal mines or adverse health consequences. The United States reported an average of 23 coal miners' death per year from 2007 to 2016, while Chinese miners related death around the same time was 6027 [83, 84].

Other risks are those associated with suffocation due to the buildup of hazardous gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen, the risk of explosion from highly flammable gases, and asphyxiation from possible methane poisoning [85].

#### **4.2 Pathophysiology of coal inhalation in humans**

#### *4.2.1 Lungs*

The lungs are the predilection site for air pollutants [86].Coal inhalation triggers several respiratory diseases collectively known as coal mine-dust lung disease which affect the lung health of miners; Silicosis, chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive airway disease, including emphysema and mixed dust pneumoconiosis [87].

Indirect exposure predisposes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory infection, children and the elderly are more vulnerable [88], leading to reduced life expectancy and co-morbidity.

Black lung disease is still common in some mining countries, affecting 4% of US workers and 0.2% percent of China workers. Rates may be higher than reported in some regions, continued prevalence is projected in the future [89].

#### *4.2.2 Heart*

There is a strong correlation between increased risks of coronary artery disease, heart failure, stroke, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and environmental air pollutants [90]. Many other cardiovascular diseases have been specifically linked to contaminants arising from coal and coal processing found in air and water [91].

The pathogenesis of these cardiac diseases is hypothesized to be related to the development of oxidative stress, immune-mediated systemic inflammation, and endothelium dysfunction, resulting in hypertension, cardiac hypertrophy, atherosclerosis, thrombosis, and myocardial ischemic damage [92] which affect the quality of life and could lead to mortality.

#### *4.2.3 Brain*

The human brain is also a likely target for pollutants released from coal burning. It causes brain structural changes, and neuropsychological change alters cognitive development and promotes memory impairment, especially in children [93]. Neurotoxic pollutants are present in coal; As, Hg and Al trigger oxidative stress and apoptosis in the central nervous system [94].

People exposed to arsenic present with axonal degeneration of peripheral nerve and the role of Hg in neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimer's disease has been elucidated, and Hg is reported to be the most substantial trace-element causing an imbalance in the amygdala, hippocampus, and cerebral cortex [95].

Other associated disorders related to coal inhalation include causing possible DNA damage [96], drop in reproductive capacities and infertility [97], fetal- toxicity, and other co-morbidiites [98].

#### **5. The future coal field**

Although coal mining may have earned itself a bad name especially amongst environmentalist, and scientists who have clearly established a link between climate change and coal burning [99] and its potentially dangerous consequences for humanity [100]. Our current reality does not support a total abandonment from coal use, and despite these issues, it is crucial to explore ways to reduce anthropogenic emissions by re-inventing coal utilization for the future. For example, the use of technology for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) or Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions [101], likewise, technological improvements that employ supercritical (SC) and ultra-supercritical (USC) technologies make coal-fired power plants become more efficient and cleaner [102], because it produces smaller amounts of CO2 per unit of electricity generated, and consequently, require less to be captured, this ultimately improves efficiency and cost, and lowers penalties for CO2 release.

Moreover, the fact that in some parts of the world, coal is still the primary source of energy for electricity generation and transitioning to other sources may be costly and difficult, efforts must therefore be geared towards improving fuel combustion efficiency and pollution control equipment performance. Similarly providing much needed funding for equipment upgrading, performance monitoring and diagnostic testing would be immensely beneficial to curbing pollution [103].

Offering incentives to continue research and development towards a near-zero emission technology can further help make the case for the continued use of the world's most abundant solid fuel [104]. The integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is said to have the potential to achieve higher efficiency, it is intended to decarbonize coal combustion and these system technologies when refined, can be deployed for commercialization purposes [105].

#### **6. Conclusion**

Coal as an energy source has contributed tremendously to industrialization and technological advancement and the argument is not to shut down all coal plants by tomorrow, but to acknowledge its setbacks as a power-generating source that competes with the essential elements necessary for human survival: water and air. That in mind should be a driver towards being intentional about putting adequate measures in place to preserve human health and protect the environment.

Unfortunately, neither the producers nor consumers of coal energy are immune from the consequences of the danger the industry poses. The realization that we are all a part of this increasingly vulnerable community, should prompt a new sense of common purpose, that sets the tone for a renewed relationship. The energy conglomerates want to thrive and promote their business, we the consumers understand energy is a necessity for a vibrant economy, however, their activities and our demand should not be solely motivated by the economics of the market which does not account for community and/or environmental consequences of its operations.

There must be a way to expand wealth in a global context without destroying the physical environment on which it depends. Humans have fared well when faced with challenging situations. We have negotiated peace in the time of war, survived and beat a global pandemic, and there is hope that we can find a way to avert this impending and inevitable catastrophe. The entire human enterprise collectively needs to see transitioning to sustainable energy as a global project that could pull us out of the impending natures fury.

Nowadays, alternative fuels (e.g., natural gas, wind energy and solar power) are becoming widely available for generating power [106] and more investments into alternative sources, offer a greater chance of rendering coal mining in some countries uneconomic, especially the older mines. However, the political will to support such projects will be needed. The recent breakthrough announced by US scientists in nuclear fusion [107] involves the technology that could potentially provide near-limitless clean energy, but this development is yet to come to the fore in any major way.

There is optimism for the future in our resourcefulness and creativity to tackle this problem, but time may not be on our side as people around the globe continue to feel the economic impact of climate change and the cost of mitigation becoming unjustifiable.

In conclusion, although technological advancements in the future could make coal utilization cleaner and more efficient, we need to do more in the present. It is worthy of note that cost should not be the reason why the world has not committed to clean energy despite the evidence that millions of jobs will be created, and that the industry is growing faster than fossil fuel-powered industries. Our biggest impediment is change — one that "big coal" does its best to encourage.

*Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

### **Author details**

Oluwafikemi Iji

Federal College of Animal and Production Technology, Institute of Agricultural Research and Training, Moor Plantation, Apata, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

\*Address all correspondence to: fikemi@yahoo.com

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Baiyewu-Teru A. The History of Coal in Nigeria. Abuja, Nigeria: Heinrichböll-stiftung; 2015. Available from: https://ng.boell.org/en/2015/12/03/ history-history-coal-nigeria. Accessed 1 December 2022

[2] Union of Concerned Scientists (2008, updated 2017). Coal and Air Pollution. Available from: http://www.ucsusa.org/ clean\_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html [Accessed: December 7, 2022]

[3] Chadwick MJ, Highton NH, Lindman N. Occupational and Environmental Health Problems from Coal Utilization and Conversion, Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining & Utilization. Oxford: Pergamon press; 1987. pp. 245-281

[4] US Energy Information Administration – (EIA). Independent Statistics and Analysis. Coal Explained: Coal and the Environment. https://www. eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-andthe-environment.php

[5] Mitchell C. Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining. 2022. Available from: https://worldanimalfoundation. org/advocate/wildearth/params/ post/1285440/impacts-of-coal-mining [Accessed: December 7, 2022]

[6] Turgeon A & Morse E. Coal. 2022. Available from: https://education. nationalgeographic.org/resource/coal [Accessed: December 5, 2022]

[7] Ramani RV & Evans MA. Coal Mining. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2020. Available from: https://www.britannica. com/technology/coal-mining [Accessed: December 7, 2022]

[8] Ghosh TK, Prelas MA. Coal. In: Science S, editor. Energy Resources and Systems: Fundamentals and Non-Renewable Resources. Vol. 1. Columbia, USA: Springer Science Business Media; 2009. pp. 159-279

[9] Olney M. A Brief History of Energy – Coal. 2022. Available from: https://www. dyballassociates.co.uk/a-brief-historyof-energy-coal [Accessed: November 23, 2022]

[10] International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook. Paris: IEA; 2016. Available from: https://www.iea.org/ reports/world-energy-outlook-2016, License: CC BY 4.0

[11] World Coal Association Coal & electricity. 2016. Available at: https:// www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/coalelectricity [Accessed: April 20, 2016]

[12] Britannica. The Information Architects of Encyclopaedia. "coal mining". Encyclopedia Britannica. Available from: https://www.britannica. com/facts/coal-mining [Accessed: November 23, 2022]

[13] Kennedy C. The energy embodied in the first and second industrial revolutions. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2020;**24**(4):887-898

[14] Zou C, Zhao Q, Zhang G, Xiong B. Energy revolution: From a fossil energy era to a new energy era. Natural Gas Industry B. 2016;**1**:1-11

[15] Houser T, Bordoff J & Masters P. The State of Coal in the United States. Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy. 2018. Available from: https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/ research/report/state-coal-united-states

[16] Rađenović A. Inorganic constituents in coal. Kemija u Industriji. 2006;**55**(2):65-72

*Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

[17] Hower JC, Rimmer SM, Mastalerz M, Wagner NJ. Notes on the mechanisms of coal metamorphism in the Pennsylvania anthracite fields. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2019;**202**:161-170

[18] Dai S, Bechtel A, Eble CF, Flores RM, French D, Graham IT, et al. Recognition of peat depositional environments in coal: A review. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2020;**219**:103383

[19] O'Keefe JMK, Bechtel A, Christanis K, Dai S, Di Michele WA, Eble CF, et al. On the fundamental difference between coal rank and coal type. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2013;**118**:58-87

[20] Tarafdar A, Sinha A. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Pollution Generated from Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plants: Formation Mechanism, Characterization, and Profiling. In: Agarwal R, Agarwal A, Gupta T, Sharma N, editors. Pollutants from Energy Sources. Energy, Environment, and Sustainability. Singapore: Springer; 2019

[21] Oberschelp C, Pfister S, Raptis CE, Hellweg S. Global emission hotspots of coal power generation. Nature Sustainability. 2019;**2**:113-121

[22] Rauner S, Bauer N, Dirnaichner A, Dingenen RV, Mutel C, Luderer G. Coalexit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts. Nature Climate Change. 2020;**10**:308-312

[23] Liu K, Wang S, Wu Q, Wang L, Ma Q, Zhang L, et al. A highly resolved mercury emission inventory of Chinese coal-fired power plants. Environmental Science & Technology. 2018;**52**(4):2400-2408

[24] Oliveira MLS, da Boit K, Pacheco F, Teixeira EC, Schneider IL, Crissien TJ, et al. Study of coal cleaning rejects

by FIB and sample preparation for HR-TEM: Mineral surface chemistry and nanoparticle-aggregation control for health studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;**188**:662-669

[25] Bogus law D. Joe Manchin's dirty empire. The Intercept. 2021. Available from: https://theintercept. com/2021/09/03/joe-manchin-coalfossil-fuels-pollution/ [Accessed: December 10, 2022]

[26] International Energy Outlook 2007. (IEO) of May 2007. Energy Information Administration. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC. Available from: www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ ieo/index.html

[27] Spencer H. Geddes Shared his Admiration of Electricity as an Agent of Societal Betterment with Many Others. First Principles. New York: Burt AL. 1880. p. 1880

[28] Ostwald W. Energetic Foundations of Cultural Studies. Leipzig: Klinkhardt; 1909

[29] Pursell CW Jr. Domesticating modernity: The electrical Association for Women, 1924-1986. British Journal for the History of Science. 1999;**32**(1):47-67

[30] Cottrell, Frederick W. Energy and Society: The Relation between Energy, Social Changes, and Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.; 1955. pp. 330

[31] Hughes TP. American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm. New York: Viking; 1989. pp. 353-381 Nye: Electrifying America, 304-35

[32] Coopersmith J. The Electrification of Russia, 1880-1926. On Lenin and Soviet

Electrification. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1992. p. 1992

[33] Hellige HD. Economic, energy and material cycles in a secular way perspective: From thermodynamic disenchantment of the world to recycling-oriented growth society. In: Hübinger G, Schulin E, editors. Universal History and National Histories. Rombach: Freiburg im Breisgau; 1994. pp. 291-315

[34] Zachmann K. Efficiency versus value: On the emergence of the conflict between the technical and the economy "concept of economics". History of Technology. 1995;**62**(2):103-131

[35] Howard Scott's Own, Infamous "Hotel Pierre" Address of January "Technocracy". 1993. Available from: http://www.technocracy.org/technicalalliancetn/howard-scott/208-societyscott [Accessed: December 8, 2022]

[36] White LA. Energy and the evolution of culture. American Anthropologist. 1943;**43**(3):335

[37] Bernhardt ES. What does 'Clean Coal' Mean, and Can It Save the Planet? 2017. Available from: https://www.pbs. org/newshour/science/column-cleancoal-mean-can-save-planet [Accessed: December 12, 2022]

[38] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants (U.S. Department of Energy). 2016. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/ studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/ capcost\_assumption.pdf

[39] Jinran Z. Monitoring Network to be Further Expanded. China Daily. 2017. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ china/2017-04/07/content\_28827498.htm

[40] Xinhua. Beijing No Longer Counting 'Blue Sky days. ChinaDaily. 2012. Available from: http://usa. chinadaily.com.cn/china/201206/06/ content\_15476803.htm

[41] Guo Jia Fa Zhan Gai Ge Wei (National Development and Reform Commission), Huan Jing Bao Hu Bu (Ministry of Environmental Protection), and Guo Jia Neng Yuan Ju (National Energy Administration). Mei dian jie neng jian pai sheng ji yu gai zao xing dong ji hua (2014-2020 nian) (Coal-Fired Energy-Savings, Emissions Reduction, Upgrade, and Transformation Action Plan (2014- 2020)). 2014. Available from: http:// www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/gwy/201409/ W020140925407622627853.pdf.

[42] Waigaoqiao No. 3 Power Station Leadership Team, Interviews with Authors, Shanghai, December 2016. For more about Waigaoqiao and its Technology, see Thomas W. Overton. Top Plants: Shanghai Waigaoqiao No. 3, Shanghai, China. POWER. 2015. Available from: http://www.powermag. com/shanghai-waigaoqiao-no-3 shanghai-china/?pagenum=1

[43] Winter Nie. Here's Why China Laying Off 1.8 Million Workers Is Actually Good News. Fortune. 2016. Available from: http://fortune.com/2016/03/03/ china-mass-layoffs-steel-coal/

[44] Mine Safety and Health Administration, Coal Employment by State and County (CY 2009-2015) (U.S. Department of Labor). Available from: https://www.msha.gov/sites/default/ files/Data\_Reports/Charts/Coal\_ Employment\_by\_State\_and\_County\_ CY09to15.pdf [Accessed: April 2017]

[45] Personal Communication from Mine Safety and Health Administration Regarding its Forthcoming Coal Employment and Production Report, CY 2012 to 2016. U.S. Department of Labor. Available from: www.msha.gov. 2017

*Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

[46] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Today in Energy: Quarterly Coal Production Lowest Since the Early 1980s. 2016. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ detail.php?id=26612.

[47] U.S Department of Energy. Quadrennial Energy Review: Transforming the Nation's Electricity System: The Second Installment of theQER. 2017.Available from: https:// energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/02/ f34/Quadrennial%20Energy%20 ReviewSecond%20Installment%20 %28Full%20Report%29.pdf

[48] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Today in Energy: Natural Gas Prices in 2016 were the Lowest in Nearly 20 Years. 2017. Available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ detail.php?id=29552.

[49] U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy and Employment Report. 2017. Available from: https://energy.gov/ sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20 US%20Energy%20and%20Jobs%20 Report\_0.pdf

[50] Fu S, Renick O. AEP's CEO Weighs in on Trump's Energy Plan. New York, USA: Bloomberg; 2017. Available from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ videos/2017-03-28/aep-s-ceo-weighs-inon-trump-s-energy-plan-video

[51] US National Library of Medicine. Medline Plus.Available from: https:// medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000130. htm [Accessed: December 29, 2022]

[52] Bernhardt ES, Lutz BD, King RS, Fay JP, Carter CE, Helton AM, et al. How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environmental Science & Technology. 2012;**46**:8115

[53] Hendryx M, Ahern MM. Relations between health indicators and residential proximity to coal mining in West Virginia. American Journal of Public Health. 2008;**98**(4):669

[54] E-coal. World Coal Institute Briefing no. 7. New York: INC 5; 1992

[55] Orem H, Finkelman RB. Coal formation and geochemistry. Treatise on Geochemistry. 2003;**7**:191-222

[56] Munawer ME. Human health and environmental impacts of coal combustion and post-combustion wastes. Journal of Sustainability Mining. 2018;**17**:87-96

[57] Union of Concerned Scientists. Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: Air Pollution. Reports & multimedia/ explainer. Retrieved 9 December 2022. Abelard.org (2018 January 13) Way back Machine, Fossil fuel disasters. 2005

[58] Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle. Available from: http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3. html [Accessed: December 12, 2022]

[59] Gilbert SG. Public Health and the Precautionary Principle, Northwest Public Health. Washington, D.C USA: University of Washington School of Public Health & Community Medicine, Spring/Summer; 2005. Available from: https://www.tpchd.org/files/ library/427d8e6368fb4b6c.pdf [Accessed: 12 December 2022]

[60] Hamilton MS. Mining environmental policy: Comparing Indonesia and the USA. In: Ashgate Studies in Environmental Policy and Practice. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing; 2005 ISBN 978-0-7546-4493-4

[61] U.S. Department of the Interior. Permanent Regulatory Program

Implementing Section 01(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977: Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, D.C; U.S. Department of the Interior; 1979

[62] United States Department of the Interior Coal. Construction and mining impacts. In: The Wayback Machine. Washington, D.C.: Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Tribal Energy and Environmental Information Clearinghouse (TEEIC); 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2022

[63] Nordquist M, Nandan SN. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Volume VII: A Commentary. Vol. 7. Leiden, US: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2011

[64] Wilhelmsson D, Thompson RC, Holmström K, Lindén O, Eriksson-Hägg H. Managing ocean environments in a changing climate: Sustainability and economic perspectives. Marine Pollution. 2013;**74**:127-169

[65] James TI. Water Quality of Streams Draining various Coal Measures in the North-Central West Coast. 2003. Available from: www.wcrc.govt.nz/ council/publications/Science%20 Reports/AMD%20report%20 AusIMM%20Conference%20Paper.pdf. [Accessed January 21, 2023]

[66] Keating M. Cradle to the Grave: The Environmental Impacts from Coal. 2001. Available from: www.catf.us/ publications/reports/Cradle\_to\_Grave. pdf [Accessed: 9 December 2022]

[67] Union of Concerned Scientists (2008). Coal and Air Pollution. Union of Concerned Scientists, Reports & Multimedia, Cambridge, MA. Article dated 28 July 2008 (updated 19 December 2017). Available from: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/

coal-and\_air\_pollution. Accessed 11 December 2020

[68] Miller BG. The effect of coal usage on human health and the environment (chapter 4). In: Miller BG, editor. Clean Coal Engineering Technology. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2011. pp. 85-132

[69] NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health]. Coal Mine Dust Exposures and Associated Health Outcomes: A Review of Information Published since 1995. Current Intelligence Bulletin. Vol. 64. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2011. p. 56. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ niosh/docs/2011172/pdfs/2011-172.pdf

[70] Silva LFO, Pinto D, Dotto GL, Hower JC. Nanomineralogy of evaporative precipitation of efflorescent compounds from coal mine drainage. Journal of Geoscience Frontiers. 2021;**12**(6):101003

[71] Saikia BK, Saikia J, Rabh S, Silva LFO, Finkelman R. Ambient nanoparticles/nano minerals and hazardous elements from coal combustion activity: Implications on energy challenges and health hazards. Geoscience Frontiers. 2017;**9**:863-875

[72] IEA [International Energy Agency]. Global Energy & CO2 Status Report. Paris: IEA; 2019. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/ global-energy-co2-status-report-2019

[73] International Energy Agency, Paris, France. p. 29. Available from: https:// www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-co2 statusreport-2019 [Accessed: December 12, 2020]

[74] David D. Unseen Danger: A Tragedy of People, Government and the Centralia Mine Fire. Pennsylvania, USA: University *Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

of Pennsylvania Press; 1986 ISBN 978-0-8122-8022-7

[75] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, et al., editors. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (PDF). Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2021

[76] US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Quote from public-domain source. Causes of Climate Change: The Greenhouse Effect Causes the Atmosphere to Retain Heat. Washington, D.C., USA: EPA; 2012. Archived from the original on 8 March 2017. Retrieved 11 December 2022

[77] Rice D. Coal Is the Main Offender for Global Warming, and Yet the World Is Using it more than Ever USA Today, Nation (Section). Tysons Corner, VA: Gannett Company; 2019 Article dated 26 March 2019. Available from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/ nation/2019/03/26/climate-changecoal-still-king-global-carbonemissionssoar/3276401002/

[78] Root TL et al. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. 2003;**421**:57-60

[79] Parmesan C, Yohe GA. Globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 2003;**421**:37-42

[80] Billions face climate change risk". BBC News Science/Nature. 2007. Availble from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ science/nature/6532323.stm. Retrieved 12 December 2022

[81] The Swiss Re Group: World Economy Set to Lose up to 18% GDP from Climate

Change If no Action Taken, Reveals Swiss Re Institute's Stress-Test Analysis. Available from: https://www.swissre. com/media/press-release/nr-20210422 economics-of-climate-change-risks. html. Achieved 22 Apr 2021. Retrieved 11 December 2022

[82] Zhao Q et al. Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: A three-stage modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2021 July 1;**5**(7):415-425

[83] Mine Safety and Health Administration. Coal Mining Fatalities by State by Calendar Year 2017. U.S. Department of Labor. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/data/ default.html. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23February 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2022

[84] Deconstructing Deadly Details from China's Coal Mine Safety Statistics. Available from: https://web.archive. org/web/20070930122719/http:// www.clb.org.hk/public/contents/ news?revision\_id=19324&item\_id=19316.

[85] Gupta AP, Dutta AK, Basu R. Coal basically a hazardous industry and source for numerous occupational diseases for workers. IJRDO. 2019;**5**(1):1-18

[86] Marino E, Caruso M, Campagna D, Polosa R. Impact of air quality on lung health: Myth or reality? Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease. 2015;**6**(5):286-298

[87] Perret JL, Plush B, Lachapelle P, Hinks TS, Walter C, Clarke P, et al. Coal mine dust lung disease in the modern era. Respirology. 2017;**22**(4):662-670

[88] Kurt OK, Zhang J, Pinkerton KE. Pulmonary health effects of air pollution. Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine. 2016;**22**(2):138-143

[89] Blackley DJ, Halldin CN, Laney AS. Continued increase in prevalence of coal workers' pneumoconiosis in the United States, 1970-2017. American Journal of Public Health. 2018;**108**(9):1220-1222

[90] Hendryx M, Higginbotham N, Ewald B, Connor LH. Air quality in association with rural coal mining and combustion in new South Wales Australia. The Journal of Rural Health. 2019;**35**(4):518-527

[91] Hendryx M, Zullig KJ. Higher coronary heart disease and heart attack morbidity in Appalachian coal mining regions. Preventive Medicine. 2009;**49**(5):355-359

[92] Aung N, Sanghvi MM, Zemrak F, Lee AM, Cooper JA, Paiva JM, et al. Association between ambient air pollution and cardiac morpho functional phenotypes: Insights from the UK biobank population imaging study. Circulation. 2018;**138**(20):2175-2186

[93] Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Rivas I, Lopez-Vicente M, Suades-Gonzalez E, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Cirach M, et al. Impact of commuting exposure to traffic-related air pollution on cognitive development in children walking to school. Environmental Pollution. 2017;**231**(1):837-844

[94] Mochizuki H. Arsenic neurotoxicity in humans. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019;**20**(14):1-11

[95] Mutter J, Naumann J, Sadaghiani C, Schneider R, Walach H. Alzheimer disease: Mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator. Neuroendocrinology Letters. 2004;**25**(5):331-339

[96] Leon-Mejia G, Quintana M, Debastiani R, Dias J, Espitia-Perez L, Hartmann A, et al. Genetic damage in coal miners evaluated by buccal micronucleus cytome assay. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2014;**107**:133-139

[97] Carre J, Gatimel N, Moreau J, Parinaud J, Leandri R. Does air pollution play a role in infertility? A systematic review. Environmental Health. 2017;**16**(1):82

[98] Mahalingaiah S, Hart JE, Laden F, Farland LV, Hewlett MM, Chavarro J, et al. Adult air pollution exposure and risk of infertility in the nurses' Health Study II. Human Reproduction. 2016;**31**(3):638-647

[99] Merklinger-Gruchala A, Kapiszewska M. Association between PM10 air pollution and birth weight after full-term pregnancy in Krakow city 1995-2009 –trimester specificity. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine. 2015;**22**(2):265-270

[100] Arrhenius S. Worlds in the Making. London and New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers; 1907. p. 54

[101] Houghton J. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. 4th ed. UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009

[102] Boot-Handford ME, Abanades JC, Anthony EJ, Blunt MJ, Brandani S, Mac Dowell N, et al. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy & Environmental Science. 2014;**7**:130-189

[103] World Coal Institute. Coal: Meeting Global Challenges. London: WCI; 2006

[104] NETL. Baseline Technical and Economic Assessment of a Commercial Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facility, Final Report, DOE/NETL-2007/1260. Pittsburg, PA: US Department of Energy NETL; 2007

*Perspective Chapter: The True Cost of Coal – Should Ego Veto Eco? DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112093*

[105] International Energy Agency. Clean energy technologies. 2020. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/ clean-coal-technologies

[106] Cohan D. Coal Is Not Competitive with Cheaper Alternatives, and the industry's True Costs Are Even Higher. Oakland, CA: GreenBiz, GreenBiz Group; 2018 Article dated 8 November 2018. https://www.greenbiz.com/ article/coal-notcompetitive-cheaperalternatives-and-industrys-true-costsare-even-higher

[107] Stallard E. Breakthrough in nuclear fusion energy announced. BBC News Climate and Science; 2022. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/ news/science-environment-63957085 [Accessed: December 15, 2022]

### **Chapter 2**

## Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized Longwall Mining to Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

*Tomoki Shimanishi, Taku Shimizu, Naoko Shimazaki, Ken Takahashi and Shigeo Nakajima*

#### **Abstract**

This chapter investigates the role of the Japanese coal mining industry in global coal mining development. In the twenty-first century, the Japanese coal mining industry was a marginal contributor to global production, with an annual domestic production of only 750,000 tons. However, as explained below, Japan has contributed to clean coal technologies and coal mining. The combination of chock shields and a double-ended ranging drum shearer is one of the major mechanized longwall mining systems worldwide. It was developed by the Taiheiyo Coal Mining Company in Japan in the mid-1960s and subsequently spread among major coal-producing countries. Japanese coal production systems and clean coal technologies have been transferred to Asian countries since the late-1980s. Currently, carbon dioxide capture and storage system in a mine under the seabed is being implemented by the Kushiro Coal Mine Company which succeeded the mine of Taiheiyo. In addition, Japan has developed technologies for coal-fired power plants to burn coal more efficiently and contains the world's most efficient ultra-supercritical coal-fired power plants. Furthermore, the world's largest Integrated Coal Gasification Combined Cycle power plants started operating to reconstruct Fukushima and reduce carbon emissions.

**Keywords:** Japanese coal mining industry, longwall system, technology transfer, coal gasification combined cycle, carbon dioxide capture and storage

#### **1. Introduction**

This chapter clarifies the role of the Japanese coal mining industry in the global development of coal mining in terms of technology and economic history. In addition, it investigates the role of Japanese technologies in utilizing coal in the trend of global decarbonization.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the total amount of coal consumption in 2024 will increase by 0.3% compared to 2021, driven by increased coal consumption in China, India, Southeast Asia, Russia, and Africa, although developed countries such as G7 are tackling the issue of decarbonization [1]. However, decarbonized ironmaking technologies such as hydrogen ironmaking have not yet been operated commercially [1]. The supply of Liquefied Natural Gas from Russia became unstable following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, the amount of global coal consumption will possibly increase more in the near-to medium-term.

In particular, the IEA estimates that the amount of coal consumption in the Asia Pacific will increase by 1.7% and account for 80% of global coal consumption, while Japan's coal consumption will decrease by 3.6% in 2024 compared to 2021. Coal production in China, India, and Indonesia accounts for 70% of global production. Including Australia, this increases to 75% of the global production [1], making the Asia-Pacific region the world's largest producer and consumer of coal.

In China, the world's largest coal-producing country, 87% of the total coal production comes from underground mines [2]. In contrast, open-cut coal mines are dominant in India, Indonesia, and Australia [1, 3]. However, coal mines have started mining underground in these countries because of a decrease in the amount of surface coal reserves, an increase in the amount of stripped soil, and various regulations for protecting the natural environment [3]. As a forerunner from open-cut mining to underground mining, the Vietnamese coal mining industry produces 73% of its coal from underground mines and will close all open-cut mines by 2030 [4]. The coal mining industry in the Asia-Pacific region has an increasing need for underground mining.

The Japanese coal mining industry produced a mere 60 million tons per annum, even in its flourishing period, which quickly declined after the late 1960s. Despite this, there exists a relationship between the above-mentioned situation in the global coal market and the Japanese coal mining/consuming industry. The global standard method of longwall mining, the combination of a double-ended ranging drum shearer (hereafter shearer) with chock shields, is based on the "Shield support and Drum shearer (SD) system" established by Japan's Taiheiyo Coalmining Company (Taiheiyo) in Kushiro City, Hokkaido, in the 1960s–1970s. Taiheiyo was a pioneer in longwall mining mechanization. At present, Kushiro Coal Mine Company (KCM) is part of a technology transfer project by the Japanese government.1 Engineers who operated the SD system at Taiheiyo's colliery transferred knowledge on longwall mining and mine safety to other Asian countries, such as China, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

Japan imports more than 100 million tons of coal per annum and is the world's third largest coal importer after China and India. The Japanese electric power industry and heavy electrical machinery manufacturers have developed coal-fired powergenerating technologies, introducing larger power-generating capacity, increasing thermal efficiency, and research and development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power generation. Currently, the Japanese electric power industry operates many ultra-supercritical (USC) coal-fired power plants that have the world's highest gross thermal efficiency. These coal-fired power plant technologies are also exported to Asian countries to reduce carbon emissions, although it is becoming difficult to export these technologies due to the expansion of decarbonization in the world.

<sup>1</sup> Taiheiyo stopped operating mines in 2002. Thereafter, KCM was established to inherit the operation of the mine staked by the local businesses in Kushiro City.

*Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

 Former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga declared the goal of "2050 Carbon Neutrality," which demonstrated that the Japanese government will aim to decarbonize the economy in step with G7 countries. However, this does not mean that Japan has to abandon the technologies for coal mining and utilization that it has accumulated. It is an important duty of Japan, one of the world's largest coal consumers, to correctly record the experience of developing coal-related technologies and transfer them to countries that need them as it takes a long time to achieve energy transition [ 5 ].

 Many studies have focused on the Japanese coal mining industry after the Second World War, including policy studies of industrial policies for rationalizing the coal mining industry [ 6 , 7 ] and historical studies of workers and their communities [ 8 – 11 ]. These studies clarified the process of industrial decline by focusing on the government, companies, workers, unions, and communities. However, research on coal-related technologies from the perspective of social science has only recently begun [ 12 – 15 ]. This chapter contributes to improving the understanding of coal-related technologies in Japan.

#### **2. Brief history of the Japanese Coal Mining Industry**

 According to an investigation in 2008, Japan's proven and recoverable coal reserves stand at 4.8 billion tons and 352 million tons, respectively [ 16 ]. The most unique characteristic of coal reserves is the existence of subsea coalfields, which comprise 18% of the total coal reserves. Annual production from reserves has been almost 100% of the total production since the late 1990s, while the corresponding number was 12% in 1958 [ 17 , 18 ]. This indicates that production from subsea coalfields is essential for the Japanese coal mining industry.

 As shown in **Figure 1** , the modern Japanese coal mining industry started to develop in the late 19th century and declined after 1961, when it produced approximately 55

million tons. Today, some coal mines produce a mere 750,000 tons per annum in 2020 [19]. On the other hand, production efficiency increased rapidly despite the decline in industry. The monthly production efficiency per worker was 200 tons in the 1990s, compared to only 5 tons in the late 1940s. This indicates the rapid mechanization of production as well as a rapid decrease in the number of workers.

The Japanese government launched a set of policies for the rationalization of the coal mining industry in 1963 to deal with the industry's decline caused by the energy revolution. Financial support measures, such as concessional loans, subsidies, and leases of machinery, were implemented to promote investment by coal companies in facilities and machinery. This financial support was provided by the government, the most notable of which was the import petroleum tariff after 1967. Financial support from the government continued until FY 2001, when the total amount reached staggering proportions [18]. For example, concessional loans alone amounted to approximately 330 billion yen, that is, approximately \$2.4 billion.

Furthermore, Sekitan Gijutsu Kenkyuusho (Coal Mining Research Center) was established in 1960 through joint investment by the government and coal companies. Engineers from both coal and machinery companies collaborated for experiments and research projects to enable innovation in coal production technologies [15]. Thus, the coal mining industry has created institutional and financial support to spur technological innovation.

However, the coal mining industry has been forced to introduce basic technologies from abroad. Mining engineers not only collected mining journals from Europe and the United States but also sent overseas inspection groups to study advanced coal production technologies [20]. In addition, mining engineers have studied the coal production technologies of the USSR because many Japanese coal mines excavated coal using inclined shafts, such as used in mines in the USSR, in contrast to the vertical shafts in continental Europe [21]. Following these experiences, various types of mining machinery were imported. Thus, the coal mining industry promoted the mechanization of coal excavation. One of the most notable successful examples is the mechanization of longwall mining, which Taiheiyo developed as the "SD system" in the late 1960s. Taiheiyo operated a subsea mine in Hokkaido, on the northern island of Japan. In the next section, we will investigate Taiheiyo's technological development history.

#### **3. Struggle to mechanize longwall mining: Development of the SD system**

In the 1960s, Taiheiyo made an effort toward the practical application of powered support. In May 1960, Ferromatik rotating powered supports, which were frame-type powered supports, were introduced as Taiheiyo's first powered support. However, because of the small contact area of the base of the powered support, insufficient thrust of the shifter, insufficient strength of each member, and other factors, Taiheiyo was unable to obtain the desired results [22]. Next, the company introduced an IU-shaped, frame-type, six-leg powered support (MKSP-LIU model, FIU model) manufactured by Mitsui Miike Machinery (Miike Machinery). A low seam with a coal height of approximately 1 meter was selected for the machine to conduct operations. The coal-cutting machine adopted a tandem-type coal plow, where the machine height changed according to the height of the coal face, and the machine began full-scale operation in October 1963 [23]. This low-seam mining achieved good coal output after partial improvement of the IU frame (from the LIU model to the FIU

#### *Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

model) [24]. However, many occupational accidents occurred because of the narrow space of the low seam [25].

In parallel with low-seam mining, Taiheiyo aimed for the practical use of powered supports in thick seams. When designing the powered support, it is necessary to estimate the amount of roof lowering when using the powered support and determine the stroke amount required for the hydraulic prop to avoid the complete retraction of the powered support on the coal face. Therefore, experiments that simulated repeated lowering and sequential lowering, which are shoring movements unique to powered support, were conducted using hydraulic props and link bars, and the roof subsidence behavior when using the powered support was clarified from the measurement results [26, 27]. Based on their findings, a UU-shaped, frame-type, 12-leg powered support (MKSP-FUU model) was developed by Miike Machinery, which had two hydraulic props in the rear row. UU frames (UU) were introduced for simultaneous multi-pass longwall mining in combination with a coal plow and underground tests began in May 1964. Various modifications, such as changes to the method for connecting the hydraulic prop and base and the shortening of the base length, were made to the UU based on the findings obtained through the tests [28–30].

In February 1965, Numajiri No. 2 Longwall began operations using the improved UU. However, the expected efficiency improvements were not achieved. In the UU, hydraulic props with corresponding relationships were connected to each other at the front, back, left, and right. This resulted in the frequent occurrence of frame inclining owing to the relative horizontal movement of the roof and floor, as well as hydraulic prop damage owing to eccentric loading. Additionally, there were many structural problems, such as the need to correct the direction of the powered support, forepoling, and inflow of rock debris from the gob area. As a result, mechanized mining of this thick seam failed [22, 31, 32]. In the section where an attempt was made at the practical application of UU, from the second half of 1965, the lower-seam longwall for simultaneous multi-pass longwall mining was switched from UU frames to single hydraulic props and link bars.

Efforts toward the practical application of powered support continued and surplus UU frames that were lifted to the surface were dismantled. After dismantling, the materials were used to develop an in-house THY chock support, which is a chocktype powered support that is connected to a conveyor. THY chocks were tested in combination with UU frames. The linearity of the powered support was improved by adopting a conveyor connection. Additionally, to improve frame inclining, an adjusting jack was made and installed using scrap material from a single hydraulic prop and a simple shield plate was made and attached to prevent the inflow of rock debris from the roof and gob area [31, 32].

However, damage to the hydraulic prop owing to the horizontal force of the coal face roof was structurally unavoidable with the frame-type powered support and chock support. At that time, the only powered support with a structure that could withstand horizontal forces was the OMKT shield support (OMKT) developed in the USSR. As shown in **Figure 2**, the OMKT was a type of powered support called a shield support, which was covered with steel plates on the top and rear. The OMKT used a pin-hinge structure to hold both ends of the hydraulic prop and no horizontal force or bending moment was applied to the hydraulic prop. In December 1965, Miike Machinery formed a technical collaboration with the USSR's export corporation for the OMKT and began preparations for licensed production [33]. Taiheiyo received 20 sets from Miike Machinery for trial use [32].

In addition, a shearer was adopted for the coal-cutting machine combined with the OMKT. Equipping both sides of the machine body with ranging arms with

 **Figure 2.**  *The OMKT shield support. Source: This figure is owned by the Kushiro Board of Education, Hokkaido, Japan.* 

cutting drums made it possible to cut both ends of the coal face. The double-ended ranging drum shearer was domestically produced by Miike Machinery in 1966 [ 34 ]. The MCLE200-DR8090 model manufactured by Miike Machinery was delivered to Taiheiyo. A coal planer with a modified coal plow that can load cut coal and cut the bottom wall was installed to supplement the cutting and loading by the shearer [ 35 ].

 In addition to changing the cutting machine and powered support, the longwall coal mining method was fundamentally reconsidered. The length of the coal face was set extremely short at 35 meters to keep the load on the roof at the center of the coal face small. Furthermore, shortening the round-trip time of the shearer and accelerating the progress of the coal face enabled the advancement of the powered support before the deterioration of the roof, and it was thought that the complete retraction of the powered support could be prevented [ 35 ].

 To handle this rapid progress, the stable was abolished because of the difficulty of mechanizing it and the requirement of manual labor. First, the drive unit, which was conventionally installed on both stables on the head-gate and tail-gate sides, was integrated into the head-gate side, and the stable on the tail-gate side was abolished. The return end of the armored face conveyor (AFC) on the tail-gate side and the sprocket of the coal planer were coaxial to avoid interference between the cutting drum and AFC, which allowed the drum to enter the end of tail-gate side and complete the cutting of the longwall. Next, all the drive parts on the head-gate side were pulled out to the head-gate. This was made possible by adopting a separator system at the entrance from the AFC to the head-gate conveyor. As a result, the stable on the head-gate side was also abolished and became a non-stable system. Additionally, a snaking panzer conveyor was developed to respond to the rapid relocation of facilities such as the head-gate conveyor. This conveyor was installed parallel to the normal straight panzer conveyor that was installed at the head-gate and, by overlapping the

*Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

snaking tip, it became possible to shorten or lengthen the head-gate conveyor without interfering with the operation on the coal face [ 35 ]. These head-gate facilities later led to the development of the stage loader.

 This coal mining method was called "SD system," which was an acronym for the main constituent machines: the shield support and drum shearer. In April 1967, the test coal face Higashi-Masuura Left No. 1 Level Rise No. 4 Longwall was set up and the first SD system began operation. Despite facing difficulties, such as mechanical failure and roof fall, the equipment was improved and the number of props built in the OMKT was increased from the original one to two to increase the supporting capacity. Progress was generally favorable after the introduction of the reinforced OMKT in Longwall no. 10 [ 35 ].

 However, the OMKT, which was originally developed for shallow areas, could not overcome the lack of structural support. Therefore, Taiheiyo and Miike Machinery, learning from the OMKT-MK shield support, which had a lemniscate linkage at the connection between the caving shield and base, developed a new chock shield that had a long main canopy, four hydraulic props that supported it, and a lemniscate linkage at the connection between the base and the caving shield. The adoption of the lemniscate linkage enabled nearly vertical retraction of the entire canopy while maintaining a fixed distance between the canopy tip and faceline. This four-leg chock shield with a lemniscate linkage was called the "SMK chock shield support (SMK)" [ 33 , 36 ] (see **Figure 3** ).

 In December 1968, 10 sets of SMK were introduced to Numajiri West No. 23 Level No. 1 Main-seam Longwall, along with single hydraulic props and link bars, and tests were conducted. In November 1969, operation began at the Minami-Masuura No. 3 Level No. 3 Longwall, where the SMKs were installed across the entire coal face [ 37 ]. The coal output was good after the introduction of SMK and the supporting capacity

#### **Figure 3.**  *The SMK chock shield support. Source: This figure is owned by the Kushiro Board of Education, Hokkaido, Japan.*

of the powered support was completely resolved. The supporting capacity of the powered support increased from 80 tons for the first monopod-type OMKT to 160 tons for the reinforced OMKT. Following the development of SMK, improvements and strengthening were conducted as the length and depth of the coal face increased. The TY-2 model introduced in 1968 had a capacity of 320 tons, the TY-3 model introduced in 1971 had a capacity of 400 tons, and the NT-1 model introduced in 1988 had a capacity of 600 tons. The length of the coal face gradually expanded from 35 to 100 m in the 1970s, peaking at 250 meters in the 1990s [38, 39].

The four-leg chock shield with lemniscate linkage was a well-balanced powered support that could withstand the complex and difficult underground natural conditions of Japanese coal mines. The development of this four-leg chock shield with a lemniscate linkage was a breakthrough not only in Japan but also in coal mining technology worldwide. This technical information spread worldwide through a licensing agreement with the West German company Westfalia in 1971, published in the West German magazine *Glückauf* Vol. 109 No. 14, exports of the longwall system to Australia in 1975, and international sales by the manufacturer Miike Machinery [32, 33]. It can be said that today's standard longwall system was established through this series of technological developments. This establishment not only brought about a dramatic improvement in coal production efficiency but also made it possible to protect miners from the inflow of rock debris from the gob area and roof falls, which contributed to occupational safety.

#### **4. Overseas transfer of coal production technologies**

#### **4.1 Export of SD system and related technologies**

#### *4.1.1 Exports of SD system to Australia and other countries*

In 1975, the SD system developed in Taiheiyo was exported to the South Bulli Coal Mine (South Bulli) of the Bellambi Coal Company in Australia. The powered support that constituted the longwall system was a four-leg chock shield with a lemniscate linkage made by Miike Machinery, with a yield load of 480 tons and support width of 1.25 m. A DR8394 model manufactured by Miike Machinery, which had a motor output of 300 kW, was adopted for the double-ended ranging drum shearer [34].

The South Bulli mine introduced British and West German chock supports since it began longwall mining in the mid-1960s but both failed because of the lack of support. The roof of the 2.4–2.7-m height Bulli seam, which is the main coal seam for operation in the mine, is Coal Cliff Sandstone, which is a superhard rock, and it is difficult to handle the roof pressure derived from it. In April 1973, Taiheiyo was asked to consider adopting an SD system to break this deadlock and a letter of intent was issued in March 1974. Taiheiyo Kouhatsu, a parent company of Taiheiyo, then established Taiheiyo Engineering Inc. (TEI) in July 1973 to establish an export system.

The supporting capacity of the powered support was given the highest priority when designing the longwall system. The measurement results communicated by the chief engineer at Bellambi indicated a necessary meter run for the face of 320 tons/m for the Bulli seam and a powered support with a yield load of 480 tons was designed based on this result. It was determined that the load capacity of each hydraulic prop must be increased to 120 tons to meet the performance requirements. Sumitomo Metal Industries developed a new large-diameter drawn steel pipe to satisfy these requirements.

#### *Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

Following test chock shield load tests at a research institute for coal mining in West Germany in November 1974, the entire system was tested outside the mine in June 1975, with operations beginning at the coal mining site in October 1975. When operations began, there were problems with the operation of the machine owing to the large frictional resistance caused by the weight of the shearer, as well as problems with the operation of the coal planer for loading coal. Improvements were made through on-site creativity and the issues were resolved. Importantly, the supporting capacity of the powered support, which could have fatal consequences in the event of a defect, withstood the first weighting of the starting section and functioned as designed. This was revolutionary because it succeeded in designing a longwall system based on measurements and knowledge from mining theory. The success of longwall mining also contributed to company management. Sydney Morning Herald reported that the net profit for the first half of 1976–1977 was 447% of that of the previous period. Subsequently, the longwall system continued to be used without any maintenance outside the mine until its planned end in 1986 [32, 34].

As shown in **Table 1**, the SD system and shearers produced in Japan were exported to other parts of Asia, Australia, and the United States [34, 41]. Less than 10 years after the SD system was introduced in Japan, it became a global standard for longwall mining. However, machinery manufacturers in Europe and the United States started increasing exports of longwall systems similar to the SD system after the 1980s because they succeeded in producing a power support akin to the Japanese design [34].

#### *4.1.2 Participation in the project led by the United States Bureau of Mines*

The TEI also participated in a project by the United States Bureau of Mines (USBM). In 1974, the USBM put out a public offering for a new technology for mining the thick seams found in the western United States to replace the widely used room coal mining in the United States. Consolidation Coal, Foster–Miller, and TEI were jointly awarded the order. Foster–Miller approached the TEI in the summer of 1974 and joined the project. The outline of the proposal was to conduct non-simultaneous multi-slice mining in advance of the upper layer based on the SD system developed by Taiheiyo.


#### **Table 1.**

*Exports of the SD system and shearers from Japan. Source: [34, 40].*

The measurement and analysis results of various rock behaviors accumulated at Taiheiyo's colliery were used as mining evidence for this proposal. First, the surface subsidence mechanism caused by the breaking of the upper rock strata and compression of fallen rock debris in the gob area during thick-seam mining was clarified based on actual measurement data on the changes over time in surface subsidence in the cases of single-seam mining and multi-seam mining at Taiheiyo's colliery. Additionally, the solidification state of fallen rock debris in the gob area of the upper layer, which becomes an artificial roof when mining the lower layer in multi-slice mining, was clarified from actual measurement data on the rock solidification of the main seam at Taiheiyo's colliery. Its low porosity indicated that it could be handled by chock shields. Furthermore, the mechanical and technical evidence included references to the practical application process for powered support at Taiheiyo's colliery, with the experience from use in the field and the improvement process shown by the introduction of the frame-type powered support made by Miike Machinery (i.e., UU frame) to the in-house developed chock support (i.e., THY chock support), OMKT, and four-leg chock shield with a lemniscate linkage.

This mining and practical knowledge were highly regarded and led to the order of this project. In April 1975, a proposal entitled "the Technical Proposal for the Demonstration of a Thick Seam Mining System" was created and submitted to the USBM [32].

#### **4.2 Technology transfer from Japan to Asian countries**

The Japan Technical Co-operation Center for Coal Resources Development (JATEC), which was established by a joint investment by many coal mining companies to investigate and develop overseas coal resources in 1990, started receiving technical trainees from the Ombilin Coal Mine in Indonesia [42]. Simultaneously, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) devised a project for mine safety improvement and increased production in the Asian coal mining industry through technology transfer from Japan. JATEC undertook the technical training program component of the project from MITI and was entrusted with implementing the program with coal mining companies, including Taiheiyo. After this project was successfully completed, a new and enlarged technology transfer project was implemented by the New Energy Development Organization (NEDO) in the late 1990s [13, 14]. Finally, in FY 2002, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), that is former MITI, devised a five-year project, where NEDO maintained the operation of domestic coal mines and served as a technology transfer hub to Asian coal mining industries [18].<sup>2</sup> KCM was entrusted with the operation of the project from NEDO because it inherited the coal mine that Taiheiyo had stopped operating at the end of FY 2001.

As shown in **Table 2**, the technology transfer program included the reception of technical trainees and dispatch of mining engineers. Between FY 2002 and FY 2013, the program included 2735 technical trainees from Vietnam, China, and Indonesia, 3680 Japanese mining engineers, and 88,074 trainees who completed training in the three above-mentioned countries. In terms of the number of people involved, the program in Vietnam was the largest.

To demonstrate the program details, the case of KCM, which has implemented the program since FY 2002, will be outlined here. KCM received 367 trainees in five

<sup>2</sup> After FY 2012, the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC) inherited the project from NEDO.

*Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*


*Unit: Person.*

*Notes: The reception of trainees from Indonesia was conducted from FY 2002 to FY 2009. The number of dispatched engineers and trainees at home is not the actual count but the total count.*

#### **Table 2.**

*Results of the coal technology transfer program, FY 2002–FY 2013. Source: [43, 44].*

training courses spanning 10–24 weeks from FY 2002 to FY 2003. The curriculum was as follows: on-the-job underground work using mining machines, classroom lectures on the Japanese language and business management, and demonstrations on mining methods using a miniature model of a mine and computer technologies [12]. Mining engineers dispatched from the KCM conducted practical training and classroom lectures at overseas mines for 3 months. Although the transfer of production technologies was partial, the technology transfer project won high praise from recipient countries because of the successful transfer of knowledge on mine safety and mining operations [12].

In recipient countries, the technology transfer program contributed to the production rationalization of the coal mining industry; for example, an increase in production efficiency, a decrease in the occurrence rate of mine accidents, and heightened awareness of technology improvement and mine safety among ex-trainees [45]. Due to this, the technology transfer project continues to this day, despite originally being planned to last for 5 years.

KCM needs to continue implementing the technology transfer program because the program contract fee is one of its main sources of revenue [42]. If the project was abolished, the KCM could not continue operating its mines. This means that the Asian coal mining industry would lose the chance to learn about the production technologies that the Japanese coal mining industry has fostered over its history. As mentioned in Section 1, there is an urgent need for underground mine safety transfer because coal mines have increasingly started underground operation in Asian countries because of a decrease in the amount of surface coal reserves, increase in the amount of stripped soil, and various regulations for protecting the natural environment [3]. Therefore, the Japanese government and METI have to continue the technology transfer project to maintain KCM's operation and make Asian coal mines safer and more efficient.

#### **5. Coal as clean energy: USC, IGCC, CCS, and Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS)**

#### **5.1 Coal-fired power plants**

As long as coal-fired power generation is still used in China and worldwide, improving its efficiency and applying clean coal technologies remains an urgent issue. Japan has accumulated technologies that can solve these problems in conventional coal-fired and IGCC power generation.

The late 1950s saw the start of the shift from coal to oil as the main energy source in Japan, or the energy revolution. During this period, the Japanese electric power industry promoted a power-supply approach that involved a shift from reliance on hydropower to thermal power. The electric power industry continued to use domestic coal based on government and coal industry requests, while increasing the number of heavy oil-fired power plants that used inexpensive Middle Eastern heavy oil as fuel. Meanwhile, the electric power industry, in cooperation with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Hitachi, IHI, and others, worked on domestic production and the improvement of imported technologies. By the late 1960s, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) started operating a 600-MW supercritical pressure power plant with a net efficiency of 40.3%, catching up with the plants in operation in Europe and the United States [46]. In the early 1980s, J-POWER began operating a 500-MW supercritical coal-fired power plant. Furthermore, in the 1990s, J-POWER successfully operated a 1000-MW USC coal-fired power plant. Currently, Japan's coal-fired power generation technology is at the highest level in terms of power generation efficiency worldwide, with the net efficiency of the country's most efficient power plants reaching 48%, which has contributed to reducing coal consumption and CO2 emissions [47, 48].

Simultaneously, the scale of conventional coal-fired power generation has progressed and research and development into IGCC has also progressed. The description below is based on cited references and an interview with Yoshihiko Horie, Plant Chief Superintendent of Nakoso IGCC Power LLC, on 17 November 2022. IGCC is a technology that gasifies coal and generates electricity with a gas turbine and steam turbine that uses exhaust heat, with research and development beginning in Europe, the United States, and Japan in the 1970s. Japan's unique air-blown IGCC technology began in 2007 with a 250-MW demonstration unit at the Nakoso Power Plant of Joban Joint Thermal Power in Fukushima Prefecture. The demonstration unit was successful, achieving a high net efficiency of 42.9% and began commercial operation in 2013 [49].

In 2015, the Japanese government announced a policy aimed at accelerating recovery from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. In response to this policy, TEPCO, Joban Joint Thermal Power, and the Mitsubishi Group roughly doubled the scale of the demonstration unit at Nakoso and launched the Fukushima Recovery Power Project to build and operate the world's largest and most efficient IGCC thermal power plant in Fukushima, establishing Nakoso IGCC Power LLC and Hirono IGCC Power LLC in 2016. In this chapter, the case of the Nakoso IGCC Power is discussed. The location selected for the new power plant in Nakoso was agricultural land that suffered salt damage due to the tsunami caused by the earthquake and the project created local employment for those affected. Engineers at Nakoso faced various technical problems that were associated with the scaling up of the unit but the engineers proceeded with work to begin power generation in 2020 while resolving these issues and started commercial operation in April 2021. As of 2022, the Nakoso IGCC power plant had an output of 525 MW and net efficiency of 48%, making it the world's largest and most efficient coal gasifier on a per unit basis.

IGCC is a power generation technology with a lower environmental impact than conventional coal-fired power generation methods. The first benefit is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The CO2 emissions of IGCC power plants are 15% lower than those of conventional coal-fired power plants. The second benefit is the expansion of the type of coal that can be used. Conventional coal-fired power generation uses coal with a high ash melting point, which is less likely to generate clinkers. In

#### *Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

contrast, IGCC power generation can use coal with a low ash melting point. The third benefit is that coal ash becomes slag-like, which not only halves the volume needed but also allows the material to be reused as cement or pavement material.

In the 2020s, Japan's main coal supply sources were Australia and Indonesia, and conventional thermal power generation uses coal from these sources, whereas the Nakoso IGCC power plant uses American coal. Combining IGCC power generation with conventional coal-fired power generation enables the reduction of the environmental impact of coal combustion and efficient use of resources. The COVID-19 pandemic and the effects of "decarbonization" in developed countries have resulted in the stagnation of IGCC technology exports from Japan to overseas. However, since a stable supply off fossil energy is expected to become unstable, the value of IGCC technology should be revised upward. Additionally, NEDO, J-POWER, and Chugoku Electric Power Company have been conducting Integrated Coal Gasification Fuel Cell Combined Cycle demonstration tests by applying the IGCC technology (Osaki CoolGen Project) in Hiroshima in 2022 [50, 51].

Despite the decline in the domestic coal mining industry, one of the reasons for the advancement of coal-utilization technologies in Japan was the import of steam coal, which was promoted as a countermeasure to the soaring oil prices seen after the oil crisis. At the beginning of the 1970s, unlike the coking coal trade, where long-term contracts were the norm, the steam-coal trade commonly involved spot contracts and a large-scale global market based on long-term contracts had not yet formed. Under these circumstances, in 1974, Australia, which had previously banned the export of energy resources such as uranium, petroleum, and steam coal, lifted its ban on the export of steam coal [52]. This was achieved through negotiations between the Australian government and J-POWER, which was planning to build a large-capacity coal-fired power plant utilizing imported steam coal, and a summit meeting between the Japanese Prime Minister (Kakuei Tanaka) and Australian Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) in November 1974 [53]. Subsequently, Japan increased its imports of steam coal, including from Australia, America, Canada, China, and Indonesia. Japan also contributed to the expansion and globalization of the steam-coal trade market.

#### **5.2 Challenging coal production and utilization with CCUS at KCM**

The description below is based on an interview with Hiroyuki Matsumoto, Senior Managing Director of KCM, on 22 March 2022. The KCM is working on a resource recycling project that integrates the operation of an underground coal mine and thermal power plant. This is based on the Kushiro Resources and Energy Ecopark Concept, which was formulated by the company in 2011. The concept was to organically link the company's coal production, training, and environment-related businesses and to establish a resource and energy-related research and education center, the core of which is the construction of a new thermal power plant. In Kushiro City, the local government also supported the power plant construction plan because it was informed that there was a risk in the surrounding area due to the uneven distribution of the power supply as a result of the absence of a core power plant.

The Kushiro thermal power plant, which started operation in 2020, has a small output of 112,000 kW and uses a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler to conduct mixed combustion of Kushiro coal and overseas biomass. The biggest advantages of adopting a CFB boiler instead of pulverized coal firing are that there is no need for fuel pretreatment, the mixed combustion of biomass and waste is easy, and the fuel can be changed based on the circumstances.

Additionally, KCM has been entrusted with the operation of the Kushiro Wide-Area Federation Incineration Plant. It dispatched engineers and operators and has had a track record of the stable operation of a fluidized-bed gasification melting furnace and small-scale power generation plant there. On the other hand, the calories from coal and biomass are almost constant in the new power plant. Thus, boiler operation is less difficult than general waste incineration, which involves large calorie fluctuations. Having the manpower of experienced boiler operators was a stepping-stone in the thermal power generation plan.

A CFB boiler uses less cooling water than a pulverized coal-fired boiler. As a result, although a supply line from the water supply is secured, most of the aforementioned demand can be covered by the underground water of the coal mine. Furthermore, the thermal wastewater discharged from thermal power generation is returned to the coal mine and used as coal-preparation water. Even as a coal preparation plant, this has the advantage of preventing the freezing of the coal-preparation water in winter. Fly ash discharged from thermal power generation is also supplied to coal mines and is used as a filling material in underground mining pits.

In underground coal mines, the company changed its production system to achieve integrated operation with thermal power plants. Because the production scale was reduced from 500,000 tons per year to 300,000 tons per year for local production and consumption, the one-coal-face system of longwall mining was abolished and switched to the four-coal-face system of room and pillar mining. With the top priority of a stable supply of coal to local thermal power plants, the company shifted from a centralized production system to a risk-diversified production system. The company called this the New Coal Production System.

A unique method was adopted for room and pillar mining as part of a Resource Recycling Project. In normal room and pillar mining, mining is conducted in a grid pattern while leaving security coal pillars and mining traces are not filled. However, the room and pillar mining conducted by KCM differs from the usual mining method in that it extracts coal by digging branches into the coal bed and fully filling each branch with fly ash. As will be described later, technological development is being conducted to connect this full filling to Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage and Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS).

The KCM is actively conducting joint research with universities, academic societies, and companies. Although the number of underground mines in operation in Japan has decreased, the mine has served as a valuable research site for resource engineering, geology, and rock mechanics. For example, as part of a resource recycling project, KCM is working with the Osaka Gas Company to develop concentration technology for underground methane gas, which is used as fuel for its in-house boilers. Currently, joint research is being conducted on CCUS. This involves mixing carbon dioxide with fly ash, which is used as a filling material for room and pillar mining. This carbon dioxide reacts with the Ca and Mg in the fly ash and improves the strength of the filling material through carbonate mineralization. A demonstration test was conducted and favorable results were obtained. As this is currently in the demonstration test stage, carbon dioxide is externally procured; however, following the completion of the demonstration test, the company is looking to install carbon dioxide separation and capture equipment at the thermal power plant.

As shown above, KCM has been able to utilize its technological base and human resources to operate its underground coal mine and thermal power plant in an integrated manner and is positioned as a base for various research and development efforts. KCM is trying to find a way forward as an active coal mine and thermal power plant amidst the trend of decarbonization by continuing to present added value in the form of research and education that goes beyond the production and use of coal.

#### **6. Conclusion**

The Japanese coal mining and electric power industries have contributed to the development of coal-fired power generation and underground coal mining. The following three contributions can be noted:

The mechanization of longwall mining. In the late 1960s, Taiheiyo combined a shearer with powered supports into the "SD system." In this process, the development of a four-leg chock shield with lemniscate linkage was a technical milestone. These technical advancements were possible because Taiheiyo's mining engineers had knowledge of mine engineering and practical techniques and through the close relationship with a mining machine manufacturer, Miike Machinery. The SD system and its related technologies began to be exported abroad after the 1970s.

The transfer of technology to Asian countries. Technology transfer was implemented after the 1990s, when the Japanese coal mining industry was in a continued state of decline. Knowledge of mine safety and mine operations was transferred from Japan to coal mining industries in other Asian countries, which had suffered from decreases in mining efficiency and increases in mining accidents as economic development led to increased coal production. Technology transfer contributed to the modernization and rationalization of coal mines, although it did not provide much financial benefit to the Japanese coal mining industry.

The promotion of thermal efficiency and decarbonization of coal-fired power generation. The Japanese electric power industry succeeded not only in increasing the power-generating capacity of USC power plants but also in the commercial operation of IGCC power plants. In addition, technological developments in the combination of coal-fired power generation with CCUS at an underground coal mine were made by KCM. Large coal-consuming countries, such as China and India, replacing conventional coal-fired power plants with the most advanced ones will accelerate global decarbonization.

#### **Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank Hiroyuki Matsumoto, Koyu Sato, Yoshihiko Horie, and Taichi Manome, who cooperated with our interview research.

#### **Funding**

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Numbers 19H00611, 20K01797, and 20K22152.

#### **Author details**

Tomoki Shimanishi1 \*, Taku Shimizu<sup>2</sup> , Naoko Shimazaki<sup>2</sup> , Ken Takahashi3 and Shigeo Nakajima4

1 Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan

2 Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

3 No Institution, Tokyo, Japan

4 No Institution, Gunma, Japan

\*Address all correspondence to: t.s@rikkyo.ac.jp

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

#### **References**

[1] IEA. Coal 2021: Analysis and forecast to 2024 [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2021 [Accessed: August 26, 2022]

[2] Liu X, Li L, Yang Y. Development status of coal mining in China. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.2023;**123**(1):19-27. DOI: 10.17159/2411-9717/1506/2023

[3] Sasaoka T, Hamanaka A, Shimada H, Matsui K, Ichinose M. Development of underground coal mine from toe of open-cut highwalls in Indonesia. Journal of MMIJ. 2015;**131**:195-202. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/journalofmmij.131.195

[4] Vietnam News Liner. Double increasing in efficiency of coal mining through introduction new technologies in Quangninh Province [Internet]. 2021. Available from: http://www.n-liner.jp/ [Accessed: August 26, 2022] (In Japanese)

[5] Smil V. Energy and Civilization: A History. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2017. p. 552

[6] Samuels RJ. The Business of the Japanese State: Energy Markets in Comparative and Historical Perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1987. p. 358

[7] Hein LE. Fueling Growth: The Energy Revolution and Economic Policy in Postwar Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1990. p. 423

[8] Allen M. Undermining Japanese Miracle: Work and Conflict in a Coalmining Community. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1994. p. 318

[9] Culter S. Managing Decline: Japan's Coal Industry Restructuring and

Community Response. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press; 1999. p. 232

[10] Thomann B. Rationalization, working conditions and living standards in postwar Japanese coalmining communities. Asian Journal of German and European Studies. 2018;**3**:13. DOI: 10.1186/ s40856-018-0035-8

[11] Lim T, Shimazaki N, Godo Y, Lim Y. Coal Mining Communities and Gentrification in Japan. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan; 2019. p. 225. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-7220-9

[12] Ishikawa T. Betonamu no Tankou wo Houmon Shite. Kushiro Shishi Kenkyuu. 2006;**5**:95-117. (In Japanese)

[13] Kikkawa T. Shigen Enerugii Seisaku. Tokyo: Keizai Sangyou Chousakai; 2011. p. 459 (In Japanese)

[14] Takeda H. RIcchi Kankyou Hoan Seisaku. Tokyo: Keizai Sangyou Chousakai; 2011. p. 720 (In Japanese)

[15] Shimanishi T. Nihon Sekitan Sangyou no Sengoshi. Tokyo: Keio University Press; 2011. p. 374 (In Japanese)

[16] Japan Coal Energy Center, editor. Sekitan Riyou no Saishin Gijutsu to Tenbou. Tokyo: CMC Books; 2014. p. 300 (In Japanese)

[17] Iki S. Waga Kuni Kaitei Tankou no Mitooshi. In: Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, editor. Sekitan Riyou Gijutsu Kaigi Kaigiroku. Vol. 3. Tokyo: Japan Energy Association; 1959. pp. 16-17 (In Japanese)

[18] Sekitan Seisakushi Hensan Iinkai. Sekitan Seisakushi Shiryouhen. Tokyo: Japan Coal Energy Center; 2002. p. 405 (In Japanese)

[19] Japan Coal Frontier Organization. COAL Data Book. Tokyo: Japan Coal Frontier Organization; 2022. p. 316 (In Japanese)

[20] Japan Productivity Center, editor. Oushuu ni Okeru Sekitan Kigyou. Tokyo: Japan Productivity Center; 1958. p. 178 (In Japanese)

[21] Soren Tankou Gijutsu Chousa Dan, editor. Soren no Tankou Gijutsu. Tokyo: Nihon Sekitan Kyokai; 1962. p. 150 (In Japanese)

[22] Kishimoto Y, Takasaki M. Taiheiyou Tankou ni Okeru Jisoushiho no Shiyou Keiken ni Tsuite. Journal of the Mining and Metallurgical Institute of Japan. 1968;**965**:1394- 1397. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai1953.84.965\_1394

[23] Ami N. On the fully mechanized mining of thin seams in Kushiro coal mine. Journal of the Mining and Metallurgical Institute of Japan. 1965;**926**:526-534. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai1953.81.926\_526

[24] Endo M. Taiheiyou Tankou ni Okeru Hakusou Saitan ni Tsuite. Colliery Engineering. 1966;**21**:66-72 (In Japanese)

[25] Taiheiyou Tankou Roudou Kumiai. Taiheiyou Tankou Roudou Kumiai Sanjuunen Shi. Kushiro: Taiheiyou Tankou Roudou Kumiai; 1976. p. 654 (In Japanese)

[26] Nakajima S. Experimental Research on Powered Support at Longwall Face: Changes of coal mining technique in Japan (1st Report). Shigen-to-Sozai. 2001;**117**:891-900. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/shigentosozai.117.891

[27] Nakajima S. Observation and analysis of roof lowering wave observed at mechanized longwall face: Changes of coal mining technique in Japan (2nd Report). Shigen-to-Sozai. 2002;**118**:229- 235. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai.118.229

[28] Sasaki T, Takasaki M. Taiheiyou Tankou ni Okeru Kikaika to Shuuyaku Saitan ni Yoru Taryou Shuttan ni Tsuite. Colliery Engineering. 1965;**20**:194-201 (In Japanese)

[29] Sasaki T. Taiheiyou Tankou ni Okeru Chuukousou Kanzen Kikaika Saitan no Suishin. Toubu Tankou Gijutsu. 1966;**43**:106-114 (In Japanese)

[30] Yagi Y. On the Process of Developing a Self-advancing Face Support for the Coal of Medium Thickness in Taiheiyo Colliery. Journal of the Mining Institute of Hokkaido. 1966;**121**:69-77 (In Japanese)

[31] Takasaki M. Taiheiyou Kushiro Tankou ni Okeru Jisoushiho ni Tsuite. Tankou Shin Gijutsu. 1967;**16**:199-206 (In Japanese)

[32] Nakajima S. Taiheiyou Tankou Monogatari. Tokyo: Self-publishing; 2020. p. 412 (In Japanese)

[33] Tsuruoka Y. Chitei wo Kaeta Otokotachi. Tokyo: Mirai Bunkasha; 1999. p. 237 (In Japanese)

[34] Mitsui Miike Machinery. Sanjuunen no Ayumi. Tokyo: Mitsui Miike Seisakusho; 1989. p. 159 (In Japanese)

[35] Kishimoto Y. The development of overall high-speed workings by the SD system. Journal of the Mining and Metallurgical Institute of Japan. 1969;**974**:401- 409. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai1953.85.974\_401

*Perspective Chapter: The Japanese Coal Mining Industry Reconsidered – From Mechanized… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111816*

[36] Tamaru T. Development of Shield Type Self-Advancing Support. Journal of the Mining and Metallurgical Institute of Japan. 1972;**1013**:395- 400. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai1953.88.1013\_395

[37] Murai I. Taiheiyou Kushiro Tankou ni Okeru SMK Jisouwaku ni Yoru Saitan. Colliery Engineering. 1970;**25**:194-198 (In Japanese)

[38] Kushiro Coal Mine. Shinbuka ni Tomonau Koudou Shiho Gijutsu no Hensen Chousa. Kushiro: Selfpublishing; 2005. p. 116 (In Japanese)

[39] Taiheiyou Tankou Kanrishoku Kushiro Kurabu. Taiheiyou Tankou no Saikou Gijutsu. Kushiro: Self-publishing; 2005. p. 82 (In Japanese)

[40] Souritsu 50 Shuunen Kinen Jigyou Jikkou Iinkai, editor. 50 Nen no Ayumi. Tokyo: Mitsui Miike Mashinery; 2010. p. 233 (In Japanese)

[41] Bobson D, Takahashi K. Sausu Burai Tankou ni Okeru W-SD Shisutemu no 2 Men'me Saikutsujou deno Seika to Mondaiten. Journal of the Mining and Metallurgical Institute of Japan. 1977;**1076**:681- 684. (In Japanese). DOI: 10.2473/ shigentosozai1953.93.1076\_681

[42] Shimanishi T, Ishikawa T. Taiheiyo Tankou no Heizan to Kushiro Kooru Ma'in no Hossoku. In: Shimazaki N, Nakazawa H, Shimanishi T, Ishikawa T, editors. Taiheiyou Tankou. Vol. 1. Hokkaido: Kushiroshi Kyouiku Iinkai; 2018. pp. 135-170 (In Japanese)

[43] Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security. A report of the project for overseas dispatch training program for the advancement of the coal mining and safety technology in the coal

producing countries [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://coal.jogmec. go.jp/content/300274112.pdf [Accessed: December 1, 2022] (In Japanese)

[44] Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security. A report of the project for training program in Japan for the advancement of the coal mining and safety technology in the coal producing countries [Internet]. 2014. Available from: https://coal.jogmec. go.jp/content/300274113.pdf [Accessed: December 11 2022] (In Japanese)

[45] New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. Fact sheets 2007 [Internet]. 2008. Available from: https://www.nedo.go.jp/ content/100098018.pdf [Accessed: December 11 2022](In Japanese)

[46] Kikkawa T. Nihon Denryokugyou Hatten no Dainamizumu. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press; 2004. p. 600 (In Japanese)

[47] J-POWER. Karyoku Hatsuden Jigyou ni Tsuite [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.jpower.co.jp/bs/karyoku/ kar00100.html [Accessed: November 26, 2022] (In Japanese)

[48] Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation. Sengo Nihon no Innovation 100 Sen [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://koueki.jiii.or.jp/ innovation100/innovation\_detail. php?eid=00101&age=present-day [Accessed: November 26, 2022] (In Japanese)

[49] Anonymous. Integrated coal gasification combined cycle. The Thermal and Nuclear Power. 2020;**769**:601-610 (In Japanese)

[50] J-POWER. J-POWER group integrated report 2022 [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.jpower.

co.jp/english/ir/pdf/2022.pdf [Accessed: November 26, 2022]

[51] New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. Development of technologies for carbon recycling and next-generation thermal power generation [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.nedo.go.jp/ english/activities/activities\_ZZJP\_100115. html [Accessed: November 26, 2022]

[52] Murai R. Kaigaitan ga Nihon wo Sukuu. Tokyo: Kawade Shobo Shinsha; 2003. p. 259 (In Japanese)

[53] Ito T. Dynamism of J-POWER, national power company: A study of J-POWER's business model of largescale, overseas-coal-fired thermal power station. Japan Business History Review. 2019;**53**(4):3-27. DOI: 10.5029/bhsj.53.4\_3 (In Japanese)

Section 2
