Interesting factlet in the letters to the editor

In this week's C&EN, this interesting letter to the editor: 

Joel Tickner’s opinion piece in January hit the nail on the head about the December 2024 Office of Science and Technology Policy Federal Sustainable Chemistry Strategic Plan. The report fails to address the barriers posed by incumbency and doesn’t inspire desperately needed “moon shot” thinking around how we should manufacture chemicals in the future. 

Part of the problem is that most of the time when sustainable chemistry is on the table for discussion, the process is too often an afterthought. When I use a tabletop air fryer instead of a wall oven, I consume far less energy. Similarly, when soft-serve ice cream is made on demand, there’s no need to store large quantities in freezers hoping to sell them. These are process innovations enabled by equipment matched to the use case­—that is, soft-serve ice cream versus hard-scooped ice cream, and a few pieces of chicken versus a 20 lb (9 kg) turkey, which would not fit in an air fryer. When the use case is correct, the cost of ownership is lower than with older technology, and the investment pays off over time. For chemical factories, we will always have many dump-and-run reactions in large, fully depreciated tanks, but we can be kinder to the planet and make many chemicals and drugs more economically with flow chemistry that reduces solvent use, cuts energy consumption and waste, improves yield, and significantly boosts safety. 

 To make real progress, we need to accelerate the adoption of new technologies that have already been proved at scale. Just one of the rapidly growing number of factories around the world using advanced continuous-flow reactors has reported publicly that it is now operating a unit taking up a mere 1 m3 of space with 10,000 metric tons of throughput per year on just this single line. Today, China is the only country to have embraced flow chemistry on a big scale, while in the US and Europe, we generate studies and reports that are not having much impact. 

Gary Calabrese 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

It seems to me that China, being relatively late to the chemical manufacturing world, would have probably gotten in on the ground floor with flow reactors back in the 1990s.