+ All Categories
Home > Business > Maximizing Ash Value

Maximizing Ash Value

Date post: 02-Aug-2015
Category:
Upload: ada-cs
View: 47 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
41
Joe Wong – ADA Carbon Solutions John Kline – Kline Consulting Workshop at Reinhold APC Round Table July 14, 2014 Kline Consulting 1
Transcript

Joe Wong – ADA Carbon SolutionsJohn Kline – Kline Consulting

Workshop at Reinhold APC Round TableJuly 14, 2014

Kline Consulting

1

Workshop Outline Revenue and Costs – Why aren’t I making

money from MY ash? Byproduct utilization potential Cement/Concrete utilization drill down

Drivers and Limits How cement works – the market Flyash in cement and concrete today / future Sorbent impacts Management approaches If there’s time: CO2 avoidance potential; global

markets

2

$‐

$2.00 

$4.00 

$6.00 

$8.00 

$10.00 

$12.00 

$14.00 

$16.00 

$18.00 

$20.00 CO SC NC MI

WY

MI

MD

OH NE MS

MI

OH FL FL TN IA LA WY

NE LA WV

NV MO TX LA WV

OH FL

MO ND IN TX AL TX CO IA

NM NH TX IA IA MI

WI

SC KS PA WI

OK

Fly Ash Revenue

Mean - $6.60

Data from EIA

How Utilities Are Faring Today

$/ton

3

23%

4%

6%

4%4%

3%

56%

Use of Fly Ash in US

Concrete / Grout

Blends / Clinker Feed

Structural Fill

Mining Applications

Waste Stabilization

All Other Uses

Discarded

ACAA 2012 Data

Costs Cash

4

Power Plant

Cement Plant

Concrete Plant

Structures

CementSandAggregateFlyashWater

LimestoneClayShaleSandFlyashBottom ashSyngyp

5

The use of flyash in concrete & grout Pros

Improves concrete Reduces costs Reduces carbon footprint

Cons Reduces strength Reduces air entraining (freeze –thaw

durability)

6

Cement Plants Using Ash

Source: PCA 7

How Cement Works(The Simplified Version)

CaO SiO2H2O

Calcium Silicate HydrateBoth the Calcium and Silica Oxides

need to be in a reactive form

8

78%

4%18%

11%

41%

26%

16%6%

Water

Sand

Gravel

Cement

Air

Clinker

Gypsum

SCMs 

CementIn

Concrete

ClinkerIn

Cement

Limestonein

Clinker

80%

20%

Limestone

OtherRaw 

Materials

CaO

SiO2Al2O3

Flyash 

Flyash BottomAsh

FCB Ash

Reactive Unreactive

The Use of Ash in Cement and Concrete

SynGyp

9

Most Important Binder Materials

C‐Ash

SiO2

CaO Al2O3

PC

Slag

SF

F‐Ash

MK

L

LegendC‐Ash – ASTM Type C FlyashF‐Ash – ASTM Type F FlyashL – Lime (Limestone ‐ CaCO3)MK – MetakaolinPC – Portland CementSF – Silica FumeSlag – Ground Blast Furnace

PozzolanicReactions

Hydraulic Reactions

SlowerLater Strength

FasterEarly Strength

10

Clinker Substitution

2006 data, CSI

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%26% 26%

24%22% 21% 20%

17% 16% 16%

Aver

age

Add

ition

con

tent

in c

emen

t

11

Clinker Substitutes

Portland cement is made up primarily of calcium silicates These react with water

Other Produced and Natural Materials also contain calcium and silica oxides Blast furnace slag Flyash Pozzolans (Natural and Artificial) Also known as “Supplemental Cementing

Materials” (SCMs)

12

Keys to Fly Ash Use in Concrete

Chemistry and purity of the Fly Ash Reactivity of the Fly Ash

Calcium in CaO form Amorphous silica Small particles (high surface to weight)

Availability of the Fly Ash Local specifications and norms

Most locations opening up to more SCMs

13

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

3,500 

China Europe US India Russia Rest of World

Million Metric

 Tons

Cement

Coal

Coal Ash

Saturation

Normal SaturationWorld Average 27%

Coal Ash to Cement Balance

Assumes 12% Ash in coal consumed

20% - 40%

Surplus of Fly Ash in US

Deficit of Fly Ash outside US

& Russia

Availability

14

Global Potential to Increase Flyash

Today Potential

Clinker 2780 77.2% 2780 68.6%Gypsum 120 3.3% 120 3.0%Flyash 250 6.9% 500 12.3%Slag 150 4.2% 200 4.9%Pozzolan 150 4.2% 300 7.4%

Limestone 150 4.2% 150 3.7%

Total Binder 3600 100.0% 4050 100.0%

15

Quantity of Flyash Usage Historically usages has been between 15 –

25% of the binder content Usage rates depend on:

The application The properties of the flyash Specification limits Geographic location Climate

Higher percentages (30 – 50%) have been used in massive structures, such as foundations and dams

16

Flyash Usage in ConcreteIn order for fly ash to be used beneficially, it must

adhere to the specifications imposed by the ultimate product. These specifications may include requirements on, among others:

• Size• Carbon Content / LOI• Foam Index Activity• Chemical Composition• Color• NH3 (ammonia)• Hg (Mercury)

17

The Value of “Good” Fly Ash The average price of cement today is around

$90/t (USGS) To qualify as an SCM, fly ash should meet

75% of the strength of cement Therefore as a substitute material, maybe

$70/t maximum However, if / when the cost of cement and

CO2 increases, the value of fly ash also increases

Flyash and bottom ash as a cement raw material have a maximum value of $15/t delivered

18

What about the Cost Side

Disposal Costs are Increasing Land costs New Landfill Regulations Landfill liners Water monitoring Seepage collection systems

Landfills create a future liability

19

$599,704

$14,267,812

$6,383,761

$1,663,130 $3,916,723

$8,955,616

$10,200,058

$2,688,644 $2,740,196

Landfill Costs (6.5 million tons - 20 years)

Land PurchaseTotal Installed LayersOther Construction CostsMonitoring (Operation)Maintenance (Operation)Total FillingTotal TransportationManagement & SupervisionPost Closure Expenses

Direct cost per ton - $ 8.00/tw/ Cost of Capital - $16.35/t

Ohio State University Model

$ 51,415,645 - Total Costs 2001 Dollars

20

The Challenge

The value of good ash is increasing While, the cost of disposal is also

increasing However, maintaining a marketable ash

is becoming more difficult

21

Challenges to Fly Ash Value Quality and consistency of the fly ash

Reactive○ Fresh Ash○ F-Ash can be reclaimed○ C-Ash can not be reclaimed

Clean○ Low Carbon [consistent / steady levels? –

admixture impacts]○ Low Sorbents

Oversupply of the market (US today) The addition of various sorbents for

environmental controls

22

Impact of dosage on concrete air content

Concrete air content strongly depends on nature and dosage of AC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4Sorbent Dosage, %/w of cement

Con

cret

e In

itial

Air

Con

tent

, % CDERXJFHNQLM

Constant Dosage of AEA ‐Microair

0 5 10 15 20 25 Lbs of Sorbent per million ACF Flue Gas

Dosage

Nat

ure

23Data from EUEC Conference, Phoenix, January 2013

Sorbents for SOx & HCl Reduction

Limestone is inert and does not overly impact cement or concrete quality when included in small doses (<5%)

Lime is more reactive and can also be added to cement and concrete in small doses (<5%)

Calcium sulphate can be used in wallboard and cement production, calcium sulfite needs to be oxidized (wet scrubbers)

Sodium based sorbents include alkali (Na) and can impact the quality of cement and concrete, sodium additions should be kept to a minimum

24

Sorbents for Mercury Reduction

Field of Sorbents Powdered Activated Carbon

Consistency and stability of the ash product Time effect Improvements to consistency Fly ash beneficiation

25

Impact of Reagents on Ash Usage

Reagent Usage Cement RawMaterials

Cement Component Concrete Additive

Lime Large Amounts Medium Amounts Small Amounts

Limestone Large Amounts Medium Amounts Medium Amounts

CaBr2 Large Amounts Small Amounts Small Amounts

Mercury Very Small Amounts Large Amounts Large Amounts

Activated Carbon Large Amounts Very Small Amounts Very Small Amounts

Trona Small Amounts Very Small Amounts Very Small Amounts

Sodium Bicarbonate Small Amounts Very Small Amounts Very Small Amounts

All reagents play a role in the usage and value of CCPs !26

Consistency is KEY!

Control AshBefore ACI

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0Air Entraining Admixture Dose (oz/cwt)

Concrete Air Co

nten

t, %

Concrete Friendly Sorbent Sampling over a 3 week period

Small variations in PAC contentseverely impacts air requirement

27

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Drops of A

ir Entrainm

ent A

gent

(50µ

L=1d

rop)

Time (Minutes)

ADA PowerPAC

ADA FastPAC Premium™ 

Competitor 1

No Carbon Baseline

Concrete Foam Stability vs. Time

Advances in Concrete Compatibility From Generation 2 FastPACTM PACs

The rapid achievement of foam stability provides assurance for ash marketers

Our patent-pending FastPAC™ products conserve Air Entrainment Agent Usage and provide Rapid Foam Stability. These curves represent the initial AEA required and foam stability over time for

various sorbents at an injection rate of 3 lb/MMacf 28

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Dro

ps o

f AEA

(50µ

L=1d

rop)

Time (mins)

FastPAC Premium 3lbs/MMacf

FastPAC Premium 2lbs/MMacf

FastPAC Premium 1lbs/MMacf

Fly Ash Only

Our patent-pending FastPAC™ products require lower ACI injection rates to achieve Hg capture targets, thus reducing the relative levels of carbon in fly ash and resulting in low initial AEA

dosing combined with excellent foam stability over time.

Advances in Concrete Compatibility From Our FastPAC™ Products

29

Gen 2 FastPAC™ Products Achieve Consistent Fly Ash Properties

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7Pounds per Million ACF of Sorbent

Generation 2More Consistent

Generation 1Less Consistent

Less Impact on Fly Ash

Lower injection rates and a tighter control range mean improved repeatability of fly ash AEA demand. Our Gen 2 FastPAC Premium™ allows low PAC injection for high Hg capture and greater active engineering

control (steeper capture curves), resulting in more consistent fly ash properties.

30

Ash Additives

Masking Works on native and carbon based sorbents Low capital costs Can be added at load-out (process as

needed) Chemicals can be expensive IP controlled by fly ash marketers Chemicals are proprietary Over / under dosing could be an issue

31

32

33

Relative Cost and Product Quality forAsh Beneficiation Technologies (EPRI)

Technology Basis

# of Output Products

Primary Product (Low

Carbon)Yield

Secondary Product

Initial

Ash Quality

Cost Range ($/Ton)

Carbon Masking

1Same LOI as initial ash

100% NA <6% LOI $2.00 - $7.00

Wet Processes Multiple NA NA NA NA NA

Aerodynamic Classification

210 - 40%

Reduction in LOI

50 – 90%Variable LOI

(typically > 30%)No Limit $1.00 - $3.00

Sieving 215 - 50%

Reduction in LOI

50 – 90%Variable LOI

(typically > 30%) No Limit $2.00 - $4.00

Electrostatic

(Belt)2 1.5 – 3.0% LOI 60 – 85%

Variable LOI (typically > 30%)

<20% LOI $4.00 - $7.00

Electrostatic (Pneumatic)

230 - 60%

Reduction in LOI

35 – 70%Variable LOI

(typically > 30%) <10% LOI$5.00 - $8.00

Combustion1 1.5 – 2.5% LOI 80 – 95% NA >8% LOI

$10.00 -$20.00

Fly Ash Value

If your fly ash was good before sorbents it may very well still be marketable

If your fly ash was not good before, well more work will be required

34

The Path Forward

Know your fly ash Strengths Weaknesses Environmental requirements Results of specific tests such as foam index,

stability, slump Know your competition

Who else is marketing ash in your area Their strengths and weaknesses Their environmental compliance strategy

35

Path Forward

Define your target market End use Quality required Quantity required Target price

Define your approach Marketer Direct Sales

36

Path Forward Select / adjust your environmental

compliance strategy Target One: Cement / Concrete market (highest

margin)○ Avoid sodium based sorbents○ Minimize activated carbon variability/ restrict type○ Lime / limestone OK

Target Two: Cement Raw Materials○ Limited amounts of sodium based sorbents○ Minimize mercury content○ Activated carbon OK○ Lime / limestone OK

37

Path Forward

Select / adjust your environmental compliance strategy Target Three: Structural fill / Soil

Stabilization / Mine backfill○ Activated carbon OK, minimize HM leaching○ Trona OK○ Lime, check PH issues / limits

38

The Future of Flyash in Concrete

There is a need in most of the world Flyash value will increase with CO2

costs / constraints Substitutes may be limited

Finite amount of slag available Natural pozzolans not available globally Artificial pozzolans require processing

Cost of disposal is increasing Careful planning is therefore required

39

The Future of Flyash

Globally there is not enough flyash Locally there is too much flyash CO2 reduction will increase the value of

“clean” Flyash Utilities that market flyash will need to

consider their path forward carefully Mercury Carbon / sorbents Trona / sodium bicarbonate

40

Thank You

Joe Wong

[email protected]

(303) 962-1967

John Kline

[email protected]

(484) 602-3474

Kline Consulting

41


Recommended