Controlled comparison of advanced froth flotation process technology and economic evaluations for maximizing BTU recovery and pyritic sulfur rejection

Technical Report · Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1990

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/6778849· OSTI ID:6778849

Harrison, K E; Ferris, D D ^[1]; Kosky, R M ^[2]; Warchol, J J; Musiol, W F; Shiao, S Y ^[3]; Luttrell, G H; Adel, G T; Yoon, R H ^[4]

---

1. ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA (USA)
2. Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, PA (USA)
3. Babcock and Wilcox Co., New Orleans, LA (USA)
4. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA (USA)

The overall objective of this round robin project was to select the most efficient, as determined by the efficiency index, cost effective, as determined by the annual cost per ton of SO{sub 2} removed, advanced flotation device available. This machine was to process ultra fine coal, maximize Btu recovery and maximize pyritic sulfur rejection. The device will first be installed as a one hundred pound per hour capacity unit and, subject to the outcome of Task 6 of the Engineering Development Contract, increased to a 3 ton per hour capacity unit for installation into a proof-of-concept preparation plant. All of the technical and economic results were submitted to the TST for consideration. The TST members evaluated the data and determined to rank each of the participants 50% on technical merit and 50% on economic merit. The technical merit was to be the efficiency index. The economical merit was to be the annual dollars per ton of clean coal corrected for carrying capacity and frother concentration and the results of Test No. 4. This factor does not penalize a particular technology for not meeting a 90% pyritic sulfur rejection and therefore leaves something to be desired as the only economic basis for decision. A second economic evaluation criteria was required that considered the $/ton of sulfur dioxide removed. The technical and economic factors were calculated and added together for the final evaluation ranking. The technical factor was calculated by multiplying the efficiency index for each participant by 0.5. The two economic factors were calculated by dividing 1000 by the $/ton of clean coal and multiplying by 0.5 and by dividing 10,000 by the $/ton of sulfur dioxide removed and multiply by 0.5. The 1000 and 10,000 are numbers selected such that when divided by their economic factors, respective numbers resulted in a two digit number. The results of these calculations are discussed. 4 refs., 18 figs., 27 tabs.

• Research Organization: ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA (USA); Consolidation Coal Co., Pittsburgh, PA (USA); Babcock and Wilcox Co., New Orleans, LA (USA); Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA (USA)
• Sponsoring Organization: DOE/FE
• DOE Contract Number: AC22-88PC88881
• OSTI ID: 6778849
• Report Number(s): DOE/PC/88881-T7; ON: DE91000989
• Country of Publication: United States
• Language: English

Related Subjects

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT
COAL
FLOTATION
COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS
PYRITE
REMOVAL
CALORIFIC VALUE
ECONOMICS
FUEL SLURRIES
CARBONACEOUS MATERIALS
CHALCOGENIDES
COMBUSTION PROPERTIES
DISPERSIONS
ENERGY SOURCES
FOSSIL FUELS
FUELS
IRON COMPOUNDS
IRON SULFIDES
MATERIALS
MINERALS
MIXTURES
SEPARATION PROCESSES
SLURRIES
SULFIDE MINERALS
SULFIDES
SULFUR COMPOUNDS
SUSPENSIONS
TRANSITION ELEMENT COMPOUNDS
010300* - Coal
Lignite
& Peat- Preparation- (1987-)