Tag Archives: climate

Arguments for renewable fuels

As part of an assignment for an online course, I developed an article arguing for the role of renewable fuels in the low-carbon economy of the future. I reproduce the full final draft here for my blog readers.

Climate change is a real, global catastrophe that needs urgent and immediate action. 2024 marks the first full year of warming above 1.5 deg C, determined by scientists as the climate change threshold. The Paris agreements were designed to ensure that the long-term average temperatures towards the year 2050 do not exceed this threshold. Breaching this threshold portends irreversible ecosystem damage and more dangerous climate conditions worldwide.

A huge part of climate action involves decarbonising our energy systems, which are responsible for nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon emissions. The rapid deployment of wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and combined with giant battery energy storage systems and pumped hydro energy storage systems, is supporting the decarbonisation of electricity grids and systems. While they are aiming to displace current fossil fuel-based systems, running on fossil coal, oil and gas, there are severe limitations and significant. Only about 20-22% of final energy consumption takes the form of electricity, which means that direct fuel consumption is still the main approach for the consumption of energy.

The solution to this conundrum is renewable fuels; first in the form of biofuels and, subsequently, a combination of biofuels and synthetic fuels produced through various chemical processes, some of which involve renewable electricity as well. Renewable fuels are not transition fuels. They will continue being carriers of energy in the future and serve as an important decarbonisation solution for industries that need to be supported and scaled up.

Renewable fuels are an essential complement to renewable electricity. Not all energy users are served by the electricity grid. The majority of the transport sector, as well as heavy industries, rely on fuels because of mobility or scale requirements. While battery technologies are catching up and have experienced a phenomenal decrease in costs, there are still operational limitations for many use cases. Long-haul heavy transport, due to its energy consumption and mobility, does not lend itself to battery systems. Therefore, even with electrical power production completely decarbonised, significant energy consumption in fuels will still need to be decarbonised. Renewable fuel represents such a solution that will enable low-carbon aviation, maritime transportation, mining and steelmaking to give a few sectors as examples. These sectors are not going away; they will play vital roles in the low-carbon economy of the future.

Renewable fuel contributes to energy resilience and security for countries and industries. Electricity cannot be stored for the long term across seasons except in pumped hydro storage, which requires specific geological features that are not present everywhere. Producing renewable fuels and storing them enables much longer-term energy storage, which can contribute to energy security in times of instability or when supply disruptions occur within the electricity system. This is because fuels are much more stable and transportable, and energy can be released on demand. For example, data centers’ backup power could be a huge battery energy storage system but without an additional source of energy, the batteries would eventually drain down to zero. Renewable fuel can be continuously supplied to the site, and power operations can be operated continuously.

There may be the view that once everything is electrified, only solar, wind and other renewable power generation sources are needed. As mentioned, renewable fuels provide an essential source of energy for mobility and several other sectors that are challenging to electrify and would still require fuel as a backup and for resilience. Moreover, renewable fuels are molecules used not only for energy but also in other chemical industries as chemical feedstocks. Dealing with climate change will require a shift away from fossil-based chemical feedstocks towards low-carbon ones which can be unlock from renewable fuels.

Recognising the role of renewable fuels in the climate transition is just the first step. The next would be to call upon policy actions, advocacy and industrial adoption to ensure the commercial viability. Renewable fuel technologies are available and established. To get to palatable levels of cost for the market, world-scale production needs to be established. That will require industries and energy users to provide unequivocal support for adoption. This is can only be possible with strong policy action to price carbon emissions, mandate blending and adoption; driving demand expansion serves also to expand production and enable economies of scale necessary to make renewable fuels a cost-effective solution for decarbonisation. The low-carbon future is not possible without renewable fuels; and renewable fuels will not enter the equation without policy action.

Low-carbon Hydrogen

I came across a point made by a supporter of low-carbon hydrogen when others were arguing that green hydrogen should be reserved for hard-to-abate sectors, but not for other sectors that can easily decarbonise through a lower-cost pathway instead. The point was that if low-carbon hydrogen was only going to target the hard-to-abate sector, the market size simply isn’t enough to create the scale necessary to drive down the cost of low-carbon hydrogen.

This comes at a time when we are discovering that some of the sectors that could actually pay for low-carbon hydrogen are those with much lower-cost approaches to decarbonisation (for example, food product or food services companies). So why would they be willing to pay higher price for low-carbon hydrogen? Technically, this is where economics starts to break down. Part of the reason is that the end customers are willing to pay – this is especially possible for consumer products where the agrifood industry may be able to differentiate the introduce the food prepared using low-carbon hydrogen. This is exactly what some Seven cafes in Japan is doing.

And to a certain extent, every industry starts out this way; if solar panels were simply looking to the locations with huge energy demand in the day, and also lots of solar resources for power generation, the market is going to be incredibly small. And certainly insufficient to enable the lower cost from economies of scale. So finding use cases and continually expanding them is important. While it might be admirable to keep trying to create premium products and then price it well, the alternative way of getting economics in your favour is actually to keep innovating on use-cases and focus on growing scale in a way that lowers unit cost. This then allows for further expansion of demand and use which improves learning at manufacturing and drives the cost advantage further.

That is the story of China’s manufacturing rise. And Lidar technology is a great example. The original use case for lidar technology was very limited to very specialised fields where great precision was needed in sensing and mapping physical spaces. It was initially used almost exclusively in military applications and would probably have remained so if not for China entering the picture and driving down costs through sheer manufacturing scale. By pushing down prices to particular thresholds, the mass market use case in EVs and other driver-assistance technologies emerges and serves to expand the pool of demand further.

During the hype of low-carbon hydrogen during 2020-2023, people were expecting that the cost of hydrogen production could be pushed down to such levels. Yet if we examine the value chain and recognise that the opportunity cost of using renewable electricity for hydrogen production, we would see that it was difficult for hydrogen production to compete with electrification as a commercially viable approach for decarbonising a lot of low-heat industrial applications.

An alternative path to commercialising low-carbon hydrogen is needed; and it is more about finding other use cases. It could be locations where fuel is needed to run mobile applications, or where transport of liquid fuels were prohibitively expensive and being able to easily produce it make sense. And finally, one of my favourite approach, which I am sure would be the first early commercialisation pathway: colocating green hydrogen facilities with biogas/biomethane production facilities, producing green hydrogen, then use Sabatier reaction (methanation) to produce e-methane, boosting the overall output per unit biogenic feedstock.

Yet even then, it is still necessary to drive costs down in order to be able to produce a product catering to a large and expanding market. Even for that pathway highlighted, the actual demand possible for a single hydrogen project would be limited by the available biogenic carbon dioxide which is limited by the scale of the biofuel/biogas plant. These are all bottlenecks of the renewable industry that needs to be managed. Wind and solar, especially solar is a lot more disconnected from local supply chain and ecosystems in order to pull off a successful project as they are modular and largely plug-and-play. While it means government have less hard work on creating the supply chain, there is less local benefits reaped or job opportunities created from building out solar facilities than if the market starts looking into biofuels and hydrogen.

Ultimately, the economics of hydrogen requires very strong government collaboration and the actual boots-on-the-ground work of creating the supply chain, infrastructure and delivery mechanisms. To tap into some pockets of willingness-to-pay at the moment would help.

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.

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.

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.

Hydrogen’s bad news

Things hasn’t been the most positive for hydrogen the past 2 years or so. Hyzon Motor is on the verge of ‘giving up’, while When one look back, it is a wonder why we felt comfortable ignoring some of the bigger problems associated with hydrogen. It is definitely less ‘trendy’ to tout hydrogen as the solution for the energy transition these days.

One of the challenge about the climate and energy transition is that it is a transition. And that means there is going to be change happening over time; and the challenge is that we don’t really know what the end point is in terms of the technology and pathways even when we know that we’re trying to have a go at net zero.

In the meantime, as we struggle to determine what we’ll use to fuel our aircrafts or vessels, we are making decisions on replacing these equipment, and trying to project cashflows over an asset lifespan or 20-30 years. These all without the certainty of the fuel being available is extremely challenging. So instead, we are more likely to bet on things not changing rather than things changing.

Hydrogen continues to face an uphill battle when it comes to the science, the technology and economics. But there is still good reasons for us to continue refining the technology we have. In the mean time, while we are still trying to decarbonise what we can, we try to leverage the resources that are available more immediately. We can optimise our biofuel supply chains more to achieve lower carbon intensity. Along that journey, we can improve our traceability of feedstocks and biofuel supply chains.

Now, biofuels or any of the new fuels will never be as ‘cheap’ as fossil fuel. And just because they are chemically almost equivalent to the hydrocarbons we dig from the ground doesn’t mean they are the same. This means we will have to continue working at pricing carbon and allowing the real price of carbon to hit all of us. Governments can protect the economically vulnerable not by blocking the transition but ensuring that more and more of that carbon revenues gets directed to support the vulnerable who may not be able to deal with the cost from the transition.

Biofuels could even be a commercialisation pathway for green hydrogen as the hydrogen can contribute to boosting the biofuel yields of organic feedstocks in the FT-Gasification pathway and improve the overall economics of the project when there is access to cheap renewable electricity. It’s almost like blending e-fuels into the mix already. This is a plausible intermediate step for us to encourage more green hydrogen production to sufficiently create more scale to bring down the costs.

The technology surrounding logistics for hydrogen then needs to improve before the end-use equipment would transform. Changing end-use equipment is still the hardest to do. Even if it’s just the heavy industrial users who have to change.

So the good news is that we may still eventually land on hydrogen in some shape or form. It may not be what we are envisioning now, but it’s vital to recognise that the time horizon is probably a lot more stretched out than we think.

When oil saved the environment

In Seth Godin’s new book, This is Strategy for, he had a chapter (the book has over 200 chapters, all of them short and highly readable) on killing whales.

He documented the rise of the whale-hunting industry in the 1800s where sperm whales were hunted down for their blubber. The activity was both dangerous and lucrative because a single sperm whale’s blubber could yield many barrels of lamp oil. The demand for lighting onshore and offshore fueled the whaling activity.

For a time to the mid 1850s, it seemed like they could just go on and hunt sperm whales to their extinction. Yet the earth today still has sperm whales. Thanks to the discover of petroleum and hence the advent of keroscene used in oil lamps. The cost of keroscene was much more competitive than lamp oil made from whale blubber and the petroleum industry was also costing less human lives.

Climate solutions that displace fossil fuels would need to achieve cost reductions to scale. But we could all inprove their chances by removing fossil fuel subsidies and pricing carbon. Of course, that will “hurt” the cost of living for many people. But if we think about it at system level, it is more about a sort of attachment to the current status quo of how we value different things, and refusing to change that.

I don’t think we could derive any sort of moral authority from the market to say we’re producing something that destroys our future because it is cheaper. We may not have a future to spend that surplus savings on. At the system level, we will have to help one another cope with changes.

Learning to struggle

If there’s one big thing we need in society that the education system is not properly teaching us, that is the need to struggle. There’s this sentiment in the education system that struggling suggests something is wrong, that is a state to transit away from, and to be avoided if possible. But what if struggling through difficulties, challenges is actually an important aspect of life? What if it takes struggling in order to truly learn something? Not just to acquire head knowledge but also to have a practical sense of how to use that knowledge?

How do we teach people to be resilient otherwise? How do we cultivate a generation of people who can actually deal with those problematic issues confronting mankind (eg. climate change, sharp inequalities, cracks in market capitalism, etc)?

The monolithic system

What if the sun could give us all our power and energy, to drive everything we need to power our economies, perform our activities and live life? Or what if we can afford everything that we ever want and need? What if money can buy us everything? What if this one thing can solve all your problems?

If all that hypothetical questioning sounds like a bunch of marketing crap or storytelling, they are actually fantastic devices that somehow appeals so much to our psyche. But they can simultaneously be truth with caveats and also complete bullshit.

In case you are curious, I provide the solutions:

  • The sun does power a lot of things and is capable of providing sufficient energy for all of our activities and more but capturing it and channeling them properly is had.
  • We, as a collective earth, already is able to afford everything we produce and will be able to satisfy all of our needs – wants on the other hand are completely manufactured by ourselves and can be managed.
  • Money can buy us everything that can be bought (or sold).
  • One thing that can solve all your problems is a mental reframe to see them not as problems but challenges to help you grow.

There is always some kind of rhetoric to get you out of those conundrum but doesn’t really address the actual psychological appeal of those questions. The thing is that we naturally gravitate towards some kind of monolithic system or idea where we want a single solution or something that becomes a common denominator for everything else. Money comes close to becoming that. Yet that has probably demonstrated that such a system do not actually deliver what you think it would.

Likewise, the market economy and market system isn’t going to be the one that delivers us all from the problems around energy, climate change, innovations and poverty elimination. The market system needs to be rightly placed for what it is good for just as we should see wind and solar power in their place within the energy system rather than expecting them to deliver all our needs. Even oil and gas was not able to power all of our world’s energy needs even if they came close to that. Monolithic systems reduces resilience even if they provide scale economies.