Recovered Fiber PulpingSchematic
Recovered Fiber PulpingTechnologies & Measures
|Technology or Measure||Energy Savings Potential||CO2 Emission Reduction Potential Based on Literature||Costs||Development Status|
|Increased Use of Recycled Pulp||Use of recovered pulp can reduce energy consumption by 10 to 13 GJ/t-pulp (IEA, 2012. p.35)) The production of one ton of recycled pulp is estimated, on average, to consume 6.3 to 11.6 GJ less energy compared to chemical pulp and 6.3 to 10.6 GJ/t less as compared to mechanical pulp. (Kramer et al., 2009. p. 27)||Studies estimate the construction costs of recycled pulp processing capacity at around $485/ton of pulp. Depending on the price of waste paper versus virgin pulp this may result in up to $73.9 per ton of pulp in operations and maintenance cost savings (Kramer et al.2009. p. 97).||Commercial|
|XTREME Cleaner||This technique reduces the enegy consumption by 50% of as compared to the conventional dispersion systems.||The technology saves between $3,500 - $11,000 per day by using low-grade furnish.||Commercial|
|Using Drum Pulpers||A study suggests that if a vat type pulper is replaced with a continuous drum pulper in de-inking operations, energy consumption reduction by over 25% can be achieved. (Kramer et al. 2009. p. 97) Energy consumption can be reduced by 10 kWh/t-pulp as compared to a batch pulper (NCASI, 2001. p131)|
For a 300 t/d capacity plant, CO2 reductions due to reduced power demand are estimated to be 1055 t CO2/y. (NCASI, 2001. p.131)
|Costs of a continuous drum or dry pulper will be higher than those of batch equipment with equivalent capacity. For a 300 t/d capacity plant , annual savings are estimated to be around $37 000 [2001 dollars] (NCASI, 2001. p.131)||Commercial|
|Heat Recovery from De-inking Effluent||For a mill in the US having effluent streams at 49 °C and flow rate of 2.7 m3/min, the installation of a heat exchanger to recover heat and generate warm filtered shower for the mill's paper machines is estimated to reduce boiler fuel consumption by 39 000 GJ/y.||Fuels savings for the boiler are estimated at $125,000/y. Capital costs had been $375,000 with a payback period of around 3 years.||Commercial|
|Fractionation of Recycled Fiber||11 to 13% reductions in electricity consumption, and up to 40% reduction in thermal energy can be achieved.||Capital reduction of 13 to 22% can be achieved compared to traditional de-inked pulp (DIP) lines.||Commercial|
|Electrohydraulic Contaminant Removal||Improved sticky removal, floatation and clarification may lead to direct energy consumption reductions of 10 to 15% in contaminant removal and cleaning equipment (Kramer et al., 2009. p. 111).||Demonstration|
|Upgrading of Stock Preparations Plants with Decreased Electricity Consumption and Emissions||The option one results in energy consumption in the range 45 kWh/tonne and 95 kWh/tonne. The second option consumes between 75 kWh/tonne and 175 kWh/tonne.||The investment and operational costs of option two are higher than that of option one.||Commercial|
|Incineration of Residues|
One ton of rejects (from mills without de-inking) with about 45% water content can substitute 0.7 tons of brown coal in the boiler. in a German plant with 370 000 t/year production capacity, incineration of rejects in a hearth combustion (with a capacity of 28 000 t/year) that is integrated in the power plant of the mill, fossil fuel usage corresponding to 66 000 MWh was reduced.
Because the rejects help substitute coal, and about 50% of solid matter in the rejects are CO2 natural substances, CO2 emissions are reduced.
The investment cost for a co-incineration plant including facilities for reject pretreatment, drying and the gasification chamber for a reject volume flow rate of maximum 3 t/hour is estimated to be around €2.5 million. In Europe, these can provide annual annual savings of €0.6 million, assuming costs for landfilling of €50/t. An additional EUR 0.3 million/yr can be saved through the substitution of brown coal.
|Recovery of Boiler Ash and CO2 Gas to Produce Recycled Mineral Fibres for Use in Paper||Production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) using boiler ash requires up to 50% less fossil fuels compared to producing CaO from limestone quarry (CaCO3).||CO2 emissions are reduced due to reduced fossil fuel use for CaO and due to CO2 being captured from incineration of de-inking residues.||Production of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) from deinking ash as a raw material is appealing in countries where landfill costs are high as it gives both economic and environmental benefits.||Demonstration|
|Continuous Batch Fibre Recovery System to Processing Recovered Paper in a Complete System|
Process is more energy efficient.
Investment costs are low.
|Secondary Separation Pulper for Pulping Process in Wastepaper Treatment|
For a mill with original production capacity of 365 tpd, installation of this technology helped increase capacity to 445 tpd and reduced energy consumption by around 146 800 kWh/year (NEDO, 2008. p.160).
|Equipment cost is estimated as ¥90 million. Construction cost is around ¥30 million approximately (NEDO, 2008. p.160).||Commercial|
|Screenable, Pressure-Sensitive Adhesives for EnviroSensitive Labels||N/A||The technology indirectly saves CO2 emissions by increasing the recycling of wider varieties of paper.||Commercial|