Remake of the black gold with plastic

[NCSH]

And what interests us... on the Grandpuits site undergoing conversion:

biofuels

The production of biofuel will be made from fat:the supply will consist mainly of used cooking oils. This will be the third TotalEnergies site for this activity, after the Mède and Oudalle platform.. Annual production of 170 t of sustainable aviation fuel, 000 t of road fuel and 120 t of naphtha is expected in 000.
Plastic recycling

An activity of chemical recycling of plastic wastes must process 15 t/year from the end of 000. This will be the first site in France to apply this method, which consists of degrade polymers by pyrolysis8.

In September 2023, TotalEnergies reveals its plans for the installation of the mechanical plastic recycling unit in Grandpuits9. Scheduled to be operational in 2026, the factory will produce 30 tonnes of compounds, containing up to 000% recycled plastic materials50.

This process of transforming used or virgin oils is well known, but is very different from that discussed previously.

It was originally, at the industrial stage, developed by the main Finnish oil company NESTE, almost 15 years ago, under the name HVO. For more than five years, a major refinery in Rotterdam has been transformed, which produces road diesel and kerosene, with a by-product, propane!
Several "small" refineries, now unprofitable, have been converted by Shell, ENI (Syracuse in Sicily, Venice, ...), Total, ...
This is already several annual MTep, with a potential of 15 for 2030... considered as non-fossil, like biofuels.

On the contrary, reusing plastics cannot be considered non-fossil, at most this makes a “decarbonization” rate as they say, of only 50%.
In fact, there would not be even 0% "decarbonization", since it only "burns" once.
In 2050, this will not be compatible with Europe's Carbon Neutrality objective.

[sicetaitsimple]

And what interests us... on the Grandpuits site undergoing conversion:

biofuels



On the contrary, reusing plastics cannot be considered non-fossil, at most this makes a “decarbonization” rate as they say, of only 50%.
In fact, there would not be even 0% "decarbonization", since it only "burns" once.
In 2050, this will not be compatible with Europe's Carbon Neutrality objective.

The way it's counted, we don't really care. The important thing, whatever the solution adopted, is the "economy", the reduction, of associated fossil fuel extraction.

[sicetaitsimple]

So why was the “at most this makes a “decarbonization” rate as they say, of only 50%.” from the NCSH message deleted?

[Macro]

If the Syracuse refinery recycles plastic I can guarantee you that Sicily can be self-sufficient for a few decades just with the trash that Sicilians leave lying around everywhere, this island is an open-air dump

[NCSH]

So why was the “at most this makes a “decarbonization” rate as they say, of only 50%.” from the NCSH message deleted?

The answer is in the following line, integrated into the same paragraph.

>>>Transforming plastic into “black gold” that is “burned” produces fossil carbon dioxide just like a product from the refining of crude oil.
There is therefore no "decarbonization", unlike the reuse of carbonaceous material resulting from a first combustion of any industrial unit, which is then transformed into synthetic fuel: there, there is double use of the original fossil carbon material.
So we have a “decarbonization” rate of 50% for fuel.

But this will be banned in Europe from 2040. So nothing to get excited about.

So, it would be better to prioritize the recycling of plastics, category by category, rather than trying to turn them into fuels.

[Remundo]

so in fact the CO2 balance is not necessarily good.

Distilling plastic that is already of fossil origin, and then burning it all in one way or another, emits a lot of CO2.

But we don't have to distill fossil plastics. Any type of organic matter can be thermolyzed, including those of plant origin.

Economically, plastic is not infinitely recyclable; certain particles become unsuitable for reincorporation into the packaging sector. At that point, the pyrolysis sector could be valid, in particular to recycle everything that is disgusting and floats quite a bit in the environment.

[NCSH]

so in fact the CO2 balance is not necessarily good.

Distilling plastic that is already of fossil origin, and then burning it all in one way or another, emits a lot of CO2.

But we don't have to distill fossil plastics. Any type of organic matter can be thermolyzed, including those of plant origin.

Economically, plastic is not infinitely recyclable; certain particles become unsuitable for reincorporation into the packaging sector. At that point, the pyrolysis sector could be valid, in particular to recycle everything that is disgusting and floats quite a bit in the environment.

I am not sure that we can, beyond 2050, have the slightest tolerance for burning carbon of fossil origin, even if it comes from various non-recyclable plastics...
There may be possibilities of combustion in incinerators, subject to recovering the CO₂ and bury it geologically.
I'm writing this, but I don't know anything about it, I'm not a specialist in this, it will be decided in 10 or 20 years...


Thermolysis will, on the other hand, be accepted for various organic waste or biomass energy, in competition with hydrothermal gasification (known as wet process) and pyrogasification (known as dry process), both dedicated to the production of non-fossil methane, in addition to methanization which has been massively deployed for 5 to 10 years.
In addition to the available quantities of MS (dry matter), we will also have to wait to find out more about the cost of the different processes...

[sicetaitsimple]

we will also have to wait to know more about the cost of the different processes...

Including those for manufacturing “synthetic fuels”