Life-cycle analysis of fuels from post-use non-recycled plastics

被引:68
作者
Benavides, Pahola Thathiana [1 ]
Sun, Pingping [1 ]
Han, Jeongwoo [1 ]
Dunn, Jennifer B. [1 ]
Wang, Michael [1 ]
机构
[1] Argonne Natl Lab, Div Energy Syst, Syst Assessment Grp, 9700 S Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 USA
关键词
Plastic-to-fuel; Non-recycled plastic; Pyrolysis; Life-cycle analysis; Waste plastic management; WASTE;
D O I
10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.070
中图分类号
TE [石油、天然气工业]; TK [能源与动力工程];
学科分类号
0807 ; 0820 ;
摘要
Plastic-to-fuel (PTF) technology uses pyrolysis to convert plastic waste-especially non-recycled plastics (NRP)-into ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. To assess the potential energy and environmental benefits associated with PTF technology, we calculated the energy, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions of NRP-derived ULSD and compared the results to those metrics for conventional ULSD fuel. For these analyses, we used the Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation (GREET (R)) model. Five companies provided pyrolysis process product yields and material and energy consumption data. Co-products of the process included char and fuel gas. Char can be landfilled, which, per the company responses, is the most common practice for this co-product, or it may be sold as an energy product. Fuel gas can be combusted to internally generate process heat and electricity. Sensitivity analyses investigated the influence of co-product handling methodology, product yield, electric grid composition, and assumed efficiency of char combustion technology on life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. The sensitivity analysis indicates that the GHG emissions would likely be reduced up to 14% when it is compared to conventional ULSD, depending on the co-product treatment method used. NRP-derived ULSD fuel could therefore be considered at a minimum carbon neutral with the potential to offer a modest GHG reduction. Furthermore, this waste-derived fuel had 58% lower water consumption and up to 96% lower fossil fuel consumption than conventional ULSD fuel in the base case. In addition to the comparison of PTF fuels with conventional transportation fuels, we also compare the results with alternative scenarios for managing NRP including power generation and landfilling in the United States. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:11 / 22
页数:12
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
4R Sustainability Inc, 2011, CONV TECHN COMPL PLA
[2]   Life cycle assessment of alternative technologies for municipal solid waste and plastic solid waste management in the Greater London area [J].
Al-Salem, S. M. ;
Evangelisti, S. ;
Lettieri, P. .
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 2014, 244 :391-402
[3]   Environmental Impact of Pyrolysis of Mixed WEEE Plastics Part 2: Life Cycle Assessment [J].
Alston, Sue M. ;
Arnold, J. Cris .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2011, 45 (21) :9386-9392
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Plastics - The facts 2013, an analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2006, 14044 INT ORG STAND
[6]  
Argonne National Laboratory, 2015, GREENH GAS REG EM EN
[7]  
Briggs H., 2015, BBC News
[8]  
D&M Plastic Inc., 2015, ALL PLAST MOULD POL
[9]  
Dmitri B, 2011, CATALYST TODAY, V171, P1
[10]  
EIA, ANN EN OUTL 2016