4.6 Article

Comparing Life Cycle Energy and Global Warming Potential of Carbon Fiber Composite Recycling Technologies and Waste Management Options

Journal

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages 9854-9865

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01026

Keywords

Carbon fiber recycling; Life cycle assessment; Primary energy demand; Global warming potential; Waste treatment options

Funding

  1. University of Nottingham
  2. Government of Portugal through the Portuguese Foundation for International Cooperation in Science, Technology, and Higher Education
  3. MIT Portugal Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carbon fiber reinforced polymers (CFRP) are used in increasing quantities as they have some of the best properties in terms of specific strength and stiffness of any widely available material. By 2020, annual global CFRP production is expected to be over 140,000 tonnes. However, the resulting increased quantity of CFRP waste has highlighted the need for sustainable treatment options as carbon fiber manufacture has high-energy intensity. A life cycle assessment methodology is used to evaluate primary energy demand (PED) and global warming potential (GWP) leveraging best available literature data, process models, and experimental work. Overall results indicate that recycling scenarios are generally the environmentally preferable options over landfill and incineration. However, the relative environmental benefits of advanced recycling processes (i.e., pyrolysis, fluidized bed, and chemical recycling process) depend on the method used to determine displacement of virgin carbon fiber by recycled carbon fiber. Totally, recycling processes can achieve a representative GWP from -19 to -27 kg CO(2)eq and PED from -395 to -520 MJ per kg CFRP, providing superior environmental performance to conventional composite waste treatment technologies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available