Research Article

Benefits and Costs of the USA Coal Research, Development, and Demonstration Program

Roger H. Bezdek
* Corresponding author
DOI icon 10.24018/ejenergy.2021.1.2.12

Read Counter
481

Downloads
233

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2021-06-13
Published 2021-07-22

Read counter = 481 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

This paper estimates the costs, impacts, and benefits of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) coal RD&D program, 1976 - 2019. We provide detailed estimates by technology (in 2019 dollars) of the DOE coal RD&D budget and find that program funding priorities have changed substantially over this period. We estimate that the benefits of the DOE coal RD&D program through 2019 - $236.7 billion (2019 dollars) - far exceed the costs -- $28.6 billion (2019 dollars). This implies a benefit-cost (B-C) ratio of greater than 8-to-1, which is impressive. The number of jobs created over the period 2000 – 2019 - 1.6 million - is large, and the local job impacts are especially relevant at present. Recommendations for further research are provided and include the proper methodology for evaluating RD&D programs and the necessity for comparing the results reported here with B-C estimates for other energy and related technologies.

Keywords: CO2 emissions abatement R&D programs, coal research programs; energy R&D; job impacts of energy programs; R&D benefits and costs

References

  1. National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  2. U.S. General Accounting Office, Fossil Fuel R&D: Lessons Learned in the Clean Coal Technology Program, GAO-01-854T, June 12, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  3. Management Information Services, Inc., Benefits of Investments in Clean Coal Technology, prepared for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Washington, D.C., October 2009; Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, “The Return on Investment of the Clean Coal Technology Program in the USA,” Energy Policy, March 2013, Vol. 54, pp. 104-112.
     Google Scholar
  4. U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration and U.S. Department of Energy, Congressional Budget Requests, FY 1976 – FY 2020.
     Google Scholar
  5. The implicit price deflator (IPD), compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is a by-product of the deflation of GDP and is derived as the ratio of current- to constant-dollar GDP (multiplied by 100).U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Implicit Price Deflator,” https://www.bea.gov/help/faq/513.
     Google Scholar
  6. For example, although the FY 2001 and FY 2020 DOE coal RD&D budgets were approximately equal at about $480 million (2019 dollars), the technologies funded in each year were entirely different – except for CO2 sequestration.
     Google Scholar
  7. The complete budget detail (in constant 2019 dollar) and analysis is given in Management Information Services, Inc., “A Retrospective Analysis of the Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of the U.S. Department of Energy Coal RD&D Program,” prepared for The U.S. Department of Energy, July 2020; http://misi-net.com/publications.html; pp. 42-61.
     Google Scholar
  8. National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Op. cit.
     Google Scholar
  9. Detailed discussion of these impacts in given in Management Information Services, Inc., “A Retrospective Analysis of the Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of the U.S. Department of Energy Coal RD&D Program,” op. cit., pp. 62-135.
     Google Scholar
  10. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government, “Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,” May 2013.
     Google Scholar
  11. Management Information Services, Inc., “Analyzing and Estimating the Economic and Job Benefits of U.S. Coal,” op. cit.; National Coal Council, “Harnessing Coal’s Carbon Content to Advance the Economy, Environment, and Energy Security,” June 2012; Bezdek and Wendling, “Economic, Environmental, and Job Impacts of Increased Efficiency in Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants,” op. cit.; Southern States Energy Board, American Energy Security: Building a Bridge to Energy Independence and to a Sustainable Energy Future, Norcross, Georgia, July 2006; Roger H. Bezdek, “The Hydrogen Economy and Jobs of the Future,” Renewable Energy and Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2019).
     Google Scholar
  12. See Sean Pool and Jennifer Erickson, “The High Return on Investment for Publicly Funded Research, Center for American Progress, December 2012. Economists Charles Jones and John Williams of Stanford University, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that the return on investment (ROI) for publicly funded RD&D is somewhere between 30 percent and 100 percent, or more. Charles I. Jones and John C. Williams, “Too Much of a Good Thing? The Economics of Investment in R&D,” Journal of Economic Growth, Volume 5 (March 2000), pp. 65–85.
     Google Scholar
  13. Over the past decade, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE&RE) supported a series of studies evaluating the impacts of its RD&D programs, including photovoltaics, wind energy, vehicle combustion engines, advanced battery technologies for electric-drive vehicles, geothermal energy, HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), water heating, and appliance technologies. The combined results of these six RD&D studies show that, for the EERE RD&D investments evaluated, the aggregate B-C ratio was 33-to-1, and ranged from 4-to-1 to 180-to-1. Research on Federal investment in genomics RD&D reported a B-C ratio of 178-to-1.Jeff Dowd, “Aggregate Economic Return on Investment in the U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, October 2017; Rosalie Ruegg, Alan C. O'Connor, and Ross J. Loomis, “Evaluating Realized Impacts of DOE/EERE R&D Programs,” TIA Consulting Inc. and RTI International, August 2014, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 2015/05/f22/evaluatingrealized_rd_mpacts 9-22-14.pdf; Michael Gallaher, Troy Scott, Zachary Oliver, Kyle Clark-Sutton, and Benjamin Anderson, “Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S. Department of Energy Investment in HVAC, Water Heating, and Appliance Technologies,” RTI International, September 2017; Albert N. Link, Alan C. O'Connor, Troy J. Scott, Sara E. Casey, Ross J. Loomis, and J. Lynn Davis, “Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S. DOE Investment in Energy Storage Technologies for Hybrid and Electric Cars and Trucks,” RTI International, December 2013; A. O'Connor, R. Loomis, and F. Braun, “Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of DOE Investments in Photovoltaic Energy Systems,” RTI International, August 2010; M. Gallaher, A. Rogozhin, and J. Petrusa, “Retrospective Benefit-Cost Analysis of U.S. DOE's Geothermal Technologies R&D Program Investments,” RTI International, August 2010; Tom Pelsoci, “Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S. DOE Wind Energy R&D Program: Impact of Selected Energy Technology Investments,” Delta Research Co., June 2010; Al Link, “Retrospective Benefit-Cost Evaluation of U.S. DOE Vehicle Combustion Engine R&D Program: Impacts of a Cluster of Energy Technologies,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, May 2010. Research on Federal investment in genomics RD&D reported a B-C ratio of 178-to-1. “The Impact of Genomics on the U.S. Economy,” Battelle Technology Partnership, prepared for United for Medical Research, June 2013.
     Google Scholar
  14. See Carpenter Technology Corporation 2016 Form 10-K Annual Report, 2017; “NETL Technology For Safer, Cleaner Corrosion Protecting Metal Coatings Licensed by Pittsburgh Start-Up;” https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/BDO15-013_LumiShield%20Success%20Story.pdf; https:// www.energy.gov/fe/articles/netl-technology-safer-cleaner-corrosion-protecting-metal-coatings-licensed-pittsburgh; “NETL Issues Licenses For its Arc Position Sensing Technology,” https://netl. doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/BDO15-012_KW%20Success%20Story.pdf; “ANH Refractories Becomes Harbison Walker International,” Ceramic Industry Magazine, January 19, 2015; NETL “Licenses Transformational Technology For Carbon Dioxide Capture,” https://netl.doe.gov/sites/ default/files/netl-file/BDO16001_Liquid%20Ion%20 Solutions%20Success% 20 Story.pdf; “Novel Platinum/Chromium Alloy for the Manufacture of Improved Coronary Stents,” https://netl.doe.gov/ sites/default/files/2019-03/BDO12-004_Coronary%20Stent.pdf; “Pyrochem Catalysts for Diesel Fuel Reforming,” https://netl.doe.gov/sites/ default/files/netl-file/BDO13-008_Pyrochem%20R%26D%20 success% 20Story.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  15. Management Information Services, Inc., “A Retrospective Analysis of the Costs, Impacts, and Benefits of the U.S. Department of Energy Coal RD&D Program,” op. cit.; http://misi-net.com/publications.html; pp. 141-144.
     Google Scholar
  16. Chris Coons, “R&D is Essential For Boosting the American Economy,” The Hill, July 11, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  17. See the discussion in National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Op. cit.
     Google Scholar
  18. As the cautionary warning on financial statement reads, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”
     Google Scholar
  19. See Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request, DOE/CF-0167, February 2020.
     Google Scholar
  20. For example, the UN states “If the world is to succeed in constraining CO2 emissions to levels consistent with a less than 2°C rise in global temperatures, then Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) will need to contribute about one-sixth of needed CO2 emission reductions in 2050, and 14 percent of the cumulative emissions reductions between 2015 and 2050.” United Nations Commission for Europe, “Carbon Capture and Storage: A Technological Challenge Already Solved,” 2020. Similarly, the IEA found that CCUS is critical to reach climate goals. International Energy Agency, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2020,” September 2020, https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2020.
     Google Scholar
  21. Office of Chief Financial Officer, Department of Energy FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request, DOE/CF-0167, February 2020.
     Google Scholar
  22. For example, at the FY20 DOE Budget Hearing, Representative Greg Walden stated “I am encouraged by the work DOE is doing to support transformative breakthroughs in ‘carbon free’ fossil energy and carbon capture technologies.” Opening Statement of Republican Leader Greg Walden, Subcommittee on Energy “The Fiscal Year 2020 DOE Budget,” May 9, 2019. Further, Democrat Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, is on record as supporting CCUS.
     Google Scholar
  23. We also estimate that through 2019, the Petra Nova plant has created 2,840 total (direct plus indirect) jobs in Texas and cumulative local tax revenues of $9 million, cumulative Texas tax revenues of $21 million, and cumulative Federal tax revenues of $45 million.
     Google Scholar
  24. Management Information Services, Inc., “Analyzing the Economic and Job Impacts of the DOE R&D Program and CCS Tax Credits,” prepared for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE contract DE-FE 0025912, January 2018.
     Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020, January 2020.
     Google Scholar
  26. A recent comparison of the economic and jobs impacts of CCUS compared to renewable energy alternatives is given in Management Information Services, Inc., “Use of the San Juan Generating Station to Develop Metrics to Compare Coal Fueled Power Plant Jobs Impacts to Those of Renewables,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, August 2020; http://misi-net.com/publications.html.
     Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council, Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Committee on Benefits of DOE R&D on Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  28. Ibid.
     Google Scholar
  29. U.S. General Accounting Office, Fossil Fuel R&D: Lessons Learned in the Clean Coal Technology Program, GAO-01-854T, June 12, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  30. Frank Shaffer and Melissa Chan, Forecasting the Benefits of DOE Programs for Advanced Fossil-Fuel Electricity Generating Technologies: The EIA High Fossil Electricity Technology Case, National Energy Technology Laboratory, October 2002.
     Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Coal Utilization Research Council, “Clean Coal Technology Roadmap,” 2004; National Energy Technology Laboratory, “Clean Coal Technology Roadmap: CURC/EPRI/DOE Consensus Roadmap, Background Information,” April 20, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council, Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase One): A First Look, Committee on Prospective Benefits of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy R&D Programs, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  33. Sales and Benefits of Technology from Clean Coal Demonstration Projects. National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  34. National, State, and Regional Economic and Environmental Impacts of NETL, report prepared by Lisa Phares, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Deborah Lange and Christopher Hendrickson, Carnegie Mellon University, and Randall Jackson and David Martinelli, West Virginia University, DOE/NETL-404.02.01, June 30, 2007; National, State, and Regional Economic and Environmental Impacts of NETL: Pennsylvania-West Virginia Region, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September 2007..
     Google Scholar
  35. Management Information Services, Inc., Benefits of Investments in Clean Coal Technology, prepared for American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Washington, D.C., October 2009; Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, “The Return on Investment of the Clean Coal Technology Program in the USA,” Energy Policy, March 2013, Vol. 54, pp. 104-112.
     Google Scholar
  36. Randall Jackson, Amanda Krugh, Brian LaShier, and Ronald Munson, “National and State Economic Impact of NETL,” West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute, October 2009.
     Google Scholar
  37. Randall Jackson, Amanda Krugh, Brian LaShier, and Ronald Munson, “National and State Economic Impact of NETL,” West Virginia University, Regional Research Institute, October 2009.
     Google Scholar
  38. BBC Research and Consulting, Employment and Other Economic Benefits from Advanced Coal Electric Generation with Carbon Capture and Storage, report prepared for the Industrial Union Council, AFL-CIO; the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the United Mine Workers of America; and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Denver, Colorado, February 2009.
     Google Scholar
  39. https://www.energy.gov/fe/about-us/benefits-research.
     Google Scholar
  40. Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, “Economic, Environmental, and Job Impacts of Increased Efficiency in Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants,” Journal of Fusion Energy, Volume 32, Number 2 (April 2013), pp. 215-220.
     Google Scholar
  41. National Coal Council, Fossil Forward -- Revitalizing CCS, Washington, D.C., 2015.
     Google Scholar
  42. Union of Concerned Scientists, “Three Reasons Why Federal Energy R&D is a Wise Investment,” January 2017.
     Google Scholar
  43. National Energy Technology Laboratory, “Economic Impacts of NETL – United States,” 2018, https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/National_Impact_Factsheet.pdf.
     Google Scholar
  44. Management Information Services, Inc. and Leonardo Technologies Inc., “Economic Impact Assessment of CCUS Retrofit of the Comanche Generating Station,” prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology Laboratory, June 2019.
     Google Scholar
  45. Leonardo Technologies, Inc., “Wyoming Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Study,” prepared for the United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy, August 2020.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)