Sorting Business or waste to Fuel?, page-18

First 18 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Dazedandconfused

7,584 Posts.

2098

22/10/19

19:09

Post #: 41015042
Share

Originally posted by plough ↑

Hi Stocktrain , I am sure the company believes its plant uses less energy than what is in the diesel output , I just have my reservations based on what is available in the media and looking at the retort they have the energy to maintain that at guessing 500 C continually would seem high :

https://www.lowimpact.org/pyrolysis-not-solution-plastics-problem/

Dynamotive tried converting bio mass via pyrolysis , (which I would have thought would have been an easier task than plastics as shorter carbon chains ) they went under - (ensyn technologies does pyralysis profitably but with bio mass (wood))

Then there is/was Cynar that had Rockwell Automation (ROK cap $20B) work with them , they put in three pyrolysis plants in Europe , but do not hear anything of them now .

There was a paper put out by the City University of New York that showed about a 40% increase in prodn by adding 50% plastic to a bio mass feedstock for a gasification plant -page 33 however if you work out the MMbtu of the methane produced it is still less than the energy put into heating it initially, 0.18MMbtu goin in and 0.1259MM Btu in the methane produced yet one would think gasification is inherently more energy efficient than pyrolysis !

https://www.researchgate.net/post/H..._advantageous_than_pyrolysis_and_liquefaction

https://plastics.americanchemistry.com/NRP-Gasification-Report.pdf

But it does Seems a lot more simpler and more energy efficient to gassify the plastic into syngas then use the syngas as a reducing agent in iron blast furnaces

Or maybe use the plastic as feed stock in a combined heat and power plant (CHP plant ) if the scrubber tech is up to spech ?

Or alternatively add the plastic feed stock to a Fluidised Bed catalytic cracking unit as found in oil refineries.

Expand

Hi plough

Thanks for supplying the links.

an objection...

The last link isn't relevant since it is discussing gasification of municipal waste and is considering the effect of adding non-recyclable plastic into the feed stock... but this is not pyrolysis. The gasification process injects oxygen and steam.

Looking into the author of the "pyrolysis is not a solution to the plastics problem" ... from other articles he has posted to that same site it's clear he is arguing the case from a political perspective ...i.e. he is against the idea of 'plastics to fuel' because it perpetuates the use of plastic. I can agree he has a point but it calls into question whether he is being unbiased or not.

He offers this link in his article [ ‘plastic to fuels’ (1)] and then proceeds to completely mischaracterize its content and equates the technology with perpetual motion machines [his accompanying illustration].

From a political point of view I can agree that burning the plastic as a fuel isn't the eco friendly solution but it is an advance on just dumping it.

IGE Price at posting: 12.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
5 Upvote

1 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Tonight's US CPI data could set the tone for November. What are markets expecting?

OCT

Octava Minerals joins the antimony train with high-grades on the radar at Yallagong, WA

IMA

Issues emerging as Australian companies tackle critical minerals challenge

ARB

Court process clears way for ARB to buy up 4 Wheel Parts business in the US

ARV

Smallcap Artemis Res' jumps 23% on six digit gold grade rockchip find at Titan