Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • Plastics recycling is failing.

  • Globally, over 350 million metric tons of plastic are produced annually,

  • but according to the OECD, only 14 to 18 percent of that is recycled.

  • In the U.S., it's even bleaker.

  • The recycling rate stands at about 8.4 percent, a number that has been on

  • the decline, even as the public has become more aware of the plastic waste

  • crisis. While we're all so shocked at the amount of plastic waste we

  • generate each day, v irgin plastic production keeps increasing four or

  • five percent year-over-year.

  • China used to be able to profitably recycle much of the world's plastic

  • waste. But that came to a halt in 2018, and now we have to deal with it

  • domestically. Problem is, most plastics just aren't recyclable.

  • And even those that are degrade in quality each time they're remade,

  • meaning they'll eventually end up in the landfill too.

  • So we can't recycle our way out of this problem.

  • Or can we? Mechanical recycling won't save us.

  • That is, chopping plastic up, melting it down and remaking it, the way

  • that we do now. Instead, the industry is betting big on something called

  • chemical recycling, which can handle all types of plastic waste.

  • This new technology can take those plastics, break them down into the raw

  • materials and make brand new quality plastics out of them, which gives you

  • a much bigger expansion in terms of potential end markets.

  • With governments around the world increasingly banning single-use plastics,

  • industry groups like the American Chemistry Council are hoping that

  • chemical recycling can save both the industry and the environment.

  • Companies like Brightmark, Plastic Energy and Agilyx are now trying to turn

  • plastic into fuel and plastic back into plastic.

  • We are going to have plastics in the environment for the foreseeable

  • future, and I want to find what is the most optimal way to reduce waste

  • and increase the environmental sustainability aspect of those products

  • that we use. But skepticism abounds.

  • After all, plastic made from scratch is actually cheaper than recycled

  • plastic, so how will the economics even work out?

  • And can turning plastic into fossil fuels really be considered recycling?

  • Shouldn't we just focus on producing less in the first place?

  • It's up for debate. There are thousands of varieties of plastics, but

  • seven main categories, of which only two can be recycled by traditional

  • means. PET, which water bottles are made of, and HDPE, used in things like

  • milk jugs and shampoo containers.

  • S orting plastics and removing contamination is labor intensive work.

  • A nd so since the 1980s, the United States, alongside other nations like

  • the U.K. and Australia, sent much of its plastic waste to China, where

  • cheap labor allowed Chinese producers to profitably recycle it.

  • But as single stream recycling became the norm and plastic was thrown in

  • the same bin as glass, cardboard and other materials, China noticed

  • increasingly high contamination levels.

  • After years of warning, the country set strict new contamination limits on

  • imports that were nearly impossible to meet, leaving wealthy nations

  • scrambling to find new overseas markets.

  • What we have done over the last few years is to export to countries that

  • had less infrastructure of what we have and then created a much bigger

  • problem. So why not just develop the infrastructure to deal with it

  • locally? Basically, mechanical recycling in the U.S.

  • just isn't profitable without incentives or subsidies.

  • Virgin plastic is incredibly cheap and we are seeing traditional mechanical

  • recycling operations shutting down because it simply does not pay.

  • They cannot sell their recycled plastic at a rate that would justify

  • paying people to collect it.

  • But even as states like California try to prop up their curbside recycling

  • programs and centers with subsidies, there's still just so much that can

  • go wrong. While number one and number two plastics are recyclable, a bout

  • 70 percent end up in a landfill or incinerator anyway.

  • It's too contaminated or it's too difficult to separate.

  • A nd then the recycled polymer is sort of low-grade.

  • And then on top of that, it's typically too expensive.

  • Absent strong regulation, public pressure or true altruism, there's just no

  • reason why a corporation would pay more for lower quality recycled

  • plastic. So we need to find something else.

  • And then, of course, something else would be switch m aterials or source

  • reduction, use less.

  • But obviously that would be bad news for the plastic industry.

  • So I think they see the only way forward is chemical recycling.

  • Enter chemical recycling, a process that can break down any plastic, type

  • one through seven, into its molecular building blocks and then

  • theoretically convert it into virgin-quality plastic, chemicals or diesel

  • and petrol fuels.

  • There's been a huge investment in these chemical recycling technologies in

  • recent years. They've been very hyped by industry.

  • They're saying that these technologies are going to allow them to capture

  • a much broader stream of plastics and turn them back into plastics like

  • new, so we could get more of a circular economy with that.

  • The most common technology used in this process, pyrolysis, is not new.

  • It involves heating up a material like waste plastic in an oxygen-starved

  • environment, which causes it to break down into a mix of simpler

  • compounds, which are then used as building blocks for new products.

  • But criti ques abound.

  • Tangri's organization, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives,

  • or GAIA, recently released a report which concluded that no chemical

  • recycling facility in the U.S.

  • is turning plastic back into plastic at a commercial scale yet, though

  • there's been many attempts.

  • Of the 37 chemical recycling facilities proposed in the U.S.

  • since 2000, GAIA reports that only three are operational, and they're

  • mostly turning plastic into fuel, which the organization calls the

  • opposite of an eco-friendly solution.

  • The companies themselves though, beg to differ, Brightmark, founded in

  • 2016, is building a commercial-scale plastics-to-fuel plant in Ashley,

  • Indiana, and aims to process 100,000 tons of plastic by 2021.

  • It will sell fuel from this plant to BP.

  • So ultimately, our goal is to produce less combustible fuels.

  • There are at least 14 percent less greenhouse gas emissions associated

  • with the fuels that we produce versus pulling crude oil or natural gas out

  • of the ground. In addition to fuels, Brightmark's process also produces

  • paraffin waxes, and Powell says the tech is ready to convert plastic back

  • into plastic. They just need customers.

  • I think the market is there and I think what you would see from us in the

  • future is relationships with folks that achieve our goals around

  • circularity and their goals around circularity, because we can do it now.

  • But in the meantime, Tangri questions whether turning plastic into fossil

  • fuel is really a solution worth supporting.

  • Is plastic-to-fuel better than say, I don't know, syngas derived from coal?

  • Yeah, probably.

  • But who uses that?

  • It's on its way out. These are not clean fuels, whether they are

  • absolutely the dirtiest or they're the second dirtiest or they're the

  • third dirtiest, t hey are clearly fossil fuels and they are highly

  • contaminated fossil fuels.

  • Then there's U.K.-based Plastic Energy, which is turning plastic back into

  • plastic on a commercial scale at two facilities in Spain.

  • We 're targeted to half a processing capacity sometime by 2023 of about

  • 300,000 tonnes of end-of-life plastics per year.

  • Much like Brightmark, the company started off producing fuels, also through

  • a pyrolysis-based process that converted plastic waste into naphtha and

  • diesel. But now Monreal says they're totally focused on plastic-to-plastic

  • recycling. Since April this year, 100 percent of our TACOIL is used to

  • create new plastics.

  • We are committed to the creation of a circular economy for plastics going

  • forward. Monreal says that Europe's ambitious environmental goals provide

  • unique incentives for this type of technology to flourish.

  • We have commitments to double the recycling quotas in Europe from about

  • five million tonnes today per year to 10 million tonnes per year by 2025.

  • He also cites Europe's high landfilling fees and multi-stream recycling

  • infrastructure as advantageous .

  • With plastic, glass and cardboard already separated at the source, Plastic

  • Energy can acquire difficult to recycle plastics more easily and

  • economically than in the U.S.

  • As the company tries to increase its processing capacity by over 2,000

  • percent in the next three years, i t may face competition from

  • Oregon-based Agilyx, which is also trying to turn plastics back into

  • plastics and is looking to expand internationally.

  • We have a pathway and a roadmap to take plastic recycling from the current

  • 10 percent to upwards of 90 percent.

  • Agilyx was one of the earliest companies in this space.

  • Founded in 2004, it ran a plastics-to-fuel operation until 2015, providing

  • jet fuel to the Department of Defense.

  • Low oil prices forced the company to pivot, and now Agilyx specializes in

  • converting polystyrene back into styrene, which is used to make disposable

  • cups, takeout containers and packing foam.

  • Agilyx is often hailed as a leader in the space, but G AIA has called its

  • efficiency into question, reporting that only one tenth of the waste that

  • Agilyx processed in 2018 was actually turned into styrene, a figure that

  • the company disputes.

  • So yes, they were significantly off on the yield numbers.

  • And if our yields were in the 10 to 20 percent range, we would not have an

  • economic plastic recycling pathway that the top companies in polystyrene

  • have embraced. While GAIA says the company has not proven that it's

  • capable of recycling plastic on a commercial scale, Agilyx is planning to

  • expand its capacity across the U.S., Europe and Asia, in conjunction with

  • a number of petrochemical partners such as Americas Styrenics and INEOS.

  • The facility in Chicago that we're developing with INEOS Styrolution will

  • be 100 tons per day, ten times the size of our Tigard, Oregon facility.

  • And as we replicate those, the scale of our recycled styrene will begin to

  • have a significant impact on the market.

  • Cooper says the company hasn't run a life cycle analysis to see how its

  • recycled polystyrene compares to virgin polystyrene, but estimates the

  • process to be between 40 to 70 percent cleaner.

  • This number too is up for debate.

  • But it's more than just a disagreement over statistics .

  • Fundamentally, it's a disagreement over priorities.

  • Basically, there's not a consensus on whether chemical recycling will

  • represent an important part of the plastic waste solution or an expensive

  • distraction from what many believe ought to be the real priority, making

  • less plastic. There are people who embrace chemical recycling as an

  • emerging technology with an evolution path.

  • There are others more focused on reducing the amount of plastics that we

  • use as a country and as a world.

  • Not surprisingly, there's big policy disagreements as well.

  • For example, the fact that plastic industry groups enthusiastically

  • support chemical recycling while opposing policies like single-use plastic

  • bans or plastic taxes leaves many skeptical that the industry would ever

  • pursue eco-friendliness over profits.

  • The industry is investing so much money in chemical recycling because they

  • really want to convince us that they can continue to churn out ever large

  • quantities of plastic and solve the problem downstream.

  • Tangri and many other environmentalists believe that instead of pursuing

  • chemical recycling, the plastic waste problem is best addressed through

  • legislation, in particular Extended Producer Responsibility laws that

  • force plastic producers to bear the cost for the environmental impacts of

  • their products. There are proposals that would impose a tax on plastic

  • producers proportional to the environmental and health harm that they

  • cause. The idea is that this would lead to less plastics production

  • overall, drive growth in the market for plastic alternatives and

  • incentivize consumers to turn to reusable materials instead.

  • But many champions of chemical recycling support a more free market

  • approach. If virgin plastics cost more because there's a tax on them, that

  • helps us out. But I think that open market competition is really the true

  • way in the long run to foster the innovation and the efficiency to drive

  • higher recycling rates across all plastic types.

  • Cooper's position is shared by industry groups like the American Chemistry

  • Council and the Plastics Industry Association, who say that consumer

  • demand and corporate pledges will make recycled plastic an attractive

  • option, even if virgin plastic remains cheaper.

  • Others though, say legislation and chemical recycling both have a role to

  • play. Regulatory and governmental frameworks have really driven us to

  • where we're at the point now where there is an absolute demand to deal

  • with the issues of post-use plastics.

  • In the future, m aybe there won't be a need for plastics and we find a

  • better way of doing things.

  • But for the foreseeable, we are going to have plastics in the environment.

  • And so, what we do is already environmentally better.

  • It will ultimately get even better as time goes on.

  • But for now, serious doubts about chemical recycling's efficacy,

  • environmental footprint and scalability remain, leading many to withhold

  • support in favor of starting with simpler solutions.

  • Overall, I always like to start with the easiest, most obvious solutions.

  • And I think there are many, many places where we could just use less

  • plastic without compromising our quality of life.

  • I think it'll take a lot more than just coming up with a handful of

  • amazing technologies to fix this.

Plastics recycling is failing.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it