CHEM Blog

By DAVID MANTEY, Editor, Product Design & Development (PD&D)

When I put together a comprehensive daily news resource (fancy talk for the PD&D Design Daily), I have the opportunity to not only cover the latest news in the industry, but I also have a chance to transform into a maniacal news junkie.

I click on provocative headlines to read about the unfixable economy, to listen to analysts bang their chests and make wild predictions in hopes of creating some new conventional wisdom by sparking a little awareness-building fear, and to sift through the PR rabble — it’s a practice similar to listening to white noise for hours with hopes of connecting to voices from the other side (dead people).

I recently had a conversation with a futility analyst who, after crunching the numbers and conferring with his peers, found white noise distillation to be 10 percent less futile than combing the wires and feeds for legitimate news. Stand by for his upcoming 1,000-page report that will be available for purchase at the end of April.  

I used to think that Friday night was the wire punch line filled with puff pieces and features similar to those published in Parade Magazine, and the free tabloids littering the streets after a mighty wind. As I’ve found, that Friday night news black hole is a great place to read the news that, I can only speculate, the publishers hope go overlooked. 

My latest conspiracy theory/empty tirade is the result of another notch in Exxon Mobil’s terrible person belt — singular, because corporations are legally considered people — which I found Friday night as I was exercising my individual right to a quiet weekend.

On Friday, a state district court jury decided that Exxon Mobil failed to warn workers that the offshore drilling pipes, which they spent decades cleaning, contained radioactive contamination.

What a fact to neglect. I’m assuming that they were trying to skate on hazard pay — or the fact that “radioactive contamination” in the workplace is similar to … radioactive contamination in the workplace. I’m not sure a work situation could be worse — try and have Mike Rowe bring his Dirty Jobs crew into cancer-causing pipes and see if he’s willing to risk his Ford deal for an episode inside a nuclear cavern.

I can imagine the lawsuit years from now. I’ll receive a notice in the mail to be a part of a group lawsuit against my company when a former associate finds that we cheaped out on new computer monitors to save a buck, and had for years been working on knock-off Dells that were seeping radioactive sludge.

Pair that with the hidden Adderall in the coffee and the mood-altering chemicals slowly leaked from the sprinkler system, and we’re on our way to the next-generation’s Erin Brockovich — I’ve always hoped to be significantly put upon enough to inspire a Lifetime movie. This could be the ticket.

Sure, the 16 former employees can now split the $2 million for the increased cancer risk, but can anyone really put a dollar amount on anticipated loss of life? Possibly a sliding scale based on tumor size and quantity?

As employees, we have the right to believe that our employers have our physical best interests in mind — unless we know going into the job that we’re ridding a house of asbestos or spelunking into radioactive contamination. Of course, we’ll always expect the corporation to deny any wrongdoing.

As Exxon Mobil’s attorney Charles Gay stated, “We still believe that our pipe did not cause any harm.” Thanks for caring, Chuck. It may take some time, but here’s to hoping you lose sleep if the effects of the radioactive contamination ever show in any of the 16 workers. Meanwhile, many of us will skip deniability and pray that it never does.

What are your thoughts? Should employees expect a minimal standard of safety? Comment below or e-mail rebuttals, legal threats and further deniability to david.mantey@advantagemedia.com.

By KAREN LANGHAUSER, Editor-in-Chief, Food Manufacturing

Despite spending seven years writing about the technical advances in our modern-day food industry, I'm sometimes still guilty of letting sensationalized criticism of our nation's food production get to me. As I drive past the farmers market in my town in a hurry to get to the chain grocery store, I sometimes wonder if I am personally contributing to the downfall of our country's sustainability efforts.

But the reality of the situation is that experts are predicting a world population of 9.5 billion by 2050 — meaning that our global food production will have to double. This makes efficiency crucial. It seems to me that instead of acknowledging that we are going to have to seriously step up the intensity and efficiency of our food production, many “activists” are too busy producing sensationalized documentaries about the evils of an industrialized food system. Pictures of happy cows, grazing in huge, lush pastures are presented as ideals.

Unfortunately, it seems as though what many are not realizing is that without technology, come 2050, we will starve. Correction. I won't starve. You probably won't starve either. It is developing countries with exploding populations and inadequate means of feeding these populations that will struggle. Incidentally, these are not the countries preaching about the evils of modern food production.

Don't get me wrong — I'm not proposing we desecrate the earth in order to produce as much food as possible. All food production has an environmental impact, and it is our responsibility to find systems that produce the largest quantity of healthy food, at the lowest cost to our environment. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps the ideals force fed to us by all aspects of the media are not necessarily the path to a better world. Happy organic cows in lush pastures don't mean much when they come at the expense of hungry children.

I recently came across a report titled, "Demystifying the Environmental Sustainability of Food Production¹," which suggests (and backs up with proof) that the most commonly heard discussions relating to the environmental impact of food animal production and transport systems are riddled with misconceptions.

For example, the report points out that most food industry criticism fails to express environmental impact per unit of food, rather than per animal. So the question should not be “how much waste is produced per cow?” but instead, “how much waste is produced per gallon of milk?” According to the report, while one organic cow might cause less environmental damage than one conventional cow, because it takes more organic cows to produce the same amount of milk produced by one conventional cow, organic cows actually cause more environmental damage per gallon of milk produced. And, since it is the gallons of milk consumers are buying, not the cows, environmental impact should be measured per unit of product.

Another example cited has to do with the difference between buying locally, and buying products that are shipped to grocery stores from out of state. I found this observation particularly interesting considering all the hype the “locavore” movement has garnered lately. While eggs at a local farmers market may have only travelled 25 miles to get there, versus the eggs at the grocery store which travelled 500 miles, the truck transporting the grocery store eggs held thousands more dozens of eggs than the small vehicle en route to the farmers market. If you measure miles PER dozen eggs, the tractor-trailer is far more efficient, and has less of an impact on the environment per dozen eggs.

In the end, it comes down to how the individual reporting the facts chooses to measure them. Certainly there is biased reporting from both sides, and the aforementioned study is no exception. However, it does seem that the stories most commonly thrust into the public eye are those attempting to “lift the veil” on our food system and show consumers something they clearly won’t be happy seeing.

Reports based on slanted information only serve to underscore the tremendous efficiency achieved by today’s food production and transportation systems. In many cases, I think today’s activists need to double-check their work.

What do you think? Let me know by e-mailing karen.langhauser@advantagemedia.com.

1J. L. Capper, Department of Animal Sciences, Washington State University, R. A. Cady,  Elanco Animal Health,  and D. E. Bauman, Department of Animal Science, Cornell University

By CARRIE ELLIS, Editor, Chem.Info

So what’s the holdup, you ask? And rightfully so. Lawmakers have been hailing the environmental revolution as the way out of this deep pit called an economic recovery, but have yet to sign anything that would toss a ladder into the deep hole to offer a few folks a glimpse of light. (Listen closely for the whispers of health care.) They have also been stalling the Renewable Fuel Standard and other green legislation, while holding them up as ideals—a bastion between the U.S. and some other dark economic force like China or India.

Well, experts say that the delay could be due to the fact that it’s an election year. Or simply a stalemated Congress. Or bringing up the rear of a long line of other bills that need to be prioritized first. For experts, their expertise seems scatter-shot. However, this administration has promised that going green would spur economic recovery. Jobs creation. Bi-partisanship. Blah, blah, blah. Is it me, or can you only read the same article so many times?

On the other hand, some processing facilities are crossing their fingers that environmental bills (the cap-and-trade program, anybody?) fall simultaneously through the very cracks of the government’s fingers. This is understandable considering the capital implications of such laws, with new equipment, more traceability procedures and so on. This stalling on the part of lawmakers has cost industry jobs, though, while we’re left in the lurch of a bad economy with double-digit unemployment rates.

According to a Biofuels Digest article, “Brussels and Washington remain mired in red tape, regulations and confounded by the perplexing uncertainties of defining ‘sustainability’ from several perspectives. It is important to remember why some nations started biofuels regulations in the first place: national security. More importantly, international security.

“The three largest emerging markets of the BRIC countries — China, India and Brazil — continue to move forward on biofuels policies, mandates and programs, while Washington and Brussels sidestep, punt and delay mandates for unclear sustainability rationale.”

The end result is that the Renewable Fuel Standard (and other bills just like it) has left many biofuels advocates sitting on the edges of their drivers’ seats. Without any promise of government funding, investment has slowed and projects have languished. Furthermore, since this trend has remain unchanged for quite some time, the barometer for biofuels production success has become whether a company must rely on a government mandate or tax credit, or whether that company can stand on its own infrastructure and technology. Many startups will remain stalled, withering and dead if this collective heel-dragging doesn’t find a swift conclusion.

Another enormous point of contention for biodiesel producers has been the lapse of the biodiesel tax credit last year. According to the National Biodiesel Board, “Biodiesel production has ground to a halt and more than 29,000 jobs have already been lost across the industry since the tax credit lapsed on January 1, 2010.” As of last month, no timeline has been discussed either.

I say that it’s time to get off to a start on our greener foot even if just to maximize our global profit potential. Whether we choose to admit it or not, we’re in a race in which the world is clamoring to pinpoint that next big thing that’s going to naturally stimulate the economy, as opposed to hearing more of government handouts. No one wants to hear more about that.

Normally, I’d say no, no, take your time on passing this potentially far-reaching energy legislation. It’s not something I’d like to think that lawmakers rush through, especially considering the amount of politicians who admit to just not having the time to read bills before voting begins. However, some things are worth risking, and if anything, let’s sink something into an issue that we can all benefit from in the future.

We know that our contemporary political polls indicate that we’re not sure what change really means, but we are in dire need, no matter if it’s in the form of a mandate, a tax credit or other green legislation.

Are you on the edge of your driver’s seat, too? Or you one of the people crossing your fingers in hopes that green legislation continues to languish? Sound off by e-mailing me at carrie.ellis@advantagemedia.com.

By ANNA WELLS, Editor, Industrial Maintenance & Plant Operation (IMPO)

This is the time of year when I begin to obsessively check the weather. January and February in Wisconsin can be particularly soul-crushing, but it’s March that’s the turning point. Average temperatures have already typically hit their lows for the year in the late part of January, and then it’s an incremental crawl back to air temperatures that humans can withstand without Gortex.

So I check Weather.com in the morning at my desk … having just walked from my car to the office. I’ve felt the temperature, dressed for it, and had visceral reactions to its aggressive wetness and winds. But I have to know right off the bat if it’s actually 18°F and “feels like” 13°F.

I also check the 10-day forecast in my eagerness for the light at the end of the tunnel. I do this in the morning, around lunch, and oftentimes once or twice more before the end of the day.

Is there a reason I need to know — in such exhaustive detail — the weather estimates? It’s not like I have particularly important things to do every single day. In fact, January and February are the parts of the year I like to use for hibernation, and it doesn’t really matter how warm it is when you’re sitting on the couch watching football, right?

I’ve come to realize that while I do relish the weather report for the hope it brings me, I don’t think I check it because I really need to know. Let’s be honest: the difference between 15° and 20°F is barely discernible, and I hardly spend any time outdoors in the dead part of winter anyway.

So why do I check it three to five times a day? I think this is that weird habit that I go to when I am distracted, or bored, or shifting from one task to the next.

I’ve read studies about how long it takes workers to return to their original tasks once their productivity has been interrupted, and it’s pretty astounding. It makes me wonder if my little weather report breaks are doing more harm to my time management than I might realize. But ultimately, I like the easing of the transition that this little activity provides.

When spring hits, I’ll take a short walk in the afternoons when I can get away. It’s no more than 10 minutes, but it seems to revitalize me for the afternoon.

What do you think? Is there a place in your day for the little breaks? Is there some habit in your day that keeps you focused? Or are our distractions disastrous for productivity? Let me know at anna.wells@advantagemedia.com.

By JIM LANE, Editor & Publisher, Biofuels Digest

In advanced biofuels, discussion these days revolves around the value proposition: yields, scale, ROI.

It seems to me that, if the debate was about long-term or short-term value, the cellulosic ethanol industry would be a lot farther along than it is, because ethanol has a compelling value proposition on climate, energy security and green jobs.

So does nuclear energy, and this industry is heading for a similar position in the hearts and minds of the public.

The barrier to nuclear energy is fear — fear of catastrophe, fear of the unknown — and it is the barrier of cellulosic ethanol as well. We are experiencing today the first skirmishes in an all-out war over the replacement of our petroleum and gas resources, over the inequitable distribution of fossil reserves, and the fear that the new world will be a worse one, depending on your particular flavor of priorities.

What is the ultimate role of biomass-based fuel in the future? Too early to say. What we can say is that biomass is where it is today — corn in Nebraska, sugarcane in Brazil, because of the demands of the old world, not the new. Logistic systems must consider not only what is in the ground, but what could be in the ground and will be in the ground when all the producers of fuel, food, power, feed, chemicals and plastics must come to renewables to find their feedstocks. All of them will compete for biomass.

In fact, the more you succeed in your goal to reduce the cost and increase the yields of cellullosic production, the more tempting it will be for the makers of power, chemicals and plastics to come and take your feedstocks away. Everything has higher margins than fuel, excepting perhaps food. Everyone above fuel on the value chain will outbid for biomass, and food will outsquawk you.

So does the near-term future of biofuels lie in addressing value? It seems to me it must address values. What, in fact, are our priorities?

The market cannot always be counted on to solve the tragedy of the commons, and deciding priorities, and values, has a place in our debate right now.

Global petroleum demand is 1.3 trillion gallons and natural gas demand is at around 100 trillion cubic feet. The US Renewable Fuel Standard by 2022 replaces about 1 percent of that. At the global level, it will be a long time before biofuels are considered “critical” in terms of supplying our energy needs, and have first call on feedstocks. You will be heard, and respected, but a 1 percent transformation is not enough to control any near-term debate on climate change or energy security.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association campaign against ethanol, the EPA land use change debate, the Searchinger report — this is not the end, or even the beginning of the end. It is the beginning of the beginning.

And do not think for a second that, because cellulosic ethanol looks good on land use change, that you are “safe.” The debate will shift to freshwater, or something else, until you understand that this is all a proxy war over resource allocation and that titanic forces are at work, because in replacing 250 quadrillion BTUs of fossil petroleum and natural gas — let alone coal — many players will take the attitude that this is a game of musical chairs and play accordingly so that you, not they, are eliminated.

But you can win on the local level. You can mater to a community or to a county or even a state, and you already do. That is your future. You are thinking scale, and I believe that is the wrong direction. That is value economics and fuel will lose on value economics.

At large-scale, you are just another commodity made in some faraway town and few care in the way you want them too. Does anyone really think about the tragedy of Port Harcourt, Nigeria when they pump gasoline in Manhattan? Think about the worker conditions in the cane industry when they pump ethanol in Sao Paulo? All they think about is price, because that is all you have given them, because you are chasing scale, yield and ROI.

Think small. You do not matter in Manhattan very much, but you matter in Manhattan, Kansas a great deal. Why? In the movie “Milk” it was pointed out that, in a battle over civil liberties for gays, people who knew a gay person were 2-to-1 in favor, while those who did not were solidly opposed.

When you brother-in-law is employed at the ethanol plant, he cares. When your sister teaches children from farms raising energy crops, she cares. When your buddy at the 7-11 depends on the truck drivers delivering biomass for those extra sales, he cares.

Manhattan and Manhattan, Kansas are both governed by a national mandate but have vastly different stakes in the outcome in terms of their local economies. Is Manhattan, Kansas interested in biofuels solely because of cheap or cleaner-burning fuel? Are local economic incentives built around creating the value economics that flow from scale – or is this about a more holistic, yet more local, vision of wealth and opportunity creation?

When you are producing fuel of the community, by the community and for the community, you will find the success you deserve and are so close to achieving. You will also find a popularity and a support and understanding far beyond what you are experiencing now. In the community you will find stable supplies of feedstock and stable demand, and the economic case that will sustain you.

The minute you put your fuel on a train for California, you will find your troubles will mount, and mount.

Is your fuel sustainable? That is an important question. But more important: who does it sustain? Whose human dignity does it restore or improve? When you have that answer, you will know your market, and it will be based not only in value, but in values.

You think you are producing a commodity. But it is the community support that will sustain you when the food lobby, the chemicals lobby, the feed lobby and others serve up more and more of the “fear, uncertainty and doubt” that is making your growth difficult and your economic cycles hard to sustain.

For more information, please visit www.biofuelsdigest.com.

Copyright 2010; Biofuels Digest; All rights reserved

By DAVID MANTEY, Editor, PD&D

The situation is nothing to rival the coffee crisis of 2009 or the interoffice email crisis. We lost many good Cubites in the conflicts that ended with the dismantling of the Great Foam Wall.

Don’t feel the need to brace yourself for anything that drops the floor out from under you. It’s Wednesday, I have one toe dipped into the weekend pool, and I’m supposed to take it easy on Toyota because we’ve been hanging Corolla and Prius pelts from the PD&D website for the past two weeks.

After the Tiger feeding frenzy, it seems as though any news or opinions unrelated to mistresses, infidelity, sex addiction, staged press conferences and golf would merely help me brush up on my futility. Here it goes ...

The site of our latest office scandal hangs over an olive-colored bog wading through the aisles of a once great, now crumbling foam city. Pale-faced drones shuffle through the day with handkerchiefs wrapped around their noses as they dodge the gooey yellow yolk prepared in a toaster oven which, after its recent holiday installation, has threatened our senses with a sanity-gripping odor.

Similar to the canned tuna scare, the rampant egg preparation has divided the office into white collar gangs that verbally spar over open-concept kitchens and baby omelets made with hot sausage and onions (among other ingredients). Have you ever witnessed two collared factions throw down in a clash of khaki?

Passive aggressive sarcastic daggers fly, coffee machines and refrigerator space is hoarded, absolute lovable chaos typically lost in an office with an in-house human resources rep.

I too am a fan of the oval whites in moderation, but the red level of scrambling in this office has kept Wisconsin hens working nights to meet demand. We still have days in which a barren wasteland of empty cartons will drive the yolk-seekers into verbally abusive madness.

Wait, I just heard the timer sound. I hear the quick steps through the office. Brace yourselves, sweet readers, the toaster oven gates are about to be breached, and the pungent aroma may render me unconscious.

The little glass door opens. The Pyrex bowl is extracted. I force an exploratory sniff …

Minutes later ... I come to. Who makes a tuna omelet? Why is my palette salivating? My appetite is clearly in flux, but I’ll save the tuna/egg experimentation for a time with more bacon and less coworkers.

Sure, interoffice food preparation saves time and money. That is, if the preparation doesn’t drive the remaining able-bodied coworkers to a mad dash for the door, gasping for Midwestern fresh air.

I’ve plotted with a coworker for an emergency plan in the event of a great odious disaster. We have constructed a rope using remnant Ethernet cables and old mice and, in the event of a dozen-egg casserole, we will breach the window, billow out yellow SOS smoke signals and make a break for the parking lot below.

With yolk on my face, I bid you adieu. Here’s hoping appetites switch to something less noxious.

From Egg Crisis 2010, I’m David Mantey.

*Who wants to bet more people tuned into Tiger’s contrived apology than the state of the union? We have far greater issues than egg bakes, but they all leave behind an odor most foul. To place bets, email me at david.mantey@advantagemedia.com or comment below.

By MIKE RAINONE, Co-Founder, PCDworks

Many of you reading this column may work for a small business, or perhaps aspire to own one. 

Congratulations. According to Henry Paulson, Alan Greenspan and seemingly everyone else along the beltway, small businesses are the key to this nation's recovery.

Small businesses account for 52 percent of all the jobs in this country, and conventional wisdom says that if we can just get them to hire more people we can turn this thing around. Unfortunately, no one really has a plan to make that happen.

On a recent Sunday morning program, Paulson and Greenspan talked about how small business would be generating jobs, but admitted they didn’t know how those jobs would be created. That's when it dawned on me; they don’t understand where the business of small business comes from. 

It's like a cartoon scientist writing a complex formula on a board, but in the middle of the formula is a box that reads, “This is where the magic happens.” For economists, the magic is where the “orders” come from to feed the creation of jobs in small businesses. That’s the conundrum — small business owners seem to be an abstraction to those who govern our lives.

This should not surprise anyone. Paulson, for whom I have terrific respect — realizing that the collapse of Lehman Brother could actually provide a foretaste of the total collapse of the system — was the Chairman of Goldman Sachs, hardly a “small business.” Greenspan, the academic ideologue purveyor of gobbledygook and former Fed Chair, is the man who almost single-handedly dug the giant hole we're trying to dig out from. He wouldn’t know a small business person if I came up and bit him on the backside. 

Both of these men seem to believe small business owners would commit to hiring additional employees if they were more: a. taxes, b. healthcare, c. interest rates, d. financing, e. Jay vs. Dave, f. All of the above, g. None of the above.

In the interest of answering those towering questions, let’s go through these alleged impediments to investment by small business.

Do taxes keep me from hiring if I am a small business? Not on your life. If I have work, I will hire like a maniac to keep the customer happy. How about healthcare? I already pay an outrageous amount for healthcare for my employees; another employee to fulfill a contract is irrelevant. How about interest rates? Get a grip. I don’t care about interest rates as long as the work is coming in to keep my folks busy. 

What are the economists missing? Small business grows when it has places to sell its goods, and when others demand its products. But, what produces the demand? In many cases, demand comes from big business. In fact, much of what small businesses produce is related to larger businesses outsourcing production or services. In nearly every industry, there are large numbers of small businesses that exist primarily to service major corporations.

You'll notice I've skipped financing for small business. Of all of the macroeconomic factors that restrict small business, financing may be the key. The excuse du jour for tight credit is “credit constrained,” a euphemism for the fact that banks are avoiding small business lending like we all had the plague.

In a recent column, I optimistically stated that one of the tenants for small business success was to get to know your banker.  I told the happy story of a 10 year relationship with our banker who assured me his institution would be good for whatever was needed to help grow my newest company, Active Water Sciences (AWS).

Sadly, after passing nearly $2 million through that bank in the past year alone, I've been told even a small line of credit is impossible under "current constraints” — so much for perfect credit and long term relationships. 

Clearly, the lemmings that run banks have stopped running off the cliff into the ocean, they are now running around in circles. That same bank's board of directors forecast that 2010 was going to be a down year, and now they're doing everything they can to help create that future for themselves and the rest of us.

That’s one reason small businesses are having a tough time creating jobs. The primary reason is that until there is an increase in demand, there is no reason to hire.

Until big business begins to purchase more goods and services, small business has no reason to expand.  It seems we are stuck in a pretty nasty loop. Perhaps, this is where the federal government can make a difference.

When the President begins to allocate $30 billion from the TARP funds to small business, he will be seeding the very ground that will bear the fruit that will drive this recovery. Unlike banks, we won't put the stimulus money in an account to strengthen our balance sheets.

Unlike banks, we'll hire people to produce goods and services. Whether it's through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIRs) funding, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, NASA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD) or congressional set asides, as long as money gets into the hands of small businesses it will get distributed to the people who need it.

As an example, I point to AWS, a new wastewater processing company that has already sold $2 million in units to the U.S. Army. This technology was the result from one of the best sources of funding for unfulfilled needs, our federal government.

The Air Force realized the need for wastewater processing on its temporary operating bases, so they funded early research. When money ran out, they worked hard to pass it to the Army. The Army understood the need and continued to fund the development. As is often the case with our wonderful military, they were visionary.

As it turned out, this technology has applications beyond servicing our troops; it offers promise for disaster cleanup in places like Haiti for third world survival, or even for routine waste processing in this country. And by the way, when I say the Air Force and the Army funded the technology, I mean that it was a congressional set aside. It was pork.

So, the next time someone starts yelling about pork, remind them of the clean water being produced in Afghanistan, and perhaps the third world. Remind them of the small business that employs 20 plus people in Texas that is producing a technology that offers the potential to save the vulnerable from water borne diseases. Remind them that the federal government has a rightful role in the development of hard-to-finance, but important technologies that neither banks nor venture capital lemmings will touch because they are not glamorous or sexy. Remind them that one person’s pork is another’s pork chop.

That, Mr. Paulsen and Mr. Greenspan, is what feeds the engine of small business. We will be happy to create jobs and restart this economy, if you will just dust off your checkbooks.

Mike Rainone is the co-founder of PCDworks, a technology development firm specializing in breakthrough product innovation. Contact him at mrain1@pcdworks.com or visit www.pcdworks.com.