Activated Carbon by Co-pyrolysis and Steam Activation from Particle Board and Melamine Formaldehyde Resin: Production, Adsorption Properties and Techno Economic Evaluation

Abstract

Cite as: Vanreppelen, K. et.al., Activated carbon by co-pyrolysis and steam activation from particle board and melamine formaldehyde resin: production, adsorption properties and techno economic evaluation, J. ABSTRACTOne of the top strategic objectives and research areas in Europe is recovering wood from processing and end of life products. However, there are still several 'contaminated' wood products that are not or only partly reused/recycled. Particle board waste which is contaminated with aminoplasts is one of these products. In addition, a considerable amount of aminoplast waste resinis produced for the production of particle board that cannot be re-used or recycled. The chemical properties of these wastes (high nitrogen content of 5.9 wt% and 54.1 wt% for particle board and melamine formaldehyde respectively) make them ideal precursors for the production of nitrogenised activated carbon. The profitability of the produced activated carbon is investigated by calculating the net present value, the minimum selling price and performing a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis. Encouraging results for a profitable production are obtained even though the current assumptions start from a rather pessimistic scenario.

The Importance of using Discounted Cash Flow Methodology in Techno-economic Analyses of Energy and Chemical Production Plants

“…The first example is taken from Xiang et al [3], who made a comparison of two processes: Coal To Olefins (CTO) with a capacity of 0.7 Mt/y, and Oil To Olefins (OTO) with a capacity of 1.5 Mt/y. In a CTO process, coal is gasified, following by methanol synthesis, and olefin synthesis.…”

“…It could be derived from the original literature [3] that the CTO process has considerably lower production cost due to the low coal price, however, the investment in this process is significantly higher than the OTO process. Table 2 presents the main economic figures obtained from the cited reference.…”

“…The influence of variations in production capacities on both processes is studied based on the data in the original paper [3]. Figure 1 shows that the NPV of the CTO process would be positive at all capacities within the studied range from 0.3 Mt/y to 2 Mt/y, while the NPV of the OTO process would become positive only above the production rates of 1.1 Mt/y.…”

“…The NPV analysis is repeated by including CO2 tax into the operating cost. Xiang et al [3] reported that the CTO process emits 4.05 Mt CO2 per year, and the OTP process 1.55 Mt/y. Assuming a CO2 tax rate of 20 EUR/t, the annual CO2 tax amounts to 81 M EUR/y for the CTO process with a capacity of 0.7 M EUR/y, and 31 M EUR/y for the OTO process with a capacity of 1.5 MT/y.…”

“…Economic feasibility models are often developed for evaluating the attractiveness of the investment in various production facilities, such as activated carbon from waste particle boards [3]. In some countries, coal is still a very important raw material, and therefore the coal-to-olefins process was compared to the oilto-olefin process in order to establish under what conditions the coal-based processes would be economically competitive [4].…”