At what point are abatement plans: activated carbons or afterburners?

We are returning to sol­vent-based coatings, neglecting the waterborne ones. First of all because the last mentioned are more expensive and, in negative moments such as the present (from the industrial point of view), saving is like a lottery win; secondly (but equally important), because an industry which is working well is the automotive one and, by analogy, the one of its suppliers.

It is well known that coatings for the automotive industry, which are used in metallic and plastic parts’ finishing, for indoor and outdoor (with the exception of a few cases), are all solvent-based, which needs to be abated (recovered or burned). For this reason, every mechanical engineering industry’s com­pany must consider the abatement plan’s investment: afterbur­ners or activated carbons?

On equal qualitative abatement, the activated carbon’s plant alternative certainly wins, and you can notice that by the rela­tive costs:

• A regenerative afterburner plant on a 25.000 m³\h booth and a relative curing oven to abate, for example, 2 g\m³ of solvent, costs about 350.000 euros: moreover, at each month’s end, other huge sums must be added to make it work; there are additional expenses to consider…
• An abatement plant with activated carbons (self-regenera­ble) after saturation, costs about 170.000 euros, with no ad­ditional operating expenses (if not for the water vapor’s self-production, suitable for solvent’s stripping, using the solvent’s calorific power).

Anver, National Association of Coaters, is available for collaborative help, in accordance with its statute, to make an analysis of technical and economic comparison between an activated car­bons plant and a various methods afterburner one.

— Share It —

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Linkedin
• Pin It