What’s more energy efficient: an elephant or an ant?

It’s not a trick question—biologists will tell you that pound for pound, ants are the champions of efficiency. They’re small, focused, work in smart networks, and don’t waste energy on being unnecessarily large.

So why, in the glass industry, do we keep building elephants?

Several years ago—more as an intriguing title than a provocation—I wrote that the only future for the glass industry is full electric. Since then, I’ve had the privilege of contributing to numerous electrification projects and, through my role at Schneider Electric, have been at the forefront of what I call “full switching” for many years.

This topic continues to occupy my thoughts. Not just because of commercial interests, but because I deeply believe that the glass industry deserves to survive. Glass packaging may be one of the only materials without serious health concerns—but that’s not where I want to go with this story today.

Years ago, it was suggested—not only by me—that instead of scaling up, we should consider scaling down. We all know that larger fossil-fired furnaces are typically more energy-efficient than their smaller counterparts. But then, how do we explain the survival—indeed, the success—of countless smaller, all-electric soda-lime glass melters? These furnaces continue to operate because they are incredibly energy efficient and commercially viable.

That raises a fundamental question:

If we are moving toward electrification, why are we still building bigger and bigger furnaces?

 The answers are understandable:

·      We want to reuse existing steelwork.

·      We want to keep our forehearth layout.

·      We expect the same flexibility in pull, color, and cullet rate.

I invite you to add your own arguments in the comments—I’m genuinely curious.

But…

Should we not (yes, I’ll say it) think outside the big furnace box?

Let me challenge you with a concept—not entirely new, but worth revisiting:

Imagine an all-electric melter using green electricity.

Pull rate around 140 TPD.

A single longer forehearth, conditioning the glass perfectly for a large tandem IS triple-gob machine.

Designed for 24/7 operation, seven years non-stop, with fixed pull, fixed color, and fixed cullet rate.

No flexibility—just maximum energy efficiency.

Now imagine having three or four of these units running side by side, each tailored for a different color or cullet rate. Together, they match the output of a single 500+ TPD end-port furnace.

No batch house?

What if raw material suppliers could deliver pre-mixed pellets, optimized for cold-top electric melting?

No filters, no stacks.

We could even move production closer to bottlers, eliminating bulk transport, pelletizers, and packaging steps.

With a 6–7 year operational lifetime, the melter lifecycle aligns with minor and major IS-machine overhauls. Furnace repair? Four weeks offline, while the others keep running.

Yes, I hear your concerns:

We need flexibility. Breweries demand it. Long contracts are rare. Color changes are essential. Cullet supply is unstable.

But are these arguments really valid in a world where decarbonization is no longer optional?

Isn’t it time we question the logic we’ve followed for the past 80 years?

 Is risk aversion and conservatism holding us back? Could it ultimately endanger the future of glass packaging—and leave us with alternatives that carry far greater risks to our health and environment?

These are the questions that keep this glass addict awake.

I don’t claim to have the final answer.

But maybe you do?

Have I triggered enough thought to inspire a response?

Comment below—because we all stand to learn from this discussion. Can I count you in?