Technology investment cost savings

So far, no scientific extrapolation has been published on the cost savings for the chemical industry when using micro reactors. Industrial experience is also not known at least, it has not been communicated. Thus, one is boimd to rely on expert opinions given in the press and trade press. Mostly these come from suppliers of the technology, aiming to convince industry of the benefits of their systems, by prognosis of a return on investment. Considering the pharmaceutical R D efforts of the order of US 50 billion worldwide, CPC/Mainz sees a potential for an increase in profit of more than US 15 billion if micro reactors are implemented consequently [246]. 

The technology is widely applied fine chemicals, pharma, food, polymers. New applications are in the field of materials production (nanomaterials, zeolites). Energy savings and occasionally, because of the much shorter process times, space savings can be substantial. Barriers are investment costs, reactor design (increase of efficiency, irradiation depth on the scale of cms, safety as the radiation is dangerous), limited knowledge of the physical properties of the materials to be processed (dielectric properties). 

The investment cost for a conventional pyrometallurgical plant is about U.S. 11,000,000, whereas the cost for the CX-EWS technology is about U.S. 15,000,000. The investment cost difference, however, is amortised within a relatively short period considering the significant savings in the operating cost. 

It was concluded that the SOFC power unit would become competitive at an investment cost below 1,500 /kW, e.g., at a stack cost of around 500 /kW. There should be cost-saving potential by especially simplifying the control system, whereas it was presumed that the cost reduction potential for the power electronics would depend on the general cost development within the technology. 

The cost saving in PET bottle production by co-injection technology, using an inexpensive polymer layer, is about 20% as calcidated in Table 1. The calculation includes a higher investment cost of machinery for the co-injection technology as compared to the monolayer bottle production which employs less... 

---