Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[fourkids_9pets]

gee lookie there .. from 2015 >> February 2015 to be exact ..

hmmmm

let's see what else comes to light that is in the public domain specific to P2O
(domestically and internationally .. those pesky *footprints*) .. lol

original link courtesy of seekingjustice2

https://www.platts.com/IM.Platts.Content/ProductsServices/Products/energyeconomist.pdf

page 30



===

Technology and Deployment Technology and Deployment
Plastics to oil
Canadian company Plastics2Oil
announced in January the sale of
six of its third generation plasticsto-oil
processors to EcoNavigation
under a non-exclusive license
agreement. The sale is the
company’s first since it announced
a shift towards licensing its
technology rather than being a
producer and seller of fuel.

The company’s processers use
unwashed and unsorted waste
plastics as feedstock, although
polyethylene and polypropylene
would be optimal. The processor
uses natural gas to fire up, but then
operates on waste gases produced
by the plastic, which represent about
10-12% of the process output. The
company says the conversion of
waste plastic into fuel is about 86%.

The process uses water for cooling
in a closed loop system and requires
53 kWh of electricity to run fans,
pumps and small motors. The use of
the processes’ own off-gases means
the unit requires little external energy
to run. The unit needs 4,500 square
feet of space and 20 ft height.

According to the company, the
processor produces No.2 Fuel
(diesel), No.6 Fuel, naphtha and
2-4% petroleum coke without any
further refining requirement and
without the use of a distillation
tower. About 1 gallon of fuel is
extracted from 8.3 lbs of plastic.
When the plastic arrives it is
shredded and fed into a rotary
reactor, which vaporizes it. The
vapor is then fed into one of two
catalyst towers where it is broken
down into different types of fuel, a
process known as catalytic
deploymerization. The unit emits
fewer greenhouse gases than a
natural gas furnace, according to
the company. Platstics2Oil has a
permit from the New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation for commercial
operation of its unit in Niagara Falls.
According to a study published by
Colombia University’s Earth
Engineering Center in July last year,
plastic represents about 11%, or
39.3 million tons, of total municipal
solid waste in the US. By 2011,
9.9% of this was being converted to
electricity via waste-to-energy
plants, with the vast majority –
82.7% or 32.5 million tons –
disposed in landfill sites.

The American Chemistry Council
produced a report on plastics-to-oil in
October, which found that the US
could support 350 to 600 PTO
facilities, which would require $6.6
billion in investment, but would
generate $18 billion in economic
output during the investment phase
and $8.9 billion a year thereafter,
eliminating 6.5 million tons of
landfilled plastic. The ACC assumed
that only 20% of post-consumer nonrecycled
plastic landfilled each year
would be diverted to PTO and focused
specifically on pyrolysis technologies.

The ACC assumed two scenarios.
The first was based on small PTO
facilities with an individual
investment cost of $10.5 million,
each processing 10,600 tons of
plastics and producing 42,500
barrels of synthetic crude a year.
600 such facilities would be
required to process 20% of landfilled
plastic. The second scenario was for
350 larger $18.8 million units,
processing 18,300 tons of plastic
and producing 106,000 barrels of
crude each a year. The second
scenario, which produces more fuel,
equates to about 100,000 b/d of
refined products.

According to Sam Haig of UK
company Axiom Consulting, plastics
incineration makes neither
environmental nor economic sense,
while landfill is simply burying a useful
resource and recycling has high
operating costs and produces low
yields. Conversion to oil products, he
argues, makes more sense. Speaking
at the 12th European Gasification
Conference, held in the Netherlands
in March last year, (when the price of
oil was still above $100/barrel), he
outlined three PTO routes: pyrolysis,
catalytic depolymerization and
gasification to syngas followed by
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, methanol
to gasoline conversion or
bioproduction of ethanol.

Haig concluded that gasification
routes are preferable because of
the greater control over and
flexibility with products, but notes
that pyrolysis provides the best
energy yield with low capital
expenditure. He said: “Our analysis
suggests that it is now economically
viable to convert low grade plastics
into fuel. We studied five chemical
engineering processes and
concluded that three: fast pyrolysis;
depolymerization; and gasification
with biological treatment provided
significant financial returns over a
ten-year period.”


Summary comparison of PTO technologies
Process Product Energy yield Minimum scale CAPEX required
Pyrolysis crude oil 80% small low
Catalytic depolymerization gasoline/diesel mix 75% small medium
Gasification with FT synthesis diesel (+ waxes) 30% (50%) large high
Gasification with MeOH-gasoline gasoline 45% large high
Gasification with bioprocessing ethanol 50% large high
Source: Axion Consulting
1 ENERGY ECONOMIST / ISSUE 400 / FEBRUARY 2015
TECHNOLOGY AND DEPLOYMENT

4kids
all jmo