Discussion - Development of the Screen Bowl Centrifuge for Dewatering Coal Fines – Technical Papers, MINING ENGINEERING, Vol. 35, No. 4, April 1983, pp. 333-336 – Policow, N. D. and Orphanos, J. S.

In the paper, a comparison was made between flowsheets using the screen bowl centrifuge and disc filters, respectively, as the primary dewatering device. The authors very effectively show that by raising feed temperature, mechanical dewatering is enhanced through reduced viscosity of the water. When a final coal moisture of 10% is required, the net effect of heating the feed is a reduction in thermal requirements because of the lower evaporated load on the dryer. The flowsheet comparison on this, however, was not completely correct. Disc filters do not generally utilize enhanced mechanical dewatering through increased temperature. Horizontal belt filters, through the optimal use of steam heating of the filter cake, have shown significant cost reductions over disc filters where steam is not used. In addition, the authors forgot to mention that there is a certain fraction of the feed that is so fine that it cannot be recovered by the centrifuge economically. That is the function of the filtration device shown in [Fig. 4]. In subbituminous pipeline coals, this fraction represents more than 10% of the feed. Even after flocculation and belt pressing, the moisture content in the fine fraction is 30%-40. Recent tests on a subbituminous pipeline coal slurry, compared an Eimco-Extractor horizontal belt filter with the screen bowl centrifuge flowsheet shown in [Fig. 4]. Mechanical dewatering was enhanced through the use of a steam dry zone after the initial dewatering zone. Vacuum pump horsepower was reduced by more than 50% through the use of condensers, and heat recovery was utilized to minimize thermal costs. Thermal drying to 10% moisture by weight was required in both flowsheets. The 0.5 wt% fines in the filtrate were flocculated and recycled to the filter, thus eliminating the belt press and solids mixers. When the three major operating costs (which normally account for 50%-75% of the coal operating costs) of steam, electricity, and flocculants at current prices were calculated, the flowsheets utilizing the Eimco-Extractor had cost savings vs the centrifuge flowsheet of 89c/t (81c per st) of surface dry coal. This advantage increases with increasing thermal and electricity prices. I congratulate the authors for the strides made with the screen bowl centrifuge. However, filtration flowsheets continue to be improved and their simplicity and low thermal and electrical requirements should not be so quickly dismissed.