Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Is progress in energy-efficient comminution doomed?

Tim Napier-Munn
JKMRC, The University of Queensland, Isles Road, Indooroopilly, Queensland 4068, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Comminution is known to be an inefficient user of energy. This makes it the largest energy consumer in
Received 7 May 2014 many mine sites and therefore a large component of cost. One would therefore have thought that improv-
Accepted 25 June 2014 ing comminution energy efficiency would be receiving the undivided attention of the mining industry,
Available online 16 September 2014
but this is not the case. This paper considers why this is so and what the future might hold, by posing
and attempting to answer three questions:
Keywords:
Comminution  Is this really an important issue for the mining industry?
Energy  If so, can comminution energy be substantially reduced in a reasonable time frame?
CEEC  What are the drivers that will motivate change, and what should now be done?
The conclusions of the paper are pessimistic in the sense that forces may be gathering that will
demand that the issue be addressed across the industry in the relatively near future, but optimistic in
the sense that there is a clear development path. There is much that can be done with what is already
known, and considerable promise exists in new developments which can be realised through sustained
and focused R&D, building on new knowledge acquired in the last 20 years. These are outlined in the
paper. It is concluded that there is a case for a global initiative to significantly reduce comminution con-
sumption over say the next 10 years through a partnership between all parts of industry and the research
community, covering short, medium and long-term innovation.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background
It is well known that comminution, particularly grinding, is the
largest consumer of energy on most base and precious metal mine
sites and a significant consumer in other commodities. Some
defensible calculations suggest that it uses nearly 2% of all electri-
cal energy generated on the planet (see Appendix A), and much
more in mining-intensive countries such as Australia and South
Africa. Mining companies are seeking to take costs out of their
operations, and some are looking over their shoulder at the regula-
tors who are threatening to impose costs on energy generated from
fossil fuels to limit the world’s carbon emissions in response to a
perceived human-induced change in the climate (or have already
done so). Why then is comminution energy consumption not more
visible in the industry (and perhaps even government) as an issue
worth addressing? This paper seeks to answer three questions
which illuminate this dilemma:
2. If so, can we reduce it substantially in a reasonable time frame,
and by how much?
3. What are the drivers that will promote significant reductions in
comminution energy intensity, and what should now be done?
In the course of addressing these questions we will consider
new knowledge which has accumulated in the last 20 years, some
of it without fanfare, and ask how it can be turned to good use.
In the preparation of this paper the author has consulted a num-
ber of experienced workers in the field from mining companies,
equipment vendors, engineering companies and academia, and this
paper reflects in part his interpretation of those views. A list of
those consulted appears in the Acknowledgements and the author
is grateful for their willing participation. However any foolish state-
ments or mis-interpretations remain the author’s responsibility.
2. Discussion

1. Is comminution energy consumption actually important to the 2.1. Is comminution energy consumption important, and is it perceived
mining industry? to be so?

These are two different questions. Estimating comminution

E-mail address: t.napier-munn@uq.edu.au energy consumption as a proportion of total mine site

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2014.06.009
0892-6875/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 T. Napier-Munn / Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6
consumption is surprisingly difficult to do accurately, although
many have tried. Lack of published data and inconsistency in how
total energy consumption on mine sites is calculated or expressed
are the main culprits. However there is enough information around
to arrive at figures that are good enough to answer the first question
with sufficient accuracy for our purpose. Ballantyne et al. (2012)
quote a figure of 36% of total mine site utilised power (in all forms),
and 52% of electrical power, as being attributable to comminution
in Australian copper and gold operations. In more general reviews
Marsden (2008) reports 34% and a DOE report (2007) suggests 44%.
It is also important to remember that a significant amount of
additional energy is expended indirectly in supporting comminu-
tion operations, particularly in the consumption of liners and
grinding media. Musa and Morrison (2009) suggest that this could
be as much as 30–50% of direct energy consumption. Although this
impost is not borne directly by mining companies in terms of
energy per se, it certainly is in terms of operating cost. Also if we
are to do anything about our equivalent carbon emission intensity
then it must be included in the mix.
The question of the proportion of world energy consumed in
comminution is similar to the ancient conundrum about the num-
ber of angels which can dance on the head of a pin – interesting but
not very useful. However the miracles of the internet allow one to
do a rough calculation, shown in Appendix A. The result is 1.8%1
which compares well with the 2% estimated by the famous and
oft-quoted DOE report of 1981.
A similar problem attends the estimate of the ‘true’ energy effi-
ciency of comminution. A commonly quoted figure for the effi-
ciency in terms of the free energy of new surface produced is 1–
3% (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002, based mostly on quartz stud-
ies). However Schoenert (1972) showed that the most efficient way
of fracturing a rock in mechanical comminution is to load it
between two platens until it breaks in tension. In these terms a
crusher might then be 75% energy efficient (Morrell et al., 1992)
and a ball mill 15% efficient (Fuerstenau and Abouzeid, 2002) in
producing the same size distribution as single particle breakage.
The balance of the energy is consumed in elastic strain which can-
not be recovered, the motion of any charge, and the usual trans-
mission and other losses. Much of this appears eventually as
heat, as anyone who has stood at the discharge end of a large
SAG mill will attest. The inability to recover elastic strain losses,
and thermodynamic considerations, impose a practical upper limit
on the potential efficiency of conventional comminution machines.
It is clear therefore that comminution energy costs are high and
the process is inefficient, and these problems are reflected in oper-
ating cost, capital cost and possibly future regulatory constraints
related to carbon emission mitigation. One would therefore expect
the issue to be receiving the undivided attention of the industry,
yet the evidence is that this is not so, far from it in fact. The reasons
are many. The CEEC Roadmap (CEEC, 2012), developed at a 2-day
international workshop of invited senior technical professionals
from all parts of the industry in August 2012, identified the follow-
ing impediments to a pursuit of improved comminution energy
efficiency (this is not a complete list):
 Project valuation practices (e.g. NPV) do not capture the issue.
 Lack of support from senior management for alternative
strategies.
 Inconsistent work structures and metrics across an organisa-
tion: the ‘silo problem’, leading to difficulty in seeing the whole
picture.
 Current organisational practices, including KPIs, do not encour-
age maximising efficiency, particularly across silos.
 A focus on maximising throughput at almost any cost.
1
Nearly half of which is cement grinding.
 The conservative, risk-averse nature of the industry; a reluctance
to adopt new technologies (with some honourable exceptions).
 Lack of an open exchange of information, sometimes related to
the protection of IP.
 A gap between project owners and engineers on one side and
technology developers on the other, so technology transfer is
more difficult than it should be. There is little incentive to be
an early adopter.
These should not be seen as criticisms of the industry. They are
a natural consequence of the risky capital-intensive nature of the
business, and the human condition, and some companies are
indeed addressing the issue through energy audits and bench-
marking. However it is interesting to note that most of the prob-
lems are cultural, not technical, and thus perhaps harder to solve.
The ‘lack of senior management support’ (which is not universal)
is particularly telling; senior management will generally support
whatever makes more money for the company, and if comminu-
tion energy is not on their radar then there is a reason for that.
Either the issue is truly unimportant relative to the many others
clamouring for management attention, or the problem is not being
articulated or captured in a way that merits action. In this author’s
view the latter is more likely to be the case than the former.
This view was reinforced by the informal canvass of opinion
conducted for this paper, mentioned earlier. In the end dollars
drive everything, and if comminution energy is not seen as a seri-
ous impediment to profit it will not be addressed, except inciden-
tally. A particular problem seems to be the understandable knee-
jerk reaction that it is simply too difficult to solve unilaterally;
other lower-hanging fruit gets the attention. Also vertically inte-
grated companies which include very energy-intensive processes
such as smelting give more scrutiny to those processes than to
comminution. Overall the impact which comminution energy has
on project value is not well understood because the metrics are
often too primitive. For example downstream metal recovery is
absolutely dependent on the judicious expenditure of comminu-
tion energy which in turn depends on mining method (particularly
blasting), but these three are not usually treated as an optimisable
continuum in financial analyses. Also the additional embedded
energy mentioned below (liners and grinding media) and the asso-
ciated pumps and conveyors are rarely considered in the mix and
the magnitude of the problem is therefore underestimated.
The appreciation of comminution energy consumption as part
of the project evaluation mix is growing, but it will usually only
get attention where the project economics are marginal and sav-
ings are being sought, or where power is in short supply. The min-
ing companies are in the driving seat for change as the clients of
the engineering companies and equipment suppliers. In the end
the service providers will do what the client wants.
However things may be changing. Potential drivers for change
are considered further below.
2.2. How can we reduce comminution energy consumption, and by
how much?
The science of comminution, and its associated phenomenon of
mineral liberation (the main purpose of comminution in mineral
processing), has advanced considerably in recent years. Some of
the things we know now as R&D outcomes that we did not know
20 years ago include2:
2
One might argue that some of these were known intuitively to competent
operators and engineers a long time ago. But many were not, and those that were
have only been rigorously characterised and validated in recent years. Also the list
which follow excludes the many improvements in process design and practice which
have evolved through the efforts of mining companies, equipment suppliers,
engineering companies and consultants.
 T. Napier-Munn / Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6
 Blasting usually pre-weakens rock for grinding, probably due to
increases in micro-crack intensity. Product from rock-cutting
mining machines is not pre-weakened and therefore requires
more grinding capacity.
 Optimising blast design can significantly increase grinding
throughput (mine-to-mill).
 The consumption of liners and grinding media implies a signif-
icant degree of embedded comminution energy in terms of the
energy required to manufacture these items.
 The computationally-intensive modelling of breakage in com-
minution machines using discrete element, finite element and
hybrid algorithms has given us many insights into mechanisms.
One of them is that the dominant breakage events in tumbling
mills are low energy, not high energy.
 Accumulated damage from repeated impact is a significant fac-
tor in comminution efficiency.
 Fracture paths in breakage events are controlled more by rock
texture, i.e. the relative abundance of mineral grains of high
and low stiffness (Young’s modulus), than by the comminution
method.
 Some mineral liberation is non-random.
 Efficient classification is key to efficient comminution.
 The 3-product cyclone has been invented and modelled.
 Comminution processes are inextricably bound up, chemically
and physically, with subsequent separation processes, and the
two need to be considered together.
 The population balance approach to comminution modelling
has been made more rigorous by the inclusion of parameters
that have physical meaning, e.g. feed size, number of impacts,
etc.
 The high pressure grinding rolls has been shown to have energy
and other advantages in specific applications.
 Stirred mills have been developed and applied for very fine
grinding.
 Novel flowsheets have been potentially shown to reduce com-
minution energy consumption in specific applications.
 Sorting machines have emerged as a potentially viable pre-con-
centration option.
 Small-scale electrical comminution has been developed, which
may offer process advantages.
 Other novel comminution approaches tried have included
microwave irradiation, dry air milling, and centrifugal mills of
various kinds.
Taken together these developments comprise a significant
advance in the capacity of the industry to improve comminution
energy efficiency, but little of this advance has yet been realised.
Some of the developments remain immature and need further
research. However there are several strategies that can be pursued
now to reduce comminution energy consumption in specific cases
and many of these have been well researched in principle if not in
practice.
1. Improve current operations: There is considerable scope for
raising baseline performance by identifying operations which
are inefficient by standards such as operating work index (vs.
measured WI) and taking the necessary action to move them
up the efficiency curve (Fig. 1). This action might include better
geometallurgical integration with the mine plan and improved
process control, in addition to the mine-to-mill optimisation
mentioned below.
Better classification is often an important part of the solution
(e.g. Mainza et al., 2013). The 3-product cyclone has not yet
reached its full potential in optimising circulating loads in
grinding circuits but advances in fine screening suggest that
3
the combination could now be more potent and should be seri-
ously considered (Obeng and Morrell, 2003).
2. Mine-to-mill: The formal idea that optimal fragmentation in
blasting can significantly increase the capacity (and therefore
energy efficiency) of comminution processes, especially SAG
mills, has been around now for 20 years and is still an important
option that has not been fully exploited (e.g. Rybinski et al.,
2011).
3. Pre-concentration: It is self-evident that one way to reduce
comminution energy consumption is to reduce the amount of
material to grind, and there are several ore-specific pre-concen-
tration options for removing low grade material or waste prior
to grinding. Simple screening may be appropriate, as conducted
at Bougainville Copper in the early 1990s. Dense medium sepa-
ration can be effective, and recent advances in DMS promise
savings in capital and operating costs over traditional plants
(Napier-Munn et al., 2009). New developments in automatic
sorting offer several options based on a variety of electromag-
netic ore signatures (e.g. Morrison et al., 2013).
4. High pressure grinding rolls: The HPGR has shown genuine
energy savings in some applications since its introduction to
mineral processing by De Beers in the early 1980s, assuming
that the ore characteristics are suitable and the flowsheet is
carefully specified (e.g. Wang et al., 2013).
5. Alternative flowsheets and equipment selection: Simulation has
shown that novel flexible flowsheets and careful selection of
equipment can achieve significant energy savings (e.g. Powell
and Bye, 2009), though care has to be taken not to over-compli-
cate the process design and inhibit operability. Better use of
HPGRs and the use of stirred mills for coarser grinding are being
considered, integrated with pre-concentration. More efficient
configurations of traditional circuits are also possible (Bueno
and Lane, 2012).
6. Holistic view of the value chain: The rise of geometallurgy as a
discipline has reminded us that significant benefits can accrue
from an holistic approach to optimising a mining project, and
this is no less true in considering comminution in the context
of the operation as a whole (e.g. Bearman, 2013). Lifecycle
assessment (LCA) has promise for an improved understanding
of how comminution fits into the overall picture and how best
to account for the embedded energy (Norgate and Haque,
2010).
7. New technologies: Magic bullets are paradigm changing if they
can be found. There is no shortage of enthusiastic inventors, but
real innovation in comminution machines is rare. This is partly
because of the limitations of the physics mentioned earlier.
However the remarkable insights which computationally-
intensive modelling such as FEM and DEM are providing do
40
35
30
Observed kWh/t
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Bond predicted kWh/t
Fig. 1. Actual specific energy consumption vs. Bond prediction, for several
industrial operations (Ballantyne et al., submitted for publication).
4 T. Napier-Munn / Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6
suggest that there may be ways of exploiting some of the les-
sons learned in recent years, listed above, to produce machines
which achieve the required outcome (mineral liberation) with a
much more efficient use of input energy. For example some ori-
ginal thinking is currently being applied to how best to induce
stress in heterogeneous materials to achieve grain boundary
fracture at minimal energy consumption. One machine that
offers promise is SelFrag which uses high voltage impulses to
break rock (Wang et al., 2012); there is some evidence that it
might achieve both selective liberation and pre-weakening of
product in some ores. Other left-field ideas should not be ruled
out; for example Radziszewski (2013) has recently proposed
that energy efficiency could be improved by recovering some
of the heat generated in comminution processes.
In considering the quantum of improvement which is possible
by application of some or all of these strategies, the analogy with
the length of a piece of string comes to mind. However there is a
strong consensus in the literature and anecdotally amongst the
experts that savings in the range 5–30% are attainable now by
implementing what is already known, i.e. by adopting and sustain-
ing best practice. This is not easy in an industry that has decimated
its experience base in recent years but can and is being done. In the
longer term (10–20 years), with investment in the new technolo-
gies discussed above and with the opportunity to build new
energy-efficient plants in brown- and greenfield developments,
savings exceeding 50% are possible.
2.3. What are the drivers for reducing comminution energy
consumption?
The ‘Six Cs’ are going to be the main drivers of any change: Cost,
Competition, Compliance, Community, Culture and Crisis.
Cost will always be the first focus of attention (capex and
opex). As power costs rise, and where power is in short supply,
there is an incentive to innovate in process design to mitigate
these effects. Fig. 2 shows the Australian mining industry multi-
factor productivity for the last 28 years. The rise up to 2002
was due mainly to improvements in technology and industrial
relations. The inexorable decline since then has some technical
elements relating to capital investment, but much of it is due to
reductions in grade requiring more tonnes to be moved per unit
of saleable product, i.e. higher costs. The costs pressures are
growing and are likely to influence thinking on comminution
energy in due course.
Competition drives behaviour. Although mining companies do
not really compete in the conventional sense (despite some
rumours to the contrary), because they are price-takers rather than
price-makers, they do compete to be in the bottom part of the cost
200
180
MFP (2012 = 100)
160
140
120
100
80
60
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Fig. 2. Australian mining multifactor productivity. (Source: Australian Bureau of
Statistics; http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/).
curve, particularly when in survival mode. This will play its role in
the comminution story.
Compliance implies mainly the impact of regulation on the
source and cost of energy. For example if government policy is to
limit carbon emissions, then whatever instrument is used (taxes,
carbon markets, direct regulation, etc.) there will be an incentive
to reduce energy consumption. Some companies are already acting
to collect the data needed to react effectively to such regulation if
and when it comes (and it has already done so in some
jurisdictions).
Community implies the indisputable fact that miners wish to be
seen to act sustainably and responsibly in the court of public opin-
ion. The prudent use of energy, especially in communities where it
is in short supply, could be argued is an important part of respon-
sible business practice, over and above its direct impact on the bot-
tom line. Miners will never win a battle with voters for the
necessities of life such as water and energy.
Culture is the company and industry context in which improve-
ments are sought. If the culture is conservative, risk-averse, blink-
ered (operating in silos) and addicted to inappropriate business
models then progress will be slow. In fact the mining industry is
by and large smart and sophisticated, but the culture can some-
times make innovation harder than it need be, particularly at the
interface between operators, engineering companies and equip-
ment suppliers.
Crisis is the strongest motivator of all. As most crises are almost
by definition ‘black swans’ – unpredictable but with a large impact
– they are difficult to plan for except in the most general sense.
Potentially the biggest crisis would be a series of climate-related
disasters that would persuade governments under pressure from
their electors that it was now time to take drastic action, whatever
the cost. This would impact all five of the other ‘Cs’ very quickly
and would certainly direct the attention of the industry to commi-
nution as a profligate consumer of energy. The probability of such a
crisis in, say, the next 10 years is of course difficult to predict but it
is certainly not zero. The precautionary principle mandates an
insurance policy.
3. Action
The CEEC Roadmap (CEEC, 2012) gives no less than 52 sugges-
tions, both short-term and long-term, for action which can be
taken to reduce the energy used in comminution. Of these, 33
relate to ‘People and Planning’ which reinforces the point about a
need for cultural change. In addition 19 longer-term actions are
proposed including more high risk technical developments. Read-
ers are referred to the Roadmap for details.
The short-term action is considered under four main headings:
1. Measure performance; benchmarking and baseline studies,
more meaningful measures of energy usage that are integrated
with the whole value chain.
2. Adopt best practice in technology; doing well what is known
now.
3. Implement appropriate business drivers and KPIs.
4. Communicate the benefits, motivate, train.
Baseline studies, benchmarking and the development of more
appropriate KPIs are important precursors to more detailed plan-
ning for change, and several companies have undertaken such
studies or are doing so. Rob McIvor has recently established a
working group within the Global Mining Standards and Guideline
2015
Group (GMSG) to work on a standard for industrial comminution
efficiency (GMSG, 2014), which will assist this process. The estab-
lishment of more appropriate operational KPIs has the potential to
motivate the necessary change (e.g. Bartholomew and McIvor,
 T. Napier-Munn / Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6
2013), and modified personal KPIs always focus the mind. Other
work is providing background data and methodology which will
be helpful to the cause (e.g. Ballantyne and Powell, 2014a). The
CEEC Roadmap suggests the introduction of a star energy rating
for different comminution options to assist in equipment and flow-
sheet selection, which again would promote the search for
improved energy efficiency.
The industry enjoys a well-developed, international and effec-
tive research community devoted to the issue of comminution in
general and its energy efficiency in particular. Industry can take
much of the credit for supporting and directing this effort over
many years. However the effort needs to be maintained, and even
increased, in order to make progress both in incremental improve-
ment and in quantum change. The industry must continue to play a
role in engaging with and supporting R&D and in facilitating the
resulting innovation, not easy or cheap tasks. Incremental step
change is more likely to achieve significant progress (Powell and
Mainza, 2012) but that shouldn’t prevent us from flirting with
magic bullets, of which there are some options worth exploring.
There is in this author’s view a case for a global initiative to sig-
nificantly reduce comminution consumption over say the next
10 years through a partnership between all parts of industry and
the research community, covering short, medium and long-term
innovation. A key element will be the integration of what is already
known into a total solution in which the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. As tumbling mills are generally the least efficient
comminution machines, a legitimate long-term objective would be
the elimination of tumbling mills in mineral processing.
The CEEC Roadmap is a good place to start. CEEC’s mission is to
facilitate an informed debate about the issue of energy-efficient
comminution (CEEC, 2014). It does this, with industry support,
through its website and associated resource centre, workshops,
conference talks, an ongoing LinkedIn debate and the award of
the annual CEEC Medal for the best paper on the subject.
An important aspect which is often overlooked is the need for
training. Mining operations now run lean and mean compared to
the halcyon days when young engineers were mentored by 20-year
site veterans. The inevitable consequence is that the principles of
good practice are less appreciated than they were and this has a
direct impact on operating efficiencies. Professional development
training is one way in which this deficiency can be addressed
(Drinkwater and Napier-Munn, in press).
Finally if the reader wants a primer on how to think more effec-
tively about the role of comminution in mineral processing, and
how to use to-day’s powerful analytical tools to do a better job
of being a mineral engineer, then they need look no further than
Joe Pease’s entertaining but penetrating reminder of why the fun-
damentals drive everything: ‘The Elephant in the Mill’ (Pease,
2012).
Appendix A
Contribution of comminution to total world electrical energy consumption (an approximate calculation).
Cement
World production in 2012 (USGS)
Energy intensity in cement grinding (assumed)
Total energy consumed in cement grinding
Coal
Approx. 1% of power generated by coal-fired power stations is expended in grinding the coal fuel (Shi, 2014). 41% of world electricity
production is coal-fired (IEA, 2014) so 0.4% of world electricity production is consumed in grinding coal at the power station
Crushed stone (quarry product)
5
4. Conclusion
The literal answer to the question posed by the title of this con-
tribution is yes, progress in energy-efficient comminution is
doomed, if by ‘energy-efficient comminution’ we mean trying to
beat the physics. There are fundamental limits to what can be
achieved by mechanical breakage of rock. However the picture is
rosier than is apparent from this pessimistic analysis. For a start
we can probably get closer to the limits by exploiting the physics
better. But there are many other options for progress in both the
short and long term. We can chart a path forward by considering
the answers to the subsidiary questions posed at the beginning
of this paper:
1. Yes, comminution energy is important to the mining industry
and is likely to become more so. Its contribution to shareholder
value is not yet captured in a form that encourages significant
reductions in the short term, except in specific cases, but cost
pressures and potentially game-changing regulatory and mar-
ket interventions will in due course demand improvements in
what is accepted as a very energy-inefficient process.
2. Yes, much can be done now to reduce comminution energy con-
sumption by up to 30%. Reductions of over 50% will be possible
in the next 10–20 years with technological advances currently
under development.
3. The drivers for change will be (as usual) mainly economic, but
may also include a significant component of community expec-
tation as the world management of energy sources evolves. A
coordinated industry-wide attack on the problem including
site-based initiatives, changes in the philosophy of process
design, and continued support of focused R&D would certainly
be capable of achieving the elusive paradigm change, if the will
was there to do so.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the following individuals who kindly
gave of their valuable time to answer questions relating to this
paper: Grant Ballantyne (JKMRC), Philip Bangerter (Hatch), Mike
Daniel (CMD Consulting), Greg Lane (Ausenco), John Marsden
(Metallurgium), Rob McIvor (Metcom Technologies), Rob Morrison
(JKMRC), Steve Morrell (CITIC SMCC), Ivan Mullany (Barrick), Joe
Pease (Xstrata Technology), Malcolm Powell (JKMRC), Yicai Wang
(JKMRC), Dion Weatherley (JKMRC), Nirmal Weerasekara (JKMRC),
Mohsen Yahyaei (JKMRC).
He would also like to thank his fellow CEEC Board members
and CEEC’s Executive Officer Sarah Boucaut for many valuable
discussions and insights.
3.7 billion tonnes
50 kW h/t
185 billion kW h
(continued on next page)
6 T. Napier-Munn / Minerals Engineering 73 (2015) 1–6

Crushed stone production in US in 2012 (USGS) 1.24 billion tonnes

World production is difficult to estimate reliably. So we assume that world production = US prod.  5.4 (ratio of 6.7 billion tonnes
world GDP to US GDP)
Energy intensity in crushing stone (assumed), 3 stages @ 1 kW h each 3 kW h/t
Total energy consumed in stone crushing 20 billion kW h

Iron ore
World production in 2012 (USGS) 3.0 billion tonnes
Energy intensity in crushing iron ore (assumed), 3 stages @ 1 kW h each 3 kW h/t
Total energy consumed in iron ore crushing 9 billion kW h

Base and precious metals

Percent of world electricity consumption utilised in copper and gold comminution (Ballantyne and Powell, 2014a) 0.2%
Double to include other metalliferous ores (estimate) 0.4%

Total consumption
Total world electricity energy generation per annum (IEA, 2014) 22,000 TW h
Total cement + coal + stone + iron ore comminution energy per annum 214 billion kW h
(214 TW h)
Percent cement + coal + stone + iron ore of world total 1.0%
Add metalliferous ores 0.4%
Add coal in power generation 0.4%
Percent of world generated electrical energy consumed in comminution 1.8%
Note: This simple analysis excludes energy consumption in necessary ancillary comminution equipment (classification, conveyors, screens, pumps, etc.), indirect energy
consumption (e.g. liners and grinding media), and other industrial forms of comminution (e.g. chemical production).

References Marsden, J.O., 2008. Energy efficiency and copper hydrometallurgy. Proc.
Hydrometall. 2008, 29–42 (SME).
Morrell, S., Napier-Munn, T.J., Andersen, J.S., 1992. The prediction of power draw in
Bearman, R.A., 2013. Step change in the context of comminution. Minerals
comminution machines. In: Kawatra, K. (Ed.), Comminution – Theory and
Engineering 43–44, 2–11.
Practice, pp. 405–426 (chapter 17) (SME).
Ballantyne, G.R., Powell, M.S., Tiang, M., 2012. Proportion of energy attributable
Morrison, R., Adair, B., Kanchibotla, S., 2013. Implications of next generation ore
to comminution. In: Proc. 11th Mill Ops. Conf., Hobart, pp. 25–30
sorting for definition of an ore deposit. In: Proc. Physical Separation ’13,
(AusIMM).
Falmouth, June (Minerals Eng. Int.).
Ballantyne, G.R., Powell, M.S., 2014a. Benchmarking comminution energy
Napier-Munn, T.J., Gibson, G., Bessen, B., 2009. Advances in dense medium cyclone
consumption for the processing of copper and gold ores. Miner. Eng.
plant design. In: Proc. 10th Mill Operators’ Conf., Adelaide, October (AusIMM).
(submitted for publication).
Norgate, T., Haque, N., 2010. Energy and greenhouse gas impacts of mining and
Ballantyne, G.R., Peukert, W., Powell, M.S., 2014b. Size specific energy (SSE) – energy
mineral processing operations. J. Cleaner Prod. 18, 266–274.
required to generate minus 75 micron material. Int. J. Miner. Proc. (submitted
Obeng, D.P., Morrell, S., 2003. The JK three-product cyclone – performance and
for publication).
potential applications. Int J. Miner. Proc. 69 (1), 129–142.
Bartholomew, K.M., McIvor, R.E., 2013. Classification system efficiency – a
Musa, F., Morrison, R.D., 2009. A more sustainable approach to assessing
comprehensive closed-circuit grinding optimisation metric. In: Proc. World
comminution efficiency. Miner. Eng. 22, 593–601.
Gold Conf., Brisbane, September, pp. 389–394 (AusIMM).
Pease, J., 2012. The elephant in the mill. In: Proc. XXV Int. Miner. Proc. Cong.,
Bueno, M., Lane, G., 2012. Key drivers of energy and cost efficiency in AG/SAG
Brisbane, September, pp. 123–132 (AusIMM).
grinding circuits. In: Proc. 11th Mill Ops. Conf., Hobart, pp. 113–118 (AusIMM).
Powell, M.S., Bye, A.R., 2009. Beyond mine-to-mill – circuit design for energy
CEEC, 2012. The CEEC roadmap for eco-efficient comminution. CEEC, August.
efficient resource utilisation. Proc. 10th Mill Operators Conference, Adelaide,
<http://www.ceecthefuture.org/publication/2012-ceec-roadmap/> (accessed
October (AusIMM), 357–364.
25.2.14).
Powell, M.S., Mainza, A.N., 2012. Step change – a staircase rather than a giant leap.
CEEC, 2014. CEEC homepage. <http://www.ceecthefuture.org/> (accessed 25.2.14).
XXVI IMPC, Delhi, Paper 1127.
DOE, 1981. Comminution and energy consumption. US Department of Energy
Radziszewski, P., 2013. Energy recovery potential in comminution processes. Miner.
report, doc. NMAB-364.
Eng. 46–47, 83–88.
DOE, 2007. Mineral industry energy bandwidth study. US Department of Energy.
Rybinski, E., Ghersi, J., Davila, F., Linares, J., Valery, W., Jankovic, A., Valle, R., Dikmen,
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/mining/pdfs/mining_
S., 2011. Optimisation and continuous improvement of Antamina comminution
bandwidth.pdf> (accessed 26.2.14).
circuit. In: Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Autogenous and Semi-Autogenous Grinding
Drinkwater, D., Napier-Munn, T.J., 2014. Why good professional development is key
Technology (SAG2011).
to profitability in the mining industry. In: XXVII Int. Miner. Proc. Cong.,
Schoenert, K., 1972. Role of fracture physics in understanding comminution
Santiago, October (in press).
phenomena. Trans. AIME 252, 21–26.
Fuerstenau, D.W., Abouzeid, A.-Z.M., 2002. The energy efficiency of ball milling in
Shi, F., 2014. Private communication (JKMRC).
comminution. Int. J. Miner. Proc. 67, 161–185.
USGS. US Geological Survey. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/>
GMSG, 2014. A standard for industrial comminution efficiency. Global Mining
(accessed 24.2.14).
Standards and Guidelines Group. <http://www.globalminingstandards.org/
Wang, C., Nadolski, S., Mejia, O., Drozdiak, J., Klein, 2013. Energy and cost
working-groups/2135-2/> (accessed 26.2.14).
comparisons of HPGR based circuits with the SABC circuit installed at the
IEA, 2014. International Energy Agency. <http://www.iea.org/topics/coal/>
Huckleberry Mine. In: Proc. 45th Ann. Canadian Mineral Processors Operators
(accessed 24.2.14).
Conf., Ottawa, January, pp. 121–135 (CIM).
Mainza, A.N., Evertsson, M., Benzer, H., Tavares, L.M., Powell, M.S., Rule, C., Plint, N.,
Wang, E., Shi, F., Manlapig, E., 2012. Mineral liberation by high voltage pulses and
Lombard, M., Knopjes, B., 2013. The role of classification in an evolving
conventional comminution with same specific energy levels. Miner. Eng. 27–28,
comminution circuit. In: Proc. 13th Euro. Symp. on Comminution and
28–36.
Classification, Brauschweig, September.