Plastic: A Toxic Love Story<\/a>. \u201cWe\u2019re burying the same kinds of energy-dense molecules we spend a fortune to pump from the ground.\u201d<\/p>\nWhat if we could process this mixed or contaminated plastic waste \u2013 break it down into building blocks for new products, including plastics? What if we could do this over and over again so that virtually no plastic ends up in landfill or incinerators?<\/p>\n
Game changer
\nThis is the potential being touted by supporters of chemical or \u2018non-mechanical\u2019 recycling, a technology that Daniele Ferrari, president at the European Chemical Industry Council, calls a \u201cgame changer\u201d. \u201cScaling up this technology will make Europe a global leader in circular economy solutions,\u201d he says. Sarah Bradbury, director of quality at Tesco, said in April this year that chemical recycling could be \u201cthe final piece of the jigsaw for the UK plastic recycling industry\u201d. The supermarket had just launched a trial at 10 stores to collect unrecyclable plastic, which would be chemically recycled back into Plaxx, a low-sulphur hydrocarbon that can be used to produce new plastics.<\/p>\n
The same technology is being used at a site in Perth, Scotland that will run mechanical and chemical recycling side by side to capture and process all plastic \u2013 not just packaging, but broken biros, mistreated toys and even traffic cones. \u201cYou name it, and if it\u2019s plastic we\u2019ll be able to take it,\u201d John Ferguson, director of EcoideaM and head of strategy at the Binn Ecopark, told me during a visit last year.<\/p>\n
The technology being used at the Binn Ecopark is pyrolysis, the thermal breakdown of plastic. This is just one of the technologies that fall under the umbrella of chemical recycling technologies. Others include: gasification, which involves partial combustion to produce synthesis gas; chemical depolymerisation, using chemicals to break a polymer down into its monomers or intermediate units; and dissolution, in which polymers are dissolved in a solvent so they can be separated from any contamination before being precipitated back out and re-used. Each of these technologies involves varying degrees of potential, cost and environmental impact \u2013 which means we can\u2019t talk about all of them in the same breath.<\/p>\n
Serious concerns
\nDepolymerisation, for example, can have high energy demands, while the solvents used can be \u201cdamaging to the environment if not managed properly\u201d, according to a report published by Wrap in October (\u2018Non-mechanical recycling of plastics\u2019). Some NGOs have claimed that gasification and pyrolysis have a failed track record due to inefficiency, emissions pollution and environmental impact. Greenpeace has \u201cserious concerns about emissions of hazardous chemicals and their intensive use of energy\u201d.<\/p>\n
There is not much information regarding chemical recycling\u2019s environmental performance. Defra has said very little, with its 146-page resources and waste strategy simply noting that \u201cit is important to consider the overall sustainability of the proposed process\u201d. But we don\u2019t know if chemical recycling in its different guises will offer a lower environmental footprint than producing virgin polymer from crude oil. As Wrap\u2019s report put it, there is \u201ca real possibility that from [a lifecycle assessment] perspective, an approach of making packaging from virgin polymer and mechanically recycling waste polymers into both packaging and non-packaging applications has a lower impact than non-mechanical recycling\u201d. It\u2019s worth noting that the report was written by a firm with a vested interest in mechanical recycling. Nonetheless, it\u2019s pretty clear that more research is needed.<\/p>\n
The other area of ambiguity is whether these technologies are really \u2018recycling\u2019. The EU doesn\u2019t currently have agreed definitions for these technologies as a group. This has already led to greenwashing, according to Greenpeace, and \u201cinvites confusion\u201d according to Zero Waste Europe. Some companies are said to be deliberately conflating plastic-to-plastic technology with plastic-to-fuel approaches. Surely a process that turns plastic into fuel can\u2019t be called \u2018recycling\u2019? \u201cTurning plastic into fuel does not reduce the demand for virgin plastic, meaning that new plastic needs to be produced out of fossil sources,\u201d said Zero Waste Europe in its August report \u2018El Dorado of chemical recycling\u2019.<\/p>\n
Grey areas
\nThe technology could well live or die by its outputs: that is, whether they are new polymers for plastic or have other uses, such as fuel or wax. Wrap\u2019s report offered this simple takeaway: \u201cWithout producing new polymer, the outputs should be considered recovery, and there is effectively little benefit over incineration of the plastic.\u201d But there are grey areas.<\/p>\n
What about processes that produce plastic and fuel? Wrap\u2019s report suggests solvent recycling and depolymerisation then re-polymerisation of PET are \u2018recycling\u2019, but pyrolysis could be a harder sell given that the process also produces gas that is burned to provide energy to the process (which could be defined as recovery, not recycling). Until this is cleared up, we don\u2019t know if chemical recycling facilities will benefit from any new packaging recovery note schemes, or if their output will qualify as \u2018recycled\u2019. Some of the tech is only at pilot stage, but the next five to 10 years are critical.<\/p>\n
Won\u2019t these miracle processes just perpetuate demand for single-use, hard-to-recycle plastic? Greenpeace thinks so, stating that they are \u201cundermining plastic reduction, the development of sustainable alternatives or innovations, and the incentives to phase out non-recyclable plastics\u201d. It\u2019s a fair point: a technology that simply takes unrecyclable plastic and turns it into fuel undermines the circular economy and decarbonisation agendas. However, one that turns plastic back into plastic could be valuable.<\/p>\n
The aim should be to keep the carbon in the plastic, rather than release it into the environment. Some of the new tech might just be able to do that, and the businesses built on hard-to-recycle plastics are excited by the idea \u2013 chemical recycling could help them deal with poor-quality plastic waste that can\u2019t be mechanically recycled. It\u2019s also a distraction from the tougher nut to crack: reduction of single-use packaging and rollout of reuse and refill schemes. Indeed, if hard-to-recycle plastic can be chemically recycled, demand for it remains locked in.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Most recycling in the UK is \u2018mechanical\u2019. The material is collected, cleaned and then chopped, shredded or melted into recyclates that can be turned into new products. The process is great for \u2018pure\u2019 plastic packaging such as PET and HDPE. It\u2019s also surprisingly low tech. However, it comes unstuck when there is contamination, or if […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","nova_meta_subtitle":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572,17143],"tags":[10416,7105,11966,10453],"supplier":[17725,17724,4027,2204,13099],"class_list":["post-81188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bio-based","category-recycling","tag-circulareconomy","tag-packaging","tag-plastics","tag-recycling","supplier-binn-ecopark-binn-group","supplier-eco-ideam","supplier-european-chemical-industry-council-cefic","supplier-greenpeace-international","supplier-zero-waste-europe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81188","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\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=81188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81188\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81188"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=81188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}