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
[11]  
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 2016, PETR PROD SUPPL TYP
[12]   Plastic waste as a fuel - CO2-neutral or not? [J].
Eriksson, Ola ;
Finnveden, Goran .
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, 2009, 2 (09) :907-914
[13]   Preliminary assessment of plastic waste valorization via sequential pyrolysis and catalytic reforming [J].
Iribarren, Diego ;
Dufour, Javier ;
Serrano, David P. .
JOURNAL OF MATERIAL CYCLES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, 2012, 14 (04) :301-307
[14]   Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean [J].
Jambeck, Jenna R. ;
Geyer, Roland ;
Wilcox, Chris ;
Siegler, Theodore R. ;
Perryman, Miriam ;
Andrady, Anthony ;
Narayan, Ramani ;
Law, Kara Lavender .
SCIENCE, 2015, 347 (6223) :768-771
[15]   Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective [J].
Lazarevic, David ;
Aoustin, Emmanuelle ;
Buclet, Nicolas ;
Brandt, Nils .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2010, 55 (02) :246-259
[16]  
NERC (North American Electric Reliabilty Corporation), 2016, SUBR RESTR SUPP ISO
[17]  
Ocean Recovery Alliance, 2015, PLAST TO FUEL PROJ D
[18]   Environmental evaluation of plastic waste management scenarios [J].
Rigamonti, L. ;
Grosso, M. ;
Moller, J. ;
Sanchez, V. Martinez ;
Magnani, S. ;
Christensen, T. H. .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2014, 85 :42-53
[19]  
RTI International, 2012, ENV EC AN EM PLAST C
[20]  
Themelis N. J., 2014, ENERGY EC VALUE MUNC