We have to again take issue with the phrase “advanced recycling” as we believe that it is neither advanced nor is it really recycling. Most companies are using the phrase to describe the process of taking a product that has had a 60-90 cents per pound value in use and breaking it back down to a liquid hydrocarbon that is worth less than 20 cents a pound. When this is then reused as a chemical feedstock, the maximum conversion to polymers is 50% with the rest going to other chemicals and other fuels. Because of losses in the initial stage of the process you are going to get at best a 40% rate of recycling back into the original polymer uses. This is a convenient solution for the major polymer producers as it allows them to maintain rates on their virgin polymer plants while claiming to participate in the recycling (closed-loop) process – even if the loop is far from closed.
However, this is an important means of waste disposal, where there is no economic mechanical recycling possible, and it may be an important transitionary step until a better-organized recycling ecosystem develops. Separately, while the technology is there and proven, the challenge of getting enough waste polymer to do this sort of recycling at scale remains and is very dependent on municipalities either giving away their plastic waste or paying people to take it.
It is also worth noting the move by NextDecade to look at carbon capture with its new LNG project in South Texas. Several months ago, NextDecade had a potential contract with Engie canceled because Engie was concerned with the overall carbon footprint of the LNG process. At the time we wrote that NextDecade could address this concern by capturing the CO2 from the LNG process. Since that time we have seen Cheniere tell its customers that it will provide carbon footprint data to its clients and we have suggested in a couple of reports that low carbon fuel could become a competitive edge for US exporters of both LNG and crude oil. When we look at some of the proposals for carbon capture outside the US (see the BP and INEOS commentary in today's daily – and also see the exhibit below), most involve elaborate (and expensive) off-shore projects, whereas the US Gulf Coast onshore and shallow-water offshore offer significantly cheaper CCS option. With a new CCS bill moving through the Senate, we may get some added incentives that would make decisions like the one NextDecade is exploring more attractive.
Source: BP, Greencarcongress
