Hi, what are you looking for?
Railroads & Solar Power: You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet
Solar & Wind Produce The Cheapest Electricity — New Report
The Top 15 Climate Developments of 2021
Wind & Solar = 86% Of New US Power Capacity In January–October
Wind & Solar = 14% of US Electricity Generation in October
Solar & Wind Produce The Cheapest Electricity — New Report
The Top 15 Climate Developments of 2021
Wind & Solar = 86% Of New US Power Capacity In January–October
Wind & Solar = 14% of US Electricity Generation in October
US Federal Recommendations Support Monitoring for Offshore Wind
Wind & Solar = 86% Of New US Power Capacity In January–October
Wind & Solar = 14% of US Electricity Generation in October
Renewables Provided 92.3% Of Kenya’s Electricity Generation in 2020!
Some Good News: 10 Countries Generate Almost 100% Renewable Electricity
Looking At Geothermal Energy Through An International Lens
Can Australia Supply The World With Rare Earth Minerals?
How Cleantech Saved The Day At My Uncle’s Funeral
New Clean Energy Office Targets Rural Areas: Heads Up, Joe Manchin
Power Wells for Remote Villages in Indonesia
A Look at Argonne Labs’ Biggest Breakthroughs in 2021
Microsoft, Schneider Electric, & LG Solar USA Come Together For The Footprint Project
Decarbonizing the Grids with Demand Response
How To Bring More Clean Energy Into Our Homes
Modern Infrastructure Means a Modern Electric Grid
This Integrated Energy Solution Makes EV Charging More Affordable (And More Sustainable)
Thinking Global, Acting Local: How To Get Clean Tech Into Every Community
Electric Everything Part 3 (More Things We Left Out of Parts 2 & 3)
New Energy Efficient Vanadium Material Looks Like Scotch Tape, Acts Like Planet Hero
NYC To Electrify All New Buildings, Oil & Gas Reserves Threatened By Extreme Weather — Climate Nexus News
Researchers Publish 1st Comprehensive Building Stock Characterization Study for the United States
Who Will Win The Electric Vehicle Race?
Buy An EV & Fulfill Your New Year’s Resolutions
How To Talk To People About Electric Car Supply Chain Issues
Railroads & Solar Power: You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet
Can Australia Supply The World With Rare Earth Minerals?
Engwe EP-2 Pro Folding E-Bike — CleanTechnica Review
Get A Crazy Deal On A Portable Power Station We Recently Reviewed
My First 2 Weeks with Tesla’s “Feature Complete” Full Self Driving
The GEN3 Flex E-Bike — CleanTechnica Review
Fuell Flluid E-Bike Has Twice The Batteries & Twice The Fun
Wind & Solar = 86% Of New US Power Capacity In January–October
Wind & Solar = 14% of US Electricity Generation in October
Some Thoughts On Christmas Day 2021
It’s Time To Start Thinking About Robot Swarms Again (CleanTechnica Interview)
Peak Oil & Coal Demand Means Peak Shipping Demand Too
Wind & Solar = 86% Of New US Power Capacity In January–October
Wind & Solar = 14% of US Electricity Generation in October
34% Plugin Vehicle Share In German Auto Market!
Plugin Vehicles = 23% Of New Car Sales In France
EV Charging Stations — Level 2 Charging
Engwe EP-2 Pro Folding E-Bike — CleanTechnica Review
Get A Crazy Deal On A Portable Power Station We Recently Reviewed
My First 2 Weeks with Tesla’s “Feature Complete” Full Self Driving
The GEN3 Flex E-Bike — CleanTechnica Review
Fuell Flluid E-Bike Has Twice The Batteries & Twice The Fun
Volkswagen Group — In-Depth Conference Call Highlights Company’s Focus On Transition
Bill McKibben On Unions, Tesla, & Elon Musk — CleanTechnica Interview
How To Watch & Listen To Tesla Q3 Earnings Call — Most Useful Livestream
Tesla Sales & Future of Tesla Discussion with Ride the Lightning, Starman, & EVANNEX
Tesla’s Q3 Deliveries (241,300) Just 1,300 (0.5%) More Than My April Forecast (240,000)
Original article by Tessa Wardle
What is “Chemical Recycling”? As a student in the public health field, I have been disappointed by the concept of plastic “chemical recycling” (also called advanced recycling, chemical conversion, molecular conversion, or conversion technologies). At first, I was thrilled to hear about a possible solution to the plastic waste crisis in the form of this seemingly miraculous technique that could give new life to hard-to-recycle plastics while also contributing to a circular economy. It all sounded too good to be true, and after a few weeks of research, I discovered it was.
I learned that the main form of “chemical recycling” that takes place in the United States is not recycling at all. Actual recycling recovers materials after use and returns them to the manufacturing cycle, where they are used to make new products, giving those materials another life as part of a circular economy. Processes like “chemical recycling” typically use plastic materials to generate a limited amount of energy in a one-time process, destroying them rather than giving them another material use. Pyrolysis and gasification of plastic are two processes that illustrate the fallacy of the phrase “chemical recycling” because rather than recycling plastic waste back into plastic products, these technologies usually turn plastic into fuel that will be burned, releasing greenhouse gases and toxic pollution. EPA is currently considering regulations on pyrolysis and gasification units under the Clean Air Act, which according to my research are sorely needed.
Figure 1. Overview of mechanical recycling, the primary form of recycling worldwide, and newer technologies considered “chemical recycling.” Opportunities for harmful emissions exist at multiple stages in each “chemical recycling” process. The main form of “chemical recycling” occurring in the U.S. turns plastics into fuels that are burned. Image courtesy of Tessa Wardle.
Other forms of “chemical recycling” include solvent-based processes and chemical depolymerization. While some of these processes may result in actual recycling of materials (plastic back to plastic), these processes are far less common than the practice of using plastics as fuel. Solvent-based processes and depolymerization are not free of their own dangers. These processes attempt to separate main plastic components from contaminants and additives. This is necessary because plastics contain a mix of chemical additives that enhance the material properties of plastic, including the texture, UV resistance, lifespan, and many others. Recent research discovered thousands of previously unknown chemical additives in plastic, many of which are classified as substances of concern.
Given how many chemicals of concern are in plastic products, I suppose I should not have been surprised to find that “chemical recycling” facilities emit toxic chemicals and hazardous air pollutants. The sources of these emissions are unknown but may be from chemicals in plastic, chemical processing aids, chemicals produced during processing, and/or combinations of all of these. I found permits for existing “chemical recycling” facilities in the United States, along with facility specific data from the EPA that paint a very different picture than the industry claims of “few toxic releases.” In reality, “chemical recycling” facilities are permitted to release, or have recorded releasing a mix of highly toxic chemicals, including benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, dioxins, and more. This data was concerning to me because of the chemicals’ association with cancer, nervous system damage, effects on reproduction and development, among other hazardous traits (Table). Knowing this makes me worried for the communities directly adjacent to “chemical recycling” facilities.
The communities directly neighboring these facilities are not the only ones for whom concern is relevant. According to EPA RCRA data, one “chemical recycling” plant run by a company called Agilyx sent over 500,000 pounds of hazardous waste across the country in 2019 (Figure 2). Agilyx processes polystyrene foam using pyrolysis technologies.
Figure 2. Agilyx, a pyrolysis facility in Oregon, sends toxic waste across the country where it is ultimately burned. Size of arrow approximates volume of waste sent. Data from 2019 RCRA Biennial Report. Image courtesy of Tessa Wardle.
This hazardous waste is primarily benzene, but includes lead, barium, cadmium, chromium, vinyl chloride, and more. These chemicals are associated with health concerns ranging from cancer to developmental toxicity to damage to multiple different organs (Table). The disposal techniques for these dangerous chemicals and heavy metals – including fuel blending and incineration (with or without energy recovery) – ultimately lead to the material being burned, where it can get into the air and impact neighboring communities. Since this facility is only processing waste polystyrene, it raises the question of what additional byproducts might be produced from facilities that are processing many different kinds of plastic.
Table. The chemicals generated by “chemical recycling” facilities present dangerous health hazards. (1) Health hazards of chemicals sent off-site as hazardous waste by Agilyx and (2) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) listed in Agilyx’s Air Toxics Emissions Inventory and air permits for Agilyx, Alterra Energy, Braven Environmental, Brightmark, Nexus Fuels, and PureCycle Technologies. Data on hazard traits from California Safer Consumer Products Candidate Chemicals list. Image courtesy of Tessa Wardle.
Overall, after completing a summer’s worth of research, I am firmly disillusioned with the false solution of “chemical recycling.” The problem with plastic starts far before it ends up littering the earth, which end-of-life solutions like “chemical recycling” do not address. Burning plastics for fuel is just another form of fossil fuel energy, which harms the environment and our health. Many issues stem from the toxic nature of plastic itself, and the real solution lies in eliminating unnecessary single-use plastic and dramatically changing our systems to center around sustainable materials that can be recycled and repurposed over and over again. The Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act provides a template for more appropriately addressing the plastic waste crisis we currently face and policy makers should not be fooled by the plastic industry’s greenwashing of “chemical recycling.”
Tessa Wardle is a master’s student focusing on Environmental Health Sciences at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. Her research interests include the intersection between science and policy, particularly when it comes to toxic chemicals. She has past research experience working with NGOs that focused on pesticides in California, urban oil drilling in Los Angeles, and drinking water contamination in the United States. She also holds a BA from Occidental College in Urban and Environmental Policy, where she graduated magna cum laude.
Originally published on the NRDC Expert Blog.
Related Story: EPA: Say No to Burning Plastic AKA “Chemical Recycling”
Featured photo by Magda Ehlers from Pexels
NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action group, combining the grassroots power of 1.3 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists, and other professionals.
#1 most loved electric vehicle, solar energy, and battery news & analysis site in the world. Support our work today!
Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.
The US Department of Defense has set its sights on next-generation recycling technology for military operations in the field.
DS TECHEETAH, a Formula E Team, has announced a new multi-year partnership with Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. The team noted that the ABB FIA Formula...
I read an article in The Guardian this week that was describing something as toxic as an oil spill — nurdles — and I...
The recent talkfest in Glasgow has made it obvious that the world is fast heading into the poo, and we are all asking what...
Copyright © 2021 CleanTechnica. The content produced by this site is for entertainment purposes only. Opinions and comments published on this site may not be sanctioned by and do not necessarily represent the views of CleanTechnica, its owners, sponsors, affiliates, or subsidiaries.