Listen: Are PFAS critical for renewable energy?

View Full Transcript

Vincent Valk:
Hi, and welcome to the Chemical Week podcast. I'm Vincent Valk. This is a bit of a special episode because we are cross-posting it with the Energy Evolution Podcast, another great show produced by S&P Global Commodity Insights. Today's episode has been produced by the Energy Evolution team, and we'll bring you a fascinating discussion around the intersection of energy and chemicals, particularly a look at the use of PFAS in renewable energy applications. Joining me is Taylor Kuykendall, host of Energy Evolution, a show about the latest innovations, trends and challenges in the energy sector. Taylor, before we get started with the episode, could you tell our listeners a bit about energy evolution and some of the topics you've covered recently?

Taylor Kuykendall:
So, we're a podcast focused on all things energy transition, and we really look at the business side of what the world's doing about climate change. In just the last few weeks, we've looked at what the European Union's Rightward shift means for energy, some interesting news, semiconductor technology for electric vehicles, micronuclear reactors that you can put on the back of a truck and take to wherever they're needed. But also the interplay between renewables and say the oil and gas industries, which has been kind of an interesting discussion. But also the need to go out and mine a wide array of minerals that are going to be needed in the energy transition.

Vincent Valk:
And how often do you publish episodes?

Taylor Kuykendall:
Well, barring the occasional holiday, we're out and ready every Friday morning. Clearly they do have some really good taste. So, I hope a few of your listeners will come and give us a shot.

Vincent Valk:
And if you do want to take Taylor up on that and check out Energy Evolution, you can find it on major podcast platforms such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. So, please do go check it out and subscribe. So, in today's episode, Energy Evolution correspondent, Camilla Naschert, spoke to some very interesting guests about PFAS chemicals and their use in renewable energy applications. Most of our audience is probably at least somewhat familiar with PFAS or polyfluoroalkyl substances, and the litigation and health concerns around these substances. It's become a major public health issue around the world and the subject of legal settlements in the US worth billions of dollars. But something you may not know about PFAS is that it is often used in renewable energy. And I'll confess that I tend to associate PFAS with packaging and films, maybe electronics. So, Taylor, could you just briefly tell us where PFAS is used in the renewable energy sector?

Taylor Kuykendall:
Well, it turns out because of some of their unique chemical properties that PFAS has found in a lot of renewable energy tech, for example, they're used in the membranes and dividers and fuel cells, solar panel films, and also in lithium batteries. But honestly, I had no idea that was the case until pretty recently. Camilla did a really great job of rounding up guests to share how PFAS plays a role in energy transition. Let's give it a listen.

Camilla Naschert:
As Vincent said, there's a vast array of use cases for PFAS. But for our purposes, it's key to note that they're also in semiconductors, fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries, electrolyzers heat pumps, so many of the energy transition technologies. 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. And 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 restriction on PFAS, which was published earlier this month. RISE worked 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 this 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 of 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 than the human health perspective. It does actually take into account 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 time frame 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:
Given that, I wanted to know how she 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 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 a accumulating in the environment. And the CF 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 way 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:
Yeah. 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 the 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 this 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 the vision 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, 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 spinner 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 supports science-based regulations and data-driven regulations. So, when you think about regulation, the first thing is that we need to make sure that are 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 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 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 U.S. 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 thermo-oxidizers. And these thermo-oxidizers are equipments, but it's 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 install a thermo-oxidizer in one of our facilities in North Carolina. And what we invest there was around a $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 lies 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 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 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, not bringing that particular function that PFAS can do, but similar functions. So, it's surface properties that what you are aiming for. And there are of course other companies and other products that provide surface technology. So, what they have been doing now is to try 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'm works 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 health 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 a 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. And 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 and 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 they need only one special characteristic from these materials, and all the other characteristics are not necessary. But in 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 some of these degraded materials are coming in the environment. Because that was one of the first question as I getting into contact with my colleagues from the water industry. They said to me, "Please tell us, how many of these materials will come 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, there exists 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 to find a solution, a good solution, or a practicable solution. That is also the other thing.

Vincent Valk:
Thanks, Camilla. And thanks to the Energy Evolution team for putting this together. And this is Vincent Valk signing off for Chemical Week.