Listen: As the EU cracks down on 'forever chemicals,' is the energy sector prepared?

View Full Transcript

Taylor Kuykendall:
Welcome to a special cross episode of S&P Global Commodity Insights Energy Evolution, and the Chemical Week Podcast. I'm your host, Taylor Kuykendall from Energy Evolution. Today we have a unique collaboration between our shoe shows to bring you this fascinating discussion on the intersection of energy and chemicals, particularly the use of PFAS and renewable energy applications. Joining me today is Vincent Valk, the host of the Chemical Week Podcast, a show about the issues that impact the global chemical industry.
Vincent, I'm not sure all of our listeners are out there thinking about chemistry as often as you do, but as you know, it's a huge industry. It touches a lot of others. Can you just tell our listeners a little bit about some of the topics that you've been covering on your show lately?

Vincent Valk:
Sure. Happy to, Taylor. So we cover a pretty wide array of topics. Our latest episode was an interview with a sustainability executive from BASF, the world's largest chemical maker, about their views on chemical recycling. Other recent episodes have been on credit conditions for the industry, the chemical industry's net-zero commitments, and we've also run some live interviews from this year's World Petrochemical Conference. We mostly do interviews and really try to connect to anything that connects to chemicals, which as you correctly point out, Taylor, is a big industry that touches almost every part of the global economy.

Taylor Kuykendall:
Excellent. How often do you guys publish episodes?

Vincent Valk:
We publish twice per month on the second and fourth Tuesday of every month, and we'll run a bonus episode once in a while.

Taylor Kuykendall:
All right. Well it sounds really interesting. Well, just like Energy Evolution, Chem Week can be found across your favorite platform, such as Apple and Spotify. So please do go out and subscribe.
But for today's episode, Energy Evolution correspondent Camilla Naschert spoke to some very interesting guests about PFAS chemicals and their use in renewable energy applications.
Vincent, before we hand it over to Camilla, can you just give us a basic explanation of what PFAS is exactly and why there's been so much controversy around it?

Vincent Valk:
Yeah, sure. So PFAS is an acronym for polyfluoroalkyl substances and it's a class of fluorochemical. It's been linked to adverse health effects, including cancer and diabetes. If you've ever heard the phrase forever chemicals, that's PFAS. They don't really go away. And most people, probably including you and me, have had some level of exposure. There's been a ton of litigation around PFAS, particularly with regard to contamination in drinking water supplies. And many of these claims have been settled for hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

Taylor Kuykendall:
And as you mentioned, we probably have been exposed. That's because they're pretty common, right?

Vincent Valk:
Oh yeah, they're very, very common. A lot of the controversy around PFAS has focused on applications and packaging and in films. But they're used in textiles, electronics, automotive. There's a reason why most people have been exposed to them.

Taylor Kuykendall:
And of course, as Camilla is going to explain to us in renewable energy applications, I can find PFAS. Camilla, can you tell us a bit about your interviews and what we've learned about PFAS and renewable energy applications?

Camilla Naschert:
Yeah, so as Vincent said, there's a vast array of use cases for PFAS, but for our purposes here on Energy Evolution, it's important to note that they're also in semiconductors, fuel cells, lithium ion batteries, electrolysis, heat pumps, really a lot of technologies that we need for the energy transition. And you might be wondering why are we talking about this now? Well, PFAS were developed in the US in the 1930s, and of course science has progressed a lot since then, and we've come to understand that many of these substances are harmful for human health and the environment as well. In early 2023, a group of European countries proposed a ban on the use of PFAS in the EU. These countries were Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, and then there were consultations throughout the year and we're now heading towards a decision by the European Chemicals Agency. That's the body in charge of these things in the EU.
Now we're likely going to see some kind of regulation in 2025 if the European Commission goes ahead and drafts that. First let's hear from scientist Kristina Jönsson. She's the vice president at the Department for Methodology, Textile and Medicinal product at the Research Institute of Sweden. This institute is among the signatories of a recommendation for a restriction on PFAS, which was published earlier this month. RIS work together with other reputable scientific organizations including Germany's Fraunhofer Institute. We'll also hear from them on this episode. Whenever you consider restrictions as a lawmaker, you of course need to also weigh that up against the hazards of the specific substance and the availability of alternatives. That's what these groups all said in their recommendation, and this is what Kristina told me as well, when I asked her how this issue should be tackled.

Kristina Jönsson:
PFAS is a group of chemicals that are of high concern and therefore also in that kind of focus. So I have been running a couple of projects within that scene, identifying where PFAS has been used, how it has been used, and what kind of alternatives that are available in the market. And then we have also assessed alternatives both from an environmental point of view, but also from a technical perspective. So making sure that they perform on the level as being required for that particular application, but also that they perform better not having sub-optimization when it comes to substitution.

Camilla Naschert:
I asked Kristina how lawmakers will be looking at a ban on PFAS, as in whether they will only look at the environmental or health impacts or whether it's more of a holistic view and the pros and cons of these substances.

Kristina Jönsson:
It's not only actually environmental and the human health perspective, it does actually take into count how they are applied and where we see alternatives on the market. But the restriction is talking about essential use and non-essential use. So there will be definitely regulation connected to the non-essential use. And there we have application areas as described like cosmetics, textiles, and so on.
But for the essential use, especially for medical devices for instance that are also important for human health, they will be assessed a bit differently and perhaps the timeframe would be different, or that there will be some kind of support for the industry to reach marketplace for the alternatives or for catalyze that. So there is a discussion on non-essential and essential use that come into play here and the economic analysis and the benefits as you described is part of that analysis as well.

Camilla Naschert:
Now, given that, I wanted to know how she's used this balancing act as a scientist.

Kristina Jönsson:
You're bringing up a very important question because I think it's very, very crucial that you make sure that you are not sub-optimizing. Because of course, with other chemistries there are other challenges and the chemical properties might also bring toxicity and mobility aspects for that kind of chemistry. And also there is a question with alternatives that you may have to consider and that's how much you need to use. So that can actually make a challenge. So say that you would need a 10th if you use PFAS, but you need 10 times more to create some kind of function with the PFAS-free alternative. So there are challenges and you need to really make sure that you're not shifting one environmental problem to towards another.
But, with saying that, I don't think that PFAS should be chemistry that we should continue to use. And why is that? Well, it's actually accommodating in the environment and the C-F bond is one of the strongest bonds we know. So it's not degradable for some of the PFAS, not in many, many, many, many years. So when we started producing this kind of chemistry, say in the '50s, making use of them in our households, lots of the PFAS being emitted along the wave during those decades are still in the environment.

Camilla Naschert:
Kristina told me that she doesn't expect outright exemptions for sectors like clean energy technology, but we may see a phased approach to the ban. Legislative pressure will also bring incentives of course to the sector to innovate and in the meantime, substitution is also quite tricky.

Kristina Jönsson:
So I can say that traditionally substitute within the PFAS range have been actually other PFAS. So that's how we have been working with PFAS to this point. So substituting a long chain versions towards shorter chain versions that are not so toxic in their properties and they are not so bio-accumulative, but they on the other hand are quite mobile still in the environment. So there have been a tradition to actually just change from one PFAS to another. And of course changing now to completely different type of chemistry is challenging. And here we see that it needs to come hand in hand with, as you say, new production technologies and how to apply them and make sure that they are functioning as well as [inaudible 00:10:08] is and also how to measure and make sure that the functionality is still in place. So it comes with quite a lot of different aspects production-wise, but also from a standard point of view.

Camilla Naschert:
Now for this episode, we also get to hear from a company with a lot of experience in the production of these chemicals, and that's Chemours. They were founded in 2015 as a spin-off from chemicals giant, DuPont. Chemours are the makers of the anti-stick material Teflon that you might know, and they also make other materials like refrigerant gases. I spoke to Gerardo Familiar, president of Advanced Performance Materials at Chemours. One of his key messages is that PFAS are a vast group of substances and not all of them are equally toxic. So he urges caution from regulators who might be thinking of a blanket ban. I asked him whether we should look at a ban sector by sector, maybe tackling things like clothing and cooking first.

Gerardo Familiar:
Chemours support science-based regulations and data-driven regulations. So when you think about regulation, the first thing is that we need to make sure that they're science-based and data-driven. The next thing is that you need to make sure that you don't do a regulation that is general for all materials. So you cannot approach regulations on talking about PFAS when you're talking about 10,000 substances that are very different one versus the other. So to your point, you need to be thinking about which are those applications that are key for the world, where you don't have alternative materials and that those materials are going to be produced in a responsible way, those materials are going to be used in a responsible way and then together we need to be thinking about the end of life. Because at the end of the day, we need to be having very present that circularity is very important.
So as long as you have an application that produces the materials in a responsible way and responsible means you need to be controlling your air and water emissions when you produce those materials, is used in the way that was intended to be created and why it was created and, number three, you think about the end of life. Then you have a regulation that will be positive for the world. Now you were asking about one applications versus another. What we believe is that the materials should be used in those applications in which the materials are essential, are critical. So when I think about applications like industrial applications like hydrogen production, automotive, medical, aerospace, chemical processing industry, all of those applications are going to be critical. And that's just an example.
When you think about other applications in which you can have alternatives like cookware, for example. At the end of the day it is not essential. You can cook with different alternatives and you don't necessarily require to use these type of materials for those applications. But what is important to understand is that it would be a decision based on the fact that you don't want to use it there because there are alternatives, not because there is any concerns regarding the materials in those applications.

Camilla Naschert:
I asked Gerardo why he believes these chemicals are essential in some settings.

Gerardo Familiar:
Everything goes back to performance. You can have different materials in the world and alternatives are fine depending on what are the needs that you have for each one of the applications. So the first thing that you need to be thinking when you're considering what material to use is what are going to be the conditions that are going to be exposed and are going to be impacting these materials. So if you have conditions that are high temperature, together with chemical exposure, together with properties that you require in terms of electrical properties, immediately the amount of materials that can perform with those three challenges are very limited.
So what is the alternative or what is the option? You can go to a different material, but the problem with that is that, one, you're not going to have the performance and when you don't have the performance it could be a safety risk. If you don't have the performance, you will not have the durability that will actually allow you or justify an investment on some of these technologies for the future. If you want to have an electrolyzer producing hydrogen, you want that electrolyzer to last for a long period of time and making sure that as it is operating, it is safe and it operates in the right way.
So what is important is alternatives are okay for those places where you don't need to have challenges that you need to solve with fluoropolymers. If we don't have these materials, we cannot achieve those commitments that the world has regarding decarbonization and net-zero. So we definitely need to have fluoropolymers, low GWP fluorinated gases that will help to achieve those goals.

Camilla Naschert:
Now PFAS have of course come into the mainstream consciousness in part because of instances of environmental contamination. And Chemours itself has also paid over 500 million in settlement dollars for contaminating water in the US. Also, last year the company was declared liable for pollution at a plant in the Netherlands. Gerardo said the responsible production of chemicals is a priority for Chemours and that large investments are going into this area.

Gerardo Familiar:
Let me just give you an example for air emissions. One of the things that our teams in Chemours and our great scientists were able to put together our technologies like thermal oxidizers, and these thermal oxidizers are equipments, but it is it almost like an additional facility that is together with your production facility. So it's a big investment we're talking about. For example, we installed thermal oxidizers in one of our facilities in North Carolina and what we invest there was around $100 million. And what this does is that when you are producing all of those air emissions are destroyed and you can achieve 99% reductions on your emissions.

Camilla Naschert:
I wanted to know from Gerardo what share of Chemours business is the clean tech space compared to all the other applications?

Gerardo Familiar:
We have not disclosed that publicly, but what I can share is that our intention, we are committed into the fluoropolymer space, into the refrigerant space. And in terms of the future, we would expect that clean energy could represent the majority of our business.

Camilla Naschert:
He also told me that Chemours customers in the energy space are watching this debate about a ban with concern. And he reiterated that the energy transition needs many of these chemicals. At the same time, he says policymakers are weighing this quite carefully.

Gerardo Familiar:
I would say that there has been a very good discussions between industry value chain and regulators. I believe that the regulators in Europe and in different parts of the world are listening, are open to understand better and better. I would say that not necessarily everybody understands all of the details behind the science. So more work is required and we just need to make sure that people understand these materials are critical to enable these other things. These materials are safe for the intended uses that were created. These materials if produced in a responsible way are fine and we need to be putting all of the energy on innovation instead of putting all of the energy on delaying discussions. And the innovation needs to be focused on how can we make these materials even better. So in the future you require less of these materials for some of these applications that we have talked about in clean energy and other spaces.

Camilla Naschert:
I also wanted to know a bit more about what it would cost and how it would work to come up with alternatives to PFAS, and this is what Kristina told me.

Kristina Jönsson:
I think the cost rather relies within the design phase because to design new chemicals are quite costly from a research perspective and it can take up to 10 to 20 years to detect and identify good alternatives to something. So that is a long journey and of course that would be costly to take on. I would say that since there are some alternatives in place, I think it's more the competition in the marketplace that hinders them, and then it comes more down to volumes. So before there are incentives to use more of the non-PFAS alternatives, making the producers in that space having larger volumes, it's difficult to make the production cost-efficient and that raises the cost.
From the consumer perspective I wouldn't dare to say a number, but definitely it could come with a higher cost. And we see that as you mentioned in the textile area, for instance, that it's difficult to not have some kind of add-on, I would say, on the textiles, making sure they will not use PFAS to some extent. But we see a much higher willingness in the consumer side and definitely where we have awareness in place for consumers that this is an issue and we need to all take our responsibility and pay a bit where we can pay more.

Camilla Naschert:
She also told me about the companies who are currently driving the innovation in alternative compounds.

Kristina Jönsson:
I would say it's more new players, but they are not entirely new because alternatives to PFAS have been around because it's just another surface chemistry and not bringing that particular function that PFAS can do, but similar functions. So it's surface properties, what you are aiming for. And there of course other companies and other products that provide surface technology. So what they have been doing now is to trying to optimize it and use it for different applications perhaps. So I would say that there have been both startups or new companies based on research and becoming startup from ideas created there, but also more traditional surface chemistry companies. But also from the big large PFAS producers, they have also now within their scope trying to develop of course new types of chemistry.

Camilla Naschert:
Now finally, let's hear from another expert who watches this issue from both the scientific and industry perspective and who's especially plugged into the implications for energy.

Karsten Pinkwart:
My name is Karsten Pinkwart. I've worked for more than 20 years for the Fraunhofer Society here in Germany that is a research organization for applied science and we work very strong together with the industry. We help to find the industry the right solutions for our problems. And beside that, we are also participating on official sponsored programs on national and also on the European side. And beside that, I have also a professorship here at the University of Applied Science in Karlsruhe for electrochemical materials in the field of air electrochemical storage and conversion systems.
Fraunhofer is an applied science organization, and so we are in a strong contact with the industry, with the local industry here in Germany and with industry all over the world. As we have seen that the European Chemical Agency is working on a paper for the ban of the right side of PFAS materials, we have seen that our industry has a lot of questions, has a lot of questions in the direction of alternative materials, has a lot of questions in the direction of what can we do. We don't see any other solutions if such a ban is coming to us, to our applications, to our industry,

Camilla Naschert:
He thinks that PFAS are going to be restricted.

Karsten Pinkwart:
I think we will see a ban. And the question is, which kind of ban we will see. I have pointed out that we have this material in everywhere, in many, many, many, many applications. And the question is in which application we can say, okay, it isn't necessary that we use this material which has this stability at which has this influence on our environment?

Camilla Naschert:
Now to come up with a ban or restriction, lawmakers will be looking at sectors in which materials are more likely to leak into the environment. This could be cosmetics and clothing, for example, where compounds come into the water stream by us washing ourselves or our clothes. I asked Karsten if he thinks the energy sector will get to continue using PFAS, and he said yes and no. There will be use cases where these compounds can be replaced and there will be some where this is not feasible at the moment. He said it's important that the industry keeps a record of its usage of PFAS and of any potential spills and that it links up with the water industry, which of course is tasked with cleaning this all up.

Karsten Pinkwart:
My message to my colleagues, to the industries, please analyze in which applications you are working with this PFAS material and analyze is it necessary that you use this material? Because very often I see that they use these materials but say need only one special characteristic from these materials, and all the other characteristics are not necessary. But former time it was an easy way and it was also a good way to say, okay, I have a material that is chemical stable, that is mechanical stable, and that is thermostable and I use it for my application, I use it in my application to have all these characteristics, but I know at the end I need only one of them. And so that is important thing that the industry use the time now to analyze this and to analyze, okay, how sure it is that we see that they see any degradation of this material and it is possible that none of these degraded materials are coming in the environment. Because that was one of the first question as I getting in the contact with my colleagues from the water industry, they said to me, please tell us how many of these materials will become in our human nature and how can we collect these materials, which possibilities exist to collect these materials?
So that is my message to my colleagues from the industry and to my colleagues from the scientific world, as a scientist, they exist no, no. That means, if we don't see at the moment any solution we will find a solution. Every time there exists a way, a way to find a solution, a good solution, or a practicable solution. That is also the other thing.

Camilla Naschert:
And that's it from us this week. No nos, I think that's quite a hopeful message to end on. Thank you so much to our thoughtful guests for joining us this week. And listeners, as always, thanks for being with us. We'll be back with you next week.

Taylor Kuykendall:
All right. Listeners, thank you so much for listening to the latest episode of Energy Evolution. I want to give a special shout out to our incredible podcast team members. I am once again, Taylor Kuykendall, but other people behind this podcast include Dan Testa, Camilla Naschert, Camillia Morris, Christopher Coates, Karen Willembrecht, and our wonderful agency partner, the One Nine Nine.
To stay up to date with our upcoming episodes, be sure to subscribe to Energy Evolution on your favorite platform. If you have any ideas for future themes or guests, we'd love to hear from you. All you have to do is shoot us an email at energyevolution@spglobal.com. And look, if you liked what you heard today, do consider sharing the podcast with others or leaving a review on your preferred podcast platform. We can't wait to bring you more fascinating discussions in the future. Until next time, take care and stay tuned for more from Energy Evolution.