4.7 Review

A review of the alumina production from coal fly ash, with a focus in Russia

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 363, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132360

Keywords

Coal fly ash; Waste utilization; Alumina; Acid leaching; Metals extraction

Funding

  1. Russian Science Foundation [21-79-00295]
  2. Russian Science Foundation [21-79-00295] Funding Source: Russian Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coal combustion in Russia produces a significant amount of coal fly ash (CFA), which is being considered as a potential raw material for aluminum production due to the country's lack of bauxite sources.
Coal combustion used by the Combined heat and power plants (CHPs) generates solid wastes -coal fly ash (CFA). Up to 22% of the total electricity supply in Russian is coal-generated, this value is forecasted to not decrease until 2035, which in the next 14 years will translate into the accumulation of more than 260 Mt of CFA on the CHPs landfills. Following the Government recently presenting a roadmap towards the ramp-up of the CFA utilization from the current 8%-50% by 2035, the highly developed aluminum industry in Russia amidst the lack of its own bauxite sources is currently considering the utilization of CFA as an aluminum oxide-rich raw material for the alumina production. The present review localizes the largest sources of CFA in Russia, summarizes the annual CFA accumulation rates, and its stored volumes, and the chemical composition of the CFA generated in Russia. In this review, the actual acidic methods for alumina production (hydrochloric acid and ammonium bisulfate/ sulfuric acid) were considered. Alumina powder obtained by acid methods was analyzed for the quality re-quirements of the Russian aluminum smelters to forward the case for the CFA's wide adoption as the raw ma-terial in both Russia's and worldwide aluminum industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available