Greenhouse Issues Number 65, March 2003
Following the recommendations of the Regina workshop
on capture and storage of CO2 (see
Greenhouse Issues, number 64), the recent plenary meeting
of IPCC decided that IPCC should prepare a special report on this
subject. This is a very important development since the reports
of IPCC are widely regarded by governments as a good source of
advice on climate issues.
- At the Regina workshop, 13 presentations gave an overview
of the state-of-the-art of CO2 capture
and storage and some thinking about how it could be deployed.
The workshop developed recommendations about the main structure
of an IPCC report:
Introduction to capture and storage and the role it could play
in making deep reductions in CO2 emissions.
- Sources of CO2 including matching
sources with stores
- CO2 capture including capture systems,
options for separation, cost and other aspects
- CO2 transport including pipelines
and ships
- Geological storage including cost and capacity, injection,
monitoring, impact and legal position.
- Ocean storage including cost and capacity, monitoring, impact
and legal position.
- Re-use and other storage options
- Total costs and market potential
- Implications for emission inventories and accounting
- Critical gaps in knowledge
The IPCC Assembly, held 19th-21st February in Paris, expressed
its thanks to all of the participants at the Regina workshop for
their contributions. The recommended structure of the report was
generally accepted with the addition of a section on technology
transfer to developing countries. Delegates also stressed the
need to address the questions about the permanence of storage,
environmental impacts and safety of both geological and ocean
storage.
The next steps are that IPCC';s Working Group III Bureau will
prepare a list of potential authors, based upon government nominations
and interest from other parties, trying to balance expertise and
regional involvement. The preparation of the report will be structured
around 6-monthly meetings of the Lead authors. The Norwegian government
has offered to host the first such meeting, which will take place
in the last week of June in Oslo.
The final version of the papers from the Regina workshop and
most of the presentations are now available for downloading from
the web site www.climatepolicy.info/ipcc.
Back to Top
Based at the University of Regina, Canada, the International
Test Centre for Carbon Dioxide Capture (ITC) builds upon the internationally-recognised
expertise of the research group that has been running at the university
for the past 10 years investigating advanced CO2
capture technologies.
The ITC is focussing on developing technologies that will help
to reduce CO2 emissions from large point
sources, especially those produced by the energy sector. The aim
is for the technology to decrease the amount of CO2
released into the atmosphere, provide the CO2
for new storage opportunities, and develop new industrial uses
for the gas.
There are three components of the ITC:
- A large scale pre-commercial demonstration facility attached
to SaskPower';s Boundary Dam lignite-fired electrical generating
station.
- Regina Pilot Plant - a technology development plant that
explores new technologies and seeks to optimise their use before
the final testing at Boundary Dam.
- Bench Scale Research at the University of Regina - a well-equipped
bench scale CO2 laboratory.
The estimated cost of the project is Cdn$11 909 715
The International Test Centre currently has partnerships with:
- University of Regina
- University of Waterloo
- IEA GHG
- Flour Canada - Engineering
- Nexen - Oil and Gas
- EnCana - Oil and Gas
- Government of Canada
- Saskatchewan Industry and Resources
- Alberta Science and Technology
- US Department of Energy
- Luscar - Coal
- SaskPower - Power Utilities
- TransAlta -Power Utilities
- Other potential partners are being engaged in discussion.
For further information visit the ITC website: www.CO2-research.ca/
If you are interested in participating in the International Test
Centre activities contact Malcolm Wilson at the University of
Regina, e-mail: malcolm.wilson@uregina.ca
Back to Top
The recent White Paper on energy describes the challenges facing
the UK energy system. In his foreword, the Prime Minister, Tony
Blair, recognises that "climate change threatens major consequences
in the UK and worldwide, most seriously for the poorest countries
who are least able to cope."
The White Paper sets a direction for energy policy. It foresees
that UK energy supplies will increasingly depend on imported gas
and oil. At the same time, competitive markets are expected to
keep energy affordable for business and households. It also accepts
there is urgent need for global action to tackle climate change.
Tony Blair writes "we are showing leadership by putting the UK
on a path to a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050."
"By working with others, the costs of action will be acceptable
- and the costs of inaction are potentially much greater."
If coal is to play more than a marginal role in the mix after
2015, the government sees a need for electricity generators to
find economic ways of dealing with CO2
emissions. One option is to capture and store the CO2.
The White Paper says the most promising approach at present would
be to lock the gas away in geological structures such as depleted
oil and gas fields, including use of CO2
for enhanced oil recovery. The North Sea offers a potentially
very valuable resource in this respect.
Given the potentially significant strategic role that might be
played by CO2 capture and storage in
longer-term energy security, the government sees a strong case
for examining how to stimulate the take-up of CO2-EOR
in the North Sea. Following initial work sponsored by the Department
of Trade and Industry, the government will be setting up a detailed
implementation plan with the developers, generators and the oil
companies "to establish what needs to be done to get a demonstration
project off the ground." This study will be concluded within 6
months to enable firm decisions to be taken on applications for
funding from international sources as soon as possible thereafter.
The White Paper can be downloaded from www.dti.gov.uk/energy/
white paper/index.shtml
Further information on the DTI studies are being published on
www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cct/ CO2capture.shtml
Back to Top
Plans have been announced for a new power plant in South Wales,
UK. The 460 MW IGCC project would be fuelled by locally produced
coal and pet coke.
Valleys Energy Ltd is seeking planning approval for its £375
million project to be built near Onllwyn in the Dulais Valley.
The location chosen for the station is a former opencast mine
site. As well as being situated near to existing Welsh coal mines,
it has good rail links for delivery of fuel and is close to the
power grid. The plant will not intrude on the landscape, being
largely hidden from the local community.
The project will boost the local economy by creating around 120
new direct jobs and helping to maintain up to 1000 other jobs
in supporting contracts.
Peter Whitton, managing director of Valleys Energy, said: "We
will turn locally-produced coal into clean gas to generate electricity.
Pollutants will be removed during the process, creating clean
hydrogen to drive an advanced gas turbine and generate electricity.
This is a very environmentally friendly process and is more efficient
and much cleaner than a conventional coal fired power station,
with very low emissions."
The station is being specifically designed so that, in future,
carbon dioxide could be captured for long-term storage or for
off-site use. The Valleys Energy design allows carbon dioxide
to be extracted cheaply.
The system will not only generate electricity but could also
be used to supply hydrogen to third parties. Mr Whitton said "this
could also help Wales to be well-placed for the emergence of new
technologies based on hydrogen. It is expected that hydrogen will
be widely used to provide 'green'; fuel for vehicles, as well
as power for homes and industry in coming years."
Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Peter Hain MP, said: "The concept
of clean energy power generation is one that has my full backing.
It could be a world beater, with innovative new technology harnessed
to generate electricity and the promise of further economic development.
If this exciting project gets the green light it will bring long-term
benefits to the Dulais Valley and other parts of south Wales."
Local coal producers welcomed the scheme as they are expected
to supply several million tonnes of anthracite to the plant during
its 20 year life. Welsh Assembly Member, Gwenda Thomas, said:
"I very much welcome the prospect provided by this exciting proposed
new development, which will hopefully secure employment for many
of my constituents. There must therefore be a meaningful, frank
and open consultation process, where all interested parties can
make representation."
Subject to planning permission, it is intended to begin construction
in 2004 with electricity generation starting in 2007. Further
information can be found on the web site www.valleys-energy.co.uk
Back to Top
By Petter Haugneland and Lynn P. Nygaard, CICERO, Norway
British Petroleum (BP) has decided to drop its plans to replace
its offshore gas turbines with a 280 km long power cable that
would supply more environmentally friendly electric power from
land. Although the project might have resulted in reducing Norway';s
annual emissions of CO2 by 1.7 percent
and NOx by 2 percent, the project was deemed too expensive to
carry out.
Since September of 2001, BP had been exploring the possibility
of replacing its offshore gas-fired power generators with electricity
from land by laying a cable out to a terminal on one of the unused
platforms on Ekofisk, where the direct current would be transformed
to alternating current and sent further to the Ekofisk, Valhall,
Ula and Gyda oil fields, which have an annual power demand of
about 1 TWh. Because the gas generators that are in use today
have an efficiency of only about 25 percent - that is, only one-fourth
of the potential power in the gas is transformed to electric power
- a large amount of gas, with the accompanying high levels of
emissions, is required for the necessary power output. Switching
to electricity would represent a potential reduction for Norway
of about 700 thousand tonnes CO2 per
year, given that the electricity is generated by hydroelectric
power or other emissions-free sources. In total, CO2
emissions could have been reduced by 12 million tonnes in the
period 2005-2028.
"This is a project that really could have made a difference in
terms of Norway';s ability to meet its Kyoto targets," said Olav
Fjellså, information director at BP. Through the KLIMATEK
program, the Research Council of Norway has financed this work
with about EUR 68 000.
Despite its enthusiasm, BP dropped its plans to proceed with
the project, citing both lack of political will and excessive
costs as reasons for its decision.
A recent white paper on natural gas (Report no. 9 to the Storting,
2002-2003) implies that the costs of grid expansion for offshore
use should, as is the case on the mainland, be borne by the user.
For BP, this means that economic assistance from the government
would be required for extending the power cable - although such
assistance is unlikely to be forthcoming. Fjellså notes
that this reluctance to contribute financially marks a shift in
attitude from the earlier white paper on climate change (Report
no. 15 to the Storting, 2001-2002).
In addition to an apparently lukewarm political will to provide
financial support, the project also turned out to be more expensive
than expected. BP originally projected costs of about EUR 396
million. Bids for the project that have recently been received,
however, show that costs would be about EUR 546 million.
Moreover, a recently released report from the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (OD) and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy
Directorate (NVE) concludes that the costs of electrifying the
Norwegian continental shelf would far exceed the environmental
payoff. Projections indicate that the costs of electrification
of the continental shelf would be high relative to today';s carbon
tax, expected international quota price, and other measures analyzed
by the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT).
The report points out that Norway is already a net importer of
electricity, and that increased demands for electric power from
the oil fields would likely be met by coal or gas-fired power.
In addition, in years with high levels of precipitation and thus
high production of hydroelectric power, the supply of power to
the continental shelf will reduce Norway's export of power to
Europe. Thus there will be fewer emissions reductions overall,
and a higher price per tonne of CO2.
Studies carried out by SFT indicate that Norway can meet its Kyoto
targets through less costly measures than electrification of the
continental shelf, particularly if the opportunities for using
the flexibility mechanisms under the protocol are taken into account.
Nonetheless, a similar project will be implemented on Statoil';s
platform Troll A, which has been receiving electric power from
the mainland since it was constructed. The power has been transferred
using a power cable with a capacity of 20 MW. But as the natural
gas reserves are being emptied and the pressure in the reservoir
is sinking, there is a need for more and more power to extract
the remaining gas. This power has traditionally been produced
on the platform by small gas turbines with significant emissions
of CO2 and NOx. By 2005, Statoil, which
operates the Troll A platform, will install power cables from
Kolsnes to Troll A with a capacity of about 160 MW.
"Even though this solution is not economically attractive, we
believe it is important to anticipate future emissions standards,"
said Odd Furuseth from Statoil. He emphasizes that this measure
will not only reduce CO2 emissions, but
will also provide a better working environment on the platform,
and significantly reduce the weight of the equipment on the platform.
"The entire oil industry is cooperating through the Norwegian
Oil Industry Association (OLF) to come up with good solutions,"
said Furuseth. "For example, it could be relevant to collaborate
on a common power cable out to adjacent platforms operated by
various oil companies. We looked into this possibility in connection
with the electrification of Troll A, but discovered that it was
not suitable for the platforms in the area. The reason that this
measure was relevant for Troll A is partly that the platform is
located relatively close to shore, and that it has a long lifetime."
Furuseth believes that it is difficult to implement such projects,
particularly because of the uncertainty associated with future
emissions standards and taxes.
"We are prepared to meet future demands, but it is difficult
to plan when the uncertainty around the introduction of the quota
market from 2008 is so great," said Furuseth.
Back to Top
By Lars Golmen, NIVA, Norway
A research project involving the experimental release of 5 tonnes
of pure CO2 into the waters off Norway
at a depth of 800m was blocked by a decision made in August 2002,
by the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. The Norwegian State
Pollution Control Authority (SFT) had already issued a permit
for the experiment to the Norwegian Institute for Water Research
(NIVA) and its international partners. At the time of the decision
(which followed protests from two environmental groups) the international
team, consisting of research institutions in Japan, USA, Canada
and Norway were ready to go to sea to carry out the experiment.
The environmentalists claim that the experiment may pave the
way for future implementation of CO2
ocean sequestration on a large scale, which may facilitate the
continued use of fossil fuels which they are against. On these
grounds, they argue that the experiment should not be performed
at all. The relatively small scale of the experiment and the predicted
environmental impacts thereof, were not real issues of concern
among the protesters. The Ministry of Environment states that
CO2 ocean sequestration should be first
thoroughly discussed internationally and the legal implications,
including relations to the 1992 OSPAR convention, be clarified,
before any permit to do experiments in Norwegian waters may be
reissued. The Ministry is waiting for an evaluation by the OSPAR
Commission';s legal group that is scheduled to meet in June 2003.
Numerous feasibility studies over the last 10-15 years have shown
that ocean sequestration of CO2, captured
from power plants for example, may be a method with huge potential
to reduce the greenhouse effect and thus mitigate against climate
change. The method is an alternative to other sequestration options
such as geological and terrestrial (forests, soil) storage of
CO2. The ocean already holds about 40
000 Gigatonnes of CO2, compared to the
annual anthropogenic carbon emissions of about 6-7Gt C. It has
been calculated that CO2 sequestered
in the deep waters of the ocean can be expected to remain there
for several hundred years and is therefore removed from the atmosphere
for the same period of time.
The experiment was the main part of a project that was initiated
at Kyoto in 1997 as an agreement under the OECD';s Climate Technology
Initiative to undertake ocean sequestration trials. The project
emphasises experimental in-situ work to study near-field distribution
and dispersion of the CO2 plume emerging
at about 800 m deep where liquid CO2
would be emitted from a nozzle assembly. Results from the experiment
would be available to all participating institutes for evaluation
and publication. In addition, they could be put to further use
in calibrating/upgrading numerical plume models and preparing
follow-up experiments. The experiment would also shed light on
issues related to potential future leakage of CO2
if it were stored under the seabed, which is an alternative method.
The reason for selecting Norway for the experiment was that Norway
has a large pool of suitable heavy-duty vessels and ample supply
of equipment/logistics, and there is a significant offshore/marine
theoretical and engineering expertise in this or related fields.
The researchers that are involved in the project were very unhappy
with the decision by the Ministry, and claimed it was illogical
and that the Ministry overturned the open process of the permitting
agency under political pressure from a few interest groups. Politicians
will eventually have to decide on what methods to apply to mitigate
climate change, but the research on the alternatives beforehand
should be independent and purely scientific.
Given the scale of the challenge, it is imperative to explore
as many potential mitigation options as possible, on the basis
of which informed political decisions can be made. When looking
at the prospects for the future global energy consumption it is
hard to see how renewable energies can replace fossil fuels at
a significant level in the next 50-100 years. So a realistic scenario
is the steady increase in the burning of fossil fuels over this
period, and increased releases of CO2
to the atmosphere, if no storage methods are applied.
The international project is still running, and the scientific
team recently successfully completed an oceanographic survey to
the Loihi Seamount near Hawaii, where CO2
leaks from the sea bottom at 1200 m depth to the ocean at a rate
of about 100 000 tonnes per year. Data were obtained on the diffusion
of the CO2 and on impacts of the gas,
although the setting was quite different from what was planned
in Norway. Several countries will continue to investigate various
methods of ocean CO2 sequestration, and
results will be communicated both to the science community and
to the public so that sound debates on the options can be maintained.
For further information, please contact Lars Golmen, Norwegian
Institute for Water Research (NIVA) Branch Office West, Nordnesboder
5, N-5005 Bergen, Norway. Tel: + 47 55 30 22 57 Fax: +47 55 30
22 51 lars.golmen@niva.no www.niva.no
Back to Top
The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham, has just announced
plans for the U.S. to build a prototype of the fossil fuel power
plant of the future - a $1 billion venture that will combine electricity
and hydrogen production with the virtual total elimination of
harmful emissions, including greenhouse gases.
"FutureGen will be one of the boldest steps our nation has taken
toward a pollution-free energy future," said Secretary Abraham.
"Knowledge from FutureGen will help turn coal from an environmentally
challenging energy resource into an environmentally benign one.
The prototype power plant will serve as the test bed for demonstrating
the best technologies the world has to offer."
The Energy Department will ask the power industry to organise
a consortium to manage the project. The federal government would
provide 50 percent of the costs.
Although current plans call for the plant to be designed and
built over the next five years, then operated for at least five
years beyond that, the department envisions the project serving
as a test bed for new technologies for well into the coming decade
and perhaps beyond.
Virtually every aspect of the prototype plant will be based on
cutting-edge technology. The government will ask the industrial
consortium to design a plant that will turn coal into a hydrogen-rich
gas, rather than burning it directly. The hydrogen could then
be combusted in a turbine or used in a fuel cell to produce clean
electricity, or it could be fed to a refinery to help upgrade
petroleum products.
In the future, the plant could become a model hydrogen-production
facility for President Bush';s initiative to develop a new fleet
of hydrogen-powered cars and trucks.
Common air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
would be cleaned from the coal gases and converted to useable
byproducts such as fertilizers and soil enhancers. Mercury pollutants
would also be removed. Carbon dioxide would be captured and sequestered
in deep underground geologic formations.
Carbon sequestration will be one of the primary features that
will set the prototype plant apart from other electric power projects.
Engineers will design into the plant advanced capabilities to
capture the carbon dioxide in a form that can be sequestered.
No other plant in the world has been built with this capability.
The initial goal will be to capture at least 90 percent of the
plant';s CO2, but with advanced technologies,
it may be possible to achieve nearly 100 percent capture.
Once captured, the CO2 will be injected
deep underground, perhaps into the brackish reservoirs that lie
thousands of feet below the surface of much of the United States,
or potentially into oil or gas reservoirs, or into unminable coal
seams or basalt formations. Once entrapped in these formations,
the greenhouse gas would be permanently isolated from the atmosphere.
The plant would be sized to generate approximately 275 megawatts
of electricity, roughly equivalent to an average mid-size coal-fired
power plant.
Finally, the department said, the prototype plant would be a
stepping stone toward a future coal-fired power plant that not
only would be emission-free but would operate at unprecedented
fuel efficiencies. Technologies that could be future candidates
for testing at the prototype plant could push electric power generating
efficiencies to 60 percent or more - nearly double the efficiencies
of today';s conventional coal-burning plants.
Coal is the workhorse of the United States'; electric power sector,
supplying more than half the electricity the nation consumes.
It is also the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States
with supplies projected to last 250 years or more. The ultimate
goal for the prototype plant, the Energy Department said, is to
show how new technology can eliminate environmental concerns over
the future use of coal and allow the nation to tap the full potential
of its massive coal deposits.
Back to Top
One of the goals of the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme
(IEA GHG) is to move abatement technologies towards application.
IEA GHG does this is various ways, including by encouraging practical
research, development and demonstration (R,D&D). Although
IEA GHG does not have sufficient resources to fund practical R,D&D
itself, it can facilitate the formation of collaborations on specific
topics and contribute advice once the work is underway. IEA GHG
has recently established a number of research networks to facilitate
co-operation between researchers, including:
CO2 Capture Test Network
International Network on Biofixation of CO2
and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae
Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (NCGG) Network
More information can be found on the IEAGHG web site (www.ieagreen.org.uk).
Anyone interested in participating in any of the Networks should
initially contact the IEA GHG office.
CO2 Capture Test Network
Post-combustion capture of CO2 by
solvents such as methanolamine (MEA) is commercially available
now from well-known licensors. However, such processes were
not originally designed for application to large fossil fuel
fired power stations. About 40% of the world';s power generation
is based on the use of pulverised coal which, if linked to solvent-based
CO2 capture, would present the solvent
system with a range of contaminants. To use such solvents in
an oxidising environment requires additives to reduce degradation.
IEA GHG has developed the CO2 Capture
Test Network to stimulate world-wide collaboration and encourage
practical development of CO2 capture
technology. The initial focus is on the capture of CO2
using regenerable solvent-based scrubbing systems that have
the ability to remove CO2 from emissions.
The eventual objective is to work towards a large-scale demonstration
plant for CO2 capture. Such a demonstration
plant would serve as an international test bed for best available
CO2 capture technology.
Representatives of 38 organisations from 12 countries have taken
part in meetings of the Network. Four workshops have been held:
in the USA in 2000, Canada in 2001, the Netherlands in May 2002
and Japan in October 2002. So far the Network has concentrated
on exchanging information on various research programmes and
on systems modelling. Later work could include feasibility studies
and alternative methods of CO2 capture.
Microalgae Biofixation Network
Microalgae cultures have been investigated as a source of renewable
fuels for almost fifty years. The initial concept was to grow
algae in municipal waste waters, harvest the algal biomass and
convert it to methane fuel. By the 1980';s the R&D emphasis
shifted to microalgae production in large-scale processes with
fuels as the only outputs. In the meanwhile, a microalgae food
supplement production industry developed, starting in the 1960';s
in Japan, followed by development in the U.S. and elsewhere.
At present, about 5000 tons of food- and feed-grade microalgae
biomass are produced annually in large open pond systems.
A plant in Hawaii is using the flue gas from a small power
plant to supply the CO2, required in
microalgae production. Microalgae ponds are also extensively
used in many countries for wastewater treatment and at least
one plant in California is using the methane obtained from the
harvested algal biomass to produce electricity.
The Microalgae Biofixation Network provides a forum for organisations
already engaged or interested in research and development of
greenhouse gas abatement technologies using microalgae. The
work of the Network includes:
Information sharing and co-ordination of research and development
(R&D) projects carried out by Network members
Development of bi- and/or multi-lateral R&D projects among
members
Technical assistance provided by technical advisers in the
evaluation of proposed processes and R&D projects
Supporting techno-economic analyses and resource assessments
Organisation of technical meetings and technical resources
Development of a 'Roadmap'; that details feasible processes
and R&D approaches
The Network was organised based on an initiative by the U.S.
Department of Energy (US DOE) and EniTecnologie. There are currently
eight participating organisations, mainly from industry, who
provide all of the funding for the Network. Any research projects
developed within the Network are to be funded directly by the
participating organisations. The Network started operating in
June 2002 for an initial five-year period, with a possible five
year further extension. So far the R&D 'Roadmap'; has been
produced and meetings and workshops have been held to develop
a consensus among technical experts for the R&D priorities
identified in the Roadmap.
Non CO2 Greenhouse Gases (NCGG) Network
Non-CO2 greenhouse gases (methane,
nitrous oxide and the high GWP gases) have cumulatively contributed
about 36% of the estimated global warming since pre-industrial
times. The non-CO2 GHGs arise from
a wide variety of emission sources including fossil fuel production,
certain industries, waste management, agriculture and biomass
burning. In several cases, NCGG emissions from anthropogenic
sources are greater than from natural sources
The NCGG Network is intended to provide a forum for researchers
and policy makers working on emission inventories, mitigation
options and energy modellers and others interested in policy
options. The network is a joint activity organised and funded
by IEA GHG, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the European
Commission, Directorate General Environment (EC DG Env). Participants
include groups that are actively engaged in practical research
or modelling activities associated with NCGGs. The Network will
allow:
Comparison of data sets
Review of respective analyses of mitigation technologies
Comparisons of economic modelling approaches
Comparisons of empirical results on the NCGGs
Identification of gaps in the understanding of the role of
the NCGGs, thus aiding the development of research strategies
to address these gaps.
All three of the main network parties have undertaken extensive
work to assess technology options for reducing NCGGS. The results
of this work have been embodied in a series of reports and have
been summarised by the development of a series of marginal abatement
cost curves for each of the gases. Meetings have been held to
discuss these cost curves and how they could be used in energy
models by a working group of the Energy Modelling Forum (EMF21).
The joint activity between the Network and EMF21 will be concluded
in late 2003. The next meetings of the Network will concentrate
on emissions from the agricultural sector, particularly in Latin
America and Asia, which are highly uncertain at present.
Back to Top
There are compelling arguments to reduce the carbon intensity
of the UK energy mix, in particular from the road transport
sector, which is uniquely oil-dependent. Long term, the 'dream
ticket'; of vehicles powered by fuel cells using renewably sourced
hydrogen offers the prospect of sustainability. The UK Government';s
recently released Energy White Paper provides an opportunity
to consider the most beneficial mix of fuels and technologies
necessary. There are concerns that a premature 'dash for hydrogen';
might have an environmental downside and preclude the development
of other, comparatively beneficial technologies. There is also
uncertainty about the optimal use of renewable electricity from
the UK grid, and about the likely form and future contribution
of biofuels. A study, by three of the UK';s leading organisations
in the transport/ energy/environment sector, takes as its terms
of reference, the optimal role for transport fuels in the future
energy mix from an environmental perspective.
A model was developed to assesses a number of possible technological
pathways towards a low carbon transport system for the future,
measured against a range of energy mix scenarios. The focus
was specifically on the relative carbon benefits of hydrogen
(H2) and bio-energy options, as well as more efficient vehicles.
The study was based on a 'well-to-wheel'; analysis that accounts
for emissions both from vehicles and from upstream fuel production.
It also goes beyond traditional 'well-to-wheel'; studies in
considering the alternative options for use of different fuels
elsewhere in the energy system. The extent to which concerns
over security of oil supplies might modify conclusions based
primarily on the need to reduce GHG emissions, was also taken
into consideration.
The conclusions were as follows:
1. Until there is a surplus of renewable electricity it is
not beneficial in terms of carbon reduction to use renewable
electricity to produce H2 - for use in vehicles, or elsewhere.
Higher carbon savings will be achieved through displacing electricity
from fossil fuel power stations. There would be some carbon
savings from H2 vehicles using electricity from a power system
dependent largely on gas and renewables, if the gas technologies
are combined heat and power (CHP). The supply of H2 to mass-market
vehicle applications is likely to require more electricity than
can be supplied from renewables and CHP alone for at least 30
years.
2. Production of H2 from natural gas offers the cheapest route
and some potential carbon benefits if used in high efficiency
fuel cell vehicles. There are still smaller benefits, when H2
fuel cells are compared to diesel and petrol hybrid vehicles.
Hybrid vehicles have the potential to halve CO2
emissions compared with current conventional technologies and
can offer substantial benefits in the short term for air quality
and noise. Gaseous fuels also offer some environmental advantages.
In the absence of a large carbon reduction benefit, there is
no strong environmental case for accelerating the introduction
of a large scale H2 fuel cell vehicle fleet ahead of the availability
of surplus renewable energy sources.
3. Tax breaks for renewable H2 in the transport sector could
provide some modest stimulus to renewable generation, but this
would require a bigger subsidy level and achieve a lower carbon
saving than supporting renewables more generally via a mechanism
such as the Renewables Obligation.
4. There are substantial uncertainties over infrastructure
issues associated with the introduction of a H2 fleet. In particular,
whether the H2 is produced locally or centrally with distribution
through a network. It seems unlikely that these issues can be
confidently resolved in the short term. Before a wide-ranging
network of H2 fuel supply is available, there is the opportunity
to proceed incrementally through bi-fuelling and dedicated depot
based fleets meeting niche markets.
5. Developing such fleets would not substantially increase
natural gas demand compared to that expected from domestic,
service and industry sectors. Also, any H2 production could
be designed to draw on a range of different fuels relatively
quickly in the advent of external disruption to gas supplies.
6. Biodiesel and bioethanol from annual crop production as
substitutes for oil-derived fuels, could provide some carbon
benefits. However, use of woody biomass for energy could give
significant carbon benefits, and offers three routes (hydrogen,
methanol or ethanol) to renewably sourced fuels for fuel cells.
Biomass offers a cheaper and earlier route than renewable electricity
to reducing carbon emissions via a H2 fuelled transport system.
25% of UK agricultural land planted with indigenous wood crops
converted to methanol, ethanol or hydrogen could, in the long
term satisfy most, or even all, of UK road transport fuel demand
(depending on relative costs and a number of technical factors).
7. The case has been made for accelerating development of an
electrolytic H2 fuelled vehicle fleet, ahead of the availability
of renewably sourced energy, and even ahead of the use of fuel
cells, on grounds of reducing oil dependency. However, aggressive
promotion of energy efficiency, combined with the development
of H2 (or methanol) initially from gas and then from biomass,
and more concerted effort to manage demand, could address security
of supply concerns equally effectively - and without the need
to take a medium term 'carbon hit'; from the use of fossil fuel
electricity-derived hydrogen.
A medium term strategy should focus on substantially more efficient
use of fossil fuels, combined with the introduction of mass-market
fuel cell vehicles at a rate consistent with the ability of
biofuels to supply the hydrogen. This offers the more sustainable
route to cleaner vehicles.
This article is based on a report ("Fuelling Road Transport"),
by Nick Eyre, Malcolm Fergusson and Richard Mills (UK), published
in November 2002. For further information, contact the Institute
for European Environmental Policy, Dean Bradley House, 52 Horseferry
Road, London, SW1P 2AG UK. Tel: +44 20 7799 2244 Fax: +44 20
7799 2600 www.ieep.org.uk
Back to Top
|
