Brett Heintz
METHANOL STEAM REFORMING: ETHICAL PROCESSES CONCERNING BYPRODUCT EXPOSURE
Brett Heintz ()
4
Brett Heintz
CLEAN ENERGY: HYDROGEN ENERGY FROM BIOGAS
For decades, our economy has thrived on the use of fossil fuels, yet as our dependence on technology increases the need for cleaner energy solutions becomes all the more prominent. Hydrogen will allow us the opportunity to continue living our modern lifestyles while making a minimal impact on the environment; thus, the clean energy that hydrogen offers is the solution to our future, making it a significant topic of research.
Produced from natural resources such as water, fossil hydrocarbon, biogas, and municipal waste [1], hydrogen is the answer to our clean energy crisis, providing an extremely efficient, pollution eliminating fuel [2]. As hydrogen energy becomes more popular and its production reaches a larger scale, selection of raw materials will become increasingly important in effective hydrogen production. Biogas, composed mostly of methane from the decomposition of waste and sewage, is one of the most efficient sources of hydrogen [3]. Three main processes are used to extract hydrogen from biogas including steam reforming, dry reforming, and partial oxidation, all of which give off hydrogen along with a syngas which can then be reformed into usable fuel [4]. Steam reforming, the most efficient of these processes, will likely become an irreplaceable source of hydrogen due to its noninvasive effect on the environment. Just as any other relatively ground breaking form of energy, the steam reforming process will not go without accusation as it relies on the chemical transposition of a few potentially hazardous materials, carbon monoxide in particular. Therefore, examining the reforming process and its potential dangers holds a position of upmost importance as it raises questions of ethical standings. One process in answering such questions, involving danger posed by a theoretical scenario, will be examined and assessed through both an ethical and scientific approach within the following.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ETHICAL CONFLICT WITHIN STEAM REFORMING
Utilizing the steam reforming method as a source of hydrogen is an important technique that, with an energy efficiency of up to 70% [5], will prove to be a vital energy source. Once the steam reforming technique is widely industrialized, it will provide an immense quantity of usable energy, making it irreplaceable even in potentially dangerous situations. Not only does steam reforming boast a high energy efficiency, but it also reduces the amount of pollutants in the environment as its reactants are generally composed of 60% methane (CH4) and 40% carbon dioxide (CO2) [3]. Therefore, the transposition of biogas to hydrogen and syngas (carbon monoxide, orCO), through steam reforming, effectively reduces pollution causing substances. These exact characteristics that make steam reforming a desirable hydrogen production method add a layer of complexity during ethically charged situations.
Consider a scenario in which a large hydrogen production plant located in an urban area with a high population density discovers a problem during a weekly inspection. The plant’s main production area consists of two central chambers where the first chamber facilitates the following reaction.
CH4+H2O→CO+3H2 [3].
This reaction between methane (CH4) and water (H2O) takes place in the first chamber where the products, hydrogen (H2) and a reformable syngas(CO), are formed. These products are then separated in order that the hydrogen enters a storage device and the syngas (carbon monoxide) is sent to a second chamber to undergo another chemical reaction yielding more hydrogen. The problem is found between the two chambers where a leak in the separation process is releasing carbon monoxide to the outside environment at a high rate. While the hazardous gas is leaking, the plant continues to produce hydrogen at a high rate of efficiency. Thus, management decides to continue production until a replacement part can be acquired. Such a scenario involving the leakage of a toxic gas is sure to foster ethical concerns for at least one of the parties involved.
ETHICAL CONTENT AND EVALUATION PROCESSES OF THE SCENARIO
Both engineers and business professionals are subject to questions of ethical content at one time or another. In order to label this hypothetical scenario as one which creates an ethically charged situation, it is essential to define ethical conflict within the professional world.
Ethical Conflict and Standards in Profession
Ethical conflict within engineering differs from that of other professional fields in that “non-technical ethical” conflict assumes the action of an “individual” whereas ethical situations in engineering and technology involve disagreements within “collective settings” [6]. In context, management’s decision to continue production at the plant may involve discrepancies between engineers who are familiar with the process, safety professionals who understand the dangers involved in the leakage of carbon monoxide, and business professionals who are concerned with profit and company standings. From the point of view of an engineer, standards for ethical integrity are fundamental aspects of the field and should be considered as a professional guideline. Consequently, if an ethical opposition occurs at any point during a process, it should be assessed and considered before each of the parties involved. A general Code of Ethics for Engineers, set by the National Society of Professional Engineers, acts as a starting point for any questionable scenario.
The Code of Ethics for Engineers and its Application
Upon examining the scenario, it is apparent that the plant’s continued production is both a vital source of energy for the community and, as a result of the escaping gas, a hazard to the environment and the health of local residents. In order to determine whether management’s decision to continue producing hydrogen is ethical, the first fundamental cannon of the Code of Ethics for Engineers must be examined. It states, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” [7]. In deciding whether this cannon is being upheld by our company, the situation shall be inspected in detail so that the significance the carbon monoxide leak is exposed.
To determine the severity of the leak, former knowledge of carbon monoxide and its effects on human health must be utilized and, if necessary, research should be conducted for further clarification. Knowing that carbon monoxide is hazardous and, in instances of excessive exposure, can lead to death, further examination of the effects of CO exposure is necessary. As further research explains, excessive carbon monoxide exposure, having both long and short term effects, can lead to “severe headaches” and “nausea” along with “convulsions, respiratory arrest, and death” occurring “at levels higher than 30%” [8]. Therefore, the rate of the leak is vital in determining the level of risk at hand. Even though the leak continues to expel CO at a high rate, the diffusion of gas into the environment will not produce levels high enough for death; thus, investigating a case study involving the effects of CO on urban civilians will provide clues to this potential health danger.
Choosing a case study in which CO levels in the lungs of urban residence are compared with those of rural residence will shed light on the potential impact that the leak may have. One such study, comparing rural Mongolian children to Mongolian children living in a polluted urban area, found that children living in the urban area had a significantly higher level of CO toxin in their lungs than that of the rural children [9]. This study, which provides proof that CO released to the open environment is significant enough to induce damaging health effects, is important in addressing the first fundamental cannon of the code of ethics. In conclusion, the CO leak from the production plant threatens the health of the general public thus, the cannon is not fulfilled defining this situation as unethical.
Application of the AIChE Code of Ethics
After consulting the ethical codes from the National Society of Professional Engineers, it is important to consider the scenario from a specific, applicable field of study. In this way, each discipline strives to conform not only to the general cannons of the previously examined code but also to codes which complement each specific engineering field. Considering the scenario, the codes set by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers will act as a second guideline to this process as the production of hydrogen in this situation is based upon a chemical reaction. While considering these goals, it is important to pay close attention to their direct application to the scenario in order to determine their usefulness.
In examining the first two goals, it is apparent that the first goal, which exclaims that engineers “Shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” [10], has already been broken as it is directly related to the first cannon – which was previously discussed. In this manor, the first goal of the AIChE code of ethics strengthens the argument created by the first cannon declaring the decision to release CO unethical.
The second goal, which focuses on the concept that ethics in engineering occurs in a group setting [6], accentuates the importance of communication stating that engineers, “Shall formally advise their employers or clients if they perceive that a consequence of their duties will adversely affect the present or future health or safety of their colleagues or the public” [10]. In other words, engineers are obligated to communicate the danger of the CO leak – which has been established thoroughly -- to management. With that said, communication, which is vital to solving this dilemma, proves the usefulness of the second goal of the AIChE codes of ethics while providing a route to the solution of the dilemma.
Other Sources and Their Applications
Now that an ethical scenario has been successfully identified, it is imperative that some sort of action toward successful communication is taken. Although the leak of CO proves to have an impact on human health, thus breaking two codes of ethics, it may be necessary to consult other sources. These sources will help determine a plan of action before communication with management, a necessity by the second goal of the AIChE code of ethics, can occur.
In order to create a valid plan, it is important to understand management’s decision to continue production in the event of a leak. Specific sources, focused on ethics from a business standpoint, reveal that “economic desperation often creates environments for increased risks” [11]. Likewise, management’s decision to continue production could be purely based on necessity as the plant provides much of the area with energy. Shutting the plant down may cause larger economic problems. That being said, the plant’s extremely high energy efficiency and its ability to continue to acquire profit are both valid reasons for its continued production; therefore, both causes deserve to be investigated before producing a plan of action.
In examining the probable motives behind management’s decisions, two groups of research must be considered. First, to determine the importance of the plant as an energy source for the community, other sources of energy within the area should be examined and assessed based on their energy output and usage within the community. Second, communication with the general public regarding their consumption of energy and affiliation with the company will be useful as it can be easily gathered through conversation with acquaintances. Information from each of these sources will conclude whether the plant must stay open or if it may be shut down until the replacement part arrives, adding another supporting layer to the ethical dilemma.
THE ETHICAL DECISION
The compilation of information is quite possibly the most crucial step in analyzing this ethically charged scenario as it leads to completion of the second goal of the AIChE code of ethics – formal communication with employers or clients [10]. Although this goal is quite challenging and possibly intimidating, the communication of ethical conflict is widely endorsed throughout many areas of the professional world. One author states, “A safety professional who chooses not to do the right thing is making a personal and wrong choice; however, not being able to do the right thing is typically an organizational choice” [11]. In this way, communication of the previous findings must take place as a personal and ethical choice based on both the AIChE codes and general professional standing. Similarly, if management does not agree with these findings after they are presented, the situation is no longer an individual responsibility but it becomes the responsibility of the company itself.
In conclusion, both cannons and goals of the National Society of Professional Engineers and of the AIChE code of ethics, together with research, provide adequate information for an ethical conflict. The disagreements with the codes and other supporting research provide proof that the continued production of hydrogen even during the leak of carbon monoxide can be considered unethical. In the words of Barry Salzberg, Global CEO of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, “If you conclude that it is unethical, [or] inappropriate I think it’s your responsibility to say no” [12]. The final step to this process must be taken as the communication of unethical findings to management is both a personal and professional responsibility.