bioplastics | Opinion Growth ahead - but how much?
Injection World editor Chris Smith questions recent growth forecasts for bioplastics production
Trade association European Bioplastics released its latest forecast for bioplastic production capacity growth in December of last year. The data, prepared by the Institute for Bioplastics and Biocom- posites (IfBB) at the University of Applied Sciences at Hannover in Germany, predicted global production capacity will expand by more than 300% to 6.7m tonnes by 2018. It is a bold prediction but one that looks, set against today’s oil prices, perhaps a little optimistic. The study [
bit.ly/1zVnapN]
forecasts a considerable expansion in production capacity for the bio-based biodegradable plastic PLA (up by around 110% to reach 440,000 tonnes by 2018). As both Corbion and Natureworks are mulling new capacity investments – and given that PLA is proving a popular option in the fast growing desktop 3D printer market - that figure may be well reached. Production capacity for bio-based PET (30% renewable content) is predicted to grow by 700% to 5.0m tonnes. This will require a significant investment in polymer production capacity. European Bioplastics says Coca Cola, among a number of other companies, is strongly committed to expand produc- tion capacities of biobased PET and is planning several production facilities. It says
50
PLA production capacity looks set to increase as producers mull new investment
most of these projects are already well progressed in planning and development. The picture is a great deal
less promising for bio-based PE which has, to date, seen somewhat limited uptake by end users. Production capacities for bio-based PE are predicted to stay constant as there is no known new production facilities in the planning, says the study. Pricing remains a key
challenge for all in the bioplas- tics sector, and particularly so for bio-based PE. Braskem, the only volume bio-based PE producer with one 200,000 tonne/year plant in Brazil, has acknowledged that current technology cannot compete on price with traditional petro- chemical production. As few customers seem prepared to pay a premium for bio-based PE, it seems unlikely compa- nies will be prepared to invest in production capacity. Growth in production
INJECTION WORLD | March 2015
capacity for bio-based PA polymers – already an estab- lished if niche market – is predicted to rise by just 27% over the same period to reach a little more than 100,000 tonnes. At slightly ahead of GDP growth, that forecast look quite realistic. The claim of the bio-based
plastics industry that its products provide a buffer against the volatility of oil looks a little less attractive in today’s market. Even before the recent dramatic fall in oil prices, producers and end users alike were preparing for the availability of potentially lower cost PE from new shale-fed polymerisation plants in the US and Canada. Of course, the IfBB study
was performed before the unexpected fall in oil prices and European Bioplastics is among the first to acknowl- edge that low oil prices hold the potential, at least, to slow bioplastics development. Oil prices will, inevitably, rise
again and there is no guaran- tee that shale will deliver a price advantage. In the future, the pricing
differential between bio-based and traditional plastics is likely to narrow again. But not all will have the patience to wait. Earlier this year, for instance, French agri-products group Roquette said it was ending development of its Gaialene and Gaiaplast bioplastics, which it launched in 2010, with a spokesperson citing falling oil prices as a key factor. Looking ahead, bioplastic
production capacity will certainly grow. But by how much and how quickly is very difficult to predict. In the final analysis, these novel materials will earn their place on the performance and the value they deliver. Simply being “green” will not be enough. NOTE: This article was
updated on 16 March 2015 to correct errors in the bio-PE forecast.
www.injectionworld.com
PHOTO: NATUREWORKS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74