ChemCyclingTM:
Environmental Evaluation by
BASF’s
ChemCyclingTM
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) project
Ludwigshafen, September 2020
1
The role of ChemCyclingTM in a Circular Economy
Different loops are necessary for a successful transition towards circularity
◼ Polymer loop
By mechanical recycling it is possible to recycle single-
stream plastics like PET. The chemical structure of the
plastics is not changed
◼ Monomer loop
By breaking down plastics into their monomers new virgin-
grade plastics can be generated. This is technically
feasible for some polymer types only (e.g. PA)
◼ Molecular loop
(Focus of BASF’s ChemCycling project)
By pyrolysis or gasification technologies plastics can be
turned into their basic building blocks and used to produce
all types of new virgin-grade plastics
◼ CO2 loop
Bio-based chemicals can be incinerated and plants are
growing by uptaking CO2 from the atmosphere. From
plants one can generate bio-based chemicals again. This
is technically feasible for some chemicals
2
Basic LCA
3
Basic Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ChemCyclingTM
Methodological approach
Target: Environmental assessment of chemically recycled products by comparing
different end-of-life options for mixed plastic waste* and virgin plastics production
The LCA study comprises The LCA study was Where available, the LCA
three separate studies performed by a third party was calculated with high-
considering waste, product according to ISO 14040/44 quality data from existing
and plastic quality and was reviewed by three commercial plants; data for
perspectives independent experts pyrolysis from Plastic Energy
4 * Mixed plastic waste from German yellow bag (= post-consumer packaging waste)
Basic Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ChemCyclingTM
Conformity to respective ISO 14040 series
Three separate studies Commissioner / LCA practitioner
◼ Waste perspective: Comparison of pyrolysis and incineration
of mixed plastic waste Dr. Christian Krüger Manfred Russ
◼ Product perspective: Comparison of plastics based on pyrolysis oil
and conventional plastics from primary fossil resources (naphtha)
◼ Plastics quality perspective: Comparison of the life cycle of 1t of
virgin plastics with three end-of-life options
Critical Review Panel
Panel decision Prof. Adisa Azapagic
(Panel Chair)
◼ “…the LCA study followed the guidance of and is consistent with
the international standards for Life Cycle Assessment (ISO
14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006).” Dr. Florian Antony Simon Hann
◼ The background report and review statement is available at:
www.basf.com
5
Excursus: Pyrolysis
An efficient process to convert mixed plastic waste
into a secondary raw material for the chemical industry
About 70% of the mixed Almost no external
Only a small amount of Plastics based on
plastic waste can be thermal energy used:
the input materials are pyrolysis oil can achieve
converted into pyrolysis Pyrolysis gas generates
residues and must be 100% identical quality as
oil the energy required for
incinerated fossil-based plastics*
the process
Mixed
plastic CO2
waste** Pyrolysis Pyrolysis oil Purification Naphtha substitute
Energy Char Side product
Suppliers BASF
* under application of a mass balance approach
6 ** from a sorting plant
Basic LCA ChemCyclingTM
General results
Chemical recycling is attractive in terms of
CO2 emissions – the most discussed LCA indicator
◼ Pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste emits 50 percent less
CO2 than incineration of mixed plastic waste
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing plastics
based on pyrolysis oil (as secondary raw material under a
mass balance approach) instead of naphtha (primary
fossil raw material). The lower emissions result from
avoiding the incineration of mixed plastic waste
◼ Manufacturing of plastics via either chemical recycling
(pyrolysis) or mechanical recycling of mixed plastic waste
results in comparable CO2 emissions. It was taken into
account that the quality of chemically recycled products is
similar to that of virgin material and that usually less input
material is sorted out than with mechanical recycling
Results for additional environmental indicators can be
found in the attachment of this slide deck.
7
Basic LCA – Study 1
Waste perspective
Does pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste save
CO2 emissions compared to incineration?
8
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between pyrolysis and incineration
of mixed plastic waste
Case study comprises cradle-to-gate life cycle for the Mixed plastic waste
different end-of-life options of 1t of mixed plastic waste
Input
◼ 1t mixed plastic waste from packaging (German yellow bag)
Process alternatives
◼ Pyrolysis incl. pretreatment and purification
◼ Incineration (MSWI, RDF)* Pyrolysis Incineration
Output
◼ Pyrolysis: Efficient production of oil as feedstock for the
chemical industry (material yield: 70%, almost no need of
external energy due to internal energy recovery) Substitutes Generation
◼ Incineration: Generated electricity and steam substitutes Naphtha of steam
electricity from national grid and steam from national average (crude oil based) and electricity
(light fuel oil and natural gas)
* MSWI = municipal solid waste incineration;
9
RDF = refuse derived fuel (no coal-fired and cement plants)
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between pyrolysis and incineration
of mixed plastic waste CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t plastic waste]
Results
Process emissions
◼ Pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste emits
50 percent less CO2 than incineration of
mixed plastic waste Total
-1t CO2e/t waste
◼ Specifically, the study found that pyrolysis emits
1 ton less CO2 than incineration per 1 ton of
mixed plastic waste
Material / energy substitution
Fig. 1: Pyrolysis of 1t mixed plastic waste emits, in total, 739 kg CO 2e.
Incineration of 1t mixed plastic waste emits, in total, 1777 kg CO2e.
10
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between pyrolysis and incineration
of mixed plastic waste CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t plastic waste]
Explanations
Process emissions
◼ Pyrolysis emits less direct emissions than incineration
(light green bars)
◼ If all CO2 emissions and savings are taken into Total
-1t CO2e/t waste
account, both alternatives receive credits
(dark green bars):
Pyrolysis: CO2 savings credited as pyrolysis oil is
replacing fossil feedstock in chemical production
Incineration: CO2 savings credited as the energy Material / energy substitution
generated by incineration replaces the average
energy sourced from the national grid
Fig. 1: Pyrolysis of 1t mixed plastic waste emits, in total, 739 kg CO 2e.
Incineration of 1t mixed plastic waste emits, in total, 1777 kg CO2e.
11
Basic LCA – Study 2
Product perspective
Does plastic material based on waste pyrolysis oil
cause lower CO2 emissions than plastic material
produced with fossil naphtha?
12
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between plastics production from
pyrolysis oil and naphtha Oil
from waste pyrolysis*
Naphtha
from crude oil
Case study comprises cradle-to-gate life cycle
for the production of 1t of plastic product
Input
◼ Oil from pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste
(German yellow bag)
◼ Naphtha from crude oil
Processes Chemical
◼ Production of ethylene in steam cracker and processes
polymerization to LDPE (low-density polyethylene)
Output
◼ Chemically recycled: LDPE (from pyrolysis oil applying the mass
Chemically Conventional
balance approach) recycled plastic
◼ Conventional: LDPE virgin (from naphtha) plastic
* Including the life cycle steps of study 1
13
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between plastics production from
pyrolysis oil and naphtha CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t plastic]
Results Process emissions
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing
plastics based on pyrolysis oil under a mass
balance approach instead of naphtha. The lower -2.3t CO2e/t plastic
emissions result from avoiding the incineration of
mixed plastic waste Total
◼ In particular, the study could show this for the
production of a reference plastic (LDPE):
1 ton of LDPE produced from pyrolysis oil under
a mass balance approach, emits 2.3 t less incl. energy substitution
CO2 than 1 ton LDPE produced from
fossil naphtha
Fig. 2: Conventional production of 1t LDPE emits, in total, 1894 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t LDPE via pyrolysis a negative number of -477
can be accounted for the overall CO2 emissions.
.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
14 ** from primary fossil resources
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between plastics production from
pyrolysis oil and naphtha CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t plastic]
Explanations Process emissions
◼ Direct emissions of chemically recycled plastics are
higher than for virgin plastics due to the extremely
efficient fossil naphtha supply chains (light green bars) -2.3t CO2e/t plastic
Total
◼ However, CO2 savings that originate from not
incinerating the plastic waste can be credited to the
chemically recycled plastic (dark green bars)
◼ In total, a net overall advantage of chemically recycled incl. energy substitution
plastic compared to fossil
Fig. 2: Conventional production of 1t LDPE emits, in total, 1894 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t LDPE via pyrolysis a negative number of -477
can be accounted for the overall CO2 emissions.
.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
15 ** from primary fossil resources
Basic LCA – Study 3
Plastic quality perspective
Does plastic material produced via chemical
recycling cause lower CO2 emissions than
plastic material produced via mechanical recycling?
16
Comparison of CO2 emissions of
1t of virgin plastics with three Oil extraction Virgin plastics Gas extraction
end-of-life options production
Use phase
Case study comprises life cycle from 1t of fossil plastic and three (not considered)
different end-of-life options incl. production of secondary material
(reflecting composition of the German yellow bag)
Input
◼ Virgin plastics production based on oil & gas Not in scope:
Mixed plastic waste High value mechanical recycling of
turned into mixed plastic waste mono-fractions, e.g. PET bottles
Process alternatives
◼ Pyrolysis (incl. pretreatment, purification and incineration of sorting
losses) + chemical processes; applying mass balance approach
◼ Mechanical recycling (incl. pretreatment, extrusion and sorting losses)
◼ Incineration (MSWI, RDF)*
Pyrolysis +
Output Mech. recycling*** Incineration
chemical processes
◼ Pyrolysis produces high-performance virgin-like plastics applying a
mass balance approach
◼ Mechanical recycling produces non-virgin-grade plastics** Generation of
◼ Incineration: Generated electricity and steam substitutes Virgin-grade Non-virgin-
steam and
electricity and steam from national grid/average plastic grade plastic
electricity
* MSWI = municipal solid waste incineration; RDF = incineration of refuse derived fuel (no
coal-fired and cement plants)
17 ** Product quality factor: 0.5 (from Circular Footprint Formula by EU Commission) *** Material losses are incinerated
Comparison of CO2 emissions of
1t of virgin plastics with three
CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
end-of-life options
Results
◼ Manufacturing of plastics via either chemical
recycling (pyrolysis) or mechanical recycling of
mixed plastic waste result in similar CO2
emissions
◼ It was taken into account that the quality of
chemically recycled products is similar to that
of virgin material and that usually less input
material is sorted out than in mechanical
recycling
Fig. 3: Production and end-of-life treatment of 1t of plastics via pyrolysis emit 2,100 kg CO2e,
whereas production and end-of-life treatment of 1t of plastics via mechanical recycling emits
1,973kg CO2e. Production and incineration of 1t of plastics emits 3,700 kg CO2e.
* The error bar reflects the different scenarios by changing the
quality factor and the material loss rates after sorting of waste
18
Comparison of CO2 emissions of
1t of virgin plastics with three
CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
end-of-life options
Explanations
◼ Manufacturing of products with chemically recycled
feedstock and with mechanically recycled feedstock emits
significantly less CO2 than virgin fossil products that are
incinerated
◼ To consider the different product qualities for chemical and
mechanical recycling the Circular Footprint Formula was
applied: With chemical recycling original product quality
(quality factor = 1) can be achieved. Mechanical recycling
of mixed plastic waste results in non-virgin-grade quality;
according to economic considerations a quality factor of
0.5 is used
Fig. 3: Production and end-of-life treatment of 1t of plastics via pyrolysis emit 2,100 kg CO2e,
whereas production and end-of-life treatment of 1t of plastics via mechanical recycling emits
◼ For pyrolysis the yield is 70%, the material losses for 1,973kg CO2e. Production and incineration of 1t of plastics emits 3,700 kg CO2e.
mechanical recycling are up to 55%*
** The error bar reflects the different scenarios by changing the
* starting from sorting plant. Source: Öko-Institut / Insitute for Applied Ecology (2016): quality factor and the material loss rates after sorting of waste
Umweltpotenziale der getrennten Erfassung und des Recyclings von Wertstoffen im
19
Dualen System
Specific LCAs
for various BASF products
20
Specific Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ChemCyclingTM
Methodological approach
Target: Environmental assessment of chemically recycled BASF products by comparing their
production based on pyrolysis oil derived from either mixed plastic waste or end-of-life tires to
their production with primary fossil resources (e.g. naphtha)
Data for pyrolysis of
mixed plastic waste
provided by our partner
Quantafuel
The specific LCA studies focus The results were calculated
on a product perspective based on a third-party Data for pyrolysis of
reviewed methodology end-of-life-tires provide
according to ISO 14040/44 by our partner Pyrum
21
Ultramid ® (Base Polymer)
Product perspective
Does Ultramid® base polymer based on pyrolysis oil
from end-of-life tires cause lower CO2 emissions than
Ultramid® base polymer produced with fossil
naphtha?
22
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between Ultramid® production from
ELT pyrolysis oil and naphtha Oil
from tire pyrolysis
Naphtha
from crude oil
Case study comprises cradle-to-gate life cycle
for the production of 1t of Ultramid® base polymer
Input
◼ Oil from pyrolysis of End-of-life tires (ELT)
◼ Naphtha from crude oil
Processes
Chemical
◼ Production of Ultramid® base polymer (PA6) processes
Output
◼ Chemically recycled: Ultramid® CcycledTM base polymer (PA6)
(from pyrolysis oil applying a mass balance approach) Ultramid® Conventional
◼ Conventional: Ultramid® base polymer virgin (from naphtha) CcycledTM Ultramid®
(PA6)
23
Feedstock Produced Relevant
Comparison of CO2 emissions from
Product Industry
between Ultramid® B base polymer Germany PA I
production from ELT pyrolysis oil CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
and naphtha
Results
-1.3t CO2e/t product
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing
PA6 based on pyrolysis oil under a mass balance
approach. The lower emissions result from
avoiding the incineration of end-of-life tires (ELT).
◼ 1 ton of PA6 produced from pyrolysis oil under
a mass balance approach, emits 1.3 ton less
CO2 than 1 ton PA6 produced from
fossil feedstock.
Fig. 4: Conventional production of 1t PA6 emits, in total, 4300 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t PA6 via pyrolysis, in total, 3000 kg CO2e.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
24 ** from primary fossil resources
Feedstock Produced Relevant
Comparison of CO2 emissions from
Product Industry
between Ultramid® B base polymer Germany PA I
production from ELT pyrolysis oil CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
and naphtha
-1.3t CO2e/t product
Results
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing
PA6 based on pyrolysis oil under a mass balance
approach. The lower emissions result from
avoiding the incineration of end-of-life tires (ELT).
◼ 1 ton of PA6 produced from pyrolysis oil under
a mass balance approach, emits 1.3 ton less
CO2 than 1 ton PA6 produced from
fossil feedstock.
Fig. 5: Conventional production of 1t PA6 emits, in total, 4300 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t PA6 via pyrolysis, in total, 3000 kg CO2e.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
25 ** from primary fossil resources
Styropor ®
Product perspective
Does Styropor® based on pyrolysis oil from mixed
plastic waste cause lower CO2 emissions than
Styropor® produced with fossil naphtha?
26
Comparison of CO2 emissions
between Styropor® production from
MPW pyrolysis oil and naphtha Oil
from mixed plastic waste
Naphtha
from crude oil
Case study comprises cradle-to-gate life cycle
for the production of 1t of Styropor® base polymer
Input
◼ Mixed plastic waste (MPW) pyrolysis oil
◼ Naphtha from crude oil
Processes
Chemical
◼ Production of Styropor® (EPS) processes
via steam cracker
Output
◼ Chemically recycled: Styropor® CcycledTM (from pyrolysis oil
applying a mass balance approach) Styropor® Conventional
◼ Conventional: Styropor® virgin (from naphtha) CcycledTM Styropor®
27
Feedstock Produced Relevant
Comparison of CO2 emissions from
Product Industry
between Styropor® P 326 Denmark EPS I
production from MPW pyrolysis oil CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
and naphtha
Results
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing
EPS based on pyrolysis oil under a mass balance
approach. The lower emissions result from -2.0t CO2e/t product
avoiding the incineration of mixed plastic waste.
◼ 1 ton of EPS produced from pyrolysis oil under
a mass balance approach, emits 2.0 ton less
CO2 than 1 ton EPS produced from
fossil feedstock.
Fig. 10: Conventional production of 1t EPS emits, in total, 2100 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t EPS via MPW pyrolysis, in total, 86 kg CO2e.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
28 ** from primary fossil resources
Feedstock Produced Relevant
Comparison of CO2 emissions from
Product Industry
between Styropor® P 326 Denmark EPS I
production from MPW pyrolysis oil CO2 emissions [kg CO2e/t product]
and naphtha
Results
-2.0t CO2e/t product
◼ CO2 emissions are saved when manufacturing
EPS based on pyrolysis oil under a mass balance
approach. The lower emissions result from
avoiding the incineration of mixed plastic waste.
◼ 1 ton of EPS produced from pyrolysis oil under
a mass balance approach, emits 2.0 ton less
CO2 than 1 ton EPS produced from
fossil feedstock.
Fig. 11: Conventional production of 1t EPS emits, in total, 2100 kg CO2e.
For the production of 1t EPS via MPW pyrolysis, in total, 86 kg CO2e.
* pyrolysis used as chemical recycling technology
29 ** from primary fossil resources
Basic LCA ChemCyclingTM
Additional results
Other environmental indicators
◼ LCA indicator methods like PEF* or ReCiPe** have more
than 15 environmental indicators, which can show a more
holistic picture
◼ For EU the most relevant indicators are CO2 emissions
and resource consumption. For these indicators pyrolysis
shows significant benefits versus incineration and the
production of primary plastics and is similar to mechanical
recycling of mixed plastic waste. Other indicators show an
indifferent picture: E.g. acidification and summer smog are
higher for pyrolysis due to the different credits of electricity
production. The different (eco)toxicity potential indicators
are dominated by secondary and tertiary processes (e.g.
electricity production and credits), so it is not possible to
derive clear conclusions.
Further details can be found in the LCA background report.
* PEF = Product Environmental Footprint, developed by Joint Research Center (EU COM)
31 ** ReCiPe was developed by RIVM, Radboud University Nijmegen, Leiden University and PRé
