Pipe or belt conveyer will be a better choice or lets say probably the only choice. Since alumina is a troublesome material to convey in the first place and 1000 tph, 4.5 km is a long distance for a pneumatic conveyor. Pneumatic conveying will not be cost effective solution in terms of energy consumption. ■

Dear sir

I fully agree with mantoo belt convyor or pipe conveyor with be bettet option compared to pnumatic transportation for 1000 tph per hour capacity and 4.5 km transportation.

The main diference in pipe and conventional conveyor can be worked out in case plant layout is available.

In case of pipe conveyor you can avoid additional transfer points and on route spillage of material. as material is very costly installation of pipe conveyor is justified although i may be about 20-25 percent costlier than conventional belt conveyors.

However pipe conveyor power consumption and cost will be much less than pnumatic system.

A R SINGH ■

Dear Wawiel,

You can request a conceptual budgetary quote from suppliers of all three systems and judge for yourself. The advantage of this process is that you will be sold on each type the experts of that system with their accompanied reference lists of like and kind.

The quote should include: Capital and Operating Costs for the nominated operating life.

As stated by Mantoo, the conventional trough or pipe conveyor will be substantially lower on overall cost of ownership. In addition maintenance and product degradation will favor either belt conveyor over the pneumatic system.

THe final solution can only be determined when the overall project constraints are known by the collaborating parties such as:

1. straight transport or curved

2. environmental facts - rainfall, ambient temperature range, ....

3. specification on water absortion during handling

4. degradation - particle breakage specifications or constraints

5. dust control - generation and emission control alternatives

6. particle size range

7. others to be specified ■