EPA
TVA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 7-79-250
November 1979
Tennessee Valley
Authority
Office of Power
Emission Control
Development Projects
Muscle Shoals AL 35660
ECDPB-5
Evaluation of
Physical/Chemical Coal
Cleaning and Flue Gas
Desulfurization
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-250
November 1979
Evaluation of Physical/
Chemical Coal Cleaning
and Flue Gas Desulfurization
by
T.W. Tarkington, P.M. Kennedy, and J.G. Patterson
TVA, Office of Power
Emission Control Development Projects
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
Contract No. IAG-D9-E721-BI
Program Element No. INE624A
EPA Project Officer: C.J. Chatlynne
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority and has
been reviewed by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Tennessee Valley Authority or the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study could not have been completed without a considerable
amount of help from many persons. This help and the cooperative attitude
with which it was offered is acknowledged with gratitude. In addition
to Dr. Charles J. Chatlynne (EPA project manager for this project),
James D. Kilgroe of EPA, and many persons at TVA, special acknowledgements
are extended to the following:
Heyl & Patterson, Inc.
Kenneth E. Harrison
Kennecott Copper Corporation
Joachim R. Sinek
Robert A. Giberti
KVB, Inc.
Eugene D. Guth
McNally Pittsburg Manufacturing Cor
Charles E. Packard
William E. Gilstrap
Roberts & Schaefer^ Company
Bill S. Taylor
Robert F. Olson
Carl F. Dalgaard
TRW Defense and Space Systems Group
Robert A. Meyers
Myrrl J. Santy
U.S. Department of Energy
A. W. Deurbrouck
Sidney Friedman
Jim Walter Resources, Inc.
Charles J. Hager
Earl Perry
-------
ABSTRACT
This evaluation of physical and chemical coal cleaning provides process
descriptions, cleaning performances, comparative capital investments, and
annual revenue requirements when four coals with sulfur levels of 0.7% to
5.0% are cleaned by each of seven conceptual processes. In three commercial-
type physical coal cleaning (PCC) processes, coal is treated in dense-medium
equipment and by froth flotation or concentrating table. The three chemical
coal cleaning (CCC) processes are the KVB, TRW Gravichem, and Kennecott
processes. The seventh process has PCC and CCC in combination. Economics
are also provided for three coal cleaning and FGD combinations to meet the
pre-1978 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS and the 85% SO? reduction NSPS proposed in
September 1978. All cases are sized for a 2000-MW power plant.
PCC is a cost-effective method for meeting the 1.2 Ib SO /MBtu emission
level with coals having sulfur levels below about 1.2%. PCC plus FGD offers
a cost-effective approach for 862 emission control in many specific cases.
The CCC processes studied are generally higher in both capital investments
and annual revenue requirements, the KVB process being the least expensive.
When additional economic benefits of using cleaned coal are further quanti-
fied, coal cleaning could become even more economically attractive.
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
Abbreviations, Symbols, and Conversion Factors x
Executive Summary xiii
Introduction 1
Air Quality Control Standards 3
Coal Reserves 4
Premises 9
Design Premises . 9
Coal-Cleaning Plant 9
Power Plant and FGD Premises 9
Coal Premises 10
Economic Premises 13
Project Schedule 13
Capital Investment 13
Annual Revenue Requirements 14
Physical Coal Cleaning 16
Process Selection 16
Physical Coal-Cleaning I Process 17
Process Description 17
Cleaning Performance ..... 21
Physical Coal-Cleaning II Process 21
Process Description 21
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs 26
Physical Coal-Cleaning III Process . 26
Process Description 29
Cleaning Performance 31
Chemical Coal Cleaning 33
KVB Chemical Coal-Cleaning Process 33
Process Description 33
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs 38
TRW Gravichem Chemical Coal-Cleaning Process 38
Process Description 38
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs 44
-------
Kennecott Chemical Coal-Cleaning Process 44
Process Description 44
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs 48
Combination Coal Cleaning 50
PCC I-KVB Combination Process 50
Process Description 50
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs 50
Coal Cleaning - FGD Combinations 53
PCC I-FGD, KVB-FGD, and PCC I-KVB-FGD Processes 53
Process Description 53
Cleaning Performance and Costs 58
Results 59
Coal-Cleaning Performance 59
Performance Criteria 59
Cleaning Performance 59
Coal Cleaning to NSPS 65
Economics 67
Coal-Cleaning Processes 67
Coal Cleaning and FGD Combinations 76
Site-Specific Variables 83
Economic Benefits and Penalties of Using Cleaned Coal 85
Transportation Costs 85
Savings in Payment to Trust Fund 86
Crushing and Grinding Costs 86
Boiler Capacity and Furnace Volume 88
Boiler Performance and Capacity Factor of the Generating Facility . . 88
Ash-Handling Costs at the Utility 90
Improved FGD Operation and Reduction in Boiler Downtime 91
ESP Size and Cost 92
FGD Systems Capital and Operating Costs 92
Reduced Derating of Power Output for FGD Operation 93
Savings in Stack Gas Reheat Costs 94
Surface Moisture Added to Coal by Cleaning Processes 94
Conclusions and Recommendations 96
References 98
Bibliography 102
Glossary 108
Appendices
A. Material Balances and Equipment Lists 112
B. Economic Data 253
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number
S-l Capital investment for coal-cleaning processes and FGD . . . xviii
S-2 Annual revenue requirements for coal-cleaning processes
and FGD xix
S-3 Effect of coal sulfur content on capital investment for
coal-cleaning processes xxii
S-4 Effect of coal sulfur content on annual revenue
requirements for coal-cleaning processes xxiii
1 Coal fields of the conterminous United States 5
2 Remaining identified coal resources of the United States -
January 1, 1974 6
3 Rosin-Rammler plots of premise coal sizes based on
Bureau of Mines, 1946 12
4 Flow diagram for PCC I process 18
5 Flow diagram for PCC II process 23
6 Flow diagram for PCC III process 28
7 Flow diagram for KVB CCC process 34
8 Flow diagram for TRW Gravichem CCC process 40
9 Flow diagram for Kennecott CCC process 46
10 Flow diagram for PCC I-KVB combination coal-cleaning
process 51
11 Flow diagram for limestone slurry FGD process 54
12 Sulfur distribution in PCC I-FGD combination 57
13 Dependence of flue gas reheating energy on proportion of
flue gas bypassed 57
14 Power plant stack emissions using various cleaned coals
without FGD 66
15 Capital investment for coal-cleaning processes and FGD ... 70
16 Annual revenue requirements for coal-cleaning processes
and FGD 71
17 Effect of coal sulfur content on capital investment for
coal-cleaning processes 74
18 Effect of coal sulfur content on annual revenue require-
ments for coal-cleaning processes 75
19 Capital investment to meet 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS by
coal cleaning and FGD 79
20 Annual revenue requirements to meet the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
NSPS by coal cleaning and FGD 80
21 Capital investment to meet 85% reduction NSPS by coal
cleaning and FGD 81
22 Annual revenue requirements to meet 85% reduction NSPS
by coal cleaning and FGD 82
vii
-------
TABLES
Numbe r Page
S-l Cleaning Performance of Physical and Chemical Coal-
Cleaning Processes - 5% Sulfur Coal xvi
S-2 Base-Case Physical and Chemical Coal-Cleaning
Economic Data Summary xvii
S-3 Physical and Chemical Coal-Cleaning Energy Usage
and Losses xxviii
1 Sulfur Reduction of U.S. Coals by Gravity Separation .... 8
2 Percent Reduction of Sulfur Emission Achieved by
Gravity Separation Tests of All U.S. Coals 7
3 Composition of Study Coals - As Received Basis 11
4 Composition of Study Coals - Moisture-Free Basis 11
5 Coal-Cleaning Cost Indexes and Projections 13
6 Cleaning Performance of PCC I Process - DM Vessel,
DM Cyclone, and Froth Flotation (Moisture-Free Basis) .... 22
7 Cleaning Performance of PCC II Process - Low-Gravity
and Moderate-Gravity DM Cyclones, Froth Flotation
(Moisture-Free Basis) 27
8 Cleaning Performance of PCC III Process - DM Cyclone,
Concentrating Table (Moisture-Free Basis) 32
9 Cleaning Performance of KVB Process (Moisture-Free Basis) . . 39
10 Cleaning Performance of TRW Gravichem Process (Moisture-
Free Basis) 45
11 Cleaning Performance of Kennecott Process (Moisture-Free
Basis) 49
12 Cleaning Performance of Combination PCC-KVB Process
(Moisture-Free Basis) 52
13 Amounts of Bypassing, FGD, and Reheating for Coal-
Cleaning - FGD Processes 56
14 Cleaning Performance of Physical and Chemical Coal-
Cleaning Processes - 0.7% Sulfur Coal (Moisture-Free
Basis) 60
15 Cleaning Performance of Physical and Chemical Coal-
Cleaning Processes - 2% Sulfur Coal (Moisture-Free Basis) . . 61
16 Cleaning Performance of Physical and Chemical Coal-
Cleaning Processes - 3.5% Sulfur Coal (Moisture-Free
Basis) 62
17 Cleaning Performance of Physical and Chemical Coal-
Cleaning Processes - 5% Sulfur Coal (Moisture-Free Basis) . . 63
18 Maximum Sulfur in Raw Coal for Meeting Pre-1978 NSPS
with Coal Cleaning (Moisture-Free Basis) 65
19 Coal-Cleaning Processes - Capital Investment Summary .... 68
Vlll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
20 Coal-Cleaning Processes - Annual Revenue Requirement
Summary 69
21 Coal-Cleaning Processes with FGD Capital Investment
Summary 77
22 Coal-Cleaning Processes with FGD Annual Revenue
Requirement Summary 78
23 Coal Properties at Two Similar TVA Power Plants 90
24 Limestone Slurry FGD Costs 93
ix
-------
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND CONVERSION FACTORS
ABBREVIATIONS
CCC Chemical coal cleaning
DM Dense medium
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FD Forced draft
FGD Flue gas desulfurization
G Billion or giga
ID Induced draft
k Thousand or kilo
M Million or mega
NSPS New source performance standards
PCC Physical coal cleaning
SIP State Implementation Plan
-------
SYMBOLS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
ITOIII
ac-ft acre-toot
Bt-u British thermal unir
Btu/lb British thermal unit
To convert
Multiply by lo_
1.234 cubic weter
1.0jr; ionic or N(.jv.ptou-nie te r
ft J
ft /min
ft
f t/min
gal
gal/min
hp
mi
Ib
lb/ft2
lb/ft3
lb/in2
Ib/MBtu
ton3
ton/hr
prr pound
cubic toot
cubic foot per
minute 0,
foot
foot per minute
gallon (U.S.)
gallon (U.S.) per
minute
horsepower
mile
pound
pound per square foot
pound per cubic foot
pound per square inch
pound per million Btu
ton (2,000 Ib)
ton per hour
2.rt>
0.028
.0004719
0.3048
0.00508
3.785
0.063
0.746
1.61
0.454
47.88
16.018
6.894
429.9
0.907
0.252
kiloimues per kilogram
cubic mc't-tr
cubic meter per second
meter
meter per second
liter
liter per second
kilowatt or kilojoule per second
kilometer
kilogram
pascal
kilogram per cubic meter
kilopascal
nanograms per joule
megagrams
kilogram per second
kJ/k;
TT:~
m3/s
m
m/s
I
i/s
kW, kJ/s
km
kg
Pa
kg/m3
kPa
ng/J
mg
kg/s
a. All tons, including tons of sulfur, are expressed in short tons (2,000 Ib) in this report.
Note: Metric units are those of the SI (Systeme International) metric system.
XI
-------
EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL COAL CLEANING
AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Emission standards for coal-fired power plants established by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have made it necessary to
consider various strategies for control of sulfur and other polluting
emissions. Sulfur can be removed before the coal is burned by physical
or chemical coal cleaning, gasification, or liquefaction. Sulfur dioxide
(S02) can be removed during combustion by fluidized-bed combustion or
after combustion by flue gas desulfurization (FGD). As emission standards
are tightened, combinations of these approaches may be necessary to
allow the use of some coals.
The 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu heat input maximum emission standards used as
the basis of this study were in effect when the study was initiated.
New and more strict NSPS were anticipated in response to the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977. These proposed NSPS were published in the
Fe deralJtegister in September 1978. The proposed NSPS retained the 1.2
Ib S02/MBtu requirements and, in addition, required 85% reduction of S02
in all uncontrolled emissions above 0,2 Ib S02/MBtu. These 85% reduction
standards are also incorporated into the study. In June 1979 the final
NSPS were promulgated. These standards also retain the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
standard and in addition require 90% reduction of uncontrolled S02
emissions above 0.6 Ib S02/MBtu and 70% reduction below 0.6 Ib S02/MBtu
with no minimum for solid fuels of the type evaluated in this study.
This report evaluates the performance and economics of three
generic physical coal-cleaning (PCC) processes, three chemical coal-
cleaning (CCC) processes, a PCC plus CCC combination process, and selected
coal-cleaning processes in combination with FGD. The processes are:
a PCC I (dense-medium (DM) vessels, DM cyclones, froth flotation)
a PCC II (DM cyclones at low and high gravity, froth flotation)
« PCC III (DM cyclones, concentrating tables)
» KVB (nitrogen dioxide oxidation of sulfur)
« TRW (ferric sulfate oxidation of sulfur)
o Kennecott (oxygen oxidation of sulfur)
Xlll
-------
e PCC I plus KVB
© PCC I plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD
& KVB plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD
a PCC I plus KVB plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD
These processes and combinations were studied based upon four
premise coals with 0.7%, 2.0%, 3.5%, and 5.0% sulfur levels to show the
effects of varying sulfur contents. The 2.0%, 3.5%, and 5.0% sulfur
coals represent typical bituminous coals while the 0.7% coal represents
a western subbituminous coal. The 0.7% coal has a lower heating value
and a higher ratio of organic sulfur to pyritic sulfur than the three
bituminous coals.
Combustion of cleaned coal has numerous benefits and a few penalties.
Except for the effect on FGD capital and operating costs, the cost compari-
sons in this study do not include those economic benefits for using
cleaned coal.
DESIGN AND ECONOMIC PREMISES
A specific set of design and economic premises established for the
comparative calculations are presented in the body of this report. The
base-case condition for coal-cleaning evaluations assumes supplying coal
to a new 2000-MW midwestern power plant with a design heat rate of 9500
Btu per kWh and operating on a schedule equivalent to full capacity for
5500 hours per year. The power plant life is assumed to be 30 years.
PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
The three PCC processes represent widely used commercial technology;
they were selected for study because they offer a relatively high degree
of sulfur reduction compared with other PCC methods. The three CCC
processes are not commercial processes, but have been developed to
bench-scale or limited pilot-plant stages. Additional development could
make significant changes in their technical, and thus economic, potential
for sulfur reduction. The PCC processes are somewhat limited in their
desulfurization application because they remove only pyritic sulfur.
Two of the CCC processes remove significant quantities of organic sulfur
in addition to pyritic sulfur.
Physical Coal Cleaning
PCC I Process—
Raw coal is crushed to three size fractions, each of which is
processed separately. A DM vessel is used for the coarse coal, a DM
cyclone for the intermediate-sized coal, and froth flotation for the
fine coal.
xiv
-------
PCC II Process—
After crushing, the coarse fraction is processed in DM cyclones
operated at low specific gravity to produce a small overflow of highly
cleaned coal. The bottoms from the low-gravity cyclones are pumped to
high-gravity cyclones to produce "middling" (medium-quality coal) and
refuse. The fine coal is recovered by froth flotation.
PCC III Process--
In this process, about two-thirds of the crushed coal feed is a
coarse fraction treated in DM cyclones. A fine coal fraction, amounting
to about one-third of the coal feed, is cleaned on concentrating tables.
The remaining very fine coal fraction is thickened and filtered without
cleaning and is added to the clean coal product.
Chemical Coal Cleaning
KVB Process—
This process is the result of several years of research in chemical
desulfurization of fuels by KVB, Incorporated, a Research-Cottrell
Company. According to KVB the process removes 90% to 99% of the pyritic
sulfur and up to 40% of the organic sulfur in coal. It consists of
selective oxidation of the sulfur compounds in the coal using gaseous
NC>2 at a low temperature and at atmospheric pressure.
TRW Gravichem Process—
TRW Defense and Space Systems Group developed the Gravichem coal
desulfurization process and claims the process will remove 90% to 99% of
the pyritic sulfur but none of the organic sulfur. The process has been
demonstrated in an 8-ton-per-day plant at a TRW test site.
The process consists of a sink-float gravity separation, followed
by selective oxidation of the pyrite in the sink fraction with ferric
sulfate, followed by acetone leaching to recover elemental sulfur.
Kennecott Process—
Kennecott Copper Corporation began development of this process in
1970 and continued work through May 1975 when the process was demonstrated
at a bench-scale level. The process consists of an oxidation system in
which 85% to 95% of the pyritic sulfur and up to 30% of the organic
sulfur in the coal are oxidized to soluble sulfates by sparging oxygen
through pulverized coal at a high temperature and pressure.
RESULTS OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING STUDY
Cleaning Performance
The estimated performances of the six coal-cleaning processes
described in the premises are shown in Table S-l for the 5.0% sulfur
coal. The PCC processes remove only pyritic sulfur and have a con-
siderably lower sulfur removal efficiency than the CCC processes. In
addition, noncoal minerals are removed and some of the coal is lost.
xv
-------
X
<
H-
TABLE S-l. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES
5% SULFUR COAL
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
Cleaned coal
Chemical cleaning
Physical cleaning
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
5.00
3.35
1.59
0.06
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
—
PCC I
3.67
2.02
-
-
10.1
13,000
90.7
84.2
2.84
32
PCC II
3.51
1.86
-
-
9.3
13,000
91.4
84.0
2.68
36
PCC III
3.78
2.13
-
-
10.6
12,900
90.7
84.7
2.93
30
KVB
1.32
0.07
1.21
0.04
13.7
12,900
98.8
92.1
1.02
76
TRW
Gravichem
1.95
0.07
1.70
0.04
13.6
12,300
98.9
92.8
1.51
64
Kennecott
1.81
0.40
1.37
0.04
15.8
11,300
94.1
100.1
1.60
62
Combination
PCC I-
KVB
1.26
0.04
1.18
0.04
8.0
13,600
90.2
80.1
0.93
78
-------
The CCC processes remove most of the pyritic sulfur and the KVB and
Kennecott processes also remove 30% to 40% of the organic sulfur.
Coal cleaned by the physical processes contains from 30% to 36%
less sulfur than the raw coal. Weight and Btu recoveries are about 84%
and 91% respectively. There is also an increase in cleaned coal heating
value and a reduction in ash. Sulfur removal efficiencies of the CCC
processes range from 62% to 76% with no appreciable weight or Btu loss.
There is also less increase in heating value and less reduction in ash
content compared with coal cleaned in the PCC processes.
Base-Case Economics
Base-case capital investment and annual revenue requirement summaries
for the six processes are shown in Table S-2 and in Figures S-l and S-2.
Costs of a limestone scrubbing FGD system with pond disposal of sludge
are also included in Table S-2 for comparison with the coal-cleaning
processes. All cost data are based on processes serving a 2000-MW power
plant and raw coal containing 5% sulfur, as described in the premises.
TABLE S-2. BASE-CASE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL CLEANING
ECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY
Annual
Process
PCC I
PCC II
PCC III
KVB
TRW
Kennecott
PCC I-KVB
FGD
% sulfur
reduction
32
36
30
76
64
62
78
85
Capital
$/kW
34
40
39
86
114
141
115
119
investment
C/lb sulfur
removed/yr
37
40
45
52
78
94
59
68
revenue
Mills/kWh
2.7
2.9
2.9
8.3
7.3
14.7
11.0
5.6
requirements
C/lb sulfur
removed
16
16
18
27
28
54
32
18
Basis
2,000 MW, 5.0% sulfur in coal, 5,500 hr/yr, 9,500 Btu/kWh heat
rate. FGD is limestone scrubbing, 25% scrubber redundancy, with
pond sludge disposal. Percent sulfur reduction based on raw and
cleaned coal heating values.
xvii
-------
c
Oi
ex
to
CJ
160
1.40
120
100
80
60
40
20
Kennecott
FGD
PCC I-KVB
KVB
PCC IE
PCC III
PCC I
I
0 12345
Feed coal, sulfur content, %
Figure S-l. Capital, investment for c-oal-r lean ing processes nnd i'GD.
xvili
-------
Kennecott
14
3CC I-KVB
10
KVB
TRW
FGD
PCC r wLth credit
Tor other benefits >• o
1 234
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure S-2 . Annual revenue requirements for c-oal -c lean ing
processes and FGI).
xix
-------
The three PCC processes have capital investments of 34 to 40 $/kW
and annual revenue requirements of 2.7 to 2.9 mills/kWh; the capital
investments are equivalent to 37 to 45 C/lb sulfur removed per year and
the annual revenue requirements are 16 to 18
-------
annual revenue requirements of the processes evaluated. The differences
in revenue requirement between the KVB process and the TRW process are
reduced when costs are related to amount of sulfur removed. In all
cases, however, the CCC processes remain more expensive to operate than
the PCC processes.
For comparison, costs for limestone scrubbing FGD units with 85%
sulfur reduction for a 2000-MW utility are included in Table S-2. The
capital investment ($/kW) for the FGD unit is much higher than those for
the PCC processes and higher than the capital investment of the KVB
process. Annual revenue requirements (mills/kWh) for the FGD system are
higher than those of the PCC processes although lower than those of the
CCC processes.
Since the processes remove different percentages of sulfur from the
raw coal, capital and operating costs per kilowatthour are not directly
comparable. When compared on the basis of cost per unit of sulfur
removed, the capital investment and revenue requirements of the FGD
system are greatly reduced relative to the coal-cleaning processes.
Figure S-3 shows the effect of coal sulfur content on the capital invest-
ments of the six coal-cleaning processes and FGD, Annual revenue require-
ments are shown in Figure S-4. The cost comparisons are shown on the
basis of quantity of sulfur removed. On this basis the KVB process with
its high removal efficiency and relatively low capital investment compares
favorably with the FGD system in capital investment. The PCC processes
also remain less costly in capital investment than the FGD system in
terms of cost versus sulfur removed. On the same basis the annual
revenue requirements of the FGD system are more than those of the PCC
processes but remain lower than all the CCC processes. The annual revenue
requirements shown in Figure S-4 do not include credit for the other benefits
of using cleaned coal.
Economics of Coal Cleaning Plus FGD
When the PCC I process is combined with partial FGD scrubbing as an
S02 emission control method to meet 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission limits that
were in effect when this report was prepared, the capital investment
($/kW) is less than for FGD alone. The annual revenue requirements
(mills/kWh) are generally the same as for FGD alone. PCC I plus FGD has
lower annual revenue requirements at sulfur contents of raw coal below
about 3%. When other benefits of using cleaned coal such as reductions in
ash costs, coal transportation costs, maintenance costs, peaking capacity,
rated capacity, and plant availability are credited, PCC plus FGD should
also be competitive at the higher sulfur levels.
The capital investment for PCC I plus FGD to meet the 85% S02
removal proposed in the September 19, 1978, Federal Register is approxi-
mately the same as for FGD alone. The annual revenue requirements for
PCC I plus FGD for the 85% S02 removal are slightly higher than for FGD
alone, although this difference can be eliminated when other economic.
benefits of using clean coal are credited.
xxi
-------
T3
01
O-
a
u
1200
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Kennecott
20
2 3
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure S-3. Effect of coal sulfur content on
capital investment for coal-
cleaning processes.
xxii
-------
D
en
f>
700
600
500
400
300
200
90
80
70
60
50
30
20
Kennecott
PCC I-KVB
TRW
Feed coal sulfur content, 7,
Figure S-4. Effect of coal sulfur content on
annual revenue requirements for
coal-cleaning processes.
xxiii
-------
When coal cleaned by the KVB process is used with partial FGD
scrubbing to meet 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission levels, the capital investment
($/kW) is approximately the same as FGD alone for equal sulfur levels in
the raw coal. For sulfur levels in the raw coal below about 3%, the KVB
process alone will meet 1.2 Ib SC^/MBtu emission levels without FGD. To
meet the 85% S02 removal, the KVB process plus partial FGD scrubbing has
a capital investment ($/kW) approximately the same as that of FGD alone
for raw coal sulfur levels above about 3%. For lower sulfur levels, the
KVB process plus FGD has a higher capital investment. With either
standard, the capital investment required for the PCC I plus KVB plus
FGD case is higher than for PCC I plus FGD, KVB plus FGD, or FGD alone.
The annual revenue requirements (mills/kWh) to meet 1.2 Ib SC>2/MBtu
emission levels with PCC I plus FGD are higher than for FGD alone for
raw coal sulfur levels above about 3%. Below about 3% raw coal sulfur
levels, the annual revenue requirements for PCC I plus FGD are lower
than for FGD alone. The annual revenue requirements for KVB plus FGD
and for PCC I plus KVB plus FGD are higher than for FGD alone at all raw
coal sulfur levels.
The annual revenue requirements (mills/kWh) to meet 85% SC>2 removal
are higher for PCC I plus FGD, KVB plus FGD, or PCC I plus KVB plus FGD
than for FGD alone.
Site-Specific Cost Factorg_
It should be emphasized that many site-specific variables affect
the economics involved in determining the lowest cost method to meet
emission standards. Some of these are discussed below.
Emission Standards—
Costs for coal cleaning, alone or in combination with FGD, will be
most attractive for plants under higher SIP standards, less attractive
for 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission limits, and least attractive for 85% S02
removal, as compared with FGD alone. Raising the proposed 0.2 Ib
SC-2/MBtu floor in the 85% S02 removal NSPS would have increased the
number of situations in which coal cleaning would be economically
attractive for that standard.
Coal Properties—
Higher ratios of pyritic sulfur to organic sulfur will result in
improved costs for most situations utilizing coal cleaning. Larger
pyrite crystal size or more favorable particle distribution will make
the pyrite easier to remove by PCC and will also result in improved
costs. Data exist which show that coal cleaning will not only reduce
the sulfur level, but also the sulfur variability in coal. Coal cleaning
plus FGD will generally have more attractive costs for a raw coal with
high sulfur variability. The size and cost of a coal-cleaning plant to
deliver a specified heat load are also obviously dependent on the heat
content of the raw coal.
xxiv
-------
Plant Location—
Plant location influences costs in a variety of ways. These include
construction and operating labor rates; need for weather protection;
requirements for barge, truck, or rail unloading facilities; size of raw
and cleaned coal storage facilities; and rates for utilities. For
example, the PCC and CGC plants evaluated in this study include a 15-day
supply of cleaned coal (power plant usage basis) plus facilities for
stacking, storage, and reclaim. In addition, there are similar facilities
for a 15-day supply of raw coal. If the coal-cleaning plant is located
adjacent to the power plant, the cleaned coal could be considered as
part of the power plant normal 90- to 120-day stockpile. This would
reduce both the installed capital and working capital.
Process Commercial Development--
The PCC processes studied are in a commercial stage of development
whereas the CCC processes are all relatively undeveloped. Future develop-
ment work on the CCC processes could substantially increase or decrease
the projected costs. The significant reduction in sodium hydroxide
usage recently reported by KVB for their process would make it more
economically attractive.
While the use of absorbents such as limestone to remove S02 during
combustion has not been fully successful in the past, recent work reported
by Battelle burning pellets made of finely ground limestone and coal
showed a sulfur capture of about 75% in the boiler. After cleaning, the
cleaned coal has a fine particle size and in some cases it must be
pelletized for shipping or storage. These grinding and pelletizing or
briquetting costs are included in the costs of the CCC processes.
Grinding limestone and pelletizing it with the cleaned coal, using
cement as a binder, would offer many process and cost advantages for
both SC-2 control methods. For many coals this technique, if perfected,
used with coals cleaned by the KVB process could even meet 85% SC>2
removal standards.
Other Economic Benefits and Penalties of Using Cleaned J>o_al
In evaluating the capital investment and annual revenue requirements
associated with coal cleaning, it is useful to also assess the other
economic benefits and penalties that result from use of cleaned coal.
In addition to the primary benefit that the cleaned coal is lower in
sulfur, it is generally also lower in ash and higher in heating value,
although often higher in surface moisture. Combustion of coal with
these characteristics has numerous benefits as well as certain dis-
advantages to the user. The net effect is a credit which may be of
sufficient magnitude to offset some of the increased cost of cleaned
coal.
Except for the effect on FGD capital and operating costs, the cost
comparisons in this study do not include these economic benefits for
using cleaned coal. Recent studies have shown penalties of up to $8 per
ton for coals with combined ash and sulfur contents up to 25%. This
represents a potential net cost advantage of up to about 3 mills/kWh for
-------
using clean coal. These studies show a 2 mills/kWh net cost advantage for
the 5% sulfur coal used in this study with lower amounts for the coals with
lower sulfur levels. Additional work is needed to quantify the economic
magnitude of these economic benefits and penalties. Several of the
significant economic effects of using cleaned coal are discussed below.
Transportation Costs—
Coal beneficiation at the mine decreases the cost of coal transporta-
tion by increasing the heating value of the coal, consequently reducing
the quantity of coal necessary to supply a given heat requirement.
Pension and Benefit Trust Fund—
Provisions of the 1978 UMW contract require payment by the mine
operator of $1.385 to the UMW Pension and Benefit Trust Fund for each
ton of coal shipped to a consumer. Less cleaned coal is needed to
supply a specified heat load requirement and, if the coal-cleaning plant
is at the mine, the reduced tonnage will decrease this payment.
Pulverization Costs—
PCC, by reducing mineral matter, decreases coal hardness and facili-
tates crushing. The increased heating value of cleaned coal also reduces
the quantity of coal to be crushed. The size of the cleaned coal product
is considerably smaller than that of raw coal so that significant pulveri-
zation costs, which are already covered in the coal-cleaning costs, are
saved. Additional surface moisture of cleaned coal may partially offset
these advantages.
Boiler Capacity—
The higher heating value of cleaned coal decreases the possibility
that the utility boiler capacity will be derated because of deteriorating
coal quality. Also, by reducing the slagging tendency of the coal, coal
cleaning can permit the design of furnaces with higher heat transfer
rates and correspondingly smaller furnace volume.
Boiler Performance—
Cleaned coal can improve boiler performance by reducing slagging,
fouling, and corrosion problems. This can significantly reduce the cost
of boiler operation and maintenance and increase the availability of the
generating facility.
Ash Handling—
Ash handling and disposal costs are decreased since coal cleaning
generally reduces the total amount of ash handled. Less sensible heat
is lost in the bottom ash because of the lower ash levels.
FGD Operation—
FGD systems generally have markedly better operation with low-
sulfur coals. When coal cleaning is followed by FGD scrubbing, the
lower sulfur level of the cleaned coal should give less FGD system
downtime and a better overall utility availability. Better overall
utility availability is also obtained with cleaned coal because of the
more consistent SC>2 inlet concentration to the FGD system,
xxvi
-------
FGD Capital and Operating Costs—
Investment and operating costs of FGD systems are proportional to
inlet sulfur concentration. Boilers burning high-sulfur coal have
higher capital costs because of the necessity for a large absorbent
preparation facility, scrubber system, and area for waste disposal.
Corresponding savings in operating costs should also be realized with
the low-sulfur cleaned coal, particularly if partial scrubbing can
replace full scrubbing. These cost advantages for coal cleaning plus
FGD have been taken into account in this study.
ESP Size and Cost—
The resistivity of fly ash is a major factor in determining the
collection area of the ESP. Resistivity is determined by many factors,
including ash composition and concentration and SO-j level in the gas.
With conventional ESP units the removal of fly ash will generally be
more difficult with the low sulfur levels of cleaned coal. ESP costs
may be increased although ash levels may be partly compensating. Other
systems such as hot side ESP, bag filters, or pulsed ESP may be less
expensive in certain cases when burning cleaned coal.
Surface Moisture—
Higher moisture levels in cleaned coal resulting from the smaller
particle sizes increase transportation costs and result in a minor heat
loss when the water is heated and vaporized during the combustion process,
Energy Requirements
Energy estimates for the six processes are shown in Table S-3. The
comparison is made on the basis of total energy input consisting of raw
coal feed and utilities. In addition to the electrical, steam, diesel
fuel, or natural gas energy consumed in the process, there are other
energy losses and usages that are specific for each process. Additional
energy is needed to vaporize the extra surface moisture of cleaned coal
and to heat the water vapor to stack temperature. The three PCC
processes have a significant Btu loss because part of the coal is dis-
charged in the refuse stream.
The Kennecott process also has a small coal usage because a portion
of the coal chemical structure is altered during the cleaning process.
This energy aids in holding the reaction temperature at the desired
level, thereby replacing an equivalent amount of energy in the form of
steam. In addition, the coal product from the Kennecott process has an
oxygen uptake resulting in an additional Btu loss.
The KVB process utilizes a reaction at atmospheric pressure and at
relatively low temperatures. As a result, the 6.5% total energy usage
for the KVB process is significantly lower than that of the other
processes.
xxvii
-------
TABI.K S-3. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING
ENERGY USAGE AND LOSSES
PCC I PCC II PgjLJLlI^^J^JL---^-™^ Kennecot^
Total energy input, 1012 Btu/yr 115.6 115.2 115.3 U1.8 115.4 125.7
Energy Lost or Used
Sulfur removed 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.2 1.0 1 Q
Coal lost or used, % of input 8.6 8.0 8.6 o 0 l!3
Moisture increase in product coal 0.2 0.5 0,1 0.3 1.8 0.8
Oxygen uptake in coal - - - - - 2.9
Utilities
Electricity, I of input 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.6 0.5 1.7
Steam, % of input 00 0 4.4 6.1 9.2
Natural gas, % of input 000 0.02 0 0
Diesel fuel, % of input 0.02 _0.0_2 .0.02 0 0 Q
Total 9.6 9.3 9.4 6.5 9.4 16.9
Basis
2,000-MW utility power plant equivalent, 5,500 hr/yr operation, 9,500 Btu/kWh design
heat rate, 57, sulfur coal.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PCC is a commercial, cost-effective method for meeting 1.2 lb
S02/MBtu emission levels for raw coals with sulfur levels below
about 1.2%. Older utility plants that are required to meet less
stringent SIP's or industrial boilers could use coals with even
higher sulfur levels.
2. PCC plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD is generally cost
effective in meeting 1.2 lb S02/MBtu emission levels, as compared
with FGD alone, for raw coals with sulfur contents below about 3%.
Above this sulfur level, the PCC plus FGD method generally has lower
capital investment but slightly higher annual revenue requirements.
When other benefits of using cleaned coal are credited, PCC plus FGD
should also be competitive at the higher sulfur levels.
3. Coal cleaning plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD is generally
less cost effective in meeting 85% S02 removal than limestone FGD
alone. KVB plus FGD and PCC I plus FGD have about the same capital
investment as FGD for raw coal sulfur levels above about 3% but have
higher annual revenue requirements. Again, when the other benefits
of using clean coal are credited, PCC plus FGD should also be com-
petitive at the higher sulfur levels.
4. The CCC processes are generally higher in both capital investments
and annual revenue requirements than the PCC processes. The Kennecott
process is most expensive and the KVB process the least expensive of
the CCC processes studied.
xxviii
-------
5. The KVB process or KVB plus partial FGD scrubbing generally have
lower capital investments and higher annual revenue requirements
(mills/kWh) than FGD alone. Recent work by KVB to decrease the
sodium hydroxide usage of this process could make a significant
improvement in annual revenue requirements. All CCC processes
require additional process development before costs can be more
accurately calculated.
6. The KVB process is the most energy efficient process of the PCC and
CCC processes studied.
7. The use of cleaned coal has many additional economic benefits and a
few penalties. The net result could be a cost reduction which would
substantially reduce the costs of coal cleaning. Further work
should be done to quantify these factors.
8. A potentially advantageous 862 emission control approach that
should be investigated further is pelletization of the already
finely ground clean coal with limestone for further sulfur removal
during combustion. This could expand the potential for economic
sulfur removal by coal cleaning.
xxix
-------
EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL COAL CLEANING
AND FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Substantial increases in coal use are projected for the United
States in the coming decades. Utility consumption is expected to nearly
double from 404 million tons in 1975 to 779 million tons in 1985 and
almost triple to a billion tons by 2000 according to governmental expec-
tations (Executive Office of the President, 1977). This increase in
coal usage will substantially increase sulfur dioxide (S02) air pollution
emissions unless positive steps are taken to either: (1) remove the
sulfur before the coal is burned by physical or chemical coal cleaning,
gasification, or liquefaction; (2) remove the S02 as the coal is burned
by fluidized-bed combustion processes; or (3) remove the S02 from stack
gases after combustion by using flue gas desulfurization (FGD).
This report deals with the performance and economics of physical
coal-cleaning (PCC) and chemical coal-cleaning (CCC) processes when used
for the control of S02 emissions from conventional coal-fired power
plants. For purposes of comparison, three PCC and three CCC processes
are assessed separately, in a PCC-CCC process combination, and in
combination with FGD. Four premise coals are used to show the effects
of varying sulfur contents and of varying responses to the cleaning
processes because of different ratios of pyritic to organic sulfur.
The methods of sulfur removal differ widely in maturity of commer-
cial development, in cost, and in operational performance. In addition
to size control for market requirements, some degree of PCC for the
removal of pyritic sulfur and ash materials has been practiced in the
United States since 1890 (Agarwal et al., 1975). For these early opera-
tions, belt washers, bumping tables, and other precursors to the modern
concentrating table were adapted from ore beneficiation practices to
coal cleaning. The Baum coal-washing machine for alternately flooding
and draining a moving bed of coal was in commercial operation in Europe
well before 1900 (Baum, 1894) and was introduced into the United States
in 1928 (Coal Preparation, 1968). Basically, all methods used gravity
separation, taking advantage of the fact that "pure" coal has a lower
specific gravity than the pyrite or the ash materials.
During the last quarter century, a succession of equipment innova-
tions and improvements has brought a new sophistication to coal cleaning.
But except for froth flotation the leading commercial methods still are
based on gravity separation under static or dynamic conditions. One of
-------
the most thorough commercially practical processes for separation of
coal and refuse material is gravity separation in a dense-medium magnetite
and water slurry controlled at a precise specific gravity within the
range of 1.34 to about 1.6. This method is used in this study for coal
fractions of coarse or intermediate particle size, but froth flotation
or tabling is used for the fine coal fractions.
Over the years, most U.S. coal cleaning has been oriented to
metallurgical coal and to its export requirements rather than to steam
coal for use by utilities. Increased mechanization and increased use of
continuous mining equipment, however, have resulted in raw coal that
contains more impurities. As a result, many utilities have been offered
coal of increased ash content and lower calorific value and the need for
coal cleaning has increased.
Published data on tonnages of coal cleaned are not well divided by
coal use but in the period 1965-1975 an estimated 60% of all coal produced
in the United States received some beneficiation—often of very limited
extent (Gibbs and Hill, 1978). On the same basis, 20% to 30% of the raw
coal destined for utilities received at least partial beneficiation.
This low percentage means that coal cleaning has been considered economical
for utility use only under poorer than average conditions of coal quality
and transportation distance or unusual conditions of use. Now, however
the air quality control standards sharply limit the S02 emissions from
power plants and coal cleaning is beginning to be used as an SC>2 control
measure.
Because of the increasingly stringent requirements for sulfur
removal at power plants, interest has increased in all technologies for
sulfur control. These requirements have increased the cost of sulfur
control in general and have opened the door for consideration of approaches
that are not commercially proven technically or economically.
In contrast to the extensive commercial history of PCC, the CCC
processes are relatively undeveloped. Most CCC processes have not been
developed past bench scale, but the TRW Gravichem process has been
demonstrated in an 8-ton-per-day pilot plant. None have been used
commercially.
A number of approaches to CCC have been investigated. Some of
these are:
« Nitrogen oxides oxidation (KVB)
a Ferric sulfate oxidation (TRW)
a Oxygen oxidation (Kennecott)
o Air oxidation (Department of Energy)
• Chlorine oxidation (Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
-------
» Hydrothermal (Battelle)
e Alkaline oxidation (Iowa State)
o Microwave (General Electric)
o Bacterial (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Ohio State, and others)
In addition, other processes use pretreatment followed by physical
separation. Examples are chemical comminution followed by a physical
sink-float separation (Otisca) or a chemical pretreatment with iron
carbonyl followed by magnetic separation (Magnex). CCC is an emerging
technology and considerably more development effort is needed before
costs, problems, and degree of sulfur removal are known with accuracy.
FGD now has a history in regular power plant application since 1973.
FGD processes continue to be improved in operating reliability, in S02
removal efficiency, and in sludge disposal methods (Kennedy and Tomlinson,
1978). Processes for recovery of the SC>2 byproduct are at a much earlier
stage of commercialization.
AIR QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS
Following the Clean Air Act of 1970, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued Federal Standards for New Stationary Sources, often
called new-source performance standards or NSPS (Chaput, 1976). The
maximum emission level for S02 was established as 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu heat
input to boilers in power plants built after August 17, 1971. Also,
each state prepared an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
power plants (Crenshaw et al., 1976). These emission levels depended on
the atmospheric sensitivity at the plant location and range from 1.2 to
about 0.3 Ib S02/MBtu. Some states have required FGD regardless of the
S02 emission level. A number of SIP standards for power plants built
prior to August 17, 1971, have been more liberal than the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
maximum for new plants but they are too diverse and changeable for
generalization and have to be obtained currently on a plant-by-plant
basis.
Based on the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA proposed more
restrictive emission standards for power plants whose construction
commenced after September 18, 1978 (Federal Register. 1978). The proposed
standards include a general requirement of 85% removal of the S02 equiva-
lent in the raw coal, down to an emission level of 0.2 Ib S02/MBtu to
the boiler. This degree of removal may be shared among sulfur removal
processes such as coal cleaning, bottom and fly ash removal, and FGD.
Both the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS and the proposed 85% removal NSPS are used
in this study. In June 1979, the final NSPS were promulgated. These
standards also retain the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu standard and in addition
require 90% reduction of uncontrolled S02 emissions above 0.6 Ib
S02/MBtu and 70% reduction below 0.6 Ib S02/MBtu with no minimum for
solid fuels of the type evaluated in this study.
-------
Desulfurization therefore serves a diverse set of emission limits,
depending on whether the power plant was new or existing on August 17,
1971, or on September 18, 1978, and depending on existing and impending
SIP requirements. The needed desulfurization will continue to be specific
to the coal and to the current limit for the power plant location.
COAL RESERVES
As shown in Figure 1, coal deposits are widely distributed across
the United States, but most bituminous coal is found in the eastern half
of the country and virtually all subbituminous coal and lignite occur in
the Western States. The tonnage and its heating value for each rank of
coal deposit are charted by state in Figure 2. The two scales are
arranged to provide the same bar length for tonnage and for heating
value for bituminous coal. Lignite deposits are most extensive in North
Dakota and Montana, but Texas and South Dakota also have useful amounts.
The largest subbituminous coal deposits are in Montana, Wyoming, and
Alaska, with New Mexico and Colorado having smaller but very significant
tonnages. Bituminous coal is the most widely distributed among states.
Anthracite coal is virtually restricted to Pennsylvania. For the country
as a whole, both tonnge and heating value of coal ranks occur in the
decreasing order of bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, and anthracite.
All coals receive some degree of preparation for their markets but
cleaning of steam coal for utility use has been confined to the bitumi-
nous type.
Since the 1940's electric utilities have gained an increasing share
of U.S. coal consumption. In 1973 this share reached 70% (Averitt,
1975). Much of the percentage increase was the result of declining use
by other consumers. The major part of coal production has been bituminous
coal from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio, but
in recent years the production of western coal has gained impressively.
In fiscal 1975 the subbituminous and bituminous western coals supplied
17% of all U.S. utility coal and they comprised 55% of U.S. utilities
coal of under 1% sulfur (Hunter, 1976).
The gains by western coals have been due partly to a general growth
in power plant capacity in the West and partly to increased use of
western coal farther east. Because of its characteristically low sulfur
content of less than 1%, subbituminous coal from Montana and Wyoming has
been used in some existing Central States power plants to meet emission
standards without FGD. Under the proposed emission standards of 1978,
virtually no new power plants and fewer existing units would have this
sulfur-control option. This limitation can be expected to restrict the
use of subbituminous coal in the Central States,
Knowledge of the cleanability of coal reserves is of obvious importanc
and much effort has been put to estimating their sulfur reduction potential
using gravity-type separations. The results show the potential of PCC
for meeting emission standards and they provide a useful background for
this study.
-------
<
San Francisco
NORTHERN GREAT
PLAINS REGION
Chicao . _
ILLINOIS
| WESTERN
INTERIOR
BASIN
, WU-i
EXPLANATION
Anthracite and semianthracite
^
Low-volatile bituminous coal
Medium- and high-volatile
bituminous coat
Subbiluminoui coal
Lignite
Figure 1. Coal fields of the conterminous United States
(From Averitt, 1975)
-------
BILLIONS 10* OF SHOflT TONS
100 2OO
QUADRILLIONS 10" OF Btu1
2,620 5,240-
3OO
7.860
EXPLANA PON
Subbitummous <~oal
LI::: : : :i
Lignite
Anthracit* and i*mi«nthracite
' Conv«r»ion faetort: anthr»cit«. 12,700 Btu per
pound, bitummoui coal. 13.100 Btu per pound;
•ubbituminoui coal, 9.50O Btu per pound, and
lignite. 6,700 Btu per pound
Small resources of lignite included with
tubbituminoui coal
3 Includes anthracite or semianthracita in
quantitm too imall to show on scale of diagram
4 Excludes coal in beds lest than 4 ft thick
* Includes California. Georgia, Idaho, Michigan.
North Carolina, end Oregon
Maryland
Other States'
Figure 2. Remaining identified coal resources
of the United States • January 1, 1974
(From Averitt. 1975)
-------
In one of the most comprehensive programs of this type, Cavallaro
et al. (1976) conducted float-sink tests on 455 coal samples from six
regions across the country. Separations were made at three specific
gravities (1.3, 1.4, 1.6) and with three top sizes of coal (1-1/2 inch,
3/8 inch, 14 mesh). Without treatment, only 14% of the raw coal samples
could meet the pre-1978 emission standard of 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu, but when
treated at 1-1/2-inch top size at 90% Btu recovery, 24% of the samples
would meet that standard.
Results by region are summarized in Table 1. Here regional coals
vary in total sulfur content from 0.68% to 5.3% sulfur, of which 34% to
68% is pyritic and thus potentially removable if completely liberated
from the coal particles. When 3/8-inch top size coals were float-tested
at specific gravity 1.6, the ratio of sulfur to calorific value was
reduced by 15% to 44%. This meant that additional sulfur removals
ranging from none to 78% would be required to meet the emission standard
of 1.2 Ib SC>2/MBtu. For U.S. coals as a whole, Table 2 shows that the
reduction in sulfur emission by gravity flotation could range from 27%
to 50% depending on the particle size and the specific gravity of
separation.
The more detailed results of this test program further illustrate
the variability in sulfur content and in coal cleanability by region, by
location within a region, and by coal within a seam. They show that the
degree of cleanability and the process arrangements for achieving it can
be highly specific and that they may not be reliably inferred from
generalized data.
As extensions to the above basic study, other investigations by
Giberti et al, (1978), McCreery and Goodman (1978), and Kilgroe (1979)
have used the same or similar data as a basis for developing particular
perspectives of interest in coal reserves.
TABLE 2. PERCENT REDUCTION OF SULFUR EMISSION
ACHIEVED BY GRAVITY SEPARATION TESTS OF ALL U.S. COALS
Spec i I i_c_j.!;ravi ty ol sopnrat ion
Particle size Percent reduction in Ib S02/MBtu
1-1/2 in. x 100 mesh 27 30 34 44
3/8 in. x 100 mesh 32 34 38 46
14 mesh x 0 38 40 43 50
Source: Adapted from Cavallaro et al., 1976.
-------
TABLE 1. SULFUR REDUCTION OF U.S. COALS BY GRAVITY SEPARATION
(3/8~inch top size, 1.60 specific gravity)
Region
Northern Appalachian
(Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
northern and central West
Virginia)
Southern Appalachian
(Tennessee, Virginia, eastern
Kentucky, southern West Virginia)
Alabama
Eastern Midwest (Illinois,
Indiana, western Kentucky)
Western Midwest (Arkansas, Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma)
oo Western (Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
Total United States
Percent
pyritic
2.0
0.37
0.69
2.3
3.6
0.23
1.9
Sulfur
Percent
total
3.0
1.0
1.3
3.9
5.3
0.68
3.0
Lb S/MBtu
Ratio
0.67
0.36
0.52
0.58
0.68
0.34
0.63
Raw
coal
4.8
1.6
2.0
6.5
9.0
1.1
4.9
Float
2.7
1.3
1.7
4.2
5.5
0.9
3.0
Percent
reduction
44
19
15
35
39
18
39
S02 removal
neededa, %
56
8
29
71
78
none
60
Source: Adapted from Cavallaro et al., 1976.
a. Additional S02 removal, as by FGD, to meet emission standard of 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu.
-------
PREMISES
DESIGN PREMISES
Coal-Cleaning Plant
Plant Premises—
The coal-cleaning plants are assumed to be located at the power
plant and are sized to supply the coal demand for a 2000-MW power plant.
The PCC plants are based on approximately a 90% Btu recovery for the
5.0% sulfur coal and 6000 hours per year of operation. The CCC plants
are based on conversion and loss data supplied by the developers and
8000 hours per year of operation. The cleaning plants have a 15-day
raw-coal and a 15-day clean-coal storage based on power plant usage.
Oxygen is purchased across the fence and has a 1-day onsite storage.
All other chemicals and salable byproducts have 30-day storages.
Waste and Byproduct Management—
PCC plants have closed water circuits and landfill disposal of
solid wastes. Refuse is spread, mechanically compacted, and covered
with earth daily. A 2-foot final cover is used. Side slopes are
restricted to 27 degrees maximum and covered with earth and vegetation
is established as the dump increases in height. The disposal site is
located one mile from the coal preparation site.
Disposal ponds lined with impervious clay are used to contain the
sludge from the CCC and limestone FGD processes. The pond is located
one mile from the plant site and it is sized for the 30-year life of the
plant.
Power Plant and FGD Premises
Power Plant—
The base-case conditions for coal-cleaning evaluations are a new
2000-MW midwestern power plant with a design heat rate of 9500 Btu/kWh
operating at full capacity for 5500 hr/yr. The power plant life is
assumed to be 30 years, representing a total of 165,000 hours of operation
during the life of the plant.
FGD Comparative Case—
The FGD system used for comparison with the coal-cleaning processes
is a limestone scrubbing process with 25% scrubber redundancy, 85% S02
removal from the flue gas, and pond sludge disposal located one mile
from the power plant. Capital and operating costs are based on the
coal-cleaning premises.
9
-------
Flue Gas Composition—
Flue gas composition is based on the combustion of pulverized coal
assuming a total air rate to the air preheater equivalent to 133% of the
stoichiometric requirement. This includes 20% excess air to the boiler
and 13% air inleakage at the air preheater. A horizontal-fired, coal-
burning unit is assumed. It is assumed that 80% of the ash present in
the coal is emitted as fly ash, and that 95% of the sulfur in the coal
is emitted as sulfur oxides (SOX), One percent of the sulfur emitted as
SOX is assumed to be 803 and the remainder S02.
Coal Premises
The coal premises are based on coals with 0.7%, 2.0%, 3.5%, and
5.0% sulfur levels. The composition of the coals is based on composites
of 350 to 400 coal samples representing major U.S. coal production
areas. The compositional data are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Raw
coal refers to the coal entering the coal-cleaning plant. This coal is
supplied in a 3-inch top size after large rocks, mine timbers, and trash
have been removed by putting the run-of-mine coal through a rotary
breaker and past a tramp iron magnet.
Tyler sieve designations are used for the screen size. For screens
successively coarser than three mesh, the width of opening is a continuation
of the regular v7? series. The resulting coarse sizes fall conveniently
close to round numbers in inches.
Broken coal is assumed to have the particle size distribution as
represented by the Bennett form of the Rosin and Rammler equation,
lOOe
-HB"
which can be plotted on special graph paper, shown in Figure 3, devised
by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (1946). In the equation,
x = Particle diameter or width of screen opening in mm. It is the
abscissa in Figure 3.
x = A size constant in mm which is specific to each distribution
line of particle size. In Figure 3 it is the value of x when
R = 36.79%; in turn, R = 36.79% when x = x in the Rosin and
Rammler equation.
n = A size distribution constant. In Figure 3 it is the arith-
metically measured slope of a distribution line. Parallel
distribution lines have the same value of n.
e = The base of natural logarithm, namely 2.7183.
R = The weight percentage of coal retained on a screen whose aperture
is "x." R expresses cumulative oversize and is the ordinate in
Figure 3.
10
-------
TABLE 3. COMPOSITION OF STUDY COATS - AS RnrETVF.D BASIS
Sulfur
Eitun-
Coal
ir.ous, 5.
Bituminous, 3.
Bit urn
Subbi
inous, 2.
turiinous,
0%
5%
07,
0.
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
. 7.? sulfur
Total,
%
4.82
3.43
1.97
0.62
Pyrlt?' c,
7,
3.23
2.18
1.30
0.21
Sulfate,
0
0
0
0
7.
.06
.05
.04
.01
Organic,
/
1.
1.
0
0
/
.53
.20
. 63
.40
Ash,
7,
16.1
13.7
14.3
10.1
Mr dry
f.oisture ,n
'/,
3.
1.
1.
12.
.5
,9
,2
,1
Heat
content ,a
Btu
11.600
J2.300
12,700
10.290
Ultimate
C,
"V
63.8
70.0
71.9
59.7
H,
%
4.2
3.9
4.1.
4.0
an.a Ivses
0,
%
6.
5.
5.
12.
3
8
1
3
N,
7,
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
a. From Cavallarc et al. (1976) and Hamerstn.-i and Kraft (1975).
b. Fron de Loren^.l (1957).
TABLE 4. COMPOSITION OF STUDY COALS - MOISTURE-FREE BASIS
Sulfur3
Total,
Coal 7.
Bituminous, 5.0% sulfur 5.00
Bituminous, 3.52 sulfur 3.50
Bituminous, 2.0% sulfur 2.00
Subbituminous, 0.7% sulfur 0.70
Pyritic
, Sul
fate, Organic,
Ash,a
Heat
Ultimate
content,3 C,
H,
analyses"
% % % % Btu/lb % %
3,
2.
1,
0.
.35
,22
.32
.24
0
0
0
0
.06
.05
.04
.01
1.
1.
0.
0.
59
23
64
45
16
14
14
11
.7
.0
.5
.5
12
12
12
11
,000
,500
,800
,700
66
71
72
67
.1
.3
.8
.9
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.6
6
5
5
14
o,
%
.5
.9
.2
.0
N,
%
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
a. From Cavullaro et al . (1976) and
b. From de Lorenzi (1957).
Hamersma
and Kraft
(1975).
-------
JU M tfi
m J
i at i CT
to
i
M-
x
»•" »
*s
M
L:=U-4
SCREEN OPENING , mm
I » « 5 fc
I 10
9
I—i
t
ii-r
-1-
X
=F
1 t ' J
tn-H4
ir
I;
^
it
T^T
4
x
x
•t-
-1
-t- *-f
2£
X
Z
^
«0 W
l
4,0
3fe
dffi
4"
iJ
—i
MO MO
-1
1
h4-
' !l ; i
m
±
4444-r-
-f-~
T^H1
i» 170 no i«o IM
I I
!!'[_!
IN MO iw 100
IM o «o w «o x 20 it u u 12 10 i
US STANDARD SIEVE DESIGNATION ,
! t III;!
w u u » n 20 it M u 10 » «
TYLER SIEVE DESIGNATION
* I
SCREEN OPENING. INCHES
100
14
3/4 iJj 2
Figure 3. Rosin-Rammler plots of premise coal sizes based on Bureau of Mines, 1946.
-------
For all distribution lines in Figure 3, the value of n is 0.8840,
Values of x for selected size distribution are given below.
Opening size
Nominal (Tyler /2~" Series)
ton sizas In. mm ran
3 in. 2.970 75.43 13.40
2 in. 2.100 53.34 9.473
1-1/2 in. 1.4S5 37.71 6.702
3/4 in. 0.742 18.86 3.351
14 mesh 0.046 1.179 0.2094
100 mesh 0.0053 0.147 0.0262
ECONOMIC PREMISKS
Project Schedule
The coal-cleaning projects are assumed to begin in mid-1979 and end
in mid-1982 with an average capital investment cost basis of the end of
1980. Annual revenue requirements are based on mid-1982 costs.
Capital Inyestmgnt
Direct Capital Investment—
For each process area in the plant, the direct capital costs include
materials and labor for the installation of equipment, piping, instrumenta-
tion, electrical requirements, foundations, structures, and buildings.
Capital investment costs for services, utilities, and miscellaneous
costs are estimated as 6% of the process areas subtotal fixed capital.
This covers such items as maintenance shops, stores, communications,
railroad, and fire and service water facilities.
Chemical Engineering cost indexes through 1977 and TVA projections
of these indexes through 1983 are used to determine direct capital
investments. The cost indexes and projections are shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5 . coAL-CLEA::r:c COST IBEXES AND PROJECTIONS
Year
Plantb
Material0
*"abotd
1974
165.4
171.2
163.3
1975
182.4
194.7
163.6
1976
192.1
205.3
174.2
1977
204.1
220.9
17S.2
197Sa
221.4
240. S
194.2
1979a
240.2
262.5
209.7
19SOa
259.
286.
226.
4
^
5
19Sla
273.9
309.0
244.6
1932a
299.3
333.7
264.2
19S3a
322.3
360.4
285.3
a. TVA projections.
b. Sane as Chei-.ical Engineering plant cost index.
c. Sane as "equipment, r.achinery, supports" cor.ponent of CE plant cost index.
d. Sane as "construction labor" conponent of CE plant cost index.
Source: Chemical Engineering (1974-1977)
13
-------
Indirect Capital Investment—
Indirect costs consist of in-house engineering design and supervision,
architect and engineering contractor expenses, contractor fees, and
construction expenses. Construction facilities are considered a part of
construction expenses. Consultant fees, if any, are included in contractor
costs. The engineering design and supervision, and the contingency
factors are based on demonstration-level technology and experience.
Indirect investment costs are estimated from the number of drawings
required, man-hours of supervision and construction, and other factors
related to the complexity of the process.
Capital Investment - Allowances—
Allowances are included for startup and modification, interest
during construction, and working capital. Startup and modification
allowances are estimated as 10% of the subtotal fixed investment. Interest
during construction is estimated as 14% of the subtotal fixed investment
for each process.
Working Capital—
Working capital consists of the total amount of money invested in
raw materials and supplies carried in stock, finished products in stock,
and semifinished products in the process of being manufactured; accounts
receivable; cash kept on hand for payment of operating expenses; accounts
payable; and taxes payable. For these premises, working capital is
defined as the equivalent cost of 3 weeks of raw material costs, 7 weeks
of direct operating costs, and 7 weeks of overhead costs. For the PCC
processes, the coal discarded in the refuse is not included in working
capital since it is assumed that it is lost shortly after it enters the
PCC system.
Annual Revenue Requirements
Annual Revenue Requirements - Direct Costs—
Annual Revenue Requirements are based on 5500 hours of operation
per year of the utility power plant. Maintenance costs are estimated on
the basis of direct investment and are varied for each process according
to the relative process complexity and historical experience when availabl
Annual Revenue Requirements - Indirect Costs—
Straight-line depreciation of 3.3% per year is used. An interim
replacements allowance factor is used in estimating annual revenue
requirements to provide for the replacement of short-lived items. An
average allowance of about 0.7% of the total investment is provided. An
insurance allowance of 0.5% of total depreciable capital investment is
also included in the capital charges based on Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission practice. Property taxes are estimated as 1.5% of the
depreciable capital investment. The depreciation, interim replacement
insurance, and property taxes total 6.0% of the depreciable investment!
Cost of capital and income tax charges of 8.6% are applied to the
unrecovered portion of capital investment, based on the debt to equity
ratio of 60 to 40, bonds at 10% interest, and a 14% return on equity.
14
-------
Annual Revenue Requirements - Overheads—
Plant, administrative, and marketing overheads are costs which vary
with the type of plant and from company to company. With consideration
of the various methods used in industry and illustrated in a variety of
cost estimating sources the following method for estimating overheads
is used.
Plant overhead is estimated as 50% of the operating labor and
supervision since this approximates the actual plant overhead for plants
of this size and with these numbers of employees. Administrative overhead
is estimated as 10% of operating labor and supervision.
Annual Revenue Requirements - Byproduct Sales—
In estimating annual revenue requirements, credit from sale
of byproducts is deducted from the yearly projection of operating cost
to obtain the net effect of the coal-cleaning process on the cost of
electrical power.
15
-------
PHYSICAL COAL CLEANING
PROCESS SELECTION
The three PCC processes were selected to represent current commer-
cial technology for high-efficiency coal cleaning. They resulted from
the application of conventional coal preparation procedures and techniques
starting with the washability data for the four study coals.
A comprehensive washability analysis, as from a testing laboratory
begins with a screen analysis of a highly representative sample of the
raw coal. Each screen fraction then is separated into gravity fractions
which are obtained from a series of float-sink tests. For these separa-
tions, the screen fraction is immersed and allowed to come to equilibrium
in a series of stable dense-medium (DM) liquids whcse specific gravities
increase in even steps, e.g., 1.30, 1.35, 1.40, .... Finally, each
gravity fraction is weighed and analyzed for ash, sulfur (pyritic,
organic, and total), and heating value (as Btu/lb). The analytical
results are tabulated on a direct basis for each float sample and on a
cumulative basis with increasing specific gravity.
In this study, basic washability data were obtained as design
premises and were converted to the above standard form. Graphing of
appropriate variables disclosed the areas of special sensitivity such as
the variation of float weight and of near-gravity material with specific
gravity, and the change in separation effectiveness of several items
such as sulfur, ash, Btu/lb coal, etc., with particle size.
Interpretation of the washability results suggested 2 inch, 1-1/2
inch, and 3/4 inch as top sizes for the coal separations. As primary
separation devices, the DM vessel, DM cyclone, and concentrating table
were selected on the basis of commercial usage, efficiency of separation
particle size characteristics, cost, compatibility with other equipment,'
and the like. For each process, particle size fractions were based on
the particle size limitations of the equipment. There are limited
options for the treatment of very fine coal and froth flotation was used
for this area.
The expected quality of plant separation of coal and impurities was
based on equipment performance and the inherent cleanability of the
coals. For each item of primary separation equipment and each particle
size, equipment performance was indicated by a curve of the proportion
of material floated versus the specific gravity of separation. The use
of this curve provided for conversion of the washability data, which
were obtained under equilibrium conditions, to separation results which
16
-------
can be expected from the plant equipment. Summation of the separation
results for the sequence of gravity fractions gave a composite result
for the screen fraction processed by that equipment. Compositing among
the screen fractions or equipment areas gave integrated results for the
process as a whole.
Within each process area associated equipment items such as screens
and centrifuges were selected to handle the type of clean coal and
refuse from the primary separation equipment in that area. Product and
byproduct moisture levels were thereby determined by area. In terms of
tonnage rate, each process was sized to produce the moist cleaned coal
requirement for a 2000-MW power plant. Attrition of particle size by the
mechanical handling of coal was omitted.
PHYSICAL COAL-CLEANING I PROCESS (DM vessel, DM cyclone, froth flotation)
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 4. The material balance and
the equipment list are located in Appendix A.
Process Descrigjj-ori
Raw Coal Sizing—
The 3 inch x 0 coal from the raw coal stockpile is crushed and
screened to 37% 2 inch x 3/8 inch, 55% 3/8 inch x 28 mesh, and 8% 28
mesh x 0. In terms of a Rosin-Rammler chart, the size reduction is from
a 3-inch top size to a 2-inch top size, with parallel straight lines of
size distribution. However, the 3 inch x 0 raw coal already contains
more than the target amount of 2 inch x 3/8 inch material and this fact
precludes a simple screening of 2 inch, followed by crushing of the
3 inch x 2 inch fraction to 2 inch x 0. Instead, the raw coal needs to
be screened at 1-1/4 inch and the 3 inch x 1-1/4 inch oversize fraction
is crushed extensively.
The double-deck coal screen sizes 807 tons/hr of coal at 3 inch x
0 to 95 tons/hr of 3 inch x 1-1/4 inch coal for crushing, 293 tons/hr of
1-1/4 inch x 3/8 inch coal for coarse coal cleaning, and 419 tons/hr of
3/8 inch x 0 coal for finer coal sizing. Nominally, the crushing
requirement is the reduction of 95 tons/hr (12% of the head coal) . To
meet the total sizing requirement, coal from the crusher must contain 5
tons/hr of 2 inch x 3/8 inch, 73 tons/hr of 3/8 inch x 28 mesh, and 17
tons/hr of 28 mesh x 0. The crushing operation, therefore, involves a
broad range of size reduction rather than merely reducing the top sizes.
On the fines screens, the 3/8 inch x 0 fractions from raw coal
screening and from crushing are screened at 28 mesh. This 28 mesh x 0
undersize fraction is 13% of the feed to the fines screens. To achieve
a high degree of screening efficiency on the fines screens, each horizontal
vibrating screen is preceded by a sieve bend. In addition to screening,
the sieve bend removes much of the wash water from previous screening
and thus allows for additional washing on the vibrating screens. The
sieve bend or crossflow screen is a stationary screen with no moving
17
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
RAW COAL
SIZING
COARSE COAL
CLEANING
INTERMEDIATE
COAL
CLEANING
FINE COAL
CLEANING ] FLOTATION
FEED SUMP
I
REFUSE
DISPOSAL
CLEAN COAL
STORAGE
DENSE MEDIUM VESSEL
RINSE WITH DRAINAGE
SCREEN
(SINK)
CLEAN COAL
SHIPMENT
Figure 4. Flow diagram for FCC I process.
18
-------
parts and requires no connected horsepower. In elevation view, its
reversible deck is curved from vertical through a 60° arc to about 30°
from the horizontal. The deck is composed of horizontal wedge wires
which are accurately spaced for openings as narrow as 0.12 mm. With the
crossflow of the coal slurry, the undersize is about one-half the deck
opening. At reduced capacity and efficiency, sizing can be as fine as
250 mesh. The 28 mesh sizing in the raw coal sizing section is therefore
well within the range of sieve bend application.
Except for surface moisture in the two coarser streams, the screen
washing water from the entire raw coal sizing section accumulates in the
28 mesh x 0 stream. This accumulation can be accommodated because the
28 mesh x 0 fraction requires dilution for froth flotation. On this
basis, the system can tolerate up to 1.5 - 2 gal/min of wash water for
each ton/hr of coal on each screen in the raw coal sizing section.
Coarse Coal Cleaning—
The 2 inch x 3/8 inch coal from the raw coal sizing section is
cleaned in a trough-type DM vessel with integral drain screens for clean
coal and refuse. A single chain-and-flight conveyor slightly submerges
the feed coal in the bath and assists its horizontal movement along
several feet of bath length. Clean coal rises as float and refuse sinks
toward the bottom of the bath. One strand of the conveyor moves the
float fraction up an inclined drain screen for the direct return of
excess medium to the bath. The returning strand of conveyor gathers
refuse from the floor of the vessel and similarly moves it up an inclined
drain screen at the opposite end of the vessel.
In this process, 298 tons/hr of coal are treated in two 7-foot-wide
vessels which contain magnetite medium at a specific gravity of 1.55.
About 85% of this coal floats and moves along the bath at about 0.2
ft-Vsec/ft of bath width. On the float and sink product rinse screens,
vessel products are sprayed with water to reclaim magnetite. The rinse
screen decks have 1-mm openings which keep all but the finest coal from
entering the dilute medium circuit where it would increase the viscosity.
Since the cleaning plant also has DM cyclones which are operated at the
same specific gravity as the DM vessels, the magnetite recovery for the
two sections is done in a single system. The medium makeup requirement
for the vessel is quite low since it replaces only the residual medium
adhering to the float and sink products. It also offsets the effect of
surface moisture in the incoming coal. For the latter reason, the
makeup medium is maintained at a specific gravity of 1.8 to 2.0.
A vibrating basket centrifuge is provided for dewatering the
cleaned coal float product to a nominal 2.25% surface moisture. Since
the cleaned coal product from the coarse coal cleaning section amounts
to only 37% of that from the total plant, the inclusion of this incremental
dewatering is a refinement. Centrifuge dewatering of the refuse from
the DM vessel is omitted.
19
-------
Intermediate Coal Cleaning—
DM cyclones are the heart of the cleaning system for the
intermediate-sized (3/8 in. x 28 mesh) coal from the raw coal sizing
section. Six 24-inch-diameter cyclones are used with the medium at a
nominal specific gravity of 1.55, They are preceded by conventional
coal-slurry preparation in a pulping tank and are followed by conventional
drain-and-rinse screens and by mechanical dewatering of both the cleaned
coal and refuse. The DM cyclones produce 55% of the cleaned coal product.
DM cyclone feed is pulped in two parallel feed sumps using moist
coal from the raw coal sizing section, return medium from the drain
screens, and a small amount of makeup medium. A medium to coal ratio of
5:1 is used in this process but the operating sensitivity would permit
a ratio down to about 4:1.
The DM cyclones have a cone angle of 20° and are installed with the
longitudinal axis about 10° from horizontal. This positioning minimizes
the difference in height between the bottom and top of the cyclone while
allowing for drainage during shutdown. The inlet flow rate is about 20
gal/sec/cyclone. The cleaned coal overflow from the cyclones amounts to
84% of the inlet coal, when operated at a specific gravity of 1.55. The
separation of coal and refuse to overflow and underflow within the
cyclone is also accompanied by a separation of medium allowed for in the
operating practice. The effective specific gravity of separation within
the cyclone is slightly higher than that of the inlet medium and the
specific gravity of the medium in the overflow is definitely lower than
that in the underflow. This difference is canceled when the streams of
drained medium from the cleaned coal and the refuse are recombined.
The drain screens are sieve bends with 1-mm openings (for 32 mesh
retention) which maintain the 3/8 inch x 28 mesh material as oversize
but permit free passage of 325 mesh x 0 magnetite and water. For the
same effective size retention, the decks of the horizontal vibrating
rinse screens have 0.5-mm openings.
Vibrating basket centrifuges are used for mechanical dewatering of
both the cleaned coal and refuse products from DM cyclone cleaning.
Since both products are nominally free of 28 mesh x 0 material, a surface
moisture of 5.25% is used for the cleaned coal from this section.
Dilute medium effluent from the rinse screens is reconstituted to a
specific gravity above 1.55 by magnetic separators. The two tandem
magnetic rolls or drums, 30 inch diameter x 10 feet long and containing
permanent magnets, are mounted horizontally and slowly rotated to pick
up magnetite. It is scraped from the drums as a thick slurry and diluted
to the nominal specific gravity. Because of pumping heads, the magnetic
separators are mounted on an upper floor and the dilute medium is pumped
to that elevation. The dense medium is then handled by gravity flow.
20
-------
Fine Coal Cleaning —
The 28 mesh x 0 fine coal fraction from the raw coal sizing section
amounts to 66 tons/hr or 8% of the raw coal to the cleaning plant. It
contributes an important increment to the Btu recovery of the cleaning
plant but cleaned coal quality is less critical in the fine coal cleaning
section than in the major sections. For this reason, single-stage
flotation is used on the entire fraction — supplementary cleaning with
hydrocyclones, etc., is omitted.
For flotation feed, a pulp density of 10% solids is formed in the
flotation feed sump by diluting the 28 mesh x 0 coal slurry with part of
the filtrate from the flotation clean coal filter. Except for cell
capacity, the pulp density of the flotation feed is not critical and
could be reduced to 5% solids. However, at fixed cell capacity such
dilution would reduce the residence time in the cells and lower the
recovery.
Cleaned coal concentrate from the flotation overflow at about 20%
solids is filtered on a continuous rotary vacuum disk filter which
reduces the surface moisture to about 25%. The pulp density of the
flotation underflow can be as low as 3% solids because a majority of the
cell feed water occurs in the underflow. This stream flows to a thickener
whose underflow is filtered on a disk filter. Since the refuse filtrate
can contain slimes, this filter is operated in closed circuit with the
thickener. Thickener overflow and residual filtrate from the cleaned
coal filter flow to a clarified water tank or pond from which water is
pumped for reuse in the plant.
Cleaning Performance
The cleaning performance of the PCC I process is shown in Table 6
for the four premise coals. Features of cleaning performance are discussed
along with those of other processes in the Results section of the report.
PHYSICAL COAL-CLEANING II PROCESS (Low-gravity and moderate-gravity DM
cyclones, froth flotation)
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 5. The material balance and
the equipment list are located in Appendix A.
Raw Coal Sizing —
The entire feed stream of raw coal first is reduced by screening
and crushing from 3 inch x 0 to 3/4 inch x 0. The fine coal fraction
of 28 mesh x 0 then is removed to provide two product streams for sub-
sequent cleaning at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh and at 28 mesh x 0. Under the
project premises, the size distributions of the 3-inch top size and the
3/4-inch top size coals are parallel straight lines on a Rosin-Rammler
chart. This means that the crushing from the 3-inch to the 3/4-inch
level involves a reduction in the full range of particle sizes rather
21
-------
TABLE 6. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PCC I PROCESS
DM VESSEL, DM CYCLONE, AND FROTH FLOTATION
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal, %
Btu basis
Raw coal
0.70
0.24
11.5
11,700
-
-
0.60
-
Product
0.62
0.16
7.9
12,200
95.1
91.1
0.51
15
2.0% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
2.00
1.32
14.5
13,000 14
-
-
1.54
-
1.36
0.68
7.5
,000
93.1
86.0
0.97
37
3.5% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
3.50
2.22
14.0
12,700 13
-
-
2.76
-
2.55
1.27
8.0
,600
92.2
86.2
1.87
32
5.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
5.00
3.35
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
-
Product
3.67
2.02
10.1
13,000
90.7
84.2
2.84
32
-------
COAL RECEIVING
AND STORAGE
RAW COAL
SIZING
LOW-GRAVITY
CLEANING
HIGH - GRAVITY
CLEANING
FINE COAL
CLEANING
REFUSE
DISPOSAL
MIDDLING COAL
SHIPMENT
Figure 5. Flow diagram for PCC II process.
23
-------
than merely crushing to a minus 3-inch size. The 3/4 inch x 0 coal
contains 81% 3/4 inch x 28 mesh and 19% 28 mesh x 0 particles.
To achieve the above shift in coal size, the raw coal sizing section
begins with a vibrating raw coal screen to remove material which is
already at 3/4 inch x 0 and does not require crushing. Of the 804
tons/hr of feed, this undersize fraction amounts to 596 tons/hr. However
the crushing operation is intensive. It must reduce 3 inch x 3/4 inch
coal to 3/4 inch x 0 and it must also provide the size distribution
required. After allowing for the 28 mesh x 0 component in the 3/4 inch
x 0 undersize from raw coal screening, the crushing is adjusted to
reduce 208 tons/hr of 3 inch x 3/4 inch coal to 102 tons/hr at 3/4 inch
x 28 mesh and 106 tons/hr at 28 mesh x 0. A vibrating screen in closed
circuit with the crusher controls the top size of crushed coal at 3/4
inch.
Next, the entire stream of 3/4 inch x 0 coal (the combined undersize
coal from the raw coal and crusher screens) is separated on the fines
screens to 3/4 inch x 28 mesh and 28 mesh x 0 fractions for separate
treatments in the coal-cleaning sections. The horizontal vibrating
fines screen for this separation is preceded by a sieve bend with slot
openings of 1.2 mm which pass a major portion of the 28 mesh x 0 fines
and provide for substantial dewatering of the sieve bend oversize material
This water is from washing on the raw coal and crusher screens; its
removal allows for additional washing and more effective screening on
the fines screen. The latter screen provides a sufficiently fines-free
oversize at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh for cleaning in the DM cyclone section.
Undersize coal and the wash water from the sieve bend and the
horizontal fines screen are combined to a 28 mesh x 0 slurry for transfe
to feed makeup in the fine coal cleaning section. Since the froth
flotation feed in the fine coal cleaning section will be diluted to
about 10% solids and since the fine coal cleaning section is relatively
large, there is ample latitude of water use for screen washing in the
raw coal sizing section.
Low-Gravity Cleaning—
In this section a DM cyclone is operated at the lowest practical
specific gravity for the production of a limited tonnage of unusually
clean coal. This product has very low ash and pyritic sulfur contents
and a correspondingly high heating value. Weight recovery and Btu
recovery are sacrificed in favor of this high quality.
To achieve the above objectives, the low-gravity DM cyclone is
operated at a specific gravity of 1.34. Below this specific gravity
level the commercial experience with magnetite slurry in DM cyclones
appears too limited for specification for the treatment of various coals
in various makes of cyclones. The limitation comes not in the prepara-
tion of a magnetite slurry at lower specific gravity but in instability
of the specific gravity and hence of separation within the cyclone. The
low-gravity cyclone of this process is considered commercially stable
and without unusual sensitivities.
24
-------
In terms of equipment, 648 tons/hr of moist 3/4 inch x 28 mesh coal
from the raw coal sizing section enters two conical cyclone feed sumps
which are operated in parallel. Return medium from the cyclone drain
screens and some makeup medium are added to the feed sumps to produce a
medium to coal ratio of 5:1 (a ratio between 5:1 and 4:1 is fully operable).
This feed slurry is pumped to a bank of six 28-inch-diameter cyclones
for separation at a specific gravity of 1.34. At this gravity, only 49%
(315 tons/hr) of the cyclone feed coal reports as cyclone overflow. It
is drained first on a sieve bend with 1-mm openings and next on a vibrating
screen with deck openings of 0.5 mm. Both openings retain the 28-mesh
coal for water rinsing on another section of the same vibrating screen.
Mechanical dewatering of the rinsed coal is done in a vibrating basket
centrifuge. Since the clean coal is at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh and nominally
free of 28 mesh x 0 material, a surface moisture of 4% can be expected.
Underflow from the DM cyclone is drained on a sieve bend with 1-mm
openings and a vibrating screen with deck openings of 0.5 mm. Since the
drained underflow will be cleaned at a higher specific gravity in the
following cleaning section, they are not rinsed in the low-gravity
cleaning section. Medium drained from the overflow and underflow drain
screens is combined and returned to the cyclone feed sump but the dilute
medium from clean coal rinsing and dewatering is pumped to magnetic
separators for reconstituting of magnetite medium to a specific gravity
of 1.34.
Normal-Gravity Cleaning—
Since the feed to this cleaning section is the drained underflow
from the low-gravity cyclone, the two sections operate partially in
series. The high-gravity cleaning will remove sufficient refuse to
produce a middling grade of cleaned coal and in so doing it leads to a
Btu recovery of at least 90% for the process as a whole. For the base-
case coal, these requirements call for a specific gravity of 1.55 in the
high-gravity cyclone.
The equipment for high-gravity cleaning is similar to that used in
the other DM cyclone separations. Cyclone feed is prepared in two
conical cyclone feed sumps which receive 333 tons/hr of moist coal
underflow from the low-gravity cyclone. The surface moisture of this
coal is residual magnetite medium at a specific gravity of 1.34. Drained
medium from this sections's drain screens (specific gravity 1.55) and
makeup medium are added to the feed sumps to produce a cyclone feed with
a medium to coal ratio of 5:1.
The DM cyclone capacities call for six 22-inch-diameter high-
gravity cyclones, though this size is less common than 20-, 24-, and 28-
inch-diameter units. An even number of cyclones is preferred for
grouping with other equipment in the section. Cyclones are of standard
material and are conventionally mounted with the longitudinal axis about
10° from the horizontal.
Overflow from the cyclone is drained of medium on a sieve bend with
1-mm openings and on a horizontal vibrating screen with 0.5-mm openings.
25
-------
Water rinsing is done on another section of the same screen. Mechanical
dewatering is done in a vibrating basket centrifuge. Underflow refuse
from the high-gravity cyclones is drained, rinsed, and dewatered on
equipment similar to, but of lower capacity than, that used on the
overflow side of the high-gravity cyclone.
Fine Coal Cleaning—
Since the raw coal was reduced in the raw coal sizing section to
the relatively small top size of 3/4 inch, the 28 mesh x 0 fine coal
fraction is proportionately large—it is 19% of the raw coal feed or 156
tons/hr. Conventional froth flotation is used for this fine coal cleanin
O *
Flotation feed is pulped in the flotation feed sump which receives
28 mesh x 0 coal slurry from the raw coal sizing section and return
water from the flotation section. This return water includes most of
the filtrate from the section's cleaned coal filter and most of the
overflow from the flotation underflow thickener. A limited amount of
clarified water also is used to produce a pulp density of 10% solids in
the flotation feed. The flotation overflow of relatively clean coal is
filtered on a continuous rotary vacuum disk filter which reduces the
surface moisture to about 25%. Since the cleaned coal product from
flotation is of lower quality than the highly cleaned coal from the low-
gravity cyclone, it is added to the middling coal product from the high-
gravity cleaning section. This disposition of the flotation coal upgrade
the total middling product without debasing the highly cleaned product S
Flotation underflow (which may be as dilute as 3% solids) is routed
to a thickener whose underflow is filtered on a disk filter. For improv
control of slimes, the refuse filtrate is returned to the thickener for
additional settling.
and Base-Case Costs
Cleaning performance for the total process and for its clean coal
and middling sections is shown in Table 7, on a moisture-free basis, for
the four premise coals. Since the first DM cyclone is operated at a
nominal minimum specific gravity of 1.34, the clean coal represents
the cleanest product and greatest pyrite removal available from these
coals at a 3/4-inch top size. The moderate gravity of 1.55 in the
second cyclone releases enough refuse to maintain a high overall thermal
recovery and to produce a middling product of intermediate quality
between the raw and clean coals. Other features of cleaning performance
are discussed in the Results section.
PHYSICAL COAL-CLEANING III PROCESS (DM cyclone, concentrating table)
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 6. The material balance and
the equipment list are located in Appendix A.
26
-------
TABLE 7. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PCC II PROCESS
LOW-GRAVITY AND MODERATE-GRAVITY DM CYCLONES, FROTH FLOTATION
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Raw Clean
coal coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyrltic sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur, Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal, % Btu
b
-------
R.OM. COAL
TREATMENT
RAW COAL
SIZING
COARSE COAL
CLEANING
FINE COAL
CLEANING
REFUSE
DISPOSAL
CLEAN COAL
STORAGE
REFUSE
DENSE MEDIUM
DILUTE MEDIUM WATER
Figure 6. Flow diagram for PCC III process.
-------
Process Description
Raw Coal Sizing—
In this process the twofold purpose of raw coal sizing is the
production of 1-1/2 inch x 0 coal at the desired size distribution,
followed by its separation into size fractions of 67% at 1-1/2 inch x 8
mesh, 31% at 8 mesh x 200 mesh, and 2% at 200 mesh x 0. Since the 3
inch x 0 raw coal from stockpile contains more than the target amount of
1-1/2 inch x 8 mesh material, the raw coal screens are set at 3/4 inch
and deliver at undersize of 65% at 3/4 inch x 0. This screen size
allows for a realistic size distribution of crushed coal when the 3 inch
x 3/4 inch oversize is crushed in closed circuit to 1-1/2 inch x 0.
The fines screens are compound units, each having a sieve bend
followed by a horizontal vibrating screen. The sieve bend removes
excess water from the upstream screening and it performs an important
part of the screening at 8 mesh. On this basis, the vibrating fines
screens can be washed liberally to remove the remaining 8 mesh x 0
fraction. As a further aid to the fine coal screening, the 3/4 inch x 0
fraction from the raw coal screens and the 1-1/2 inch x 0 fraction from
crushing are conveyed and screened separately at 8 mesh. This provides
some balance on the fines screens among tonnage rate, top size, and
amount of undersize to be washed through the screens.
Following the fines screens, sieve bends are used to separate the
majority of the accumulated water and 200 mesh x 0 material from the 8
mesh x 0 fraction. The sharpness of this separation is not critical
since its purpose is to avoid an excess of water and slimes in the 8
mesh x 200 mesh feed to the concentrating tables. The 200 mesh x 0
fraction is routed to a thickener. In the material balance, a sharp
separation at 200 mesh was assumed but in practice the sieve bend openings
could be set at, say, 150 mesh to achieve the needed amount of water and
fines removal at a higher screening efficiency. This latitude is avail-
able from the performance characteristics of the concentrating table.
Coarse Coal Cleaning—
The 1-1/2 inch x 8 mesh fraction is cleaned in DM cyclones followed
by conventional drain-and-rinse screening and by mechanical dewatering
of the cleaned coal and refuse products. Cyclone feed is prepared in
the cyclone feed sump which serves as a pulping tank for the incoming
coal the medium recirculated from the drain screens, and some makeup
medium. In this process the DM cyclone circuit is designed to operate
at a specific gravity of 1.55 and the recirculated medium returns to the
pulping tank at that value. However, the makeup medium is maintained at
a somewhat higher specific gravity (1.8 to 2.0) to offset the residual
moisture in the coal from the fines screens.
On a weight basis, the feed to the cyclone has a medium to coal
ratio of 5:1 and, in turn, the medium contains about 44% magnetite when
the specific gravity of the medium is 1.55. This means that the cyclone
feed contains 19% coal, 71% water, and 11% magnetite and it emphasizes
the relatively high loading of medium which is handled on a recirculated
29
-------
basis in the DM cyclone section. The cyclones are large (28-in, diameter)
of standard design, and mounted with the longitudinal axis about 10°
from horizontal.
The clean coal overflow and the refuse underflow are drained on
similar sieve bends with openings of 1 mm. These small openings prevent
the escape of fine coal (down to 32 mesh) to the drained medium where it
would cause an increase in viscosity. At the same time, the sieve bends
permit free passage of the 325 mesh x 0 magnetite particles which are
essentially smaller than 0.043 mm. Drained medium is returned to the
feed pulping tank but rinse water from the vibrating rinse screens is
routed to a two-stage magnetic separator for the recovery of 99.8% of
the magnetite. Magnetite concentrate is returned to the feed pulping
tank and the rinse water is used for washing in the raw coal sizing
section. Both refuse and cleaned coal are dewatered in vibrating basket
centrifuges to a surface moisture of 3.5%. This relatively low moisture
level results from the absence of 28 mesh x 0 particles and from the
particle size range in the 1-1/2 inch x 28 mesh product.
Fine Coal Cleaning—
The fine coal from the raw coal sizing section consists of a major
stream (250 tons/hr) at 8 mesh x 200 mesh and a minor stream (15 tons/hr)
at 200 mesh x 0. The 8 mesh x 200 mesh fraction is cleaned by tabling.
The 200 mesh x 0 fraction is thickened without cleaning, filtered, and
added to the cleaned coal product. Since the 200 mesh x 0 fraction
contains most of the screen washing water from the raw coal sizing
section, it is excluded from table feed makeup as a precaution against
excessive dilution of the table feed pulp. This arrangement provides
operating latitude for ample washing of raw coal sizing screens under
adverse screening conditions. Also, the 200 mesh x 0 size is not advan-
tageous in this table feed. Tabling does not provide ash removal below
100 mesh and the premise coals do not contain significant pyrite at
extremely fine sizes.
The 8 mesh x 200 mesh coal for tabling is diluted in the table feed
sump to a water to coal ratio of 1-1/2:1. This table feed pulp is
delivered to six revolving feed distributors, each of which supplies six
table decks with a constant rate of pulp at uniform pulp density. The
concentrating tables are arranged in nine units, each four decks high.
The relatively large bank of 36 decks corresponds to a capacity of about
7 tons per hour per deck. This capacity is conservatively lower than
the often-quoted 12.5 tons per hour per deck which is associated with
much coarser feed.
Dressing water is added along the top edge of the table to provide
stable flow across its deck. Including dressing water, the total water
to coal ratio is 2:1. Since about 90% of the water to the table overflows
with the cleaned coal concentrate, the cleaned coal is at low pulp
density. It is partially dewatered on a sieve bend with openings to
retain 200 mesh solids. Sieve bend overflow is then dewatered in vibratin
basket centrifuges which reduce the surface moisture of the cleaned coal
to about 6.5%. Sieve bend filtrate is added, along with the 200 mesh x
30
-------
0 fraction, to a thickener whose underflow is filtered on a disk filter.
A part of this filtrate may be used directly in the table feed sump.
Table refuse is essentially free of slimes and it is dewatered
in vibrating basket centrifuges. Refuse centrate, along with thickener
overflow, goes to the clarified water pond or tank, but the process
latitude allows for routing the refuse centrate to the thickener if
operating conditions produce excessive solids in the centrate.
Cleaning Performance
The cleaning performance of the PCC III process is shown in Table 8
for the four premise coals. It is compared with those of the other
processes in the Results section.
31
-------
TABLE 8. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PCC HI PROCESS
DM CYCLONE, CONCENTRATING TABLE
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/KBtu
Sulfur removal, %
Btu basis
Raw coal
0.70
0.24
11.5
11,700
-
.
0.60
-
Product
0.63
0.17
8.1
12,200
94.6
90.9
0.52
13
2.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
2.00
1.32
14.5
13,300
-
-
1.54
-
Product
1.42
0.74
8.1
13,900
93.0
86.4
1.02
34
3.5% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
3.50
2.22
14.0
12,700 13
-
-
2.76
-
2.63
1.35
8.5
,600
92.2
86.7
1.94
29
5.0% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
5.00
3.35
16.7
12,000 12
-
-
4.17
-
3.78
2.13
10.6
,900
90.7
84.7
2.93
30
-------
CHEMICAL COAL CLEANING
KVB CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESS
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 7, The base-case material
balance and equipment list are located in Appendix A,
Process Description
This process is the result of several years of research in chemical
desulfurization of fuels by KVB (Diaz and Guth, 1975; Guth, 1978; KVB,
1977). The developer claims the process removes 95% to 99% of the
pyritic sulfur and up to 40% of the organic sulfur. It uses the tech-
nology of selective oxidation and extraction of sulfur compounds in
fuels covered by KVB patents. This process was patented in September
1975 and has been demonstrated in bench-scale equipment only.
The process consists of a selective oxidation of the sulfur compounds
in the coal using gaseous N02 in the presence of 02 at low temperatures
and atmospheric pressure. The organic sulfur reaction is not fully
understood. The pyritic sulfur reaction consists of:
FeS2 + 6N02->FeS04 + S02 + 6NO
6NO + 302 + 6N02
The reaction is exothermic but does not provide sufficient heat to
maintain the reaction temperature. The pyrite oxidation is carried out
at a low 02 concentration so that the reaction effluent gas is virtually
free of N02. The 02 is consumed by reaction with NO to form N02. The
NO? reacts to oxidize the coal sulfur forming S02 and NO. The reactor
effluent gas is very low in N02 and 02 (about 1000 ppm each) and high in
NO.
The sulfates are removed from the coal by reaction with NaOH and
washing with hot water. The reactions are:
2[R]-sulfate + NaOH -* 2[R]H + 2Na2SO
2FeS04 + ANaOH + 2H20 •* 2Fe(OH)3 + 2Na2S04 -I- H2
Where [R] *s tne organic radical in the coal matrix.
33
-------
J
1 1
r 1"
©®
l
9
1
NEUTMALIZCR
STAGE 1
1
NEUTRALIZE*
STAGE Z
NEUTRALIZES
STAGE 3
NEUTRALIZER
STAGE 4
Figure 7 . Flow diagram for KVB CCC process.
-------
Figure 7. Flow diagram for KVB CCC process (continued).
-------
The S02 is removed from the oxidizing gas stream by scrubbing with
Na2S03. The scrubbing reaction is:
S02 + Na2S03 + H20 •* 2NaHS03
The sodium-bisulfite solution is treated with slaked lime to regenerate
Na2S03 and produce a calcium sulfite sludge.
2NaHS03 + Ca(OH)2 -»• CaS03 + Na2S03 + H20
This sludge is further treated with 02 in the neutralizer to produce
CaS04 and
The hot water wash and leaching solutions are also treated in the
neutralizer with slaked lime. The neutralizer reactions produce a waste
sludge of gypsum and sodium jarosite. The neutralizer reactions consist
of:
CaS03 + Na2S03 + 02 -»• CaSC>4 + Na2SC>4
Na2S04 + Ca(OH)2 •* 2NaOH + CaS04
3NaOH + 2FeS04 + Fe(OH3) + Na3Fe3(S04)2(OH)6
The principal problems in the process are the potential explosion
hazards involved in the dry oxidation of pulverized coal, obtaining
efficient scrubbing of coal dust and S02 from the oxidizing gas stream,
energy consumed in preheating the oxidizing gas stream, possible nitrogen
uptake in the coal, the large amount of agglomerating equipment required
and potential environmental problems associated with the disposal of the*
gypsum-sodium jarosite sludge.
A conceptual process using 5% sulfur coal sufficient to supply a
2000-MW power plant is described below.
Coal of 3-inch top size is transferred from the open-air stockpile
to two parallel surge bins. The coal is reduced to 1-1/2-inch top size
in two parallel double-roll crushers and screened to remove all 1/8 inch
x 0 material on two parallel vibrating screen decks. The oversize
material is further reduced in two additional double-roll crushers to
1/4-inch top size and then combined with the screened material. The
combined materials, containing 35% 28 mesh x 0 fines, are stored in four
parallel reactor feed bins.
The crushed coal is fed to the four f luidized-bed reactors at a
total rate of 593 tons/hr. Hot oxidizing gas, containing 5% N02, 2.5%
02, N2, H20, and a trace of S02, contacts the coal in the reactor and
selectively oxidizes about 98% of the pyritic sulfur and about 30% of
the organic sulfur to sulfates and S02 gas. These reactions occur at
200°F and atmospheric pressure. The reactions are exothermic but do not
supply enough heat to maintain the reactor at the required temperature.
36
-------
The 28 mesh x 0 fine coal is entrained by the oxidizing gas stream
and removed from the reactors in the off-gas stream. The 1/4 inch x 28
mesh coarse coal is removed from the bottom of the reactors and trans-
ferred to four parallel coarse coal washing and leaching trains.
The reactor off-gas containing the fine coal and S02 is scrubbed
with water to remove the fine coal in four parallel venturi particulate
scrubbers. The off-gas then passes through four parallel venturi scrubbers
where most of the SC>2 is removed by a dilute solution of ^2803. The
cleaned gas is heated to 302°F in four parallel preheaters using power
plant steam. The heated gas, along with makeup 62 and N02, is recycled
to the fluidized-bed reactors.
A small amount of the cleaned gas stream is removed before heating
to prevent the buildup of C02i N2, S02, and NOX compounds in the oxidizing
gas. The portion removed from all four trains is processed in a two-
stage combustion "scrubber" where NOX compounds are converted to N2 by
contact with natural gas.
The reacted solution from the SC>2 absorbers is treated with slaked
lime to produce CaSC>3 and to regenerate Na2S03. The resulting slurry is
increased to 15% solids in four parallel thickeners and then transferred
to the leach solution neutralization area. The thickener overflow, with
makeup NaOH, is recycled to the S02 absorbers.
The fine coal slurry from the particulate scrubbers, containing
some HC1 and ^804, is increased to 37% solids in four parallel thickeners,
then transferred to four fine-coal washing and leaching trains. The
thickener overflow solution flows to surge tanks from which a bleedstream
is transferred to the leach solution neutralization area to prevent the
buildup of HC1 and ^804 in the scrubber loops. The remainder of the
solution, with makeup water, is recycled to the particulate scrubbers.
The fine coal is leached countercurrently with 200°F water in four
parallel systems with two stages of leach tanks and cyclone classifiers
which remove about 95% of the FeSO^ in the coal. The water-leached coal
is then leached countercurrently with 200°F NaOH solution in four
parallel systems with two stages of wash tanks and cyclone classifiers,
which remove the remaining FeSO^ and converts the oxidized organic
sulfur to soluble ^2864. The caustic-leached coal is then washed
countercurrently with 200°F water in four parallel systems with three
stages of wash tanks and cyclone classifiers, followed by fourth-stage
water-wash centrifuges which dewater the cleaned coal to about 10%
moisture. The spent water and NaOH solutions are transferred to the
leach solution neutralization area.
The coarse coal from the fluidized-bed reactors is processed by the
same method used in the fine coal washing and leaching area except
spiral classifiers are used in place of tanks and cyclones.
The combined liquors from the particulate scrubbers, S02 absorbers,
fine coal leaching, and coarse coal leaching are treated with NaOH
37
-------
solution, slaked lime, and sparged 02 to produce CaS04'2H20 (gypsum) and
sodium jarosite. The neutralized slurry of gypsum and jarosite is pumped
to a settling pond, from which supernate water is returned to a recycle
water tank for use in the process.
All of the fine coal product and 15% of the coarse coal product are
pelletized in 11 parallel palletizing systems. The pelletized coal,
containing 5% moisture, is combined with the nonpelletized portion and
stored in open-air stockpiles. The product contains 1.32 wt % sulfur
and 13.7% ash. This process reduces the total sulfur by 76% and the
total ash by 18%.
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs
The cleaning performance of the KVB process is shown in Table 9 for
the four premise coals. It is compared with that of other processes in
the Results section.
TRW GRAVICHEM CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESS
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 8. The base-case material
balance and equipment list are located in Appendix A.
Process Description
This process is the result of several years of research and develo
ment in chemical desulfurization of coal by TRW (Hamersma, et al., 1974 "~
1975; Koutsoukos, et al., 1976a, 1976b; Meyers, 1977). The developer *
claims the process will remove 95% to 99% of the pyritic sulfur but none
of the organic sulfur. The leaching - regeneration and subsequent
washing and filtration have been demonstrated in an 8-ton-per-day proces
test plant at TRW's Capistrano Test Site in California in late 1977. S
The sink-float gravity separation, the solvent extraction of sulfur, and
the solvent recovery steps remain to be demonstrated on a pilot-plant
scale. The process development is presently inactive because of lack of
financial support.
The process consists of a sink-float gravity separation, followed
by selective oxidation with ferric sulfate and subsequent leaching. Th
oxidation reaction consists of:
FeS2 + 4.6Fe2(S04)3 + 4. 8H20-> 10.2FeS04 + 4.8H2S04 + 0.8S
The Fe2(S04)3 solution is regenerated by sparging with 02 which can be
done either concurrently with the pyritic sulfur leaching reaction or
a separate process step. The regeneration reaction consists of: &S
9.6FeS04 -f- 4.8H2S04 -*- 2.402 •>- 4.8Fe2(S04)3 -f- 4.8H20
38
-------
TABLE 9. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF KVB PROCESS
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyrltic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
0.70
0.24
0.45
0.01
11.5
11,700
-
-
0.60
-
Product
0.37
0.01
0.32
0.04
11,2
11,800
99.9
99.4
0.31
48
2.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
2.00
1.32
0.64
0.04
14.5
13,000
-
-
1.54
-
Product
0.53
0.03
0.46
0.04
13.3
13,400
99.5
96.9
0.40
74
3.5% sulfur coal
Raw coal
3.50
2.22
1.23
0.05
14.0
12,700
-
-
2.76
-
Product
1.00
0.05
0.91
0.04
11.9
13.300
99.2
94.7
0.75
73
5.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
5.00
3.35
1.59
0.06
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
-
Product
1.32
0.07
1.21
0.04
13.7
12,900
98.8
92.12
1.02
76
-------
.£>
O
fe-sS-ii LJ-^
rbJpi "'•
/ J_^C • x^*^. ^ *-» L
I !fI«'J '
1 »__ _ I
r.ram fr,r TRW C
CCC pror-onn.
-------
Figure 8. Flow diagram for TRW Gravichem CCC process (continued).
-------
Combining the two reactions gives an overall process reaction which
consists of:
FeS2 + 2.402 -»• 0.6FeS04 + 0.2Fe2(S04)3 + 0.8S
The leaching and regeneration reactions are both exothermic but do not
supply enough heat to maintain the reactor temperature.
The spent leaching solution is neutralized with slaked lime to
produce a waste sludge of gypsum and iron hydroxides.
FeS04 + Ca(OH)2 •> CaS04 + Fe(OH)2
Fe2(S04)3 + 3Ca(OH)2 -> 3CaS04 + 2Fe(OH)3
H2S04 + Ca(OH)2 -> CaS04 -t
The principal problems in the process are the presence of a very
corrosive dilute sulfuric acid-iron sulfate solution, high energy
consumption due to the heat transfer requirements, high capital cost of
the heat transfer equipment and the solvent recovery area, the large
amount of agglomerating equipment required, and potential environmental
problems associated with the disposal of the gypsum and iron hydroxide
sludge.
A conceptual process using 5% sulfur coal sufficient to supply a
2000-MW power plant is described below.
Coal of 3-inch top size is transferred from the open-air storage
area to a surge bin. The coal is reduced to 3/4-inch top size by two
parallel crushers. It is further reduced to 14-mesh top size by two
parallel pulverizers and stored in four 2-hour surge bins.
The coal, at a total rate of 593 tons/hr, is preheated by low-
pressure steam and fed to two parallel mixing tanks. The coal is
slurried in the mixing tanks with 215°F recycled leach solution con-
taining 7.5% total iron as FeS04 and Fe2(SO4)3 plus 4% H2S04.
The slurried coal, containing 25% solids, is cooled in 13 parallel
heat exchangers to control the specific gravity of the leachate in the
slurry at 1.31. Since the leach solution is a true solution and not a
dispersion of finely ground magnetite commonly used in heavy media sink
float systems, the specific gravity of the leach solution will not ~~
change during the physical separation process. Because of this, the
1.31 specific gravity will approximate the separation results of the
1.30 specific gravity laboratory wash tests. Slurry from the coolers l
pumped to 54 cyclones which make a continuous 1.30 specific gravity S
separation. The cyclone overflow, or "float" fraction, contains about
32% of the total coal and has a low pyrite concentration. The remaind
of the coal goes to the cyclone underflow, or "sink" fraction, and Sr
contains coal with a high pyrite concentration.
42
-------
The overflow fraction is filtered by three rotary drum filters to
remove the iron sulfate-sulfuric acid solution and then washed in two
stages with 160°F water. This reduces the sulfate salts to a level of
0.04% to 0.06% in the product coal. Each wash stage consists of a wash
tank and three rotary drum filters which produce a filter cake containing
about 33% moisture. A portion of the iron sulfate-sulfuric acid solution
removed by the first filtration is bled to the neutralization area in
order to remove the FeSO^ and Fe2(804)3 produced by the process reactions.
The remainder of the iron sulfate-sulfuric acid solution is pumped
through six parallel preheaters to the regenerator. A residence time of
30 minutes in the regenerator, which operates at 250°F and 35 psig,
gives a required Y ratio (ferric iron/total iron) of 0.90 in the leach
solution.
The wash water, containing FeSO^ and Fe2(804)3, removed from the
first filtration is pumped to the evaporator system to be concentrated.
The underflow fraction is pumped to three parallel process reactors.
These reactors operate at 250°F and 35 psig. The reactors are sized for
a 6-hour residence time, which is required for pyrite to react with
Fe?(504)3. The leaching and regeneration reactions are both exothermic
but do not supply enough heat to maintain the reactor at 250°F. To
maintain the proper temperature in the reactor, high-pressure steam is
sparged into the bottom of the reactor. The reacted slurry flows to
three parallel flash drums, where low-pressure flash steam is produced
at 2 to 3 psig and 219°F. The slurry, at 2l9°F, is then pumped to eight
parallel slurry coolers where it is cooled to 160°F. The coal slurry is
then filtered and washed with 160°F water in five rotary drum filters.
The strong leach solution from the filter is pumped to the leachate
recycle tank and the wash water is pumped to the evaporator system to be
concentrated.
The filtered coal, containing about 33% moisture, is slurried with
acetone in five parallel mix tanks and cooled to 85°F in 27 heat
exchangers. The coal-acetone slurry is then filtered in 12 parallel
horizontal rotary pan filters where the cake is washed with additional
acetone. This acetone leaching of the coal reduces the elemental sulfur
in the coal to 0.2% and the sulfate sulfur to 0.02%. The acetone removed
by the filter is pumped to the acetone reclaim stripper and the coal,
containing about 33% acetone, is conveyed to the drying systems.
The coal is dried in 12 parallel rotary steam tube dryers at 133°F
where the acetone in the coal is evaporated. The acetone is removed by
12 ID fans, condensed, and sent to the acetone recycle tank. Eighty
percent of the dried coal product, containing 14% water, is hot bri-
quetted. The briquetted coal is combined with the remainder of the
dried coal on the product conveyor. This material is then combined with
the float coal product and conveyed to an open-air stockpile.
The acetone from the filters, containing water, sulfates, and
elemental sulfur, is pumped to the acetone stripper. The stripper,
43
-------
operating at 15 psig and 250°F removes the acetone from the water,
sulfates, and sulfur. The acetone is sent to the acetone recycle tank.
The water, sulfates, and sulfur are removed from the bottom of the
stripper and sent to a surge tank. Here the sulfur is removed in the
liquid state and pumped to storage. The water and sulfates are cooled
to 160°F and pumped to the neutralization area.
The wash water from the filtration and wash area, containing iron
sulfates, is pumped through a preheater to a long-tube, natural-circulati
evaporator operating at 35 psig and 290°F. The evaporator bottoms are
pumped through the feed preheater to the leachate recycle tank. The
bottoms are concentrated such that the total leach solution being fed to
the mix tanks contains 7.5% total iron as FeSO^ and Fe2(S04)3 with a Y
ratio of 0.90.
The bleedstream from the strong leachate and the bottoms from the
stripper are neutralized using slaked lime to produce CaS04.2H20,
Fe(OH>2, and FeCOH)^. The neutralized slurry is pumped to a settling
pond. Supernate water is reclaimed from the settling pond and pumped
back to the cleaning plant recycle water tank.
The clean coal product produced by this process has a total sulfUr
content of 1.9 wt % and ash content of 13.6% on a moisture-free basis.
This is a reduction of 64% in the total sulfur and 19% in the total ash
The ash reduction is obtained by the removal of iron as a result of the"
pyritic reaction producing iron sulfates which are bled to the
and then to the settling pond. er
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs
The cleaning performance of the TRW process is shown in Table 1Q
for the four premise coals. It is compared with that of other process
in the Results section. s
KENNECOTT CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESS
The flow diagram is shown in Figure 9. The base-case material
balance and equipment list are located in Appendix A.
Process Description
Kennecott Copper Corporation began development of this process in
1970 as part of a program to maintain markets for the high-sulfur coal
production and reserves of its wholly owned subsidiary, Peabody Coal
Company (Agarwal et al., 1978; Jackson, 1977). The development conti
through May 1975 and was demonstrated at bench scale. Development wa nUed
stopped when the U.S. Supreme Court validated the FTC order to Kenne
for divestiture of Peabody Coal. Ott
The process consists of an oxygen-oxidation system in which a
portion of the sulfur in the coal is oxidized to soluble sulfates by
44
-------
TABLE 10. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Elemental sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
0.7
0.24
0.45
0.01
0
11.5
11,700
-
-
0.60
-
Product
0.50
0.005
0.45
0.04
0.009
11.3
11,700
99.5
99.5
0.43
28
2.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
2.0
1.32
0.64
0.04
0
14.5
13,000
-
-
1.54
-
Product
0.78
0.03
0.66
0.04
0.05
13.4
13,300
99.6
97.3
0.59
62
3.5% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
3.50
2.22
1.23
0.05
0
14.0
12,700 13
-
-
2.76
-
1.47
0.05
1.29
0.04
0.09
11.9
,300
99.3
95.2
1.11
60
5.0% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
5.00
3.35
1.59
0.06
0
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
-
1.95
0.07
1-70
0.04
0.14
13.6
12,900
98.9
92.8
1.51
64
-------
Flow 41«*r«« for K*«m«eoet CCC proc«««.
-------
sparging 02 through pulverized coal under heat and pressure. The organic
sulfur reaction is not fully understood. The pyritic sulfur reaction
consists of:
FeS2 + 3.6902 + 1.75H20 •* 0.25FeS04 + 0.38Fe203 + 1.75H2S04
The reaction is exothermic and provides sufficient heat to maintain the
reaction temperature. The soluble sulfates are removed by washing and
neutralized with slaked lime to produce a waste sludge of iron hydroxide
and gypsum:
0
.25FeS04 + 1.75H2SC>4 + 2Ca(OH)2 -> 0.25Fe(OH)2 + 2CaSC>4 + 3.5H20
The principal problems in this process are the presence of a very
corrosive dilute sulfuric acid and FeSO^ solution, reactor design limita-
tions due to high operating pressures, large amount of agglomerating
equipment required, and potential environmental problems associated with
the disposal of the gypsum-iron hydroxide sludge.
A conceptual process using 5% sulfur coal sufficient to supply a
2000-MW power plant is described below.
Coal of 3-inch top size containing 5% sulfur is transferred from
the open-air stockpile to an 8-hour-capacity crusher feed bin. The coal
is reduced to 3/4-inch top size in two parallel double-roll crushers and
stored in two 4-hour-capacity surge bins which feed two parallel wet
ball mill systems.
The crushed coal is fed to the ball mills at a total rate of 680
tons/hr. The ball mills, using recycled water from the settling pond,
pulverize the coal to 80% 100 mesh x 0. Slurry from the ball mills is
passed through eight parallel cyclone separators which return oversized
material to the ball mills. The cyclone separator overflow, containing
23% solids, is heated to about 150°F in six parallel reclaim heat exchangers
using reacted slurry from the reactors. The heated slurry is pumped
through three parallel scrubbers, operating at 15 psig, where it is
further heated to about 250°F by steam from the reactor flash tanks.
The slurry is then heated to 350°F in five parallel preheaters using
power plant steam.
The heated slurry is then passed through three parallel trains of
10 reactors each. Each reactor has six agitated stages with provision
for sparging with compressed 02 . The reactor trains operate at 350°F
and 315 psig; they are designed for a 1-hour hold time, necessary to
convert 88% of pyritic sulfur and some of the organic sulfur to sulfate.
The heat of reaction is sufficient to maintain the system at 350°F.
The reacted slurry is flashed in three parallel flash tanks which
reduce the slurry temperature to 250°F and produce 15 psig saturated
steam for the scrubbers. The slurry is passed through the reclaim heat
exchangers, where it is cooled to about 165°F, and then increased to 35%
solids in six parallel thickeners.
47
-------
The thickened coal is washed with 165°F recycle water in nine
parallel rotary drum filters to remove most of the FeSO^ and l^SOA. It
is then reslurried in three parallel coal wash tanks using 165°F recycle
water and washed with unheated, recycle water in an additional nine
rotary drum filters to remove most of the remaining FeSO^ and
The clear liquid from the thickeners and filters containing FeSO^
and H2SC>4 is pumped from overflow tanks to a neutralizer where it is
neutralized with slaked lime. The neutralized slurry of gypsum and iron
hydroxide is pumped to a settling pond, from which supernate water is
returned to a recycle water tank for use in the process.
Eighty percent of the washed coal, containing 35% water, is palletized
in 33 parallel pelletizing systems. The pelletized coal, containing 5%
moisture, is combined with the unpelletized portion and stored in open-
air stockpiles. The product coal contains 1.8 wt % sulfur, 63.2 wt %
carbon, and 12.3 wt % oxygen on a moisture-free basis. The process
reduces the sulfur by 62% and carbon by 2.9%, and increases the oxygen
by 5.8%.
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs
The cleaning performance of the Kennecott process is shown in
Table 11 for the four premise coals. It is compared with that of other
processes in the Results section.
48
-------
TABLE 11. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF KENNECOTT PROCESS
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
0.70
0.24
0.45
0.01
11.5
11,700
-
-
0.60
-
Product
0.45
0.03
0.38
0.04
11.1
10,800
94.9
102.8
0.42
30
2.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
2.0
1.32
0.64
0.04
14.5
13,000
-
-
1.54
-
Product
0.73
0.15
0.54
0.04
13.8
12,100
95.2
102.6
0.60
61
3.5% sulfur coal
Raw coal
3.50
2.22
1.23
0.05
14.0
12,700
-
-
2.76
-
Product
1.34
0.26
1.04
0.04
13.2
11,900
94.8
101.5
1.13
59
5.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
5.0
3.35
1.59
0.06
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
-
Product
1.81
0.40
1.37
0.04
15.8
11,300
94.1
100.1
1.60
62
-------
COMBINATION COAL CLEANING
PCC I-KVB COMBINATION PROCESS
Process Description
This process combines the PCC I process using DM vessels, DM
cyclones, and froth flotation with the KVB desulfurization process. Th
base-case flow diagram is shown in Figure 10. The base-case material
balance and the equipment list are located in Appendix A. Coal of 3-in v
top size is transferred from the open-air stockpile to the coal sizing
area at the total rate of 840 tons/hr. Here the coal is crushed and
screened to three size fractions for cleaning in the coarse, intermediat
and fine coal areas of the PCC I process. Since the PCC I process sec6
of the plant has an on-stream operating time of 6000 hr/yr and the KVB
process has an on-stream operating time of 8000 hr/yr, intermediate
storage is needed to cover the 2-day weekend period when the physical
cleaning plant is shut down for maintenance. Four silos provide this
storage. The coal is then processed through the KVB section of the
cleaning plant.
Cleaning Performance and Base-Case Costs
Table 12 shows the sulfur removal performance of the combination
PCC I-KVB process. On a Btu basis, it is 52% for the subbituminous
coal with 0.7% sulfur and 75%-78% for the bituminous coals.
50
-------
26
Figure 10. Flow diagram for PCC I-KVB combination
coal-cleaning process.
51
-------
TABLE 12. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESSES
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
0.7% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
0.70
0.24
0.45
0.01
11.5
11,700 1
-
-
0.60
-
0,36
0.003
0.32
0.04
7.7
2,300
95.0
90.7
0.29
52
2.0% sulfur
coal
Raw coal Product
2.00
1.32
0.64
0.04
14.5
13,000 1
-
-
1.54
-
0.53
0.02
0.47
0.04
6.8
4,200
92.8
84. 5
0.37
76
3.5% sulfur coal
Raw coal
3.50
2.22
1 .2?
0.05
14. C
12,700
-
-
2.76
-
Product
0.98
0.03
0.91
0.04
6.7
14,100
91.8
82.6
0.70
75
5.0% sulfur coal
Raw coal
5.00
3.35
1.59
0.06
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
-
Product
] .26
0.04
1.18
0.04
8.0
13,600
89.6
80.1
0.93
78
-------
COAL CLEANING - FGD COMBINATIONS
PCC I-FGD, KVB-FGD, AND PCC I-KVB-FGD PROCESSES
Coals with a sulfur content about 0.7% can meet the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
emission level without cleaning or scrubbing. Depending on the coal to
be cleaned and on the process selected, the cleaning performances indicate
that PCC processes can allow the use of coals with 1.0% to 1.7% sulfur
in the case of new power plants and to a higher level for existing power
plants under higher SIP standards. The CCC processes have higher levels
of sulfur removal and would permit the use of coals with sulfur levels
of up to about 3% for the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission level. Above these
sulfur levels, coal cleaning provides partial control and reduces the
remaining sulfur removal needed by FGD or other subsequent sulfur removal
processes. To meet 85% S02 removal for new utility plants, all of the
coals studied would require additional sulfur removal after either
physical or chemical coal cleaning.
This section deals with cleaning by physical (PCC I), chemical
(KVB), or physical-chemical (PCC I-KVB) processes, each followed by
additional sulfur removal by FGD at the power plant. The coal cleaning
and FGD results then can be combined for sulfur removal, FGD without
coal cleaning is included for comparison.
Process and economic features of the coal-cleaning segments of the
combination processes are the same as described earlier. Partial scrubbing
by limestone FGD is tailored for each case variation of emission standard
and sulfur content in the coal.
The basic FGD system is a conventional limestone slurry system, as
shown in Figure 11. The FGD section begins with the plenum which is
located downstream from the ESP and the ID fan. The ESP and ID fan
costs are not included in the FGD costs. Each FGD train has a forced-
draft (FD) fan to offset the pressure drop through the system. The S02
absorber is a countercurrent mobile-bed scrubber with a presaturator and
an integral mist eliminator. The cleaned flue gas is reheated to 175°F
by an indirect steam heated reheater. In the absorber, S02 is absorbed
in a recirculating slurry of limestone to produce calcium sulfite and
calcium sulfate solids. The slurry is maintained at 15% solids by the
addition of makeup limestone slurry from a central preparation area and
by the withdrawal of a purge stream which is pumped to a clay-lined
53
-------
«
C.tCT.DST.Tic
TO S'l« *.»•'
f D * PWCSATUMATO*
--^-PLENUM' *JSTACK
MOMtOt.'CIMM » COHVrvOOt
AIM TO DIWOIAI.
,_ei
t* t
•^
iMCmCULATIONl
"~
_j-
t
ram
FlfO
TANK
ICTTLINO POND
-^
\\.
*> for
-------
disposal pond. Pond water is returned to the limestone and scrubber
sections for reuse. Makeup water is added to the system as washing
water to the mist eliminators.
In most FGD conceptual-design evaluations, no flue gas bypasses the
SO? absorber or the reheater. The bypass shown in Figure 12 is associated
•frh the coal cleaning - FGD combination processes for sulfur removal.
Flue Gas Bypass, FGD, and Reheat—
The flue gas bypass (Figure 11) is an insulated duct, with control
damper, which branches from the plenum at the upstream side of the FGD
system and rejoins the main flue gas duct downstream of the reheater.
Thus bypassed gas avoids the FD fan, the SC>2 absorber, the mist elimi-
nator and the reheater. Since the bypassed gas encounters only duct
resistance, its flow can be provided by the slight static pressure in
the upstream plenum. A single bypass duct serves all FGD trains of a
boiler unit and, since the gas is hot (300°F) and almost dust free, no
corrosion-resistant materials are required.
The distribution to the bypass duct is controlled by its control
damper which is actuated by an SC>2 analyzer located at the downstream
plenum. If the S02 content of the flue gas to the stack tends to exceed
the requirement of the emission standard, the bypass control damper
closes slightly to proportion less flue gas to the bypass and more to
the S02 absorber. A temperature controller adjusts the steam flow to
the reheater to maintain 175°F in the recombined flue gas to the stack.
Figure 12 shows the basis for meeting NSPS using partial FGD
scrubbing. When cleaned coals from PCC 1, for illustration, are burned
in a power plant with FGD, the sulfur rate to the FGD scrubbers is taken
at 95% °f that to the boiler. As a premise, 5% of the sulfur in the
fired coal is removed with ash. The required sulfur removal is indicated
by the space between the line showing sulfur rate to the FGD scrubbers
and the line showing the NSPS rate to stack emissions. At all levels of
sulfur in coal, this needed removal is less than the 90% removal capa-
bility which the study assumes for scrubbers themselves. The difference
is the latitude for bypassing a portion of the flue gas while maintaining
the 90% removal level from flue gas handled by the scrubber. Scrubber
size is reduced accordingly. Reheating requirements are those for
heating scrubber exit gas at 124°-130°F to a temperature which, when
combined with the bypassed gas at 300°F, will provide 175°F in the
recombined flue gases to the stack. Evaporation of carryover spray in
the exit gas from the scrubber mist eliminator is included as a heat
requirement.
Results for bypass, FGD, and reheater requirements are given in
Table 13 f°r t^e f°ur coals used in the three FGD combination processes
with both 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu and 85% S02 removal emission levels. The
relationship between bypassing and reheating is plotted in Figure 13.
The extrapolation shows that no reheating is required when about 30% of
55
-------
TABLE 13. AMOUNTS OF BYPASSING, FGD, AND REHEATING
FOR COAL CLEANING - FGD PROCESSES
(2000-MW power plant)
Sulfur
coal, %
1.2
Percent
bypassed
Ib S02/MBtu NSPS
Percent
scrubbed
FGD,
MW
Percent Percent
reheat bypassed
85% 809 removal
Percent
scrubbed
FGD,
MW
Percent
reheat
PCC I-FGD
0.7
2.0
3.5
5.0
61. A
26.4
13.6
0
38.6
73.6
86.4
0
770
1,470
1,730
0
0
11.8
53.4
11.8
18.9
16.9
13.6
88.2
81.1
83.1
86.4
1,760
1,620
1,660
1,730
59.4
43.9
36.9
54.3
KVB-FGD
0.7
2.0
3.5
5.0
0.7
2.0
3.5
5.0
_
-
82.8
59.0
.
-
89.7
68.6
0
0
17.2
41.0
0
0
10.3
31.4
0
0
340
820
PCC
0
0
200
630
0
0
0
0
I -KVB-FGD
0
0
0
0
37.1
57.0
56.6
59.0
34.3
67.7
60.0
68.6
63.9
43.0
43.4
41.0
65.7
32.3
40.0
31.4
1,280
860
870
820
1,310
650
800
630
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
c
o
u
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
NSPS
Raw coal to
PCC I
Clean coal
to boiler
Flue gas
to scrubber
100
"L of flue gas scrubbed
90 80
80
Oi
e
to 60
c
0)
.G
0)
i-i
40
20
Flue gas to stack
85% S02 removal NSPS
I
J_
I
12345
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure 12, Sulfur distribution in PCC I-FGD
combination.
T
Figure 13.
I
T
10 20
7 of flue gas bypassed
70
30
Dependence of flue gas reheating
energy on proportion of flue gas
bypassed.
-------
the flue gas is bypassed under the temperature conditions of these
processes. This bypass level is exceeded (Table 13) in two PCC I-FGD
situations and in all KVB-FGD and PCC I-KVB-FGD variations—they require
no steam-heated reheating. In 5 of 12 cases, all for the 1.2 Ib SOo/MBtu
emission level, coal cleaning meets the emission standard without FGD.
Cleaning Performance and Costs
Since each combination is designed to meet the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
emission level or 85% reduction, the overall performance of each combina-
tion is a sulfur reduction to the stack emission limit of that standard ~"
For the 1.2 Ib SC-2/MBtu standard, the limit is 1.2 Ib SC>2/MBtu of fired"
coal; for 85% removal, it is 15% of the SC-2 equivalent in the raw coal
feed to the coal-cleaning process.
No distinctive base case occurs in these combinations. The entire
set of costs for total capital investment and annual revenue requirement
is tabulated in Appendix B. s
58
-------
RESULTS
COAL-CLEANING PERFORMANCE
Performance Criteria
In this study the primary objective of coal cleaning is assumed to
be meeting the power plant emission standards and the criteria for
measuring coal-cleaning performance are oriented to that objective.
However, no single criterion gives a complete gauge of process effective-
ness because of the nature of the criteria and the nature of the emission
standards themselves.
The primary criterion used in this study is effectiveness in meeting
NSPS. The 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS (Federal Register, 1976) in effect at
the time of this study are used as one basis of comparison. In antici-
pation of revision of Federal emission standards the 85% removal NSPS
proposed in 1978 (Federal Register, 1978) is also used. These two bases
permit projections of the comparisons to emission regulations which
differ, within limits, from these NSPS without affecting the validity of
the conclusions.
The moisture basis also can be important. Depending on the nature
of expression and on the convention being followed, data may be expressed
relative to coal which is moisture free (bone dry), air dried (normal
internal moisture but essentially no surface moisture), or at actual
moisture content (normal internal moisture and actual surface moisture).
In this report, equipment performances and the base-case material balances
have recognized actual moisture conditions, but the summary data are
expressed on a moisture-free basis. Use of the moisture-free basis is
simpler, more flexible, and conventional for these purposes, but it can
be an oversimplification when moisture differences are large, such as
between bituminous and subbituminous coals.
Within the scope of the study, no allowance is made for the vari-
ability of sulfur in coal and of FGD removal efficiencies. The data are
on the basis of continuous operation without higher performance that
might be required for a limited time.
Cleaning Performance
The detailed cleaning performances of each PCC process, each CCC
process, and the PCC-CCC process are shown for the four coals in the
respective process description sections. The cleaning performances of
the seven processes with coals with 0.7%, 2.0%, 3.5% and 5.0% sulfur are
shown in Tables 14-17.
-------
TABLF 14. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL ANT) CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES
0.7% SULFUR COAL
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
Clean coal
Physical cleaning
Total sulfur, X
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, 7.
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Etu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
0.70
0.24
0.45
0.01
11.5
11,700
-
-
0.60
-
PCC 1
0.62
0.16
-
-
7.9
12,200
95.1
91.1
0.51
15
PCC II
0.62
0.16
-
-
7.4
12,300
95.3
90.9
0.50
17
PCC III
0.63
0.17
-
-
8.1
12,200
94.6
90.9
0.52
13
Chemical cleaning
KVE
0.37
0.01
0.32
0.04
11.2
11,300
99.9
99.4
0.31
48
TRW
Gravicheir.
0.50
0.005
0.45
0.04
11.3
11,700
99.5
99.5
0.43
23
Kennecott
0.45
0.03
0.38
0.04
11.1
10,800
94.9
102.8
0.42
30
Combination
PCC I-
KVE
0.36
0.003
0.32
0.04
7.7
12,300
95.0
90.7
0.29
52
-------
TABLE 15. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OP PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CCAL-CLEANING PROCESSES
2% SULFUR COAL
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
Clean coal
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
fulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/YStu
Sulfur removal,
7, Btu basis
Rav; coal
2.0
1.32
0.64
0.04
14.5
13,000
-
-
1.54
-
Phvs
PCC I
1.36
0.68
-
-
7.5
14,000
93.1
86.0
0.97
37
ica1 ci eaning
PCC II
1.33
0.65
-
-
7.1
14,100
92.9
85.5
0.94
39
PCC III
1.42
0.74
-
-
8.1
13,900
93.0
86.4
1.02
34
Chenical cleaning
KVB
0.53
0.03
0.46
0.04
13.3
13,400
99.5
96.9
0.40
74
TRW
Gravichem
0.78
0.03
0.66
0.04
13.4
13,300
99.6
97.3
0.59
62
Kennecott
0.73
0.15
0.54
0.04
13.8
12,100
95.2
102.6
0.60
61
Combination
PCC I-
KVB
0.53
0.02
0.47
0.04
6.8
14,200
92.8
84.5
0.37
76
-------
NJ
TABLE 16. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES
3.5% SULFUR COAL
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
Clean coal
Physical cleaning
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
3.50
2.22
1.23
0.05
14.0
12,700
-
-
2,76
-
PCC I
2.55
1.27
-
-
8.0
13,600
92.2
86.2
1.87
32
PCC II
2.50
1.22
-
-
7.7
13,700
92.1
85.8
1.83
33
PCC III
2.63
1.35
-
-
8.5
13,600
92.2
86.7
1.9A
29
Chemical cleaning
KVB
1.00
0.05
0.91
0.04
11.9
13,300
99.2
94.7
0.75
73
TRW
Gravichem
1.47
0.05
1.29
0.04
11.9
13,300
99.3
95.2
1.11
60
Kennecott
1.34
0.26
1.04
0.04
13.2
11,900
94.8
101.5
1.13
59
Combination
PCC I-
KVB
0.98
0.03
0.91
0.04
6.7
14,100
91.8
82.6
0.70
75
-------
TABLE 17. CLEANING PERFORMANCE OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES
5% SULFUR COAL
(MOISTURE-FREE BASIS)
Clean coal
Physical cleaning
Total sulfur, %
Pyritic sulfur, %
Organic sulfur, %
Sulfate sulfur, %
Ash, %
Btu/lb
Btu recovery, %
Weight recovery, %
Total sulfur,
Ib/MBtu
Sulfur removal,
% Btu basis
Raw coal
5.00
3.35
1.59
0.06
16.7
12,000
-
-
4.17
—
PCC I
3.67
2.02
-
-
10.1
13,000
90.7
84.2
2.84
32
PCC II
3.51
1.86
-
-
9.3
13,100
91.4
84.0
2.68
36
PCC III
3.78
2.13
-
-
10.6
12,900
90.7
84.7
2.93
30
Chemical cleaning
KVB
1.32
0.07
1.21
0.04
13.7
12,900
98.8
92.1
1.02
76
TRW
Gravichem
1.95
0.07
1.70
0.04
13.6
12,900
98.9
92.8
1.51
64
Kennecott
1.81
0.40
1.37
0.04
15.8
11,300
94.1
100.1
1.60
62
Combination
PCC I-
KVB
1.26
0.04
1.18
0.04
8.0
13,600
89.6
80.1
0.93
78
-------
PCC Processes—
The cleaning performances of the three PCC processes are generally
similar for the bituminous coals with 2.0%, 3.5%, and 5% sulfur, but
all are distinctly lower for the subbituminous coal with 0.7% sulfur.
In the bituminous coals, 63% to 67% of the total sulfur content is
pyritic sulfur and hence available for physical separation when liberated
from coal particles. In the 0.7% sulfur coal only 34% of total sulfur
is pyritic and potentially separable by PCC.
PCC I and PCC III provide sulfur removals (expressed as the percentage
of reduction from Ib sulfur/MBtu in the raw coal to Ib sulfur/MBtu in
the clean coal) of 29% to 37% for the bituminous coal. These removals
occur at the relatively high Btu recoveries of 91% to 93%. They would
be slightly higher at lower Btu recovery. For PCC II, the corresponding
sulfur removals for the ultraclean coal product are 46% to 51% and for
the middling product they are 21% to 25%. On a combined basis, sulfur
removals for PCC II are from 33% to 39%. Total Btu recoveries for the
bituminous coals in PCC II are also at 91% to 93%. With all PCC
processes, the heating value of the coal is substantially increased by
the removal of ash diluent and only slightly reduced by the loss of heat
of combustion of pyrite.
The removal of sulfate sulfur was disregarded as an item of cleaning
performance in the PCC processes. Sulfur as sulfate amounts to only
0.04% to 0.06% of the raw bituminous coals and its removal to refuse is
controlled by the distribution of water between the clean coal and
refuse products. Typically, 20% to 35% of the sulfate sulfur is removed
in the refuse. No organic sulfur is considered to be removable by PCC
except for the small amount trapped in the coal lost with the refuse.
With the subbituminous coal containing 0.7% sulfur, PCC I, PCC II,
and PCC III reduce the pyritic sulfur from 13% to 17%. For all PCC
processes, cleaning performance with subbituminous coal is limited by
the high ratio of organic sulfur to total sulfur as well as by particle
size. Tests reported by Cavallaro et al. (1976) show a substantially
improved sulfur removal from western coals when the top size is 14 mesh
rather than 1-1/2 inch or 3/8 inch. Such size reduction would be a
costly and usually undesirable commercial practice. It is apparent that
optimum pyrite removal from the 0.7% sulfur coal requires conditions of
particle size and specific gravity of separation specifically tailored
to subbituminous coals rather than the generalized conditions of the PCC
processes as evaluated.
CCC and PCC-CCC Processes—
Almost all of the pyritic sulfur is removed by the KVB and TRW
processes and a very high proportion of it is removed by the Kennecott
profess. Removal of organic sulfur varies from none (TRW), to low
(Keiineeott), to moderate (KVB). All three processes leave a low residual
amount of sulfate sulfur. The TRW process also generates a small
amount of elemental sulfur in the clean coal. Total sulfur removal
therefore depends Largely on the proportion of pyritic to organic sulfur
in the coal. Qualitatively, KVB removes the highest percentage of total
sulfur, followed in effectiveness by Kennecott and TRW.
64
-------
With the bituminous coals, the CCC processes have a sulfur removal
efficiency of 59% to 76%, which is twice the comparable removal by the
PCC processes. The PCC I-KVB combination has a 75% to 78% sulfur
removal efficiency. Sulfur removal from the 0.7% subbituminous coal is
lower than for the bituminous coals because of the higher ratio of
organic to pyritic sulfur.
Coa^_Cleanlng_to_NSPS
For further comparison of coal-cleaning performance, the emission
control capabilities for the seven cleaning processes are shown in
Figure 14 for each of the four coals evaluated. The figure shows the
relationships between sulfur in stack emissions and sulfur in raw coal
when burning either the raw coal or the same coal cleaned by each process.
In addition, reference lines are included for the raw coal total sulfur
content and for the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu and the 85% reduction emission
levels. The sulfur emission plots have slight curvatures because of
variations in calorific value from coal to coal. On these bases, the
chart shows the raw coal sulfur levels that can be sufficiently reduced
by the various processes to meet emission limits.
No combinations of the coals and cleaning processes meet the 85%
reduction NSPS. The 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission level can be met by each
cleaning process (and without cleaning) if the sulfur content of the raw
coal is within the limits shown in Table 18. With no coal cleaning, the
standard is met by a raw coal with 0.7% sulfur and 11,700 Btu/lb. The
same NSPS can be met at raw coal sulfur contents up to 1.0% to 1.7% by
the PCC processes, up to 2.0% to 3.1% by the CCC processes, and up to
3.3% by the PCC I-KVB combination process. In these cases, the raw coal
heating values were up to 12,800 Btu/lb.
TABLE 18. MAXIMUM SULFUR IN RAW COAL FOR MEETING
PRE-1978 NSPS WITH COAL CLEANING
(MOISrnjE-FREE BASIS)
Coal-cleaning % S limit in raw coal
process _ for meeting pre-1978 NSPS
No cleaning 0.7
PCC II, middling 1.0
PCC III 1.1
PCC I 1.2
PCC II, clean coal 1.7
TRW 2.0
Kcnnecott 2.0
KVB 3.1
PCC I-KVB 3.3
65
-------
3.5
3.0 -
2.5
2.0
1.5
I .0
0.5
Pre-1^78 NSPS
(1.2 Ib Sf>2/MBt
to boiler)
<- 85% reduction
(0.15 x Ib S02/
MBtu, raw coal)
2 3
Raw coal sulfur content, %
Figure 14. Power plant stack emissions using various cleaned coals without FGD.
-------
When SIP regulations for existing power plants are less stringent
than the NSPS, the raw coal sulfur tolerances increase noticeably. For
example, at a SIP regulation of 4 Ib S02/MBtu (2 Ib sulfur/MBtu) PCC I
can meet the regulation with raw coal containing up to almost 3.9% sulfur.
ECONOMICS
Coal-Cleaning Processes
Detailed capital investment and annual revenue requirements for the
seven coal-cleaning processes are included in Appendix B for each of the
four coals. Summarized capital investment and annual revenue requirements
for each combination of cleaning process and coal are shown in Tables 19
and 20. The capital investments and annual revenue requirements are
shown graphically in Figures 15 and 16.
Capital Investment Comparisons—
For the four coals, PCC capital investments range from 31 to 40
$/kW. Similarities among the three processes generally tend to group
their investment costs, but process individualities also create some
small cost divergences. As similarities, the raw coal tonnages for the
three processes and four coals vary only 5% to 6% from the average rate
and clean coal tonnage rates vary only 7% to 8% from their average.
There are equipment similarities in crushing and sizing, in the use of
DM cyclones on the largest in-process stream, and in the types of
dewatering equipment. The change in capital investment with raw coal
sulfur content is due not to the sulfur content itself but to the heating
values and cleaning responses of the coals represented by these sulfur
contents. Within each PCC process, capital investment decreases with
decreasing coal sulfur content from the 5% to the 3.5% to the 2% sulfur
coal in the same order as the tonnage rates of raw and clean coals
decrease. It increases from the 2% to the 0.7% sulfur coals with an
increase in tonnage rate caused by lower heating value, higher inherent
moisture content, and differences in cleaning response at the single
specific gravity used for all coal separations. Among the three PCC
processes, capital investment increases from PCC I to PCC III to PCC II
as the top size of the in-process coal for the three processes decreases
from 2 to 1-1/2 to 3/4 inches, and as the proportion of fine coal
increases. This feature helps to make PCC I the lowest cost PCC process
for coals which are acceptably cleanable at the top sizes used by DM
vessels. Other cost differences among the PCC processes result from
differences in type of equipment and, quite importantly, to the stream
sizes on which the equipment is used.
Capital investments for the CCC processes are higher and more
individualistic than those of the PCC processes. All CCC processes
incur the higher costs associated with the grinding, sizing, and process-
ing of relatively fine coal. Capital investment for the KVB process is
the lowest of the CCC processes. The KVB process operates at atmospheric
pressure and at low temperature but it has moderately high costs for
reactor off-gas cleaning and for product agglomeration. Its total
67
-------
TABLE 19. COAL CLEANING PROCESSES
CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY
. . — , • '
Process
PCC I
PCC II
PCC III
KVB
TRW
Kennecott
PCC I-KVB
% S
in coal
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
M$
investment
64.7
62.9
63.6
67.4
77.4
75.3
76.0
79.9
76.5
73.4
74.4
78.7
148.9
152.0
162.7
171.4
221.1
218.7
223.1
228.0
269.2
259.2
268.3
281.2
197.7
201.5
212.3
229.4
$/kW
32.4
31.4
31.8
33.7
38.7
37.6
38.0
39.9
38.3
36.7
37.2
39.4
74.5
76.0
81.3
85.7
110.5
109.4
111.6
114.0
134.6
129.6
134.2
140.6
98.9
100.7
106.2
114.7
C/lb S
removed
517.1
86.8
54.4
36.5
573.3
99.2
62.3
40.4
608.7
107.6
67.9
45.0
507.7
126.8
76.6
51.0
1,239.8
218.9
128.0
78.2
1,214.4
243.6
144.2
93.7
553.9
149.5
88.1
59.3
68
-------
TABLE 20. COAL CLEANING PROCESSES
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY"
Process
PCC I
PCC II
PCC HI
KVB
TRW
Kennecott
PCC I -KVB
% S
in coal
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5
M$
requirement
23.5
24.3
26.1
30.2
26.7
27.7
29.4
32.2
26.3
26.1
27.7
31.8
66.3
69.5
78.5
91.7
73.8
74.1
76.8
79.8
140.7
135.7
139.3
161.5
92.1
96.2
109.3
121.8
Mills/kWh
2.1
2.2
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
2.7
2.9
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.9
6.0
6.3
7.1
8.3
6.7
6.7
7.0
7.3
12.8
12.4
12.7
14.7
8.4
8.8
9.9
11.0
C/lb S
removed
188
33.5
22.3
16.3
197.6
36.5
24.1
16.3
212.0
38.3
25.3
18.2
225.9
57.9
37.0
27.3
414.0
74.2
44.0
27.4
634.7
127.5
74.9
53.8
258.0
71.4
45.4
31.5
a. Does not include other economic benefits of using cleaned
coal.
69
-------
160 r-
140
1.10
100
c
OJ
01
>
D.
re
o
80
60
20
FGD
Kennecott
-KVB
PCC I
PCC i
PCC I
J.
J.
-L
J.
J
1234^
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure 15. Capital investment for coal-cleaning processes and FGD
70
-------
16
Kennecott
14
12
PCC 1-KVB
s
jad
IB
10
(fl
4-1
C
0)
cr
o
0)
a
c
KVB
TRW
FGD
3
C
-g
PCC II
PCC III
PCC I
_L
J_
PCC I with credit
for other benefits
.L
1 234
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Fi re j6_ Annual revenue requirements for coal-cleaning
processes and FGD.
71
-------
e
capital investment of 75 to 86 $/kW has a moderate sensitivity to raw
coal sulfur level. The TRW Gravichem process has about the same prod
agglomeration cost as the KVB but it has high costs in the reactor - Ct
regenerator area and in the acetone leaching and recovery system. Th
factors bring its total capital investment to 109 to 114 $/kW, with S
low sensitivity to raw coal sulfur content. In the Kennecott proces
the reactor area, the coal filtration area, and agglomeration and dryi
areas are costly and the total capital investment is 130 to 141 $/kW ^
with a moderate sensitivity to raw coal sulfur content. The Kennec
process is the most capital intensive of the coal-cleaning processes
studied.
In the PCC I-KVB combination process, the two processes operate
separate systems and the total capital investment is almost additiv &S
Some cost economy occurs in the KVB section because of the raw coal
crushing and sizing done in the PCC I operation. There is also some
saving in coal storage. In the combination process, the clean coal
storage of PCC 1 process and the raw coal storage of the KVB process
replaced by an interim storage area which bridges the different ope
schedules and provides surge capacity. The resulting total capital
investment is 99 to 115 $/kW, which is more than 90% of the sum for th
separate units. e
Annual Revenue Requirements—
As Figure 16 show?, the annual revenue requirements of the PCC
processes are closely grouped between 2.1 and 2.9 mills/kWh. The indl
cost category, principally capital charges, makes up about 35% to 457
these totals. In the direct cost category, the coal loss to refuse ±
roughly two to three times the conversion costs and it is a third to S
half of total annual revenue requirements. This high cost of coal 1 *
emphasizes the importance of recovery efficiency because these coal-°88
costs occur even at the relatively high weight recoveries of 84% to
for the bituminous coals and about 91% for the 0.7% sulfur coal. Th"
accompanying Btu recoveries are 91% to 93% for the bituminous coals a
about 95% for the 0.7% sulfur coal. For each PCC process, the larg
items of conversion costs are operating labor, maintenance, electricit
and magnetite loss. ^»
In contrast with the PCC processes, the annual revenue requireme
for the CCC group are highly specific to the process, the coal, and th*8
sulfur removed. When 0.7% to 5% sulfur coals are treated by the KVB G
process, direct costs comprise 67% to 73% of the total annual revenu
requirements of 6.0 to 8.3 mills/kWh. The conversion cost changes
little with coal sulfur content because the largest cost components
steam and electricity, depend more on the slightly varying coal rate
than on the widely varying sulfur content. However, the raw material
cost changes markedly with coal sulfur content because of sodium
hydroxide, lime, and oxygen requirements. The binder cost (sodium lig
sulfonate) follows the coal rate and varies only slightly with coal
sulfur content. KVB has recently reported that further development wo
on their process has made significant improvement in the sodium hydro T
usage. This will make a sizeable reduction in the annual revenue req j €
ment for the KVB process. r*
72
-------
Compared with the KVB process, the annual revenue requirements of
the TRW process, 6.7 to 7.3 mills/kWh, are higher for low-sulfur coals
and lower for high-sulfur coals. The TRW process has indirect costs of
about 3 mills/kWh and direct costs of 3.7 to 4.4 mills/kWh. The raw
material costs are only 0.2 to 1.2 mills/kWh but the conversion costs
include the very high steam requirement of 1.6 to 1.9 mills/kWh and
electricity and maintenance costs of 1.3 mills/kWh.
Of the three CCC processes, the Kennecott process has the highest
annual revenue requirements in all major categories. Its raw material
costs are 2.2 to 4.4 mills/kWh, mainly for oxygen and the agglomeration
binder; its conversion costs are 6.5 to 7.0 mills/kWh, mainly for steam
and electricity; its indirect costs are 3.4 to 3.7 mills/kWh, mainly
because of its high capital investment. The total is 12.4 to 14.7
mills/kWh.
Annual revenue requirements of the PCC I-KVB combination process
are similar to the combined amounts for the separate processes. The
combination has the cost pattern of the KVB process and its annual
revenue requirements are about 40% greater.
The annual revenue requirements shown in Figure 16 do not include
credit for other economic benefits (and a few penalties) of using cleaned
coal. When the 5% sulfur coal is cleaned by the PCC I process, the
cleaned coal will have approximately a 2 mill/kWh economic advantage
over the raw coal when credits are given for reductions in ash disposal,
coal transportation, boiler maintenance, peaking capacity, rated capacity,
and plant availability (Phillips and Cole, 1979). The effect of these
economic benefits is shown as a single point for the 5% sulfur coal in
Figures 16, 20, and 22. It should be cautioned that the actual levels
of cost benefits are uncertain,, even for site-specific cases. Further
work to identify and quantify these factors is underway in joint programs
with DOE, EPA, and TVA.
Effect of Coal Sulfur Content on Economics—
Figure 17 shows the effect of coal sulfur content on the capital
costs of the six coal-cleaning processes and on limestone scrubbing FGD.
Annual revenue requirements are shown in Figure 18. Since the processes
remove different percentages of sulfur from the raw coal, capital and
operating costs per kilowatthour are not comparable on a direct basis.
The cost comparisons are shown on the basis of quantity of sulfur removed,
which incorporates removal efficiency. The three PCC processes and the
KVB process have lower capital costs per pound of sulfur removed per
year than FGD. On the same basis the TRW and Kennecott processes have
higher capital costs than FGD.
The three PCC processes have annual revenue requirements per pound
of sulfur removed similar to FGD except for the 0.7% coal. All of the
CCC processes have higher annual revenue requirements per pound of
sulfur removed than FGD, the Kennecott process being the highest and KVB
being the lowest.
73
-------
VI
.o
It
u
H
1000
•100
son
700
600
500
400
300 U
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40 h
30
20
J_
2 3
Feed coal sulfur concent.
Figure 17.
Effect of coal sulfur content on
capital investment for coal-cleaning
processes.
74
-------
3
tr
u
/oo
600
500
400
300
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Kennecott
PCC I-KVB
TRW
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure 18. Effect of coal sulfur content on
annual revenue requirements for
coal-cleaning processes.
75
-------
Comb in at ions
It has been shown that the clean coal from each cleaning process
can meet the 1 . 2 Ib SC>2/MBtu emission level or various SIP standards
when the raw-coal sulfur content is within certain limits. However, no
combination of coal and cleaning process can meet the 85% SOo reductio
emission level. To meet the more restrictive 85% reduction NSPS or t
other standards with a higher sulfur coal, the sulfur removal by coal
cleaning must be supplemented by FGD. Such combinations, PCC I-FGD
KVB-FGD, and PCC I-KVB-FGD, have been described. Their economic result
are shown in Tables 21-22 and Figures 19-22 for both NSPS. S
In Figures 19-20 the previously determined capital investment and
annual revenue requirements of PCC I, KVB, and PCC I-KVB are used UD
their coal sulfur limits to meet the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission level. °
The FGD costs beyond these limits are associated with burning the
cleaned coals and scrubbing and reheating only the portion of the fl
gas necessary to meet the NSPS.
When the PCC I process is combined with partial FGD scrubbing the
capital investment is less than for FGD alone and annual revenue requi
ments are approximately the same as for FGD alone. This is true at th ~
same sulfur levels for both emission limits except at low sulfur level
The potential benefits of using PCC in combination with FGD depend on
the characteristics of the individual coal. For coals with higher
ratios of pyritic sulfur to organic sulfur or coals with larger pyrite
particle sizes, these costs could be lower than for FGD alone. Con-
versely, coals that have lower ratios of pyritic sulfur to organic
sulfur or have very fine pyrite particle sizes could have less expensi
S02 removal costs using FGD alone. 6
When coal cleaned by the KVB process is burned, followed by parti
FGD scrubbing to meet 1.2 Ib SC>2/MBtu emission limits, the capital
investment is approximately the same as for FGD alone at the same sulf
level in the raw coal. For sulfur levels in the raw coal below about "*"
3fc, the KVB process alone will meet the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission limit
without FGD.
To meet 85% 862 removal, the KVB process plus partial FGD scrubbi
has a capital investment approximately the same as that of FGD alone f ^
raw coal sulfur levels above about 3%. For lower sulfur levels, the
process plus FGD has a higher capital investment than FGD alone. The
capital investment required for the PCC I-KVB-FGD case is higher than
for PCC I-FGD, KVB-FGD, or FGD alone for both levels of S02 removal
The annual revenue requirements to meet the 1.2 Ib SCWMBtu
emission level with PCC I-FGD are higher than for FGD alone for raw
coal sulfur levels above about 3%. Below about 3% coal sulfur level
the annual revenue requirements for PCC I-FGD are lower than for FGD '
alone. The annual revenue requirements for KVB-FGD and for PCC I-KVR
FGD are higher than for FGD alone at all raw coal sulfur levels. "~
76
-------
TABLE 21. COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES WITH FGD
CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUMMARY
Process
% S
in coal
investment
$/kW
C/lb S
removed
BS7. Removal NSPS
PCC I and FGD
KVB and FGD
PCC 1-KVB and FGD
FGD, no coal cleaning
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
5.0
0.7
2
3.5
5.0
0.7
2
3.5
5
194.3
195.5
218.3
247.4
234.1
218.0
234.7
258.0
295.3
270.3
291.8
298.2
176.6
194.3
221.3
254.5
97.1
97.8
109.1
123.7
117.0
109.0
117.3
129.0
147.7
135.2
145.9
149.1
88.3
97.2
110.6
127.3
442.6
131.9
81,9
58.7
447,5
158.6
94.9
68.2
343.3
183.4
109.3
70.4
341.2
141.6
90.7
68.4
JLJ^ lb S02/HBtu NSPS
PCC I and FGD
KVB and FGD
PCC I-KVB and FGD
0.7
2
3.5
5
0.7
2
3.5
0.7
2
3.5
FGD not required
142.7 71.4 127.7
203.5 101.7 81.1
247.4 123.7 58.7
FGD not required
FGD not required
207.5 103.8 91.0
258.0 129.0 68.2
FGD not required
FGD not required
246.2 123.1 97.9
298.2 149.1 70.4
77
-------
TABLE 22. COAL-CLEANING PROCESSES WITH FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT SUMMARY3
Process
85% Removal NSPS
PCC I and FGD
KVB and FGD
PCC I-KVB and FGD
FGD, no coal cleaning
1 .2 Ib SO?/MBtu NSPS
PCC I and FGD
KVB and FGD
1'CC J-KVB and FGD
%
in
0.
2
3.
5
0.
2
3.
5.
0.
2
3.
5.
0.
2
3.
5
0.
2
3.
5
0.
2
3.
5
0.
2
3.
5
S
coal
7
5
7
5
0
7
5
0
7
5
7
5
M$
requirement Mills/kWh
59
61
68
80
91
88
100
112
114
109
126
136
46
50
57
66
FGD
45
64
.4
.0
.8
.0
.0
.6
.6
.3
.3
.8
.1
.8
.2
.9
.8
.2
not
.3
.6
80.0
7
5
FGD
FGD
not
not
93.8
112.3
7
5
FGD
FGP
not
not
122.7
136.8
5.
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.
9.
10.
10.
10.
11.
12.
4.
4.
5.
6.
required
4.
5.
7.
required
required
8.
10.
required
required
11.
12.
4
6
3
3
3
1
1
2
4
0
5
4
2
6
3
0
1
9
3
c
2
2
4
C/lb S
removed
105
41.
25.
19.
197.
42.
40.
29.
174.
72.
45.
35.
89.
37.
23.
17.
40.
25.
19.
55.
29.
47.
35.
,1
8
.0
8
6
1
9
0
3
3
1
3
1
7
8
5
7
0
4
9
4
1
Does not Include other economic benefits of using cleaned coal
except for effect of lower sulfur levels on FGD capital and
operating costs.
78
-------
160
140
120
3 100
c
/MBtu
1
J
1234;
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure 19. Capital investment to meet 1.2 Ib
S()2/MBtu NSPS by coal cleaning
and FGD.
79
-------
12
10
PCC T-FGI) with
credits for other
bene fits
Pre-1978 NSPS
1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
J_
234
Feed coal sulfur content, %
Figure 20. Annual revenue requirements to meet
the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS by coal
cleaning and FGD.
80
-------
160
140
120
100
80
5 60
40
20
FCC I - KVB - FGD
KVB - FGD
FGD
PCC I - FGD
852 SO-> removal
_L
JL
2 3 4
Feed coal sulfur content, "L
Figure 21. Capital investment to meet 85% reduction
NSPS by coal cleaning and FGD.
81
-------
I
3
O1
12
10
PCC I - KVB - FGD
KVB - FGD
FCC I - FGD
-.- FGD
PCC I-FGD with
credits for other
benefits
85Z SO? removal
Feed coal sulfur content, Z
Figure 22. Annual revenue requirements to meet 85%
reduction NSPS by coal cleaning and FGD.
82
-------
The annual revenue requirements to meet the 85% reduction NSPS are
higher for PCC I-FGD, KVB-FGD, or PCC I-KVB-FGD than for FGD alone. If
the proposed floor of 0.2 Ib S02/MBtu for the 85% reduction NSPS were
higher, the PCC I-FGD process would become more competitive.
It should be emphasized that these cost comparisons between clean
coal and FGD do not include certain other significant cost benefits of
using clean coal. Recent papers (Cole, 1978; Phillips and Cole, 1979)
showed penalties of up to $8 per ton for coals with combined sulfur and
ash contents higher than 12.5% and up to 25%. This represents a potential
net cost advantage of up to about 3 mills per kilowatthour for using
clean coal.
Site-Specific Variables
Many site-specific variables affect the economics involved in
determining the lowest cost method to meet emission standards. Some of
these are discussed below.
Emission Standards—
Costs for coal cleaning, alone or in combination with FGD, will be
most attractive for plants under higher SIP standards, less attractive
for the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission limits, and least attractive for 85%
reduction, as compared with costs for FGD alone. In other words, the
economic advantage of coal cleaning, alone or with FGD, decreases as the
allowable emission level is lowered. However, there may well be situations
involving high-sulfur coal, limited FGD capability, and highly restrictive
SIP standards, where FGD alone cannot meet the standard and coal cleaning
with FGD provides an economic optimum.
Coal Properties—
Higher ratios of pyritic sulfur to organic sulfur will result in
improved costs for most situations in which coal cleaning is used. In
addition, better availability of the pyrite to removal by PCC, because
of larger crystal size or more favorable particle distribution, will
result in reduced costs for PCC processes. Sulfur content variability
in the raw coal can also affect equipment size and reliability of
operation for both coal cleaning and FGD. Higher heating value and
lower inherent moisture of the raw coal will require that less coal be
processed, a major factor in reducing equipment size and cost.
Plant Location—
In addition to geographical differences in construction and operating
costs, the availability of barge, truck, or rail unloading facilities;
raw or clean coal storage; service facilities; utilities; etc., can have
major effects on costs. For example, the PCC and CCC plants evaluated
in this study include a 15-day supply of cleaned coal (power plant usage
basis) plus facilities for stacking, storage, and reclaim in addition to
similar facilities for a 15-day supply of raw coal. If the coal-cleaning
plant is located adjacent to the utility plant, the cleaned coal could
be considered as part of the utility plant's normal 90- to 120-day
stockpile. This would reduce both the installed capital and the working
capital considerably. 0_,
o j
-------
Process Commercial Development—
Although the PCC processes studied are in a commercial stage of
development, all of the CCC processes are relatively undeveloped.
Future development work on these processes could substantially increase
or decrease the projected costs. The significant reduction in sodium
hydroxide usage recently reported by KVB for their process would make it
more economically attractive. For example, a 50% reducion in sodium
hydroxide usage would reduce the annual revenue requirement for the 5%
sulfur coal by about 0.7 mill/kWh or by about 2.2 c/lb sulfur removed.
While the use of absorbents such as limestone to remove SC^ during
combustion has not been fully successful in the past, recent work reported
by Battelle (Giammer et al., 1979) burning pellets made of finely ground
limestone and coal showed a sulfur capture of about 15% in the boiler.
Other work by Energy and Environmental Research Corporation (Zallen et
al., 1979) has shown that sorbent utilization efficiency is sensitive to
such conditions as temperature, stoichiometry, particle size, absorbent
dispersion, fuel-air mixing characteristics, and combustion air staging.
These tests show that it is necessary for the absorbent to be uniformly
mixed with the combustion gases. With a 1:1 calcium to sulfur mole
ratio, about 50% of the sulfur was captured by the absorbent for both
the high- and low-sulfur coals.
After cleaning, the clean coal has a fine particle size and in some
cases it must be pelletized for shipment or storage. These grinding and
pelletizing or briquetting costs are included in the costs of the CCC
processes studied. Grinding limestone and pelletizing it with the clean
coal, using cement as a binder, would offer many process and cost advanta
for both 502 control methods. For many coals this technique, if perfect f*
used with coals cleaned by the KVB process could even meet 85% S02 removal*
-------
ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND PENALTIES OF USING CLEANED COAL
A recent objective of coal cleaning is compliance with S02 emission
control regulations through removal of pollutant-forming constituents.
In many instances, Federal or State standards are too stringent to be
met by cleaning alone and the combined use of coal cleaning followed by
FGD may be an alternative. Whether coal cleaning alone produces an
environmentally acceptable product or whether it is only a step toward
compliance, the user of cleaned coal must bear the costs incurred in the
beneficiation process. In evaluating the economics associated with
meeting S02 emission standards by coal cleaning it is necessary to
assess the economic benefits and penalties for power plants using cleaned
coal. Such economic effects could result from physical or chemical coal
cleaning, but they are distinct from the need for emission control.
For a higher expenditure per ton of cleaned coal, the purchasing
utility obtains a product which is of higher quality than run-of-mine
coal. In addition to the primary benefit that cleaned coal is lower in
pyritic, and perhaps organic, sulfur (depending upon the process), it is
also usually lower in ash and higher in heating value, although often
higher in surface moisture. Combustion of coal with these changed
characteristics has numerous benefits and certain disadvantages to the
utility user. The net effect is a significant credit which may be of
sufficient magnitude to offset some, if not all, of the increased cost
per ton of coal.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS
The cost of coal shipment is basically a function of rates which
may vary considerably, depending on the mode of transportation and the
distance the coal is transported. Coal beneficiation influences the
cost of coal transportation by increasing the heating value of the coal
and consequently reducing the quantity of coal necessary for supplying
a given Btu requirement.
Coal movement to utilities may be an intricate process employing
various modes of transportation. Rail shipment maintains preeminence
over competing transportation methods, such as barge, truck, and slurry
pipelines. Over one-half of all coal movement during 1975 was solely by
rail; rail shipment alone and in conjunction with other shipping methods
comprised almost two-thirds of total coal traffic (Gibbs and Hill, 1978).
Because of trends in at least the near and intermediate future toward
an even greater use of coal shipment by rail, it is important that rail
transportation costs be used in illustrating the effect of coal benefi-
ciation on transportation cost.
85
-------
Using a general formula, accurate cost estimates for rail shipment-
for a specific situation are difficult to project because of the exist
of wide variations in rate determination. Rate schedules are often en°*
negotiated individually, with such factors as mileage, region, and
quantity of coal to be shipped serving to establish the applicable rat
scheme. It is important, therefore, to be cognizant of the limitatio G
imposed by the somewhat arbitrary pricing practices on the general nS
equation for rate determination given below. The equation is based on
analysis of unit train and carload rates for 680 U.S. origin - U.S.
destination pairs in 1976 (Gibbs and Hill, 1978). It is adjusted to
reflect 1982 conditions by applying a 7% per year inflation rate. Th
equation is as follows:
c = 197.75 d~°>41
where c is the freight cost in mills/ton-mile and d is the distance 1
miles.
For purposes of assessing the overall benefit in beneficiating
coal, the following example with typical bases illustrates cost saving
at 1982 cost projections. The transportation cost calculated from the
equation with d = 600 miles is equal to 14.4 mills/ton-mile. Assuming
10% increase in heating value, the transportation saving is 1.31
mills/ton-mile of uncleaned coal, resulting in a net savings of $0.?8/f
for the entire 600 miles. ' ton
Shipment by unit trains is the least expensive means of rail tra
portation. To obtain these special low freight rates, these trains S~
made up of 100 to 170 coal cars, are designated for the exclusive
delivery of coal to a specific plant. Because the majority of minino
operations in the Appalachian region are small and do not ship the la
quantities of coal necessary for unit train operation, this coal must **
often be shipped at a substantially higher rate. By centrally locatin
a cleaning plant capable of processing the output of a group of these ^
mines, the quantity of product coal could easily be large enough to
warrant negotiation of unit-train shipment, thereby further reducing
transporation costs.
SAVINGS IN PAYMENT TO TRUST FUND
Provisions of the 1978 UMW contract require payment by the mine
operator of $1.385 to the Pension and Benefit Trust Fund for each ton
coal shipped to a consumer. Because cleaned coal is lower in ash and °*
higher in heating value, fewer tons of coal need be shipped to supply
the required heat content demand of a power plant.
CRUSHING AND GRINDING COSTS
Coal crushing and grinding cost is defined by a number of factor
These include the magnitude of the size reduction required, the disti^*
86
-------
features of the size-reduction equipment, and certain properties of the
feed coal. In particular, such coal characteristics as grindability,
abrasiveness, moisture content, and heating value are primary determinants
of crushing efficiency and cost. Coal cleaning significantly alters
these coal characteristics, and hence size-reduction cost.
As a benefit, cleaning reduces mineral matter, which decreases coal
hardness and facilitates crushing. Further, it increases the heating
value of the coal, which produces dual effects: increased size-reduction
capacity (in terms of Btu/hr) and reduced quantity of coal to be crushed.
Detrimentally, cleaning may contribute additional surface moisture to
coal, which renders pulverization more difficult.
By reducing the amount of harder impurities (e.g., rock, pyrite),
cleaning will improve the grindability, resulting in a higher grindability
index than that for the same coal in an uncleaned state. Correlation of
pulverizer maintenance cost to coal grindability is difficult because of
the influence of other variables, especially the presence of surface
moisture. Detailed maintenance records for similar type pulverizers at
four different TVA power plants indicate that a general correlation
exists between the cost of maintaining pulverizers and coal grindability
(Holmes, 1969). These records show that the pulverizer maintenance
costs increase linearly until the sum of the ash and sulfur in the coal
is about 17.5% and then at a considerably higher rate as this sum increases
above 17.5%.
Generally, the most prominent and easily quantified effect of
cleaning on pulverization cost is the effect of increased heating value
of the coal. Because cleaned coal has a higher heating value than
uncleaned coal, less has to be ground to supply a given Btu requirement.
It is estimated that at current conditions it costs $0.50 to grind one
ton of coal, including both operation and maintenance costs (Gibbs and
Hill, 1978). The cost savings relationship (per ton) may be calculated
as follows:
Cost savings = ($0.50)(x)/(l + x)
where x is the decimal increase in heating value.
A further benefit of the increased heating value of the coal is the
increased Btu capacity of the pulverizer. The percentage increase in
Btu capacity corresponds approximately to the percentage increase in
heating value.
As mentioned earlier, coal beneficiation processes may result in an
undesirable increase in surface moisture of the product coal. High
surface moisture can cause slippage of the grinding elements and produce
agglomeration of fines in the pulverizer. Consequently, mill capacity
is reduced because the fines are not removed as quickly as they are
produced. Generally, the influence of moisture on mill capacity varies
between types of mills but it intensifies as surface moisture increases.
Surface moisture in excess of 3% is considered detrimental to grinding
capacity (Murphy et al., 1977).
87
-------
The coal-cleaning processes also generally have a product that is
much smaller in particle size than the run-of-tnine coal so that a larfc
amount of the required size reduction has already been done. Costs fo
this size reduction are included in the cleaning costs.
It is apparent from the preceding discussion that assessment of th
overall effect of coal beneficiation on pulverization cost involves *
consideration of a number of cause-and-effeet relationships. The effe
of cleaning on coal heating value, surface moisture, grindability ad
abrasiveness must be evaluated for their influence on pulverizer cap
and operational and maintenance costs. In a given circumstance anv ^
all of these may be significant. The net result is an economic benefit
which is diminished to varying degrees by the effects of added surfa
moisture.
BOILER CAPACITY AND FURNACE VOLUME
By increasing the heating value of the coal, coal cleaning con-
tributes to an increased capacity for the coal feed system to the boil
(in terms of Btu/hr) and the boiler ash removal system. Because boil
are generally built with a 15% to 22% coal feed system overdesign (T f*S
et al., 1976), such limitations do not normally limit boiler capacit
However, boiler capacity derating has resulted on occasions when emi7*-!
regulations have been met by the substitution of low-sulfur western n
In boilers designed for high-sulfur eastern coal. The use of cleaned0*1
coal instead of low-sulfur, low-heating-value coal could restore thi
capacity loss. s
The size of the furnace is determined to a great extent by the
slagging characteristics of the ash. By reducing the slagging tenden
of the coal, coal cleaning could also permit the design of furnaces i*
higher heat transfer rates and correspondingly smaller furnace
BOILER PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY FACTOR OF THE GENERATING FACILITY
Some of the most important considerations in the design of a v,
are the characteristics of a coal and its ash. Reliable boiler o &°
is dependent upon the application of design techniques to minimize ra
slagging, fouling, and corrosion problems. These problems in a lar
measure directly affect boiler availability. Fireside problems are
responsible for many coal-fired operational difficulties resulting
both forced and scheduled outages. They significantly affect the
of boiler operation and maintenance as well as the capacity factorC°S
the availability of the generating facility. By improving coal char
IsticB contributing to these problems, coal cleaning can favorably
affect the economical use of coal. Coal characteristics vary wide!
however, and different methods of cleaning can have diverse effect ^*
the properties of the cleaned coal. For this reason the effects of °U
88
-------
cleaning on boiler operation will, in a given circumstance, be dependent
upon both the cleaning method used and the original characteristics of
the coal.
Although differences of opinion exist as to the relative importance
£ slagging, fouling, and corrosion, it is agreed that slagging can be an
extremely serious problem in pulverized-coal-fired boilers. Slag formation
on furnace walls, particularly in the vicinity of the burners, has been
responsible for frequent boiler outages and reduced load operation of
boilers (Anson, 1977).
Coal beneficiation may significantly reduce slagging tendency
because lowering the amount of pyrite in the coal reduces the amount of
iron oxides produced (Gibbs and Hill, 1978).
Another problem encountered in the operation of pulverized-coal-
fired boilers is ash fouling of heat transfer surfaces. The areas
orimarily affected by fouling are superheaters and reheaters where
temperatures can permit condensation of ash elements volatilized in the
burning process. To a large extent, ash fouling can be controlled, but
not eliminated, by proper boiler design. However, because of deterioration
or change in fuel supplies, many utilities have been forced to operate
boilers with coals having ash different in quantity and composition from
those coals for which the boiler was designed. The most serious problems
resulting from fouling are interference with heat transfer, plugging of
gas passages, and establishment of conditions conducive to tube corrosion
beneath the deposits.
Further research is needed to correlate fouling tendency and the
minerals most directly responsible for its occurrence. Although it may
prove impossible to prepare coals specifically lower in content of those
substances causing fouling, evidence exists that cleaning may diminish
the extent of fouling by reducing the net quantity of ash entering the
boiler.
Corrosion of boiler tubes is a third fuel-related problem in boiler
Deration. Boiler tube failures are perhaps the most serious plant
problem in electric power generation (Anson, 1977). Forced outage rates
due to tube failure are commonly in the range of 5% to 10% with some
forced outage rates from this cause as high as 15%. More than 90% of
boiler tube failures result in forced outages. Typically, an outage
caused by tube failure has a duration of 3 to 6 days because of the need
to cool and drain the boiler for access.
By reducing the slagging and fouling tendencies of coal, beneficia-
ion may indirectly diminish corrosion by minimizing conditions favorable
t corrosive reactions. Coal cleaning may have a more direct affect by
t0 ving substances important in the corrosion mechanism, principally
r alkali metals and sulfur. Sulfur oxidizes and reacts with moisture
form sulfuric acid which corrodes metal surfaces. Further, the
ction of sulfurous gases with ash deposited on the tubes produces
89
-------
complex sulfate compounds which are highly corrosive. Investigations
show that coal cleaning may produce a coal substantially less corrosive
than the raw coal (Holmes, 1969).
The cost of operating and maintaining boilers is influenced by coal
quality, as evidenced by the experience of two TVA steam plants (Holmes
1969) provided with virtually identical equipment. Neither of these *
plants, which were placed in operation in the middle 1950's, burned
cleaned coal but they burned coal of different quality because of
sources of the coal. The average proximate analysis of the coal
at these two plants is shown in Table 23.
TABLE 23. COAL PROPERTIES AT TWO SIMILAR TVA POWER PLANTS
Volatile Fixed Heating
Moisture, matter, carbon, Ash, value
% % % % S. % Bf.,,/i£
Plant A
Plant B
4.9
5.1
32.4
33.8
52.1
47.7
10.8
13.4
1.0
2.7
12,680
12,053
The relative boiler maintenance cost per ton of coal burned is nearly
two times as high for Plant B as for Plant A. The sum of maintenance
cost for soot blowers and burners is more than twice as high for Plant
as for Plant A. This comparison indicates the effect of coal quality
maintenance costs and reveals an important benefit which may be obtain rf
by using cleaned coal.
Perhaps the most significant single advantage in the use of clean
coal followed by FGD is the increase in capacity factor which may result
from the use of coal with improved characteristics. Capacity factor i
defined as the total generation in megawatts per hour divided by the
product of period hours times the unit capacity. Although capacity
factor reflects more than the performance of the boiler itself, it
includes boiler performance within its scope. An increase in capacity
factor from 45% to 56% was reported by TVA (Cole, 1978) when using thre
Western Kentucky coals after cleaning. The effect of the increase in *
capacity factor is an increase in total generation and an ensuing decre
In total generation cost. ase
ASH-HANDLING COSTS AT THE UTILITY
Coal beneficiation reduces ash-handling costs (Picklesimer, 1978)
In two closely related ways: firstly, coal cleaning lowers the ash
content of the coal to be burned; and secondly, by diminishing ash
content coal cleaning decreases the quantity of coal needed to supply
given Btu requirement. The percentage reduction potentially obtained f
expressed In the following equation: s
90
-------
% reduction in ash-handling costs = 100 [AI - (A2 x W) ] /A.^
where:
A = % of ash in uncleaned coal (expressed as a decimal)
A = % of ash in cleaned coal (expressed as a decimal)
W = weight of coal in pounds which is needed to supply the
number of Btu in one pound of uncleaned coal
reduction in ash-handling costs = 100 [1 - (A x W)/A ]
slmpliflcation provides the following:
% reduction in ash-handling cosi
The percentage reduction in ash-handling costs may be substantial,
as exemplified by the cleaning of coal from Peabody No. 9 deep mine
before use at the TVA Paradise Steam Plant (TVA, 1977). Raw coal con-
taining 14.93% ash is rated at 12,265 Btu/lb heating value. Cleaning
results in a product with the ash content lowered to 8.59% and the
heating value increased to 13,320 Btu/lb. Substituting these data in
the above equation gave a 47% reduction of ash handled.
Savings due to ash removal may also be obtained in the expenditures
to maintain ash-handling systems. The two TVA plants placed in operation
during the middle 1950's with virtually identical equipment but using
coals of different quality (Table 23) were compared for the period from
startup through 1969. Maintenance costs on bottom ash hoppers for the
plant burning coal with higher ash and sulfur contents were approximately
65% higher per ton of coal. Approximately 40% more money was spent for
maintenance on fly ash collectors for the coal with higher ash and
sulfur contents.
IMPROVED FGD OPERATION AND REDUCTION IN BOILER DOWNTIME
Boilers fitted with FGD equipment have an inherent amount of time
in which they cannot operate because the FGD systems are not operable.
During this time power must often be purchased to replace power which
would otherwise have been produced by the boiler. As FGD availability
is increased, savings occur since produced power is normally cheaper
than purchased power. Assuming 85% availability of each individual
bbing system and assuming a 500-MW plant is equipped with four
bbers and one redundant scrubber, the predicted boiler downtime
80 iring from FGD downtime is 0.8%. It is not possible to quantify the
rCA ction in FGD downtime which may be obtained by burning coal which
h6 been processed to remove sulfur and ash. It is, however, pertinent
note that some FGD systems have experienced markedly better operation,
ddition to a corresponding reduction in maintenance requirements,
h low-sulfur coal was substituted for the high-sulfur coal for which
FGD units were designed (Kennedy and Tomlinson, 1978). The Kansas
and Light Company's Lawrence No. 4 installation shifted to low-
91
-------
sulfur coal in 1974 which reduced scrubbing requirements and increased
scrubber availability. At the Will County Power Plant limestone sc
system, operated by Commonwealth Edison, operating problems were re
by burning low-sulfur coal. Scrubber problems increased during a test
run in which high-sulfur coal was burned. The Hawthorne No. 4 FGD
system was plagued by plugging, scaling, and erosion, resulting in low
availability of the system. Improved system dependability was obtained
by a switch to low-sulfur coal and certain modifications to the unit
In view of these and other examples, it is evident that operatin
difficulties with FGD processes increase with high-sulfur coal. Sever
installations have switched from high- to low-sulfur coal for this
reason. Although no detailed statistical basis exists for quantifying
the resulting decrease in FGD downtime which occurs when coal of lower
sulfur content is burned, it is reasonable to conclude that an increas
in system availability is an obviously correlated phenomenon.
ESP SIZE AND COST
The removal of fly ash from flue gas is usually accomplished by ESP
units, placed immediately behind the furnace air preheaters. The
resistivity of the ash is the major factor in determining the collect!
area of the ESP. Resistivity is determined by many factors, includin* *
ash composition and S03 level in the gas. The effects of coal cleanin
on ESP design will have to be assessed on an individual basis.
The cost associated with cleaning particulates from flue gas by
is partly a function of sulfur concentration. Removal of fly ash from
cleaned coal with lower sulfur level will be more difficult if conventi
ESP units are used. Other particulate removal systems which are not °n%1
dependent on sulfur concentration may be less expensive when burning
cleaned coal. Other such systems are hot side ESP (operating at 7QQQp\
bag filters, and pulsed ESP. '•
The ash and sulfur contents of coal are major influences in ESP
design. In 8ome cases the reduction in ash more than offsets the in
in resistivity caused by sulfur reduction. The ESP cost increases
dramatically for coal sulfur levels below 2%.
FGD SYSTEMS CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
The sulfur content of coal is an important factor in the design
cost of FGD systems. FGD systems on boilers burning high-sulfur c
coat considerably more than systems designed for identical boilers
burning lower sulfur coal. This cost increase for FGD systems for
boilers burning higher sulfur coal is a result of the necessity for
larger absorbent preparation facilities (receiving equipment, storage
grinding, and slaking) and the increase in system size required for '
sludge disposal as well as the size of the scrubbing system itself.
Coal cleaning should result in a corresponding decrease in the cost of
92
-------
both absorbent preparation facilities and sludge disposal. Table 24
shows projected investment costs and revenue requirements for FGD systems
on new coal-fired power units for coals with different sulfur contents,
TABLE 24. LIMESTONE SLURRY FGD COSTS
% sulfur in coal
3
Total capital investment, 10 $ 3
Annual revenue requirements, 10 $/yr
0.7
176,642
46,239
2.0
194,336
50,854
3.5
221,298
57,795
5.0
247,380
64,218
Basis
2000-MW new power plant, Midwest location, represents project beginning
mid-1979* ending mid-1982. Annual revenue requirements based on end-1982
costs, 25% scrubber redundancy, 9500 Btu/kWh heat rate, 5500 hr/yr
operating time at full capacity. Eighty-five percent sulfur removal.
REDUCED DERATING OF POWER OUTPUT FOR FGD OPERATION
The derating of the power output as a result of the operation of
FGD equipment has two principle causes: (1) energy is expended in the
operation of the equipment and (2) energy production is lost or reduced
as a result of FGD downtime. Coal cleaning lowers derating of power
output to degrees which vary depending on circumstances dictated by each
individual situation. Nevertheless, it is possible to draw conclusions
which apply generally by observation of specific cases.
Cleaning coal to reduce sulfur content decreases energy consumption
by the FGD equipment. In the limestone slurry process, the energy-
intensive primary equipment such as the absorber and induced-draft fan
will not consume significantly less power when burning lower sulfur coal
since gas volume is essentially constant. However, the electricity for
the processing and handling circuit for the slurry from the absorber
will be reduced as a direct result of decreased sulfur level. The
following tabulation illustrates electricity requirements and projected
1982 operating costs of a limestone slurry FGD system installed on a new
power unit and effecting 90% sulfur removal. Power requirements increase
as coal with higher sulfur is burned as fuel.
% S of coal
2.0
3.5
5.0
kWh required
for operation
46,797,620
49,480,400
51,545,970
1982
$/kWh
0.039
0.039
0.039
1982 cost for
electricity, $
1,825,000
1,930,000
2,010,000
The energy requirement of the limestone process is about 3% to 4% of the
input energy to the boiler. The lime slurry process energy requirement
93
-------
is slightly higher at an estimated 5%. Equivalent process energy require-
ments for other SC>2 removal processes range as high as 10% to 11% Of "~
the input energy to the boiler (Kennedy and Tomlinson, 1978).
SAVINGS IN STACK GAS REHEAT COSTS
To ensure proper dispersion of flue gases in the atmosphere and
reduce stack corrosion, flue gases from the absorber in wet FGD processes
must be heated to about 175°F before entering the stack. It is possible
to save energy if some gas is allowed to bypass the absorber and mix
with the cooler gas before entering the stack. The amount of gas that
can be allowed to bypass the absorber is dependent on the S02 content of
the gas.
Considerable savings on reheat can be realized if cleaned coal is
burned in the boiler. Up to 70% of the total flue gas can be scrubbed
and returned to 175°F without the use of steam reheaters. The savings
in the reheat portion of FGD will be proportional to the amount of gas
that is allowed to bypass the absorber.
Some utilities have tried to operate FGD systems without a reheater
(i.e., Conesville and Cane Run 4) and have experienced severe stack
corrosion due to acid reflux in the stack (Kennedy and Tomlinson, 1978)
These companies have been forced to resort to reheaters after experienci
these problems. The actual cost reduction for flue gas reheating is *
dependent on the overall sulfur reduction in the coal, which determines
the amount of flue gas that can be bypassed.
SURFACE MOISTURE ADDED TO COAL BY CLEANING PROCESSES
Among the undesirable constituents of coal are varying quantities
of water occurring both as internal and surface moisture. The presence
of water in coal has two primary adverse effects on the economical use
of coal: moisture results in Btu loss since it must be heated and
vaporized during the combustion process, and moisture increases trans-
portation costs by contributing additional weight to the coal. To the
extent that cleaning processes increase the surface moisture of coal
they Increase these effects.
On a net basis, typical boiler conditions require the vaporization
and heating of water in the coal to 300°F, the temperature of the flue
gas leaving the air heater. This process consumes about 1150 Btu for
each pound of water. Consequently, if 111 pounds of water is added to
1,000 pounds of surface-dry coal having a total heating value of
12,000,000 Btu, -the resulting product is 1,111 pounds of coal containing
10 02 surface moisture and a total heating value of approximately
11877,000 Btu. In this example a total of 123,000 Btu is spent in the
heating and vaporization of water during the burning process. In general
a 10* Increase In total moisture reduces the net heating value of the
roal by approximately 1%.
94
-------
The extent to which increases in moisture increase coal transporta-
tion costs has two basic determinants, both of which are related to the
Btu content per pound of coal. It is essential to recognize not only
the added weight of the moisture but also the Btu loss associated with
the necessity for evaporization and heating of the water during combustion,
If moisture adds 11.1% to the weight of the coal as described in the
oreceding example, a corresponding 11.1% increase in cost of transporting
the coal ensues. Further, since the addition of water actually reduces
the net heating value of the coal, it imposes an additional cost burden
on transportation expenditures.
95
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The three PCC processes remove 29% to 39% of the total sulfur of
the bituminous coals. The CCC processes have significantly higher
sulfur removals; KVB is the highest with 73% to 76% removal.
Sulfur removal of the subbituminous coal is significantly lower for
all processes because of the high ratio of organic sulfur to pyriti
sulfur.
PCC is a commercial, cost-effective method of meeting the pre-1978
1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS for coals with sulfur levels below about 1.2%
Older utility plants that are requried to meet less stringent SlP's
or industrial boilers can utilize coals with even higher sulfur
levels.
PCC plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD is generally cost
effective in meeting the pre-1978 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS, as compared
with FGD alone, for feed coals with sulfur contents below about 3%
Above this sulfur level, the PCC plus FGD method generally has lower
capital investment but slightly higher annual revenue requirements
When other benefits of using cleaned coal are credited, PCC plus
should also be competitive at the higher sulfur levels.
4. Although PCC technology is simple in concept, its application is
complex and a detailed study of site-spe
in order to forecast costs and benefits.
complex and a detailed study of site-specific conditions is necessa
5. Coals with a sulfur content up to about 3% can be cleaned with the
KVB process to meet the pre-1978 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS.
6. The CCC processes studied are generally higher in both capital
investments and annual revenue requirements than the PCC processes
The Kennecott process is most expensive and the KVB process the
least expensive of the CCC processes studied.
7. Coal cleaning plus partial scrubbing with limestone FGD is general!
less cost effective in meeting 85% S02 removal than limestone FGD *
alone. KVB plus FGD and PCC I plus FGD have about the same capital
investment as FGD for sulfur levels above about 3%, but have highe
annual revenue requirements. Credit for the other benefits of 1"
cleaned coal can make PCC I plus FGD competitive at the higher
sulfur levels.
8. The KVB process or KVB plus partial FGD scrubbing generally have
lower capital investment and higher annual revenue requirements
-------
(mills/kWh) than FGD alone. Recent work by KVB to Improve the
sodium hydroxide usage of this process could make a significant
improvement in annual revenue requirements. All CCC processes
require additional process development before costs can be more
accurately calculated.
9. The KVB process is the most energy efficient process of the PCC and
CCC processes studied. The coal lost in the refuse is the major
energy loss or usage for the PCC processes and represents about half
of the total annual revenue requirements.
10. The use of clean coal has many additional economic benefits and a
few penalties. The net result could be a cost reduction which would
substantially reduce the costs of coal cleaning. Recent work based
on limited data shows that these benefits could have a net cost
advantage of up to about 3 mills/kWh. Additional work should be
done to identify and quantify these benefits.
11. Coal cleaning or coal cleaning plus FGD may have even more appli-
cation for small peaking load utility boilers or for industrial
boilers than for large base load utility boilers.
12. A potentially advantageous SC>2 emission control approach that
should be investigated further is pelletization of the already
finely ground clean coal with limestone for further sulfur removal
during combustion. This could expand the potential for economic
sulfur removal by coal cleaning.
97
-------
REFERENCES
Agarwal, J. C., R. A. Giberti, P. F. Irminger, L. J. Petrovic, and S. s
Sareen, 1975, Chemical Desulfurization of Coal. Mining Congress Journal
61(3):40-43. *A»
Agarwal, J. C. , R. A. Giberti, P. F. Irminger, L. J. Petrovic, and S. s
Sareen, 1978, Kennecott's Chemical Coal Desulfurization Process. Ledge"
Laboratory, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Lexington, Mass. *ont
Anson, D., 1977, Availability of Fossil-Fired Steam Power Plants. EPRj
FP-422-SR, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.
Averitt, P., 1975, Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, 1974
Bulletin 1412, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Baum, F. , 1894, The Baum Coal-Washing Machinery. Trans. Federal Instit
of Mining Engineering, Vol. 7, pp. 156-163 (reprinted in Hawley, M. E.
Coal, Part II: Scientific and Technical Aspects. Dowden, Hutchinsonj "
and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Penn., 1976).
Bureau of Mines, 1946, Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7346.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. [Describes Rosin and
Rammler chart.]
Cavallaro, J. A., M. T. Johnson, and A. W. Deurbrouck, 1976, Sulfur
Reduction Potential of the Coals of the United States. Bureau of Mines
Report of Investigation RI 8118. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.c
CFR, 1976, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Ch. 1. U.S. Government-
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. nt
Chaput, L. S., 1976, Federal Standards of Performance for New Stationar
Sources of Air Pollution - A Summary of Regulations. Journal Air Poll
Association, 26(11) :1055-1060. ^utloB
Chemical Engineering, 1974-1977, Economic Indicators. Vol. 81-84.
Coal Preparation, 1968, 3d Ed. J. W. Leonard and D. R. Mitchell,
ed., The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc., N. Y.
Coal Preparation Manual, 1976, M576 Ed. McNally Pittsburg Manufacturi
Corporation, Pittsburg, Kan.
98
-------
Cole R. M., 1978, Economics of Coal Cleaning and Flue Gas Desulfuriza-
tion'for Compliance with Revised NSPS for Utility Boilers. Tennessee
Valley Authority Energy Research, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Crenshaw, J. D., C. H. Kuo, and J. D. Porter, 1976, State Implementation
Plan Emission Regulations for Sulfur Oxides: Fuel Combustion. EPA-
450/2-76-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
(NTIS Publication 251 174)
Diaz, A. F., and E. D. Guth, 1975, Coal Desulfurization Process. U. S.
Patent 3,909,211.
EPA 1976, State Implementation Plan Regulations for S02 for Oil and for
Coal Firing Effective 12-31-75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N. Car.
EPRI 1976, Economic Analysis of Coal Supply: An Assessment of Existing
Studies. EPRI Research Project 335-1, Final Report, Vol. 1, prepared by
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn.
Executive Office of the President, 1977, Replacing Oil and Gas with Coal
and Other Fuels in the Industrial and Utility Sectors. Executive Office
of the President - Energy Policy and Planning, Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, 1978, Electric Utility Steam Generating Units -
Proposed Standards of Performance and Announcement of Public Hearing on
Proposed Standards. Federal Register, 43(182):42154-42183, September 19.
Gibbs and Hill, Inc., 1978, Coal Preparation for Combustion and Conversion.
Research Project 466-1, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
Calif.
Giberti, R- A., S. Opalanko, and J. R. Sinek, 1978, The Potential for
Chemical Coal Cleaning: Reserves, Technology, and Economics. Preprint,
presented at EPA Symposium on Coal Cleaning, Hollywood, Fla., September
1978.
Grammar, R. D-» D- R- Hopper, P. R. Webb, and E. Radhakrishan, 1979,
Evaluation of Emissions and Control Technology for Industrial Steam
Boilers. Proceedings of the Third Stationary Source Combustion
Symposium, Vol. I. J- S. Bowen and R. E. Hall, eds. EPA 600/7-79-050a,
U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., pp. 3-33.
Guth, E. D.» 1978, Oxidation Coal Desulfurization Using Nitrogen Oxides -
The KVB Process. Preprint, presented at EPA Symposium on Coal Cleaning
to Achieve Energy and Environmental Goals, Hollywood Fla., September
1978.
Hamersma, J. w-» M- L< Kraft» c- A- Flegal, A. A. Lee, and R. A. Meyers,
1974 Applicability of the Meyers Process for Chemical Desulfurization
of Coal: Initial Survey of Fifteen Coals. EPA-650/2-74-025, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
99
-------
Hamersma, J. W., and M. L. Kraft, 1975, Applicability of the Meyers
Process for Chemical Desulfurization of Coal: Survey of Thirty-Five
Coals. EPA-650/2-74-025-a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. '
Holmes, J. C., Jr., 1969, The Effect of Coal Quality on the Operation
and Maintenance of Large Central Station Boilers. Preprint, presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum Engineers, Washington, D.C., February 1969. *
Hunter, T. W., 1976, Effects of Air Quality Requirements on Coal Supply
Mineral Industry Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
Jackson, A. W. , 1977, Oxygen Pressure Leaching of Pyrite from Coal: TK
Ledgemont Process. Ontario Hydro Research Division Report. e
Kennedy, F. M., and S. V. Tomlinson, 1978, Flue Gas Desulfurization In
the United States - 1977. Bull. Y-125, Tennessee Valley Authority,
Muscle Shoals, Ala.; ANL/ECT-3, Appendix F, Environmental Control
Implications of Generating Electric Power from Coal, Argonne National
Laboratory, Argonne, 111.
Kilgroe, J. D., 1979, Combined Coal Cleaning and FGD. Preprint, pre-
sented at the EPA Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium, Las Vegas, Nev
March 1979.
Koutsoukos, E. P., M. L. Kraft, R. A. Orsini, R. A. Meyers, M. J. Santy
and L. J. Van Nice, 1976a, Meyers Process Development for Chemical
Desulfurization of Coal, Vol. 1. EPA-600/2-76-143a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Koutsoukos, E. P., M. L. Kraft, R. A. Orsini, R. A. Meyers, M. J. Sant
and L. J. Van Nice, 1976b, Meyers Process Development for Chemical
Desulfurization of Coal, Vol. II - Appendices. EPA-600/2-76-143b, U s
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. *
KVB, 1977, KVB Coal Desulfurization Process Exploratory Development and
Laboratory Plant Design. KVB 95662A, Vol. 1, Technical Proposal.
[Submitted to U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration by
KVB, Inc.]
de Lorengi, 0., 1957, Combustion Engineering, 1st Ed. Combustion
Engineering, Inc., New York.
McCreery, J- H., and F. K. Goodman, 1978, An Evaluation of the Desulf
zation Potential of U.S. Coals. Preprint, presented at EPA Symposium ~
Coal Cleaning to Achieve Energy and Environmental Goals, Hollywood Pi°n
September 1978. * la«»
Meyers, R. A.. 1977, Coal Desulfurization. Marcel Dekker, N. Y.
100
-------
Murphy, B. , J. R- Mahoney, D. Bearg, G. Hoffnayle, and J. Watson, 1977,
Energy'consumption of Environmental Controls: Fossil Fuel, Steam Electric
Generating Industry. EPA-600/7-77-101, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., pp. 3-15 - 3-50.
Phillips* P. J-, and R- M- c°le» 1979, Economic Penalties Attributable
to Ash Content of Steam Coals. Preprint, presented at Coal Utilization
Symposium, AIME Annual Meeting, New Orleans, La., February 1979.
Picklesimer, E. A. , 1978, Coal/Ash Handling System Cost Savings Due to
Burning Cleaned Coal at Utility Power Plants. Lockheed Missiles and
Space Company, Inc., Huntsville, Ala., Contract No. EPA 68-02-2614.
TVA 1977, Specification 3424, Coal Washing Plant for Paradise Steam
Plant. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tenn.
Tufte P. H., E. A. Grondhovd, E. A. Sondreal, and S. J. Selle, 1976,
Ash Fouling Potentials of Western Subbituminous Coals Determined in a
Pilot Plant Test Furnace. Proceedings of the American Power Conference,
Chicago, 111., PP. 661-671.
Zallen D. M., R. Gershman, M. P. Heap, and W. H. Nurick, 1979, The
Generalization of Low Emission Coal Burner Technology. Proceedings of
the Third Stationary Source Combustion Symposium, Vol. II. J. S. Bowen
and R. E. Hall, eds. EPA-600/7-79-050b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., pp. 73-109.
101
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advanced Fossil Fuels and the Environment. EPA-600/9-77-013 U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977.
Aldrich, R. G. Chemical Comminution of Coal and Removal of Ash Includi
Sulfur in Inorganic Form Therefrom. U.S. Patent 3,918,761, 1975.
Aldrich, R. G., D. V. Keller, Jr., and R. G. Sawyer. Chemical
and Mining of Coal. U.S. Patent 3,815,826, 1974.
Anson, D. Availability of Fossil-Fired Steam Power Plants. EPRI
FP-422-SR, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 1977
Antonetti, J. M., and C. A. Holley. Agglomeration of Coal Fines.
FERRO-TECH, Grosse Isle, Mich.
Article XX, Section D, National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1973
Bacteria Removal Sulfur from Coal, Environmental Issues, 2(3):5-6 1977
Bacterial Process Cuts Sulfur Content of Coal. Chemical Week, 121(19}. s-j
1977. ' '::>3»
Banks, A. J., and R. B. Leeman. Energy Transportation. In: Proceed!
of the American Power Conference, Vol. 38, 1976. 8s
Barkley, J. F- Pointers on the Storage of Coal. Bureau of Mines Infor
tion Circular, 1C 7211, Department of the Interior, Washington D C ma"~
1942. ' '*
Barkley, J. F- The Storage of Coal. Bureau of Mines Information Circ 1
1C 7235, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1943. u1
Bryers, R. W. The Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Pyrites a
Their Influence on Fireside Problems in Steam Generators. Eneineerfr,
for Power, 98(4) .-517-527, 1976. S rin8
Characteristics of Bulk Commodities. 3d Ed. Martin Engineering
Neponaet, 111.. PP- 4, 8, 1972. g
Chemical Comminution - An Improved Route to Clean Coal. A prospectus
for a chemical comminution pilot plant. Catalytic, Inc., Philadelnhl
Pa., 1977. P"la»
102
-------
Chemical Engineer's Handbook. Perry, R. H. , and C. H. Chilton, eds.
5th Ed., McGraw-Hill, N.Y. , 1973.
Coal Desulfurization Chemical and Physical Methods. Wheelock, T. D. ,
ed Symposium by Division of Fuel Chemistry at 173rd Meeting of American
Chemical Society, ACS Symposium Series 64, 1977.
Coal Desulfurization Prior to Combustion. Eliot, R. C., ed. Noyes Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, N.J. , 1978.
Coal Preparation and Cleaning Assessment Study Appendix. ANL/ECT-3,
Appendix A, Part 2, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 111., 1977.
Comparative Engineering and Cost Analysis of Coal Benefication Processes.
F sil Energy, FE-2344-TI, prepared by Energy and Environmental Analysis,
Inc., Arlington, Va. , 1978.
Crenshaw, J. D. , C. H. Kuo, and J. D. Porter, State Implementation
Plan Emissions Regulations for Sulfur Oxides: Fuel Combustion.
EPA- 450/2- 76-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1976.
Davis J C. Coal Cleaning Readies for Wider Sulfur-Removal Role.
Chemical 'Engineering, March 1, 1976, pp. 70-74, 1976.
Deubrouck, A. W. Performance Characteristics of Coal-Washing Equipment:
Hvdrocyclones. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1974.
Deubrouck, A. W. , and J. Hudy, Jr. Performance Characteristics of Coal-
Washing Equipment: Dense Medium Cyclones. Bureau of Mines Report of
Investigation, RI 7673, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Deurbrouck, A. W. , and E. R. Palowitch. Hydraulic Concentration. Coal
Preparation, pp. 10-32 - 10-65.
Deurbrouck, A. W. , and E. R. Palowitch. Performance Characteristics of
C 1-Washing Equipment: Concentrating Tables. Bureau of Mines Report
f Investigation, RI 6239, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C. , 1976.
Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms. Thrush, P. W. , ed.
U S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1968.
n P. R- » anc* ^' A* Apel, Micro Biological Removal of Sulfur from a
Pulverized Coal Blend. Third Symposium on Coal Preparation, pp. 10-21,
1977.
F tneering/Economic Analysis of Coal Preparation Plant Operation and
EPA-600/7-78-124, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency
Energy/En vironment R&D Program Report, 1978.
103
-------
Engineering/Economic Analyses of Coal Preparation with S02 Cleanup
Processes. EPA-600/7-78-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry, Washington, B.C., 1978.
[Prepared by Hoffman-Munter Corporation for U.S. Department of Energy]
Ergun, S., R. R. Oder, L. Kulapaditharom, and A. K. Lee. An Analysis
of Chemical Coal Cleaning Processes. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department-
of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1973.
Evans, J. M. Alternatives to Stack Gas Scrubbing. Coal Processing
Technology. CEP Technical Manual, Vol. 3, pp. 47-52, 1977.
Farber, P. S., and C. D. Livengood, Effects of the Proposed New Sourc
Performance Standards: A Comparative Assessment of the Energy and 6
Economic Impacts. Argonne National Laboratory, presented at the 71St
Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, Tex j
1978. " ****
Fisher, K., and P. Cukor. Overcoming the Barriers to Investment in
Physical Coal Cleaning for S02 Emissions Control. Preprint, presented
at the EPA Symposium, Berkley, Calif., November 1978.
Ford, W. H., H. K. Roffman, and W. A. Beimborn. Bacterial Removal of
Sulfur from Coal. Combustion, 49(2):36-38, 1977.
Friedman, S., R. B. Lacount, and R. P. Warzinski. Oxidative Desulfuri
zation of Coal. Pittsburgh Energy Research Center, U.S. Energy Resear\
and Development Administration, Pittsburgh, Pa. °**
Friedman, S., and R. P. Warzinski. Chemical Cleaning of Coal. Journal
of Engineering for Power, 99(3):361-364, 1977. "ai
Gravichem Process Design and Cost Estimate. [Draft copy] TRW, lnc.
Defense and Space Systems Group, Redondo Beach, Calif. "'
Howard, P. H., and S. D. Rabinder. Chemical Comminution: A Process f
Liberating the Mineral Matter from Coal. Preprint, presented at the ***
Symposium on Desulfurization of Coal and Coal Char, ACS National Mf»eti
New Orleans, La., March 1977. " In8»
Huettenhain, H. , J. Yu, and S. Wong. A Technical and Economic Overvie
of Coal Cleaning. Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco, Calif., 1973
Janus, J- B- Analyses of Tipple and Delivered Samples of Coal Collect
During the Period July 1975 through September 1976. Bureau of Mines
Report of Investigation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington
r\ r* *
D.C.
Kalvinskas, J. J-• and G. C. Hsu. JPL Coal Desulfurization Process bv
Low Temperature Chlorinolysis. Preprint, presented at the EPA SymDn«T
Pasadena, Calif., September 1978. * P081um.
104
-------
Kalvinskas, J. J-» G- c- Hsu» J- B- E^nest, D. F. Andress, and D. R.
F Her Final Report for Phase I - Coal Desulfurization by Low Temperature
Chlorinolysis. Prepared for Department of Energy by Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Contract No. J0177103, Pasadena, Calif., 1977.
K enan J. H. , and F. G. Keyes. Thermodynamic Properties of Steam
Including Data for the Liquid and Solid Phases. First Edition, pp. 28-
73.
Keller D. V., Jr., C. D. Smith, and E. F. Burch. Demonstration Plant
Test Results of the Otisca Process Heavy Liquid Benefication of Coal.
Preprint, presented at the Annual SME-A1ME Conference, Atlanta, Ga.,
March 1977.
Kilgfoe, J. D. Coal Cleaning for Compliance with SC^ Emissions Regulations.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. Car.,
1977.
KVS Rock Talk Manual. K1074, Kennedy Van Saun Corporation, Danville,
Pa., pp. 7-28 and 180-192, 1974.
Le H. V. Floatability of Coal and Pyrite. Prepared for the U.S. Energy
Research and Development Administration, Contract No. W-7405-eng-82,
1977.
Matson, T. K., and D. H. White, Jr. The Reserve Base of Coal for Under-
ground Mining in the Western United States. Bureau of Mines Information
Circular 1C 8678, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.,
1975.
McCandless, L. C., and G. Y. Contos. Current Status of Chemical Coal
Cleaning Processes - An Overview. Versar, Inc., Springfield, Va.
McCreery, J- H. , and F. K. Goodman. An Evaluation of the Desulfurization
Potential of U.S. Coals. Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus,
Ohio, 1978.
McGlamery, G. G. , T. W. Tarkington, and S. V. Tondinson. Economics and
E ertsy Requirements of Sulfur Oxides Control Processes. Preprint, pre-
ted at the EPA Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium, Las Vegas, Nev.,
March 1979.
Microbial Desulfurization of Coal. NASA's Technical Briefs, NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., 1978.
Miller, K. J. , Coal-Pyrite Flotation in Concentrated Pulp: A Pilot
PI nt Study. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation, RI 8239, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1977.
R. R< » Lp Kulapaditharom, A- K- Lee> and E- L- Ekholm. Technical
d Cost Comparisons for Chemical Coal Cleaning Processes. Mining
Congress Journal, August 1977, pp. 42-49.
105
-------
OSU Scientists Claim Bacteria Can Make High-Sulfur Coal Acceptable
Air/Water Pollution Report, 15(46):457.
Preliminary Evaluation of Sulfur Variability in Low-Sulfur Coals from
Selected Mines. EPA-450/3-77-044, U.S. Environmental Protection
Washington, D.C., 1977.
Ruggeri, S., and F. A. Ferraro. Sulfur and Ash Reduction in American
Electric Power System Coals Using the Otisca Process. Preprint,
at the Utility Representatives Meeting on Coal Cleaning, Canton'
April 1978. ' »
Sinek, J. R. Magnitude Estimate of U.S. Bituminous Coal Production
Reserves Potentially Amendable to Chemical Coal Desulfurization. Led
Laboratory, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Lexington, Mass., 1978. 8e«ont
Sondreal, E. A. Control of Ash Fouling. Electric Research Developm
Administration, Quarterly Technical Progress Report, GFERC/QTR-77/2 nt
Grand Forks Energy Research Center, Grand Forks, N. Dak., pp. 38-43*
i r» -» -? *
1977.
Stahl, R. W. , and C. J. Dalzell. Recommended Safety Precautions for
Active Coal Stockpiling and Reclaiming Operations. Bureau of Mines
Information Circular, 1C 8256, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1965
Stambaugh, E. P., J. F. Miller, S. S. Tarn, S. P. Chauhan, H. F. Feldm
H. E. Carlton, H. Nack, and J. H. Oxley. Clean Fuels from Coal. Co TU>
Processing Technology, Vol. 3, CEP Technical Manual, pp. 1-4, 1977
Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. 7th Ed. , T. Baumeister
Ed., McGraw Hill, N.Y., 1967. '
State Implementation Plan Regulations for SC>2 for Oil and for Coal
Firing Effective 12-31-75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. Car., 1976.
Study of Benefits of Imposed Powerplant Reliability and Productivit
Phase I Report - Factors Considered in Planning Generation. HCP/B6Q7Q
U.S. Department of Energy Economic Regulatory Administration Divisi ~01'
of Power Supply and Reliability, Washington, D.C., 1978. n
Technical Reports, Cumulative Index, Coal Cleaning. U.S. Environm
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N. Car., 1979. me«tal
Tai, C. Y., G. V. Graves, and T. D. Wheelock. Desulfurization of r
by Oxidation in Alkaline Solutions. Third Symposium on Coal Pr« *l
October, PP. 1-9, 1977. Frepar*tion>
Van Nice, L. J. , and M. J. Santy. Pilot Plant Design for emrai
Desulfurization of Coal. EPA-600/2-77-080, U.S. Environmental P!-
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. t
106
-------
Warzinski, R. P., J. A. Ruether, S. Friedman, and F. W. Steffgen.
Survey of Coals Treated by Oxydesulfurization. U.S. Department of
Energy, Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1978.
A Washability and Analytical Evaluation of Potential Pollution from
Trace Elements in Coal. EPA-600/7-78-038, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1978.
Will Chemicals Replace Crushing? Coal Age, 83(2):176-179, 1978.
Zimmerman, 0. T., and I. Lavine. Psychometric Tables and Charts.
Industrial Research Service, Inc., Dover, N. H., pp. 138-139, 1964.
107
-------
GLOSSARY
Ash: The residue resulting from the complete combustion of coal conduct
according to specified test procedures. Colloquially, ash often
denotes the ash-producing minerals, clays, and shale which occur in
coal.
Bituminous coal (also see Coal): A broad category of agglomerating
black soft coal with a calorific value of 11,000 to 16,000 Btu/lb
when moist but free of mineral matter.
Chemical coal cleaning: A process in which sulfur- or ash-producine
compounds, or both, are separated from coal by changing the chemic
nature of the sulfur or ash materials but without changing the
pure-coal matrix.
Coal: A naturally occurring brownish black to black combustible solid
formed by the partial decomposition of vegetation from geologic
periods of about 1 to 300 million years ago. Successively with
time, the decomposition produced peat, lignite, subbituminous coal
midwestern bituminous coal, eastern bituminous coal, anthracite *
coal, and graphite. In general, the moisture and volatile matter
decrease while the fixed carbon and calorific value tend to incre
in that order. Coals are constituted from C, H, 0, and N, and th SS
contain widely varying amounts of clay and mineral impurities. ^
Coal beneficiation: The upgrading of coal to higher purity and normal!
to higher calorific value by the removal of impurities, y
Coal cleaning: A process in which sulfur or ash materials are removed
from coal by physical or chemical treatment.
Coal conversion: A process for removing sulfur- or ash-producing materi
or both, from coal and for converting the coal to a fuel of diffe 8»
physical and chemical nature. Cnt
Coal preparation: A broad term referring to crushing, sizing, coal
cleaning, drying, or other treatment needed to meet the market
specifications for the coal.
Coal washing: A physical coal-cleaning process in which pyrite, ash
materials, and some fine coal are separated from a bed of raw coal
in a coal washing machine by alternately flooding and draining th
bed or by some other arrangement of hydraulic washing. e
108
-------
Concentrating table: A relatively flat, riffled, oscillating table for
the hydraulic separation of heavy impurities, such as pyrite and
ash from coal. A mixture of moderately fine coal and water is fed
to upper right section of the table which slopes slightly downward
from the feed location. As water and light particles overflow the
riffles toward the coal discharge, heavy pyrite particles are
retained by the riffles and oscillated slightly uphill to a discharge
at the left end of the table. Additional "dressing water" is added
along the upper edge of the table to facilitate an even flow across
the table.
Dense medium (also called heavy medium): A liquid, such as a halogenated
solvent, used for precise float-sink test separations of coal
fractions over the specific gravity range of about 1.3 to 1.7 or
1.9. In commercial coal cleaning, the dense medium normally is a
suspension of fine magnetite in water for use at a definite specific
gravity within the range of about 1.35 to 1.7.
Dense-medium cyclone (DM cyclone, heavy-medium cyclone, HM cyclone): A
high-efficiency concentrating cyclone in which liberated pyrite and
ash are separated from coal by the action of centrifugal force.
The cyclone has a relatively short cylindrical upper section and a
relatively long conical lower section, the whole installed at a
slight inclination to horizontal. A mixture of intermediate-sized
coal and dense medium of controlled specific gravity is fed tangen-
tially to the lower section of the cylinder and a lighter fraction
of clean coal and medium emerges tangentially from the upper section
of the cylinder. A mixture of heavier impurities leaves the cyclone
through the apex of the cone.
Dense-medium vessel (DM vessel, heavy-medium vessel, HM vessel): A
high-efficiency gravity-type separator with a trough-, conical-, or
other-shaped vessel filled with a DM fluid of controlled specific
gravity. Coarse- or medium-sized coal is gently immersed in the
bath where lighter, cleaner coal particles float and overflow the
vessel, usually with mechanical assistance. Heavier refuse particles
are removed from the bottom of the vessel by flight conveyor,
elevator, or other means.
Float-sink: The partial separation of coal and its impurities by immersion
of the raw coal in a DM whose specific gravity is between that of
the lighter coal and the heavier impurities. The immersion may be
in a static bath, such as a laboratory vessel or a commercial DM
vessel, or under dynamic conditions such as in a commercial DM
cyclone. The completeness of separation is limited mainly by the
degree of dissemination of impurities and hence by the degree of
their liberation at the particle size being used.
Froth flotation: In coal cleaning, a process by which pyrite and some
other impurities can be separated from very fine coal in an aerated
aqueous suspension. Under the influence of surface-active flotation
reagents, pyrite particles attach to rising air bubbles while the
109
-------
coal particles remain depressed. Alternatively, pyrite may be
depressed while coal is floated. Floated material is removed fro
the flotation tank in the overflowing froth of air bubbles.
Inherent moisture: See Internal moisture.
Internal moisture: The moisture contained within a coal particle. It
is not normally removable by air drying or by mechanical or therm
dewatering using regular commercial equipment. It tends to be
characteristic of the rank of the coal.
Lignite (also see Coal); A nonagglomerating brown to brownish-black
coal with 30% to 50% internal moisture and less than 9300 Btu/lb
when moist but free of mineral matter.
Middling: A product of intermediate purity. In this report the roiddli
coal is purer than the raw coal but less pure than the ultraclean ***
coal.
Moisture-free: Having zero surface moisture and zero internal moistur
Organic sulfur: Sulfur which is chemically combined with pure coal
Physical coal cleaning: A process in which inorganic sulfur- and ash-
producing compounds are separated from coal by physical methods
without changing the chemical nature of the sulfur and ash materi
and without changing the pure-coal matrix. s
Pulp density: The proportionate weight, often as a percentage, of
solids in a mixture of solids and water.
Pure coal: A hypothetically pure coal which contains no sulfur, ash
other impurities.
Pyritic sulfur: Sulfur in the form of the FeS2 minerals, pyrite or
marcasite, which is physically mixed with or physically attached
to, but not chemically combined with, the pure coal.
Raw coal: In this report, the feed coal to a coal-cleaning plant. its
only prior preparation after mining has been passage through a
rotary breaker (a rotating horizontal perforated cylinder) for the
removal of debris and material which resists tumble crushing to
3-inch top size. A magnet in the conveyor system removes tramp
iron.
Refuse: The waste byproduct consisting of pyrite and other mineral
impurities, clay, shale, and impure coal which are removed by coal
cleaning.
Slurry: A mixture of water and solids.
110
-------
Subbituminous coal (also see Coal): A nonagglomerating near black coal
with up to 30% internal moisture and with a calorific value of
8,300 to 11,000 Btu/lb when moist but free of mineral matter.
Sulfate sulfur: Sulfur in the form of usually soluble inorganic sulfates
which result from the oxidation of pyrite in coal.
Surface moisture: The moisture on the surface of a coal particle. It
is removable to an equilibrium level by the evaporation provided by
thermal drying or by air drying. Its reduction by mechanical
dewatering depends on the fineness of the coal as well as on the
equipment characteristics.
Total moisture: Including both surface and internal moisture.
Washability data: Tabular results of laboratory determinations of
composition and calorific value of coal and refuse fractions which
float or sink at successively higher specific gravities.
Ill
-------
APPENDIX A
MATERIAL BALANCES AND EQUIPMENT LISTS
113
-------
TABLE A-l. PCC 1 PROCESS
-EANING AT COARSE, INTERMEDIATE, AND FINE SIZES)
MATERIAL BALANCE - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
TABLE A-l (continued)
h-1
H-
4>
i
*
»
b
»
*
,
•
*
1 0
1
,
1
t *•
1
,
,
!
,
a
j
2
3
at.
t 9
2*
a
•j •
3V
JO
3 1
J 2
3 J
J«.
J»
3*
7
m
y
0
Stream No.
Description
Total stream, tons/hr
Stream components, tons/hi
Coal, bone-dry
Water, total
Gal/min
Ash , Cons/hr
Pyritic S, tons/hr
Total S. tons/hr
Btu/lb, bone-dry
1
Raw coal
to sizing
(3 in. x 0)
861.7
806. f.
55.1
134.7
27.0
40.3
12,000
•>
Coal to
crusher
3 in.xl-1/4 in.
104.5
94.8
9.7
15.8
3.2
4.7
12,000
3
Coal from
raw coal
screen
l-l/4in.x3/8in.)
333.5
292.9
30.0
48.9
9.8
14.6
12,000
I
3
3
1.
3
«
7
B
9
1 0
I 1
1 2
I 3
1 <•
1 S
1 *
1 7
i e
i»
3 0
2 i
2 2
2 3
2 l.
2 9
2 «
2 7
2«
2 »
mo
3 1
3 2
95
3<*
3 3
J«
3 7
3*
3 9
feO
6
Coal from
raw coal
screen
(3/8 in. x 0)
643.3
413. 9
224.4
70.0
14.0
21.0
12.000
•i
Coal to
DM vessel
(2 in.x 3/8 in.)
328.6
298.1
30.5
49.8
10.0
14.9
12,000
6
Coal to fines
screens
(3/8 in. x 0)
735.0
508.5
226.5
2,393.6
84.9
17.0
25.4
12,000
7
Oversize
from fines
screens
(3/8 in.x 28 m)
509.1
442.2
66.9
73.8
14.8
22.1
12,000
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
it O
8
Undersize
from fines
screen
(28 ra x 0)
357.6
66.3
291.3
11.1
2.2
3.3
12.000
9
Clean coal from
DM vessel
centrifuge
(2 in.x 3/8 in.)
268.3
253.1
15.2
28.2
5.6
9.8
12.800
10
Refuse from
DM vessel
rinse screen
(2 in.x 3/8 in.)
49.6
45.0
4.6
21.6
4.4
5.1
11
Feed to
DM cyclones
(3/8 in.x 28 m)
l,738.9a
442.2
1,296.7
7,258.1
73.8
14.8
22.1
12.000
Excluding 1,010.3 tons/hr of magnetite.
(continued)
TABLE A-l (continued)
(
1
2
3
••
»
6
7
ft
9
1 O
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 <•
IS
1 6
1 7
19
1«
20
2 1
2 2
2 3
2«t
2 3
2 6
2 7
2*
2 9
i°
3 1
32
S3
3*
13
36
37
im
3 9
i.O
12
:iean coal from
DM cyclone
centrifuge
3/8 in. x 28 m)
404.7
370.1
34.6
35.7
7.2
13.3
13.000
13 1
Refuse from
DM cyclone
centrifuge
(3/8 in.x 28 m)
78.8
72.1
6.7
38.1
7.6
8.8
14
Feed to
froth flotation
(28 m x 0)
687.0
66.3
620.7
2.676.8
11.1
2.2
3.3
12.000
15
Clean coal from
'roth flotation
filter
(28 m x 0)
76.8
55.6
21.2
•
4.7
0.9
1.9
13,200
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-1 (continued)
1
a
*
k
*
ft
>
•
-•_,
l«
I
1
,
I
1
,
1
t
,
a
i
a
i
a
a
a
a
2
a
^
9
»
is
91.
33
it
i 7
JK
J#
*0
16
Refuse to
flotation
thickener
(28 B X 0)
^8S.O
10.7
57*,. 3
2.327.3
6.4
1.3
1.4
17
Refuse from
flotation
filter
(28 n x 0)
14.8
10.7
4.1
6.4
1.3
1.4
18
Clarified
water
570.2
570.2
2,280.8
19
Makeup
water
31.4
31.4
125.6
(contiaatd)
TABLE A-l (continued)
I
3
1
"
ft
7
•
9
t o
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
a
2
a
2
2
2
a*
i°
3
1 2
35
3fc
13
36
J 7
a»
39
40
20
Refuse to
disposal site
143.2
127.8
15.4
66.1
13.3
15.4
21
Clean coal
to stockpile
749.8
678.8
71.0
68.6
13.7
24.9
13,000
-------
TABLE A-2. PCC I PROCESS
(CLEANING AT COARSE, INTERMEDIATE, AND FINE SIZES)
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
NOTE: Coal tonnages are listed as bone-dry coal excluding the
internal moisture of 3.5% in the base-case coal. However,
equipment sizes include the handling of internal and of
surface moisture.
1—Coal Receiving and Storage
Item
No.
Description
1 Unloading conveyors for
conveying 1,600 tons/hr,
3 inch x 0 raw coal from
unloading station to
stockpiles
2 Stacking conveyors for dis-
tributing coal along the tops
of 2 parallel and adjacent
wedge-shaped open piles, each
of 175,000 tons
3 Hoppers for reclaiming 807
tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal from stockpiles
L Pan feeders for withdrawing
' 807 tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal from reclaiming hoppers.
- collecting conveyors for 807
tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal from pan feeders
6.
Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
Tunnel sump pump
20
20
+ 1 spare
(continued)
Inclined conveyor, 500 feet long,
with 1 fixed tripper, 48-inch-wide
belt, carbon steel, with tramp-iron
magnet; 125 hp
Elevated horizontal conveyor, 1,000
feet long with 1 traveling tripper,
48-inch--wide belt, telescoping chute,
carbon steel; 40 hp
Reclaiming hopper with 14 feet x 14
feet top opening, 3-1/2-feet-deep
pyramid, and 24 inch x 24 inch bottom
opening, carbon steel
Vibratory pan feeder with 26 inch
wide x 48 inch long pan, carbon steel;
1.5 hp vibrator
Horizontal conveyor, 1,000 feet long
with 36-inch wide belt, carbon steel;
35 hp
Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 1,000 feet
long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gptn, 30-feet head,
carbon steel; 1 hp
117
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
8. Transfer conveyor
9. Tunnel for transfer conveyor
10. Tunnel sump pump
11. Delivery conveyor for 807
tona/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal to raw coal sizing area
12. Automatic sampling of coal
from stockpile to raw coal
sizing area
13. Bulldozer for servicing
raw coal storage piles
Horizontal conveyor, 320
"Jthp36-inch-wide belt, carbon
Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel
7 feet wide x 6 feet deep x 320
long
1 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30-feet
+ 1 spare head, carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Inclined conveyor, enclosed 600
feet long, 36-inch-wide belt, w
belt scale, carbon steel; 75 hp
1 Automatic sampler of plate or siail*ri
type conforming with ASTM sampling
requirements, primary sampling fr
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
3. pre-wet screen for sizing, 95
tons/hr of crushed coal at
3/8 inch
A. Sieve bends for partial
dewatering and screening of
66 tons/hr of 28 mesh x 0
coal from 508 tons/hr of
3/8 inch x 0 coal
5. Fines screens for finish
screening of 66 tons/hr of
28 mesh x 0 coal from 508
tons/hr of 3/8 inch x 0 coal
Horizontal vibrating screen, A feet
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise
suspension, standard positioning
of water sprays, stainless steel
deck for screening at 3/8 inch,
carbon steel body; 10 hp
Reversible sieve bend, 7 feet wide,
with deck of 1/8 inch Bixby-Zinaner
Iso-Rod spaced for 1.2 mm opening,
including feed box distributor,
carbon steel body; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 8 feet
wide x 16 feet long, deck of 3/32
inch Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
sizing at 28 mesh, low-noise suspen-
sion, standard positioning of water
sprays, carbon steel body; 20 hp
Area
Coal Cleaning
Item
No.
Description
1 Dense medium vessels for
' processing 298 tons/hr of
2 inch x 3/8 inch coal,
using magnetite medium
flt nominal specific gravity
of 1-55 for pr°ductlon of
253 tons/hr of float
-
screens for 253 tons/hr
of clean coal (float) at 2
inch x 3/8 inch from dense
vessel
Trough-type vessel, 7 feet wide, with
single chain-and-flight conveyor for
float and sink removals at opposite
ends of vessel, float and sink inclines
constructed from steel wedge wire for
drainage of medium from float and sink
products to bath, controlled level of
bath, controlled distribution of
medium recirculated to bath, carbon
steel frame and tank, high carbon
steel wear bars on conveyor; 20 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6 feet
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise sus-
pension, standard positioning of
water sprays, carbon steel frame,
deck of 1/8 inch Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod
spaced for 1 mm opening; 15 hp
(continued)
119
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
3. Rinse screens for 45
tons/hr of refuse (sink)
from dense medium vessel
4. Centrifuge for dewatering
253 tons/hr of 2 inch x 3/8
inch clean coal from rinse
screens
Horizontal vibrating screen, 4 feet
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise sus-
pension, standard positioning of
water sprays, carbon steel frame,
deck of 1/8 inch Bixby-Zimmer
spaced for 1 mm opening; 10 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge, hori-
zontal or vertical axis of basket
cone-shaped basket of stainless steel
screen; individual motors and
drives for basket rotation, for
vibration along the axis of the
basket, and if so designed, for oil
pumping; carbon steel body; 60 hp
total
Area 4—Intermediate Coal Cleaning
Item
No.
Description
2.
3.
Dense medium cyclone feed
sump for makeup of coal
slurry comprising 442 tons/
hr coal at 3/8 inch x 28
mesh and 2,290 tons/hr
magnetite medium; nominal
specific gravity of magne-
tite medium 1.55
Pumps for feeding coal
slurry to dense medium
cyclones
Dense medium cyclones for
separation of 3/8 inch x
28 mesh coal at specific
gravity 1.55
+ 1 spare
6
Cylindrical tank, 14 feet diameter
2 feet high, with 60 degree cone
bottom and closed top, 7,000 gallons
ground-level installation, carbon '
steel
Centrifugal pump, 3,630 gpm, 70 feet
total head; 200 hp
Dense medium cyclone, 24 inch diameter
with tangential entry of feed and exit
of clean coal tops, cone angle about
20 degrees, hard nickel or similarly
abrasion-resistant iron
(continued)
120
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
5.
Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from
370 tons/hr of clean coal
tops from dense medium
cyclones
Drain and rinse screens
for 370 tons/hr clean coal
tops at 3/8 inch x 28 mesh
6.
Centrifuges for dewatering
370 tons/hr of 3/8 inch x
28 mesh clean coal from
drain and rinse screens
8.
Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from 72
tons/hr of 3/8 inch x 28
mesh refuse from dense
medium cyclones
Drain and rinse screens for
72 tons/hr of 3/8 inch x 28
mesh refuse
Reversible sieve bend, 7 feet wide,
with deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4 mm opening,
including feed box distributor; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 8 feet
wide x 16 feet long, standard posi-
tioning of water sprays in rinse
section, 2-compartment pan for separate
collections of medium and rinse water,
low-noise suspension, deck of 3/32
inch Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
1/2 mm opening, carbon steel frame;
20 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge, horizontal
or vertical axis of basket, cone-
shaped basket of stainless steel
screen; individual motors and drives
for basket rotation, for vibration
along the axis of the basket, and if
so designed, for oil pumping, carbon
steel body; 85 hp total
Reversible sieve bend, A feet wide,
with deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4 mm opening,
including feed box distributor; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 5 feet
wide x 16 feet long, standard posi-
tioning of water sprays in rinse
section, 2-compartment pan for separate
collections of medium and rinse
water, low-noise suspension, deck of
3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced
for 1/2 mm opening, carbon steel frame;
12 hp
(continued)
121
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
9. Centrifuge for dewatering
72 tons/hr of 3/8 inch x
28 mesh refuse from drain
and rinse screens
10. Dense medium recovery system
for dilute medium from rinse
screens in coarse and inter-
mediate cleaning areas
Vibrating basket centrifuge, hori-
zontal or vertical axis of basket,
cone-shaped basket of stainless
steel screen, individual motors
and drives for basket rotation, for
vibration along the axis of the
basket, and if so designed, for oil
pumping, carbon steel body; 60 hp
total
Double-drum magnetite recovery unit
with permanent magnets in drums,
30 inch diameter x 10 feet long drum,
2 drums in series/unit; complete with
dilute medium sump, magnetite scr*per,
etc., installed at elevation above
dense medium separators; carbon stetl
10 hp/unit
Area 5—Fine Coal C
Item
No.
Description
1. Froth flotation feed sump
for makeup of coal slurry
at 10% solids using 66
tons/hr of 28 mesh x 0
coal
2, pump for feeding coal
slurry to froth flotation
cells
3. Froth flotation cells for
treatment of 66 tons/hr of
28 mesh x 0 coal
+ 1 spare
Cylindrical tank, 12-1/2 feet dia«et«r
x 2 feet high with 60 degree cone
bottom and closed top, 5,500 gallons
ground-level installation, carbon
steel
Centrifugal pump, 2,700 gpm, 60 feet
total head; 75 hp
Bank of 4 froth flotation cells vith
300 ft3/cell; provisions for agitation.
aeration, and skimming of froth fro*
cell; each bank arranged with 1 fftft
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
4. Disk filter for
filtration of 56 tons/
hr clean coal from
froth flotation
5. Thickener receiving
2,360 gpm of refuse
slurry (tailings)
from froth flotation
and filtrate from
refuse filter
6. Disk filter for filtration
of 11 tons/hr refuse (under-
flow) from thickener
7
Pump fo* returning 2,280 gpm
of clarified water
+ 1 spare
Continuous rotary vacuum disk
filter, 12 feet, 6 inch diameter x
11 disk, 55 stainless steel wire
cloth; complete with vacuum pumps
and receiver, moisture trap, filtrate
pump, and blower; 580 hp
Single compartment bridge-supported
thickener with 80 feet diameter
reinforced-concrete tank; system
includes drive unit and lifting
device, rake mechanism, feed well,
overflow arrangement, underflow
arrangement, and instrumentation;
rotation drive 5 hp, lifting drive
1 hp
Continuous rotary vacuum disk
filter, 12 feet, 6 inch diameter x
6 disk , stainless steel wire
cloth; complete with vacuum pump
and receiver, moisture trap, filtrate
pump, and blower; 200 hp
Centrifugal pump, 1,140 gpm, 150 feet
total head; 75 hp
6—Refuse Disposal
Item
No.
Description
2.
Collecting conveyor for
128 tons/hr of 2 inch x
0 refuse
Refuse bin for truck
loading
(continued)
Horizontal and inclined belt conveyor,
400 feet long with 24-inch-wide belt,
carbon steel; 15 hp
Storage bin, 16 feet wide x 26 feet
long x 18 feet high on vertical sides,
13-feet-deep pyramidal bottom with
fast opening slides for truck loading;
3.5 hp
123
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
3. Trucks for transporting
128 tons/hr of 2 inch x
0 refuse 1 mile from coal
cleaning plant to refuse
disposal site
4. Refuse disposal site for 30-
year operation
5. Bulldozer for spreading
refuse and earth in layers
at disposal site
Off-highway diesel-electric dump
truck, 100 ton payload, 100 yard^
capacity, dump body for 2 inch x 0
moist, sluggish, abrasive refuse
"Dry" storage site with 26,000 acre-
feet capacity for layered refuse and
earth ^~
Diesel bulldozer; 100 hp
Area 7—Clean Coa1 S torage
Item
No.
Description
1. Collecting conveyor for
679 tons/hr of 2 inch x
0 cleaned coal
2. Transfer conveyors
3. Stacking conveyors for
distributing coal along
the tops of 2 parallel and
adjacent wedge-shaped
open pile*, each of
150,000 ton*
4. Hopper* under stockpile
for recUi»i«8 cleaned
coal from stockpiles
5. P»n feeder, for with-
drawing 1,350 tons/hr,
2 inch X 0 cleaned coal
from reclaiming hoppers
20
20
(continued)
Horizontal conveyor, 300 feet lon»
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon
20 hp
Inclined conveyor, 200 feet long
with 36-inch-wide belt, with belt
scale, carbon steel; 50 hp
Elevated horizontal conveyor, I Q/W\
feet long with 1 traveling tripper
36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel; 4Q
hp
Reclaiming hopper with 16 feet x
16 feet top opening, 4-feet-deep
pyramid, and 26 inch x 26 inch bott
opening, carbon steel
Vibrating pan feeder with 30 inch
x 48 inch long pan, carbon steel*
hp vibrator *
124
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
6. Collecting conveyors for
1,350 tons/hr cleaned
coal from pan feeders
7. Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
g. Tunnel sump pump
9. Transfer conveyor
10. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
11. Tunnel sump pump
12 Automatic sampling
" of coal from cleaning
plant to stockpile
Bulldozer for servicing
dean coal stockpile
2 Horizontal conveyor 1,000 feet long
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel;
50 hp
2 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 1,000 feet
long
2 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet
+ 1 spare head, carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Horizontal conveyor, 320 feet long
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel;
15 hp
1 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 320 feet
long
1 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet
•f 1 spare head, carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Automatic sampler of plate or
similar type conforming with ASTM
sampling requirements, primary
sampling from 339 tons/hr 2 inch x
0 coal from each of 2 transfer con-
veyors, combination of primary samples
to a single sample of cleaning plant
product
1 Diesel bulldozer; 100 hp
125
-------
TABLE A-'. PCC II PROCESS
(CLEANING AT INTERMEDIATE AITD FINE SIZES)
MATERIAL KALA/.CE - (M S COAL)
TABLE A-3 (continued)
Stream No.
Rescript ion
,
i
t
>.
>
•
,
•
*
I 9
1
,
,
1
1
1
,
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
i •>
t*
3 r
1 •
2 9
JO
3 1
i 2
J 1
35
9*
,7
3«
J "
»
Total stream, tons/hr
S treats components, tons/^
Coal , bone-dry
Water, total
C,al/min
Ash, tons/hr
Pyritic S, tons/hr
Total S, tons/hr
Btu/lb, bone-dry
1
Raw coal to
sizing
(3 in. x 0)
8S8.2
803.4
54.8
134.2
26.9
40.2
12,000
Coal to
crusher
(3 in. x 3/4 in.)
229.0
207.8
21.2
34.7
7.0
10. It
12,000
3
Coal from
raw coal
screen
(3/4 in. x 0)
760.7
595.6
165.1
99.5
19.9
29.8
12,000
i
3
*
S
7
a
«
1 0
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
29
2
2 •
2 9
£.°
9 1
3 2
S 3
)<•
2 9
I«
j r
?•
9ff
40
4
Coal to
fines screens
(3/4 in. x 0)
1,016.6
803.4
213.2
3,203.1
134.2
26.9
40.2
12,000
5
Oversize
from
fines screens
(3/4 in. x 28 m)
746.0
647.9
98.1
108.2
21.7
32.4
12,000
6
Undersize
from fines
screen
(28 m x 0)
478.7
155.5
323.2
26.0
5.2
7.8
12,000
7
Feed to low-
gravity cyclones
(3/4 in. x 28 m)
2.970.93
647.9
2.323.0
12.000.7
108.2
21.7
32.4
12,000
(continued)
a. Excluding 1,057.5 tonf/hr of mignttlte.
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3 (continued)
8
Clean coal from
.ow-gravity cyclone
centrifuge
(3/4 in. x 28 m)
,
2
»
.
5
It
,
»
9
1 0
, i
1 3
1 3
1 *t
1 3
1 6
1 7
i e
1 9
3 O
1 i
2 2
a a
2fc
2 3
2 6
2 7
28
2 9
3°
31
32
39
1*
33
36
3 7
im
19
*• D
341.6
314.8
26.8
20.6
4.1
9.3
13,500
9
Feed to
high-gravity
cyclones
(3/4 in. x 28 m)
1 , J 1 0 . Ob
333.1
976.9
5.46T.5
87.6
17.6
23.1
10,700
10
Middling
from high-
gravity cyclone
centrifuge
(3/4 in. x 28 n)
249.2
229.7
19.5
30.9
6.2
10.0
12,500
11
Refuse
from high-
jravity cyclone
centrifuge
(3/4 in. x 28 m)
112.3
103.4
8.9
56.7
11.4
13.1
Excluding 1,726.0 tons/hr of magnetite.
(continued)
TABLE A-3 (continued)
12
Feed to
froth flotation
(28 m x 0)
i
2
3
4.
3
6
7
•
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
n.
1 3
1 6
1 7
i a
1 9
2 O
3 i
2 2
a 3
2 t.
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 a
2 9
3D
3 1
3 2
3 3
3*.
3 3
36
3 7
'i m
1 9
t O
1,611.0
155.5
1,455.5
6,276.9
26.0
5.2
7.8
12.000
13
Middling
from flotation
filter
(28 in x 0)
180.0
130.3
49.7
10.9
2.2
4.4
13.200
14
Refuse to
flotation
thickener
(28 m x 0)
1,371.6
25.2
1,346.4
5,459.3
15.1
3.0
3.4
15
Refuse from
flotation
filter
(28 m x 0)
34.8
25.2
9.6
15.1
3.0
3.4
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-'i (continued)
4
a
i
••
«
»
,
•
*
i*
t
t
,
i
i
,
i
,
1
1
a
i
a
a
2
a *
i
3 •
a «
2°
"
1 3
>»
)<•
t 9
1 t
37
jt
19
It 0
16
Clarit led
water
l.J^b.8
1,336.8
5..U7...'
17
Makeup
water
59.7
S9.7
iJ8.8
18
Refuse to
disposal pond
147.1
128.6
18.5
71.8
14.4
16.5
19
Middling to
stockpile
429.2
360.0
69.2
41.8
8.4
14.4
12,700
00
-------
TABLE A-4. PCC II PROCESS
(CLEANING AT INTERMEDIATE AND FINE SIZES)
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
NOTE: Coal tonnages are listed as bone-dry coal excluding the
internal moisture of 3.5% in the base case coal. However,
equipment sizes include the handling of internal and of
surface moisture.
r.oal Receiving and Storage
Item
No.
Description
Inclined conveyor, 500 feet long,
with 1 fixed tripper, 48-inch-wide
belt, carbon steel, with tramp-iron
magnet; 125 hp
Elevated horizontal conveyor, 1,000
feet long with 1 traveling tripper,
48-inch-wide belt, telescoping chute,
carbon steel; 40 hp
Reclaiming hopper with 14 feet x 14
feet top opening, 3-1/2 feet deep
pyramid, and 24 inch x 24 inch bottom
opening, carbon steel
Vibratory pan feeder with 26 inch wide
x 48 inch long pan, carbon steel; 1.5
hp vibrator
Horizontal conveyor, 1,000 feet long
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel;
35 hp
Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 1,000 feet
long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet head,
carbon steel; 1 hp
2.
Unloading conveyors for
conveying 1,600 tons/hr,
3 inch x 0 raw coal from
unloading station to
s*:ocl'.piJes
Stacking conveyors for dis-
tributing coal along the tops
of 2 parallel and adjacent
wedge-shaped open piles, each
of 175,000 tons
Hoppers for reclaiming 803
tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal from stockpiles
pan feeders for withdrawing
803 tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw
coal from reclaiming hoppers
Collecting conveyors for 803
ton*/hr of 3 inch x 0 raw coal
from pan feeders
Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
7. Tunnel sump pump
3.
A.
5.
20
20
+ 1 spare
(continued)
129
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
8. Transfer conveyor
9. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
10. Tunnel sump pump
11. Delivery conveyor for
803 tons/hr of 3 inch x
0 raw coal to raw coal
sizing area
12. Automatic sampling of coal
from stockpile to raw coal
sizing area
No.
Description
13. Bulldozer for servicing
raw coal storage piles
1 Horizontal conveyor, 320 feet long
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel-
10 hp ei'
1 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel, 7
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 320 feet
long
1 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet h«ad,
+ 1 spare carbon steel; 1 hp
2 Inclined conveyor, enclosed, 600 fe«t
long, 36-inch-wide belt, with belt
scale, carbon steel; 75 hp
1 Automatic sampler of plate or similar
type conforming with ASTM sampli,^
requirements, primary sampling from
402 tons/hr of 3 inch x 0 coal froa
each of 2 delivery conveyors, combitu-
tion of primary samples to a sinal-
head sample ^
1 Diesel bulldozer; 100 hp
Area ?--Raw Coal Sizing
Item
No.
Description^
1. Raw coal screens for sizing
803 tons/hr of 3 inch x 0
coal to 208 tons/hr, 3 inch
x 3/4 inch, and 595 tons/hr,
3/4 inch x 0
(continued)
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6 feet
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise sus-
pension, standard positioning of v^ter
sprays, stainless steel flanged screw
plate for sizing at 3/4 inch.
steel body; 15 hp
130
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
No.
2.
3.
Crusher for reducing 208
tons/hr of 3 inch x 3/4
inch coal to 3/4 inch x 0
Crusher screen for sizing,
208 tons/hr of crushed coal
at 3/4 inch
Sieve bends for partial
dewatering and screening of
155 tons/hr of 28 mesh x 0
coal from 803 tons/hr of
3/4 inch x 0 coal
Fines screens for finish
5creening of 155 tons/hr
Of 28 mesh x 0 coal from
g03 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x
0 coal
Description
Single roll crusher with 24 inch x
48 inch roll and stationary breaker
plate, materials of construction
suited to secondary crushing of medium-
hard bituminous coal; 60 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 8 feet
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise sus-
pension, standard positioning of water
sprays, stainless steel screen plate
for sizing at 3/4 inch, carbon steel
body; 20 hp
Reversible sieve bend, 7 feet wide,
with deck of 1/8 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Iso-Rod spaced for 1.2 mm opening,
including feed box distributor, carbon
steel body; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 8 feet
wide x 16 feet long, deck of 3/32 inch
Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for sizing
at 28 mesh, low-noise suspension,
standard positioning of water sprays,
carbon steel body; 20 hp
1.
Dense medium cyclone feed
8Ump for makeup of coal
-lurry comprising 648 tons/
£ coal at 3/4 inch x 28
£e8h and 3,360 tons/hr
enetite medium; nominal
Specific gravity of mag-
netite medium 1.34
No.
Description
(continued)
Cylindrical tank, 14 feet diameter x 2
feet high, with 60 degree cone bottom
and closed top, 7,000 gallon ground-
level installation, carbon steel
131
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
5.
6.
S.
Item
No.
2.
3.
4.
Pumps for feeding coal
slurry to dense medium
cyclones
Dense medium cyclones for
separation of 3/4 inch x
28 mesh coal at specific
gravity 1.34
Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from
315 tons/hr clean coal
tops (3/4 inch x 28 mesh)
from dense medium cyclones
Drain and rinse screens
for 315 tons/hr clean coal
tops at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh
+ 2 spare
12
Centrifuges for dewatering
315 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x
28 mesh clean coal from
drain and rinse screens
Sieve bends for partial
drainage of median from
333 tont/hr of 3/4 Inch
x 28 mesh bottom* from
low-gravity cyclone
Drain acreena for 333 tons/
hr of 3/4 inch x 28 mesh coal
Centrifugal pump, 4,000 gpm, 70
total head; 200 hp
Dense medium cyclone, 20 inch dia:
with tangential entry of feed and
exit of clean coal tops, cone anal-
about 20 degrees, hard nickel or
similarly abrasion-resistant iron
Reversible sieve bend, 6 feet wid.
deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer '
so
spaced for 3/4 mm opening, including
feed box distributor; 0 hp 8
Horizontal vibrating screen, 7 fect
wide x 16 feet long, standard pO8l
tioning of water sprays in rinse
section, 2-compartment pan for
separate collections of medium and
rinse water, low-noise suspension
deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Rod spaced for 1/2 mm opening,
steel frame; 18 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
or vertical axis of baske? , ' e
basket of stainless steel screen-
individual motors and drives for'xm »~
rotation, for vibration along th.
of the basket, and if so designed *?*
oil pumping, carbon steel body Rn v
total ou *»
Reversible sieve bend, 6 feet wid.
deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer I«o*
spaced for 3/4 mm opening, includl
feed box distributor; 0 hp UQln
Horizontal vibrating screen 7 f
wide x 16 feet long, low-noise su!'
pension, deck of 3/32 inch Blxby"
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 1/2 um~
opening, carbon steel frame; 18 h
(continued)
132
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
2.
3.
5.
Dense medium cyclone feed
sump for makeup of coal
slurry comprising 331 tons/
hr coal at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh
and 1,726 tons/hr magnetite
medium; nominal specific
gravity of magnetite medium
1.55
pumps for feeding coal slurry
to dense medium cyclones
Dense medium cyclones for
separation of 3/4 inch x 28
mesh coal at specific gravity
1.55
Sieve bends for partial
jrainage of medium from
230 tons/hr middling coal
tops (3M inch x 28 mesh)
from dense medium cyclones
m-ain and rinse screens for
,30 tons/hr middling coal
tops at 3/4 inch x 28 mesh
+ 1 spare
6.
rentrifuges for dewatering
£S tons/hr of 3/4 inch x
28 meflh coal from draln
rinsc screens
Cylindrical tank, 12-1/2 feet diameter
x 2 feet high, with 60 degree cone
bottom and closed top, 5,150 gallon,
ground-level installation, carbon steel
Centrifugal pump, 2,740 gpm, 70 feet
total head; 120 hp
Dense medium cyclone, 20 inch diameter
with tangential entry of feed and exit
of clean coal tops, cone angle about
20 degrees, hard nickel or similarly
abrasion-resistant iron
Reversible sieve bend, 5 feet wide,
with deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4 mm opening,
including feed box distributor; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6 feet
wide x 16 feet long, standard posi-
tioning of water sprays in rinse sec-
tion, 2-compartment pan for separate
collections of medium and rinse water,
low-noise suspension, deck of 3/32
inch Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
1/2 mm opening, carbon steel frame;
15 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge, horizontal
or vertical axis of basket, cone-shaped
basket of stainless steel screen; indi-
vidual motors and drives for basket
rotation, for vibration along the axis
of the basket, and if so designed, for
oil pumping, carbon steel body; 60 hp
total
(continued)
133
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
7. Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from
103 tons/hr of refuse
bottoms (3/4 inch x 28
mesh) from dense medium
cyclones
8.
9.
10.
Drain and rinse screens for
103 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x 28
mesh refuse
Centrifuge for dewatering
103 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x
28 mesh refuse from drain
and rinse screens
Dense medium recovery system for
dilute medium from rinse
screens in clean coal and
middling coal cleaning
sections
Reversible sieve bend, 5 feet wide
with deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer
Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4 mm opening
including feed box distributor; 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 7 feet
wide x 16 feet long, standard posi-
tioning of water sprays in rinse
section, 2-compartment pan for
separate collections of medium and
rinse water, low-noise suspension
deck of 3/32 inch Bixby-Zimmer lso
Rod spaced for 1/2 mm opening,
steel frame; 18 hp 5
Vibrating basket centrifuge, horizontal
or vertical axis of basket, cone-shaL
basket of stainless steel screen
individual motors and drives for'b. t*t
rotation, for vibration along the
axis of the basket, and if so desiim-d
for oil pumping, carbon steel bodv.
60 hp total y>
Double-drum magnetite recovery unit
with permanent magnets in drums 30
inch diameter x 10 feet long dr^m •>
drums in series/unit; complete with'
dilute medium sump, magnetite scran»r
etc., installed at elevation above
dense medium separators; carbon steel-
Area 5—Fine Coal Cleaning
Item
No.
Description^
1. Froth flotation feed sump
for makeup of coal slurry
at 107. solids using 155 tons/
hr of 28 mesh x 0 coal
(continued)
Cylindrical tank, 13-1/2 feet
x 2 feet high with 60 degree cone
bottom and closed top, 6,300 gallo
ground-level installation, carbon
134
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
2. Pump for feeding coal slurry
to froth flotation cells
No.
2
+ 1 spare
Description
Centrifugal pump, 3,140 gpm,
total head; 75 hp
60 feet
3.
Froth flotation cells for
treatment of 155 tons/hr of
28 mesh x 0 coal
4.
5.
6.
Disk filter for filtration
of 130 tons/hr middling coal
from froth flotation
Thickener receiving 5,800 gpm
refuse slurry (tailings) from
froth flotation and filtrate
from refuse filter
7.
Disk filter for filtration
of 25 tons/hr refuse (under-
flow) from thickener
Pump for returning 5,350 gpm
of clarified water
2 Bank of 5 froth flotation cells with
300 ft-Vcell; provisions for agitation,
aeration, and skimming of froth from
cell; each bank arranged with feed
box and tailings box; provisions for
reagent storage and reagent feeding;
carbon steel; 75 hp
3 Continuous rotary vacuum disk filter,
12 feet, 6 inch diameter x 10 disk,
stainless steel wire cloth; complete
with vacuum pumps and receiver, mois-
ture trap, filtrate pump, and blower;
525 hp
1 Single compartment bridge-supported
thickener with 120 feet diameter rein-
forced concrete tank; system includes
drive unit and lifting device, rake
mechanism, feed well, overflow arrange-
ment, underflow arrangement, and
instrumentation; rotation drive 5 hp,
lifting drive 1 hp
1 Continuous rotary vacuum disk filter,
12 feet, 6 inch diameter x 11 disk,
stainless steel wire cloth; complete
with vacuum pump and receiver, moisture
trap, filtrate pump, and blower, 580 hp
2 Centrifugal pump, 2,670 gpm, 150 feet
+ 1 spare total head; 175 hp
Area 6—Refuse Disposal^
Item
No.
Description
1. Collecting conveyor for
129 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x 0
refuse
Horizontal and inclined belt conveyor,
400 feet long with 24-inch-wide belt,
carbon steel, 15 hp
(continued)
135
-------
(cent Jnuei!)
4.
_ Item _
Refuse bin lor truck
loading
Trucks for transporting
129 tons/hr of 3/4 inch x
0 refuse 1 mile from coal
cleaning plant to refuse
disposal site
Refuse disposal site for
30-ycnr operation
- -iicl££I.iEt_i£n
Storage bin, 16 feet wide x 26 fMt.
lony x 18 feet high on vertical sid*«
13 feet deep pyramidal bottom with
fast opening slides for truck loading
f -highway dio.sel- electric dump
truck, 100 ton payload, 100 yd3 capa-
city, dump body for 3/4 inch x 0
racist, sluggish abrasive refuse
"Dry" storage site with 26,000 acre-
feet capacity for layered refuse
earth
Bulldozer for spreading
refuse and earth in layers
at disposal site
Diesel bulldozer; 100
Area 7— Clean Coal Storage
Item
1. Collecting conveyor for
315 tons/hr of 3/4 inch
x 28 mesh cleaned coal
2. Transfer conveyors
Stacking conveyors for
distributing coal along the
tope of 2 parallel and adja-
cent wedge-shaped open piles,
each of 75,000 tons
Hoppers under stockpile for
reclaiming cleaned coal from
stockpiles
No.
20
(continued)
Horizontal conveyor, 300 feet lOn»
with 36-inch-wide belt, carbon
10 hp
Inclined conveyor, 250 feet lona M-
36-inch-wide belt, with belt scale
carbon steel; 6C hp *
Elevated horizontal conveyor,
long with 1 traveling tripper,
wide belt, carbon steel; 25 hp
Reclaiming hopper with 14 feet x IA
feet top opening, 3-1/2 feet deei>
pyramid, and 24 inch x 24 inch hot
opening, carbon steel *'
136
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
9.
feeders for withdrawing
TOO tons/hr, 3/4 inch x 28
esh cleaned coal from
hoppers
6 Collecting conveyors for
* 700 tons/hr cleaned coal
from pan feeders
7. Tonnel8 for collecting
conveyors
g. tunnel sump pump
conveyor
10. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
11. Tunnel sump pump
12 Automatic sampling
12' rf coal from cleaning
plant
to stockpile
20 Vibrating pan feeder with 26 inch wide
x 48 inch long pan, carbon steel; 1.5
hp vibrator
2 Horizontal conveyor 500 feet long with
36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel, 20
hp
2 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8 feet
wide x 6 feet deep x 500 feet long
2 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet head,
+ 1 spare carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Horizontal conveyor, 250 feet long with
36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel; 10 hp
1 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8 feet
wide x 6 feet deep x 250 feet long
1 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet head,
+ 1 spare carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Automatic sampler of plate or similar
type conforming with ASTM sampling
requirements, primary sampling from
315 tons/hr 3/4 inch x 28 mesh coal
from transfer conveyor
2. Tr»n»fer conveyors
No.
Description
(continued)
Horizontal conveyor, 300 feet long with
36-inch-wide belt, carbon steel; 10
hp
Inclined conveyor, 250 feet long with
36-inch-wide belt, with belt scale,
carbon steel; 60 hp
137
-------
TABLE A-4 (continued)
Item
Description
3. Stacking conveyors for
distributing coal along
the tops of 2 parallel
and adjacent wedge-shaped
open piles, each of
75,000 tons
4. Hoppers under stockpile
for reclaiming middling
coal from stockpiles
5. Pan feeders for withdrawing
700 tons/hr, 3/4 inch x 0
middling coal from reclaiming
hoppers
6. Collecting conveyors for
700 tons/hr cleaned coal
from pan feeders
7. Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
8. Tunnel sump pump
9. Transfer conveyor
10. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
11. Tunnel sump pump
12. Automatic sampling
of coal from cleaning
plant to stockpile
13. Bulldozer for servicing
stockpile
Elevated horizontal conveyor, 500
long with 1 traveling tripper, 36-mc
wide belt, carbon steel; 25 hp
20 Reclaiming hopper with 14 feet x I4
feet top opening, 3-1/2 feet deep
pyramid, and 24 inch x 24 inch bottom
opening, carbon steel
20 Vibrating pan feeder with 26 inch wide
x 48 inch long pan, carbon steel; 1.
hp vibrator
2 Horizontal conveyor 500 feet long
36- inch-wide belt, carbon steel, 20 np
2 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8
feet wide x 6 feet deep x 500 feet long
2 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet head,
+ 1 spare carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Horizontal conveyor, 250 feet long
with 36- inch-wide belt, carbon steel,
10 hp
1 Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel 8 feet
wide x 6 feet deep x 250 feet long
1 Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 feet bead,
+ 1 spare carbon steel; 1 hp
1 Automatic sampler of plate or similar
conforming with ASTM sampling require-
ments, primary sampling from 360 tons/hr
3/4 inch x 0 middling coal from transier
conveyor
1 Diesel bulldozer; 100 hp
138
-------
TABLE A-5. PCX 111 PROCESS
(CLEANING AT COARSE AND FINE SIZES)
MATERIAL BALANCE - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
TABLE A-5 (continued)
1
1
1
1 3
1 (•
1 9
1 6
, 7
!•
»
0
1
2
3
I.
5
6
7
a
«
JO
3 1
2
,
1.
,
«
,
3 a
3 V
..0
Stream No.
Descri ntion
Stream components , tons/h
Coal, bone-dry
Water, total
Gal/nin
Ash. tons/hr
Pvritic S. tons/hr
Total S, tons/hr
Btu/lb. bone-dry
1
Raw coal to
sizing
(3 in. x 0)
809.2
55.2
135.1
27.1
40,5
12.000
2
Coal to
crusher
(3 in.x 3/4 In.)
209.3
21.4
34.°
7.0
10.5
12.000
3
Coal from
raw coal
screen
(3/4 In. x 0)
599.9
189.3
inn. 2
20.1
lo.n
12.000
/^
Coal to
fines screens
(1-1/2 in. x 0)
">
1,046.9
809.2
237.7
3.318.0
135.1
77.1
40.5
12,000
5
Oversize from
fines screens
(1-1/2 in.x 8 m
618.8
544.0
74.8
90.8
18.2
27.2
12,000
6
Oversize from
classifying
sieve bend
(8 m x 200 m)
432.3
250.3
182.0
41.8
8.4
12.5
12,000
7
Undersize from
classifying
sieve bend
(200 m x 0)
205.4
14.9
190.5
2.5
0.5
0.8
12,000
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TA.BLE *-5 (continued!
g
Feed to
DM cyclones
(1-1/2 In. x 8 •)
*o
2 119. la
544.0
1.595.3
8.929.0
90.8
18.2
27.2
12.000
9
Clean coal from
DM cyclone
centrifuge
(1-1/2 in.x 8 i»)
492.1
458.3
33.8
47.1
9.5
17.0
12.900
10
Refuse from
centrifuge
(1-1/2 in.x 8 m)
92.0
85.7
6.3
43.7
8.7
10.2
11
Feed to
table
(8 m x 200 m)
648.5
250.3
398.2
2,325.0
41.8
8.4
12.5
12.000
a. Excluding 1,243.0 tons/hi of magnetite.
(continued)
TABLE A-5 (continued)
12
Dressing water
to concentrating
table
i
3
7
•
9
10
1 1
1 3
1 3
1 *>
1 3
t 6
I 7
1>
1 »
2 0
a i
2 2
a 3
3 <•
a 3
2 6
2 7
a •
a 9
JO
9 1
»]
3 1
34
1 S
J*
9 7
3*
3*
4>O
129.7
129.7
518.8
13
Coal
concentrate
from table
(8 m x 200 m)
686.6
212.0
474.6
2,518.6
23.0
4.6
8.1
12.800
14
Clean coal
from table
centrifuge
(8 m x 200 m)
235.0
212.0
23.0
23.0
4.6
8.1
12.800
15
Clean coal
from table
filter
(200 m x 0)
20.5
14.9
5.6
2.5
0.5
0.8
12rOOO
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5 (continued)
i
a
3
f
5
b
7
•
«
I 0
1 i
1 2
1 3
1 *
1 S
1 «
1 7
1 •
1 9
a O
2 1
22
a 3
2 *.
2 3
a 6
a 7
im
»
^
3
*
*
X
»
9
>
J
->
*>0
16
Total fine
clean coal
(& m x 0^
2SS.'i
226.9
28.6
25.5
5,1
8.9
12,800
17 '
Refuse from
table
centrifuge
(8 m x 200 tn)
42.6
38.3
4,3
18.8
3.8
4.4
16 1
Clarified
water
555.8
555.8
2,223.2
19
Makeup
water
17.8
17.8
71.2
(continued)
TABLE A-* (continued)
40
20
Refuse to
disposal pond
(8 m x 200 m)
134.fi
124.0
10.6
62.5
12.5
14.6
21
Clean coal
to stockpile
(1-1/2 in.x 0)
747.6
685.2
62.4
72.6
14.6
25.9
12,900
-------
TABLE A-6. PCC III PROCESS
(CLEANING AT COARSE AND FINE SIZES)
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
NOTE:
Coal tonnages are listed as bone-dry coal excluding the inter
moisture of 3.5% in the base case coal. However, equipment s"
include the handling of internal and of surface moisture. 2SS
Area l_-^CpaJ_ Receiving and Storage
Item No
1. Unloading conveyors for 2
conveying 1,600 tons/hr,
3 in. x 0 raw coal from
unloading station to
stockpiles
2. Stacking conveyors for 2
distributing coal along
the tops of 2 parallel and
adjacent wedge-shaped open
piles, each of 175,000
tons
3. Hoppers for reclaiming 20
809 tons/hr of 3 in. x 0
raw coal from stockpiles
4. Pan feeders for with-
drawing 809 tons/hr of
3 in. x 0 raw coal from
reclaiming hoppers
5. Collecting conveyors for
809 tons/hr of 3 in. x 0
raw coal from pan feeders
6. Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
7. Tunnel sump pump
20
Inclined conveyor, 500 ft 1
with 1 fixed tripper, 48 in U8'
wide belt, carbon steel, wi^v
tramp iron magnet, 125 hp
Elevated horizontal convevnr-
1,000 ft long with 1 travel!!
tripper, 48 in. wide belt
telescoping chute, carbon'
steel, 40 hp
Reclaiming hopper with H ft
14 ft top opening, 3-1/2 ft *
deep pyramid, and 24 in . x 2L
in. bottom opening, carbon
steel
Vibratory pan feeder with 26 •
wide x 48 in. long pan> «
steel, 1.5 hp vibrator
Horizontal conveyor, 1,000 f
long with 36 in. wide beit
carbon steel, 35 hp *
Steel reinforced
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm
head, carbon steel, 1 hp
(1 spare)
rt
(continued)
142
-------
TABLE A.-6 (continued)
11.
12.
Item
No,
8. Transfer conveyor
9. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
10. Tunnel sump pump
Delivery conveyor for 809
tons/hr 3 in. x 0 raw coal
to raw coal sizing area
Automatic sampling of coal
from stockpile to raw coal
sizing area
Bulldozer for servicing
raw coal storage piles
Description
Horizontal conveyor, 320 ft
long with 36 in. wide belt,
carbon steel, 10 hp
Steel reinforced concrete
tunnel, 7 ft wide x 6 ft deep x
320 ft long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 ft
head, carbon steel, 1 hp
(1 spare)
Inclined conveyor, enclosed,
600 ft long, 36 in. wide belt,
with belt scale, carbon steel,
75 hp
Automatic samples of plate or
similar type conforming with
ASTM sampling requirements,
primary sampling from 405
tons/hr, 3 in. x 0 coal from
each of 2 delivery conveyors,
combination of primary samples
to a single head sample.
Diesel bulldozer, 100 hp
Area_2^Raw_J?oa_l jjizing
Item No.
1.
Raw coal screens for
sizing 809 tons/hr, 3 in. x
0 coal to 209 tons/hr, 3 in.
x 3/4 in. and 600 tons/hr,
3/4 in. x 0
Description
(continued)
Horizontal vibrating screen,
6 ft wide x 16 ft long, low-
noise suspension, standard
positioning of water sprays,
stainless steel flanged screen
plate for sizing at 3/4 in.,
carbon steel body, 15 hp
143
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
3.
6,
Item
No.
Crusher for reducing 209
tons/hr, 3 in. x 3/4 in.
coal to 1-1/2 in. x 0
Prewet screen for sizing,
209 tons/hr of crushed
coal at 1-1/2 in.
Sieve bends for dewatering
and screening, at 9 mesh,
of 209 tons/hr of coal at
1-1/2 in. x 0 and 600
tons/hr of coal at 3/4 in. x 0
Fines screens for finish
screening, at 8 mesh, of
oversize from sieve bends
receiving 209 tons/hr coal
at 1-1/2 in. x 0 and 600
tons/hr coal at 3/4 in. x 0
Sit-ve bends for screening
of 15 tons/hr of 200 mesh x
0 coal from 265 tons/hr of
8 mesh x 0 coal
Single roll crusher with 24 in.
x 36 in. roll and stationary
breaker plate, materials of
construction suited to
secondary crushing of medium
hard bituminous coal, 25 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6
ft wide x 16 ft long, low-noise
suspension, standard positioning
of water sprays, stainless steel
screen plate for sizing at 1-1/2
in., carbon steel body, 15 hp
Reversible sieve bend, 7 ft wide
with deck of 1/8 in. Bixby-Zimnwr
Iso-Rod spaced for 2.0 mm opening
including feed box distributor
carbon steel body, 0 hp *
Horizontal vibrating screen 8
ft wide x 16 ft long, low-noise
suspension, standard positionin8
of water sprays, stainless steel
deck for sizing, l-l/2 in. x Q
and 3/4 in. x 0 coal at 8 mesh
carbon steel body, 20 hp *
Reversible sieve bend, 5 ft w^.
with deck of 3/32 in. Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for Q.21 M
opening, including feed box'
distributor, carbon steel body,0 fc
Area 3--Coarse CojtL J^J^llPiL-^
Item
No.
1. Dense medium cyclone feed
sumps for makeup of coal
slurry comprising 544
tons/hr coal at 1-1/2 in. x
8 mesh and 2,819 tons/hr
magnetite medium, nominal
specific gravity of magentite
med ium 1.55
Cylindrical tank, 13 ft dia x '>
ft high, with 60 degree cone
bottom and closed top, 5,700 Ral
ground-level installation, '
carbon steel
(continued)
144
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
No.
Pumps for feeding coal
slurry to dense medium
cyclones
Dense medium cyclones for
separation of 1-1/2 in. x
8 mesh coal at specific
gravity 1.55
4. Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from
clean coal tops from dense
medium cyclones
Drain and rinse screens for
458 tons/hr clean coal tops
at 1-1/2 in. x 8 mesh
Centrifuges for dewatering
458 tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x
8 mesh clean coal from drain
and rinse screens
Sieve bends for partial
drainage of medium from 86
tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x 8
mesh refuse
Description
Centrifugal pump, 3,000 gpm, 70
ft total head, 150 hp
Dense medium cyclone, 28 in.
dia, with tangential entry of
feed and exit of clean coal
tops, cone angle about 20
degrees, hard nickel or similarly
abrasion-resistant iron
Reversible sieve bend, 7 ft wide,
with deck of 3/32 in. Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4 mm
opening, including feed box
distributor, carbon steel body,
0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen
8 ft wide x 16 ft long, standard
positioning of water sprays in
rinse section, 2-compartment pan
for separate collections of
medium and rinse water, low-noise
suspension, deck of 3/32 in.
Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
1/2 mm opening, carbon steel
frame, 20 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis
of basket, cone-shaped basket
of stainless steel screen,
individual motors and drives for
basket rotation, for vibration
along the axis of the basket,
and if so designed, for oil
pumping, carbon steel body, 60
hp total
Reversible sieve bend, 5 ft
wide, with deck of 3/32 in.
Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
3/4 mm opening, including feed
box distributor, carbon steel
body, 0 hp
(continued)
145
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
8.
9.
10.
Drain and rinse screens for
86 tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x 8
mesh refuse
Centrifuge for dewatering
86 tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x 8
mesh refuse
Dense medium recovery system
for dilute medium from rinse
screens in coarse and inter-
mediate cleaning areas
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6
ft wide x 16 ft long, standard
positioning of water sprays in
rinse section, 2-compartment pan
for separate collections of
medium and rinse water, low-nois*
suspension, deck of 3/32 in.
Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for
1/2 mm opening, carbon steel
frame, 15 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis of
basket, cone-shaped basket of
stainless steel screen,
individual motors and drives for
basket rotation, for vibration
along the axis of the basket
and if so designed, for oil
pumping, carbon steel body, 6Q
hp total
Double-drum magnetite recovery
unit with permanent magnets in
drums, 30 in. dia x 8 ft lone
drum, 2 drums in series/unit
complete with dilute medium
sump, magnetite scraper, etc.
installed at elevation above
dense medium separators, carbon
steel, 10 hp/unit
Area 4 — Flne__Cgal Cleaning
Item
No.
I.
Table feed sump for makeup
of coal slurry at water to
solids ratio of 1.5 using
250 tons/hr of
coal
8 x 200 mesh
(continued)
Cylindrical tank 8 ft dia x 2 ft
high with 60 degree cone bottom
and closed top, 1,620 gal,
ground-level installation,
carbon steel
146
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
No.
Pump for feeding coal
slurry to concentrating
tables
Concentrating tables
receiving 250 tons/hr of
8 x 200 mesh feed
18
Sieve bends for partial
dewatering of 212 tons/hr
of 8 x 200 mesh clean coal
from tables
Centrifuges for dewatering
212 tons/hr of 8 x 200 mesh
clean coal from table sieve
bend
Thickener receiving about
1,800 gpm of slurry,
comprising 200 mesh x 0
slurry from raw coal sizing
section and underflow water
from table concentrate sieve
bend
Description
Centrifugal pump, 800 gpm, 20 ft
total head, 15 hp
(1 spare)
Double deck coal washing table
(36 decks, total) mounted 4
decks high, 134 ft2/deck, cable-
suspended, including "head
motion" oscillator for each
double deck unit, revolving feed
distributor servicing each 6
decks (6 distributors for total
system), 3 hp/double deck table,
1 hp/distributor
Reversible sieve bend, 7 ft wide,
with deck of 1/16 in. Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 0.15 mm
opening, including feed box
distributor, carbon steel body,
0 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis of
basket, cone-shaped basket of
stainless steel screen for
dewatering 8 x 200 mesh feed,
individual motors and drives for
basket rotation, for vibration
along the axis of the basket, and
if so designed, for oil pumping,
carbon steel body, 85 hp total
Single compartment bridge
supported thickener with 70 ft
dia reinforced concrete tank,
system includes drive unit and
lifting device, rake mechanism,
feed well, overflow arrangement,
underflow arrangement, and
instrumentation, rotation drive,
5 hp, lifting device, 1 hp
(continued)
147
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
Disk filter for filtration
of thickener underflow
containing 15 tons/hr coal
at 200 mesh x 0
Centrifuge for dewatering
38 tons/hr of 8 x 200 mesh
refuse from concentrating
table
___Descrlption
Continuous rotary vacuum disk
filter, 12 ft, 6 in. dia x 6 ft
disk stainless steel wire cloth
complete with vacuum pump and '
receiver, moisture trap, filtrate
pump, and blower, 200 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis'of
basket, cone-shaped basket of
stainless steel for dewaterim>
8 x 200 mesh feed, individual
motors and drives for basket
rotation, for vibration alone the
axis of the basket, and if SQ
designed, for oil pumping, carbon
steel body, 60 hp total
Area 5j"Jl
1.
2.
3.
Item
Collecting conveyor for 124
tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x 200
mesh refuse
Refuse bin for truck
1oading
Trucks for transporting
124 tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x
200 mesh refuse 1 mile from
coa] cleaning plant to
disposal site
i on
Horizontal and inclined belt
conveyor, 400 ft long with 24 in.
wide belt, carbon steel, 15 _
Storage bin, 16 ft wide x 26 ft
long x 18 ft high on vertical
sides, 13 ft deep pyramidal
bottom with fast opening slides
for truck loading
Off highway diesel electric
dump truck, 100 ton payload
100 yd3 capacity, dump body'for
1-1/2 in. x 200 mesh moist
sluggish, abrasive refuse
(continued)
148
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
Refuse disposal site for
30 yr operation
Bulldozer for spreading
refuse and earth in layers
at disposal site
No,
Description
"Dry" storage site with 25,000
acre capacity for layered refuse
and earth
Diesel bulldozer, 100 hp
Item
1. Collecting conveyor for 685
tons/hr of 1-1/2 in. x 0
cleaned coal
2. Transfer conveyors
Stacking conveyors for
distributing coal along
the tops of 2 parallel and
adjacent wedge-shaped open
piles, each of 150,000 tons
Hoppers under stockpile for
reclaiming cleaned coal from
stockpiles
Pan feeders for withdrawing
1,350 tons/hr, 1-1/2 in. x
0 cleaned coal from
reclaiming hoppers
Collecting conveyors for
1 350 tons/hr cleaned coal
from pan feeders
Jto.
1
20
20
Description
Horizontal conveyor, 300 ft long
with 48 in. wide belt, carbon
steel, 20 hp
Inclined conveyor, 200 ft long,
36 in. wide belt, with belt
scale, carbon steel, 50 hp
Elevated horizontal conveyor,
1,000 ft long with 1 traveling
tripper, 36 in. wide belt,
carbon steel, 40 hp
Reclaiming hopper with 16 ft x
16 ft top opening, 4 ft deep
pyramid, and 26 in. x 26 in.
bottom opening, carbon steel
Vibratory pan feeder with 30 in,
wide x 48 in. long pan, carbon
steel, 1.5 hp vibrator
Horizontal conveyor 1,000 ft
long with 42 in. wide belt,
carbon steel, 50 hp
(continued)
149
-------
TABLE A-6 (continued)
Item
7. Tunnels for collecting
conveyors
8. Tunnel sump pump
9. Transfer conveyor
10. Tunnel for transfer
conveyor
11. Tunnel sump pump
12. Automatic sampling of coal
from cleaning plant to
stockpile
13. Bulldozer for servicing
stockpile
Steel reinforced concrete
tunnel 8 ft wide x 6 ft deeo *
1,000 ft long P X
Centrifugal pump, 60 8pm> 30 f
head, carbon steel, 1 hp
(1 spare)
Horizontal conveyor, 320
with 42 in. wide belt,
steel, 15 hp
Steel reinforced concrete tunnel
8 ft wide x 6 ft deep x 32Q ft
long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm> 3Q f
head, carbon steel, I hp
(1 spare)
Automatic sampler of plate or
similar type conforming with
sampling requirements, primary
sampling from 343 tons/hr, l^
in. x 0 coal from each of 2
transfer conveyors, combination
of primary samples to a single
sample of cleaning plant product
Diesel bulldozer, 100 hp
150
-------
TABLE A-7. KVB COAL DESULF11R1/.ATION PROCESS
MATEP.1AL BALANCE - BASE CASE
t
-2
3
ft
7
«
9
1 0
1 1
1 3.
1 .
1*.
1 5
1 *
1 7
1«
1 9
^0
1 1
2 ^
a 3
3 t.
J 5
i e>
3 /
J H
3V
J 0
3 ,
t 2
j j
) i.
f ^
i n
'•*
^,,
Stream No.
Descript ion
Total stream, tons/hr
Stream component s ,tonR/h
Coal
Pyritic S
Sulfate S
Organic S
H20
NO 2
02
N'2
NO
S02
FeSO^, in coa]
Na2SO3
NaHSO3
Ca(OH)2
Ca(S03)
XaOH
FeSO4, in solution
Sulfate S,in solution
Na?S04
Fe(OH)3
Fe?(S04)-i
CaS04-2H20
CaSO3.2H20
Xa3Fe3(S04)2(OH)6
Binder
Natural gas
CaO
Tempera ture , °F
Pressure, psig
gpm
aft ^/min
1
Coal feed
to reactor
593.0
543.6
19.1
0.356
9.0
20.7
55
2
Recvcled
gas stream
1206.6
31.9
103.9
3.1
1065.4
2.1
' 302
3
Makeup
NOj
0.119
0.119
TABLE A-7 (continued)
••"
4
Makeup
02
32.7
32. -0
0.642
,
I
1
5
Oxidizing gas
to reactor
1238.8
31.9
104.0
34.5
1066.0
2.1
302
6
Coarse coal
from reactor
399.2
342.6
0.248
0.23(3
5.8
20.7
29.4
200
7
Reactor
off-gas
1433.0
186.9
0.135
0.126
3.2
31.9
104.0
3.1
1066.0
21.3
16. C
200
562,961
(ront inued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
N>
1
8
Water to
venturi
L/G - 10
i 1409.0
2
j
.
5
•
. 1407.0
10
, ,
,, 2.0
|*i
1 3
1 *
1,
!•
1*
a o
2 I
2 2
a 3
1 1.
1 9
z ft
7
•
O
*
9
* 86
7
• 5.638
,
9
Scrubber
slurry
outlet
1616.5
186.9
0.135
0.126
3.2
1406.9
3.0
16.0
86
6.468
10
Scrubber
off-gas
1225.5
31.9
104.0
3.1
1066.0
20.2
86
a Cm
11
Solution
to venturi
1519.5
1407.0
109.3
3.2
86
5,630
i
it
3
7
8
9
1 O
1
1
!<•
IS
1 *
1
11
I
2 O
2
2
2
2 I
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 •
2 9
? °
3 1
3 2
3 1
3 >.
3 9
36
3 7
3«
)«
t«
Scrubber
solution
outlet
15A2.0
1407.6
83.8
50.4
86
5,632
Scrubber
off-gas
1207.3
31.9
104.0
3.1
1066.0
2.1
86
atm
14A
Recycle gas
1206.6
31.9
103.9
3.1
1065.4
2.1
86
atm
1 ^^ 1
Bleed
to flair
0.783
0.019
0.119
0.002
0.642
0.001
86
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
1
a
3
<•
3
6
7
•
1 3
1 6
J 7
i a
1 9
3 O
2 1
2 a
2 >
34.
2 a
2 6
3 7
3 •
a 9
JO
?1
9 3
i a
»«.
J3
3*
3 7
>•
1 9
1.0
15
Thickener
underflow
560.3
186.9
0.135
0.126
3.2
353.6
0.225
16.0
86
1,415
16
Thickener
overflow
1056.1
1053.3
2.8
86
4,215
17
H20
recycle
1045.7
1045.7
55
4,184
20
Effluent
tank
outlet
2102.1
2099.0
3.0
8,399
(continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
•
a
3
i.
s
&
7
B
9
1 O
1 1
: 3
1 3
1 <.
1 3
1 6
1 7
ID
> V
a o
2 1
3 3
a i
a i.
2 5
a «
a 7
a e
a 9
30
3 1
3 2
3 3
It
1 3
3 6
3 ,
'!•
1 9
1.0
21
Affluent
bleed line
693.0
692.0
1.0
2j769
22
Ca(OH)2
feed
179.7
161.7
17.9
647.0
23
Neutralizer
tank
outlet
1713.0
1569.1.
114.4
29.1
6,279
24
Thickener
underflow
209.7
175.4
5.1
29.1
702
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
,
i
.
,
.
(
,
,
i
,
i
!
1
1
,
,
3
2
2
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
^
3
3
3
3b
3 3
1 ft
3 7
•t»
If
40
25
Thickener
overflow
1503.2
1393.9
109.3
5,577
26
NaOH
feed
16.3
13.0
3.2
52
27
Cyclone
feed
942.0
186.9
0.135
3.2
721.5
0.246
13.6
16.1
0.138
200
60
2,887
28
Cyclone
overflow
640.9
0.218
14.6
0.123
200
2,564
(continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
1
*
3
4
3
*
7
B
s.
1 0
1 1
12
13
I *•
IS
I 6
1 7
i a
19
20
2 I
2 1
2 3
2 <.
2 3
2 6
a ?
2 •
2 4
?°
3 1
12
33
3 *•
33
3*
3 7
J*
1 *
40
29
Cyclone
underflow
286.1
186.9
0.135
3.2
80.5
0.028
13.6
1.5
0.013
200
322
30
Wash
water
feed
442.5
442.5
200
1,771
31
Cyclone
feed
728.6
18ft. 9
0.135
3.2
523.1
0.028
15.1
0.015
200
60
2,093
32
Cyclone
overflow
381.6
367.8
0.021
13.7
0.012
200
1,472
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
Ln
Ui
>
2
3
«
5
6
7
6
9
1 0
1 1
13
1 3
1 *•
1 5
1 t,
I 7
i a
1 9
30
2 i
3 3
2 3
2 <•
2 3
2 6
2 '
2 •
2 9
?°
3 t
i a
3 3
3 4-
1 3
3«
3 7
>•
1 »
4. O
33
Cyclone
underflow
266. A
186.9
0.135
3.2
74.7
0.007
1.4
0.003
200
299
34
Cyclone
overflow
677.3
677.3
200
2,710
35
Cyclone
feed
941.9
186.6
0.135
3.0
752.1
200
60
3,009
36
Cyclone
overflow
670.5
670.5
200
2,683
I
2
3
<•
3
*
7
&
9
I O
I 1
12
1 3
1 *•
1 5
1 6
1 7
i a
1 9
2 O
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 <•
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 0
2 9
3O
3 1
1 2
3 3
3U
11
3ft
3 7
t •
1 9
*. O
37
Cyclone
underflow
271.2
186.6
0.135
3,0
81.3
200
326
38
NaOH teed
to leach tank
6.2
3.1
3.1
55
13
39
Reaction
tank feed
272.0
185.1
0.135
2.2
84.5
200
338
40
Fines
Thickener
overflow
673.6
667.0
0.007
0.003
5.5
1.0
200
2,669
(cont inued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
1
1
»
«
s
*
,
1
1
,
,
1
1
1
a
2
2
2
2
3
a
2
a
i°
9
3 2
S3
3".
3 3
J*
37
t*
39
4 0
41
Fines
thickener
underflow
3.5
3.5
200
14
42
Cyclone
feed
945.2
185.1
0.135
2.2
757.7 ^
200
60
3,032
43
Cyclone
underflow
267.8
185.1
0.135
2.2
80.3
200
322
tti>
Cyclone
feed
937.5
185.1
0.135
2.2
750.0
200
60
3,001
(continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
1
a
3
fc
S
4
7
B
9
1 O
I »
: a
1 3
L <•
13
1 6
1 1
i a
1 9
2 O
2 I
2 2
a 3
2 4.
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 •
2 9
JMS
3 1
3 2
3 3
31.
3 3
3 *
a 7
!•
39
4O
45
Cyclone
overflow
669.6
669.6
200
2,680
46
Cyclone
underflow
267.8
185.1
0.135
2.2
80.3
200
322
47
Cyclone
feed
937.5
185.1
0.135
2.2
750.0
200
60
3.001
48
Cyclone
overflow
669.6
669.6
!
200
2,680
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
.
2
3
*•
3
fc
7
m
9
10
1 1
I 3
I 3
1 <•
1 9
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 O
2 1
2 2
a 3
24.
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 •
2 9
2°
*>
12
» 3
3*.
1 9
9 «
3 7
1 •
1 9
t.0
49
Cyclone
underflow
267.8
185.1
0.135
2.2
80.3
200
322
50
Wash
water feed
357.1
"iS7.1
200
1.429
51
Centrifuge
feed
625.0
185.1
.0.135
2.2
437.5
200
40
1,751
52
Centrifuge
wash water
252.9
252.9
200
1,012
(continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
,
2
J
<•
5
0
,
8
v
10
1 1
I 2
1 3
,..
I 3
1 6
, ,
1 8
t 9
3 0
2 1
2 2
a j
2 1.
2 3
2«
2 7
2 8
2 9
30
3 1
1 2
j a
3 <•
•j s
3 6
3 '
) •
,.
<•»
53
Recycled
centrate
669.6
669.6
200
2,680
54
Fine coal
product
208.3
185.1
0.135
2.2
20.8
55
Classifier
overflow
425.9
405.8
20.0
0.035
1,624
56
Classifier
overflow
366.8
346.7
19.9
0.215
1.387
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
00
57
Classifier
underflow
!
3
1
4.
1
&
,
1
1
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
t
2
3
a
a
a
a
a
a
2
2£.
3
33
99
34
33
}«
3 J
3«
3*
*C
433.2
342.6
0.248
5.8
79.8
4.5
0.049
319
58
Mash water
feed
405.8
405.8
1,624
59
Classifier
underflow
438.1
342.6
0.248
5.8
79.8
9.5
0.015
319
60
Coarse
thickener
feed
1328.3
342.4
0.248
5.6
980.0
3.921
61
i
2
3
4>
9
7
0
»
1 O
1 1
t a
1 3
1 d
15
1 •
,7
1 •
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
a s
21*
2 5
26
3 7
2 •
3 •
i°
3 I
3 3
ss
3<*
33
J«
S7
3B
>f
«»
Coarse
thickener
overflow
362.1
338.6
0.015
16.7
6.6
1,355
62
Coarse
thickener
underflow
989.6
342.4
0.248
5.6
641.3
2,566
63
NaOH
feed
18.8
9.4
9.4
55
38
64
Reactior. tank
overflow
996.1
341.0
0.248 ' '
4.1
650.8
200
2,604
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
Ui
»
2
3
"
9
6
7
•
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 J
1*
1 9
1*
i r
!•
1 »
a o
2 I
2 2
2 3
2fc
2 9
2«
2 7
2 •
2«
££.
1 1
12
SI
><•
l»
36
3 7
1 •
IS,
i. O
65
Classifier
overf low
335.7
335.7
200
1,343
66
Classifier
overflow
900.2
900.2
200
3,602
67
Classifier
underflow
431.7
341.0
0.248
4.1
86.3
200
345
68
Classifier
overflow
335.7
335.7
200
1.343
1
2
3
t.
»
6
7
•
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 if
1 9
1 6
1 7
1 0
1 t
20
2 1
2 2
2 3
a <.
2 3
26
J 7
26
2 9
30
3 1
1 2
] 3
3*.
-) ^
3 6
3 7
J«
IV
1*0
69
Classifier
underflow
431.7
341,0
0.248
4.1
86.3
200
345
70
Classifier
underflow
431.7
341.0
0.248
4.1
86.3
200
345
71
Wash
water feed
143.9
143.9
200
576
72 1
Coarse coal
centrifuge feed
S7S.f>
341.0
0.2iS
4 1
230 '
i
i
*
921 ]
1
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
3
J
31
40
73
Centrifuge
wash water
feed
* 143.9
a
i 143.9
1 0
13
1 3
1 9
1 7
1 •
1 9
a o
2 1
2 2
a 3
2<.
3 S
2 «
» 7
1 •
»
0
1
9
• 200
7
« 576
74
Recycle
centrate
335.7
335.7
200
1.343
75
Coarse coal
product
383.7
341.0
0.2iS
4.1
38.3
76
Combined
leachate
feed
2268.2
2160.1
0.225
5.1
34.5
0.356
22.2
7.6
37.8
200
8,643
(continued)
TAB1E A-7 (continued)
77
i
3
"
9
6
7
a
9
I 0
1
u
1 3
!<•
1 9
»
1
IB
1 9
20
2
2 2
2
2 >.
3 3
2 6
2 7
2 fl
2 »
30
a i
1 2
9 9
14.
3 9
1«
3 7
3*
39
fcO
50% NaOH
feed
0
0
0
38 ,
78
207. lime
feed
15.5
12.4
3.1
50
'
79
02 feed
4.5
4.4
0.092
80
Neutralizer
effluent
2990.3
2869.1
7.5
22.6
7.9
5.0
49.0
29.0
200
11,480
(continued)
-------
TABLt A-7 (continued)
,
2
3
"
5
6
7
e
9
1 0
1 1
V 2
1 3
1 <•
1 3
i 6
] ?
i a
» 9
2 0
7 I
2 2
a j
3*.
a,
3 6
2 7
a a
2 9
1C
31
•»2
> S
9 *
-J 1
» »
) '
1 •
19
b O
81
Pond
settled
solids
202.0
80.8
7.5
22.6
7.9
5.0
A9.0
29.0
82
Pond
water
recycle
2788.3
2788.3
55
11,136
83
Fine coal
wash water
610.1
610. 1
55
2,441
84
Coarse coal
wash water
287.8
287.8
55
1,152
(continued)
TABLK A-7 (continued)
1
2
3
"
3
*
7
8
«
1 O
1 1
1 2
1 3
1*.
1 5
1 6
1 7
i a
i *
2 O
2 1
22
2 3
2 tt
2 5
2 f>
27
2 a
a 9
30
3 ,
1 2
3 3
3 *.
1 3
3 ft
1 T
J •
T 9
*. O
85
Water to
NaOH
preparation
9.7
9. J
55
39
86
Water to
lime
slaker
179.3
179.3
55
697
87
Raw water
makeup
192.9
192.9
55
752
88
Slaked
lime
105.4
B4.3
21.0
338
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
2
i.
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
4
3
1
a
a
3.
2
a
2
a
J_
3
33
S3
!<•
33
A
3 r
3t
jt
i
89
Raw
lime
15.9
15.9
90
NaOH feed
to mix
tank
6.5
1.2
1.?
13
91
NaOH
31. A
15.7
15.7
92
92
°2
37.3
36.5
0.734
(continued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
1
2
3
*•
5
6
7
fl
9
1 O
1 1
12
13
!*•
IS
16
17
1 8
19
2 D
2 L
a 2
a a
2 <.
a 3
2 6
2 7
2 •
a 9
9 O
32
a s
3*.
39
3*
3 7
39
3*
46
93
Binder
solution
9.4
4.7
4.7
20
94
Coarse coal
bleed
57.5
51.1
0.038
0.615
5.7
95
Feed to
agglomeration
265.9
236.2
0.173
2.8
26.5
96
Steam from
dryer
18.4
18.4
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
t
2
J
t.
9
*
7
•
9
I C
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 *•
1 3
1 *
i r
i*
i »
30
2 I
23
3 3
2*.
2 9
a *
3 7
34
2 *
J°
3 1
3 3
3 1
1*
t J
? *
3 »
*•
t •
40
97
Pellet
product
256.8
236.2
0.173
0.236
2.8
12.8
'-* . 5
98
Coarse coal
product
U2.2
294. i
0.286
3.".
44, 1
99
Clean coal
product
598.9
530.6
0.459
0.236
6.3
56.9
4.5
100
Natural
gas
0.067
0.067
50
(cont inued)
TABLE A-7 (continued)
I
]
1
*•
5
*
7
a
9
t 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
I <•
1 3
1 6
1 7
1 •
1 9
2 O
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 <.
2 3
2 *
a 7
2 •
a *
30
3 1
3 2
3 3
3*
1 9
36
3 7
i •
1 9
«• 0
101
Cooling
H20
0.30
0.30
1.2
102
Gas reheat
steam
45.5
45.5
434
345
103
Water heater
steam
81.0
81.0
434
345
104
Water heater
steam
65.4
65.4
434
345
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-7 (continued)
105
Water
heater
steam
t
2
)
%
3
*
7
•
•
1
1
I
1
!
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
£
3
9
S3
34
3 3
3 6
J7
^m
39
40
^^,
46.3
46.3
106
Water
heater
steam
74.3
74.3
434 434
345 345
1
107
Steam
6.5
6.5
434
345
108
Steam
6.5
6.5
434
345
-------
TABLE A-8. KVB COAL DESULFURIZATION PROCESS
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
Area 1—Raw Material Handling and Preparation
Item
1. Conveyor, coal
No.
Description
unloading
2. Conveyor, coal
stacker
1 1000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 500 ft
long, 100-hp motor, 2 fixed trippers,
CS
2 1000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft
long, 40-hp motor, 1 traveling
tripper, CS
3. Hopper, pile reclaim 20 13-ft x 13-ft top opening, 3-ft-deep
pyramid, with 22-in. x 22-in. bottom
opening, CS
4. Feeders, vibrating
pan
5. Conveyor, coal
transfer
6. Tunnel, conveyor
7. Pump, tunnel sump
8. Conveyor, coal
transfer
9. Tunnel, conveyor
10. Pump, tunnel sump
11. Conveyor, crusher
feed
12. Sampler, coal
13. Bin, coal surge
20 120 tons/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in.-long
pan, with 1.5-hp vibrator, CS
2 593 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft long,
25-hp motor, CS
2 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
2 60-gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-hp
motor, CS
1 593 tons/hr, 42-ln. belt, 320 ft long,
5-hp motor, CS
1 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
1 60-gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-hp
motor, CS
1 593 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 565 ft long,
100-hp motor, totally enclosed, CS
1 Automatic coal sampler
2 3600 ft3, 15 ft wide, 15 ft long, 16 ft
high, 13-ft-deep pyramid bottom, closed
top, CS
(continued)
165
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
14. Feeder, weigh belt
15. Crusher, coal
16. Screen, coal
17. Crusher, coal
18. Conveyor, reactor
area feed
19. Pump, NC>2 unloading
20. Tank, N02 storage
Pump, binder
unloading
Pump, binder
storage
22.
23. Pump, binder feed
JVescrlption
__ __ _i_-^^.
297 tons/hr, 42-in. belt,
2-hp motor, CS
2 297 tons/hr, double roll type, 36-in.~
diameter rolls, 2 each 25-hp motors
totally enclosed, CS
2 297 tons/hr, 119 ft2 area, 7 ft x 17
ft, flip flow vibrating screen deck,
40-hp motor, CS
2 173 tons/hr, double roll type, 30-in.~
diameter rolls, 2 each 20-hp motors
totally enclosed, CS
1 593 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 560 ft lortg
100 _hp motor, with 4 fixed trippers
totally enclosed, CS
2 70-gpm, 415-ft head, positive displace-
ment, 15-hp motor, 316 SS
17,600 gal, 10-ft-diameter, 30 ft
horizontal type, 150-psig operating
pressure, 316 SS
2 40-gptn, 50-ft head, centrifugal, 2-hp
motor, CS
1 887,000 gal, 55-f t-diameter , 50 ft ht«h
flat bottom, closed top, CS *
2 20-gpm, 200-ft head, centrifugal, 5_hp
motor, CS
24. Pump, NaOH unloading 2 55-gpm, 40-ft head, centrifugal,
25. Tank, NaOH storage
26. Pump, NaOH feed
motor, neoprene lined CS
994,000 gal, 59-f t-diameter , 50 ft
flat bottom closed top, neoprene
CS
2 13-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, i^
motor, neoprene lined CS
(continued)
166
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
27. Pump, NaOH feed
28. Pump, NaOH feed
29. Pump, NaOH transfer
30. Tank, 20% NaOH mix
31. Agitator, NaOH mix
tank
32. Pump, 20% NaOH feed
33. Hoist, car shaker
34. Shaker, car
35. Puller, car
36. Hopper, lime
unloading
37. Feeder, lime
vibrating
38. Conveyor, lime
unloading
39. Conveyor, lime
unloading
40. Tunnel, conveyor
41. Pump, tunnel sump
No.
2~
Description
1
1
1
38-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 3-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
28_gpm, 100_ft head, centrifugal, 3-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
13-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 1-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
25,470 gal, 17-ft-diaraeter, 15 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined CS
15-hp, neoprene coated CS
52-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 3-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
2,000 lb capacity, 15-hp motor
Railroad, trackside vibrator, 20-hp
Railroad car puller with base, wire
rope, 25~hp motor, 5-hp return motor
1 94 ft3, 8-ft 4-in. x 8-ft 4-in. top
opening, 3-ft-deep pyramid, with 2-ft
4-in. x 2-ft 4-in. bottom opening
1 210 tons/hr, 42 in. wide, 5 ft long
pan, 2.5-hp vibrator, CS
1 210 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 10 ft long,
2.5-hp motor, CS
1 210 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 381 ft long,
25-hp motor, totally enclosed, CS
1 6 ft wide, 6 ft high, 70 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
1 20-gpm, 20-ft head, centrifugal, 0.5-hp
motor, CS
(continued)
167
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
_ rtem
4T. Silo, lime storage
43. Feeder, weigh belt
44. Conveyor, slaker
feed
45. Slaker, lime
46. Pump, lime slaker
product
47. Tank, 20% lime feed
48. Agitator, 20% lime
feed tank
49. Pump, 20% lime feed
50. Tank, 10% lime feed
No.
l"
Description
430,000 ft3, 74-ft-diameter, 100 ft—
high, cone bottom, closed top, CS
22 tons/hr, 12-in. belt, 10 ft long,
0.5-hp motor, CS
22 tons/hr, 12-in. belt, 40 ft long,
0.75-hp motor, CS
105.5 tons/hr of 20% slaked slurry
product, 20 ft x 43 ft x 9.5 ft high 2-
hp motor on rake drive, 30-hp mixer
338-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
25,470 gal, 17-ft-diameter, 15 ft hiRh,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene lined
CS
1 10 -hp, neoprene coated CS
50-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 3^v
motor, neoprene lined CS
322,400 gal, 38- f t-diameter, 38 ft hi h
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene li fj*
51. Agitator, 10% lime
feed tank
1 20-hp, neoprene coated CS
52. Pump, 10% lime feed 2 647-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 30->»
motor, neoprene lined CS » up
Area 2—Sulfur Oxidation
Item
1. Bin, reactor feed
No.
_pcj3crj.ption
4 5670 ft3, 19-ft-diameter, 20 f"t~hi»h~'
cone bottom, closed top, CS *
(continued)
168
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
5. Fan, recirculating
6. Heater, oxidizing
gas
No.
~2. Feeder, weigh belt
3. Reactor, fluidized
bed
4. Fan, scrubber forced 4
draft
7. "Scrubber", vent gas 1
combustion
Description
149 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 15 ft long,
1-hp motor, CS
22.3-ft-diameter, 51-ft high side,
cone bottom, cone top, 1 atmosphere
operating pressure, 316 SS
140,740 aft3/min at 200°F, AP 15-in.
H20, 450-hp motor, 316 SS
140,740 aft3/min at 200°F, AP 15-in.
P.20, 450-hp motor, 316 SS
4 8,080 ft2 area, 316 SS
10-ft x 10-ft natural gas fired
NOxiniZER, 10-hp blower, 35-ft of
stack, CS
Item
Cl ean ing_ __
No.
Scrubber, particulate
Thickener, fine coal
3. Pump, thickener
underflow
4. Tank, thickener
overflow
5. Pump, venturi feed
Description
Venturi, 14.8-ft-diameter, 52 ft high,
with mist eliminator, 316 SS
13 ft wide, 22 ft long, 21 ft high,
inclined pi ate gravity settler-
thickener with increased volume sludge
compartment, 1-hp picket-fence rake
354-gpm, 160-ft head, centrifugal, 40-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
6600 gal, 7.5-ft-diameter, 20 ft high,
flat bottom, neoprene lined CS
2100-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 100-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
(continued)
169
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
No.
6. Absorber, SC>2
7. Tank, effluent surge 4
8. Agitator, effluent 4
surge tank
9. Pump, effluent 6
10. Thickener, absorber
11. Pump, thickener under-
flow
12. Tank, thickener over-
flow neutralizes
13. Agitator, thickener
14. Pump, thickener
underflow
15. Fan, absorber forced
draft
4
6
Description
Venturi, 14.8-ft-diameter, 52 ft' high
with mist eliminator, 316 SS '
16,100 gal, 14-ft-diameter, 14 ft
high, cone bottom, neoprene lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
1570-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
75-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
13 ft wide, 22 ft long, 21 ft high,
inclined plate gravity settler-
thickener with increased volume
sludge compartment, 1-hp picket-
fence rake
176-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
10-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
4280 gal, 9-ft-diameter, 9 ft high
cone bottom, neoprene lined CS *
5-hp, neoprene coated CS
1408-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
75-hp motor, neoprene lined CS *
140,740 aft3/min at 200°F, AP 15-in
H?0, 450-hp motor, 316 SS
Area 4—Fine Coal Leaching
Item No.
1. Tank, water leach
2. Agitator, water leach
tank
Description
4 3600 gal, 8.5-ft-diameter, S.TTt
high, cone bottom, closed
lined CS
4 IC-hp, neoprene coated CS
(continued)
170
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
__ ^
3. Pump, cyclone feed
A. Cyclone, water leach
6. Agitator, cyclone
underflow tank
7. Heater, process water
8. Pump, cyclone feed
9. Cyclone, water leach
10. Tank, cyclone
underflow
11. Agitator, cyclone
underflow tank
12. Pump, cyclone feed
13. Cyclone, caustic
leach
14. Tank, cyclone
underflow
15. Agitator, cyclone
underflow tank
No.
5. Tank, cyclone underflow A
Description
722-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal,
125-hp motor, CS
36 90-gpm, 6-in. -diameter, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating pressure,
high density gum rubber-lined cast
iron and steel
1614 gal, 6.5-ft-diameter, 6.5 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
5-hp, neoprene coated CS
4 178 ft2 area, CS
6 523-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal,
100-hp motor, CS
24 90-gpm, 6-in.-diameter,heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating pressure,
high density gum rubber-lined cast
iron and steel
4 3600 gal, 8.5-ft-diameter, 8.5 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene lined
CS
4 10-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 752-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal, 125-
hp motor, CS
36 90-gpm, 6-in.-diameter, heavy duty cyclone
100 psig operating pressure, high density
gum rubber-lined cast iron and steel
4 850 gal, 5.25-ft-diaraeter, 5.25 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene lined CS
4 10-hp, neoprene coated CS
(continued)
171
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
16. Pump, slurry
transfer
17. Thickener, fine coal
18. Pump, thickener
underflow
19. Tank, thickener
overflow
20. Pump, thickener
overflow
21. Tank, leach mix
22. Agitator, leach mix
tank
23. Pump, cyclone feed
24. Cyclone, water wash
25. Tank, cyclone
underflow
26. Agitator» cyclone
underflow tank
27. pump, cyclone feed
No.
6
Description
6
4
85-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal^
15-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
10 ft wide, 19 ft long, 21 ft high,
inclined plate gravity settler-
thickener with increased volume
sludge compartment, 1-hp picket-
fence rake
3.5-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
0.25-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
2000 gal, 7-ft-diameter, 7 ft high,
flat bottom, neoprene lined CS
667-gpm, 100_ft head, centrifugal,
30-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
7800 gal, 11-ft-diameter, 11 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined CS
4 5-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 758-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal,
125-hp motor, CS
36 90-gpm, 6-in.-diameter, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating pressure
high density gum rubber-lined cast
iron and steel
4 3800 gal, 8.5-ft-diameter, 9 ft high
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
4 10-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 758-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal,
125-hp motor, CS
(continued)
172
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
Cyclone, water wash
29. Tank, cyclone
underflow
30. Agitator, cyclone
underflow tank
31. Pump, cyclone feed
32. Cyclone, wash water
33. Tank, cyclone
underflow
34. Agitator, cyclone
underflow tank
35. Pump, centrifuge feed
36. 'Heater, process water
37. Heater, process water
38. Centrifuge, fine coal
39. Tank, centrate
40. Pump, centrate
return
41. Conveyor, centrifuge
product
No.
~36~
Description
90-gpm, 6-in.-diameter, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating pressure,
high density gum rubber-lined cast iron
and steel
3SOO gal, 8.5-ft-diameter, 9 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 758-gpm, 260-ft head, centrifugal,
125-hp motor, CS
36 90-gpm, 6-in.-diameter, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating pressure,
high density gum rubber-lined cast
iron and steel
4 1270 gal, 6-ft-diameter, 6 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
4 10-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 437-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 30-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
4 144 ft2 area, CS
4 102 ft2 area, CS
4 44-in.-diameter, 132 in. long, continuous
screen bowl type, 200-hp motor
4 2000 gal, 7-ft-diameter, 7 ft high, cone
bottom, closed top, CS
6 670-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 30-hp
motor, CS
1 209 tons/hr, 30-in. belt, 160 ft long,
5-hp motor, CS
(continued)
173
-------
TABLF, A-8 (continued)
Item
42. Conveyor, centrifuge
product
43. Sampler, coal
44. Elevator, bucket
No.
Area 5—Coarse Coal Leaching
Description
209 tons/hr, 30-in. belt, 180
long, 5-hp motor, CS
Automatic coal sampler
105 tons/hr, 40 ft high, 16-in. x
8-in. x 11-3/4-in, continuous buckets
J:. _lHlY.e-»-_L' 5-hp mo tor_, CS
Item
No.
1. Dewaterer, water
leach
2. Pump, overflow
3. Dewaterer, water leach
4. Pump, dewaterer
overflow
5. Heater, process water
6. Tank, caustic leach
7. Agitator, caustic
leach tank
8. Pump, thickener feed
9. Thickener, coarse coal
4
4
100 tons/hr, single screw spiraT"
dewaterer, 54-in.-diameter flights
34-ft tube length, 40-hp motor, *
closed top, CS
347-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54-in.-diameter flights
34-ft tube length, 40-hp motor,' "'
closed top, CS
406-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
20_hp motor, neoprene lined CS
163 ft2 area, CS
10,000 gal, 12-ft-diameter, 1? ft
high, cone bottom, closed top, neon*-
lined. CS P^ene
4 10-hp, neoprene coated CS
6 980-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal 6O-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS '
4 10 ft wide, 19 ft long, 21 ft high
inclined plate gravity settler-thi *V
with increased volume sludge en*r
1-hp picket-fence rake
(continued)
174
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
10. Pump, thickener
underflow
11. Tank, thickener
overflow
12. Pump, thickener
overflow
13. Tank, caustic leach
14. Agitator, caustic
leach tank
15. Dewaterer, water wash
16. Pump, dewaterer
overflow
17. Dewaterer, water wash
18. Pump, dewaterer
overflow
19. Dewaterer, water wash
20. Pump, dewaterer
overflow
21. Tank, water wash
22. Agitator, water wash
tank
No.
Description
641-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
50-hp motor, neoprene lined CS
975 gal, 5.5-ft-diameter, 5.5 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene lined
CS
339-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
6460 gal, 10-ft-diameter, 11 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene lined
CS
5-hp, neoprene coated CS
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54-in.-diameter flights,
34-ft tube length, 40-hp motor, closed
top, CS
900-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 40-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54-in.-diameter flights,
34-ft tube length, 40-hp motor, closed
top, CS
336-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, neoprene lined CS
1.00 tons/hr, single screw spiral, dewaterer,
54-in.-diameter flights, 34-ft tube length,
40-hp motor, closed top, CS
336-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, neoprene lined CS
1070 gal, 5.5-ft-diameter, 6 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
(continued)
175
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
No.
23. Heater, process water 4
24. Pump, centrifuge feed 6
25. Heater, process water 4
26. Centrifuge, coarse coal 4
27. Tank, centrate 4
28. Pump, centrate
return
29. Conveyor, centrifuge
product
Description
30. Sampler, coal
31. Conveyor, coarse coal
bleed
32. Conveyor, stacker feed
33. Elevator, coal dryer
feed
34 Elevator, coal mix
bin feed
1
1
58"ft2" area, CS
230-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 25-
hp motor, neoprene lined CS
58 ft2 area, CS
230-gpm, continuous oscilating bowl
25-hp motor and 5-hp motor
1070 gal, 5.5-ft-diameter, 6 ft high
flat bottom, closed top, CS
336-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15_
hp motor, CS
384 tons/hr, 30-in. belt, 160 ft long
5-hp motor, CS *
Automatic coal sampler
56 tons/hr, 18-in. belt, 50 ft long
5-hp motor, CS
596 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 715 ft lone
50-hp motor, CS
100 tons/hr, 96 ft high, 24-in. x 8-in x
11-3/4-in. continuous buckets, double
chain drive, 20-hp motor, CS
134 tons/hr, 40 ft high, 20-in. x 8-in
11-3/4-in. continuous buckets, belt
drive, 7.5-hp motor, CS
Area
Agglomeration and Handling
Item
No.
~TBln7 coal mix
Description
1 1725 ft3, 13-ft-diameter, 13~ft~"hi£ip
cone bottom, CS '
(continued)
176
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
Item
No.
11
2. Feeder, coal
3. Conveyor, coal
transfer
U. Pelletizing plants
5. Conveyor, pelletizer
product
6. Conveyor, pelletizer
product
7. Conveyor, s ta eke r
8. Hopper, pile reclaim 20
9. Feeders, vibrating pan 20
10. Conveyor, coal
transfer
II, Tunnel, conveyor
Tunnel, conveyor
13. Pump, tunnel sump
266 tons/hr, 30-i.n. belt, 5 ft long,
1.5-hp motor, CS
266 tons/hr, 30~in. belt, 200 ft long,
40-hp motor, 11 fixed trippers, CS
25 tons/hr package pelletizing plants
including 23-ft-diameter pan pelletizer,
dryers and all support systems
125 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 185 ft long,
2-hp motor, CS
125 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 130 ft long,
2-hp motor, CS
596 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft long,
25-hp motor, traveling tripper, CS
13-ft x 13-ft top opening, 3~ft~deep
pyramid, with 22-in. x 22-in. bottom
opening, CS
120 tons/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in. long
pan, 1.5-hp vibrator, CS
1000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft long,
40-hp motor, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
60-gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-hp
motor, CS
(contineud)
177
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
7 Leach Solution Neutralization and Water Handling
No.
Item
Description
1. Tank, neutralizer
stage 1
2. Agitator, neutralizer
stage 1 tank
3. Tank, neutralizer,
stage 2
4. Agitator, neutralizer
stage 2 tank
5. Tank, neutralizer
stage 3
6. Agitator, neutralizer
stage 3 tank
7. Tank, neutralizer
stage 4
g. Agitator, neutralizer
stage 4 tank
9. Pump, pond feed
10. Pipeline, pond feed
Pump, pond return
12. Pipeline, pond
return
25,600 gal, 16-ft-diameter, 17 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
8500 gal, 11-ft-diameter, 12 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
8500 gal, 11-ft-diameter, 12 ft high
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
8500 gal, 11-ft-diameter, 12 ft high
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined CS
10-hp, neoprene coated CS
2 11,480-gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal
1750-hp motor, neoprene lined CS *
2 30-in.-diameter, 5280 ft long, rubber
lined CS
2 11,156-gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal
1500-hp motor, CS '
1 30-in.-diameter, 5280 ft long, CS
(continued)
178
-------
TABLE A-8 (continued)
__ Item ____________
^ tank, recycle water
Description
14. Pump, water feed
15. Pump, water feed
16. Pump, water feed
17. Pump, water feed
18. Pump, water feed
19. Pump, water feed
20. Pump, water feed
21. Pump, makeup water
5,400,000 pal, 150-ft-diameter, 41 ft
high, flat bottom, CS
4184-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
200-hp motor, CS
697-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
30-hp motor, CS
39-gpm, 100-ft-head, centrifugal, 2-
hp motor, CS
1152-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
50-hp motor, CS
2441-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
12,5-hp motor, CS
1624-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
75-hp motor, CS
1771-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
75-hp motor, CS
752-gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
40-hp motor, CS
Area 8--SjBttUng_Pond_
Pond
No_. Description
1 932 acres, 25.58 ft deep, with clay
179
-------
TABLE A-9. TRW GRAVICHEM COAL DESULFURIZATION PROCESS
MATERIAL BALANCE - BASE CASE
I
2
]
»
>
t
•
•
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
,
2
1
2
2
2
t
2
2
'
2 t
to
J
1 2
If
J»
39
)«
] 7
)•
t
Stream No.
Description
Total stream, tons/hr
S t ream conponen t s , tons /
Coal
Pyrltej S
Sulfate, S (In coal)
Organic, S
Ash
H?0
Sulfate. S (In solutio
FeSOi
Fe2(SOi)-,
H2SOi
S
07
Ca(OH)9
CaSOi'2HjO
Acetone (llauld)
Acetone (BBS)
Fe(OH)?
CaO
Temperature, °F
.Pressure, pslf
Aft3/mln
1
Crushed
coal
593.0
r
448. 1
19.1
O.i56
9.0
95.4
20.7
)
55
2
Heated
coal feed
629.0
448.1
19.1
0.356
9.C
95.4
56.8
215
3
Leach solution
feed
1736.6
1182.6
38.2
442.8
72.9
215
4,891
TABLE A-9 (continued)
fcO
4
Mixed
coal
slurry
2-m.fi
448.1
14.7
9.
93.4
1236.3
0.156
95.1
365.2
90.2
0.943
215
5jl44
5
Slurry to
heavy media
cyclones
7Ti-( A
448.1
14.7
9.0
93.4
1236.3
0.356
95.1
365.2
90.2
0.943
164
5.144
6
Sink
coal
slurry
1151 .6
266.0
14.fi
8.5
89.8
533.7
0.153
41.1
157.6
38.9
0.941
164
2.221
7
Float
coal
slurry
1 202 r,
182 1
0.10Q
0.554
3.5
702.5
0.203
54. n
207.fi
51.2
n
164
2.921
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABU A-4 (continued)
00
8
Leach
solution
filtrate
923.9
639.1
0.185
49.1
188.8
46.6
160
2.650
9
Wash
solution
feed
183.5
160
% 744
in
Wash
solution
filtrate
211.8
183. 5
0.018
4.8
IK. 7
•4.fi
160
*: 744
11
Filtered
coal
182.1
0.100
0.5S4
3.5
91 .7
160
1
2
3
"
3
ft
7
•
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 <•
1 5
1 6
I 7
1 9
IV
20
3 1
a 3
2 3
2 <.
2 3
2 «
2 7
2 6
2 9
d?°
3 1
3 2
3 S
3 h
3 3
3 «
3 7
J •
1 9
*. 0
12
Wash
solution
feed
183.5
160
^744
15
Coal slurry
feed to
filter
182.1
0.100
0.554
3.5
275.2
160
-53,112
14
Wash
solution
feed
183.5
160
*744
1 ^
Filtered
coal
182.1
0.100
0.554
3.5
91.7
160
(contInued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
00
N>
1
1
,
1
1
1
,
,
1
,
a
3
1
1
3
i
1
i
2
2
3
J
1
»
1 l.
>J
1 ft
J7
)•
J 9
t
If
Wash
solution
feed
183.5
160
%744
17
Coal slurry
feed to
filter
182.1
0.100
0.554
3.3
275.2
160
%1.J12
IB
Wash
water
feed
183.5
183.5
160
734
19
Float
coal
product
278.0
182.1
0.100
0.554
3.5
91.7
0.007
0.018
0.006
160
20
.
2
3
«•
3
*
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
i <>
i!
i «
1 7
t 8
1 9
2 O
2 1
2 2
3 I
2 <.
j,
2 6
2 7
2 0
2 9
? °
3 '
1 2
) 9
a i.
1 9
9«
3 7
J>
1 •
fcO
Reactor
gas feed
5.9
5.9
50
21
Reactor
vent gas
Nil
Nil
Nil
22
Reacted
coal
slurry
1173.1
266.0
0.383
8.5
83.2
547.4
0.153
4.6
236.7
21.8
4.0
250
50
2,238
23
Flash
steam
29.9
29.9
219
2.3
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TKM.E K-9
00
1
2
3
«.
5
6
7
a
9
ID
1 1
1 2
1 3
1*.
1 9
i *
1 7
L «
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
3 3
2 <.
2 5
2 6
3 7
2 8
29
30
•J i
) 2
3 S
3 4
3 3
J 6
3 7
J •
,«
1. 0
2t
Coal slurry
to cooler
1143. 2
266.0
0.383
8.S
83.2
517. 5
nrt ST
i.fi
?•*£ 7
71. ft .
i.n
219 J
2.11* j
1
3S
Compressed
oxygen feed
7.0
7.0
50
26
Reactor
oxygen feed
5.9
5.9
SO
n
Regenerator
oxygen feed
1.0
1.0
Yi
<•"
28
Regenerator
vent gas to
reactor
Nil
2q
High pressure
steam to
reactor
10.6
10.6
422
300
31
Coal slurry
feed to
filter
1143.2
266. C
0.383
8.5
83.2
517.5
0.153
4.6
236.7
21.8
4.0
160
2,119
32
Leach solution
filtrate
602.6
inn.i
0.118
-\ '.
181.9
16.8
160
1,638
(continued)
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
00
1
,
,
,
,
1
1
I
,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
^_
3
1
9
Jt
11
J f
J 7
•1»
1 f
49
33
Wash water
feed
252.4
252.4
160
1.010
34
Wash solution
filtrate
252.4
200.6
0.030
0.916
46.5
4.3
160
812
31
Filtered
coal
540.5
266.0
0.383
8.5
83.2
169.2
0.005
0.162
8.2
0.761
4.0
160
36
Acetone feed
to wash
t.ink
364.8
364.8
85
1,846
37
Acetone/coal
slurry to cooler
i
a
3
(4
5
*
7
a
y
I 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
I*.
13
1 6
1 7
i a
i ?
2 O
2 1
23
a 3
a *.
2 3
2 6
2 7
3 •
2 9
?°
3 1
)2
9 3
J <•
) 9
»»
J 7
J*
3 *
*O
905.3
266.0
0.383
8.5
83.2
169.2
0.005
0.162
8.2
0.761
4.0
364.8
130
2,525
38
Acetone/coal
slurrv to
filter No. 5
905.3
266.0
0.383
8.5
83.2
169.2
. 0.005
0.162
8.2
0.7M
4.0
364.8
85
2,525
39
Acetone wash
feed
153.1
153.1
85
775
40
Filtered coal
to dryer
553.5
266.0
0.383
8.5
83.2
60.3
0.001
0.065
0.006
0.724
134.2
85
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABU 1-9 (continued)
tU.1l A-9 (continued)
oo
41
Acetone solution
filtrate
,
2
3
<4
3
«
7
•
9
1 0
1 1
n
1 3
1 <•
1 3
1 6
1 7
1 •
1 9
ao
2 I
4 2
a j
24
23
2 «
2 7
2 •
2 9
i°
11
12
»»
1*
IS
!•
> 7
!•
1«
«0
504.9
108. 8
0.005
0.161
8.1
0.755
3.2
383.7
85
2,379
42
Wash solution
to evaporator
464.3
38*. 2
0.048
5.7
65.3
8.9
160
1,557
43
Leachate to
regenerator
preheater
841.5
3BZ . 1
44 . 8
172.0
42.5
160
2,422
44
Leachate to
regenerator
841.5
3ti^ . i
44 .0
172.0
42.5
244
2.422
45
i
a
3
*
3
6
7
6
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 fc
1 3
1 6
1 7
i a
19
ao
a i
2 2
a 3
2<.
a 3
a «
a 7
2 0
a «
30
31
1 2
S 9
3<*
3,
3B
3 ,
j«
3 9
1. O
Regenerated
leaehate to
recycle tank
842.4
583.1
26.9
195.6
36.7
250
2,414
46
Sulfuric acid
makeup
10.4
10.4
55
21
47
Leach solution
from evaporator
271.7
191.6
0.048
5.7
65.3
8.9
181
786
48
Dilution water
to leaehate
recycle tank
6.1
6.1
55
25
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
49
Leachate bleed to
neutralize!
,
i
,
*
i
»
7
•
w
1 0
, ,
1 2
i 1
I*.
1 3
1*
, 7
1 •
1«
1Q
2 1
2 J
I 3
2 i.
2 3
a t
3 7
2 •
2 t
30
-, ,
3 J
3 3
3 J.
3*
9 A
,?
it
1 9
« 0
82.3
57.0
0.055
4.3
16.8
4.1
160
237
50
Makeup
FeS04-7H20
(copperas)
3.5
1.5
1.9
55
51
Leach solution
feed
1736.6
1182.6
38.2
442.8
72.9
215
4.891
52
Cleaned
coal
product
419.6
266.0
0.383
. 8,5
83.2
60.3
0.001
0.065
0.006
0.724
0.359
133
(continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
i
3
3
'
3
•
7
>
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1*.
1 3
><.
I 7
1 8
1 «
3 O
2 L
a 2
a 3
a <.
a 3
a 6
a 7
2 •
2 9
3O
3 1
32
9 9
3*.
33
]&
3 7
31
3 «
<>0
53
Coal dryer
off-gas
133.8
133.8
133
30,018
54
Cooled
off-gas
133.8
133.8
85
677
55
Off-gas
recycle to
coal dryer
Nil
56
Acetone to
recycle tank
133.8
133.8
85
677
(continued)
-------
TAHIU A-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
00
1
3
3
>.
3
fc
7
a
v
1 0
i i
I 2
13
1*.
1 5
16
1 7
i a
i *
2 O
2 1
2 J
2 3
2 *.
2 •,
3 6
2 7
2 a
a »
30
3 ]
1 2
3 J
1 *.
,,
J & 1
1 ' '
1 1 *
57
fash solution
evaporator
464.3
384.2
0.048
5.7
6i.3
8.9
1MB
),V;f>
S9
Process steam
evaporator
192.5
192.5
290
^
60
bottoms
271.7
191.6
0.048
5.7 _
fi.5.1.
8.q
,'90
'i5
7«ft
61
feed
504.9
108.8
0.005
0.161
R ^
0.753
3.2
383.7
85
15
2,384
i
2
1
t.
5
«
7
e
»
10
i i
! i
1 3
It
1 3
1 6
1 I
i a
i s
2 O
2 1
2 2
2 1
2 t.
2 3
2 6
2 7
J«
a »
30
3 ]
1 2
) 3
3 >.
, ,
J A
»
1 •
,»
4 O
62
Stripped
acetone
383.7
381 7
174
15
63
Stripper
bottoms
121.2
108.8
0.005
0.161
8.1_
0.755
•i.2
.250.
442
64
Sulfur
product
3.2
3.2
250
7
65
Stripper
bottoms to
process cooler
117.9
108.8
0.005
0.161
8.1
0.755
250
435
(< uni i nu
(cont inued)
-------
TABLF A-9 (continued)
H-*
oo
oo
i
**
Stripper bottoms
to surge tank
,
4
•
•
117.9
108.8
0.005
0.161
8.1
0.755
160
435
i
*7
itrtpper bottoms
to
neutraliier
117.9
108.8
0.005
0.161
8.1
0.755
160
435
,
68
Slaked lime
feed to
neutral Izer
98,8
79.0
19.7
316
69
Pond
feed
m,9
229.2
0.600
45.9
2.6
13.3
1,015
(continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
i»
70
Pond
settled
solids
88.5
25.9
0.600
45.9
2.6
13.3
55
202
71
Pond return
water
203.3
2m, 1
55
845
72
Condensed
acetone from
stripper to
recycle tank
383.7
383.7
85
1.942
73
Acetone
make-up
0.359
0.359
55
1.4
(continued)
-------
TAKJE X-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
00
74
Acetone feed to
sulfur removal
system
,
2
3
(.
3
6
7
a
»
t o
i i
1 2
1 3
1*
1 9
1 A
1 7
!•
1 9
2 O
2 1
2 2
3 3
24.
1 3
2 *
2 7
2«
2 »
10
J 1
1 2
1 >
»<.
1 S
I 4
1 J
i •
1»
<• O
518.0
518-C
85
2,621
75
Sulfur to
product storage
3.2
3.2
250
7
76
Cleaned coal to
briquet ting
plant
335.0
Z12.3
0.306
6.8
66.4
48.2
0.0008
0.052
0.005
0.578
0.285
225
77
Cleaned coal to
briquetting
bypass
84.6
53.6
0.077
1.7
16.7
12.1
0.0002
0.013
0.001
0.146
0.074
225
78
Brlquetted coal
product
i
2
3
*
S
6
7
•
*,
I 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 <•
1 5
1 t>
7
8
<
O
1
2
]
<4
3
6
7
a
9
o
!
2
3
4
a
«
7
j«
i «
-.0
335.0
212.3
0.306
6.8
66. A
48.2
0.0008
0.052
0.005
0.578
0.285
79
Cleaned coal
product to
storage
419.6
266.0
0.3B3
8.5
83.2
60.3
0.001
0.065
0.006
0.724
0.359
80
Combined coal
product to
storage
697.7
448.1
0.483
9.0
86.7
152.1
0.008
0.083
0.012
0.724
0.359
81
Makeup
water
383.1
383.1
55
1,291
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
vo
O
,
J
t
.
1
*
J
a
,
1
,
,
,
!
!
1
JO
2
2 1
t
3 -
J 3
2ft
37
2 •
a 9
30
3 1
12
S 3
3 ".
3 3
3*
3 7
i •
3 «
1. O
82
Lime to
slaker
U.">
14.9
55
83
Water to
slaker
83.8
S3..8
55
316
84
Slaked lime
to surge tank
9.8.8
79. n
19.7
316
85
Low pressure
steam to
coal heat
6.1
6.1
281
35
t
»
2
3
14
5
*
7
8
y
1 0
i i
1 2
1 3
1-
13
1 6
1 7
1 8
19
20
2 1
2 2
3 ^
3 >.
2 9
2 6
a 7
a s
2 9
30
3 1
13
33
3 *•
3 3
3 6
3 7
J •
39
J.O
85A
Total steam
o coal heat
36.0
36.0
219
2.3
86
Cooling water
feed to E-l
2353.0
2353.0
55
9.415
87
Water to
cooling tower
surge tank
2353.0
2353. C
89
9,415
88
Ccoling water
feed to E-3
1133.0
1133.0
55
4,533
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
1
2
3
<•
a
«
,
8
9
1
:
i
i
i
i
i «
i
1 8
11
2 0
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 1,
13
I 6
2 7
2 •
J •
O
,
2
1
1
,
,
»q
Water to
cooling tower
surge tank
1133.0
1133.0
93
4.533
on
Low pressure
steam to E-4
28.6
28.6
281
35
91
Low pressure
condensate
from E-4
28.6
28.6
281
35
115
92
Cooling water
feed to E-5
905.0
905.0
55
3,621
(continued)
TAILE A-9 (continued)
1
2
3
*.
3
6
7
e
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 <•
1 3
16
1 7
1 0
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 *.
2 9
2 6
2 7
2 0
2 «
J0
3 1
1 2
3 3
3 <•
1 5
36
,,
J •
»*
<. O
93
Water to
cooling tower
surge tank
905.0
905.0
80
3,621
94
Low pressure
steam to E-6
60.4
60.4
281
35
95
Low pressure
condensate £ron
E-6
60.4
60.4
281
35
242
96
Low pressure
steam to E-7
20.8
20. ft
281
35
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABLE A-9 (continued)
to
1
2
t.
9
•
•
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
,
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
i°
3
32
> 9
3fa
3 9
3 «
S 7
3»
1*
40
97
Low pressure
condensate froa
E-7
20.8
20.8
281
35
83
,
100
High pressure
steam to
evaporator
254.5
254.5
422
300
101
High pressure
condensate
from evaporator
254.5
254.5
422
300
939
102
Process steam
to stripper
192,5
192.5
290
35
(
1
2
3
t.
3
*
7
a
9
1 1
1
12
1 3
I *•
13
16
1
1 6
1 «
2 0
2
2 3
2 3
2*
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
?°
3 1
32
» 3
3 fa
3 9
36
3 7
J«
.19
40
101
Process steam
:ondensate from
stripper
192.5
192.5
281
35
563
104
Cooling water
feed to E-10
422.4
422.4
55
1,690
101
Water to
cooling tower
surge tank
1335.4
1335.4
139
5,343
ins
Cooling water
feed to E-ll
118 0
nfi.n
55
472
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-9 (continued)
TABL? A-9 (continued)
u>
1
a
3
4.
3
A
,
•
9
1 0
1
12
1 3
I *•
1 3
1 *
1 7
1 1
1 9
2 0
2 I
2 2
2 3
a *.
2 3
2*
a 7
a •
a •
2°
j i
i a
* *
>*
J 5
J«
I >
J*
) »
4 O
107
Water to
cooling tower
surge tank
118.0
118.0
142
472
ioe
High pressure
steam to
coal dryer
123.3
123.3
422
300
109
High pressure
condensate from
dryer
123.3
123.3
422
300
479
110
Cooling water
feed to E-12
801.3
801.3
55
3,206
1
2
)
4
5
6
7
•
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 *•
IS
1 A
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 3
2 3
2 4
2 3
2 6
a 7
2 •
2 »
?°
3 1
3 3
a i
3 *
3 3
1 ft
3 7
J«
1 »
•. O
111
Water to
cooling water
surge tank
801.3
801.3
100
3,206
112
Low pressure
steam to
sulfur storage
0.004
0.004
281
35
113
Low pressure
condensate fron
sulfur storage
0.004
0.004
281
35
0.016
114
Cooling tower
feed
5732.8
5732.8
104
22.937
(continued)
(continued)
-------
vO
TAE1.F. A-9 (continued)
Cooling tower
discharge to
river
6645. 7
65
26,590_
-------
TABLE A-10. TRW GRAVICHEM COAL DESULFURIZATTON PROCESS
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
Area 1—Baw_Ma_teri£l Kandling
Item No.
1. Conveyor, coal 1
unloading
2. Conveyor, coal 2
stocker
3. Hopper, pile reclaim 20
i. Feeders, vibrating 20
pan
Description
5. Conveyor, coal
transfer
6. Tunnel, conveyor
7. Pump, tunnel sump
g. Conveyor, coal
transfer
9. Tunnel, conveyor
10. Pump, tunnel sump
11.
12.
n.
Conveyor, crusher
feed
Sampler, coal
Bin, coal surge
2
2
1
1
1000 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 500 ft long, 100-
hp motor, 2 fixed trippers, CS
1000 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft long, 40-
hp motor, 1 traveling tripper, CS
13-ft x 13-ft top opening, 3-ft-deep pyra-
mid, with 22-in. x 22-in. bottom opening,
CS
120 ton/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in. long pan,
with 1.5-hp vibrator, CS
593 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft long, 25-hp
motor, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
60 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-hp motor,
CS
593 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 320 ft long, 5-hp
motor, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
60 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-hp motor,
CS
593 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 565 ft long, 100-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
Automatic coal sampler
7200 ft3, 19 ft wide, 19 ft. long, 20 ft high,
10-ft-deep pyramid bottom, closed top, CS
(continued)
195
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
14. Feeder, weigh belt
15. Crusher, coal
16. Pulverizer, coal
17. Elevator, coal
18. Conveyor, coal
transfer
19. Pump, acid unloading
20. Tank, acid storage
21- Pump, acid feed
22. Pump, acetone
unloading
23. Tank, acetone
storage
24. Pump, acetone feed
25. Hoist, car shaker
26. Shaker, car
27. Puller, car
1 593 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 10 ft long, 5-hp
motor, CS
2 300 ton/hr, ring-type granulator, 150-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
2 300 ton/hr, reversible impactor, 400-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
8 148 ton/hr, 70 ft high, 24-in. x 8-in. x
11-3/4-in. continuous buckets, belt drive
15-hp motor, CS '
1 593 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 140 ft long, 25-hp
motor, 4 fixed trippers, totally enclosed
CS
2 44 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 5-h.p motor,
neoprene lined, CS
1 988,000 gal, 58-ft-diameter, 50 ft high, flat
bottom, closed top, neoprene lined, CS
2 23 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 2-hp motor.
neoprene lined, CS
2 102 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 5-hp motor.
CS
1 71,500 gal, 23-ft-diameter, 23 ft high, flat
bottom, closed top, CS
2 1-1/2 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, l/8-np
motor, CS
1 2,000-lb capacity, 1.5-hp motor
1 Railroad track side vibrator, 20 hp
1 Railroad, car puller with base, wire ro
25-hp motor, 5-hp return motor *
(continued)
196
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35 -
36 .
Hopper, railcar
unloading
Feeder, lime
vibrating
Conveyor, lime
unloading
Conveyor, lime
unloading
Tunnel, conveyor
Pump, tunnel sump
Silo, lime storage 1
Feeder, weigh belt 1
Conveyor, slaker feed 1
37 . Slaker, lime
3B-
39.
40.
41-
Pump, slaked lime 2
product
Tank, 20% lime feed 1
Agitator, 20% lime 1
feed tank
Pump, lime feed 2
94 ft-*, 8 ft 4 in. x 8 ft 4 in. top opening,
3-ft-deep pyramid, with 2 ft 4 in. x 2 ft
4 in. bottom opening
210 ton/hr, 42 in. wide, 5-ft-long pan,
2.5-hp vibrator, CS
210 ton/hr, 24-in. belt, 10 ft long, 2.5-hp
motor, CS
210 ton/hr, 24-in. belt, 436 ft long, 30-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 70 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
20 gpm, 20-ft head, centrifugal, 0.5-hp motor,
CS
407,000 ft3, 72-ft-diameter, 100 ft high, cone
bottom, closed top, CS
20 ton/hr, 12-in. belt, 10 ft long, 0.5-hp
motor, CS
20 ton/hr, 12-in. belt, 40 ft long, 0,75-hp
motor, CS
100 ton/hr of 20% slaked slurry product,
20 ft x 43 ft x 9.5 ft high, 2-hp motor,
on rake drive, 30-hp mixer
316 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-hp motor,
neoprene lined, CS
159,000 gal, 30-ft-diaineter, 30 ft side, flat
bottom, closed top, neoprene lined, CS
15 hp, neoprene coated, CS
316 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
(continued)
197
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
42. Conveyor, copperas
unloading
43. Tunnel, conveyor
44. Pump, tunnel sump
45. Tank, copperas
storage
46. Feeder, weigh belt
210 ton/hr, 24-in. belt, 252 ft long, 25-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 70 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
20 gpm, 20-ft head, centrifugal, 0.5-hp
motor, CS
43,000 ft3, 38-f t-diameter , 38 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, 316 SS
3.5 ton/hr, 18-in. belt, 10 ft long, 0.75-hn
motor, CS
Area 2-_-"Grayi_ch_em" Separation
I tern
No.
1. Bin, coal feed
2. Tank, slurry mix
3. Agitators, slurry
mix tank
4. Drum, knockout
5. Pump, cyclone feed
Description^
4 47,100 ft, 35-f t-diameter , 49 ft high, cone
bottom, closed top, CS
2 367,200 gal, 25-f t-diameter, 100 ft long
horizontal, operating at 215°F and atmos-
pheric pressure, 316L SS
6 25 hp, 316L SS
2 10,100 gal, 8-f t-diameter, 27 ft long dish
head ends, 316L SS
3 2,672 gpm, 125-ft head, centrifugal 250-ho
motor, 316L SS
6. Cooler, coal slurry 13 2,080 ft area, Hastelloy C
7. Cyclone, heavy media 54 10.49 ton/hr solids, 6-in. -diameter he
medium cyclone, operating at 40 psie
8. Tank, cyclone
underflow
2 3,400 gal, 8-f t-diameter , 9 ft high, co
bottom, closed top, neoprene lined CS
(continued)
198
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
9. Agitator, underflow
tank
10. Pump, reactor feed
11. Feeder, coal weigh
No.
Description
2 10 hp, neoprene coated, CS
1,111 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 100-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
296.5 ton/hr, 30-in. belt, 10 ft long, 1.5-hp
motor, CS
—Float Coal Washing
Item No.
Description
1. Filter, coal 3
2. Pump, vacuum 6
3. Tank, filtrate 6
4. Pump, filtrate 5
5. Pump, filtrate 5
6. Tank, coal wash 1
7. Agitator, wash tank 1
8. Pump, filter feed 2
Filter, coal
Pump, vacuum
62 ton/hr, 12-ft-diameter, 24 ft long, 912
ft area, rotary drum type, 5-hp motor drive,
3-hp agitator, 316L SS
200-hp system, 316L SS
750 gal, 4-ft-diameter, 8 ft long, vacuum
receiver, 316L SS
887 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 60-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
248 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
11,000 gal, 12-ft-diameter, 13 ft high,
cone bottom, neoprene lined, CS
7.5 hp, neoprene coated, CS
1,111 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 80-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
3 62 ton/hr, 12-ft-diameter, 24 ft long, 912
ft area, rotary drum type, 5-hp motor
drive, 3-hp agitator, 316L SS
6 200-hp system, 316L SS
(continued)
199
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description^
11. Tank, filtrate
12. Pump, filtrate
13. Tank, coal wash
14. Agitator, wash tank
15. Pump, filter feed
16. Filter, coal
17. Pump, vacuum
18. Tank, filtrate
19. Pump, filtrate
6 750 gal, 4-ft-diameter, 8 ft long, vacuum
receiver, 316L SS
10
10
248 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
1 11,000 gal, 12-ft-diameter, 13 ft high,
cone bottom, neoprene lined, CS
1 7.5 hp, neoprene coated, CS
2 111 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 80-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
3 62 ton/hr, 12-ft-diameter, 24 ft long, 912
ft2 area, rotary drum type, 5-hp motor drive,
3-hp agitator, 316L SS
6 200-hp system, 316L SS
6 750 gal, 4-ft-diameter, 8 ft long, vacuum
receiver, 316L SS
248 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
20. Heater, wash water 1 1,151 ft2 area, CS
21. Conveyor, coal
product
22. Sampler, coal
1 638 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 1,120 ft long,
motor, 2 fixed trippers, totally enclosed CS
1 Automatic coal sampler
Area_4--Rgactor j^ Regenerator
No.
Item
1. Reactor, leach
2. Agitators, reactor
Description^
3 270,300 gal, 21-ft-diameter, 115 ft
horizontal, 50 psig operating pressure
4 Hastelloy C dividers, 85 mill polypronvler.
liner, 6-in. acid brick liner, 10 aeit-V
openings, Shell is CS acor
30 200 hp, Hastelloy C
(continued)
200
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
No.
Item
3. Drum, knockout 3
4. Pump, leachate feed 5
5. Drum, flash 3
6. Compressor, oxygen 1
Description
7.
8.
9.
10.
11-
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Pump, filtrate feed 5
12,900 gal, 9-ft-diameter, 27 ft long, dish
head ends, 316L SS
1,631 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 100-hp
motor, 316L SS
7,500 gal, 8-ft-diameter, 20 ft long, dish
head ends, 316L SS
2,500 ft3/min, at 110 psig, centrifugal,
600-hp motor, CS
706 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 75-hp
motor, 316L SS
Cooler, reactor
slurry
Filter, coal
Pump, vacuum
Tank, filtrate
pump, filtrate
Pump, filtrate
8 1,877 ft2 area, Hastelloy C
72.4 ton/hr, 12-ft-diameter, 24 ft long,
912 ft^ area, rotary drum type, 5-hp motor
drive, 3-hp agitator, 316L SS
10
10
8
8
Heater, wash water 1
Heater, leachate 6
Regenerator, leachate 1
200-hp system, 316L SS
750 gal, 4-ft-diameter, 8 ft long, vacuum
receiver, 316L SS
328 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 25-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
163 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 10-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
1,583 ft2 area, CS
2,314 ft2 area, Hastelloy C
70,000 gal, 11-ft-diameter, 119 ft long,
horizontal, 35 psig operating pressure,
4 Hastelloy C dividers, 85 mill polypropyl-
ene liner, 6-in. acid brick liner, 10
agitator openings, Shell is CS
(continued)
201
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
17. Agitators, 10 100 hp, Hastelloy C
regenerator
18. Pump, filtrate return 2 2,414 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 150-h
motor, 316L SS ' P
19. Tank, leachate return 1 49,300 gal, 20-ft-diameter, 21 ft high flat
bottom, closed top, 316L SS '
20. Agitator, leachate 1 15 hp, Hastelloy C
return tank
21. Pump,leachate feed 5 1,631 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 100-ho
motor, 316L SS
Area 5—Acetone Leaching
Item ____
1. Tank, acetone mix
2. Agitators, acetone
mix tank
3. Pump, acetone
slurry
4. Cooler, acetone
slurry
5. Filter, coal
6. Pump,vacuum
7. Tank, filtrate
8. Pump, filtrate
No.
Description
5 5,000 gal, 9.5-ft-diameter, 9.5 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene lined CS
5 10 hp, neoprene coated, CS
8 507 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 30-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
27 1,295 ft2 area, 316L SS
12 30.2 ton/hr, 24-ft-diameter, 445 ft2 area
horizontal rotary pan type, 5-hp motor **
316L SS
12 150-hp system, 316L SS
12 750 gal, 4-ft-diameter, 8 ft long>
receiver, 316L SS
18 211 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal 7 <; ^
motor, CS * ' 5~hP
(continued)
202
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
6—Acetone Recovery
Item
and Coal Drying __
_ __Nj°j; Description
1. Tank, stripper feed
2. Pump, stripper feed
3. Preheater, stripper
4. Stripper, acetone
5. Reboiler, stripper
6. Condenser, acetone
7. Drum, reflux
8. Pump, reflux
Cooler, acetone
pump, bottoms
Drum, bottoms
receiver
Cooler, bottoms
Tank, bottoms
surge
Pump, neutralizer
feed
15. Tank, sulfur surge
9.
10-
11.
12.
13.
1 7,100 gal, 10-ft-diameter, 12 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, 316L SS
2 2,384 gpm, 250-ft head, centrifugal, 180-
hp motor, 316L SS
2 3,100 ft2 area, 316L SS and Hastelloy C
1 16-ft-diameter, 90 ft high, 33 valve trays,
45 psig design pressure, 316L SS
2 13,500 ft2 area, 316L SS and Hastelloy C
6 5,500 ft2 area, 316L SS
1 25,400 gal, 12-ft-diameter, 30 ft long,
horizontal, 45 psig design pressure,
316L SS
2 1,620 gpm, 325-ft head, centrifugal, 160-hp
motor, 3L6L SS
1 1,900 ft2 area, 316L SS
2 442 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 25-hp
motor, 316L SS
1 1,500 gal, 6-ft-diameter, 7 ft long,
horizontal, operating pressure 15 psig,
316L SS
4 4,000 ft2 area, 316L SS and Hastelloy C
1 1,500 gal, 6-ft-diameter, 7 ft high, cone
cottom, closed top, neoprene lined, CS
2 437 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
1 25 gal, 1-ft-diameter, 4 Ct high, cone
bottom, closed top, 316L SS
(continued)
203
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
16. Pump, sulfur
7 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 0.75-hn
motor, 316L SS
17. Tank, acetone recycle 1
18. Pump, acetone recycle 2
19. Bin, dryer feed 12
20. Dryer, coal 12
21. Condenser, acetone 5
22. Tank, acetone 12
receiver
23. Fan, induced draft 12
24. Conveyor, dryed
coal
8,200 gal, 10-ft-diameter, 14 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, CS
2,621 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 100-hp
motor, CS
15,700 ft3, 20-ft-diameter, 50 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, CS
8-ft-diameter, 80 ft long, 8,480 ft2 area
rotary steam tube type, 60-hp motor, sealed
for solvent recovery
972 ft2 area, 316L SS
212 gal, 3-ft-diameter, 4 ft high, dish head
ends, 316L SS
3,000 aftVmin at 85°F, AP, 10 in. H20, io-hp
motor, CS
420 ton/hr, 30-in. belt, 280 ft long, 7.5_hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
25. Sampler, coal
1 Automatic coal sampler
Area 7—-Leach. Solution Concentration
Item
No.
Description^
1. Tank, evaporator
feed
2. Pump, evaporator
feed
1 7,600 gal, 10-ft-diameter, 13 ft high fi
bottom, closed top, neoprene lined, CS
2 2,379 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal 12.5 ..
motor, neoprene lined, CS ' *«>-ftp
3. Preheater, evaporator 4 1,757 ft2 area, Hastelloy C
4. Evaporator 1 26-ft-diameter, long tube natural
type, 42-in.-diameter c
17,000 ft2 area heating
construction
(continued)
204
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
5. Pump, leachate
return
786 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 40-hp
motor, 316L SS
g Neutralization and Pond Water Handling
Item No. Des cr ip t ion
1. Tank, neutralizer
1 10,200 gal, 12-ft-diameter, 12 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene lined,
CS
2.
3.
Agitator, neutralizer 1 5 hp, neoprene coated, CS
tank
Pump, pond feed
4. Pipeline, pond
feed
5. Pump, pond return
Pipeline, pond
return
2 917 gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal, 150-hp
motor, neoprene lined, CS
2 5,280 ft long, 10-in.-diameter, rubber lined,
CS
2 845 gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal, 125-hp
motor, CS
1 5,280 ft long, 10-in.-diameter, CS
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tank, recycle water 1 34,500 gal, 14-ft-diameter, 30 ft high, flat
bottom, closed top, CS
Pump, wash water
Pump, wash water
Pump, leachate
recycle tank feed
Pump, slaker feed
Pump, makeup water
2 744 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 40-hp
motor, CS
2 1,010 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 50-hp
motor, CS
2 25 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 1.5-hp
motor, CS
2 316 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 15-hp
motor, CS
2 1,250 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 60-hp
motor, CS
(continued)
205
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Area 9—Product Agglomeration and Handling^
Item No.
Description
1. Conveyor, coal
2. Elevator, coal
3. Conveyor, coal
4. Briquetting plants 12
5. Conveyor, briquett 1
6. Conveyor, coal 1
bypass
7. Conveyor, transfer 1
8. Conveyor, stacking 2
9. Hopper, pile reclaim 20
10. Feeders, vibrating 20
pan
11. Conveyor, coal 2
transfer
12. Tunnel, conveyor 2
287 ton/hr, 30-ln. belt, 100 ft long, 3-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
144 ton/hr, 40 ft high, 24 in. x 8 in. x
11-3/4 in. continuous buckets, belt drive
15-hp motor, CS
287 ton/hr, 30-in. belt, 190 ft long, 40-hp
motor, totally enclosed, 12 fixed trippers
CS
25 ton/hr package briquetting plants,
including hot briquetter and all support
systems
144 ton/hr, 24-in. belt, 185 ft long, 2-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
73 ton/hr, 18-in. belt, 210 ft long, 1.5-.np
motor, totally enclosed, CS
217 ton/hr, 24-in. belt, 180 ft long, 3-hp
motor, totally enclosed, CS
638 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft long, 30-hp
motor, traveling tripper, CS
13 ft x 13 ft top opening, 3-ft-deep pyramid
with 22 in. x 22 in. bottom opening, CS
120 ton/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in.-long pan,
1.5-hp vibrator, CS
1,000 ton/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft long, 40-hp
motor, CS
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
13. Tunnel, conveyor
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long, steel
reinforced concrete
14. Pump, tunnel sump 3 60 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, l-hp
(continued)
206
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item
Description
15. Tank, sulfur
storage
16. Pump, sulfur
5,200 gal, 9-ft-inside-diameter, 11-ft-
inside-height, flat bottom, closed top,
totally underground, 10-in.-thick steel
reinforced concrete construction
40 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 5 hp,
316L SS
10 — U t i .lj£L JJfLfLgT- .Hand 1 ing
Item
No.
____ Description
1. Pump, makeup water 2 1,250 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 60-hp
motor, CS
2. Pump, cooling water 2 9,415 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 400-hp
motor, CS
3. Pump, cooling water 2 4,533 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 200-hp
motor, CS
/,. Pump, cooling water 2 3,621 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 175-hp
motor, CS
5. Pump, cooling water
2 1,690 gpm, 245-ft head, centrifugal, 155-hp
motor, CS
6. Pump, cooling water 2 472 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 20-hp
« -lor, CS
7. Pump, cooling water 2 3,206 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 150-hp
motor, CS
8. Tank, cooling tower
feed
9. Pump, cooling tower
feed
10. Tower, cooling
1 81,200 gal, 24-ft-diameter, 24 ft high, flat
bottom, open top, CS
6 5,734 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal, 250-hp
motor, CS
1 26,590 gpm, mechanical draft, crossflow type
510 total hp
(continued)
207
-------
TABLE A-10 (continued)
Item __JL°<__ _ ___ Description
2
11. Basin, cooling 1 6,000 ft area basin, steel reinforced
tower concrete
12. Pump, cooling tower 2 26,590 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 350-hp
motor, CS
Ar ea_n--^ettling_P£nd_
Item No. Description
__ poncj 1 468 acres, 21.73 ft deep, with clay lining
208
-------
TABLE A-ll. KENNECOTT COAL DESULFURIZATION PROCESS
MATERIAL BALANCE - BASE CASE
N5
O
,
2
3
«
5
6
7
•
9
O
3
J
1.
5
*
I !•
)•
«
O
1
I
1
t.
4
»
;
•
*
19
1 t
ta
t,
j*
tt
!•
, ,
t •
t «
•. (l
Stream Number
Description
Total, tons/hr
Stream components, tons
Coal
Pyritic S
Sulfate S
Oreanic S
H?0
02
CO
C02
FeS04
FefOH)2
FejO}
H7S04
02 Coal uptake
Sulfate in solution
Oi In molution
C»0
(la COH1 7
CafSO/,V?H20
Binder
tmpcrature, °T
Pre»»ur«^ p»lg
tra
1
Coal to
hall rains
680.0
ir
623.4
21.9
0.41
10.4
23.6
T5.o -'
2
Water to
ball mill
259R.O
2296.0
55.0
9194,0
3
Slurry to
suree tanlr
7a77 o
623.4
21.9
10.4
2321.8
0.41
65.0
9289.0
TABLE A-ll (continued)
4
Slurry to
preheater
2977.9
623.4
21.9
10.4
2321.8
0.41
65
20
9289
5
Slurry to
flash-gas
scrubber
2977.9
623.4
21.9
10.4
2321.8
0.41
150
15
9289
6
Slurry to
scrubber
catch tank
3280.9
623.4
21.9
10.4
2624.8
0.41
250 _
15
10,502
7
Slurry to
reactor
preheater
3280.9
623.4
21.9
10.4
2624.8
0.41
250
10,502
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-ll (continued)
TABLE A-ll (continued)
to
f—4
o
8
Slurry to
reactor
t
a
3
4
»
6
r
ft
9
!
1
1
I
1
1
!
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2 0
2
i°
3
3 2
9 9
3 <•
3 3
9 «
37
}•
19
40
3280.9
623.4
21.9
10.4
2624.8
0.41
350
315
10.502
9
02 to
reactor
129.3
129.3
315
10
Reactor
off-gas
71.8
10.6
30.6
1.6
29.0
350
315
11
Slurry to
flash tank
3338.3
597.9
2.6
8.9
2604.6
11.4
18.3
56.2
36.7
0.41
1.29
350
315
10.544
12
Flash steam
p.. scrubber
1
*
3
*
S
»
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
J 3
I *•
1 3
1 6
1 7
i a
i<»
2 O
2 I
a 2
2 3
2 <*
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 a
2 9
3O
3 1
i a
39
3*.
35
36
3 7
J«
3 9
<« D
304.29
303
1.29
250
15
13
Flash tank
slurry outlet
3034.0
597.9
2.6
8.9
2301.6
11.4
18.3
56.2
36.7
0.41
250
15
9332
14
Slurry to
preheater
3034.0
597.9
2.6
8.9
2301.6
11.4
18.3
56.2
36.7
0.41
250
9332
15
Slurry to
3034.0
597.9
2.6
8.9
2301.6
11.4
18.3
56.2
36.7
0.41
166
9332
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-ll (.continued)
1
1
1
1
1
(
!
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2 t>
2 r
2 •
2 *
i°
J 1
1 2
1 •
>v
) *
*
,,
It
"
16
Thickener
overflov
1135.4
1102.9
5.4
26.9
0.20
!(,(,
4472
17
Slurry feed
to filter
1898.6
597.9
2.6
8.9
1198.7
5.94
18.3
29.2
36.7
0.21
166
4860
18
Cake to
reslurry tank
1022.2
597.9
2.6
8.9
354.4
0.57
18.3
2.8
36.7
0.02
166
19
Slurry feed
to filter
1898.4
597.9
2.6
8.9
1230.6
0.57
18.3
2.8
36.7
0.02
166
5004
(ront i nuc-cl;
TABLE A-ll (continued)
1
3
3
(.
S
6
7
»
9
I 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 <•
,3
1 &
I r
1 8
t »
2 O
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 *.
2 S
2 6
2 7
2 •
2 «
1 2
9 9
3 <•
J 5
1 ft
, ,
1 •
1,
1,0
20
Filter solids
1022.3
597.9
2.6
8.9
357.4
0.085
18.3
0.41
36.7
144
21
Pelletizing
bypass
197.6
115.7
0.51
1.7
69.1
1.5
7.1
144
22
Coal feed
to pelletizlng
824.2
482.1
2.1
7.2
288.2
li.7
0.33
29.6
144
23
Wash water
feed to
filter
357.9
157.9
55
1432
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-ll (continued)
fc
24
H20 to
r««lurry tank
876.2
876.2
1
2
3
1.
166
3506
25
Wash water
to filter
715.7
715.7
166
2864
26
Filtrate to
neutralize!
1234.1
1231.2
0.485
2.4
0.015
144
4931
?7
Filtrate to
neutralizer
1591.9
1560.0
5.3
26.4
0.19
166
6299
N)
(continued)
TABLE A-ll (continued)
10
:2
1 3
I'-
ll
]«,
19
1»
3 O
22
,
2-.
25
2 fr
,
a
«
o
28
Lime to
s laker
36.31
36.31
55
2q
Slaked lime
to neutralizer
239.8
191.9
47.9
768
31
Slurry to
pond
4201,8
4083.2
7.08
111.5
16.337
31a
Pond settled
solids
164.0
52.2
111.5
55
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-U (continued)
-
«
32
Pond water
recycle
4031.0
4031.0
___JL . ...
n+m
33
Makeup
water to
recycle tank
420.1
420.1
55,. . . -
1681
34
Scrubber
off-gas
1.29
1.29
2J£
. _. 15
35
Binder solution
to pelletizing
21.4
10.7
10.7
L5
43
front ini
TABUS A-H (continued)
i
V
1 3
, 3
1-
15
1 6
7
9
,
O
i
3
3
,.
3
6
7
a
,
3 1
1 2
*»
]<.
,,
J«
, r
I*
T -,
^0
36
Steam from
pellet dryer
271.1
271.1
2J2
37
Pelletized
product
574.6
482.1
2.1
7.2
27.8
0.07
14.7
0.33
29.6
10.7
212
38
Clean coal
product to
storage
772.2
597.9
2.6
8.9
96.9
0.09
18.3
0.41
36.7
10.7
39
H20 to
s laker
203.2
203.2
-S5
813
(continued)
-------
TAFLE A-ll (continued)
a
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
9
J
T
3
3
J
3t
3 7
39
y 9
40
40
Steam to
reactor
preheater
i 355.3
3
3
*
9
•
,
355.3
9
1 0
i a
1 3
<.
3
*
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
t.
3
6
7
i
9
112
300
41
Steam to
water heater
98.4
98.4
422
300
42
Steam to
water heater
120.5
120.5
422
300
-------
TABLE A-12. KENNECOTT COAL DESULFURIZATION PROCESS
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
Area
1—Raw Material Handling and Preparation
Item
No.
1. Conveyor, coal
unloading transfer
2. Conveyor, stacker
3. Hoppers, pile reclaim
4. Feeders, vibrating
pan
5. Tunnels, reclaim
6. Conveyor, coal transfer
7. Pump, tunnel sump
Description
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Tunnel, transfer
Conveyor, coal
transfer
Conveyor, crusher
feed
Sampler, coal
Bin, coal surge
Feeder, weigh belt
1 1,000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 500 ft
long, 1.00-hp motor, with 2 fixed
trippers, CS
2 1,000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft
long, 40-hp motor, 1 traveling
tripper, CS
20 13-ft x 13-ft top opening, 3-ft-
deep pyramid, 22-in. x 22-in.
bottom opening, CS
20 120 tons/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in.-
long pan, with 1-1/2-hp vibrator,
CS
2 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
2 680 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft
long, 25-hp motor, CS
3 60 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal,
1-hp motor, CS
1 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
1 680 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 320 ft
long, 10-hp motor, CS
1 680 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 800 ft
long, 200-hp motor, totally enclosed,
1 fixed tripper, CS
1 Automatic coal sampler
1 227,000 ft3, 61 ft wide, 61 ft long,
61 ft high, 31-ft-deep pyramid bottom,
closed top, CS
1 680 tons/hr, 42 in. wide, 10 ft long,
5-hp motor, CS
(continued)
215
-------
TAB1.F A-12 (continued)
14,
Item
Crusher, coal.
15. Bin, coal surge
16. Feeder, weigh belt
17. Ball mill, coal
18. Tank, product surge
19. Agitator, surge tank
20. Pump, cyclone feed
21. Cyclone, oversize
coal
22. Tank, cyclone-
overflow
23. Agitator, overflow
tank
24. Pump, scrubber
feed
25. Pump, binder
unloading
Np_._
2
pescription
340 tons/hr, to crush from 3-in.-
size coal to 3/4-in. size, 200-hp
motor, totally enclosed
110,600 ft3, 48 ft. wide, 48 ft
long., 48 ft. high, 24-ft-deep
pyramid bottom, closed top, CS
340 tons/hr, 30 in. wide, 10 ft
long, 2.5-hp motor, CS
340 tons/hr, 16-ft diameter, 27
ft long, 4,500-hp motor, wet
grind ball mill, to grind coal
from 3/4-in. size to 80% minus
100 mesh, 23% solids slurry
14,000 gal, 13-ft diameter, 14 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, CS
5 hp, neoprene coated, CS
4,644 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
250-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
1,161 gpm, 18-in. diameter, heavy
duty cyclone, 15-psig operating
pressure, high density gum rubber-
lined, fiberglass reinforced
polyester
28,900 gal, 17-ft diameter, 17 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, CS
1 10 hp, neoprene coated,
CS
2 10,502 gpm, 50-ft head, centrifugal
300-hp motor, 316L SS '
2 100 gpm, 50-ft head, centrifugal
5-hp motor, CS '
(continued)
21fi
-------
TABLE A-12 (continued)
Item
Tank, binder storage
27. Pump, binder feed
28. Hoist, car shaker
29. Shaker, car
30. Puller, car
Hopper, lime
unloading
No.
Description
32.
33.
3A.
Feeder, lime
vibrating
Conveyor, lime
unloading
Conveyor, lime
unloading
35. Tunnel, conveyor
belt
36. PumP» tunnel sump
37<> Silo, lime storage
Feeder, weigh belt
Conveyor, slaker feed
1 1,880,200 gal, 80-ft diameter, 50
ft high, cone bottom, closed top,
CS
2 43 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
5-hp motor, CS
1 2,000-lb capacity with 1.5-hp
motor
1 20 hp, railroad, trackside vibrator
1 Railroad car puller with base, wire
rope, 25-hp motor, 5-hp return
motor
1 94 ft3, 8-ft 4-in. x 8-ft 4-in.
top opening, 3-ft-deep pyramid,
with 2-ft 4-in. x 2-ft 4-in.
bottom opening, CS
1 210 tons/hr, 42 in. wide, 5-ft-long
pan, 2.5-hp vibrator, CS
1 210 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 10 ft
long, 2.5-hp motor, CS
1 210 tons/hr, 24-in. belt, 436 ft
long, 30-hp motor, totally enclosed,
CS
1 7 ft wide, 6 ft high, 70 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
1 20 gpm, 20-ft head, centrifugal
sump type, 1/2-hp motor, CS
2 477,800 ft3, 78-ft diameter, 100
ft high, cone bottom, closed top, CS
2 37 tons/hr, 18-in. belt, 10 ft long,
1/2-hp motor, CS
1 37 tons/hr, 18-in. belt, 40 ft long,
1/2-hp motor, CS
(continued)
217
-------
TABLE A-12 (continued)
Item
No.
£0. Slaker, lime
41. Pump, slaker
product
42. Tank, 20% lime
feed
43. Agitator, 20% lime
feed tank
44. Pump, 20% lime feed
Description
239.8 tons/hr of 20% slaked" slurry""
product, 20 ft x 43 ft x 9.5 ft
high, 2-hp rake drive motor, 30-hp
mixer
2 768 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
40-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
1 370,900 gal, 39-ft diameter, 41.5 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, CS
1 75 hp, neoprene coated, CS
768 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
40-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
Area 2—Reactor Area
Item
1. Exchanger, feed/
effluent heat
2. Scrubber, flash
gas
3. Agitator, scrubber
4. Pump, reactor feed
5. Preheater, reactor
6. Reactor, leach
7. Agitators, reactor
No.
Description
6 5,000 ft2 area, Carpenter 20 Cb
3 15-ft diameter, 60 ft high, spray
tower with 11,000 gal, 15-ft diameter
8 ft high, cone bottom, surge tank *
15-psig operating pressure, 316L SS
3 3.5 hp, 316L SS
5 3,500 gpm, 730-ft head, centrifugal
1,500-hp motor, 316L SS *
5 4,200 ft2 area, Hastelloy C
30 28,500 gal, 9-ft diameter, 84 ft
horizontal, 330-psia operating
5 Hastelloy C dividers, 85 mill'
propylene liner, 8-in. acid brick"]T~
6 agitator openings, shell is CS Ck r>
trains of 10 each) '" V
180 75 hp, Hastelloy C
(continued)
218
-------
TABLE A-12 (continued)
Item
8. Tank, flash
9. Pump, thickener feed
rescription
11,000 gaf, 12-ft diameter, 13 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top, 15-
psig operating pressure, 250°F,
Haste]loy C
3,110 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
200-hp motor, 316T, SS
Area 3 — Coal Filtration Area
Item
_ _
^ Thickener , coal
4.
5.
6.
Pump, thickener
underflow
Tank, thickener
overflow
Pump, neutralizer
feed
Heater, wash water
Filter, coal
7. Pump, vacuum
8. Tank, filtrate
9. Pump, filtrate
0. Heater, wash water
No.
Description
9 13 ft wide, 22 ft long, 21 ft high,
inclined plate gravity settler-
thickener with increased volume
sludge compartment, 1-hp motor,
picket-fence rake
14 540 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
40-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
3 4,759 gal, 9-ft diameter, 10 ft
high, flat bottom, neoprene lined,
CS
5 1,491 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
75-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
1 985 ft2 area, CS
24 27.75 tons/hr, 12-ft diameter, 24 ft
long, 912 ft2 area, rotary drum type,
5-hp motor drive, 3-hp agitator,
316L SS
24 200-hp system, 316L SS
24 750 gal, 4-ft diameter, 8 ft long,
vacuum receiver, 316L SS
36 400 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
20-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
1 1,810 ft2 area, CS
(continued)
219
-------
TABLE A-12 (continued)
Item
11. Tank, coal wash
12. Agitator, coal wash
tank
13. Pump, filter feed
14. Filter, coal
15. Pump, vacuum
16. Tank, filtrate
17. Pump, filtrate
No.
3~
14
24
24
24
36
Description
17,300 gal,"l4.5-ft diameter, 14 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, CS
3 10 hp, neoprene coated, CS
556 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
35-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
74 tons/hr, 12-ft diameter, 24 ft
long, 912 ft2 area, rotary drum
type, 5-hp motor drive, 3-hp
agitator, 316L SS
200-hp system, 316L SS
750 gal, 4-ft diameter, 8 ft long
vacuum receiver, 316L SS '
212 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
10-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
Area 4—product Aggj^me£atj.on_aind_Hand 1 ing
ItemNo-
T.Conveyor, filtered
coal
2. Conveyor, coal storage
feed
3. Conveyor, coal bleed
4. Elevator, coal
5. Conveyor, pelletizlng
feed
Description
1 1,023 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, l6o~ f t~
long, 10-hp motor, CS
1 773 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 1,500 ft
long, 100-hp motor, 2 fixed
totally enclosed, CS
1 825 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 100 ft
long, 10-hp motor, totally enclose^
CS a»
5 165 tons/hr, 50 ft high, 24-in. x 3^
in. x 11-3/4-in. continuous bucket ""
belt drive, 15-hp motor, CS *
1 825 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 510 ft
200-hp motor, 33 fixed trippers
totally enclosed, CS *
(continued)
220
-------
TABU' A-12 (continued)
Item
No.
~6~ Palletizing plants
7. Conveyor, pellet
product
8. Conveyor, pellet
product
9. Conveyor, stocking
10. Kopper, pile reclaim
Feeders, vibrating pan
12. Conveyor, coal
transfer
. Tunnel, conveyor
Tunnel, conveyor
15. Putnp, tunnel sump
__ _________ Description
33 25 ton'/hr pellet izing~plant~,
including 23-ft diameter pan
pelletizer, dryers, and all
support systems
3 575 tons/hr, 36-in. belt, 510 ft
long, 15-bp motor, totally enclosed
CS
1 575 tons/hr, 30-in. belt, 100 ft
long, 5-hp motor, totally enclosed,
CS
2 773 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 968 ft
long, 40-hp motor, traveling tripper,
CS
20 13-ft x 13-ft top opening, 3-ft-deep
pyramid with 22-in. x 22-in. bottom
opening , CS
20 120 tons/hr, 24 in. wide, 42-in.-long
pan, 1.5-hp vibrator, CS
2 1,000 tons/hr, 42-in. belt, 970 ft
long, 40-hp motor, CS
2 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
1 7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft long,
steel reinforced concrete
3 60 gpm, 30-ft head, centrifugal, 1-
hp motor, CS
Area 5—Neutralization and Water Handling
Jtem
~1~. Tank, neutralizer
No.
Description
1 169,700 gal, 38-ft diameter,~20~fT
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, CS
(continued)
221
-------
TABLE A-12 (continued)
Item
No.
2. Agitator, neutralizer
tank
3. Pump, pond feed
4. Pipeline, pond feed
5. Pump, pond return
6. Pipeline, pond return
7. Tank, recycle water
8. Pump, water feed
9. Pump, water feed
10. Pump, water feed
11. Pump, water feed
12. Pump, water feed
13. Pump, makeup water
Description
1 15 hp, neoprene coated, CS
3 8,169 gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal,
1,250-hp motor, neoprene lined, CS
2 36-in. diameter, 5,280 ft long, rubber-
lined, CS
3 8,064 gpm, 300-ft head, centrifugal
1,250-hp motor, CS '
1 36-in. diameter, 5,280 ft long, CS
1 8,530,600 gal, 143-ft diameter, 71
ft high, flat bottom, CS
2 9,194 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
400-hp motor, CS *
2 1,432 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
60-hp motor, CS *
2 3,506 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
150-hp motor, CS *
2 2,864 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
125-hp motor, CS *
2 813 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal,
40-hp motor, CS
2 1,681 gpm, 100-ft head, centrifugal
75-hp motor, CS '
Area 6—Settling Pond
Item
1. Pond
No.
Description
"l 801 acres, 24.69 ft deep with clay"
lining
222
-------
TABLE A-13. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
MATERIAL BALANCE FOR 3.5% S COAL
TABLE A-13 (continued)
>
>
r
\ 1
1
h
r
i
1 1
ia
1 3
i
i
i
i
i
i i
20 \
* ' ]
I 3 I
3 * J
2 <• I
5 |
» I
7 1
• I
* I
1 I
J I
,
rf
rr
T
Stream No.
DescriDtion
Total stream, tons/hr
Stream components, tons/
Coal, bone dry
Pyritic S
Sulfate S
Organic S
Ash
Water
N02
05
S02
FeSOi. in coal
FeSOA. in solution
Fe2(S04)3
Fe(OH)3
Sulfate S, In solution
Na2S03
NaHSO}
NajSOi
Ca(OH)2
CaS03
CaSOi
CaSO^-2H20
NaiFei(S04)2(OH)A
CaO
NaOH
Binder
{Natural nas
preanic sulfate
1
Raw coal feed
to sizine
840.0
680.1
18.3
0.4
10.1
115.1
16.0
2
2 In.x 3/8 in.
coal to
coarse coal
cleaning
310.5
304.6
6.8
0.15
3.7
42.6
5.9
3
Product from
coarse coal
cleaning
276.7
265.3
3.6
0.13
3.3
22.4
11.4
4
Refuse from
coarse coal
cleaning
40.9
39.3
3.2
0.02
0.40
20.2
1.6
5
3/8 in.x 28 raco
to intermediat
coal cleaning
460.4
451.7
10.0
0.23
5.6
63.3
8.7
6
Product from
intermediate
coal cleaning
416.0
386.7
4.8
0.20
4.7
30.2
29.3
7
Refuse from
intermediate
coal cleaning
69.9
65.0
5.2
0.03
0.90
33.1
4.9
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3 *
3 a
3«
3 7
?•
30
4 O
6
28 m x 0 coal
to fine
coal c lean infi
» 69.1
a
3
. - 67.7
9 1.4
. 0.04
, 0.84
9.2
1.4
0
I
a
3
*
9
*
7
•
«
0
1
2
5
<.
3
6
7
•
«
9
Product from
fine coal
cleanine
79.4
58.4
0.62
0.03
0.76
4.2
21.0
10
Refuse from
fine coal
cleaninz
12.7
9.3
0.78
0.01
0.08
5.0
3.4
11
Combined
refuse to
di soosal
123.5
113.6
9.3
0.05
1.3
58.3
9.9
NJ
ro
(continued)
TABLE A-13 (continued)
12
Combined
physical product
to chemical
cleaning
i
2
3
t.
3
6
7
a
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
K.
1 3
1 6
1 7
i a
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
a 3
2 <.
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 a
2 9
30
3 1
3 2
3 3
a j.
3 3
36
3 7
3«
39
4O
772.1
710.4
9.0
0.3
8.7
56.8
61.7
13
Coal to interim
storage
220.6
181.5
2.5
0.10
2.5
16.2
17.6
14A
Direct coal
feed to
chemical
cleaning (5 days
551.5
453.9
6.4
0.25
6.2
40.5
44.0
14B
Feed from
interim
storage to
chemical
cleaning (2 days'
551.5
453.9
6.4
0.25
6.2
40.5
44.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
15
Pulverized coal
to reactor
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
3
t
a
a
2
a
2 •
9 •
l&
2/
• j
*»
*
i »
»•
1 1
• •
i
i
551.5
453.9
6.4
0.25
6.2
40.5
44.0
16
02 makeup
11.3
11.3
17
N02 makeup
0.119
0.119
18
Coarse coal
(1/4 in.x 28 m)
to coarse coal
leaching
355.9
293.6
0.08
0.16
2.8
21.1
25.9
9.6
2.4
(continued)
TABLE A-13 (continued)
19
Reactor
off -gas and
fine coal to
particulate
scrubber
i
2
3
<•
5
6
7
a
9
1 0
1
1 2
1 3
1 <-
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 •
1 9
2 O
2 1
33
2 3
2 *•
2 3
2 6
2 7
2 •
3 9
30
3 1
* 2
S 9
3-
3 9
3 *
,7
'J •
1 »
<• O
200.5
160.2
0.05
0.09
1.5
11.5
14.1
6.3
5.2
1.3
20
Fine coal
to fine coal
leaching
188.8
160.2
0.05
1.5
11.5
14.1
1.3
21
Scrubber
solution
bleed to
neutralizer
5.7
0.32
5.2
0.09
22
Off-gas to
S02 scrubber
6.0
6.0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
TABLE A-13 (continued)
to
N3
23
10X slaked lime
t" eed
i
4.
,
b
7
«
„
,
1
1
!
1
1
,
1
,
I
2 0
2 1
22
a 3
a .,
2 3
2 6
2 7
3. 8
3 9
3 O
3 !
1 2
3 3
3*.
3 -J
3 A
3 7
J«
1 9
40
69.4
- 62.4
6.9
24
20% NaOH
makeup
6.3
5.0
1.2
25
Scrubber
solution
bleed to the
neutralize
37.8
24.5
1.9
11.2
26
50% NaOH
feed to
coarse coal
17.0
8.5
8.5
i
2
1
"•
3
t.
7
8
9
1 O
L 1
12
1 -I
1".
1 ;
1 6
1 7
i a
1»
2 O
2 1
22
a 3
2 fa
2 3
2 «
2 7
2 8
39
30
9 1
1 2
3 3
3fc
3 3
3 6
3 7
It
3 »
<>O
27
Coarse coal
product
343.6
293.6
0.08
0
2.8
21.1
25.9
28
Coarse coal
bleed to
nelletizlnK
51 .5
44.0
0.012
0.4
3.1
3.8
29
Coarse coal
bvpass tc
storage
•>Q2 1
249.6
0.068
2.4
17.9
22.0
30
Coarse coal
leach solution
18.5
3.4
15.1
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
TABLE A-13 (continued)
NJ
NJ
1
2
3
4,
s
*
7
•
*
10
1 1
1 3
I 3
1 *•
1 3
1 »
1 7
1 *
*
•
1
a
»
»•
a s
i •
i
a«
f •
^£
iL
1 X
ti
fc
• i
i*
>T
1*
»*
*.«
31
50% NaOH
feed to fine
coal leaching
3.2
1.6
1.6
32
Fine coal
product
189.1
160.2
0.05
0
1.5
11.5
15.7
33
Fine coal
leach solution
to neutralizer
2.9
2.9
34
Binder
feed to
pelletizing
9.7
4.8
A. 8
35
i
2
3
U
s
6
7
»
*
10
1 1
1 2
1 9
!<•
1*
1 *
1 7
11
1 *
19
2 1
2 2
3 >
>*•
t 9
2 *
2 7
l«
£ 1
1 2
11
Jfc
15
,,
*•
1*
«O
Pelletizing
product
237. A
204.2
0.062
1.9
14.7
11.4
4.8
36
Comb ined
clean coal
product to
storage
529.5
453.9
0.13
4.3
32.6
33.5
4.8
37
20% lime
feed to
neutralizer
49.0
35.2
9.8
38
50% NaOH
feed to
neutral izer
0
0
0
(continued)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-13 (continued)
TABLE A-13 (continued)
Isi
hO
OO
1
2
3
«•
3
6
7
•
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
L
1
1
1
2
2
a
a
2
2
2
2
2 •
3 *
3 0
3>
3 3
s a
3*i
53
3*
J 7
3f
J*
feO
39
Neutralized
settling pond
_ 111.2
59. S
1.5
3. A
2.6
0.084
38.9
4.7
40
return
37.7
37.7
41
HP steam to
gas preheater
160.9
160.9
42
S t earn to
water heater
81 .3
81.3
(continued)
Steam to
fine coal
water heater
179.4
179.4
02 to
neutralization
1.5
1.5
-------
TABLE A-14. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
EQUIPMENT LIST - BASE CASE (5% S COAL)
\—Coal Receiving and Storage
1.
2.
3.
Item
No,
Description
Unloading conveyors for conveying
1,600 tons/hr, 3 in. x 0 raw coal
from unloading station to
stockpiles
Stacking conveyors for distrib-
uting coal along the tops of 2
parallel and adjacent wedge-shaped
open piles, each of 175,000 tons
Hoppers for reclaiming 807 tons/hr 20
of 3 in. x 0 raw coal from
stockpiles
Pan feeders for withdrawing 807
tons/hr of 3 in. x 0 raw coal
from reclaiming hoppers
Collecting conveyors for 807 tons/
hr of 3 in. x 0 raw coal from pan
feeders
Tunnels for collecting conveyors
-, Tunnel sump
/»
pump
Transfer conveyor
Tunnel for transfer conveyor
Tunnel sump pump
20
Inclined conveyor, 500 ft long,
with 1 fixed tripper, 48 in.
wide belt, carbon steel, with
tramp-iron magnet, 125 hp
Elevated horizontal conveyor,
1,000 ft long with 1 traveling
tripper, 48 in. wide belt, tele-
scoping chute, carbon steel,
40 hp
Reclaiming hopper with 14 ft x
14 ft top opening, 3-1/2 ft
deep pyramid, and 24 in. x 24
in. bottom opening, carbon steel
Vibratory pan feeder with 26 in.
wide x 48 in. long pan, carbon
steel, 1.5 hp vibrator
Horizontal conveyor, 1,000 ft
long with 36 in. wide belt,
carbon steel, 35 hp
Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel
8 ft wide x 6 ft deep x 1,000 ft
long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 ft
head, carbon steel, 1 hp
Horizontal conveyor, 320 ft long
with 36 in. wide belt, carbon
steel, 10 hp
Steel-reinforced concrete tunnel,
7 ft wide x 6 ft deep x 320 ft
long
Centrifugal pump, 60 gpm, 30 ft
head, carbon steel, 1 hp
(continued)
229
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
11.
12.
13.
Delivery conveyor for 807 tons/hr
of 3 in. x 0 raw coal to raw coal
sizing area
Automatic sampling of coal from
stockpile to raw coal sizing
area
Bulldozer for servicing raw coal
storage piles
Inclined conveyor, enclosed
600 ft long, 36 in. wide belt,
with belt scale, carbon steel'
75 hp
Automatic sampler of plate or
similar type conforming with
ASTM sampling requirements,
primary sampling from 403 tons/
hr of 3 in. x 0 coal from deliverv
conveyors
Diesel bulldozer, 100 hp
Area 2—Raw Coal Sizing
Item
No.
Description
1. Raw coal screens for sizing 807
tons/hr of 3 in. x 0 coal to
95 tons/hr of 3 in. x 1-1/4 in.,
293 tons/hr of 1-1/4 in. x 3/8
in., and 419 tons/hr of 3/8 in.
x 0
2. Crusher for reducing 95 tons/hr
of 3 in. x 1-1/4 in. coal to
2 in. x 0
3. Prewet screen for sizing, 95
tons/hr of crushed coal at
3/8 in.
Double-deck horizontal vibrating
screen, 6 ft wide x 16 ft long,
low-noise suspension, standard
positioning of water sprays for
both decks, stainless steel
flanged plates for screening at
1-1/4 in. and 3/8 in., carbon
steel body, 15 hp
Single roll crusher with 24 in.
x 24 in. roll and stationary
breaker plate, materials of
construction suited to secondarv
crushing of medium-hard bitumino«>
coal, 25 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen 4 ft
wide x 16 ft long, low-noise sus-
pension, standard positioning of
water sprays, stainless steel
plate for screening at 3/8 in.,
carbon steel body, 10 hp
(continued)
230
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Sieve bends for partial dewatering
and screening of 66 tons/hr of 28
mesh x 0 coal from 508 tons/hr of
3/8 in. x 0 coal
Fines screens for finish screening
of 66 tons/hr of 28 mesh x 0 coal
from 508 tons/hr of 3/8 in. x 0
coal
Description
Reversible sieve bend, 7 ft
wide, with deck of 1/8 in.
Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced
for 1.2 mm opening, including
feed box distributor, carbon
steel body, 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen,
8 ft wide x 16 ft long, deck
of 3/32 in, Bixby-Zimmer, Iso-
Rod spaced for sizing at 28
mesh, low-noise suspension,
standard positioning of water
sprays, carbon steel body,
20 hp
—Coarse Coal Cleaning
1.
Item
No.
Description
Dense medium vessels for processing
298 tons/hr of 2 in. x 3/8 in. coal,
using magnetite medium at nominal
specific gravity of 1.55 for
production of 253 tons/hr of float
2.
Rinse screens for 253 tons/hr of
clean coal (float) at 2 in. x
3/8 in. from dense medium vessel
(continued)
Trough-type vessel, 7 ft wide,
with single chain and flight
conveyor for float and sink
removals at opposite ends of
vessel, float and sink inclines
constructed from steel wedge
wire for drainage of medium
from float and sink products
to bath, controlled level of
bath, controlled distribution
of medium recirculated to bath,
carbon steel frame and tank,
high carbon steel wear bars on
conveyor, 20 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 6
ft wide x 16 ft long, low-noise
suspension, standard positioning
of water sprays, carbon steel
frame, deck of 1/8 inch Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 1 mm
opening, 15 hp
231
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
Rinse screens for 45 tons/hr of
refuse (sink) from dense medium
vessel
No.
1
Centrifuge for dewatering 253
tons/hr of 2 in. x 3/8 in. clean
coal from rinse screens
Description
Horizontal vibrating screen,
4 ft wide x 16 ft long, low-
noise suspension, standard
positioning of water sprays,
carbon steel frame, deck of
1/8 in. Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod
spaced for 1 mm opening, 10 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis'of
basket, cone-shaped basket of
stainless steel screen, indi-
vidual motors and drives for
basket rotation, for vibration
along the axis of the basket,
and if so designed, for oil
pumping, carbon steel body,
60 hp total
Area 4—Intermediate Coal Cleaning
Item
No.
Description
1. Dense medium cyclone feed sump
for makeup of coal slurry con-
prising 442 tons/hr coal at
3/8 in', x 28 mesh and 2,290
tons/hr magnetite medium,
nominal specific gravity of
magnetite medium 1.55
2. Pumps for feeding coal slurry
to dense medium cyclones
3. Dense medium cyclones for
separation of 3/8 in. x 28
mesh coal at specific
gravity 1.55
Cylindrical tank, 14 ft dia x
2 ft high, with 60° cone botto*
and closed top, 7,000 gal,
ground-level installation*
carbon steel *
Centrifugal pump, 3,630 gpm
70 ft total head, 200 hp
Dense medium cyclone, 24 ln
dia with tangential entry of
feed and exit of clean coal
tops, cone angle about 20°
hard nickel or similarly *
abrasion-resistant iron
(continued)
232
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
No.
Description
Sieve bends for partial drainage
of medium from 370 tons/hr of clean
coal tops from dense medium cyclones
Drain and rinse screens for 370
tons/hr clean coal tops at 3/8
in. x 28 mesh
Centrifuges for dewatering 370
tons/hr of 3/8 in. x 28 mesh
clean coal from drain and
rinse screens
8.
Sieve bends for partial drainage
of medium from 72 tons/hr of
3/8 in- x 28 mesh refuse from
dense medium cyclones
Drain and rinse screens for 72
tons/hr of 3/8 in. x 28 mesh
refuse
Reversible sieve bend, 7 ft
wide, with deck of 3/32 in.
Bixby-Zimttver Iso-Rod spaced
for 3/4 mm opening, including
feed box distributor, 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen,
8 ft wide x 16 ft long, standard
positioning of water sprays in
rinse section, 2-compartment
pan for separate collections
of medium and rinse water, low-
noise suspension, deck of 3/32
in. Bixby-Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced
for 1/2 mm opening, carbon steel
frame, 20 hp
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis of
basket, cone shaped basket of
stainless steel screen, individual
motors and drives for basket
rotation, for vibration along the
axis of the basket, and if so
designed, for oil pumping, carbon
steel body, 85 hp total
Reversible sieve bend, 4 ft wide,
with deck of 3/32 in. Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 3/4
mm opening, including feed box
distributor, 0 hp
Horizontal vibrating screen, 5 ft
wide x 16 ft long, standard posi-
tioning of water sprays in rinse
section, 2-compartment pan for
separate collections of medium
and rinse water, low-noise sus-
pension, deck of 3/32 in. Bixby-
Zimmer Iso-Rod spaced for 1/2
mm opening, carbon steel frame,
12 hp
(continued)
233
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
9.
Centrifuge for dewatering 72
tons/hr of 3/8 in. x 28 mesh
refuse from drain and rinse
screens
_Np_.
1
10.
Dense medium recovery system for
dilute medium from rinse screens
in coarse and intermediate
cleaning areas
Description
Vibrating basket centrifuge,
horizontal or vertical axis'
of basket, cone shaped basket
of stainless steel screen,
individual motors and drives
for basket rotation, for vibra-
tion along the axis of the basket,
and if so designed, for oil pump-
ing, carbon steel body, 60 hp
total
Double-drum magnetite recovery
unit with permanent magnets in
drums, 30 in. dia x 10 ft long
drum, 2 drums in series/unit,
complete with dilute medium
sump, magnetite scraper, etc.,
installed at elevation above
dense medium separators, carbon
steel, 10 hp/unit
Area 5--Fine Coal Cleaning
Item
No.
1.
2.
3.
Froth flotation feed sump for
makeup of coal slurry at 10%
solids using 66 tons/hr of
28 mesh x 0 coal
Pump for feeding coal slurry to
froth flotation cells
Froth flotation cells for
treatment of 66 tons/hr of
28 mesh x 0 coal
Des c r ip tjlon
Cylindrical tank, 12-1/2 ft
dia x 2 ft high with 60° cone
bottom and closed top, 5,500
gal, ground-level installation,
carbon steel
Centrifugal pump, 2,700 gpm,
60 ft total head, 75 hp
Bank of 4 froth flotation cells
with 300 ft3/cell, provisions
for agitation, aeration, and
skimming of froth from cell
each bank arranged with 1 feed
box and 1 tailings box, provisions
for reagent storage and reagent
feeding, carbon steel, 130 hp/bar.k
(continued)
234
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
4.
Disk filter for filtration of
56 tons/hr clean coal from
froth flotation
6.
Thickener receiving 2,360 gpm of
refuse slurry (tailings) from
froth flotation and filtrate from
refuse filter
Disk filter for filtration of
11 tons/hr refuse (underflow)
from thickener
Pump for returning 2,280 gpm of
clarified water
Description
Continuous rotary vacuum disk
filter, 12 ft, 6 in. dia x 11
disk, 55 stainless steel wire
cloth, complete with vacuum
pumps and receiver, moisture
trap, filtrate pump, and blower,
580 hp
Single compartment bridge-
supported thickener with 80 ft
dia reinforced concrete tank,
system includes drive unit and
lifting device, rake mechanism,
feed well, overflow arrangement
underflow arrangement, and
instrumentation, rotation drive
5 hp, lifting drive, 1 hp
Continuous rotary vacuum disk
filter, 12 ft, 6 in. dia x 6
disk, stainless steel wire
cloth, complete with vacuum
pump and receiver, moisture
trap, filtrate pump, and blower,
200 hp
Centrifugal pump, 1,140 gpm,
150 ft total head, 75 hp
I.tem_ .
i Collecting conveyor for 128
tons/hr of 2 in. x 0 refuse
2 Refuse bin for truck loading
_No.
1
(continued)
235
Horizontal and inclined belt
conveyor, 400 ft long with
24 in. wide belt, carbon steel,
15 hp
Storage bin, 16 ft wide x 26
ft long x 18 ft high on vertical
sides, 13 ft deep pyramidal bottom
with fast opening slides for truck
loading, 3.5 hp
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
3. Trucks for transporting 128
tons/hr of 2 in. x 0 refuse
1 mile from coal cleaning
plant to refuse disposal
site
4. Refuse disposal site for 30-yr
operation
5. Bulldozer for spreading refuse
and earth in layers at disposal
site
Off-highway diesel-electric
dump truck, 100 ton payload,
100 yd3 capacity, dump body
for 2 in. x 0 moist, sluggish,
abrasive refuse
"Dry" storage site with 26,000
acre-ft capacity for layered
refuse and earth
Diesel bulldozer, 100 hp
Area 7—Interim Coal Storage
Item
1. Collecting conveyor for 679
tons/hr of 2 in. x 0 cleaned
coal
2. Conveyor, storage bypass
3. Conveyor, coal silo feed
4. Silo, coal storage
5. Feeder, coal
6. Conveyor, coal transfer
No.
Horizontal conveyor, 300 ft
long with 36 in. wide belt,
carbon steel, 20 hp
552 tons/hr, 42 in. belt, 650
ft long, 20 hp motor, carbon
steel
221 tons/hr, 24 in. belt, 880
ft long, 30 hp motor, 4 fixed
trippers, carbon steel
264,720 ft3, 70 ft dia, 70 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top
carbon steel
552 tons/hr rotary gate feeder,
2 hp motor, carbon steel
552 tons/hr, 42 in. belt, 88O ft
long, 75 hp motor, carbon ste«l
(continued)
236
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
g __ Raw Material Handling and Preparation^
No.
Description
Feeder, weigh belt
Crusher, coal
Screen, coal
Crusher, coal
Conveyor, reactor area feed
Pump, N02 unloading
Tank, N02 storage
Pump, binder unloading
Automatic coal sampler
3,600 ft3, 15 ft wide, 15 ft
long, 16 ft high, 13 ft deep
pyramid bottom, closed top,
carbon steel
297 tons/hr, 42 in. belt, 10
ft long, 2 hp motor, carbon
steel
297 tons/hr, double roll type,
36 in. dia rolls, 2 each, 25
hp motors, totally enclosed,
carbon steel
297 tons/hr, 119 ft2 area, 7
ft x 17 ft, flip flow vibrating
screen deck, 40 hp motor, carbon
steel
173 tons/hr, double roll type,
30 in. dia rolls, 2 each, 20 hp
motors, totally enclosed, carbon
steel
593 tons/hr, 42 in. belt, 560 ft
long, 100 hp motor, with 4 fixed
trippers, totally enclosed,
carbon steel
70 gpm, 415 ft head, positive
displacement, 15 hp motor, 316
stainless steel
17,600 gal, 10 ft dia, 30 ft
long, horizontal type, 150 psig
operating pressure, 316 stain-
less steel
40 gpm, 50 ft head, centrifugal,
2 hp motor, carbon steel
(continued)
237
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
11. Pump, binder storage
12. Pump, binder feed
13. Pump, NaOH unloading
14. Tank, NaOH storage
15. Pump, NaOH feed
16. Pump, NaOH feed
17. Pump, NaOH feed
18. Pump, NaOH transfer
19, Tank, 20% NaOH mix
20. Agitator, NaOH mix tank
21. Pump, 20% NaOH feed
22. Hoist, car shaker
23. Shaker, car
No.
1
1
Description
887,000 gal, 55 ft dia, 50 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
carbon steel
20 gpm, 200 ft head, centrifugal,
5 hp motor, carbon steel
55 gpm, 40 ft head, centrifugal,
1.5 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
994,000 gal, 59 ft dia, 50 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
13 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
1 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
38 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
3 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
28 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
3 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
13 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal.
1 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
25,470 gal, 17 ft dia, 15 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
15 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
52 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
3 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
2,000 Ib capacity, 15 hp motor
Railroad, trackside vibrator
20 hp *
(continued)
238
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
24. Puller, car
25. Hopper, lime unloading
26. Feeder, lime vibrating
27. Conveyor, lime unloading
28 Conveyor, lime unloading
29. Tunnel, conveyor
30
Pump, tunnel sump
31. Silo, lime storage
32. Feeder, weigh belt
33. Conveyor, slaker feed
34. Slaker, lime
35. Pump, lime slaker product
_Np_.
1
Description
Railroad car puller with base,
wire rope, 25 hp motor, 5 hp
return motor
94 ft3, 8 ft 4 in. x 8 ft 4 in.
top opening, 3 ft deep pyramid,
with 2 ft 4 in. x 2 ft 4 in.
bottom opening
210 tons/hr, 42 in. wide, 5 ft
long pan, 2.5 hp vibrator,
carbon steel
210 tons/hr, 24 in. belt, 10
ft long, 2.5 hp motor, carbon
steel
210 tons/hr, 24 in. belt, 381
ft long, 25 hp motor, totally
enclosed, carbon steel
6 ft wide, 6 ft high, 70 ft
long, steel reinforced concrete
20 gpm, 20 ft head, centrifugal,
0.5 hp motor, carbon steel
430,000 ft3, 74 ft dia, 100 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
carbon steel
22 tons/hr, 12 in. belt, 10 ft
long, 0.5 hp motor, carbon steel
22 tons/hr, 12 in. belt, 40 ft
long, 0.75 hp motor, carbon
steel
105.5 tons/hr of 20% slaked
slurry product, 20 ft x 43 ft
x 9.5 ft high, 2 hp motor on
rake drive, 30 hp mixer
338 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
20 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
(continued)
239
-------
TABLE A-1A (continued)
Item
No.
Description
36. Tank, 20% lime feed
37. Agitator, 20% lime feed tank
38. Pump, 20% lime feed
39. Tank, 10% lime feed
40. Agitator, 10% lime feed tank
41. Pump, 10% lime feed
25,470 gal, 17 ft dia, 15 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
50 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
3 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
322,400 gal, 38 ft dia, 38 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
20 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
647 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
30 hp motor, neoprene lined
carbon steel
Area 9—Sulfur Oxidation
Item
No.
Description
1. Bin, reactor feed
2. Feeder, weigh belt
3. Reactor, fluidized bed
Fan, scrubber forced draft
5,670 ft3, 19 ft dia, 20 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
carbon steel
149 tons/hr, 24 in. belt, 15 ft
long, 1 hp motor, carbon steel
22.3 ft dia, 51 ft high side
cone bottom, cone top, 3. atnios.
phere operating pressure, 315
stainless steel
140,740 aft3/min at 200°F Ap
15 in. H20, 450 hp motor, *316
stainless steel
(continued)
240
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
5.
6.
7.
Item
i - -
Fan, recirculating
Heater, oxidizing gas
"Scrubber," vent gas combustion
No.
Description
140,740 aftS/min at 200°F, AP
15 in. H20, 450 hp motor, 316
stainless steel
8,080 ft2 area, 316 stainless
steel
10 ft x 10 ft natural gas fired
N02IDIZER, 10 hp blower, 35 ft
of stack, carbon steel
?n--Reactor Off-Gas Cleaning
, Scrubber, particulate
j. •
2.
3.
Thickener, fine coal
pump, thickener underflow
Tank, thickener overflow
Pump, venturi feed
Absorber, S02
No.
Description
Venturi, 14.8 ft dia, 52 ft
high, with mist eliminator,
316 stainless steel
13 ft wide, 22 ft long, 21 ft
high, inclined plate gravity
settler-thickener with increased
volume sludge compartment, 1 hp
picket-fence rake
354 gpm, 160 ft head, centrifugal,
40 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
6,600 gal, 7.5 ft dia, 20 ft
high, flat bottom, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
2,100 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
100 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
Venturi, 14.8 ft dia, 52 ft high,
with mist eliminator, 316 stain-
less steel
(continued)
241
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
No.
7. Tank, effluent surge
8. Agitator, effluent surge tank
Description
16,100 gal, 14 ft dia, 14 ft
high, cone bottom, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated,
carbon steel
9. Pump, effluent
10. Thickener, absorber
11. Pump, thickener underflow
1,570 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 75 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
13 ft wide, 22 ft long, 21 ft
high, inclined plate gravity
settler-thickener with increased
volume sludge compartment, 1 hp
picket-fence rake
176 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
10 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
12. Tank, thickener overflow
neutralizer
4,280 gal, 9 ft dia, 9 ft high,
cone bottom, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
13. Agitator, thickener
14. Pump, thickener underflow
5 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
1,408 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
75 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
15. Fan, absorber, forced draft
140,740 aftj/min at 200°F, AP
15 in. H20, 450 hp motor, 316
stainless steel
Area 11-Fine Coal Leaching^
Item
1. Tank, water leach
2. Agitator, water leach tank
No.
Description
3,600 gal, 8.5 ft dia, 8.5 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
(continued)
242
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
No.
Description
3. Pump, cyclone feed
, Cyclone, water leach
7t Heater, process water
g. Pump, cyclone feed
o,. Cyclone, water leach
Cyclone, caustic leach
Tank, cyclone underflow
36
5. Tank, cyclone underflow
Agitator, cyclone underflow tank 4
4
6
24
10. Tank' cyclone underflow
Agitator' cyclone underflow tank 4
12. Pump, cyclone feed 6
36
722 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 125 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
1,614 gal, 6.5 ft dia, 6.5 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
5 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
178 ft^ area, carbon steel
523 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifugal,
100 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
3,600 gal, 8.5 ft dia, 8.5 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
752 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifugal,
125 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
850 gal, 5.25 ft dia, 5.25 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
(continued)
243
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
No.
15. Agitator, cyclone underflow tank 4
Description
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
16. Pump, slurry transfer
17. Thickener, fine coal
18. Pump, thickener underflow
85 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
15 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
10 ft wide, 19 ft long, 21 ft
high, inclined plate gravity
settler-thickener with increased
volume sludge compartment, 1 hp
picket-fence rake
3.5 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
0.25 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
19. Tank, thickener overflow
2,000 gal, 7 ft dia, 7 ft high,
flat bottom, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
20. Pump, thickener overflow
21. Tank, leach mix
22. Agitator, leach mix tank
23. Pump, cyclone feed
24. Cyclone, water wash
36
25. Tank, cyclone underflow
26. Agitator, cyclone underflow tank 4
(continued)
667 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
30 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
7,800 gal, 11 ft dia, 11 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
5 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
758 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifugal*
125 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
3,800 gal, 8.5 ft dia, 9 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
244
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
27. Pump, cyclone feed
28. Cyclone, water wash
29. Tank, cyclone underflow
30
31 Pump, cyclone feed
32. Cyclone, wash water
33 Tank, cyclone underflow
3A
35f Pump, centrifugal feed
36< Heater, process water
37. Heater, process water
Centrifuge, fine coal
Description
36
Agitator, cyclone underflow tank 4
36
Agitator, cyclone underflow tank 4
4
4
4
758 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 125 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
3,800 gal, 8.5 ft dia, 9 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
758 gpm, 260 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 125 hp motor, carbon steel
90 gpm, 6 in. dia, heavy duty
cyclone, 100 psig operating
pressure, high density gum
rubber-lined cast iron and
steel
1,270 gal, 6 ft dia, 6 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
437 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
30 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
144 ft2 area, carbon steel
2
102 ft area, carbon steel
44 in. dia, 132 in. long,
continuous screen bowl type,
200 hp motor
(continued)
245
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
39. Tank, centrate
40. Pump, centrate return
41. Conveyor, centrifuge product
42. Conveyor, centrifuge product
43. Sampler, coal
44. Elevator, bucket
No.
Description
4 2,000 gal, 7 ft dia, 7 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, carbon
steel
6 670 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 30 hp motor, carbon steel
1 209 tons/hr, 30 in. belt, 160
ft long, 5 hp motor, carbon
steel
1 209 tons/hr, 30 in. belt, 180 ft
long, 5 hp motor, carbon steel
1 Automatic coal sampler
2 105 tons/hr, 40 ft high, 16 in.
x 8 in. x 11-3/4 in. continuous
buckets, belt drive, 7.5 hp
motor, carbon steel
Area 12—Coarse Coal Leaching
Item
1. Dewaterer, water leach
2. Pump, overflow
3. Dewaterer, water leach
4. Pump, dewaterer overflow
No.
Description
100 tons/hr, single screw,
spiral dewaterer, 54 in. dia
flights, 34 ft tube length,
40 hp motor, closed top,
carbon steel
347 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 20 hp motor, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54 in. dia flights
34 ft tube length, 40 hp motor,
carbon steel
406 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 20 hp motor, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
(continued)
246
-------
TABLE A-1A (continued)
5. Heater, process water
6. Tank, caustic leach
7, Agitator, caustic leach tank
8. Pump, thickener feed
9. Thickener, coarse coal
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16-
pump, thickener underflow
Tank, thickener overflow
Pump, thickener overflow
Tank, caustic leach
Agitator, caustic leach tank
Dewaterer,
water wash
pump, dewaterer overflow
A
4
163 ft2 area, carbon steel
10,000 gal, 12 ft dia, 12 ft
high, cone bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
980 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 60 hp motor, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 ft wide, 19 ft long, 21 ft
high, inclined plate gravity
settler-thickener with increased
volume sludge compartment, 1 hp
picket-fence rake
641 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
50 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
975 gal, 5.5 ft dia, 5.5 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
339 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
20 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
6,460 gal, 10 ft dia, 11 ft high,
flat bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
5 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54 in. dia flights,
34 ft tube length, 40 hp motor,
closed top, carbon steel
900 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
40 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
(continued)
247
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
18. Pump, dewaterer overflow
19. Dewaterer, water wash
20. Pump, dewaterer overflow
21. Tank, water wash
22. Agitator, water wash tank
23. Heater, process water
24. Pump, centrifuge feed
25. Heater, process water
26. Centrifuge, coarse coal
27. Tank, centrate
28. Pump, centrate return
29. Conveyor, centrifuge product
No.
17. Dewaterer, water wash
4
6
4
4
Description
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54 in. dia flights,
34 ft tube length, 40 hp motor,
closed top, carbon steel
336 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
15 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
100 tons/hr, single screw spiral
dewaterer, 54 in. dia flights
34 ft tube length, 40 hp motor,
closed top, carbon steel
336 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
15 hp motor, neoprene lined,
carbon steel
1,070 gal, 5.5 ft dia, 6 ft high,
cone bottom, closed top, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
58 ft2 area, carbon steel
230 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal.
25 hp motor, neoprene lined
carbon steel *
58 ft2 area, carbon steel
230 gpm, continuous oscillating
bowl, 25 hp motor and 5 hp motor
1,070 gal, 5.5 ft dia, 6 ft
336 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal.
15 hp motor, carbon steel
384 tons/hr, 30 in. belt, U0 ft
long, 5 hp motor, carbon steel
(continued)
248
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
30. Sampler, coal
31. Conveyor, coarse coal bleed
32. Conveyor, stacker feed
33. Elevator, coal dryer feed
34 Elevator, coal mix bin feed
Description
1 Automatic coal sampler
1 56 tons/hr, 18 in. belt, 50
ft long, 5 hp motor, carbon
steel
1 596 tons/hr, 42 in. belt, 715
ft long, 50 hp motor, carbon
steel
8 100 tons/hr, 96 ft high, 24 in.
x 8 in. x 11-3/4 in. continuous
buckets, double chain drive, 20
hp motor, carbon steel
2 134 tons/hr, 40 ft high, 20 in.
x 8 in. x 11-3/4 in. continuous
buckets, belt drive, 7.5 hp
motor, carbon steel
13—Product Agglomeration and Handling
•—~~ ^~
Item
Bin, coal mix
Feeder, coal
3. Conveyor, coal transfer
4. Palletizing plants
No.
11
(continued)
Description
1,725 ftj, 13 ft dia, 13 ft
high, cone bottom, carbon
steel
266 tons/hr, 30 in. belt, 5 ft
long, 1.5 hp motor, carbon
steel
266 tons/hr, 30 in. belt, 200
ft long, 40 hp motor, 11 fixed
trippers, carbon steel
25 tons/hr package pelletizing
plants including 23 ft dia pan
pelletizer, dryers and all
support systems
249
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
5. Conveyor, pelletizer product
6. Conveyor, pelletizer product
7. Conveyor, stacker
8. Hopper, pile reclaim
9. Feeders, vibrating pan
10. Conveyor, coal transfer
11. Tunnel, conveyor
12. Tunnel, conveyor
13. Pump, tunnel sump
No.
1
20
20
125 tons/hr, 24 in. belt,
185 ft long, 2 hp motor/
carbon steel
125 tons/hr, 24 in. belt,
130 ft long, 2 hp motor/
carbon steel
596 tons/hr, 42 in. belt
968 ft long, 25 hp motor*
traveling tripper, carbon
steel
13 ft x 13 ft top opening,
3 ft deep pyramid, with 22
in. x 22 in. bottom opening
carbon steel
120 tons/hr, 24 in. wide 42
in. long pan, 1.5 hp vibrator
carbon steel
1,000 tons/hr, 42 in. belt 970
ft long, 40 hp motor, carbon
steel
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 970 ft
long, steel-reinforced concrete
7 ft wide, 6 ft deep, 320 ft
long, steel-reinforced concrete
60 gpm, 30 ft head, centrifugal
1 hp motor, carbon steel
Area 14—Leach Solution Neutralization and Water Handling
Item No. D
1. Tank, neutralizer stage 1 4
2. Agitator, neutralizer stage 1 tank 4
25,600 gal, 16 ft dia, 17 f,
high, flat bottom, closed ton
neoprene lined, carbon steei '
10 hp, neoprene coated C~K
steel ' carbon
(continued)
250
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
3.
Item
Tank, neutralizer stage 2
No.
Agitator, neutralizer stage 2 tank 4
5.
6.
Tank, neutralizer stage 3
Agitator, neutralizer stage 3 tank 4
Tank, neutralizer stage 4
/ «
Agitator,
neutralizer stage 4 tank 4
9.
10.
11-
12-
13-
15-
16.
pump, P°nd feed
pipeline, pond feed
pump, pond return
pipeline, pond return
Tank, recycle water
pump, water feed
Pump, water feed
Pump)
water feed
Description
8,500 gal, 11 ft dia, 12 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
8,500 gal, 11 ft dia, 12 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
8,500 gal, 11 ft dia, 12 ft
high, flat bottom, closed top,
neoprene lined, carbon steel
10 hp, neoprene coated, carbon
steel
11,480 gpra, 300 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 1,750 hp motor, neoprene
lined, carbon steel
30 in. dia, 5,280 ft long, rubber
lined, carbon steel
11,156 gpm, 300 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 1,500 hp motor, carbon steel
30 in. dia, 5,280 ft long, carbon
steel
5,400,000 gal, 150 ft dia, 41 ft
high, flat bottom, carbon steel
4,184 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
200 hp motor, carbon steel
697 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
30 hp motor, carbon steel
39 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifugal,
2 hp motor, carbon steel
(continued)
251
-------
TABLE A-14 (continued)
Item
17. Pump, water feed
18. Pump, water feed
19. Pump, water feed
20. Pump, water feed
21. Pump, makeup water
No.
Description^
1,152 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 50 hp motor, carbon steel
2,441 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 125 hp motor, carbon steel
1,624 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 75 hp motor, carbon steel
1,771 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 75 hp motor, carbon steel
752 gpm, 100 ft head, centrifu-
gal, 40 hp motor, carbon steel
Area 15--Settling Pond
Item
No.
Descripjtion
1. Pond
932 acres, 25.58 ft deep,
with clay lining
252
-------
APPENDIX B
ECONOMIC DATA
253
-------
TABLE B-l. FCC 1 PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
medium cyclone, froth flotation)
Uirrct_ Investment
Case variation - 0.7% S coal
Investment, $
Coal receiving and storage g ^g QQQ
Raw coal sizing l,'616,'oOO
Coarse coal cleaning 1,575,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2 234 000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696*000
Refuse disposal as landfill 1,904 000
Clean coal storage 8,459?QQQ
Total areas 27,283,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,637 000
Total direct investment 28,920,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,429,000
Architect and engineering contractor 578,000
Construction expense 3,441 000
Contractor fees 972 QOO
Total indirect investment
Cont ingency
Total f;>.<'c invest •;»•.!
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 4,179 000
Interest during construction 5,851,QQQ
Total depreciable investment 51,821,000
Land 2,174,000
Working capital 10.696^000
Total capital investment 64,691,000
Dollars of total capital per kU of generating
capacity 32.35
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
254
-------
TABLE B-2. PCC I PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
mediun cyclone, froth flotation)
- — ~— — — — • — • ' •
Case variation - Q.7X S coal
Annual
quantity
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
283,400 tons
144,000 man-hr
47,600 legal
14,900,000 kWh
97,000 gal
2,720 tons
4,000 man-hr
Unit
cost. $
31.58/ton
13.80/man-hr
0.13/kgal
0.039/kUh
0.70/aal
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, $
8,949,000
8,949,000
1,987,000
6,000
581,000
68,000
254,000
1,735,000
75,000
4,706,000
13,655,000
Jndirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6X of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 103! of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
3,109,000
5,563,000
993,000
199,000
9,864,000
23,519,000
None
Total annual revenue requirements
23,519,000
C/lb
MA.U_s/kWh jailtur. raBftV-ttd
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 2.14 188
Basis
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MW-c«»l-r i rod i>ow,.r ,,i.,nt ,.„ ,. , ,
9.500 Btu/kWh and 5.500 hr/yr. ' 'M'.>.itinB .it
Total direct investment, $28,920,000; total depreciable Investment SSI »}1 OOft- i
total capital investment, $64,691,000. ' *51 >82V •000; -lnd
^r ,„,, , •, mil
.....
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,354,000 tons/yr, 0.62X si.lfvir 7
Btu/U>, imd 0.51 Ib S/MBtu. '
255
-------
TABLE B-3. PCC 1 PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
medium cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 2% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Invi-stni.¥nt
Coal receiving and storage
Raw coal sizing
Coarse coal cleaning
Intermediate coal cleaning
Fine coal cleaning
Refuse disposal as landfill
Clean coal storage
Total areas
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous
Total direct investment
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
Cither Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications
Interest during construction
Total depreciable investment
Land
Working capital
Total capital investment
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity
8,529,000
1,543,000
1,512,000
2,132,000
2,573,000
2,558,000
8,028,000
26,875,000
1,613,000
28,488,000
2,393,000
570,000
3,390,000
957,000
7,310,000
5,370,000
41,168,000
4,117,000
5,764,000
51,049,000
3,008,000
8,829,000
62,886,000
31.44
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
256
-------
TABLE B-4. PCC I PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
medium cyclone, froth flotation)
Cas<
> variation - 2% S coal
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost. S
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Converstion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
315,600 tons
31.58/ton
144,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
9.966.000
9,966,000
1,987,000
39,600 kgal
14,108,000 kWh
119,000 gal
2,490 tons
4,000 man-hr
0.13/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
5,000
550,000
83,000
232,000
1,709,000
75,000
4,641,000
14,607,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
3,063,000
5,408,000
993,000
199.0OO
9,663,000
24.270,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kWh sultur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 2.21
33.5
24,270,000
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for sea Una mid-1982- nl
30years; operatins time, 6,000 hr/yr. ' ' '
Cd1r 2
' «1.0«.000; and
.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,749,000 tons/yr. 1.36Z sulfur, , *„ .
Btu/lb, and 0.97 Ib S/MBtu. *' "• >*.000
257
-------
TABLE B-5. PCC I PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
medium cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 3.5% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,608,000
Raw coal sizing 1,564,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,547,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,162,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,594,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,581 000
Clean coal storage 8,'048.'000
Total areas 27,104,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,626 000
Total direct investment 28,730,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,413,000
Architect and engineering contractor 575,000
Construction expense 3,419,000
Contractor fees 965,000
Total indirect Investment 7,372,000
Contingency 5,415,000
Total fixed investment 41,517,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 4,152,000
Interest during construction 5,812,000
Total depreciable investment 51,481,000
Land 3,034,000
Working capital 9,110.000
Total capital Investment 63,625,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 31.81
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ningmid-1979, ending mid-1982^ average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeka operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
258
-------
TABLE B-6. PCC I PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
tnediun cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 3.5Z S coal
Annual Unit
Quantity co.t, f
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
368,650 tons
144,000 man-hr
39,600 kgal
14,337,000 kWh
121,000 gal
2,550 tons
4,000 man-hr
31.58/ton
13.80/wan-hr
0.13/kgal
0. 039/kWh
0.70/gal
93.31/ton
18.70/Mn-hr
Total annual
cost. $
H.642. 000
11,642,000
1,987,000
5,000
559,000
85,000
238,000
1,723.000
____751000
4,672,000
16,314,000
InJireet Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and Insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
2.37
22.3
Basis
3,089,000
5.472.000
993,000
199,TOO
9,753,000
26,067,000
26,067,000
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaline -JH ,o«, ,
30 years; operating tlmo, 6,000 hr/yr. scaling. Kld-1982; plant life,
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-flr»^
9,500 Btu/V.Wh and 5,500 hr/yr. P0"" Pla"t "peratinR at
Total direct investment, $28,730,000; total deem-1am,, <
total capital Investment, $63.625,000. dePreclat>^ investment, $51.481.000; and
Rsw coal (moisture-free): 4,480,000 tons/yr 3 51 snlf,,- it «.
and2.79 Ib S/MBtu. '* ' '^ sn"»r. 14.0% ash, 12,500 Btu/lh.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,862,000 tons/yr, 2.55X siilf
Btu/lb, and 1.91 Ib S/MBtu. >>r* 7'997 ash. 13.400
259
-------
TABLE B-7. PCC I PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium vessel, dense-
medium cyclone, froth flotation)
Base case - 5% S coal
Investmentt $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,841,000
Raw coal sizing 1,627,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,585,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,249,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 3,058,000
Clean coal storage 8,261.000
Total areas 28,317,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,699,000
Total direct investment 30,016,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,521,000
Architect and engineering contractor 600,000
Construction expense 3,572,000
Contractor fees 1,009.000
Total indirect investment 7,702,000
Contingency 5,658.000
Total fixed investment 43,376,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 4,337,000
Interest during construction 6,073,000
Total depreciable investment 53,786,000
Land 3,686,000
Working capital 9,946.000
Total capital investment 67,418,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 33.71
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating,overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
260
-------
TABLE B-8. PCC I PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium vessel, detise-
medlum cyclone, froth flotation)
Base case - 5/8 S coal
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct Investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
478,100 tons
31.58/ton
15,098.000
15,098,000
144,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr 1,987,000
45,300 kgal
15,110,00(1 kWh
145,000 gal
2,760 tons
4,000 man-hr
0.13/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
93,31/ton
18.70/man-hr
6,000
589,000
102,000
257,000
1,801,000
75.000
4,817,000
19,915,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 102 of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
fiross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
3,227,000
5,798,000
993,000
199,000
10,217,000
30,132,000
30,132,000
Mills/kWh
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
2.74
C/lb
Fur r.
16.3
Basis
; plant life.
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scalii»
30 years; operating time, 6,000 br/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-flrwl ,»~.
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. power plant operating at
Total direct investment, $30,016,000; total deoreciahio *
total capital investment, $67,418.000. aepr«cl««>l« investment, $53,786,000; „
Raw coal (moisture-free ): 4,840,000 tons/yr, 51 sulfur i* 7,
and 4.17 Ib S/MBtu. sulfur, 16. 7* ash, 12,000 Btu/U,
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,073,000 tons/vr 3 67*
and 2.84 Ib S/MBtu. tonS,yt, 3.671 sulfurj
261
-------
TABLE B-9. PCC II PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 0.7% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,821,000
Raw coal sizing 1,839,000
Low-gravity cleaning 3,553,000
High-gravity cleaning 1,631,000
Fine coal cleaning 4,691,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 1,956,000
Clean coal storage 6,758,000
Middling coal storage 4,623.000
Total areas 33,872,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 2,032,000
Total direct investment 35,904,000
todirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,016,000
Architect and engineering contractor 718,000
Construction expense 4,273,000
Contractor fees 1,206,000
Total indirect investment 9,213,000
Contingency 6,768,000
Total fixed investment 51,885,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,119 000
Interest during construction 7,264.OOP
Total depreciable investment 64,268,000
Land 2,251,000
Working capital 10,843.000
Total capital investment 77,362,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 38.68
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
262
-------
TABLE B-10. PCC II PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Low-gravity D.M, cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 0.7% S coal
Annual Unit
quantity cost. $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: miiRtu'tlto, c.radi- E
Maintenance, bit of direct Investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
295,200 tons 31.58/ton
144,000 man-hr 13.80/raan-hr
93,600 legal 0.13/kRal
27,269,000 kWh O.im/kWh
116,000 gal 0.70/gal
2,900 tons 93.31/ton
4,000 man-hr 18. 70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, S
9,322,000
9,322,000
1,987,000
12,000
1,064,000
81,000
271,000
2,154,000
75,000
5,644,000
14,966,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements,
and insurance at 62 of total
depreciable Investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50X of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10X of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Oross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
1.856.000
6,653,000
995,000
199,000
11,701,000
26,667,000
26,667,000
MiUsTkWh
2.42
0/lb
sulfur removed
197.6
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scaltne miri ioa->
30 years; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr. 8> """-I"?; plant life,
'SS/^inStroO^/^r11* f°r 2l00°"MW C°al-£Ired POWer »la"< °*««1"« „ ,tsoo
Total direct investment, $35,904,000; total depreciable invest«nt S64 ?w» nnn
capital investment, $77,362,000. »t»i«e, 564,268.000; total
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,787,000 ton/yr, 0.7% sulfur 11 « ,„>. ,, ,„
and 0.60 Ih S/MBtu. ' * "Sh' U'700 "u/lb.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,350,000 ton/yr, 0.621 sulfur, 7.441 ash u ,nn . ,,
and 0.51 lb S/MBtu. "Sh> l2'100 •*«/»«».
263
-------
TABLE B-ll. PCC II PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 2% S coal
Investment, S
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,560,000
Raw coal sizing 1,751,000
Low-gravity cleaning 3,404,000
High-gravity cleaning 1,588,000
Fine coal cleaning 4,504,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,621,000
Clean coal storage 6,482,000
Middling coal storage 4,345,000
Total areas 33,255,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,995,000
Total direct investment 35,250,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,961,000
Architect and engineering contractor 705,000
Construction expense 4,195,000
Contractor fees 1,184.000
Total indirect investment 9,045,000
Contingency 6,644.000
Total fixed investment 50,939,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,094,000
Interest during construction 7,131,000
Total depreciable investment 63,164,000
Land 3,117,000
Working capital 8.989.000
Total capital investment 75,270,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 37.64
Basis
Midwest location of coal—cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
264
-------
TABLE B-12. PCC II PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 2% S coal
Annual Unit Total annual
quantity cost, $ cost, S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, f>% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
339,100 tons 31.58/ton
144,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
76,200 kgal 0.13/kRal
25,869,000 kWh 0.039/MJh
123,000 gal 0.70/gal
2,650 tons 93.31/ton
A, 000 man-hr 18.70/man-hr
10^709,000
10,709,000
1,987,000
10,000
1.009,000
86,000
247,000
2,115,000
75.000
S, 529. 000
16,Z38,000
Indirect_Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 67. of total
depreciable Investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6Z of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 502 of operating labor and
supervision
fufainiatrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
3,790,000
6,473.000
993,000
199,OOO
11,455,000
27,693,000
Sales Revenue
Bone
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kVlh sulfur renovcd
2-52 36.5
27.693,000
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life
30 years; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr. •
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant oper«tlnR «t 9 500
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $35,250,000; total depreciable investment, $63,164 000- total
capital investment, $75,270,000. '
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,384,000 ton/yr, 2X sulfur, 14.5J ash, 12.800 Btu/lb
1.56 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,747,000 ton/yr, 1.33X sulfur,7.121 ash, 13,900 Btu/lb
and 0.96 Ib S/MBtu. • •
265
-------
TABLE B-L3. PCC II PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 3.5% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,635,000
Raw coal sizing 1,776,000
Low-gravity cleaning 3,448,000
High-gravity cleaning 1,654,000
Fine coal cleaning 4,552,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,513,000
Clean coal storage 6,432,000
Middling coal storage 4,463.000
Total areas 33,473,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 2,008.000
Total direct investment 35,481,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,980,000
Architect and engineering contractor 710,000
Construction expense 4,222,000
Contractor fees 1,192.000
Total indirect investment 9,104,000
Contingency 6,688.000
Total fixed investment 51,273,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,127,000
Interest during construction 7,178.000
Total depreciable investment 63,578,000
Land 3,124,000
Working capital 9,265.000
Total capital investment 75,967,000
Dollar* of total capital per kU of generating
capacity 37.98
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basts).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
266
-------
TABLE B-14. PCC II PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Case variation - 3.52 S coal
Annual Unit
quantity cost, S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
process material; magnetite Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
388,600 tons 31.58/ton
144,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
71,000 kgal 0.13/kgal
26,273,000 kWh 0.039/kWh
124,000 gal 0.70/gal
2,720 tons 93.31/ton
4,000 man-hr 18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, ?
12, 272, 000
12,272,000
1,987,000
9,000
1,025,000
87,000
254,000
2,129,000
75,000
5,566,000
17,838,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6X of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
plant, 50X of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
3,815,000
6,542,000
993,000
199,000
11,549,000
29,387,000
Sa .ies Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Basis
Mills/kWh
2.67
C/lb
sulfur removed
24.1
29,387,000
L» »•=»
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scalina mtd-iqio. ~i » ,, ,
30 years, operating time, 6,000 hr/yr. ' plant llfe-
operating at 9,500
Total direct investment, $35,481,000; total depreciable investment $63 578 nnn r
apital investment, $75,967,000. ' »OJ«:>/O«OOO, total
" r' 3'5Z sulfur> "•<>* ash, 12,500 Btu/lb,
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,860,000 ton/yr, 2.50Z sulfur 7 681 ash i,
Btu/lb, and 1.86 Ib S/MBtu. ' ' ' ".400
267
-------
TABLE B-15. PCC II PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Base case - 5% S coal
Investment, S
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,841,000
Raw coal sizing 1,845,000
Low-gravity cleaning 3,564,000
High-gravity cleaning 1,782,000
Fine coal cleaning 4,706,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 3,058,000
Clean coal storage 6,397,000
Middling coal storage 4.632.000
Total areas 34,825,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 2,090rOQO
Total direct investment 36,915,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,101,000
Architect and engineering contractor 738,000
Construction expense 4,393,000
Contractor fees _L>_240,000
Total indirect investment 9,472,000
Contingency 6.958,000
Total fixed investment 53,345,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and nodifications 5,335,000
Interest during construction 7,468.000
Total depreciable investment 66,148,000
Land 3,703,000
Working capital 10.033.000
Total capital investment 79,884,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 39i94
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
268
-------
TABLE B-16. PCC II PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Low-gravity D.M. cyclone, high-gravity
D.M. cyclone, froth flotation)
Base
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material, magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
case - 5Z S coal
Annual
quantity
458,650 tons
144,000 man-hr
85,800 kgal
27,384,000 kWh
148,000 gal
2,920 tons
4,000 man-hr
Unit
cost, S
31.58/ton
13.80/man-hr
0. 13/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, $
14 J484, 000
14,484,000
1,987,000
11,000
1,068,000
104,000
272,000
2,215,000
75,000
5,732,000
20,216,000
jndirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor.
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
3,969,000
6,870,000
993,000
199,000
12,031,000
32,247,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Mills/kWh
C/lb
sulfur removed
2.93
16.3
32,247,000
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life
30 years; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr. '
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at 9 500
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. '
Total direct investment, $36,915,000; total depreciable investment, $66,148,000; total
capital investment, $79,384,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,820,000 ton/yr, 52 sulfur, 16.7Z ash, 12,000 Btu/lb,
and 4.17 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,049,000 ton/yr, 3.51% sulfur, 9.25Z ash, 13,100 Btu/lh
and 2.68 Ib S/MBtu.
269
-------
TABLE B-17. PCC III PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation - 0.7% S coal
Investment, g
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,822,000
Raw coal sizing 2,430,000
Coarse coal cleaning 3,898,000
Fine coal cleaning 7,828,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 1,966,000
Clean coal storage 8.453.OOP
Total areas 33,397,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 2,004,000
Total direct investment 35,401,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,974,000
Architect and engineering contractor 708,000
Construction expense 4,213,000
Contractor fees 1,189.000
Total indirect investment 9,084,000
Contingency 6,673.000
Total fixed investment 51,158,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,116,000
Interest during construction 7,162,000
Total depreciable investment 63,436,000
Land 2,264,000
Working capital 10,829.000
Total capital investment 76,529,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 38.26
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with prelect begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
270
-------
TABLE B-18. PCC 111 PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation - 0.7% S coal
, Annual Unit Total annual
quantity cost, $ cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material; magnetite, (Jrade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
307,500 tons 31.58/ton
144,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
27,900 kgal 0.13/kgal
13,408,000 kWh 0.039/kWh
97,000 gal 0.70/gal
1,950 tons 93.31/ton
4,000 man-hr 18. 70/raan-hr
9,711,000
9,711,000
1,987,000
4,000
523,000
68,000
182,000
2,124,000
75,000
4,963,000
14,674,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 502 of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
3,806,000
6,581,000
993,000
199,000
11,579,000
26,253,000
jyproduct Salcs_Rjeyenuc
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue- rc-quiremont s
Mllls/kWh
c/lh
sulfur removed
2.39
212.0
26,253,000
Basis
Midwest location of cosl-cleaning plant; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 years; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at 9,500
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $35,401,000; total depreciable investment, $63,436,000; total
caoital investment, $76,529,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,825,000 ton/yr, 0.7% sulfur, 11.5% ash, 11,700 Btu/lb,
and 0.60 lb S/MBtu.
Clean coal (molsMire-free): 4,384,000 ton/yr, 0.63% sulfur, 8.10% ash, 12,100 Btu/lb,
and 0.52 Ih S/MBtu.
271
-------
TABLE B-19. PCC III PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation - 2% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,538,000
Raw coal sizing 2,317,000
Coarse coal cleaning 3,724,000
Fine coal cleaning 7,315,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,497,000
Clean coal storage 8,030.000
Total areas 32,421,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,945.000
Total direct investment 34,366,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
2,887,000
687,000
4,090,000
1,155.000
8,819,000
6,478.000
49,663,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 4,966,000
Interest during construction 6.953,000
Total depreciable investment 61,582,000
Land 2,944,000
Working capital 8,899.000
Total capital investment 73,425,000
Dollars 6f total capital per kW of generating
capacity 36.71
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
272
-------
TABLE B-20. PCC HI PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation -
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total rav materials cost
Conversion coats
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity 12,
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 62 of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
2* S coal
Annual
quantity
318,900 tons
144,000 oan-hr
22,600 Xgal
659,000 kWh
113,000 gal
1,780 tons
4,000 man-hr
Unit
cost, S
31.58/ton
13.80/man-hr
0.13/kgal
0.039/kWh
0. 70/g«l
93.31/ton
18.70/m*n-hr
Total annual
cost, $
10,071,000
10,071,000
1,987,000
3,000
494,000
79,000
166,000
2,062,000
75,000
4.866.000
14,937,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and Insurance at 67. of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, SOX of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10X of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
3,695,000
6,315,000
993,000
199,000
11,202,000
26,139,000
26,139,000
Mills/KHh sulfur removed
2.38 38.3
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scaling, aid-1982-
life, 30 years; operating tine, 6,000 hr/yr. *
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operatina at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct Investment, $34,366,000; total depreciable Investment, $61,582,000-
total capital investment, $73,425,000. *
Raw coal (moisture-free) •. 4,384,000 ton/yr, 2% sulfur, 14.55! ash, 12,800 Btu/lb and
1.56 Ib S/MBtu. '
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,787,000 ton/yr, 1.42Z sulfur, 8.08X ash, 13,700 Btu/lb
and 1.03 Ib S/MBtu.
273
-------
TABLE B-21. PCC III PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation - 3.5X S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,609,000
Raw coal sizing 2,346,000
Coarse coal cleaning 3,768,000
Fine coal cleaning 7,450,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,497,000
Clean coal storage 8,112.000
Total areas 32,782,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 1,967.000
Total direct investment 34,749,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 2,919,000
Architect and engineering contractor 695,000
Construction expense 4,135,000
Contractor fees 1,168,000
Total indirect investment 8,917,000
Contingency 6,550?OOP
Total fixed investment 50,216,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,022,000
Interest during construction _7,030,OOP
Total depreciable investment 62,268,000
Land 2,944,000
Working capital 9,167.000
Total capital investment 74,379,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 37.19
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
274
-------
TABLE B-22. PCC III PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Case variation
Direct Cost*
Saw material*
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total rav naterials cost
Conversion coats
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Frocesa water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6Z of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct coats
- 3.51 S coal
Annual
quantity
363,400 tons
144,000 nan-hr
23,300 legal
12,849,000 kWh
114,000 sal
1,820 tons
4,000 man-hr
Unit
cost. $
31.58/ton
13.80/man-hr
0.13/kg«l
0.039/kHh
0.70/g«l
93.31/ton
18.70/asa-hr
Total annual
cost. $
11,476.000
11.476,000
1,987,000
3,000
501,000
80,000
170,000
2,085,000
75.000
4.901,000
16,377,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements.
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable Investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.62 of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 507. of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10* of operating labor
Marketing, 10! of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
3,736,000
6,397.000
991.000
199,000
11,325.000
27,702,000
27,702,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
C/lb
Mllle/kWh sulfur removed
2.52
25.3
Baals
Mldweet location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scalln*. mid-1982-
life, 30 years; operating time. 6,000 hr/yr. *
Clean-coal production capacity for 2.000-HH coal-fired power plant operatic*
9,500 Btu/kHh and 5,500 hr/yr. ^ "*
Total direct Investment, $34,749,000; tots.! depreciable Investment $62 268 nn
total capital Investment, $74,379.000. * »««..£oo,«
U.50C Btu/lb. „*
275
-------
TABLE B-23. FCC III PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Base case - 5% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,841,000
Raw coal sizing 2,438,000
Coarse coal cleaning 3,912,000
Fine coal cleaning 7,850,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,980,000
Clean coal storage 8,261,000
Total areas 34,282,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 2,057,000
Total direct investment 36,339,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,052,000
Architect and engineering contractor 727,000
Construction expense 4,324,000
Contractor fees 1,221,000
Total indirect investment 9,324,000
Contingency 6,849.000
Total fixed investment 52,512,000
Other Capital Charges^
Allowance for startup and modifications 5,251,000
Interest during construction 7,352,000
Total depreciable investment 65,115,000
Land 3,583,000
Working capital 10,007,000
Total capital investment 78,705,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 39.35
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and 7
weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
276
-------
TABLE B-24. PCC III PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
(Dense-medium cyclone, concentrating table)
Basp rasp *
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process vater
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion coats
Total direct costs
5% S coal
Annual
quantity
471,800 tons
144,000 man-hr
25,600 kgal
13,459,000 kWh
138,000 gal
1,970 tons
4,000 man-hr
Unit
cost, $
31.58/ton
13 . 80/raan-hr
0.13/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, $
14,889,000
14,889,000
1,987,000
3,000
525,000
97 , 000
184,000
2,180,000
75,000
5,051,000
19,940,000
indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6X of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6X of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 5015 of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10* of operating labor
Marketing, 102 of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
3,907,000
6,769.000
993,000
199,000
11.868.000
31,808.000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
31,808.000
e/ib
Milla/kWh sulfur removed
2.89
18.2
Ba«i>
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant
life, 30 years; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $9,324,000; total depreciable investment, $65,115,000;
total capital investment, $78,705,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,855,000 ton/yr, 5X sulfur, 16.7* a»h, 12.000 Btu/lb and
4.17 Ib S/MBtu. '
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,111,000 ton/yr, 3.78X sulfur, 10,60t aah, 12.800 Btu/lb
and 2.94 Ib S/MBtu.
277
-------
TABLE B-25. KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 0.7% S
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 10,721,000
Sulfur oxidation 6,291,900
Reactor off-gas cleaning 11,448^200
Fine coal leaching 7,906,200
Coarse coal leaching 7,141,300
Product agglomeration and handling 12,212,100
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 6,250,300
Settling pond 3,962.500
Subtotal 65,933,500
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 3,956.000
Total direct investment 69,889,500
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 6,388,100
Architect and engineering contractor 1,568,300
Construction expense 8,494,200
Contractor fees 2,421.200
Total indirect investment 18,871,800
Contingency 17.752.300
Total fixed investment 106,513,600
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 10,651,400
Interest during construction 14,911.900
Total depreciable investment 132,076,900
Land 1,122,200
Working capital 15.710.900
Total capital Investment 148,910,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 74.5
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for .sludp.e disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
278
-------
TABLE B-26. KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 0.7% S
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost , S
Total annual
cost, S
n-lrect Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonatc
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
22,200 tons
25,216 tons
952 tons
12,029 tons
81,200 tons
24,000 kft3
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
961,500
532,800
633,300
1,197,700
6,753,400
70,300
152,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
10,149,000
2,097,600
6,958,287 MBtu
2,898,838 kgal
242,458,453 kWh
24,000 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/man-hr
17,674,000
260,900
9,455,900
4,193,400
448,800
34,150,600
44,279,600
_Indire£t_Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
insurance at 67. of total depreciable
investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
7,924,600
i:,806,300
1,048,800
209,800
21 .989,500
66,269,100
None
Total annual revenue requirements
66,269,100
E
-------
TABLE B-27. KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 2.0% S
Investment $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 10,197,600
Sulfur oxidation 5,984 700
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,389,300
Fine coal leaching 7,426,700
Coarse coal leaching 6,624^800
Product agglomeration and handling 11,328 800
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,200
Settling pond 8,321j400
Subtotal 66,686,500
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 4,001.200
Total direct investment 70,687,700
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 6,463 100
Architect and engineering contractor 1,568,600
Construction expense 8,476,900
Contractor fees 2,442flQQ
Total indirect investment 18,950,700
Contingency 17,927.700
Total fixed investment 107,566,100
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 10,756,600
Interest during construction 15,059.300
Total depreciable investment 133,382,000
Land 1,993,700
Working capital 16,652.400
Total capital investment 152,028,100
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 76.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
280
-------
TABLE B-28. KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 2. OX S
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, S
Total annual
cost, S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50Z)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials costs
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
89,416 tons
117,232 tons
952 tons
44,552 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft^
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83. 17 /ton
2.93/kft3
3,872,600
2,477,100
633,300
4,436,000
6,254,400
70,300
152,000 man-hr
13.80/man-hr
17,743,700
2,097,600
5,352,009 MBtu
2,663,074 kgal
222,739,157 kWh
24,000 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
18. 70 /man-hr
13,594,100
239,700
8,686,800
4,241,300
448,800
29,308,300
47,052,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
8,002,900
13,074,400
1,048.800
209.800
22,335,900
69,387.900
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kHh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 6.3
57.9
69,387,900
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basts for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at
9 500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $70,687,700; total depreciable investment, $133,382,000; and
total capital investment, $152,028,100.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,023,998 tons/yr, 2.OX sulfur. 14.5Z ash, 13.0OO Rn.Mh,
and 1.5 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3.899,254 tons/yr, 0.53X sulfur, 13.3X ash, 13.400
and 0.40 Ib S/MBtu
281
-------
TABLE B-29. KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 3.5% S
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 10,197,600
Sulfur oxidation 5,984,700
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,300
Fine coal leaching 7,426,700
Coarse coal leaching 6,624,800
Product agglomeration and handling 11,328,800
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,200
Settling pond 12,756.000
Subtotal 71,121,100
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 4,267.300
Total direct investment 75,388,400
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 6,567,200
Architect and engineering contractor 1>579,000
Construction expense 8,825,400
Contractor fees 2,564T600
Total indirect investment 19,536,200
Contingency 18,984.900
Total fixed investment 113,909,500
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 11,391,000
Interest during construction 15.947,300
Total depreciable investment 141,247,800
Land 2,881,200
Working capital 18,552.300
Total capital investment 162,681,300
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 81.3
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginn-
ing mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
1'ond sitr for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
282
-------
TABLE B-30. KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 3.5% S
Annual quantity
Unit
cost. $
Total annual
cost, $
materials
time
Oxygen
H02
NeOH (50%)
Sodium llgnin aulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
137,952 tons
198, 784 tons
952 tons
81,003 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665. 261 ton
99. 57 /ton
83.17/ton
2.93/ton
5,974,700
4,200,300
633.300
6,065,500
6,254,400
70,300
152,000 man-hr 13.80/aan-hr
5,350,723 MBtu
2,663,074 kgal
222,739,157 kWh
24,000 man-hr
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/man-hr
25,198,500
2,097,600
13,590,800
239,700
8,686,800
4,523,300
448.800
29,587,000
54,785,500
r.T>ltal charges
Depreciation, interim replacement,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average coat of capital and taxes
at 8.6X of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, SOS! of operating labor
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
8,474,900
13,990,600
1.048.800
209,800
23,724,100
78,509,600
pyjroduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
78,509,600
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
7.1
37.0
Baals
'wtdwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life.
\0 years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MW coal-fired power plant operating at 9.500
Rt-u/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
T«»al direct investment, $75,388,400; total depreciable investment, $141,247,800; and
total capital investment, $162,681,300.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,148,437 ton/yr, 3.52 sulfur, 14.OZ ash, 12,700 Btu/lb, and
2.8 lb S/MBtu. __ ^ 3,928,571 tons/yr, 1.00% sulfur. 11.91 ash, 13,300 Btu/lb,
283
and 0.75 Ib S/MBtu.
-------
TABLE B-31. KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Base case -5% S coal
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 10,197,600
Sulfur oxidation 5,984,700
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,300
Fine coal leaching 7,426,700
Coarse coal leaching 6,624,800
Product agglomeration and handling 11,328,800
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,200
Settling pond 16.203.000
Subtotal 74,568,100
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 4.474T100
Total direct investment 79,042,200
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 6,639,900
Architect and engineering contractor 1,586,300
Construction expense 9,407,800
Contractor fees 2.658.500
Total indirect investment 20,292,500
Contingency 19,866.900
Total fixed investment 119,201,600
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 11,920,200
Interest during construction 16,688.200
Total depreciable investment 147,810,000
Land 3,611,000
Working capital 19.945.200
Total capital investment 171,366 200
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 85.7
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
284
-------
TABLE B-32. KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Base case - 5% S coal
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
NO?
NaOH (502)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analysis
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Annual quantity
Unit cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
197,603 tons
297,600 tons
952 tons
152,880 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
8,558,200
6,288,300
633,300
15,222,300
6,254,400
70,300
152,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
37,026,800
2,097,600
5,349,838 MBtu
2,663,074 kgal
222,739,157 kWh
24,000 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
18. 70 /man-hr
13,588.600
239,700
8,686,800
4,742,500
448,800
29 , 804 . OOO
66.S30.800
Indirect_Cosjts
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
insurance at 6% of total depreciable
investment
Average cost of capital and taxes at
8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor and supervision
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
8,868.600
14,737,500
1,048.800
209,800
24.864,700
91,695,500
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
MiUs/kVih sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 8.3
27.4
91,695,500
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 years; operating timp, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at
9 500 Btu'Mih and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $79,042,200; total depreciable investment, $147,810,000; and
total capital investment, $171,366,200.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,396,860 tons/yr, 5.0% sulfur, 16.7% ash, 12,000 Btu/lb
and A.2 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,050,388 tons/yr, 1.32% sulfur, 13.7Z ash, 12,900 Btu/lb,
and 1.02 Ib S/MBtu.
285
-------
TABLE B-33. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 0.7% S
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 7,874,600
Gravichem separation 8,309,600
Float coal washing 7,559,400
Reactor - regenerator 21,561,000
Acetone leaching 13,177,700
Acetone recovery and coal drying 29,606,100
Leach solution concentration 3,258 900
Neutralization and pond water handling 1,881,500
Product agglomeration and handling 13,062,800
Utility water handling 1,118,200
Settling pond 1,202.700
Subtotal 108,612,500
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,516.800
Total direct investment 115,129,300
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 5,512,800
Architect and engineering contractor 1,365,300
Construction expense 12,733,200
Contractor fees 3,538.100
Total indirect investment 23,149,400
Contingency 27,655.700
Total fixed investment 165,934,400
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,593,400
Interest during construction 23,230,800
Total depreciable investment 205,758,600
Land 587,000
Working capital 15,242,500
Total capital investment 221,059,800
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 110.5
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982, average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and "),500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating over-
heads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
286
-------
TABLE B-34. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Casi
3 variation - 0.7% S
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, 5
Total annual
cost, $
Pirect Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Acetone
Copperas
Sulfuric acid
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
9,602 tons
4,513 tons
2,872 tons
2,257 tons
6,705 tons
43.3l/ton
21.13/ton
471.24/ton
72.07/ton
45.L8/ton
160,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
8,(144, 368 MBtu
15,736,259 kgal
197,377,072 kWh
2. 54 /MBtu
0.07/kgal
0.039/kWh
32,000 man-hr 18.70/man-hr
415,900
95,400
1.353,400
162,700
302.900
2,330,300
2.208,000
-!'>,43'^, 7no
1.101.SOO
7,697,700
6,907,800
598,400
3«,94f>. 101)
41 .^/h.MM)
tnitireet Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.62 of total capital Investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
12,145,500
II.OU.UIO
1,104.000
220,800
9.900
7 », 967, 70(1
Sales Revenue
Sulfur
Total annual revenue requirements
2,865 IOIXR tons 51. OO/ long ton
73,815,900
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
Mtlls/kWh
c/lh
h.7
414.0
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, «td-l982- nlant H f .
30 years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr. ' plant Ute>
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MW coal-fired power plant
9 500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Ra« coal (moisture-free): 4,4»7,802 tons/yr, 0.7>. sulfur, U.SZ.»sh. U.7«ORtu/lh
*ind ()• f> IV* S/MBtu . *
Clean coal (moisture-free)-. 4,465,812 tons/yr, 0.502 sulfur, H.-iz ilsh ,, 7(w „ ., .
iind 0.43 Ib S/Mbtu.
287
-------
TABLE B-35. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 2.0% S
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 7,874,600
Gravlchem separation 7,915,700
Float coal washing 7,201,100
Reactor - regenerator 20,539,000
Acetone leaching 12,553,100
Acetone recovery and coal drying 28,202,800
Leach solution concentration 3,104,400
Neutralization and pond water handling 1,792,300
Product agglomeration and handling 12,188,600
Utility water handling 1,065,200
Settling pond 4,149.800
Subtotal 106,586,600
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,395.200
Total direct investment 112,981,800
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 5,630,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,376,400
Construction expense 12,682,400
Contractor fees 3,487,800
Total indirect investment 23,176,600
Contingency 27.231.700
Total fixed investment 163,390,100
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,339,000
Interest during construction 22,874.600
Total depreciable Investment 202,603,700
Land 1,167,700
Working capital 14.930.000
Total capital investment 218,701,400
Dollars of total capital per kW of
generating capacity 109.4
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis
for cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000
hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis) .
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consump-
tion, 7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks
operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from
coal preparation plant.
288
-------
TABLE B-36. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 2.0% S
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, §
Total annual
cost, $
THreet Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Acetone
Copperas
Sulfuric acid
Total raw materials costs
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
48,992 tons
23,016 tons
2,872 tons
11,508 tons
34,195 tons
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
471.24/ton
72.07/ton
45.18/ton
2,121,800
486 , 300
1,353,400
829,400
1,54/1,900
160,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
6,335,800
2,208,000
7,313,062 MBtu
14,512,600 kgal
182,028,933 kWh
32,000 man-hr
2.54/MBtu
0.07 /kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/man-hr
18,575,200
1,015,900
7,099,100
6,778,900
598,400
36,275,500
42,611,300
jndirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
12,156,200
18,808,300
1,104,000
220,800
50.800
32,340,100
74,951,400
Byproduct Sales Revenue
Sulfur 16,054 long tons 53.OO/long ton
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 6.7
74.2
(850.900)
74,100,500
lias is
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling. Bid-lQft?- ~i._.. nt
30 years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr. ' Pl*nt ll"'
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power »lant ntu.i-.t-4... .
9,500 Btu/kVlh and 5,500 hr/yr. r * "P6'*""* »*
Total direct investment, $112,981,800; total depreciable Investment S202 Mn ?nn
and total capital investment, $218,701,400. "c> »«»z.603,700,
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,037,586 tons/yr, 2,OX sulfur. 14 51 aah i-» o/w, . ,,w
and 1.5 Ib S/MBtu. * asn> IJ.WX> »tu/lb.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,928,571 tons/yr. 0.78Zsulfur, 13.41 ,»„, 13 IQO BCu/lb
and 0-59 Ib S/MBtu. ' *
289
-------
TABLE B-37. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 3.5% S
Investment, $
I)irect Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 7,874,600
Cravichem separation 7,915,700
Float coal washing 7,201,100
Reactor - regenerator 20,539,000
Acetone leaching 12,553,100
Acetone recovery and coal drying 28,202,800
Leach solution concentration 3,104,400
Neutralization and pond water handling 1,792,300
Product agglomeration and handling 12,188,600
Utility water handling 1,065,200
Settling pond 6,096,700
Subtotal 108,533,500
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,512,000
Total direct investment . 115,045,500
[nd i rect investment^
Engineering design and supervision 5,682,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1.382,200
Construction expense 12,852,600
Contractor fees -_l«J?_if>j.2.0I!
Total indirect investment 23,453,000
Contingency _J-2*WLJQQ.
Total fixed investment 166,198,200
Othcr_ Cnjii tal Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,619,800
Interest during construction _2ii.2.
-------
TABLE B-38. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Acetone
Copperos
Sulfuric acid
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct
investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Case variation - 3.5% S
Annual
quantity
80,816 tons
37,968 tons
2,872 tons
18,984 tons
56,A08 tons
160,000 raan-hr
7,047,830 MBtu
14,512,600 kgal
182,028,933 kWh
32,000 man-hr
Unit
cost. $
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
471.24/ton
72.07/ton
45.18/ton
13.80/man-hr
2.54/MBtu
0.07/kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, S
3,500,100
802,300
1,353,400
1,368,200
2.548.500
9,572,500
2,208,000
17.901,500
1,015,900
7,099,100
6,902,700
598.400
35,725,600
45,298,100
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacement,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor
and supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating
labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenues.
Sulfur 28,022 long tons 53.0O/lonR ton
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur renov
12,365,100
19,189,500
1.104.000
220,800
83.600
32,963,000
78,261,100
(1.485.200)
76.775.900
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
7.0
44.0
Basis
"I.. 30
. 5206,085.700; ^
h. 12.700 Btu/lk. and
-sh. !3.300 Btu/lb.
291
-------
TABLE B-39. TRW GRAVICHEM PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Base case - 5% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 7,874,600
"Gravichem" separation 7,915,700
Float coal washing 7,201,100
Reactor - regenerator 20,539,000
Acetone leaching 12,553,100
Acetone recovery and coal drying 28,202,800
Leach solution concentration 3,104,400
Neutralization and pond water handling 1,792,300
Product agglomeration and handling 12,188,600
Utility water handling 1,065,200
Settling pond 8,219,500
Subtotal 110,656,300
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,639.400
Total direct investment 117,295,700
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 5, 738 ,"500
Architect and engineering contractor 1,387,900
Construction expense 13,028,600
Contractor fees 3,588,600
Total indirect investment 23,743,600
Contingency 28,207.900
Total fixed investment 169,247,200
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,924,700
Interest during construction 23,694,600
Total depreciable investment 209,866,500
Land 1,988,200
Working capital 16,194.400
Total capital investment 228,049,100
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 114.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
292
-------
TABLE B-40. TRW GRAV1CHEM PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Base case - 5% S coal
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Acetone
Copperas
Sulfuric acid
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analysis
• Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Annual quantity
Unit cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
119,200 tons
56,000 tons
2,872 tons
28,000 tons
83,200 tons
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
471.24/ton
72.07/ton
45.18/ton
160,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
5,162,600
1,183,500
1,353,400
2,018,000
3,759,000
13,476,500
2,208,000
6,728,550 MBtu
14,512,600 kgal
182,028,933 kWh
32,000 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.07/kgal
0.039/kWh
18. 70 /man-hr
17,090,500
1,015,900
7,099,100
7,037,700
598_,400
35,049,600
48,526,100
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacement, and
insurance at 6% of total depreciable
investment
Average cost of capital and taxes at
8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plane, 50% of operating labor and supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor and supervision
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
12,592,000
19,612,200
),104,000
220,800
123.500
33,652,500
82,178,600
Byproduct Sales Revenue
Sulfur 45,4U long tons 53.00/long ton
Total annual revenue requirements
urns/mil suny ream.,..!
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 7.3
27.4
(2.406.800J
79.771.fiOO
Basis
ISIS
Midwest coal-cleaning olant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982- olant Hf» 1O
years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr. *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fifed power plant operating at 9 550
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $117,295,700; total depreciable investment, $209,866 500- and
total capital investment, $228,049,100. * *
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,364,642 tons/yr, 5.02 sulfur, 16.73; asll 12 OO(, „,,,,.
and 4.2 Ib S/MBtn. ' Br"'lh,
Clean coal (molKttire-free) : 4,050,389 tons/yr, 1.95% sulfur, 13,Mash 12 900 i»-../it.
and 1.51 Ib S/MBtu. ' «'"">
293
-------
TABLE B-41. KENNECOTT PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 0.7% S
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw materials handling and preparation 14,549,700
Reactor area 52,321,600
Coal filtration area 25,713,500
Product agglomeration and handling 30,376,700
Neutralization and water handling 6,459.400
Settling pond 2,186.400
Subtotal 131,609,300
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 7,896.400
Total direct investment 139,503,700
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,461,400
Architect and engineering contractor 846,100
Construction expense 15,116,800
Contractor fees 4,094.100
Total indirect investment 23,518,400
Contingency 32,604.400
Total fixed investment 195,626,500
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 19,562,700
Interest during construction 27,387,700
Total depreciable investment 242,576,900
Land 611,600
Working capital 26,035,800
Total capital investment 269,224,300
Dollars total capital per kW of
generating capacity 134.6
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power lant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consump-
tion, 7 weeks direct revenue costs and 7 weeks
operating overheads.
Fond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from
coal preparation plant.
294
-------
TABLE R-42. KENNECOTT PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 0. 7% S
Annual
quantity
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Line
Oxygen
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Total raw materials costs
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process Btu loss
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6X of direct investment
Analyses
22,899 tons
556,658 tons
174,421 tons
168,000 man-hr
1,666,029 MBtu
13,704,284 tons
9,440,960 kgal
713,048,746 kV)h
32,000 wan-hr
Unit Total annual
cost, $ cost. S
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
83.17/ton
13. 80 /man-hr
1 . 36/MBtu
2.54/HBtu
0.07 /kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/wan-hr
991,800
11,762,200
14,506,600
27,260,600
2,318,400
2,265,800
34,808,900
660,900
27,808,900
8,370,200
598,400
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Tndirect Costs,
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacement,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10T of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
Hone
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
104,09^,100
14,554,600
2»,1^3, JOO
1,159,200
231,800
19.098,900
14J.191,000
141,191,000
C/lh
Hills/kWh sulfur removed
11.0 610.fi
Basis
1BJ.B
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling mid-left?. «t
30 years; opt-nil ln« tUu, 8,000 hr/yr. *' """• pUnt life.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MW coal-fired power plant ot.., n
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. P nt °P«ating at
Total direct investment, $139,503,700; total depreciable investment «ii e-,* ^
total capital investment, $269,224,300. ' ^^Z'S'S.WO; «nd
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,837,963 tons/yr, 0.45Z sulfur 11 i* w ,„ „
and 0.42 Ib S/MBtu. ' vl* ash- 10.800 Btu/lb,
295
-------
TABLE B-43. KENNECOTT PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 2.0% S
Direct Investment
Raw materials handling and preparation
Reactor area
Coal filtration area
Product agglomeration and handling
Neutralization and water handling
Settling pond
Subtotal
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous
Total direct investment
Investment. $
13,856,900
48,820,200
24,489,000
28.343,900
6,151,800
4,489.800
126,151,600
7.569.100
133,720,700
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
3,541,000
854,100
14.589,700
3.964.400
22.949,200
31,334.000
188.003.900
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 18,800,400
Interest during construction 26.320.500
Total depreciable investment 233,124,800
Land 1,237,000
Working capital 24,833.600
Total capital investment 259,195,400
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 129.6
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning
mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling,
end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
296
-------
TABLE B-44. KENNECOTT PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Liroe
Oxygen
Sodium lignin sulEonate
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supension
Utilities
Process Btu loss
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct
investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Case variation - 2.0Z S
Annual
quantity
118,495 tons
600,520 tons
155,985 tons
168,000 raan-hr
1,655,224 MBtu
12,458,440 MBtu
8,741,630 kgal
660,230,321 kWh
32,000 raan-hr
Unit
cost, $
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
83.17/ton
13.80/man-hr
1.36/MBcu
2. 54 /MBtu
0.07/kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, $
5,132,000
12 ,689 ,000
12j973,300
30,794,300
2,318,400
2,251,100
31,644,400
611.900
25,749,000
8,023,200
598.400
71,196,400
101,990,700
J.ndirect_Co.sts
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacement,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor
Administrative, 10% of operating
labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lt
Kills/kWh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirement 12.7
132.2
11,987.500
22,290,800
1.159,200
231.800
37.669,300
139.660,000
139,660.000
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life, 30 years;
operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean-coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired pover plant operating at 9,500
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $133,720,700; total depreciable investment, $233.124.800; and
total capital investment, $259,195,400.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,208,754 tons/yr, 2.OZ sulfur, U.5X ash, 13,OOO Bni/lb, nod
1 5 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,318,182 tona/yr, 0.73Z sulfur. V3.8Z ash. 12,100 Btu/lb, and
0.60 Ib S/MBtu.
297
-------
TABLE B-45. KENNECOTT PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Case variation - 3.5% S
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw materials handling and preparation 13,856,900
Reactor area 48,820,200
Coal filtration area 24,489,000
Product agglomeration and handling 28,343,900
Neutralization and water handling 6,151,800
Settling pond 8,884,200
Subtotal 130,546,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 7,832,800
Total direct investment 138,378,800
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,661,500
Architect and engineering contractor 866,100
Construction expense 14,958,200
Contractor fees 4,069,000
Total indirect investment 23,554,800
Contingency 32,386.700
Total fixed investment 194,320,300
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 19,432,000
Interest during construction 27,204,800
Total depreciable investment 240,957,100
Land 2,107,800
Working capital 25.276.300
Total capital investment 268,341,200
Dollars of total capital per kW of
generating capacity 134.2
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consump-
tion, 7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks
operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located I mile from
coal preparation plant.
298
-------
TABLE B.-46. KENNECOTT PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Case variation - 3.5% S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Sodium lignin sulEonate
Total raw materials costs
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process Btu loss
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Annual
quantity
207,360 tons
706,886 tons
160,326 tons
168,000 man-hr
1,662,240 MBtu
12,458,440 MBtu
8,741,630 kgal
660,230,321 kWh
32,000 man-hr
Unit Total annual
cost, $
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
83.17/ton
13. 80 /man-hr
1.36/MBtu
2. 54 /MBtu
0.07 /kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/raan-hr
cost, $
8,980,800
14,936,500
13.334,300
37,251,600
2,318,400
2,260,600
31,644,400
611,900
25,749,000
8.302,700
598,400
71,485,400
1U«,737.000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
14,457,400
23,077,300
1,159,200
231,800
38,925,700
147,66_>,700
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur romoved
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 13.4
)47,062,700
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life
30 years; opi-rnt Lug time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at 9 500
Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, ?138,378,8QO; total depreciable investment, $240,957,100- and
total capital investment, $268,341,200.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,325,868 tons/yr, 3.5% sulfur, 14.07 ash I > 7oo
2.8 Ih S/MBtu. ' ' "'
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,390,756 tons/yr, 1 . 34X svil fur , 13. •>% ash 11 a
and 1.13 Ib S/MBtu. " * •'
,
, and
299
-------
TABLE B-47. KENNECOTT PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Base case - 5% S coal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw materials handling and preparation 13,856,900
Reactor area 48,820,200
Coal filtration area 24,489,000
Product agglomeration and handling 28,343,900
Neutralization and water handling 6,151,800
Settling pond 13,961,900
Subtotal 135,623,700
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 8,137,400
Total direct investment 143,761,100
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 3,777,600
Architect and engineering contractor 877,700
Construction expense 15,321,300
Contractor fees 4,188.700
Total indirect Investment 24,165,300
Contingency 33,585,300
Total fixed investment 201,511,700
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 20,151,200
Interest during construction 28,211,600
Total depreciable Investment 249,874,500
Land 3,152,600
Working capital 29,188.800
Total capital investment 231,215,900
Dollars of total capital per kW of
generating capacity 140>6
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis
for cost scaling, end-1980; operating time 8,000
hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-
fired power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and
5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal
storage capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal con-
sumption, 7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks
operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from
coal preparation plant.
300
-------
TABLE B-48. KENNECOTT PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Base case - 5% S coal
Annual quantity
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Process Btu loss
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analysis
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
329,915 tons
868,504 tons
171,200 tons
168,000 man-hr
2,005,900 MBtu
12,458,440 MBtu
8,741,630 kgal
660,230,321 kWh
32,000 man-hr
Unit cost, S
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
83.17/ton
13.80/aan-hr
1.36 /MBtu
2. 54 /MBtu
0,07/kgal
0.039/kNh
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost, $
14,228,600
18,351,500
14.238,700
46,878,800
2,318,400
2,728,000
31,644,400
611,900
25,749,000
8,625,700
598,400
?2, 275, 800
119,154,600
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacement, and
insurance at 6% of total depreciable
investment
Average cost of capital and taxes at
8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor and supervision
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Mills/kWh
C/lb
sulfur removed
14,992,500
24.184.600
1,159,200
231,800
40,560,100
159,722.700
159.722,700
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 14.7
53.8
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, aid-1982; plant life
30 years; operating time, 8,000 hr/yi. *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. *
Total direct investment, $143,761,100; total depreciable investment, $249.874 500- and
total capital investment, $281,215,900.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,619,275 tons/yr, 5.0Z sulfur, 16.71 ash. 12 000 Rtu/lk
and 4.2 Ib S/MBtu. ' tu'1D.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,623,894 tons/yr, 1.81X sulfur, 15.8X ash, 11 300 Btu/lb
and 1.60 Ib S/MBtu. '
301
-------
TABLE B-49. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
0.7X sulfur
Investment,_
Uircct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,799,000
Raw coal sizing 1,616,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,575,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,234,000
Fine coal cleaning . 2,696,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 1,904,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 6,208,000
Sulfur oxidatio: 6,292,000
Reactor off-ga;, cleaning 11,448,000
Fine coal leaching 7,906,000
Coarse coal leaching 7,142,000
Product agglomeration and handling 12,212,000
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling 6,250,000
Settling pond __Jj963i?0|2.
Subtotal 84,758,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,593,000
Total direct investment 90,351,000
_I nd i rec t_ Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,817,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,146,000
Construction expense 11,936,000
Contractor fees __JjJJLL.OOO
Total indirect investment 26,292,000
Contingency JLLIPI.PPP
Total fixed investment 139,846,000
01hcr Capita l_ Chaj-j;es
Allowance for startup and modifications 14,831,000
Interest during construction 20,763,000
Total depreciable investment 1/5,440,000
Land 3,296,000
Working capital _ f^OOT^OOO
Total capital in-'estment 197,743,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 98.9
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
302
-------
TABLE B-50. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
0.
,17. sulfur
Annual
quantity
. . —
Unit
cost, S
Total annual
cost , S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxy gen
NO 2
NaOH (50X)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance, 6% of direct Investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
22,200 tons
25,216 tons
952 tons
35,424 tons
81,200 tons
24,000 kft3
283,400 tons
43.il/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
962 ,000
533,000
633,000
3,527,000
6,753,000
7 1 ,000
8,949,000
296,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
21,428,000
4,085,000
97,000 gal
6,958,287 HBtu
2,946,438 kgal
257,358,453 kWh
2,720 tons
28,000 man-hr
0.70/f-al
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
68,000
17,674,000
265,000
10,037,000
254,000
5,928,000
524,000
38,835,000
60,261,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements
and insurance at 67. of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10X of operating labor
and supervision
Marketing, 1Q% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
11,034,000
18,369,000
2,042,000
409.0OO
31,854,000
92,117,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
92,117,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
8.4
C/lb
fuJL.E<-<
258,0
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-198?- piant uf-
30 years; operating time, PCC-6000 hr/yr, KVB-8000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MU, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $90,351,000; total depreciable investment, $175,440,000- and
total capital investment, $197,743,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,683,536 tons/yr, 0.7X sulfur, 11.5Z ash, 11 700 Btu/lb
and 0.6 Ib S/MBtu. *
Clean coal (moisture-frro): 4,247,967 Cons/yr, Q.36I sulfur. 7,71 ash, 12 300 »tu/lh
and 0.29 Ib S/MBtu.
303
-------
TABLE B-51. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
27, sulfur
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,529,000
Raw coal sizing 1,543,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,512,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,132,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,573,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,558,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 5,685,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water 5,913,000
handling
Settling pond 8,321.000
Subtotal 85,534,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,614.000
Total direct investment 91,148,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,856,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,139,000
Construction expense 11,867,000
Contractor fees 3,399.000
Total indirect investment 26,261,000
Contingency 23.297.000
Total fixed investment 140,706,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 14,474,000
Interest during construction 20,823,000
Total depreciable investment 176,003,000
Land 5,002,000
Working capital 25,481.000
Total capital investment 201,484,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 100.7
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating over-
heads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
304
-------
TABLE B-52. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
2% sulfur
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, S
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
89,416 tons
117,232 tons
952 tons
70,224 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
315,600 tons
43.31/ton
21 . V3/ton
665. 28/ ton
99. 57 /ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft^
31.58/ton
296,000 man-hr 13.80/san-hr
119,000 gal
5,352,009 MBtu
2,702,674 kgal
236,847,157 kWh
2,490 tons
0.70/gal
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kwh
93.31/ton
28,000 man-hr 18.70/aan-hr
3,873,000
2,477,000
633,000
6,992,000
6.254,000
70.000
9.966,000
10,265,000
4,085,000
83,000
13,594,000
243,000
9,237,000
232,000
5,950,000
524.000
33,948,000
64,213,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
and supervision
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
11,066,000
18.482,000
2,042,000
409,000
31,999,000
96,212,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
• Total annual revenue requirements
c/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 8.8
71.4
96,212.000
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, »id-1982; plant life,
30 years; operating time, PCC-6000 hr/yr, XVB-8000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $91,148,000 total depreciable investment, $176.003,0X10; and
total capital investment, $201,484,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,354.530 tons/yr, 2Z sulfur, 14,5X ash, 13.000 Btu/lb, and
1.54 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,679,577 tons/yr, 0.53X sulfur, 6.8Z ash. 14,200 Btu/lb.
and 0.37 Ib S/MBtu.
305
-------
TABLE B-53. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.57. sulfur
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,608,000
Raw coal sizing 1,564,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,547,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,162,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,594,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,581,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 5,685,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling 5,913,000
Settling pond 12.756.000
Subtotal 90,178,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5.B93.000
Total direct investment 96,071,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
8,980,000
2,154,000
12,244,000
3,530.000
26,908,000
24.400.000
147,379,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 15,543,000
Interest during construction 21,759.000
Total depreciable investment 184,681,000
Land 5,915,000
Working capital 27.662.000
Total capital investment 212,343,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 106.2
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
306
-------
TABLE B-54. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.5%
sulfur
Annual
quantity
Unit
coat, $
Total annual
cost. $
Direct Coats
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
NO
NaOH (50*)
Sodium llgnln sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
137,952 tona
198,784 tons
952 tons
128,576 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
368,650 tons
43.31/ton
21. U/ ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
5.975,000
4,200,000
633,000
12.802,000
6,254,000
70,000
11.642,000
41,576,000
296,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr 4,085,000
121,000 gal
5,350,723 MBtu
2,702,674 Vgal
237,076,157 MJh
2,550 tons
28,000 man-hr
0.70/gal
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
93.31/ton
18.70/Mn-hr
85,000
13,591,000
243,000
9,246,000
238,000
6,246.000
524.000
34,258.000
75,834.000
jndlrect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements
and insurance at 6X of total
depreciable Investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 501 of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 101 of operating labor
and supervision
Marketing, 10X of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
11,563,000
19.463.000
2,042,000
409,000
33,477,000
109,311,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
109,311,000
C/lb
Mills/kVh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 9.9
45.4
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; tine basis for scaling, •14-1982; plant life
30 years; operating time, PCC-6000 hr/yr, KVB-8000 hr/yr. '
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW,coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 B /kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $96,071,000} total depreciable investment, $184,681,000; and
total capital Investment, $212.343,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): A,486,288 tons/yr, 3.5JE sulfur, 14.OX a«h, 12,700 Btu/lb
and 2.75 Ib S/MBtu. *
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,705,674 tons/yr, 0.981 sulfur, 6.71 a»h, U 1OO Btu/lb
and 0.70 Ib S/MBtu. '
307
-------
TABLE B-55. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5% sulfur
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,841,000
Raw coal sizing 1,627,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,585,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,249,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 3,058,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 5,685,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling 5,913,000
Settling pond 16,203.000
Subtotal 94,625,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,173.000
Total direct investment 100,798,000
jndirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 9,161,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,186,000
Construction expense 12,980,000
Contractor fees 3,668.000
Total indirect Investment 27,995,000
Contingency 25,525.000
Total fixed investment 154,318,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,257,000
Interest during construction 22,761,000
Total depreciable investment 193,336,000
Land 7,297,000
Working capital 28,791.000
Total capital investment 229,424,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 114.7
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
308
-------
TABLE B-56. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
5% sulfur
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, S
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Lime
Oxygen
NO 2
NaOH (50%)
Sodium llgnin aulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance, 6% of direct investment
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
197,603 tons
297,600 tons
952 tons
152,880 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 tons
478,000 tons
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
296,000 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
8,558,000
6.288,000
631,000
15,222,000
6,254,000
70,000
15.098.000
52.123.000
4.085,000
145,000 gal
5,349,838 MBtu
2,708,374 kgal
237,849,157 kWh
2,760 tons
28,000 man-hr
0.70/gal
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kRal
0.039/kWh
93.31/ton
18.70/nan-hr
102.000
13.588,000
244,000
9,276,000
257,000
6.545,000
524,000
34,621,000
86,744,000
Indirect Coats
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements
and insurance at 6% of total
depreciable investment
Average cost of capital and taxes
at 8.6% of total capital investment
Overheads
Plant, 50% of operating labor and
supervision
Administrative, 10% of operating labor
and supervision
Marketing, 10% of sales revenue
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
12,096,000
20,536,000
2.042,000
409,000
35,081.000
121.827,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
121,827,000
Hills/kWh sulfur removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
11.0
31.5
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 years; operating time, PCC-6000 hr/yr, KVB-8000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kwh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investmnet, $100,798,000; total depreciable investment, $193,136,000; and
total capital investment, $229,424,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,796,394 tons/yr, 5* sulfur, 16.7X ash. 12,OOO.Btu/lb,
and 4.17 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,841,912 tons/yr, 1.261 sulfur, 8.0 ash, 13,600 Btu/lb,
and 0.93 Ib S/MBtu.
309
-------
TABLE B-57. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
2% S - 1.2 lb S02/MBtu
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 12,104,000
Raw coal sizing 1,543,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,512,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,132,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,573,000
Clean coal storage 8,028,000
Scrubbing 28,281,000
Waste disposal 9.602.000
Tota] areas 65,775,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 3,947.000
Total direct investment 69,722,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 5,857,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,395,000
Construction expense 8,297,000
Contractor fees 2,342.000
Total indirect investment 17,891,000
Contingency 15,733.000
Total fixed investment 103,346,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 10,335,000
Interest during construction 14,469.000
Total depreciable investment 128,150,000
Land 4,100,000
Working capital 10,487,000
Total capital Investment 142,737,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 71.37
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
310
-------
TABLE B-58. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Limestone
2Z S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
Annual
quantity
315,600 tons
83,100 tons
Unit
cost, $
31.58/ton
7.75/ton
Total annual
cost, $
9.966.00O
644,000
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
168,700 man-hr 13.80/aan-hr
10,610,000
2,328.000
344.000 kgal
75,470,000 kWh
119.000 gal
879,800 klb
2,490 tons
7,600 man-hr
0.13/kga!
0.039/kUh
0.70/gal
2.35/klb
93.31/ton
18.70/nan-hr
45,000
2,943,000
83,000
2,068,000
232,000
4,183,000
142.000
12,024,000
22,634,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
7,689,000
12,275.000
2,434,000
233,000
22,631,000
45,265,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
45,265,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Mills/kWh
4.12
C/lb
S removed
40.49
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, •id-1982; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $69,722,000; total depreciable investment, $128,150,000; and
total capital investment, $142,737,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,362,000 tons/yr, 2X S, 14.51 ash, 12,800 Btu/lb, and
1.56 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,749,000 tons/yr, 1.36X S, 7.45X ash, 14,000-Btu/lb, and
0.97 Ib S/MBtu.
311
-------
TABLE B-59, PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.52 S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
Investment, S
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 15,073,000
Raw coal sizing 1,564,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,547,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,162,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,594,000
Clean coal storage 8,048,000
Scrubbing 43,681,000
Waste disposal 20.061.000
Total areas 94,730,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5.684.000
Total direct investment 100,414,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,434,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,009,000
Construction expense 11,949,000
Contractor fees 3.374,000
Total indirect investment 25,766,000
Contingency 23,431.000
Total fixed investment 149,611,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 14,961,000
Interest during construction 20.945,000
Total depreciable investment 185,517,000
Land 5,922,000
Working capital 12.051.000
Total capital investment 203,490,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 101.74
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
312
-------
TABLE B-60. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.5* S - 1
Direct Costs
Raw materials .
Coal loss (Btu basts)
Limestone
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
.2 Ib S02/MBtu
Annual
quantity
366,650 tons
315,900 tons
180,000 man-hr
726.000 legal
133,000,000 kWh
121,000 gal
1,662,100 k.lb
2,550 tons
9.300 Mn-hr
Unit
cost. $
31.58/ton
7.75/ton
13.80/Mn-hr
0.11/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/kgal
2.35/klb
93.3l/to»
18,70/man-hr
Total annual
cost. $
11,642,000
2.448.000
14,090,000
2.484,000
80.000
5,187.000
85,000
3,906.000
238,000
6,024,000
174,000
18,178,000
32,268,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
11.131.000
17.500.000
3,441,000
249.000
32,321,000
64.589.000
64.589.000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Milla/kWh S removed
5.87 25.74
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; tine basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $100,414,000; total depreciable Investment, $185,517,000; and
total capital Investment, $203,490,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,480,000 tons/yr, 3.5Z S, 14.OX ash, 12.500 Btu/lb, mat
2.79 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,862.000 tons/yr, 2.55X S, 7.99X ash, 13.400 Btu/lb, and
1.91 Ib S/MBtu.
313
-------
TABLE B-61. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5% S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 17,612,000
Raw coal sizing 1,627,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,585,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,249,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Clean coal storage 8,261,000
Scrubbing 51,033,000
Waste disposal 29,840,000
Total areas 114,903,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,894,000
Total direct investment 121,797,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,231,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,436,000
Construction expense 14,494,000
Contractor fees 4,093,000
Total indirect investment 31,254,000
Contingency 28,725,000
Total fixed investment 181,776,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 18,177,000
Interest during construction 25,449,000
Total depreciable investment 225,402,000
Land 8,262,000
Working capital 13,698,000
Total capital investment 247,362,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 123.68
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
NSPS emission level - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu. For this 5% sulfur
coal, this is also the emission level allowed for the
proposed 85% removal NSPS which has a 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
upper limit.
314
-------
TABLE B-62, PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
52 & - 1.2 lb S02/MBtu
Annual
quantity
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis) 478,100 tons
Limestone 588,500 tons
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision 185,100 raan-hr
Utilities
Process water 987,000 kgal
Electricity 158,810,000 kWh
Diesel fuel 145,000 gal
Steam 1,902,000 klb
Process material: magnetite, Grade E 2,760 tons
Maintenance
Analyses 10,100 man-hr
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Unit Total annual
cost, $ cost, $
31.58/ton 15,098,000
7.75/ton 4,561,000
19,659,000
13.80/raan-hr 2,554,000
0.11/kgal 109,000
0.039/kWh 6,193,000
0.70/gal 102,000
2.35/klb 4,470,000
93. 31 /ton 257.000
7,308,000
18.70/man-hr 189.000
21,182,000
40,841,000
13,524,000
21,273,000
4,087,000
256,000
39,140,000
79,981,000
ttyjroduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
79,981,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Mills/kVlh
c/lb
S removed
7.27
18.99
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fited power plant operating at
9 500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $121,797,000; total depreciable investment, $225,402,000; and
total capital investment, $247,362,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,840,000 tons/yr, 5Z S, 16.7Z ash, 12,000 Btu/lb, and
4.17 lb S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,073,000 tons/yr, 3.67Z S, 10.091 ash, 13,000 Btu/lb, and
2.84 lb S/MBtu.
MSPS emission level - 1.2 lb S02/MBtu. For this 5X S coal, this is also the emission
level allowed for the proposed 85% removal NSPS which has a 1.2 lb S02/MBtu upper
limit.
315
-------
TABLE B-63. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
0.7% S - 85% removal
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 12,147,000
Raw coal sizing 1,616,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,575,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,234,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Clean coal storage 8,459,000
Scrubbing 52,063,000
Waste disposal 9,950.000
Total areas 90,740,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5.444.000
Total direct investment 96,184,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,079,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,923,000
Construction expense 11,446,000
Contractor fees 3,232.000
Total indirect investment 24,680,000
Contingency 22,356.000
Total fixed investment 143,220,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications . 14,322,000
Interest during construction _2jOJ_0_51_L000
Total depreciable investment 177,593,000
Land 3,316,000
Working capital 13,346.000
Total capital investment 194,255,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 97.13
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
316
-------
TABLE B-64. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
0.7% S -
Direct Coats
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Limes tone
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
85* removal
Annual
quantity
283,400 tons
98,400 tons
172,100 nan-hr
646.000 kgal
151,870,000 kWh
97,000 gal
1,803,000 klb
2,720 tons
8.200 man-hr
Unit
cost. $
31.58/ton
7.75/ton
13.80/aan-hr
0.11/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
2.35/klb
93.31/ton
18.70/man-hr
Total annual
cost. $
8,949,000
763.000
9,712,000
2.375,000
71,000
5,923,000
68,000
4,237,000
254.000
5.771.000
153,000
18.852.000
28,564,000
Indirect Costa
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
10,656,000
16,706,000
3,244,000
238.000
30,844,000
59,408,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
C/lb
MiUs/kWh S removed
5.40
'05
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; tine basis for
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MH, co.<
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $96,184,000; total de; • e.
total capital investment, $194,255,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,777,000 tons/yr, 0.7X S, 11.5X ash, 11,700 Btu/lb and
0.60 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,354,000 tons/yr, 0.62X S, 7.MX ash. 12;200 Btu/lb and
0,51 Ib S/MBtu.
DSPS emission level - 0.20 Ib S02/MBtu.
•8, •id-1982; plant life,
-ower plant operating at
investment, $177,593,000, and
317
-------
TABLE B-65. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
2% S - 85% removal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 14,439,000
Raw coal sizing 1,543,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,512,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,132,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,573,000
Clean coal storage 8,028,000
Scrubbing 47,083,000
Waste disposal 14,204.000
Total areas 91,514,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,491,000
Total direct investment 97,005,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,148,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,940,000
Construction expense 11,544,000
Contractor fees 3,259,000
Total indirect investment 24,891,000
Contingency 22,590.000
Total fixed investment 144,486,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 14,449,000
Interest during construction 20,228.000
Total depreciable investment 179,163,000
Land 4,813,000
Working capital 11,571.000
Total capital investment 195,547,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 97.77
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
318
-------
TABLE B-66. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
2Z S
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Limestone
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite. Grade
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
- 85Z removal
Annual
quantity
315,600 tons
172,200 tons
177,000 man-hr
670,000 kgal
140,990.000 kWh
119,000 gal
1,819,000 klb
E 2,490 tons
8,900 naa-hr
Unit
cost, $
31.58/ton
7.75/ton
13.80/Mn-hr
0.11/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/g»l
2.35/klb
93.31/ton
18.70/Mn-hr
Total annual
cost, $
9,966,000
1,335,000
11,301,000
2,443,000
74,000
5,498,000
83,000
4,275,000
232,000
5,820.000
166.000
18,591,000
29,892,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
10.750.000
16.817,000
3.321,000
245,000
31,133,000
61.025,000
61,025.000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/kWh S reaoved
5.55
41.1
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, Mid-1982; plant life
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr. '
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fixed power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $97,005,000; total depreciable InvratMBt, $179,163,000; and
total capital investment, $195,547,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,362,000 tons/yr, 2X S, 14.5X **h, 12,800 fttu/lb. and
1.56 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,749,000 tons/yr, 1.36X S, 7.45X aah, 14.000 Btu/lb and
0.97 Ib S/MBtu,
HSPS emission level - 0.47 Ib S02/MBtu.
319
-------
TABLE B-67. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.5% S - 85% removal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 15,667,000
Raw coal sizing 1,564,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,547,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,162,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,594,000
Clean coal storage 8,048,000
Scrubbing 48,678,000
Waste disposal 21,668.000
Total areas 101,928,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,115,000
Total direct investment 108,043,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 9,075,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,161,000
Construction expense 12,857,000
Contractor fees 3,630,000
Total indirect investment 27,723,000
Contingency 25,348,000
Total fixed investment 161,114,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,111,000
Interest during construction 22,556,000
Total depreciable investment 199,781,000
Land 6,187,000
Working capital 12,321,000
Total capital investment 218,289,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 109.14
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
320
-------
TABLE E-68. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.52 S -
Direct Coses
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Limestone
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
85Z removal
Annual
quant ity
368,650 tons
355,700 tons
181,700 man-hr
812,000 kgal
147,960,000 kWh
121,000 gal
1,871,000 klb
2,550 tons
9,600 man-hr
Unit
cost, $
31.58/ton
7.75/ton
13."80/man-nr
0.11/kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
2.3S/klb
93.31/ton
18,70/nan-hr
Total annual
cost, $
11,642,000
2,757,000
14,399,000
2,508,000
89,000
5,770,000
85,000
4,397,000
238,000
6,482,000
180,000
19,749,000
34,148,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
11,987,000
18,773,000
3.685,000
251,000
34,696,000
68,844,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
68,844,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
Mills/kWh
6.26
C/lb
S removed
25,83
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, •id-1982; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $108,043,000; total depreciable investment, $199,781,000; and
total capital investment, $218,289,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,480,000 tons/yr, 3.53! S, 14.OZ ash, 12,500 Btu/lb, and
2.79 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,862,000 tons/yr, 2.55X S, 7.99Z ash. 13,400 Btu/lb, and
1.91 Ib S/MBtu.
NSPS emission level - 0.84 Ib S02/MBtu.
321
-------
TABLE B-69. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5% S - 852 removal
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 17,612,000
Raw coal sizing 1,627,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,585,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,249,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Clean coal storage 8,261,000
Scrubbing 51,033,000
Waste disposal 29,840.000
Total areas 114,903,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,894,000
Total direct investment 121,797,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,231,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,436,000
Construction expense 14,494,000
Contractor fees 4,093,000
Total indirect investment 31,254,000
Contingency 28,725,000
Total fixed investment 181,776,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 18,177,000
Interest during construction 25,449,000
Total depreciable investment 225,402,000
Land 8,262,000
Working capital 13,698,000
Total capital investment 247,362,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 123.68
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs (excluding Btu loss), and
7 weeks operating overheads.
Landfill site for refuse disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
NSPS emission level - 1.2 Ib SO2/MBtu. For this 5% sulfur
coal, this is also the emission level allowed for the
proposed 85% removal NSPS which has a 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu
upper limit.
322
-------
TABLE B-70. PCC I PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
5X S
- 35* removal
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Limestone
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Process water
Electricity
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process material: magnetite, Grade E
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
678,100 tons
588,500 tons
185,100 toan-hr
987,000 kgal
158,810,000 kWh
145,000 gal
1,902,000 Vlb
2,760 tons
10,100 man-hr
3l.58/ton
7.75/ton
13.80/wan-hr
0.11 /kgal
0.039/kWh
0.70/gal
2.35/klb
93.31/ton
18.70/man-ht
15,098,000
4.561,000
19.659,000
2,554,000
»09,000
6,193,000
102,000
4,470,000
257.000
7,308,000
\ 89, 000
21,182,000
40,841,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Cross annual revenue requirements
13,524,000
21,273,000
4,087,000
256,000
39.140,000
79.981,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
total annual revenue requirements
79,981,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
C/lb
Mills/fcWh S removed
7.27
18.99
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis (or seeling, •14-1M2; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, 6,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-tW. coal-fired power plant operating *t
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $121,797,000; total depreciable Investment, $225,402,000: and
total capital investment, $247,362,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,840,000 tons/yr, SZ S, 16.71 ash, 12,000 Itu/lb, «nd
4.L7 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,073,000 tons/yr, 3.67X S, 10.09X ask, 13.000 Btu/lb, and
2.84 Ib S/MBcu.
NSPS emission level - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu. For this 5X S coal, this la also the emission
level allowed for the proposed 85Z removal NSPS which haa a 1.2 Ib. SOj/MBtu upper
limit.
323
-------
TABLE B-71. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.5% S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 11,819,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 16,583,000
Waste disposal 16.194.000
Subtotal 92,764,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5.155.000
Total direct investment 97,919,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 8,595,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,579,000
Construction expense 12,430,000
Contractor fees 3,692.000
Total indirect investment 26,296,000
Contingency 24.843.000
Total fixed investment 149,058,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 14,906,000
Interest during construction 20,868,000
Total depreciable investment 184,832,000
Land 3,352,000
Working capital 19,356.000
Total capital investment 207,540,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 103,8
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kVh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
324
-------
TABLE B-72. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.5%
S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
NOj
NaOH (502)
Sodium llgnin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion coats
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
lotal coaver&ion costs
Total direct costs
31,303 tons
137,952 tons
198,784 tons
952 tons
128,576 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
7.75/ton
43.3l/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
243,000
5,975,000
4,200,000
633,000
12,802,000
6,254,000
70,000
165,878 raan-hr 13.80/n«n-hr
5,350,723 MBtu
2,807,020 kgal
253,335,413 kWh
27,274 man-hr
30,177,000
2,289,000
2.54/MBtu
0.09 /kgal
0.039/Kwh
18.70/»an-hr
13,591,000
253,000
9,880,000
5,998,000
510,000
32,521,000
62,698,000
Indirect Coats
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
I 7,848,00(1
1,899,000
229,000
9 <,?<<.;,noo
Byproduct Sales Revenue
Hone
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
Mills/kWh
e/lb
sulfur removed
Baals
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982- plant life
30 years; operating time, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5,500 hr/yr. '
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant operatine at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. 6
Total direct Investment, $97,919,000; total depreciable investment, $184 932 000- anri
total capital Investment, $207,640,000. '
R«W coal (moisture-free): 4,211,525 tons/yr, 3.5Z sulfur, 14.Ot ash, 12 700 Btu/lv, .»,.
2.8 Ib S/MBtu. »«»/«», and
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,988,549 tons/yr, 0.98X sulfur, 10.3* ash, 13,100 Btu/lb
and 0.8 Ib S/MBtu. * *
NSPS emission level - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu.
325
-------
TABLE B-73. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5% S - 1.2 lb SOa/MBtu NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 13,852,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 31,628,000
Waste disposal 23.396.000
Subtotal 117,044,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,749.000
Total direct investment 122,793,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,466,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,586,000
Construction expense 16,210,000
Contractor fees 4.785,000
Total indirect investment 33,047,000
Contingency 30,920.000
Total fixed Investment 186,760,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 18,676,000
Interest during construction 26.146.000
Total depreciable investment 231,5R2,000
Land 4,726,000
Working capital 21.685.000
Total capital investment 257,993,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 129.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
326
-------
TABLE B-74. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
5:
S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu USPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost. $
Direct Costa
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium llgnln sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
90,004 tons
197,603 tons
297,600 tons
952 tons
152,880 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 Wt3
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83. 17 /ton
2.93/kft3
698,000
8,558,000
6,288,000
633,000
VS. 222,000
6,254,000
70.000
174,694 aan-hr 13.80/aan-hr
37,723.000
2,411.000
5,349,838 MBtu
3,005,871 kgal
293,591,132 kWh
27,338 man-hr
2.54/KBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
18.70/aan-hr
13.589.000
271.000
11.450.000
7,460,000
511.000
35.692,000
73,415,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements, and
Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
13.895.000
22,187,000
2,595.000
241.000
38.91K.OOO
112,333,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
112,333,000
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
Mills/kWh sulfur
10.2
29.9
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time beela for scallM, sttd-lW2- Bleat life
30 years; operating tlae, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5.500 te/yr. '
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MH coal-fired power plant o»ejatlua at
9,500 Btw/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. ^^ ^
Total direct investment, $122.793,000; total depreciable Imastmeiii $231.2*4 OOfi- m,
total capital investment, $257,695.000. * '
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4.378,650 tons/yr, 5.0X aulfur, 16.n aah. 12.000 Btu/lh
4.2 Ib S/MBtu. "*
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,146,825 tons/yr, 1.3X sulfur, 11.Ut a«ti 1
and 1.0 Ib S/MBtu.
NSPS emission level - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu. For this 5X eulfur cotl, tKU la
level allowed for the proposed 8SX removal HSPS which has • 1.2 Ib
327
-------
TABLE B-75. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
0.7% S - 85% Removal NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 13,223,000
Sulfur oxidation 6,292,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 11,448,000
Tine coal leaching 7,906,000
Coarse coal leaching 7,141,000
Product agglomeration and handling 12,212,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 6,250,000
Scrubbing 33,507,000
Waste disposal 8,797,000
Subtotal 106,776,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,755.000
Total direct investment 112,531,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,226,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,568,000
Construction expense 15,317,000
Contractor fees 4,553,000
Total indirect investment 31,664,000
Contingency 28.838.000
Total fixed investment 173,033,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 17,303,000
Interest during construction 24,225.000
Total depreciable investment 214,561,000
Land 1,760,000
Working capital 17.747,000
Total capital investment 234,068,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 117.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
328
-------
TABLE B-76. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
0.7% S -
85% Removal NSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Coata
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
H02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
39,600 tone
22,200 tons
25,216 tons
952 tons
35,424 tons
81,200 tons
24,000 kft3
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/tot»
83. 17 /ton
2.93/kft3
307,000
962,000
533,000
633,000
3,527,000
6,753,000
70,000
176,948 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
6,958,287 MBtu
3,303,406 kgal
336,478,753 kWh
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
27,672 man-hr 18.70/man-hr
12,785,000
2,442,000
17,674.000
297,000
13,123,000
7,596,000
517.000
41,649,000
54,760,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
12.ft74.000
20,129.000
2,956,000
244,000
36.203.000
90,963.000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
90,963.000
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
8.3
197.8
Basis
aoA.0
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982- nlant
30 years; operating time, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5,500 hr/yr. '
ii ..»— «A«t m-ftrtnf+t-4f\n f*anne+4+*t ff\'f 9 QQQ«"MUf ^~~~^ *"* -* -- • ~
,000; total
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,715,468 tona/yr, 0.7X sulfur, 11.5X M)> 11
0.6 Ib S/MBtu. '
Clean coal (moieture-free): 4,465,812 tons/yr, 0.36Z sulfur, U.2J: a*h
and 0.3 Ib S/MBtu.
NSPS emmission level - 0.20 Ib S02/MBtu..
lif.
m»..Mv
»n»/lb.
329
-------
TABLE B-77. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
2,0% S - 85% Removal NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 12,119,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 25,471,000
Waste disposal 12,542.000
Subtotal 98,300,000
Services, utilicies, and miscellaneous 5.361,000
Total direct investment 103,661,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 9,431,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,569,000
Construction expense 13,753,000
Contractor fees 4,091,000
Total indirect investment 28,844,000
Contingency 26,501.000
Total fixed investment 159,006,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 15,901,000
Interest during construction 22,261,000
Total depreciable investment 197,168,000
Land 2,572,000
Working capital 18.220.000
Total capital Investment 217,960,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 109.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
330
-------
TABLE B-78. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
2* S -
85Z Removal flSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
coat, $
Total annual
coat, $
Direct Costs
Rav
Limestone
time
Oxygen
N02
NftOH (50%)
Sodium lignln aulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
36,883 tons
89.416 tons
117,232 tons
952 tons
70,224 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 WtS
7.75/too
43. 31 /ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83.17/too
2.93/kft3
286,000
3,873,000
2,477,000
633,000
6,992,000
6,254,000
70.000
171,577 n*n-hr
13.80/nan-hr
2.54/NBtu
5,352,009 HBtu
2,965,076 kgal
290,438,594 kVh 0.039/kVh
26,884 man-hr 18.70/«en-ht
20,585,000
2,368,000
13,594,000
267,000
11,327.000
6,726,000
503.000
34.765.000
55.370,000
Indirect Costa
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
11 .« Ift.lWI
2,451,000
237,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
SS.frJS.OOO
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
Mills/kVh sulfur removed
8.1 42.6
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; tin* basis for scaling, add-1982; plant life
30 years; operating time, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5,500 hr/yr. *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant OD.ratln* *t
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5.500 hr/yr. !-«"»* «c
Total direct Investment, $103,661,000; total depreciable InveataMnt. S197 1M ooo- .^
total capital investment, $217,960,000. ,w,uw, and
Raw coal (molstura-free): 4,117,238 tons/yr, 2.OX sulfur, 14.51 ash, 13,000 Rtu/l\>, and
1.5 lt> S/MBtu.
Clean coal (molature-free): 3,899.254 tons/yr, 0.53Z «ulfur, II.6J *,h, ^j 4(xj «tu/lb
and 0.4 Ib S/MBtu. " '
NSPS emission level - 0.45 Ib S02/MBtu.
331
-------
TABLE B-79. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.5% S - 85% Removal NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 12,361,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 21,850,000
Waste disposal 19.049.000
Subtotal 101,429,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,086,000
Total direct investment 107,515,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,969,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,701,000
Construction expense 16,431,000
Contractor fees 4.926,000
Total indirect investment 34,027,000
Contingency 28.308^000
Total fixed investment 169,850,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 16,985,000
Interest during construction 23,779,000
Total depreciable Investment 210,614,000
Land 3,828,000
Working capital 20,223.000
Total capital investment 234,665,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 117.3
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
332
-------
TABLE B-80. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.5%
S - 8551 Removal NSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Coats
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
Tetal conversion coats
Total direct costs
70,888 tons
137,952 tons
198,784 tons
952 tons
128,576 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83. 17 /ton
2.93/kft3
549,000
5,975,000
4.200,000
633,000
12,802,000
6,254,000
70,000
174,227 man-hr 13.80/man-hr
30,483,000
2,404,000
5,350,723 MBtu
2,988,275 kgal
290,819,931 kWh
27,274 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kg«l
0.039/kWh
18.70/nan-hr
13,591,000
269,000
11,342,000
h,i.M , OOU
510,000
Ji, 56 7. 000
bS, 050. 000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements, and
insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Markecing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
U.MT.OOO
2,509,000
241,000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
100. f. is, ooo
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
C/lb
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
9.1
40.1
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling. aid-1982- olant Uf.
30 years; operating time, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5,500 hr/yr. *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired cover plant
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
>r
,t
Total direct investment, $V07, 515, r>00; total depreciable investment SMO 6X4 iXX)- ~»
total capital investment, $234,665,000. ' ' '
Raw coal (moisture-f tee) : 4,211,525 tons/yr, 3.5Z sulfur, 14. OX ash, 12 700 »t,,Mv. .
2.8 Ib S/MBtu. ' »••'"".
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,988,549 tons/yr, 0.98X sulfur. 10. 3Z ash 13 10
and 0.8 Ib S/MBtu. *iu
NSPS emission level - 0.84 Ib S02/MBtu.
333
-------
TABLE B-81. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
57, S - 85% removal NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Raw material handling and preparation 13,852,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 31,628,000
Waste disposal 23,396,000
Subtotal 117,044,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 5,749,000
Total direct investment 122,793,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 10,466,000
Architect and engineering contractor 1,586,000
Construction expense 16,210,000
Contractor fees 4,785,000
Total indirect investment 33,047,000
Contingency 30,920,000
Total fixed investment 186,760,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 18,676,000
Interest during construction 26.146.000
Total depreciable investment 231,582,000
Land 4,726,000
Working capital 21.685,000
Total capital investment 257,993,000
Dollars of total capital per kW of generating
capacity 129.0
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project begin-
ning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost
scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power
plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides for 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7
weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond site for sludge disposal located 1 mile from coal
preparation plant.
334
-------
TABLE B-82. KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
5% S - 85% removal NsrS
Annual
quantity
_
Unit
cost, $
Total annual
cost, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N(>2
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Total rav materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
90,004 to'ns
197,603 tons
297,600 tons
952 tons
152,880 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 kft3
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
698.000
8,558,000
6,288,000
633,000
15,222,000
6,254,000
70,000
174,69A man-hr 13.80/man-hr
37,723,000
2.411,000
5,349,838 MBtu
3,005,871 kgal
293,591,132 kWh
27,338 man-hr
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kHh
18. 70 /man-hr
13,589,000
271,000
11,450,000
7,4*0,000
511,000
35,692.000
73,415,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements, and
insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
1 !,*<»> ,000
_'->, I.S7.0OO
2,595,000
241.000
18,-MS,000
1U\1 I i.00(1
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
IU.lil.iKW
Equivalent unit revenue requirement
Mills/kWh sulfur removed
10.2 29.9
Basis
ISi-a
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant ltf«
30 years; operating time, KVB - 8,000 hr/yr; FGD - 5,500 hr/yr. *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW coal-fired power plant oMratln* mt
9,500 B«u/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr. *-««««
Total direct investment, $122,793,000; total depreciable InvastMnt $231 284 000- and
total capital investment, $257,695,000. ' *
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,378,650 tons/yr, 5.OX sulfur, 16.71 ash, 12,000 Btu/lh and
4.2 Ib S/HBtu. " ™~
Clean coal (moisture-free): 4,146,825 tons/yr, 1.3X sulfur, U.4X ash U 60O
and 1.0 Ib S/MBtu. ' '
NSPS emiasion level - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu. For this 5X milfur eoal, thi« U also
level allowed for the proposed 85X removal NSPS whtch has a 1.2 Ib "
335
-------
TABLE B-83. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.5% S - 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,608,000
Raw coal sizing 1,564,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,547,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,162,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,594,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 2,581,000
Interim storage area A,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 6,737,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7,427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water 5,913,000
handling
Scrubbing 11,219,000
Waste disposal 14,909,000
Subtotal 104,599,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 6,470,000
Total direct investment 111,069,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
10,330,000
2,154,000
14,644,000
4,280,000
31,408,000
28.300.000
170,777,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 17,078,000
Interest during construction 23.909,000
Total depreciable investment 211,761,000
Land 6,209,000
Working capital 28.186,000
Total capital investment 246,156,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 123.1
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project
beginning mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for
cost scaling, end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000 MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kwli and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
336
-------
TABLE B-84. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.5X S -
Direct Costa,
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials coat
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct coses
1.2 Ib S02/KBtu NSPS
Annual
JluantUy
17,894 tons
137,952 tons
198,786 tons
952 tons
128,576 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 tons
368,650 tons
304,350 man-hr
121,000 gal
5,350,723 MBtu
2,790,058 kgal
255,823,565 kWh
2,550 tons
29,072 man-hr
Unit
cost, $
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
»9.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93mt3
31.58/ton
13.80/man-hr
0.70/gal
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
93.31/ton
Total annual
cost, $ _
139,000
5,975,000
4,200,000
633,000
12,802,000
6,254,000
70,000
U, 642,000
41,715,000
4,200,000
85,000
13,591,000
2M,000
9,977,000
238,000
IS. 201,000
18.70/»an-hr 544,000
44,089,000
85,804,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital toxps
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
2,557,000
421.000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
I22.fc57.000
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
11.2
47.4
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basts for scaling, atd-lM?; plant life,
30 yr; operating time, PCC-6,000 lir/yr, KVB-8.0OO hr/yr, n:D-S.50O Ur/yt.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MH, conl-fIred power plant o,H-rjtinK ^t
9,500 litu/klfli, and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $111,069,000 total depreciabl* Investment. $21J.6'»5>OOO, »nd
total capital investment, $248,090,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,589,372 tons/yr, 3.5X sulfur. V4.0X ash, 12,700 Uu/lb,
and 2.75 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,786,232 tons/yr. 0.98X sulfur. S.9I ash, U.tQO Hu/Jb,
and 0.7 Ib S/MBtu.
NSPS emission level: 1.2 Ib S02/MBCU.
337
-------
TABLE B-85. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5Z S - 1.2 lb S02/MBtu NSPS
Investment. $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,841,000
Raw coal sizing 1,627,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,585,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,249,000
Tine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 3,058,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 8,250,000
Sulfur oxidation 5,985,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 10,889,000
Fine coal leaching 7.427,000
Coarse coal leaching 6,625,000
Product agglomeration and handling 11,329,000
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling 5,913,000
Scrubbing 25,683,000
Waste disposal 22.060,000
Subtotal 128,730,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 7,541,000
Total direct investment 136,271,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 12,354,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,186,000
Construction expense 18,656,000
Contractor fees 5,442,000
Total indirect investment 38,638,000
Contingency 34.748.000
Total fixed Investment 209,657,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 20,966,000
Interest during construction 29,332,000
Total depreciable investment 259,975,000
Land 8,135,000
Working capital 30.0_85.000
Total capital investment 298,195,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 149-1
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning
mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling, end-1980;
operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant
operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage capacities
(power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7 weeks
direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal located
1 mile from coal preparation plant.
338
-------
TABLE B-86. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
SX S -
1.2 lb S02/MBtu HSPS
Animal
quantity
Unit
cost. $
Total annual
coat, $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Limestone
Line
Oxygen
N02
KaOH (50*)
Sodium llgnin sulfonate
Katural gaa
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
57.291 tons
197.603 tons
297,600 tone
952 tone
152,860 tons
75,200 tone
24,000 tons
478,000 tons
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21 a3/ton
66S.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/k€t3
31. SB/ton
444,000
8.SS8.000
6.288,000
633.000
15,222,000
6,254,000
70,000
IS.09%.000
52.567,000
317.872 Bin-hr 13.80/Mn-br 4.387.000
145,000 gal
5,349,838 HBtu
2,940,474 kgal
286,664.699 kWh
2,760 tona
30,806 van-hr
0.70/gal
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kcal
0.039/kMk
91. 31 /ton
18.70/aan-hr
102.000
13,588,000
265,000
11.180.000
257.000
8.862.000
576,000
39.217.000
91.784,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
15,599,000
25.645.WW
3,377.000
439.000
4%.060 .000
136,844,000
Sales
None
Total annual revenue requirement a
Mllls/kWh S
C/lb
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 12.4
35.1
136,844.000
Jaais
Midwest coal -cleaning plant location; time baaia tor •c*ll*».
30 yr; operating tia». PCC-6000 hr/jrr, KT*-«,000 fcc/yt,
lit.
'
Total direct Investment, $136,271,000; total depreciable
and total capital Investment, $300,176,000.
Saw coal (moisture-free): 4,531,224 tons/yr, 5X tulfui, li.n artu tt.UO
and 4.17 lb S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,928,571 tone/7*, 1.J1 aaltvr. «.K «ati. 13.MO
and 0,9 lb S/MBtu. "^
NSPS emission level: 1.2 lb S(>2/MBtu. For tKle SS-coal, thta *» «4«a> Uw
level allowed for the proposed 4SZ removal IMPS Vbich ha* « V»l Ik
limit.
339
-------
TABLE B-87. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
0.72 S - 85Z removal MSPS
Investment, $
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage 8,799,000
Raw coal sizing 1,616,000
Coarse coal cleaning 1,575,000
Intermediate coal cleaning 2,234,000
Fine coal cleaning 2,696,000
Refuse disposal as landfill 1,904,000
Interim storage area 4,513,000
Raw material handling and preparation 8,753,000
Sulfur oxidatidn 6,292,000
Reactor off-gas cleaning 11,448,000
Fine coal leaching 7,906,000
Coarse coal leaching 7,142,000
Product agglomeration and handling 1?,212.000
Leach solution neutraliEation and water
handling 6,250,000
Scrubbing 41,054,000
Waste disposal 8,636.000
Subtotal 133,030,000
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous 7,431,OOP
Total direct investment 140,461,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision 13,327,000
Architect and engineering contractor 2,146,000
Construction expense 19,954,000
Contractor fees 5,898,000
Total indirect investment 41,325,000
Contingency 36,232,000
Total fixed investment 218,018,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications 21,802,000
Interest during construction 30,523.000
Total depreciable investment 270,343,000
Land 3,908,000
Working capital 21,090,000
Total capital Investment 295,341,000
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal 147.7
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning
mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling,
end-1980; operating time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired
power plant operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage
capacities (power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption,
7 weeks direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating
overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal
located 1 mile from coal preparation plant.
340
-------
TABLE B-88, COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
0.7% S -
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Limestone
time
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Equivalent unit revenue requirements
85% removal NSPS
Annual
quantity
36,995 tons
22,200 tons
25,216 tons
952 tons
35,424 tons
81,200 tons
24,000 tons
283,400 tons
321,309 man-hr
97,000 gal
6,958,287 MBtu
3,359,753 kgal
353,916,849 kWh
2,720 tons
11,724 man-hr
Mills/kVh S
10.4
Unit
cost, $
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99. 57 /ton
83. 17 /ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
13.80/nan-hr
0.70/gal
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
93. 31 /ton
18.70/man-hr
-------
TABLE B-89. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
2% S - 85% reduction NSPS
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage
Raw coal sizing
Coarse coal cleaning
Intermediate coal cleaning
Fine coal cleaning
Refuse disposal as landfill
Interim storage area
Raw material handling and preparation
Sulfur oxidation
Reactor off-gas cleaning
Fine coal leaching
Coarse coal leaching
Product agglomeration and handling
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling
Scrubbing
Haste disposal
Subtotal
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous
Total direct investment
Investment, $
8,529,000
1.5A3.000
1,512,000
2,132,000
2,573,000
2,558,000
4,513,000
8,202,000
5,985,000
10,889,000
7,427,000
6,625,000
11,329,000
5,913,000
25,620,000
11.737.000
117,087,000
7.011.000
124,098,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed investment
11,822,000
2,139,000
17,139,000
5,047.000
36,147,000
31.864,000
192,109,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications
Interest during construction
Total depreciable investment
Land
Working capital
Total capital investment
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal
19,211.000
26.895.000
238,215,000
5,417,000
26,673,000
270,305,000
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning mid-1979,
ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling, end-1980; operating
time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant
operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage capacities
(power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7 weeks direct
revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal located
1 mile from coal preparation plant.
342
-------
TABLE B-90. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
2Z
S - 8SZ reduction HSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost, S
Total annual
coat. $
Direct Coats
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (50%)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
21,858 tons
89,416 tons
117,232 tons
952 tons
70,224 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 tons
315,600 tons
7.75/ton
43. 31 /ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
314,700 man-hr 13.80/Mn-hr
169.000
3,873,000
2,477,000
633,000
6.992.000
6,234,000
70.000
9.966.000
30,4)4.000
4.384,000
119,000 gal
5,352,009 MBtu
2,909,150 kgal
284,860,387 kUh
2,490 tons
30,402 aan-hr
0.70/gal
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09/kgal
0.039/kWh
93.31/ton
18.70/«*n-hr
83.000
13.594.000
262,000
11,110,000
232,000
8,191,000
569,000
3t.425.000
6S.8S9.000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements,
and insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
14,293,000
23,246.000
3.314.000
134,000
40.987,000
109.846.000
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
Mills/kWh
C/lb
S removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 10.0
72.3
109,646,000
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, Bid-1982; plant life
30 yr; operating tine, PCC-6,000 hr/yr, KVB-8.000 hr/yr, FGD-S.SOO hr/yr, *
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant operating at
9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $124,098,000; total depreciable inveatawnt. $239,736.000.
total capital investment, $271,826,000.
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,401,408 tons/yr, 21 sulfur. 14.SJ ash. 13.000 Bcu/lK.
and 1.54 Ib S/MBtu. **
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,679,577 tons/yr. 0.49X sulfur, 6.0X aah. 14.200
and 0.35 Ib S/MBtu.
NSPS emission level: 0.462 Ib SOj/MBtu
343
-------
TABLE B-91. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
3.5* S - 85* removal NSPS
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage
Raw coal sizing
Coarse coal cleaning
Intermediate coal cleaning
Fine coal cleaning
Refuse disposal as landfill
Interim storage area
Raw material handling and preparation
Sulfur oxidation
Reactor off-gag cleaning
Fine coal leaching
Coarse coal leaching
Product agglomeration and handling
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling
Scrubbing
Haste disposal
Subtotal
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous
Total direct Investment
Investment, $
8,608,000
1,564,000
1,547,000
2,162,000
2,594,000
2,581,000
4,513,000
7,730,000
5,985,000
10,889,000
7,427,000
6,625,000
11,329,000
5,913,000
29,337,000
18.5A5.000
127,349,000
6,024,000
133,373,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect Investment
Contingency
Total fixed Investment
12,443,000
2,154,000
18,400,000
5,454.000
38,451,000
34,404.000
206,228,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications
Interest during construction
Total depreciable Investment
Land
Working capital
Total capital Investment
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal
20,623,000
28.872.000
255.723.000
6,787,000
29.267.000
291,777,000
145.9
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning mid-1979,
ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling, end-I980; operating
time, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired power plant
operating at 9,500 Btu/kUh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day raw coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage capacities
(power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7 weeks direct
revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal located 1 mile
from coal preparation plant.
344
-------
TABLE B-92. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
3.
,5Z S - 851 removal NSPS
Annual
quantity
Unit
cost. $
Total annual
coat, $
Direct Coats
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (507)
Sodium lignin sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal loss (Btu basis)
Total raw materials coat
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
Steam
Process water
Flectriclty
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct costs
63,954 tons
137,952 tons
198,784 tons
952 tons
128,576 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 tons
368,650 tons
7. 75 /ton
43. 31 /ton
21.13/ton
665.28/ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/Wt3
31.58/ton
496,000
5,975.000
4.200.000
633,000
12.602.000
6.254,000
70.000
11.642.000
317.193 nan-hr 13.80/aan-hr
42,072.000
4,377,000
121.000 gal
5,350,723 MBtu
3,015,488 kgal
302,893.233 Mfti
2,550 tons
31,118 nan-hr
0.70/gal
2. 54 /MBtu
0.09 /kgal
0.039/kUh
93.31/ton
18.70/van-hr
85,000
13,591,000
271,000
11,813.000
238,000
8. 702 .000
582,000
39,659.000
81,731,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, interim replacements,
and Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
IS,143.000
25,n«n,0
-------
TABLE B-93. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
5% S - 85% removal NSPS
Direct Investment
Coal receiving and storage
Raw coal sizing
Coarse coal cleaning
Intermediate coal cleaning
Fine coal cleaning
Refuse disposal as landfill
Interim storage area
Raw material handling and preparation
Sulfur oxidation
Reactor off-gas cleaning
Fine coal leaching
Coarse coal leaching
Product agglomeration and handling
Leach solution neutralization and water
handling
Scrubbing
Waste disposal
Subtotal
Services, utilities, and miscellaneous
Total direct investment
Investment, $
8,841,000
1,627,000
1,585,000
2,249,000
2,696,000
3,058,000
4,513,000
8,250,000
5,985,000
10,889,000
7,427,000
6,625,000
11,329,000
5,913,000
25,683,000
22.060.000
128,730,000
7.541.000
136,271,000
Indirect Investment
Engineering design and supervision
Architect and engineering contractor
Construction expense
Contractor fees
Total indirect investment
Contingency
Total fixed Investment
12,354,000
2,186,000
16,656,000
5,442,000
38,638,000
34,746,000
20?,657,000
Other Capital Charges
Allowance for startup and modifications
Interest during construction
Total depreciable investment
Land
Working capital
Total capital investment
Dollars of total capital per kW equivalent
of clean coal
20,966,000
29.33Z.OQO
259.975,000
8,135,000
30_,OR5,000
298,195,1100
149.1
Basis
Midwest location of coal-cleaning plant with project beginning
mid-1979, ending mid-1982; average basis for cost scaling, end-1980;
operating tine, 8,000 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MB, coal-fired paver plant
operating at 9,500 Btu/kWh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Fifteen-day rav coal and fifteen-day clean coal storage capacities
(power plant basis).
Working capital provides 3 weeks raw coal consumption, 7 weeks
direct revenue costs, and 7 weeks operating overheads.
Pond and landfill sites for sludge and refuse disposal located
1 mile from coal preparation plant.
346
-------
TABLE B-94. COMBINATION PCC-KVB PROCESS AND FGD
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
5X S -
85Z removal NSPS
Annual
quantity
Vnit
costj S
Total annual
comt . $
Direct Costs
Raw materials
Limestone
Lime
Oxygen
N02
NaOH (505S)
Sodium llgnln sulfonate
Natural gas
Coal lose (Btu basis)
Total raw materials cost
Conversion costs
Operating labor and supervision
Utilities
Diesel fuel
fteam
Process water
Electricity
Process material: magnetite
Maintenance
Analyses
Total conversion costs
Total direct coats
57,291 tons
197,60) tons
297,600 tons
952 tons
152,880 tons
75,200 tons
24,000 tons
478.000 tons
7.75/ton
43.31/ton
21,13/ton
665.287 ton
99.57/ton
83.17/ton
2.93/kft3
31.58/ton
444.000
8.558.000
6.2M.OOO
633.000
IS. 222,000
6.254.000
70,000
15.098.000
317.872 nan-hr 13.80/Mi>-hr
52.567,000
*,387,000
145,000 gal
5.349,838 MBtu
2.940,474 kgal
286,664,699 kWh
2,760 tons
30,806 nan-hr
0.70/gal
2.54/MBtu
0.09/kg«l
0.039/kVh
93.31/ton
18.70/s*n~hr
102,000
13,588,000
265.000
11,180.000
257.000
8,862,000
576.000
39.217,000
91,784,000
Indirect Costs
Capital charges
Depreciation, Interim replacements,
and Insurance
Average cost of capital and taxes
Overheads
Plant
Administrative
Marketing
Total Indirect costs
Gross annual revenue requirements
IS.S99.000
25,6*5,000
3.377,000
439,000
ll«i.K44,fMIO
Byproduct Sales Revenue
None
Total annual revenue requirements
C/lb
Hllls/kHh S removed
Equivalent unit revenue requirements 12.4
15.1
Basis
Midwest coal-cleaning plant location; time basis for scaling, mid-1982; plant llf«
30 yr; operating time, PCC-6000 hr/yr, KVB-8,000 hr/yr, F<3>-5,500 hr/yr.
Clean coal production capacity for 2,000-MW, coal-fired povcr plant op*ratlnK «t
9,500 Btu/kHh and 5,500 hr/yr.
Total direct investment, $136,271,000; total depreciable Invcstnnt, $261,956,000-
and total capital Investment, $300,176,000. *
Raw coal (moisture-free): 4,531,224. tons/yr, 51 sulfur, 16.7S ash, 12.000 Btu/lb
snd 4.17 Ib S/MBtu.
Clean coal (moisture-free): 3,928,571 tons/yr, 1,21 sulfur, 6.9X ash, 13,300 Btu/lb
and 0.9 Hi S/MBtu. '
NSPS emission level: 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu. Tor this 5Z coal, this Is also the mission
level allowed for the proposed 85X removal NSPS which has • 1.2 Ib SOj/MBtu upper
limit.
347
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-250
. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Evaluation of Physical/Chemical Coal Cleaning
and Flue Gas Desulfurization
REPORT DATE
November 1979
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
T. W. Tarkington, F. M. Kennedy, and J. G. Patterson
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
ECDP B-5
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TVA, Office of Power
Emission Control Development Projects
Muscle Shoals, Alabama 35660
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
INE624A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
IAG-D9-E721-BI
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/78 - 10/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IERL-RTP project officer is C. J. Chatlynne, Mail Drop 61, 919/541-2915.
T6. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of evaluations of physical coal cleaning (PCC),
chemical coal cleaning (CCC), and coal cleaning combined with flue gas desulfuriza-
tion (FGD). It includes process descriptions, cleaning performances, comparative
capital investments, and annual revenue requirements when four coals (with sulfur
levels of 0.7% to 5.0%) are cleaned by each of seven conceptual coal cleaning
processes. In the three commercial-type PCC processes, coal is treated in dense-
medium equipment and by froth flotation or concentrating table. The three CCC
processes are KVB, TRW Gravichem, and Kennecott. The seventh process combines
PCC and CCC. Economics are provided also for three coal cleaning/FGD combinations
to meet the pre-1978 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu NSPS and the 85% S02 reduction NSPS proposed
in September 1978. All processes are compared on a 2000-MW power generation basis.
PCC is cost effective for meeting the 1.2 Ib S02/MBtu emission level with coals
having sulfur levels below about 1.2%. Coal cleaning/FGD is cost effective for
S02 emissions control in many specific cases. The CCC processes studied are
generally higher in both capital investments and annual revenue requirements; the
KVB process is the least expensive.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Coal
Desulfurization
Sulfur Oxides
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lQENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Coal Cleaning
19. SECURITY CLASS ( This Report )
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
. COSATi Field/Group
13B
08G, 21D
07A, 07D
07B
21. NO. OF PAGES
378
22. PRICE
gPA Form Z220-1 (9-73)
349
------- |