Myth-busting Polymers, plastics & circular chemistry: 10 misconceptions holding teams back
Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.
The chemical recycling market surged to $815 million in 2024 and is projected to reach $18.5 billion by 2034 at a 36.1% CAGR—yet the global plastic recycling rate remains stubbornly below 10%, with over 400 million tonnes of plastic waste generated annually (GM Insights, 2024). This disconnect between investment growth and actual circularity reveals deep misconceptions about what chemical recycling can achieve, at what cost, and within what timeframes. This analysis separates evidence-based performance benchmarks from industry hype, providing practical guidance for teams navigating the circular plastics transition.
Why It Matters
The UK has positioned itself as a leader in circular economy policy, with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes for packaging effective from 2025 and a plastic packaging tax of £210.82 per tonne on packaging with less than 30% recycled content. Simultaneously, the EU mandates 25% recycled PET in beverage bottles by 2025, rising to 30% in all plastic bottles by 2030.
These regulatory requirements are colliding with infrastructure reality. Global plastic waste disposal currently breaks down as: 50% to landfill, 22% uncontrolled dumping, 19% incineration, and only approximately 9% effective recycling (UNEP, 2024). The gap between regulatory ambition and operational reality creates both urgent challenges and substantial opportunities.
Chemical recycling promises to process plastics that mechanical recycling cannot handle—multi-layer films, contaminated waste, mixed polymer streams—and convert them back to virgin-quality monomers or feedstocks. But the technology landscape is complex, with multiple approaches at varying stages of commercial maturity, and claims about performance, economics, and environmental benefits often exceed current evidence.
For teams evaluating circular plastics strategies—whether as technology developers, brand owners, investors, or policymakers—understanding the actual state of the industry is essential for making sound decisions.
Key Concepts
The Chemical Recycling Taxonomy
Chemical recycling encompasses multiple distinct technologies with different feedstocks, outputs, and maturity levels:
Pyrolysis: Thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen, converting mixed plastic waste into pyrolysis oil, gases, and char. Most commercially advanced approach, representing 40% of installed capacity. Suitable for polyolefins (PE, PP) and mixed plastics.
Depolymerization: Breaking polymers back into their constituent monomers through chemical or enzymatic processes. Applicable primarily to condensation polymers (PET, nylon, polyurethanes). Enables true closed-loop recycling to virgin-equivalent material.
Gasification: High-temperature conversion to syngas (CO + H₂), which can be further processed to chemicals or fuels. Suitable for highly contaminated or mixed waste streams. "Backstop" technology for materials other processes cannot handle.
Solvolysis/Dissolution: Using solvents to separate polymers from additives and contaminants without breaking polymer chains. Preserves polymer value while enabling purification. Applicable to specific waste streams (e.g., polystyrene).
Performance KPIs by Technology
| Technology | Feedstock Flexibility | Output Quality | Energy Intensity | Commercial Maturity | CAPEX (£/tonne capacity) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pyrolysis | High (mixed plastics) | Medium (oil) | High | Commercial | £800-1,500 |
| Depolymerization | Low (polymer-specific) | High (monomers) | Medium | Demonstration | £1,200-2,500 |
| Gasification | Very High | Low (syngas) | Very High | Commercial | £1,500-3,000 |
| Dissolution | Medium | High (polymer) | Low | Pilot | £600-1,200 |
| Enzymatic | Low (PET focus) | High | Low | Pilot | £1,000-2,000 |
Market Economics
| Metric | Current (2024) | Target (2028) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recycled resin premium | 50-150% | 20-50% | Vs. virgin polymer |
| Pyrolysis yield | 60-80% | 75-85% | Liquid product fraction |
| Depolymerization yield | 80-95% | 90-98% | Monomer recovery |
| Feedstock cost | £50-150/tonne | £0-50/tonne | Gate fees increasingly offset |
| Operating cost | £200-400/tonne | £150-300/tonne | Excluding feedstock |
The 10 Misconceptions
Myth 1: "Chemical recycling is commercially proven at scale"
Reality: Global chemical recycling capacity reached 2 million tonnes of input in 2025, projected to grow to 8.6 million tonnes by 2030 (AMI Plastics, 2024). However, this represents less than 0.5% of annual plastic production. Most installations are demonstration or early commercial scale (10,000-50,000 tonnes/year), with very few operating at the 100,000+ tonne/year scale needed for economic optimization. Industry announcements of 10 million metric tons/year by 2030 from 20+ technology developers remain aspirational rather than committed.
Myth 2: "Chemical recycling is always more sustainable than incineration"
Reality: Lifecycle assessment results depend heavily on energy sources, yields, and counterfactual scenarios. Pyrolysis using fossil energy may have higher lifecycle emissions than energy recovery from incineration with heat/power capture, particularly for low-quality feedstocks with high contamination. A 2024 systematic review found environmental benefits only under specific conditions: high yields, renewable energy inputs, and displacement of virgin polymer production (PMC, 2024). Teams must conduct case-specific LCAs rather than assuming universal benefit.
Myth 3: "Chemical recycling can process any plastic waste"
Reality: Each technology has feedstock constraints. Pyrolysis works poorly with PVC (chlorine contamination) and oxygenated polymers. Depolymerization is polymer-specific—glycolysis for PET cannot process PE or PP. Even "flexible" pyrolysis requires consistent feedstock quality; highly contaminated or wet waste streams reduce yields and increase processing costs. The promise of processing "hard-to-recycle" plastics requires matching waste streams to appropriate technologies.
Myth 4: "Recycled content from chemical recycling equals mechanical recycling"
Reality: Mass balance accounting allows allocation of recycled content claims to products containing chemically recycled feedstock, even when mixed with virgin material. A petrochemical cracker processing 10% pyrolysis oil with 90% virgin naphtha may allocate 100% of recycled content claims to a subset of products. While certified schemes (ISCC Plus, REDcert²) provide frameworks, the physical reality is that most molecules in "chemically recycled" products may still be fossil-derived. Regulatory treatment of mass balance varies by jurisdiction.
Myth 5: "Chemical recycling eliminates the need for mechanical recycling"
Reality: Mechanical recycling remains more energy-efficient and lower-cost for suitable waste streams. Chemical recycling is economic only for materials mechanical recycling cannot effectively process: multi-layer films, contaminated food packaging, mixed plastic fractions, and post-industrial production waste. An efficient circular system requires both technologies in hierarchy, with mechanical recycling handling suitable streams and chemical recycling addressing materials that would otherwise be incinerated or landfilled.
Myth 6: "Corporate 2025 recycled content targets will be met"
Reality: Major brands have largely missed their 2025 commitments. Danone achieved 17% recycled content overall (vs. 25% target), Coca-Cola reached 28% (below stretch ambitions), and Colgate-Palmolive delivered 21% (vs. 25% goal) (Corporate Sustainability Reports, 2024). The gap reflects both supply constraints (insufficient high-quality recyclate) and demand-side challenges (performance requirements, regulatory fragmentation). New targets for 2030 are more realistic but still ambitious given infrastructure constraints.
Myth 7: "UK EPR fees will fund adequate recycling infrastructure"
Reality: While UK EPR creates £1+ billion in annual producer payments, the modulated fee structure and allocation mechanisms may not channel sufficient investment to chemical recycling specifically. EPR fees are divided between local authority cost support and infrastructure investment, with political pressures favoring immediate cost relief over long-term capacity building. Germany's experience with the Green Dot system shows EPR alone doesn't guarantee circularity without targeted infrastructure requirements.
Myth 8: "Enzymatic recycling will revolutionize plastics processing"
Reality: Enzymatic depolymerization (most notably Carbios's technology for PET) offers compelling advantages: ambient temperature operation, high specificity, and potential for colored and degraded feedstock processing. However, commercial deployment is just beginning (first Carbios plant targeting 2025 operation), throughput rates remain lower than thermochemical alternatives, and the technology is currently limited to PET and similar condensation polymers. The technology shows promise but is years from scale impact.
Myth 9: "Pyrolysis oil is a drop-in petrochemical feedstock"
Reality: Pyrolysis oil from plastic waste differs from virgin naphtha in composition, with higher oxygen content, wider carbon number distribution, and trace contaminants (nitrogen, sulfur, chlorine) that can poison cracker catalysts. Most refiners and crackers require upgrading/hydrotreating of pyrolysis oil before processing, adding cost and complexity. Direct "drop-in" use is limited to small blending ratios (5-20%) depending on oil quality and cracker specifications.
Myth 10: "The recycling industry will naturally scale to meet demand"
Reality: Recycling infrastructure investment has historically lagged collection growth, creating "stranded recyclate" that cannot find processing. Multiple UK recyclers have ceased operations in 2024-2025 due to economic pressures from volatile virgin polymer prices and contaminated feedstock. Scaling chemical recycling requires not just technology investment but coordinated development of collection, sorting, and end-market offtake—a systems challenge beyond any single actor's control.
What's Working
Evidence-Based Approaches
Integrated Petrochemical Investment: Major petrochemical companies are investing in chemical recycling capacity integrated with existing cracker infrastructure. ExxonMobil's November 2025 announcement of $200 million+ Texas expansion targeting 1 billion pounds/year by 2027 demonstrates the scale required for economic viability. Integration with existing assets reduces marginal CAPEX and ensures offtake for recycled feedstocks.
Closed-Loop Industrial Partnerships: Rather than processing mixed municipal waste, successful chemical recyclers are partnering with manufacturers to process clean post-industrial waste streams. These partnerships guarantee consistent feedstock quality and secure offtake for recycled material, de-risking both supply and demand.
Pre-Treatment Investment: Advanced sorting and pre-treatment technologies that remove contaminants and separate polymer types are proving essential for chemical recycling economics. Investment in AI-powered robotic sorting and near-infrared separation upstream of chemical processing improves yields and reduces operating costs.
Real-World Implementation Examples
Example 1: Eastman Chemical's Tennessee Facility (USA) Eastman's October 2024 announcement of a $1 billion molecular recycling facility in Tennessee (110,000 tonnes/year) represents the largest single chemical recycling investment to date. The facility uses Eastman's proprietary methanolysis technology to depolymerize polyester waste (including textiles) to DMT and ethylene glycol monomers. Critically, Eastman secured customer commitments and regulatory clarity before final investment decision, demonstrating that chemical recycling can achieve bankable scale with appropriate risk mitigation.
Example 2: SK Chemicals Innovation Center (South Korea) SK Chemicals' February 2025 opening of a Waste Plastic Recycling Innovation Center demonstrates the Asian investment wave in chemical recycling. The center integrates multiple technologies (pyrolysis, glycolysis, dissolution) to optimize processing routes for different waste streams. SK's approach emphasizes feedstock flexibility and technology integration rather than betting on a single pathway.
Example 3: Shell-Agilyx Polystyrene Plant (Netherlands) The Shell-Agilyx joint venture (now Cyclyx) developed a 35,000 tonnes/year polystyrene chemical recycling plant using Agilyx's pyrolysis technology. The focus on a specific polymer stream (polystyrene) rather than mixed plastics enabled optimization of process conditions and secured specific customer offtake. The plant demonstrates that polymer-specific approaches can achieve commercial viability before universal mixed-plastic solutions.
What's Not Working
Persistent Failures
Over-Promised Timelines: Multiple chemical recycling startups have announced aggressive commercial deployment timelines that subsequently slipped. Developers who announce "commercial operation in 2 years" frequently face 4-5 year delays due to technology scale-up challenges, permitting requirements, and financing constraints.
Feedstock Quality Assumptions: Projects assuming consistent availability of clean, sorted feedstock struggle when actual waste stream quality falls short. Municipal waste contamination rates of 20-30% (vs. assumed 5-10%) significantly impact yields and economics.
Single-Technology Bets: Organizations betting exclusively on one chemical recycling technology without considering feedstock variability and technology-feedstock matching have faced disappointing results when their technology proved unsuitable for available waste streams.
Insufficient Offtake Security: Projects that achieved technical operation but failed to secure committed offtake at viable prices have struggled economically. The assumption that "if we build it, demand will come" has proven unreliable in volatile resin markets.
Key Players
Established Leaders
- ExxonMobil – Major pyrolysis investment program targeting 1 billion lbs/year by 2027; integrated with existing Gulf Coast refining assets
- SABIC – Certified circular polymers from pyrolysis oil; partnership network with waste management and consumer goods companies
- BASF – ChemCycling program converting pyrolysis oil to virgin-equivalent polymers; mass balance certified under ISCC Plus
- Eastman Chemical – Molecular recycling (methanolysis) for polyester; $1 billion Tennessee facility under construction
- LyondellBasell – MoReTec pyrolysis technology; pilot operations with commercial scale-up planned
Emerging Startups
- Plastic Energy – Leading European pyrolysis developer with UK, Spain, and Netherlands operations; Shell partnership for Netherlands scale-up
- Carbios – Enzymatic PET depolymerization technology; first commercial plant targeting 2025 operation in France
- PureCycle Technologies – Polypropylene purification/dissolution technology; Ironton, Ohio facility operational
- Mura Technology – Hydrothermal plastic recycling (HydroPRS); partnerships with Dow and Chevron Phillips
- Agilyx – Pyrolysis technology developer; Cyclyx circularity initiative for feedstock aggregation
Key Investors & Funders
- SYSTEMIQ – Advisory and investment in circular economy infrastructure; thought leadership on system transformation
- Circulate Capital – Specialist investor in plastics recycling infrastructure, particularly in Southeast Asia
- Closed Loop Partners – Circular economy investment firm; Closed Loop Infrastructure Fund for recycling assets
- BlackRock – Increasing ESG-driven investment in circular economy infrastructure
- European Investment Bank – Major project finance for chemical recycling facilities across Europe
Action Checklist
- Map available feedstock streams by polymer type, contamination level, and volume to match with appropriate chemical recycling technologies
- Develop technology-agnostic evaluation frameworks assessing multiple chemical recycling pathways against specific waste stream characteristics
- Secure feedstock supply agreements with guaranteed quality specifications before final investment decisions
- Establish offtake commitments for recycled outputs at viable price points, ideally with multi-year contracts
- Conduct product-specific LCAs comparing chemical recycling to alternatives (mechanical recycling, incineration, landfill) for target waste streams
- Build regulatory tracking capability for mass balance accounting rules, recycled content mandates, and EPR developments
- Evaluate integration opportunities with existing petrochemical or recycling infrastructure to reduce CAPEX requirements
- Develop realistic timeline assumptions incorporating permitting, construction, and commissioning phases (typically 4-6 years from project initiation to commercial operation)
- Monitor corporate recycled content commitments and gap analysis to identify demand certainty for offtake planning
- Establish partnerships across the value chain—waste management, sorting, processing, and brand offtake—to address system interdependencies
FAQ
Q: What's the realistic timeline for chemical recycling to meaningfully impact global plastic circularity? A: Current capacity of 2 million tonnes/year represents less than 0.5% of plastic production. Achieving 8.6 million tonnes by 2030 (AMI projection) would represent approximately 2% of production—meaningful but not transformational. Genuinely significant impact (processing 10%+ of plastic waste chemically) likely requires until 2035-2040 given investment cycles, permitting timelines, and infrastructure buildout requirements. Teams should plan for a decade-plus transition rather than expecting near-term transformation.
Q: How should organisations evaluate competing chemical recycling technologies? A: Match technology to available feedstock and required output quality. Pyrolysis suits mixed polyolefin waste and produces chemical feedstock. Depolymerization suits specific polymers (PET, nylon) and produces virgin-quality monomers. Dissolution suits specific polymers with additive contamination. Gasification suits highly contaminated waste as a "backstop" option. No single technology addresses all waste streams; portfolio approaches matching technologies to feedstocks outperform single-technology bets.
Q: What recycled content claims are credible under mass balance accounting? A: Mass balance accounting enables allocation of recycled content claims when chemically recycled feedstock is processed alongside virgin material. ISCC Plus and REDcert² certifications provide audited frameworks, but physical traceability is lost in cracking/polymerisation. UK regulatory treatment remains evolving. Credible claims should: (1) use certified mass balance schemes; (2) clearly disclose that mass balance allocation (not physical traceability) is used; (3) avoid implying the specific product molecules are recycled. Emerging "book and claim" systems face scepticism and may not satisfy future regulatory requirements.
Q: How do UK EPR fees compare to chemical recycling economics? A: UK plastic packaging tax (£210.82/tonne on packaging with <30% recycled content) and EPR fees create incentives to incorporate recyclate. However, recycled resin premiums (50-150% vs. virgin) often exceed tax savings. Chemical recycling economics improve when: (1) feedstock gate fees offset collection costs; (2) virgin polymer prices rise; (3) regulatory requirements mandate specific recycled content thresholds; (4) brand sustainability commitments create price-insensitive demand. Current economics favour mechanical recycling where feasible; chemical recycling becomes economic for waste streams mechanical recycling cannot process.
Q: What are the key risk factors for chemical recycling investments? A: Primary risks include: (1) Technology risk—scale-up from pilot/demonstration to commercial operation frequently encounters unexpected challenges; (2) Feedstock risk—quality, availability, and cost of sorted plastic waste; (3) Offtake risk—volatile virgin polymer prices affecting recycled material competitiveness; (4) Regulatory risk—mass balance accounting treatment, recycled content mandate enforcement; (5) Permitting risk—environmental permits for chemical processing facilities can take 2-4 years. Successful projects mitigate these through technology de-risking at smaller scale, feedstock supply agreements, offtake contracts, regulatory engagement, and early permitting initiation.
Sources
- GM Insights. (2024). Global Chemical Recycling Market to Surge with 36.1% CAGR, Targeting USD 18.5 Billion by 2034.
- AMI Plastics. (2024). Chemical Recycling Global Status Report.
- UNEP. (2024). Global Plastics Outlook: Pathways to Circularity.
- PMC/National Institutes of Health. (2024). A Systematic Review of Plastic Recycling: Technology, Environmental Impact and Economic Evaluation.
- ACS Chemical Engineering News. (2025). Plastics Recycling Is in Trouble.
- McKinsey & Company. (2024). Growing the Circular Economy in Chemicals.
- Plastics Europe. (2024). The Circular Economy for Plastics: A European Analysis 2024.
- Corporate Sustainability Reports. (2024). Danone, Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive recycled content disclosures.
Related Articles
Explainer: Polymers, plastics & circular chemistry — the concepts, the economics, and the decision checklist
A practical primer: key concepts, the decision checklist, and the core economics. Focus on implementation trade-offs, stakeholder incentives, and the hidden bottlenecks.
Interview: the skeptic's view on Polymers, plastics & circular chemistry — what would change their mind
A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on unit economics, adoption blockers, and what decision-makers should watch next.
Case study: Polymers, plastics & circular chemistry — a leading organization's implementation and lessons learned
A concrete implementation with numbers, lessons learned, and what to copy/avoid. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.