Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

It's back! Carbon Commentary newsletter extracts, and a note about future newsletters:

Work obligations make it difficult for me to regularly produce this newsletter. However I will still try to write occasional Sunday commentaries and will continue to publish longer blog posts on Carbon Commentary. Many thanks for reading over the last few years and for the many helpful news stories offered by subscribers.

 1, Hydrogen in Europe. Will most green hydrogen be made locally or will it be imported from the lowest cost locations? We saw two slightly different approaches this week. German utility Uniper said it wanted to build a 410 MW electrolyser at the port of Wilhelmshaven which will provide about 14 TWh of hydrogen in 2030, accompanied by a terminal to import green ammonia. (Hydrogen is likely to be shipped by sea in the form of ammonia because transport is so much easier). The electrolyser will be far bigger than any currently in existence. In total, it seems that Uniper expects these facilities to provide about 10% of Germany’s current hydrogen demand. The utility also said it is working on a feasibility study for green steel manufacture using hydrogen at a retired power plant just upstream. This is an important trend; steel-making will move to places where hydrogen is abundantly available. Uniper’s rival RWE announced it had signed a deal with an Australian supplier to bring ammonia to a port on Germany’s North Sea coast.
 
2, Decarbonising shipping. After toying with hydrogen combustion as its route to decarbonisation, the shipping industry now appears to be settling on engines that burn ammonia. The giant commodity trader - and therefore large customer of shipping lines - Trafigura joined the group around the engine manufacturer MAN to push ammonia into widespread use. MAN says it will have a new engine capable of burning this fuel by 2024 and will be able to retrofit existing vessels in 2025. These dates are impressively soon. Trafigura also repeated an earlier plea for the introduction of a carbon tax on all emissions from shipping, seeking to push the notoriously slow International Maritime Organisation (IMO) into more determined collective action on emissions.
 
3, Green aviation fuel. South African oil business Sasol said it was entering a partnership with gas company Linde and others to try to develop a ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ (SAF) business, funded by the German government. Sasol has world-leading knowledge of the Fischer Tropsch process for making hydrocarbons, gained during the apartheid years when oil imports into South Africa were blocked. That knowledge, combined with access to relatively cheap green hydrogen from solar and CO2 from industrial processes, may make South Africa a centre of SAF production. I still find it extraordinary that only 18 months ago the UK’s Climate Change Committee wrote that ‘Zero-carbon aviation is highly unlikely to be feasible by 2050’. Actually, 2025 should be possible if ventures such as this, or Norsk e-Fuels in Norway, are successful. And light aircraft should be possible to move to hydrogen fuel cells within a decade.

4, Hydrogen boilers. Businesses without access to cheap gas may switch to hydrogen for high temperature heat. This week saw an announcement that a whisky distillery on a Scottish island will buy a hydrogen boiler, funded by a UK government programme, to replace oil in its operations, including the energy-intensive distillation process. The island of Islay has excellent wind resources and, possibly, large amounts of tidal energy to make the hydrogen. Large scale industrial heat needs represent a major potential market for hydrogen boilers. This presentation from the US manufacturer of the boiler - which is still a very early stage company - offers some useful data on its process.
 
5, Future electricity demand. Researchers at Finnish university LUT published a detailed paper showing how renewable electricity (and power-to-x) could produce 100% decarbonisation and keep the world within 1.5 degrees of warming. The energy group at this university does excellent and robust work. I was struck by the estimates that the world will need about 135,000 terawatt hours of electricity in 2050. This is a five times multiple of today’s final electricity demand but a slight reduction on 2021 total energy needs.
 
6, Electric trucks. The respected Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) asserted that large electric trucks will soon be competitive with diesel. Rather than relying on falling battery prices, as most analysts do when making this assertion, it points to the increasing availability of ultra-fast charging at 350 kW or more. This will enable repowering the vehicles during the standard driver rest breaks. SEI says this will reduce the total capacity of batteries needed for a heavy vehicle, implying a significant reduction in cost.
 
7, The convergence of cars and the digital world. The passenger car is rapidly evolving into a mobile digital platform. One source says that 40% of the cost of a car is now electronics and software. And hence the main electronics companies are edging into the automobile industry. Huawei says it is about to enter the car business as a supplier of branded electronics to existing manufacturers. Taiwanese assembly company Foxconn has voiced similar intentions. After five years of uncertain progress Apple also seems intent on participating in the market as does phone manufacturer Xiaomi. As is frequently pointed out, there are many competitors in the auto market (including the new auto companies recently listed via SPACs,Tesla, the existing petrol car companies, the Chinese manufacturers gearing up to export to rest of the world, and the digital giants). It is vanishingly unlikely that all will succeed in gaining a large share of car sales. Nevertheless, the stock market charges on with relentless optimism about the valuation of all the potential participants in the auto market.

8, Biochar. I’ve often wondered why it has proved so difficult to commercialise the production of biochar. Biochar is the nearly pure carbon left over when biomass is heated to very high temperatures in the absence of air (‘pyrolysis’). Properly produced – so that almost all aromatic hydrocarbons are driven off – adding crushed biochar to poor soils can have a major beneficial impact on agricultural productivity. And the carbon itself appears to have an almost indefinite life in the soil. Biochar therefore offers the possibility of gigatonnes of carbon storage. In the first major fundraising that I know of, US/Finnish Carbo Culture raised $6m to commercialise its patented pyrolysis furnace. The process looks similar to that of CarboFex, another Finnish biochar start-up.
 
9, Innovative power-to-x technologies. Exytron raised about €30m from the government to commence or start? work on its first ‘energy factory’ outside the village of Lübesse in north-eastern Germany which is intended to expand to up to 20 MW by 2026. This factory will take surplus electricity from a local wind farm, store it in the form of hydrogen and use this to provide heat and renewable liquid fuels to cover the full range of energy needs. It says it already has a deal to sell the zero-carbon oils. The 'factory' is an important step for Exytron, which so far has focused on providing a small number of district heat systems operated using its proprietary closed cycle hydrogen to methane units. (More details here). Also in Germany, Electrochaea, the global leader in power-to-methane, announced it had raised government money to build its first 10 MW plant, probably in Denmark. 
 
10, Heat pumps versus hydrogen heating. I wrote a post on whether hydrogen would be better than heat pumps for domestic heating. Heat pumps are efficient, typically providing 2.8 units of heat in the UK for each unit of electricity used. However I argued that in some countries heat pumps are unattractive to householders because electricity is over five times the price of natural gas. UK households, for example, might see a rise of 50% in their heating bills by switching to electricity. At the target price of $1.50 a kilogramme, heating with hydrogen would be cheaper than using electricity. But the advantages of hydrogen are much wider than this. High winter peaks in heating mean that electricity generating and transmission capacity would have to be increased many fold to cope with a switch to 100% heat pumps in the UK. This is a long post on Carbon Commentary, and I apologise for its tedious analysis, but I did think some of the more extreme contentions of heat pump advocates need to be contested.

I'm also positive about Biochar (no.8) and hope that progress can be made.

Martyn1981

There's just so much news on the US, climate talks, and what may or may not be promised, and then of course delivered (or not), but here's one article, and hopefully this will make for positive news over the next few days ...... or not!

US vows to cut its emissions at least 50% by 2030 ahead of climate summit

The US has vowed to cut its planet-heating emissions by at least half by the end of the decade, in a ramping up of ambition aimed at rallying other countries to do more to confront the climate crisis.

Ahead of a virtual gathering of dozens of world leaders in a climate summit called by Joe Biden, which begins on Thursday, the White House said the US will aim to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 50% and 52% by 2030, based on 2005 levels.

The Biden administration has reiterated it wants the US electricity grid to run 100% on clean sources such as solar and wind by 2035 in order to meet its goals and has framed an explosion in renewable energy and electric car production as a boon to American jobs. It has shied away, however, from mandating all vehicles sold by 2035 be zero emission models, despite a letter from the governors of a dozen states, including California and New York, urging the US president to do so.

“It is very ambitious, even if one considers that US greenhouse gas emissions have actually been declining already since 2007,” said Flavio Lehner, a climate scientist at Cornell University, of the new US target. “Is this new pledge enough? Probably not, but this also depends on what other major emitters will do this decade.”

Coastalwatch

Thanks for recent good news posts Mart. And it's not finished yet, it just keeps coming! I find the project below a really exciting prospect. Hope to still be around to see it's completion.

Submarine cable to connect 10.5 GW wind-solar complex in Morocco to the UK grid

UK-based Xlinks is planning to build a 10.5 GW renewable energy complex linked to 5 GW/20 GWh of storage in Morocco and connect it to the power network in the United Kingdom via a 3.6 GW submarine cable.

The company, which includes among its board members Paddy Padmanathan, the president and CEO of Saudi energy giant ACWA Power, is planning to deploy the project, which would consist of 7 GW of solar capacity and 3.5 GW of wind in Morocco. “Xlinks are in discussions with Moroccan community leaders and government regarding the exact sites of the solar farm and working on permitting with the relevant departments,” the company's CEO, Simon Morrish, told pv magazine.

Cable losses along the entire transmission line are estimated between 10 and 12%, but these are justified, according to the CEO, by a very low LCOE for the solar and wind power plants in Morocco, which he expects ultimately to be very close to the world record low price of $0.0104 reported for the second round of Saudi Arabia's renewable energy program. “We are currently calculating an LCOE of $0.013/kWh, but we are being very conservative on this, given the size of our project,” he stated.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/22/submarine-cable-to-connect-10-5-gw-wind-solar-complex-in-morocco-to-the-uk-grid/

QrizB

Coastalwatch said:

Thanks for recent good news posts Mart. And it's not finished yet, it just keeps coming! I find the project below a really exciting prospect. Hope to still be around to see it's completion.

Submarine cable to connect 10.5 GW wind-solar complex in Morocco to the UK grid

Reading the article:

"The huge complex would be connected to the UK power network in Alverdiscott, Devon and Pembroke, Wales, via a 3,800 km high voltage direct current (HVDC) transmission line"

That's quite some extension lead!

Martyn1981

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

EVandPV

Perhaps not quite as epic in scale as some of the above but significant nonetheless.

World's most powerful' tidal turbine sets sail from Dundee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-56818538

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

Coastalwatch

EVandPV said:

Perhaps not quite as epic in scale as some of the above but significant nonetheless.

World's most powerful' tidal turbine sets sail from Dundee

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-56818538

That's another exciting development EV and at 2MW is by far the largest I've seen listed. It's similar to the Graig Fartha wind turbine that Ripple is buiding in the coming months over in Wales.

Afraid I can't find likely cost of investment or generation so doubt it will be competitive with wind or solar as yet. But given tidal's almost constant and predictable generation it could, if rolled out in large numbers, form a "base" load for the grid. A term often given as the reason for nuclear being the "must have" option in the past!

Orbital Marine power gave credit to a £7m commercial debenture from the Abundance Investment platform which helped enable completion during the most difficult of years given the challenges faced due to the covid pandemic.

michaels

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

ABrass

michaels said:

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

My mind has been blown, honestly, that's simply staggering. It's almost Desertec 2.0.

Sent me off on a PVGIS play. I found PV at 45d pitch could still give ~1,700kWh/kWp but also a very flat(ish) gen across the months, with a low in Nov and Feb of about 80% of the highest month which is Aug. Dec & Jan are actually a tad higher, and compared to most of the other months (excl Aug, Nov and Feb) are about 90%. That's an extremely predictable and 'flat' annual generation.

I see the guesstimate for a CfD* is ~£48/MWh, which is also exceptional considering this would be a reliable source of generation, with its own storage to improve reliability.

That idea alone would be about 7.5% of current leccy demand, perhaps 3-5% of future demand.

Seriously shocked. I hope it's possible. Also interesting that the losses of 10-12% seem to match estimates I've found that HVDC loses around 3% per 1,000km.

*As CfD's are paid on the leccy supplied, this means that the risk wouldn't be borne by the UK, and any future high jinxs by a foreign country would cost them lots of money/sales, which hopefully removes some risk.

Not entirely sure here but wonder if the 10.5 GW generation is for eight hours only each day. So 84 GW/day which equates to a constant 3.5 GW for each of hour of the day assuming turbines and storage cover the hours of darkness. Coincidentally this equates approx to the proposed output of Sizewell C at 3.6 GW I believe.

Also of coincidence is the anticipated cost £18b vs £20b for SC. As Mart pointed out the financial risk of the project would not be carried by the British tax payer but the consortium putting it together.

Completion is projected by 2029 as opposed to SC's five years later.

Think I'd happily settle today at the suggested £48/MWh even if home based renewables do eventually come in cheaper.

I really can't see nuclear competing......unless I'm missing something!

If the costs are so similar why would the solar project only need a CFD of less than half SC?  Hopefully someone can explain rather than just call me stupid for asking.

At a guess, because once the renewables are built the running cost is very low. Nuclear plants have fueling and operational costs on top that have to be paid for.