This Annex provides a summary of the elements presented at the workshop organised on 4 April 2024 to inform the selection of the low-carbon options. The analysis assesses ten1 different low-carbon options, based on the three levers depicted in Figure 2.2.
Lever 1 – Switch in feedstock
Biomass used for direct conversion of HVCs: the route analysed refers to “Biomass to bioethanol to bio-olefins”
Biomass used for the steam cracker route: “Biomass to bio-naphtha to bio-olefins”
Biomass used for direct production of alternative plastics that have comparable properties with conventional plastics: “Biomass to bio-based and biodegradable plastics (PLA, PBS…)”
Alternative fuels used for the steam cracker route: “Pyrolysis oil from plastic waste to olefins”
Lever 2 – Decarbonisation of the production process (focusing on steam cracker)
Improving energy efficiency
Switching to low-carbon sources for process heat generation and power supply
CCUS
Lever 3 – Recycling and end-of life management of plastic products
Mechanical recycling
Chemical recycling
Waste to energy
The relevance of decarbonisation options for the Framework implementation depends on a combination of factors such as their emission reduction potential, technology readiness, alignment with Thailand’s national strategies, competitiveness. These dimensions are assessed for each low-carbon option, following a two-step methodology described below.
Step 1: For each dimension within one specific route, research based on various literature sources is conducted (data from international reports, scientific articles, market intelligence, consulting, technology licensors, Thailand’s specific documents, companies’ websites and documents). Analysis of the different information collected for one dimension of one route is conducted to provide a qualitative conclusion ( “technology X at the core of Thailand”s low-carbon strategies”) or identify an order of magnitude for further comparison (“carbon intensity of olefin production for route XX ranges between XX and XX tCO2/t HVC).
Step 2: Next, for each dimension, a qualitative ranking across routes is conducted, based on the previous conclusions and following three levels of performance “High, Medium, Low”. This should not be considered as a ranking in absolute terms, but a comparative ranking across the routes to ease the selection.
Finaly, a synthesis table summarises for each route its level of performance on each dimension (Table A E.1). Overall, the table identifies how the different routes compare with each other for the different dimensions explored. It is also worth noting that, by nature, the Framework intends to focus on decarbonisation routes that are not competitive yet. Therefore, an economic dimension assessed to “LOW” does not necessarily mean that the route is not of relevance for the Framework’s implementation. It is the overall performance on all dimensions which should be considered for the final selection.
Finally, it is important to note that all routes present their own strengths and challenges. Consequently, not a single route is intended to support the decarbonisation of the petrochemical industry and the plastic value chain by its own, but rather a combination of options. The routes which have been selected following the workshop should, thus not be considered as the only options to decarbonise Thailand’s petrochemicals and plastics. These options are primarily meant to reflect a high level of relevance regarding the different dimensions assessed, as well as to the Framework’s objective of identifying financing solutions for routes which struggle to achieve viable business cases. Given the purpose of the Framework, particular attention will be paid to the extent to which each of these routes could link to or support a pipeline of projects in Thailand.