Chemical recycling: Status, Sustainability, and Environmental Impacts

Rollinson, Andrew N.; Oladejo, Jumoke

doi:10.46556/onls4535

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Solvent-based technologies target plastic rather than mixed waste as a feedstock. The argument against these concepts is that they are too far away from technological readiness, produce large quantities of toxic spent solvent, and are pursued not because of their merits but because of the failures of gasification and pyrolysis (Rollinson and Oladejo, 2020). One other important factor is that plentiful academic funding is currently available for their research and this perpetuates the idea of technological viability, however impractical in real terms.…”

Section: Alternative Technology Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is to avoid the logistical problem of airports handling multiple fuel types, and due to the long working life of commercial jet engines. Alarmingly, therefore, some are proposing the very technologies with a track record of failure at the simpler function of municipal waste disposal (gasification and pyrolysis) for the challenging and difficult task of creating highspecification aviation fuel (Gleis, 2012;Rollinson and Oladejo, 2020). In short: plastic-or waste-derived engine fuels have been failures in other sectors, and with aviation fuels, the bar is raised even higher.Moreover, the expectation that new engines could work with new fuel types is unlikely to be supported by the aviation industry due to the investment required to change fleets.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets

Liamzon¹,

Benosa²,

Aliño³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of recent promotional statements from technology providers, governments, and academic and research institutions, this report looks at the proposed application of converting municipal waste into fuel, namely for gas turbine aircraft engines. General information on the concept of plastic to fuel (PTF) can be found in other publications (Rollinson and Oladejo, 2020; Schiegel, 2020). Gas turbine aircraft engine (jet) fuel, often called 'aviation kerosene', is a mid-crude oil distillation cut between gasoline and diesel, with hydrocarbons in the C 8 -C 16 range. It has a high concentration (70-85%) of paraffins, and contains naphthalenes and aromatics. Standards, however, are based on performance rather than composition (ASTM D1655). Acceptable aviation fuel must perform consistently and safely in extreme conditions: it must allow engine re-light at high altitude, and it must have low viscosity to ensure consistent atomisation (Blakey et al, 2011). Aviation fuel must also fulfil other functions, including hydraulics and balancing aircraft weight. One aerospace representative called it 'the Swiss army knife of aircraft', and warned' don't play with our fuel quality' (Jeuland, 2019). It is also currently accepted that any proposed plastic-or waste-derived aviation fuel must be ' drop in'; meaning that it must meet the current standards exactly (Bergthorson and Thomson, 2015). This is to avoid the logistical problem of airports handling multiple fuel types, and due to the long working life of commercial jet engines. Alarmingly, therefore, some are proposing the very technologies with a track record of failure at the simpler function of municipal waste disposal (gasification and pyrolysis) for the challenging and difficult task of creating highspecification aviation fuel (Gleis, 2012;Rollinson and Oladejo, 2020). In short: plastic-or waste-derived engine fuels have been failures in other sectors, and with aviation fuels, the bar is raised even higher.Moreover, the expectation that new engines could work with new fuel types is unlikely to be supported by the aviation industry due to the investment required to change fleets.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Technology Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets

Liamzon¹,

Benosa²,

Aliño³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although synthesis of chemicals is the objective of gasification plants using coal as a feedstock (Ciuffi et al, 2020), Rollinson et al (2020) suggest that this is unlikely to have happened at plants using waste as a feedstock. It is suggested that syngas from gasification is at best, converted into fuels; however, it is more likely that they are combusted directly in the plant, thus operating as an incinerator.…”

Section: Gasificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safely recovering value from plastic waste in the Global South: Opportunities and challenges for circular economy and plastic pollution mitigation

Cook¹,

Velis²,

Josh³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the coming decades, a large additional mass of plastic waste will become available for recycling, as the world’s largest fast moving consumer goods companies step up efforts to reduce plastic pollution and facilitate a circular economy. Finding ways to recover value from this material is a substantial challenge that has prompted exploration of novel processes, such as ‘chemical recycling’, as well as more established ones, such as incineration with energy recovery. Many of these efforts will take place in the Global South, where plastic pollution and due to mismanagement of waste are most acute. New infrastructure will need to be developed, and it is important that the processes and systems chosen do not result in adverse effects on human health and the environment. This concern is particularly acute in countries that lack effective, well-resourced and independent systems for environmental regulation and the protection of occupational and public health. Here, we present a rapid review and critical semi-quantitative assessment of the potential risks posed by eight approaches to recovering value (resource recovery, circular economy) from post-consumer plastic packaging waste that has been collected and separated with the purported intention of recycling. The focus is on the Global South, where there are more chances that high risk processes could be run below standards of safe operation (though much of the evidence reviewed is inevitably based on research outcomes obtained in the Global North context). Our assessment indicates that under realistic, i.e. non-idealised operational conditions, mechanical reprocessing is the least impactful on the environment and is the most appropriate and effective method for implementation in the Global South. We find little difference in potential risks between so called ‘bottle-to-fibre’ and ‘bottle-to-bottle’ processes as they involve similar processing and both result in substantial avoided burdens from virgin production. The lack of real-world process data for the groups of processes known as ‘chemical recycling’ make them hard to assess. At present, there is no strong evidence that any of them have reached commercial stability when applied to processing post-consumer plastic packaging waste. Given this lack of maturity and potential for risk to human health and the environment (inferred through the handling of potentially hazardous substances under pressure and heat), it is hard to see how they will make a useful addition to the circular economy in the Global South in the near future. Incineration of waste plastics that have been collected for recycling is comparable with other forms of fossil fuel combustion used to generate energy and, despite the lack of process data, the same is likely for co-processing in cement kilns: notably, neither of these processes can be described as ‘recycling’ and, in general, are deemed as only the last resort in circular cascading systems. Though contemporary air pollution control technology is capable of comprehensively mitigating harmful emissions from combustion, there is a high risk that costly maintenance and management will not be carried out in the absence of strong regulation and enforcement. Inevitably, increasing circular economy activity will require expansion towards targeting flexible, multi-material and multi-layer products, for which mechanical recycling has well-established limitations; which has prompted exploration of alternative approaches. Yet, our comparative risk overview indicates major barriers to changing resource recovery mode from the already dominant mechanical recycling mode towards other nascent or energetic recovery approaches.

show abstract

“…The predominant attention today -academic and otherwise -is on technical issues related to CR, with existing literature focusing on new technical developments [10,[40][41][42][43], life cycle assessments [23,[44][45][46], as well as energy and material balances [43,47,48]. Furthermore, the predominant focus on pure plastic waste streams as potential CR feedstock has led to significant controversy in the socio-political realm as it presents a direct competition with mechanical recycling techniques [9,49]. Moreover, despite its potential relevance and contribution to plastic circularity, studies that utilize a multi-dimensional and holistic approach (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical Recycling of Plastic Waste: Comparative Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Performances of Gasification- and Incineration-based Treatment for Lightweight Packaging Waste

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical recycling (CR) – in enabling the use of plastic waste back as secondary carbon feedstock for production – could play a complementary role to mechanical recycling in supporting the transformation from a linear to a circular carbon economy. To date, research has predominantly focused on assessing technological aspects associated with CR of pure plastic waste streams. Little is known about its potential for treating low-quality and mixed plastic waste fractions which are unsuitable for conventional recycling and are currently incinerated. To address this gap, this investigation utilizes an integrated approach comprising of life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis to evaluate the environmental and economic performance of CR of lightweight packaging waste via waste gasification compared to direct and indirect incineration in Germany. Results show that CR can contribute significantly – irrespective of the energy mix – to reducing climate change, terrestrial acidification, and fossil resource scarcity. In terms of economic performance, findings suggest that while CR requires higher capital investment, a multi-pronged approach which encompasses upscaling, waiver of carbon dioxide certificate costs, and price premium for CR products could increase profitability of CR to incineration. This study provides empirical support for the potential contribution of CR to complement existing strategies to combat the plastic waste challenge, and insights into market conditions which could promote its economic attractiveness. Additionally, it provides comprehensive inventory data for conventional and alternative waste treatment plants for lightweight packaging waste to inform future research on systemic assessment of CR technologies and their contributions to a circular economy.

show abstract

Chemical recycling: Status, Sustainability, and Environmental Impacts

Cited by 19 publications

References 27 publications

Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets

Sachet Economy: Big Problems in Small Packets

Safely recovering value from plastic waste in the Global South: Opportunities and challenges for circular economy and plastic pollution mitigation

Chemical Recycling of Plastic Waste: Comparative Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Performances of Gasification- and Incineration-based Treatment for Lightweight Packaging Waste

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About