Historical Transformations in the Chemical Industry

Ernst Homburg, Maastricht University

VoltaChem Annual Event, Amsterdam, 11 December 2019 Four major transitions: 50 to 100 years each

Raw materials/ Chemical feedstocks Energy sources

Plants/ animals > Minerals (inorganic Wood substances) Peat 1780-1870 Horse dung; Sun

Plants/ animals > Coal (organic Coal (1800-today) substances) 1760-1910

Coal > Oil/ natural gas Oil/ natural gas (1910-today) 1910-1980

Petroleum etc. > Biobased, CO2, etc. Electricity, renewables 2010-ff 2010-ff Outline

• (1) Transition theory

Cases • (2) From plants/ animals to minerals • (3) From plants/ animals to coal • (4) From coal to oil & gas

• (5) Lessons from the past and recommendations (1) Multi Level Perspective (MLP): Arie Rip, Frank Geels, Johan Schot

Different societal functions

Generic Materials Energy functions supply supply (’upstream’)

Intermediary Business Transport functions services Communication

Personal Housing Feeding, End use Recreation/ care (washing, Health (shelter, drinking, functions entertainment clothing, care heating) cooking (’downstream’) cleaning) Transition and system innovation

Regulations and policies Maintenanceand distribution network (e.g. trafficrules,parking fees, emission standards, car tax) (e.g. repair shops, dealers)

Industry structure (e.g. carmanufacturers, suppliers) Road infr as t r uc t ur e Socio-technical system and traffic system for transportation (e.g. lights, signs) Markets and user practices (mobility patterns, driver preferences) Culture andsymbolic meaning(e.g. Freedom, individuality) Fuel infrast r uct ur e Vehic le ( ar t efac t) (oil companies, petrol stations) Multi-level perspective

Increasing structuration of activities in local practices

Landscape

System/regime

Niches (novelty) Micro-meso-macro: Not economic, but innovation (seamless web) Micro-level: niches

•Novelty emerges as ‘hopeful monstrosity’ (Mokyr) •Niches offer protection against mainstream market •Small network, unstable ST-configuration, diffuse rules •Learning processes, network formation, expectations (SCOT, ANT)

Product performance Invading product

Established product

T (1) T (2) Time (2) From plants/ animals to minerals: 1780-1870

Examples (* specific trajectories for each chemical – no general transition!) • 1800-1850 Barilla/ kelp >> soda from sea salt/ rock salt • 1850-1870 Phosphates from bones or guano >> Rock phoshates • 1860-1870 Potas from wood >> Potassium mines (production – research + “pilot plants” much earlier)

“Landscape” influences • Population growth • Rising demand textile industry and agriculture • Deforestation (wood scarcity) • Wars • Transport infrastructures; mining equipment Chemistry vs. Technology

• 1730-1780: long struggle to establish clear relations between: - Mineral alkali (soda) - Plant alkali (potash) - Volatile alkali (NH3)

• Ca. 1775 the proces for making soda ash from (sea) salt was known in chemical terms.

• It was Nicolas Leblanc who ca. 1790 designed the equipment (furnaces), that basically would stay in use till ca. 1860. Niche development: France 1790-1814

• 1791 Leblanc supported by Duke of Orleans starts producing 320 tons/ year • 1793-1795 wars with England etc.; supply of barilla stagnates; Duke killed under the guillotine; process details Leblanc made public • Numerous new factories: technology becomes mature • 1815 France leading; 10.000- 15.000 tons / year

• 1805 high salt excise in Britain to finance the war • Continental blockade: problems barilla import; kelp? 1815: Britain 500 tons Industrial production

• UK: After 1814 barilla import resumed, growth from 9000 to 15.500 tons/ year • Soda industry “killed” after te war.

• UK 1825: end of excise on salt and limestone • Huge growth soda industry UK; completely overtakes France • Barilla import from 15.500 (1830) to 1.400 (1850)

Lessons: (a) France during the war as a “niche”; (b) role taxes – govenment policies (c) large international differences (raw materials; transport; government policies) (3) From plants/ animals (wood) to coal: 1760-1910

• Charcoal > Coke (18th C – only in UK) • Wood tar > Coal tar (c 1760 in UK – after 1850 in USA) • Tar destillates (c 1815-ff in UK) • Natural dyes > Coal tar dyes (1856-1910) • Natural drugs > Synthetic drugs (c 1880-1910) • Synthesis gas (c 1910) • Natural rubber > Synthetic rubber (WW I)

“Landscape” influences • Deforestation (wood scarcity) • Urbanization (light gas industry) • Iron and steel industry (byproduct coking) • Transport infrastructures; mining equipment • WW I (synthetic rubber + other Ersatz) Impact of coal tar industry on aromatic chemistry

• 1760-1820 coal tar for shipbuilding • 1810 town gas industry • 1815 tar distillation • 1848-1855 rectification of tar oils; benzene and nitrobenzene production (impure) (Mansfield, Pelouze etc.) • 1865-etc. improved rectification (Coupier etc.) Discovery aromatic substances

From coal tar From plants and animals • 16th C benzoic acid • 1819 naphtalene • 1771 picric acid • 1832 anthracene (para-n) • 1786 gallic acid • 1834 aniline • 1806 pyrogallic acid • 1834 phenol • 1825 benzene (from • 1834 chinoline whale oil) • 1840c benzene • 1826 aniline • 1841c toluene • 1834 cinnamic acid • 1846 picoline • 1838 salicylic acid • ETC • 1841 toluene • 1841 anthranilic acid Case: Dyes • Dyes (general): from natural > synthetic (Revolutionary … BUT also Evolutionary) • Gradual technological development and slow scaling-up. Economies of scope. • Market development: adapting recipes for dyeing etc.

N.B. local and national contexts again very important Niches: silk dyes + Germany

• Perkin 1856. Production 1857. • First aniline dyes briljant, but very expensive • Only for wealthy customers, wearing silk cloths, and following the latest fashion • First aniline dyes not suited for cotton, and too expensive for woollens • First dye companies founded in the centres of silk textiles: Lyon, Krefeld, Elberfeld, London, Milan, by dyers and merchants • No patent law in Germany > (1) more producers + (2) survival of the fittest + (3) economies of scope 1857-1866 dyestuffs “boom” in silk dyeing Start-ups later produced also dyes for wool and cotton Number of Dye Firms in the World, 18 57-1914

90 with subsidiaries 80

50 without subsidiaries 40

1857 1885 1914 With and without counting subsidiaries both domestic and foreign Dynamic equilibrium between start-ups and failures

Global Firm Entries and Exits 1857-1914

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1857 1885 1914 Entry 3- YMAV Exit 3-YMAV Growth of number of German dye firms until ca. 1900 – thereafter mergers and consolidation of the dye industry. Almost all natural dyes replaced.

Number of Dye Firms by Count ry, 1857-1914

1857 1885 1914 USA Britain Germany Switzerland France Country comparison

• Start in Britain in France • Decline in France: patent monopolies

• Stagnation in Britain: patent issues – block economies of scope

• Germany continuous rise: no patent law until 1877 – evolutionary struggle: many entries, many exits; survival of strong companies; possibility to establish economies of scope + organizational capabilities

• In Germany also merchants founded dye companies, together with chemists. Direct link between sales and production. Coal tar dyes differed chemically from most natural dyes, with the exception of madder and indigo. Even then new recipes had to be developed.

• No simple substitution! • Madder and synthetic alizarin are all different mixtures. • There were well tested recipes for dyeing and printing with madder.

• For alizarin new recipes had to be developed. It took time before dyers and printers accepted. Gradual replacement of natural dyes 1856-1910

• 1856-1868 aniline dyes, briljant, but expensive: mainly on silk (luxury market) • 1868-1878 alizarin replaces madder (also on cotton and wool) • 1880c azo dyes, later followed by direct cotton dyes • 1880-1910 indigo • (Cheap) dyewoods were still used to some degree by 1910.

Lessons: (a) silk dyeing as a “niche”; (b) (b) absence of patent law was a niche for Germany; (c) gradual expansion to other textile sectors; (d) long period of co- existence of synthetic and natural dyes. (4) From coal to oil & gas: 1910-1980

• Start in USA: Union Carbide 1920 ethylene; Shell 1927-ff ammonia, propylene, solvents; Dow 1930s organic chlorine and bromine products; Standard Oil 1930s hydrogenation, olefins, aromatics

• WW II: cat crackers, ethylene, propylene, butylenes, synthetic rubber.

• Europe: after WW II: start with polyethylene.

“Landscape” influences • Abundance of oil and gas in US • Political control of world oil market by US after WW II; end of Autarky • Economies of scale in US industry • “Wage explosion”, detrimental for coal. Case: West German (Organic) Chemical Industry

• 1945 almost 100% coal based • 1961 just over 50% petro based • 1980 almost 100% petro based Lesson: Gradual process taking decades. Co-existence of two regimes

• First post-war years still an autarky- policy; it took several years before one dared to rely on world oil supply, guaranteed by US political power Lesson: Role of political factors

• Growth of car use in 1950s/ 1960s Lesson: cross-links between chemical industry and other sectors West German Chemical Industry - 2

• Catalytics reforming > aromatics from oil, early 1950s (crucial for German companies) Lesson: relevant technology not there in 1920

• German companies first wanted to adapt their extensive acetylene chemistry to petro feedstocks; only later they shifted to ethylene Lesson: carbo-petro hybrids

• Polyethylene was the first large scale petrochemical, joint ventures with oil companies 1955 BASF + Shell Wesseling 1958 Bayer + BP Dormagen Lesson: PE was the niche because of scale; no large-scale carbo equivalent + high demand (5) Lessons from the past: general

• Transitions take 50 – 100 years • Long period of co-existence of two technological regimes + hybrids • Scaling-up from lab to large scale production takes time (AND the time to realize price levels that make the new technology competitive) • Market development takes time too • (# does that still apply in case of substitution?) • Great differences between nations (or regions) in speed of transition • Fast growing demand for (certain) products creates opportunities • (# does this apply now?) “Landscape” influences

• Deforestation (wood scarcety) • Abundance of oil in US • Growth of other industries + cross-links: transport (rail; car use); mining; towngas; textiles; agriculture; iron and steel) • Politics (autarky; US domination; excise taxes) • Wars • Costs of labor (wage explosion) Role of “niches”

• France and soda: disturbance of imports + a policy to make know-how public + no foreign competition

• Dyes: high growth in the silk luxury market + entrepreneurship of silk dyers and merchants + no patent law in Germany > more, strong firms, with larger port-folio

• Fast growing demand for PE internationally + availability of large scale PE technologies (risks could be calculated, also via involvement oil companies) Recommendations - 1

• Develop a broad view on the present and the future state of the industry (reconstruct the components of both the old and new “socio-technical system.”

• Identify bottlenecks.

• No “single issue” views, e.g. only CO2 related.

• Be aware that the transition will take long. Transition and system innovation

Regulations and policies Maintenance and distribution network (e.g. traffic rules,parking fees, emission standards, car tax) (e.g. repair shops, dealers)

Industry structure (e.g. car manufacturers, suppliers) Road infr as t r uc t ur e Socio-technical system and traffic system for transportation (e.g. lights, signs) Markets and user practices (mobility patterns, driver preferences) Culture and symbolic meaning (e.g. Freedom, individuality) Fuel infrast r uct ur e Vehic le ( ar t efac t) (oil companies, petrol stations) Recommendations - 2 • Reflect broadly on promissing “niches” and on how to protect them.

• So, don’t look only to technological options, but also to demand + to political and/or economic possibilities of protecting new developments against competition by proven petrochemical technology. Micro-level: niches

Product performance Invading product

Established product

T (1) T (2) Time Thank you !