Category Archives: Commentary

Carbon capture

I think there is a place for carbon capture and utilisation. But just not the way we have been thinking or approaching it. Carbon capture and storage in some kind of cavern or project and expecting it to hold on to the carbon dioxide does not make sense. But many other carbon sequestration approaches do: applying biochar to ground, injecting carbon dioxide into cement to strengthen the concrete, or any processes that somehow mineralises carbon dioxide into some kind of other compounds including carbonates.

All of the approaches where carbon dioxide is somehow transform into some other form which is more permanent and serves a function make sense. The technologies involve in terms of filtering the carbon dioxide to a certain level of purity, conveying it and handling it, will play important role in the low-carbon economy.

The reason is that carbon dioxide is still an essential part of many industrial production processes. In any case, the main challenge of climate change isn’t really the presence of carbon dioxide – it is the fact that we are taking out fossil carbon and then turning it into carbon dioxide, releasing it into the atmosphere faster than it can be cycled back into other parts of nature. This build-up of carbon dioxide, strengthens the greenhouse effect, making things really nutty for the climate.

But when we are taking biogenic carbon dioxide and using it, there is nothing wrong because the carbon was sequestered from present carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Using it merely ‘recycles’ the carbon around. Human systems that does carbon capture can play that same recycling role. Take for example the capture of biogas from the anaerobic breakdown of organic matter. That is a mix of methane and carbon dioxide gas; the carbon dioxide gas can be filtered out and then used for industrial processes, while the pure methane (or biomethane as we call it) can be used for energy purposes – combustion to produce heat and drive turbines to produce electricity.

Moreover, the carbon dioxide produced from combustion can be captured, purified, and utilised just like the carbon dioxide filtered out from the biogas. This carbon dioxide can actually be combined with green hydrogen to form many other hydrocarbon molecules that act as our more familiar fuels that are compatible with many of the engines and systems we have. Not just that, the combusted fuel will emit that same ‘biogenic’ carbon dioxide, which would not count as greenhouse emissions because they are in the short-term cycle. Nevertheless, we can still capture that carbon dioxide and then return it to those uses we talked about.

To me, that’s the role of carbon capture in the future – it is really to recycle the carbon just as nature already does it. It is not to erase the carbon dioxide that has already been emitted. It is really naive to think that spending more energy trying to capture the emitted carbon dioxide can be more worthwhile than using alternative forms of energy that do not emit so much carbon dioxide in the process. That would be the role of these technologies in the future.

Decarbonising Singapore’s power sector

Singapore’s power sector is responsible for about 40% of the total emissions of Singapore (NCCS, 2022) and in 2024, almost 95% of the power produced in Singapore was generated using Natural gas (EMA, 2025). I estimated that we consume about 300 PJ of natural gas just for power production alone, assuming that gas power generation on average is at about 60% efficiency. And from that same dataset you’d also realise we have 0.9% of coal-fired power in the mix.

The recent EMA announcement about the 300MW biomethane pilot for power plants (EMA, 2025) implies a 3% reduction in fossil natural gas use, replaced by biogenic carbon dioxide from the combustion of biomethane, which is not considered a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. Assuming this quota and capacity is used in full, it should lead to about 740 ktCO2e of GHG emissions abated.

Another news was about Tuas Power replacing all of its coal with biomass for power generation by 2028 (Tuas Power, 2025). This implies that the 0.9% of coal contributes to the fuel mix will no longer be emitting carbon dioxide. I did some back of envelope calculation on the emissions from the coal power generation and estimated it to be at around 300tCO2e per annum only. This is likely because the plant’s capacity factor isn’t very high. If the 133 MW capacity was firing in full all the time, they should be emitting around 700tCO2e.

Now if we follow the 2022 emission profile figures, the power sector is responsible for about 21MtCO2e of emissions from Singapore. Those reductions of about 0.75MtCO2e of emissions seem relatively insignificant. Indeed, it looks like only 3.5% of the total emissions will be reduced in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, we are going to import more renewable energy and as a proportion of total power generated, we will increase the percentage figure. The grid emissions factor will probably decrease especially since we are going to have more MWh of green electricity. But for the existing power generation capacity to decarbonise in the short term, biomass and biomethane remain the more readily available solution. Those pilots and announcements may herald the beginning of greater ambitions.

Blunomy & bioenergy

My blog has always been relatively free of direct stuff on my work but here’s just a post where I wanted to document some of the work that the Blunomy/Enea team had worked on over the past couple of years.

Moreover, it has been over a year since I stepped up to take care of our Renewable Fuels practice at Blunomy for the Asia Pacific. Things have been really challenging and tough on the energy transition front for the world, and for the business of consulting but when I look at these analysis and work we’ve put out, I’m reminded of how far the industry and market has come.

Some of these materials I’m putting links to are available as ‘publications’ on our website, but some of them have been put out by our clients who have decided to make some of our work public.

This corpus of work followed public sentiments and appreciation of biogas and biomethane as a source of energy across Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Starting with awareness-building and education on this source of green energy that contributes also to circularity, we went on to develop analytical pieces focusing on feedstocks, understanding feedstock value chains, as well as more advocacy pieces that cuts through the challenges in the industry to recommend suitable policy intervention should the government determine this was a worthy cause to pursue.

Blunomy continues to build upon our experience and expertise. During this period, we also performed due diligence on more than 50 projects across different parts of Europe, looked into impact assessment as well as the help clients develop relevant investment cases for this business. Until biomethane becomes a more mainstream form of green energy, the work will not end. Even at that point, there will be new challenges and issues to overcome.

Media and narratives

I used to love The Economist, and I even used to collect various articles to prescribe them to read for my students whilst I was teaching Economics at A Levels. It’s been a great influence on the way I write and approach sharing my opinion on things, and I enjoyed the dry wit and British humour, but these days I find the anti-China slant a bit uncalled for.

Take the recent report on China’s dominance in renewables. One of the article that talked about the improvement of air quality in China has the headline, ‘China’s air-quality improvements have hastened global warming’. I used to laugh at The Economist’s self-deprecating humour and when they lambasted silly but political manoeuvres of US presidents. When they try to criticise illiberal practices in China, I get it and understand the Western liberal lens that drives those considerations. However, this is a blatant low blow, a stark contrast to the highbrow approach that I would usually associate with The Economist.

The article isn’t even so much about China’s air quality but the science behind how some of the aerosols emitted by coal plants could have helped with cooling the atmosphere and how geo-engineering techniques based on that could play a role in climate change. Though latest studies suggest this will probably not be enough to cope with challenges in the shifting agriculture landscape as a result of climate change.

We are entering a new era where narratives are being distorted by English-language media, and it doesn’t help the rest of the world understand China any better.

I recall in 2018, when The Economist started a new column on China called ‘Chaguan’ (which really means Tea House in Chinese), they wanted to understand China better and to help the world do that. That hadn’t quite work.

Political culture

Woke Salaryman recently posted this comic article in response to comments towards a previous post about workplace ‘politics’. I really like the realism, the clarity and conviction behind their work. I think it is great that they call out the naivety of those who thinks that they can be ‘above’ politics at work but I’m writing this post because I want to add a more nuance layer to the conversation.

I think Singapore, by and large, have always been sensitive to overt kinds of politicking because of the way politics have been portrayed in our history. We take a more superficial view of what politics mean, as though it is all bad and about behaving in deceptive or conniving, self-serving ways.

And in the workplace, we default to thinking that the virtuous approach is simply to bury head and work hard. That can be a great start in a small working team or organisation where visibility isn’t really a problem. It also works well when productivity, key work metrics are not contentious. Then politicking can seem like it’s all about bootlicking, gossiping and acting in the worse, socially destructive ways.

Politics, which is derived from greek words meaning ‘affairs of a city’ is fundamentally relating to governance and interactions between fellow beings living in the same environment, subject to different constraints and influences that are interdependent on one another in the community. The relationship-building, social interactions, tussle for power, influence or mind-share are all part of it. In a workplace, where we are all coming together to achieve something together, it takes effort and the meta-layer of ‘work’ to organise everyone together.

Work today has evolved and become increasingly complex; it is hard to measure individual effort easily, and particularly challenging to identify precisely what the right skillsets are to progress to the next level. It is ultimately the ability to organise others and persuade them to work together that produces value as opposed to working and contributing directly.

There is a role for politics in all of lives, and maybe Singapore needs to build a culture of politcal-awareness and also encourage citizens to appreciate the positive role it can play in society, workplaces. And we may all also learn the right social, emotional intellect needed to handle tricky situations. With the geopolitical climate of the world today, Singapore needs to cultivate more brilliant diplomats than ever before. How else to do so than to help our people recognise the value of such work to the survival and success of a city state nation.

Policy crowding out

Is job creation the responsibility of the government or businesses/entrepreneurs?

Sure, most governments in capitalistic democracies work hard to reduce red tape, improve ease of doing business and provide all kinds of support to businesses. But can policies to create jobs end up crowding out the private sector activities that create jobs, perhaps even undermining the private sector activities?

For example, when EDB in Singapore attracts MNCs that comes into Singapore and starts hiring, providing good and stable jobs, do they end up disincentivising prospective entrepreneurs from starting their own business? Do they also bid up the cost of strong junior hires for the local companies that need them more? Do the companies that comes into the Singapore market compete out local firms who may have been able to perform the same services in the local economy?

Is there a risk that existing investments in the market hold-hostage our domestic policies? Take, for example, the oil & gas industry in Singapore; do its presence slow down our climate policy? Would the fact that government is busy attracting companies and making things smoother for them cause them to compete more effectively with other local companies who may not have that same support from our own government?

Just bringing up the questions worth pondering over. I’ve no answers but I think it’s worth actually looking into actual data and finding ways to understand some of the answers to these questions I’ve raised.

Understanding carbon intensity versus fuel emissions

One of the reasons I’m writing this article is that Asia Pacific is increasingly recognising the role of renewable and alternative fuels, especially biofuels. And one of the ‘measures’ of sustainability of these fuels, which may be low or zero carbon in emissions, is the carbon intensity (Scope 3). However, it often gets confused with the fuel emissions (Scope 1), and so I thought it was worth explaining clearly.

Fuel decarbonisation is so critical that it covers part of decarbonising electricity generation. Relying on a mix of intermittent renewable generation with short-duration storage in the power system is very challenging. Gas peakers are going to be integral in a system that has a significant share of wind and solar power. Yet there are concerns about carbon emissions associated with gas.

Decarbonising natural gas use and other liquid fuel-use remains a critical lever to achieve net zero by 2050. Renewable fuels, especially biofuels, enable a drop-in solution that bridges our immediate decarbonisation needs with future alternative fuel, or complete electric solutions. There are concerns however, with the sustainability of biofuels, and one of the ‘measures’ of sustainability of these fuels, is the carbon intensity of it.

The carbon intensity of the fuel refers to the lifecycle carbon emitted in the production of the fuel, usually expressed in gCO2e/MJ (reads: grammes of carbon dioxide equivalent per mega-joules). For fuel that is zero emissions, or non-reckonable carbon emissions, there are still carbon emissions associated with its production, processing and transportation before its energy is used. And so if it’s being transported from such a location, or that too much logistics were involved in its feedstock collection, those emissions gets accounted for in this carbon intensity metric. EU use thresholds for carbon intensity to determine if the fuel is ‘sustainable’ or not – on the basis that if the fuel does not achieve a level of emissions reduction, then it cannot be considered renewable.

As should be clear by now, carbon intensity is different from the concept of fuel emissions. The carbon intensity value is not reflective of the emissions of the fuel itself but more of its lifecycle, making it a Scope 3 emission as opposed to Scope 1. Take, for example, a regime where there is a carbon tax associated with fuel emissions, the carbon intensity of the fuel would not actually be considered within the calculation of the carbon tax at all – especially if the tax is designed only to apply to Scope 1 (direct emissions).

However, such a regime where a carbon tax is applied to Scope 1, should be mindful that they do not end up incentivising the use of “low-carbon fuel” that have overly high carbon intensities. Because this would defeat the purpose of trying to price the carbon emission as the direct emissions become displaced by emissions in some other parts of the fuel supply chain.

Carbon intensity is also why the International Maritime Organisation have been pushing for the Net Zero Framework that considers the ‘well-to-wake’ emissions (lifecycle emissions) instead of the ‘tank-to-wake’ (direct Scope 1) emissions. If we are focused only on the ‘tank-to-wake’ emissions, then technically, grey hydrogen or grey ammonia would have zero carbon emissions. We don’t want a case where the emissions are not reduced at the system level but just shifted from one part of the value chain to another – that’s why we care about the carbon intensity of a fuel, not just its direct emissions.

It’s probably worth pointing out I first wrote this article on linkedin and you can find it here.

Advancement through dilemmas

As I ponder over the paradoxes of our society and nature, I begin to see more and more how our traditional linear paradigms about advancement and growth jars too much against reality.

There are many things that appears contradictory and yet continue to co-exist peacefully in the world without apparent conflict except in our minds. There are tyrants who are charismatic, loved and admired but also incompetent democratically elected leaders who could set a country back by decades. And there are both decentralised and centralised systems that appear to thrive, and also implode.

We ask ourselves if history proceeds through its course regardless of individual’s actions and it is just collective macro force created by the tiny actions of every individual that matters, or that it progresses through the agency of a few, put in the positions of power and influence? It’s not clear at all.

So when we think that progress in the system involves maturity of technology, of having regulation, standardisation, proper rules of engagement in place, we also recognise that these things stifles innovation and block new, emergent contenders from taking over incumbent structures.

Similarly, having contending standards or technology pathways look as though they are going to create a gridlock that prevents the industry from adopting a single unified approach.

The western, perhaps Anglo-Saxon, thought models make it difficult to hold those juxtaposing, contradictory ideas together because it supposes that there is just this one way that is the right way.

What if that is not reality at all?

Climate startups

Whether it’s climate tech or climate or sustainability startups, I’ve been encountering them recently. Of course, they are just startup companies, looking to find a product-market fit and then scale their business. There is a massive distraction in today’s market where you could grow a business out of making grant applications and putting together plans, where you try to get funding to take off.

This sounds a lot more like research in academia than the economics of a free market. While government is hoping to drive the development of good climate solutions, they are still tapping on the market where it failed, doing so through what they believe are ways to keep things market-driven when they have actually replaced the market and allowed the grant application processes to pick winners.

The challenge is that the winners picked through a grant application process are not going to be the type who wins in the market. These are firms who would have scrutinized the fine print, delivered on arbitrary KPIs and proxies that some bureaucrat came up with in his or her office. And these schemes are just distracting time, money and resources away from the startups towards satisfying governance requirements. After all, ‘it is taxpayers’ money”

The work of growing a new industrial ecosystem isn’t easy and I’ve spent considerable part of my career thinking about ecosystems, value chains, bottlenecks in developing an industry. If the government can give some demand assurance perhaps for a specific project, or product that the customer would be able to use or satisfied with, then it could help. And very often, if politicians want to be able to make claims about having supported one particular development then things becomes more difficult, not easy. When economic support is driven by a desire for narratives rather than allowing the stories to emerge from a system that is created, you can get a poorly specified policy.

Trust in Singapore

As our nation crosses the diamond jubilee at SG60, people were putting down their wishes of ‘I want to…’ during NDP. The messages played on the videos for NDP were really inspiring and had nice stories from ordinary Singaporeans of diverse background. I felt genuinely moved and encouraged that we can be more than just ourselves and what we bring because Singapore is just a society that has been on the move, that has been developing and growing and thriving. It all feels good.

The stuff that doesn’t feel that good – how do we approach it though? The fact that places and spaces have been sacrificed, people uprooted to make way for development (as the Tekong story suggested). Or that sporting feels more like a lone wolf endeavour more than a national one, particularly during the ‘invisible phase’ of training, working towards Olympic qualifications, etc (story of Lloyd Valberg; though one can’t say this through that story since Singapore wasn’t yet a nation in 1948). Or that the big corporations often push around small businesses because that is ‘normal’ in our culture (story of Yanee; ‘but are you ready for an order of this scale’).

There is a choice to be made on how we see things. And whilst we have been told repeatedly there would be trade-offs, we haven’t yet learnt the real principles and intentions behind the decisions on those trade-offs. Why do we choose one over another? To the ones in places of power, it might be obvious. How could the sacrifice be made worthwhile for those suffering from its consequences?

What principles do we use to uphold our values – whether they are peace, justice or equality? Or perhaps progress? What happens when they are trading off each other? What if we cannot accomplish all of them at the same time? Often, ‘progress’ as the value seems to take centre stage. And is the kind of progress broad or narrowly defined?

To move forward, we must also learn unravel more the principles worth learning about and keeping, which we can use to navigate the future. Our forefathers left them for us but if we don’t pick them up to use them, it would be squandering the success that they’ve worked so hard to build us.