Posts Tagged ‘chemistry’

Almost ten years ago, journalist Brendan Horton assessed the state of Green Chemistry for the prestigious journal Nature. It makes interesting reading to compare that article with the current state of the the field. Take a look and send comments if you would like.

“Industry is discovering that ‘green’ approaches to chemical processes are not only beneficial to the environment but can boost profits too. It’s fertile ground for collaboration between academic and industrial scientists.”

Question: what surprises you about where Green Chemistry is today?

Meanwhile, from the New York Times, two articles that discuss the environment in the US and in Costa Rica offer some hope and advice:


U.S. Forgives Costa Rican Debt to Help Environment


The U.S. has agreed to forgive $26 million of debt and the government of Costa Rica has committed to invest a similar amount in conserving high-risk natural areas.

OP-ED COLUMNIST; The Green-Collar Solution


Van Jones has been on a crusade to help disadvantaged communities understand why they would be the biggest beneficiaries of a greener America.


© James K. Bashkin, 2007

Technorati Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

A very nice discussion of political and technical issues confronting the Green Chemistry community is found on

The Green Chemistry Technical Blog

The site is written/run by a professional chemist (as is this one). The author is Mark C. Reid, and he offers well-reasoned opinions and extensive links to articles, websites and other resources.

Mark indicates that, in spite of the profound role of the US EPA and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Green Chemistry

  • “has ironically not made as much impact in the US educational system as it has in Europe or Asia and elsewhere”

He suggests some reasons why the above is true, and why much cynicism remains in part of the US academic community about Green Chemistry (not that this is only a US phenomenon, but we in the US are the top dogs in this particular brand of cynicism).

I’ll suggest another reason: money. Research funding is so tight in the US that “traditional” disciplines are struggling to survive, and I personally know many who have given up academics, especially in the biomedical area. With money tight, the old-school chemical disciplines, which are not necessarily any less important than they ever were, are fighting tooth and nail to survive, and there isn’t much funding left, if any.

  • In perhaps an unusual turn of affairs, we find industry in the US leading the way forward for Green Chemistry in many instances.
    • Why? Because Green Chemistry can, has, does and will affect the industrial bottom line.
  • I make the above statements without in any way trying to sound condescending- I’ve spent over half my career in industry.
    • Industry has always led certain fields, but they only lead when it suits them.
  • Green Chemistry suits people who are actually in the business of doing chemistry on a large scale and have to address issues of waste, safety, energy use, etc.
  • Academic labs have always been far behind industry in these areas, in some cases feeling that the amount of waste they generate is insignificant, so they need not think about it.
    • Part of it is machismo.
    • Of course, I’ve seen that attitude in Europe too, if in slightly different form, with chemists waving unfiltered cigarettes around while they work with explosive solvents, just a few feet from me.
  • So, the laboratory is where some of the educational opportunity is lost in the US (at the graduate level in addition to at the undergraduate level).
  • The chemists of today and tomorrow need to be concerned with Green Chemistry: waste minimization, pollution prevention, energy use, etc.
  • We are not necessarily training them to do so (with notable exceptions, as always).

© James K. Bashkin, 2007

Technorati Tags:, , , , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

power plant emissions (uncredited photo)

The above image is uncredited and was found on the site Environment Canada.

As reported by Reuters, the German utilities company RWE is the largest polluter in Europe. RWE has just announced plans to work with two other companies, Linde and BASF, to scrub CO2 (carbon dioxide) from emissions of its coal-burning operations. The coal is burned to generate electrical power and CO2 is the major product of burning any form of carbon or nearly any carbon derivative (either coal in an electricity plant or the hydrocarbon that fuels your car).

The scrubbing process for RWE has not been figured out yet, though Linde is a company that specializes in handling gases and BASF is a multifaceted chemical company, so the team seems powerful and experienced. However, according to the article, doubts have been expressed by others that the technology can be made practical on what would be a huge scale.

This CO2 scrubbing seems like a good thing if it can been made to happen. It is worth mentioning that scrubbing CO2 out of gas streams or air is pretty commonplace on a small scale, and there are a number of simple methods that work well. However, just because it can be done by young students in a science lab doesn’t mean that the process is trivial, especially when the scale is enormous.

In fact, the $25 million dollar “Virgin Earth Challenge” is aimed at another version of “the CO2 problem”: British businessman Richard Branson, in collaboration with Al Gore, announced this challenge to stimulate research and development aimed at removing CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere. If successful, this concept would be a remediation of our atmosphere, or a clean-up to try to reverse the process of global warming that is largely caused by burning fossil fuels.

You might wonder what happens to the CO2 when it is “scrubbed” (it can’t just disappear magically). Scrubbing of CO2 typically generates the carbonate ion, CO3(2-) by reaction with sodium hydroxide or lithium hydroxide. Calcium hydroxide is also used, for example in the re-breathing apparatus used by some underwater divers. If you follow the calcium hydroxide link in the previous sentence, you’ll be taken to “General Chemistry Online”, which has a discussion of the relative merits of these various hydroxides and a class of chemicals called amines, all of which undergo chemical reactions with CO2 (and can therefore remove it from the air). General Chemistry Online has a further link to a US Department of Energy (DOE) website that addresses CO2 sequestration, or scrubbing, except that the link is currently broken, so you might want to try here to see what DOE has to say. I have emailed author Fred Senese of Frostburg State University about the broken link.

The lithium hydroxide link in the previous paragraph takes you to a publicly-released US military document that refers to both deep-sea diving and removal of CO2 from the atmosphere in submarines.

What needs to be said, and Professor Senese addresses this nicely, is that lithium and sodium are caustic (sodium hydroxide is the ingredient in lye). Calcium hydroxide is a little less troublesome. However, the materials used in CO2 sequestration are typically harmful if simple (they can give you chemical burns). Realizing this might give you some more insight into why it isn’t a trivial thing to scrub tons of CO2 as it tries to exit a coal-fired electricity-generating plant. Bubbling gas through a saturated or concentrated sodium hydroxide solution, for example, will generate sodium carbonate. Boiling away the water (which requires a lot of heat) will give you solid sodium carbonate. I’m not sure where RWE plans to put all of the material generated by CO2 scrubbing, but I was under the impression that landfill space was rapidly being filled already (we’ll have to lok into this more!).

Some readers will be thinking- what about photosynthetic plants? We can discuss them, and related bacteria, at a later date.

© James K. Bashkin, 2007

Technorati Tags:, , , , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator