特集 : 国別レポートが13,000件から検索可能になりました!

特集 : 海外市場の委託調査がセミカスタムベースでお手軽にできます

株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
表紙
市場調査レポート
商品コード
969358

ケミカルリサイクルの技術・持続可能性・政策・企業:現況・動向・課題

Chemical Recycling - Status, Trends, and Challenges: Technologies, Sustainability, Policy and Key Players

出版日: | 発行: Nova-Institut GmbH | ページ情報: 英文 190 Pages | 納期: 即納可能 即納可能とは

価格
価格表記: USDを日本円(税抜)に換算
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=105.26円
ケミカルリサイクルの技術・持続可能性・政策・企業:現況・動向・課題
出版日: 2020年11月05日
発行: Nova-Institut GmbH
ページ情報: 英文 190 Pages
納期: 即納可能 即納可能とは
  • 全表示
  • 概要
  • 図表
  • 目次
概要

当レポートでは、世界のケミカルリサイクルの市場を調査し、市場の定義と概要、各種ケミカルリサイクル技術の開発動向、現況と課題、推進政策、主要企業とその取り組みなどをまとめています。

第1章 エグゼクティブサマリー

第2章 現状・課題

  • ケミカルリサイクルの出発点および中心的要素としてのポリマーとプラスチック
  • プラスチックのリサイクル
  • ケミカルリサイクル技術
  • 政策
  • ライフサイクルアセスメント (LCA) による持続可能性の評価
  • 提言・考察

第3章 ケミカルリサイクル技術に積極的な国際的企業・新興企業

  • 溶解技術プロバイダー
    • APK
    • Fraunhofer-Institut fur Verfahrenstechnik und Verpackung (IVV) / CreaCycle
    • Obbotec
    • Polystyvert
    • PureCycle Technologies
    • Worn Again Technologies
  • 加溶媒分解技術プロバイダー
    • Aquafil
    • BioCellection
    • CuRe Technology
    • DePoly
    • Eastman Chemical Company
    • Futerro / Galactic
    • Garbo
    • Gr3n
    • IFP Energies Nouvelles (IFPEN)
    • International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
    • Ioniqa Technologies
    • Loop Industries
    • perPETual Recycling Solutions
    • PUReSmart (project)Aquafil
    • BioCellection
    • CuRe Technology
    • DePoly
    • Eastman Chemical Company
    • Futerro / Galactic
    • Garbo
    • Gr3n
    • IFP Energies Nouvelles (IFPEN)
    • International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
    • Ioniqa Technologies
    • Loop Industries
    • perPETual Recycling Solutions
    • PUReSmart (プロジェクト)
  • 熱分解技術プロバイダー
    • Agile Process Chemicals (apc)
    • Agilyx
    • Anellotech
    • Arcus Greencycling Technologies
    • BioBTX
    • Blest
    • Blue Alp
    • Braven Environmental
    • CARBOLIQ
    • Cassandra Oil (CASO)
    • Clariter
    • Demont
    • Ecomation
    • Encina Development Group
    • Enval
    • Fuenix Ecogy Group
    • Green EnviroTech Holding
    • Green Distillation Technologies (GDT)
    • GreenMantra
    • Handerek Technologies
    • INEOS Styrolution
    • Integrated Green Energy Solutions (IGES)
    • Klean Industries
    • Licella Holdings
    • MMAtwo (project)
    • Neste
    • New Energy
    • nexus Fuels
    • Obbotec
    • Osterreichische Mineralolverwaltung (OMV)
    • Plastic Advanced Recycling Corporation (P.A.R.C.)
    • PLASTIC ENERGY
    • Plastic2Oil
    • Pyrowave
    • Quantafuel
    • Recycling Technologies
    • Renewlogy
    • Repsol
    • RES Polyflow
    • SAMKI GROUP
    • Sepco Industries
    • Unipetrol
    • VADXX Energy
    • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
  • ガス化技術プロバイダー
    • AIMPLAS
    • Eastman Chemical Company
    • Enerkem
    • Fulcrum BioEnergy
    • Kiverdi
    • Klean Industries
    • LanzaTech
    • Waste2Tricity
  • 酵素分解技術プロバイダー
    • Carbios

第4章 ケミカルリサイクル関連協会

  • Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW)
  • Chemical Recycling Europe (ChemRecEurope)
  • Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging (CEFLEX)
  • European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)
  • European Coalition for Chemical Recycling
  • European Composites, Plastics and Polymer Processing Platform (ECP4)
  • European Recycling Industries Confederation (EuRIC)
  • European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem)
  • New Plastics Economy (NPE)
  • Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)
  • PlasticsEurope

第5章 欧州の廃棄物管理企業

第6章 ケミカルリサイクル関連の提携・投資:大規模企業別

第7章 頭字語リスト

第8章 参考文献

図表

List of Figures

  • Figure 1: Backbone structure of different polymer types including polyethylene terephthalate (a), polyethylene (b), polyvinyl chloride (c), polypropylene (d), and polystyrene (e). Adapted from Callister and Rethwisch (2010).
  • Figure 2: Structure of an epoxy compound cured with a triamine.
  • Figure 3: Polyurethane backbone the residue "R" depends on the type of polyol and polyisocyanate used.
  • Figure 4: Backbone structure of polybutadiene cis-isomer (a) and trans-isomer (b), and styrene-butadiene rubber (c).
  • Figure 5: Schematic differentiation of pathways of drop-in, smart drop-in, and dedicated bio-based chemicals. From Carus et al. (2017).
  • Figure 6: Backbone structure of a dedicated bio-based polymer showing polylactic acid (PLA).
  • Figure 7: Distribution of plastics production and demand across major industrial sectors (a) and major polymer types (b) in Europe for the year 2018. Adapted from PlasticsEurope (2019b).
  • Figure 8: Demand of bio-based thermoplastics produced in Europe across major industrial sectors (a) and production of the different bio-based polymers in Europe (b) for the year 2019 (excluding cellulose acetate and thermoplastic starch).
  • Figure 9: Different treatments applied to post-consumer plastics waste for different countries. Adapted from PlasticsEurope (2019b).
  • Figure 10: Life of a polymer from the production to its disposal (e.g. landfill) indicated with black arrows including four recycling types according ASTM D7209 indicated in different coloured arrows. The equivalent definitions from ISO 15270 are written in brackets. Adapted from Achilias et al. (2012) and Crippa et al. (2019).
  • Figure 11: Overview about the different methods for chemical recycling of plastic waste.
  • Figure 12: Process diagram showing the inputs and outputs of the solvent-based dissolution process.
  • Figure 13: Process diagram showing the solvent-based solvolysis of PET including the inputs and outputs (polyols, bis(hydroxyethyl)terephthalate (BHET), dimethyl terephthalate (DMT), terephthalic acid (TPA), and TPA amide). Adapted from Aguado et al. (1999).
  • Figure 14: Process diagram showing the inputs and outputs of different secondary valuable materials (SVM) from the pyrolysis process. The main products are usually pyrolysis oil (via thermal- /catalytic-/hydro-cracking) or monomers (via thermal depolymerisation) Adapted from Stapf et al. (2019).
  • Figure 15: Process diagram showing the inputs and outputs of secondary valuable materials (SVM) from the gasification process (a) and further gas processing (b). Adapted from Stapf et al. (2019).
  • Figure 16: Hydrolysable bonds necessary for enzymolysis. Adapted from Kale et al. (2007).
  • Figure 17: Illustration of the waste hierarchy sorting the priority order of waste management from high (top) to low (bottom).
  • Figure 18: Illustration of the waste hierarchy sorting the priority order of waste management from high to low (bottom). The placement of suitable chemical recycling technologies is indicated with depending on the specific process and product stream the technologies may also categorised another hierarchy level which is indicated with an (X).
  • Figure 19: Exemplary LCA attempts as published by the CE-Delft (a) and BASF (b) showing CO2 eq. emissions for mixed plastics waste treatments using thermal-based chemical recycling technologies or incineration. Adapted from Bergsma (2019) and BASF (2020).
  • Figure 20: Exemplary LCA approach as published by BASF showing CO2 emissions for the plastic production via fossil-based virgin feedstock and via renewable feedstock from pyrolysis (a). In comparison to mechanical recycling, the CO2 eq. emissions of chemical recycling are similar, but lower than incineration (b). Adapted from (BASF 2020).
  • Figure 21: Exemplary LCA attempt showing emissions for PET waste treatments using a solvent-based chemical recycling technology, mechanical recycling, or incineration. Adapted from Bergsma (2019).

List of Tables

  • Table 1: Plastic/resin types and corresponding products manufactured from virgin or recycled material. Modified from Rudolph et al. (2017).
  • Table 2: Primary plastic waste collection systems and their composition for 28 EU countries. Adapted from European Commission (2015b).
  • Table 3: EU plastic waste generation, collection, and respective composition in dependence of waste source and category. Adapted from Hestin et al. (2017).
  • Table 4: Density range of different polymers and floating-sinking behaviour in water. Adapted from Rudolph et al. (2017).
  • Table 5: Summary of available chemical recycling technologies including typical inputs, outputs, process conditions, advantages, and disadvantages. Bio-based polymers are indicated in green, biobased drop-in polymers are not specifically highlighted, they can be treated in the same way as their fossil-based counterparts. Polymers in brackets indicate certain limitations for the process.
  • Table 6: Synthetic gases, their heating values and applications from Rezaiyan and Cheremisinoff (2005)
  • Table 7: Main reactions during gasification of plastics from Lopez et al. (2018).
  • Table 8: Packaging recycling quotas by 2025 and 2030 according the revised waste legislation (European Parliament and Council 2018d).
  • Table 9: List of European waste management companies.
  • Table 10: List of collaborations and investments in chemical recycling by larger chemical companies.
目次

“Chemical Recycling - Status, Trends, and Challenges ” is addressed to the chemical and plastic industry, brands, technology scouts, investors, and policy makers. On 190 pages the report provides information around chemical recycling including 21 figures and 10 tables.

The report provides deep insights into current developments in order to assert a position in the current discussion based on clear definitions and categorisations of all technologies. More than 70 companies and research institutes, which developed and offer chemical recycling technologies, are presented in the report. Each company is listed with its technologies and status, investment and cooperation partners. Additionally, the report provides an overview of waste policy in the European Union. And finally, 10 companies and research institutes were interviewed to receive first-hand information around the topic of chemical recycling.

There are existing gaps in the current life cycle of plastic products. Overall, 30 million tonnes of plastic waste are generated annually in Europe from which about 29 million tonnes are collected. The remaining one million tonnes of waste plastics per year are lost from the waste stream. Overall, 32 % of collected post-consumer plastics are recycled. The larger part of the collected plastic waste is incinerated (43 %) or landfilled (25 %) which are the least preferable options according the waste hierarchy. Besides conventional mechanical recycling and in the context of discussions on the improvement of current recycling rates, a wide spectrum of chemical recycling technologies is moving into focus.

Latest chemical recycling technologies as core technologies for recycling management and the European Green Deal?

Chemical recycling technologies are presenting innovative ways to deal with post-consumer waste. They are able to process waste streams that cannot be processed via mechanical recycling and offer a range of options that are not available in current material recycling pathways. Since these new technologies are in early development stages, developers are facing the challenge to prove their potential - in particular in regards to fundamentally changing the life cycle of plastics and increasing the amount of recycled plastics significantly. Furthermore, the technologies need to operate economically and ecological impacts needs to be evaluated which requires large-scale units.

However, aside from the early development stage, the situation on the market shows that many companies have already developed and even implemented their technologies at small scale. Chemical recycling is developing quickly due to the commitments of large-scale polymer producers. Several companies recently announced the construction of chemical recycling plants, some with the aim to be already operational in 2021. A number of these projects are based on collaborations and joint ventures, where the investment brings together technology and supply chain synergies, as for example between polymer/plastic producers and waste collectors. On the one hand, the whole sector is characterised by great dynamics, high expectations and investment interest. On the other hand, there are still great uncertainties and scepticism as to how the new technologies should be evaluated and regulated. In Europe, the chemical recycling sector is waiting for the start signal via clear political framework conditions.

What chemical recycling is about

The association Chemical Recycling Europe (CRE), defined chemical recycling "as any reprocessing technology that directly affects either the formulation of the polymeric waste or the polymer itself and converts them into chemical substances and/or products whether for the original or other purposes, excluding energy recovery" (ChemRecEurope 2020). According to this definition, chemical recycling comprises three mechanisms by which the polymer (1) is purified from plastics without changing its molecular structure, (2) is depolymerised into its monomer building blocks, which in turn can be repolymerised, and (3) is converted into chemical building blocks and can thus be used to produce new polymers. Based on these mechanisms the main chemical recycling technologies are solvent-based technologies including dissolution and solvolysis, thermochemical technologies including pyrolysis and gasification, and enzymolysis.

Main focus of the market and technology report

The market and technology report gives a deep insight into the current developments around chemical recycling and helps to take a stance on the current discussion with clear definitions and categorisations, the description of all chemical recycling technologies, the status of investments and implementations, the main actors, start-ups and the political framework in Europe. All currently known chemical recycling technologies are presented comprehensively and in detail. The report describes the suitability of available technologies for specific polymers and waste fractions as well as the implementation of already existing pilot, demonstration or even (semi-) commercial plants. It presents arguments as to which technologies can and should be accepted as recycling and counted in the recycling quotas. The report also includes guidance on which processes already have life cycle assessments (LCA) available. Finally, it discusses where experts see advantages and opportunities and where there might be disadvantages and risks of chemical recycling technologies.

At the core of the market and technology report are the chemical recycling technologies that are available on the market today or will soon be. All developments of the last years have been systematically classified and described. More than 70 companies and research institutes from Europe, North America, and Asia are presented, which developed and offer technologies for chemical recycling. Often there are already pilot and demonstration plants or even first (semi-)commercial plants. Each company, which includes a mix of both key players and start-ups, is presented with its technologies, implementation status and cooperation partners, which are mostly large chemical companies. Tables provide an overview of suppliers, technologies and co-operations. Furthermore, ten companies and research institutes were interviewed to receive first-hand information on the topic of chemical recycling. The report also covers a clarification and recommendation of existing definitions and classifications which are currently used but interpreted inconsistently.

What the supporters say

Proponents of chemical recycling see the new technologies as a core of the circular economy and the European Green Deal. Without chemical recycling, a fully closed circular economy of plastics and carbon would not be possible. Supporters argue that chemical recycling could effectively complement mechanical recycling in achieving a circular economy, as it would represent an intriguing solution to address plastic waste streams that previously could only be used for energy recovery or landfilled (e.g. mixed waste streams, strongly contaminated ones, multi-layer materials, etc.). As the collection and recycling system is not (yet) cost-effective and the quality of the recyclate is not sufficient to replace virgin plastic on a large scale, current mechanical recycling has limitations.

In contrast, chemical recycling technologies can remove contaminants through purification steps and create outputs comparable to virgin raw materials, which are then suitable for food-contact applications. Combinations of chemical and more traditional recycling methods therefore have the potential to reshape the entire plastics industry, including waste management, towards a completely circular economy.

A modern, sustainable plastics industry that fits into a circular economy cannot do without chemical recycling since the targets set up in the EU plastic strategy will not be achievable without implementing chemical recycling technologies. However, supporters call for a clear policy framework from EU policy makers.

What the sceptics say

Critics of chemical recycling refer to the low maturity of the technologies and the wide uncertainty ranges of existing assessments. Another overarching point of criticism refers to gasification and pyrolysis, which could undermine meaningful activities towards the circular economy. Why go to all the trouble of material reduction, product design for recycling, collection, separation and material recycling, when you can just put the entire waste into chemical recycling?

Sceptics furthermore argue that it is not yet clear which chemical recycling options really work for specific waste fractions, considering technologic, economic and ecologic aspects. Chemical recycling technologies are still surrounded by many uncertainties and EU policy makers are urged by sceptics to put the 'right' policy framework in place to regulate the sector. Furthermore, it is argued that chemical recycling technologies are at the early-stage of industrial development and will most likely be hampered by the same waste-specific issues that the mechanical recycling is facing.

On the basis of the current data situation, it must be assumed that mechanical recycling is in principle, and for most sorted waste streams, ecologically and economically more advantageous than chemical recycling, because less complex process environments and additive extensive recycling methods are used. In order to be able to make a final environmental assessment of chemical recycling, more time and research is required to demonstrate both the suitability of the techniques and the environmental benefits of the processes compared to energy recovery and mechanical recycling.

Transformation from fossil to renewable carbon

The change from virgin polymers from fossil fuels to recycled polymers as raw materials for the creation of plastics products saves energy and significantly reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As of today, first life cycle assessments are available and show that different chemical recycling routes cause almost the same GHG emission reduction as mechanical recycling. However, since no commercial plants exist yet, the LCAs are still based on assumptions for scaling-up; reliable results can only be achieved by evaluating realised larger-scale plants.

More and more companies want to move away from fossil carbon, but they need alternative carbon sources, which are called "renewable carbon". Chemical recycling unlocks plastic waste as a source of renewable carbon for the chemical and polymer industry, according to the definition of "renewable carbon" by nova-Institute (Carus et al. 2020) and the Renewable Carbon Initiative (Renewable Carbon Initative) (http://www.renewable-carbon-initiative.com). To establish chemical recycling could potentially be the most important step towards a renewable carbon economy.

A consistent political framework is needed

In addition to technological developments, it is above all the political framework conditions that play a central role in how quickly chemical recycling will actually be implemented. Only clear, stable, consistent, and favourable framework conditions offer security for investments. nova's market and technology report provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of waste policy in the European Union. Furthermore, on basis of the technical-ecological analyses conducted in this report, a reassessment of chemical recycling processes compared to their official status quo would be appropriate. This should focus in particular on the question of which technologies count as recycling and could be included in the recycling quota. The report points out that regulation should intent to direct the waste stream to the most suitable technology, with the lowest environmental impact, in a complementary approach. In fact, the waste hierarchy offers enough flexibility for selecting the most suitable technology without adversely affecting others. It is further elaborated that a suitable political framework should include a review and harmonisation of the end-of-waste legislation, an alignment of waste issues with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and an inclusion of chemical recycling in the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Package and the European Strategy for Plastics.

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

  • What chemical recycling is about
  • Main focus of the report
  • What the supporters say
  • What the sceptics say
  • Transformation from fossil to renewable carbon
  • A consistent political framework is needed

2 Status quo and challenges

  • 2.1 Polymers and plastics as starting point and central element of chemical recycling
    • 2.1.1 Definitions for polymers and plastics
    • 2.1.2 Main polymer types of plastics and rubbers
      • 2.1.2.1 Thermoplastics
      • 2.1.2.2 Thermosets
      • 2.1.2.3 Elastomers
    • 2.1.3 Thermoplastic elastomers
    • 2.1.4 Bio-based plastics
  • 2.2 Plastic recycling
    • 2.2.1 Demand of different polymer types
    • 2.2.2 Collection and management of plastic wastes
    • 2.2.3 Plastic waste fractions
    • 2.2.4 Plastic recycling types and definitions
      • 2.2.4.1 Difficult classification of different technologies - the example of dissolution
      • 2.2.4.2 Basic recycling types
  • 2.3 Chemical recycling technologies
    • 2.3.1 Solvent-based
      • 2.3.1.1 Alcoholysis
      • 2.3.1.2 Hydrolysis
      • 2.3.1.3 Ammonolysis and Aminolysis
      • 2.3.1.4 Combined methods
    • 2.3.2 Thermochemical
      • 2.3.2.1 Pyrolysis
      • 2.3.2.2 Gasification
    • 2.3.3 Enzymolysis
  • 2.4 Policy
    • 2.4.1 Placement of chemical recycling within the waste hierarchy
    • 2.4.2 The Circular Economy
    • 2.4.3 The industries' point-of-views
  • 2.5 Evaluation of sustainability via Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
  • 2.6 Recommendations and considerations

3 International start-ups and players active in chemical recycling technologies

  • 3.1 Dissolution technology providers
    • 3.1.1 APK
    • 3.1.2 Fraunhofer-Institut für Verfahrenstechnik und Verpackung (IVV) / CreaCycle
    • 3.1.3 Obbotec
    • 3.1.4 Polystyvert
    • 3.1.5 PureCycle Technologies
    • 3.1.6 Worn Again Technologies
  • 3.2 Solvolysis technology providers
    • 3.2.1 Aquafil
    • 3.2.2 BioCellection
    • 3.2.3 CuRe Technology
    • 3.2.4 DePoly
    • 3.2.5 Eastman Chemical Company
    • 3.2.6 Futerro / Galactic
    • 3.2.7 Garbo
    • 3.2.8 Gr3n
    • 3.2.9 IFP Energies Nouvelles (IFPEN)
    • 3.2.10 International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)
    • 3.2.11 Ioniqa Technologies
    • 3.2.12 Loop Industries
    • 3.2.13 perPETual Recycling Solutions
    • 3.2.14 PUReSmart (project)
  • 3.3 Pyrolysis technology providers
    • 3.3.1 Agile Process Chemicals (apc)
    • 3.3.2 Agilyx
    • 3.3.3 Anellotech
    • 3.3.4 Arcus Greencycling Technologies
    • 3.3.5 BioBTX
    • 3.3.6 Blest
    • 3.3.7 Blue Alp
    • 3.3.8 Braven Environmental
    • 3.3.9 CARBOLIQ
    • 3.3.10 Cassandra Oil (CASO)
    • 3.3.11 Clariter
    • 3.3.12 Demont
    • 3.3.13 Ecomation
    • 3.3.14 Encina Development Group
    • 3.3.15 Enval
    • 3.3.16 Fuenix Ecogy Group
    • 3.3.17 Green EnviroTech Holding
    • 3.3.18 Green Distillation Technologies (GDT)
    • 3.3.19 GreenMantra
    • 3.3.20 Handerek Technologies
    • 3.3.21 INEOS Styrolution
    • 3.3.22 Integrated Green Energy Solutions (IGES)
    • 3.3.23 Klean Industries
    • 3.3.24 Licella Holdings
    • 3.3.25 MMAtwo (project)
    • 3.3.26 Neste
    • 3.3.27 New Energy
    • 3.3.28 nexus Fuels
    • 3.3.29 Obbotec
    • 3.3.30 Österreichische Mineralölverwaltung (OMV)
    • 3.3.31 Plastic Advanced Recycling Corporation (P.A.R.C.)
    • 3.3.32 PLASTIC ENERGY
    • 3.3.33 Plastic2Oil
    • 3.3.34 Pyrowave
    • 3.3.35 Quantafuel
    • 3.3.36 Recycling Technologies
    • 3.3.37 Renewlogy
    • 3.3.38 Repsol
    • 3.3.39 RES Polyflow
    • 3.3.40 SAMKI GROUP
    • 3.3.41 Sepco Industries
    • 3.3.42 Unipetrol
    • 3.3.43 VADXX Energy
    • 3.3.44 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
  • 3.4 Gasification technology providers
    • 3.4.1 AIMPLAS
    • 3.4.2 Eastman Chemical Company
    • 3.4.3 Enerkem
    • 3.4.4 Fulcrum BioEnergy
    • 3.4.5 Kiverdi
    • 3.4.6 Klean Industries
    • 3.4.7 LanzaTech
    • 3.4.8 Waste2Tricity
  • 3.5 Enzymolysis technology providers
    • 3.5.1 Carbios

4 Associations related to chemical recycling

  • 4.1 Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW)
  • 4.2 Chemical Recycling Europe (ChemRecEurope)
  • 4.3 Circular Economy for Flexible Packaging (CEFLEX)
  • 4.4 European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic)
  • 4.5 European Coalition for Chemical Recycling
  • 4.6 European Composites, Plastics and Polymer Processing Platform (ECP4)
  • 4.7 European Recycling Industries Confederation (EuRIC)
  • 4.8 European Technology Platform for Sustainable Chemistry (SusChem)
  • 4.9 New Plastics Economy (NPE)
  • 4.10 Plastic Recyclers Europe (PRE)
  • 4.11 PlasticsEurope

5 European waste management companies

6 Collaborations and investments in chemical recycling by larger chemical companies

7 List of acronyms

8 References

株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
© Copyright 1996-2020, Global Information, Inc. All rights reserved.