Achieving chemical recycling at scale was a founding premise for BlueAlp, a Netherlands-based a company specialised in building chemical recycling plants based on pyrolysis technology. Sustainable Plastics talked with the company’s CEO, Valentijn de Neve, who also serves as the president of Chemical Recycling Europe, about the challenges and benefits of the technology and how it can help to drive forward the circularity of plastics.
Valentijn, BlueAlp is an interesting name for a company that is located in a country that is notoriously flat. Where did the name come from?
Indeed, there are no Alps in Eindhoven, where we are headquartered, but the name has a historical reason. The whole pyrolysis project started out as a sideline for a company that was active in the gas industry. Our team was able to successfully demonstrate the proof of concept, establishing a 3-kilotonne pilot unit in Switzerland that became BlueAlp’s first plant. This was in 2014. Coincidentally, at the same time, our founder took a trip to the Philippines where he saw first-hand the sheer volume of plastic debris cluttering up the beaches. That was when he decided to do something about it, so that the seas would once again be blue. So our name combines both these elements: Alp, because that’s where we started and blue to represent this vision of removing all plastic waste. And so, BlueAlp was born.
Perhaps you could just quickly explain what pyrolysis is exactly and then tell us about why your technology is different.
So, the process sounds simple enough: using high temperatures in the absence of oxygen to break down plastics into their component parts so they can be made into new plastics. Yet it is not as straightforward as that. Feedstocks vary in composition and quantity; contaminant levels are not constant and temperatures affect different plastic waste in different ways.
What do we do differently?
Inherent to our pyrolysis process is a fundamental conviction that goes all the way back to our start in Switzerland. Our team believes that this is a large-scale problem which can only be addressed by building more scale.
What you very often see with pyrolysis is that it's small batch, or a semi-batch process. The team realised that what was needed was to scale up the process, not by putting multiple lines next to each other, but truly scaling up and developing a continuous process. Each time you have to heat the unit up and cool it down, a lot of energy is used – and the process is less stable.
At BlueAlp, we've overcome the challenge of scaling up a reactor. The problem is, often there's a heat transfer issue. Plastic doesn't transfer heat very well - that’s one of great things about plastics. We were able to solve the heat transfer problem that often stands in the way to scaling up the reactor. We developed a low temperature process, because when all’s said and done, sustainability and economics are key to making plastics recycling a success. By using these low temperatures and being able to adjust the final product, the naphtha- like product, in terms of final boiling point; this is one of the key aspects differentiating our pyrolysis process from some of the more conventional ones.
So the quality of your output is higher?
Yes.
Can it go directly in the cracker?
We have had significant volumes go directly to the cracker, but whether or not this is possible is dependent on two important factors to keep in mind about the cracker. One is the final boiling point, in other words, how heavy or light the product is, to tailor to what the cracker needs. The second are the contaminants. Our process includes two specific steps to remove the halogens originating from the PVC, as well as a number of other steps, but in the end, it really depends on the input into the process. In the long run, I believe that upgrading will often be done, not to change the final boiling point or the heaviness of the oil but remove contaminants. That’s if they are not eliminated through some kind of pre-sorting step.
So, why not simply incorporate a standard pre-sorting step?
It’s not as straightforward as that, as it depends. In some cases, depending on where the waste is sourced, sorting can yield an output that can indeed go straight into the steam cracker. But sometimes, getting rid of contaminants is more costly, whereas there are cheap ways to purify the pyrolysis oil. In my opinion, both options will continue to exist side by side.
When you refer to contaminants, what kind do you mean?
So, when I talk about contaminants in a steam cracker, I’m referring to, for example, oxygen or nitrogen: products that are not problematic in general, but that are not welcome in a steam cracker.
And how high is the yield?
If we look at the oil yield, that's between 70 and 80%. This is even higher if we take into account the option of using the gasses that are produced as well – these gasses are highly suitable for creating the building blocks of plastics. But in the case of decentralised plants like Renasci, the plant we installed in Belgium, it’s more difficult. Using the gasses works well when there’s a plant close to a steam cracker.
What would you say are the environmental benefits of pyrolysis?
In this discussion, there are three aspects that in my view really matter. The first would be the extent you contribute to resource efficiency, so, reducing the need for new, virgin oil and gas resources. The second is CO2, and the third one is basically, to what extent do you contribute to making sure waste is not mismanaged?
Regarding my first point, producing high-quality products – plastics – is only possible today by going down the virgin route. Pyrolysis offers a way around that, by reducing the need for new resources. Using pyrolysis technology allows us to convert old plastic waste into new plastics with the highest quality, suitable for medical, food, automotive or electronic applications. It’s how we can play a key role in moving away from using virgin resources while ensuring availability to high-quality products.
Secondly, any recycling process should, I think, have a low energy consumption, limited wastewater usage and safeguards in place to ensure no contaminants enter the environment or be present in the new products. Our process is a low temperature process and we generate almost no wastewater. We eliminate all contaminants, safely and effectively so that they cannot show up in the recycled plastics produced. And third, by having a wide feedstock range, using feedstock that currently cannot otherwise be processed except through incineration or landfilling – we divert that waste, turning it into managed waste that actually has value. And that waste then becomes a resource instead.
Are there any advancements or innovations that are being developed that will help the efficiency and especially the sustainability of the pyrolysis process?
Well, our energy consumption is already low, because of our low temperature process, but there are still some gains possible. Integration could offer additional benefits. Also, we are currently looking at how we could use more of the gases that are produced to create plastics, both at centralised and decentralised locations. That could easily push up the yields by another 10%.
We have been working a lot on reducing our wastewater, which is now minimal – something I think in any recycling process is always a key element to look at. Where we still have work to do, and what we're working on is the pitch material that is produced along with the oil and gasses. At the moment, it's still a waste stream.
We’d like to turn everything into products. If you look at the molecular structure, there’s quite a lot that can be done with this. Until now, we’ve mainly been focussed on capacity and yield, but now this is becoming a key area of interest: how we can turn this into usable products instead of a waste stream. It also makes economic sense.
So basically, our big ambition was getting up to 70 kilotonnes, then integration and we’re now examining how to get high value products out of the pitch.
A lot of chemical recycling projects have recently been postponed or called off altogether. What’s your opinion on that?
I think that the market is in a more difficult situation now, than say, four years ago. Also, I think the delay in providing clarity on regulations regarding mass balance does not help to promote investor confidence. Moreover, what we are seeing is that the chemicals industry as a whole is not doing well, especially in Europe, compared to others. At the same time, I believe that with the adoption of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, the direction in which we are travelling is clear. Demand for recycled materials will rise, as the recycled content mandates under that regulation kick in. There's more and more legislation designed to ensure waste is recycled at the end of life rather than incinerated or landfilled. I think what we are currently seeing in the sector is a combination of a very difficult chemicals markets and regulation that is now being put in place was not as fast as I would have wished. Plus, I’d add, the need for the technology to mature. And I think both are mainly focused on licencing technology and building installations.
Do you feel BlueAlp is well-positioned to weather the storm?
We have five shareholders; Borealis has roughly a 20% stake in the company, Shell has roughly 20% and then there's three family-owned Dutch companies holding the remaining roughly 60%. One is Mourik, active in infrastructure, environment, industrial services and construction; and then there’s Den Hartog, who is known for its fuels, biofuels and lubricants. The fifth is the company of Chris van der Ree, our founder. We currently have some 85 employees. But what really gives me confidence is that I'm seeing not only the chemical industry investing in our units but also waste managers. Last year, in May, we signed an agreement with Recupero Etico Sostenibile S.p.A (RES), a waste management pioneer from Italy. Under that agreement, we are supplying a technology license, plus we are doing all the engineering, procurement and building of the unit here, at our workshop in Eindhoven. RES will own and operate the plant to process and convert 20kt of mixed plastic waste a year.
And if I now look at our customer pipeline, two thirds of the customers are not the petrochemical companies but are the different players in a waste value chain. That, together with our strong shareholder base is what really is giving us support in this market.
You sound very ambitious - do you have plans to go global, as well?
Three- and-a-half years ago, we were starting out and decided to first build up a base in Europe. We typically see that it takes two to three years after the first talk about a project with a customer, for an investment decision to be taken. So, the focus has been Europe these past few years. Since the summer of last year, we’ve now also become active in Asia. And at the start of this year, we also began work in the US.
We believe that the different drivers and regulations around the world notwithstanding, there will be more and more projects: this technology is a global market. Yes, the types of waste feed stock vary, but in the end, the fundamentals are the same, and there are scale advantages in doing this as a global business, rather than just as an Eindhoven-based business.
For this to happen, however, it is imperative not to have many discussions about emission levels, and to make sure that these are very strictly controlled. The safety standards must be high, on a par with those in a chemical plant, because pyrolysis is, after all, a chemical process. As an industry, we are bound to uphold these standards.