Techno‐economic assessment and comparison of different plastic recycling pathways: A German case study

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions need to be reduced to limit global warming. Plastic production requires carbon raw materials and energy that are associated today with predominantly fossil raw materials and fossil GHG emissions. Worldwide, the plastic demand is increasing annually by 4%. Recycling technologies can help save or reduce GHG emissions, but they require comparative assessment. Thus, we assess mechanical recycling, chemical recycling by means of pyrolysis and a consecutive, complementary combination of both concerning Global Warming Potential (GWP) [CO2e], Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) [MJ/kg], carbon efficiency [%], and product costs [€] in a process‐oriented approach and within defined system boundaries. The developed techno‐economic and environmental assessment approach is demonstrated in a case study on recycling of separately collected mixed lightweight packaging (LWP) waste in Germany. In the recycling paths, the bulk materials polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and polystyrene (PS) are assessed. The combined mechanical and chemical recycling (pyrolysis) of LWP waste shows considerable saving potentials in GWP (0.48 kg CO2e/kg input), CED (13.32 MJ/kg input), and cost (0.14 €/kg input) and a 16% higher carbon efficiency compared to the baseline scenario with state‐of‐the‐art mechanical recycling in Germany. This leads to a combined recycling potential between 2.5 and 2.8 million metric tons/year that could keep between 0.8 and 2 million metric tons/year additionally in the (circular) economy instead of incinerating them. This would be sufficient to reach both EU and German recycling rate targets (EC 2018). This article met the requirements for a gold‐silver JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges.