We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Process simulation and energy optimization of an integrated plastic waste pyrolysis power plant: A techno-economic study
Summary
Researchers used Aspen Plus to simulate and economically evaluate a 10-ton/hour plastic waste pyrolysis plant, finding that a combined-cycle configuration generating 7 MW of net electricity recovers its $22 million capital cost within two years, while a dual gas-and-oil scenario can scale output to 39.4 MW at modest additional payback time.
• The project recycled plastic wastes to valuable hydrocarbon fuel and electric energy via an integrated pyrolysis and power plant. • The recycled wastes were a mixture of HDPE, LDPE, PP and PS. • Economic feasibility study was performed using Aspen Plus Economic Analyzer APEA. Plastic pollution is considered as one of the most pressing issues facing the environment nowadays, over 400 Mton/yr of plastic wastes are generated. This study evaluated the technical, environmental and economic aspects of a pyrolysis plant processing 10 ton/hr of plastic wastes mixture using Aspen Plus simulation software. The proposed project produced 10.52 m 3 /hr, 3804.2 m 3 /hr and 196 kg/hr of pyro-oil, gas and char, respectively. These products were employed as fuel to generate electricity in two different scenarios. The 1st scenario resulted in the production of (7 MW) net electrical power by using the pyro-gas in combined power cycle and optimizing heat generated by project activities to supply the local electric grid. The economic feasibility study revealed that the suggested project would require a capital and operating cost of 22 M$ and 6.8 M$/yr, respectively. This suggested scenario would recover its capital expenditures within 2 years achieving annual sales of about 26.8 M$/yr. Furthermore, 2nd scenario attained optimum net power production of (39.4 MW) by exploiting both gas and oil via simulating an additional oil fueled power facility. The economic evaluation revealed a capital cost of 32 M$ and an annual operating cost of approximately 8.6 M$. However, this case would take a close payback period 2.3 yr to the 1st case, due to the higher obtained sales 29.4 M$/yr for 20 yr project lifetime. Yet, gas scenario has certainly lower environmental negative impacts compared to oil scenario.