India’s versus China’s Chemical Industry – Some Data

The table below provides data on various considerations with respect to India and China’s chemical industry.  I searched the Internet for data on the two country’s chemical industry and present in the table what I found and consider to be relevant in making comparisons between the two countries.  The column “country with apparent advantage” shows the country that I consider having an advantage with respect to how the data characterizes the country’s chemical industry.

considerations	india	china	comments	country with apparent advantage
chemical employment	2 million	60 million	depends on productivity - see chemical production per employee	neither
chemical product use per person	36 kg per person per year	580 kg per person per year	much higher use in china	china
chemical production including petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals	48 million mt	812 million mt	depends on productivity - see chemical production per employee	neither
chemical production per employee	24 mt per employee	14 mt per employee	inida more productive per employee in producing chemical products	india
chemical revenue expected growth - near term, per year	9%	4 to 5%	india's economy growing at faster rate; china's environmental focus slowing chemical growth	india
chemical revenues	$163 billion       6% of gdp	$1,560 billion    12% of gdp	higher % of gdp indicates larger chemical industry	china
chemical revenues per person	$120	$1,100	higher value indicates more robust chemical industry	china
clusters	government policy	government policy	both countries have policies to develop chemical manufacturing clusters	neither
demographics	population  - 1.35 billion     gdp (ppp) per capital - $7,194	population  - 1.4 billion     gdp (ppp) per capital - $16,696	greater gdp (ppp) per capital allows for more consumption of products supported by chemical industry	china
exports - imports	net importer of chemicals - 10 million mt	net exporter but import rate increasing in need to import due to chemical plant closures for environmental reasons	assume net exporter preferred	china
foreign direct investments	no limits on foreign direct investments	limits on foreign direct investments	significant advantage for india	india
value added per product	$163 B/48 M mt = $3,396 per mt	$1,560 B/812 M mt = $1,921 per mt	significantly more value added by india's chemical products	india
world bank indices	human capital - 0.44                human development - 130	human capital - 0.67                    human development - 86	higher human capital number is better     lower human development number better	china

For the thirteen data sets presented in the table, the data suggest to me that six of the sets indicate a more positive characteristic for China’s chemical industry and four sets more positive for India.  Three sets suggest no advantage for one or the other country.

Looking at the comparisons for each set, here are some comments:

1.                  The 2018 chemical revenues for China (all period-related data are for the 2018 period) is about 9.5 times that of India.  The comparison of chemical revenues per person for the two countries is approximately the same (9.2 to 1).  Both favor China.

2.                  Although the chemical revenues for China versus India is 9.5 times higher in China’s favor, the amount of chemical product (810 million metric tons (mt) for China versus 48 million mt for India) suggests a different conclusion.  It suggests that India gains more value from its chemical product manufacturing (more revenues per product - $3,396 per product versus $1,921 per product for China).  See the “value added per product” data set in the table.

3.                  The World Bank indices data set, which compares most, if not all, countries, on certain characteristics for their populations (human capital) and how well the countries develop their populations (human development) indicate China is ahead of India.  Such indices suggest levels of education and skills, with higher levels giving advantages to a country’s chemical industry, which depends on better trained and skilled personnel.

4.                  Although India has fewer apparent advantageous data sets, information in advantageous ones for India, ((such information as: a) no limits on foreign direct investment in the chemical industry versus restrictions in China; b) apparently India gets more added value from their chemical production; and c) India’s apparently chemical revenue growth rate is 9% versus 4 to 5% for China)) is significant and shows that India does have some important advantages.

Chemical Processing of Plastic Wastes – Dissolution and Extraction; Hydrothermal Processing; and Gasification

In two earlier blogs, I provided, in the first blob, some data on global plastic waste production and chemical recycling.  I also identified various chemical methods being commercialized to recycle plastic waste.  (Click here to read that blog.)  In the second blog, I identified some chemical companies that are developing (commercializing) one of the chemical methods – pyrolysis.   (Click here to read the second blog.)

In this blog, I identify some companies that are commercializing the following methods (other than pyrolysis) for recycling plastic wastes: dissolution and extraction; hydrothermal processing; and gasification.

Dissolution and Extraction – involves the dissolution of mixed plastic wastes in a supercritical fluid and extracting (separating out) the various plastics (polymers) in the mix.   The following are some companies that are investigating the commercialization of waste plastics recycling by dissolution and extraction:

Eastman Chemical.  In a process using methanolysis, the United States company Eastman Chemical uses methanol under pressure and elevated temperature to dissolve polyester-based products and extract various components.

MOL and ARK. The Hungarian MOL Group, a multinational oil and gas company, has a joint project with the German recycling company APK using a solvent-based process to recover high-quality materials from multi-layer plastic packaging containing polyethylene and polyamide.

Hydrothermal Processing – involves heating a waste plastic in water at high temperatures (e.g., 400 to 500 degrees centigrade) and high pressure (e.g., thousands of pounds per square inch), which breaks down the plastic to oils.  The following are some companies that are investigating the commercialization of waste plastics recycling by hydrothermal processing:

Neste and ReNew.   The Finnish renewable oil producer Neste is working with the British plastic recycling specialist ReNew to commercialize a patented version (called Cat-HTR) of hydrothermal processing for generating oils from waste plastics.  A key patented element of Cat-HTR is the use of catalysts (hence the use of Cat in the name).

OMV.  The Austrian oil company OMV has built, in 2018, a pilot plant at its Schwechat refinery using a version of hydrothermal processing to covert waste plastics into oils.

Gasification – involves heating a waste plastic to very high temperatures, e.g., greater than 700 degrees centigrade, in a controlled amount of oxygen and/or stream.  The plastics react (degrade) to form a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide, which can be used as a fuel or to produce methanol and hydrogen.  The following are some companies that are investigating the commercialization of waste plastics recycling by gasification:

Enerkem.  The Canadian company Enerkem is building a plant in Rotterdam, with partners Air Liquide, Nouryon, and Shell, which will use gasification technology to convert waste, including plastic wastes, into carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide.

Sierra Energy. The United States company Sierra Energy specializes in building smaller gasification plants for use at the local level to treat wastes.

The chemical recycling of plastic wastes has been of commercial and public concern and interest for a long time.  For example, gasification plants using plastic wastes as an input were operating in Japan in the early 2000s.   Many companies have come and gone, failing in successfully commercializing various methods of recycling plastic wastes. 

But in recent years, a stronger public emphasis on the need to deal with the enormous amounts of global plastic wastes has developed.  This has gone along with a stronger public pressure being placed on companies, and recognized by the companies as good business sense, to be good environmental stewards and to identify, and quantify as a marketing tool, sustainability as a critical corporate strategic goal.  With this, more attention seems to be present in recent years by companies on treating plastic wastes, such as those companies identified in the three blogs I have written on chemical processing of waste plastics.  

Although the technical aspects of the methods identified  in these three blogs seem to  be developing successfully, it is likely that commercial success of these methods will be difficult to achieve as long as the value (price) of the resulting products from the methods cannot compete with identical, cheaper products produced from fossil fuels.  This uncompetitive situation is likely to continue for some time without public interventions, e.g. through tax, regulatory, and other governmental incentives.

Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert – September 2019

The purpose of this blog is to identify chemical and metal shortages reported on the Internet.  The sources of the information reported here are primarily news releases issued on the Internet.  The issue period of the news releases is September 2019.

Section I below lists those chemicals and metals that were on the previous month’s Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list and continue to have news releases indicating they are in short supply. Click here to read the August 2019 Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and metals (not on the August alert).  Also provided is some explanation for the shortage and geographical information.  This blog attempts to list only actual shortage situations – those shortages that are being experienced during the period covered by the news releases.  Chemicals and metals identified in news releases as only being in danger of being in short supply status are not listed.

Section I.

None

Section II.   Shortages Reported in September not found on the Previous Month’s List

Hydrogen: California; production not keeping up with demand

Sodium fluoride: United States; mining not keeping up with demand

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: sodium fluoride

2.  Production not keeping up with demand: hydrogen

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand: none