Public Policy
Rush
Escamilla
At the Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent held last month in Las Vegas, American Chemical Society president James D. D'lanni presided over a plenary session entitled "Chemical Cooperation in Resources of the North American Continent," with speakers from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The speakers, selected by the societies of the three participating countries, discussed the chemical and natural resources of their nations, particularly as they relate to the common needs of the continent. Representing Canada was Ian C. Rush, president of Polymer Ltd. in Sarnia, Ont. Presenting the Mexican viewpoint was Fernando Manzanilla Sevilla^president of the Instituto Mexicano de Ingenieros Quimicos, who read a paper prepared for the session by Rosa Luz Alegria Escamilla, undersecretary of evaluation for Mexico's Ministry of
Barnes
Programming and the Budget. {Escamilla was unable to attend the session.) Discussing U.S. views was Earl Barnes, chairman of the board of Dow Chemical Co. In D'lannVs introductory remarks to the plenary session, he said, "As energy and raw materials based on fossil fuels become more scarce and expensive, continental and worldwide cooperation to deal with this problem becomes essential. Chemists and chemical engineers, concerned with the physical and chemical transformations of matter with minimum energy cost, will play an important part in solving technical problems attendant to the development of alternate sources of energy and raw materials. This congress is a good example of how one facet of technical cooperation—the sharing of new knowledge—can be achieved." Following are the full texts of all three speakers at the plenary session.
Chemical cooperation in resources of the North American continent Canadian viewpoint Ian C. Rush, president, Polymer Ltd.
At a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult for scientists and engineers to concern themselves solely with the technical aspects of a problem, the choice of subject matter for this section is indeed appropriate. Today there are few subjects more social, political, and economic in nature than one dealing with cooperation in resources. To set the Canadian scene for this discussion, I'll first briefly describe some of our natural resources. I'll deal mostly with energy sources and will begin with natural gas. 34
C&EN Sept. 22, 1980
Estimates of established gas reserves have been increasing over the past several years and now stand at some 88 trillion cu ft. Domestic demand currently is running at about 2 trillion cu ft per year. Reserves additions over the next 20 years are expected to be somewhere between 50 trillion and 250 trillion cu ft, and ultimate reserves may be as high as 1300 trillion cu ft. Thus, Canada has a very bright supply outlook for this valuable source of hydrocarbons. On a per capita basis, we are in the most favorable natural gas position of the three countries represented on this platform. For that portion of our petrochemical industry based on natural gas or natural gas liquids, the feedstock outlook is excellent. The picture for conventional light crude oil is less rosy,
with the National Energy Board (NEB) estimate of recoverable reserves being only 5 billion bbl. On a per capita basis, this is still somewhat better than in the U.S., but considerably lower than in Mexico. Although the Canadian Arctic and the waters off the East Coast show good potential, these areas are not yet sufficiently proven to be included in reserve estimates. Production of light crude, which totaled 450 million bbl in 1979, is now expected to begin to decline. The NEB forecast of annual potential producibility shows a dropoff to about 275 million bbl by 1985. With annual domestic demand for refined petroleum products currently running at about 700 million bbl, there is a large and growing supply gap, which, in the short term, must be filled largely by imported oil. In the longer term, the potential exists to fill this gap with frontier oil and with synthetic crude from the Alberta oil sands. The crude bitumen trapped in these oil sands represents a reserve of well over 1 trillion bbl of oil. However, the technological and logistical problems associated with turning it into synthetic crude are formidable and the capital costs are high. Today there are two plants in operation with a combined annual capacity of 60 million bbl. By 1990, the annual production capability of synthetic crude is forecast to be some 180 million bbl. There are also extensive deposits of heavy crude found in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but again this oil is difficult to recover. NEB places recoverable reserves at just under 1 billion bbl. Production is running at an annual rate of about 75 million bbl and about one half of this is exported to the U.S. Conventional refineries are limited in their ability to process this heavy crude and much of the Canadian consumption goes to asphalt production. Canadian coal resources, although small compared to those in the U.S., are substantial at some 40 billion tons. Production in 1980 is expected to be about 40 million tons compared to 28 million tons in 1975. Metallurgical coal, most of which is exported to Japan, makes up about one half of that production. At the same time, Canada imports nearly one half of its thermal coal requirements from the U.S., mostly into Ontario for electrical generation. Considering our favorable overall long-term outlook for gas and oil, there appears to be little, if any, incentive in this century for Canada to consider coal as a major source of petrochemical feedstocks. However, coal does have a role to play as a substitute fuel, wherever feasible, for crude oil or oil products. The nuclear fuels, uranium and thorium, represent our fourth nonrenewable energy source. Let's consider them in relation to the CANDU reactor system. This reactor operates on the simplest possible fuel cycle, that of natural uranium on a once-through basis. Used in this way, Canada's established uranium resources have the energy equivalent of 29 billion bbl of oil. However, the simplest form of fuel recycling—the recovery of plutonium from spent fuel and its return to the reactor—would double the energy output from any given uranium supply. Introducing a thorium cycle would at least double again the energy available from nuclear fuels, and, with additional capital investment, fuel life could be extended almost indefinitely. Today Canadian nuclear power plants have a capacity of 6000 Mw and represent 8.5% of our electrical generating capacity. By 1989, our nuclear plants are expected to have a capacity of 17,000 Mw representing 15% of Canadian electrical generating capacity.
Hydro, long the mainstay of Canada's electrical generation, represents a renewable energy source of major importance. It currently accounts for 59% of our installed generating capacity and 70% of our electrical production. Substantial new capacity is projected over the next 20 years. The La Grande James Bay project, scheduled for completion by 1990 at a cost of more than $11 billion, by itself will add more than 11,000 Mw, which will be 10% of total Canadian generating capacity. The only other renewable energy source of any significance on the current Canadian energy scene is biomass. Today its role is minor, but it is likely to increase, considering our very large biomass resources. The Science Council of Canada estimates that energy from biomass and solid waste could represent 5% of Canada's total potential energy production by the year 2000. In addition to energy, Canada is endowed with many other natural resources, including our fresh water supply, agricultural land, and mineral deposits. A number of these are relevant to this panel discussion but I will mention only two. ^ One that is worthy of particular note is potash. In the world today, there are some 60 billion tons of potash that can be recovered economically and about 40% of this is found in Saskatchewan. Canadian annual production currently amounts to about 7 million tons, of which 95% is exported. The other natural resource which I wish to mention is another fertilizer-related one—sulfur. Canada currently recovers about 6 million tons annually, mostly from sour natural gas and tar sands, and more than 80% of this is exported. Although production and shipments have been in balance for several years, more than 20 million tons of sulfur are sitting on the ground in Alberta. Now let's consider these natural resources in relationship to some common needs of the North American continent. My list of four common needs is an arbitrary one, but I believe it represents needs of major importance to each of our three countries. First—an ample food supply. Each country needs to have sufficient food production for its own people and also to help feed those in other countries. I believe it is important to keep this need clear in our minds when considering the use of fertile cropland for such purposes as to produce fuel, e.g., gasohol to replace gasoline, or to produce natural products to replace petrochemicals, e.g., cotton to replace synthetic fibers. Canada's fertilizer industry, through its utilization of our ample supplies of natural gas, potash, and sulfur, plays a major role in North American food production. Second—a secure supply of energy. On a total energy basis, Canada has the potential to become self-sufficient before the end of this century, but we are likely to require substantial amounts of imported oil at least over the next 10 to 15 years. Over this same time period, we will have a significant amount of natural gas and a small amount of electrical power available for export. Third—a viable industrial base to provide employment opportunities for skilled workers, scientists, engineers, other professionals, and managers. The key is resource upgrading and secondary manufacturing—for example, the petrochemical industry with its associated downstream derivative and fabricating plants can play a significant role. This industry provides a firm bridge between job opportunities and gas and oil resources. Sept. 22, 1980 C&EN
35
And fourth—a good physical environment. We need a safe, healthy, and pleasant country in which to live, work, and play. At least in the short term, some trade-off appears inevitable between this need and the need for a secure supply of energy. But that trade-off should be reasonable and should not be at the expense of our neighbors. This must be taken into account when de veloping and utilizing energy resources within each of our countries. In the longer term, hydrogen energy may re duce or even eliminate the need for any trade-off between a good physical environment and a secure energy supply. From a Canadian viewpoint, what then are some pos sible areas for cooperation? I suggest we consider three rather broad ones.
Canada cannot make a major contribution to the solution of the (AS. energy problem, but we can help The first area I suggest is worthy of consideration is energy. Canada cannot make a major contribution to the solution of the U.S. total energy problem, but we can help. The biggest potential for mutual cooperation between the U.S. and Canada is associated with the planned $25 bil lion, 4800-mile Alaskan gas pipeline, 42% of which will run through Canada. The Canadian government has now approved building the southern portion of that line, which will allow Canadian gas to flow into the California and Chicago markets for seven years until the northern portion is completed. Authorizations already approved provide for the export of almost 14 trillion cu ft up to the end of 1987. The short-term benefits to Canada lie chiefly in the construction jobs created and in the supply of pipe for the 700-mile Canadian portion. The long-term ben efits to Canada are dependent upon the U.S. completing the northern portion of the line as agreed. Besides the benefits flowing directly from construction of the 1345 miles running through Canada, a planned Canadian pipeline link along the Dempster Highway would allow gas from the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea fields to flow south to Canadian markets. Canada/U.S. electricity exchange is another energyrelated area with the potential for increased cooperation. Such exchanges result not only in more efficient and re liable electric energy operations in both countries, but they also reduce dependence on offshore oil and mitigate impacts associated with emergencies in either country; for example, the 1978 coal strike in the U.S. and the 1977 water shortage in Manitoba. The current James Bay hydroelectric development, coupled with winter power demand peaks in Quebec and summer peaks in New York and the New England states, offer considerable potential for increased exchanges and/or power sales to the U.S. Energy cooperation with Mexico will begin later this year when we begin importing Mexican oil at a rate of 18 million bbl per year. We are hopeful this level subse quently will be increased. In return, it may be possible for Canada to provide Mexico with nuclear power technol ogy, CANDU reactors, and uranium fuel. Cooperation also should be possible in a number of research, development, and demonstration programs such as fluidized-bed technology for direct coal com bustion, management of radioactive wastes, generation of gaseous and liquid fuels from forest and agricultural residues, industrial cogeneration of electricity and heat, 36
C&ENSept. 22, 1980
hydrogen energy systems, and biotechnological processes for chemical manufacture. Second is industrial trade, which currently is receiving considerable attention—articles are being written; e.g. the feature article in the July 14 issue of Chemical & Engineering News—governments are holding hearings; e.g. Senate hearings both in Canada and the U.S.—and trade associations are studying it; e.g. the Canadian Chemical Producers Association in Canada and the Chemical Manufacturers Association in the U.S. Much of the attention is being focused on the petrochemical sector. Largely as a result of our favorable supply outlook for feedstocks, the Canadian petrochemical industry has the potential for strong growth. But because of our relatively small population, this potential can be realized only if we have good access to export markets. Of particular interest is the large and adjacent U.S. market, yet access to that market continues to be hampered by both tariff and nontariff barriers. This desired market access could be achieved by means of a bilateral trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. I believe it should be possible to have zero tariffs on many, if not all, petrochemicals, provided the relevant nontariff barriers are equitable both in kind and in ap plication in the two countries. The impact on the U.S. petrochemical industry would be small, but the perceived threat might result in the U.S. requiring some trade-off for the loss in downstream market protection. I also would point out that a substantial long-term advantage would accrue to the U.S. simply as the result of having an economically stronger northern neighbor. Although not so easy to visualize, a bilateral industrial agreement between Canada and Mexico on petrochemi cals also may be possible. Considering the ambitious growth plans for the Mexican petrochemical industry and its relatively small current size, cooperation perhaps initially might be limited to joint ventures and to tech nology transfers. For a number of years, Polysar has been a partner with Pemex in the production of synthetic rubber and carbon black in Mexico and joint studies now are under way to expand the area of common en deavors. The third area suggested for cooperation is the envi ronment—for example, the safe handling of hazardous chemicals and safe disposal of chemical waste. A transborder pollution problem requiring cooperation at least between Canada and the U.S. is that of acid rain resulting from sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. To a large extent, it is encouraging to note that on Aug. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and Canadian En vironmental Minister John Roberts signed a memoran dum of intent to curb acid rain and international air pollution problems. In conclusion, my position can be summarized as fol lows: 1. Improved cooperation in the utilization of resources is both possible and desirable. 2. The major problems are of an economic and political nature; there are also problems of a technical nature that can benefit. 3. There needs to be a better balance not only in monetary value but also in the amount of resource upgrading in bilateral trade. 4. Of particular interest from a Canadian perspective are the opportunities associated with petrochemicals. 5. Zero tariffs on petrochemicals, at least between Canada and the U.S., should be possible, provided the relevant nontariff barriers are equitable in kind and in application. Π
Mexican viewpoint Rosa Luz Alegria Escamilla, undersecretary of evaluation, Ministry of Programming and the Budget (presented by Fernando Manzanilla Sevilla, president, Instituto Mexicano de Ingenieros Quimicos) Most of the so-called underdeveloped nations have proclaimed, as part of their advancement and emergence as independent states, their inviolable right to make use of the natural resources found on their territory for the benefit of their people and economy. This process has been gradual, and in the course of these nations' history, it has been an indispensable precedent to ensure and strengthen their sovereignty, spark their socioeconomic development, and consequently raise the quality of life for their inhabitants, which, ultimately, is what matters. Our country, throughout all its social movements and continuous encounter of its own identity, has been one of the forerunners of such nationalistic claires, as testimonied by the principles defended by the Social Revolution of 1910, which in the Constitution of 1917, established, among other essential matters, the nature, use, and destination of natural resources. Article 27 of the Political Constitution established the nation's domain over all its natural resources. In recent years, under the eyes of a world eager for fuel, vast amounts of hydrocarbons were found in Mexico. Given the situation, the president of Mexico clearly defined the destination and function of this wealth, in the context of a country faced with serious problems of food, health, and education. There are basically two dimensions to this program of the Mexican government: on the one hand, to supply the country's economic structure with the oil and gas required for its growing expansion; and on the other, to export surpluses to the extent of the national economy's capacity to absorb foreign income. In this last regard, the Federal Executive Power has made a very precise statement: "The purpose is to maximize utilization of the benefits generated by the future expansion of our production structure. We must strike the right balance between our reserves and the rate of production as security for future generations." Our country wishes to make rational and efficient use of its oil resources for its domestic demand, as well as of the revenue generated by exports. This is why our president has pointed out that: "The possession of an abundance of oil, in a world avid for fuel and economically disordered, places us in a remarkably privileged position to push forward our independent and self-sustained economic and social growth; and for the first and perhaps the only time in history, allows us to develop a model for the country that is both feasible and ambitious enough to match our loftiest political philosophy." He has also asserted that: "Mexico does not wish to think of itself as a country whose only point of contact with the rest of the world is its oil, but rather that its international relations are broad and rich in all matters, with reciprocal respect and mutual benefit." Obviously, Mexico, like other countries, is highly dependent on hydrocarbons for its energy production, and indeed, 85% of the power generated in the country is derived from petroleum and natural gas. The president of Mexico stressed this extreme dependency when he said: "As regards energy, for example, efforts are being made
to avoid falling behind in the use of alternative sources of electric power—nuclear, geothermal, and coal—although for the present, our greatest possibility lies in petroleum." Proven reserves of oil, liquid and natural gas equ'^alent in 1980 amount to some 50 billion bbl; probable reserves, 45 billion; and potential reserves, 200 billion. If rationally exploited, we can predict that Mexico's fuel requirements for the next 60 years are met fully.This puts Mexico in sixth place worldwide. Our second most important source of power is hydroelectricity, which accounts for 13%. Sophisticated technology is available in this area and an active implementation program could elevate substantially its contribution to the nation's energy demand. Coal is the most plentiful source of energy on our planet. In Mexico, considering its vast oil and gas reserves and scant knowledge of coal reservoir, we think that, for the time being, its use as raw material for liquid and petrochemical fuel is not warranted. Mexico is one of the countries whose geophysical situation makes the use of geothermal energy a major possibility. Technology for this purpose has developed rapidly to a point of worldwide competence. Existing reservoirs have been tapped for a number of years and new sites for possible development have been identified. It is believed that use of this resource will increase substantially in the future. Nuclear energy will become commercially operational in 1983, when the Laguna Verde plant in Veracruz is expected to start up. It will contribute 11% to the nation's energy output. Full implementation of the current nuclear program, which calls for a national system with 19 additional plants, will augment Mexico's energy supply considerably. As in most of the world, utilization of solar energy in Mexico is barely beginning. This energy source is of great interest, both as regards its direct utilization by photoconversion or thermal application, and indirectly through wind, ocean currents, and biomass energy. Serious studies are presently under way to harness this energy resource, even though technological development has not yet reached the stage of applicability. For the time being, no important contributions are expected for Mexico's future from sources like ocean tides or heat differential, tar sands, oil shales, and others. There is no question whatsoever that governments should support and favor the development of supplementary power sources, in addition to promoting the efficient use of energy, and the degree of government support should be consistent with the financial position of each country, without neglecting other, possibly more urgent, problems such as food and health. On an international level, production and consumption of fuel is extremely unbalanced. Production of hydrocarbons is concentrated basically in eight countries that account for 72% of the world's entire output, while consumption is restricted to seven, which absorb 70% of all the petroleum on the market. Somewhere in the middle are a great many countries that lack this vital fluid, but what is dramatic is that they also lack the necessary financing to import the oil they need, enlarging even more the gap between highly industrialized and underdeveloped nations. On their part, the more industrialized countries, for obvious reasons, are intensively and extensively investigating new sources of energy, while the less-developed countries are left far behind. In such circumstances, the outcome is a deplorable international scene of the production, distribution, and consumption of hydrocarbons. Sept. 22, 1980 C&EN
37
From his rational contemplation of this worldwide problem, the president of Mexico has drawn his vision of proposing a world energy plan. The president starts from the principle that: u No country on earth is self-sufficient; we all need each other." In this context, "fuel is a responsibility shared by all mankind." In the mind of Mexico's president, this is the base for developing a world energy plan "which will belong to all the haves and the have-nots, and which will engage the commitment of all; its fundamental purpose will be to ensure a fair, more orderly, progressive and integrated transition from one age of mankind to another." In this connection, President Lopez Portillo suggests that a world energy plan should address the following basic purposes, among others: • To ensure complete and permanent sovereignty of people of each country over their natural resources. • To rationalize prospecting, production, distribution, consumption, and conservation of present energy sources, particularly hydrocarbons, making available financial and technological resources. • To ensure and intensify systematic production of all kinds of potential reserves—both traditional and unconventional—which due to lack of financing or applied research have not been utilized; the sun that burns so many deserts in our tropics; the water that tumbles uselessly from mountain peaks, eroding the earth as it falls; the ignored heat of our earth; the unused energy of sea and wind, of the atom, and of life itself. • To establish a system that in the short run, by way of immediate actions to solve the problems of underdeveloped countries forced to import oil, will guarantee supplies and respect for contracts, check speculation, provide for compensation in case of price increments, and even ensure considerate treatment from exporting countries. • To establish a system for the dissemination and transfer of technology and related training, which would include a world registry of developments and followup of all research and experimentation in energy. The president of Mexico does not want this world plan to remain solely in the realm of words, but to have it translated to operational action. For this reason, on Aug. 3 of this year, in an attitude of solidarity and consistency, the presidents of Mexico and Venezuela, at their meeting in San José, Costa Rica, signed a joint declaration in which the two nations engaged to supply petroleum to
nine republics in Central America and the Caribbean with preferential rates and credit terms. In this way, the Mexican nation, by its actions, has afforded tangible evidence that it is convinced and willing to move forward with the implementation of the energy plan, and consequently, a new international economic order. As regards international research and development of new alternative sources of energy, Mexico believes the following options are possible. Discussion of future energy supplies invariably revolve around internationally used commercial sources such as petroleum, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy. Coal and nuclear energy are believed to be the most likely substitute fuels when oil and gas production begins to decline, as will happen in this decade and the next, according to a number of predictipns. Renewable energy sources such as the sun, winds, tides, and others will not come seriously into the picture until the turn of the century. Coal is beginning to emerge as one of the most serious alternatives, as coal reserves seem to cover future energy requirements of mankind amply. As can be seen, the world is not facing an apocalyptic crisis of new energy sources, but it is true that all these projects require extensive research, large investments, and time before coming to fruition, and this can be achieved only by world cooperation. Man, in his continuing search to extend the frontiers of his knowledge, and by so doing, harness and utilize the resources provided by nature, in keeping with his times and circumstances, has shown his infinite capacity to come up with new scientific alternatives that will make available to mankind more and better goods for his physical and intellectual growth. This is why I am convinced that this meeting of chemical societies is praiseworthy and transcendental in its contribution to the attainment of this goal. The Mexican government, consistent with its policy of solidarity and cooperation with all nations, wishes to promote the exchange of information, execution of joint projects, technical visits, reciprocal commercial exchange, and seminars and workshops on specific problems. The purpose of all these efforts is to strengthen bonds of friendship, and further enrich mankind's wealth of scientific and technical knowledge, but basically the application of this knowledge will permit us to enhance the respect and independence of our countries and improve the social well-being of their people. D
U.S. viewpoint
enormous natural wealth of North America was relatively evenly distributed from Alaska to the Isthmus of Panama. As national boundaries formed, they essentially divided—with some equity—the hydrocarbon reserves that were undiscovered and untapped. Without going through an intricate analysis, I venture to say our outer space visitor would be most favorably impressed with North America as a place to make an investment. Even the political divisions on this continent are the most friendly anywhere in the world. Where else can you find thousands of miles of open boundaries? So the climate for increased cooperation exists and should occur easily as we find ourselves in a critical era when all three nations must make important decisions concerning natural resources and increased industrialization. Until the last decade or so, each nation had been able to pursue its own course of action, because each was blessed with plentiful supplies. The U.S., because of its larger population and heavy industrialization, has ex-
Earl Barnes, chairman, Dow Chemical If a commercially minded visitor from outer space were to enter our orbit, where would he [or she] choose to land to set up shop as an industrial base? Let us assume that he was unaware of national borders, differences in culture, politics, past history, or any of the many factors that artificially set apart the three nations represented on this platform. Certainly he would discover that the North American continent abounds with everything industrial growth needs—oil, shale, coal, minerals, fertile soil, forests— indeed, this continent seems unique among the world's land masses in its more uniform distribution of natural resources. Before the discovery and initial utilization of petroleum, natural gas, uranium, coal, and other resources upon which the industrial age is based, the distribution of this 38
C&ENSept. 22, 1980
ceeded its ability to supply its own demands for a number of raw materials, especially liquid hydrocarbons. It has been obvious for some time that the increased rate of hydrocarbon consumption cannot continue. In fact, if the increase in consumption had continued at 1973 levels, in 1980 the U.S. would be using 6 million bbl per day, oil equivalent, more than we are presently using. In spite of all the contortions of politicians and bureaucrats, the laws of economics really do finally prevail. Supply and demand really define the boundaries of the production-consumption equation. No nation, regardless of political ideology, can defy economic realities for long. OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] oil pricing has brought home to us the embarrassing stupidity of U.S. government controls. Canada and Mexico, with the discovery of their share of the continent's wealth of natural resources, are producing more than they need for their own use. But, in time, they will reach the same position as the U.S. There has been much talk about a North American trade alliance to alleviate some of the problems that will eventually occur in North America. The chemical industry has taken a step in this direction without political leadership by making trade agreements, technology exchanges, and capital investments across national boundaries. Canada's chemical industry could be further helped if the U.S. would remove duties on chemical imports. This could be done without significant penalty to U.S. industry. Mexico could be helped by the further utilization of U.S. technology and capital. The U.S., in turn, could use increased oil and natural gas supplies for assistance offered to its neighbors. But I think there is something much more important to be done. Long term, we must have an alternative to the ravenous consumption and depletion of these resources. Obviously, with what North Americans have become used to in energy and raw material supply, any return to the primitive conditions of previous centuries is unthinkable—except for periods of disruption of supply, and this could happen at any time with the explosive conditions that exist in the Middle East. The immediate solution being offered in the U.S. is the $20 billion synfuel development program passed by Congress in June. We certainly need this effort as insurance for loss of imported supply. But, alone, it is not a total next-century solution, even if growth is curbed drastically by conservation. Almost at the same time Congress was approving the synfuel legislation, a large cut was made in the appropriation request for magnetic confinement fusion research. Yet fusion energy is the only really viable longterm solution to clean, bountiful energy supply for this continent—or any other. Most people in the business of projecting energy sources for the next 50 years must draw on every resource and the best available technology for filling the requirements gap—synfuels, biomass, new oil discoveries, nuclear, windmills, solar, etc. Obviously, in forecasting they cannot count on an unknown scientific breakthrough. But, as chemists, we must believe there will be one. Our technology today and in the immediate future is based primarily on the breakdown or destruction of heavy biomass molecules, if I can be granted the license to include oil as a naturally formed deoxygenated biomass. The same thing would apply to lignite and coal, more often referred to as "fossil fuels." Oil and coal also are not generally thought of as biomass for the reason that they
are not renewable, as are the lignocellulosic materials from growing plants. Why must our technology for raw materials and energy always be based on the breakdown or combustion of naturally occurring polymeric materials? From a chemical standpoint, the yield of desired products is always low. Conventional wisdom dictates that we must continue large-scale consumption of existing fossil fuels, and I would certainly agree this will be true for many years to come. But we need the motivation to develop a synthesis process for chemical raw materials—that is, building up from very simple molecules to the desired products, rather than breaking down. Building-up processes are going on in plant life continually. It has been estimated that upwards of 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide are fixed annually on the Earth. It is mind-boggling to think of a chemical process on such a scale going on around us. To date, we have not been able to develop commercial technology to duplicate this process in man-made factories: But the mechanism has been elucidated in the laboratory for splitting water photochemically with biocatalysts, and the subsequent reactions with CO2 to form intermediates leading to the precursors of sugars and cellulose. Indeed, there is a concern among some scientists that burning more and more fossil fuels is causing an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This, in time, might bring on a "greenhouse" effect in the atmosphere, because of the inability of radiant heat to escape from the Earth, resulting in changes. I think it is abdication on the part of chemists to start promoting agriculture for chemicals. It's like saying, "We give up—turn it all over to the farmers; we can't find the catalysts that nature uses and the processes for man-made biochemical factories." What we need is a massive, technical effort to develop processes that will utilize the carbon dioxide from combustion processes in synthesis of simple molecules, rather than concentrating on the breakdown of heavy molecules. The greatest development to make this possible, of course, would be a low-energy method of producing hydrogen. Plants convert water to hydrogen photochemically and we must learn how to do this on a commercial scale. With cheap hydrogen from water and with carbon dioxide, we can produce carbon monoxide to form the building blocks, with additional hydrogen, for a fantastic new synthetic chemical industry. Let me summarize what I believe North America must do: 1. We need trade agreements or political progress towards some type of a North American common market that would strengthen North America economically. 2. Scientifically we must think in terms of building up—synthesis, not tearing apart—in our research and development. This is the difference between fission and fusion—"cracking" molecules vs. synthesizing them from simple building blocks. 3. We must use current technology in the interim, but do research aimed at capitalizing on photosynthesis—not by growing more trees, but by adapting photosynthetic processes to chemical factories—man-made ones. 4. We should organize a North American alliance of research and applied technology—a pool of human resources to keep this continent the leader in technology of energy and raw materials production, not just a consumer. If the many good chemists of North America assembled at this congress can leave here with the belief that good chemistry can help solve man's problems—and will work at it—this conference will have been worthwhile. D Sept. 22, 1980 C&EN
39
