Innovation and Electrification - not always needed

The battle over energy options continues, with one issue being the scale, pace and focus of the technological innovation needed to cut emissions. The International Energy Agency says that: ‘Almost half of the emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 will need to come from technologies that have not reached the market today.’ So there is a need to push new technology and support technology innovation. 

That certainly is the line adopted by Bill Gates in his new book ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need’. He sees solar and wind doing quite well, but thinks their variability could lead to problems. So he says new energy options are also needed, including for sectors other than just power. So he is keen on large scale carbon removal technology, and a range other technical fixes, and he seems especially keen on high tech nuclear- Small Modular Reactors and fusion. 

That of course is also the message coming from parts of the nuclear lobby- we need new technology. While some hope that existing large scale updated PWR technology will suffice, others look to new nuclear technologies and to diversification away from just supplying power, with hydrogen production being one option. Dr Henri Paillere, head of the Planning and Economics Studies Section of the International Atomic Energy Agency, notes that, while ‘increased electrification will require more low-carbon electricity, so potentially more nuclear’, there are options for new technology, given that nuclear energy is ‘also a source of low-carbon heat, and could also be used to produce low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen’.  However, he rather undermines his case on the need for innovation by saying that ‘the cheapest source of low-carbon power is from the long-term operation of existing nuclear power plants which, combined with their high capacity factors, can give the cheapest low-carbon hydrogen of all’. But then that’s a familiar nuclear habit-  portraying it as being cheap, although more usually, in the future!

Be that as it may, the idea that new technology of some sort will be needed is quite widespread- and it is often used to undermine the case for renewables. We will need more and better than what exists to head off climate change. Lots of major breakthroughs, as Gates says in his new book.  However, in his new book ‘The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet’, Michael Mann, one of the USA’s leading climate scientist, claims that many zero-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels are now cost-competitive with fossil fuels. He even suggests that, far from needing a miracle, we could achieve 100% clean electricity with current renewable technologies alone.

Jonathon Neale takes a somewhat similar stance in his new book ‘Fight the Fire’. He avoids the new, as yet not fully deployed, technologies that are used in 100% renewables scenarios like those developed by Jacobson and LUT, but he says that we can get to 100% with existing renewables technologies. But to provide balancing and avoid occasional shortfalls we would need surplus ‘headroom’ overcapacity, which he says may add more cost. That view may be unduly cautious and pessimistic- the costs of most renewables are falling fast, and look set to continue to do so. And similarly for the costs of balancing systems, Power to Gas conversion especially: so, with luck and entrepreneurial effort, green hydrogen may become widely available. But Neale may be right that some new renewables may take a while to get cost down, wave and tidal power for example.  There are good grid balancing reasons to try to ensure that they do get fully developed - their power availability patterns will differ helpfully from that for wind and solar, tidal power especially.  And there are some good signs of progress for tidal stream devices, with the UK Marine Energy Council claiming that ‘costs could be <£90/MWh with the first 1GW of deployment. In contrast, offshore wind delivered £125/MWh after the first 2.5GW of deployment’.

However, we do also need to go beyond just electricity. It is getting a bit tiresome to keep reading that view and then the view that electrification is vital and that renewable electricity supplies can be used to meet non-electricity needs, like for heat and mobility. Yes, we are doing quite well on electricity, with renewable sources likely to to be able to supply most of our power needs globally by 2050, indeed, some say all energy energy needs well before then. So certainly some electricity can and should be used for heating and for transport, maybe most of it. That’s the basis of IRENA’s new 1.5oC scenario- renewables supply 90% of global power directly as green electricity and also meet some other end-needs (7%) indirectly as green hydrogen. Indeed, the new IRENA scenario has a higher 2050 electrification level (60%) than most scenarios so far. 

While electrification is clearly sensible in many cases, there are also non-electrical renewable supply options for heating (solar, biomass) and ways to make green fuel for transport (biogas and green synfuel). In some cases, these may be preferable technically and environmentally to using electricity. There may be material scarcity and extraction impact limits to the production of Lithium Ion batteries for electric vehicles. Green hydrogen and biogas may in any case be the best fuel for heavy vehicles- for example buses, vans and trucks. They may also be best for heating in some energy-intensive industrial processes. The direct use of solar heat energy in buildings avoids power-to-heat conversion and power transmission losses, and it can be stored easily on site. Or used more widely, along with heat from biomass combustion, fed to district heating networks, possibly also with geothermal heat where available. 

Expecting renewable electricity to meet all energy need directly is quite a big ask- with the nuclear industry always keen to try to fill any gaps. However, is should not be needed. While most needs can be met with green electricity direct, some needs can be met with the non-electricity options mentioned above. In addition, some end use needs can be met with hydrogen/syn-gasses made from surplus renewable electricity, these green gases having the big attraction of being easily storable, unlike electricity. Electricity does have its advantages as an energy vector and in some cases it has unique end-uses. And using green electricity is certainly better than continuing to use fossil gas, even with CCS and even if converted to blue hydrogen with CCS! However, let’s not get too blinded by the push to electrify everything- it’s not always best.