Abstract
Addressing the European Union’s dual imperatives of achieving energy independence under the REPowerEU plan while managing persistent plastic pollution, this paper evaluates a mobile, continuous-feed pyrolysis system. The innovation of this approach lies in its potential for decentralized, on-site deployment, opening the possibility of transforming waste liabilities into energy assets directly at the point of generation. Based on an experimental run using a representative mixed-plastic feedstock from Poland, the analysis demonstrates a successful mass balance conversion, yielding 79% liquid fuel, 13% combustible gas, and 8% solid residue. The primary liquid fraction exhibited a high calorific value (39,800 kJ/kg), confirming its viability as a local energy source. The findings indicate that such technology could offer a practical pathway for implementing the Circular Economy Action Plan. By enabling on-site waste valorization, mobile pyrolysis presents a viable tool to simultaneously reduce landfill dependency, create decentralized energy resources, and enhance regional resilience in line with EU strategic goals.
Introduction
The European Union is grappling with a dual crisis that threatens its environmental stability and geopolitical resilience. On one hand, an escalating solid waste crisis sees unmanaged materials contaminate ecosystems; on the other, a persistent energy crisis demands rapid diversification away from imported fossil fuels. These challenges are not separate; they are deeply interconnected, as traditional waste processing is itself an energy-intensive endeavor. This paper presents a decentralized technological solution designed to address both problems simultaneously.
The scale of the waste problem is staggering. Globally, humans produce over 2 billion tons of waste annually, with projections indicating a 70% increase by 2050. Within the EU, a significant contributor to this crisis is the transboundary displacement of waste, where wealthier states often externalize their ecological burdens to their eastern neighbors. For instance, in 2019, Germany was the origin of 70% of the rubbish heading to Poland, having exported close to 250,000 tons of waste there the previous year [1]. This issue [2] is equally concerning for Romania and Bulgaria [3], and is exacerbated by the fact that this exported waste is often not properly recycled or stored, leaving a legacy of pollution [4].
This crisis of waste management is compounded by a parallel and equally urgent challenge: Europe’s ongoing energy crisis. Despite significant steps to diversify and reduce energy dependence on Russian resources, Europe still faces major vulnerabilities in its industrial and consumer markets. For example, the Polish government extended its freeze on household energy prices for the first nine months of 2025, maintaining the rate at 500 zlotys (€122.14) per megawatt-hour (MWh) [5]. Meanwhile, the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) are preparing to disconnect from the Russian power grid and integrate with the EU’s power system—a transition aimed at enhancing geopolitical resilience, though it concurrently raises concerns over energy price volatility. This underscores a clear and pressing need for solutions that can address these interconnected environmental and energy challenges simultaneously [6].
Previous research
Numerous large-scale projects have attempted to find a solution to both waste and energy problems. Each of the top three major projects faced challenges, caused primarily by the technology and used methods:
- Amager Bakke (Copenhill), Copenhagen, Denmark, encountered [7] budget overruns and capacity mismatches and caused a need for garbage imports, which conflicts with Copenhagen’s environmental goals.
- Brescia Waste-to-Energy Plant, Brescia, Italy, was perceived as successful until serious concerns about its actual actual purity and waste-free nature emerged. [8]
- Klemetsrud Waste-to-Energy Plant, Oslo, Norway appeared to be a serious source of CO₂ emissions. Plans to integrate carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology aim to address this, but the effectiveness and implementation of such measures are still under scrutiny. [9]
Ongoing analysis reveals that current WtE(Waste-to-Energy technologies) systems remain partial, compromise-ridden, and environmentally contentious. None of the existing systems can be considered a complete solution.
Our reality demands alternative systems–ones that are inherently sustainable, decentralized, and transparent. This article proposes such a paradigm, which is based on autonomous mobile pyrolysis systems.
EU Policy Framework for Waste and Energy
The development of innovative solutions for waste management and energy production does not occur in a vacuum. It is guided by a comprehensive and ambitious European Union policy architecture designed to foster sustainability, resource independence, and a competitive green economy. The viability of any new technology, such as the mobile pyrolysis system proposed in this paper, must be assessed against this strategic backdrop. The key pillars of this framework are the European Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan, the Waste Framework Directive, and the REPowerEU plan.
Derived from the Green Deal, the Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) of 2020 provides specific strategies for waste. [10] The CEAP’s core objective is to make sustainable products the norm and to ensure that resources are kept in the EU economy for as long as possible, transforming waste into high-quality secondary resources. [11] This is legally underpinned by the Waste Framework Directive, which establishes the “waste hierarchy” as a legal priority: prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, other recovery (including waste-to-energy), and finally, disposal [12]. Notably, thermal conversion processes such as pyrolysis are explicitly recognized as legitimate recovery pathways for residual, non-recyclable waste streams.
It can be highly relevant for countries like Poland, which face explicit EU targets for improving municipal waste handling. In this context, technologies that enable material and energy recovery from complex waste compositions are formally supported by EU legislation.
Parallel to these environmental drivers is the urgent geopolitical imperative for energy independence, crystallized in the REPowerEU plan. [13] Launched in response to the global energy market disruption, its primary goal is to rapidly reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast-forward the green transition. [14] A key pillar of REPowerEU is the rapid scaling-up of renewable and low-carbon energy sources, including an explicit call to accelerate the production of biomethane and other sustainable fuels.[14] This strategy strongly favors decentralized energy systems that can enhance local resilience and reduce reliance on centralized grids, creating a clear policy opening for mobile, autonomous energy production solutions.
Taken together, these policies create a clear trajectory for EU framework to simultaneously demand a move away from landfilling (via the Waste Framework Directive), to promote the creation of value from non-recyclable waste (via the CEAP), and seeks to accelerate the deployment of decentralized, alternative fuel sources to ensure energy security (via REPowerEU). This paper positions mobile pyrolysis systems as uniquely relevant for these three strategic priorities, so they can offer a practical tool to help achieve the EU’s ambitious goals on the ground
Methodology
This study evaluates the efficacy of continuous-feed pyrolysis as a decentralized waste-to-energy solution for mixed plastic waste. The primary objective is to characterize the outputs of this process to determine their viability as secondary resources.
Feedstock and Experimental Process
The feedstock used was a representative post-consumer, mixed-plastic sample sourced from a recycling facility in Poland. Its composition was predominantly Polyethylene (PE) (91.4%), with smaller fractions of foil packaging (4.2%), technical plastics (1.6%), polyurethane foam (0.5%), and miscellaneous materials (2.3%).
While a full technical schematic and detailed process parameters of the proprietary reactor are documented in research of Polish company AEP Enineering [15], the experimental process can be summarized as follows:
- Pre-treatment: The feedstock was shredded, pre-dried, and pre-heated to ensure process efficiency and consistency.
- Pyrolysis: The prepared material was introduced into the continuous-feed reactor, where thermochemical decomposition occurred in an oxygen-limited environment. Calcium carbonate was employed during this stage to neutralize potential organochlorine compounds.
- Product Separation: The resulting output stream was separated into its constituent gas, liquid, and solid fractions for analysis.
Assumptions and Limitations
The data presented in this paper are derived from the experimental run detailed above. It is assumed that the waste sample is broadly representative of a typical post-consumer plastic stream in the target region. However, it must be acknowledged that real-world performance will vary depending on the daily heterogeneity of feedstock composition. This study is intentionally focused on technical feasibility and policy alignment; a full economic viability assessment, which is subject to volatile local market prices for fuel and waste gate fees, is beyond the current scope and remains an area for future research.
Results
The pyrolysis of the mixed-waste sample yielded three primary product fractions: 79% liquid, 13% gas, and 8% solid residue.
Liquid Residue
The liquid fraction (79% of total yield) was separated via fractional condensation into three distillates with the following properties:
- Dark Fraction (19% of liquid yield): Composed of high molecular weight hydrocarbons.
- Medium Fraction (46% of liquid yield): Exhibited a high calorific value of 39,800 kJ/kg.
- Light Fraction (35% of liquid yield): A high-volatility fraction with properties suitable for solvents or as a high-octane gasoline component.
Gas Residue
The gas fraction (13% of total yield) had a calculated density of 1.457 kg/m ³ and a calorific value of approximately 69,450 kJ/m³. Approximately 89% of this gas is liquefiable, yielding a product with a calculated octane rating of 102.
Solid Residue
The solid residue (8% of total yield) was a non-combustible, mineral-rich ash.
Potential implications
The conversion of a mixed-plastic feedstock into a 79% liquid fuel yield directly addresses the core mandate of the Waste Framework Directive and the CEAP. Instead of being landfilled, the waste is transformed into a resource, moving it up the waste hierarchy from “disposal” to “other recovery.” The high calorific value (39,800 kJ/kg) of the medium fraction confirms its viability as a composite fuel, fulfilling the CEAP’s goal of creating high-quality secondary resources from waste streams.
Simultaneously, the system’s operational design aligns squarely with the objectives of REPowerEU. The process is not both energy-self-sustaining (which is a critical advantage over energy-intensive conventional recycling) and inherently mobile and decentralized. By following this waste-treating approach we can address the crisis on two fronts: it produces a local source of fuel, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, and its decentralized nature enhances local energy resilience, a key priority of the REPowerEU plan. The elimination of time- and energy-consuming heat-up/cool-down cycles, typical of batch processing systems, further boosts its resource efficiency.
These strategic benefits translate into a range of practical applications. The system’s mobility and autonomy make it adaptable, negating the need for costly fixed infrastructure like dedicated landfills or large-scale centralized facilities. It can be deployed statically to power industrial clusters, such as cement plants or refineries, or placed near high-plastic-output industries like printing and textiles. Dynamically, it can be used for environmental remediation tasks, such as recycling of oil sludge from localized storage or cleaning oil-contaminated soil. This flexibility is particularly valuable for remote or energy-deficient areas, like Mediterranean islands that currently import energy and export plastic waste.
System Design for Operational Flexibility
To meet these diverse needs, the system is engineered as a modular, containerized platform for easy transport by road, rail, or sea. It consists of five integrated 45-foot containers that encompass all necessary process stages: initial feedstock shredding and drying; the core pyrolysis reactor and filtration block; a power generation unit for internal electricity needs; a high-pressure gas compression station; and a central system control hub. With a processing capacity of up to 30 metric tons per day, the entire system is designed for a high degree of automation, requiring a single operator.
Conclusion
While technical and policy synchronisation is strong, operational deployment will be hampered by severe hurdles. Economic viability is dependent on insecure local energy prices and waste gate charges, which require close individual case-by-case analysis. Further, meeting the complex matrix of EU and national legislation on mobile waste treatment and emissions will present bureaucratic challenges.
Despite such challenges, this distributed model provides a robust and adaptable framework for addressing the global plastic crisis and community energy needs. It transforms a crisis ecological burden into a resource of energy and economics. By providing a valuable instrument for distributed manufacture and sustainable infrastructure, this approach is a beacon of light to future study and practical implementation.
References
[1] Mulhern, Owen. “Waste Management: Germany and Poland.” Earth.Org, January 20, 2021. https://earth.org/data_visualization/waste-germany-poland/
[2] Nikolova, Milana. “The EU Needs to Regulate Waste Exports to Central and Eastern Europe.” Emerging Europe, August 9, 2021. https://emerging-europe.com/analysis/the-eu-needs-to-regulate-waste-exports-to-central-and-eastern-europe
[3] Stoyanov, Nikolay, and Velina Gospodinova. “Why and How Bulgaria Imports Waste from Other EU Countries.” European Data Journalism Network, October 14, 2019. https://www.europeandatajournalism.eu/cp_data_news/why-and-how-bulgaria-imports-waste-from-other-eu-countries
[4] EU Reporter. “Romania Sued by European Commission over Pollution.” EU Reporter, December 8, 2021. https://www.eureporter.co/politics/european-commission/2021/12/08/romania-sued-by-european-commission-over-pollution/
[5] Reuters. “Poland to Keep Household Energy Price Freeze in 2025, to Spend $1.3 Bln.” Reuters, November 19, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/poland-keep-household-energy-price-freeze-2025-spend-13-bln-2024-11-19
[6] Sytas, Andrius, and Marek Strzelecki. “Baltics Brace to Cut Decades-Old Ties to Russian Grid.” Reuters, February 7, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/baltics-brace-cut-decades-old-ties-russian-grid-2025-02-07
[7] Madsen, Johan. “A Danish Fiasco: The Copenhagen Incineration Plant.” Zero Waste Europe, November 8, 2019. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2019/11/copenhagen-incineration-plant/
[8] Hockenos, Paul. “EU Climate Ambitions Spell Trouble for Electricity from Burning Waste.” Clean Energy Wire, May 26, 2021. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-climate-ambitions-spell-trouble-electricity-burning-waste
[9] Reuters. “Norway Resumes Work on Oslo Waste Carbon Capture Project.” Reuters, January 27, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/norway-resumes-work-oslo-waste-carbon-capture-project-2025-01-27
[10] European Commission. (2019). Communication from the Commission: The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 final.
https://era.gv.at/public/documents/4117/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf
[11] European Commission. (2020). Communication from the Commission: A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. COM(2020) 98 final.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52020DC0098
[12] European Parliament and Council. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive). (Consolidated version 05/07/2018).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52019DC0640
[13] Pires, A., & Martinho, G. (2019). Municipal Solid Waste Management and Waste-to-Energy in the Context of a Circular Economy and Energy Recycling in Europe. In Waste-to-Energy (WTE) in the Circular Economy. Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.11.128
[14] European Commission. (2022). Communication from the Commission: REPowerEU Plan. COM(2022) 230 final.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022DC0230
[15] The Editorial Staff. “Innovations in Pyrolysis for Waste Treatment.” Il Velo di Maya, May 1, 2024.
https://ilvelodimaya.eu/innovations-in-pyrolysis-for-waste-treatment
Image par Michael De Groot de Pixabay
Further reading
How to Reverse Global Warming: We Ask the New Expert – and the Answer Isn’t What You Think
Expanding animal vaccination can curb the ‘silent pandemic’ of superbugs
From tariffs to F2F: protectionism is threatening global agriculture, Jon Entine (interview)