Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
Pyrolysis is one of the main methods for chemical recycling of
plastics. While plastic recycling is gaining momentum, many
companies are still struggling in scaling pyrolysis technology.
Pyrolysis plants of sizes 500-3,000 tpd are being discussed by
industry players and are needed to attain the future goal of seeing
a great momentum in plastic recycling across all different
industries around the globe so that significant progress toward a
circular plastics model can be achieved. At present, waste plastic
chemical recycling via pyrolysis is available only at a small scale
(10-50 tpd). Many plants with a capacity from 50-300 tpd are still
under planning and construction, and these firms are increasingly
exploring the huge potential under chemical recycling via pyrolysis
so that a large volume of plastic waste can be handled. The
economics for a large-scale pyrolysis plant are challenging and
largely dependent on the upstream feedstock quality and its price,
reactor configuration, and the type of end-product considered. This
article discusses the way ahead in the commercialization of
pyrolysis technology for large-scale plastic chemical
recycling.
The reactor design and its size are the key parameters
determining the economic viability of the pyrolysis plant. For a
1,000 tpd plant, a few larger reactors (for instance, 250 tpd) that
can handle large plastic waste volumes, are preferred. A modular
approach for large-scale commercialization (e.g., implementing 20
pyrolyzer reactors, each having a size of 50 tpd for this 1,000 tpd
plant), has a significant impact on the total fixed capital. The
design of the reactor also changes with the scale. Circular
fluidized bed type reactors are more scalable as compared with the
auger type traditional pyrolyzer reactors. The type of pyrolysis
and its associated end-products becomes more significant in the
selection of reactor design type and plant scale, with versatile
engineering expertise required for a robust design where the
process yields are not compromised in the long run.
The total fixed capital for the plant can be drastically reduced
if larger reactor sizes are used instead of a modular approach. Our
analysis shows that by using a larger reactor size, the total fixed
capital can be reduced by 20-35%. To cover a plant with a given
capacity (for instance, 1,000 tpd), if we only use a single train
of 4-5 large reactors, the saving potential is 35%. But if we use
two trains of 4-6 large reactors, the saving potential will be only
20-25%.
While it is true that the pyrolysis commercialization using a
larger reactor size is not yet realized, moving forward, we will
see the use of a traditional modular approach combined together in
a number of trains in tackling the question of scalability. This
could be because of strategic reasons such as looking to choose a
modular unit to address the capacity of a material recycle facility
(MRF), or a client choosing 20-50 tpd to fit the present market
needs. Making the technology modular not only makes it scalable,
but also makes the system immune to failures. Like a server
cabinet, if one module stops working, other modules will continue
the operation. This puts more robustness in the system and
increases the availability and reliability of the plant. While this
comes with a higher price tag, this premium pricing will alleviate
critical timing in solving the issue of the plastic circularity and
increasing legislation pressure.
IHS Markit expects that the advances that will drive the
step-change improvements required to achieve the large-scale
implementation of pyrolysis technology will be in the areas of
reactor design and catalysis. This will drive scale and energy
efficiency, as well as quality improvements that need to be made to
achieve a pyrolysis oil that can be used in steam crackers with
limited upgrading.
IHS Markit believes that as these technologies are being
developed in the long-term, they will benefit from the same type of
learning that other petrochemical and refining processes have
experienced, resulting in improved economics. This Experience Curve
theory implies that as cumulative productions using a specific
technology increases, fixed costs are expected to decrease.
Estimates for 2050 indicate that fixed costs could decline by as
much as 50-65% if the chemical recycle technology development
follows a path similar to other established technologies. Logistics
issues are a challenge to all large-scale efforts to recycle
plastics. For chemical recycling, the fact that a large portion of
waste plastics recovered from municipal solid waste streams will be
located far from the traditional centers of plastics production is
a disadvantage. This will require managing the logistics for solid
waste (aggregating to achieve a large-scale supply source), for
aggregating the sources of pyrolysis oil, and either transporting
it to the traditional manufacturing centers or establishing new
production centers regionally.
IHS Markit Circular
Plastics Service provides a comprehensive, scenario-based
evaluation of how the plastics value chain is expected to
transition from a linear to a circular economy.
The plastics waste dilemma isn't going away, affecting the
industry and your business directly. With IHS Markit Circular
Plastics Service, understand government regulations and polices,
prepare a plan to mitigate risk, determine which part of your
company is most vulnerable, and assess opportunities for
investment.
Circular Plastics Service enables you to:
Track government regulations, policies and targets established
by brand owners, industry alliances, NGOs and ESG investors and
understand what this means for your business in the countries and
regions where you have operations
Prepare a plan to mitigate against major sustainability-driven
shifts in downstream plastics consumption
Determine which parts of the company's product offerings are
most vulnerable to reductions in demand for virgin (non-recycled)
plastic.
Assess opportunities for investment collaboration in
circularity
Assess the relative value propositions of competing recycle
technologies and anticipate where investments will be directed to
scale infrastructure.
Anticipate the timing and magnitude of the impact to feedstocks
that will develop during the plastics transition to
circularity
Posted 13 September 2021 by Jonny Goyal, Associate Director - Technology and Infrastructure, Circular Plastic Services, IHS Markit
