Economic optimization reveals profit–emissions trade-offs in naphtha pyrolysis furnaces, indicating strategies for carbon pricing benefits.
This study develops an integrated chamber–coil model for naphtha pyrolysis furnaces that captures the bidirectional coupling between firebox heat transfer and coil-side cracking kinetics. The model combines a zone-based radiant enclosure formulation with a detailed free-radical reaction network, and is calibrated to plant operation data to enable steady-state prediction of coil-outlet composition together with flue-gas CO 2 emissions over realistic operating ranges. Based on the validated digital-twin framework, an economic optimization is formulated using the burner firing rate and naphtha feed rate as decision variables, subject to a coil-outlet temperature window and product-quality constraints. Three scenarios are examined to quantify profit–emissions trade-offs: (i) revenue maximization, (ii) profit maximization accounting for feed/steam/energy costs, and (iii) profit maximization with an explicit carbon-cost term. Under the carbon-pricing scenario, a representative case with a carbon price of USD 70/t CO 2 yields a co-benefit solution, achieving an olefin-yield increase (+3.30 wt%) together with a CO 2 reduction (-48.09 kton/yr) and a net-profit increase (+USD 0.38 million/yr) relative to the baseline operation. In contrast, carbon-unaware optimization tends to favor more aggressive heat supply and results in a markedly higher CO 2 burden without a consistent economic advantage. Overall, the proposed integrated chamber–coil digital twin provides a quantitative basis for selecting operating policies that reconcile economic performance with CO 2 mitigation under carbon pricing. • Integrated radiant chamber–coil model links heat transfer and cracking kinetics. • Economic optimization internalizes carbon pricing, revenues, and utility/feed costs. • Quantifies profit–emissions trade-offs under policy and market variability. • Carbon-unaware operation favors aggressive firing, increasing CO 2 emissions. • Economic optimization enables cost-effective CO 2 emissions reduction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: