Output Products Deep Dive — What the Ship Produces
Output Products Deep Dive — What the Ship Produces and What We Do With It
> Status: Deep research — foundational > Last updated: 2026-03-04 > Companion to: Feedstock & Output Science (the input side) > Core question: Given our GPGP feedstock at 10 TPD, what exactly comes out, in what quantities, what do we do with each output, and how does that drive ship design?
This is the output-side companion to the Feedstock & Output Science document. That document established what goes IN. This one establishes what comes OUT — every product, every waste stream, every storage requirement, every port logistics question. Together they form the complete mass and energy picture.
Table of Contents
1. Complete Mass Balance — One Tonne In, Everything Out 2. Syngas Utilization Paths — The Big Decision 3. Path A: Power Generation (Burn It All) 4. Path B: Methanol Synthesis (The Revenue Play) 5. Path C: Hybrid Power + Methanol (Recommended) 6. Eliminated Paths: FT Diesel, Hydrogen, Ammonia 7. Solid Outputs — Slag, Metals, Scrubber Waste 8. Liquid Outputs — Wastewater and Condensate 9. Gaseous Emissions — CO₂, NOx, and MARPOL Compliance 10. Storage Requirements and Campaign Duration 11. Port Infrastructure — Honolulu Operations 12. Revenue from Outputs 13. Water Balance — Is the Ship Self-Sufficient? 14. Confidence Assessment and PoC Targets
1. Complete Mass Balance
1.1 What Goes In (Per Tonne of Dry Feedstock)
From the Feedstock document — the GPGP Standard Feedstock:
| Input | Amount |
|---|---|
| Dry plastic feedstock | 1,000 kg |
| Steam (for gasification) | 200-500 kg |
| Plasma torch energy | 570-1,140 kWh (startup + operation) |
| NaOH (for scrubbing) | 7-17 kg |
| Catalyst (methanol, if Path B) | Negligible (replaced infrequently) |
1.2 What Comes Out (Per Tonne of Dry Feedstock)
INPUT: 1,000 kg GPGP Standard Feedstock (dry)
+ 200-500 kg steam
+ 7-17 kg NaOHOUTPUT:
├── SYNGAS: ~750-850 kg total usable gas
│ ├── H₂: 80-110 kg
│ ├── CO: 300-380 kg
│ ├── CO₂: 100-200 kg
│ ├── CH₄: 30-60 kg
│ └── N compounds: 20-50 kg (from nylon, scrubbed out)
│
├── VITRIFIED SLAG: 40-80 kg
│ ├── Inert glass matrix (SiO₂ + CaO + Na₂O)
│ ├── Heavy metals locked in glass (non-leaching)
│ └── Passes TCLP — non-hazardous
│
├── RECOVERED METALS: 1-5 kg
│ ├── Molten pool at reactor bottom (density separation)
│ └── Tapped as metal ingots for recycling
│
├── SCRUBBER WASTE: 10-30 kg
│ ├── Neutralization salts (NaCl from HCl + NaOH)
│ ├── Particulate sludge
│ └── Classified non-hazardous if TCLP passes
│
├── PROCESS WASTEWATER: 100-300 litres
│ ├── Syngas quench condensate
│ ├── Scrubber blowdown
│ ├── Contains: ammonia, dissolved salts, trace organics
│ └── Treatable on-ship (evaporator/crystallizer)
│
├── CO₂: 900-2,700 kg (depending on utilization path)
│ ├── Path A (burn all): ~2,700 kg CO₂/tonne
│ ├── Path B (methanol): ~900 kg CO₂/tonne at ship
│ └── Path C (hybrid): ~1,500-2,000 kg CO₂/tonne
│
├── WATER VAPOR: 200-400 kg (from hydrogen in plastic + steam)
│
└── METHANOL (if Path B/C): 500-700 kg liquid product
├── Density: 791 kg/m³
├── Stored at ambient pressure/temperature
└── Revenue product
1.3 At 10 TPD Scale — Daily Outputs
| Output | Daily Amount | Monthly (30 days) | Storage Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Syngas | 27,000-30,000 Nm³ | Consumed continuously | Buffer tank only |
| Methanol (Path C) | 3,000-5,000 kg (3.8-6.3 m³) | 90-150 m³ | Dedicated SS tank |
| Vitrified slag | 400-800 kg (0.2-0.4 m³) | 6-12 m³ | Bulk hold |
| Metal ingots | 10-50 kg | <1 m³ | Bins |
| Scrubber waste | 100-300 kg (~2-3 drums) | 60-90 drums | Hazmat area |
| Process wastewater | 1,000-3,000 litres | Treated on-ship | Evaporator |
| CO₂ emissions | 15,000-27,000 kg | N/A | Released to atmosphere |
2. Syngas Utilization Paths — The Big Decision
What you do with the syngas determines everything: ship layout, storage, revenue, complexity, port logistics, and financial viability. We evaluated five paths:
| Path | Product | Ship Feasibility | Annual Revenue | CAPEX (downstream) | Deck Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Power (CHP) | Electricity + heat | HIGHEST | $1.7-3.2M (offset) | $3-6M | 60-100 m² |
| B: Methanol | Liquid methanol | HIGH | $2.4-7.2M (green) | $8-18M | 100-150 m² |
| C: Hybrid (A+B) | Power + methanol | HIGH | Best of both | $8-15M | 120-160 m² |
| D: FT Diesel | Synthetic diesel | Moderate | $1.5-3.8M | $15-25M | 120-180 m² |
| E: Hydrogen | Compressed H₂ | Low | $0.4-1.5M | $5-12M | 80-120 m² |
| F: Ammonia | NH₃ | Very Low | $0.3-0.8M | $20-40M | 150-200 m² |
The real choice is between A, B, and C.
3. Path A: Power Generation (Burn It All)
3.1 How It Works
Cleaned syngas feeds directly into gas engines (Jenbacher J320 class, ~1,000 kWe) which drive generators. Waste heat from exhaust and jacket water is recovered for feedstock drying, desalination, and ship hotel loads.
3.2 Equipment
| Component | Specification | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Syngas cleanup | Scrubber + cyclone + filter | 10-15 tonnes |
| Gas engine + generator | Jenbacher J320 (~1,000 kWe) | 25-35 tonnes |
| Heat recovery (CHP) | Exhaust HX + jacket water HX | 5-10 tonnes |
| Switchgear/controls | Containerized | 5-8 tonnes |
| Total | 60-100 m² deck | 45-70 tonnes |
3.3 Output Numbers
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Electrical output | 770-1,040 kWe continuous |
| Thermal recovery | 830-1,040 kWth continuous |
| CHP efficiency | 75-85% |
| Electrical efficiency | 37-43% (Jenbacher Type 3 on syngas) |
3.4 The Problem with Path A
The plasma torch draws 1,000-1,700 kWe. The syngas engine produces 770-1,040 kWe. This means:
- At best, the engine covers 100% of torch power but nothing else
- At worst, the engine covers only 50-60% of torch power
- Ship still needs separate power for propulsion systems, collection gear, crew systems (~500-1,500 kWe additional)
Revenue: Zero direct revenue. Value is in diesel fuel offset ($1.7-3.2M/year at marine diesel prices). No product to sell.
3.5 When Path A Makes Sense
- As a baseline minimum configuration for Phase 1 proof-of-concept
- If methanol equipment is deferred to Phase 2
- Combined with plastic credit revenue as the primary income stream
4. Path B: Methanol Synthesis (The Revenue Play)
4.1 The Chemistry
CO + 2H₂ → CH₃OH ΔH = -90.5 kJ/mol (exothermic)
CO₂ + 3H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O ΔH = -49.5 kJ/mol
Both reactions are exothermic — the reactor generates useful waste heat.
Our syngas H₂/CO ratio of 1.6-1.8 needs a small WGS (water-gas shift) correction to reach the ideal 2.0:
CO + H₂O → CO₂ + H₂ (shift ~10-20% of CO)
This is a modest adjustment. The WGS reaction is exothermic, so it adds heat rather than consuming power.
4.2 Methanol Yield
Literature range for plastic-to-methanol:
- Optimized lab conditions: 1.35 kg methanol per kg plastic (Garay-Moncada et al., 2023)
- Realistic for ocean plastic with contaminants: 0.5-0.7 kg methanol per kg dry feedstock
- Feedstock moisture and salt (15-25% of raw collected mass)
- Syngas cleaning losses (5-10%)
- Imperfect H₂:CO ratio requiring WGS
- Per-pass conversion of ~25-35% (with recycle achieving 85-95% overall)
- Distillation losses
4.3 Equipment Required
| Component | Size | Weight | Power Draw |
|---|---|---|---|
| Syngas cleanup (multi-stage) | 2 × 20ft containers | 15-20 t | ~50 kW |
| WGS reactor | 1.5m dia × 3m vessel | 5-8 t | Minimal (exothermic) |
| Syngas compressor (50-100 bar) | 1 × 20ft container | 10-15 t | 250-500 kW |
| Methanol reactor (Cu/ZnO/Al₂O₃) | 1.2m dia × 6m with cooling | 15-25 t | Minimal (exothermic) |
| Distillation (2 columns) | 0.6m dia × 8-10m each | 8-12 t | ~100 kW |
| Controls, piping, BOP | 1 × 20ft container | 5-10 t | ~20 kW |
| Total | 100-150 m² | 60-90 tonnes | ~420-670 kW |
TOYO Engineering's MRF-Z Neo is a compact methanol reactor designed specifically for small-scale green methanol production — relevant to this application.
4.4 CAPEX Estimate
- Downstream methanol train (excluding gasifier): $8-18M
- Scaled from NREL data: $73M for 240 TPD × (10/240)^0.6 ≈ $10-12M
- Small modular systems carry a premium: $12-18M realistic range
4.5 The Problem with Path B Alone
If ALL syngas goes to methanol, there's no power generation on board. The ship would need to run entirely on diesel generators — defeating the purpose of energy self-sufficiency.
5. Path C: Hybrid Power + Methanol (Recommended)
5.1 The Split
Burn 30-40% of syngas for onboard power. Convert 60-70% to methanol for sale.
| Stream | Syngas Allocation | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Power generation | 30-40% of syngas | 450-700 kWe + waste heat |
| Methanol synthesis | 60-70% of syngas | 3,000-5,000 kg methanol/day |
5.2 Why This Works
- Power from syngas offsets 50-80% of ship electrical demand
- Remaining power deficit covered by smaller diesel generator (~500 kWe backup)
- Methanol provides tangible revenue product
- Waste heat from both the gas engine and the exothermic methanol reactor feeds feedstock drying, desalination, and ship hotel loads
- The methanol reactor's power demand (compressor, ~250-500 kW) is partly met by the syngas engine
5.3 Daily Output (10 TPD, Path C)
| Product | Amount | Volume | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Methanol | 3,000-5,000 kg/day | 3.8-6.3 m³/day | $1.1-6M/year |
| Electricity | 450-700 kWe continuous | — | Offsets diesel ($1-2M/year) |
| Heat | 500-800 kWth | — | Powers drying, desal, hotel |
| Slag | 400-800 kg/day | 0.2-0.4 m³/day | Negligible |
5.4 Equipment (Combined)
| Component | Notes |
|---|---|
| Gas engine | 1× Jenbacher J312 (~500 kWe) — smaller unit |
| Methanol train | Same as Path B but sized for 60-70% of syngas |
| Total deck area | ~120-160 m² |
| Total weight | ~80-120 tonnes |
| CAPEX (downstream) | $8-15M |
5.5 This Is the Recommended Configuration
Path C gives:
- Partial energy self-sufficiency (reduces but doesn't eliminate diesel dependency)
- Revenue product (methanol) for financial viability
- Proven technology at each step
- Manageable footprint on a converted vessel
6. Eliminated Paths
6.1 Fischer-Tropsch Diesel — Viable but Inferior
FT converts syngas to synthetic diesel/wax. It produces a drop-in fuel (no engine modifications needed) at lower pressure (20-30 bar vs 50-100 bar for methanol).
Why eliminated:
- Higher CAPEX ($15-25M) for lower revenue ($1.5-3.8M vs $2.4-7.2M for methanol)
- Lower carbon efficiency (60-75% vs 85-95% for methanol)
- More complex product upgrading (hydrocracking, distillation)
- IMO regulations specifically favor methanol — the green premium is larger
- Smaller addressable market for "green FT diesel" vs. green methanol
6.2 Hydrogen — Storage Kills It
PSA can separate H₂ from syngas at 99.9% purity, yielding 28-53 kg H₂ per tonne of feedstock.
Why eliminated:
- Storage requires 350-700 bar compression — high-pressure equipment on a moving vessel in salt air
- H₂ at 700 bar is still only 40 kg/m³ — weekly production needs ~90 m³ of pressure vessels
- No maritime H₂ bunkering infrastructure exists
- H₂ is the most flammable gas (4-75% range), invisible flame, no odor
- Revenue is the lowest of all paths ($0.4-1.5M/year)
- Liquefaction (-253°C) is completely impractical at this scale on a ship
6.3 Ammonia — Wrong Nitrogen, Wrong Everything
The 40% nylon content means ~50 kg of nitrogen enters per tonne of feedstock. Sounds like ammonia feedstock, but:
The nitrogen is in the wrong form. At plasma temperatures, nylon's nitrogen becomes HCN (50-70%) and NH₃ (15-30%) — both are contaminants that must be scrubbed OUT, not feedstock for synthesis. Only 10-20% becomes N₂ (the form ammonia synthesis needs).
Why eliminated:
- Haber-Bosch requires 150-300 bar, 400-500°C — the most extreme conditions of any path
- Highest CAPEX ($20-40M) and heaviest equipment (95-140 tonnes)
- Ammonia is toxic (IDLH at 300 ppm), corrosive, requires specialized storage
- Lowest revenue ($0.3-0.8M/year)
- The nylon nitrogen is a disposal problem, not a feedstock opportunity
7. Solid Outputs — Slag, Metals, Scrubber Waste
7.1 Vitrified Slag
What it is: Black, glassy, sand-like material (resembles obsidian). Created when inorganic components of the feedstock melt at plasma temperatures and are quenched in water.
Source of inorganic material in ocean plastic:
- Entrained sand, sediment, biofouling organisms: 5-10% of collected mass
- Fillers and pigments in plastics (CaCO₃, TiO₂): 2-5%
- Salt residue after washing: 1-2%
- Barnacles (CaCO₃) actually help — they act as a flux agent for the slag
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Production rate | 40-80 kg per tonne of feedstock |
| At 10 TPD | 400-800 kg/day (0.2-0.4 m³/day) |
| Density | 2.5-2.8 g/cm³ (solid), 1.8-2.0 t/m³ (granulated bulk) |
| Leachability | Passes TCLP — several orders of magnitude below regulatory limits |
| Hazard class | Non-hazardous |
| Heavy metals | Locked in glass matrix, non-leaching |
| Volume reduction | 95% vs original feedstock volume |
Revenue: $10-25/tonne as aggregate = ~$3-6K/year. Negligible revenue, but the point is it's a zero-cost or revenue-positive waste stream, not a disposal liability.
7.2 Recovered Metals
At plasma temperatures, metals melt and sink to the bottom of the reactor (density separation), forming a molten metal layer beneath the lighter slag. The reactor has two tap points: upper for slag, lower for metals.
For ocean plastic debris: bottle caps, fishing hooks, wire fragments, foil — all collect in the molten metal pool.
Volume: 1-5 kg per tonne of feedstock. At 10 TPD: ~10-50 kg/day of metal ingots. Negligible mass and revenue, but it prevents metal contamination of the slag and produces clean recyclable output.
7.3 Scrubber Waste
The gas cleaning system produces:
| Waste Stream | Amount (per tonne) | At 10 TPD | Handling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neutralization salts (NaCl from HCl + NaOH) | 5-30 kg | 50-300 kg/day | Drums, non-hazardous if TCLP passes |
| Scrubber sludge (particulates) | 2-5 kg | 20-50 kg/day | Drums, test for metals |
| Cyclone/filter dust | 1-5 kg | 10-50 kg/day | Recycled to gasifier |
| Spent activated carbon (guard beds) | <1 kg | Infrequent | Return to catalyst vendor |
8. Liquid Outputs — Wastewater and Condensate
8.1 Sources
| Source | Volume (per tonne) | Contaminants |
|---|---|---|
| Syngas quench condensate | 50-150 litres | Dissolved organics, particulates, ammonia |
| Scrubber blowdown | 30-100 litres | Dissolved salts, trace metals, neutralization products |
| Feedstock moisture | 150-250 litres (if counted) | Salt water, microplastic fragments |
| Total | 100-300 litres (excluding feedstock moisture) |
8.2 Contaminant Profile
From NETL gasification data:
- Ammonia: 100-300+ mg/L (higher for nylon-rich feedstock)
- Phenols: 300-800 mg/L (lower for plastic than coal — simpler aromatic chemistry)
- Dissolved salts: Chloride, sulfide, bicarbonate
- COD: 2,000-4,000 mg/L typical
- Heavy metals: Trace (most report to slag)
8.3 Onboard Treatment
Feasible with compact equipment: 1. Steam stripping — removes dissolved ammonia and H₂S (standard marine technology) 2. Evaporator/crystallizer — concentrates wastewater to solid salt cake 3. Output: 5-15 kg/day of solid salt residue for port disposal 4. Power: ~50-100 kW for the evaporator (covered by waste heat)
The volumes are small enough (1-3 m³/day) that zero liquid discharge is achievable on-ship. No wastewater needs to go to port.
9. Gaseous Emissions — CO₂, NOx, and MARPOL Compliance
9.1 CO₂ Emissions by Path
All the carbon in the plastic ultimately becomes CO₂ — the question is when and where.
- Plastic feedstock is ~73.6% carbon
- 1 tonne plastic = 736 kg carbon = 2,699 kg CO₂ (stoichiometric maximum)
| Path | CO₂ at Ship | CO₂ Deferred (in product) | Total Lifecycle |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: Burn all | ~2,700 kg/t | 0 | 2,700 kg/t |
| B: All methanol | ~900 kg/t | ~1,800 kg/t (in methanol) | 2,700 kg/t |
| C: Hybrid | ~1,500-2,000 kg/t | ~700-1,200 kg/t | 2,700 kg/t |
9.2 NOx, SOx, Particulates
Plasma gasification operates in a reducing (oxygen-starved) environment, fundamentally suppressing NOx and SOx:
| Pollutant | Plasma Gasification | Incineration | MARPOL Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| NOx | 10 ppm at stack | Much higher | Tier III: 3.4 g/kWh (engine) |
| SOx | 4 ppm at stack | 40+ ppm | ECA: 0.10% sulfur equiv. |
| Particulates | 12.5 µg/Nm³ | 20+ µg/Nm³ | No specific limit |
| Dioxins (PCDD/F) | <0.009 µg/Nm³ | <0.098 µg/Nm³ | — |
9.3 MARPOL Compliance — Precedent Exists
PyroGenesis's PAWDS (Plasma Arc Waste Destruction System) provides direct precedent:
- Installed on USS Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers (4 systems)
- Installed on Carnival Cruise Lines M/S Fantasy
- Independently tested and demonstrated MARPOL compliance
- SOx removal efficiency: 95%
- Lloyd's Register certified for solid waste and sludge oil
- Footprint: <65 m² on a single deck
10. Storage Requirements and Campaign Duration
10.1 Storage Sizing (Path C: Hybrid)
| Product | Daily Volume | Monthly | Tank/Hold Size Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Methanol | 3.8-6.3 m³/day | 114-189 m³/month | 200 m³ tank (30-day campaign) |
| Slag | 0.2-0.4 m³/day | 6-12 m³/month | 50 m³ hold (lasts 4-8 months) |
| Scrubber waste | 2-3 drums/day | 60-90 drums/month | Hazmat storage area |
| Metal ingots | <0.1 m³/day | <3 m³/month | Bins |
| NaOH reagent | 7-17 kg/day | 200-500 kg/month | 2 m³ chemical tank |
| Diesel (backup) | Variable | 500-1,000 L reserve | Existing fuel tanks |
10.2 Methanol Tank Specifications
| Parameter | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Material | Stainless steel (316L) or coated carbon |
| Pressure | Atmospheric (methanol is liquid at ambient) |
| Inerting | Nitrogen blanket, O₂ < 8% |
| Venting | P/V valves to mast, 3m above deck |
| Fire suppression | AR-AFFF (standard AFFF doesn't work on methanol) |
| Flame detection | UV/IR detectors (methanol flame is nearly invisible in daylight) |
| Containment | Cofferdams around tank |
| Piping | Double-wall or pipe-in-pipe |
10.3 Campaign Duration — Methanol Is the Binding Constraint
| Campaign | Methanol Stored | Tank Needed (85% fill) | Round Trip | Utilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 days | 57-95 m³ | 100 m³ | 8 days → 23 day cycle | 65% |
| 30 days | 114-189 m³ | 200 m³ | 8 days → 38 day cycle | 79% |
| 45 days | 171-284 m³ | 290 m³ | 8 days → 53 day cycle | 85% |
| 60 days | 228-378 m³ | 400 m³ | 8 days → 68 day cycle | 88% |
Recommended: 200 m³ methanol tank for 30-day campaigns.
Rationale:
- 79% utilization is good for a pioneering vessel
- 30-day cycles align with crew rotation and maintenance
- 200 m³ is a standard chemical tanker tank size — proven designs exist
- Monthly port calls allow regular plasma system inspection
- 100-150 tonnes of methanol per delivery is commercially meaningful
11. Port Infrastructure — Honolulu Operations
11.1 What the Ship Needs at Port
Methanol offloading (2-3 hours):
- Ship-to-truck transfer via hose connection
- MC 307/DOT 407 stainless steel tanker trucks (~20 m³/16 tonnes each)
- A 30-day campaign = ~8 truckloads
- USCG permission for hazardous cargo transfer
- Vapor recovery, grounding/bonding, AR-AFFF on standby
- Ship's crane to dump truck
- 15-24 tonnes per campaign = 2 dump truck loads
- No special permits — slag is inert, non-hazardous
- Diesel fuel (backup generator)
- Crew provisions, fresh water (if RO insufficient)
- Plasma torch electrodes, catalyst
- Nitrogen for methanol tank inerting (or onboard N₂ generator)
11.2 Honolulu Harbor
Honolulu handles 12+ million tonnes of cargo annually including liquid bulk. No dedicated methanol terminal exists — Hawaii doesn't currently import methanol in bulk.
Phase 1 approach: Direct ship-to-truck transfer at berth. No shore infrastructure needed. Simple, low investment.
Phase 2 (when volumes justify): 500-1,000 m³ shore tank near the harbor. Permits needed: USCG facility plan, Hawaii DOT berth assignment, EPA SPCC plan, Hawaii DOH chemical storage.
11.3 Where the Methanol Goes
| Channel | Description | Price Premium |
|---|---|---|
| Marine bunkering (best) | Sell to methanol-fueled vessels transiting Honolulu (Maersk deploying 25 dual-fuel ships by 2027) | Highest — green methanol for shipping |
| US West Coast | Chemical tanker parcel to LA/Oakland (5-7 days). Accumulate 2-3 campaigns first. | Commodity + green premium |
| Local Hawaii | Biodiesel production, wastewater treatment, labs. Small volume. | Retail pricing ($500-800/t in drums) |
12. Revenue from Outputs
12.1 Methanol Revenue (Path C: Hybrid, ~1,340 tonnes/year)
| Scenario | $/tonne | Annual Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional commodity | $350-420 | $469K-$563K |
| Green premium (low) | $550-580 | $737K-$777K |
| Green premium (high) | $780+ | $1.05M+ |
| Marine bunkering (green methanol) | $800-1,200 | $1.07M-$1.61M |
12.2 Other Outputs
| Output | Annual Volume | Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| Slag (aggregate) | ~200 tonnes | $3-6K |
| Metal ingots | ~3-18 tonnes | $1-5K |
| Total other | $4-11K (negligible) |
12.3 Combined Revenue Picture
| Scenario | Methanol | Plastic Credits | Other | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | $469K | $750K-$1.5M | $5K | $1.2-2.0M |
| Green premium | $777K-$1.05M | $750K-$1.5M | $5K | $1.5-2.6M |
| Marine bunkering | $1.07M-$1.61M | $750K-$1.5M | $5K | $1.8-3.1M |
13. Water Balance — Is the Ship Self-Sufficient?
13.1 Water Generated by Process
| Source | Daily Volume |
|---|---|
| Feedstock moisture removal | 1,500-2,500 litres (saline, needs treatment) |
| Syngas condensate | 800-1,100 litres |
| Methanol synthesis byproduct water | ~2,500 litres (relatively clean) |
| Total generated | 4,800-6,100 litres/day |
13.2 Ship's Water Demand
| Consumer | Daily Demand |
|---|---|
| Crew domestic (25 × 150 L) | 3,750 litres |
| Galley and laundry | 500 litres |
| Engine cooling makeup | 200-500 litres |
| Industrial (feedstock wash, slag quench, scrubber) | 2,000-4,000 litres |
| Total demand | 6,450-8,750 litres/day |
13.3 Balance
| Daily | |
|---|---|
| Generated | 4,800-6,100 L |
| Demand | 6,450-8,750 L |
| Deficit | ~1,500-3,500 L/day |
14. Confidence Assessment and PoC Targets
14.1 What We're Confident About (±15%)
| Parameter | Basis |
|---|---|
| Slag is non-hazardous and passes TCLP | Dozens of TCLP studies on plasma slag |
| CO₂ per tonne of feedstock | Stoichiometric — fundamental chemistry |
| Methanol is storable at ambient conditions | Physical property |
| MARPOL compliance achievable | PAWDS precedent on US Navy + cruise ships |
| Slag volume is negligible vs methanol volume | Math — 0.3 m³/day vs 5 m³/day |
| Water balance closes with small RO unit | Engineering estimate from process chemistry |
14.2 What We're Moderately Confident About (±30%)
| Parameter | Gap |
|---|---|
| Methanol yield (0.5-0.7 kg/kg) | Lab data is higher (1.35); real ocean plastic hasn't been tested |
| Scrubber waste volumes | Depend on actual salt content and PVC fraction |
| Campaign duration optimal at 30 days | Operational experience will refine |
| Green methanol premium ($200-400/t over commodity) | Market still forming; regulatory clarity improving |
14.3 What the PoC Must Answer
| Question | Why It Matters | Validation Stage |
|---|---|---|
| Actual methanol yield from GPGP feedstock | Determines revenue, tank sizing, campaign duration | Stage 3: Extended pilot |
| Salt impact on methanol catalyst life | NaCl residue in syngas could poison Cu/ZnO catalyst | Stage 2-3 |
| HCN scrubbing effectiveness | Critical for gas engine life AND methanol catalyst protection | Stage 2 |
| Slag composition from real ocean plastic | Must confirm TCLP pass with actual debris | Stage 2 |
| Continuous operation with tangled/variable material | Lab pellets ≠ ocean debris with barnacles and ghost net | Stage 3 |
| Gas engine performance on this specific syngas | Contaminant tolerance, efficiency, maintenance intervals | Stage 3 |
Sources & References
Syngas Utilization
- Garay-Moncada et al. (2023). "Plastic Waste Chemical Recycling to Methanol." Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 62(13).
- NREL/RSC (2023). "Techno-economic analysis and LCA of mixed plastic waste gasification for methanol and hydrogen." Green Chemistry.
- ScienceDirect (2025). "Detailed techno-economic analysis of methanol synthesis from plasma-assisted waste gasification."
- TOYO Engineering (2025). MRF-Z Neo compact methanol reactor for small-scale green methanol.
- Wikipedia: Fischer-Tropsch process; Velocys microchannel FT technology.
- INERATEC: Containerized Fischer-Tropsch synthesis systems.
Slag and Byproducts
- NETL Gasifipedia: Gasifier byproduct handling, slag characteristics.
- Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure: "Plasma Gasification: Revolutionizing Waste Management."
- Korean 10 TPD demonstration: 75.8 kg slag per tonne MSW.
- MSW slagging gasifier demonstration: 107 kg net slag per tonne (ScienceDirect, 2023).
- TCLP data: Multiple studies showing orders-of-magnitude below regulatory limits.
- PyroGenesis PAWDS operational data.
Emissions and MARPOL
- PyroGenesis PAWDS: USS Gerald R. Ford, Carnival M/S Fantasy — MARPOL certified.
- ACS Omega (2024): Plasma gasification emissions data (NOx 10 ppm, SOx 4 ppm, PM 12.5 µg/Nm³).
- AST Plasma: Dioxin comparison (plasma vs incineration).
- LCA: ACS Sustainable Chemistry (2022) — -371 kg CO₂ eq/tonne with CCS.
Storage and Logistics
- IMO IGF Code, MSC.1/Circ.1621 (interim methanol fuel guidelines).
- Bureau Veritas NR670 (methanol/ethanol-fuelled ships, July 2025).
- ABS Methanol Bunkering Advisory (April 2024).
- Methanol Institute: Atmospheric tank storage guidelines.
- Hawaii DOT Harbors: Infrastructure, fuel facilities development plan.
- Methanex Asia Pacific contract pricing (H2 2025).
- DNV (2025): "Methanol as marine fuel — readiness level."
Water and Wastewater
- NETL Gasifipedia: Aqueous effluents/wastewater from gasification.
- Springer (2023): Biomass plasma gasification condensate yields.
- Marine Insight: Freshwater consumption on ships.
- Methanol synthesis stoichiometry: CO₂ + 3H₂ → CH₃OH + H₂O.