As we try to respond to climate change we have to make choices amongst the various energy options. I looked at some of the basic high-level issues in my last post. In this post I look more at practical political issues and at how choices might be made, and then, as an example, at some specific choices and some wider cost implications.
Increasingly, the investment policy approach being taken at national and international government level involves exclusion of undesirable energy options, on the basis of ‘do no harm’ sustainability criteria. However, getting political agreement, even over ‘cancelling’ fossil fuel, can be a controversial process, as in the EUs still incomplete funding taxonomy exercise, with natural gas being a case in point. But it wasn’t just gas that was a problem, there were also issues with biomass. And also with nuclear. It was initially excluded but has been subject to a review, which came out in favour of inclusion, although that has been very controversial, with policy views still at odds – and with the whole thing then being kicked into long grass for a while.
However, grey areas like that aside, it does seem that, gradually, agreements are emerging around the world – as the IEA have now confirmed in its new report, fossil fuel is out. Though not without leaving some messes to resolve, with carbon capture seen by some as a way to stay in the fossil game a bit longer. Although not everyone agrees, and to avoid backsliding and negative eco-impacts, we need careful assessment of any carbon removal proposals.
Clearly we also need careful assessment of the potential social and environmental impacts of renewable technologies and allied systems, but that is already well established, even if new issues do keep emerging e.g. the role of scarce materials and rare earths- see my last post.
System integration
As the use of renewables expands, the integration issues will also become more urgent and complex. A new report from the UK Carbon Trust looks at system integration, and, crucially, flexibility and the use of hydrogen, across all energy sectors – power, heat & transport. That has of late become a contentious issue- see my earlier posts on the relative merits of heat pumps and green (and blue) hydrogen.
The Carbon Trust says the cost of using hydrogen for heating will be high (higher than using electric heat pumps), but that ‘the development of hydrogen and associated infrastructure (electrolysers, natural gas reformers, biomass gasifiers, CCS infrastructure, hydrogen turbines & storage) for 2050 has significant system benefits if coordinated effectively’.
In terms of green hydrogen, made by electrolysis using renewable power, it says that ‘driving this value is the ability of the system to optimise production from electrolysers to coincide with high energy supply times, store hydrogen and then use it for heating, power production and other applications across transport and industry’. For example, the Carbon Trust says ‘We see the coordination between smart EV charging V2G and thermal storage in heat networks working together to minimise demand during periods of system stress.’
However, it says there is a need to diversify hydrogen production routes (from electricity, water, gas & biomass) and develop CCS infrastructure at scale to deliver blue hydrogen cost effectively. It says ‘meeting a significant portion of heat demand through hydrogen heating is very unlikely to be possible or cost-effective via electrolysis alone; other means of hydrogen production using CCS are required’.
That’s debatable. As is the heavy reliance on BECCS & DACCS in some of its scenarios, with the report claiming that ‘Negative emissions technologies are important even when the carbon target for the energy system in 2050 is zero rather than net negative. This is driven by the need to negate emissions from use of natural gas for electricity generation, hydrogen production and/or for home heating via boilers’.
The case being made here is that you will need a lot of electricity to make green hydrogen for heating. Well yes, it may be that hydrogen is not the best option for home heating, given that heat pumps use power much more efficiently, but heat pumps are not suited to all houses and flats and there can be GHC emission issues from the refrigerants used. In any case, as the Carbon Trust noted, even if it may not be the main heating option, hydrogen can play a backup role for heat pumps, and it also has many other uses in other sectors. And given that electrolysis is improving all the time, with costs falling, we are likely to hear a lot more about green hydrogen.
A cheaper Green Future?
The main thrust of the Carbon Trust report is on investing in flexibility, which it sees as a ‘no-regrets’ choice, as it has the potential ‘to deliver material net savings of up to £16.7bn per annum across all scenarios analysed in 2050’. That makes renewable futures look bright, despite the variability of some of the sources. So, some say, we may need to rethink green tech- it may be a route to cheaper energy.
Indeed, in an intriguing review of the new IEA report, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in The Telegraph, says the IEA have turned the economics of climate change ‘upside down’. He says that ‘Slashing CO2 emissions & switching to renewable energy is not a ‘cost’ or a constraint on rising affluence: it lifts global GDP growth by 0.4% a year over the course of this decade. World output is 4% bigger in real terms by 2030 [..] It does not raise energy costs: it cuts the average bill for households on heating, cooling, electricity, and car fuel from $2,800 to $2,300 a year by 2030 in advanced countries’.
It’s win, win all around, with the energy share of disposable income halving from 4% to 2% by mid-century. So ‘if we did not have a climate crisis, we would need to invent one in order to make humanity richer, healthier, safer, more self-sufficient, and less vulnerable to hostile geopolitics’. I’m not sure all the oil companies would agree, but it is interesting to see the Telegraph promoting ‘greenery’ so hard- almost outshining the maybe more familiar green transition enthusiast Mark Jacobson, who talks of huge net cost savings from a 57% cut in global energy use due to electrification and a 100% switch to renewables.
Comments
Post a Comment