Tapping the plastics-to-fuel potential

A recent study found that if all nonrecycled plastics in the U.S. were converted to energy at facilities that use modern plastics-to-fuel (PTF) technologies, these plastics could produce nearly 6 billion gallons of gasoline, enough to fuel nearly 9 million cars per year.

Of course, it’s unlikely that all nonrecycled plastics ever will be converted to fuel. But significant advances in plastics-to-fuel technologies, coupled with growing investments, may soon help us stop wastefully burying nonrecycled plastics in landfills.

Unfortunately, a relic of the past stands in the way: outdated regulations that treat an energy-laden feedstock—used plastics—like waste, stymieing progress and the rapid acceptance of this technology. Fixing these outdated regulations would be relatively painless and could unleash the huge potential of plastics-to-fuel in communities around the nation.
 

A powerful source

The molecules that make up plastics are a powerful source of energy. For example, nonrecycled plastics on average supply more than 15,000 British thermal units (Btu) per pound in facilities that convert nonrecycled waste to energy. That’s more energy per pound than most types of coal. Scientists at Columbia University found that there is enough energy contained in the nonrecycled plastics we landfill each year to power 5.7 million homes annually.

To tap this inherent energy in a different way, companies are employing a technology called pyrolysis to transform nonrecycled plastics into fuels, chemical feedstocks and other petroleum products. The Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance, part of the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), based in the District of Columbia, is working with related industries across the country to help jumpstart plastics-to-fuel technologies.

Just as the term sounds, PTF technologies convert nonrecycled plastics into oil, fuels or petroleum blendstocks for use in vehicles and other purposes. The process varies but usually involves these steps:

• first, plastics are collected and sorted for recycling (as recycling plastics is preferential to energy recovery), and then nonrecycled plastics are shipped to a PTF facility;
• these plastics are heated in an oxygen-free environment, where they melt into a liquid and then vaporize into gases;
• the gases are cooled and condensed into a wide variety of useful products, such as oils, fuels and petroleum products; and
• PTF companies sell the petroleum products and fuels to fuel blenders, manufacturers and industrial users to power vehicles, ships and industrial processes.
   

The economic opportunities for PTF technologies are significant. By tapping the potential of nonrecycled plastics, the U.S. could support up to 600 PTF facilities and generate nearly 39,000 jobs, resulting in up to $9 billion in economic output from PTF operations. And that doesn’t even include the $18 billion of economic output during the build-out phase.

These technologies complement ongoing recycling efforts by recovering clean energy from used plastics that cannot be economically recycled. Increased deployment of these technologies could help reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and generate products to power local economies.

PTF currently is the most efficient technology to recover the energy inherent in plastics. In addition, the carbon intensity of producing energy using PTF technologies is roughly one-third that of traditional crude extraction—and it’s roughly one-sixth that of certain new sources of crude oil, such as oil sands or shale oil. Plus, the production of PTF also displaces the need for equivalent amounts of crude oil extraction.
 

Out-of-date regulations

The infrastructure and processes involved in PTF are the same as others in the manufacturing sector: a feedstock is processed into various products that are sold on the market. But regulations in most states treat the process as waste disposal, with unnecessary restrictions that are not relevant to manufacturing.

This makes little sense. Nonrecycled plastic feedstocks at a PTF facility are not “putrescible, mixed materials of all different types,” otherwise known as mixed solid waste. Existing solid waste codes were not written for the technologies of today. These outdated definitions create a significant barrier for new innovations, such as PTF technologies.

Laws and regulations should treat the facilities that manufacture fuels and petroleum products from nonrecycled plastics feedstock the same as any manufacturing facility, not as a waste disposal facility. PTF manufacturing processes should be recognized as complementary to recycling and as part of communities’ integrated solid waste management programs.

In many jurisdictions this will require updating existing laws and regulations. Following are some changes that may need to be made, depending on a jurisdiction’s existing laws and regulations, to help spur the growth of these technologies.

Ensure that plastics-to-fuel feedstocks (i.e., nonrecycled plastics) are not classified as “solid waste.” Sorted and graded materials of a similar type that meet the specifications of a manufacturer are feedstocks. Relevant definitions should treat the primary PTF input (nonrecycled material) as feedstocks or materials and not as solid waste. Solid waste definitions only should focus on materials that cannot be sorted and upgraded for reuse, and on the mixed materials that are contaminated and create risks and hazards.

Don’t regulate PTF facilities as “landfills” or “waste-to-energy” facilities. Some policymakers have suggested that a PTF facility should not be allowed to charge a “tipping fee” similar to landfills because these fees may induce haulers of solid waste to deliver waste to PTF facilities instead. However, a PTF facility can only use very controlled, sorted and graded materials and will not receive mixed materials beyond plastics. Accepting a tipping fee does not suddenly change the nature of the facility or turn these valuable plastics into waste.

Let recyclers determine whether there is a viable market for their plastics. Some policymakers have suggested banning plastics that can be recycled from PTF facilities, as a way to support recycling. But PTF facilities generally do not represent a more profitable market for plastics collected for recycling. Plastics recyclers have financial incentives to sell their material to the highest value use, which typically is recycling.

In addition, markets change often and recycling facilities can stockpile only limited amounts of plastics for recycling, so recyclers may be pressured to dispose of collected plastics. PTF facilities provide a better option for recyclers than landfilling recyclable plastics.

Allow storage of plastics on-site. Due to concerns over sham recycling operations that accept and store materials for a fee with no intent to recycle them, some policymakers suggest that PTF facilities should not be able to store any plastics on-site. But PTF facilities typically need a minimum supply of feedstock—between one to three weeks’ worth—to guard against supply disruption due to events outside their control, such as labor disruptions and severe weather.

Allow for disposal of off-spec feedstocks and byproducts. Some policymakers have suggested that conversion technologies at PTF facilities must be at least 80 percent efficient, meaning that all wastes from the facilities cannot exceed 20 percent of feedstocks. While the ultimate goal of each facility is a closed-loop system in which all materials are recycled perpetually with no waste, not every material delivered to a PTF facility can be used, primarily due to quality issues. Plus, byproducts of the PTF process may need to be disposed of. Mandating an arbitrary efficiency target could hamstring facilities and deter investments in these technologies. The efficiency of conversion technologies at PTF facilities that don’t get built is zero.

Do not require unnecessary financial guarantees that discourage investment. Since a PTF facility does not treat or store waste like a landfill, the facility should not be required to create a large fund (like landfills) to maintain itself after its future closure, as some policymakers have suggested. A PTF facility must pay to dispose of materials it cannot process, so it has a financial incentive to accept only materials it can process, not large amounts of waste. So it’s unlikely such a facility would create long-term waste disposal issues requiring long-term financial guarantees.
 

A fair shake

As the preferred end-of-life option for valuable materials, plastic recycling is growing and is expected to continue to grow. For those plastics that cannot feasibly be recycled, PTF represents a tremendous opportunity to complement existing recycling efforts and divert even more useful plastics from wasting away in landfills.

These technologies are proven. Investors are ready. The end products are in high demand. All they need right now is a fair shake.

To learn more, ACC’s Plastics-to-oil Technologies Alliance has developed detailed guidelines to encourage innovation while meeting regulatory requirements for air, process water and storm water, and management of products and coproducts.

More information is available at http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/RegulatingPlastics-to-Fuel.

Michael Dungan is director of sales and marketing for RES Polyflow, Akron, Ohio, and serves as the current chairman of the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics-to-Oil Technologies Alliance.