In the Netherlands, packaging dominates the plastic waste stream and is rich in polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene. Mechanical recycling remains the predominant route, but it faces challenges for packaging waste due to contamination, material degradation, and multilayer complexity, motivating pyrolysis-based routes that can recover hydrocarbon value from streams that are difficult to recycle mechanically.

This thesis assesses a fixed, gate-to-gate plastic pyrolysis and upgrading configuration and compares two outlet intents, producing either a single naphtha-range blendstock or a split slate with an additional jet-fuel-range blendstock cut. A steady-state mass and energy balance is developed for a fixed four-area plant topology (A100 pyrolysis, A200 hydrotreating, A300 hydrocracking and final fractionation, and A400 utilities and integration), and plant-boundary flows are monetised in a discounted cash flow model. The minimum selling price (MSP) is defined as the main-product price required for break-even at net present value equal to zero; one-at-a-time sensitivity is applied to key levers, and a pedigree-based lens is used to qualify claim strength.

At a common 40 kt/y plastic feed basis and 8,000 h/y utilisation, total saleable liquid production is essentially unchanged between outlet intents (2,807.73 kg/h versus 2,816.11 kg/h), while the jet-oriented intent mainly redistributes the liquid pool and increases electricity demand (112.40 to 219.92 kW). The resulting MSP is 2,134 EUR/t for the naphtha pathway and 4,940 EUR/t for the jet-fuel pathway, with the difference driven primarily by MSP closure and main-product basis in the split slate rather than by higher overall liquid yield. Sensitivity results show that scale and fuel-gas export monetisation dominate MSP: reducing capacity from 40 to 20 kt/y increases MSP by 28.2% (naphtha) and 37.7% (jet), and removing the fuel-gas export credit increases MSP by 10.8% and 14.3%, respectively.

Results are screening-level, steady-state, and gate-to-gate; they are not investment-grade, exclude full life-cycle assessment, and do not imply certification or aviation-fuel compliance.