Blest Plastic-to-Fuel Project Report

Results and Recommendations for a Northern Climate

This publication may be obtained from:

Cold Climate Innovation
Yukon Research Centre, Yukon College
520 College Drive
PO Box 2799
Whitehorse, Yukon
Y1A 5K4
t. 867.668.9995
1.800.661.0504
www.yukoncollege.yk.ca/research
Recommended citation:
Cold Climate Innovation, 2014. Blest Plastic-to-Fuel Project Report - Results and Recommendations
for a Northern Climate. Yukon Research Centre, Yukon College, 16 p.
Front cover photograph: Blest B-240/NVG 200 plastic-to-fuel processing machine.
Printed in Whitehorse, Yukon, 2014 by Arctic Star Printing Inc., 204 Strickland St.

Blest Plastic to Fuel

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Blest B-240 plastic-to-fuel machine has met or exceeded our expectations. Several
important factors were considered during this project including environmental, economical, and
operational factors. The machine is also adaptable to many different installation possibilities.
From an environmental standpoint, the machine is more efficient and has lower emissions
than traditional recycling. The CO2 emissions from the machine are just 186 g per kg of plastic
processed, compared with as much as 3500 g per kg processed using traditional recycling
methods. The machine meets environmental regulations in Yukon as well as other jurisdictions
that have much stricter emissions standards (e.g., Japan, Iceland, Slovakia, Palau, Oregon,
California, New York, Georgia and British Columbia). This machine also helps to deal with plastic
that is currently unsellable due to Chinas new Green Fence Policy, which limits what grades of
plastics can be exported.
Results of the emissions testing have indicated that there are no concerns with the emissions
from the machine.

Table of emissions results.

Parameter

Result

Expected result

CO2

186 g/kg plastic

250 g/kg plastic

methane

10 ppm

25 ppm

TVOCs

<1 ppm (undetectable)

1 ppm

NOx

<4 ppm

<10 ppm

SOx

<5 ppm

<15 ppm

Note: TVOC = total volatile organic compounds; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides
Economical investigations have successfully demonstrated that the Blest B-240 turns waste
plastic that has a negative economic value (i.e., shipping costs exceed value of product) into a
high-profit product. The B-240(NVG 220) machine is capable of producing 1 L of fuel at a cost as
low as $0.31 per litre; larger machines produce the fuel at $0.14 per litre. Gasoline and diesel
equivalents can be produced with the installation of an optional inline distillation unit, which
allows these fuels to be used anywhere gasoline and diesel are used.
The operations of the machine are simple and can be taught to users in 2 to 3 hours. Operation
of the machine can also be accomplished through remote access via a secure Internet
connection. The machine operated well in a variety of temperature conditions, as well as with a
variety of feedstock.
The plastic types that can be processed include:
#2 Poly Ethylene (e.g., HDPE, UHMWPE, etc.)
#3 Poly Vinyl Chloride (when processed with the new optional pre-processor)
#4 Low Density Poly Ethylene
#5 Poly Propylene (e.g., PP, HDPP, UHMWPP, etc.)
#6 Poly Styrene (e.g., PS, EPS, HDPS, HIPS, etc.)*
ABS (With an optional off-gas filter)

Blest Plastic to Fuel

*When processing #6 Polystyrene, styrene monomer can be produced and sold to manufacturers
to make new polystyrene products. This is currently feasible with a larger model of the machine
(NVG 1000) as the B-240(NVG 220) does not process enough to satisfy chemical brokers
minimum sales requirements.
#1 PETE plastic is considered a high-value product and can generally be recycled by traditional
methods.
#7 OTHER plastics are a mix of resins and may include a combination of resins such as Nylon and
Polyethylene making recycling by any method difficult.
In communities with populations as low as 200 people, benefits from the installation of such a
machine could be realized. In particular, remote and arctic communities would see the greatest
benefits where fuel costs are high due to barged or flown-in fuel, and where there are waste
disposal problems such as open-burning in landfills. Many organizations (e.g., private recycling
companies, NGOs, etc.) are also considering this technology as a means of processing marinesourced plastic that may be unrecyclable due to the accumulated salt concentrations in the
plastic. The Blest plastic-to-fuel machine is also ideally suited for use in an industrial setting
where waste plastic from manufacturing or processing can be directly used as the feedstock.
A mobile or travelling scenario for the Blest B-240 was explored, however, minimal operational
staff requirements and high transportation and standby labour costs suggest that a stationary
installation of the machine is more suitable. However, one machine has been mounted on a
truck that travelled extensively in India and Nepal as an environmental demonstration project.
This environmental demonstration project was not intended to be economically feasible, so
labour costs were not a consideration.

Blest Plastic to Fuel

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................ i
Introduction. ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Blest Models. ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
Additional Options............................................................................................................................................. 2
Peripherals. ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Cost Analyses....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Maintenance Costs............................................................................................................................................ 4

Environmental Analyses. ............................................................................................................................... 4

Off-Gas Testing.................................................................................................................................................... 5
Fuel Testing. ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Water. ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
Copper corrosion.......................................................................................................................................... 5
Pour/plug points........................................................................................................................................... 6
Flash point..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Sulphur........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Output Contaminant Testing ........................................................................................................................... 7
Contaminant testing.................................................................................................................................... 7
Fuel volatiles testing.................................................................................................................................... 7
Internal Combustion Engine Testing. .............................................................................................................. 8

Processing Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)..................................................................................................8

EPS Foam Quality............................................................................................................................................... 8

Comparing Recycling to Plastic-to-Fuel Processing. .......................................................................9

Energy Usage ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
CO2 Emissions. ....................................................................................................................................................9

Remote Access.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Recommendations for Remote Access.........................................................................................................10

Containerization.............................................................................................................................................. 10
Power supply............................................................................................................................................... 11
Glass glycol tubes....................................................................................................................................... 11
Glycol reservoir........................................................................................................................................... 11
Glycol chiller................................................................................................................................................ 11
Load cell scale............................................................................................................................................. 11
Off take tank. .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Reactor and buffer tank hangers.............................................................................................................11
Levelling....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Molten plastic in reactor........................................................................................................................... 12

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Community Size and Feasibility................................................................................................................. 12

Population Considerations. ............................................................................................................................ 13

Factors Affecting Operations. .................................................................................................................. 13

Humidity of Feedstock. ................................................................................................................................... 13
Calibration for moisture............................................................................................................................ 14
Plastic Types...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Calibration for plastic type. ...................................................................................................................... 14
Fuel Output Quality......................................................................................................................................... 14
Adjustments for fuel output quality........................................................................................................14
Feedstock. ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
Ambient Temperatures. .................................................................................................................................. 14
Ambient temperatures encountered.......................................................................................................14
Cold temperature operating guidelines .................................................................................................15
Fuel Output....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Troubleshooting/Repairs............................................................................................................................ 15
Bibliography. ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Plastic accounts for >12% of all materials deposited in landfills, placing an ever-increasing burden
on the environment. Furthermore, initiatives such as Chinas Green Fence Policy, which limits the
ability to dispose of plastic products, has resulted in a growing requirement for initiatives that
will reduce the environmental impact of plastic.
Thermal depolymerization is a process that uses pyrolysis for the reduction of complex materials
(in this case plastic) into light crude oil and essentially mimics natural geological processes.
Under pressure and heat, long-chain polymers of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon decompose
into short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons which can then be used for heating or transport
applications. One of the leading global proponents for utilizing pyrolysis technology to address
the plastics issue is Blest, a Japanese company established by inventor Akinori Ito. Motivated by
declining conventional oil reserves and increasing plastic pollution, Ito sought to adapt existing
pyrolysis technology to create community-scale, plastic-to-fuel processors. To date, Blest is
developing and manufacturing a wide range of plastic-to-fuel machines and are increasing their
global distribution network.
Following the recommendations of a 2011 feasibility study conducted by Rising Sun Innovations,
a Blest B-240 plastic-to-fuel machine was procured in 2012 under the partnership of Canadian
Northern Economic Development Agency (CanNor), Yukon Research Centre and Cold Climate
Innovation. The purpose of the procurement was to house the B-240 in a Whitehorse recycling
centre (P&M Recycling), in order to determine if it was economically and environmentally viable
to up-cycle plastic to fuel, rather than follow traditional recycling methods. It was envisaged
that this process would not only reduce the burden on local landfills, or remove the necessity to
transport plastics out of territory and ultimately overseas, but would also have the potential to
generate locally produced fuels that have an intrinsic commercial value.
The initial phase of the project concluded
with the successful installation and
operation of the Blest B-240 machine.
Phase 2 of the project included a detailed
analysis of the fuel produced by different
types of plastic, an assessment of
emissions produced by the machine and
internal combustion engine, and finally an
assessment with recommendations as to
the feasibility of deploying the machine to
remote northern communities. This report
summarizes the work completed to date,
details the findings of the fuel analysis,
and makes recommendations as to which
Blest machine is most suitable depending
on community size. It is envisaged that
this report will better prepare individuals
and communities to assess the economic
and environmental viability of moving
from conventional plastic recycling to upcycling, which produces usable fuel.

Blest Plastic to Fuel

BLEST MODELS
Blest manufactures several capacities of machines to suit different feedstock amounts. The
size of a machine purchased should match the amount of plastic available. A table providing
different machine sizes and their corresponding estimated annual fuel production and Return on
Investment (ROI) is provided below.

Table of Blest models.

Machine
size

Maximum
community
size
(no. of people)

Amount of plastic
per year
(kg)

Potential annual
fuel production
(litres)

ROI
(min. in years)

NVG 220

200 - 1400

80 300

80 300

NVG 1000

6300

365 000

365 000

NVG 2000

13,000

730 000

730 000

2.25

NVG 4000

26,000

1 460 000

1 460 000

NVG 6000

38,000

2 190 000

2 190 000

1.75

NVG 8000

52,000

2 920 000

2 920 000

1.5

20 tonnes

126,000

7 300 000

7 300 000

1.25

ADDITIONAL OPTIONS
As well as different sizes of machines, different options are available depending on what the
feedstock is and the desired output of fuel is.
1. Film option:
a. Processes film and low-density plastics
2. Refiner option:
a. Inline
i. Produces diesel and gasoline
ii. Uses no extra electricity
iii. Uses no extra labour
b. BOR 20/50
i. Produces gasoline, diesel, kerosene, #2 oil
ii. Uses 1 kWh extra per litre
iii. Extra labour needed
3. PVC option:
a. Processes PVC plastic
b. Outputs salt and oil
c. Extra energy required

Cost Analyses

4. Cold weather kit:

a. Allows operation below specified temperatures
b. Extra energy required
5. Heavy moisture option:
a. Reduces moisture content in very wet materials
b. Extra energy required

PERIPHERALS
As well as the machine sizing to feedstock and machine options, the peripherals need to be sized
to match the needs of the feedstock.
The peripherals include:
Shredder: Takes large materials down in size for the granulator (conveyor to granulator).
Granulator: Reduces the size of material so it will feed properly into the machine
(conveyor from granulator to hopper/feed system).
Fuel storage: Appropriate sizes and types of containers.

COST ANALYSES
Various cost analyses were performed in order to define variables such as cost per litre of
product, cost at different throughputs, as well as general maintenance costs. Results are
provided in the tables below.

Table of average cost per litre of product.

Test #

Kg
processed

Litres
produced

kWh used*

Labour

Cost/litre

64

63

64

24.1

0.504

42

47

54

17.98

0.52

82

79

77

30.22

0.499

75

77

75

29.46

0.5

87

88

82

33.66

0.494

88

88

84

33.66

0.494

92

91

92

34.81

0.497

30

25

32

9.57

0.504

55

56

55

21.43

0.536

10

57

54

56

20.66

0.507

11

43

34

40

13

0.523

12

14

10

18

3.83

0.599

Average cost per litre = $0.515

* This did not account for granulator power (estimated at ~$0.01/litre).

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Temperature

Energy usage per

kg input

Energy cost
@ $0.12/kWh

Labour/litre @
20 kg/hr throughput
on granulator

Labour/litre @
50 kg/hr throughput
on granulator

Labour/litre on
machine @ $18/hr

Cost/litre 20kg/hr
throughput*

Cost/litre 50 kg/hr
throughput*

Cost/litre 150 kg/hr

throughput*

Table of cost calculations at different throughputs.

-1C

0.89 1.1
kWh

$0.11 $0.13

$0.75

$0.30

$0.09

~$0.99

~$0.52

~$0.31

0C

0.92 1.2
kWh

$0.11 $0.14

$0.75

$0.30

$0.09

~$0.995

~$0.525

~$0.31

+20C

0.98 1
kWh

$0.12

$0.75

$0.30

$0.09

~$0.99

~$0.52

~$0.31

* Throughput on granulator is the main labour cost, thus the main consideration on cost per litre.
This cost includes electrical costs for the granulator.
Ambient air temperatures were recorded using a Hobo U30 Data Logger. The minimum recorded
ambient room temperature between 1/21/2013 and 10/31/2013 was -2.073C. The maximum
ambient room temperature in the same time period was +28.593C.
Temperature had little effect on the energy consumption of the machine. In fact, the lowest
energy usage was observed at -1C ambient temperature. The insulation on the machine is
therefore effective at retaining the heat. Furthermore, the reduced energy consumption could
be due to lower usage of the chiller at theses temperatures since the ambient temperature
around the condenser is adequate to chill the pyrolysis gas.
The largest cost is associated with the initial granulating process of the plastic. This cost could
be reduced by installing a shredder before the granulator, as the granulation process is time
consuming. At 150 kg/hr throughput, the cost per litre is reduced to $0.31/litre.

MAINTENANCE COSTS
There are two main components included in the maintenance cost:
1. Cleaning and inspection of the machine: 1 day every 3 months = $960/year @ $30/hr.
This has very little impact on fuel cost. If the machine was running at full output, this
amounts to $0.016/litre
2. Sharpening of the granulator blades: 3 to 4 times/year = $120 = 2/10 of a cent increase
to fuel price.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES
Yukon Environment was consulted on the project, and since there is no significant waste or
emissions associated with the process, there are no permitting requirements.
Janine Kostelnik, Environment Yukon
it has been determined that the Plastic to Fuel pilot project, is not an

Environmental Analyses

activity that is captured under the Environment Act, or any of the

regulations (Air Emissions, Solid Waste, Special Waste). As such,
we are not able to require emissions testing or any other operational
requirements related to the unit.
However, testing has been completed on all the outputs of the Blest machine. This testing was
completed to the lowest detectable limits available. Four main tests were performed:
1. Off-gas testing was completed in Japan on an identical machine.

2. Fuel-testing was completed by Polaris Laboratories in Calgary, AB.

3. Fuel testing for contaminants was completed by CH2M Hill Applied Sciences Laboratories
in Corvallis, OR.
4. Carbon char contaminant testing was performed by CH2M Hill Applied Sciences
Laboratories in Corvallis, OR.

OFF-GAS TESTING
Off-gas emissions testing was completed by JFE Techno Research Co. Ltd. The samples were
collected in Tetra Teflon coated bags in accordance with JIS standards and tested with MS/GC
methods. Testing was conducted with a standard off-gas filter at 164.9 l/h off-gas output. Results
are as follows:
CO2 emissions amount to 186 g per kg of plastic input.
Methane (CH4) levels were negligible at 10 ppm.
No combustion NOX was produced, and only barely detectable amounts of thermal NOx
were produced.

Table of emissions results.

Emission

Volume

carbon dioxide

6.70%

oxygen

3.61%

CH4

<1 ppm

Polaris Laboratories in Edmonton, as well as

Econo-Tech Labs in Vancouver tested the fuel
produced by the Blest B-240.

C2H4

<1 ppm

C2H6

<1 ppm

The following results were obtained:

C3H8

<1 ppm

C2H9

<1 ppm

FUEL TESTING

Water

The water test measured the total dissolved

water content of the fuel. Early results from
i-C4H10
<1 ppm
testing of the fuel indicated high water content
n-C4H10
<1 ppm
and were likely due to PET contamination in the
cis-2-C4H8
<1 ppm
feedstock. Elimination of the PET resulted in a
reduction in the water content to 0.005%; this
nitrogen oxide
<4 ppm
is well below requirements and specifications
sulphur oxide
<5 ppm
for diesel fuel of 0.02%. This test clearly
demonstrates the need to carefully sort the plastic feedstock prior to processing in the machine.
Copper corrosion
This test indicates if the fuel is corrosive to copper. Testing resulted in a 1a rating. The maximum

Blest Plastic to Fuel

rating set out by ASTM International standards is 3 and therefore the fuel is considered to not be
corrosive to copper.
Pour/plug points
Pour and plug points indicate usability in cold weather conditions. The pour point is -9 to -12C;
below this temperature the fuel will not flow readily. The plug point is -5 to -8C; below this
temperature the fuel will plug a filter. These results were expected, as the fuel produced is a
crude oil. With further refining, the fuel would have a lower pour/plug point. Results indicate
that the fuel is best used indoors or with a heated tank unless it is refined.
Flash point
The flash point measures the minimum temperature at which the fuel vaporizes to form an
ignitable mixture in air. The test results produced a Pensky-Marten flash point of 52C; this is
identical to diesel fuel.
Sulphur
Sulphur concentrations were measured on several samples. One sample indicated a higher-thanexpected sulphur content of 32 ppm; 15 ppm was the expected result. However, one sample had
a measured concentration of sulphur of 12ppm. The higher result was determined to originate
from a run of plastic that had a pipe dope on the threads. Upon examination of the MSDS,
there was a sulphur compound listed on the pipe dope.

1B

1A

1A

pour point

<-5c

-17

-9

-12

plug point

<-5c

-12c

-5

-8

flash point

~52

min. 52

~55

sulphur

<15 ppm

0.01%

12

bacteria
and mold
ash content

0.01%

7
0

100 ppm
-0.01%

viscosity

0.00%

0.00%

1.6

lubricity

<520

monomer

>99.7

305

375

334
99.71

99.88

* Failed result; high-water content due to accidental processing of #1PETE and nylon.
Notes: blank cells = not tested; HDPE = high-density polyethylene; PS = polysterene;
EPS = expanded polysterene; PP = polypropelene
6

Result 6
(PP)

<3

Result 5
(clean, white
EPS)

copper
corrosion

Result 4
(dirty, mixed
PS)

>0.2%*

water

Result 3
(mixed plastic)

<0.02%

Analysis

Result 2
(HDPE)

Desired
result

Result 1
(mixed plastic)

Table of fuel testing results.

Environmental Analyses

Testing has indicated that feedstock types affect the quality of the fuel output. Plastics that
are not recommended can affect fuel quality such as PET#1 which produces water. Plastic type
#4 LDPE was not tested because this would require a film option on the machine, which was
not available at the time of purchase of the test pilot machine. The low density of LDPE causes
feeding problems without the film option.

OUTPUT CONTAMINANT TESTING

Contaminant testing
Fuel testing for concentrations of various contaminants and volatiles were measured by CH2M
Hill Applied Science Laboratories. The results are provided in the following tables.

Table of contaminant testing results.

Contaminant

Concentration (ppm)

Detection limit

arsenic

0.03

below detection limit

barium

0.017

below detection limit

cadmium

0.008

none detected

chromium

13.3

from pipe dope

lead

0.35

from pipe dope

mercury

0.000

undetected

selenium

0.029

undetected

silver

0.092

undetected

With the exception of chromium and lead, all values were either none detected (U) or below the
detection limit (J). The higher chromium and lead values were found to be due to a test sample
consisting of well pipe caps from a natural gas facility. These pipe caps had a thread dope applied
on the plastic; the MSDS indicated chromium and lead constituents in the thread dope.
Fuel volatiles testing
Testing for fuel volatiles was performed by gas spectrometry and mass spectrometer analyses.
Results are provided in the following table.

Table of fuel volatiles testing results.

Volatile compound

Fuel sample

Carbon char sample

vinyl chloride

undetectable

undetectable

1,1-dichloroethene

undetectable

undetectable

2-butonone

undetectable

undetectable

chloroform

undetectable

undetectable

1,2-dichloroethane

undetectable

undetectable

carbon tetrachloride

undetectable

undetectable

benzene

undetectable

undetectable

trichloroethene

undetectable

undetectable

tetrachloroethene

undetectable

undetectable

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Table of fuel volatiles testing results, continued.

Volatile compound

Fuel sample

Carbon char sample

chlorobenzene

undetectable

undetectable

1,4-dichlorobenzene

undetectable

undetectable

hexachlorobutadiene

undetectable

undetectable

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE TESTING

The fuel was tested on an engine-driven generator (generator type: ME-531A /2kW 120V; fuel
consumption: 0.946 litre/hr). Results of this test are as follows:

Table of internal combustion engine testing.

baseline
diesel
running
on plastic
fuel

O2 (%)

CO
(ppm)

NO
(ppm)

NOx
(ppm)

NO2
(ppm)

SO2
(ppm)

CO2
(ppm)

21

129

10

1.4

19.8

77

11

This test demonstrated that the emissions from the engine were similar to, or lower than
running on regular diesel fuel.

PROCESSING EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE (EPS)

Due to the low specific gravity of EPS, the machine cannot handle this material unless it is
densified. A densifier for EPS costs ~$6,000 to $24,000 depending on size requirements.
Densified EPS can be processed in the machine to produce styrene monomers. The value
of these monomers fluctuates and can be up to $1,800/tonne ($1.80/litre). Shipping costs
are $100/tonne, making these monomers potentially the most valuable recyclable material.
However, chemical brokers were contacted and required a minimum quantity of 90 barrels.
This would take 3 months of production to fulfill this order with the current machine; however,
an NVG 5000 machine could produce 90 barrels in 4 days. This limits the usefulness of styrene
monomer production to the larger centres that have ready access to shipping terminals.
Markets for the monomers are primarily polysterene (PS) manufacturers located in large centres.
The manufacturers that would most likely buy the product are foam extruders that make
insulation materials for the construction industry. Some of these manufacturers are located in
Edmonton, Vancouver and Anchorage.
Styrene monomers rapidly degrade into dimers and trimers without the addition of chilling,
circulation and stabilizers. Unstabilized monomers would need to be shipped out within 2 to 3
weeks to reduce storage costs associated with chilling, circulation and stabilization.

EPS FOAM QUALITY

Unlike traditional EPS recycling, the machine will handle any quality of foam. Dirty or coloured
foam should not affect the quality of the monomers produced. This is a benefit that allows the

Comparing Recycling to Plastic-to-Fuel Processing

processing of foam that is currently not accepted by traditional recyclers. The styrene monomers
produced could then be utilized to make new EPS of equal or greater quality. This is unlike
traditional EPS recycling that downgrades the product into a less useful and less recyclable form.

COMPARING RECYCLING TO PLASTIC-TO-FUEL PROCESSING

Recycling of plastic requires sorting, granulating, washing and pelletizing the resin in order to
use it as feedstock for new plastic. In the broadest sense, this is putting the plastic back into the
production loop.
Realistically, the plastic is also down-cycled in the process. This is something that occurs when
the plastic resins produced are of a lower quality than the original material. For example,
different resins of plastic can be mixed together and the new hybrid product is of a lower quality
than the original plastic.
In order to achieve the highest quality possible in the new plastic, careful sorting of the resins is
necessary in order to reduce contamination. As well, due to Chinas Green Fence policy, mixed
plastics that are uneconomical to recycle are now being landfilled or incinerated in a waste-toenergy plant. The cost of this disposal is being charged to the shipper of these uneconomical
plastics (i.e., #3 to#7) at a rate of up to $237/tonne.
We are now only accepting HDPE (#2) and PETE (#1). Do not send us any
mixed plastics anymore, we will have to charge you a disposal fee of
$237/tonne if you do recycling buyer, Vancouver.
Since Chinas green fence policy, 1/3 of our plastic recycling is going to
the landfill as we have no markets for it unnamed Vancouver area recycling
company that is considering a plastic-to-fuel machine to deal with this waste.
With the plastic-to-fuel process, the plastic is being up-cycled. Up-cycling is a process where the
material is made into a product of greater quality and/or lower environmental consequence.
Furthermore, up-cycling often results in an increase in the monetary value of the product. Upcycling is considered an important aspect of a zero-waste initiative.
The fuel produced could be used as a feedstock to make synthetic plastic of greater quality
compared with the original feedstock. However, it is important to note that the goal of this pilot
project is to reduce the import of fossil fuels and thus to produce fuels that could be used locally
as heating fuel.

ENERGY USAGE
Localized processing of materials reduces energy usage by about 25% compared to outsourcing
the processing elsewhere.

CO2 EMISSIONS
In addition to a reduction in energy consumption, CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced
making the process a carbon-reducing technology that is certified by the United Nations
Environment Program.
A comparison of the energy usage and CO2 emissions from conventional recycling methods
versus plastic to fuel is presented in the following tables.

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Table of energy usage comparing conventional recycling vs. plastic to fuel.

Recycling

Plastic to fuel

4735 btu/kg energy used to recycle plastic

3412 btu/kg plastic to fuel energy used

1852 btu/kg transport of plastic to Vancouver

-3704 btu displaced fuel shipment

1852 btu/l oil shipped to Yukon

7576 produce virgin plastic

1852 btu/l empty oil truck returning south

1852 transport new plastic to Yukon as products

1852 btu/kg transport recycled plastic to Yukon

as products
Total energy consumption:

Total energy consumption:

12,143 btu/kg

9,136 btu/kg

to recycle plastic and import fuel

to convert plastic to fuel and produce new plastic

Table of CO2 emissions of recycling vs. plastic to fuel.

Recycling

Plastic to fuel

3.500 kg/kg plastic

0.186 kg/kg plastic

REMOTE ACCESS
Fully operational remote monitoring and control of the B-240 was installed and tested. Full
functionality has been obtained with the remote access. This was beyond what was expected,
as we understood the remote access would be monitoring only and not actual operation of the
unit.
The Soft Got software and secure LogmeIn application allow the machine functions to be
operated through a secure Internet connection.
This feature is coupled with an independently connected wireless security camera that allows
critical components on the machine to be monitored visually.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REMOTE ACCESS

Install the remote-access feature as it allows greater ease in troubleshooting and
supervision.
Install more cameras, as they are inexpensive and easy to deploy/operate (i.e., 1 on load
cell/extruder, 1 on off take tank, 1 on conveyor hopper, and 1 in general area).
The camera utilized allows for video recording to a memory card as well as installation
of a speaker to enable 2-way communication between the operator and a remote
supervisor. This would allow low-skill operators to be completing everyday tasks and a
high-skilled supervisor to be overseeing the operation on multiple machines

CONTAINERIZATION
If the machine would be set up as a mobile unit in a trailer or container to travel between
various communities, some changes would be required. Containerization of the machine would

10

Containerization

require some redesign of the components. The items that would need to be addressed and their
corresponding solutions are as follows:
Power supply
Issue: the need for an adequate power supply at remote sites
Solution 1: install a 3-phase generator utilizing 30% of fuel produced (cost of ~$18,000)
Solution 2: install decontactor 3-phase, 200-amp plug (requires 3-phase power at each
site; cost of ~$3000 to $20,000)
Glass glycol tubes
Issue: the fragile Pyrex glass could be damaged
Solution: replace Pyrex glass with stainless steel and sight glass (cost of ~$0 if installed at
factory)
Glycol reservoir
Issue: loose-fitting lid that is designed for stationary use; movement could result in
spillage
Solution: weld on spill-proof top and vent tube/filler cap (cost of ~$0 if installed at
factory)
Glycol chiller
Issue: loose-fitting lid that is designed for stationary use; movement could result in
spillage
Solution: replace with closed-loop refrigeration unit such as is used in commercial
refrigerators (cost of ~$4000)
Load cell scale
Issue: sensitive equipment
Solution: remove and secure during transport; recalibrate upon setup
Off take tank
Issue: full of fuel
Solution: empty before transport
Reactor and buffer tank hangers
Issue: transport could put strain on fittings
Solution: add shock absorbers to limit lateral movement (cost of ~$400)
Levelling
Issue: machine designed to be operated on a level surface
Solution: install levelling devices to container/trailer (cost of ~$9000)

11

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Molten plastic in reactor

Issue: splashing during transport
Solution: add a sensor to lock levelling devices and lock brakes when reactor is above
75C (plastic will be solid below this temperature); this will prevent movement of the
system when it is unsafe to do so (cost of ~$5000)
Some of these modifications could be fitted on a new machine from the factory or retrofitted at
a later date. All of the above modifications are easy to implement.
As the scalability of the machine allows operation in small communities, it is recommended that
rather than one mobile machine, several stationary machines should be utilized. This would
reduce labour costs, as an operator does not need to travel with the machine. The operator of a
mobile machine would need to stay in the area for day-to-day operations, but these operations
only take 1 to 2 hours per day. If a local operator would be used, their work would be so
infrequent that re-training would be necessary with every visit.
Remote communities that are accessible by ship or road, but having no facilities with which
to house the machine would benefit from the unit being set up (all peripherals installed) in a
shipping container so the operation is turn-key and ready to operate at the install site.

COMMUNITY SIZE AND FEASIBILITY

The national average for disposal of plastic is 58 kg per person per year. A production analysis
was estimated for Yukon communities and is summarized in the following table.

Table of production analysis for Yukon communities.

Community

Population

Average plastic
recycling in kg per
capita/annum*

Days of production
per
community/annum

Beaver Creek

100

5800

26

Burwash Landing

90

5220

24

Carmacks

519

30 102

136

Dawson City

2010

116 580

116 (NVG 1000)

Carcross/Tagish

437

25 346

115

Faro

390

22 620

102

Haines Junction

864

50 112

228

Mayo

487

28 246

128

Old Crow

249

14 442

65

Pelly Crossing

348

20 184

92

Ross River

378

21 924

100

Teslin

459

26 622

121

Watson Lake

1,495

86 710

365

Whitehorse

28,033

1 625 914

325 (NVG 5000)

Notes: NVG 220 sized unless otherwise stated

NVG 1000 processes 1000 kg/day
NVG 5000 processes 5000 kg/day

12

Factors Affecting Operations

A mobile version of the machine would be best mounted on a truck or a trailer unless it
is destined for a barge-in/fly-in community, where an install in an existing warehouse or a
container is recommended.
The biggest challenges of mobile units are:
Having trained operators in each community, as well as keeping those trained operators
current on the operation of the machine when it is only needed in the community 15 to
20 days out of the year. However, this issue may be resolved by having supervision from
a central location whereby instant communication to assist in operations can be set up
over secure Internet connections.
Keeping the feedstock consistent and within the accepted parameters. This will require
careful sorting of the feedstock by facility staff.

POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS
The Blest machine would be feasible to operate in a remote community with a population of 200
or more, unless there is another source of plastic such as beach clean-up operations. This would
provide a reasonable payback period on the machine as well as provide local employment and
a local source of fuel. Additionally, less waste will need to be dealt with through incineration or
landfilling processes. The Return on Investment (ROI) is a simple calculation, but does not take
into account disposal costs as these vary by community.

Table of ROI based on community population.

Minimum
days of
operation
per year*

Potential
output of
fuel
(litres/year)

Size of
machine

Value of fuel
(@ $1.20/
litre)

Simple ROI
(years)

200

52

11,600

NVG 220

$13,920

21.5

500

131

42,500

NVG 220

$51,000

5.88

1000

263

85,000

NVG 220

$102,000

2.94

1800

104

153,000

NVG 1000

$183,600

3.26

2,300

133

195,500

NVG 1000

$234,600

2.55

6,700

194

569,500

NVG 2000

$683,400

1.46

20000

232

1,700,000

NVG 5000

$2,040,000

0.98

Community
population

* Assuming ~128 pounds plastic/person/year

FACTORS AFFECTING OPERATIONS

Numerous factors associated with the operations of the machine were observed and recorded.
These factors are outlined below.

HUMIDITY OF FEEDSTOCK
Humidity (moisture) levels in the feedstock can have an effect on the energy consumption of
the machine. This is due to the need for the moisture to be processed off the plastic during
processing. Three settings are available on the machine:
Normal: for up to 2% moisture

Medium: 2% to 5%

High: 5% to 10%
13

Blest Plastic to Fuel

Eight random samples of plastic were tested and found to have between 0% and 2.8% moisture
content.
Calibration for moisture
Proper calibration was achieved with pre-programmed options.

PLASTIC TYPES
The Blest machine is designed to accept polypropylene, polyethylene and polystyrene types of
plastics. These are better known as #2, #4, #5 and #6 resin codes. Within these parameters, the
Blest machine functioned as expected. Issues were identified when non-acceptable plastic types
were processed. These included:
Nylon: The Nylon containing plastics, which is found in some brands of juice containers
(#5 and #7 resin code) produced whitish grease, which caused a buildup in the
condenser. This causes the machine to back up and stop producing fuel.
PETE: The PETE (found in #1 resin code) sublimates into a solid at temperatures
below the operating temperatures of the machine. This accumulates as a grey semisolid material in the buffer tank. When PETE is processed it produces 50% H2O that
accumulates in the extruder as well as in the fuel. This eventually stops the machine
from accepting plastic in the extruder.
Calibration for plastic type
Within the normal range of feedstock encountered, the pre-set calibrations were adequate to
process all of the acceptable plastics.

FUEL OUTPUT QUALITY

The quality of fuel output can be optimized by various temperature adjustments as well as
feedstock.
Adjustments for fuel output quality
It was observed that at temperatures above 450C, the fuel darkened considerably. This is due
to the heavy oil components having a higher temperature needed for cracking. When the
adjustments were kept at 430C, the fuel output had a light, golden-yellow colour.

FEEDSTOCK
Proper sorting of the plastic is necessary in order to minimize downtime with the machine.
This includes removal of all PETE #1 and other #7 resins. Primarily we are targeting #4, #5 and
#6 resins, as well as some #2 resins that are not accepted in the recycling markets (e.g., oil
containers and pharmaceutical containers).

AMBIENT TEMPERATURES
A data logger was used to monitor ambient temperatures and correlate this to energy usage by
the machine. It was expected that the energy usage would increase with decreases in ambient
temperatures; however, this was found to have a minimal effect. At -1C, we actually observed
some of the highest efficiencies at 0.89 kWh + 1 kg plastic to 1 litre fuel. Efficiencies ranged from
0.89 kWh to 1.2 kWh/kg/litre

14

Troubleshooting/Repairs

Ambient temperatures encountered

The coldest temperature encountered in the facility was -1.76C. The warmest temperature
encountered was +26.9C.
Cold temperature operating guidelines
Feedstock
To optimize production in cold temperatures:
1. Ensure snow/ice is removed as much as possible from the plastic before processing.
2. If available, keep the plastic in a heated space to melt the ice/snow before processing.

FUEL OUTPUT
The unrefined fuel generated by this machine will start to gel at -20C. If ambient temperatures
colder than 0C are encountered in the area, a cold-weather optimizing kit is recommended
by Blest. This involves the installation of heating coils on the various parts of the off-take tank.
These heating coils can be purchased locally and installed on site.
Fuel output is maximized when proper feedstock is used in the machine. Shutdown for
maintenance is necessary when unacceptable resins are processed.

TROUBLESHOOTING/REPAIRS
Some changes and modifications were performed to enhance the operation of the machine.
These included:
Vibrator on the storage chamber: this eliminated bridging problems that were
encountered with some types of plastics.
Centre core on the screw auger: this facilitated transport of fine material.
Extruder feed cone: this facilitated processing of low specific gravity materials.
Reprogramming conveyor stops: this allowed the machine to turn off when the hopper
was empty of plastic.
Reprogramming scale stops: this allowed the machine to turn off in the event of a
backup in the extruder.
Nitrogen purge valve: this reduced nitrogen consumption during shutdown periods.
Condenser trap: this allowed easier cleaning of the condenser residues.
Deluxe off-gas filter: this reduced odours that were detected during start-up of the
operation. Pyrite gasses are reduced to 10 ppm from 50 ppm.
One item is still to be installed:
Rheostat to slow feed auger: this would allow better processing of low specific gravity
materials. This part is currently being shipped from Japan.

15

Blest Plastic to Fuel

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bury, D., 2011. Plastics Recovery in Canadian EPR. Plastics Recycling Update; http://www.
duncanburyconsulting.ca/_documents/Plastics%20Recycling%20Update%20PRU_
Feb11Bury.pdf; [accessed November, 2013].
Government of Yukon, 2009. Communities. Government of Yukon; http://www.gov.yk.ca/
aboutyukon/communities.html; [accessed November, 2013].
Guilford, G., 2013. A lot of US plastic isnt actually being recycled since China put up its Green
Fence. Quartz; http://qz.com/122003/plastic-recycling-china-green-fence/#122003/plasticrecycling-china-green-fence; [accessed November, 2013].
Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Duffield, J., Graboski, M. and Shapouri, H., 2000. An Overview of
Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles. National Energy Renewables Laboratory (NREL);
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24772.pdf; [accessed November, 2013].
The Cambridge-MIT Institute, 2005. The ImpEE (Improving Engineering Education) Project:
Recycling of Plastics. University of Cambridge; http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/impee/topics/
RecyclePlastics/files/Recycling%20Plastic%20v3%20PDF.pdf; [accessed November, 2013].
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 2010. Waste Reduction
Model. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA); http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/plastics-chapter10-28-10.pdf; [accessed November,
2013].
Yamashitak, K., Kumagai, K., Noguchi, M., Yamamoto, N., Ni, Y., Mizukoshi, A. and Yanagisawa, Y.,
2007. VOC emissions from waste plastics during melting processes. The 6th International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation & Energy Conservation in Buildings, IAQVEC
2007, Oct. 28 - 31 2007, Sendai, Japan; http://www.inive.org/members_area/medias/pdf/
Inive/IAQVEC2007/Yamashita.pdf; [accessed November, 2013].

16