(133a) Energy Conservation and Innovation of Basic Chemical Processes: Drivers and Barriers

Innovation in energy-intensive petrochemical processes is a key option to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut operational expenses in the chemical industry. However, little work has been published to help understand the specific drivers and barriers that encourage or hinder such innovation in the petrochemical industry. In this paper, these factors are identified for two types of innovation activities respectively: improving existing processes and developing new processes. Through a series of interviews with experts, we found that drivers and barriers are related to each other and can be understood in terms of knowledge on reward-to-risk ratios. For improving existing processes, the main drivers are process energy savings, tight supply of gas feedstocks and personal commitment of individuals. The main barriers are shortages of staff and time, competition from other projects and existing configurations. Improving existing processes is rather a routine matter since the reward-to-risk ratio is relatively well known. For developing new processes, the main drivers are low-cost feedstocks to high-value chemicals, competition among firms and knowledge spillovers. The main barriers are an unfavorable business environment, insufficient modelling tools and concerns for job security. Developing new processes is of strategic importance since the reward-to-risk ratio is relatively unknown. Firms try to define risks through scenario planning in terms of feedstock supply and market demand. For both types of innovation, energy conservation is seen by our interviewees as a highly desirable and possible outcome, especially in the case of improving existing processes. However, because its importance is determined by technological and economic context, it is in itself not necessarily a top objective for innovation. For developing new processes, specific synthetic pathways and relative feedstock economics are considered first. Energy efficiency is therefore less important. This findng is consistent with the results of our energy analysis done recently. We found that energy use in natural gas-to-chemicals routes is at least twice as much as energy use in oil-to-chemicals conventional routes while energy use in coal and biomass-to-chemicals routes is four to five times as much.