{"id":149282,"date":"2024-08-09T07:33:00","date_gmt":"2024-08-09T05:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/?p=149282"},"modified":"2024-08-08T12:11:05","modified_gmt":"2024-08-08T10:11:05","slug":"pyrolysis-oil-as-potential-alternative-to-naphtha-in-crackers-numerous-plants-ready-to-get-started-possible-approach-above-all-for-europe-asia-change-could-further-impair-cost-base","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/pyrolysis-oil-as-potential-alternative-to-naphtha-in-crackers-numerous-plants-ready-to-get-started-possible-approach-above-all-for-europe-asia-change-could-further-impair-cost-base\/","title":{"rendered":"Pyrolysis oil as potential alternative to naphtha in crackers \/ Numerous plants ready to get started \/ Possible approach above all for Europe, Asia \/ Change could further impair cost base"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n

It should be noted that most of the facilities for chemical recycling are being launched in Europe, where mechanical plastics recycling is currently in the lead. On the other hand, many of the larger plants are located in North America, where mechanical recovery is traditionally far less important. The crucial question with global polymer production is therefore: can pyrolysis oil serve as an alternative to naphtha?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to PIE<\/strong>\u2019s Polyglobe database<\/a>, 20 facilities of varying size are currently in operation worldwide, at all stages from pilot projects and demonstration plants to a few production lines that are already being utilised commercially. The technology mostly used is pyrolysis, with just a few also opting for solvents, enzymes, or gasification.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Fifteen of these facilities are located in Europe, followed by four in North America and one in Asia. The current global total capacity is at a good 500,000 t\/y, though it is important to note that the majority of operators base their figures on the input volume of plastics waste and not \u2013 as is otherwise usual with petrochemical plants \u2013 on the potential output.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Large-scale pyrolysis projects in Europe and the US<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As things stand at present, around 45 more plants with a total capacity of 3.5 mn t\/y are at various stages of planning up to 2028. Thirty-one of these are to be built in Europe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the largest individual projects in Europe are those planned by Neste<\/strong> and OMV<\/strong> with 200,000 t\/y to 400,000 t\/y, respectively, and in the US planned by ExxonMobil<\/strong> and Brightmark<\/strong> with 400,000 t\/y and 500,000 t\/y respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are, however, a few projects that are no longer regarded as economically viable and have already been put on ice. This number is likely to increase if the competition between the different systems and technology really kicks in. We must wait and see who has the biggest influence at the end: waste disposal companies or the plastics producers and converters driven by politics who, in addition to having ambitious net zero-climate targets, see themselves subjected to increasing pressure from the population to carry out recycling. <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Energy giant Shell<\/strong> is also revising plans<\/a> to make chemical recycling a centrepiece of its circular plastics strategy, pledging that its original target to convert 1 mn t of plastics waste into pyrolysis oil annually from 2025 is \u201cunfeasible\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guiding principle of both the chemical industry and pyrolysis suppliers against this background is currently the mass balance principle certified according to ISCC<\/strong> and Redcert<\/strong> as \u201cproof of the corresponding sustainability performance in the value chain,\u201d as is expressed by BASF<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, attempts are being made to introduce alternative raw materials into the production at such an early point in time that the end-products can hardly be distinguished chemically from and can also be processed in the same way as fossil-based ones. The disadvantage here is the virtual intransparency for the actual recycling content of the individual semi-finished or finished product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The mass balance approach allows plastics producers to attribute the alternative or bio-based proportion of raw material purely by calculation to only part of the produced plastics. It enables producers to show both plastics genuinely produced with more sustainable materials and fossil-based plastics as made with recycled content. Also unclear is which process was used to obtain the recycled material. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The crackers as a driver of technology?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

A study compiled by the nova-Institute<\/strong> (H\u00fcrth, Germany; www.nova-institut.eu<\/a>), entitled Alternative naphtha \u2013 technologies and market, status and outlook and previously reported on by PIE<\/a>, identified three potential sources as substitute carbon sources: carbon dioxide\/hydrogen as industrial (waste) products, hydrogenated used vegetable oils, and chemical recycling, for example of plastics waste. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From all these, 1.15 mn t of renewable naphtha was produced last year worldwide. In 2026, the figure could be as high as 1.6 mn t, according to the report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compared with this, current global naphtha demand likely stands at around 200 mn t\/y, of which around half is used in petrochemicals \u2013 in other words, primarily in crackers and aromatics extraction. The number of crackers worldwide that are already opting for alternatives to naphtha is estimated by nova-Institute at a good 40. However, the added contents probably vary considerably. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the 61 crackers located in the European Union, Switzerland, and Norway, 50 are, according to Polyglobe, operated exclusively or partly with naphtha. Northeast Asia \u2013 primarily China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan \u2013 also uses naphtha to a large extent as a raw material for crackers. In North America, on the other hand, naphtha crackers tend to be the exception rather than the rule despite a few mixed feed plants. The majority of the crackers work with ethane.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

At present, pyrolysis oil is, depending on the quality, being traded in Western Europe at USD 830\/t or slightly higher. Prices nevertheless differ considerably depending on the level of purity. In the long-term comparison over the last 14 years, the weekly spot market price for naphtha \u2013 which PIE has been recording since 2010 \u2013 stands at an average of EUR 550\/t, fluctuating between EUR 135\/t and EUR 973\/t. The majority of quotations are between EUR 400\/t and EUR 800\/t. It is a double-edged sword: the use of significant quantities of pyrolysis oil would improve the carbon footprint of European crackers and downstream polymer plants, but would, at the same time, also worsen what is already an expensive cost base in a global comparison. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the resulting pyrolysis oil or similar products, there are by now numerous purchasing agreements between recyclers, cracker operators, and buyers \u2013 more recent data have been provided by GreenDot with Pepsi<\/a> and by BASF with Encina for recycled benzene<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recycling targets unattainable without chemical processes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Chemical recycling addresses not only the production of plastics waste worldwide, which is recognised as a problem \u2013 an example is the European Commission<\/strong>\u2019s single-use plastics directive \u2013 but also the more sustainable operation of the naphtha crackers in order to utilise mass balance processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mechanical recycling, which is commonly used above all in Western Europe, reaches its limits above all relating to quality, but at this point also for quantity reasons. The opinion is therefore becoming established that the recyclate utilisation volume being contemplated by the EU as well as the reduction of landfill quantities can probably not be reached without chemical recycling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The obstacles here are also of a political nature: because fuels can also be produced from pyrolysis oil and biodiesel, the EU Commission has to date regarded the processes not as recycling or capable of recycling. In addition, pyrolysis consumes almost as much energy as the production of primary plastics, and finally, pyrolysis oil is not suitable as a naphtha substitute in crackers without subsequent cleaning and homogenisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In any case, however, demand from naphtha crackers could play a key role in the fact that, despite the extensive necessary investments and energy costs, pyrolysis plants are set to establish themselves very quickly on a commercial scale on the market. Here, North America will likely be the pioneer, due to the in many cases inadequate recycling value chains together with the latest targets issued by the US Government. Can pyrolysis oil thus really be an alternative to naphtha? At present no, but possibly in the future.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It should be noted that most of the facilities for chemical recycling are being launched in Europe, where mechanical plastics recycling is currently in the lead. On the other hand, many of the larger plants are located in North America, where mechanical recovery is traditionally far less important. The crucial question with global polymer production […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":114,"featured_media":149284,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","nova_meta_subtitle":"Investment over the last two years in the chemical recycling of plastics \u2013 and, to a lesser extent, other waste \u2013 could certainly not be described as booming. Nevertheless, the hope is that the relevant technologies \u2013 from pyrolysis and thermolysis through solvolysis to enzymatic recycling \u2013 will help to make plastics recyclable in the medium term","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572,5571,17143],"tags":[5838,10744,10416,10408,10453,10743],"supplier":[75,15172,7455,3532,11708,4,22945,647],"class_list":["post-149282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bio-based","category-co2-based","category-recycling","tag-bioeconomy","tag-carboncapture","tag-circulareconomy","tag-greenchemistry","tag-recycling","tag-useco2","supplier-basf-se","supplier-brightmark-energy","supplier-exxonmobil","supplier-international-sustainability-carbon-certification-iscc","supplier-neste","supplier-nova-institut-gmbh","supplier-redcert-gmbh","supplier-shell-group"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/114"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149282\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/149284"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149282"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=149282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}