Disruptive technologies: Mushroom packaging

 This blog has periodically covered advances in bioplastics, such as compostable garbage bags, starch- and sugar-based polymers and other biomass-based materials. The current issue of New Yorker magazine carries a long article about a new technology that uses mushroom spores and such biomass materials as corn stalks and husks to make a molded packaging material that looks and acts like styrofoam(!). It is starting to be used to package wine bottles, protect furniture and for a number of other uses and was recently licensed to Sealed Air Corporation, one of the largest firms making plastic films and other packaging materials. Quite the opposite from non-biodegradable polystyrene, which litters landfills and creates unsightly beach litter, the new material biodegrades in landfill in thirty days (!).

One of the founders of the technology, Eban Bayer, grew up in Vermont, where he helped his father with a large maple syrup business. Wood chips used to stoke a high temperature furnace to cook the maple sap sometimes got wet in storage and sprouted mushrooms which stuck to the chips to make a solid clump. He remembered this years later when, together with co-inventor Gavin McIntyre, he took an Inventor’s Studio class at Rennselaer Polytecnic Institute in Troy, NY, taught by Bert Swersey, himself a successful inventor. The challenge was to make an insulating material out of a mineral called perlite. Bayer took mushrom spores from a kit, mixed them with water and a biomass nutrient in a glass jar and added some perlite. A few days later, there was a solid disk of perlite knit together with mycelium (mushroom) strands.

Bayer and McIntyre spent several years studying and impoving their invention, at some point joined by Sue Van Hook, a faculty member at Skidmore who is an expert in mycology (study of mushrooms). Mycelium has threadlike cells that liberate enzymes that digest food sources and form polymer-like structures. Certain mushrooms are better than others for this use.  Eventually, the process was settled and it was time to go public with the technology called Evocative. The inventors both spoke at TED conferences, then in 2008 entered a competition in Amsterdam for carbon-dioxide reducing business plans. They came in first and received the 500,000 Euro prize.

Evocative now has a plant the size of a big box store on Green Island, near Troy where packaging and insulating blocks are made from cornstalks, cotton waste, peanut hulls, wheat straw and blue denim. Customers include Dell, Steelcase, Crate&Barrel and Puma. Some investors, such as 3M Company, have been brought in. Royalty income from Sealed Air will provide aditional revenues. The Chinese are interested in licensing the technology.

Styrene, a multi-billion pound petrochemical, is primarily used to make polystyrene and automobile tires. The Evocative process can be viewed as an important way to substitute petrochemicals with organic wastes that make a biodegradable product – truly a disruptive technology.

Phoenix-like from the ashes

 An idea for this post came to me as I reread, probably for the fifth time, John LeCarre’s iconic novel “The Spy who came in from the Cold”. Set in East and West Germany during the Cold War, the novel captured conditions on the other side of the Iron Curtain, which were also described in terrifying detail in a relatively recent film  “The Lives of Others”.  It’s not that long ago that East Germany was a separate state.

Germany had been split apart in 1945, including also its vast chemical industry owned by IGFarbenindustrie, with probably more than half located in the Eastern Zone. The decal at the top is a poster telling the enslaved population that chemistry provides bread, well-being and beauty!

“Well-being” and “beauty” was not what we saw when, in the early 1990s after the Wall came down, our team of Chem Systems consultants and engineers from Dow Chemical first saw the huge Buna-Schkopau-Leuna chemical and refinery complex near Halle. Different from our domestic chemical plants, which are spotless under the Responsible Care program and where toxic wastes have long been cleaned up or treated as Superfund sites by EPA mandate, what we saw in B-S-L was shocking: We trudged though foot-thick dumps of chemical wastes that had evidently never been cleaned up, spread throughout many of the individual production units still in operation.

Fortunately, the German Government paid for essentially all of the clean-up. But it took quite a while to bring these chemical sites to competitive conditions. The large German firms , (BASF, Bayer, etc) and Dow, who jointly restored East Germany’s chemical industry, found the going difficult as a whole generation of German workers had always been employed by the worker state, where salaries were guaranteed and nobody is fired. My good friend Dieter Ambros, who had been a BASF and Henkel senior executive, retired and moved his family to Bitterfeld, another huge German chemical complex, in order to bring Western technology and working habits to this site. Labor problems and attitudes were among the greatest challenges, as noted in letters we received from Waltraude Ambros, who accompanied Dieter to help ”westernize” the famous Bitterfeld chemical complex.

The 29 April-12 May issue of ICIS Chemical Business describes the progress that has made these old, inefficient, highly polluted sites among the most advanced and productive in Germany! Among the most important products are high performance tires, polyethylene encapsulating firms for the photovoltaic industry, other advanced plastic materials, lubricating base oils, crop protection chemicals,etc. Germany is a leader in solar energy development, with many firms located near Leuna in the so-called “solar valley”.  A research center in biotechnology has been opened at the Leuna site and a joint venture plant partly owned by U.S. firm Myriant is being built to make bio-based succinic acid. Chancellor Angela Merkel was present at the dedication of the new research center.

Regressive but necessary taxes: Road tolls and a carbon tax

 We may be heading for a new normal with respect to tax policy. Ever since the income tax was established in the early Twentieth Century as a progressive way for the government to raise taxes, most people have favored a tax policy that would take more money from those who can afford to pay more, in other words a graduated tax system. Real estate taxes are also progressive. By contrast, sales taxes are totally regressive as are gasoline taxes. So, there is already a difference on how taxes are assessed.

It has now become clear that politics in Washington will not allow the government to spend the huge amount of money required to repair and further develop our country’s infrastructure. Even more importantly, our deficit keeps rising to almost everyone’s despair. To start to solve these problems this would, in the past, have required an increase in federal tax revenues (public and corporate), raised with our traditional progressive tax system. With such action now more and more unlikely(except for closing tax loopholes), states and municipalities are moving increasingly to public-private partnerships to improve or build highways and bridges financed via toll collection, which is totally regressive. But there is currently no other way. Raising the current Federal gasoline tax could also make substantial amounts of money available, but would require Congressional action. A less regressive version of this would raise revenues from motorists and truckers for “miles driven” but the complications of such a system boggle the mind. In any case, it seems unlikely that Congress will raise the gasoline tax, which would result in a huge public outcry. So, public-private partnerships and more (regressive) tolls seem to be the new normal for infrastructure improvements.

On the other hand, there is now growing belief that there will, sooner or later, be a “carbon tax” on fuels used for transport and electricity generation. This is, of course, anathema to many Republicans and to people in general who either do not believe in “global warming” or believe that reducing carbon emissions will have little or no effect on the earth’s temperature. But the public would probably look more favorably on a carbon tax than on a gasoline tax because its implementation would be less dramatic and a majority of the population is concerned about global warming and climate change (Sandy was considered prima facie evidence by many).  A carbon tax could raise a great deal of money -hundreds of billions of dollars - that the government sorely needs for various expenses, as well as debt reduction. Such a tax would increase gasoline and diesel fuel prices and electricity costs – perhaps substantially, depending on size of tax – in a totally regressive way (though high users of electricity and fuel will pay more “taxes” than low users.  A carbon tax would have the desirable effect of making people buy more efficient vehicles or appliances. It has a lot going for it and its time may be coming, in part because energy prices will be lower than originally projected, due to this country’s new wealth of oil and gas riches. Lower energy prices will make a carbon tax easier to swallow.

Will Congress consider a carbon tax. There is some indication that even some Republicans may start to look at this. (Grover Norquist, are you listening?)

Fracking: The Pros and Cons Continue

Well, I have now officially commented on the fracking debate. A few days ago, Richard Poeton, a retired environmental scientist for the EPA, wrote a letter to the New York Times, basically stating that “(our) gas resource is too important to ignore” but that more stringent regulations on air and water than currently in force by federal law should be implemented by the States. I decided to comment on this letter, directing readers’ attention to the recent formation of a Center for Sustainable Shale Development by a group of interested parties, including energy firms, environmental funds and councils and philanthropic organizations. My letter, with some deletions, was published in today’s Sunday Times’ section Week in Review, as well as on the Times’ website nytimes.com/opinion, which contained additional letter comments.

The Joseph Priestley Society, which sponsors speakers and symposia at the Chemical Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia, where I have been an active member for many years, plans to present a panel on fracking this coming October, with speakers on the technology, the environmental hazards and on regulations and enforcement. I will provide more details when this is finalized.

Given the fact that several hundred thousand wells using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have already been drilled and that most states with shale deposits have allowed fracking to continue, it is impossible to believe that opponents of this technology will succeed in shutting down the practice. I predict that even New York will eventually allow  hydraulic fracturing to resume (current moratorium in place) under very strict state-wide regulations. Nevertheless, the increasingly strident voices of many environmentalists and other opponents will, no doubt, have an impact on state- and federal regulations and enforcement, which can only be considered a good thing.

Indian Point: Steady as she goes….

The original 40-year licenses for the two nuclear reactors at Indian Point are due for 20-year extensions this September and in 2015, respectively. Hearings by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were started late last year and no final decision is realistically expected for several years. It is well known that Governor Cuomo, other agencies and some members of the public want the reactors shut down due to their proximity to the large New York metropolitan area, with the Fukushima disaster presumably providing additional rationale.

From a national energy and environmental standpoint, nuclear power is a desirable way to generate electricity. Once a plant is built, the operating costs are low and there is no discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In comparison, large power plants must burn oil, natural gas or coal. Oil has become too expensive, while natural gas is becoming the most desirable fuel. It does result in carbon dioxide discharges, though at much lower rates than coal. Coal is the least desirable, but will continue to be used for many decades in spite of Federal initiatives to shut down the most highly polluting plants.  The only other option is Canadian hydroelectric power.  Neither solar or wind power could reasonably make up the amount of electricity Indian Point generates, which is about 25% of the total power consumed in the New York Metropolitan area.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency(EIA), Indian Point typically generates 94% of its rated capacity on an annual basis. Wind farms and utility size solar facilities typically generate annually 25% and 14% respectively of their rated capacity,

With natural gas now the fuel of choice for the nation’s power plants, it is ironic that Governor Cuomo has been resisting the lifting of the state moratorium on the use of “fracking” for natural gas. Understandably, the governor, who will shortly be running for reelection, is caught between a rock (environmental opponents of fracking) and a hard place (communities located over the huge Marcellus shale who stand to earn millions from royalties and the oil companies, who want to extract and sell the gas.) A decision to shut down Indian Point, together with a decision against fracking would leave natural gas (from fracking in adjacent Pennsylvania and elsewhere) or Canadian hydro power as the only logical sources to make up the needed supply.

There has never been an accident-based fatality at our many nuclear plants. Nevertheless, the well-publicized leak at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979 effectively halted nuclear power plant construction for decades. Some years ago, we did restart construction of nuclear plants, though granting of other new licenses has now been temporarily stopped due to concern about the spent fuel stored at all nuclear power plants. At one time, it was planned that spent fuel from all plants should be transported to a site thousands of feet under Yucca Flats in Nevada, but this solution was vetoed by President Obama and Senator Harry Reid. Unless another such site is identified and authorized, all nuclear plants, including those shut down, will have to continue to store the spent fuel at the plant sites. This requires well-designed protection and shielding, but is not considered acceptable as a long term solution.

All things considered, including the fact that we are unlikely to experience a Fukushima type tsunami 25 miles up the Hudson, we are left with the possibility of a potentially devastating terrorist attack as the only reason to consider shutting down Indian Point. Since 9/11, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security have developed specific plans and strategies to deal with such an event, including the impact of an aircraft, techniques to restore cooling for the reactor core and mitigation of damage to spent fuel pools. Importantly, it should be noted that even if Indian Point is shut down, the highly radioactive spent fuel would continue to be stored at the plant site, vulnerable to a terrorist attack – it has no place to go.

These are the facts underlying the decision on Indian Point. In my opinion, they add up to keeping the plant in operation.

 

 

 

High gasoline prices: Three reasons

You would think that the unprecedented surge of new oil production in the United States would have the effect of lowering the price of gasoline at the pump. This would seem logical since the imported oil backed out is largely bought by refiners at the world (Brent) price while our domestic production in Texas, North Dakota, etc. is bought at the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices, which is now about $ 20/barrel lower than Brent oil.  Moreover, U.S. gasoline consumption is actually declining, as fuel economy has been improving, so you would think that gasoline would be a buyer’s market.

So, what’s going on? Well, there are three  reasons why gasoline prices are not declining, except when the economy goes into a tailspin(See also Bloomberg Business News April 1-7, 2013 from which the graph was reproduced here): (a) we are exporting huge amounts of gasoline and other fuels to regions where energy prices and demand are high , (b) refiners are paying a great deal of money for corn-based ethanol that must be blended into gasoline by government Clean Air Act mandate to reduce smog, and (c) the logistics of getting “cheap” domestic crude oil to refineries are unfavorable, making the crude effectively more expensive, as further discussed below. The laws of supply and demand are inexorable and in this case they are actually working against us.

The U.S. has always exported a certain amount of refined fuel products, particularly diesel oil to countries that use much more of this fuel than we do.  But over the last few years, gasoline demand in China, India, Mexico and South America has been rising rapidly, making these regions a desirable export market for us. So, drivers here are actually competing with drivers in other countries for our gasoline.

Secondly, with high corn prices, “gasohol” (ethanol)  is much more expensive to produce. Also, the government fuel mandate forces refiners to buy a certain amount of ethanol annually and if it cannot all be blended into gasoline (lower gasoline demand, a limit to how much ethanol gasoline can contain) refiners have to buy ethanol “credits”, the cost of which is passed on in the price at the pump.

As to crude shipping logistics from wellhead to refiners, there is limited pipeline capacity, for example, from North Dakota (where more and more oil is being produced) to refineries that want to buy this oil, causing some oil to be shipped by rail and tank truck (!)  Also, Gulf Coast crude oil bought by refineries on the East or West Coast must be shipped in U.S. flag tankers, as mandated by the so-called Jones Act, which, due to higher U.S. labor rates makes shipping cost more expensive.

So, don’t expect gasoline prices to fall sharply any time soon.

Mining asteroids: Eventual frontier for rare metals

Readers of this blog know that there have been a number of posts about critical industrial metals in the production of which the U.S. needs to become more self-sufficient (Lithium, Rare Earths) and about the periodic table (The Disappearing Spoon, artists’ pictorial representations, the museum at the Chemical Heritage Foundation). This brings me to an article in the March 9-15th issue of The Economist Magazine which discusses initiatives underway to send spacecraft to mine metals from floating asteroids. No kidding! Serious people, including the founders of Google, are putting money into such ventures. A number of firms are interested.

It has long been know, through spectroscopic analysis, that a number of valuable metals (gold, platinum, rare earths, nickel-iron ores, etc) have been detected on asteroids. About 1700 known asteroids are in earth’s orbit closer than the moon. Deep Space Industries plans to launch a fleet of spacecraft to identify asteroids that could one day be mined for their precious resources. Planetary Resources has a similar objective. NASA has also received funding in this area.

Not surprisingly, it is agreed that this prospect is a number of decades away when spacecraft technology and fuel development is much more advanced and when the price of the minerals of interest is much higher than it is right now.

You have to wonder whether people are climbing all over the asteroid that recently fell  near the city of Chelyabinsk in Russia!