1. Aduro has been forthright in sharing data on the yield of its chemical recycling technology, which is often hard to come by. What is the strategy beyond this?
By openly sharing performance metrics, we aim to differentiate our Hydrochemolytic Technology (HCT) from traditional methods and highlight its superior efficiency and sustainability. Unlike conventional pyrolysis, our technology operates under milder conditions and achieves high yield rates of up to 95% on pure PP feed. High yields mean more valuable products to sell and less cost to deal with from lost material, which typically ends up being burnt, generating fossil carbon emissions in the process.
This transparency helps potential partners, customers, and stakeholders understand the tangible benefits of our approach. It allows for a clearer comparison of technologies, showcasing how our process minimises carbon emissions and maximises the recovery of valuable hydrocarbons from plastic waste. This openness is a strategic move to build confidence in our technology, demonstrate our leadership in the sector, and promote the adoption of more sustainable practices in plastic waste management.
2. Canada’s draft regulation on recycled content favours a polymer-only mass balance allocation method. Do you think that is a positive development for circularity in the plastics industry?
Plastic waste is often a complex mix, contaminated with food residues and various additives. If we aim to recycle this waste solely into new plastic, the process of separating materials and removing contaminants would fall short for many technically demanding or food-contact applications. While mechanical recycling is excellent and preferred for the fraction of waste that can be adequately processed, it is insufficient for more than 70% of the remaining waste. This underscores the necessity of complementary technologies. Without considering such technologies, reliance solely on mechanical recycling would significantly diminish the potential for circularity and could jeopardise its economic viability. This is because a substantial portion of the material would be unsuitable for recycling and would need to be incinerated, resulting in additional emissions and costs.
In the context of any recycling process, whether mechanical or chemical, the concept of mass balance is extremely useful, if not essential. Mechanical recycling facilitates reuse in applications other than the original purpose. For instance, waste initially used for food packaging could be repurposed for non-food-contact items like garden furniture, thereby reserving virgin plastic for sensitive applications. Without this flexibility, mechanical recycling to its original purpose would be prohibitively costly, especially for applications with short lifespans that require extensive purification.
For chemical recycling, the mass balance approach allows part of the output from an installation that processes both virgin and recycled feedstock to be designated as recycled, proportional to the input ratio. This method doesn't track the exact origin of individual carbon atoms since the installation processes both types of feedstock indiscriminately. Without mass balance, only facilities using pure recycled feedstock could produce recycled products, leading to significant logistical and cost challenges.
3. How do recycled plastics produced with your Hydrochemolytic Technology compare in terms of price with virgin polymers?
We believe that our Hydrochemolytic Technology is one of the lowest-cost chemical recycling solutions available due to its tolerance for worse feedstock and lower posttreatment. It’s important to acknowledge that virgin polymers derived from fossil fuels often have a small price advantage. However, the price comparison doesn't capture the full picture. Virgin polymers come with numerous negative externalities, such as fossil fuel emissions during production that are not reflected in their market price.
By contrast, our recycled plastics offer significant environmental benefits. Our technology not only reduces plastic waste but also lowers greenhouse gas emissions and conserves resources by transforming low-value plastics into valuable hydrocarbons. Although there may be a cost disadvantage when compared solely on price, the broader environmental and societal benefits of our recycled products are substantial. These benefits align with growing consumer and regulatory demands for more sustainable materials, positioning our technology as a crucial part of the solution for a greener future.
4. Aduro opened a European subsidiary in the Netherlands last year. How does the European market compare with the North American market for chemical recycling?
The European and North American markets for plastics recycling differ significantly in terms of regulations, infrastructure, and market maturity. Europe, driven by stringent EU regulations like the Circular Economy Action Plan and the Plastics Strategy, has developed a robust recycling framework that includes advanced technologies and high consumer awareness. This has led to higher recycling rates and significant investments in research and development, particularly in chemical recycling.
Conversely, North America, especially the U.S., has a more fragmented regulatory landscape with varied state and provincial laws, leading to lower overall recycling rates. The region primarily relies on mechanical recycling, and although there is growing interest in advanced recycling technologies, regulatory and economic challenges have slowed their adoption.
In terms of market dynamics, Europe benefits from strong governmental support and collaborative efforts between industry and regulatory bodies, which has fostered a culture of sustainability and circular economy practices. In North America, the focus is more market-driven, with the private sector leading many initiatives and varying levels of consumer engagement across regions.
While North America faces challenges in terms of collection and processing infra-structure, there is potential for growth as policies and technologies evolve. Both regions are poised to make significant advancements in plastics recycling, but Europe currently holds a leadership position due to its comprehensive approach and advanced infrastructure.
5. If you had to pick one sustainability trend that will drop off the agenda by 2030, what would it be?
By 2030, carbon offsetting will likely decline as a sustainability strategy due to growing scepticism about its effectiveness and accusations of greenwashing. Critics argue that many offset projects fail to deliver real emissions reductions, leading to a shift towards direct action to cut carbon emissions. This change is supported by evolving policies and regulations that prioritise reducing emissions at the source rather than relying on offsets.
Technological advancements, such as improvements in carbon capture and storage and plastics recycling, are offering more reliable and impactful solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, increasing demand for transparency from consumers and investors is pushing companies to adopt more verifiable and direct sustainability measures.
There's a growing preference for local initiatives that provide immediate and tangible environmental benefits, contrasting with the often abstract results of offset projects. Economic factors also play a role, as carbon offsets can be expensive, and some projects have raised ecological concerns. Consequently, the focus is shifting towards more sustainable and direct approaches to addressing climate change, potentially making carbon offsetting less relevant in future sustainability strategies.