Cement emissions: GCCA’s Claude Lorea sets out concrete plans

May 3, 2019 by Mike Scott

INTERVIEW

Cement emissions: GCCA’s Claude Lorea sets out concrete plans

by Mike Scott, May 3, 2019

Sydney Opera House, Australia: one of the many reasons we love concrete

Concrete is, after water, the most consumed resource on the planet and no other man-made material is more widely used. Without it, there are no buildings, bridges, dams or roads – no Sydney Opera House, no Hoover Dam or Golden Gate Bridge, no Pantheon in Rome.

It is no surprise, then, that it has significant environmental impacts. More than 4bn tonnes of cement, the main ingredient of concrete, are produced every year according to the think tank Chatham House, leading to around 8% of the world’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions (other figures estimate somewhere between 5% – 8%).

At the same time, concrete is essential to global development – to house a growing population and build the infrastructure the world needs. Cement production will have to rise by 25% by 2030, say Chatham House researchers.

But at the same time, “to bring the cement sector in line with the Paris Agreement on climate change, its annual emissions will need to fall by at least 16% by 2030,” the think tank says in a report, Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete. Steeper reductions will be required if assumptions about the contribution from carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies prove to be optimistic – as they have consistently over the last 10 years.

“How can we provide the world with the concrete it needs in a sustainable way?” Claude Lorea, Cement Director, GCCA

But while other sectors looking to cut their impact can simply reduce the amount of fossil fuels used in their production processes, things are more complicated for cement.

Claude Lorea, Cement Director, GCCA

Only about 40% of the sector’s emissions come from energy consumption, with the remainder being released during the production process, principally from the chemical reaction when limestone is heated to about 1,450C. “It’s a very important point,” says Claude Lorea, cement director at the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA). “The industry has a unique emissions profile. Solving the energy issue will not solve the whole problem.”

The GCCA is a CEO led initiative of the cement manufacturing sector. It builds on the sustainability work of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Cement Sustainability Initiative, and has taken on the body’s work on reducing the industry’s environmental impacts while adding a key communications and advocacy role to highlight the full benefits of concrete. “There is a lot of confusion about what cement is and what concrete is. Concrete is the end product that people see in their lives. Cement is what glues together that end product,” Lorea adds.

The key issue facing the industry is: “How can we provide the world with the concrete it needs in a sustainable way?” she says. The sector has reduced its emissions per tonne of product by 18.4% since 1990, and it has a target to reduce emissions by 32% in absolute terms by 2050. This is a battle it is fighting on a number of fronts.

The first step is to use more renewably-generated electricity, but power use only accounts for about 5% of emissions, while 40% come from heating the kilns used to create the cement. Here, there is considerable potential to cut emissions and reduce the use of fossil fuels and primary raw materials by fuel-switching. “Cement kilns are the perfect tool for using waste from other sectors, especially biomass,” Lorea says. These waste products include paper and packaging, coffee and rice husks, animal waste and used car tyres. It is also possible to heat kilns using electricity, but unless the electricity is renewable, the benefit of this is minimal.

“Clinker substitution is not only a very effective solution, but also one that can be deployed cheaply today, as it does not generally require investments in new equipment or changes in fuel sources” Chatham House

Worthwhile as these efforts are, they do nothing about emissions from the process of ‘calcination’, which is crucial in making clinker, the main ingredient of cement. From a chemical point of view, the point of the calcination is to remove the CO2 from limestone, producing significant emissions. It is possible to reduce the impact by replacing part of the clinker in cement with other materials such as fly ash or slag – waste products from burning coal and making steel, respectively. Huge amounts of these materials are available in the two biggest cement markets, China and India, so there is great potential for a “quick win” cut in emissions. In Europe, some plants have replaced 90% of the fossil fuels they used to use, but eventually supplies will reduce as power generation and steel production are decarbonised.

“Clinker substitution is not only a very effective solution, but also one that can be deployed cheaply today, as it does not generally require investments in new equipment or changes in fuel sources,” Chatham House says. “It is, therefore, especially important to scale up clinker substitution in the near term while more radical options, such as the introduction of novel and carbon-negative cements, are still under development.”

Carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) is another option – most efforts to introduce carbon capture have focused on power generation and have had limited success. But companies such as CarbonCure and Solidia Technologies are using CO2 to make concrete that both locks up the carbon and, they claim, is stronger than conventional concrete. Some novel cements can cut emissions by up to 90%, but at the moment they are only used in niche applications and have yet to reach large-scale commercialisation.

Concrete does not seem an obvious area for the application of circular economy principles, but there are a number of possibilities, Lorea adds. Fuel substitution and the use of captured CO2 have obvious circular applications, as do efforts to replace clinker. But concrete is also fully recyclable and can be reused in products such as aggregate for use in further concrete production and as a base layer for roads. Another huge opportunity is to make use of the heat produced in the cement production process.

“There is also a lot of thinking going on about building to last and building to recycle, with a focus on designing in efficient use of concrete,” Lorea says. “If we build smartly, then when, say, an office building comes to the end of its life, it can be repurposed as accommodation.”

There is no silver bullet when it comes to decarbonising the cement and concrete sector, Chatham House warns. Rather, “Shifting to a Paris-compliant pathway, with net-zero CO2 emissions by around 2050, will require going further and moving faster on all available solutions, as well as making sure that the next generation of innovative technology options is ready as soon as possible”.

Lorea is optimistic, “the sector is committed to taking climate action, spreading best practice across the globe, increasing the speed and adoption of innovation, and working across the built environment value chain to make myriad efficiencies and improvements – it’s why the GCCA was created!”

back to menu

Clean air transport: batteries or biojet or both – but let’s get on with it

March 14, 2019 by Mike Scott

Clean air transport: batteries or biojet or both - but let’s get on with it

by Mike Scott, March 14, 2019

back to menu

In his last article for Energy Post, Mike Scott looked at how airlines are under increasing pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions rather than offsetting them as they do now. How can it be done? There is no one-size-fits-all solution for the varied size of aircraft and flight distances but that should be no excuse. Battery innovation offers solutions for some cases whilst biojet (aviation biofuel) can fill many of the remaining gaps. Dithering over which is the right path is delaying the deployment of green technologies the sector needs if it is to achieve significant, sustainable GHG emissions reductions and allow us to use aircraft with a clear conscience.

Aviation transport is finally coming under scrutiny because its current share of global emissions – about 2% (3% in EU) – is set to rise sharply in line with business growth while other sectors are actually reducing their emissions. In simple terms, it will start to stick out like a sore thumb. Moves to tackle the issue, including an industry commitment to carbon-neutral growth from 2020, are controversial because the proposed scheme allows airlines to buy carbon offsets from low-carbon projects in other sectors. How to cut emissions at point-of-use is rising rapidly up the agenda.

Electrification

Direct, point-of-use options to cut emissions are limited first of all by the fact that it is much more difficult to use low-carbon technologies such as batteries in aviation than other areas because the more powerful a battery is, the heavier it must be, making them impractical.

Consequently, airlines are facing questions from investors who are concerned that they are not tackling the problem with sufficient urgency. A new study of 20 airlines from the Transition Pathway Initiative shows that none of them has a clear plan for cutting their own emissions after 2025.

Yet, while there is little prospect of electric long-haul aircraft in the foreseeable future, there is plenty that the industry can already do to minimise its impact. Indeed, electric planes are seen as part of the solution – for smaller aircraft and shorter journeys.

A number of companies are working on electric aircraft, from Lilium’s five-person vertical take-off flying taxi to Ampaire’s 19-seater vehicle up to Wright Electric’s plans for a 150-seat aircraft that would be able to make trips of 300 miles or less. Easyjet is planning to fly Wright Electric planes on its short haul European routes from 2027.

It is not just start-ups looking at this space, though. Siemens is working on a number of projects, including the Magnus eFusion electric test plane, the Pipistrel Alpha Trainer and a nine-seat commuter plane being developed by Israeli start-up Eviation. It has also formed a partnership with Airbus and Rolls-Royce to create hybrid-electric propulsion systems for commercial aircraft.

Some people think that hybrid aircraft, with both a battery and a jet fuel engine, will be the first step towards cleaner flying – including Boeing, which has invested in Zunum Aero, which is building a plane that can fly 12 people up to 700 miles, with the aim of becoming fully electric when technology allows.

Biojet

But despite all these initiatives, no-one thinks battery-powered aircraft will be ruling the skies in the next decade or so. A more immediate option is to replace fossil fuel-based jet fuel with biofuel alternatives – also known as biojet. The first flight using biojet fuel was made more than a decade ago. Feedstocks have included jatropha, camelina, algae, brassica carinata, waste vegetable oil and saltwater-loving halophytes. These relatively obscure feedstocks are favoured to ensure that biofuels production does not displace crops from agricultural land or encourage deforestation.

A company called LanzaTech is producing what it calls “next generation ‘advanced’ fuels” by recycling waste industrial gases like those produced from steel making and other heavy industrial processes and turning them into ethanol, which can be turned into jet fuel. Supported by Virgin Airlines, it says that with government support, it could build three plants in the UK by 2025, producing up to 125 million gallons of sustainable fuel per year – enough to provide half the fuel for all Virgin Atlantic’s UK outbound flights and save almost 1 million tonnes of life-cycle carbon.

It adds that “if the technology were rolled out worldwide to the world’s eligible steel mills (65% of all), this alone could produce enough fuel to meet around 20% of the current commercial global aviation fuel demand”. And the technology can be used on oil refineries and agricultural waste as well.

But there is little sign that biofuels or carbon capture fuels are set to displace petroleum-based fuels any time soon, in part because the aviation sector requires exhaustive testing to ensure fuels are safe – it took Lanzatech two years to receive certification for its fuel. However, it’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the lack of progress is also the product of a lack of urgency within the industry. United is leading the pack, having committed to buy 1 million gallons of biofuel a year, which sounds impressive until you discover that its fleet uses 4 billion gallons of fuel annually.

It may be that, now the first fuels are starting to be certified for use in aircraft, the process for other feedstocks will speed up, which will help the investment case for building production plants, and that the sector will suddenly scale up rapidly.

In the meantime, work continues on improvements at the margins, from techniques such as more efficient route management and glide landing, and continued lightweighting of aircraft and their components, thanks to composite materials and technologies such as 3D printing, which can produce parts with the same strength while using less material than previously. Other options include increased use of batteries or fuel cells for auxiliary power, more efficient conventional jet engines and measures to reduce drag, such as non-stick coatings that prevent insects from sticking to the fuselage.

All of these things should be seen as a way for the industry to pursue business growth with impunity whereas under the current habit of offsetting carbon – which evidently doesn’t reduce air traffic – emissions will keep rising and the reputation of the air transport industry will suffer as a result. The question as to which technology will mature first seems a dangerous, delaying distraction and while the industry is holding back on both because it’s not sure which will be the winner, we will continue to feel pressured to fly less.

back to menu

Can nuclear compete for a bigger role in the transition?

February 15, 2019 by Paul Evans and River Bennett

Can nuclear compete for a bigger role in the transition?

by Paul Evans and River Bennett, February 15, 2019

back to menu

With plans to phase out coal-fired generators in most of Europe, nuclear is trying to compete with gas to become the most viable baseload power source to accompany renewables on the path to net-zero emissions. Both technologies have their advantages. Gas is competitively priced while nuclear generates power with almost no emissions. Right now, gas’s cost advantage is evidently great enough to tip the balance.

If nuclear advocates are to distill the debate down to a straight-up contest they must first demonstrate that nuclear generation can be competitive on cost. River Bennett and Paul Evans believe there are significant opportunities for savings which could do just that.

The lesson from Hinkley Point is that nuclear power must supply cheaper electricity in order to compete with natural gas. In 2012 prices, the plant delivers electricity at a strike price of £92.50 per megawatt hour – significantly higher than even expensive offshore wind projects and natural gas in the UK. Dieter Helm, a professor of energy economics at Oxford University, estimates that if Hinkley Point were financed through government borrowing rather than private capital it would have been roughly half the cost. This may seem a brazen subsidy, but since the public is already footing the bill through electricity prices and other direct subsidies, such a strategy would effectively save the British-taxpayer billions. Simply changing the financing model would have reduced the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) to a cost in line with natural gas, but with 40 times lower carbon emissions.

Cost of baseload technologies with 3%, 7%, & 10% cost of capital:

However, allocating more taxpayer cash to nuclear projects is not necessary to reduce costs.

A 2018 report by the Energy Technology Institute, a government-backed research body, showed that huge savings are possible with simple modifications. Kirsty Gogan, the report’s author, commented that, “just by implementing best practices and achieving economies of scale it would be possible to obtain cost reductions of 30-40%”. This cost reduction is not a project manager’s spreadsheet-built fantasy either. The construction of similarly designed nuclear power plants in South Korea can deliver an LCOE of $51.37 (£39.61) per megawatt hour, even when financed with private capital at 10%.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the ETI report is that the main cost determinant for nuclear new build is whether the plant design is complete before breaking ground. Design modifications that take place during construction have proven to significantly increase construction length and overall cost. New builds for similar designs to those experiencing overruns in the UK are being delivered at competitive prices in countries like the UAE and China. Costs came down further when the companies constructing those plants had more experience. Adopting these best practices can also improve the financing conditions of a power plant through reducing costs and risk – allowing “the borrowing of less capital, at a better rate, and with a shorter payback time” according to Gogan.

Finally, the majority of existing light water reactor designs, including Hinkley Point, are capable of operating far past their originally-licensed 35-40 year life spans: these extensions can vastly improve the economics. In the United States a number of plants are already obtaining 20 year extensions to keep generating into their 50s and beyond. Dominion Energy, the utility that manages Surry Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia, has already filed to extend the plant’s life to 80 years.

In the medium-term new technologies known as small modular reactors (SMRs) show promising cost reduction potential without compromising safety. One such technology designed by the Oregon-based company NuScale Power has already made it through the first stage of licensing at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NuScale also has interested utility customers in the state of Utah and most recently The Kingdom of Jordan. Modular reactors have promise since they are designed in part to reduce the length, risk, and costs associated with large-scale infrastructure projects, accomplishing much of the reactor construction as a manufactured product. Producers hope to capture similar economies of scale as the aircraft industry where Boeing and Airbus mass produce complex engineering projects.

Whilst the cost reductions with SMRs are important, they are far from revolutionary. We are not going to see electricity ‘too cheap to meter’. NuScale Power estimates they can provide electricity at an LCOE of $99 per megawatt hour for private investors and $67 per megawatt hour for a state or municipal client, with further cost reductions of up to 20% for multiple reactors. This also assumes a plant life-cycle of 40 years, which in most cases is extended. In the best-case scenario this is at a cost as low as coal when considering the whole life-cycle of the plant, and even before taking into account negative externalities from carbon emissions. Compared with gas though this is more economical, particularly in Europe. NuScale CMO Thomas Mundy commented that “beyond $5/MMBTU our technology is competitive with Combined Cycle Gas Turbines”. At the National Balancing Point, Europe’s most liquid gas exchange, natural gas has been traded at a spot price above $5/MMBTU since August 2017.

Nuclear power becomes even more economically interesting if you factor in a carbon price. Carbon prices in the European Union, measured via the Emissions Trading System (ETS) effectively tripled in 2018 – outperforming any other commodity. Research by Mckinsey Energy Insights shows that even low carbon prices will encourage the use of gas over coal, but prices above $30 per ton could make gas less attractive. With a higher carbon price and the use of best practices for plant construction, nuclear energy might just stay in the race.

——————————————

River Bennett is a researcher for the Nuclear Innovation Alliance and currently pursuing graduate studies in nuclear engineering (twitter: @riverbennett)
Paul David Evans is a graduate student of International Energy at SciencesPo Paris. (twitter: @_pauldevans)

back to menu

Shipping: the rise of LNG

January 25, 2019 by Arasan Aruliah

Shipping: the rise of LNG

by Arasan Aruliah

January 25, 2019

How do we solve shipping’s “chicken-and-egg” dilemma: LNG producers wait for enough ships to run on LNG, while shipping companies wait for producers to increase their supply? The ‘virtuous circle’ of steady growth in LNG shipping in the North Sea/Baltic Sea area can provide an important case study for the rest of the world, according to a reportby the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. It concludes that LNG will grow as a shipping fuel globally. But ship replacement rates spanning decades and the cost of new infrastructure means there will be no sudden rush.

In December, German shipbuilder Meyer Werft delivered the world’s first cruise ship to be powered solely by LNG. The AIDA nova, of AIDA Cruises, welcomed its first guests aboard in Tenerife on December 19. The 180,000 tonne ship can carry 6,600 passengers. It’s an impressive achievement for LNG ship propulsion. There is surely more to come, thanks to the new emission rules.

The emissions rules are tightening

Between 2006 and 2015, several rounds of increasingly stringent environmental targets regulating sulphur oxide (SOx) emissions were applied in the Emissions Control Areas (ECAs) of Northern Europe and North America, driven by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The North Sea/Baltic Sea are two of four ECAs. Similar, though less stringent, IMO restrictions of SOx emissions were established at a global level in 2005 and tightened in 2012. In a highly significant development, substantially more stringent global regulations of SOx emissions will enter into force in January 2020.

On top of this, last year the IMO adopted a greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy for international shipping. Called the “Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships”, it plans to reduce the total annual GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008. Although burning LNG emits carbon, it is far less than traditional marine fuels, and its potential for further energy efficiencies make it an important part of the solution.

Emission Control Areas are leading the way

In those designated ECAs, the regulation of SOx emissions is the tightest. There are currently four ECAs, where most of the progress in emissions reduction is happening:

the Baltic Sea
the North Sea
the Pacific and Atlantic coastal areas of North America (the USA and Canada)
the Caribbean Seas of the USA

An LNG “value chain” is being built in the Baltic and North Seas

In the Baltic and North Seas the tightening regulations, as well as help from government subsidies, have incentivised the construction of the LNG infrastructure. It started with the development of truck-loading facilities in the region’s LNG terminals coincided with the development of technology enabling flexible LNG bunkering direct from trucks to ships. This avoided the necessity of investing in fixed shore-to-ship bunkering infrastructure, which was perceived as more of a commercial risk in the early stages of market development.

As the availability of LNG as a bunker fuel increased, some owners/operators of ships began to choose LNG propulsion for their newbuild vessels. As the market developed further, and demand for LNG as a bunker fuel grew, commercial suppliers felt confident enough to invest in bunker vessels and shore-to-ship bunkering infrastructure. Thus, a virtuous circle began to develop, as more substantial bunkering infrastructure enabled the supply of LNG bunker fuel to a greater number of larger vessels.

“The bulk LNG infrastructure is largely built. What remains is the last mile, in which the industry is showing a growing appetite to invest.” – Chairman of SEA/LNG, Chris Keller

Policy push meets infrastructure’s pull

This virtuous circle has been helped along by the development of large-scale LNG import terminals, the ramp-up of small-scale Norwegian LNG exports and the launch of break-bulk facilities in the region’s large-scale LNG terminals to provide a supply of small-scale LNG deliveries to the growing number of small-scale regional LNG import terminals. Add to that the opening of LNG bunkering facilities in the region’s large and small-scale LNG terminals, and the launch of truck-loading facilities at these terminals (and the loading of new LNG bunker vessels), this has made it commercially feasible to deliver LNG to maritime ports near to those terminals, for provision to vessels as bunker fuel.

Existing LNG bunkering facilities in the North Sea/Baltic Sea ECAs. Note: LNG terminals with bunkering facilities are depicted as circles, while ports with LNG bunkering facilities are depicted as squares. The LNG terminals without LNG bunkering facilities are Dragon/South Hook, Isle of Grain, Dunkerque, and Nynäshamn.

LNG for new ships, but old ships are still using “scrubbers” or low-sulphur gasoil

The report also shows that while LNG propulsion is proving attractive to ship owners investing in newbuild vessels that will operate in the North Sea/Baltic Sea ECAs, owners of existing vessels are still investing in scrubbers or (more often) simply switching to the more expensive low-sulphur marine gasoil. “This latter option – with lower capex and higher opex costs – is essentially a ‘wait and see’ response,” says the report.

The rules may tighten further

But shipping sector environmental regulations can change several times during the life of a vessel, given that vessels have operating lifetimes of several decades. In the North Sea/Baltic Sea region, SOx emissions were introduced and then tightened twice between 2005 and 2015. Restrictions on NOx emissions for newbuild vessels were introduced in 2000, were tightened in 2010, and are set to tighten substantially in 2021. Further tightening of the rules will force ship owners to consider how to ‘future proof’ their vessels. “Therefore, when considering existing vessels, we may expect a surge in demand for low-sulphur marine gasoil and IMO-compliant low-sulphur fuel oil blends in 2020/21, as a result of the ‘wait and see’ approach adopted by many ship owners/operators. Then, over time, this may give way to a gradual uptake of LNG propulsion as new vessels are phased into the fleet,” the report predicts.

Globally the LNG fleet is still small, but growing steadily

Up until 2017 the global LNG fleet was under 100. In 2017-18, 47 more LNG-fuelled vessels were launched, bringing the total in operation to 143. They include a number of world firsts: two LNG-fuelled dredgers (for operation in Northern Europe), a retrofitted container ship (also for operation in Northern Europe), a cruise ship (the Aida Nova), a ferry to operate in the Mediterranean, and Asia’s first LNG-fuelled cargo vessel. 139 LNG vessels are on order.

Of the 143, 98 are ‘dual fuel’, 29 are ‘pure LNG’, and 15 are ‘pure gas + diesel’, leaving just one with ‘dual-fuel turbine’ propulsion. Ships that cross in and out of ECAs switch between the fuel types to keep within the rules.

These figures show that LNG propulsion remains a minority choice. However, they reveal two important observations: the potential for growth in alternative fuels, and the scale of adaptation necessary from January 2020 to comply with the new rules.

LNG definitely has a future, according to DNV GL, the global quality assurance and risk management company. According to their report Energy Transition Outlook 2018: Maritime Forecast to 2050 their model predicts that by 2050, 23% of global shipping energy will be from LNG.

LNG is not carbon free, but can smooth the transition

The caveat remains that LNG still emits carbon, though far less than traditional marine fuels. However, when combined with improvements in energy efficiency, it provides a pathway to compliance with CO2, SOx, and NOx emission rules. Given that marine vessels usually have working lives of two or three decades, the increasingly efficient LNG-fuelled vessels launched in the 2020s may remain in service until the late 2040s, at which point technological advances in alternative fuels may render zero (or near-zero) options for carbon shipping a realistic aim by 2050.

A global LNG shipping transition will be gradual

The global tightening of restrictions on SOx emissions will provide a further policy ‘push’ worldwide. The lessons of the North Sea/Baltic Sea ECAs suggests that LNG may be attractive for newbuild vessels, particularly if the cost of LNG is substantially below that of low-marine gasoil and low-sulphur fuel oil. But it will happen only if sufficient supplies of LNG bunker fuel are available. In other words, building up even more LNG infrastructure is key.

Creating a virtuous circle of infrastructure and LNG ships takes time. So it is unlikely that the substantial tightening of IMO restrictions on SOx emissions at a global level from 2020 will trigger a huge surge in LNG supply and ship owners racing to retrofit their vessels. However, demand for LNG bunkering may grow steadily over the coming decade, as the number of ship owners choosing LNG for their newbuild vessels rises, while at the same time bunkering services become more widely available. To achieve this, marine sectors across the world will be looking at the North Sea/Baltic Sea ECAs to learn important lessons.

back to menu

Alstom and Eversholt Rail breeze in on hydrogen trains

January 18, 2019 by Arasan Aruliah

Alstom and Eversholt Rail breeze in on hydrogen trains

by Arasan Aruliah

January 18, 2019

Alstom and Eversholt's Breeze hydrogen train

French rail multinational Alstom and UK rolling-stock operating company Eversholt Rail Group have unveiled the design for a new hydrogen fuel-cell locomotive for the UK. The fuel-cell trains – called ‘Breeze’ – will bring zero-emission rail transport to parts of the UK that, at the moment, still run on diesel. The first trains are scheduled to run in 2022.

The UK has rural and inter-urban routes where diesel trains must be used because the rails have not been electrified. The UK government has set out an ambition to eliminate diesel powered trains from the network by 2040. So, having ditched plans to electrify a number of sections of the network over cost concerns, hydrogen and battery technologies are thought to be critical to ensuring the 2040 target is met.

“Hydrogen train technology is an exciting innovation which has the potential to transform our railway, making journeys cleaner and greener by cutting CO2 emissions even further,” said Andrew Jones MP, UK Rail Minister.

The first trains are expected to run as early as 2022.

For trains, hydrogen beats diesel and batteries

Diesel’s carbon emissions mean they must be made redundant. Hydrogen trains are equipped with fuel cells that produce electricity through a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, a process that leaves steam and water as the only emissions. Excess energy is stored in ion lithium batteries on board the train. One big advantage over pure battery-electric trains is the rapidity with which a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can be ‘recharged’ – a couple of minutes (roughly the same as a petrol car) in comparison to several hours for a BEV.

The new train’s green credentials depend in part on the UK boosting its capacity to produce hydrogen from low emission, renewable energy, or potentially natural gas paired with carbon capture and storage. But the politicians are saying the right things. “The railways need to decarbonise and the government has rightly set out a goal to eliminate diesel rolling stock by 2040,” said Nick Crossfield, Alstom UK & Ireland managing director.

The world’s first hydrogen trains are already running in Germany

In September 2018 the world’s first hydrogen trains – Alstom’s Coradia iLint – went into service in Germany, where they now operate a regular passenger service on a daily basis. They have a range of 1,000km and are able to run for the whole day and charge up overnight. Alstom is set to deliver 14 more hydrogen trains and a refuelling depot in Lower Saxony by 2021.

There is growing interest in Alstom’s hydrogen technology worldwide, including in France where the President of the Occitane region, Carole Delga, recently announced a proposal to introduce the technology on trains there.

Alstom’s hydrogen trains have been running in Germany since September 2018

Not wanting to be left behind, the UK is talking up its own hydrogen energy future. “The UK is on track when it comes to growing a world-leading hydrogen economy, and through our modern Industrial Strategy we are providing £23 million to power our ambition to be the ‘go-to’ place for first-class hydrogen transport,” said Claire Perry MP, UK Minister for Energy and Clean Growth.

From horses to hydrogen

The UK is home to the first railway in the world to operate a freight and passenger service with steam traction. In 1821 George Stephenson, who had built several steam engines to work in the Killingworth coal mine, heard of Edward Pease’s intention of building a 13km line from Stockton on the coast to Darlington to exploit a rich vein of coal. Pease intended to use horse traction; Stephenson told Pease that a steam engine could pull 50 times the load that horses could on iron rails. Impressed, Pease agreed to let Stephenson equip his line.

On September 27, 1825, the first engine ran from Darlington to Stockton, preceded by a man on horse carrying a flag reading Periculum privatum utilitas publica (“The private danger is the public good”). When the horseman was out of the way, Stephenson opened the throttle and pulled his train of wagons carrying 450 persons at a speed of 24 km per hour.

From horses, to coal-fired steam, to diesel and overhead-electric…and now BEVs and Hydrogen. What a history we have in our European railways.

Stockton & Darlington Railway, picture taken to celebrate its centenary in 1925

Aviation needs a Tesla moment. Rolls-Royce could deliver it

January 18, 2019 by Arasan Aruliah

Aviation needs a Tesla moment. Rolls-Royce could deliver it

by Arasan Aruliah

January 17, 2019

Rolls-Royce is promising to launch an all-electric plane by 2020 that can fly London to Paris, and break the electric aircraft speed record. Is this one-seater the first step towards an airliner that can carry hundreds? The aviation sector needs all the good news it can get as it struggles to find an alternative to kerosene fuel.

The Rolls-Royce project is called ACCEL, short for “Accelerating the Electrification of Flight”. They’re calling this the beginning of the third wave of aviation, and Rolls-Royce wants to be its champion.

The company traces its history back to the luxury car maker established by Charles Rolls and Henry Royce in 1904. Today its jet engines are widely used by the likes of Airbus and Boeing. They are also a major player in the marine and power generation sectors.

The world speed record for an electric plane is in their sights

They’ll need to build the most powerful battery ever built for flight. Yet it has to be light enough to fly, and stable enough not to overheat. And it has to be powerful enough to fly the new plane at 300 mph (483 km/h) and more. That’s because they want the aircraft to break all records and become the fastest all-electric plane in history. By comparison, the current record for an all-electric plane, set by Siemens in 2017, is 210 mph.

ACCEL is partly funded by the UK government and involves a host of partners including electric motor and controller manufacturer YASA and the aviation start-up Electroflight.

YASA’s standard electric motors have been used in several high-performance cars such as the Drive eO PP03, Jaguar C-X75, Koenigsegg Regera, and a Lola Le Mans Prototype converted by Drayson Racing, which set a world electric land speed record in 2013.

YASA workshop

Rolls-Royce wants to think like an entrepreneur

But why would Rolls-Royce partner with a tiny start-up like Electroflight? In an interview with The Telegraph, Rob Watson, director of Rolls-Royce Electrical, explained: “We are a world-class engineering organisation but on an industrial scale, and we’re used to developing gas turbines, so we wanted to see [what happens] if we thought completely differently about an electric propulsion system.” So Rolls-Royce have taken a stake in this small entrepreneurial company to learn a thing or two “[to] see how they go about fixing these problems.” Aviation propulsion certainly needs fresh thinking.

Electric planes are aerodynamically superior

Forget about emissions: electric planes will have a huge design advantage over planes powered by kerosene. The traditional gas turbines have to be hung under the wings on an aircraft to be near the rotating blades, and for safety. That affects the aerodynamics and drag of the design. The electric battery can be placed anywhere in the aircraft. In fact, you can distribute the weight of the batteries across and within the aircraft. This should mean dramatic improvements in the aerodynamic design.

This is just a first step in the emergence of electric planes. Gas turbine technology will remain the propulsion system of choice for the aircraft industry because of the extremely high power density of kerosene, needed to fly hundreds of people thousands of miles. Rolls-Royce’s new single-seater electric plane will use 6,000 battery cells and will have a 200-mile range, enough for a London to Paris flight.

Of all sectors, aviation is struggling the most to transition

Compared to road transport, buildings, marine, and the other major categories, the aviation sector is under the least pressure from legislators to curb its emissions, because of the practical difficulties of finding a power-dense alternative to kerosene. That means aviation’s emissions projections are among the worst. The latest European Aviation Environmental Report states:

Number of flights has increased by 80% between 1990 and 2014, and is forecast to grow by a further 45% between 2014 and 2035.
CO2 emissions have increased by about 80% between 1990 and 2014, and are forecast to grow by a further 45% between 2014 and 2035.
NOX emissions have doubled between 1990 and 2014, and are forecast to grow by a further 43% between 2014 and 2035.

Direct emissions from aviation account for about 3% of the EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions and more than 2% of global emissions. If global aviation was a country, it would rank in the top 10 emitters.

By 2020, global international aviation emissions are projected to be around 70% higher than in 2005 and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) forecasts that by 2050 they could grow by a further 300-700%.

“Regular production of aviation alternative fuels is projected to be very limited in the next few years, and thus it is unlikely that the roadmap 2020 target will be achieved”

The European Aviation Environmental Report looks at three alternatives to conventional jet fuel: Fuels from hydroprocessing of vegetable oils and animals fats such as Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids / Hydrotreated Vegetable Oils (HEFA/HVO); Fischer‑Tropsch fuels obtained from biomass (Biomass to Liquid‑BTL); Synthetic iso‑paraffin fuels obtained from the conversion of sugars. But progress is extremely slow. As the report says, “regular production of aviation alternative fuels is projected to be very limited in the next few years, and thus it is unlikely that the roadmap 2020 target will be achieved” for aviation. There is simply no mention of batteries.

Electric aviation needs an EV boost

It doesn’t look good. Then again, electric cars didn’t look very promising when they started on their transition journey, and now they are widely available. Today it’s hard to keep up with the news from car manufacturers of new models and new multi-billion investments.

So before you buy that ticket to your cousin’s wedding across the Atlantic, remember that someone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year. Instead, you could wait a couple of years and take a much more eco-friendly and enjoyable trip on an electric plane to Paris. Think of the carbon emissions, the wine, the cheese…

Buildings emissions 2050: triple renovations rate today, avoid stress tomorrow

December 20, 2018 by Arasan Aruliah

ENERGY WATCH #1 - December 20, 2018

Buildings emissions 2050: triple renovations rate today, avoid unnecessary stress tomorrow

by Arasan Aruliah

back to menu

Buildings are responsible for 39% of total energy-related global emissions. More action is required from governments, cities and business if the buildings and construction sector is to reach net zero by 2050. Renovations to existing stock are vital but at the current rate of 1% we won’t get there – it needs to triple. Any delay in upping the rate will just increase pressure on the sector down the line. EPW takes a look at what hurdles must be overcome to make it happen.

According to a new report released at COP24 by the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, some progress has been made. Their 2018 Global Status Report – Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector emphasises that emissions from buildings and construction have peaked, thanks to energy efficiency gains in areas such as heating, lighting and cooking, and with more offices and homes being powered by cleaner forms of energy. Shifts towards energy saving technologies like heat pumps, improved windows and insulation, the use of less energy-intensive materials, and buildings design, are all paying off.

However, the report underlines that the buildings sector – a huge engine of the global economy – still accounts for a significant 39% of total energy-related CO2 emissions and 36% of final energy use. Net zero by 2050 is still a long way away.

The report was written in collaboration with the International Energy Agency (IEA) and UN Environment. Dr Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the IEA, warns: “Developments within the sector such as the growing uptake of air conditioners are having a big impact on energy and environmental trends at the global level… If we don’t make buildings more efficient, their rising energy use will impact us all, whether it be through access to affordable energy services, poor air quality or higher energy bills.” In other words, the global growth in buildings and population is outpacing the gains from energy efficiency improvements, meaning final energy demand in buildings has risen by 5% since 2010 (Figure 2).

Efficiency gains across the board, except in space cooling

Energy intensity per unit of floor area is another way of measuring energy efficiency. The data shows that space heating and lighting have improved the most since 2010 (Figure 3). The shift to energy‐efficient technologies, such as light‐emitting diodes (LEDs) and heat pumps in some markets, has played a role in those energy intensity improvements. Building envelope measures have also helped to improve heating and cooling energy intensities per square metre, through improved thermal performance (e.g. material choice) and better building design and orientation. All this has helped overcome growth in population and increases in wealth to achieve important energy savings per floor area in recent years. In fact, only space cooling has grown in energy intensity per unit floor area.

Emissions are levelling off, but that’s not good enough

Buildings sector emissions appear to have stabilised at around 9.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) annually in 2015‐17, or 28% of the global energy‐related CO2 emissions. When energy‐related emissions from buildings construction (i.e. manufacturing of building materials) are included, total buildings‐related CO2 emissions amounted to more than 11 GtCO2 in 2017, or 39% of the global energy‐related emissions. That also remains unchanged from 2016. “This is potentially an indicator that buildings sector emissions have capped, but they are still well below the necessary reductions to achieve the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),” says the report.

Energy efficiency investment in buildings is slowing

More investment is needed. Total energy efficiency spending for buildings increased by 4.1% (2.5% adjusted for inflation) in 2017 to $423bn (Figure 9). That means it slightly outpaced the 3‐4% annual growth rate of the total investment in buildings construction and renovation, but that is still a slowdown when compared to the 6‐11% annual growth rates in energy efficiency spending from 2014 to 2016. And whatever the growth rate, energy efficiency remains a small portion of the overall spending on buildings.

Europe has the tools, we’re just not using them

Net zero by 2050 is a steep hill to climb for the world, and that includes Europe. But the tools to succeed are already available, according to a study commissioned by Eurima, the European Insulation Manufacturers’ Association. The study looks at all the opportunities, including the building envelope (efficient design and insulation of roofs, walls, floor, windows), heating and control systems, and renewable energy heating solutions. Eurima Director General, Jan te Bos, says “solutions that are already commercially available can take us 75% of the way to net zero, if deployed at scale. The remaining 25% can be achieved based on known approaches and technologies, if efforts to scale up and commercialise are made.”

The message is slowly getting through. For new builds, France’s building code requires all new construction to fall under its definition of an nZEB (nearly zero-energy buildings). In Austria, Belgium and Italy, more than 20% of residential new constructions in 2017 were nZEBs. For renovations, Denmark’s renovation rates are between 1.5%–2%, well above the EU average, but still not high enough: the Eurima study concludes that 3% of buildings need to be renovated every year, up from just 1% today, for the EU to reach net zero.

Residential buildings hold the key

A report by Climate Action Tracker (CAT), published in November, identifies residential buildings as one of three areas (the other two are electricity supply, and passenger road transport) the EU should focus on to scale up climate action to meet the Paris targets. “The reductions in these three sectors alone are enough to reduce EU28 total greenhouse gas emissions by up to 52% below 1990 levels in 2030,” says their report. But following the current trend in reducing buildings emissions won’t reduce them to zero. Even following the “best in class” nations, like Denmark, will only get us half way there. The report concludes: “Paris Agreement-compatibility requires the renovation rate of the building sector to increase significantly from the current 1%—ideally to around 5%—with the energy demand per square meter decreasing by between 75% and 100%.”

The policies are being put in place

In the summer of this year the EU amended and strengthened the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive (EPBD). EuroACE heralded it as a big step forward. EuroACE is the European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings, with members ranging across the commercial buildings sector. In November they published their “EuroACE Guide to EPBD Implementation” to help decision-makers understand and take action following the new rules.

The detailed guide is specifically targeted at the government officials in the EU Member States and “stakeholders in the whole construction value chain from the owner, through the design teams to the site and to all associations that represent this value chain.“

EuroACE Secretary General Adrian Joyce said: “[The new EPBD] is one of the most important changes that has occurred in the EU buildings sector in the last 15 years. At last, EU legislators have recognised that our biggest problems are not the standards we use for our new buildings but the ones we use to renovate our existing ones. “

In 2005, total energy consumption in the EU was around 1,800 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). So, by hitting the new EPDB targets alone the EU can reduce overall energy consumption by 360mtoe by 2050. At the same time, given most of the energy used in buildings comes from burning fossil fuels, particularly gas for heating, the EU can reduce its reliance on imported gas by around 60%.

“Just treating the building sector will reduce energy demand in the overall economy by 32% if we achieve our goals,” says Joyce. In fact, this sector is ripe for rapid transition. Joyce concludes: “The Buildings sector is the most readily accessible for achieving dramatic cuts in emissions”.

back to menu

Marine fuel sulphur limits: turbulent times ahead for shipping

December 20, 2018 by Express Editor

EXPRESS #4 - December 20, 2018

Marine fuel sulphur limits: turbulent times ahead for shipping

back to menu

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN agency that sets standards for shipping, has reduced the maximum amount of sulphur content allowed in marine fuels used on the open seas from 3.5% to 0.5%. The new rule comes in to force in 2020. These regulations are intended to reduce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other pollutants from global ship exhaust. It will shake up all aspects of the sector: the refineries, the ship owners, and the bankers.

The upcoming 2020 rules apply to fuels used in the open ocean, representing the largest portion of the approximately 3.9 million barrel per day global marine fuel market, according to the International Energy Agency. The 2020 reduction in sulphur limits follows a series of similar reductions in marine fuel sulphur limits, such as those that reduced sulphur content of marine fuels in IMO-designated Emission Control Areas from 1.0% to 0.1% in 2015. Other areas around ports in Europe and parts of China have adopted similar sulphur restrictions.

Refineries have to invest

The new sulphur limits raises one big question for the refineries: how are they going to increase the supply of compliant marine fuels. If refineries don’t increase the supply of low sulphur distillate fuel, ocean-going ships will simply have to compete with trucks, heavy equipment, trains and planes for supplies of distillate fuels at a time when global demand for distillate is already high. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has given a stark answer: Either refineries increase the rate they process crude oil and/or invest and build more refinery capacity to produce the distillate fuels. (Editor: how this might be financed will be covered by EPW in the new year).

Ships must change fuels, or scrub

For vessel operators, it raises not one, but two big questions. The first is whether to switch to a lower-sulphur fuel compliant with the new rules. If not, the alternative is to utilize scrubbers to remove pollutants from ships’ exhaust, allowing them to continue to use higher-sulphur fuels. In fact, 2018 saw a boom in scrubber orders, which may continue.

Fitting a scrubber will allow vessels to continue burning fuel oil when the 0.5% sulphur limit comes into force, and this year saw a steady procession of shipping companies announcing investments in the exhaust cleaning systems. S&P Global Platts Analytics forecasts as many as 2,200 vessels may have scrubbers installed by the start of 2020, with that total rising to as many as 3,000 by the end of the year.

However, that is a very small portion of the total marine vessels out there, and that portion is not expected to increase greatly before 2020 because of time constraints and limited installation capacity. Also, the process of installing scrubbers can be costly and can increase a ship’s operating costs. Even if scrubbers become widely adopted, which would allow the continued use of fuels with higher-sulfur content, the price and availability of higher-sulphur fuels after 2020 remains uncertain, says the EIA.

Financing the ship fuel

The second big question for vessel operators in 2020 will be whether credit availability will be sufficient. The bunker (ship fuel) industry runs on credit, as shipowners typically pay for their fuel several weeks after delivery, and the amount of credit available will need to be increased dramatically from the end of 2019 onwards to cover the new requirement for more expensive fuels. But the banking industry has regarded bunker traders with suspicion since the surprise collapse of OW Bunker in 2014, and may struggle to accommodate a large increase in their demands.

Non-fossil ship fuels still not widely available

Of course, ships have the option to get out of the bunker market and switch to nonpetroleum-based fuels. But that all depends on progress with renewable fuels appropriate for large ocean-going shipping and the infrastructure that needs to go with it, as we reported on recently. Some newer ships and some currently being built have dual-fuel engines that would allow them to use nonpetroleum-based fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) after minimal modifications. However, the EIA warns that the infrastructure to support use of LNG as a shipping fuel is currently limited in both scale and availability.

back to menu

Shell links executive pay to emissions goals – now follow that!

December 7, 2018 by Mike Scott

ENERGY WATCH #2 - December 7, 2018

Shell links executive pay to emissions goals - now follow that!

by Mike Scott

back to menu

Royal Dutch Shell has kicked off the annual round of announcements that accompany the UN climate conference with possibly the most consequential initiative of all. It has said it will set short-term, binding targets to cut emissions. Not only that, but it will link executive pay to meeting these targets.

One of the biggest producers of fossil fuels has, for the first time, agreed to cut its carbon emissions – by 20% by 2035, rising to around 50% by 2050. And it is doing this in absolute terms, not per unit of production as high emitters so often do.

This is not tree huggery. It is a hard-headed business decision to position the company for the “energy transition”. “This ambition positions the company well for the future and seeks to ensure we thrive as the world works to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change,” said CEO Ben van Beurden.

The company has now set the bar for the industry.

But will other oil majors follow?

While Shell is ahead of many of its rivals, it will not be the last company to do this. This is part of a bigger trend, although everyone will do things in their own way.

The other European majors seem likely to follow suit, although US companies may react slightly differently – for example, ExxonMobil announced last week that it’s going to use wind and solar power to produce shale gas in the Permian Basin. Most of the oil majors are stepping up their investments in renewable energy and electric transport. Following Shell’s announcement, expect a race to the top.

When your product is oil, your customers’ emissions matter too

The emissions Shell is planning to reduce include those of its customers. This is another huge development – big oil is starting to realise that it has to deal with end-use emissions as well as its own operations. This is the result of the increasing focus on “Scope 3” emissions – those in a company’s value chain rather than from its direct operations – that is embedded in initiatives such as the RE100, Science Based Targets, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and CDP’s collection of carbon emissions data. For many products and companies, their key impacts lie not in their own facilities and production but in their supply chains (e.g. food producers) or their end users (e.g. oil and gas groups).

Shell needs to consider end user emissions because other companies are looking to reduce their own Scope 3 emissions to meet their own sustainability targets. If Shell wants to keep selling to them, it has to reduce the emissions from its products.

Shareholder activism is working

This move is the result of pressure from investors, which is both increasing and becoming increasingly targeted in its focus. Shell was asked to act by Climate Action 100+, a group of more than 300 investors representing $32 trillion of assets, which targets the 100 biggest global emitters, representing up to two thirds of global emissions (plus another 61 nominated by the investors as either having significant climate risks or a significant opportunity to drive the clean energy transition.) Three quarters of the companies are either fossil fuel providers or their major customers in utilities, transportation and chemicals.