We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Techno‐Economic Analysis of Polypropylene Recycling Through Catalytic Pyrolysis: FCC Catalysts in Batch Reactors
Summary
A techno-economic analysis evaluated the feasibility of recycling polypropylene waste through pyrolysis, which thermally converts plastic into fuel oil and other hydrocarbon products. The study modeled capital and operating costs against projected revenue from recovered materials to assess at what scale and feedstock price the process becomes economically viable. Results identify key cost drivers and conditions under which pyrolysis-based polypropylene recycling could compete with virgin plastic production.
ABSTRACT The short lifespan of plastics, particularly in the packaging sector, results in rapid accumulation of plastic waste, with polypropylene being a major contributor. Chemical recycling is gaining increasing attention as a strategy in managing plastic waste, facilitating the transition from a linear to a circular economy. This study presents a comprehensive techno‐economic analysis (TEA) of a polypropylene recycling process via pyrolysis designed for a facility in the Southern United States, processing 300 kt of waste annually. The process was modeled using Aspen Plus for energy and mass balance and Aspen Process Economic Analyzer for capital cost estimations, with additional manual calculations for operating costs. Economic viability was assessed through net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and Minimum Fuel Selling Price (MFSP). Results show that recycling polypropylene via catalytic pyrolysis is economically viable, with a NPV exceeding $330 million and an IRR of 29.6% over a 30‐year lifespan. The base case (300 kt/year) demonstrates the most promising financial viability, with high IRR and favorable ROI. Sensitivity analysis highlights the impact of market factors and operational costs on the economic viability of the process. Equipment cost breakdown shows that the “Storage” area, particularly the costs associated with hydrogen storage, is a significant contributor to the total capital investment. This finding highlights the importance of on‐site hydrogen production to further reduce capital investments and operational costs.