Advanced recycling 
technologies to address 
Australia’s plastic waste

August 2021



Citation

King, S, Hutchinson, SA and Boxall, NJ (2021) 
Advanced recycling technologies to address 
Australia’s plastic waste. CSIRO, Australia.

Copyright

© Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 
Organisation 2021. To the extent permitted by law, all rights 
are reserved and no part of this publication covered by 
copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by 
any means except with the written permission of CSIRO.

Important disclaimer

CSIRO advises that the information contained in this 
publication comprises general statements based on 
scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to 
be aware that such information may be incomplete or 
unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance 
or actions must therefore be made on that information 
without seeking prior expert professional, scientific 
and technical advice. To the extent permitted by 
law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) 
excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, 
including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, 
expenses and any other compensation, arising directly 
or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in 
whole) and any information or material contained in it.

CSIRO is committed to providing web accessible content 
wherever possible. If you are having difficulties with 
accessing this document please contact csiro.au/contact.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the 
following people and organisations:

• Chemistry Australia (Samantha Read, Peter Bury, 
Nick Zovko), Qenos (David Francis) and LyondellBasell 
(Robert Moran) for their guidance as an industry 
stakeholder reference group for the report.
• Dr Christian Doblin, CSIRO, for his assistance 
with gasification technologies.
• Dr Deborah Lau and Dr Ashleigh Cousins, 
CSIRO for their review of the report.
• Zachary Perillo and Mike Andres for their review of 
state legislation applicable to plastic waste for pyrolysis.
• Dr Joely Taylor for her editorial contribution.
• Natalie Kikken, CSIRO, for her communications assistance.
• Susannah Quidilla and Amelia Menzies, 
CSIRO, for their design contributions.




Contents

Glossary..........................................................................................................................................................2Executive summary...................................................................................................................................51 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................112 What is advanced recycling?........................................................................................................172.1 Mechanical recycling..............................................................................................................................................182.2 Purification.............................................................................................................................................................192.3 Depolymerisation processes.................................................................................................................................202.4 Conversion technologies.......................................................................................................................................222.5 Waste-to-energy.....................................................................................................................................................353 Plastic waste supply for advanced recycling.......................................................................373.1 PET (Polyethylene terephthalate)..........................................................................................................................373.2 HDPE (High‑density polyethylene)........................................................................................................................383.3 PVC (Polyvinyl chloride).........................................................................................................................................383.4 LDPE (Low-density polyethylene)..........................................................................................................................393.5 PP (Polypropylene).................................................................................................................................................393.6 PS (Polystyrene)......................................................................................................................................................393.7 Mixed municipal plastics.......................................................................................................................................403.8 Plastic packaging....................................................................................................................................................413.9 Soft/flexible plastics..............................................................................................................................................423.10 Tyres........................................................................................................................................................................433.11 Marine or plastic litter collections........................................................................................................................433.12 Thermoset plastics.................................................................................................................................................443.13 Summary................................................................................................................................................................444 Factors influencing adoption of advanced recycling technology in Australia....474.1 Political...................................................................................................................................................................474.2 Economic.................................................................................................................................................................504.3 Social.......................................................................................................................................................................524.4 Technology.............................................................................................................................................................544.5 Legislation (and standards)...................................................................................................................................564.6 Environmental........................................................................................................................................................594.7 Summary.................................................................................................................................................................615 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................64

Figures

Figure 1: Summary of advanced recycling technologies and their products .......................................................................5Figure 2: Plastic to fuel compared to plastic to plastic pathways for advanced recycling...................................................6Figure 3: Circular economy ....................................................................................................................................................11Figure 4: Comparison of current (2018–19) and estimates of future (2030) recovery demand of plastics, 
in line with national targets ...................................................................................................................................................13Figure 5: Summary of advanced recycling technologies and their products......................................................................17Figure 6: Outputs arising from conversion processes, showing additional processing options 
and downstream products......................................................................................................................................................30Figure 7: State and indicative yield from various advanced recycling methods.................................................................31Figure 8: Multi-level perspective of socio-technical transitions .........................................................................................49Figure 9: Circular industrial supply chain for advanced recycling of waste plastics back into plastic..............................51Figure 10: Queensland waste hierarchy considering energy from waste...........................................................................56

Tables

Table 1: Summary of advanced recycling technologies, polymer feedstocks and outputs.................................................9Table 2: Polymer types, use, recovery and recyclability.......................................................................................................14Table 3: Depolymerisation of common plastics....................................................................................................................21Table 4: Reactor comparison for pyrolysis of plastic waste..................................................................................................27Table 5: Exported mixed plastics compared to RMF infrastructure investment.................................................................40Table 6: Tonnes of plastic packaging including consumption and recovery in 2018–19 
and recycling targets to 2025.................................................................................................................................................41Table 7: Types of soft plastics by industry sector and collection systems...........................................................................42Table 8: Summary of preferred options for advanced recycling by polymer......................................................................44Table 9: Summary on suitability of each polymer type for mechanical and advanced recycling technologies...............45Table 10: Summary on suitability of each plastic waste for mechanical and conversion technologies...........................45Table 11: Three product stewardship projects that are potential candidates for advanced recycling processes............48Table 12: Progress towards recycled plastic content for top 10 FMCG brands...................................................................52Table 13: National and state-based energy from waste policy and guidelines that may affect 
advanced recycling for plastics operations...........................................................................................................................57

Glossary

TERM

DESCRIPTION

ABS

Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene

Advanced recycling

Conversion to monomer or production of new raw materials by changing the chemical structure of a 
material or substance through cracking, gasification or depolymerisation, excluding energy recovery 
and incineration.

APCO

Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation

ARENA

Australian Renewable Energy Agency

ASA

Acrylonitrile styrene acrylate

Ash

The powdery residue left at the end of a decomposition process.

atm

Atmospheres (unit of pressure)

Carbon black

Any group of intensely black finely divided forms of amorphous carbon, usually obtained from the 
partial combustion of hydrocarbons.

Cat-HTR™

Licella’s catalytic hydrothermal reactor technology that uses supercritical water to convert a variety 
of waste feedstocks into bio-crude.

Char

The remaining carbonaceous solid residue remaining from conversion of plastics.

Chemical recycling

See Advanced recycling

Chemolysis

The breakdown of a large molecule to smaller building blocks using chemicals.

Downcycling

Where recycled material is of lower quality than the original material.

Enzymolysis

The splitting or cleaving of a substance into smaller parts by action of an enzyme.

EPS

Expanded polystyrene

ERA

Environmentally relevant activity

Feedstock recycling

See Advanced recycling

FMCG

Fast moving consumer goods

Gasification

Waste materials are heated to very high temperatures (e.g. 1,000–1,500°C) with some oxygen or 
steam that breaks down the molecules into a syngas.

HBCD

Hexabromocyclododecane

HDPE

High-density polyethylene

Hydrocracking

The addition of hydrogen to hydrocarbon molecules to break them down into simpler molecules, 
often done with a catalyst and under pressure.

Hydrogenation

The chemical reaction between molecular hydrogen and another compound, usually in the presence 
of a catalyst.

Hydrothermal treatment

Reaction of compounds with water molecules at high temperatures (160–450°C) at a pressure that 
maintains water in the liquid state.

ISCC

International Sustainable Carbon Certification

LCA

Life cycle assessment

LDPE

Low-density polyethylene

LLDPE

Linear low-density polyethylene

LPG

Liquified petroleum gas

Materials recycling facility 
(MRF)

A specialised plant that receives, separates, and prepares recyclable materials for marketing to 
end-user manufacturers.

Molecular recycling

Another name for feedstock recycling, returning polymers to small molecules.







TERM

DESCRIPTION

Monomers

A molecule that that can react with other monomer molecules to form a very large molecule, 
a polymer.

MSW

Municipal solid waste

PA

Nylon

PB

Polybutylene

PC

Polycarbonate

PE

Polyethylene

PET or PETE

Polyethylene terephthalate

Plastics-to-chemicals

Conversion of plastic material into useful chemicals.

Plastics-to-fuels

Conversion of plastic material into fuels for vehicles, boilers, generators, etc.

Plastics-to-plastics

Conversion of plastic material into new useful plastics.

PMMA

Poly(methyl methacrylate)

Polyolefins

Large molecules formed by the polymerisation of olefin (or alkene) monomer units consisting of 
carbon and hydrogen only. Polyethylene and polypropylene are polyolefins.

PP

Polypropylene

PRF

Plastic recovery facility

PS

Polystyrene

PU

Polyurethane

PVC

Polyvinyl chloride

Pyrolysis

The treatment of materials with heat in the absence of oxygen, with or without catalysts. 
Usually conducted between 400 and 1,000°C.

RMF

Recycling Modernisation Fund

RPO

Recycled polymer oil

SAN

Styrene acrylonitrile

Solvolysis

A generic term for processes where a material reacts with a solvent to break into smaller components 
(e.g. hydrolysis, methanolysis, aminolysis, glycolysis).

Thermal cracking

The use of heat and pressure to break large molecules into smaller molecules.

Thermolysis

The use of heat to break down materials.

Thermoplastics

Materials that soften (become plastic) on heating and harden on cooling and are able to repeat 
this process.

Thermoset polymers

A polymer that irreversibly becomes rigid when heated.

Upcycling

The transformation of unwanted products into new materials perceived to be of greater value.

Virgin material

Material that has been sourced through primary resource extraction, often referred to as 
primary materials.

WEEE

Waste electrical and electronic equipment

WtE

Waste to energy – the generation of energy from the treatment of waste.







Executive summary

Australia intends to significantly improve waste recovery 
for plastics. One mechanism to achieve that is through 
increased recycling, including the use of advanced recycling 
technologies. New policies, such as the plastic waste export 
ban for mixed plastics (commenced 1 July 2021), 70% of 
plastic packaging recycled or composted by 2025 and the 
national action plan of 80% resource recovery rate from 
all waste streams by 2030 mean Australia must innovate to 
realise a circular economy for plastics. Despite international 
investment and application at commercial scale, advanced 
recycling for the recovery of waste plastic is not yet part of 
Australia’s recycling strategy and lexicon, but it could be.

“Advanced recycling is the conversion to 
monomer or production of new raw materials 
by changing the chemical structure of a 
material or substance through cracking, 
gasification or depolymerisation, excluding 
energy recovery and incineration”1.

Advanced recycling is also referred to as chemical, 
molecular or feedstock recycling. These terms can 
sometimes be used interchangeably. Advanced recycling 
is complementary to mechanical recycling. It can assist 
with diverting mixed, flexible and contaminated waste 
plastics that are not able to be mechanically recycled 
economically and would otherwise go to landfill. 
This report describes three major advanced recycling 
processes, purification, depolymerisation and conversion 
technologies, to produce intermediate products 
(light and heavy oil, gas, char). These products can be 
further processed into recycled polymers that are able 
to be manufactured into new products with recycled 
content, represented in Figure 1. A summary of these 
technologies is provided in Table 1 with the preferred 
polymers and summary of typical outputs or products.

Figure 1: Summary of advanced recycling technologies and their products 

Derived from Closed Loop Partners 2019

1 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15270:ed-2:v1:en



Figure 2: Plastic to fuel compared to plastic to plastic pathways for advanced recycling

Plastics are a highly valuable feedstock for waste-to-energy 
plants due to their high calorific value but may instead 
be processed by advanced recycling technologies which 
specifically focus on waste plastics. Advanced recycling 
conversion technologies can convert plastic waste to oil 
(not including gasification where the typical output is 
syngas). This oil may be further processed and used as 
a fuel. This is depicted in Figure 2 as a ‘plastic-to-fuel’ 
pathway. However, advanced recycling also provides an 
opportunity to further process that oil with an outcome 
that is more beneficial for the waste hierarchy than the 
creation of fuel. The same plastic waste to oil pathway must 
be followed by any advanced recycling technology that 
might want to convert ‘plastic-to-plastic’, by cracking the oil 
(the process of breaking the chemical bonds of long chain 
hydrocarbons to smaller units) to produce a monomer (the 
building block of polymers) which can be further processed 
to a plastic. This is a desirable circular economy proposition 
as the plastic waste has been recycled, back to plastics. 

In this report we consider major plastic polymer types, 
their generation as waste streams, polymer interactions 
within processes, and barriers to the application of 
technology for the treatment of plastic waste in Australia. 
International industry examples are used to illustrate the 
economic and environmental implications of plastic waste 
recycling by various technologies. Through direct industry 
engagement, we also report major factors influencing 
the adoption of advanced recycling in Australia.



Australia has all the critical elements necessary to launch 
a new industry of advanced recycling for plastics, which 
supports greater recovery, recycling and reuse of materials 
consistent with improved circularity and sustainable 
economic development. Three major report highlights are:

Advanced recycling will increase 
Australia’s recovery of plastics

Advanced recycling is highly complementary to mechanical 
recycling as it provides a pathway for problematic wastes, 
such as mixed, flexible and contaminated plastic wastes 
that might otherwise go to landfill. Australia needs 
multiple options to improve recovery and recycling of 
waste plastics to meet national recovery (80% average 
recovery by 2030) and packaging (50% average recycled 
content, and 70% plastic packaging recycled by 2025) 
targets. Given Australia’s current low rate of plastic 
recovery, it is unclear how these targets will be met with 
the current technology options. Advanced recycling 
technologies exist to repurpose plastics into valuable 
materials that might otherwise go to landfill.

Advanced recycling will generate new 
markets for products in Australia, including 
monomers, recycled polymers and fuels

There is increasing global and local market demand for 
recycled polymers. Domestic demand is sometimes being 
met by imported material. A new domestic advanced 
recycling industry has the potential to meet domestic 
demand and export high-value products to meet global 
demand. Advanced recycling produces food contact 
compliant recycled polymer, which has advantages 
compared to mechanical recycling. Independently verified 
mass balance certification provides the necessary chain 
of custody and traceability of recycled polymer. 

Australia has the critical elements to adopt 
advanced recycling for plastic waste

Australia has major infrastructure (refinery, steam cracker) 
and polymer manufacturing skills and capability (plastics 
supply chain), which are essential for processing recycled 
hydrocarbon intermediate outputs that can be further 
manufactured into recycled plastics. Technologies at 
different scales are currently available in Australia. 
Collaboration across the supply chain is essential and has 
been demonstrated at pilot scale to work effectively. 

Following industry engagement and 
assessment of themes through the PESTLE 
framework (political, economic, social, 
technological, legislative and environmental), 
the pathway for establishing an advanced 
recycling industry for plastics in Australia 
requires the following for success:

• A national discussion about advanced recycling to 
improve awareness of the range of technologies 
available, and to facilitate an understanding 
of where it sits in the waste hierarchy.
• An innovation approach to support pilots, 
trials with plastic wastes, collaboration 
across the supply chain and an innovation 
network to support scale up coordinated, 
for example, with a national centre.
• Harmonisation of government definitions, 
policy and approvals to support greater 
adoption of advanced recycling.
• Government support and engagement, 
which is essential for launching a new 
advanced recycling industry.
• Greater differentiation between 
advanced recycling of plastics and 
waste-to-energy technologies.
• Full collaboration across the entire supply 
chain, including waste managers, technology 
providers, polymer manufacturers, refinery 
operators, plastics manufacturers/recyclers 
and brand owners, to match demand 
with supply of recycled polymers.
• Techno-economic and life cycle assessment 
(LCA) studies to provide further evidence 
that technologies are commercially 
and environmentally sound.
• Adoption of globally recognised certification 
processes that exist to provide chain of custody 
verification and market confidence for recycled 
polymers and plastics that were processed 
through advanced recycling technologies.


1

2

3



Highlights

• The total Australian consumption of plastics in 2018–19 
was just over 3.4 million tonnes with 2.54 million tonnes 
of plastic waste generated. Currently, Australia recovers 
393,800 tonnes per year, which is 11.5% of consumption.
• From 1 July 2021 a total of 149,695 tonnes of mixed 
plastics is no longer able to be exported and is 
unlikely to be suitable for mechanical recycling 
without additional sorting. There is a risk this 
material will be stockpiled or sent to landfill.
• Advanced recycling can assist Australia to meet 
the national target of 80% resource recovery rate 
from all waste streams by 2030 and 70% of plastic 
packaging recycled or composted by 2025.
• Advanced recycling is complementary to 
mechanical recycling and accepts mixed, 
multi‑layer, flexible and contaminated waste 
plastics that might otherwise go to landfill.
• Advanced recycling may be suitable for product 
steward schemes to address and recover plastic 
waste, such as almost 100,000 tonnes of agricultural 
plastics and over 800,000 tonnes of food plastic 
packaging. It is highly suited to the recovery of 
300,000 tonnes of flexible plastic packaging.
• Advanced recycling is positioned above 
waste‑to-energy on the waste hierarchy.
• Advanced recycling encourages pathways that are 
circular, rather than linear, by retaining material 
in the economy as part of a transition away from 
non-renewable and non-recyclable resources.
• Australia has unique technical expertise that would 
be suited to launching an advanced recycling industry 
for waste plastics, leveraging existing infrastructure 
(e.g. refineries and crackers) to recycle plastic wastes. 
Australia’s polymer and plastics manufacturing supply 
chain is essential to realising benefits of advanced 
recycling and improved recycling rates of plastics.
• Advanced recycling technologies have a 
$120 billion annual addressable market in 
North America (Closed Loop Partners 2019).
• Global market demand for recycled plastics will 
continue to grow. Top global brands (representing 
20% of all global packaging) average 6.2% recycled 
plastics in packaging where most have targets 
of 25% (and greater) to reach by 2025.
• Advanced recycling of mixed plastic waste by 
pyrolysis has a 50% lower climate change impact 
and energy use than energy recovery by incineration. 
Its carbon dioxide emissions are comparable to 
mechanical recycling (Jeswani et al. 2021).
• Technologies are available (four examples described 
in this report) and the Australian-invented 
Licella Cat-HTR™ technology converts 85% of 
plastic mass to hydrocarbon products.
• Advanced recycling produces food contact grade 
recycled plastics and can be certified with international 
standards using a mass balance approach.




Table 1: Summary of advanced recycling technologies, polymer feedstocks and outputs

TECHNOLOGY

DESCRIPTION

PREFERRED 
POLYMERS

OUTPUTS

Purification

Purification technologies produce a polymer so are not generally 
considered advanced recycling technologies. However, because 
they use chemicals (solvents) as part of their process they are 
included for completeness.

3,5,6 – 
PVC, PP, PS

Polymers

Depolymerisation

Depolymerisation technologies convert plastics back to a 
monomer. These technologies are commonly applied to PET 
and may use an enzyme, chemical and/or solvent. It requires a clean 
stream of material such as plastic bottles (PET).

1,3,6 –

PET, PVC PS, nylon 
and other polymers

Monomers

Conversion

The following conversion technologies are named as such because they ‘convert’ plastics back to original 
chemical building blocks required to manufacture new plastics.

Gasification

Feedstock containing carbon is heated and reacted at high 
temperatures (>750°C) with a controlled amount of oxygen 
and/or steam to produce energy and a gas called syngas.

2,4,5,6 – 

HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS

Energy, syngas, ash

Pyrolysis

The thermal degradation of materials in the absence of oxygen. 
It may be conducted at low or high temperatures generally in the 
range 400–1,000°C. Pyrolysis may include a catalyst and additives 
such as hydrogen (known as hydrocracking or hydrogenation), 
which makes the conversion process more efficient and 
improves the quality of the oils produced.

2,4,5,6 – 

HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS

Heavy oil, naphtha 
(light oil), syngas 
(and/or other gases) 
and char

Hydrothermal

Use of high-pressure water as a reaction medium to crack polymer 
bonds and produce hydrocarbon products. Temperatures may 
be 250–500°C. 

2,4,5,6 – 

HDPE, LDPE, PP, PS

Heavy oil, naphtha 
(light oil), syngas 
(and/or other gases) 
and char





Note: PVC = polyvinyl chloride; PP = polypropylene; PS = polystyrene; PET = polyethylene terephthalate; 
HDPE = high-density polyethylene; LDPE = low-density polyethylene

Advanced recycling in Australia could utilise existing manufacturing infrastructure. 
Image credit: Qenos



1 Introduction

Globally, there is a plastic waste crisis and the world is 
looking for innovative circular solutions to minimise 
plastic waste generation and increase recycling and 
reuse. The challenge to recover plastic waste is clear. 
It is estimated that by 2050, our oceans will contain 
more plastics (by weight) than fish (Ellen MacArthur 
Foundation 2016), and research has also shown that 
95% of seabirds may have ingested plastic waste in their 
lifetimes (Hardesty et al. 2014). Global scenarios to 2050 
show that 60% of plastics produced might be derived 
from reused or recycled plastics (Hundertmark et al. 2018), 
with an Australian scenario estimating that by 2030, 
50% of plastics might be recycled, based on achieving 
an 80% average recovery rate (Schandl et al. 2021).

Figure 3: Circular economy 

Adapted from image source: Australian Government 2019

The recycling of plastics is critical to recovering material, 
adding value and reducing litter. Recycling is a major 
contributor to realising a circular economy for plastics 
(see Figure 3). However, there is more than one process for 
recycling plastics. Mechanical recycling pathways are suitable 
for well-sorted, single-polymer waste streams – particularly 
the higher value polymer streams of PET (polyethylene 
terephthalate) and HDPE (high-density polyethylene). 
Mechanical recycling produces a clean resin for reuse 
or an extruded product. Advanced recycling can accept 
multiple polymer types with a degree of contamination. 
Technologies convert plastics back into chemical building 
blocks that are then further processed to produce polymer 
resins. Advanced recycling can accept mixed, multilayer, 
flexible or contaminated plastics that mechanical recycling 
cannot. Further down the waste hierarchy is waste-to-energy 
where plastics are valued for their high calorific value, 
however, they are incinerated, which results in the 
plastics being lost from the economy for future reuse.



Advanced recycling technologies have potential to assist 
in the recovery of plastics in Australia. It is estimated 
that feedstock technologies have a $120 billion annual 
addressable market in North America (Closed Loop 
Partners 2019). The benefits of advanced recycling are 
that it is complementary with mechanical recycling 
and overcomes some of the constraints of polymer 
degradation found in mechanical recycling. For example, 
thermo-oxidative degradation that occurs when 
plastics are melted down, which can make it difficult 
to continually produce a recycled plastic with the same 
physical properties as virgin plastics. Advanced recycling 
thus promotes circularity by improving the recovery 
and retention of plastic materials in the economy.

The lack of awareness of advanced recycling for plastics 
represents a risk to Australia in developing a circular 
economy in relation to plastics and achieving improved 
plastics recovery outcomes in support of the National 
Waste Policy Action Plan, National Plastics Plan, and the 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (particularly 
Goal 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production).

The purpose of this report is to investigate the applicability 
of advanced recycling to Australia to add value to 
end-of-life plastics that are not suitable for mechanical 
recycling pathways, as part of an integrated approach, 
consistent with the waste hierarchy. By doing so, we 
aim to address a knowledge gap for plastics recycling 
in Australia and identify key priorities that support 
innovation in the plastics manufacturing and recycling 
industries. This report aims to launch a national discussion 
on advanced recycling for plastics in Australia.

This report:

• Provides a credible, layperson’s reference and 
guide to advanced recycling for plastics
• Aims to reduce confusion, and increase 
clarity, consistency and confidence 
around language and technologies
• Describes polymer types and plastic waste streams 
and their suitability for advanced recycling
• Describes the relevant factors for Australia 
in adopting advanced recycling.


Advanced recycling technologies will help address 
Australia’s plastic waste challenge. Currently, each 
Australian generates an average of 101 kilograms of plastic 
waste per year, including 59 kilograms of single-use plastic 
waste (Pickin et al. 2020). An estimated 130,000 tonnes 
of plastic waste leaks into the Australian environment 
each year (WWF 2020). The decision by China and other 
South-East Asian countries to ban the importation of 
wastes, including plastics, is driving a need for Australia 
to develop domestic solutions for waste processing 
and recycling of these wastes, including increasing our 
waste processing capacity. Following these restrictions, 
Australia has announced plastic waste export bans, which 
commenced in July 2021 for mixed plastics and 2022 for 
unprocessed, single-polymer type plastics. Based on 
2018–19 data Australia exported 149,695 tonnes of mixed 
plastics and 37,695 tonnes of single-polymer type plastics 
(COAG 2020). In addition, the national packaging targets 
aim for 100% of packaging (including plastics) to be 
reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025, with a 
50% average recycled content in packaging, and 70% of 
plastic packaging to be recycled or composted (APCO 2020).



Figure 4: Comparison of current (2018–19) and estimates of future (2030) recovery demand of plastics, in line with national targets 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Tonnes
– Consumption vs RecoveryConsumptionRecovery% of end life plastics recovered
The total Australian consumption of plastics in 2018–19 
was just over 3.4 million tonnes. Of this, consumption can 
be divided into predominantly single-use applications 
(33%), long-life plastics (32%) and other/unidentified (34%). 
Australia’s national waste policy action plan, target 3, 
sets a goal of an 80% average resource recovery rate 
from all waste streams by 2030 (Australian Government 
2019). The Australian national waste report states 
2.54 million tonnes of plastic waste was generated in 
2018–19 (Pickin et al. 2020), which equates to 74% of 
consumption. Note that not all plastics consumed each 
year will reach end of life as some plastics contribute 
to products in long-lived applications such as buildings, 
electrical goods or vehicles. Currently, Australia recovers 
393,800 tonnes per year, which is 11.5% of consumption.

To provide an estimate of Australia moving towards the 
national target of 80% average resource recovery for 
plastics based on available data, an additional 1.6 million 
tonnes of plastics will need to be recovered. Figure 4 shows 
the data for 2018–19 consumption and recovery compared 
to an estimated 80% of end-of-life plastics (just over 
2 million tonnes). Note that this is an estimate, (not 
including any consumption increase) but demonstrates 
the scale of the plastic waste challenge. This requires 
significant infrastructure, commitment, and multiple 
options for processing plastics in Australia. There is a 
significant challenge for Australia to pivot from disposing 
of plastics, to collecting and processing waste plastics.

Figure 4: Comparison of current (2018–19) and estimates 
of future (2030) recovery demand of plastics, in line with 
national targets 

Compounding this challenge is that there is not a single 
type of ‘plastic’ and there are different polymers, each 
with different properties. Plastic products also contain 
additives and may comprise more than one polymer type. 
Moreover, there are two types of plastics, thermoplastics 
(such as PET, PE [polyethylene] and PP [polypropylene]) 
and thermoset plastics. Thermoplastics are suitable for 
mechanical recycling. The latter, thermoset plastics, are 
permanently crosslinked during manufacture and cannot 
be melted and reformed. Therefore thermoset plastics such 
as unsaturated polyester or epoxy resins are not suitable 
for mechanical recycling, other than being pulverised to a 
fine particle or powder (Hopewell, Dvorak & Kosior 2009).

A summary of different polymer types, their use 
and recyclability, is provided in Table 2.



Table 2: Polymer types, use, recovery and recyclability

CODE

NAME

USE

RECOVERY RATE

2018–19

RECYCLABILITY IN AUSTRALIA

""
PET

Polyethylene 
terephthalate 
(PET or PETE)

Consumer drink packaging, 
medicine bottles

21%

Packaging captured in container 
deposit schemes, existing recycling PET 
facilities. Good polymer for mechanical 
recycling pathways.

An ideal polymer for depolymerisation.

""
HDPE

High-density 
polyethylene (HDPE)

Durable containers: 
detergent, bleach, shampoo, 
motor oil, milk bottles

Cereal box liners, retail bags

19.7%

Municipal waste collection via MRF 
facilitates. Considered a good polymer 
for mechanical recycling pathways. When 
mechanical is not possible, best suited for 
conversion technologies. 

""


PVC

Polyvinyl chloride 
(PVC)

Packaging: rigid bottles, 
blister packs

Medical: bedding, shrink 
wrap, tubes, fluid bags

Carpet backing, coated fabrics 
and flooring

Construction: ducting, pipes

2%

Collection scheme for some medical 
plastics. Considered contamination in 
municipal plastics collections. Opportunities 
for greater collection in building and 
construction sector.

Undesirable for conversion technologies. 
Best suited for purification technologies.

""
LDPE

Low-density 
polyethylene (LDPE)

Bags, film wrap, sealants, 
wire cable covering

17.3%

Consumer packaging wrap collected by 
REDcycle in Australian supermarkets.

Clean post-industrial film suitable for 
mechanical recycling. Also suitable for 
conversion technologies.

""
PP

Polypropylene (PP)

Packaging containers, 
bottle caps, carpets, 
flexible packaging

8.9%

Low recycling rate in Australia.

Suitable for either conversion or 
purification technologies.

""
PS

Polystyrene (PS) 
and Expanded 
polystyrene (EPS)

Packaging peanuts, 
Styrofoam, protective foam, 
insulation, yoghurt pots

11.5%

Growing focus to reduce PS in packaging 
to meet recovery targets. EPS packaging 
collected at transfer stations. There is 
some recycling into the built environment. 
The majority of what is collected is 
currently exported.

Excellent candidate for purification 
technologies. Also good for conversion 
and depolymerisation technologies.

""
Other

A mixture of 
polymer types: 
ABS/SAN/ASA, PU, 
nylon, bioplastic and 
other aggregated 
or unknown 
polymer types

Multilayer barrier films, 
toothbrushes, some food 
containers, tyres, waste 
electrical and electronic 
equipment (WEEE), etc.

5%

Low recyclability, niche collection and 
recycling of different polymer types.





Recovery rate data source: O’Farrell 2019



The method for developing this report is based on a 
literature review of academic, peer-reviewed and grey 
literature (non-academic reports, e.g. government, 
not-for-profit, industry reports, working papers, 
etc.). Report authors also hosted a workshop with 
36 industry participants to secure input to relevant 
factors for advanced recycling in Australia.

This report commences with an overview of plastics 
recycling pathways, and defines and describes the different 
advanced recycling technologies. The report then describes 
the suitability of polymers for different technologies and 
examples of plastic wastes and volumes (where possible) 
that are suitable for advanced recycling technologies. 
Finally, to evaluate the potential application of advanced 
recycling to the Australian context we present a range of 
factors (policy, economic, social, technology, legislation 
and environmental) for consideration. This report concludes 
with a summary of challenges and opportunities.

Advanced recycling is suitable for face masks and other soft plastics.



Advanced recycling technologies can leverage polymer manufacturing infrastructure. 
Image credit: Qenos

16 Advanced recycling technologies to address Australia’s plastic waste



2 What is advanced recycling?

Advanced recycling of plastic wastes is also referred 
to as feedstock, molecular or chemical recycling and 
encompasses a range of technologies that may involve 
chemical, thermal or biological processes to convert 
waste plastics into chemical building blocks. We apply 
the term ‘advanced’ to refer to a family of technologies 
that modify the chemical structure of waste plastics. 
Generally, advanced recycling converts waste polymers into 
their original monomers, oligomers, hydrocarbons, or other 
valuable chemicals, such as energy and fuels, which can be 
reused as raw materials for the production of new plastics.

A definition of advanced (feedstock) recycling from the ISO 
Standard (15270:2008) on ‘Plastics guidelines for recovery’ 
defines it as:

Conversion to monomer or production of 
new raw materials by changing the chemical 
structure of a material or substance through 
cracking, gasification or depolymerisation, 
excluding energy recovery and incineration.2

Figure 5 shows the relevant stages of the plastics life 
cycle (indicated by the arrows at the base), the different 
types of recycling processes for plastics (e.g. conversion, 
depolymerisation, purification and mechanical), 
and technology examples for each recycling process. 
Lastly, it shows the recycling processes that are included 
in the advanced (feedstock) recycling standard definition, 
namely conversion and depolymerisation technologies.

Figure 5: Summary of advanced recycling technologies and their products

Derived from Closed Loop Partners 2019

The purification stage has the potential to be considered 
‘mechanical recycling’ (Crippa et al. 2019) as the resulting 
product is a polymer. However, the primary method for 
purification uses chemicals (solvents), and as advanced and 
chemical recycling terms are often used interchangeably, 
purification is sometimes included as an advanced recycling 
approach. We have shown it as a separate technology in 
this report because the production of a polymer does not 
fit with the definition of an advanced recycling technology, 
as provided in Figure 5. However, we do describe 
purification technology as it is part of the broader family 
of technologies that sit beyond mechanical recycling.

2 https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:15270:ed-2:v1:en



Another important consideration is the resulting 
products of these technologies. From conversion 
technologies, there are three main pathways – waste 
plastics-to-fuels, waste plastics-to-plastics and waste 
plastics‑to‑chemicals. Any technology that converts 
waste into fuel may be considered waste-to-energy 
technology (Parliament of Australia 2020). This is an 
important consideration as pyrolysis may produce a liquid 
oil and whether it is considered advanced recycling or 
waste‑to-energy depends upon which market or supply 
chain those products become part of. Any kind of energy 
consumption is no longer part of a circular material 
loop and therefore is not considered part of a circular 
economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020a). To be 
considered advanced recycling, a conversion technology 
should integrate with existing infrastructure for the 
manufacture of chemicals to produce polymers. This topic 
is discussed further in Section 4.6.4 Plastics-to-fuels.

The structure of this section is to describe each 
of the recycling stages presented in Figure 5, 
commencing with mechanical recycling (which 
is not considered part of advanced recycling but 
included here for completeness and comparison).

2.1 Mechanical recycling

Mechanical recycling is a very well-established, mature 
technology. It is best suited to thermoplastic materials 
such as PET, HDPE, LDPE, LLDPE (linear low-density 
polyethylene), PP and PVC and is not generally suitable 
for thermoset polymers or laminates. Thermoplastics can 
be continually softened, melted, reshaped and recycled. 
Typically, waste thermoplastics are sorted by polymer 
type, chopped, washed, and melted into granulates before 
being extruded into new plastic products. Europe uses 
mechanical recycling to recycle approximately 5 million 
tonnes of waste plastic material per year (Qureshi et al. 
2020). Mechanical recycling is most efficient when the 
waste is pre-sorted by plastics type, and process efficiency 
and product quality is reduced if mixed plastic wastes are 
introduced into processing. Polymer degradation also 
occurs during the recycling of thermoplastics due to the 
chemical and physical forces exerted during extrusion 
(Rahimi & Garciá 2017). Mechanical recycling often 
decreases the tensile strength and elongation at break of 
rPP3, the tensile strength for rHDPE, elongation at break for 
rLLDPE, impact strength of rPP, and causes a multitude of 
issues for rPET (Schyns & Shaver 2021). Polyethylene has a 
high thermal stability, which allows it to undergo multiple 
melt-and-remould cycles in mechanical recycling processes. 
It has been found that LDPE can be extruded up to 
100 times at 240°C, although performance is reduced after 
40 extrusions, with significant changes in processability 
and mechanical properties observed (Rahimi & Garciá 
2017). Locally, a trial has shown minimal deterioration in 
properties of HDPE for milk bottles when mechanically 
recycled 6 times and 10 times with pure HDPE incorporated 
at 50% and 70%, respectively (Davies et al. 2021).

Mechanical recycling does not remove all of the colourants 
or odours from waste plastics. There are mechanical 
recycling technologies to remove odours including filtration 
and vacuum extraction of odoriferous compounds during 
extrusion, washing with surfactants or addition of odour 
capturing materials, but these add an extra cost to the 
process (Schyns & Shaver 2021). Generally, the products of 
mechanical recycling do not meet the requirements for food 
contact compliant applications. Colours, odours and reduced 
physical properties ultimately lead to a downgraded product, 
sometimes referred to as ‘downcycling’. Downcycling is 
mitigated by stringent sorting processes at the front end to 
ensure coloured or poor-quality plastic waste is removed 
prior to processing. Despite the limitations, mechanical 
recycling is an excellent way to recycle high-quality, clean, 
post-industrial waste and cleaned post-consumer waste 
to ensure that materials are retained in the market.

Mechanical recycling technologies are a key part of 
Australia realising a circular economy for plastics, with 
seven new or upgraded recycling facilities (mostly 
for rPET) with 145,000 tonnes a year of mechanical 
processing potential coming online in the next 1–3 years 
(Envisage Works 2020). One of these recent projects 
is the collaboration between Pact Group, Cleanaway, 
Asahi and the NSW Government in Albury, NSW to produce 
rPET and associated products from high-quality waste 
PET streams. When considering appropriate recycling 
technologies for mixed plastic waste, mechanical recycling 
and advanced recycling complement each other, whereby 
the polymer and product types more suited to mechanical 
recovery are avoided for use in advanced technologies.

3 Note: r=recycled



2.2 Purification

Purification technologies take waste plastics and 
dissolve them in a suitable solvent, followed by a series 
of steps that remove additives and contaminants before 
solvent removal (Vollmer et al. 2020). The output is pure 
precipitated polymer pellets that are largely undegraded 
by the process and can be reformulated into products. 
Purification technologies have been used successfully 
for homogenous waste streams of PS, PE, PVC, PC 
(polycarbonate) and PP, and for more heterogeneous 
complex mixtures containing laminates or electric and 
electronic waste plastics. Technically this is not a chemical 
recycling process as generally no bonds are cleaved but 
it is a system that requires the use of solvent chemicals 
and a deep understanding of chemistry to be successful.

Purification processes use solvents to dissolve a plastic 
material, with immiscible solvents used to then extract 
the additives, leaving a purified polymer for recovery. 
The purification process includes pre-treatment, dissolution 
of the target polymer at elevated temperatures, filtration 
of undissolved solid materials, solvent extraction 
of impurities (such as dyes and flame retardants), 
reprecipitation and finally, solvent removal (drying or 
vacuum to recover the solvent). The recovered polymers 
are then extruded into pellets (Zhao, Lv & Ni 2018). 
An increasing number of purification-based recycling 
plants for the treatment of plastic waste are being 
commercially developed (Closed Loop Partners 2019).

PS is highly soluble in a range of solvents, and this flexibility 
makes it an excellent candidate for recycling by purification 
processes. There is an opportunity for PS collection stations 
to operate small-scale purification processes on-site to 
reduce the impact of storing collected EPS foam, which 
can consume a high volume of storage and transportation 
space. Purification processes for the recycling of PS also 
enable the removal of common contaminants, such as flame 
retardants and dyes from PS wastes, not only resulting 
in a purified rPS stream, but also reducing the impacts 
associated with improper treatment of these contaminants. 
Polystyvert Inc. in Canada recycles PS into clean rPS polymer 
pellets that can then be used to make new PS products 
(Polystyvet 2020). Dissolution has also been applied to 
recover PS from construction and demolition wastes 
using the CreaSolv® process developed by Fraunhofer 
(Germany). PolyStyreneLoop uses this technology in the 
Netherlands to recover PS and the banned flame-retardant 
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (PolyStyreneLoop 2021).

Like PS, the use of purification methods to recycle PP waste 
has also been demonstrated commercially (Closed Loop 
Partners 2019). PP wastes are amenable to purification 
processes for recycling because a selective solvent has 
been identified that enables impurities to be extracted. 
PureCycle Technologies in the US uses supercritical 
butane to dissolve and purify post-consumer PP waste 
(PureCycle 2021). The technology was originally developed 
by The Procter & Gamble Company as part of their 
commitment to reduce the impact of their products on the 
environment. It is reported that the process produces rPP 
with the same properties as virgin material. PureCycle plans 
to be in production by late 2022 with a plant being 
constructed in Ohio, US, which will have a processing 
capacity of 48,000 tonnes a year. There are plans for the 
construction of larger plants in Europe (Acquisition 2020).

PET can be dissolved using a number of solvents and this 
has been used to recover it from packaging and mixed 
textile products. Worn Again Technologies uses purification 
technology to purify PET. Dyes are removed in the first 
stage, which is done by swelling the plastic, the plastic 
is then dissolved and filtered to remove any insoluble 
impurities (Sherwood 2020). While the PET does not acquire 
any damage to the polymer bonds during the process it 
does lose some crystallinity which lowers its toughness, 
stiffness and resistance to solvents (Sherwood 2020).

PVC waste streams have been purified by VinyLoop®, a 
Solvay (Belgium) technology (Sherwood 2020). PVC was 
selectively dissolved in an organic solvent then precipitated 
by steam-driven evaporation of the solvent, which 
itself was recycled. The process took PVC streams often 
contaminated with textiles and other materials and 
produced PVC that was said to be of the same quality 
as the original material. VinyLoop® was commercialised 
as a joint venture in 2002 and ran until 2018. The plant 
in Ferrara, Italy was established to recycle up to 10,000 
tonnes of waste a year, primarily cable insulation. 
Unfortunately, the economics were not viable, largely 
because the plasticisers in the PVC were not removed in 
the process. Initially this was thought to be an advantage 
as the PVC could be used for the same products, but 
the plasticisers used were subsequently banned by 
the European Chemicals Agency (Plasteurope 2018).



Purification technology has been applied to separate films 
containing PE/PP/aluminium foil and recover PC from waste 
electrical and electronic equipment (Vollmer et al. 2020). 
APK uses their Newcycling® process in its commercial 
plant located in Germany to separate films and can 
process 8,000 million tonnes per year (Vollmer et al. 
2020). Waste electrical and electronic equipment has 
a high proportion of PC that can be extracted using a 
mixture of acetonitrile and dichloromethane in high 
yield (>95%) with similar purity and quality to virgin PC 
(Weeden, Soepriatna & Wang 2015). This method uses 
84% less energy and costs less than 30% of the cost of 
producing PC from petroleum (Vollmer et al. 2020).

Many polymers do not dissolve completely due to their high 
molecular weight and cross linking. Instead, they soften to 
allow the infiltration of solvent molecules to dissolve the 
impurities. In Australia, the organisation PVC Separation 
has developed a solvent process that can separate laminates 
and multilayer films but does not require full dissolution 
of the polymers (Vollmer et al. 2020). In the process a 
plastic laminate material is infiltrated but not dissolved 
by a low boiling point solvent. It is then heated rapidly 
to above the solvent boiling point and the action of the 
flash evaporation causes the layers to separate. Utilising a 
similar technology, Saperatec in Germany plans to have 
a plant (18,000 tonnes a year) operational by the end 
of 2021 that will separate PET, PE and aluminium foil in 
laminate materials (Vollmer et al. 2020; Saperatec 2020).

Some of the challenges for purification technologies include 
the identification of optimum solvents and conditions, 
the processes associated with safe use of hazardous 
solvents, and the difficulty in removing the solvent at the 
end of the process resulting in cost increases and lower 
quality material. The ideal solvents are environmentally 
benign, easily recovered and have a high dissolution 
capacity (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019). Disposing of 
the extracted contaminants also requires consideration.

Like mechanical recycling, the product of purification 
technologies are polymeric material and a small amount 
of degradation of properties (depending on the process) 
is often observed. While purification technologies 
often have limited input streams, they do offer a purer 
and less degraded product than mechanical recycling. 
This is because any contaminants are chemically removed. 
Purification technologies also offer the highest carbon 
dioxide savings of the various advanced recycling methods 
because no chemical bonds are broken (Vollmer et al. 2020).

2.3 Depolymerisation processes

Depolymerisation processes for recycling of plastic 
waste involve breaking down the polymer to constituent 
monomers or small groups of monomers. These chemicals 
can then be used to make the same plastic material 
again, making the manufacture of these products a 
circular process. Depolymerisation is achieved using 
chemical (chemolysis/solvolysis), thermal (thermolysis) 
or biological (enzymolysis) processes. It is most efficient 
for polycondensate polymers including PET, PA (nylon) 
and PU (polyurethane). Depolymerisation of polyolefins 
(PE and PP) is limited due to the presence of strong 
carbon–carbon bonds, making the application of 
depolymerisation processes for monomer recovery 
more energy intensive with a wide range of products 
for polyolefin polymers (Vollmer et al. 2020).

PET depolymerisation is the most widely used in the 
plastics recycling industry, and is achieved using a 
number of different methods (Table 3) (Closed Loop 
Partners 2019). The simplest method is glycolysis, which 
converts PET to bis 2-hydroxyethylphthalate and other 
specialised polyols that can be used to make other 
polymers (Ragaert, Delva & Van Geem 2017). Coloured PET 
can still be challenging as the monomers produced can 
be discoloured and require further clean-up (Rahimi & 
Garciá 2017). Loop™ Industries takes PET and uses catalytic 
thermolysis at low temperatures to return it to monomers 
that can be used to make new PET (Loop Industries 2021).

Enzymatic treatment (enzymolysis) of PET plastics and 
fibres can convert them back to their original monomers. 
Carbios (France) has recently announced that they are 
also able to convert polyester textile waste back to 
monomers and then into bottles using their scalable 
PETase technology (Carbios 2020). Textiles to bottles is not 
possible using mechanical recycling methods. CSIRO has 
also developed a PETase enzyme that can efficiently break 
down PET to its original monomers. Enzymolysis can 
be slow compared to chemical techniques and enzymes 
may be sensitive to conditions and impurities.

Depolymerisation is an interesting recycling option 
for PU as it cannot be mechanically recycled (Vollmer 
et al. 2020). PU has been successfully depolymerised 
to mixtures of polyols that can be repolymerised to 
good quality PU by mixing with virgin feedstocks (Sheel 
& Pant 2018). PU can be depolymerised by hydrolysis 
and glycolysis (Rane et al. 2015). There are a number 
of pilot scale plants for the depolymerisation of PU 
under construction in Germany (Lardiés 2020).



PS can be depolymerised using thermal catalytic 
methods in the presence of oxygen to produce the 
monomer styrene. PS can also be depolymerised 
using high-power microwave technology, and this is 
in early commercial development with Pyrowave, a 
Canadian-based enterprise (Pyrowave 2021). This process 
uses 15 times less energy than manufacturing styrene 
from virgin resources and offers high yields (95%), with a 
processing capacity of approximately 750 tonnes a year.

PC can be depolymerised by a number of different 
chemolysis methods to provide monomers that can be 
made back into PC or used in other production streams 
(Emami & Alavi Nikje 2019). Hydrolysis, glycolysis, 
methanolysis and aminolysis can all be used to 
depolymerise PC (Antonakou & Achilias 2013). Most of these 
methods lead back to bisphenol-A, which unfortunately 
has limited commercial value. It is usually converted 
to other compounds with greater value during 
the degradation process. The depolymerisation is 
complicated by the fact that PC often contains high 
concentrations of additives (Antonakou & Achilias 2013).

While depolymerisation of PVC is technically possible, 
the value of the products formed is low and it is not 
currently economically worthwhile when compared 
to the manufacture of virgin PVC (Rubio 2021). It can 
be achieved by thermal degradation in a two-step 
process, including a low temperature (250–320°C) 
dehydrochlorination reaction to remove chlorine from 
the material, followed by higher temperature processing 
to yield toluene and/or benzene (Yu et al. 2016).

One drawback of depolymerisation as a recycling process 
is that most methods require a relatively pure input 
stream of polymer to produce a high-quality product. 
Other issues include separating the chemical cleavage 
agent and by-products (an issue for both purity of 
products and recovery and reuse of reagents), achieving 
good contact area between the cleavage agent and 
the solid polymer and recovering dissolved catalysts 
(Vollmer et al. 2020). Depolymerisation processes 
will also have unreacted material and other solids 
that may contain hazardous or toxic residues that will 
require disposal (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019).

Table 3: Depolymerisation of common plastics

INPUT POLYMER

PROCESS

OUTPUT

OUTPUT USE

PET (textiles/bottles)

Enzymatic degradation

Terephthalic acid

Ethylene glycol

New PET

PET

Hydrolysis

Terephthalic acid

New PET

PET/textiles

Chemical glycolysis

Bis 2-hydroxyethyl terephthalate

Polyols

New PET

Epoxy, PU, acrylic, etc.

PET

Methanolysis

Dimethyl terephthalate

New PET

PET

Aminolysis

Diamides of terephthalic acid

New chemicals

PS

Microwave degradation

Styrene

New PS

PVC

Thermal

Hydrogen chloride, benzene (<300°C)

Toluene (>300°C)

Input chemical industry

PA

Thermal hydrolysis

Caprolactam

New PA

PA

Methanolysis

Caprolactam

New PA

PU

Glycolysis/hydrolysis

Polyols

New PU 

PMMA

Thermal

Methyl methacrylate

New PMMA

PC

Alkaline hydrolysis

Bisphenol A

New PC







2.4 Conversion technologies

Conversion processes take waste materials and convert 
them into much smaller molecules that can be used to make 
new polymers, new chemicals or fuels. The technologies 
discussed here include gasification, pyrolysis and 
hydrothermal processes. The products are separated by 
boiling point ranges and are either used directly as fuels or 
processed further before use. This processing can involve 
refinery processes including distillation, olefins cracking 
and other petrochemical conversion to produce monomers 
and other small molecules for plastics, chemicals or fuels.

2.4.1 Gasification

Gasification is a process whereby a feedstock containing 
carbon is heated and reacted at high temperatures, 
typically greater than 750°C, with a controlled amount 
of oxygen and/or steam to produce energy and a gas 
called syngas. Syngas is rich in carbon monoxide and 
hydrogen and contains some short hydrocarbons. 
Small amounts of solid char and tars (often defined as 
hydrocarbons with a molecular weight greater than 
benzene) may also be produced. The syngas can be 
combusted to produce electricity (waste-to-energy) 
or used as a feedstock for the production of chemicals.

The technology for gasification is well established 
for processing coal, biomass and to a lesser extent 
municipal solid waste (MSW). Gasification is usually 
performed in fixed bed reactors, fluidised bed reactors 
or entrained flow reactors, which have been designed 
for specific requirements (e.g. feed material and scale 
of operation). Plasma gasification is another route 
for producing syngas. Plasmas generate very high 
temperatures, which result in high gas yields, very little 
tar formation and the elimination of toxic compounds.

The input gases (steam, air, oxygen and/or nitrogen) in 
gasification systems have a significant effect on the syngas 
produced. Air gasification is the simplest technology as 
the reaction is self-sustaining, with the energy required 
being offset by the energy released by reaction of the 
oxygen in the air and the organics in the feed. The syngas 
formed contains nitrogen, which makes it more amenable 
for power generation than chemical manufacture. 
Gasification with oxygen instead of air produces a higher 
calorific value syngas free of nitrogen. However, an air 
separation plant is required, which increases the cost of the 
process. Steam gasification of waste plastics also generates 
syngas without nitrogen and maximises the production 
of hydrogen. However, the process is endothermic, 
requiring an external heat source to heat the gasifier.

Waste plastics have different properties and are highly 
heterogenous compared with other feedstocks, which 
means they can’t be processed in conventional gasifiers. 
The Texaco gasification process is the most well-known 
for gasification of plastic wastes. It is a two-step process 
where the plastic is first liquefied to a synthetic heavy oil 
followed by processing in an entrained gasifier (Ragaert 
et al. 2020). A major challenge with gasification of waste 
plastics compared with other feedstocks is the generation 
of a higher proportion of tars. The tars need to be removed 
before the syngas can be used. Tar removal can be achieved 
through additional thermal or catalytic breakdown of the 
hot tars, or cooling and separation of the condensed tars. 
All plastics can be processed by gasification. However, due 
to the chlorine content, PVC can only be processed if the 
gasifier is constructed of corrosion resistant materials 
and is fitted with a suitable scrubbing technology to 
remove the hydrogen chloride produced from the gas. 
Issues experienced when gasifying waste plastics are 
generally ameliorated by blending them with biomass or 
MSW. Co‑gasification of waste plastic or refuse-derived fuel 
from MSW with biomass improves the process because of 
the synergistic effects of the two different feeds leading to 
reduction of the sticky ash/tar formed (Yang et al. 2021).

Gasification for processing waste plastics has been 
demonstrated at commercial scale. EBARA developed 
a commercial-scale process in 2003 that processes 
70,000 tonnes a year of waste plastic at Showa Denko’s 
site in Kawasaki (JGC Holdings Corporation 2020). 
The technology incorporates a pressurised twin internally 
circulating fluidised bed gasifier with oxygen and steam 
injection. The hydrogen and carbon dioxide produced 
through processing waste plastics is used to produce 
ammonia for fertiliser production and for products 
such as dry ice and carbonated drinks, respectively. 
Powerhouse Energy Group are constructing a waste plastics 
gasification facility in the UK to generate electricity and 
hydrogen using steam injection into a rotating drum gasifier 
(Powerhouse Energy Group 2021). The plant is proposed to 
have the capacity to process 12,600 tonnes a year of plastic 
waste. Enerkem has been operating an oxygen/steam 
fluidised bed gasifier in Edmonton, Canada since 2011 that 
processes 100,000 tonnes a year dried MSW and converts it 
into ethanol and methanol (Butler, Devlin & McDonnell 2011).

The gasification industry has seen many abandoned 
projects due to technical challenges and lack of 
government support (World Waste to Energy 2020). 
The main technical challenges for large-scale plastic 
waste gasification are the large energy requirements, 
managing the waste tar and ash formed in the process 
and maximising heat transfer through the reactor.



2.4.2 Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of materials in the 
absence of oxygen, with or without catalysts. Pyrolysis is 
usually conducted between 400 and 1,000°C (Goldberg, 
Haig & McKinlay 2019). It is a mature technology that 
enables the processing of biomass or waste plastics. 
There are commercial plants already operating around 
the world, and industrial and pilot-scale plants are in 
development in many countries (Qureshi et al. 2020). 
The pyrolysis plants that are coming on stream currently 
range in size substantially depending on local need. 
There are many technologies that are modular and relatively 
small scale (0.5–10 tonnes a day), such as those developed 
by Blest, PlastOil, IQ Energy Australia and Plastic2Oil (Closed 
Loop Partners 2019; Qureshi et al. 2020). Larger systems 
are also operating with more under development that 
can process 10–500 tonnes a day. Some of the companies 
involved include Agilyx (US), which has more than 
50 projects in development, and Oursun Resources (China), 
which has a number of facilities running and is an exporter 
of pyrolysis technology (Closed Loop Partners 2019).

Plastics pyrolysis involves the degradation of long 
polymer chains to form a mixture of smaller hydrocarbon 
molecules. The three major products from pyrolysis 
are oil, syngas (pyrolysis gas) and char. The oil is often 
collected in two fractions with different boiling point 
ranges, namely heavy oil (similar to diesel) and light 
oil, also known as naphtha (more like gasoline). The oil 
fraction produced can sometimes be used directly 
by a furnace, diesel engine, turbine or boiler without 
further treatment. These products can be combusted 
for heat production for the pyrolysis system itself.

An issue for the pyrolysis of mixed plastic wastes is the 
complexity of reactions that occur, especially where 
they lead to the formation of large complex molecules 
(Sharuddin et al. 2016). Distillation of the resultant oils 
will afford a number of fractions; however, sophisticated 
separation technologies are required to produce pure 
chemical feedstocks. The oils can be used as a feedstock 
for refinery industries or olefin (steam) crackers for 
further conversion and separation into chemicals or 
fuels displacing natural gas and crude oil as feedstock.

The process of pyrolysis is highly flexible as the operating 
conditions can be optimised to deal with different input 
materials and to alter the yield of the various outputs 
(Sharuddin et al. 2016). Temperature, reactor type, residence 
time, flow rate, catalyst and type of fluidising gas are all 
parameters that can be manipulated. What is critical, and 
perhaps most challenging, is matching the plastics input 
supply and polymer mixtures with operating conditions 
and desired outputs. Due to the technical flexibility of 
processing, pyrolysis can be used to recycle a range of 
waste plastics, including single-polymer plastic wastes, 
mixed plastic wastes, plastic wastes contaminated with 
harmful chemicals and additives, and those that can 
no longer be mechanically recycled. Elevated pressures 
lead to increased coke formation and heavy fractions 
of oil where catalysts are not used (Vollmer et al. 2020). 
Catalysts result in higher amounts of smaller hydrocarbons 
and lower liquid yields. One of the benefits of pyrolysis 
technologies for waste plastics is that they do not 
cause water contamination like mechanical recycling. 
By using pyrolysis to convert plastics that are not suitable 
for mechanical recycling into fuel or feedstocks for 
refineries there are savings in greenhouse gas emissions, 
water consumption and energy use compared to using 
fossilised sources of crude oil (Qureshi et al. 2020).

Though pyrolysis can be useful for recycling a range 
of mixed and contaminated plastic waste streams, the 
efficiency of processing, and purity and quality of end 
products is impacted by the presence of contaminants 
and purity of inputs for processing (Butler, Devlin & 
McDonnell 2011). Contaminants such as antioxidants 
and flame retardants in some plastics will also lead to 
traces of sulfur, chlorine, bromine, nitrogen and other 
elements that will impact the purity of the products 
formed. Thermally degraded materials that contain these 
elements are more likely to produce molecules that react 
with each other, reducing process efficiency and leading 
to the formation of large complex molecules (Butler, 
Devlin & McDonnell 2011). The resultant end products 
are usually lower quality and will require further refining 
using catalytic conversion and/or separation processes.



Pyrolysis is particularly useful for polyolefin recycling, as these 
plastics are not amenable to depolymerisation processing due 
to the unreactive nature of the polymer chains. Pyrolysis of 
polymers such as PE, PP, polybutylene (PB) and PS result in 
the formation of a range of basic hydrocarbon products that 
can be further processed into useful materials (Sharuddin 
et al. 2016). For polyolefins, there is some laboratory‑scale 
research suggesting that pyrolysis processes could 
produce a feedstock very high in monomers and oligomers 
that could be used directly to synthesise more plastic 
material (Donaj et al. 2012). However, it is challenging to 
produce high yields of single monomer types due to the 
chemistry of the breakdown of the polymer chains, which 
is why most pyrolysis processes do not aim to produce 
these monomers as products (Vollmer et al. 2020).

While PVC plastics are useful for their fire-resistant 
properties and are found in many products such as cables, 
hoses and medical bags, they are particularly problematic 
for pyrolysis processes as they release hydrogen chloride 
gas, which is both hazardous to the environment and highly 
corrosive for equipment. The resulting pyrolysis liquid 
will also contain chlorinated materials, which prevents 
its use as a fuel or petrochemical feedstock (Ragaert et 
al. 2020). Pyrolysis can only be achieved once the PVC 
material goes through a dechlorination step, which adds 
additional cost to the process. Given the corrosive and 
toxic nature and low yields of the products, PVC is not 
considered a desirable polymer for pyrolysis, and only very 
low contamination levels (0.1–1%) of PVC can be tolerated in 
pyrolysis of mixed plastics before the outputs are impacted 
(Miskolczi, Bartha & Angyal 2009). Plasma pyrolysis is 
robust enough to process complex mixtures containing 
PVC and produce a syngas that is low in tar and has a high 
heating value (Solis & Silveira 2020). The technology is 
robust enough to process complex mixtures, including 
PVC. The high temperatures limit the formation of free 
chlorine gas from hydrogen chloride, thus reducing the 
formation of organochlorines and associated emissions.

As well as PVC, contamination of the plastic feedstock 
by PET also impacts pyrolysis due to the formation of 
organic acids, which are corrosive and possess high 
boiling/sublimation temperatures. The formation of organic 
acids can lead to equipment contamination and damage 
and the formation of low-quality oils with high viscosity, 
high acidity and low calorific values (Jia et al. 2020).

To produce outputs that are higher in quality, the pyrolysis 
system can include catalysts and/or hydrogen. The pyrolysis 
reactor system also has a large impact on the nature of the 
outputs and some common systems are discussed later.

Brightmark

Brightmark is a San Francisco, USA-based company 
founded in 2016, that develops, owns and operates 
waste to energy projects employing technology 
solutions including advanced plastic recycling (or 
plastic renewal). Brightmark is commissioning a 
plastics renewal facility in Ashley, Indiana, USA. It will 
divert 100,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year 
from landfills and incinerators, converting it into 
18 million gallons of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and 
naphtha blend stocks and 6 million gallons of wax. 
Brightmark is also constructing a 400,000 tonnes 
per year facility in Macon, Georgia, USA. 

Brightmark’s plastic renewal facilities take co-mingled 
plastic waste in single stream, with the ability to 
renew all recyclable plastics classified as 1–7, including 
the difficult to recycle plastic types 3–7, especially the 
single use and multi-layer plastics that are commonly 
used in consumer packaging. Plastic waste is collected, 
prepped for conversion by shredding, removing 
metals, drying, and pelletising. Pellets are then 
extruded and fed into pyrolysis vessel(s) continuously, 
and once inside the vessel, the pelletised plastic 
material is then heated and vaporised in an oxygen 
starved environment. The vapor is captured, and 
cooled into a hydrocarbon liquid, which is refined 
into fuel products (ultra-low sulfur diesel) and 
paraffin wax. The naphtha and hydrocarbon liquid 
itself can serve as feedstock for virgin polymers.



PlastOil’s modular plastic recycling technology, 
the WASTX Plastic System. 
Image credit: PlastOil

PlastOil modular pyrolysis

PlastOil uses pyrolysis technology from Biofabrik 
(Germany) in their modular plastic processing WASTX 
system. The compact and fully automated system can 
convert up to one tonne of plastic per day. The system 
is designed to offer a decentralised option to plastic 
waste treatment and produce outputs that can be used 
locally. The oil produced can be used for combustion 
engines to generate energy or can potentially be 
fed into chemical production. The technology was 
developed in Germany and is currently being tested 
in locations around the world, including Melbourne.

The pyrolysis system converts plastics (HDPE, LDPE, 
PP and PS) into a high-quality oil that can be directly 
used in industry and the community. The system 
can tolerate small amounts of PET, paper and 
food contamination, but PVC must be removed. 
The WASTX Plastic technology modular system takes 
chopped dried plastic waste with a small amount 
of catalyst and compacts it using a tamping screw 
feed to compress the input material, remove air and 
preheat it. The temperature is then increased up to 
500°C with nitrogen gas to break down the material 
into gas (12%), pyrolysis oil (85%) and carbon black 
(3%). The system can utilise the pyrolysis gas as a 
feed material for a generator that can provide up 
to 70% of the power required by the process.

In Australia, PlastOil is working with the University 
of Melbourne, RMIT and CSIRO in collaboration 
with Australian Paper Recovery to identify research 
needs that support scale up of this technology. 
Commercial arrangements are currently under 
discussion and will be unveiled in the coming months.

IQ Energy Australia

IQ Energy is developing a modular, scalable 
and containerised advanced recycling unit that 
will recycle dirty and mixed plastics back into 
a plastic-derived crude oil or gas that can be 
further refined into a variety of consumer or 
industrial products, including virgin plastics. 
The units are fully automated and containerised 
and this enables them to be decentralised and 
replicable so that they can be installed in a range 
of locations large or small, urban or regional, and 
regulated or less regulated waste management 
contexts (e.g. in some areas of South-East Asia).

The plant contains four modules: a thermal dryer, 
gasifer, thermolyser and pyrolyser. The modules 
come in two sizes that can be chosen depending on 
the volume of waste to be processed: 2,500 tonnes a 
year and 8,000 tonnes a year. The pyrolysis module 
can be used to convert all plastic types into oil and 
gas products. Modules can be added to increase 
the volume of waste that can be processed.

The technology can generate its own renewable 
energy by utilising the organic matter of feedstock 
to heat and power the pyrolysis process and 
consequently increase the yield of ‘plastic 
molecules’ available for recycling. The company 
has a focus on minimising its emissions to the 
environment. Problematic waste streams can be 
converted to useful materials, with air emissions 
such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and hydrogen 
chloride converted to salts and solids, which are 
captured and reused, and work is progressing 
on carbon dioxide capture. Manufacture of the 
first project for Canada is imminent with the 
intent of being operational by the end of 2021.



Catalytic cracking

Catalytic cracking in pyrolysis uses a suitable catalyst to 
lower the temperature and time required to complete 
the breakdown of the plastic polymer materials, 
which can make processing more economically viable 
(Panda, Singh & Mishra 2010). Catalysts can have many 
functions that will improve the stability and quality 
of the end products and process efficiency including 
hydrogenation of the alkenes, isomerisation of formation 
products, and removal of heteroatoms (e.g. oxygen, 
nitrogen and halogens). Catalysts can also reduce the 
degradation temperature of the polymers (Grause et al. 
2011). The type of catalyst chosen will significantly influence 
the products formed during the process and can generate 
higher quality products with properties similar to diesel or 
petrol often with lower molecular weights compared with 
thermal pyrolysis (Sharuddin et al. 2016). These products 
are more acceptable to be used directly as fuels.

Catalytic pyrolysis of polyolefins (PE, PP) offers the 
best results during pyrolysis because the processes 
used are similar to those in the petrochemical 
industry. Catalysts are well developed as they are the 
same or similar to those used in the petrochemical 
refining sector (Butler, Devlin & McDonnell 2011).

The most common catalysts for pyrolysis are made 
from silica-alumina, zeolites, clays (montmorillonite, 
saponite), activated carbon, metal oxides and alkali 
and alkaline metal carbonates (Panda, Singh & 
Mishra 2010). Heterogenous catalysts are used most 
frequently for catalytic pyrolysis. Heterogenous catalysts 
are in a different phase to the reaction materials, 
usually in solid form, mixed with gas or liquid.

Poisoning of the catalyst is a significant problem 
for catalytic cracking. Carbonaceous deposits on 
heterogenous catalysts often require catalyst regeneration 
at high temperature (Butler, Devlin & McDonnell 
2011). Inorganic materials, heteroatoms (nitrogen, 
oxygen) and halogens found in PET, nylon, PVC and 
other difficult polymers, can contaminate the catalyst 
leading to poor outcomes and high expense. If PET, 
nylon, PVC or other polymers are to be pyrolysed then 
the choice of catalyst is very important. PET needs a 
catalyst that acts to decarboxylate the ester group, 
releasing carbon dioxide and leaving hydrocarbon 
rich material (Panda, Singh & Mishra 2010).

Pyrolysis with inline catalytic reforming is often used to 
decompose unwanted products such as terephthalic acid 
from PET (Jia et al. 2020). The liquid or gaseous products 
from pyrolysis are passed over a catalyst bed and as such, 
the impurities in the plastic waste remain in the reactor, 
avoiding deactivation of the catalyst (Solis & Silveira 2020). 
This type of system generates high-quality hydrogen 
with lower costs than gasification (Lopez et al. 2017).

Hydrocracking

Hydrocracking (hydrogenation) is pyrolysis that uses 
hydrogen gas in the catalytic cracking process to produce 
high-quality hydrocarbons with very low levels of toxic 
by-products such as dioxins (Butler, Devlin & McDonnell 
2011). It is usually a two-step process where the pyrolysis 
step produces an oil or gas that is then passed over a 
catalyst bed with hydrogen gas. Hydropyrolysis reactors use 
a fluidised bed reactor containing catalyst and hydrogen 
gas is fed into the same reactor (Vollmer et al. 2020).

Hydrocracking offers advantages where the output from 
pyrolysis is required to be a stable product that can be 
stored with low contamination. Hydrogen is added to 
the thermal degradation products of polyolefins, which 
are often unstable, to convert them to more saturated 
products, alkanes rather than alkenes (Butler, Devlin 
& McDonnell 2011). The addition of hydrogen reduces 
the amount of char produced in the pyrolysis system by 
reacting with the precursors of char formation (Vollmer 
et al. 2020). Hydrocracking deoxygenates the pyrolysis 
products so that the system can handle polyolefin material 
contaminated with some PET (oxygen containing). 
They also generate iso-paraffins, which are branched 
hydrocarbons that offer a higher quality fuel product 
more similar to what you would expect from a refinery 
fuel (Butler, Devlin & McDonnell 2011). Iso‑paraffins are 
not suitable as input material for crackers that feed into 
HDPE or PP production as these polymers are straight 
chains. Disadvantages of hydrocracking are that it often 
happens at high pressures (70 atm) and can be expensive 
due to the cost of hydrogen and the equipment required. 
PVC contamination is a significant problem as its 
chlorinated by-products deactivate the catalysts used.



Pyrolysis reactor types

There are many different reactor types and these are 
summarised in Table 4, with an associated summary 
that compares reactor types and their operational 
features. Gasification technologies also use similar 
types of reactors to process waste plastic materials.

Extruders can be used as a pre-treatment that can feed 
into other reactors. Material passes through an externally 
heated screw/auger. This has the advantage of removing air 
and ensuring that the material is well heated and mixed.

Fixed bed reactors are the oldest type of pyrolyser. 
Reaction occurs in a steel vessel with a fixed bed of 
material where the products flow out as they heat up 
and expand and the char remains in the reactor.

Fluidised bed reactors offer excellent temperature control 
and have excellent heat and mass transfer and can be 
used with or without catalysts. A gas or liquid stream 
is used to fluidise the bed material which facilitates the 
heat and mass transfer and prevents the formation of 
hot spots. Catalysts can be added to the bed material or 
in a second reactor to react with the vapours produced. 
They use heat to vapourise the melt polymer feed while 
simultaneously cracking the hydrocarbons formed in 
a continuous system. Drawbacks include the added 
requirement of an inert fluidising gas, long residence 
times for mixing, lost bed materials and the necessity for 
catalyst to be topped up. In addition, scale up presents 
challenges, and it often provides low liquid yields due 
to over cracking (Panda, Singh & Mishra 2010).

Bubbling fluidised bed reactors have waste material 
fed into a bubbling bed of hot sand. The bed is fluidised 
using an inert gas to give intense mixing and ensure 
good temperature control and heat transfer.

Circulated fluidised bed reactors work on the 
same principle as the bubbling fluidised bed, but 
the bed is highly expanded and solids continuously 
cycle around an external loop comprising a 
cyclone and loop seal. Temperature control is very 
good and solid products are easily removed. 

Rotary kiln reactors have been used extensively to pyrolyse 
waste. The waste material is fed into a rotating vessel 
where ceramic or metal balls are used to mix the material 
to avoid char build-up. The heat is supplied via externally 
heated walls. Rapid heating and short residence time can 
be achieved. The scale is limited due to the difficulty in 
heat transfer as the diameter of the vessel increases.

Vacuum pyrolysis reactors pass waste material from 
top to bottom of the system on a series of heated plates 
that increase in temperature. Limitations of vacuum 
pyrolysis include regular fouling of the vacuum pump, 
challenges with heat transfer and low yields of liquids.

Melting vessels or stirred tank reactors are commonly used 
to produce chemicals but they have been used to pyrolyse 
plastic waste. They involve in situ heating by an oil or vapour 
and use of a catalyst. They suffer from poor heat transfer 
and require big infrastructure and frequent maintenance.

Table 4: Reactor comparison for pyrolysis of plastic waste

Temperature 
control

Heat transfer

Particle size 
flexibility

Process 
flexibility

Value of 
obtained 
products

Scale up 
flexibility

Economic 
feasibility

Fixed bed

Bubbling 
fluidised bed

Circulated 
fluidised bed

Rotary kiln

Vacuum pyrolysis

Melting vessel





 Good Satisfactory Poor

Adapted from Qureshi et al. 2020



2.4.3 Hydrothermal processes

Hydrothermal processes are similar to pyrolysis 
technologies, but these processes operate with the 
addition of water and are more flexible regarding plastic 
feedstock compositions. Hydrothermal processes use 
hot compressed water as a reaction medium to convert 
complex organic compounds into smaller and simpler 
products (Qureshi et al. 2020). These conditions make the 
water a good solvent for dissolving organic compounds, 
although co-solvents and other materials such as biomass 
and catalysts are often added to improve the process. 
Most of the research into this process has centred on 
biomass biological inputs, but hydrothermal processing has 
been identified as a promising option for plastics recycling 
due to the ability to process mixed plastic wastes (Shen 
2020). Contamination from glass, metal, grit and stones 
must be removed, but in contrast to other processes, the 
plastic wastes do not need to be dried before processing, 
which can improve process economics (Qureshi et al. 
2020). Hydrothermal processing is suitable for complex 
mixed wastes and hard to recycle plastics, including 
contaminated PET, carbon fibre reinforced plastics, 
printed circuit boards, polycarbonate, styrene-butadiene, 
polylactic acid and nylon. It can also tolerate other organic 
materials such as paper and food wastes. Processing 
wastes in the presence of water also stops unwanted side 
reactions, leading to high yields of stable hydrocarbon 
liquids with low gas formation (Chen, Jin & Wang 2019). 
The water also dissolves unwanted side products such 
as hydrogen chloride and oxygen containing materials. 
However, the processes are quite energy intensive, and 
the main output is a complex synthetic oil that usually 
needs to be upgraded by standard refinery operations 
before it can feed into production of chemicals again.

Hydrothermal processing is particularly suitable for 
condensation polymers such as polyesters, polyethers, 
polycarbonates and polyamides that are also suitable for 
depolymerisation processes, due to their susceptibility 
to react with water under thermal and/or catalytic 
conditions (Pedersen, Thomas & Conti 2017). The recovery 
of monomers from polycarbonate and styrene-butadiene 
using hydrothermal processing, has been demonstrated 
at a laboratory scale (Pedersen, Thomas & Conti 2017). 
In addition, oil products that are very similar to naphtha 
and have excellent heating values (48–49 million joules 
per kilogram) have been recovered from PP using 
hydrothermal processing (Chen, Jin & Wang 2019).

Hydrothermal processing of PVC, particularly medical 
wastes, has been successful when a source of lignin is 
added. The lignin derived from materials such as woodchips 
prevents agglomeration of hydrochar and assists the 
dechlorination reaction (Shen et al. 2016). The end product 
of hydrothermal processing of PVC in the presence of 
lignin is predominantly hydrochar, with little chlorine 
contamination, and is therefore suitable for use as solid fuel.

The leading hydrothermal processing technology is the 
Licella Cat-HTR™ process (Licella Holdings, Australia), which 
has been demonstrated in pilot scale for processing mixed 
plastic wastes to recover a synthetic crude oil. This process 
is scaling up globally and will be adopted to process 
mixed plastic waste in the UK. Licella can add a distillation 
fractionation process to their recycled polymer oil (RPO), 
which will produce high-quality intermediate products (e.g. 
an ultra low-sulfur heavy oil and naphtha) and intermediate 
products with minimal contaminants (such as chlorine).

In summary, some of the key advantages 
of Licella technology are that it:

• has efficient heat transfer and operates 
at a comparatively low temperature, 
450°C, which is associated with producing 
lower char than other processes
• accepts PET (which can clog pipes and 
contaminate products in pyrolysis processes)
• is tolerant of contamination (e.g. paper, 
cardboard) and is therefore good for 
processing multilayer plastics packaging
• can process thermoset plastics
• is tolerant of some chlorine (from PVC), 
which washes out with water as a salt.




Licella and CAT-HTR™ technology

Licella Holdings, an Australian-based company, has 
developed Cat-HTR™, a continuous flow catalytic 
hydrothermal liquefaction process. Licella uses 
supercritical water (high pressure and temperature) 
to break down a range of polymers into light 
hydrocarbon gases and a liquid product that resembles 
a high-quality, ultra-low sulfur synthetic ‘Plasti-crude’ 
that can be used to make new plastics, chemicals, 
fuels or road products in the same way as fossil 
crude. The process feedstock consists of mixed plastic 
waste including composite polymers, and multilayer, 
flexible and rigid plastics. The process is not impacted 
by the presence of contamination from non-plastic 
materials, such as paper and other organic matter.

Shredded plastic waste is heated and compressed, then 
combined with supercritical water and the temperature 
increased. In a separate reactor (the Cat-HTR™), the 
supercritical water acts to break down the bonds holding 
the polymers together to create useful short-chain, 
stable hydrocarbons. At the end of the process, during 
the depressurisation step, the Plasti‑crude can be used 
as is and co-processed in existing refineries or separated 
into different outputs such as a naphtha fraction – for 
new plastics, fuels – diesel and fuel oil – and waxes 
and residue for use in chemical or road applications. 
These products can be stored and purchased for 
application in other industries. While the operating 
conditions of the technology can be modified to 
deliver varying output fractions, a general midpoint 
is a production of 85% liquid, 12% gas and 3% ash.

A number of different scale pilot plants in NSW 
have trialled and upscaled the technology 
over the past 13 years. In the UK the first 
licensee, ReNew ELP, in collaboration with Dow 
(polymer manufacturer), established the first 
commercial facility for this technology in Teesside, 
England. The facility is planned to process up to 
80,000 tonnes of mixed end-of-life plastics.

Amcor, Coles, Nestlé and Licella are working with 
LyondellBasell and iQ Renew to assess the feasibility of a 
commercial-scale Cat-HTR™ plant in Victoria. It is planned 
that the plant will process a variety of end-of-life 
plastics and convert them to oil, which will be used to 
manufacture new soft packaging materials (ELP 2020).



2.4.4 Conversion technology outputs

The outputs (products) obtained from advanced 
recycling methods will depend on a number of factors, 
the most important being the method used, plastic 
inputs, process temperature, heating rate, catalyst use 
and other process additives (hydrogen, steam, water). 
Contamination of the input materials with PVC and 
plastics containing oxygen, nitrogen or other heteroatoms 
with affect the quality of all of the output materials.

Figure 6 shows some of the possible pathways for recycling 
mixed plastic waste by conversion processes. From left 
to right the diagram shows three different conversion 
technologies, each of which produce different outputs. 
These are termed ‘intermediate products’ as they generally 
all require further processing (shown in the next stage) 
before they become final products. The diagram uses 
purple arrows for products most likely to become fuels, 
and black arrows for intermediate products heading to a 
refinery pathway. There are multiple pathways and options, 
therefore this diagram is a simplification. For example, the 
syngas product arising from pyrolysis and hydrothermal 
processes may also include more hydrocarbon gases 
than is typical for syngas. Note also that syngas produced 
from gasification may also follow the same path as 
syngas from pyrolysis and hydrothermal technologies 
and go directly to a steam cracker to form monomers.

Figure 6: Outputs arising from conversion processes, showing additional processing options and downstream products

As shown in Figure 6, the main product from gasification 
of plastic wastes is syngas, and this can be recovered to 
make useful materials including hydrogen, methanol, 
ammonia, naptha (light oil) and waxes. It can also be 
combusted in a plastics-to-fuels pathway. The solid 
material produced from the processes, such as ash and 
char, may have useful applications but will most likely 
need to be upgraded before being a useful material.



Figure 7: State and indicative yield from various advanced recycling methods
LowHighGasicationHigh temperature 
pyrolysisLow temperature 
pyrolysisTechnology categoriesProduct yieldCatalytic pyrolysisHydrothermal 
processingGasLiquidSolid
The products from pyrolysis and hydrothermal processing 
are similar, although their actual composition will vary 
greatly depending on operating conditions, reagents and 
input materials. The liquid hydrocarbon outputs generated 
by pyrolysis and hydrothermal conversion processes can 
be used as fuel, or as reagents to make new polymers. 
Refineries can incorporate crude naptha or heavy oil from 
advanced recycling with crude oil and process it to afford 
chemicals and fuels. Similarly, a steam cracker can take 
small molecular weight hydrocarbons and, using steam 
cracking technology, make monomers that can be used 
to manufacture new PE and PP, respectively. The steam 
cracker will work most efficiently with input materials that 
are high in straight chain hydrocarbons and less efficiently 
with high levels of aromatics and branched hydrocarbons.

Hydrothermal processing produces mainly solid and 
liquid materials, with more solid material produced at 
lower temperatures. Continuous hydrothermal processing 
produces a RPO (recycled polymer oil, sometimes also 
referred to as ‘plasti-crude’) that has a wide boiling 
range. This can be separated by fractional distillation into 
naphtha and oil fractions. The highest boiling fraction 
can be used in bitumen or processed by a refinery. 
The naptha is similar to a petrol fraction and has a 
number of possible pathways as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 7 gives an indication of the proportions of solid, 
liquid and gaseous products from gasification, high 
and low temperature pyrolysis, catalytic pyrolysis and 
hydrothermal processing of plastic wastes. Generally, low 
temperature pyrolysis without catalysts leads to formation 
of (comparatively) a large amount of solid char, a medium 
quantity of liquid products and a small amount of gaseous 
products. High temperature pyrolysis produces much less 
char, with a higher proportion of gases formed. When a 
catalyst is added to a pyrolysis system, catalytic pyrolysis, it 
significantly reduces the volume of char produced as there 
are fewer side reactions. The liquid product produced also 
increases as does the gaseous component due the more 
extensive breakdown of the materials. The hydrocarbons 
formed are more uniform in composition. In comparison, 
hydrothermal processing of plastic waste material 
produces low levels of gaseous products and solid char 
with excellent yields of stable RPO (liquid) produced.

Figure 7: State and indicative yield from various advanced recycling methods



Syngas

Syngas (synthetic gas) is the gas produced from pyrolysis 
and gasification of carbonaceous material (natural 
gas, coal, biomass, organic wastes, plastic material). 
It is a mix of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon 
dioxide and some short hydrocarbons (Goldberg, 
Haig & McKinlay 2019). Generally, the higher the 
temperature of the process the higher the proportion 
of gases produced. Gasification produces syngas as the 
major product. The syngas from pyrolysis will contain 
more light hydrocarbons than gasification and is usually 
a significantly smaller proportion of the outputs. 
Catalytic pyrolysis with reforming in its last stage can 
produce excellent quality syngas too (Solis & Silveira 2020).

Syngas is an important resource for the production of 
hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and synthetic fuels. 
Syngas is difficult to sell into the natural gas market as most 
companies will not want to risk degrading the quality of their 
product and as such needs further refining (TyreStewardship 
Australia, Sustainability Victoria & Department of the 
Environment and Science 2018). Syngas can be burned to 
provide heat energy to the pyrolysis system or to generate 
electricity in a gas turbine combined system (Erdogan 
2020). The hydrocarbon portion of the syngas can also 
potentially feed into an olefins steam cracker to lead 
straight back to PE production. Eastman uses the resulting 
carbon monoxide and hydrogen from gasification of 
combined mixed plastics and coal to make acetyl-based 
products such as cellulose acetate (Tullo 2020).

Hydrogen

Hydrogen gas is produced predominantly from gasification 
of plastic wastes, although pyrolysis systems can be 
tailored to produce higher quantities. The hydrogen 
is separated from syngas using a selective membrane 
or pressure swing adsorption (Marcantonio et al. 
2019). Hydrogen is an excellent energy carrier and its 
energy can be released as heat through combustion 
or as electricity using fuel cells. It is used in refining 
processes to hydrogenate hydrocarbons and increase 
the energy density of fuels or to produce specific 
chemicals. It is also used to make ammonia for fertiliser.

Advanced recycling technologies could generate new opportunities for Australia’s manufacturing industry. 
Image credit: Qenos



Methanol

Syngas from waste plastic gasification can be used 
to produce methanol. Syngas, hydrogen and carbon 
dioxide are reacted in a fixed bed tubular reactor at 
high temperature and pressure using a catalyst to 
produce methanol (Giuliano, Freda & Catizzone 2020). 
Methanol is a critical feedstock for the manufacture of 
other chemical products including formaldehyde, acetic 
acid and plastics, with approximately 100 million tonnes 
(~US$32 billion) produced globally each year (International 
Renewable Energy Agency & Methanol Institute 2021). 
The methanol-to-olefins process is used extensively to 
produce PE, particularly in China. Methanol is used directly 
as fuel for vehicles and boilers, and blended with gasoline. 
It is a convenient product to transport as it is a liquid and 
it is able to use infrastructure that other fuels use. It is 
currently largely produced from fossil fuels, and demand 
for it has increased substantially since the mid-2000s. 
The most of the world’s methanol comes from syngas 
produced from the steam reforming of natural gas.

Char

Char is the solid residue left after the pyrolysis or 
hydrothermal processing of materials that are high in 
carbon. Char from plastic pyrolysis is often low or negative 
in value and will generally need to be further treated to 
form useful products. The quantity and quality of the char 
from plastic waste will depend on the input materials, and 
the process variables such as temperature, residence time, 
heating rate, reactor type and catalyst (Saptoadi, Rohmat 
& Sutoyo 2016). When heating rates are high, the liquid 
yield is higher, and the char yield decreases. The quantity 
of char produced during pyrolysis and gasification is 
generally low (1–3%) but can be as high as 20% if there are 
heat transfer challenges with the system (Miandad et al. 
2016; Wyss et al. 2021). The char produced in hydrothermal 
processing is more variable. When polyolefins are the main 
input to hydrothermal processes, the solid yield is low.

The char will contain some carbon and complex 
hydrocarbons due to reactions between products and 
ash. When volatile hydrocarbons have a longer residence 
time in the reactor and they can repolymerise to form 
high molecular weight char. Often inorganic fillers 
are added to polymers to improve the moldability and 
stability of plastics, particularly in more rigid and complex 
materials. These inorganic materials will remain and 
become part of the recovered char/ash. If input materials 
are contaminated with dirt (likely from agricultural 
plastics), metals from foils and dyes, or other additives, 
these contaminants will also be present in the char.

Depending on the quality, the char can be briquetted 
and used for heating or to adsorb heavy metals and 
toxic gases in water or air filtration systems. Char can 
also be used as an additive to asphalt or as a colourant 
for plastic materials including tyres. A recent publication 
has shown that flash joule heating of pyrolysis ash from 
waste PP can produce excellent yields of high-quality 
turbostratic graphene in the laboratory (Wyss et al. 2021). 
When added, the turbostratic graphene improved 
the performance of cement and polymers.

If pyrolysis is efficient and the plastic input is low in 
contaminants, carbon black will be the main component of 
the char recovered. Carbon black has a value of approximately 
$900–$1,000 per tonne (Randell, Baker & O’Farrell 2020). 
Carbon black is mainly carbon in para-crystalline form that 
has a high surface area to volume ratio. It is widely used 
as a pigment in tyres, where it acts to increase thermal 
and abrasion resistance to extend their life. Carbon black 
is also used in other non-tyre rubber goods including as 
an additive to PP where it acts as an ultraviolet stabiliser. 

Heavy and light oils, and waxes

The oil from the advanced recycling of plastic waste is 
often collected in two different boiling point ranges, 
with a heavy oil fraction (hydrocarbons with greater than 
12 carbon atoms; comparable to diesel) recovered between 
150 and 380°C and a lighter oil or naphtha (hydrocarbons 
with 4–12 carbon atoms; more comparable to gasoline or 
naphtha) recovered between 35 and 200°C (Vollmer et al. 
2020). Heavy oil varies in composition depending on the 
process, conditions used and input material. It is often 
comparable in properties to a conventional diesel and 
can be used as an energy source for boilers and furnaces.

The oil from pyrolysis may contain chlorine, moisture, 
organic acids, sulfur and solid residues. Further purification 
will be necessary to produce a high-grade fuel if these are 
present. Where contamination is minor it can be blended 
with diesel fuel. The analysis of various blends from 
different pyrolysis oils has consistently shown positive 
results, with lower carbon dioxide emissions from the 
blends than diesel alone (Erdogan 2020). However, there 
was a general increase in nitrogen oxide and carbon 
monoxide emission with increasing plastic oil in blends.



Naphtha (light oil) is similar in properties and composition 
to petroleum fuel. Recovered naptha is often blended with 
crude oil and processed in a refinery or used directly as a 
fuel. Where the naptha has a higher proportion of smaller 
straight chain hydrocarbons it would be a useful input 
for an olefins steam cracking system. Octane numbers 
for the light oil fraction are generally lower than for 
conventional gasoline because of the large amounts of 
straight chain paraffins present. It is more beneficial to 
have branched paraffins and aromatics for combustion 
in vehicles (Ragaert, Delva & Van Geem 2017).

Waxes form a large part of the products of PE and PP 
recycled by low temperature thermal pyrolysis without a 
catalyst present (Arabiourrutia et al. 2012). They are also a 
product of hydrothermal processing. The waxes are typically 
high molecular weight hydrocarbons with boiling points 
in the range of 343 and 525°C, and these can be used to 
produce lubricants and coatings. To return it as a feedstock 
for plastic materials, waxes can be catalytically reformed and 
separated in the same manner as crude oil or fed back into 
the process to break them down into smaller molecules.

Undesirable by-products

A clear understanding of feedstock materials is required 
to monitor and mitigate environmental and human 
health risk from advanced recycling. All advanced 
recycling plants will have to consider how to capture gas 
and liquid emissions as both are potentially harmful to 
human health and the environment (TyreStewardship 
Australia, Sustainability Victoria & Department of the 
Environment and Science 2018). Some of the gases may be 
produced in the conversion process or when combusting 
the gases for energy include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, dioxins and furans, 
hydrocarbon gases, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, 
formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide as well as particulate 
matter (TyreStewardship Australia, Sustainability Victoria 
& Department of Environment and Science 2018).

Dioxins and other toxic heteroatom containing by-products 
(e.g. containing oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur) can be removed 
from oil products by hydrocracking after the pyrolysis step. 
If PVC is included in the recycling process, a pre‑treatment 
step to remove the hydrochloric acid will be required and 
systems to manage the resultant acidic gas, including 
scrubbing with a basic chemical solution, will need to 
be installed. Although the hydrochloric acid captured 
by the scrubbing system can be recovered, it will be 
contaminated by some light hydrocarbons and is unlikely 
to be able to be reused. Scrubbing systems to remove 
hydrogen sulphide may also need to be considered.

Often systems are designed to use the gas produced in 
pyrolysis to power a generator to provide heat energy 
for the process, which will reduce gas emissions. If not 
consumed in the process, to control air pollution, a thermal 
oxidiser (after burner) can be used to decompose gaseous 
air pollutants through chemical oxidation. Gasification 
and pyrolysis produce less direct air emissions and 
residues than incineration (Demetrious & Crossin 2019).

The char can be contaminated with inorganic 
materials, ash, aluminium from foil and possibly heavy 
metals from dyes and glues used in plastic products 
(Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019). To mitigate the 
contamination the system can preferentially use plastic 
materials that are rich in soft plastics and transparent 
polyolefins that are low in these materials. Float sink 
techniques can be used to separate char and ash but 
the char may need to be disposed of in landfill.

If the naptha or heavy oil are to be used as fuels there are 
limits for certain contaminants. The regulations are far 
more restrictive for gasoline than for diesel. Polyaromatic 
hydrocarbons are a common side product from pyrolysis 
reactions. These are required to be less than 8% of diesel 
fuel in Europe, and while usually lower proportions are 
formed during pyrolysis this will need to be monitored (Gala 
et al. 2020). There are also limits on moisture and benzene 
(<1%) and the acidic components that may come from PET.



2.5 Waste-to-energy

Incineration and thermal technologies that produce 
energy as their primary product are common in 
Europe. Annually, waste-to-energy plants in Europe 
contribute 39 terawatt hours and 90 terawatt hours 
of electricity and heat, respectively, and are estimated 
to prevent about 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide 
emissions that would otherwise be generated by 
fossil fuel production (Levaggi et al. 2020).

Waste-to-energy is considered a recovery process, 
and as such falls second to last on the waste hierarchy 
(recover) before disposal (landfill). Waste-to-energy 
technologies are not considered as truly circular, 
given that they follow a linear path, resulting in the 
downgrading and/or permanent loss of materials from 
the economy. However, it is argued that in creating energy 
and fuel by-products, waste-to-energy may contribute 
to circularity through production of new materials. 
There are substantial environmental and economic 
burdens, with waste-to-energy processes producing 
significant environmental emissions and chemical wastes. 
Waste-to-energy processes are energy intensive, with 
high capital and operating costs. Incineration of plastic 
materials generates substantially less energy then the 
energy conserved by recycling (Rahimi & Garciá 2017).

Waste-to-energy processes accept gross MSW (municipal 
solid waste) diverted from landfill, of which plastic waste 
can be a subset component. The presence of plastic 
waste in the input feed of waste-to-energy processes 
can be useful, due to their high calorific value, which 
allows the processes to operate with a stable calorific 
intake and maintain process efficiency. However, these 
processes are generally unable to process single waste 
streams. As such they are a solution for highly mixed 
and low-quality waste streams that cannot otherwise 
be upgraded or recycled, and for wastes that are not 
suitable for mechanical or advanced recycling.

In late 2020, it was reported that the Australian 
Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) invested 
$98 million in 25 waste-to-energy projects across Australia 
(Parliament of Australia 2020). Australia’s first large-scale 
thermal waste-to-energy plant is under construction in 
Kwinana, WA (Avertas Energy), with completion due late 
2021. The facility is proposed to divert 25% of Perth’s 
post-recycling waste from landfill and to generate 
36 million watts of baseload electricity for the grid 
(ARENA 2020a). A second thermal waste-to-energy plant 
has been approved in WA (Acciona and Hitachi Zosen 
Inova), which will increase the WA waste-to-energy 
capacity further, diverting another 300,000 tonnes of 
MSW from landfill, and generating 29 million watts of 
power (ARENA 2020b, 2020a). There are other projects in 
the pipeline for other states such as QLD (ARENA 2020a).

Though waste-to-energy processes have a role to play 
in the recovery of energy, fuels and other value adding 
by-products, it is largely accepted by the Australian federal 
and state governments that waste-to-energy processes 
should complement other material recovery and recycling 
processes, with the goal of more broadly improving waste 
management outcomes in Australia (Parliament of Australia 
2020). As such, WA, Victoria, NSW, SA and QLD all have 
policies and position statements addressing the use and 
targets associated with waste treatment by waste-to-energy 
processes, and there are moves to harmonise these policies 
across jurisdictions. In 2020, the Victorian Government 
announced that it would cap waste-to-energy for 
1 million tonnes of MSW per year to 2040, with significant 
investment made for innovations in waste management 
that complement energy recovery processes (DELWP 2020).

Gasification technologies can be used to produce useful 
products that can be converted into new chemical 
products or used as waste-to-energy processes. 
Gasification technologies can be used to process waste 
plastics exclusively, or are more commonly applied to 
MSW (containing waste plastic) as waste-to-energy 
technology. Seven Thermoselect gasification plants 
have been operating in Japan since the mid-2000s 
processing unsorted MSW at throughputs of up to 
100,000 tonnes a year (Yamada, Shimizu & Miyoshi 
2004). Many gasification systems worldwide are now 
moving towards the production of useful products, 
including hydrogen, rather than just energy generation.



36 Advanced recycling technologies to address Australia’s plastic waste



3 Plastic waste supply for 
advanced recycling

Advanced recycling technologies require a plastic waste 
supply. The quality of outputs depends on the polymer type 
or plastic waste being processed, along with technology 
type and operating conditions. Advanced recycling 
in Australia requires a clear understanding of the 
production, consumption and generation of plastic 
wastes, and the suitability of these wastes for the 
conversion processes of pyrolysis and depolymerisation.

This section commences with a description of the types of 
polymers available and their suitability for different technology 
options. It next describes the segments of the plastic waste 
market (e.g. mixed plastics, soft/flexible plastics) that may 
be more suitable for advanced recycling. Advanced recycling 
is ideal for plastics that do not already have a mechanical 
recycling pathway. In this sense, it is highly complementary, 
and not competitive, with mechanical recycling. Plastics that 
are difficult to mechanically recycle include plastics degraded 
by environmental conditions, thermoset plastics and 
plastics with high levels of additives. Also, mixed plastics, 
laminate materials, and dirty or contaminated plastics are 
difficult to mechanically recycle. In general, plastics degrade 
over time and by exposure to heat, light and chemicals. 
Plastics also contain fillers, such as calcium carbonate, silica, 
carbon black or metal oxides (for colour). These minerals 
are insoluble and create issues for mechanical recycling.

3.1 PET (Polyethylene 
terephthalate)

PET is one of the most widely used plastics for packaging 
due to its intrinsic properties, colourlessness, heat and 
cold stability, and durability. PET is a condensation polymer 
that contains oxygen. It is widely used in packaging foods 
and beverages, especially soft drinks and juices. PET is also 
used in clothing, films and moulded parts for automotive 
and electronic applications. To produce a high-quality 
mechanically recycled output the plastic needs to be sorted 
by colour and graded. Often PET bottles are recycled into 
lower grade thermoforms or fibre (downcycling) because it 
is challenging to maintain the physical properties and avoid 
discolouration in mechanical recycling. 
PET has existing mechanical recycling pathways in Australia 
and clean collection systems such as container deposit 
schemes. The value for clean PET bales has ranged from 
$400 a tonne (2019) to $230 a tonne (2020) on the local 
and export market. This compares to a value of virgin PET 
resin of around $1,400 a tonne (Envisage Works 2020).

PET can be a problematic feedstock for pyrolysis as it 
decomposes to phthalic acids, which deteriorate the quality 
of the oil produced and can lead to clogging of the pipes in 
the system (Qureshi et al. 2020). PET pyrolysis oil contains 
benzoic acid, which results in lower calorific value of the oil 
(30 million joules per kilogram), making it a less desirable 
polymer type (Sharuddin et al. 2016). The use of catalysts 
and hydrocracking can improve the quality of the products 
obtained from PET, but it would be best if the system 
was designed around PET waste material. The products 
formed would be largely gaseous in a successful pyrolysis 
system for PET due to the conditions needed to minimise 
the deleterious products (Sharuddin et al. 2016).

Hydrothermal processing would be an excellent option for 
conversion of PET to hydrocarbon products, particularly 
with mixed waste systems. In a typical hydrothermal system, 
the water acts as a hydrogen donor and increases the 
amount of hydrogen in the product while also reducing the 
oxygen content. The oxygen in PET is able to be reduced 
in hydrothermal systems (Seshasayee & Savage 2020).

The most desirable chemical recycling option for PET is 
depolymerisation as it requires less energy and returns 
PET to its monomers. This can be achieved with biological 
degradation using PETase technology to depolymerise 
the PET back to monomers for manufacture back into 
PET. PET is readily converted back into its monomers or 
similar building blocks for other chemicals by chemical 
depolymerisation reactions (Closed Loop Partners 2019). 
The most advanced depolymerisation recycling processes 
have been developed for PET because the market is 
predominantly in food packaging, which has stringent quality 
requirements (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019). A number 
of commercial plants currently use these technologies 
to provide feedstocks for the production of new PET.



3.2 HDPE (High‑density 
polyethylene)

HDPE forms a large part of municipal plastic wastes. 
It has high strength and is used widely in detergent bottles, 
oil containers, toys and many more products. HDPE is 
a polyolefin with long straight chains with very little 
branching and is well suited to conversion technologies. 
The price for washed and flaked HDPE has fluctuated from 
$400 to $650 a tonne. The price for virgin resin is around 
$1,400 a tonne, as at October 2020 (Envisage Works 
2020). Mechanical recycling pathways are possible for PE 
products, which generally involve downcycling to materials 
that are not food contact compliant (laundry detergent 
bottles, pipes, benches, etc.). In Europe, technology has 
been developed to take waste rigid HDPE (milk bottles) 
and mechanically recycle it into new food contact 
compliant materials with two plants currently supplying 
the dairy industry in the UK (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 
2019). Currently the best way to make recycled material 
from HDPE food contact compliant (US Food and Drug 
Administration approved) is via advanced recycling.

The pyrolysis of HDPE has been studied extensively and it 
produces excellent oils when pyrolysed at reasonably high 
temperatures (550°C). Catalysts are preferred in the pyrolysis 
as they lower the temperature required and produce liquid 
materials that are easy to handle. As the temperature 
increases above 550°C then the proportion of gaseous 
products increases steadily. Fuels obtained from pyrolysis 
of HDPE tend have good calorific values (42.9 million joules 
per kilogram) comparable to gasoline (43–46 million joules 
per kilogram) and are generally suitable to be used without 
much upgrading (Kumar & Singh 2011). HDPE is also well 
suited to gasification as it produces relatively clean gaseous 
products with low tar production. Hydrothermal processing 
will also effectively convert waste HDPE into oils.

3.3 PVC (Polyvinyl chloride)

PVC is widely used in the construction industry as it is 
inexpensive, rigid and durable with high environmental 
resistance. However, due to the chloride in its polymeric 
structure, recycling at high temperature results in the release 
of free hydrogen chloride gas, which is corrosive to plant 
and contaminates the end products (Rahimi & Garciá 2017). 
In addition, PVC often contains plasticisers, fillers and dyes, 
which make it a difficult waste to recycle due to technical 
limitations (contamination) and environmental restrictions 
(emissions). In 2018–19, PVC formed 11% of plastic consumed 
in Australia (O’Farrell 2019). The extensive use of PVC in 
the community causes issues with the contamination of 
plastic streams that are co-collected for recycling, especially 
if the recycling process is based on thermal conversion. 
For these processes, the tolerance to PVC contamination 
is very low (0.1–1%) (Miskolczi, Bartha & Angyal 2009). 
Even PET mechanical recycling tolerates less than 50 parts 
per million PVC as the acids formed during extrusion 
cause the rPET to be brittle and yellowish (ASG 2021).

There is a need for conversion technologies to pre-sort their 
mixed plastic input to ensure there are very low levels of PVC. 
Waste reprocessors are concerned that PVC packaging is a 
continuing issue in recycling streams as it causes problems in 
both rigid and flexible packaging recycling (O’Farrell 2019). 
PVC packaging has been banned in Canada, Spain, South 
Korea and the Czech Republic, with other countries limiting 
its use (Center for Health 2021). Australia will phase out PVC 
packaging labels by December 2022 (Pickin et al. 2020). It is 
well known that chlorinated compounds, including PVC, are 
harmful and undesired in recycling systems, as they cause 
corrosion and poison catalysts. A pyrolysis study conducted 
with PE, PP and PS with 0–3.0% PVC examined the effects of 
increasing concentration of PVC (Miskolczi, Bartha & Angyal 
2009). They found that chlorine was found in all products 
and levels increased with the amount of PVC pyrolysed.

Given the challenges with thermal processing of waste 
PVC, mechanical recycling is a good option. However, due 
to the high level of additives and contaminants care 
should be taken to sort it and process it with only like 
materials, so as not to contaminate secondary products. 
In addition, purification can be used to recycle PVC as 
it is soluble in certain solvents, although it is technically 
challenging to separate out the plasticising agents 
and this makes reuse difficult. VinyLoop®, a PVC waste 
recycling purification plant in Italy, used butanol 
as a solvent and steam as an anti-solvent to recycle 
PVC from flexible cables to produce rPVC that would 
be suitable for the same use (Plasteurope 2018).



3.4 LDPE (Low-density 
polyethylene)

Like HDPE, LDPE is made from ethylene but with more 
branched molecules, which reduces the density of the 
plastic. In comparison, LLDPE is a substantially linear 
polymer that has frequent short branches. LDPE and LLDPE 
are used in rigid containers including bottles, containers 
and lids and as flexible materials such as films, plastic 
wrap, pouches, bags and cable covering. Australia uses 
around 400,000 tonnes a year of LDPE and LLDPE plastics 
and around 17% of this is recovered (O’Farrell 2019).

LDPE/LLDPE are suitable for mechanical recycling and 
the material can be processed many times without 
noticeable loss in properties (Rahimi & Garciá 2017). 
However, it is often used in laminate materials, where it is 
difficult to separate from other materials via mechanical 
recycling. Solvent-based purification technologies 
are available for LDPE/LLDPE (Vollmer et al. 2020). 
LDPE behaves in much the same way as HDPE when it 
is treated using advanced recycling methods, affording 
high-quality hydrocarbon liquids (see Section 3.2).

3.5 PP (Polypropylene)

Polypropylene (PP) is a versatile polymer, with a high 
melting point and high durability, and is resistant to acids 
and bases. It is used in robust products from car bumpers, 
rigid food packaging, polymer bank notes and face masks. 
Australian consumption of PP is around 500,000 tonnes 
a year, of which around 45,000 tonnes a year is recovered 
for recycling here or internationally (O’Farrell 2019). 
Municipal PP will often end up in mixed plastic bales when 
sorted in Australian materials recycling facilities (MRFs).

PP is suitable for mechanical recycling as it is a 
thermoplastic polymer. It is often coloured and has 
additives incorporated to enhance its properties 
like other plastics, which makes thorough 
separation important before recycling.

As with other polyolefins, PP is readily converted to 
hydrocarbon materials by conversion technologies, 
although it often contains more fillers and as such more 
ash will result when it is pyrolysed or gasified (Sharuddin 
et al. 2016). Purification is an excellent option for PP 
to remove dyes and additives and return excellent raw 
material using supercritical butane (PureCycle 2021).

3.6 PS (Polystyrene)

While PS and EPS (expanded polystyrene) are used less 
in Australia than other plastic materials, their use is 
increasing. In 2018–19, 77,000 tonnes a year of PS was 
consumed in Australia with a very low recovery rate of 
11.6% (O’Farrell 2019), and there are not current markets 
for recycling of rigid polystyrene (APCO 2020).

EPS is lightweight, durable and an insulator and used 
extensively for protecting fragile items in transport and for 
extending the shelf life of fruit, vegetables and seafood. 
The collection of expanded polystyrene is challenging as 
it is not collected in kerbside bins due to its likelihood to 
break up into many pieces. Its large volume means that it 
takes up considerable space and while it can be collected 
at transfer stations it often ends up in landfill. While there 
are challenges with collection of polystyrene it is possible 
to use a variety of advanced recycling methods to recycle it.

PS and EPS are excellent candidates for purification 
technologies in all its forms due to their high solubility in a 
range of solvents. An excellent solvent for PS is cymene, a 
natural terpene-based solvent, which has been successfully 
used to dissolve PS. In Canada, collection stations immerse 
expanded polystyrene straight into cymene to dissolve 
it on site, substantially concentrating its volume and 
making transport significantly easier (Polystyvet 2020).

PS offers greater flexibility than other polyolefins in its 
conversion as it can be pyrolysed in controlled conditions to 
produce monomers (Crippa et al. 2019a). PS degrades at the 
lowest temperature of all plastics, and when a pure stream 
of PS is pyrolysed the monomers toluene, ethylbenzene and 
styrene are produced (Muhammad, Onwudili & Williams 
2015). It is suitable for pyrolysis with other plastics and 
will increase the proportion of aromatic hydrocarbons in 
the recovered oils, increasing their suitability as fuels.



3.7 Mixed municipal plastics

After kerbside collection, municipal waste is sorted 
and separated out into materials including paper, 
steel, aluminium, cardboard, glass and plastic at a MRF. 
The plastic waste stream is then further sorted to recover 
PET and HDPE and a residual fraction, which is known 
as mixed municipal plastics. The mixed municipal plastic 
waste fraction usually contains code 3–7 plastics (Table 2), 
with residual quantities of PET and HDPE (Envisage Works 
2020). Mixed municipal plastic waste that was recovered 
at MRFs was baled and exported overseas for treatment.

In 2018–19, Australia exported almost 150,000 tonnes 
of mixed plastics, which comprised 80% of the value 
of all waste plastics exports ($43 million) (DEE 2019). 
However, the China National Sword Policy, and the newly 
established Australian ban on the export of mixed plastic 
waste (commenced 1 July 2021) is driving a shift for Australia 
to recycle and recover our own wastes. Concurrently, the 
establishment of the Recycling Modernisation Fund (RMF) 
has the goal of developing new recycling infrastructure 
to increase local recycling and waste treatment capacity 
(Table 5). The RMF funding is provided to state and 
territory governments, who are primarily responsible for 
managing the collection and disposal of waste in Australia.

The National Waste and Recycling Industry Council 
reports that there is a 80,000–90,000 tonne shortfall in 
Australia’s ability to locally process mixed plastic waste 
that is now diverted from export pathways (Read 2021). 
Despite there being established recycling pathways for 
some plastic waste streams via mechanical recycling in 
Australia, baled mixed plastic wastes are not always suitable 
for mechanical recycling due to the presence of polymer 
mixtures and other contamination. While mixed waste 
exports decreased by around 50% in 2019–20, advanced 
recycling can offer a pathway for the recovery of value from 
mixed plastic waste and contribute to achieving resource 
recovery targets set by the Australian Government.

Table 5: Exported mixed plastics compared to RMF 
infrastructure investment

JURISDICTION

MIXED PLASTICS 
EXPORTS 
2018–19 
(TONNES)

RMF PROJECTS 
PROCESSING CAPACITY 
(AS AT 31 MARCH 2021) 
(TONNES)

NSW

68,878

16,000 (Suez) + grant 
process underway

Victoria

58,500

20,000 (Cleanaway)

WA

11,897

35,000 (3 projects)

QLD

8,131

Nil

SA

2,041

Grant process underway

ACT

1,771

1,800 (MRF upgrade)

Tasmania

170

Grant process underway

NT

20

Nil

Total

149,695

61,800





Source: COAG 2020 and Read 2021

Mixed plastic wastes are more complicated to process by 
advanced recycling methods than pure streams of plastics. 
For efficient processing by advanced recycling it is likely 
that mixed plastic wastes would need sorting and cleaning 
to remove contaminants such as organics, PVC, textiles 
or residual metals. The addition of pre-sorting processes 
will increase the costs of production of raw materials and 
appropriate techno-economic assessments would be required 
to quantify the viability of processing mixed plastic wastes 
via advanced recycling. Mixed wastes cannot be processed 
using depolymerisation or purification technologies 
due to their different compositions and solubilities.

For recycling plastic mixtures, it is important to consider 
the plastic inputs into the advanced recycling system 
as each plastic has optimum degradation temperatures 
and conditions (Grause et al. 2011). There are complex 
interactions between products formed and this is 
increased when more complex mixtures are used 
as inputs. The most suitable technologies for mixed 
plastic waste are gasification, catalytic pyrolysis and 
hydrothermal processing (Solis & Silveira 2020). For all 
technology used for recycling of mixed plastic wastes, 
a clear understanding of the composition of the input 
materials is required to ensure process optimisation and 
efficiency, and to determine the quality of end products.



Gasification is generally less sensitive to PVC and PET 
contamination that may occur in mixed plastic waste 
inputs. However, the tar generated by processing mixed 
plastic wastes would be more complex, and pathways 
for recovery and reuse of these residuals may be 
more complicated (Ragaert, Delva & Van Geem 2017). 
As with the processing of pure plastic waste streams, 
the formation products are mainly gaseous (hydrogen 
gas, carbon dioxide and small hydrocarbons), and 
these can be separated by conventional technologies 
developed for existing gasification technologies.

In contrast to gasification, pyrolysis of mixed plastic wastes 
is more challenging. When working with mixtures, it is 
necessary to operate at temperatures higher than that of 
the highest melting plastic, which is more energy intensive 
when compared to processing single stream wastes. 
Although, higher liquid material recovery is achieved when 
using higher temperatures; this can lead to side reactions 
that may increase the char produced (Ragaert, Delva & 
Van Geem 2017; Solis & Silveira 2020). Pyrolysis systems 
for mixed plastic waste work best with combinations of 
polyolefins (PE, PP) and PS and generally tolerate only low 
levels of contamination from PVC, PET and other oxygen 
and nitrogen containing polymers. The input material also 
needs to be dry before it can be processed, which adds an 
energy cost. The addition of a catalyst during the process 
or as a separate cracking step can help the system to 
produce useful materials. A hydrocracking system where 
hydrogen is added can also manage oxygen and nitrogen 
containing plastic contamination (e.g. nylon, PET).

Hydrothermal processing does not require a drying step 
and can deal with low levels of contamination from 
PVC, rigid plastics, laminates and organic material. 
As such, it is the most flexible and tolerant technology 
for accepting mixed plastic wastes. When processing 
mixed plastic wastes, hydrothermal processing 
produces stable liquid hydrocarbons that can be stored 
and transported. Hydrothermal processing can also 
process MSW in conjunction with plastic waste.

3.8 Plastic packaging

Plastic packaging offers one of the best targets for 
advanced recycling, once pure polymer streams more 
suited to mechanical recycling have been removed. This is 
partly due to the national targets for recovery, particularly 
70% recycled or composted by 2025, and that packaging 
currently has the greatest recovery rates compared to 
other application areas (O’Farrell 2019). Table 6 shows the 
2018–19 plastic packaging consumption and recovery data 
(O’Farrell 2019). Based on the national target of achieving 
an average of 70% of packaging recycled by 2025, this 
shows an estimated increase of 474,240 tonnes of plastic 
packaging for Australia’s recycling system (assuming all 
packaging is single use). A very small proportion might 
be met by organic recycling (composting) and some 
of this increase can be met by mechanical recycling. 
The implementation of new container deposit schemes 
in Victoria and Tasmania are important for securing pure 
polymer streams for those states. However, not all of 
the increased recovery will be suitable for mechanical 
recycling. This is where advanced recycling to a purified 
polymer, monomer or basic chemicals may be preferable.

Table 6: Tonnes of plastic packaging including consumption 
and recovery in 2018–19 and recycling targets to 2025

PLASTICS RECYCLING 
DATA 2018–19

NATIONAL 
TARGET

Plastic packaging

Consumption

Recovery

By 2025 
(70%)

Consumer

895,500 

228,600 

626,850

Commercial and 
industrial 

183,800

52,600

128,590

Total

1,079,300

281,200 
(26%)

755,440 
(70%)

Increased recovery to 2025

474,240







3.9 Soft/flexible plastics

The term ‘soft plastics’, also known as flexible plastics, 
generally refers to plastics that can be scrunched into a 
ball and includes a range of polymer types, such as LDPE, 
LLDPE, HDPE and PP (APCO 2019). Soft plastics often 
contain multilayer, laminated materials, which make 
mechanical recycling challenging. The amount of soft 
plastics consumed and waste generated in Australia is 
difficult to calculate, but is estimated to be approximately 
300,000 tonnes per year (APCO 2019). Soft plastics are 
used extensively and in many industry sectors, and have a 
number of collection systems in place in Australia (Table 7).

Soft plastics are frequently added to municipal recycling 
bins and cause problems with contamination at MRFs. 
The soft plastics mimic paper and become tangled 
in the equipment. The presence of soft plastics often 
means that large proportions of collected kerbside 
recycling end up being dumped in landfill.

Table 7 provides a summary of soft plastics 
consumed by industry sector, including polymer 
types available and current collection systems.

Table 7: Types of soft plastics by industry sector and collection systems

INDUSTRY SECTOR

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

POLYMER TYPES

COLLECTION SYSTEM(S)

Municipal/
household

Mixed film packaging including 
retail bags, produce bags, 
consumer bags – pouches and film. 
Moderate contamination from 
glass, hard plastics, aluminium cans 
and residual food waste.

LDPE, HDPE, mixed 
other, PVC, PET, PP 

Council trials of ‘bag in a bag’ collection of soft 
plastics; Melbourne and Central Coast councils 
have reported low contamination rates from trials.

REDcycle drop-off points at retailers 
(grocery stores).

Commercial

Mixed film including shrink wrap, 
courier packs, food packaging and 
retail bags. Low contamination 
from hard plastics, paper.

LLDPE, HDPE, 
mixed other

Individual arrangements with contractors.

Industrial

Packaging offcuts, redundant 
packaging, plastic bags, bulk 
bags. High contamination with 
product residue, cardboard, gloves, 
general waste.

LDPE, PP, HDPE, 
mixed other

Collection and processing (e.g. Plastic Forests).

Agricultural

Bale wrap, grain bags, mulch 
film, baling twine. Can be 
highly contaminated with soil 
and residues.

LLDPE, LDPE, mixed 
other (e.g. woven 
PP, PVC)

Dairy Australia has a product stewardship grant to 
develop a regional and possibly national collection 
of silage wrap. The Plasback scheme operates in 
NZ (used to be in AUS). Plastic Forests accepts some 
agricultural wastes.

Some councils have drop-off services (cost or free).





Adapted from: APCO 2019

Current mechanical recycling of soft plastics in Australia 
typically involves the production of material and products 
for civil infrastructure (e.g. railway sleepers, highway 
sound barriers, bollards and park seating), road base and 
outdoor furniture. These reuse markets have the ability 
to grow but will not cope with the increased collection of 
soft plastic wastes, and as a result, other resource recovery 
processes need to be considered. Advanced recycling is 
the only option for recycling these plastics for reuse, and it 
generates output materials that are food contact compliant.

Recently, the consortium of Licella, Coles, Nestlé, 
LyondellBasell, VIVA Energy Australia, Taghleef Industries, 
REDcycle, iQ Renew and Amcor demonstrated the use 
of waste soft plastics to make a new candy bar wrapper 
(AM News 2021). They are currently conducting a feasibility 
study on the construction of a plant in Victoria that would 
be capable of producing 17,000 tonnes of soft plastic 
each year (Powell 2021). The use of feedstock could help 
brand owners source local content recycled packaging to 
meet the national packaging targets, which requires the 
industry to use 50% recycled content in packaging by 2025.



3.10 Tyres

Australia produced 56 million waste tyres (465,000 tonnes) 
in 2018–19 (TyreStewardship Australia, Sustainability Victoria 
& Department of Environment and Science 2018; Randell, 
Baker & O’Farrell 2020). As there are no tyre manufacturers 
in Australia, there are no current product stewardship or 
take back schemes in place for tyres, and waste tyres are 
usually sent to landfill (licensed and unlicensed), stockpiled 
or illegally dumped (Schandl et al. 2021). There are a number 
of markets for products produced through the mechanical 
recycling of waste tyres including road surfacing, 
playground surfacing and explosives. However, these reuse 
activities do not deal with the total volume of waste tyres 
produced, and additional recycling processes are required 
to promote the recovery of resources from these materials.

Tyres are predominantly composed of steel wire, synthetic 
rubber (styrene-butadiene), natural rubber, carbon 
black, silica, nylon and polyester (Randell, Baker & 
O’Farrell 2020). Tyres are good candidate input materials 
for pyrolysis and gasification (Schandl et al. 2021) 
because they break down at relatively low temperatures 
and produce usable outputs. Although gasification 
and co-gasification of tyres with biomass have been 
extensively studied, there are few commercial-scale tyre 
gasification plants globally (Oboirien & North 2017).

When recycled by pyrolysis the tyres are first shredded 
and the metals are recovered. Typically, pyrolysis of tyres 
produces char (30%), steel (15%), oil (45%) and syngas 
(10%). The char is refined into carbon black. The oil can 
be used as a fuel for furnaces and the like but would 
need to be upgraded for use in vehicles. The syngas is 
best used as fuel for electricity generation on site.

There are a few tyre pyrolysis plants in operation 
in Australia and most are pilot or demonstration 
scale (TyreStewardship Australia, Sustainability 
Victoria & Department of Environment and Science 
2018). The only plant that processes significant quantities 
of tyres is located in Queensland, Pearl Global, and 
processes 16,000 tonnes a year. BASF (Germany) uses 
its ChemCycling™ technology to co-pyrolyse end-of-life 
tyres with plastic waste to provide a naphtha feedstock 
for their steam cracker, the products of which they use to 
make a number of polymers (Sphera Solutions 2020).

Another pathway for recycling of waste tyres is 
devulcanisation, which converts them back to a material with 
similar properties to those of virgin rubber. Devulcanisation 
breaks the carbon–sulfur bonds that cross link the polymer, 
but it is not yet an economical process (Shulman 2019).

The challenges for pyrolysis in Australia include the 
high cost of plant, distributed input material, lack of 
consolidated markets to support economies of scale, limited 
successful plants to base the process on, distance from 
supply and end-markets, and a lack of extended producer 
responsibility. Plants have been successful in Europe 
where extended producer responsibility has underpinned 
the business case for construction of commercially viable 
plants and they have stable supplies and end-markets 
for the outputs (TyreStewardship Australia, Sustainability 
Victoria & Department of Environment and Science 2018).

3.11 Marine or plastic 
litter collections

There is potential for using marine debris or plastic litter 
collected from regionally isolated areas in advanced 
recycling technologies. The high cost of transportation 
of recyclable plastics often makes it uneconomic for 
remote communities to transport their waste or collect 
marine plastic debris, which leads to incineration or 
landfill options. Volumes and composition will vary 
significantly across locations. The important factors 
for successful advanced recycling technology for 
marine plastics or litter is robustness to contamination, 
modularity, ease of operation and ability to produce 
materials that can be used locally. The primary output 
is likely to be fuel for generators or boilers.

This waste stream will be composed of a wide range 
of plastics that will be degraded due to environmental 
factors including light and heat and will be unsuitable for 
mechanical recycling. While pyrolysis would be an option 
for these waste plastics, one of the main problems for 
processing would be separation of contamination from 
soil, salt, unsuitable plastics (PVC and PET), paper, glass and 
wood. Gasification processes operate at high temperatures, 
typically over 700°C, and are usually relatively large 
pieces of equipment that operate continuously. 
Gasification is not likely to be a suitable advanced recycling 
process for remote use. Hydrothermal processing is 
the least sensitive to contamination and would most 
likely offer the best solution in remote locations.



3.12 Thermoset plastics

Thermoset plastics are materials that have been irreversibly 
crosslinked to form a permanent solid material during 
their manufacture. Thermoset plastics are scratch resistant, 
and do not melt, deform or lose shape when heated 
or in extreme cold. Due to these excellent properties 
thermoset plastics form a large proportion of engineering 
and automotive plastics. Some examples of thermoset 
plastics and their uses include epoxy resins (carbon fibre 
reinforced products), silicone (adhesive, cooking utensils), 
phenolic resins (Bakelite), polybenzoxazine (coatings for 
circuit boards), vinyl esters (car parts) and polyurethanes 
(moulded furniture). Their properties are often enhanced 
by the addition of inorganic materials and fillers such as 
carbon or glass fibre and calcium carbonate. As thermosets 
are often used for engineering and electronic applications, 
they often contain flame retardants and toxic additives 
(Qureshi et al. 2020). Thermoset polymers are 
generally just contaminants in kerbside recycling bins 
as most of the products are in use for many years.

Thermosets cannot be recycled for the same purpose 
using mechanical recycling and can only be used as 
powdered or fibrous fillers (Devasahayam, Bhaskar 
Raju & Mustansar Hussain 2019). Thermal processes 
offer the best opportunity to recycle these polymers. 
Gasification, pyrolysis and hydrothermal processing 
are all applicable. However, pyrolysis and gasification 
systems need to use specific catalysts to effectively break 
down the polymers due to the high level of oxygen, 
nitrogen and other contaminants in thermoset polymers. 
As hydrothermal processing uses water to break down the 
polymers it is well suited to break down thermosets but 
may require the addition of basic chemicals (e.g. calcium 
carbonate) to assist. The presence of flame retardants 
and other fillers leads to the formation of toxic and 
halogenated by-products during thermal processing. 
Hydrothermal processing is able to remove chlorine 
and bromine in the water fraction. Thermosets lead to 
formation of more char than thermoplastic materials 
when thermally processed as they contain more fillers 
and have a higher proportion of oxygen or nitrogen. 
Whichever advanced recycling process is chosen, the 
best results will be obtained when thermosets form 
a small proportion of the total waste processed.

3.13 Summary

Based on the information presented in this 
section, Table 8 presents polymer types that are 
most suited to each advanced recycling option. 
Some polymer types appear more than once.

Table 8: Summary of preferred options for advanced recycling by polymer

PURIFICATION

DEPOLYMERISATION

CONVERSION

 

 

 







The following tables summarise suitability of polymers for each technology type (Table 9), and for waste plastics (Table 10).

Table 9: Summary on suitability of each polymer type for mechanical and advanced recycling technologies

POLYMER

MECHANICAL

PURIFICATION

DEPOLYMERISATION

CONVERSION

PET

Highly suitable when sorted.

Highly effective 
and commercially 
available.

Pyrolysis oil has organic acids – 
poor-quality oils and clogging 
of equipment.

Hydrothermal processing works well.

HDPE

A good option but often 
results in downcycling.

Catalytic pyrolysis excellent option.

Hydrothermal processing works well.

PVC

Possible but different 
materials may contain 
undesirable additives. Need to 
sort materials to ensure similar 
additives before processing.

Purification possible 
but may not be 
cost effective.

Hydrogen chloride produced when heated, which 
contaminates all processes.

LDPE/LLDPE

Possible for clean material.

Catalytic pyrolysis excellent option.

Hydrothermal processing works well.

PP

Suitable, but not generally 
separated and often included 
in mixed plastics.

Purification possible, 
pilot scale ventures 
coming on line 
internationally.

Pyrolysis and gasification 
good options.

Hydrothermal processing works well.

High levels of additives create 
more char/ash.

PS

Collection is challenging 
for EPS.

Purification excellent 
and pilot scale ventures 
running internationally.

No styrene 
manufacturing 
in Australia.

Depolymerisation 
possible.

Pyrolysis and gasification work well.





Table 10: Summary on suitability of each plastic waste for mechanical and conversion technologies

PLASTIC

MECHANICAL

CONVERSION

Mixed municipal plastics

Undesirable

Gasification works best with PE, PP and PS. Can tolerate small amounts of PVC 
and PET.

Pyrolysis works best with PE, PP and PS, no PVC or PET.

Hydrothermal processing gives good products from complex wastes 
including laminates, thermosets, PET and nylon, and tolerates contamination 
from cellulosics.

Soft/flexible plastics 
(mixture of LDPE/LLDPE/
HDPE/PP – multilayer, 
laminate)

Mechanical downcycling 
to furniture, etc.

Suitable for all conversion technologies. (Purification is also possible.)

Tyres

Mechanical recycling a 
good option.

Pyrolysis is a good option with examples of technology operating in Australia.

Marine litter 
(highly degraded and 
contaminated wastes)

Undesirable

Pyrolysis possible fuel for generators.

Hydrothermal processing possible.

Thermoset plastics 
(cannot be melted 
and reformed)

Mechanical grinding 
for use as fillers 
in composites

Conversion technologies best option.

Pyrolysis challenged by oxygen, nitrogen and other contamination.

Hydrothermal can cope with thermosets mixed with other waste.







46 Advanced recycling technologies to address Australia’s plastic waste



4 Factors influencing adoption 
of advanced recycling 
technology in Australia

This report describes technologies that have the 
potential to support Australia’s waste management and 
plastics recovery goals but do not yet exist at scale. 
Therefore, when launching a new industry, it is useful 
to take a systems‑based perspective of how Australia 
might adopt these new technologies. The following 
section summarises the relevant factors into six areas: 
political, economic, social, technological, legislative 
and environmental. Known as a PESTLE framework, it 
provides a broad perspective of the conditions that are 
relevant to a new technology and how it relates to the 
Australian context. The following section was developed 
based on peer-reviewed data and grey literature (media 
articles, company reports) and complemented by an 
Australian industry consultation workshop. Therefore, the 
factors described here provide an industry perspective 
of the key issues. A list of organisations that were 
consulted is provided at the end of this report.

4.1 Political

The policies of federal, state and territory governments 
have a large role in either enabling or discouraging 
industry investment into advanced recycling technologies. 
Local governments are also relevant as they are at the 
front line of balancing economic developments that 
benefit households and industry in local communities 
and regions. One of the most important points that 
was raised by industry was the number of difficulties 
encountered for industry (and consumers) when 
government policy is not harmonised. Australia’s adoption 
of advanced recycling technologies would benefit 
from a national approach that seeks consistency across 
jurisdictions, while catering for regional differences.

4.1.1 Current Australian policy context

Australia has a strong commitment to improving the 
collection and domestic processing and use of waste 
plastics. This is evidenced by the recently released 
National Plastics Plan, and the 2019 National Waste Policy 
Action Plan, and is supported by national packaging 
targets established by the Australian Packaging Covenant 
Organisation (APCO) (Australian Government 2021; Ritchie 
2019; APCO 2020). Australia has exported mixed plastic 
wastes to China and South-East Asia for many years. 
A portion of this waste has leaked into the environment 
and oceans due to poor storage where it is stockpiled, 
poor‑quality material, lack of environmental controls 
and lack of trading options (Retamal et al. 2020). 
The Australian Government signalled an end to plastic 
waste exports and these will be implemented in 2021 for 
mixed plastics, and 2022 for unprocessed, single‑type 
plastics. Each of these packages of domestic policy are 
consistent with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 
in particular SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and 
Production. The Australian Government, along with 
state and territory governments, has invested millions 
of dollars in supporting waste and resource recovery 
infrastructure. Various states and territories are introducing 
single-use plastic bans. It is important that advanced 
recycling is recognised in Australia’s policy landscape 
due to the important role it can play in recycling plastics 
that are unsuitable for mechanical recycling and might 
otherwise be disposed of and lost to our economy.

4.1.2 Product stewardship schemes

The Australian Government has established a National 
Product Stewardship Investment Fund which recently 
funded over $10 million worth of projects, of which just over 
$5 million are plastics-related projects. In 2021, a Product 
Stewardship Centre of Excellence was launched to support 
best-practice product stewardship schemes in Australia.4

4 www.stewardshipexcellence.com.au



Three of the national product stewardship projects 
funded by the federal government target soft/flexible 
plastics in Australia. Two of these address agricultural 
plastics and one targets food packaging (see Table 11). 
According to the project descriptions, they target almost 
920,000 tonnes per year of plastics that are currently 
not being collected (DAWE 2021). These plastics are 
likely to be suitable for advanced recycling due to having 
some degree of contamination (soil or food), possibly 
multiple layers and mixed plastics. Farm plastics, unless 
non-contaminated, are likely to be good candidates for 
advanced recycling. Regarding food packaging, these 
plastics may be appropriate for mechanical recycling 
if they able to be sorted to a single polymer type and 
importantly, have a domestic market. Alternatively, material 
currently going to landfill may be suitable for pyrolysis, 
gasification or hydrothermal technologies. As these product 
stewardship projects are ongoing, it would be useful 
for these schemes to include consideration of advanced 
recycling technologies in addition to mechanical. Trials of 
plastic waste material may be required to ascertain their 
suitability for different technologies and what outputs 
different plastic waste combinations might deliver.

Table 11: Three product stewardship projects that are potential 
candidates for advanced recycling processes

PROJECT TITLE

AVAILABLE 
PLASTIC WASTE

GRANT 
AMOUNT

Recycling farm 
plastics

8,000 tonnes/year waste 
farm plastics, silage wrap

$965,400

Recycling 
non-packaging 
agri-plastics

90,000 tonnes/year

$893, 866

Recovering food 
packaging

1 million tonnes/year 
plastic packaging waste 
(820,000 tonnes/year 
going to landfill)

$985,866





Source: Department of Agriculture Water and Environment 2021

4.1.3 Innovation policy and governance

New technologies can offer significant benefits but 
mechanisms to support their adoption and launch a 
new industry requires a combination of industry and 
innovation policy. The European Commission report 
‘A circular economy for plastics’ presents a framework 
for the governance of sustainable transitions through 
a socio-technical landscape (Crippa et al. 2019). 
Figure 8 shows the transition over time of an innovation 
from niche to mainstream using three analytical levels. 
The niche innovation is the location of experimental or 
novel innovation. Innovations must break through to the 
socio‑technical regime where established rules, such as 
industry practices, market preferences, policy and cultural 
norms are a stable influence. The landscape level represents 
external societal factors such as public demand for greater 
recycling. The regime influences an innovation and, should 
an innovation break through, is influenced by the emerging 
niche. The arrows in Figure 8 show the relationships and 
forces applied to each level (niche, regime and landscape) 
over time, as a niche innovation emerges (Geels 2011).

Niche innovations underpin long-term transitions and 
are similar to pilots, demonstrations, or experimental 
innovations. The concept of niche innovation applies 
to advanced recycling technologies as they are novel 
(different from the prevailing technology), complex 
(require multiple stakeholders) and can support a 
transition to circular economy. Niche innovations 
depend on three elements to emerge – a shared 
vision, innovation network and shared learnings.

An example of generating momentum for niche innovation 
is from Germany where the Fraunhofer Institute launched 
a national network for chemical recycling and the circular 
economy.5 A similar approach adopted in Australia would 
provide the three essential key elements required by 
niche innovations to create long term change. A national 
network facilitates a shared vision for scaling up and 
implementing advanced recycling for plastics. A network 
approach is important as the success of advanced recycling 
depends upon integration and collaborations across the 
entire supply chain. Lastly, it is important that progress 
of different technologies is shared amongst the industry 
and innovation system. Sharing lessons learned will 
highlight key success factors and ensure mistakes are 
not repeated, which accelerates the adoption of new 
technologies. A national network combining industry 
and stakeholders from the innovation system will 
facilitate adoption of these technologies in a timelier 
fashion compared to a piecemeal approach. In Germany 
it was proposed that reference sites be implemented 
for the trial and scale up of technology, which would be 
useful in removing barriers to engaging in technology. 
These would be supported by funding, subsidies and 
regulatory frameworks (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021).

5 www.enfrecycling.com/directory/plastic-mrf/Australia



Figure 8: Multi-level perspective of socio-technical transitions 

Adapted from source: Geels 2011

Figure 8: Multi-level perspective of socio-technical transitions 
Adapted from source: Geels 2011
Markets, user preferencesIndustrySciencePolicyCultureTechnologyIncreasing structuration of 
activities in local practicesTimeSOCIO-TECHNICAL LANDSCAPE 
(EXOGENOUS CONTEXT)
SOCIO-TECHNICAL 
REGIMENICHE-INNOVATIONSLandscape developments put pressure on 
existing regime, which opens up, creating 
windows of opportunity for noveltiesNew regime 
inuences 
landscapeSocio-technical regime is 
‘dynamically stable’. On 
dierent dimensions there 
are ongoing processesNew conguration breaks through, taking 
advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’. 
Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.
External inuences on 
niches (via expectations 
and networks)
Elements become aligned, and 
stabilise in a dominant design. 
Internal momentum increases.
Small networks of actors support novelties on the 
basis of expectations and visions. 
Learning processes take place on multiple 
dimensions (co-construction). 
Eorts to link dierent elements in a seamless web.

4.2 Economic

From an industry perspective, economic factors are the 
leading factor influencing advanced technology adoption 
in Australia. Landfill gate fees are important in determining 
if advanced recycling is cost competitive. Transport costs 
and distance of plastic wastes to processing are important. 
The scale of plant, additional sorting, cost of virgin material 
compared to recovered material, and the price of oil and 
energy costs – these all affect the economic viability of 
advanced technologies. For example, gasification facilities 
must offset capital costs with product revenues and 
tipping fees. The amount of fuels, chemicals or energy 
produced per tonne is affected by the management of the 
heat produced by the gasification process and whether 
it is captured or used at the facility to provide heat or 
energy to the system (Gershman & Bratton 2013).

The potential and size of market, noting again that 
these technologies complement rather than compete 
with mechanical recycling, is large. The North American 
market is estimated as a $120 billion opportunity (Closed 
Loop Partners 2019). However, many technologies are 
at an early stage. The early stage of development was 
noted by Closed Loop Partners who researched 60 global 
technology providers, and found many at lab scale but 
with the ability, or plans to scale up in the next 2 years 
(Closed Loop Partners 2019). There are several pilot 
plants operating in Europe, with some that have scaled 
up to an industrial scale (Recycling Technologies 2021).

Competition with waste incineration plants has 
contributed to gasification plants closing down in 
Germany (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021) and Australian 
industry has raised competition with waste-to-energy 
plants as an emerging issue. Germany was a pioneer 
in the industrial-scale implementation of advanced 
technologies with advanced recycling centres in Berrenrath 
and Sekundärrohstoff-Verwertungs-zentrum Schwarze 
Pumpe (SVZ Schwarze Pumpe). Both plants were using 
gasification technologies to convert different types and 
mixtures of carbonaceous waste (e.g. unsorted MSW, 
plastic waste, tar and oil residues, waste wood, sewage 
sludges) mixed with coal into syngas and then producing 
methanol (~300 tonnes a day). Both plants were closed, 
the last in 2007, due to a range of factors including high 
operating costs, expenses maintaining the complex 
plant, low methanol prices and competition with waste 
incineration plants (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021).

Clearly, market conditions have changed since 2007 and 
there are many examples of projects commencing around 
the world. However, in order to be competitive, recycled 
polymer will need to address economic drivers as they will 
typically have a higher price than virgin material (Goldberg, 
Haig & McKinlay 2019). An additional factor to consider 
is transport costs. It may be more efficient to process 
plastic waste into liquid intermediate products, rather 
than transport plastic waste. This is particularly relevant 
for regionally distributed cities and towns and where 
modular conversion technologies may be well suited.

4.2.1 Economic viability of advanced 
recycling technologies

Advanced recycling needs to compete with the low price 
of petrochemical feedstock. It has been said that this factor 
alone makes advanced recycling uneconomic without 
significant subsidies (Hopewell, Dvorak & Kosior 2009). 
However, despite the early stage of many technology 
solutions, there is evidence that advanced technologies 
can be profitable. An economic analysis of PP waste from 
New York, processed using pyrolysis (with a catalyst) and 
gasification was found to be profitable with a net present 
value of USD$149 million and USD$96 million, respectively. 
The key factors influencing economic performance were 
the discount rate applied, the price of waste PP and 
plant life (Bora, Wang & You 2020). Depolymerisation 
technologies have the potential for profitability as they 
avoid capital investments for petrochemical infrastructure 
and plants that manufacture PET. It has been estimated that 
a PET chemolysis facility requires 15,000 tonnes per year 
in order to be economically viable (George & Kurian 
2014). By comparison pyrolysis, where outputs become 
cracker feedstocks, is estimated to be profitable down 
to $50 a barrel and as a technology, is generally more 
resilient to lower oil prices (Hundertmark et al. 2018). 
Another factor for consideration is the willingness of 
the public to pay a premium for recycled content.

However, these technologies are not without risks and there 
are examples of companies that have ceased operation. 
For example, VinyLoop®, a PVC waste recycling purification 
plant in Italy that used butanol as a solvent and steam as 
an anti-solvent, was shut down after more than 15 years of 
operation because the process was not effective enough to 
remove additives, such as plasticisers (Plasteurope 2018).



While PS is an excellent candidate for depolymerisation 
technologies there are no styrene producers in 
Australia therefore there is no connection with product 
outputs and a domestic manufacturing sector. PS is 
also an excellent polymer for pyrolysis systems as it 
breaks down at low temperatures and will provide 
aromatic compounds, which are particularly valuable 
if the output is to be a fuel (Erdogan 2020).

Each of the advanced recycling processes have an energy 
cost. Pyrolysis and gasification use high temperatures 
to break the chemical bonds and are energy intensive 
(Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019). Depolymerisation and 
dissolution are also often carried out at temperatures 
over 80°C. Although many processes will use part of the 
outputs (oil or gas) to provide the heat energy required, 
there may still be an additional energy requirement 
and this needs to be factored into implementation.

4.2.2 Technology business models

A key economic challenge is maintaining security of 
supply and a consistent feedstock (Qureshi et al. 2020). 
This can be overcome by developing supply relationships 
with waste managers and additional pre‑sorting 
of plastics. In fact, the business models for these 
technologies are likely to involve waste managers.

Large-scale commercial plants are likely to be sized at 
30,000–200,000 tonnes a year. It is sensible to also 
offer recycling as a service where the plant receives 
waste, generates outputs and offers them for sale to the 
chemical sector (Recycling Technologies 2021). A second 
business model is likely to exist for small, modular units 
with capacity for processing 1,000–10,000 tonnes a 
year. Companies with plant that support distributed 
models of waste processing are more likely to offer the 
technology for sale. These modular units are suitable for 
regional or remote waste management. They may also 
be combined in series. They will require operation by 
suitably qualified waste handlers. While the technology 
provider secures revenue directly from the sale of 
technology, the operator of the unit will need to develop 
contracts with the chemical sector for the sale of product 
outputs (Recycling Technologies 2021). The business 
model for the collection of waste is also a key factor 
for consideration. This is where product stewardship 
schemes can provide a steady stream of plastic waste.

4.2.3 Licella Cat-HTR™ in Victoria

A feasibility study is looking at a potential site in Victoria 
for an advanced recycling facility using the Cat-HTR™ 
hydrothermal processing technology developed by 
Licella (Section 2.4.3) in a bid to tackle the growing issue 
of plastic waste (Licella Holdings 2021). The study is a 
collaboration between technology provider Licella, recycler 
iQ Renew, Coles, polymer manufacturer LyondellBasell 
and Nestlé to determine the technical, economic and 
environmental benefit of a Victorian advanced recycling 
industry. The study will build on the demonstration of 
making the Kit-Kat wrapper from soft plastics unveiled 
in 2021 (AM News 2021). The consortium acknowledges 
that without the input and cooperation from the 
whole value chain it won’t be possible to implement 
the changes required bring about the industry.

4.2.4 Industry collaboration

For advanced recycling to be economically viable, there is a 
need for supply chain collaboration between manufactures, 
waste managers, advanced recycling technology owners 
and operators (Figure 9). In particular, there is a need for 
collaborative supply chain partnerships to be established with 
refinery or chemical manufacturing companies, as pursuing 
a plastics-to-plastics pathway depends on access to existing 
infrastructure to process the oil or gas outputs from advanced 
technologies. An example of the circular plastics-to-plastics 
supply chain stakeholders is provided below.

Figure 9: Circular industrial supply chain for advanced recycling 
of waste plastics back into plastic



Global brands are beginning to invest in advanced 
recycling technologies to ensure access to the limited 
supply of recycled plastics (Phipps 2019). These brands 
include Adidas, Unilever, P&G, Danone and Interface, 
which have all signed offtake agreements with a 
number of chemical recycling start-ups to support their 
growth. Plastics manufacturers Indorama and SABIC 
have also made strategic investments in Plastic Energy, 
Loop Industries and Ioniqa, and chemicals companies 
including BASF, Eastman Chemicals and LyondellBasell 
have integrated chemical recycling technologies in their 
own manufacturing and supply chains (Phipps 2019).

4.2.5 Advanced manufacturing 
export/import opportunities

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation Global Commitment 
unites businesses behind a common vision for a circular 
economy for plastics. The 2020 report includes more 
than 250 businesses and major multinational brand 
owners, representing 20% of all global packaging. 
These companies have on average 6.2% recycled content 
in plastic packaging. This constitutes a 22% increase year 
on year (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020b). Many major 
brands have targets to substantially increase their recycled 
content. A summary of the status of the top 10 fast 
moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies compared 
to 2025 targets is shown (Table 12). Four companies are 
not signatories to the Global Commitment, therefore 
data is not reported. These data show that while 
excellent progress has been made, there will be market 
demand for recycled plastics for global and domestic 
companies to meet their 2025 goals for recycled content 
in plastics packaging. This provides Australia with the 
potential to leverage existing infrastructure (refinery 
and crackers) to develop certified recycled chemicals 
(from waste plastics) for export. This means advanced 
recycling technologies could play a role in developing 
new, advanced manufacturing export opportunities.

Australia’s major polymer manufacturing infrastructure 
may play a regional role by importing waste plastics 
processed by advanced recycling technologies from 
Asia-Pacific countries, such as New Zealand, for processing. 

Table 12: Progress towards recycled plastic content for top 10 
FMCG brands

RECYCLED CONTENT 
IN PLASTICS
(% BY WEIGHT)

TOTAL VOLUME 
OF PLASTIC 
PACKAGING
(MILLION TONNES 
PER YEAR)

Top 10 FMCG 
Companies

Current 
(2019)

2025 
target

1

Nestlé

2

30

1,524,000

2

Procter & Gamble

n/a

3

PepsiCo

4

25

2,300,000

4

AB InBev

n/a

5

Unilever

5

25

700,000

6

JBS

n/a

7

Tyson Foods

n/a

8

The Coca-Cola 
Company

9.7

25

2,981,421

9

Mars, 
Incorporated

0

30

191,217

10

L’Oreal

6.9

50

137,280





Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020b

4.3 Social

The social dimension includes community education and 
awareness, stakeholder engagement, industry capability 
and securing social licence to operate. Industry feedback 
highlighted the importance of household education 
for the separation of plastics to reduce contamination 
and the need for increased community and government 
engagement on the role and environmental impact 
of advanced technologies. Industry also noted the 
importance of chemical engineering skills to be retained 
and developed in the manufacturing sector. The role of 
independent, trusted advisers such as CSIRO were noted 
by industry as having an important role in developing 
and communicating evidence-based information.



4.3.1 Community education on the value 
of plastics and recycling options

Australians consider plastics a serious environmental problem 
and there is data to show that plastic packaging is losing 
its social licence to operate (Dilkes-Hoffman et al. 2019). 
However, this is contrary to evidence that shows plastics to 
be preferable to paper and that plastics extend the life of 
food products, which prevents food waste. A recent study 
showed that plastics were considered the least favourable 
of food packaging options by Danish consumers, although 
they were actually the most environmentally preferred 
solution based on a life cycle assessment (LCA) (Boesen, 
Bey & Niero 2019). In addition to consumer education on the 
positive benefits of plastics packaging there is a need for 
increased consumer education on labelling that indicates 
the recyclability of products and harmonised municipal 
recycling messaging for households (Schandl et al. 2021).

The public has several misconceptions about plastic 
recycling. There is a view that all plastics are able to be 
recycled if they have the recycling code triangle on them. 
This is being addressed by the Australasian Recycling 
Label to be implemented for approximately 80% of 
supermarket items by 2023 (Australian Government 
2021). Many people mistakenly believe that mechanical 
recycling is endlessly possible and an option for all 
plastic waste and as such do not understand how 
advanced recycling complements the recycling system. 
There are also misconceptions about the difficulties, 
cost and importance of separation of mixed plastic waste, 
resulting in high levels of contamination in MRFs.

4.3.2 Industry engagement

In a survey run in Germany, industry participants from 
diverse sectors (chemical, energy, non-government 
organisations, science) confirmed that their main concerns 
with advanced recycling were environmental impacts 
and uncertainty about the LCA impacts associated 
with chemical production (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021). 
The main challenges identified to the implementation 
of technology in Germany were the high investment 
costs, high energy requirements and uncertainty around 
availability of waste as an input (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 
2021). The overall findings from the participant study in 
Germany were that there was a lack of quantitative data to 
evaluate the (positive and negative) benefits of advanced 
recycling. There is a need for evaluation studies and 
research and development to support establishment of 
reference sites. Supportive regulation to assist advanced 
recycling technology to compete against well-established 
waste-to-energy technologies will also be necessary.

4.3.3 Community acceptance and 
awareness (social licence to operate)

Social licence to operate is based on trust and can be 
withdrawn at any time. To build trust in advanced recycling 
with any group, the community must understand the 
perceived impacts and benefits, the governance, and have 
knowledge of the process, and this is achieved through 
strong relationships (Sustainability Victoria 2021).

There is confusion around the terminology for advanced 
recycling; it is also known as chemical, feedstock or 
molecular recycling. Also, there is a lack of clarity on 
inputs and targeted product outputs from advanced 
recycling (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021). The public 
has very little understanding of advanced recycling. 
Most Australians understand the waste-to-energy 
incineration models and are concerned about loss of 
useful plastic material and greenhouse gas emissions 
from incineration. Advanced recycling needs a similar 
level of understanding amongst the community.

Lack of social licence was observed when two pyrolysis 
plants were recently proposed in Australia. Despite facilities 
like the proposed pyrolysis plant by Foyson Resources 
in NSW showing that they would take plastics that were 
not suitable for mechanical recycling, community groups 
such as the Total Environment Centre were concerned 
that recyclable plastic was to be burned as fuel (Vince 
2015). Foyson Resources had communicated that their 
products were going to meet Australian standards, their 
plant would produce little noise and their emissions 
were a natural gas that they planned to use for energy 
and a non-hazardous ash waste. The NSW Environment 
Protection Authority rejected the proposal stipulating 
that it did not meet NSW’s energy-from-waste policy 
(Burgess 2018). Likewise, a plant planned for Hume in the 
ACT that proposed to turn PE, PP and PS non-recyclable 
plastics into petrol, diesel and LPG via pyrolysis was 
stopped as a health panel decided that there was not 
enough evidence to prove the facility could be safe as it 
was a new technology (Burgess 2018). The community was 
concerned about emissions despite detailed information 
supplied by the company about the level of expected 
particulate and gaseous emissions. Foyson Resources 
detailed that its process would remove ash, and would 
deal with hydrocarbon contaminants, impurities and waste 
gas for heating by burning off gas at a high temperature 
to destroy noxious compounds. These recent examples 
show there is much to do to secure a social licence to 
operate for advanced recycling technologies. This can be 
achieved through the provision of credible, evidence-based 
information to government and community stakeholders.



4.4 Technology

This technology section includes factors that are necessary 
for plant scale up and implementation, such as access to 
existing cracker or refinery infrastructure. There is a need 
to understand the differences between technologies, the 
combinations of plastic waste inputs, operating processes 
and conditions, and the quality and yield of outputs.

4.4.1 Connection to existing refinery and 
polymer manufacturing infrastructure

The economics of some large-scale advanced recycling 
technologies is contingent on connecting with 
existing refinery or polymer cracking infrastructure 
to further separate molecules, so they are suitable 
for chemical processing. Australia currently has two 
polymer manufacturers, Qenos (PE) and LyondellBasell 
(PP). Without the presence of these manufacturers’, 
conversion-based technologies Australia would only 
have a plastics‑to‑fuels pathway. Maintaining critical 
polymer manufacture infrastructure is essential 
to the viability of advanced recycling in Australia. 
As described further below, the State of Victoria holds 
critical pieces of infrastructure: a refinery, steam 
cracker and polymer manufacturing capability. It is 
in an ideal position to capitalise on these assets.

Around 20 years ago (2001), Australia had eight 
operating refineries that met almost all domestic fuel 
demand. Today, Australian refineries compete against 
larger and more efficient refineries in the Asia region. 
Australia currently has two refineries, one in Geelong (Viva 
Energy Australia) and one in Lytton, Queensland (Ampol). 
BP Australia announced in October 2020 that the Kwinana 
refinery would close and be converted to a fuel import 
terminal. ExxonMobil announced in February 2021 that their 
Altona refinery would close (ABC News 2021). The impact 
of the Altona closure is that Qenos will close and mothball 
one of its two ethylene-producing steam crackers, which 
will result in a 15% reduction in the production of PE and a 
reported loss of around 150 jobs (Macdonald-Smith 2021). 
The Qenos cracking facility takes ethane gas or liquid 
petroleum gas and produces ethylene to make HDPE and 
propylene that is supplied to LyondellBasell to make PP.

When high-quality ethane is fed to the steam cracker a 
high yield (80%) of ethylene and propylene is produced 
that can be used to make PE and PP products. The yield 
of ethylene and propylene from naphtha is lower 
(40% to 50%) depending on the quality of the feed and 
the configuration of the cracker. Methane and hydrogen 
(15%) are also produced and may be consumed as fuel in 
the process. The cracker can work well with small (two 
to five carbon) straight chain hydrocarbons to produce 
ethylene and propylene. One of the two Altona crackers 
previously processed much heavier oils, a capability 
that could be reinstated if it was economical.

Generally, the gases and naphtha produced from plastics 
pyrolysis and gasification contain a higher proportion 
of olefinic, isomeric and aromatic hydrocarbons. 
Such materials are well suited to a refinery processes 
and fuel applications. Without further treatment they 
provide low yields of ethylene if used directly as an 
input to a steam cracker. Steam crackers such as the 
Qenos Altona plant require a purified polyolefin input 
stream, free of oxygen, nitrogen and chlorine as these 
elements cause corrosion problems and can poison the 
various catalysts. Post-treatment processes have been 
developed to hydrogenate and purify the products of a 
suitably designed pyrolysis process, enabling the creation 
of a high-quality cracker feed. Any oxygen, nitrogen 
and chlorine contaminants can also be troublesome for 
the zeolite catalysts employed in a refinery fluidised 
catalytic cracker; however, the dilution into the much 
larger refinery fuel stream may make this workable.

While both refinery and polymer steam cracker paths 
can be used to process recycled polymer oil, steam 
crackers have the potential to produce ethylene and 
propylene that can be used to make new plastic 
materials whereas refineries will convert the majority 
of the product into fuel (gasoline and diesel).

A further risk identified by industry was, if Australia 
does not include advanced recycling alongside 
mechanical recovery to meet recycled content 
targets, then packaging capability may go offshore to 
achieve those targets. If packaging capability is lost to 
Australia, then the product manufacturing capability, 
technology and jobs will also be lost, resulting in 
Australia importing packaged finished goods.

4.4.2 Production of food contact 
compliant plastics

Most of the polymer manufactured in Australia meets food 
contact compliant plastics standards. Achieving a food 
contact compliant standard is a major consideration for 
recycled polymers. There is infrastructure to mechanically 
recycle PET suitable for food contact. PET has a high melting 



point so clean post-consumer PET from food applications 
is sterilised during the extrusion process. The plastic 
products produced meet US Food and Drug Administration 
guidelines. A big advantage of advanced recycling is 
that outputs can be fed back into the plastic production 
system for food contact compliant plastics, as they are the 
same as the raw materials. Thus, polymers other than PET 
can be recycled back into food contact grade plastics.

4.4.3 Technology scale up and research

One challenge for the collection of technologies that fit 
into the category of advanced recycling is that they are 
yet to be implemented at commercial scale for plastics 
recovery (Rahimi & Garciá 2017). There are, however, many 
that are on the verge of scale up in coming years and 
large-scale pyrolysis facilities might range from 30,000 to 
100,000 tonnes per year with small-scale, modular units 
with up to 3,000 tonnes per year (Hundertmark et al. 2018). 
In the past, pyrolysis plants have faced market challenges; 
however, there are a range of technology providers 
emerging with modular technologies that are well suited 
to a distributed collection and recycling system (Crippa 
et al. 2019). It is estimated that the efficiency of pyrolysis 
is 71% but will increase with future development (Jeswani 
et al. 2021). Another relevant economic factor is that the 
heating energy required for pyrolysis is between 5% and 
20% of the calorific value of the inputs, although ongoing 
improvements and catalytic cracking are improving 
outputs and reducing energy demand (Crippa et al. 2019).

An example of international investment is Plastic Energy, 
which is a Spanish company that has a commercial plastic 
waste conversion process using pyrolysis with two plants 
running in Spain (Sparrow 2020). They partnered with 
SABIC, a Saudi petrochemical company, to start the 
engineering and construction of a new advanced recycling 
system that will be in Geleen, the Netherlands, announced 
January 2021 (Plastic Energy 2021). They have also 
announced a collaboration with ExxonMobil to construct 
a plant in France capable of processing 25,000 tonnes a 
year and with Nestlé to create a recycling facility in the UK. 
The process uses predominately HDPE and LDPE, PS and PP 
that can no longer be mechanically recycled. Each tonne of 
plastic waste produces 850 litres of TACOIL (Sparrow 2020).

The polymer types of PET, PE, PP, PPMA (acrylic) and PS 
comprise 70% of global production. Currently there is 
little evidence that dissolution and depolymerisation 
technologies are economically viable at current market 
conditions. This is mainly due to the price competition 
with virgin materials. These technologies require greater 
research investment at lab and pilot scale to improve 
yield and energy efficiency (Crippa et al. 2019).

Research institutes have an important role in collaborating 
with industry for lab to pilot scale up. In addition, they 
have an important role in researching and providing 
evidence-based information to community and government 
stakeholders. The role of CSIRO in this regard was highlighted 
by industry participants during an advanced recycling 
workshop. Research institutes are part of the innovation 
system (as described in Section 4.1.3) and can assist in 
connecting industry supply chains under a vision of growing 
the advanced recycling network and shared learnings. 
Critical chemical and engineering research expertise 
can also be applied to the challenge of managing mixed 
polymer waste inputs to deliver ideal output yields.

4.4.4 Plastic waste supply – collection and 
sorting infrastructure

The quality of input material and sorting steps have a significant 
contribution to the final yield of advanced technologies 
(Jeswani et al. 2021). Industry participants provided very 
strong feedback that a major challenge for advanced 
recycling are issues with waste contamination (e.g. with 
PVC or non‑plastics materials). New collection schemes for 
flexibles and greater aggregation of plastic wastes are needed 
to achieve high volumes of plastics suitable for advanced 
recycling. Current plastic separation technologies are not 
sufficient to produce high-quality (low contamination) 
inputs for advanced recycling. Australia needs investment 
in plastic recovery facilities (PRF) such as the example in 
Laverton, Victoria, by Cleanaway that operates alongside a 
materials recycling facility (MRF). There is a lack of readily 
available information at national or state and territory level 
about the processing capacities of plastics. This information 
is essential for policy and investment planning, particularly 
as facilities vary in their capability – tonnes per year, single 
vs multiple polymer types, municipal and/or commercial 
waste streams. However, there is a directory for Australian 
facilities available5 (although it lacks information on tonnes 
processed per year and an easy to view measure of the 
polymer types accepted). The national plastics recycling 
survey has data on the number of waste processing facilities 
in each state by polymer type (O’Farrell 2019). Lastly, there is 
some data available on industry upgrade plans (Read 2021; 
Envisage Works 2020). Combining these data into a state or 
national perspective would provide a clear vision of gaps.



4.5 Legislation (and standards)

Implementation of legislation can be an enabler 
or barrier for supporting increased production of 
recycled plastics. The same legislation can be viewed 
by different stakeholders, positively or negatively. 
Given a general lack of awareness of advanced recycling 
technologies, some regulators consider them in the 
same category as waste‑to‑energy. Consideration 
should be given to technologies that exclusively process 
plastics for the purpose of deriving intermediate 
products, rather than electricity generation. The topic 
of standards and certification is highly relevant to 
advanced recycling technologies and is also reviewed 
in this section. It is useful to start by briefly mentioning 
recent legislation examples from the UK and US.

4.5.1 UK plastics tax

The UK will implement a plastics tax of £200 per tonne 
of packaging that does not reach a threshold of 
30% recycled plastic. This tax commences from 1 April 2022 
and it is intended to provide economic incentives for 
companies to include recycled content in packaging 
and to generate demand for recycled material and 
improve collection and diversion rates away from landfill 
and incineration (UK Government 2021). As Australia 
is integrated into global markets this tax will have a 
flow-on impact to some Australian companies.

4.5.2 US proposed Break Free from Plastic 
Pollution Act 2021

In March 2021, the US Congress evaluated the Break 
Free from Plastic Pollution Act 2021. This proposed 
act could place a three-year, temporary pause on 
permitting new or expanded plastics facilities and 
chemical/advanced recycling is no longer considered 
‘recycling’. Any pause in permits for these facilities 
(which includes all types of technologies discuss in this 
report) is so that regulations that prevent air and water 
pollution can be updated. The primary concern is to 
limit impacts on community health arising from the 
operation of plastics production facilities (Staub 2021).

4.5.3 Legislative factors for advanced 
recycling plants

A major constraint for the development of advanced 
recycling industrial processes is the large number of 
differences in policy and regulation across Australia. 
These make it challenging for companies to operate in 
the national market as they must meet the requirements 
for every state. Existing policies and guidelines 
have limited application to emerging technologies. 
Specifically, the eligibility of plastic as an input for 
pyrolysis is not clearly defined in legislature. It is best 
determined using the states’ energy-from-waste 
policies and guidelines, as shown in Table 13.

The Queensland Energy from Waste Policy 2020 
differentiates between waste to energy and waste to 
fuel. It places fuel recovery as one position higher than 
energy in the waste hierarchy. This is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Queensland waste hierarchy considering energy 
from waste

The regulatory pressures have driven Australian 
developments overseas. In NSW, Licella’s joint venture 
with iQ Renew has been restricted by the NSW 
Environment Protection Authority, reportedly because of 
its energy‑from-waste policy, and Licella has now set up 
a ReNew ELP venture in the UK (Hannam 2019; ELP 2020). 
Likewise, Foyson Resources was planning a plastics-to‑fuel 
plant in Hume, ACT. As it was a new technology it was 
determined by a health panel that there was too much 
risk. Foyson Resources has merged with Integrated Green 
Energy Solutions in the Netherlands and will be shipping 
their facility to Amsterdam. Renewology announced plans 
for a facility in Victoria in 2017 but reportedly did not 
receive government support and finance (Khadem 2017).



Table 13: National and state-based energy from waste policy and guidelines that may affect advanced recycling for plastics operations

STATE

KEY POLICY

REQUIREMENTS

National

Parliament of Australia, inquiry into Australia’s 
waste and recycling industries – ‘From Rubbish to 
Resources: Building a Circular Economy’ (2020)

Waste to energy refers to a range of technologies that convert waste 
to electricity, heat and fuel.

National

National Plastics Plan (2021)

The Australian government supports new technologies focused 
on reducing plastic waste and improving recycling. This includes 
chemical recycling.

VIC

Recycling Victoria – a New Economy (2020)

Environmental Protection Act (1970)

Limit of 1 million tonnes/year until 2040.

Plastic not specifically listed as an eligible feedstock, and is 
considered residual waste, which may be eligible for thermal 
treatment if it is assessed as the best alternative to landfill.

NSW

NSW Energy from Waste Policy Statement (2020)

Gasification and pyrolysis considered thermal treatment however 
energy from waste policy excludes thermal treatment where a 
transport fuel is produced. 

Does not recognise plastic as an eligible waste to use as input for 
thermal treatment. Does accept tyres for use in cement kiln.

QLD

Energy from Waste Policy (2020)

Planning Act 2016

Environmental Protection Regulation (2008)

Environmental Protection Act 1994

Plastic not specifically mentioned other than, energy produced from 
fossil-derived plastics does not count as renewable energy. 

An environment relevant activity (ERA) approval is required, with 
ERA 61: Thermal waste reprocessing and treatment the most relevant 
for pyrolysis, with consideration to:

• risk level – plastic is likely classed as Category 2 (moderate risk)
• scale of operations.


WA

Waste to Energy Position Statement (2013)

Planning and Development Act 2005

Section 16e of the Environmental Protection 
Act 1986

Development approval is required under the Planning and 
Development Act 2005.

Must be sited in industrial and appropriately distanced from 
sensitive land.

Consistency with waste hierarchy: residual waste 
otherwise landfilled.







4.5.4 Mass balance method for 
plastics-to-plastics

For technologies that process waste plastics into chemicals 
there is no way to distinguish recycled chemical feedstocks 
from non-renewable feedstocks. It is impossible to track 
chemicals from recycled feedstocks once they enter existing 
infrastructure where they are mixed in a continuous 
process, at a molecular level. Chemical plants are often 
linked directly together through logistical systems such as 
pipelines or transport linkages. This interconnectedness 
supports the use of a by-product from one system 
being used in another downstream process.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation published a report on 
a ‘mass balance’ approach, which is a chain of custody 
method, to account for recycling of plastics back into 
chemicals when it is implemented at scale, and in 
conjunction with existing infrastructure. A chain of custody 
method is also applied to global resources such as timber, 
palm oil and cotton. A mass balance approach applies 
a bookkeeping method for ensuring that any certified 
recycled output does not exceed the input, minus any 
production or conversion losses. For example, pyrolysis 
and gasification processes are likely to achieve about 
30–40% conversion to polymer (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 
2019). The bookkeeping method requires a defined 
reconciliation period (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020a).

4.5.5 International certification

Using the mass balance approach, it is possible to achieve 
certification for recycled polymers processed through 
advanced recycling technologies. There are two options: 
International Sustainable Carbon Certification (ISCC) and 
REDcert2. Certification is important as claims of recycled 
plastics content should be verifiable. Certification processes 
track chain of custody through the supply chain, with some 
customers requiring certification. A certification process 
may also offer the potential to secure carbon credits.

Certification is increasingly important as it is possible for 
some manufacturers to mix virgin and post‑consumer 
recycled plastic and market the product as 100% recycled. 
Given major multinational brand owners are committing 
to increased recycled content in packaging, the 
demand for recycled polymer will increase. The price 
of recycled PET has been US$1,000 a tonne compared 
to virgin PET at US$600 a tonne (Hicks 2020). For these 
reasons, certification of recycled polymer is important 
so that claims are verifiable and transparent.

Mechanical recycling, as pictured, is a common process to recycle plastics, particularly for plastics used for food packaging. 
Advanced recycling complements existing mechanical technologies in Australia



4.6 Environmental

Environmental factors are a key element in securing social 
licence to operate alongside demonstrating technology 
meets environmental regulations. While recycling is often 
mentioned as a key part of ensuring plastics continue in a 
circular economy, the role of advanced recycling is often 
neglected. It is assumed that mechanical recycling is the 
only option, however it is not suitable for some plastics. 
Both mechanical and advanced recycling retain plastics 
materials in the economy. Advanced recycling technologies 
are part of a transition to a reduced dependency on 
non-renewable resources. This section addresses 
environmental concerns and impacts of these technologies.

4.6.1 Emissions from advanced technologies

Advanced recycling technologies all have some degree of 
emissions. In addition, dissolution and depolymerisation 
will have undissolved potentially hazardous material that 
will require disposal (Goldberg, Haig & McKinlay 2019). 
The solvents used in depolymerisation and purification 
technologies will need to be recovered and purified to 
keep emissions and costs low. Pyrolysis and gasification 
produce char (or ash) that may contain some useful 
material but will need some level of disposal of material 
contaminated with hazardous residues. Pyrolysis and 
gasification also generate toxic vapours that will need 
to be treated before emission to the atmosphere.

4.6.2 Life cycle assessment

The environmental impact of advanced recycling is an 
important consideration. A reliable life cycle assessment 
(LCA) provides transparency for the environmental and 
social impacts of processes. A LCA should be clear about 
its scope (what it includes or excludes), any comparison 
scenarios and impact measurements. As noted earlier, 
many advanced technologies are in an early stage of 
development. As they scale up to commercial levels, it is 
important that environmental impacts are monitored, so 
industry, government and the community have confidence 
that advanced recycling pathways are indeed a sustainable 
alternative to other treatment or disposal methods 
(Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020a; Crippa et al. 2019).

There are a few studies on advanced recycling of plastics 
that have been completed using LCA methods. An academic 
study found that advanced recycling of mixed plastic waste 
by pyrolysis has a 50% lower climate change impact and 
energy use then energy recovery by incineration (Jeswani et 
al. 2021). There is also a significantly lower climate change 
impact comparing mixed plastic waste recycled from 
pyrolysis compared to plastics made from virgin resources 
(Jeswani et al. 2021). Another peer reviewed study found 
pyrolysis and gasification of PP plastic waste had lower 
greenhouse gas emissions than landfill or incineration 
alternatives (Bora et al 2020). ReNew ELP have reported 
that an independent LCA showed a 70% greenhouse 
gas emission saving compared to the production of 
hydrocarbons from fossil sources (ELP 2020). Using the 
Licella, Cat‑HTR™ technology ReNew ELP convert over 
85% of the plastic mass to hydrocarbon product that can be 
used to make new plastic or other hydrocarbon products.

A LCA was commissioned by BASF on their ChemCycling™ 
process, a pyrolysis-based advanced recycling system 
where the products are used to make new plastic products. 
This found that pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste emits 
50% less carbon dioxide than incineration. Also that 
advanced recycling was comparable to mechanical 
recycling for carbon dioxide emissions (Sphera 2020).

Overall results showed that pyrolysis was preferred to 
incineration for mixed plastic waste. LDPE produced from 
pyrolysis oil (using the mass balance method described 
earlier) has significant climate change benefits compared 
to production from fossil-based naphtha but fewer benefits 
for the impact factors of acidification, eutrophication 
and photochemical ozone formation. An energy mix 
comprised of greater renewables was even more favourable 
to pyrolysis compared to incineration technologies for 
climate change values. This is relevant to developed 
countries such as Australia. However, for acidification 
and eutrophication impact categories, pyrolysis was 
not as preferable to incineration (Krüger 2020).

A recent Australian LCA, applied to the Victorian 
geographic context, found mixed plastics were best 
managed in landfill rather than incineration or gasification 
(the primary output is syngas) based on environmental 
impacts including acidification, climate change, 
photochemical oxidation and eutrophication potentials 
(Demetrious & Crossin 2019). This finding is significant 
as it does not accord with waste hierarchy conventions 
where energy is one step above (preferred to) disposal.

Overall, these data show that based on environmental 
life cycle assessments available in the public domain, 
advanced recycling has some advantages compared to 
alternatives for processing plastic waste. Any emissions 
from advanced recycling technologies need to be managed 
to reduce impact in other areas. However, there is a 
recognised need for LCA data relevant to the Australian 
context. Credible LCA studies will support government 
and community stakeholders with their concerns over 
environmental impacts of these technologies.



4.6.3 Non-government organisations and 
environmental group concerns

Some environmentalists suggest the plastics industry 
is disingenuous about its promotion of advanced 
recycling and attempting to placate criticism so it 
can go on increasing plastic production. To them, 
advanced recycling is a classic greenwashing 
scheme. Environmentalists maintain that advanced 
recycling consumes a lot of energy (Tullo 2020).

Advanced recycling in the US has been criticised by 
two environmental groups, Greenpeace and Global 
Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. Two chief criticisms 
from both organisations are that many projects are not 
commercially viable and plastics-to-fuels should not 
be considered recycling (Greenpeace 2020; Patel et al. 
2020). Given the early stage of the many technologies 
grouped under ‘advanced’ recycling, the first point is 
consistent with the early stage of development of many 
advanced technologies for plastics. The early stage of 
development was noted by Closed Loop Partners, who 
researched over 60 global technology providers and found 
many at lab scale but with the ability, or plans, to scale 
up in the next two years (Closed Loop Partners 2019).

The second criticism explores an important consideration 
regarding the end products developed from advanced 
technologies. Ideally, the goal is to upcycle plastics 
using advanced technologies into the chemical building 
blocks for manufacturing of new monomers and 
polymers. Sending products to a one-way use, such 
as diesel, results in products having a one-way, linear 
path, and this is inconsistent with the goals of a circular 
economy. This is addressed in the following section.

4.6.4 Plastics-to-fuels

One of the main outputs of conversion technologies, 
including pyrolysis, is a heavy oil fraction, which is a type 
of crude diesel. One viable market for that product is to 
sell that output as a fuel. This commits the pyrolysis output 
into a plastics-to-fuels path, which is undesirable if the 
goal is to transition to a circular economy. This market 
preference for fuel has been referred to as a ‘linear 
lock‑in’ (Crippa et al. 2019). This issue is complex, however. 
Emerging pyrolysis technologies are small scale and 
there may be difficulties in selling their small volume 
outputs to the petrochemical industry, which operates 
on vastly different scales. There may be economic or 
market limitations for these small-scale operators to 
accessing refinery infrastructure or chemical industry 
supply chain partners (Lee, Tschoepe & Voss 2021).

However, there is a trade-off to be considered regarding the 
issue of plastics-to-fuels in Australia. If technologies that 
convert waste plastics-to-fuels are penalised to the extent 
that they are unable to operate, the alternative pathway 
for those materials might be landfill or a waste-to-energy 
plant. This limits potential future flexibility of options for 
outputs from advanced recycling infrastructure for use as a 
fuel or as a petrochemical feedstock. Of course, a domestic 
plastics-to-plastics pathway is only possible if Australia 
has refinery or polymer manufacturing infrastructure. 
A similar non-linear argument may be levelled against 
gasification technologies that produce ammonia for 
production of fertiliser and, of course, waste-to-energy 
technology. Therefore, it is important to note that 
conversion technologies may result in plastics-to-plastics 
or plastics-to-fuels products, or a combination of both. 
While plastics-to-fuels might be considered non-circular, 
whether this is an issue depends on the perspective of if 
that is considered a worse option than Australia’s current 
paradigm of sending plastics to landfill. According to the 
waste hierarchy, waste-to-energy is preferred to disposal.



4.7 Summary

The industry perspective on each of these PESTLE areas 
is summarised in the following sections. More generally, 
industry reported that advanced recycling was not well 
understood, and it was important to clarify the different 
technologies. There should be greater recognition that 
multiple technologies are needed, and advanced recycling 
has an important role to play in Australia’s greater 
recovery of plastic waste. Australia has the solutions, 
technology and very capable scientists and engineers.

Politically there is an opportunity for advanced recycling 
to be recognised as supporting Australia’s waste policy 
action plan and plastics recovery targets to 2030. 
Advanced recycling is part of an advanced manufacturing 
sector and government support is likely to be necessary 
for launching a new advanced recycling industry. 
The economic factors are essential for commercially 
viable technology. Australia has smaller, modular 
technologies available and the potential for larger scale 
technologies. There was recognition by industry that 
economic benefits must flow across the supply chain 
and collaboration was essential. Recycling of plastics 
does cost more than virgin polymer, so incentives are 
needed alongside consumer recognition that recycled 
polymer is a premium product. Industry understands the 
only way these technologies can operate is by securing 
a social licence to operate. This requires increased 
community engagement with evidence‑based facts 
about the environmental impact of these technologies. 
Household education is essential to improve collection 
and reduce contamination of plastic wastes.

For the technology factors, industry saw a need to 
differentiate advanced technologies from waste-to‑energy 
plants. There is emerging competition for plastic waste 
from waste-to-energy technologies. Advanced recycling 
results in food contact grade plastics that can’t be 
achieved through mechanical recycling. There is a need 
for investment in innovative technologies to ensure 
Australia does not lag behind Europe and North America.

Legislation was combined with the important topic 
of standards. Mass balance certification is available 
for product processed by a refinery or steam cracker. 
Certification provides consumer and market confidence 
that any recycled polymer can be verified. Some industry 
members attending the consultation suggested a tax 
on virgin resin and others, an excise exemption for 
polymer‑derived recycled fuels as mechanisms to improve 
adoption of advanced recycling. The harmonisation of 
definitions and approaches to advanced recycling of 
plastics would reduce confusion. Life cycle assessment 
was viewed by industry as important for providing 
evidence-based information on environmental impact. 
Comparisons to mechanical, waste-to-energy and landfill 
would be beneficial. The lack of LCA studies relevant to the 
Australian context is an information gap. The role of other 
third parties was viewed as important to provide credibility 
to any definitive information about advanced recycling.



Summary of industry feedback on PESTLE factors for establishing 
an advanced recycling industry for plastics in Australia

Political

Lack of awareness and 
understanding of technology leads 
to industry challenges with policy 
development and approvals.

Recognition that advanced 
recycling supports Australian 
national plastics recovery targets 
and processes plastics unsuitable 
for mechanical recycling.

Government support and 
engagement is essential for 
launching a new industry.

Manufacturing could benefit 
from a more progressive image 
and approach from policymakers. 
It must be valued to survive and 
provide economic development 
benefits to Australia.

Recognition that advanced 
recycling is different to 
waste-to-energy (may even 
compete with) and material 
processed should be counted 
in recycling rates.

Industry needs a consistent policy 
approach across jurisdictions.

Economic

Economic benefits must flow 
across the entire value chain 
for advanced recycling to 
be successful and greater 
collaboration across the 
supply chain is needed.

There is emerging competition 
with waste-to-energy 
for plastic waste.

Plastics circularity may cost 
more for consumers and the 
business case is contingent 
on securing a premium for 
recycled polymers over virgin.

Economic viability should 
be supported by extended 
producer responsibility schemes, 
incentives and policy changes.

Mass balance certification can 
provide carbon offsets for plastics 
oil and this is a financial incentive 
for refinery/cracking processing.

Advanced recycling needs 
risk takers, scale and security 
of upstream supply and 
downstream processing.

Market demand can be improved 
by government commitment to 
purchase recycled content.

Social

Need greater commitment 
by government stakeholders 
(e.g. councils) for household 
education to reduce littering, 
improve sorting and 
reduce contamination.

Secure social licence to operate 
with increased community 
engagement about the role 
of advanced recycling in 
reducing plastic waste.

Address community concerns 
with evidence-based facts about 
the environmental impact.

There is a role for trusted advisers 
such as CSIRO to explain this 
complex topic and undertake 
evidence-based research.

Increase adoption and awareness 
of recycled content labels.

It is essential to maintain 
and develop industry 
expertise in chemistry and 
chemical engineering.



Technology

Improved waste collection, 
separation and aggregation will 
be needed to achieve required 
volumes of input materials.

Contamination and inconsistency 
of plastic waste supply puts 
the technology at risk.

Greater investment is needed 
or Australia will get left 
behind by investments in 
Europe and North America.

Existing polymer manufacturing 
and refinery infrastructure is 
essential to creating circular 
outputs from waste plastics.

Technology options (small 
and large scale) are available 
now in Australia.

Need to understand the 
difference between technologies 
(e.g. pyrolysis, gasification, 
hydrothermal) and how 
they are different from 
waste-to-energy plants.

Need recognition that advanced 
recycling produces food 
contact grade plastics.

It is important to understand 
yields and outputs based 
on different technologies 
and plastics inputs.

Legislation

Industry needs a consistent 
approach across jurisdictions 
(states, territory, and local 
government areas).

Traceability and certification 
ensure material claimed as 
recycled is credible and verifiable.

Mass balance certification 
should be advocated by 
government and industry.

Definitions of advanced 
recycling are important.

ISCC Plus certification is emerging 
as a leading standard and could 
be adopted in Australia.

Tax virgin resin to incentivise 
use of recycled material.

Mandate levels of post-consumer 
recycled content.

Introduce container 
deposit scheme collection 
for waste plastics.

Recognise advanced 
recycling as part of Australian 
plastics recycling.

Environmental

Life cycle assessments (LCAs) 
are an essential evidence-based 
approach to quantify the 
environmental impact of 
advanced recycling compared 
with mechanical recycling, 
waste-to-energy, and landfill.

CSIRO and other third parties are 
important to combat scepticism 
in the community about plastics.

Lack of harmonisation across 
environment protection 
authorities is a major 
barrier for industry.

Advanced recycling can prevent 
post-consumer soft plastics 
from going to landfill.

There is a need for technology 
with low emissions.

Need greater clarity on 
plastics-to-fuels (energy) vs 
plastics-to-plastics (chemicals) 
and how these are treated 
compared to waste-to-energy.



5 Conclusion

Plastic waste is a critical issue for waste management 
and resource recovery in Australia. Recycling of 
end‑of‑life and mixed plastic waste will be needed to 
help meet resource recovery targets set by the Australian 
Government. Mixed plastic wastes are typically complex, 
consisting of numerous polymer types at varying 
composition. The complexity and variability of feedstocks 
makes these wastes unsuitable for established plastics 
recycling pathways in Australia. Traditionally, these 
plastic wastes have been exported for processing. 
From 1 July 2021 a total of 149,695 tonnes of mixed plastics 
is no longer able to be exported and is unlikely to be 
suitable for mechanical recycling. Without additional 
onshore sorting and processing, there is a risk this 
material will be stockpiled or sent to landfill.

Plastics that are not suitable for mechanical recycling 
are able to be processed with advanced recycling 
(also known as chemical or feedstock recycling) 
technologies. The recovery of intermediate output such 
as oils and gases that can be converted to recycled 
polymers represent a significant economic opportunity. 
Advanced recycling of plastic wastes will create new 
markets within the Australian economy, and potentially 
for export, that support circularity and sustainability 
in the production and consumption of materials.

This report describes the opportunity of advanced recycling 
for improving recycling of plastic wastes produced in 
Australia and identifies opportunities for new markets 
for recovered products. We described the main types of 
technology (purification, depolymerisation and conversion) 
and identified secondary products and market pathways for 
these products. We described the interaction of polymers 
with advanced recycling technologies and potential plastic 
waste streams that might be suitable for processing with 
these technologies. Through direct engagement, the 
industry perspective of gaps, barriers and enablers for 
establishing an advanced recycling industry in Australia 
is captured and presented with the PESTLE framework.

The key findings of this report are:

• Advanced recycling can assist Australia 
to meet the national target of recovering 
an average of 80% plastics by 2030.
• Advanced recycling is suitable for mixed, 
multi-layer, flexible and contaminated waste 
plastics that cannot be processed by other 
means, such as mechanical recycling.
• Advanced recycling may be suitable for product 
steward schemes to address plastic waste, 
such as almost 100,000 tonnes of agricultural 
plastics and over 800,000 tonnes of food plastic 
packaging. It is highly suited to the recovery of 
300,000 tonnes of flexible plastic packaging.
• The use of advanced recycling encourages 
pathways that are circular, rather than linear, by 
retaining material in the economy as part of a 
transition away from non-renewable resources.
• Advanced recycling can produce a range of 
high-quality recycled polymers for reuse, 
including food contact compliant plastics, as 
well as a range of secondary products that can 
enter markets in place of virgin materials.
• There is increasing global and local demand 
for recycled polymers. Global market demand 
for recycled plastics will continue to grow. 
Top global brands (representing 20% of all 
global packaging) average 6.2% recycled 
plastics in packaging where most have targets 
of 25% (and greater) to reach by 2025.
• Australia has unique technical expertise that 
would be suited to launching an advanced 
recycling industry for waste plastics, leveraging 
existing infrastructure (e.g. refineries or steam 
crackers) to recycle plastic wastes. Australia’s 
polymer and plastics manufacturing supply chain 
is essential to realising benefits of advanced 
recycling and improved recycling rates of plastics.
• Technology for advanced recycling of plastic 
wastes exists at various scales in Australia, 
with four examples provided in this report.




Following industry engagement and assessment of 
themes through the PESTLE framework, the pathway 
for establishing an advanced recycling industry for 
plastics in Australia requires the following for success:

• A national discussion about advanced 
recycling to improve awareness of the range 
of technologies available, and to facilitate 
an understanding of the advantages and the 
differences to waste-to-energy technologies.
• An innovation approach to support pilots, trials 
with plastic wastes, collaboration across the supply 
chain and an innovation network to support scale up 
coordinated, for example, with a national centre.
• Harmonisation of government definitions, 
policy and approvals to support greater 
adoption of advanced recycling.
• Government support and engagement, which is essential 
for launching a new advanced recycling industry.
• Greater differentiation between advanced recycling 
of plastics and waste-to-energy technologies.
• Full collaboration across the entire supply chain, 
including waste managers, technology providers, 
polymer manufacturers, refinery operators, plastics 
manufacturers/recyclers and brand owners, to 
match demand with supply of recycled polymers.
• Techno-economic and LCA studies to provide 
further evidence that technologies are 
commercially and environmentally sound.
• Adoption of globally recognised certification processes 
to provide chain of custody verification and market 
confidence for recycled polymers and plastics that were 
processed through advanced recycling technologies.


To develop an advanced recycling industry for 
plastics in Australia and achieve Australia’s 
resource recovery targets by 2025, it is important 
to establish a collective and clear vision that 
promotes research, development, innovation, 
scale up, collaboration and appropriate policy 
design. Australia has all the critical elements 
necessary to launch a new industry of advanced 
recycling for plastics, which supports greater 
recovery, recycling and reuse of materials 
consistent with improved circularity and 
sustainable economic development.

List of organisations consulted

• Amcor
• Australian Food and 
Grocery Council
• Australian Paper 
Recovery
• BASF
• Brightmark
• Chemistry Australia
• Cleanaway
• Dow Chemical 
(Australia)
• Integrated Recycling
• IQ Energy Australia
• Licella
• LyondellBasell
• Nestlé
• Pact Group
• Plastic Energy
• Plastic Forests
• Plastoil
• PPG Australia PTY Ltd
• Qenos
• Red Group
• Sealed Air
• SUEZ
• Taghleef Industries
• Viva Energy
• Woolworths




References

ABC News 2021, ‘ExxonMobil closes Altona oil refinery after review 
finds it is not economically viable’, ABC News, 10 February.

Acquisition, RC 2020, ‘Roth CH Acquisition I to combine 
with PureCycle Technologies, accelerating a revolution 
in plastics recycling through impact investing’, Intrado 
GlobeNewsWire, viewed 22 April, 2021, <http://www.
globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/11/16/2127251/0/
en/Roth-CH-Acquisition-I-to-Combine-With-PureCycle-
Technologies-Accelerating-a-Revolution-in-Plastics-
Recycling-Through-Impact-Investing.html>.

AM News 2021, ‘The KitKat that’s the sign of a break in Australia’s 
waste challenge’, Australian Manufacturing, viewed 15 
March, 2021, <https://www.australianmanufacturing.
com.au/138176/the-kitkat-thats-the-sign-of-a-break-
in-australias-waste-challenge?utm_source=rss&utm_
medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-kitkat-thats-the-
sign-of-a-break-in-australias-waste-challenge#>.

Antonakou, EV & Achilias, DS 2013, ‘Recent advances 
in polycarbonate recycling: a review of degradation 
methods and their mechanisms’, Waste and 
Biomass Valorization, vol. 4, pp. 9–21.

APCO 2020, Our Packaging Future – A Collective 
Impact Framework to Achieve the 2025 National 
Packaging Targets, Sydney, Australia.

APCO 2019, Soft Plastic Packaging, APCO, Sydney, Australia.

Arabiourrutia, M, Elordi, G, Lopez, G, Borsella, E, Bilbao, J & Olazar, 
M 2012, ‘Characterization of the waxes obtained by the pyrolysis 
of polyolefin plastics in a conical spouted bed reactor’, Journal 
of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, vol. 94, pp. 230–237.

ARENA 2020a, ‘Projects’, viewed 25 April, 2021, <https://arena.
gov.au/projects/?project-value-start=0&project-value-end=200000000&technology=bioenergy&page=2>.

ARENA 2020b, ‘Second waste-to-energy plant gets green 
light’, ARENAWIRE. Your feed of renewable energy 
content, viewed 25 April, 2021, <https://arena.gov.au/
blog/second-waste-to-energy-plant-gets-green-light/>.

ASG 2021, ‘PVC in PET bottle recycling’, viewed 25 
June, 2021, <https://www.petbottlewashingline.
com/pvc-in-pet-bottle-recycling/>.

Australian Government 2021, National Plastics Plan, Department 
of Agriculture, Water and Environment, Canberra.

Australian Government 2019, National Waste 
Policy Action Plan 2019, Australian Department 
of Energy and Environment, Canberra.

Boesen, S, Bey, N & Niero, M 2019, ‘Environmental sustainability of 
liquid food packaging: is there a gap between Danish consumers’ 
perception and learnings from life cycle assessment?’, 
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 210, pp. 1193–1206.

Bora, RR, Wang, R & You, F 2020, ‘Waste polypropylene 
plastic recycling toward climate change mitigation 
and circular economy: energy, environmental, and 
technoeconomic perspectives’, ACS Sustainable Chemistry 
and Engineering, vol. 8, no. 43, pp. 16350–16363.

Burgess, K 2018, ‘Foy Group walks away from plastics-to-fuel plant 
in Hume’, The Canberra Times, 14 January, Canberra, Australia.

Butler, E, Devlin, G & McDonnell, K 2011, ‘Waste 
polyolefins to liquid fuels via pyrolysis: review of 
commercial state-of-the-art and recent laboratory 
research’, Waste Biomass Valor, vol. 2, pp. 227–255.

Carbios 2020, ‘Carbios produces first clear plastic bottles from 
enzymatically recycled textile waste’, viewed 15 February, 
2021, <https://carbios.fr/en/carbios-produces-first-clear-
plastic-bottles-from-enzymatically-recycled-textile-waste/>.

Center for Health, E & J 2021, ‘PVC policies across the 
world’, viewed 25 June, 2021, <http://www.chej.org/
pvcfactsheets/PVC_Policies_Around_The_World.html>.

Chen, W-T, Jin, K & Wang, N-H 2019, ‘Use of supercritical water 
for the liquefaction of polypropylene into oil’, ACS Sustainable 
Chemistry & Engineering, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3749–3758.

Closed Loop Partners 2019, Accelerating Circular Supply Chains 
for Plastics: A Landscape of Transformational Technologies that 
Stop Plastic Waste, Keep Materials in Play and Grow Markets.

COAG 2020, Phasing out Exports of Waste Plastic, 
Paper, Glass and Tyres, Canberra.

Crippa, M, De Wilde, B, Koopmans, R, Leyssens, J, Linder, M, 
Muncke, J, Ritschkoff, A-C, Van Doorsselaer, K, Vells, C & Wagner, 
M 2019, A Circular Economy for Plastics – Insights from Research 
and Innovation to Inform Policy and Funding Decision, M De 
Smet & M Linder (eds), European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.

Davies, K, Kosior, E, Han, M, Mann, L, Egan, B & Singh, S 2021, 
Closed Loop Reprocessing of FG rHDPE in 2-Litre Milk Bottles.

DAWE 2021, ‘National Product Stewardship Investment Fund’, 
Department of Environment, Water and Agriculture, 
viewed 20 May, 2021, <https://www.environment.
gov.au/protection/waste/product-stewardship/
national-product-stewardship-investment-fund>.

DEE 2019, Australian Waste Exports, 2018–19, Canberra.

DELWP 2020, Recycling Victoria – A New Economy, Department 
of Environment, Land, Water and Plan, Melbourne.

Demetrious, A & Crossin, E 2019, ‘Life cycle assessment of 
paper and plastic packaging waste in landfill, incineration, 
and gasification-pyrolysis’, Journal of Material Cycles 
and Waste Management, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 850–860.



Devasahayam, S, Bhaskar Raju, G & Mustansar Hussain, 
C 2019, ‘Utilization and recycling of end of life plastics 
for sustainable and clean industrial processes including 
the iron and steel industry’, Materials Science for 
Energy Technologies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 634–646.

Dilkes-Hoffman, LS, Pratt, S, Laycock, B, Ashworth, P & Lant, 
PA 2019, ‘Public attitudes towards plastics’, Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, vol. 147, no. January, pp. 227–235.

Donaj, PJ, Kaminsky, W, Buzeto, F & Yang, W 2012, ‘Pyrolysis of 
polyolefins for increasing the yield of monomers’ recovery’, 
Waste Management, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 840–846.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020a, Enabling a Circular 
Economy for Chemicals with the Mass Balance 
Approach, Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020b, The Global 
Commitment 2020, Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2016, The New Plastics 
Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics & 
Catalysing Action, Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

ReNew ELP 2020, ‘ReNew ELP’, viewed 16 February, 
2021, <https://renewelp.co.uk/>.

Emami, S & Nikje, MMA 2019, ‘Environmentally benign 
chemical recycling of polycarbonate wastes: comparison 
of micro- and nano-TiO2 solid support efficiencies’, Green 
Processing and Synthesis, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 108–117.

Envisage Works 2020, Recovered Resources Market Bulletin – 
Nov 2020, Sustainability Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.

Erdogan, S 2020, ‘Recycling of waste plastics into pyrolytic 
fuels and their use in IC engines’, in B Llamas, MFOR Romero 
& D Sillero (eds), Sustainable Mobility, IntechOpen.

Gala, A, Guerrero, M, Guirao, B, E. Domine, M & M Serra, J 2020, 
‘Characterization and distillation of pyrolysis liquids coming 
from polyolefins segregated of MSW for their use as automotive 
diesel fuel’, Energy & Fuels, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 5969–5982.

Geels, FW 2011, ‘The multi-level perspective on sustainability 
transitions: responses to seven criticisms’, Environmental 
Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24–40.

George, N & Kurian, T 2014, ‘Recent developments in 
the chemical recycling of postconsumer poly(ethylene 
terephthalate) waste’, Industrial and Engineering 
Chemistry Research, vol. 53, pp. 14185–14198.

Gershman, B & Bratton, I 2013, Gasification of Plastics from 
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, Fairfax.

Giuliano, A, Freda, C & Catizzone, E 2020, ‘Techno-economic 
assessment of bio-syngas production for methanol 
synthesis: a focus on the water–gas shift and carbon 
capture sections’, Bioengineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–18.

Goldberg, O, Haig, S & McKinlay, R 2019, Non-
Mechanical Recycling of Plastics.

Grause, G, Buekens, A, Sakata, Y, Okuwaki, A & Yoshioka, 
T 2011, ‘Feedstock recycling of waste polymeric 
material’, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste 
Management, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 265–282.

Greenpeace 2020, Deception by the Numbers, Washington, D.C.

Hannam, P 2019, ‘Plastics-to-oil waste firm faces 
“tremendous” hurdles to set up in NSW’, Sydney 
Morning Herald, 7 July, Sydney, Australia.

Hardesty, BD, Wilcox, C, Lawson, TJ, Lansdell, M & 
van der Velde, T 2014, Understanding the Effects 
of Marine Debris on Wildlife, Hobart.

Hicks, R 2020, ‘Cheap virgin plastic is being sold as recycled 
plastic – it’s time for better recycling certification’, Eco-
Business, viewed 10 May, 2021, <https://www.eco-business.
com/news/cheap-virgin-plastic-is-being-sold-as-recycled-
plastic-its-time-for-better-recycling-certification/>.

Hopewell, J, Dvorak, R & Kosior, E 2009, ‘Plastics 
recycling: challenges and opportunities’, Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological 
Sciences, vol. 364, no. 1526, pp. 2115–2126.

Hundertmark, T, Mayer, M, Mcnally, C, Simons, TJ & Witte, 
C 2018, How Plastics-Waste Recycling Could Transform 
the Chemical Industry, McKinsey & Company.

International Renewable Energy Agency & Methanol Institute 
2021, Innovation Outlook Renewable Methanol, Abu Dhabi.

Jeswani, H, Krüger, C, Russ, M, Horlacher, M, Antony, F, Hann, 
S & Azapagic, A 2021, ‘Life cycle environmental impacts 
of chemical recycling via pyrolysis of mixed plastic waste 
in comparison with mechanical recycling and energy 
recovery’, Science of the Total Environment, vol. 769.

JGC Holdings Corporation 2020, ‘Accelerating the promotion of 
gasification chemical recycling of plastic waste – conclusion 
of an EUP relicensing contract’, News Release, viewed 28 June, 
2021, <https://www.jgc.com/en/news/2020/20201006.html>.

Jia, H, Ben, H, Luo, Y & Wang, R 2020, ‘Catalytic fast 
pyrolysis of poly (ethylene terephthalate) (PET) with 
zeolite and nickel chloride’, Polymers, vol. 12.

Khadem, N 2017, ‘Australian entrepreneur Priyanka Bakaya 
aims for new recycling facility in Australia by 2019’, The 
Sydney Morning Herald, 4 December, Sydney, Australia.

Krüger, C 2020, ‘Evaluation of pyrolysis with 
LCA – 3 case studies’, BASF, no. July.

Kumar, S & Singh, RK 2011, ‘Recovery of hydrocarbon liquid from 
waste high density polyethylene by thermal pyrolysis’, Brazilian 
Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 659–667.



Lee, RP, Tschoepe, M & Voss, R 2021, ‘Perception of 
chemical recycling and its role in the transition towards 
a circular carbon economy: a case study in Germany’, 
Waste Management, vol. 125, pp. 280–292.

Levaggi, L, Levaggi, R, Marchiori, C & Trecroci, C 2020, ‘Waste-
to-energy in the EU: the effects of plant ownership, waste 
mobility, and decentralization on environmental outcomes and 
welfare’, Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 14, pp. 1–12.

Licella Holdings 2021, ‘Licella together with Coles, Nestlé, 
LyondellBasell and iQ Renew announce study into Australian-first 
for recycling’, viewed 20 May, 2021, <https://www.licella.com.
au/news/licella-together-with-coles-nestle-lyondellbasell-and-
iq-renew-announce-study-into-australian-first-for-recycling/>.

Loop Industries 2021, ‘Loop Industries. Leading the 
sustainable plastic revolution’, viewed 25 April, 
2021, <https://www.loopindustries.com/en/>.

Lopez, G, Artetxe, M, Amutio, M, Bilbao, J & Olazar, M 2017, 
‘Thermochemical routes for the valorization of waste 
polyolefinic plastics to produce fuels and chemicals. A review’, 
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 346–368.

Macdonald-Smith, A 2021, ‘Refinery closure triggers 150 job 
cuts at chemical plant’, Australian Financial Review, 19 May.

Marcantonio, V, De Falco, M, Capocelli, M, Bocci, E, Colantoni, A 
& Villarini, M 2019, ‘Process analysis of hydrogen production 
from biomass gasification in fluidized bed reactor with 
different separation systems’, International Journal of 
Hydrogen Energy, vol. 44, no. 21, pp. 10350–10360.

Miandad, R, Barakat, MA, Aburiazaiza, AS, Rehan, M & 
Nizami, AS 2016, ‘Catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste: A 
review’, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol. 
102, Institution of Chemical Engineers, pp. 822–838.

Miskolczi, N, Bartha, L & Angyal, A 2009, ‘Pyrolysis of polyvinyl 
chloride (PVC)-containing mixed plastic wastes for recovery of 
hydrocarbons’, Energy & Fuels, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 2743–2749.

Muhammad, C, Onwudili, JA & Williams, PT 2015, ‘Thermal 
degradation of real-world waste plastics and simulated mixed 
plastics in a two-stage pyrolysis-catalysis reactor for fuel 
production’, Energy and Fuels, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 2601–2609.

O’Farrell, K 2019, 2018–19 Australian Plastics Recycling 
Survey – National Report, Canberra.

Oboirien, BO & North, BC 2017, ‘A review of waste tyre gasification’, 
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, pp. 5169–5178.

Panda, AK, Singh, RK & Mishra, DK 2010, ‘Thermolysis 
of waste plastics to liquid fuel. A suitable method for 
plastic waste management and manufacture of value 
added products – a world prospective’, Renewable 
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, pp. 233–248.

Parliament of Australia 2020, From Rubbish to Resources: 
Building a Circular Economy, Commonwealth 
of Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Patel, D, Moon, D, Tangri, N & Wilson, M 2020, All 
Talk and No Recycling: An Investigation of the 
US Chemical Recycling Industry, Global Alliance 
for Incinerator Alternatives, Berkeley, CA.

Pedersen, Thomas, H & Conti, F 2017, ‘Improving the circular 
economy via hydrothermal processing of high-density 
waste plastics’, Waste Management, vol. 68, pp. 24–31.

Phipps, L 2019, ‘The 5 things you need to know 
about chemical recycling’, GreenBiz.

Pickin, J, Wardle, C, Farrell, KO, Nyunt, P, Donovan, S, Wardle, 
C & Grant, B 2020, National Waste Report 2020, Canberra.

Plasteurope 2018, ‘Vinyloop: closure of operation in 
Italy: phthalates issue under REACH brings down 
European PVC recycling project’, Plasteurope.com.

Plastic Energy 2021, ‘Plastic Energy’, viewed 10 February, 
2021, <https://plasticenergy.com/#Intro>.

PolyStyreneLoop 2021, ‘PolyStyreneLoop’, viewed 22 
April, 2021, <https://polystyreneloop.eu/>.

Polystyvet 2020, ‘Polystyvert’, viewed 22 April, 
2021, <http://www.polystyvert.com/en/>.

Powell, D 2021, ‘Coles, Nestlé in plans to build first-ever 
soft plastics recycling plant’, The Age, 17 March.

Powerhouse Energy Group 2021, ‘The Sustainable 
Hydrogen Company’, viewed 26 June, 2021, 
<https://www.powerhouseenergy.co.uk/>.

PureCycle 2021, ‘PureCycle’, viewed 22 April, 
2021, <https://purecycletech.com/>.

Pyrowave 2021, ‘Pyrowave technology’, viewed 10 May, 2021, 
<https://www.pyrowave.com/en/pyrowave-technology>.

Qureshi, MS, Oasmaa, A, Pihkola, H, Deviatkin, I, Tenhunen, A, 
Mannila, J, Minkkinen, H, Pohjakallio, M & Laine-Ylijoki, J 2020, 
‘Pyrolysis of plastic waste: opportunities and challenges’, 
Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, vol. 152, no. March.

Ragaert, K, Delva, L & Van Geem, K 2017, ‘Mechanical 
and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste’, 
Waste Management, vol. 69, pp. 24–58.

Ragaert, K, Huysveld, S, Vyncke, G, Hubo, S, Veelaert, L, Dewulf, 
J & Du Bois, E 2020, ‘Design from recycling: a complex 
mixed plastic waste case study’, Resources, Conservation 
and Recycling, vol. 155, no. March 2019, p. 104646.

Rahimi, AR & Garciá, JM 2017, ‘Chemical recycling 
of waste plastics for new materials production’, 
Nature Reviews Chemistry, vol. 1, pp. 1–11.

Randell, P, Baker, B & O’Farrell, K 2020, ‘Used tyres supply 
chain and fate analysis report’, no. June, pp. 1–60.

Rane, AV, Abitha, VK, Sabnis, A, Kathalewar, M, Jamdar, V, Patil, 
S & Jayaja, P 2015, ‘A greener and sustainable approach for 
converting polyurethane foam rejects into superior polyurethane 
coatings’, Chemistry International, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 184–195.

Read, R 2021, ‘Waste export ban on mixed plastics: is Australia 
ready?’, Waste Management Review, no. May, pp. 61–62.

Recycling Technologies 2021, ‘Chemical recycling 101’, 
Plastipedia, viewed 17 March, 2021, <https://www.bpf.
co.uk/plastipedia/chemical-recycling-101.aspx#_edn1>.



Retamal, M, Dominish, E, Wander, A & Whelan, 
J 2020, Environmentally Responsible Trade in 
Waste Plastics in the Asia Pacific Region.

Ritchie 2019, ‘The state of waste in Australia 
– a 2019 review’, Inside Waste.

Rubio, MR 2021, ‘Everything you need to know about PVC 
recycling’, viewed <https://www.bioenergyconsult.
com/recycling-polyvinyl-chloride/>.

Saperatec 2020, ‘Saperatec back to values’, viewed 22 April, 
2021, <https://www.saperatec.de/en/saperatec-en.html>.

Saptoadi, H, Rohmat, TA & Sutoyo 2016, ‘Combustion 
of char from plastic wastes pyrolysis’, AIP Conference 
Proceedings, American Institute of Physics Inc.

Schandl, H, King, S, Walton, A, Kaksonen, A, Tapsuwan, S & 
Baynes, T 2021, Circular Economy Roadmap for Plastics, 
Glass, Paper and Tyres – Pathways for Unlocking Future 
Growth Opportunities for Australia, Canberra.

Schyns, ZOG & Shaver, MP 2021, ‘Mechanical recycling 
of packaging plastics: a review’, Macromolecular 
Rapid Communications, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1–27.

Seshasayee, MS & Savage, PE 2020, ‘Oil from plastic 
via hydrothermal liquefaction: production and 
characterization’, Applied Energy, vol. 278, p. 115673.

Sharuddin, SDA, Daud, MAW & Aroua, MK 2016, ‘A review 
on pyrolysis of plastic wastes’, Energy Conversion 
and Management, vol. 115, pp. 308–326.

Sheel, A & Pant, D 2018, ‘Chemical depolymerization 
of polyurethane foams via glycolysis and hydrolysis’, 
Recycling of Polyurethane Foams, pp. 67–75.

Shen, Y 2020, ‘A review on hydrothermal carbonization 
of biomass and plastic wastes to energy products’, 
Biomass and Bioenergy, p. 105479.

Shen, Y, Zhao, R, Wang, J, Chen, X, Ge, X & Chen, M 2016, 
‘Waste-to-energy: dehalogenation of plastic-containing 
wastes’, Waste Management, pp. 287–303.

Sherwood, J 2020, ‘Closed-loop recycling of 
polymers using solvents’, Johnson Matthey 
Technology Review, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 4–15.

Shulman, VL 2019, ‘Tire recycling’, Waste, pp. 489–515.

Solis, M & Silveira, S 2020, ‘Technologies for chemical 
recycling of household plastics – a technical review and TRL 
assessment’, Waste Management, vol. 105, pp. 128–138.

Sparrow, N 2020, ‘Chemical recycling startup thinks 
globally, acts locally’, Plastics Today.

Sphera 2020, Project ChemCycling – Environmental 
Evaluation Based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), BASF.

Sphera Solutions 2020, Evaluation of Pyrolysis 
with LCA – 3 Case Studies, BASF.

Staub, C 2021, ‘Chemical recycling now at the center of national 
plastics debate’, Plastics Recycling Update, Portland, OR.

Sustainability Victoria 2021, ‘Engaging communities on 
waste’, viewed 4 June, 2021, <https://www.sustainability.
vic.gov.au/recycling-and-reducing-waste/delivering-
waste-and-recycling-services/kerbside-recycling/
educating/engaging-communities-on-waste>.

Tullo, AH 2020, ‘Companies are placing big bets 
on plastics recycling. Are the odds in their 
favor?’, Chemical & Engineering News.

TyreStewardship Australia, Sustainability Victoria & Department 
of the Environment and Science 2018, Tyre Pyrolysis and 
Gasification Technologies: A Brief Guide for Government 
and Industry. An independent guide on tyre pyrolysis and 
gasification plant technology in Australia, Collingwood, VIC.

UK Government 2021, ‘Introduction of Plastic Packaging Tax’, Gov.
UK, viewed 16 June, 2021, <https://www.gov.uk/government/
publications/introduction-of-plastic-packaging-tax-from-
april-2022/introduction-of-plastic-packaging-tax-2021>.

Vince, M-L 2015, ‘Central Coast plastics fuelling 
the future’, ABC News, 21 May.

Vollmer, I, Jenks, MJF, Roelands, MCP, White, RJ, Harmelen, T 
Van, Wild, P De, Laan, GP Van Der, Meirer, F, Keurentjes, JTF 
& Weckhuysen, BM 2020, ‘Beyond mechanical recycling : 
giving new life to plastic waste’, Angewandte Chemie 
International Edition in English, vol. 59, pp. 15402–15423.

Weeden, GS, Soepriatna, NH & Wang, N-HL 2015, ‘Method 
for efficient recovery of high-purity polycarbonates 
from electronic waste’, Environmental Science & 
Technology, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 2425–2433.

World Waste to Energy 2020, ‘The future of gasification’, 
viewed 28 June, 2021, <https://worldwastetoenergy.
com/the-future-of-gasification/>.

WWF 2020, Plastic Revolution to Reality: A Roadmap to 
Halve Australia’s Single-Use Plastic Litter, WWF.

Wyss, KM, Beckham, JL, Chen, W, Luong, DX, Hundi, 
P, Raghuraman, S, Shahsavari, R & Tour, JM 2021, 
‘Converting plastic waste pyrolysis ash into flash 
graphene’, Carbon, vol. 174, pp. 430–438.

Yamada, S, Shimizu, M & Miyoshi, F 2004, Thermoselect 
Waste Gasification and Reforming Process.

Yang, Y, Rock, Liew, K, Tamothran, AM, Shin, Foong, Y, 
Nai, Peter, Yek, Y, Poh, Chia, W, Thuan, Tran, V, Peng, 
W, Su, & Lam, S 2021, ‘Gasification of refuse-derived 
fuel from municipal solid waste for energy production: 
a review’, Environmental Chemistry Letters, vol. 1.

Yu, J, Sun, L, Ma, C, Qiao, Y & Yao, H 2016, ‘Thermal degradation 
of PVC: a review’, Waste Management, pp. 300–314.

Zhao, YB, Lv, XD & Ni, HG 2018, ‘Solvent-based 
separation and recycling of waste plastics: a 
review’, Chemosphere, vol. 209, pp. 707–720.