Techno-economic review of pyrolysis and gasification plants for thermochemical recovery of plastic waste and economic viability assessment of small-scale implementation

被引:8
作者
Tomic, Tihomir [1 ]
Slatina, Iva [2 ]
Schneider, Daniel R. [2 ]
机构
[1] EKONERG Energy Res & Environm Protect Inst, Energy & Ind Dept, Zagreb, Croatia
[2] Univ Zagreb, Fac Mech Engn & Naval Architecture, Dept Energy Power Engn & Environm, Zagreb, Croatia
关键词
Pyrolysis; Gasification; Techno-economic review; Economic viability assessment; Small-scale implementation; Plastic waste treatment; MUNICIPAL SOLID-WASTE; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; STEAM GASIFICATION; ENERGY RECOVERY; BIOMASS; POLYETHYLENE; MANAGEMENT; MSW;
D O I
10.1007/s10098-023-02648-3
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Polymers used in the production of consumer products become a part of municipal waste streams after reaching the end of their useful life span, but also before even reaching markets, as rejects, scraps, and/or industry by-products as a part of industrial waste streams. Suitability for recovery of industrial wastes differs significantly and needs to be analyzed separately. In this research, a review of the techno-economic parameters of existing recovery plants is done. Dependences between economic and technological parameters, sizes, and types of plants, as well as the composition of input material, are derived. Based on the presented data, a techno-economic analysis of the small-scale implementation of thermochemical recovery plants, for industry-generated residual plastic waste fraction, is conducted. Results show that thermochemical conversion of industrial plastic waste cannot be economically viable on a small scale without a gate fee. Pyrolysis plants brake even gate fee is on the level of over 50/86 euro/t, while treating only 51%/28% of residual waste, due to strict restrictions regarding feedstock composition. In the case of gasification, it is on the level of 70 euro/t, while treating 92% of available waste. Pyrolysis is the only viable solution for treating up to 12 TPD after which gasification also becomes a viable option. Usual capacities are up to 25/100 TPD for pyrolysis/gasification, after which incineration-based technologies need to be considered. The presented results provide decision-makers with a good overview of alternative thermochemical conversion technologies, their technical characteristics, limitations, and possible economic outcomes of their implementation.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 195
页数:25
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]  
AECOM, 2021, PROP CONSTR COST GUI
[2]   From plastic waste pyrolysis to Fuel: Impact of process parameters and material selection on hydrogen production [J].
Al-Fatesh, Ahmed S. ;
AL-Garadi, Najib Y. A. ;
Osman, Ahmed I. ;
Al-Mubaddel, Fahad S. ;
Ibrahim, Ahmed A. ;
Khan, Wasim U. ;
Alanazi, Yousef M. ;
Alrashed, Maher M. ;
Alothman, Othman Y. .
FUEL, 2023, 344
[3]  
Alabi OA., 2019, J TOXICOL RISK ASSES, V5, P1, DOI [10.23937/2572-4061.1510021, DOI 10.23937/2572-4061.1510021]
[4]  
American Chemistry Council RTI International, 2012, ENV EC AN EM PLAST C
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2019, Accelerating Circular Supply Chains For Plastics
[6]   Microplastics in the marine environment: Current trends and future perspectives [J].
Antao Barboza, Luis Gabriel ;
Garcia Gimenez, Barbara Carolina .
MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN, 2015, 97 (1-2) :5-12
[7]   Energy recovery from plastic and biomass waste by means of fluidized bed gasification: A life cycle inventory model [J].
Ardolino, Filomena ;
Lodato, Concetta ;
Astrup, Thomas F. ;
Arena, Umberto .
ENERGY, 2018, 165 :299-314
[8]   A techno-economic comparison of fluidized bed gasification of two mixed plastic wastes [J].
Arena, U. ;
Di Gregorio, F. ;
Amorese, C. ;
Mastellone, M. L. .
WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2011, 31 (07) :1494-1504
[9]  
Arena U, 2006, FLUIDIZED BED PYROLY
[10]  
Arnold S, 2011, RES REP, P1