4.7 Article

Economic and environmental assessment of recovery and disposal pathways for CFRP waste management

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 133, Issue -, Pages 63-75

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.024

Keywords

Carbon fibre reinforced polymer; Waste management; Recycling; Economic assessment; GWP

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency (ANR) [ANR-13-ECOT-0005]
  2. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-ECOT-0005] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The high cost and energy intensity of virgin carbon fibre manufacturing constitute a challenge to recover substantial value from carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP). The objective of this study is to assess the environmental and financial viability of several waste management processes for CFRP. Life cycle costing and environmental assessment models are developed to quantify the financial and environmental impacts of waste treatment pathways comparing a panel of recycling techniques that are now available (grinding, pyrolysis, microwave and supercritical water) and that can be used to substitute different grades of both carbon and glass fibres by recycled carbon fibres at competitive prices compared to landfill and incineration. GWP assessment promotes recycling activities by recovery of carbon fibre due to the high avoided impacts from substitution of virgin fibre, thus highlighting the high interest of recycling over conventional production for environmental purpose. Fibre recovery rate and recycling capacity are pivotal to decrease the unit cost of recycled fibre as well as GWP impacts. The advantages and drawbacks of each technique are analysed through economic and environmental indicators, to better understand the network configuration for optimisation purpose of waste management pathway in a holistic viewpoint.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available