Hello everyone. And welcome to another exciting episode of the Circular Plastics podcast. I'm Milita Volich, product line director at Topso and your podcast host. Today, I have the great pleasure of hosting Valentine Denev, CEO of BlueAlp. Valentine leads BlueAlp, a pioneering company that specializes in pyrolysis pathway of chemical recycling.
Valentine will share insights about Blue Alps process, which prepares oil for steam crackers using mixed plastic waste. We'll discuss the importance of having a truly continuous process and designing scalable solutions for future growth. Then we'll touch on the challenges faced by technology developers in a regulatory landscape that's still evolving. And we'll also talk about business models chosen by BlueAlp. And finally, we'll discuss key partnerships with major players like Shell, Boralis, and get a glimpse of what's next for BlueAlp.
So let's get going.
Hello, everyone. Today, I have the pleasure of hosting Valentine Denev, based in Holland, working for BlueAlp, a pyrolysis provider and provider for a difference in chemical recycling. And I'm really excited because that's a type of, you could say, company or player in the value chain that, we did not have on the podcast so far. Valentine, to start with, please introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about BlueAlp and and your role.
Thank you very much, and and great to be on this podcast. I'm Valentine Denaeve, and I'm the CEO at BlueAlp. And I joined 2 years ago, and when I had the chance to join BlueOp, for me, that was a clear yes. I do believe we need to make plastic circular. I know BlueOp has an advantage in terms of technology and maturity over a lot of other players in this industry.
And for me, it's an honor to work with a team of roughly a 100 people that have already worked decades on defining and developing a great technology to turn mixed plastic waste into pyrolysis oil that in the end can go to steam crackers to make it circular.
Great. So you you already mentioned, you know, a number of topics, I think, that we'll be talking about today, which is the company history and how long you you guys have been around, how far you've come. Also, as you say, the speed and and the differentiators that the technology offers. But just for a second, let's stay with you and your career history. So can you tell me a little bit more, you know, about what you've done before Blueout?
How did you cross paths with Blueout? Obviously, I I have, you know, no doubt that it was actually an easy decision to join Blueout and then become its CEO. But how did it happen? Yeah. What led to it?
Well, I started my career in strategy consulting at Bain and Company, and I really enjoyed that. But in after 3 years, I moved to Shell. And the reason I moved to Shell is that I really felt and and still feel that we are in an energy and materials transition. And that to make a difference there, it's best to drive technology and actual projects. And in Shell, I had various roles.
But in the last 2 years at Shell, I was involved in setting up the circular chemicals business for Shell. And that's also when I got a much deeper appreciation for the importance and the good role that plastics play, but the great challenge of how do we make plastics circular. And Shell is is one of the shareholders of BlueAlb. We have 5. It's Shell.
It's Vernazian, in that sense, also Borealis, and 3 companies from the Netherlands, Mallrick, an industrial cleaning company as well as large construction company, then Hartog, which is large in in fuels, but also in biofuels, and our founder, Chris Van Der Re. And when it became clear that they were looking for new leadership for BlueOp, that was a fantastic choice for me. And our founder, Chris Van Der Re, also said, it's now from start up to scale up. And I was very happy that I could, could join the team two and a half years ago.
I totally understand, and it's super exciting, time in the company. Right? But, obviously, I think the partnerships you have in place and these really strong shareholders help out a lot. So we'll certainly be going back to that because I think that is unique. I know there's a number of alliances, a number of investments across the value chain, but still naming both Shell and Borealis somehow in the same lineup speaks for itself.
If you can tell us a little bit about technology. You did mention how it, sits in the circular plastic value chain. You mentioned, obviously, that you prepare oil for steam crackers, and did you use mixed plastic waste? But tell us a little bit about that black box, the pyrolysis technology, and maybe we can obviously couple the story of the development from over a decade ago, I believe, of the first plant. Right?
And so just to briefly talk about the technology element and then, yeah, linking it maybe to to the place in the value chain.
Actually, this differentiation started more than 15 years ago. Our first pilot plant was in Switzerland in the Alps.
Yeah. Is that why you're called, Blue Alps?
Exactly. Exactly. So because it started in the Alps, the team was looking at Alps needs to be in the name, and the name blue comes from making the oceans blue again, making sure that no plastic will be there. Nice. And I think Switzerland's our first plant are still fundamental at BlueAlp because what was special is that the mindset of the team was not how do we get get a 3 kiloton plant to work, but what do we need to learn now to make sure that in the future, a 300 kiloton plant can work?
And it gives a different mindset. And key lessons that the team then developed is, 1, you need to have a truly continuous process if you wanna go significant scale. And 2, the design and the solutions that you choose need to be scalable and not scalable by multiplication of several lines, but to make sure that barriers that you would have in sizing up equipment, that they will not be there. And that means that from that moment onwards, we have designed for a process with a reactor and a full process that is truly scalable.
So continuous process, obviously, I would love to hear a little bit more about it. You know? I I guess that means a lot for for robustness somehow or robustness is coupled to it. And then the other element is, yeah, the scalability and maybe not just through multiplication of trains, but stretching the upper limit of the the train size. Yeah. Would love to hear more about that.
Yeah. No. And I think scalability, when you hear 3 kiloton in the world of petrochemicals and the challenge that we have to make plastic circular, it's very tidy. So everybody realized we need to go to a bigger step, and that's where we're very proud that the Vernazhi was developed. That's the first commercial plant based on the blow up technology, our license, and and we've built it, which is from a single train, a design capacity of 24 kiloton.
And 24 kiloton in the world of petrochemicals from a single line is very large if you compare it to competitors, not not big enough. And 2 years ago, we started with Shell to really leverage the scalability, not by multiplication, but by actually scaling up the whole process. And we're now close to finalizing the the licensing package, the the basic engineering package for a single train having 70 kiloton input capacity.
That's very good size.
Yeah. And and I think then it becomes also meaningful that if you have 2 or 3 lines of 70 kiloton on centralized locations with benefits of cracker integration, and apart from that, we offer to the market 24 or larger scale single trades that fit in a decentralized model, then we can really leverage what the industry needs, centralized as well as decentralized solutions. And if we go to the technology, I I think you mentioned on on the continuous process. What we see is that there are a lot of processes that are not continuous, and and you're absolutely right. The robustness of something that's not continuous is is way less.
We see that by having months of operation. You use your capacity more efficient than if you would, of course, need to turn down and clean, but, also, you get the truly stable process, which is key.
Okay. So so since, I believe 2014, when you started up the first plant. Right? Then, it's been around 6 years till the start up of the Renasse plant, which I agree. I mean, not only is it a decent size for this space or probably the largest, But also it was only one of the 2 or 3 plants in Europe running for a long time.
Maybe maybe still is, actually. It would be great to hear from you more on this. But some people will will think that it's still, you could say, a long development time line. So and I know. I mean, I work for a technology developer. Technology company
I know that
it's actually pretty fast. Right? But tell us a little bit more about all the challenges that you face as a technology developer, maybe also in the landscape, which is not completely crystal clear when it comes to the regulatory drivers or other drivers, you know, to pay for recycled plastic. If we look back maybe over those those 10 years, of the company or more, you said 15 from the very first, you could say, ideal conceptualization, what were the challenges that you had to overcome?
So I think that to enable funding of technology development and funding in the end is crucial because it's not the low cost exercise to develop technology. The fundament is that you have something that fits well in the value chain. And I must admit that the team initially started with focusing on creating diesel, gas oil from plastic waste. And and I'm very happy that 10 years ago, we started shifting into purely focusing on how do we make cracker feedstock. And maybe one of the key things, I think, which also has helped us to attract key players and help funding our journey and also contribute with with knowledge is that what I think also professor von Heim said in in one of the earlier podcasts is that a lot of pyrolysis players struggle with that they have a very wide boiling range in their oil.
Indeed. Yeah.
And what you see is that that typically increases the costs of treating that white boiling range before it can go in the right amounts into a steam cracker. And one of the key developments we've done is that we're able to have the full set of pyrolysis oil that we can optimize for a low or a high final boiling point, and we see a lot of players do that via distillation, by cutting off certain sections. But we're with a recycle loop in in the process are able to make sure that the full product without catalysts is to the the final boiling point that works for a player. And if we look in the industry, there are heavy crackers, there are light crackers. I think that was one of the key developments that understanding what is needed downstream and making sure that the technology is fit for purpose for that was key.
But I think a big shift for us was when Renacci started up successfully, that Shell joined as a partner, Embryallis joined as a partner. Because we see that apart from funding, which is key, that having a joint development agreement where knowledge and experience and IP of, for example, Shell is brought to the table to scale up the technology to deal with the fluctuating feedstock really has helped to speed up the rate at which we can develop the technology.
Yeah. I mean, also the Renacci plant. Right? It's a huge success because nothing really beats the speed in technology development as an operating plant from which you also learn. The learning curve just gets to a completely different, slope, you could say. Okay. Very interesting. I mean, now you mentioned 2, things that I want would like you to elaborate a little bit more on, if you can. One is the the regulation. Obviously, yes.
It's there. But is it ambitious enough? How do you see it also changing over time? And the other one is is, of course, yeah, the waste handlers, mechanical recyclers. I couldn't help, to notice that a couple of weeks ago, you've actually announced the partnership with RES in Italy. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? So, again, a combo of 2 questions. You can take in whatever order you want.
You're right. And let me start with the regulation. I think if you look in Europe, that there has been good progress over the last couple of months. PPWR really helps in in creating demand beyond the voluntary commitment that already drive to market currently. And with the recycled content obligations for the various categories, I could say I I want higher percentages, but I think what is most important is that there's clarity on the rules of the game.
Because each project needs clarity to help investors make the right choice. And PPWR with recycled content obligations, mass balance, getting more and more clarity, I think we're moving really in the right direction. Of course, I wish that the permit processes would be faster, and it would be great if there would be aligned underway status across Europe. But what I see is most importantly that the regulation trend is heading into the right direction. And then I think it's for us as an industry to really add to that by further driving innovation and technology costs down and leveraging the existing, momentum there is to make sure that there will be more and more commercial plans to give society the trust that we can, at scale, make testing circular.
And you mentioned, indeed, the partnership with RES that we we announced a couple of weeks ago, and I'm extremely proud about that. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And I'm proud of that because of the partner, RES, which are at the forefront of looking on how to make most value from waste. But for us, it's also a milestone to show that not only petrochemical companies will invest, but that this is a sensible business model for mechanical recyclers, waste incinerators, and waste managers.
And we do believe that both segments will be needed to address the challenge of making sure that plastic waste is no longer burnt, for instance, or landfilled, but actually turned into new plastics again.
About feedstock, and you mentioned mixed plastic feedstock that you can take. Can you tell me a little bit about the flexibility in that regard? Because you do hear a lot of things, especially about pyrolysis. You hear a lot about waste hierarchy and this, you know, interplay with mechanical recycling. How do you look at that from the process perspective, but and also from the sustainability perspective?
What we all know is that the feedstock is there because what we currently see is that the millions of tons of plastic waste being incinerated are landfills. And as a society, we can do better. But it takes work to make sure that we can change that. And what I see with the regulation on increased costs on carbon via ETS for waste incineration, We already, in the market, see more and more waste incinerators develop projects where plastic will be diverted from incineration towards recycling. And when you look then at recycling, there is a key role for mechanical recycling, and there's a key role for advanced funds recycling with pyrolysis taking a large part of that.
And if you look at our technology and also the plant in in Ostend, Manasi, then that does take post consumer waste, post industrial waste that cannot mechanically be recycled. And on the technology front and on the process front, we've put in quite a lot of work to make sure that there is the tolerance for for running feedstock because everyone knows is that the waste that we as society generate in summer and winter is not the same, and that there are significant fluctuations, and that it's almost impossible to measure upfront what exactly you will go in. So you need to process that's tolerant and that can manage significant fluctuations in the composition of your plastic waste.
Okay. Now, of course, I can't help myself, but, you know, as a provider of the downstream potential upgrading when it's needed, typically when you want to process quite a lot of the pyrolysis oil into a steam cracker. From this perspective, I wanted to ask, for your opinion on the upgrading needs. When do they arise? How do you see that going forward as you and and other players deploy more and more the pyrolysis technology?
There's more pyrolysis oil available. Would there also be space for the upgrading technology providers?
You're absolutely right. Upgrading will be key.
Oh, I love to hear that.
And I can imagine. And I think there are 2 2 fundamental drivers that ask for this need. And I think that the experience that you and the industry have built up over decades is very much needed to, at larger scale, enable making plastic circular. I think one is that the larger the volume of recycled material pyrolysis becomes, the larger the challenge around contamination will be. And part of the contaminants we can remove in our process.
But what we see is when there is an upgrading step, our process can even have a wider feedstock acceptance because we know that the contaminants that are in the plastics will then be taken out downstream.
Let us go back maybe to blow out in your business model because I've seen that you guys do licensing as one option, and you also do the engineering procurement and fabrication as as another option you offer to your customers. So can you, tell me a little bit about each of those? What do the customers go for most? Where do you see the traction, and why do you think, you know, maybe there's a preference for 1 or the other, also depending on the customer group. And then, yeah, inevitably, there is the third model, which is build on operate, which some of your your competitors are going for.
Why not build on operate? Right? If you can, kind of reflect on all of that, that would be great. Thanks.
So we started as a company that does diesel engineering and fabrication. We've in the past done that for gas treatment installations, and it's in our DNA. That's also why we played a key role in building Renacci fully. But what we realize is that this market is so much bigger. If you think about the ambitions that we have at a European level, it does mean to reach that from now on, we need to have 300 to 400 plants a year being built as an industry to reach the targets of 30,000,000 ton in 2030.
And what we know is that we have a very promising technology and that we don't have capacity to build for all customers. And we also believe that there are companies that are very good at doing detailed engineering, procurement, and fabrication, and that's why we're keen to work with partners. And that's why we also next to fully delivering installations combined with a license, we also go for an approach where we provide, as a licensor, the licensing package and and support throughout that process. If I currently look in the market, I think especially for the 24 kiloton installations, there are customers that do not often work with large EPC companies. They often prefer that BlueOp is from start to to finish responsible to deliver an installation that works, and we're very happy to do that.
But I think that you see in the petrochemicals market, who are often used to work with EPC companies, that they also really value the flexibility that the licensing model offers. And especially when we also look at the larger capacities, the 70 kiloton, we know that our fabrication yard is not set up to build full installations of that size.
Makes sense. And in your kind of project pipeline, I mean, who dominates in terms of the the customers? You mentioned at some point, okay, you know, centralized versus decentralized, pyrolysis placement. I've also, noticed that you put safety on top of your agenda, meaning that you can probably then have this unit anywhere, right, in in a petrochemical complex, in a refinery, or at a waste handling or co located with waste handling site. But who do you see dominates at the moment?
Right? Is it mostly pet camps that wanna invest and build and own potentially, or who is it? Is it the waste handlers? I know you you reflected on the need for all of them to to play a role, but can you, based on on your pipeline, see any changes or any patterns and share them with us?
Yes. And, when I started two and a half years ago, I think the the dominant pipeline was around petrochemicals. What I've seen over the last year is a significant build up of interest from the waste management, mechanical recyclers, and especially also the waste incinerators with the upcoming regulation. And at the moment, we're roughly at 5050 in our funnel. And looking ahead, I can see the next wave of investments coming from petrochemicals or the larger scale units.
And I do also see an uptake for waste incinerators that will sometimes also go for the larger units, and that for the the currently established units will be, we believe, colocated with waste handlers also significantly more in in the year to come.
But I guess the message is that we can expect a mix also of centralizing centralized, plastic liquefaction.
Yeah. And I realized I didn't answer your question on own and operate and why we don't do that, isn't it?
Yes. Please do that. Go ahead.
Yeah. Yeah.
And I think we do see quite some players own and operate. And we believe that we as a company need to focus on having the best technology and licensing that out as well as building units. But that there are others that have long operational experience on on running a process plan, And that the impact that we can make, if we own and operate, we cannot scale and license as much as when we really focus on having the best technology and licensing it out. So you'll not see us own and operate plans, but we're glad to work with anyone who can operate it safely and who, wants to develop our losses project.
Okay. Now looking at the competitor landscape, obviously, it's a new space. There's a lot of players, but it is a little bit prone to, you know, one company's success does matter for the whole industry. And and, of course, acknowledging that the technology has a lot of unique differentiators and is really at the forefront. I wanted you to maybe share with us comments on on who do you really believe will also succeed.
Right? If possible to comment, who do you think is doing something smart, could be global, right, beyond Europe, that may be doing something in a in a good way. Who do you have most respect for, you could say, within the the competitor landscape?
Yeah. So first of all, I think in this industry, we need multiple companies to succeed and what differentiated the technologies. And I think we're entering in a key year for the industry. We know that Plastic Energy has announced that to start up plants in Helene in cooperation with Sabik. We've heard the announcement of Prime that are commissioning and starting up their plant this year, and there's Murat who do hope to commission later this year or start up their plant in the UK.
And I hope for the industry that all succeed because I think we need to success to demonstrate what is possible. I think in the US, we see that Ultera is, of course, one of the ones that has a plant running for a while and and a strong partnership. So I do believe there are multiple players in the industry that are doing the right things, making sure that at a commercial scale, you start up a plant and demonstrate it. But from experience, I can tell that after the the plant is started up, there is still a challenging road to debottleneck and improve it.
Okay. Now you mentioned out there, you mentioned you could say the US market or the whole journey for decarbonizing through through circular plastic being global. What is your appetite for rolling this out globally? And, yes, the regulations are right now only in Europe, but sometimes the absence of regulations also, if there's voluntary commitment drive, can bring business. So so how do you see that? What's your, you could say, long term vision for the company globally?
Yeah. We believe that making plastic circular is a global challenge, and we see that our economies of scale in in doing this global and not regional. The more plants you license out, it's, of course, about the economic return. But more fundamental, the more plants you license out, the more you learn and the more competitive your technology gets. And we're headquartered, of course, in the Netherlands, but we are a global player.
We do have a US funnel. We have in Asia. I think Korea is a market that's really moving fast. We're really organizing and and working with customers around the globe.
This makes me appreciate even more that you've set aside, you know, an hour of your time to to talk to us because, I can see you're really very busy. Let's kind of wrap up by looking back into the technology box. I've seen somewhere that you're aiming to, you could say, completely decarbonize or bring the emissions from your process to very, very low levels. How are you doing that, and and how what is the timeline for that? So what does what does it mean, for example, for integration process integration, opportunities that you have, potentially through collocation with our sites?
Or what does it mean in terms of product valorization? Well, not product, but coproduct or byproduct valorization. So so how are you looking at that?
Yeah. So in the end, we focus on having the most sustainable and most attractive technology because we believe the sustainable part. So really playing a key role in decarbonization is key, as well as that it needs to be investable. And for us, the first big step was scaling up to 70 kiloton because quite some of the integration only makes sense at a larger scale. And we're nearing completion here, which means that we look at the next step, which is the decarbonization and integration.
At this moment in the pyrolysis process, the oil is produced. There are gases, and there is bitumen like fraction. What we see is that for decarbonization, it's key to collocate and to make sure that these gases are integrated with treating and then going to to the back end of a cracker as well as making sure that, currently, we use these gases to heat the process to make sure that that is electrified and no longer based on this. And I think you touched on coproducts. What we see is that the bitumen fraction that comes out is that that keeps to be continuing work to look for different applications where this can be used, which is very different when you are in a centralized location at the petrochemical complex than when you are collocated with, waste pad.
Thanks. So so, actually, yeah, this was interesting with the gas being able to be integrated downstream, the cracker. That's a very nice thing. I guess there are some olefins in the gas that you can then put down. You mentioned also previously in the process of the permitting and things like that, like certification, delisting the waste.
How much do you, you know, have to deal with that? How much is, is it your partners or customers? But but any any thoughts on that? Anything you would like to change or, you know, to move things faster? Or maybe you see hints of change already?
Yes. Of course, I would like everything to be more positive to accelerate plastic recycling. But if I had to pick 1, I would say permits. We have quite a number of projects where we work with partners where delays in the permit delay actual projects. And, yes, there are challenges around end of waste, consistency across Europe, but in the end, it's always managed.
And certification is key, and I do see, I think, enough momentum and enough existing companies and infrastructures that can be used. So for me, key focus is let's make sure that as society, we enable permits for these projects fast.
And, on that note, with the, you know, you could say, clear message, on something that could seriously help accelerate these projects and and lift up the whole industry, let's wrap up by maybe kind of going to the last question, which is basically, what are the next announcements that that we can expect from you? So it's the 7 d k t a project you're doing with Shell. What are the immediate next steps for Blueout?
Yeah. So I do expect new announcements on partnerships, which I think shows that we're driving really this transition. And I think on later this year, when the full lysine package for the 70 kiloton is is finalized, that will also be a big moment to celebrate. And it will take a bit of time before we've done the decarbonization, so I don't dare to pick a date for that.
No. That's okay. I mean, as as reflected before, I think it seems like you're actually moving quite fast even though those are people not knowing about new technology development, it may seem like, yeah, it's taking some time. And a lot of hindrances, obviously, permits, regulations, maybe scaling back, etcetera. Okay.
Thanks a lot, Valentine. This was, super interesting. Very happy to learn more about, you know, all the differentiators, of BlueAlp. Certainly, I've known about your position, in the in the European paralysis community already. I'm really looking forward to following up, you know, you step by step, potentially also collaborating together. And in any case, I wish you, a lot of success. Thanks a lot for your time today.
Thank you very much for hosting, and, fantastic, together with Topso. Discuss this topic.
Mikaela, so that was my talk with Valentine from Boelp. What did you do you think?
Really interesting. And I think that one of the points that struck me is their approach or philosophy on how to develop their technology. I think this whole part about developing to scale up is extremely important, and and I I really wish that more startups would focus on this. Because as he said, is that they have developed or started their operating unit focusing on how can we learn from this to scale up. I think there are too many companies that are focusing on getting something that can operate with 1 or 10 liters per hour or per day, and and the holy grail is scaling up.
So it doesn't matter if you have a plant, a small plant, that works if you can't scale it up. So I really like this philosophy of focusing on building in scale.
Yes. Okay. I mean, I agree, with you. It is always important to be able to do it at kind of relevant scale. Right?
Yes. But that scale may differ depending on what you're targeting, what technology you have. And, you could say I mean, now he Valentine mentioned the 70,000 tons per year as being their, you could say, larger unit, right, that that is their next step in scaling up somehow. You could argue that that is not huge on, if you compare it to, for example, steam cracker scale. But it is probably very relevant when you look at how much maybe plastic waste is is available on one site. Right?
Yeah. On a given location. And I think this is again also, a very interesting discussion in talking about how much plastic can you collect at one side. And it's this balance about if you want very large quantities, you either need to be very close to somewhere that produces these large quantities or go to a lower scale because there's a limit to how far can you transport this because that also has a cost in the life cycle assessment. So this balance between recycling and the sustainability considerations, I think, is is also interesting.
And, also, don't forget how much space this waste takes up. Because even though you compact it into bundles, it takes up a lot of space.
Yeah. I I agree. So, actually, I think the 70,000 tons per year seems very, you could say, reasonable. Obviously, there is still, you could say, many many plants that need to be built to close these targets, right, that
Yeah.
The industry has for 2030, for example.
Yeah. Didn't he mention, like, 3 100, 400 plants if you just chose their technology to fulfill the the goals of Yeah. Yeah. But you in 2,030?
Yeah. I think that would be taking the Renacci plant size, right, and, and just cloning that, putting many of those. So, of course, with 70,000 tons per year, you are much closer to a realistic goal. Right? Like, fewer plants that you need to deploy. Yes. And and probably a decent match between waste kind of availability Yes. And something that is still not really just a drop in the sea, but a little bit more significant to feed into the steam crackers.
Yeah. And and when we're talking about scale, it's also interesting to talk about the feedstock availability. And and I think for some of the plastic recycling technologies we've seen for the chemical recycling is that the window for what they can accept into their technology is quite narrow Yes. True. Which which also limits the feedstock availability.
And and I think for for him, he also talked about that depending on the next step in the process, whether it goes directly into a steam cracker or if it goes into a hydrotreater that can purify it, that also governs what kind of feedstock can be utilized in the process.
Yes. Well, I think he did mention that they can process red mixed plastic waste so that they have a certain flexibility when it comes to the feedstock. But I do recall that he stressed the importance of upgrading, right, in order to allow them to to, as you say, process a broader even broader range of different feedstocks and still meet
feedstock. And and that's also something with the boiling point, I think you recall, it's not only impurities, but also the boiling point specification of the product that exits the technology.
Exactly. And I think they're, they actually have a differentiator in their technology as well that they are able to meet some of the the varying demands of the steam cracker owners with respect to that.
Yeah. Getting back to the operating experience, because I really wanna touch on this, a little bit more, is that it seems that they now have at least a few years of, operational experience in in how how to do this. I think that's also, a positive thing they have going for them is that they have actually operated a plant for a few years.
Yeah. I mean, it's like an incredibly steep learning curve. You do, I guess, face problems. Right? You solve them. You learn from that. You improve Yeah. Continuously your technology through, learnings from operation. So that really is a priceless thing for probably I mean, both rolling it out, but also as you said, you know, designing it for scale. Right? You use some of the the learnings there from Yeah. The operating plant.
I think that was my reflections from this conversation. I think it's really interesting, and I and I also look forward to following BlueAlb in the future to see how they grow.
Yeah. Me too. I think well, you know, they have Shell and Borealis behind them. That is, hopefully, you know, guarantee of good things to come. And, I'm really looking forward to that maybe first seventy 1,000 tiles per year plan being deployed.
I mean,
that will be a significant step for the whole, industry, actually.
I agree.
Thank you for joining us on this insightful episode of the Circular Plastic podcast. It has been a pleasure having Valentine Deneb, CEO of Bloalp, share his expertise and insights into the challenges and opportunities in the circular plastics industry and the exciting future ahead for this pioneering company. If you found this episode valuable, please subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network. Stay tuned for more episodes where we continue to explore the cutting edge innovations and key players driving change in the industry. Until next time, stay informed and inspired.
Goodbye.