Tag Archives: energy

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.

Airlines & SAF

It’s been a while since I’ve written and since coming back from a SAF conference last week, the challenges faced by the entire ecosystem continues to weigh on my mind. The most obvious challenge in the fact that producers (energy companies or feedstock suppliers venturing into SAF production) and users (airlines) diverge sharply on their views of what is a price that the market can exist and perpetuate at.

To me, this is a symptom of underlying issues including the fact that SAF mandates are crudely determined with a volumetric blend, and that more often than not, the mandates could just force all airports to try and adopt SAF as opposed to starting with some key nodes and rolling out to the minor airports. Or the mandates could just be fulfilled by airlines at the level of their fleets. Or in the case of domestic carriers and flights, all of the flights for that year of reporting. This allows airlines to meet the mandates flexibly. And the market can then optimise for the logistics of delivery as well.

Another issue with the volumetric blending mandates is that typically there’s a threshold of emissions reduction that the fuel must meet to be considered SAF, and the users will purchase just the cheapest one available. That means that producers are not incentivised to produce any fuel better than the mandated threshold. This throws up questions: whether you could blend a bit of A1 Jet fuel into a SAF with much lower carbon intensity than the threshold and then call it ‘neat SAF’? Tricky. And controversial.

At the end of the day, what are regulators and the economy trying to achieve? Decarbonisation. Is aviation important enough for policymakers to focus their attention? Yes and no. Yes because it is hard-to-abate and if no regulations are in place, they will just keep going and spew more carbon into the air. But no because ultimately, aviation emissions are only 2.5% of the global emissions. The proportion will surely grow as the rest of the economy decarbonises; so most of the approach now essentially is to throttle that aviation emissions growth.

Will throttling aviation emissions growth destroy aviation demand? Surely without a doubt. Should we do that only in places where there’s substitutes which are low-carbon (such as trains and electric transportation)? Perhaps. For individual government and agencies making decisions, ultimately, aviation is really not a huge area compared to most other carbon-emitting industries. There’s perception that aviation will have higher willingness-to-pay but I don’t think that should necessarily be the excuse to push the emissions reduction on them.

Again, those are just my opinions and musings for the week.

SAF sustainability and pricing

This year, the EU mandated 2% Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) blending in all airports feeding into aeroplanes. The definitions of SAF for EU is clear, mostly based on a whitelist of feedstocks that are proven to be ‘sustainable’ and achieves a high level of carbon emissions reduction on a lifecycle basis (70% or more compared to A1 Jet Fuels). Unlike CORSIA, which puts the onus on airlines to reduce their emissions from jet fuels, RefuelEU regulations put the responsibility on fuel suppliers that supply to the airports. These suppliers will need to quote their prices to airlines accounting for these regulations, and while airlines don’t have to deal with the hassle of making sure the blend is correct to meet compliance requirements, they will need to bear the increased costs.

Now, there are also similar SAF regulations in the US under Renewable Fuel Standards, but their requirements for feedstocks and lifecycle carbon emissions reductions are different. Just to caveat first that I’m way less familiar with the US standards and requirement but based off some work from my colleagues, I understand they are less stringent, defining SAF to require 50% reduction in lifecycle carbon emissions compared to conventional jet fuels. This allows feedstocks such as corn ethanol, or other dedicated energy crop-based feedstocks (including canola, other oilseed crops) to be used for their SAF.

And if you refer back to the ICAO standards set under CORSIA, they only require that there’s 10% reduction in carbon emissions. It is still unclear to me what would constitute ‘SAF’ to the countries in Asia Pacific that are all introducing some SAF volumetric blending mandate.

One of the key challenges with just defining a standard threshold for carbon reduction and then setting a volumetric SAF target is that you don’t incentivise SAF producers to reduce their lifecycle carbon emissions. It becomes a race to the bottom for the airlines or fuel suppliers to buy the cheapest SAF that meets the threshold for compliance. If instead, we set a carbon emission reduction target and require the blend to achieve that target, then we can benefit from a greater diversity of SAF feedstocks and pathways that meets the economics on the basis of a unit carbon abatement cost. After all, the carbon emission reduction is the piece of value we care about for SAF at the moment, won’t it be better to price that?

SAF Pathways and value pockets

Today’s conventional wisdom around the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) market is that it will start with the HEFA pathway which converts oily waste compounds into jet fuel. The process is well established and economical. The challenge is aggregation of the feedstocks which takes the form either of used cooking oil and oily waste streams coming out of some vegetable oil production streams. They could also take virgin vegetable oil and oil from oilseeds to produce (but these tend to have a higher lifecycle emission associated with them as they are cultivated and will require fertiliser inputs and other resources).

The regulators and market expect that these feedstocks will be insufficient as the virgin oils should be reserved for food use and the waste-based feedstocks are limited. So then when the HEFA feedstocks supply goes down, prices of these feedstocks would move up towards the next SAF pathway. The popular contender after HEFA is the alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) pathway. They take bioethanol or methanol and turn them into jet fuel. This process is a bit more expensive, but because bioethanol is already being produced by various plants worldwide to supply provide for gasoline blending in countries with ethanol-blending mandate, it has a much more stable and ready market than used cooking oil.

Further technology pathways are expected to involve gasification where biomass is subjected to thermal processes that breaks down the material into constituent carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen compounds, then reformed to make liquid fuels including jet fuel. These pathways are even more expensive, but their feedstock, which is pretty much any biomass, would be much more abundant.

So, the supply curve is expected to notch upward in discrete steps; once prices hit the threshold to unlock the next technology pathway, more feedstock will enter the picture and hence increase the supply of SAF available. This doesn’t mean that the earlier pathways will earn more margin, because the bottlenecks are the feedstocks; typically, the feedstock owners or aggregators tend to extract more of that value.

But this would mean that the prices of SAF should and can only rise as the mandate for more SAF and aviation decarbonisation becomes stricter and emission reduction targets become more ambitious. Now there is another transition to consider. That is a scenario where the chief driver of SAF adoption, regulations and blending would be decided by the market – but the outcome they are targeting would be based on proportion reduction of carbon emissions relative to conventional jet fuels.

Now of course, some from Oil & Gas players might think they can use carbon capture and storage to lower the fossil jet fuel intensity to meet the criteria. Yes to a certain limit; because the carbon dioxide emitted during the aircrafts’ journeys from fossil jet fuels will always been counted while the biofuel or synthetic fuel’s emissions will be zero (because they are short-cycle or biogenic carbon dioxide).

So I urge regulators and policy-makers; focus on the carbon intensity reduction targets, rather than volumetric blending targets.

Land resources

I don’t think we’re being imaginative or aggressive enough with tackling climate issues. Nor are we thinking about how to sync-up our efforts to grow our economies, improve lives together with environmental conservation efforts. There are plenty of false dichotomies that result from how we’ve developed our economies. It’s haunting us and discouraging us from thinking in worthy directions for problem-solving.

One example of a dichotomy that may turn out to be false in the long run is the issue of food versus fuel. The food shortage problems today is driven by logistics and localised disaster more than aggregate unavailability or insufficiency. If anything, instead of trying to outright ban dedicated energy crops or crop-based feedstocks for biofuel production, it would be wiser to encourage a programme of reducing desertification and farming of marginal land with resilient crops that can be used as feedstocks for biofuels.

Another involves questioning of thermodynamically-unappealing solutions. Direct air capture (DAC) requires that energy is so cheap that you should mechanically capture the carbon dioxide from the air with machines. And yes, it doesn’t take as much land per unit of carbon captured. It could even compete with vegetation/forests. One could consider through the lens of this competition with nature: Forests takes about 860 square km of land to absorb 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide whereas if you were to build a DAC plant plus a solar farm powering it which can capture 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year would only take about 30 square km, which is ~3.4% of the land area. [my calculations are back-of-envelope and derived from unit figures here and here].

Yes, but then what about the limited lifespan and all the value chain emissions from making solar panels and DAC systems? Indeed, those trade-offs are worth thinking about, which is why we probably won’t advocate replacing natural habitats and forests with DAC. A forest is more than just sequestering carbon, but also provides other ecosystem services such as enhancing biodiversity, increasing groundwater supply, and even helping to clean the water and reducing the risks of desertification.

At some level, biofuels compete with synthetic or e-fuels; and biomethane perhaps is imagined to compete with hydrogen. But all of these are false dichotomies. The world needs us to keep working on different solutions and coordinate our efforts to scale them where they make sense. One can be purist about different things and get nowhere. Let’s try to lay out the trade-offs and work through those in specific contexts rather than seek to rule out solutions on the whole.

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)?

Carbon pricing

I’ve written about carbon credits (here and here); but I never really quite considered them from the perspective of carbon tax, because I generally thought of it as just another instrument that is used to price carbon. In reality, the different mechanisms actually work differently. And even for ‘carbon markets’, where you allow trading (which can take the form of credits or allowances, again slightly different conceptually), the carbon price can take on different meanings depending on the underlying instrument in question.

Singapore’s carbon tax system introduced the idea of allowing carbon credits to ‘offset’ these taxes. And the carbon credits are essentially international carbon credits generated from projects that removes or mitigates emissions in one way or another. This is not new as some other markets have allowed the use of offsets to reduce ETS liabilities (eg. Korea). In Singapore, companies who wish to do so can only have 5% of their carbon tax exposure offset using eligible carbon credits; and there are clear specifications of what works and what doesn’t.

This marriage of carbon taxes and pricing with the generation of quality international carbon credits is something critical to bring the next step of carbon pricing to maturity. Global ‘carbon resources’ in the form of means of removal and sequestration is not uniform, even when we are all sharing the same atmosphere. It is therefore necessary to be able to trade carbon. Technically, because there is negligible transport cost when you ‘trade’ carbon, global pricing of carbon should eventually converge to the same levels. It is potentially as close as it gets to a good that can be pure commodity. Yet because of the whole issue around measurement integrity and the lack of consensus around some of the dodgier types of carbon credit methods, it is going to be very difficult for pricing to converge any time soon. The variations globally in regulating carbon emissions and putting a price on carbon emissions would also serve to slow down global carbon trade.

At the end of the day, there are wider geopolitical and economic considerations blocking stronger climate action. Working along these forces will be necessary since fighting them is rarely an option.

Gas Transition

Natural gas seem to be the fossil fuel which was supposed to be a transition fuel that overstayed its welcome. In fact, it seem to have failed at its job at properly displacing coal and yet today, it is seen as a dirty fuel to be transited away from rather than towards.

That is actually a very anglo-saxon view of the energy transition and if you go around Asia, to some of the fast growing economies you’d realise that notion is somewhat deluded. Natural gas is still growing and providing more energy to more businesses, households and people not because of the gas lobby or some kind of oil & gas conspiracy but that plans laid down in the past to move towards gas are just cranking on and moving forward. Sure, things are not moving as fast as we would like them to, but it is incredibly challenging to keep trying to drive people off gas towards renewable electricity when we have not properly dealt with or created a realistic pathway out of coal power.

A premature transition out of gas, especially for currently non-electrified uses, could be expensive. And electrifying heavy industrial loads when a power system is still dominated by coal, is certainly emissions-blind.