Mineral Processing Techniques for Coal Combustion Byproducts (ABSTRACT PAGE)

"Coal-fired electrical power generation plants produce 56% of all the electricity in the U. S., burning approximately 860 million tons of coal annually. This results in production of 58 million tons of fly ash; 19 million tons of bottom ash and boiler slag, and 23 million tons of desulfurization sludges. These are a considerable disposal problem, and it would therefore be very valuable to be able to sell these residues and byproducts as useful materials, rather than paying to dispose of them in landfills. However, utilization rates are currently very low, below 32% even for the most thoroughly commercialized combustion byproduct (fly-ash). This poor utilization rate is a result of the high impurity content of combustion byproducts, which make them unsuitable for existing markets. The experiments described in this paper were therefore carried out to study the application of mineral processing techniques to upgrading combustion byproducts.Experiments were conducted to upgrade and purify low-grade combustion products to produce highgrade, readily saleable materials. A process was developed for removing unburned carbon from coal fly-ash by froth flotation, using reagents originally developed for flotation of oxidized coals. This technique could reduce the carbon content of fly-ashes containing up to 11.1% carbon to less than 2%. The froth product was sufficiently carbon-rich that the recovered carbon has value as fuel, or as low-grade activated charcoal.Fly ash was also examined as a binder for producing iron ore pellets, primarily as a substitute for bentonite. It was found that Class F fly ash in combination with an activator (calcium hydroxide) was an effective pellet binder at dosages comparable to the currently-used dosages of bentonite clay. While the flyash worked very well alone, tests in combination with bentonite showed that fly-ash/bentonite mixtures had significantly worse binding performance than either pure bentonite or pure fly-ash-based binder. This was determined to be due to the fact that bentonite and fly ash have profoundly different binding mechanisms, with fly-ash undergoing a pozzolanic chemical reaction while bentonite binds through a physical attachment process."