Advances in life cycle costs of Flotation machines

Kari Fhr Symphos 11 Conference Marrakech, May 11th, 2011

Starting point
Flotation machine life-cycle energy cost is significant compared to initial investment There are both economical and environmental reasons to concentrate on energy efficiency

Factors Affecting Energy Usage

Choice of Technology Size matters! Mechanism rpm Electric system Power transmission

Factors Affecting Energy Usage

Choice of Technology Forced Air Outotec TankCell 300
including Mixer AND Blower 0.49 kW/m3 - water only, 0.67 kW/m3 - operating at pulp density of 1,35 kg/dm3
Source: Press release published by Outotec and Codelco

Self Aspirating 257 m3:

0.88 kW/m3 - water only, 1.09 kW/m3 estimated with pulp of 1,35 kg/dm3.
Source: A Weber, L MacNamara, H Scheiber, 2008

In a Real Case
a) Energy cost $0,05 / kWh Outotec "Self Aspirated" 300 257 160 280 40 0 200 280 0,67 1,09 8 300 8 300 1 328 000 2 324 000 $0,05 $0,05 $66 400 $116 200 12 3600 $796 800 14 3598 $1 626 800 $830 000 b) Energy cost $0,10 / kWh Outotec "Self Aspirated" 300 257 160 280 40 0 200 280 0,67 1,09 8 300 8 300 1 328 000 2 324 000 $0,10 $0,10 $132 800 $232 400 12 3600 $1 593 600 14 3598 $3 253 600 $1 660 000

Cell Volume, m3 Energy consumption in Mechanism, kW Energy consumption in Blower, kW Energy consumption in Total, kW Specific energy, kW/m3 Hours / year Total energy consumption / cell / year, kW Energy cost, US$/kWh Energy cost US$/year x cell Number of Cells Total Volume Cost of Total Energy , US$/year Comparison per Year

Size matters!
1800 m3 flotation volume the options Consider a plant requiring 1800 m3 of rougher/scavenger volume. Three possible scenarios for this volume can be: a) 18 x 100 m3 cells in 2 rows of 9. b) 12 x 150 m3 cells in 2 rows of 6. c) 9 x 200 m3 cells in 1 row of 9. d) 6 x 300 m3 cells in 1 row of 6
6

Size matters 1800 m3 flotation volume

From the table we can see that the use of 300 m3 cells leads to a 1. Reduction in capital equipment cost of 50 % when compared to using 100 m3. 2. A decrease in plant footprint area of 54 % 3. Savings of 28% and 50 % for power and air requirements 4. Savings in maintenance: 6 shafts instead of 18 equal time per shaft means 67% reduction in maintenance time!!
7

Factors Affecting Energy Usage

P *k *n * D
3

P = drawn Power rho = density k = power factor (efficiency of the mechanism) n = shaft / rotor speed D = rotor diameter

Factors Affecting Energy Usage

P *k *n * D
3
10% reduction in the Speed equals
30 % reduction in Energy ~ 20% reduction in Wear Rate

Can you reduce the speed?

YES, if There is enough mixing to avoid sanding The air dispersion is good enough There is enough torque to start after

blackout The drive type allows adjustment V-belts

If the transmission ratio allows. Practical limit is 1:8 Variable Frequency Drive (Converter) Only if you have low voltage motors (max 690 V)

In a Real Case
Case 2 - TankCell 300 with Optimized Speed Outotec Outotec 300 300 -5 % -10 % 137 117 40 40 177 157 0,59 0,52 8 300 8 300 1 138 594 968 112 $0,10 $0,10 $113 859 $96 811 12 $1 366 313 -$227 287 12 $1 161 734 -$431 866

Cell Volume, m3 Speed Energy consumption in Mechanism, kW Energy consumption in Blower, kW Energy consumption in Total, kW Specific energy, kW/m3 Hours / year Energy cost, US$/kWh Energy cost US$/year x cell Number of Cells Cost of Total Energy , US$/year Comparison per Year

Outotec 300 Nominal 160 40 200 0,67 8 300 1 328 000 $0,10 $132 800 12 $1 593 600

Outotec 300 -15 % 98 40 138 0,46 8 300 815 558 $0,10 $81 556 12 $978 670 -$614 930

Note:
TankCell 300 at Chuquicamata at specific power of
0,49 kW/m3 produced over 5% better recovery than TankCell 160 at higher sp. Power.

Metallurgy?

Can rotor speed be reduced without sacrificing the metallurgy? -> plant tests with Outotec FloatForce Flotation mechanism

Site test results case Harjavalta

TankCell 50, slag copper, heavy material, slurry SG 1,8 Two day test campaign, samples from 3-5 composites
Copper Recovery and Grade vs. Power Draw
90

Recovery/Grade [%] .

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0,60 0,75 0,85 1,00 1,10

Power Draw [kW/m 3] Cu Recovery [%] Cu Grade [%]

Site test results case Pyhsalmi

TankCell 60 Left over zinc flotation from pyrite concentrate P80 80-90 m, average slurry SG 1,7 Several month test campaign
Initial tests with several mechanism set-ups FloatForce-1050 with Jg 1,0 cm/s was selected to
further tests Several thousand samples taken to increase statistical reliability

Site test results case Pyhsalmi

Zinc recoveries and grades of TankCell 60
Zinc Recovery and Grade vs. Power Draw
Recover y/Grade [%] .
70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 0,6 1,1 1,6
3

Power Draw [kW/m ] Zn Recovery [%] Zn Grade [%]

On Electric Systems

Frequency Converters have become significantly cheaper HOWEVER, they are only cheap for LOW VOLTAGE systems, < 690 V.

In a Real Case
Case 2 - TankCell 300 with Optimized Speed Outotec Outotec 300 300 -5 % -10 % 137 117 40 40 177 157 0,59 0,52 8 300 8 300 1 138 594 968 112 $0,10 $0,10 $113 859 $96 811 12 $1 366 313 -$227 287 12 $1 161 734 -$431 866

Cell Volume, m3 Speed Energy consumption in Mechanism, kW Energy consumption in Blower, kW Energy consumption in Total, kW Specific energy, kW/m3 Hours / year Energy cost, US$/kWh Energy cost US$/year x cell Number of Cells Cost of Total Energy , US$/year Comparison per Year

Outotec 300 Nominal 160 40 200 0,67 8 300 1 328 000 $0,10 $132 800 12 $1 593 600

Outotec 300 -15 % 98 40 138 0,46 8 300 815 558 $0,10 $81 556 12 $978 670 -$614 930

NOTE:

If VSD costs ~ USD 18 000 / unit With 5% speed decrease Pay-off in ONE YEAR!!

Power Transmission
Drive mechanism efficiency Every drive component has its own efficiency Typical electric motors 95% (when selected correctly) Bearing unit 99% V-belts 90-98% (when aligned and tightened correctly) Two-stage gearbox 98% (when size is correct) Frequency converter 96-98% Everything has to be installed properly E.g. incorrect belt alignment can cause significant losses Case example!

Drive mechanism selection case example

Energy cost comparison of different drive arrangements Cost of energy is considered to be 0,1 $/kWh Cost of capital is 6%
Energy cost comparison of industrial size flotation machine, agitator power consumption 100 kW
120 000 100 000

Energy cost [USD]

80 000 vDrive

60 000

vDrive (0,54 deg angle fault) vDrive (1,08 deg angle fault)

40 000

eDrive
Gearbox+v-belt drive

20 000

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 Years [a] 13 15 17 19

V-belt drives
Feasible for the small cell sizes <70m3 Expensive Motors Low speed High bearing load Low start-up torque Tightening of belts Changing of belts Poor efficiency when (usually) misaligned Noisy

The new TankCell eDrive

Motor Standard Four Pole

No V-belts Custom made Gearbox Air feed through Gearbox

(1500/1800 rpm) Flange mounted

The new TankCell eDrive

High Efficiency No belts Low Maintenance Standard mineral oil

One oil change / year Synthetic oils One oil change / 3 years

The new TankCell eDrive

Compact Clean platforms Easy access

Conclusions
Flotation life cycle energy cost is significant compared to initial investment Energy consumption can be significantly reduced via: Correct choice of technology enabling slower rotor

speed Using as big Flotation Cells as possible Correct selection of the Electric system Correct selection and maintenance of Power transmission

Acknowledgements
Mr Antti Rinne, Mr Aleksi Peltola and Mr Sami Grnstrand, Outotec People at Boliden Harjavalta People at Inmet Pyhsalmi