Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Technic-economic analysis of pyrolysis to produce fuel oil

Bibliographic Data

ID6009785
AuthorsTailane Hauschild (0000-0002-6763-2171, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), Carlos Pérez Bergmann (0000-0002-8951-8943, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), Tania Maria Basegio (0000-0003-1828-6505, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul), Luís António Da Cruz Tarelho (0000-0003-0385-5621, University of Aveiro), Genyr Kappler (0000-0001-7685-633X, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos)
Year2022
Volume18
Issue53
Pages263
Publication date2022-09-15
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueRevista Tecnologia e Sociedade (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1809-0044 • E-ISSN: 1984-3526
PublisherUniversidade Tecnologica Federal do Parana (UTFPR) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3895/rts.v18n53.15799
OpenAlexW4306790614
LanguageEN
References cited1

It was made a technic-economic analysis of the feasibility of implementing a pyrolysis plant for the production of fuel oil (FO) from plastic fractions of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The catalytic pyrolysis process is carried out in a fixed bed reactor with a capacity of 4 m3 loaded with crushed and dry plastic waste (volumetric mass of 500 kg/m3), which is heated at a rate of 2 °C/min until the reaction temperature reaches 270 and 350 °C. Then, the pyrolysis process is then maintained at the established temperature for 6 hours. The retention time of the pyrolysis gases is 90 minutes. Each batch operation cycle lasts an average of 9 hours. It was evaluated production of FO from different plastic fractions resulting from MSW sorting in a medium-sized municipality. In scenario 1 (reference scenario), 1.04 and 3.63 ton/day of plastics of the MSW (PSW) are sent to recycling and landfill, respectively. Three alternative scenarios were defined and analyzed to implement plastic pyrolysis: scenario 2, 3.63 ton/day, the fraction of non-recycled PSW is considered for processing by pyrolysis; scenario 3, it is considered the recycling of PET and PVC, and the remaining PSW represents 4.36 ton/day, and it is considered for processing by pyrolysis; scenario 4, it is maintained the 4.36 ton/day of PSW as valorized by pyrolysis, and it is assumed that an additional 0.64 ton/day of PSW comes from an external source. The FO production costs were estimated at 1.50, 1.29, and 1.13 R$/L, approximately 41%, 49%, and 56% lower than the FO sale price (2.55 R$/L), for scenarios 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Costs of production per unit of energy (GJ) in FO are between 40.88 and 29.67 R$/GJ. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the solution, considering scenarios 2 to 4, increased from R$ 6.72×10 6 to R$ 11.29×10 6 . The positive NPV for the scenarios 2 to 4 indicates the economic viability of the pyrolysis plant. The pyrolysis system would need to operate between three and four years to recover the invested capital. The costs of the municipality with the destination of MSW can be reduced in 54.75%, from 139.48 to 63.12 R$/ton MSW, between the reference scenario and scenario 4

Municipal solid waste · Plastic Waste · Pulp and paper industry · Pyrolysis · Pyrolysis oil · Ton · Waste management · Energy and Environment Impacts · Engineering · Environmental Science · Materials Science · Municipal Solid Waste Management · Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes

  • Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean

    Open Access•Jenna Jambeck, Jenna R Jambeck et al.•Science•2015

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae