Introduction: Boom, bust and the promise of circularity
In June 2025, industry leaders gathered in Brussels for AMI’s Chemical Recycling Europe conference. The event noted how initial investor enthusiasm during 2020–21 fed a surge in share prices for chemical recyclers, but also revealed that many flagship projects have stumbled. Pryme’s Rotterdam Pryme One plant, for example, was supposed to start in 2022, yet delays pushed commissioning to late 2023 and early 2024 output was lower than expected. Large‑scale expansion plans were scrapped in November 2024, and a February 2025 update admitted production volumes remained below projections. Similar problems beset other companies: Quantafuel’s Skive facility in Denmark announced in 2020 but faced feedstock and equipment challenges; operations only started in late 2022 and remained below capacity, and the company was delisted in February 2024 after being acquired by Viridor. Even Agilyx – once held up as a success story – has pivoted its strategy to feedstock management and waste conversion. These examples illustrate a broader phenomenon: over the last five years, chemical recycling projects across Europe and beyond have been mothballed, delayed or quietly abandoned. As WasteTrade.com, a digital marketplace dedicated to building transparent waste streams, we believe it is vital to document these setbacks, examine the reasons behind them, and ask whether Europe’s current course can deliver the promised circularity.
Timeline of mothballed chemical‑recycling projects (2019–2025)
Year & Month Project/Location Technology & Planned Capacity Outcome / Reason 2018–2020 Boise, Idaho (USA) – Renewlogy & Dow Pyrolysis, planned to convert Boise’s municipal plastic waste into diesel fuel Renewlogy could not handle plastic films; Dow ended the project, and Boise now trucks plastic waste to a cement plant. 2019–2022 Rotterdam (NL) – Enerkem/Shell waste‑to‑chemicals project Gasification to produce “bio‑methanol” from mixed waste Cancelled due to uncertainty around securing a reliable waste supply and profitability. 2018–2020 Indonesia – Unilever’s CreaSolv plant Dissolution of plastic sachets to make new packaging Pilot operated, but scaling was too costly; full‑scale plans were dropped. 2018–2020 Philadelphia (USA) – Agilyx & Delta Air Lines Conversion of plastic waste to jet fuel Construction never started; the project was shelved due to contract, financial issues and COVID‑19. 2021–2025 Rotterdam (NL) – Pryme One Pyrolysis; scheduled for 2022 Start delayed to Q4 2023; early 2024 output below expectations; large‑scale expansion plans abandoned (Nov 2024); February 2025 update shows volumes still below target. 2020–2024 Skive (DK) – Quantafuel Pyrolysis; announced 2020 Feedstock and equipment issues delayed operations until late 2022 and kept output below capacity; the company delisted in February 2024 after acquisition by Viridor. 2022 Swindon (UK) – Recycling Technologies (RT) RT7000 pyrolysis units targeting 7,000 t/yr each RT entered administration; most of its 73 employees were made redundant after failing to secure investment. Feb 2024 Stenungsund (SE) – Borealis 50 000 t/yr pyrolysis unit Borealis put the project on hold after a feasibility study showed it didn’t meet performance targets. Nov 2024 Saint‑Avold (FR) – Suez/Loop/SKGC PET depolymerisation plant announced Feb 2023 Partners did not exercise their option to purchase the site; the project was “put on ice,” construction planned for Q1 2025 cancelled. Nov 2024 Vlissingen (NL) – Neste & Ravago Pyrolysis (55,000 t/yr) using Alterra technology The project was cancelled because it never reached final investment‑decision readiness. Neste instead invests €111 million to scale capacity in Finland. Jan 2025 Ostende (BE) – APPI pyrolysis plant Planned 500,000 t/yr facility Cancelled after cheap virgin plastic imports from China undermined the business model; APPI ceased operations. Dec 2024 Longlaville (FR) – Carbios PET biorecycling plant Enzymatic depolymerisation; first plant Construction postponed by 6–9 months due to pending financing. Feb 2025 Normandy (FR) – Eastman molecular recycling plant Polyester renewal technology; >110 000 t/yr Project planning temporarily paused while Eastman monitors evolving EU regulatory discussions. Apr 2025 Sarnia (CA) – Nova Chemicals Large‑scale chemical recycling (unknown capacity) Nova scrapped plans to build the facility and shifted focus back to mechanical recycling. Feasibility work with Plastic Energy was paused and considered temporary. Aug 2025 Erie, Pennsylvania (US) – International Recycling Group 160 000 t/yr project converting mixed plastics into steel‑making reductant CleanRed™ Cancelled due to inability to raise $300 million financing, tariffs on non‑US equipment and lack of long‑term offtake agreements. Table 1 — Major chemical recycling projects that were cancelled, delayed or indefinitely paused over the past five years.
Five years of false starts: what went wrong?
- Technological and feedstock challenges – Many pyrolysis plants struggled to secure consistent feedstock and deliver stable product quality. Quantafuel’s Skive facility operated well below capacity due to feedstock and equipment problems. Enerkem’s waste‑to‑chemicals project in Rotterdam was cancelled after insiders said it could not guarantee a reliable waste supply and profitability. Eastman’s planned molecular recycling plant in Normandy is paused pending clarity on EU regulations.
- Financial headwinds – High capital costs and rising interest rates make large chemical‑recycling plants risky. Recycling Technologies in the UK entered administration after failing to attract enough investment. Borealis paused its Stenungsund pyrolysis project because a feasibility study showed the plant would not meet performance targets. Carbios delayed the construction of its PET biorecycling plant due to financing constraints.
- Low demand and cheap virgin polymers – APPI cancelled its 500 kt/yr pyrolysis project in Belgium because a wave of cheap virgin plastic imports from China made recycled outputs uncompetitive. Several manufacturers across Europe lament that without mandatory recycled‑content requirements, buyers still choose cheaper virgin material, undermining business models.
- Regulatory uncertainty – Eastman paused its Normandy project because of evolving EU rules on plastic waste and packaging. Nova Chemicals cited regulatory and legislative uncertainties in North America as a significant reason for scrapping its Sarnia project. In the US, nine states are proposing restrictions on pyrolysis and gasification, raising questions about whether chemical recycling will be classified as a form of recycling at all.
- Complex economics and supply contracts – The International Recycling Group cancelled its 160 kt plant in Pennsylvania because it could not raise the $300 million needed, faced tariffs on imported equipment and struggled to secure long‑term purchase agreements for its recycled plastics and CleanRed™ output. The Reuters investigation likewise reported that Dow and Renewlogy’s partnership in Boise collapsed because the startup could not process plastic films, and Unilever quietly shelved its CreaSolv project because collecting and cleaning sachets was too expensive.
Challenging questions for the industry
Should the industry rely on public subsidies? Does that disadvantage mechanical recyclers, who also need support? Would stricter enforcement of the EU Packaging & Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) create sufficient incentives? Should we accept that in an emerging industry, many companies will naturally fall away? At WasteTrade.com , we amplify these questions:
- Is chemical recycling diverting investment from proven mechanical solutions? Europe’s mechanical recyclers are closing due to high costs and cheap virgin imports, yet chemical projects continue to receive state aid. Without a level playing field, will mechanical recycling be squeezed out by experimental technologies?
- How many more false starts can investors tolerate? The sheer number of cancelled or delayed plants suggests systemic issues. If projects cannot secure feedstock or offtake agreements and rely on subsidies, are they truly viable?
- Are cheap virgin polymer imports undermining circular economy goals? APPI’s collapse in Belgium shows how a global oversupply of virgin plastics can wipe out recycling economics overnight. Should Europe consider border adjustments or minimum price floors to protect recycled material?
- What is the environmental trade‑off? Many “advanced recycling” technologies turn plastics into fuels, leading to further combustion. Dow’s Boise program ended with plastics being burned in a cement kiln. Should we call this recycling or energy recovery? Does the industry need stricter definitions to avoid greenwashing?
- Who bears the risk? Projects often highlight job creation and circularity, yet when they fail, the costs fall on investors, governments and, in cases like Recycling Technologies, on employees. Should future incentives include performance bonds or clawbacks to protect public funds?
Conclusion: resetting expectations and priorities
The past five years have seen a parade of press releases and grand promises, followed by a trail of mothballed chemical‑recycling plants. At WasteTrade.com, our mission is to digitise and stabilise waste streams, but digital tools alone cannot fix broken economics. Mechanical recycling remains the backbone of circular plastics, yet the flurry of failed chemical projects indicates that advanced technologies cannot thrive without structural change. Success will require:
- Transparent and enforceable definitions: Distinguish accurate material‑to‑material recycling from projects that merely convert waste into fuels. Without clarity, companies may mislabel energy recovery as recycling, undermining public trust.
- Robust policy frameworks: Enforce recycled‑content mandates across packaging types, implement carbon border adjustments to address cheap virgin imports, and ensure that public subsidies come with performance requirements and clawbacks.
- Stable offtake agreements: Secure long‑term commitments from brand owners and converters to purchase chemically recycled materials, reducing market risk and preventing cancellations.
- Investment in proven infrastructure: Prioritise capacity expansions in technologies that deliver measurable circularity and carbon savings. This includes scaling up mechanical recycling while carefully evaluating advanced chemical methods.
Europe’s circular‑economy goals are still within reach, but the path forward must be grounded in realism. As more chemical projects falter, we urge policymakers, investors and industry leaders to scrutinise the hype, ask tough questions and channel resources towards technologies that deliver both environmental and economic returns. Many mothballed projects remind us that without feedstock security, policy certainty and market demand, even the most sophisticated processes can quickly become stranded assets. John McKenna — WasteTrade.com
