This paper promotes awareness of the circular economy as a superior waste disposal system alternative. The novelty of this study is to model cleaner energy generation from the gasification of polyethene terephthalate (PET) waste accompanied by a detailed analysis on the economic feasibility. In the approximate analysis of PET, the percentage values for Ash and hydrogen were low (0 and 4.21, respectively). This parameter significantly impacted the Ash and hydrogen contents of the output gas, as it directly influenced the PET feedstock to a more excellent heating value (23.34 MJ/kg) and lower heating value (10.63 MJ/kg). Temperature and pressure are treated as free variables throughout each block during the gasification procedures. A sensitivity study revealed that the PET moisture content has no significant effect on the product composition. The economic analysis indicated that the gasification process could be economically viable. The economic analysis of the process considered the comprehensive evaluation of the plant’s financial aspects. The economic evaluation indicated that the facility would reach the break-even point by the end of its third year of operation, demonstrating its economic viability, with an NPV of £77,574,506.37 and an ROI of 40.1% for the suggested 25-year operational period of the facility.
HasanzadehRMojaverPAzdastT, et al. (2022) Low-emission and energetically efficient co-gasification of coal by incorporating plastic waste: a modelling study. Chemosphere; 299: 134408.
OnwudiliJAInsuraNWilliamsPT. Composition of products from the pyrolysis of polyethylene and polystyrene in a closed batch reactor: effects of temperature and residence time. J Anal Appl Pyrol2009; 86(2): 293–303. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaap.2009.07.008.
4.
LeeK-HShinD-H. Characteristics of liquid product from the pyrolysis of waste plastic mixture at low and high temperatures: influence of lapse time of reaction. Waste Manag2007; 27(2): 168–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2005.12.017.
5.
GeyerRJambeckJRLawKL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv2017; 3(7): e1700782.
WebbHKArnottJCrawfordRJ, et al.Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate). Polymers2013; 5(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.3390/polym5010001.
8.
PaulaCPintoFRamosAM, et al.Study of the pyrolysis kinetics of mixture of polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, 2010.
9.
TouhamiDZhuZBalanWS, et al.Characterization of rice husk-based catalyst prepared via conventional and microwave carbonization. J Environ Chem Eng2017; 5: 2388–2394.
10.
XuJYuJXuJ, et al.High-value utilization of waste tires: a review with focus on modified carbon black from pyrolysis. Sci Total Environ2020; 742: 140235.
YansanehOYZeinSH. Recent advances on waste plastic thermal pyrolysis: a critical overview. Processes2022a; 10: 332. DOI: 10.3390/pr10020332.
13.
ZeinSHHussainAAYansanehOY, et al.Modelling and simulation of dissolution/reprecipitation technique for low-density polyethene using solvent/non-solvent system. Processes2022, 10(11), 2387. DOI: 10.3390/pr10112387.
14.
LeeJLinKAJungS, et al.Hybrid renewable energy systems involving thermochemical conversion process for waste-to-energy strategy. Chem Eng J2022; 2022: 139218.
15.
KumarASamadderSR. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag2017; 69: 407–422.
16.
HonusSKumagaiSFedorkoG, et al.Pyrolysis gases produced from individual and mixed PE, PP, PS, PVC, and PET—Part I: production and physical properties. Fuel2018; 221: 346–360, DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.074.
17.
BaiBLiuYZhangH, et al.Experimental investigation on gasification characteristics of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) microplastics in supercritical water. Fuel2020; 262: 116630, DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116630.
18.
OlofssonFHalvarssonH. Small scale energy conversion of plastic waste: identification of gasification process parameters through modelling in aspen plus, 2020.
19.
SaadJMWilliamsPT. Catalytic dry reforming of waste plastics from different waste treatment plants for production of synthesis gases. Waste Manag2016; 58: 214–220.
20.
TavaresRRamosARouboaA. Microplastics thermal treatment by polyethylene terephthalate-biomass gasification. Energy Convers Manag2018; 162: 118–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.001.
21.
ZeinSHGroganCTYansanehOY, et al.Pyrolysis of high-density polyethylene waste plastic to liquid fuels—modelling and economic analysis. Processes2022; 10(8): 1503. DOI: 10.3390/pr10081503.
22.
PlusA. Getting started modeling processes with solids. Version L 0.2. Cambridge, USA: Aspen Technology Inc., 2000.
23.
GaglianoANoceraFBrunoM, et al.Development of an equilibrium-based model of gasification of biomass by aspen plus. Energy Proc2017; 111: 1010–1019.
24.
WardJRasulMGBhuiyaM. Energy recovery from biomass by fast pyrolysis. Procedia Eng2014; 90: 669–674.
25.
FivgaADimitriouI. Pyrolysis of plastic waste for production of heavy fuel substitute: a techno-economic assessment. Energy2018; 149: 865–874.
26.
ChanniwalaSAParikhPP. A unified correlation for estimating HHV of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. Fuel2002; 81(8): 1051–1063.
27.
ChattopadhyayJPathakTSSrivastavaR, et al.Catalytic co-pyrolysis of paper biomass and plastic mixtures (HDPE (high density polyethylene), PP (polypropylene) and PET (polyethylene terephthalate)) and product analysis. Energy2016; 103: 513–521.
28.
KannanPAl ShoaibiASrinivasakannanC. Energy recovery from co-gasification of waste polyethylene and polyethylene terephthalate blends. Computers & Fluids2013; 88: 38–42.
29.
PohořelýMVoseckýMHejdováP, et al.Gasification of oal and PET in fluidized bed reactor. Fuel2006; 85(17-18): 2458–2468.
30.
SundararajanTRaghavanVAjilkumarA, et al. Mathematical modelling of coal gasification processes. IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. 1st ed. IOP Publishing, 2017, 766, p. 012006. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/76/1/012006.
31.
MahinpeyNGomezA. Review of gasification fundamentals and new findings: reactors, feedstock, and kinetic studies. Chem Eng Sci2016; 148: 14–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ces.2016.03.037.
32.
SikarwarVSZhaoMFennellPS, et al. Progress in biofuel production from gasification. Prog Energy Combust Sci2017; 61: 189–248. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecs.2017.04.001.
33.
FuchsJSchmidJCMüllerS, et al.The impact of gasification temperature on the process characteristics of sorption enhanced reforming of biomass. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery2020; 10(4): 925–936.
34.
TowlerGSinnottR. Chapter 6: Costing and Project Evaluation. Chemical engineering design. SI Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp. 292–382.
McCollumDLOgdenJM. Techno-economic models for carbon dioxide compression, transport, and storage & correlations for estimating carbon dioxide density and viscosity, 2006.
37.
MoresPRodríguezNScennaN, et al.CO2 capture in power plants: minimization of the investment and operating cost of the post-combustion process using MEA aqueous solution. Int J Greenh Gas Control2012; 10: 148–163.
38.
McCoySTRubinES. An engineering-economic model of pipeline transport of CO2 with application to carbon capture and storage. Int J Greenh Gas Control2008; 2(2): 219–229.
39.
FriedliTBellmD. OPEX: a definition. Anonymous Leading pharmaceutical operational excellence. Berlin: Springer, 2013, pp. 7–26.
40.
ZeinSHAntonyA. Techno-economic analysis and feasibility of industrial-scale activated carbon production from agricultural pea waste using microwave-assisted pyrolysis: a circular economy approach. Processes2022; 10(9): 1702.
AdhikariBOrmeCJKlaehnJR, et al.Technoeconomic analysis of oxygen-nitrogen separation for oxygen enrichment using membranes. Separation and Purification Technology2021; 268: 118703.
DoTNKwonHParkM, et al.Carbon-neutral hydrogen production from natural gas via electrified steam reforming: techno-economic-environmental perspective. Energy Convers Manag2023; 279: 116758.
45.
KildahlHWangLTongL, et al.Industrial carbon monoxide production by thermochemical CO2 splitting – a techno-economic assessment. J CO2 Util2022; 65: 102181.
ChaeSYLeeSYHanSG, et al.A perspective on practical solar to carbon monoxide production devices with economic evaluation. Sustain Energy Fuels2020; 4(1): 199–212.
50.
MottaILMirandaNTMaciel FilhoR, et al.Biomass gasification in fluidized beds: a review of biomass moisture content and operating pressure effects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev2018; 94: 998–1023.
