Chemical Recycling Europe (CRE) published a position paper on Dec. 11, 2023, rejecting ZWE's claims, calling the report a ‘grave misinterpretation of facts’.
The institution, which represents the interests of the European chemical recycling industry to the public and European institutions, said ‘the report focusses on drawing conclusions based on a narrow set of inconclusive evidence to obscure facts’.
In particular, CRE accused ZWE of decontextualising the findings of the studies, emphasising that pyrolysis has varied applications that can process different waste streams, resulting in different pyrolysis oil specifications and characteristics.
“Most conclusions in the report do not contextualise the fact that there is a wide range of pyrolysis process configurations and plant arrangements with each of these producing different pyrolysis oil grades that, in turn, have different downstream processing characteristics,” CRE said.
With respect to ZWE’s claim that pyrolysis oil must be highly diluted with virgin naphtha, CRE responded that dilution is ‘the only feasible option’ at present, given that production levels of pyrolysis oil are not comparable with installed ethylene capacity.
Because the dilution factor is so high at present, ‘this also ensures purification is not needed at current levels’, said CRE.
“However, as the goal is to increase the volumes of pyrolysis oil, purification and upgrading will be needed to ensure alignment between pyrolysis oil specifications and the ones of steam crackers and refineries.” CRE wrote. “Some industry players have installed or are planning to install purification and upgrading capacity as part of their collaboration with pyrolysis technology providers and petrochemical partners. This is not a new development, nor does it affect the circularity benefits of pyrolysis oil.”
In a statement published on Jan. 23, 2024, ZWE called CRE’s criticisms ‘baseless’. It accused the association of failing to engage with its report with scientific acumen, given that CRE did not directly engage with the dozens of scientific articles cited by ZWE.
“No robust evidence is provided by CRE to support their charges. Beyond the headline criticism, elaboration is lacking in their position paper. Its content is largely rhetorical, lacking substance to prove the claims,” ZWE wrote.
The association, which lobbies for the elimination of waste, said the author of its report, a pyrolysis engineer, would engage further with CRE if it provides independent data of operational performance of pyrolysis plants on parameters such as energy balance, yield, oil, and waste by-product toxicity. As it stands, CRE’s position paper does not include any such data.
Sustainable Plastics asked ZWE for comment on CRE’s claim that purification of pyrolysis oil does not affect its circularity benefits.
“The need for a high dilution factor can be lowered through the use of purification steps, however, looking at the complexity of the chemical contamination, the amount of purification steps that is required to meet steam cracker is so high that it worsen the environmental impact of pyrolysis,” Lauriane Veillard, Chemical Recycling & Plastic-to-Fuels Policy Officer at ZWE told Sustainable Plastics.
She then pointed to the study’s original conclusion: “Either apply multiple and energy intensive purification steps to bring the oil ‘on specification’, or highly dilute the oil with virgin petroleum naphtha. Both undermine the concept’s ‘green’ or ‘circular’ credentials and lock-in society to a future dependent on fossil carbon. Both are also currently very relevant to other discussions ongoing about plastic recycling.”
CRE did not respond to Sustainable Plastics request for comment at the time of publication.
The back and forth between the two associations is reminiscent of other industry-environmental group clashes over chemical recycling and pyrolysis in particular. Last November, Beyond Plastics said no chemical recycling facility currently in operation in the United States is processing significant amounts of waste or creating profitable products. The American Chemistry Council charged Beyond Plastics with spreading false information about chemical recycling.
