The AIChE 2014 Spring Meeting Keynote speaker, William Banholzer, retired Dow Chemical CTO, gave an insightful and wide-ranging address on the the state of technology changes for the future, and the chemical engineer's special capability to make sensible and better decisions for the direction of these changes, especially in the field of energy.
Energy is more problematic from a conceptual perspective than other more physical items like cars or mobile phones. Throwing a switch turns on a light and an air conditioner, and the average person perceives that the energy expenditure that results follows closely, when of course it doesn't. When asked how much energy their AC uses, the typical response was 2-1/2 light bulbs worth, not the 70 it actually is. The following are a few more choice observations from William's talk.
Observations from Banholzer's speech
A lack of technical understanding among the general public, and a sensationalist and "catastrophe-seeking" media can often lead to a focus on environmental issues that are of lesser importance, or lead to energy decisions or policies that are misguided. This can lead to a waste of resources. If chemical engineering judgment had been applied, billions of dollars could have been saved.
Scale and feedstock costs are becoming more and more important in successful enterprise today. In the last 50 years, there have been few if any disruptive new (chemical) manufacturing processes. We have done a good job of optimizing the processes, with high energy integration (efficiency). Application of chemical engineering has reduced the cost of polyethylene by 90%. This success may make people think that engineers can do anything! The seven orders of magnitude improvements (reduction) in the energy of computations isn't possible in the chemical arena. Thermodynamics present limits, and experience usually offers a fourfold improvement in efficiency.
The Nth plant economics fallacy. The power of scale cannot be ignored. Is it really better to have little plants all over the place? Would a mine be better off with 100 half-ton pick-up trucks, or a single 50-ton dump truck? Biofuel plants' capital costs are 10 times what a typical chemical plant would be, so the benefit of scale is in that range. Concentrated feed stocks and concentrated products yields the best economics. Use energy content comparisons for rational synthesis route evaluations. Does it make sense to make ethylene out of ethanol? When thinking about schemes to make value-added chemicals out of a biofuel like ethanol, just knowing a feasible reaction sequence isn't enough. It also has to be non-energy degrading to be viable, and just because a product is "green" doesn't mean you can charge a premium. Current research indicates that the highest premium people would pay for a more environmentally friendly product is 25%. [On a personal note, the company I work for sells its Amazon Select recycled content latex paint at a discount, not a premium].
A few final thoughts:
- A mixture of valuable stuff isn't necessarily valuable.
- Separations costs in the chemicals industry are typically larger than the production/reaction costs.
- Don't forget your thermodynamics.
- Make sure that you draw the envelope large enough when doing your energy balance.
Chemical engineering can serve as the compass to direct our path towards sustainable success and away from value destruction. The engineers of the future need to make sure that their voice (and judgment) is heard. In case you missed it, watch the video interview with William Banholzer.