Germany’s Chemical Industry Embraces Industry 4.0 and Digitization

Internet searches find good evidence that the Germany chemical industry is intensely pursuing what is referred to as "Industry 4.0”.  A Deloitte 2016 article provides an excellent overview of what is met by Industry 4.0 and its implications for the chemical industry.  (Click here to read the article – PDF file.)

Implementing Industry 4.0 and increasing digitization throughout their industries is a high priority of the German government.  A study sponsored by the Federation of German Industries and carried out by Roland Berger Strategy Consultants provides good insights into the importance that German industry places on increased digitization in its industry.  You can read a report on this study by clicking here (PDF file).

The process of digitizing industrial processes, which has been going on for a long time, when combined with the concepts and capabilities associated with Industry 4.0 is believed to be leading to a 4^th industrial revolution.

German companies support this embracing of Industry 4.0.  Siemens discusses the digital factory, Industry 4.0, and seven facts to know about the future of manufacturing (click here). SAP has an extensive overview on how to prepare for the fourth industrial revolution (click here).  Rexroth Bosch explains how they can support Industry 4.0 (click here).  Pepperl + Fuchs present their perspectives on Industry 4.0 (click here).  These are just a few of the German companies that provide support to companies pursuing Industry 4.0 goals.

German chemical companies are pursuing Industry 4.0-related activities.  At this link (click here), you can read about how BASF is implementing Industry 4.0-related processes.  An Evonik publication has articles on its activities related to big data, digitization, and the “Internet of Things”, all important components in Industry 4.0 (click here – PDF file).

Such benefits as:  better products at less processing costs; more timely delivery of products to customers; lower use of raw materials, with less waste; and decreased energy use, including lower CO2 emissions are driving companies toward Industry 4.0.

Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert – November 2016

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 November 2016.

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 October 2016 Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and metals (not on the October 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.  

Aluminum: China; supply not keeping up with demand

Coking coal: China; supply not keeping up with demand

      

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

Steel:  Iran; production not keeping up with demand

Styrene:  Asia; production not keeping up with demand

Zinc:  global; mining not keeping up with demand

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: zinc

2.  Production not keeping up with demand: steel; styrene

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand: none

2015 Volumes and Revenues for Several Rubbers

I searched the Internet extensively to find total global volumes and revenues for as many synthetic rubbers as I could.  Apparently more than two dozen commercially-available synthetic polymeric materials are generally considered to be similar enough in properties and uses to natural rubber as to generically be referred to as a rubber.  (Click here for a list of these at a Wikipedia site.)  Of these synthetic rubbers, I was only able to find sufficient volume and revenue data on seven from which I could construct the following table:

synthetic rubber	2015 volume metric ton (mt)	2015 revenue (usd)	average price(usd)/ mt
styrene butadiene (sbr)	7,000,000	$ 10,000,000,000	$        1,429
silicon elastomers	2,000,000	$    6,000,000,000	$        3,000
polybutadiene (br)	3,500,000	$    5,000,000,000	$        1,429
ethylene propylene diene monomer (epdm)	1,300,000	$    2,800,000,000	$        2,154
polychloroprene (cr)	400,000	$    1,200,000,000	$        3,000
fluoroelastomers	35,000	$       700,000,000	$      20,000
acrylonitrile butadiene (nbr)	155,000	$       325,000,000	$        2,097
totals	14,390,000	$ 26,025,000,000

I suspect one reason I could find only data for these seven “rubber-like materials” is that they represent the vast majority of total volume produced and revenue generated for the commercially-available synthetic polymers in the rubber category (those listed at the Wikipedia site).

The totals shown in the table agree well with what can be found on the Internet for total synthetic rubber produced globally in 2015 and the global revenues generated by that total.

I could find no single Internet site (source) that provides comprehensive data such as shown in the above table.    Searching and analysis is needed of a variety of sites to find the necessary data from which I believe a reasonably good determination can be made of volumes and revenues. The data in the table may not be exact but likely falls within a "smallish" range that is.

One conclusion I have is that very likely much volume and/or revenue data on the Internet implies more accuracy than is warranted because such data represent estimates.   And such estimates cannot be as accurate as the data often implies. 

Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert – October 2016

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 October 2016.

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 September 2016 Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and metals (not on the September 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 October not found on the Previous Month’s List

Aluminum: China; supply not keeping up with demand

Coking coal: China; supply not keeping up with demand

Construction materials: Ireland, Qatar; production not keeping up with demand

Methylene disphenyl diisocyanate: Europe; production not keeping up with demand

Tin: global; supply not keeping up with demand

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: none

2.  Production not keeping up with demand: construction materials; methylene diphenyl   diisocyanate

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand: aluminum; coking coal; tin

Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert – September 2016

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 2016.

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 2016 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.   Nickel:  global; mining not keeping up with demand

      

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

None

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: none

2.  Production not keeping up with demand: none

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand: none

Approximate Global Market Values for Insulation Materials

An extensive Internet search was made to identify market values for materials used in insulation.  This table provides approximate amounts for six materials used in insulation:

                                              

Table  2015 Global Market Values for Six Materials Used in Insulation
glass wool	$   14,000,000,000	33%
eps polystyrene	$   13,000,000,000	31%
mineral wool	$     8,000,000,000	19%
polyurethane	$     4,200,000,000	10%
xps polystyrene	$     2,500,000,000	6%
aerogel	$        300,000,000	1%
total	$   42,000,000,000	100%

The amounts include not just insulation used in buildings but also in industrial, HVAC, appliance, and other applications.  The amounts represent 2015 values.  Other materials are also used in insulation, such as cellulose, but the values of these could not be found.   The values of these other materials are believed to be small in comparison to values in the table.

The efficient and effective use of insulation materials is considered to be a very important need (tool) in reducing energy use and in combating global warming.  Estimates can be found on expected annual increases for these insulation materials.

Natural Gas Pipeline and Consumption – US versus EU

Table 1 below shows some natural gas pipeline data for the northeast (NE) region of the United States (US), along with demographic and geographic data.  Table 2 shows such data for the European Union (EU).  The US natural gas data was obtained from the US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) website.  Click here to go an EIA page that provides natural gas pipeline mileage data and click here to go to an EIA site from which natural gas consumption by state data can be found.

The EU natural gas pipeline and consumption data were obtained from data provided by Eurogas, an association representing the European natural gas industry.  Click here and here for data on EU natural gas pipeline length and on EU natural gas consumption data.

What I think makes this data useful in comparing natural gas usage between the US’s NE region (those states in Table 1) and the EU is the closeness of the population densities for each area (309 people per square mile for the NE region; 304 for the EU).  This being the case, I assume some value in natural gas pipeline delivery and consumption comparisons between the two areas.

The Tables suggest to me that natural gas pipeline delivery and consumption in the US NE region is much different than in the EU, even though the population densities are very close.  Natural gas consumption per person in the NE region is much greater than in the EU (74,700 cubic feet per person versus 29,632 cubic feet per person).

Also interesting is that far less pipeline appears to be used in the NE region; even as the amount of per person gas consumption is much higher.  For example, in the NE region 0.10 miles of pipeline per square mile is present versus 0.80 miles per square mile in the EU.  Many more persons per pipeline mile are in the NE region (3,132) than in the EU (382).  This pipeline difference would seem to suggest that pipeline use in the NE region is more efficient and productive than in the EU.

Table 1 NE region USA	pop. million	area square miles	pop. density person per square mile	miles of natural gas pipeline	natural gas consumpt. billion cu ft	natural gas cu ft used per person	natural gas cu ft used per square mile	miles natural gas pipeline per square mile	persons per mile pipeline
CT	3.60	5,500	655	628	235.9	65,528	42.9 M	0.11	5732
MA	6.70	10,600	632	972	420.2	62,716	39.6 M	0.09	6893
ME	1.30	35,200	37	609	60.7	46,692	1.7 M	0.02	2,135
NH	1.30	9,300	140	291	57.0	43,846	6.1 M	0.03	4,467
NJ	8.90	8,700	1,023	1,520	766.4	86,112	88.1 M	0.17	5,855
NY	19.70	54,600	361	5,018	1,344.9	68,269	24.6 M	0.09	3,926
PA	12.80	46,100	278	8,680	1,200.7	93,805	26.0 M	0.19	1,475
RI	1.10	1,500	733	100	88.7	80,636	59.1 M	0.07	11,000
VT	0.63	9,600	65	71	10.7	17,065	1.1 M	0.01	8,831
region's total	56.03	181,100		17,889	4,185.2
region's amount			309			74,700	23.1 M	0.10	3,132
Table 2	pop. million	area square miles million	pop. density person per square mile	miles of natural gas pipeline million	natural gas consumpt. billion cu ft	natural gas cu ft used per person	natural gas cu ft used per square mile	miles natural gas pipeline per square mile	persons per mile pipeline
EU	508	1.67	304	1.329	15,053	29,632	9 M	0.80	382