The following interview with Marco Mensink, Deputy Director General of the Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI), was conducted by GHG Monitor Reporter Karen Frantz.
An article recently published in the Economist outlines how CEPI developed eight concepts for a new way of making paper that could reduce energy needs and carbon emissions. Can you explain how the different paper companies that make up CEPI came together to cooperate and collaborate in this process?
Four years ago, Europe launched the 2020 climate package, and then two-and-a-half years ago, the European Commission launched a 2050 view on climate policy. Then as part of that discussion, the European Commission invited sectors to also make their own 2050 roadmaps, which we did. We were the first industrial sector to do so: to look at demographics, look at markets, look at future forecasts for whatever it’s worth, then decided that the key conclusion was that if we would have to de-carbonize, we by 2050 could go to minus 50 percent of CO2 emissions compared to 1990, but not to the minus 80% indicated in the policy for 2050. Because the technology isn’t there. And that led to a common target for the roadmap, minus 80 percent CO2 emissions but also 50 percent more value to pay for these investments.
So a year ago, we had two teams put in place with companies, suppliers, customers—complete strangers—and they got a year to come back with breakthrough technology concepts. I was in one of the teams, my colleague in the other team, red against blue. And what was presented two weeks ago was the outcome of those two teams: eight breakthrough concepts, of which the Deep Eutectic Solvents the Economist talked about is just one. But in total there are eight concepts for breakthrough tech.
That’s a very long story in a very short summary.
Could you briefly go through the different ideas that you came up with?
If you look in the report, which is downloadable on our website, you’ll see that there’s an overview of eight concepts, with a very short summary of each. But if you look at it, the winning concept is taken from the way plants operate when they have no water or when it’s freezing. It’s a coping technology based on plant chemistry.
Then there’s two concepts based on the use of steam instead of air and water in machine and there’s a fourth concept based on supercavitation, which leads to paper making without water. Then there’s a concept for supercritical CO2, which is really interesting, and there’s one on the way we can be part of the electricity grids in the future of Europe. There’s one on the functionality of light weighting and the proposal pretty much to reorganize the statistics in the sector as well, presenting our production in square meters next to tons to be able to show correctly the improvements in our fibre use.
And there’s the last one which is a tool box of things that you need to combine in order to get somewhere. It is a combination of “stepping stones”—technologies that do not make it on their own, but will bring you further when combined in the right order.
Why did you decide to name a technology winner?
The thinking behind it is that if you have one team designing these breakthrough concepts, then you have a set of consultants, you get a report. And in order to push people outside of their normal “box,” we also wanted to create an innovative environment in which the project took place. So we had two teams competing. We really did not know until the very end what the other team was proposing. If you want two teams competing, you need to have a jury and a winner. And the prize in that sense is nothing else than eternal fame. In the end, the idea was always that the industry should win and not the teams. But it was a real competition. The innovative concept worked well.
Is there any formal commitment among the groups that you represent to adopt this coping technology once it’s been further developed?
No, because that’s not the way innovation works either. So what we already see is that several consortia are forming their own different technologies. There are combinations of companies and suppliers who will work on a number of the concepts.
And I think in that sense, in the next phase, the market and industry in the end will decide which of the eight, or maybe there’s a number nine we haven’t seen yet, will make it into reality into full scale commercial. But it’s very hard to predict because the concepts will have to be researched, and go through pilot and demo stage before starting deployment. Some are available earlier than others. But it’s the companies—and in that sense the market—which will decide what so many years from now has been the real breakthrough technology. Although, of course, we declared the winner because we think it’s a very good one.
Who led the charge in starting the competition?
CEPI did. So if you look at CEPI, we represent the European paper industry, meaning, there are 820 mills in Europe. There’s a few outside certainly, but 96 percent is more or less covered by CEPI. We have the CEOs of the European companies in our board. So the decision was taken by the majority of CEOs production-wise because in our board there’s about 70 percent of all European production covered. And they asked us to organize it, which we did.
Was there any reluctance among any of the companies that you represent?
No, what we had to do was to create a very clear and straight IPR NDA legal framework. But once that was done, there was no reluctance whatsoever. And actually, the companies are extremely supportive and pleased with the way it’s gone.
Was there any concern about how this effort might affect competition among the companies that you represent?
We specifically focused on 2030. And I have to go a bit back into the roadmap, then. Because 2050, if you look at it, it’s two investment cycles away, paper technology-wise. And I think this applies to all large industries. And you’re two investment cycles away, that means that if you want to by 2050 be were where you want to be, you have to have new technology available by 2030 because of the cycle to reinvest and your existing investment cycle. So by focusing on 2030, we, I would say, went beyond where our direct competition is. And we clearly defined in the startup of the project that what we will deliver are competitive concepts.
So what you have is ideas for breakthrough technologies, and ideas for application in as much detail as we can. But the companies will compete for the implementation of these ideas. This is where CEPI’s role stops. And a number of these concepts, you can call high-risk high-reward. It’s those companies who will move first who have the advantage. But we identified the areas where you need to look for breakthroughs together. And there was not a discussion on competition there.
Where did the funding for the competition come from? Did it come from equal parts from all of the companies that you represent?
No, we paid. CEPI paid for it.
Where does your funding come from?
We are funded by national associations and were indirectly funded by the European pulp and paper companies. But this project we did from our own resources and because we thought that was really important. There was no dedicated company funding. And most actually was spent on organizing the discussions, the brainstorms and the legal framework. I would say that’s the quick sum of it.
Did you have any help with funding from the government at all?
None.
Was there some concern that government involvement might hinder the process? Why was there no interest in going for government funding?
I don’t know to be honest. We just moved forward. I think what you see many times is that funding by governments is organized in structures: the applications with forums, with rules, et cetera, et cetera. And if you invent a project which does not fit the normal structures, it is difficult. A normal government funding would fund a report, they would never fund two teams because it sounds like duplicating the cost. I’m not sure the current structures are built for projects like this. So that’s why we did it ourselves.
But if you look at innovations, without governments no GPS, without governments in that sense, no Iphone. There’s a lot of government involvement in innovation throughout history. But I think they should take that role again.
What are the next steps? Are you planning on having additional competitions like this?
After the roadmap was written, it took us a year to travel through the sector itself, make presentations and get the knowledge as in many places as we could. That’s what we’re going to do now again for a year. At the same time, we’re licensing out, because the IPR now developed in this project is owned by CEPI to the extent that we own five patents on these concepts.
What about companies that aren’t part of your trade organization. Would they also have access to the technology?
The license is given to those in the teams plus the pulp and paper mills in Europe.
So right now these ideas are pretty much in the pilot stage. How long do you imagine it would take to actually implement them and use them on a commercial scale?
Our target is 2030, so 15 years.
And the thinking is that that’s a realistic goal by 2030?
Yes. For eight concepts now in the report, I think that’s a realistic goal, all eight of them. I’m not saying all eight of them will make it into final reality. We look at existing university research—it might be brand new, but you can feel it and touch it at your finger tips, which means we think the 15-year turn is realistic if you want to go to full-scale commercial implementation.
Having said that, at some stage, as we discussed before, we didn’t ask for government support to do this because it’s our future and we wanted to move ourselves. But you’re going to come into a phase where there’s a first move of risk and we’ll need to organize de-risking so that the first company actually will start doing this and the same with pilots or demos.
Do you think that there are other industries that might adopt your approach as well after seeing your success?
I think they can. And I don’t know if they want to, but I think they can because the framework is there.
Have you had interest from other industries in your process?
Yes, definitely. Yes, there’s a network of sectors here in Europe who have industrial roadmaps where we’ve been presenting. And also from the political level we’ve got quite a lot of attention. So yes, indeed.
