Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Pyrolysis is a leading technology to convert non-recyclable plastic waste to fuels or chemicals. As interest in the circular economy grows, the latter option has seemingly become more attractive. Once waste plastic is pyrolyzed to, for example, naphtha, however, additional steps are required to produce a polymer product. These steps consume additional energy and water and emit greenhouse gases (GHG). It is unclear whether this more circular option of non-recyclable plastics to virgin plastics offers environmental benefits, compared to their conversion to fuels. We therefore examine whether it is possible to determine the best use of pyrolyzing non-recyclable plastic - fuels or chemicals (low-density polyethylene (LDPE) as product)- from a life cycle perspective. We use recently published life cycle assessments of non-recycled plastics pyrolysis and consider two functional units: per unit mass of non-recyclable plastics and per unit product - MJ of naphtha or kg of LDPE. In the U.S., on a cradle-to-gate, per unit mass waste basis, producing fuel is lower-emitting than producing LDPE from pyrolysis. The opposite is true in the EU. But expanding the system boundary to the grave results in LDPE as the lower-emitting product in both regions. Naphtha and LDPE produced from non-recyclable plastics are less GHG-intensive than conventional routes to these products. Fossil fuel and water consumption and waste generation are all lower in the P2F case. Our results highlight that prioritization of P2P and P2F may depend on regional characteristics such as conventional waste management techniques and water scarcity.
Das et al. (Tue,) studied this question.