Major Industrial Development in Clinton

This is without a doubt a very interesting project. The short version is that ADM will be building a new corn-based plastics plant in Clinton. The plant will use microbial fermentation to produce PHA, a form of plastic that is microwave safe and biodegradable. The technology behind this stuff is pretty mind-boggling. It uses genetically modified bacteria (e. coli) to basically eat corn mash and crap out plastic. Economically, I daresay that this could be one of the most important things to happen to Clinton and Iowa in a long time.

Definitely very exciting. But is this really "sustainable" or "green" plastics production? Well, that's a bit more complicated. It is a process that does not turn oil into plastic but...

An August 2000 2000 Scientific American paper states that PHA production from corn was AT THAT TIME not very energy efficient:

In our most recent study, completed this past spring, we and our colleagues found that making one kilogram of PHA from genetically modified corn plants would require about 300 percent more energy than the 29 megajoules needed to manufacture an equal amount of fossil fuel-based polyethylene (PE). To our disappointment, the benefit of using corn instead of oil as a raw material could not offset this substantially higher energy demand.

Based on current patterns of energy use in the corn-processing industry, it would take 2.65 kilograms of fossil fuel to power the production of a single kilogram of PHA. Using data collected by the Association of European Plastics Manufacturers for 36 European plastic factories, we estimated that one kilogram of polyethylene, in contrast, requires about 2.2 kilograms of oil and natural gas, nearly half of which ends up in the final product. That means only 60 percent of the total--or 1.3 kilograms--is burned to generate energy.

Given this comparison, it is impossible to argue that plastic grown in corn and extracted with energy from fossil fuels would conserve fossil resources. What is gained by substituting the renewable resource for the finite one is lost in the additional requirement for energy. In an earlier study, one of us (Gerngross) discovered that producing a kilogram of PHA by microbial fermentation requires a similar quantity--2.39 kilograms--of fossil fuel. These disheartening realizations are part of the reason that Monsanto, the technological leader in the area of plant-derived PHA, announced late last year that it would terminate development of these plastic-production systems.

It is pretty much recognized in the agri-sciences and among serious economists that using corn (or other biomass) as substitutes for petroleum-based products, e.g. plastic, diesel fuel, present a conundrum: it takes more energy to produce the substitute product than it does to produce the petroleum-based product. One gets less energy out of the process than one puts in. Since almost all of our energy is produced through burning of fossil-fuels, especially oil and natural gas production of ethanol and biodiesel through current methods equal a net loss.

That said, Metabolix who owns the technology for the process to be used at the new plant, says they know this and are committed to production of PHA bio-based polymers and biomass energy. So, what is the current and future fuel of the ADM complex? Coal.

Now, this is a technology in it's infancy. A Google search for PHA plastic returns the Metabolix web page as the second hit. But Metabolix isn't (currently) in the business of building plants, right now they are just licensing their intellectual property. The shareholder's were probably not going to finance the whole enchilada; rail spur, biomass energy plant, PHA plant. Getting a return on their probably multimillion dollar R&D investment is their goal.

So, do we really need an inefficiently produced oil-substitute plastic product that will degrade in our landfills? Does it really advance the cause of American energy independence? Does it do anything to advance people's thinking about what they consume and how they consume? I'm thinking the answer to all these questions is, no. Not really. This kind of plastic really just helps perpetuate a throw-away culture of convenience über alles. Despite all the cool tech and the fact that it is made with renewable corn, it is really just the same old crap except that it dissolves in the ground when you throw it away. So, at the end of the day we are pouring millions of dollars and BTU's of irreplaceable fossil fuels into a process that basically takes corn and turns it into low-grade fertilizer.

That's the big picture. The realpolitik, what's in it for me Jack? side of the equation is much brighter. I mean, first of all this is a first-in-the-world project that is going up in Clinton, Iowa. When was the last time Clinton was first in the world at anything? We're talking about a lot of new jobs; highly skilled, white collar jobs for people with Ph.D.'s in biochemistry and genetics no less. How many jobs? Who knows? The possibility of Clinton attracting those kinds of jobs and those kinds of families to the city is not to be underestimated.

End-use production follows raw material production. Businesspeople - especially in an age of high transport costs - like to build their factories as close as possible to the raw materials. So, I would not be surprised to see some follow-on business growth due to this plant's operation.

See above for my general enthusiasm about Clinton being a world leader in something, especially something that is potentially a world-changing technology.