environment Archives - Page 2 of 12

Primary energy fallacy

I think more people need to understand this concept that was attributed to Michael Liebriech, a thought-leader in the energy transition. Sam Hamels just wrote a pretty short explainer of its implications on Linkedin, which I encourage you all to read.

The assumptions are simple and does not address some of the other obstacles along the way but it is important that we should not be overwhelmed by the gross energy requirements in primary energy terms when we recognise that a lot of primary energy in the form of fuel are lost in the process of converting them into energy.

There are other obstacles along the way however, when considering that the most viable and economic renewable electricity sources are typically wind and solar, with substantial hydropower in the mix for certain geographies. These include:

Transmission and distribution infrastructure:
- Hydropower tends to be farther away from demand centers so the distance of transmission makes the infrastructure expensive
- Wind and solar tends to be intermittent which means that a lot more needs to be transmitted during the times they are produced while the infrastructure remains underutilized when they are not available
- Overall capacity will need to be increased compared to the fossil energy regime
Energy storage infrastructure:
- While hydropower dams could benefit from becoming pumped storage, other renewables such as wind and solar will require significant energy storage in the grid in order to reduce the need to overbuild (because of the point above)
- Energy storage will also help provide the ancillary services for the electricity system as fossil plants retreat from the system (eg. reserve markets, frequency and voltage supports) while it becomes more volatile due to intermittent renewable electricity.
- A lot more investment into stationary energy storage will be required. At least before the more lofty vehicle-to-grid concepts kick into place.
End-use system/equipment changes
- To reap the benefits of the improved efficiency of an electricity based energy system, there will be a need to electrify more which means end-use equipment will need to be changed – assuming we’re trying to change a whole fleet of equipment with no regard to remaining lifespan, we are not properly using up our invested assets.
- Typically, fuel-driven systems have longer lifespans than those driven by electricity – that may have to do with the fact that fuel-driven systems are more mechanical and have less delicate circuitry systems. Of course, that varies with specific use-case and appliance but what this means is that you might still face more frequent replacement, and the environmental cost of that might need to be carefully considered.
- In some cases, the change in end-use equipment requires further infrastructure support. The most important example is electric vehicles, which need the support of a robust charging network – that must be supported by improved distribution networks in the grid.
- Besides the grid, institutional improvements that properly allocate costs and reflect them to customers are necessary as well. Sometimes, it may make the transition harder as well. For example, the peak demand pricing of electricity markets drove a bakery in Queensland Australia to change their electric ovens to gas fired ones because they absolutely have to bake their breads in the early hours of the morning.

Now the reason I’m listing all these other obstacles is to challenge us to think through the solutions needed having convinced ourselves that we actually can work on getting enough supply into the system. There is still a lot of work to do to ensure this supply actually matches the real demand. Looking at gross energy terms is simply not enough, as evident from the primary energy fallacy itself.

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.

Asset prices & markets

I haven’t looked closely into the numbers, but one cannot help but realise that those markets that have grown well over the past few decades, but where stock exchanges or equity multiples have been relatively pathetic in performance, tend to have exceptional performance in the real estate market. Cases that come to mind include Singapore, China, Vietnam and perhaps more recently, Hong Kong.

This makes the proposal from Singapore government on trying to boost the stock exchange in Singapore through this ‘Equity Market Development Programme (EQDP)’ pretty interesting. The initial idea is to have funds that inject liquidity into companies in the SGX beyond just those represented in the broad market index. Mechanics aside, I don’t know how well the intentions are conveyed by the government. Maybe they think it is too sensitive to share or too controversial. I think it’s more interesting to consider the intent properly than the mechanics or the chances of success at this point.

The issue with wealth getting tied up with the real estate market in Singapore and especially for Singaporeans is that it is illiquid as an asset; the value growth can be quite uneven, and more significantly, housing is a necessity so when it becomes a way in which majority of the people store their wealth, it prevents the newcomers from entering the market. Across generations, it can lead to severe distortions in terms of affordability. Home ownership is seen as a cornerstone in the formation of community and Singapore society – owning a home gives us a physical stake, and more importantly, it leads us to take actions that are more long-term when it comes to caring for our surroundings.

So in my mind, the EQDP is more about trying to activate and encourage overall movement of wealth towards the stock market rather than the housing market. After all, not everyone needs to hold a piece of stock but everyone needs a shelter above their heads. We’d rather have asset price inflation in the stock market than to have it in our housing market. Besides, the liquidity of Singaporeans has probably been contributing to the asset price inflation in the stock markets in the US. So why not keep them at home? This, I think is probably a more significant intent for EQDP than just thinking about financial markets development. And I think this social intent is probably more admirable than the calculative sense of how much more economic benefit or mileage we can get out of the markets in Singapore or the spill over financial services impact it can create.

Now whether the mechanisms proposed as part of the EQDP makes sense or not, I’ll perhaps comment some other day. And maybe when it is clearer what it would be.

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.

What made Singapore’s economy?

One of the reasons I determined to study economics was because Singapore was a country labeled as an economic miracle, and I thought it’d be cool to figure out what was behind it. For decades, we’ve been told that it was the brilliance, hard work and sacrifice of our forefathers, strong leaders and a little bit of circumstances that made us what we are today.

It was a nice feel-good lesson but it wasn’t always easy to make clear of what it means for the future. There was limited strategies that we could adopt out of it. We did also learn that Singapore was a trading hub so it was vital that the world trading system went on and developed, because we facilitate that trade across west and the east, and we served those large vessels, and loads of containers, bulk goods that had to change hands in our location. So the port we had serviced these people and lots of local companies and industries grew to support that.

Even that wasn’t enough; it was thanks to the brilliance of our early leaders which attracted industrial players to set up shop in Singapore, provide employment, opportunities for skills, and provide an industrial core on which we could develop from. To accomplish all that, we need to have good and well-educated labour force, and a very stable environment. The strength of our government is delivering on all of that.

Today, our economy remains extremely reliant on trade, though one may argue that our original intent was to use trade to lift ourselves up enough to develop our own industrial giants and core. A couple of countries like Taiwan, Korea, Japan and even China sort of achieved that but Singapore remains much stronger in terms of the bringing in foreign direct investments, and providing services to parts of the economy that’s doing very well. We have yet to really build up strong giants, opt-ing instead to play the financial game which is heavily reliant on money as an asset.

I think it is clear that we had spotted an opportunity to bring ourselves out of poverty through the economic strategies but after it delivered good results previously. From now, we will need to figure out the way forward that does not merely involve repeating past actions, but improving upon those past actions more radically. Finally, we ought to recognise that our final goal is to create our own industrial champions that can secure a footing in the global stage.

60 years on, we have matured a lot as an economy but I think it’s only the beginning.

Trump tariffs

We live in interesting times and as an economist, I find it hard to resist commenting on the events I’m living within. I got into economics because I’ve been fascinated by trade, the amazing ability for the world to grow in production just because it is able to specialise in different things and thereby contribute to overall growth and prosperity of the world. The challenge is that being good at different things can affect how the overall increase in wealth or production is distributed. But if we care mainly about the world being able to do more together at the same time, we just want to maximise trade. On the other hand, if we care about only what we get individually, on relative terms with others, then yes, trade can get contentious, even if we are getting more on an absolute scale than if we hadn’t trade.

There is quite a couple of forces within the US economy that is generating the symptoms that we are seeing including the huge trade and budget deficits. None of them is going to be easily resolved through the use of trade tariffs. And yes indeed, there will be a need for the world system of trade, foreign reserves and financial exchanges to shift. The question of how it will shift and whether the transition is smooth or not will depend on both the actions of US and the rest of the world. Trump’s approach of bringing people to the negotiating table doesn’t make so much sense when he is simultaneously weakening his hand while trying to strike deals with multiple parties.

What that shows is a highly ego-centric or US-centric view of the world that will prove to be self-destructive. I’m not saying that the whole of US thinks or act this way but the fact that such a leader is voted into office makes things more difficult than it is. Obviously the electoral college system might need to be rethought or reformed but there’s probably too much gaming of the system that is taking place.

Back to the point about tariffs. By imposing a broad sweeping tariff system across the world, what will happen is that overall cost of living and consumption will rise in the US given how much it is dependent on imports (the deficit themselves reflect that). The goods or services where demand is more price sensitive might find themselves switching more towards domestically produced ones assuming that they exists and can be priced competitively. Otherwise, the status quo + higher tariffs will prevail. The government will maybe raise their revenue from customs but the US consumers are ultimately paying these tariffs. So on the trade front, nothing really happens, and on the government budget front, the government is probably going to get a bit more revenue to reduce their budget deficit.

If we assume that the reason for US budget deficit is that the government isn’t taxing enough relative to their spending, then it means they will have to somehow find ways to obtain more from the value that they are bringing to the markets. Perhaps it is the rule of law, or regulation of the markets, the government isn’t charging the fair amount to the beneficiaries, or allowing too much leakages (think corporates avoiding taxes or billionaires parking their returns in offshore tax havens). If we assume the richest ones are the most mobile, then applying tariffs would simply worsen the inequality situation in the US.

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.

War against biofuels

As I continued my work promoting the circularity of recovering organic waste and residue for energy purposes (mostly through the production of various biofuels), I begin to see the challenge that this space face.

Right now, EU is putting strict rules around the feedstocks allowed for the biofuels that count towards decarbonisation in their jurisdictions and hence the emergence of ISCC EU standards and certification for the value chains surrounding biofuels (and of course, other renewable fuels). Some crop-based feedstocks are allowed, but most crop-based feedstocks are being penalised by the indirect land-use change (ILUC) considerations – which are being reconsidered at the moment. However, there are some groups who are outright against crop-based feedstocks and considering them unsustainable.

Transport & Environment, in particular, have been rather against the whole idea of biofuels and champion a future that is based on hydrogen. They view biofuels as transition fuels that have no place in a net zero world. Consider the letter crafted to push shipping companies away from biofuels for green shipping just because they claim particular crops have been devastating the environment. They continue their assault on palm and soy industries instead of working alongside to find solutions to help these industries boost yield and reduce deforestation. Consider the achievement of the corn industry in the US, driven by the need to produce bioethanol. Won’t it be better if people work together to realise such improvement and increase the supply of alternative fuels in the world rather than screaming doom and gloom about one feedstock or another?

So what kind of doom and gloom are they perpetuating here, you ask? They commissioned a study by Cerulogy showing that “palm and soy oil would likely make up nearly two-thirds of the biodiesel used to power the shipping industry in 2030 as they represent the cheapest fuels to comply.” Again, the concern is food supply being affected as the resources are directed to energy; and also deforestation driven by these crops as feedstock? Isn’t EU Deforestation Regulations (EUDR) meant to look into these areas? Why not just use the tracking and scrutiny to prevent that damage instead of creating blanket bans? Use an lifecycle assessment-driven approach? And focus our efforts on developing clearer standards for lifecycle assessments rather than trying to exclude solutions before they hit the ground?

Well, if you really want to promote hydrogen, you can also consider the environmental damage from the lack of circularity in the solar, wind and battery materials space. The thing about green hydrogen is that it will require intermittent renewable power and these resources do also take up land space. They may not compete with food crops because they use marginal land; or that livestock can continue to coexist amidst solar panels. Wait, food crops could be grown with other parts of their biomass directed to fuels too! And many of these crops can be directed towards animal feed for feedstocks.

I agree that we probably want to think through a bit how the incentives we create can have very bad unintended consequences. But trying so hard to do that on biofuels is not going to undo the problems introduced by decades of subsidising the fossil industries via various policies. Those distorted incentives are plaguing us till this day.

Why is there such a war against biofuels? I don’t get it.

Decarbonisation challenge

The energy transition is difficult, not least because people cannot agree on which solution to pursue. People are concerned that the world will go down the wrong path and bring us to the brink of a different disaster instead. Yet we are arguing with each other in front of the ticking time bomb of climate change while the problem of huge amounts of carbon emissions continues.

Behind these ‘energy transition experts’, the energy users are beginning to realise they must take charge of their future energy destiny. There is not going to be a straight-forward answer but they will have to figure out what works for them while decarbonising their energy use. And this is why government and policymakers ought to continue ensuring proper pricing of carbon in their system, and defining standards to track and trace the carbon emissions along supply chains.

The basic operating principles are: (1) ensuring emissions data is tracked and that (2) carbon emissions are priced (it can be paid for by anyone in the value chain as they ought to be able to pass on the price until it hits the ultimate direct emitter so that they are incentivised to lower their emissions). These two principles would already do wonders without complexifying things.

The oil majors want us to find energy transition difficult. They want to be the ones to empathise with the huge challenge ahead of us. Because if we are discouraged and slow things down, we can at least buy more fossil fuel in the meantime. Or we can find ways of paying for carbon dioxide removal directly from their fuel emissions or from the air so that it is fine to continue using fossil fuel. Those are more obviously the wrong paths we don’t want to go down. The more natural gas you use right now that comes from the geological reserves, the more empty caverns available for these players to store carbon dioxide in the future.

It’s not easy to cut through the smoke; and we can definitely be more careful with the process by which we arrive at the ideas we have strong convictions about. But if we can keep to those principles and to try and keep solutions simple, we can get to the answer.

Economics and efficiencies

Dr Janeway’s article on False Economies highlights some of the philosophical underpinnings of the modern, capitalistic study of economics that drives the system to behave in ways that endangers the entire economy’s long term prospects at times.

There were so many different themes brought out in the article that is worth more investigation and appreciation. The point that Arrow-Debreu’s work points to the fact that our markets in reality would never be efficient is something that we do not embrace enough of – especially in public policy.

The lack of political courage and unwillingness to be accountable to policy decisions drives the notion that we must ‘leave things to the market’. And today, with the world facing the climate challenge, I do not believe that the market is the solution to deal with the challenge. The political will to align incentives, define standards and mobilise efforts is necessary.

The recent Oxfam study about the rich getting richer faster than the poor being uplifted shows that, indeed, we have enough money to deal with the world’s problems. But far too often, it is either in the wrong hands or working towards the wrong goals. Economics assumes the market would direct resources to the ‘right goals’ but this goal-selection process at present is dysfunctional.