We can feel sorry for those who bought and sold JBII at a loss... But those who bought stock solely because John stated the max operating specs for some primitive Chinese pyrolysis machine... That's their own fault. Car companies can say a car has a max speed of 150MPH, but driving the car at that speed every day is probably a bad idea- the car will quickly break down or crash. Should we punish bio tech companies who say their goal is to cure cancer, but they are unsuccessful after millions of investment dollars? Or should we let them continue their research? JBI is like a bio tech company who's goal is to cure cancer, but has so far only made drugs that help the symptoms. Still viable while maintaining the same ultimate goal. Through JBI's experimentation (made possible by financing), it was quickly found how they would need to innovate and what realistic expectations are. John and team's revelations and innovations are detailed in his nawtec report below. Have you read it?
I totally disagree with your statement about value being zero if it isn't making money. While I do believe it is capable of making profits, I do not think it is required by many potential buyers. I could see a company like Crayola purchasing a processor just to run it a few days a month. They would do this to create a positive, green and sustainable image for themselves to attract environmentally conscious customers. The pyrolysis machine may not be making the profits directly in fuel sales... but indirectly, through company image improvement and popularity.
Viable Production of Diesel From Non-Recyclable Waste Plastics
(Published with the permission of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ? Copyright ASME 2013)
Proceedings of the 21st Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference
NAWTEC21, April 22-24, 2013, Fort Myers, Florida, USA (NAWTEC21-2716)
John William Bordynuik
JBI, Inc. ? Plastic2Oil?
20 Iroquois, Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls, New York, USA 14303
Abstract
The art of refining liquid hydrocarbons (crude oil) into diesel, gasoline, and fuel oils was commercially scaled decades ago. Unfortunately, refineries are technologically limited to accepting only a very narrow range of liquid hydrocarbons with very specific properties and minimal contaminates. Unrecyclable, hydrocarbon-based waste is a significant environmental problem increasing every year. According to the Environmental Protection Agency? 2010 Facts and Figures report, over 92% of waste plastic is not recycled and with a growth rate of approximately 8% per year, there exists a critical need for a viable and environmentally sound, general purpose hydrocarbon-based recycling process. Hydrocarbon streams that fall outside of accepted refinery standards have traditionally been landfilled or melted into products of low value.
The barriers and challenges are so great that previous attempts to refine waste plastics into fuel resulted in unviable batch-based machines producing low-value, unstable mixed fuels. However, over the course of three years JBI, Inc. (?BI?) has broken through these barriers and has designed and built a viable commercial-scale continuous refinery capable of processing a wide-range of hydrocarbon-based waste into ASTM specification fuels.
Research and testing of scale-up through 1-gallon, 3000 gallon, multi-kiln, and 40 ton/day processors took place in a plant in Niagara Falls, NY. Technical challenges encountered and lessons learned during process development will be explained in detail.
In 2009, our technology was ?olecularly audited? by IsleChem, LLC (?sleChem?) of Grand Island, NY and in 2012, the full-scale plant was viably validated by SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (?AIC?). Numerous sources of waste plastic and users of the resulting fuel products conducted extensive audits of the technology, process, and plant. For the purpose of this paper, processing of waste plastics will be discussed in detail; however, this technology can be applied to other waste hydrocarbon-based materials such as contaminated monomers, waste oils, lubricants and other composite waste streams.
Introduction
Early research in this field has primarily involved a number of batch-based technologies, all with severe limitations. Properties, density, and preprocessing of waste plastics impose significant limitations on batch-based units.
Waste plastics have some of the most undesirable properties of any substance when considered for thermal processing. Plastics have low-surface area, poor heat transfer, exceptional tensile strength and are considered an insulator. During the melting process, plastics absorb heat and will stick to anything cooler, resulting in exigent ?lue? that will seize or bind some of the largest high-torque feed technologies.
A common extruder utilizes a 300hp motor to liquefy 500kg/hr of plastics already preprocessed into pellets (Worner, 2011). Due to the cost of extrusion as well as vapor sealing issues, prior technologies opted for a batch design with feeding only when a reactor is cold. Densities of waste plastics are wide ranging from 2 lbs/ ft? for film, to 25 lbs/ft? for high density plastics. Filling a fixed-volume batch reactor with waste plastics greatly limits production without expensive preprocessing and densification. Further, densifying waste plastic is both costly and energy expensive, as it is generally accomplished with extrusion-based pelletizers.
Preprocessing large plastic objects, which can include shredding, pelletizing, and contaminated ejection, can be expensive. Plastic does not behave like crude oil and therefore conventional refining technologies do not work. Most batch- based technologies are based on a process shown in Figure 1.
In addition to the significant limitations of batch-based processors on the input side, the output is also problematic. The resulting product is typically a low-flashpoint, unstable, unsaturated mix of random hydrocarbon chains, ranging from C5 to C80. Alkenes are undesirable in fuels and are highly reactive. This results in poor BTU value, high residue, and high THC? when burned. Large refineries generally refuse these types of products due to their low value, impurities, acids, and possible damaging contaminates. The industrial users accepting these products are typically small refineries in need of source materials with the ability to feed these inferior products in very low ratios mixed with crude oil.
The residue resulting from batch-based processes can also be problematic, as coke which forms on the walls of the reactors or tubes must be scraped or drilled out at considerable time and expense. As prior attempts have not been permitted to use any low-boilers generated in the process, they cannot use what little gas they do produce as energy to assist in the heating and cracking process. The emissions from batch-based processes are generally not desirable and are usually required to have a thermal oxidizer to incinerate any low boil gas created in the process.
Three years ago, the work being undertaken at JBI sought to solve the aforementioned problems with an aggressive ?ust have? list for our process. The list included:
-Must be viable
-Must accept waste continuously
-Must accept waste with minimal power requirements (no extrusion)
-Must accept composite waste material with metals
-Must operate on the off-gas generated from cracking hydrocarbon chains
-Must have anti-coking technologies
-Must seal well
-Must be low-cost (our work was nominally financed)
-Must operate at atmospheric pressures (no vacuum or pressure vessels)
-Must generate in-specification ASTM D396 and ASTM D fuels for direct industry use
Figure 1. Foundation of a typical batch-based process
A detailed account of the challenges, solutions, and lessons learned throughout this work and research follows.
Process Development
In 2009, a small 1-gallon continuously charged reactor (Fig. 2) was assembled and operated for several months, gathering data relevant to scaling the process. The 1-gallon reactor was charged with 100g of plastic every 5 minutes. Over 44 runs, the reactor was charged with processing shredded waste plastics including: food waste packaging, agricultural film, and shredded gas tanks. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) regrind was used on some rungs to establish ideal conditions. The low-boilers (methane, ethane, butane, propane, and hydrogen) were analyzed with a gas chromatograph (GC) and quantified. The resulting fuels underwent typical petroleum testing including automatic distillation testing and flash and pour point evaluation. The fuel output consisted of a Diesel/Naphtha mix. The remarkable GC testing results of the output of the 1-gallon reactor is shown in Fig. 3. Note the absence of wax-like hydrocarbon chains in the C20-C60 range. Additionally, hydrocarbon production was predominately in the C13 diesel range.
Figure 2. 1 gallon reactor at IsleChem Dec. 2009
The 1-gallon reactor was moved to IsleChem, formerly Occidental Petroleum? research laboratory, to verify and assist in the scaling and permitting of the processor.
Figure 3. Gas Chromatograph of fuel from 1-gallon
During the time the 1-gallon reactor was being tested, the construction of a 55-gallon processor (Fig. 4) was accomplished. The processor was scaled up identically from the 1-gallon reactor with the added feature of being fueled by the low boiler gases created by the process. Remarkably, the fuel output product of the 55-gallon reactor was identical to the 1-gallon reactor. The process was repeatable, scalable, and could operate on its own low-boiler gases. The 1-gallon reactor was later expanded to include miniature towers to separate the diesel and gasoline fractions.
Figure 4. 55 gallon processor
After four months of testing, on April 12, 2010, IsleChem issued a report (Appendix A) which concluded the following:
-Process was repeatable and scalable.
-85-95% is converted to ?ear diesel? fuel.
-8% is converted to usable off gas much like natural gas.
-1% remains as residue.
-No evidence of air toxins in the emissions.
-The energy balance of the process is positive; that is, more energy value is produced than is consumed by the process. Early data suggests that it is by as much as a factor of two.
The results of the testing of the 1-gallon reactor proved environmentally friendly and viable, so much so that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (?YSDEC?) issued a consent letter to construct a 3000-gallon reactor
I totally disagree with your statement about value being zero if it isn't making money. While I do believe it is capable of making profits, I do not think it is required by many potential buyers. I could see a company like Crayola purchasing a processor just to run it a few days a month. They would do this to create a positive, green and sustainable image for themselves to attract environmentally conscious customers. The pyrolysis machine may not be making the profits directly in fuel sales... but indirectly, through company image improvement and popularity.
Viable Production of Diesel From Non-Recyclable Waste Plastics
(Published with the permission of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers ? Copyright ASME 2013)
Proceedings of the 21st Annual North American Waste-to-Energy Conference
NAWTEC21, April 22-24, 2013, Fort Myers, Florida, USA (NAWTEC21-2716)
John William Bordynuik
JBI, Inc. ? Plastic2Oil?
20 Iroquois, Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls, New York, USA 14303
Abstract
The art of refining liquid hydrocarbons (crude oil) into diesel, gasoline, and fuel oils was commercially scaled decades ago. Unfortunately, refineries are technologically limited to accepting only a very narrow range of liquid hydrocarbons with very specific properties and minimal contaminates. Unrecyclable, hydrocarbon-based waste is a significant environmental problem increasing every year. According to the Environmental Protection Agency? 2010 Facts and Figures report, over 92% of waste plastic is not recycled and with a growth rate of approximately 8% per year, there exists a critical need for a viable and environmentally sound, general purpose hydrocarbon-based recycling process. Hydrocarbon streams that fall outside of accepted refinery standards have traditionally been landfilled or melted into products of low value.
The barriers and challenges are so great that previous attempts to refine waste plastics into fuel resulted in unviable batch-based machines producing low-value, unstable mixed fuels. However, over the course of three years JBI, Inc. (?BI?) has broken through these barriers and has designed and built a viable commercial-scale continuous refinery capable of processing a wide-range of hydrocarbon-based waste into ASTM specification fuels.
Research and testing of scale-up through 1-gallon, 3000 gallon, multi-kiln, and 40 ton/day processors took place in a plant in Niagara Falls, NY. Technical challenges encountered and lessons learned during process development will be explained in detail.
In 2009, our technology was ?olecularly audited? by IsleChem, LLC (?sleChem?) of Grand Island, NY and in 2012, the full-scale plant was viably validated by SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (?AIC?). Numerous sources of waste plastic and users of the resulting fuel products conducted extensive audits of the technology, process, and plant. For the purpose of this paper, processing of waste plastics will be discussed in detail; however, this technology can be applied to other waste hydrocarbon-based materials such as contaminated monomers, waste oils, lubricants and other composite waste streams.
Introduction
Early research in this field has primarily involved a number of batch-based technologies, all with severe limitations. Properties, density, and preprocessing of waste plastics impose significant limitations on batch-based units.
Waste plastics have some of the most undesirable properties of any substance when considered for thermal processing. Plastics have low-surface area, poor heat transfer, exceptional tensile strength and are considered an insulator. During the melting process, plastics absorb heat and will stick to anything cooler, resulting in exigent ?lue? that will seize or bind some of the largest high-torque feed technologies.
A common extruder utilizes a 300hp motor to liquefy 500kg/hr of plastics already preprocessed into pellets (Worner, 2011). Due to the cost of extrusion as well as vapor sealing issues, prior technologies opted for a batch design with feeding only when a reactor is cold. Densities of waste plastics are wide ranging from 2 lbs/ ft? for film, to 25 lbs/ft? for high density plastics. Filling a fixed-volume batch reactor with waste plastics greatly limits production without expensive preprocessing and densification. Further, densifying waste plastic is both costly and energy expensive, as it is generally accomplished with extrusion-based pelletizers.
Preprocessing large plastic objects, which can include shredding, pelletizing, and contaminated ejection, can be expensive. Plastic does not behave like crude oil and therefore conventional refining technologies do not work. Most batch- based technologies are based on a process shown in Figure 1.
In addition to the significant limitations of batch-based processors on the input side, the output is also problematic. The resulting product is typically a low-flashpoint, unstable, unsaturated mix of random hydrocarbon chains, ranging from C5 to C80. Alkenes are undesirable in fuels and are highly reactive. This results in poor BTU value, high residue, and high THC? when burned. Large refineries generally refuse these types of products due to their low value, impurities, acids, and possible damaging contaminates. The industrial users accepting these products are typically small refineries in need of source materials with the ability to feed these inferior products in very low ratios mixed with crude oil.
The residue resulting from batch-based processes can also be problematic, as coke which forms on the walls of the reactors or tubes must be scraped or drilled out at considerable time and expense. As prior attempts have not been permitted to use any low-boilers generated in the process, they cannot use what little gas they do produce as energy to assist in the heating and cracking process. The emissions from batch-based processes are generally not desirable and are usually required to have a thermal oxidizer to incinerate any low boil gas created in the process.
Three years ago, the work being undertaken at JBI sought to solve the aforementioned problems with an aggressive ?ust have? list for our process. The list included:
-Must be viable
-Must accept waste continuously
-Must accept waste with minimal power requirements (no extrusion)
-Must accept composite waste material with metals
-Must operate on the off-gas generated from cracking hydrocarbon chains
-Must have anti-coking technologies
-Must seal well
-Must be low-cost (our work was nominally financed)
-Must operate at atmospheric pressures (no vacuum or pressure vessels)
-Must generate in-specification ASTM D396 and ASTM D fuels for direct industry use
Figure 1. Foundation of a typical batch-based process
A detailed account of the challenges, solutions, and lessons learned throughout this work and research follows.
Process Development
In 2009, a small 1-gallon continuously charged reactor (Fig. 2) was assembled and operated for several months, gathering data relevant to scaling the process. The 1-gallon reactor was charged with 100g of plastic every 5 minutes. Over 44 runs, the reactor was charged with processing shredded waste plastics including: food waste packaging, agricultural film, and shredded gas tanks. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) regrind was used on some rungs to establish ideal conditions. The low-boilers (methane, ethane, butane, propane, and hydrogen) were analyzed with a gas chromatograph (GC) and quantified. The resulting fuels underwent typical petroleum testing including automatic distillation testing and flash and pour point evaluation. The fuel output consisted of a Diesel/Naphtha mix. The remarkable GC testing results of the output of the 1-gallon reactor is shown in Fig. 3. Note the absence of wax-like hydrocarbon chains in the C20-C60 range. Additionally, hydrocarbon production was predominately in the C13 diesel range.
Figure 2. 1 gallon reactor at IsleChem Dec. 2009
The 1-gallon reactor was moved to IsleChem, formerly Occidental Petroleum? research laboratory, to verify and assist in the scaling and permitting of the processor.
Figure 3. Gas Chromatograph of fuel from 1-gallon
During the time the 1-gallon reactor was being tested, the construction of a 55-gallon processor (Fig. 4) was accomplished. The processor was scaled up identically from the 1-gallon reactor with the added feature of being fueled by the low boiler gases created by the process. Remarkably, the fuel output product of the 55-gallon reactor was identical to the 1-gallon reactor. The process was repeatable, scalable, and could operate on its own low-boiler gases. The 1-gallon reactor was later expanded to include miniature towers to separate the diesel and gasoline fractions.
Figure 4. 55 gallon processor
After four months of testing, on April 12, 2010, IsleChem issued a report (Appendix A) which concluded the following:
-Process was repeatable and scalable.
-85-95% is converted to ?ear diesel? fuel.
-8% is converted to usable off gas much like natural gas.
-1% remains as residue.
-No evidence of air toxins in the emissions.
-The energy balance of the process is positive; that is, more energy value is produced than is consumed by the process. Early data suggests that it is by as much as a factor of two.
The results of the testing of the 1-gallon reactor proved environmentally friendly and viable, so much so that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (?YSDEC?) issued a consent letter to construct a 3000-gallon reactor
