Advanced recycling is sometimes incineration and always toxic.
Learn more below about how it affects your health, economy and community.
Advanced or “chemical” recycling are words made up by industry to describe technologies that use heat or solvents to break down plastics into hazardous liquids or gasses, chars, oil, waxes, and toxic waste. The process produces a dirty fuel-like mixture of many chemicals with a goal to be used to make other plastics. The chemical industry uses several other words to describe “advanced” recycling technologies, including pyrolysis, gasification, and depolymerization. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has labeled pyrolysis and gasification as incineration. According the US Environmental Protection Agency, incineration is “the process of burning hazardous materials at temperatures high enough to destroy contaminants.”
Advanced recycling mainly burns plastic to produce dirty fuels, not additional plastics. The process uses a lot of energy and creates large amounts of toxic waste. To find out more about these individual processes, visit the Center for Environmental Health information page.
Burning plastic or trash can release tons of toxic cancer-causing chemicals in the air, water and soil. Some of the chemicals include lead, mercury, dioxins and furans, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, acidic gasses (i.e., SOx, HCl), metals (cadmium, lead, mercury, chromium, arsenic, and beryllium), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and brominated polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS).
These toxic chemicals can lead to cancer & cancer-related death; nerve and brain damage; growth defects; DNA damage; endometriosis; disruption to reproductive, immune, respiratory and systems; breathing problems, headaches, chronically reduced lung function, eye irritation, loss of appetite and corroded teeth.
Studies of health problems near incinerators find that the greatest risk is for workers at the facility, followed by local residents living near the plant. Food grown near waste incinerators can take up toxic chemicals that settle into the soil from air pollution.
A 2019 systematic review of research found that “adverse health outcomes in populations near waste incinerators, including cancers and reproductive dysfunction, have been demonstrated.” It also noted that dietary ingestion (eating food that is contaminated) is the largest route for toxic pollution exposure. See Pollution and Health Impacts of Waste to Energy Incineration for more information.
The process produces poisonous flammable gas, hazardous waste, and toxic pollution. A facility in Denmark experienced multiple explosions. Explosions have also occurred at a plant in Finland. The Brightmark facility in Indiana caught fire several times. The last time was in 2023 and burned for days, clouding the nearby community with toxic, cancer-causing smoke. The New Hope facility in Texas caught fire in 2020. That is two of 10 operating facilities. Reports and industry tracking point to hazardous chemical accidents almost daily across the United States.
Advanced recycling is not recycling based on international standards and definitions. The US EPA said the Agency does not consider converting trash into fuels and fuel substitutes for energy production to be a “recycling” activity. The process is a scam that renames old trash incineration technology to sell the process to the public. The National Recycling Coalition (NRC) is moving policies forward that include language stating that non-mechanical processes that convert plastics at the end of life into chemical fuels or fuel feedstocks (i.e. advanced or chemical recycling) do not meet NRC’s definition of recycling.
Facilities have closed down, failed to meet production quotas, paused bond sales, or failed to pay back investors & contractors.
In the past two years, at least four separate advanced recycling projects have been canceled or delayed indefinitely. Unilever’s full-scale advanced recycling facility was canceled because collecting, sorting, and cleaning the plastics they aimed to recycle was too expensive to make a profit. Technology limitations also cause plants to shut down because they can't meet supply needs. Most recently, energy giant, Shell, backed away from its commitment to create fuel from 1 million tons of plastic.
Plastic burning plants can't make a profit. By 2017, at least $2 billion in investments had been lost due to the high costs of these plants, which led to their cancellation or failure. Plastic burning plants cannot compete in the market in a profitable way. The industry has high energy costs, the products have less value than virgin materials, and the technology has not been proven at scale.
Another facility canceled, Brightmark Plastics Renewal, in Macon-Bibb County, Georgia, after failing to prove that it could deliver recycled products. The project relied on $500 million in government bonds from the local industrial authority.
In Nov 2023, PureCycle in Ironton, OH, failed to meet plastic pellet production quotas and was sued by its shareholders. The law firm Levi & Korsinsky notified PureCycle investors that they had filed a Class Action Lawsuit due to alleged securities fraud that occurred resulting in a $12 million payout to shareholders.
According to news reports and research, the process of producing fuel by advanced recycling uses more energy than it can produce. Due to high energy requirements, upgrade expenses, and low production, advanced recycling has a 10-100 times higher economic and environmental impact. Few independent authors explore the problem from a fundamental chemical engineering perspective. One researcher said the process requires too much energy. A lot of energy is needed to break the plastic polymer’s strong bonds.
Plastic burning plants burn through your tax money twice. Local and state governments provide tax breaks to companies to build industrial plants. This process diverts money away from schools, streets, and public safety. Instead of companies paying for road repair from truck traffic, traffic safety, and their share of school taxes, your tax dollars are used. For example, in 2023, Clean Seas secured $12 Million in state incentives in Memorandum of Agreement with the West Virginia Department of Economic Development. The federal government uses your tax dollars as handouts to these companies through Department of Energy grants.
We have seen minimal job potential/creation with high pollution output at the ten operating plants nationwide. Examples of this include the small workforces of seven employees at Alterra Energy, 25 employees at Resin Facility, and one full-time role at PureCycle Technologies. The other operating facilities have not disclosed job numbers.
A study published by the American Chemical Society found that the economic and environmental impact of plastic burning, including water use, energy use, waste generation, greenhouse gas emissions, and toxicity is 10-100 times higher than virgin plastic production. Existing plastic burning plants have very low production levels and high energy requirements.
Chemical Recycling: A Dangerous Deception, Beyond Plastics
Chemical Recycling and Plastic Burning FAQ, Center for Environmental Health
Pollution and Health Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Incineration, GAIA
Plastic Pyrolysis in Ohio, Buckeye Environmental Network
Chemical Recycling 101, Moms Clean Air Force
The Truth About Advanced Recycling, Moms Clean Air Force
Recycling Lies: "Chemical Recycling" of Plastic is just Greenwashing Incineration, Natural Resources Defense Council
Stay updated
To find out more on plastic burning, join our mailing list.
Advanced Recycling Facts
Copyright © 2024 Advanced Recycling Facts - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.