“The trick is to have the heat in the right place at the right time.”

The transformation of thermal process technology is progressing more slowly than hoped—yet research continues unabated. Joachim Kahn, Technical and Standardization Advisor at VDMA Metallurgy & Thermoprocessing and Managing Director of the Research Association for Industrial Furnace Construction (FOGI), offers a candid assessment in an interview with PROZESSWÄRME: Where is progress stalling, where are breakthroughs emerging—and why would now be the wrong time to take our foot off the innovation gas pedal?

PW: Mr. Kahn, a year ago you described the industrial transformation as the “moment of truth.” Has the truth lived up to your expectations?

Joachim Kahn: Unfortunately not to the extent we had hoped. The expected breakthrough in thermal process technology has not materialized. The tense global economic situation has slowed rather than accelerated the catch-up process, and the conditions for resolving the investment backlog have not fundamentally improved.

PW: Where exactly is the problem?

Kahn: In several areas at once. Global trade conflicts and crises are pushing the issue of climate protection into the background. What we clearly recognize is that the days of cheap energy, stable supply chains, and reliable global prices are definitively over. For many industrial companies, the consistent use of renewable energy is therefore increasingly becoming a matter of economic survival. Those who can invest now have significant advantages.

PW: But that also massively increases the pressure to innovate.

Kahn: Absolutely. It’s no longer enough to supply standard technology. The systems must be digital, networked, and ideally fossil-free—or at least prepared for hydrogen. Anyone investing today must think in terms of 20-year time frames. This is both an opportunity and a challenge: The pressure to innovate forces us to set the right course now. But that’s exactly what German and European plant manufacturers have traditionally been good at.

PW: Is the new federal government sending the right signals to turn this pressure to innovate into progress through funding?

Kahn: I don’t currently see any fundamental shift in research priorities or funding policies. The budget situation caused some delays and rescheduling, but things have since stabilized. The 2026 federal budget allocates 178.5 million euros for collaborative industrial research. In politically turbulent times, this represents a welcome continuity—it could have been worse. However, it’s clear that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, had higher expectations of the new government, because the focus remains very strongly on large-scale industry. The somewhat smaller thermal processing sector isn’t always at the center of attention. The key will be whether the government succeeds in actually moving forward with the planned infrastructure measures—the expansion of modern transportation systems, the strengthening of the green power grid, and the rapid development of a hydrogen infrastructure. If so, there would be justified hope that many of the innovations currently still in the research stage will be implemented industrially in the near future.

PW: How has FOGI positioned itself in this environment?

Kahn: In 2025, FOGI further sharpened its profile as an independent research association within the field of collaborative industrial research. Organizational responsibility remains, as has proven effective , with the VDMA Metallurgy & Thermoprocessing division and the Research Board for Mechanical Engineering. Since 2021, our funding volume has been in the range of approximately 1.8 million euros, and according to the current budget, it is now rising to over 2.2 million euros. This demonstrates that the importance of our research is growing. Since 2022, we have successfully completed fourteen projects, and seventeen additional projects are currently underway. The focus areas range from new heat sources to numerical models and innovative high-temperature materials. In addition, we use our own funds to finance meta-studies—for example, on the carbon footprint of thermal plants and on the potential of carbon capture technologies in thermal processing. The latter has just been completed and will be published shortly.

PW: On the topic of carbon capture, the federal government has paved the way with the Carbon Storage Act. Will this now spur more activity in research?

Kahn: Yes, definitely. The “TPT 4 CCUS” study provides a detailed analysis of the potential of CCU and CCS technologies for our industry. What’s particularly exciting is that, in the scenarios examined, we use renewable carbon carriers, which leads to a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions. Politically, the issue hasn’t received much support for a long time, but things are picking up again right now. With studies like this, we’re also trying to encourage other companies to join the FOGI.

PW: Last year, you mentioned ammonia as a major research focus. How far has research progressed in that area?

Kahn: We’ve delved very deeply into ammonia, with a large number of projects, including key technology projects. A particular highlight is the “TherMonia” project, which investigates how ammonia, as an alternative fuel, affects flame formation, process stability, and material behavior. The biggest technical challenges lie in ignition behavior and minimizing nitrogen oxides. In addition, we’re exploring hybrid solutions—mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas—as well as furnaces that can be powered by both gas and electricity. Ammonia, however, is a challenging substance: it’s toxic, highly caustic, and corrosive. That’s why we’re funding a meta-study from our own resources on the safe handling of ammonia in the thermal processing industry, which is scheduled to be completed by fall 2026.

PW: Speaking of electricity—there’s been a lot of euphoria in recent years. Hasn’t disillusionment set in in many places in the meantime?

Kahn: Not disillusionment, but a more nuanced perspective. In the light metals sector, electrification makes sense and is feasible—there were already large electric plants in the 1970s and 1980s, which were later converted back to gas. This is primarily a question of economic viability. In the iron and steel industry, the situation is different at high temperatures: there are processes where electrification simply doesn’t make sense, either technically or in terms of the process itself. The glass industry is moving strongly toward electrification using capacitive processes. But it’s not as simple as it sounds at first glance. Replicating the energy density of hydrogen or natural gas electrically is an enormous challenge. The plants become large and maintenance-intensive; I need many sensors and sophisticated control technology.

PW: Another option is plasma as a heat source. How far are we from industrial implementation?

Kahn: We’ve just had another project on this approved by FOGI. The question is: Which application do I want to focus on? Do I want to replace one burner or hundreds? How much energy do I need? It’s similar to hydrogen: Technically, we’re pretty sure it’s feasible. But we need someone brave enough to install it. That’s also where research reaches its limits—now it’s all about entrepreneurial ingenuity. What can I do with it, and how do I use it for my processes? As long as gas remains the easier alternative, the pressure to switch is limited. On the other hand, I need innovative electric solutions to bring the energy transition to a successful conclusion.

PW: Where do you see the most promising paths for innovation?

Kahn: For me, there’s enormous potential in looking at entire process chains. It’s of little use to optimize a single process step if I keep cooling the component down in between and then heating it up again. We conducted a modeling project that yielded good results for very different applications—copper strip production and aluminum can manufacturing. If we can implement in the factory what the simulation identifies as the ideal scenario, there’s still a lot of room for savings. In some cases, process times are still too long, temperatures too high, and buffers too large. Heat recovery, better insulation materials, and smart energy use on-site—there’s still a lot of potential to tap into. And if you then combine all of this with AI and let the system optimize itself, the effect is multiplied.

PW: So the research motto is: move away from focusing on individual furnaces—toward a holistic view of the entire factory

Kahn: Exactly. Heat losses occur in all sorts of places: open doors and gates, poor ventilation systems, thermal afterburning in the exhaust gas treatment system. Then there are the ancillary processes—drying scrap before it enters the furnace, drying washed components afterward. The trick is to have the heat in the right place at the right time. Most of the time, I have it at the front of the smelter, and I’m short on it at the back. Internal logistics also play a role: How often do parts sit around far too long, cool down, and could actually already be processed further? And then there’s the question of how to intelligently manage the energy supply at the site—during lunchtime, when electricity is expensive, perhaps running on gas, and using cheaper electricity to keep things warm during the night shift.

PW: The “Flexible Furnace Operating Modes” project brought together materials research and furnace engineering. What came of it?

Kahn: That was a prime example of cross-industry collaboration. Materials researchers from Darmstadt and furnace builders from Aachen jointly investigated the behavior of radiant heating tubes. By combining simulation calculations with measurement data on

temperature and time-dependent stresses, we were able to make qualitative statements about creep deformation and identify operating modes that preserve the service life of the components. A lot of what we do is based on experience, and I’m glad when projects back up this long-standing experience with numbers, data, and facts. That’s the way to avoid oversizing and become more sustainable.

PW: Additive manufacturing is another topic of the future. Where do you see potential for thermal process technology in this area?

Kahn: There is certainly a broader range of applications for metal 3D printing—bionic structures for automation technology, robotic systems, and grippers. What I personally would strongly favor is the combination of additive manufacturing and casting: I produce the mold using additive manufacturing and then cast the metal into it using traditional methods. That way, I have the design freedom of additive manufacturing but don’t need the expensive powder for every single part. Metal printing itself is energy-intensive and requires expensive laser systems. It’s fantastic for prototypes and small production runs, but when it comes to large-scale production, casting tends to be more cost-effective.

PW: Speaking of flexibility—the days of mass production seem to be over.

Kahn: Exactly. In the past, an automaker would produce several million units of a specific engine per year. That’s no longer the case, simply due to competition and new technologies. Foundries and heat treatment facilities must adapt to remain profitable even with smaller batch sizes. That’s where modularity and scalability come into play. Start with a smaller volume, then add two or three more lines to handle the peak, and when the next order comes in, I take one back out. These are the issues that matter in Germany right now, because we have to seek out the niches where we’re leaders. Run-of-the-mill business is increasingly shifting to Eastern Europe or Asia.

PW: Last year, you complained that excessive compliance was stifling innovation. Has anything changed in that regard?

Kahn: There have been some positive developments within FOGI and in our collaboration with the new project sponsor. We’ve established a high degree of transparency, hold joint workshops, and with the introduction of the THEMIS database, every company can conduct its own research and view all presentations and final reports. Thanks to many years of collaboration on leading-edge technology projects, a relationship built on deep trust has developed among the research institutions—characterized by healthy competition for projects, but also by leveraging each other’s strengths.

PW: If you were to take stock honestly today, where does the industry stand on the path to climate-neutral production?

Kahn: Climate-neutral production must happen on a global scale. It’s pointless if we scale back industry here while production continues elsewhere using outdated technology. The scientific community in Germany and European plant manufacturers took on these challenges early on and developed solutions that are now ready for industrial use. Market readiness is achieved through practical application, and if there are still some teething problems to iron out—that’s just part of the daily routine for German engineers. Even if the path to climate neutrality seems longer than expected, I am confident that Germany will continue to play a leading role in thermal process technology. But real progress must be made over the next two to three years: power grids for renewables, hydrogen and ammonia infrastructure, and then the transition to practical application. Those who do their homework and drive innovation during times of crisis will be at the forefront when the economy picks up again.

PW: Thank you very much, Mr. Kahn.