This document outlines a workshop on utilizing coal ash byproducts. It discusses the current state of fly ash markets and revenues, challenges to maintaining fly ash quality with increased environmental regulations, and strategies for improving fly ash value and utilization, including consistency in fly ash properties and the impacts of different sorbents. The workshop covers cement and concrete applications of fly ash, costs of fly ash disposal, and paths forward for utilities to successfully market their ash.

1. Joe Wong – ADA Carbon Solutions
John Kline – Kline Consulting
Workshop at Reinhold APC Round Table
July 14, 2014
Kline
Consulting
1

2. 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

3. $‐
$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

4. 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

5. Power Plant
Cement Plant
Concrete Plant
Structures
Cement
Sand
Aggregate
Flyash
Water
Limestone
Clay
Shale
Sand
Flyash
Bottom ash
Syngyp
5

6. 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

7. Cement Plants Using Ash
Source: PCA 7

8. How Cement Works
(The Simplified Version)
CaO SiO2H2O
Calcium Silicate Hydrate
Both the Calcium and Silica Oxides
need to be in a reactive form
8

9. 78%
4%
18%
11%
41%
26%
16%
6%
Water
Sand
Gravel
Cement
Air
Clinker
Gypsum
SCMs
Cement
In
Concrete
Clinker
In
Cement
Limestone
in
Clinker
80%
20%
Limestone
Other
Raw
Materials
CaO
SiO2
Al2O3
Flyash
Flyash
Bottom
Ash
FCB Ash
Reactive Unreactive
The Use of Ash in Cement and Concrete
SynGyp
9

10. Most Important Binder Materials
C‐Ash
SiO2
CaO Al2O3
PC
Slag
SF
F‐Ash
MK
L
Legend
C‐Ash – ASTM Type C Flyash
F‐Ash – ASTM Type F Flyash
L – Lime (Limestone ‐ CaCO3)
MK – Metakaolin
PC – Portland Cement
SF – Silica Fume
Slag – Ground Blast Furnace
Pozzolanic
Reactions
Hydraulic
Reactions
Slower
Later Strength
Faster
Early Strength
10

11. Clinker Substitution
2006 data, CSI
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
26% 26%
24%
22% 21% 20%
17% 16% 16%
AverageAdditioncontentincement
11

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 Saturation
World
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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Flyash Usage in Concrete
In 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. $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 Purchase
Total Installed Layers
Other Construction Costs
Monitoring (Operation)
Maintenance (Operation)
Total Filling
Total Transportation
Management & Supervision
Post Closure Expenses
Direct cost per ton - $ 8.00/t
w/ Cost of Capital - $16.35/t
Ohio State University Model
$ 51,415,645 - Total Costs 2001 Dollars
20

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 1.4
Sorbent Dosage, %/w of cement
ConcreteInitialAirContent,%
C
D
E
R
X
J
F
H
N
Q
L
M
Constant Dosage of AEA ‐ Microair
0 5 10 15 20 25
Lbs of Sorbent per million ACF Flue Gas
Dosage
Nature
23
Data from EUEC Conference, Phoenix, January 2013

24. 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

25. 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

26. Impact of Reagents on Ash Usage
Reagent Usage Cement Raw
Materials
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

27. Consistency is KEY!
Control Ash
Before 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 7.0
Air Entraining Admixture Dose (oz/cwt)
Concrete Air Content, %
Concrete Friendly Sorbent
Sampling over a 3 week period
Small variations in PAC content
severely impacts air requirement
27

28. 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 Air Entrainment Agent
(50µL=1drop)
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

29. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DropsofAEA(50µL=1drop)
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

30. 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 7
Pounds per Million ACF of Sorbent
Generation 2
More Consistent
Generation 1
Less 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

31. 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. 32

33. 33
Relative Cost and Product Quality for
Ash Beneficiation Technologies (EPRI)
Technology
Basis
# of Output
Products
Primary
Product (Low
Carbon)
Yield
Secondary
Product
Initial
Ash
Quality
Cost Range
($/Ton)
Carbon
Masking
1
Same LOI as
initial ash
100% NA <6% LOI $2.00 - $7.00
Wet Processes Multiple NA NA NA NA NA
Aerodynamic
Classification
2
10 - 40%
Reduction in
LOI
50 – 90%
Variable LOI
(typically > 30%)
No Limit $1.00 - $3.00
Sieving 2
15 - 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)
2
30 - 60%
Reduction in
LOI
35 – 70%
Variable LOI
(typically > 30%) <10% LOI
$5.00 - $8.00
Combustion
1 1.5 – 2.5% LOI 80 – 95% NA >8% LOI
$10.00 -
$20.00

34. 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

35. 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

36. Path Forward
 Define your target market
 End use
 Quality required
 Quantity required
 Target price
 Define your approach
 Marketer
 Direct Sales
36

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Thank You
 Joe Wong
Joe.wong@ada-cs.com
(303) 962-1967
 John Kline
johnpkline1@gmail.com
(484) 602-3474
Kline
Consulting
41