Effect Of Length Of Cycle On The Economics Of Retort Zinc Smelting

UNTIL about 1930, the universal practice of horizontal-retort zinc smelters in the United States, as far as the writers are aware, was to operate the retort furnaces on a 24-hr cycle; that is, the retorts were charged in the early morning of one day, and in the early morning of the following day the residues were cleaned out, the retorts recharged, and a new cycle started. During the business depression of the early thirties, zinc production fell off to the extent that zinc smelters had idle retort capacity. Rather than continue to run some of the retort furnaces on a 24-hr cycle and shut down the remainder, a few companies decided to try out a longer cycle. Although the output of zinc per retort per day is lower, the longer cycle permits a larger charge per retort and improved zinc recovery. Advantages of the longer cycle were soon evident, and the practice spread rapidly. Various lengths of cycle were used, typical examples being 28-hr, 32-hr, 36-hr, and 48-hr. The 48-hr cycle fits in best with the standard routine of smelter practice that was built up on the basis of the 24-hr cycle; that is, the retort furnace "maneuver" always comes at the same time of day, and can be performed in the cool hours of the early morning. Under some conditions, particularly in some of the older plants, where the retorts are smaller than in newer plants, a 48-hr cycle is longer than necessary, and some intermediate length of cycle may theoretically be most economical. Use of an intermediate cycle, however, means that the maneuver comes at different times on consecutive days, and that sometimes it comes during the hottest part of the day. The work on the retort furnaces is extremely hot and arduous at best, and it is much worse, of course, if it is done during the heat of a summer day. When labor was plentiful and tractable, many plants were able to operate on cycles of intermediate length, but the workmen did not like the working hours. Under present labor conditions, it is hardly practicable to operate with a cycle of intermediate length, so the choice has narrowed down to the alternatives of 24-hr or 48-hr cycles. In any discussion of economics, too comprehensive generalization is not warranted, because local conditions affecting economics vary greatly. The best economic practice at one plant at any given time may be uneconomical at another plant, or even at the same plant at another time. To determine the length of cycle that is the better practice at a given plant at a given time requires a weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of each cycle, taking into consideration all the local conditions. Some of the factors that must be considered in making the comparison are discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.