Non-Recycled Plastics as a Feedstock for Advanced Fuels

The Rutgers EcoComplex

Alec E. Roth

2

Systems Thinking

What & Why?

•Growing Demand for Liquid Fuels

•36 Billion Gallons (857 Million Barrels)

•Alternative Fuel Retrofitting– Drop- In Fuels

3

US MSW Facts

4

Plastics in US MSWNumber

and Acronym

Chemical Name

Common Uses US Total Generation

(tons)

Recovery as a % of Total Generation

(32 mil tons)

Polyethylene Terephthala

te

Soft drink and water bottles, peanut butter

containers

4,520,000 19.5%

High Density

Polyethylene

Milk jugs, Detergent and cleaner bottles, Shampoo bottles

5,530,000 10.3%

Polyvinyl Chloride

Medical equipment, piping, rigid containers

870,000 Negligible

Low Density Polyethylene

Squeezable bottles, carpets, shopping

bags, films

7,350,000 5.3%

Polypropylene

Yogurt containers, syrup bottles,

medicine bottles

7,190,000 0.6%

Polystyrene Disposable plates and cups, egg cartons, foam

packaging

2,240,000 0.9%

Miscellaneous Resins

Some rigid plastics, sunglasses, signs &

displays, nylon

4,050,000 22.5% 5

US Management of Plastic Waste

6

Non-Recycled Plastics as a Resource

• Landfilling as a Primary Disposal Method

• WTE ATWTE

(Advanced Technologies for Waste to Energy)

7

2011 NJ MSW Overview Population Total MSW

Generated (Tons)Total Recycled

(Tons)MSW Landfilled

(Tons)MSW Incinerated

(Tons)

8,791,894 9,907,342 3,983,048 3,710,294 2,214,000

% of Total MSW Generated

100% 40% 38% 22%

8

• The Removal of Bulky and Add-ons from NJ MSW

Per/Capita Rates

• 6.2 pounds Generated

• 2.5 Pounds Recycled

• 2.3 Pounds Landfilled

Burlington and Middlesex

County Assessments

2011 Burlington County MSW Overview

Population MSW Generation(Tons

)

MSW Disposal(Tons)

MSW Recycling(Tons)

MSW % Recycled of Total

Generation

448,734 536,836 315,786 221,050.12 41%

10

Per/Capita Rates

•6.6 Pounds Generated

•2.8 Pounds Recycled

•3.8 Pounds Disposed

Burlington County’s Recycling Program

•Burlington’s OTC

– Current Dual Stream System

– New Single Stream System

11

Burlington County’s Plastic Recovery

12

Plastic Type (2013) Tons (2012) Tons (2011)Tons

PET(1) 2665.39 2556.93 2607.57

HDPE Natural(2) 409.42 489.10 466.01

HDPE Color(2) 684.23 635.38 656.60

LDPE(4) 15.50 23.74 22.51

Rigid 67.87 115.21 144.89

Total Material Landfilled from OTC

Facility

917.53 968.85 846.41

Total Plastic Landfilled from OTC

Facility

<100 N/A N/A

Total Tons Processed 48,943.64 47,449.72 49,935.58

Economic Analysis of Burlington County’s Recycled Plastic

13

Plastic Type 2013 Tons 2013 2012 Tons 2012 2011 Tons 2011

PET(#1) 2665.39 $890,656.00

2556.93 $970,500.90

2607.57 $1,525,365.30

HDPE Natural(#2)

409.42 $283,548.70

489.10 $308,145.00

466.01 $337,805.65

HDPE Color(#2)

684.23 $293,260.00

635.38 $313,656.95

656.60 $328,548.10

LDPE(#4) 15.50 $1,550.00 23.74 $118.70 22.51 $1,125.50

Rigid 67.87 $1,900.80 115.21 $8,343.00 144.89 $8,887.40

2013 2012 2011

Total Tons Processed (Tons) 48,943.64 47,449.72 49,935.58

Total Revenue $5,447,319.34 $5,750,271.00 $8,087,718.04

Pilot Assessment of Burlington County’s Landfilled NRP

14

Pilot Assessment of Burlington County’s Landfilled NRP Results

15

Waste Source

Total Waste (Pounds)

Waste Residue (Pounds)

Recovered Plastic

(Pounds)

Plastic in MSW(%)

Suburban I 174 143 31 17.8

Suburban II 123 99 24 19.5

Suburban III 120 103 17 14.2

Rural I 59 45 14 23.8

Rural II 147 108 39 26.5

Rural III 206 177 29 14.1

Urban I 146 118 28 19.2

Urban II 170 138 32 18.8

Urban III 147 126 21 14.3

Pilot Assessment of Burlington County’s Landfilled NRP Results

16

Suburban 17.2%

Rural 21.8%

Urban 17.4%

Estimated Average NRP in Burlington Landfill as % of total

County MSW

18.8%

Energy Analysis for Burlington County’s NRP

17

Energy Analysis for Burlington County’s NRP

• 54,503.77 tons of NRP = 109,007,540 pounds of NRP

• 1.7 trillion Btu = 293,103 barrels of oil.

• 2.46 million gallons of petroleum diesel potentially displaced

Potentially Available NRP Supply

– 45-60 tons – 1.6 billion Btu annually = 278 barrels of oil.

18

2011 Middlesex County MSW Overview

Population

MSW Generated

(Tons)

MSW Disposed (Tons)

MSW Recycled (Tons) MSW % Recycled of Total Generation

809,858 959,894.44 549,632 410,262.44 43%

19

Per/Capita Rates

•6.5 Pounds Generated

•2.8 Pounds Recycled

•3.7 Pounds Disposed

Middlesex County’s Recycling Programs

• Middlesex County Improvement Authority

• Independent Programs

• Colgate Paper Stock

20

2013 CPS Approximate Plastic Recovery Composition

21

Plastic Type Tons Percent

PET (1) 1,105.75 41.8%

HDPE Natural (2) 367.70 13.9%

HDPE Color (2) 433.83 16.4%

Mixed (3-7) 738.05 27.9%

Total Materials Processed 79,606.49

Total Plastics Processed 3,367.76

Total Plastics as a Percent of Total Processed

4.23%

738.05 tons NRP = 22.7 Billion Btu = 3,906.6 barrels of oil

Average NJ NRP Market Values

22

Resin Type Average Market Price(cents/lb)

PET (#1) 0.15-0.16

HDPE Color (#2) 0.28

HDPE Natural (#2) 0.45-0.46

PVC (#3) Negligible

LDPE/LLDPE Grade A (#4)

0.30

LDPE/LLDPE Grade B (#4)

0.15-0.19

LDPE/LLDPE Grade C (#4)

Negligible

PP (#5) 0.12

PS (#6) Negligible

Conclusions

NEW JERSEY POTENTIAL NRP IN LANDFILLS

24

• Data extracted from 2010

• 837,339 tons NRP

• 25.7 trillion Btu

• 4.4 million barrels of oil.

• ATWTE needs to be differentiated from WTE (incineration).

• ATWTE needs to be updated in the US EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standards to approve non-biomass MSW, specifically plastics, as a renewable feedstock for drop-in renewable fuels.

• Federal and State funding is needed to finance renewable fuel projects, specifically waste to advanced clean fuels initiatives.

• On a local government level, all counties should centralize their recycling programs and include all types of plastics, #1-7, in their collection programs.

• Better policies are needed to encourage the reduction of NRP disposed into landfills to improve landfill efficiency and divert this resource to be viable feedstock for ATWTE applications.

• More research and development on ATWTE is needed to commercialize these emerging advanced technologies.

• Research on how to effectively and efficiently retrieve landfilled NRP for ATWTE pathways.

• A complete life cycle analysis should be completed for NRP as a feedstock of ATWTE.

• A comprehensive NJ NRP categorization is needed to obtain the most accurate data on the available NRP supply in the state.

• Economic analyses are needed for a realistic evaluation of the micro-economic and macro-economic potential of ATWTE facilities and the fuels they produce.

• Evaluation of existing waste separation technologies for their efficiency in separating plastics from MSW.  Additional Research and Development is needed in this area as well.

25

Policy Future Research

&

Special Thanks to the Goldstein Family and the EcoComplex Team!

26