There are so many risks in the near to mid-term to derail the Energy Transition. I feel it is really hard to stay focused and not become distracted by the anti-energy transition groups. I am a firm believer in having a navigable strategic and tactical pathway to keep you on a given track along the route you have chosen to get to a given goal. Clearly, as we progress, we learn and adjustments are made but you have to map out a fairly solid (looking) pathway to keep on track.

I wrote about the concept of exploring energy fitness landscapes. The article “My initial thinking behind Energy Fitness Landscapes“, written in 2021, uses Hydrogen as an example, with a follow-up one year later. Here I am looking at the Energy Transition from an evolving technology innovation perspective. In other words, what “forces” can be identified or promoted that can transform the existing energy system through the pursuit of new inventions, innovations, or technological advancement? I took hydrogen as an example.

A risk of the energy transition is we give higher emphasis on the depth of knowledge in one area, get distracted often and fail to pull this together, to map it into the bigger picture of the practical, broader-based one. We do need a clear pathway.

The current to near-term risks for the Energy Transition

I have been recently looking at what is regarded as the top ten risks to near-term success in the energy industry and although I agree with many of these, it tends to be a little narrow and forgets to reflect more of the individual company risks or specific industry-related ones.

• It groups them into instability issues that are with us at present. These are political change, supply chain failures, financial market instability, growing conflicts in wars, terrorism and riots.
• Then it groups the next risk factors as lack of focus on a just energy transition, people-related risks and negative public sentiment towards a part of the broader energy industry.
• Then public policies in inadequacy and timely response, delays or lagging procedures, regulations and also in unexpected surprises significantly change the dynamics within industries. The big pledges, the different investment acts that transform investment.
• Lastly, the risks centred around fossil fuels and the progress towards renewables. The current high prices and volatility for oil and gas, the pressures of withdrawing investment money into fossil fuel projects being effective, channelling the current high level of profits from oil companies into renewables and the whole question of where we are on ‘unabated coal power generation or a post I wrote on carbon capture (saga, viability and avenues)

Knowing where you are going

When you look through the lens of innovating at the Energy Transition, you often question the fitness or the reality (ability) to achieve something.

Also this “mapping back” gives our broader society and non-expert groups the opportunity to relate to the Energy transition from a specific perspective in their need to understand their part to play within this energy transition, it gives them identification. It generates their need to change or support change and brings about more extensive (behavioural) change and awareness.

Any transition needs to explain the value, need and the idea of advancement and offset the blockages if it does not fit their frame of thinking or how or why it is relevant to them due to poor understanding.

Fitness landscape thinking can help make the journey a lot easier to determine what is needed to undertake it. It is a dynamic process that stays ‘evolving.

Recently I was reading a paper written by the Dubai Future Foundation, which reimagines, inspires and designs Dubai’s future in collaboration with our public and private sector partners. Our aim is to make Dubai one of the world’s foremost future cities.

The Foundation paper “Hydrogen From Hype to Reality (opens directly to a pdf, 100 pages plus) provides a very comprehensive explainer of Hydrogen and its fit within the future of UAE. Worth reading

My suggested “handy” innovators’ strategic pathway guide for energy concepts to commercialization.

In reading the UAE report I felt there was a good “handy innovators” strategic pathway, well my version of one, to fit my focus area of looking at the Energy Transition from an evolving technology innovation perspective. In other words, what “triggers the innovation development process advancement” can be followed in the pursuit of a new invention, innovation, or technological advancement?

• The development of proof of concepts building and equally collecting future showcase use cases
• The development of prototypes demonstrating the ability to overcome challenges, technology hurdles
• Carrying out a pilot (or multiple pilots) for demonstrating the different stages of verification
• Building the assessment and feasibility study of a funded pipeline of innovation enhancements
• Informing and aligning key stakeholders and government entities to manage, influence, inform and coordinate the changes generated by the evolving technology innovation perspective.
• Drawing out insights, known risks and their management, timing and cost impediments
• The attracting, securing and building of the financial support needed to extend, speed up and scale.
• The ability to determine clear targeted measures, milestones and KPIs to facilitate and inform all the necessary stakeholders
• The identification of the roll-out targetted market potentials and conversion needs from old to new
• The development plan to fund, scale and invest on the appropriate level to support the technology change and its impact and value for those involved and society at large

I expect this could be improved or challenged even, but my point of emphasis is to have a clear manageable strategic pathway that provides a plan that maps out a pathway of change that includes an assessment of the landscape, the related risks that this transition needs to account for, and an innovation process for managing the evolving new technology innovation introduction or replacement validation. We need to have a clear understanding of all of these to provide a “reasonable” opening viewpoint of any contribution to the energy transition.

The post Navigating an Energy Transition strategic pathway first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

I need to remind myself that my objective is to focus on different aspects of innovation needs within the energy transition. It should be simple for me, but it certainly is not!

The sheer scope of the energy transition often pulls me away in so many different directions from my innovation focal point. Equally, it can force me as a necessity to understand a significant amount of advice, detail and opinion, so I can far more appreciate where innovation has an even more significant potential to contribute.

I keep constantly investing my time in growing my further understanding, expertise, and thinking of energy transition ‘cross-over points’ where we move away from the old energy systems into the new ones.

This knowledge understanding provides some distinctive and inter-related “core” topics, which are admittedly time-consuming but essential based on the in-depth research undertaken.

What I look for is where innovation has a more catalytic effect as these might become ‘flash points’ of future challenges that need a new level of creative or innovative thinking.

The whole Energy Transition has been a growing platform to apply my innovation learning and ecosystem thinking. There are so many inter-related topics, and you have to make choices?

I have decided to narrow these inter-related topics to focus on critical areas that impact any successful energy transition.

The topics I will focus on are shown below. I have also provided links to some of my previous thoughts or views to build out these focal topics.

The critical focal points I have chosen to concentrate upon.

-Firstly on rare minerals and the impact the extraction and use these have within any future solutions requires a radically different approach to the extraction, use, disposal and will have so many fluctuating issues in the years to come,

-Secondly, the growing importance of the (smart) edge for a greater distributed energy architecture.

-Thirdly, the hydrogen story is taking off. Electrolyzers are a place for invention, research, and increased development are coming together for solutions that have more significant scaling potential and innovation.

-You have the whole topic of power generation. The shifts, structures and positioning are ripe for innovating at individual levels to resolve legacy and location and energy sources, and the solution “fits”—Nuclear, wind, solar and hydropower.

– The recognition and investment need for wholesale change in Grids and the growing value of microgrids where the adaptability and flexibility and the emphasis on robustness and resilience grow in importance.

-Storage and batteries have such an important role to play in any new energy system design. They deliver the “response” rate and much of the stabilities we require in any newly designed system.

-No one can avoid decarbonization as a topic to understand and see the need for greater carbon capture and natural solutions. My post “Themes for decarbonizing, my agenda setting post“ offers my thoughts here.

-Lastly, within this current focus area, it is necessary to keep relating to all the complexities of the climate crisis. These ongoing crises will accelerate and progressively alter so much of the energy transition, the timing of investment, and increasing understanding of impact and risk assessments.

Hard choices for all involved.

Choices are needed everywhere in the difficulties of what to invest in and when. These include facing up to the decisions required regarding when to dispose of assets and how to treat these within the P&L, especially in the growing area of stranded assets—recognizing the necessary shifts in structures and the challenges within current business models.

Also, understanding the why with the ‘evolving state and risk’ of the options needed and what options are available to deploy within this deteriorating environment is fraught with issues and business impact.

We are faced with increasing volatile times over the coming decades before any reliable stability returns. The growing recognition and urgency need multiple ‘voices’ and contributions to help those in decision-making roles to gain more significant insights and awareness of the implications.

Implications need to have a more informed, independent understanding. Then, decision-makers can execute their decisions with growing knowledge, in more effective and efficient ways.

Often, it is not recognized that innovation, in the age of disruption and radical change, equips the organization and person far better than often realized.

Each of these focus areas above is massive in its own right.

Simply each of these topic areas has the absolute need for innovation. My other focus area of ecosystem design is to create value, deliver impact and find improved ways to collaborate and learn and gain from increasing collaborations, knowledge and application.

It is finding impactful ways, as they all become interconnected for any business to advance on their journey of understanding delivering sustainable growth and new business potential.

Risk and opportunity are the two sides of the innovation coin.

My focus due to the innovation aspect naturally falls far more at the Front End Of the Energy Transition, at the discovery,  development and validation stages, as this is where innovation emerges.

Today, I see and believe that there is a real gap in many organizations by not having the robust innovation capability, capacity, and competency needed, recognized, well-established and firmly in place.

The magnitude of change required means greater reliance on researchers, scientists, and engineers and their need to ramp up to a whole new performance level. The attention to innovation throughout all of our organizations needs to become a shared sense of purpose, involvement and commitment to contribute.

I have worked in innovation advisory work for over twenty years, advising and transforming the activities and awareness, to help fill those poor understanding gaps of lacking comprehensive approaches to capabilities, capacities and competencies in innovation and the tools to drive change throughout organizations. Innovation is rarely treated as core, and it should be as change emerges from the dynamic environment that promotes innovation.

A critical decision time for Energy requires a different and radical mind shift.

We are presently at a critical decision time; the level of investment needed to achieve this energy transition is massive. The current estimate to create a safe climate system is the need to invest USD 140 trillion of new investments in the energy sector by 2050.

Much of the investments need to be directed away from fossil fuels (the primary carbon emitters) into clean technologies. It is renewables, including most power generation and end-use applications, that need to invest primarily through new generation sources of wind, solar, hydrogen, and biofuels.

This level of investment commitment will radically alter the energy landscape, where Energy is generated, by what means, and how it will be distributed, stored and consumed by us all. I am working on energy fitness landscapes as a way to plot and execute around.

Presently we are not making the essential investments we need to make.

We are all becoming painfully aware that the period until 2030 is absolutely critical for investments not just to be pledged but effectively deployed on the ground in the physical solutions and effective operation needed to make this energy transition required on track to reach the climate goals.

Innovation is critical in this energy transition. I have a clear role to play.

We need to move from research and development through engineering validation into pilot and scaling solutions, at speed, requiring a different innovation approach from discovery to execution.

What is recognized increasingly is that we do not have the luxury of evaluating radical change over standard lifetime returns or observing others over the years, we need to be highly proactive in innovation from discovery to final execution at scale. There is the need to raise validation and take higher risks than in more stable times.

We need to be more pioneering. Without a coordinated and leadership direction, the efforts and the risk will always remain cautious without guarantee or point of crisis. Scientists, engineers and researchers are, by nature, often conservative. There is a need for leadership to instil the imperative to reevaluate risk, seek out opportunities at high speed, and push for discovery and experiment constantly.

We also need to encourage this different mind shift of acceptable risk. Having an innovation mindset helps.

So for me, the energy transition is at the forefront of “cutting edge” innovation to deliver; this is why I have been increasing my attention to understanding, investigation, research, and become more immersed in the changes and challenges, issues, and barriers.

I need to emphasize my positioning and what I offer in innovation system design and building knowledge and expertise. To support and help deliver innovative solutions, I suggest my multipliers for innovation at the front end of the energy transition.

The ability to help discover, see and effectively manage the change in solutions and recognize and build out the business case for building a more robust and sustaining innovation system is critical for the future energy transitions we need to find and then put into place.

As I said in the opening to this post: I need to remind myself that my (sole) objective is to exclusively focus on different aspects of innovation” to help in this energy transition.

I need you as the vehicle and mechanism to deliver! I deliver innovation understanding and capability as the business promise return.

The post Understanding the innovation needs of the energy transition first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

I have been building out the value of having a Fitness Landscape framework within the Energy Transition and why it makes sense.

I am looking at the Energy Transition from an evolving technology innovation perspective. In other words, what “forces” can be identified or promoted that can transform the existing energy system through the pursuit of the new invention, innovation, or technological advancement.

Specifically, ones that will be needed over such an extended time and complexity of change that this Energy Transition will take, upwards of twenty to thirty years to give it an unstoppable momentum.

When you look through the lens of innovating at the Energy Transition, you are often questioning the fitness, or the reality to achieve something. We need to recognize that the energy world is “stacked” with Scientists, Engineers, and Researchers that have a real depth of expertise but so often can be lacking the required “T” shape skills that can actually be restrictive to making change.

It is thinkers, designers, innovators, inventors that need to bring balance into Energy transitions work to give it a rapid push or advancement, well as much as the scientist with his potential breakthrough. They go hand in hand.

There is a greater need for skills that can anchor a solution, advocate the reason for the change, and then provide the broader resolve and purpose to ensure the delivery of the change.

The value of fitness landscapes needs to be part of any Energy Transition awareness as it can make sense,  to bring greater identity and structure.

Taking Hydrogen as my point of reference, to understand the context, complexities, and creative tension.

Firstly, mapping out the hydrogen terrain to the task at hand enables us to understand and relate to what is needed – I call that the context for change. I have been investigating Hydrogen as a promising energy carrier to understand the barriers and obstacles to the energy transition we need to undertake.

There are so many underlying “tensions” in this change from established fuels, infrastructure, and product delivery that Hydrogen needs to overcome.

Taking this fitness landscape thinking and applying it.

Any Energy Transition Fitness Landscapes identifies the opportunity spaces on where you need to focus your efforts- the appropriate resources to navigate the terrain. The higher the ‘fitness’ transforms your landscape potential into accelerating opportunities into final tangible outcomes.Fitness Landscapes helps in this task by identifying the opportunity spaces on where you need to focus your efforts‐ and applying the appropriate resources to navigate the terrain. A greater understanding of the ‘fitness points needed’ can transform your hydrogen landscape potential, or in business parlance, achieve your goal.

Mapping out your capabilities, competencies, and capacities to the task at hand enables you to understand and relate to what is needed. You begin to get fit for the journey ahead.

I took what I call a “Fitness Landscape Result Expectancy” approach.

Fitness Landscape Result Expectancy

My approach here is a work-in-progress; it will evolve and adapt.

The expected results or points of investigation sought, by identifying the critical aspects of capability identification for the Hydrogen (or any energy transformation journey), can make a significant contributor to the Future Energy Mix.

For example:

• A greater understanding of the obstacles and barriers to Hydrogen, becoming a significant energy carrier in the future energy mix is critical to understand. It “conveys” the fitness landscape journey.
• The understanding of what needs to be changed moves Hydrogen towards an energy transition that is sustainable and evolutionary built on technology investigation, validation, and ability to scale. Solutions gain worldwide recognition and adoption as the resulting outcomes and processes from discovery to realization. Greater adoption and scaling-up potential
• The journey generates a learning process for the identification of real and ‘false’ dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities bring about change in the environment. As we frame, we can identify differences separating the more static ones that often just need reinforcement or retirement as not of lasting value.
• Pursuing limited or ‘selective’ development allows for restrictive exchanges within a network of specialization. These will not have the desired effect to accelerate solutions that can replace the existing ones unless the broader network effects are not accounted for.
• Any fitness landscape journey, where change is a significant level of requirement, requires a holistic view of the existing issues and the intent and goal of the journey by framing a clear strategic plan to mobilize the necessary forces.
• The solutions suggested will draw out internal discussions, growing recognition, and the reality of the present and future needs in this area of resource allocation and capital allocation.
• Importance of linking capability across different activities or technology applications to become increasingly ‘dynamic’ for a more sustainable future.
• The ability to build out a clear capability portfolio knowing where resource needs to be applied and their likely timeframe from concept to fruition. These evaluations will also help identify synergies to bring new value and future impact options.
• We need to challenge long, well-established routines and processes to see how we can extend technology options. To discover and continue the existing can be valuable to place additional resources behind.
• Having clarity in the fitness landscape allows for regularly taking additional “adaptive walks” to learn and adjust current thinking and question alternatives more openly.
• Knowing your capabilities, competencies, and capabilities intensifies and solidifies the studies, investigation, and importance of innovation through greater engagement and a growing understanding. You have greater confidence in where to invest new capital and resources.
• Outcomes from these expected results raise dynamic capability and the importance of dynamism for more flexibility and fitness discovery. By identifying higher points of value, you accelerate the change process and plot different projects and their impact.
• You give momentum and connected identity and purpose

The energy complexities do need understanding, explaining, and mapping. The knowledge of how the traversing will be undertaken to get to the end goal of a clean energy system as soon as we can, needs often different articulation? Fitness landscapes help make the journey a lot easier to determine what is needed to be undertaken and how to systematically go about it.

The post Exploring Energy Fitness Landscapes first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Image: IRENA

Since I launched this dedicated posting site www.innovating4energy.com, in December 2019, specifically around innovating in energy, I have written 80 plus posts. Each post was undoubtedly a fundamental learning point for me as I attempted to dive deeper into the topic.

Within this, Hydrogen has been one of the main contributors. Including this post, I have written about different aspects of Hydrogen over ten posts, but most were during 2020.

Posts (with links) have covered Hotter Shades of Hydrogen, Tensions and Bottlenecks and Concerns, Show me the Electrolyzer, Hydrogen is the Big Ticket Needing a Landscape View,

Also, Has Hydrogen got the necessary gas, Massive Doses of Hydrogen Reality, Hydrogens Promise, Believing in Hydrogen and how Plug Power is the Apple of Hydrogen?

Then I suddenly “went off the boil” on Hydrogen. I felt a sense of hijack from the Oil & Gas Majors and the Equipment Suppliers, all pushing hard the interim solutions blending different gases for offering blue Hydrogen as the necessary bridge, over the next ten years or so.

I felt a sense of “lock into” as the investment to purchase gas generating assets and infrastructure can run for thirty or more years. That’s not interim or intermediate and is likely to stay blue as CCUS will get added on at the later stage as the logical option to complete a ROI on this “interim” decision

Then we had considerable commitments in project money from Governments, all claiming the chance to be a world leader in Hydrogen and race to Hydrogen dominance. So this race took hold, the equivalent of a gold rush, the hydrogen rush. Vast sums of money suddenly were caught up in multiple startups, experimentations and small pilot-scale projects, all needing building, validation and proving they “might” scale.

Lobbying has accelerated by the Majors and all with a vested interest in holding onto the status quo and pushing the building of interim solutions can provide the transition answers. They are, in my opinion, “wriggling on the stick on where their existing solutions were getting caught up in the wrong side of the energy transition ” Attempting to sell power generation solutions for example that had thirty to forty-year lifecycles is not interim.

These significant sets of activities began to distort well laid out plans for the hydrogen journey. It gave a period of reasonably intensive (seemingly daily) announcements that confused me more than helped. So I thought, let us leave this for a while. It just has to sort itself out, one way or another as it does seem Hydrogen is becoming a “free for all, grab a piece” and not a structure evolving transition that we really need.

So after nearly nine months, I am back, looking to bring my thinking about Hydrogen back on track for the current and future understanding.

Wood MacKenzie kicked started this with Hydrogen production costs: is a tipping point near., indicated that green hydrogen production costs will equal fossil fuel-based H2 by 2040. Nearly twenty years of ramping up Hydrogen to bring into its potential contribution to building a sustainable energy system.

Then IEA has recently provided an excellent update report, “Global Hydrogen Review 2021“, and it brings me back to wanting to re-engage with Hydrogen after this short break.

The top line summary is

• After several false starts, a new beginning around the corner
• Hydrogen suppliers are becoming cleaner……..to slowly
• Expanding the reach of hydrogen use
• Governments need to scale up ambitions and support demand creation
• Low-carbon Hydrogen can become competitive within the next decade
• Meeting climate pledges require faster and more decisive action.
• More vital international co-operation: a key leaver for success.

The IEA policy recommendations for the near term are:

• Develop strategies and roadmaps on the role of Hydrogen in energy systems
• Create incentives for using low-carbon Hydrogen to displace fossil fuels
• Mobilize investment in production, infrastructure and factories
• Provide strong innovation support to ensure critical technologies reach commercialization soon
• Establish appropriate certification, standardization and regulations

A page covers these top-line summaries and policy recommendations that give you the detailed thinking behind these by following this link to the Executive Summary page.

The IEA report provided a fairly comprehensive report on how the Electrolysis deployment is progressing. To quote:

“Water electrolysis is an electrochemical process that uses electricity to split water (H2O) into Hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). In 2020, this process accounted for ~0.03% of hydrogen production for energy and chemical feedstocks.27 Of installed global electrolyzer capacity of 290 MW, more than 40% is based in Europe with the next-largest capacity shares in Canada (9%) and China (8%).

Four leading electrolyzer technologies exist today: Alkaline, proton exchange membrane (PEM); solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs); and anion exchange membranes (AEMs) (see Emerging Technologies below for more on SOECs and AEMs). Alkaline electrolyzers dominate with 61% installed capacity in 2020, while PEMs have a 31% share. The remaining capacity is of unspecified electrolyzer technology and SOECs (installed capacity of 0.8 MW).”

The rising concerns of PEM Electrolysers precious metals is a growing worry. Current materials for electrode catalysts (platinum, iridium), bipolar plates (titanium) and membrane materials are expensive, and presently overall costs for PEMs (USD 1 750/kW) are higher than for alkaline electrolyzers (USD 1 000-1 400/kW). Additionally, PEM systems currently have a shorter lifespan.

The technology challenges to bring down costs and resolve technologies that make up the final hydrogen solution are formidable and can have a twenty-year need to be fully resolved.

We do have an inevitable reality in our deployment. It is not going to scale or giving the needed scale!

In the optimistic tone of IEA comparing their Net-zero Emissions Scenario, capacity requirements in 2030 are 850 GW, some nine times the project pipeline when including early development stages. Despite such significant gaps, current efforts are a sound basis for expanding and accelerating deployment, raising ambition as new projects are developed. More countries build Hydrogen into their national strategies.

The point might become one where the alkaline electrolyzers begin to push the PEM electrolyzer out to the competitive race unless the breakthroughs in technology, scale, and costs are not realized, in PLM in the next few years.

China might hold the key.

As the IEA report states, in 2020, costs fell within the range of USD 1 000-1 750/kW (including electric equipment, gas treatment, plant balancing, and engineering, procurement and construction [EPC]). The lower cost is applying to alkaline electrolyzers produced in China, and the upper representing PEM electrolyzers.

The cost of alkaline electrolyzers in China – USD 750-1 300/kW, with some sources reporting as low as USD 500/kW29 – falls well below the average of USD 1 400/kW in the rest of the world.

Concerns over the reliability and durability of Chinese electrolyzers have been raised in the past, and manufacturing is improving quickly. As recently as a few years ago, Chinese manufacturers had to import several components, limiting their ability to reduce costs through industrial clustering and economies of scale. Local component manufacturing is expanding, however, so cost savings should for Chinese electrolyzers be realized soon.

The critical observations from the IEA report are as follows (quoting directly from the report on Hydrogen supplies, deployment and speed.

The cumulative capacity deployment of projects under construction
and planned would reduce capital expenses by almost 60% by 2030.

Shortfalls in electrolysis manufacturing capacity could impede the deployment of all projects currently under development, which could derail long-term government climate ambitions.

Global electrolysis manufacturing capacity was ~3 GW/yr in 2020, with alkaline designs accounting for 85% and PEMs for less than 15%, plus some minimal, artisanal manufacturing of SOECs and AEMs.

The most significant shares of manufacturing capacity are in Europe (60%) and China (35%). Interest in the technology is growing among significant companies such as Thyssenkrupp, Nel Hydrogen, ITM, McPhy, Cummins and John Cockerill, all of which have announced plans to expand their manufacturing capacities. (I thought Siemens was a major player here, surprising not being mentioned).

If all announced expansions are realized, manufacturing capacity could reach ~20 GW/yr, with process automation or improved procurement driving down manufacturing costs.

A dedicated industrialized supply chain and a corresponding industrial supplier landscape will be essential to meet capacity demands to 2030 and beyond. If available soon, this manufacturing capacity could meet the deployment needs of the current pipeline of projects and government pledges (an average of 6-8 GW/y from 2022 to 2030) and approach.

Increased electrolyzer production will affect demand for minerals, particularly nickel and platinum group metals (depending on the technology type). While alkaline electrolysis does not require precious metals, current designs use 800-1 000 t/MW nickel.

Even if alkaline electrolysis dominates the market by 2030, in the Net zero
Emissions Scenario this would entail a nickel demand of 72 Mt (much lower than the amount needed for batteries).

The catalysts in PEM electrolyzers require 300 kg of platinum and 700 kg of iridium per GW. Therefore, if PEMs supplied all electrolyzer production in 2030 in the Net-zero Emissions Scenario, demand for iridium would skyrocket to 63 kt, nine times current global production.

Experts believe that demand for both iridium and platinum can be reduced by a factor of ten in the coming decade. Recycling PEM electrolyzer cells can further reduce primary demand for these metals and be a core element of cell design.

Meanwhile, SOEC production requires nickel (150-200 t/GW), zirconium (40 t/GW), lanthanum (20 t/GW) and yttrium (<5 t/GW). Better design in the next decade is expected to halve each of these quantities, with technical potential to drop nickel content to below 10 t/GW. Due to the higher electrical efficiency of SOECs, these mineral requirements are not directly comparable with alkaline and PEM electrolyzers.

I wrote about “Will critical Mineral Supplies Stop The Energy Transition“, asking will supply be resilient and robust. Securing these critical minerals at economical prices at a time resource quality is becoming a growing concern as well will be making the Energy Transition even trickier to manage.

Hydrogen holds promise, but it is signalling high risk at present

I relate to some of my previous fears, discussed in the articles shown above, with their links.

PEM and Alkaline might be today’s runners for Hydrogen, but the IEA report rightly points out there are other production technologies of the future that hold promise. Let me quote from the report again on the four contenders.

Solid oxide electrolyzer cells (SOECs)

These are still in the demonstration phase for large-scale applications.

SOECs use steam instead of water for hydrogen production, a fundamental departure from alkaline and PEM electrolyzers. Additionally, as they use ceramics as the electrolyte, SOECs have low material costs. While they operate at high temperatures and with high electrical efficiencies of 79-84% (LHV), they require a heat source to produce steam.

Therefore, if SOEC hydrogen were used to produce synthetic hydrocarbons (power-to-liquid [PtL] and power-to-gas [PtG]), it would be possible to recover waste heat from these synthesis processes (e.g. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, methanation) to produce steam for further SOEC electrolysis. Nuclear power, solar thermal and geothermal heat systems, and industrial waste heat, could also be heat sources for SOECs.

Methane pyrolysis

Methane pyrolysis (also known as methane splitting, cracking or decomposition) converts methane into gaseous Hydrogen and solid carbon (e.g. carbon black, graphite) without creating any direct CO2 emissions. The reaction requires relatively high temperatures (>800°C), which can be achieved through conventional means (e.g. electrical heaters) or using plasma.

Per unit of Hydrogen produced, methane pyrolysis uses three to five times less electricity than electrolysis; however, it requires more natural gas than steam methane reforming.

The overall energy conversion efficiency of methane and electricity
combined into Hydrogen is 40-45%. Notably, the process could create additional revenue streams from selling carbon black for use in rubber, tyres, printers and plastics. However, the market potential is likely limited, with global demand for carbon in 2020 being 16 Mt of carbon black, corresponding to hydrogen production from pyrolysis of 5 Mt H2. Carbon from pyrolysis could be used in other applications such as construction materials or replace coke in steelmaking.

Anion exchange membranes (AEMs)

AEM electrolysis combines some of the benefits of alkaline and PEM electrolysis. Using a transition metal catalyst (CeO2-La2O) does not require platinum (unlike PEM electrolysis). A key advantage is that the anion exchange membrane serves as a solid electrolyte, avoiding the corrosive electrolytes used in AEL. AEM technology is still at an early stage of development (TRL 4-5), but Enapter (Germany) is developing kW-scale AEM electrolyzer systems combined to form MW-scale systems.

Electrified steam methane reforming (ESMR)

SMR is a widely used process to produce Hydrogen from natural gas,
and SMR can be combined with CCUS to reduce CO2 emissions. To
achieve capture rates of 90% or higher, CO2 capture needs to be
applied to two gas streams: the synthesis gas stream after the steam
methane reformer (characterized by relatively high CO2
concentrations) and a more diluted flue gas stream caused by steam
production from natural gas. Because the latter has a lower CO2
concentration, capture requires more energy.

The technology has been demonstrated at only the
laboratory scale (TRL 4) to date, but a pilot plant is under construction
to use biogas as a feedstock in ESMR to produce Hydrogen and
carbon monoxide, which will then be converted into methanol.

Will these emerging technologies accelerate and become real competitors? They all have some technology or value in how they are made up to get to potentially competitive points, providing they can go beyond small scale into demonstrating the ability to be scaled.

The IEA lays out a plea or journey for Hydrogen.

The IEA’s Net-zero by 2050 roadmap (of IEA) shows that achieving net-zero targets will require immediate action to make the 2020s the decade of clean energy expansion through massive deployment of available low-carbon technologies and accelerated innovation of those still under development.

Hydrogen technologies are a crucial example, with a considerably higher pace of progress and deployment required from now until 2030 is needed.

The three overarching goals are to significantly expand hydrogen use while bringing new technologies onto the market; make hydrogen production much cleaner (i.e. shift away from unabated fossil fuel-based routes), and reduce the costs of technologies for hydrogen production and use.

All of these three overarching goals need a more coherent, extensive push, allowing the markets to evolve in the present fashion is not the ideal way to bring clean Hydrogen (green specifically) and cost of those technologies down without a greater concentration of efforts in the R&D labs, by Government targeted support. Collaborative environments to drive towards green hydrogen solutions that can cost-effectively take out fossil fuel alternatives.

If we do not bring all the parts together, then Hydrogen will not play the part within the Energy Transition it is expecting to play.

The post Getting concerned for Hydrogen first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Nuclear should “sit” in the Energy Transition debate is a tough one to call. The public sentiment, in general, would be against a ramping up of Nuclear after the two significant disasters etched onto our minds and stand out of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Daichi in 2011, and the human and environmental impact.

The impact of nuclear accidents has been debated since the first nuclear reactors were constructed in 1954. It has been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities ever since. Human error does happen. According to the IAEA, I was surprised by the high levels of accidents in the USA.

So why discuss an energy source that is highly contentious to argue it still has a future within the energy mix? Several reasons, many include Nuclear is still seen as a real need to deliver clean energy.

China and Russia are growing their bilateral nuclear energy cooperations significantly. Four new nuclear-generating units, two in Jiangsu Province and two in Northeast China’s Liaoning, are occurring with construction taking place within this year. With the increasing trade restrictions placed on China by the USA, China’s growing concern for energy security has risen.

The nuclear technology is reliant on Russian-developed third-generation VVER- 1200 nuclear technology. In passing China’s stringent technical reviews, this indicates that the third-generation technology and designs are far safer, and the accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima seemingly can’t happen.

There are even views this third-generation is more prudent in safety design than Western companies are offering. So nuclear in China and Russia is alive and well for future nuclear energy power generation.

What about the West?

The new U:S Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told lawmakers that she is open to offering federal subsidies to prop up struggling nuclear plants and stated, “I think this is a moment to consider—and perhaps it is in the American Jobs Plan or somewhere—to make sure that we keep the current fleet active” ‘We’re not going to be able to achieve our climate goals if our nuclear power plants shut down,’ Granholm said. ‘We have to find ways to keep them operating”

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are coming together to build a nuclear Natrium reactor in Wyoming at a decommissioned coal plant. This is an advanced nuclear reactor that is suggested as safer, performs better and costs less than the traditional plants.

The project is based around a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system that will have storage technology to deliver a system’s output to 500 MW of power for more than five-and-a-half hours when needed, which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes and will be able to integrate with renewable resources and could lead to faster, more cost-effective decarbonization of electricity generation.

According to Chris Levesque, president and CEO of TerraPower, together with PacifiCorp states the Natrium technology was designed to solve a challenge utilities face as they work to enhance grid reliability and stability while meeting decarbonisation and emissions-reduction goals.

• I will be doing a separate post on the growing interest in Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR)

Then we have Europe.

The UK imports about 7pc of its energy from the continent, but that trend is set to be reversed as countries such as Germany shut down their coal and nuclear power plants. The UK continues to see Nuclear Power Generation as part of its essential energy mix as it accelerates the increased electrification of energy.

The real interest is the current tug of war between Germany’s current view of no nuclear and Frances high dependence on Nuclear and the EU policy that is locked into where Nuclear sits.

Germany plans to close all of its nuclear plants by next year. With a current view that Nuclear power remains very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster when radioactive dust did drift across the country, it has been a top political and public concern.

If nuclear is off the German energy list then there is a rea concern for many that Germany,s growing energy needs will become more vulnerable and dependent on imports of energy or fuel sources. Energy security might shift the sentiment.

France is fascinating for the future Nuclear debate.

France, on the other hand, is highly dependent on Nuclear Energy. In 2020 nuclear represented 78% of electricity production in France. The share of renewables in total energy consumption in France stands only at 19% and significantly trailing behind EU renewable goals.

The argument is where does Nuclear fit in the future energy mix? It is not a renewable, but it is clean energy, and decarbonization is the end goal or is it?

France has had low-carbon electricity due to its building a Nuclear generation fleet in the 1980s and 1990’s. The issue is the operating life of this fleet, assuming 60 years, so by the Paris Agreement date of 2050, all of this power generation source will be decommissioned. So what will France do?

France has two options being considered.

Either replace the retiring reactors with new ones or replace the energy loss with renewables to reach a 100% renewable energy source power system.

The massive scaling up of renewables, wind and solar power adds significant pressure on France as the EU continues to ramp up its renewable share of total energy.

France needs to influence current EU decisions or fall in line and switch from ageing Nuclear plants into a Renewable strategy.

Do the maths or at least consider the consequences.

The arguments within France are certainly building. Let the elephant in or keep it shut out of future energy considerations. Look towards new Nuclear generation reactors.

The debate has switched to what is needed for hydrogen production, predicted to make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A recent report suggested that to make hydrogen by electrolysis for France alone would require the equivalent of four nuclear power stations dedicated solely to electricity production.

The suggestion is to produce low-carbon hydrogen on a global scale; 400 1GW nuclear reactors would be needed, according to a recent report published by the French parliamentary office evaluating the scientific and technological choices for the future of Energy in France.

The Electrolyser and Green Hydrogen becomes highly relevant for Nuclear

With the EU pushing to install only 6 GW of electrolyzers for the production of one million tonnes of hydrogen from renewables by 2024 and then 40 GW for ten million tonnes by 2030, the calculations for having this “pure” renewables then at least 150,000 wind turbines or solar panels covering an area of about 800,000 hectares.

There is a suggestion to get hydrogen to the supply of 70 million tonnes worldwide the commissioning of one million new wind turbines or 56 hectares of photovoltaic panels is perhaps needed.

So are we going to have a wind turbine “parked” on each piece of spare land surrounding our cities? So should Nuclear be considered? It has many advantages for alignment to Hydrogen.

Design studies for any energy solution need clear criteria. I like the French studies as they seek to identify the conditions and energy requirements. The “stress test” for energy solutions is around four sets of strict conditions to deliver a technically (not politically) secure integration when considering renewables replacing the existing French Nuclear dependence. Political comes later, wrongly so, Science and known technology solutions should lead and then finally decide.

The consideration are around 1) power system strength including system stability, 2) System adequacy to cope with load at all times, 3) operational reserves in forecasting methods and procurement, and 4) grid development efforts (and realities) at both transmission and distribution levels.

The French have stated their three pillars of energy efficiency, stronger use of biomass and a more significant role for (decarbonised) electricity as a final fuel to go from 25% to 50% of final energy needs by 2050.

Interestingly the SNBC (Stratégie nationalé bas-carbone) seems to have dismissed fossil fuel associated with carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) or the massive use of biomass or biogas for electricity generation due to availability of material source or cost into electricity.

So the French see renewables and nuclear power as their two options. They want to rebalance their electricity mix and not depend on one technology and one generation of nuclear reactors. It is becoming a fascinating energy debate to watch how it evolves.

Will the pushing of new Nuclear programs gather pace?

Will they be socially desirable or appealing as the public debates on how much any energy transition will cost and are they financially sustainable is still at a very early stage

The recent IEA report, Net-Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, which I wrote about here, “A decade pivotal to a clean energy future” and here ” Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation“, have left the place of Nuclear “hedged” as my view.

The faith in technologies for much of the energy transition is still very uncertain; many commercially unproven, not well field-or-stressed tested, they lack robust scale options, or not proven on ongoing reliability or eventual cost This certainly leaves the door open for the Nuclear Elephant to walk into the Future Energy Mix room. Will it?

Just consider the enormous strain on rare earth minerals or heat-intensive material (iron, steel etc.) that wind, solar, and storage batteries will require. This potential mineral shortage and a higher intensity of mining will become scorching political areas of global tension.

• I plan a post on the issues surrounding raw material supply and possible shortages soon.

Nuclear is a low-carbon technology with the lowest mineral intensity and smallest land footprint. Nuclear needs to be in that room when all the aspects of securing what is needed for energy to undertake the transition is considered.

Perhaps Nuclear will form an equivalent French Foreign Legion ( Légion étrangère) to battle and carve out a place at this energy table?

The debate is moving on. Nuclear, nuclear innovation and small modular reactors and other advanced reactors offer the potential for solving electricity, heat and hydrogen needs in the future.

Can we continue to leave it out of the debate? I don’t think so.

• I will be doing a separate post on Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR). This makes the Nuclear Elephant nimble.

The post The Elephant that should be more in the Energy Debate first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

I am looking at the Energy Transition from an evolving technology innovation perspective

Specifically, the ones that will be needed over such an extended time and complexity of change that this Energy Transition will take upwards of twenty to thirty years to give it an unstoppable momentum.

I have been building out the value in my proposal of having a Fitness Landscape framework within the Energy Transition and why it makes sense.

Here in this post, I want to expand my thinking around navigating a complex landscape that the Energy Transition demands.

When you look through the lens of innovating at the Energy Transition, you often question the fitness or the reality to achieve something.

A risk of the energy transition is we give higher emphasis on the depth of knowledge in one area and fail to pull this together, to map it into the bigger picture of the practical, broader-based one.

This “mapping back” gives our broader Society and non-expert groups needing to relate to the Energy transition gives them identification. It generates their need to change or support change and brings about more extensive (behavioural) change and awareness. Otherwise, they just accept the idea of advancement but equally block it if it does not fit their frame of thinking or how or why it is relevant to them.

The value of fitness landscapes as part of any Energy Transition awareness makes sense to bring identity and structure.

Let me explain this by keeping Hydrogen as the initial focus:

I have taken Hydrogen as my opening exploration to traverse this Energy landscape

I need to begin to evaluate the value of knowing the real part of any hydrogen ‘fitness’ and what makes up the distinctive dynamic capabilities that move it towards the solutions we need to have to contribute in significant ways to the energy transition underway.

These solutions can be, but not limited to, Technology and Innovation, Scale and Adoption, Infrastructure and Market Conditions, Government Engagement and Involvement, Industry, and critically vital Public adoption.

We need to visualize and articulate change in connecting ways.

I believe both the Three Horizon framework that I have deployed for years  (see this post for relating it to the energy transition) and the concept of knowing your fitness and the landscape have real value in the Energy Transition.

Both methodologies allow for a greater collective identity and engagement of all the necessary expertise and generalists to come together. In a complex challenge like the Energy Transition, you need to create the identification and build the collaborative ecosystem to focus resources on the (shared) identified goals.

Taking Hydrogen as my point of reference to understand the context, complexities, and creative tension.

By firstly, mapping out the hydrogen terrain to the task at hand enables us to understand and relate to what is needed – I call that the context for change. I have been investigating Hydrogen as a promising energy carrier to understand the barriers and obstacles to the energy transition we need to undertake. There are so many underlying “tensions” in this change from established fuels, infrastructure, and product delivery that Hydrogen needs to overcome.

Taking this fitness landscape thinking a little further here.

Any Energy Transition Fitness Landscapes identifies the opportunity spaces for focusing your efforts- the appropriate resources to navigate the terrain. The higher the ‘fitness’ transforms your landscape potential into accelerating opportunities into final tangible outcomes.

Fitness Landscapes helps in this task by identifying the opportunity spaces on where you need to focus your efforts‐ and apply the appropriate resources to navigate the terrain. A greater understanding of the ‘fitness points needed’ can transform your hydrogen landscape potential or achieve your goal in business parlance.

Mapping out your capabilities, competencies, and capacities to the task at hand enables you to understand and relate to what is needed. You begin to get fit for the journey ahead.

I took what I call a “Fitness Landscape Result Expectancies” approach.

Fitness Landscape Result Expectancies

My approach here is a work-in-progress; it will evolve and adapt depending on interest and demand.

These are my “first pass thoughts” of the expected results or points of investigation sought, by identifying the critical aspects of capability identification for the Hydrogen (or any energy transformation journey), to make it a significant contributor to the Future Energy Mix.

We need to appreciate or consider the following as principles or guidelines:

• A greater understanding of the obstacles and barriers to Hydrogen becoming a significant energy carrier in the future energy mix is critical to understand. It “conveys” the fitness landscape journey.
• Understanding what needs to be changed moves Hydrogen towards an energy transition that is sustainable and evolutionary built on technology investigation, validation, and ability to scale. Solutions gain worldwide—Recognition and adoption as the resulting outcomes and processes from discovery to realization.
• The journey generates a learning process for the identification of real and ‘false’ dynamic capabilities. Dynamic capabilities bring about change in the environment. As we frame, we can identify differences separating the more static ones that often just need reinforcement or retirement as not of lasting value.
• Pursuing limited or ‘selective’ development allows for restrictive exchanges within a network of specialization. These will not have the desired effect to accelerate solutions that can replace the existing ones unless the broader network effects are not accounted for.
• Any fitness landscape journey, where change is a significant requirement, requires a holistic view of the existing issues and the intent and goal of the journey by framing a clear strategic plan to mobilize the necessary forces.
• The solutions suggested will draw out internal discussions, growing recognition, and reality of the present and future needs in this area of resource allocation and capital allocation.
• Importance of linking capability across different activities or technology applications to become increasingly ‘dynamic’ for a more sustainable future.
• The ability to build out a clear capability portfolio knowing where resource needs to be applied and their likely timeframe from concept to fruition. These evaluations will also help identify synergies to bring new value and future impact options.
• We need to challenge long, well-established routines and processes to see how we can extend technology options. To discover and continue the existing can be valuable to place additional resources behind.
• Having clarity in the fitness landscape allows for regularly taking additional “adaptive walks” to learn and adjust current thinking and question alternatives more openly.
• Knowing your capabilities, competencies, and capacities become important, so this understanding intensifies and equally solidifies the studies through constantly challenging and questioning the investigation and landscape model.

Outcomes from these expected results raise dynamic capability and the importance of dynamism for more flexibility and fitness discovery. By identifying higher points of value, you accelerate the change process and plot different projects and their impact. You have greater confidence in where to invest new capital and resources.

Looking for outcomes and outputs.

I am building this into a workable model because it first extends on my previous work in Innovation Fitness Landscapes, and it takes out my focus on the Energy Transition.

Within this adaptive approach to the Energy Transition, we can seek out and determine the Energy Fitness Landscape to then determine where the critical focal points are so the necessary resources and capital can be applied.

I want to identify the necessary capacities, competencies, and capabilities to undergo this journey. Its ultimate aim is to identify outcomes that can become ones that focus on knowing which are valuable.

Also, which aspects need to be extended and accelerated that build on the existing solutions and gives us the decision points to let go of projects or concepts with limited or no value. Those resources and capital should be released to be redirected onto the ones that hold promise, impact, and value.

The energy complexities do need understanding, explaining, and mapping. How will the traversing be undertaken to get to the end goal of a clean energy system as soon as we often need different articulation?

Fitness landscapes help make the journey a lot easier to determine what is needed to undertake it. It is a dynamic process that stays ‘evolving.’

• A revised post from the one originally published on my paul4innovating.com site.

The post My initial thinking behind Energy Fitness Landscapes first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

So what is going on? What is causing this incredible jump and market sentiment?

To add a little more to this “what is going on” let me do something else.

Why do I compare Plug Power to Apple in past years? It is simply how its stock has rapidly accelerated away in the past year or perhaps the growing expectation of sizable growth to come, on new products and market penetration. 

A year ago, Plug Power struggled to raise money, but it has been executing on a plan consistently in the past few years that is beginning to pay off.

Plug Power has still yet to make a profit, the likelihood is even in its next quarterly round it will still not be making a profit, but the “market sentiment” for all clean energy is very bullish, and the work Plug Power has put into its 2020 activities is generating this market excitement.

What’s going on? Time to delve a little deeper. Let me offer my longer read evaluation taking 10 to 12 minutes of your time.

A short story of Plug Power, background and some crystal gazing

To quote Jim Cramer, host of Mad Money on CNBC, this week states: “ Plug Power needed money for years and years. Now, though, because of a combination of fund-raises in the stock market and SK, Plug Power doesn’t need the money. It’s free to become a large energy company itself enjoying the lowering electric costs that make its technology too cheap to be mind-bogglingly stupid. You could have called me a hydrogen doubter. Now that it has scale call me a hydrogen believer and I believe in the Plug Power solution to make it all happen.” (source)

Now that enthusiasm needs a fair amount of ‘rowing back’ as current market evaluation needs to be equated in sustaining product delivery.  But, yes, Plug Power can be at the (next) beginning of growing, as a large energy company, it is certainly in the right place at the right time.

Green hydrogen is seen to be a critical enabler of resolving the carbon issues we are facing in a rapidly warming planet. Plug Power has been selectively ‘picking off’ segments of the market that need fossil-free solutions to be part of the clean fuel economy. That focus on customer satisfaction points of speed, scaling and seeking best-in-class status is building a sound winning formula.

The  Plug Power reputation builder: Material Handling

Plug Power has gone after the material handling market, especially replacing the batteries on forklift trucks and all the big players who have real needs to bring their carbon footprint down, such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Amazon warehouses, have replaced their batteries with hydrogen fuel cells.

Getting to this point has required Plug Power to achieve scale in converting hydrogen to clean fuel into the fuel-cell battery and made its technology and deployment to be convenient and easy to apply in demanding operational environments. A little like Apple went after scale, pervasive, easer to use (or apply in this case) and ever-present or available to simply adapt to the job on hand.

Plug Power has also been focusing on e-Mobility.

As Plug Power has been rapidly developing a reputation for having the real experience to deploy fuel cells and handle hydrogen. Its USA focus and perhaps success recipe is now at the point of “going global.”

Hydrogen refuelling stations will be a huge business as LCV’s, Trucks, Buses, FC Trains all gather for providing hydrogen momentum. Plug Power is presently expanding in Europe and already aligning with different partners like Alstom delivering a growing Green Hydrogen Network and product solutions in fuel cells that build out their portfolio.

Today, 12th January 2021, in a press release a joint venture between Groupe Renault and Plug Power join forces to become leaders in Hydrogen LCV.

• Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) signed to launch a 50-50 joint-venture (JV) based in France by the end of the first half of 2021, targeting over 30% share of the fuel cell-powered light commercial vehicle (LCV) market in Europe.
• Joint-venture will establish in France state-of-the-art innovation and manufacturing capabilities for hydrogen fuel cell systems and their integration in vehicles.
• The partnership provides a unique value proposition: turn-key fuel cell vehicle solutions with hydrogen fuel, refuelling infrastructures and services.
• This strategic project supports the decarbonization of mobility in Europe with the adoption of clean energy solutions, and the creation of innovating value-generating activities in France, including an industrial footprint in a promising market, business know-how and intellectual property in this new field of technology

This strategic JV will position Groupe Renault and Plug Power to become key players in Europe in the research and development (R&D), transformation, manufacturing and sale of fuel cell-powered vehicles and hydrogen turn-key solutions in the coming years.

The JV intends to offer unique, comprehensive, differentiated products and solutions to the LCV market, designed around 3 key pillars:

• R&D: Groupe Renault and Plug Power intend to establish an Innovation Center for the development of fuel cell technology and hydrogen fuel cell LCV vehicles based on existing and future Groupe Renault platforms. The initial focus will be on the heavy van segment utilizing the Traffic and Master vehicle platforms. This centre will be unique in combining R&D efforts of fuel cell and vehicles with integrated engineering teams.
• Manufacturing: the joint-venture will combine the vehicle manufacturing capabilities of Groupe Renault with the fuel cell and hydrogen system manufacturing knowledge of Plug Power, establishing a vertically integrated fuel cell stack and system manufacturing centre in France for integration into LCV vehicle platforms. In addition, this manufacturing centre will provide hydrogen refuelling systems, a key part of the hydrogen ecosystem.
• Sales: this partnership will create a hydrogen vehicle eco-system solution company that offers vehicles, hydrogen fueling stations, hydrogen fuel, and services to customers. This comprehensive solutions approach will accelerate adoption by commercial fleets.

The further ambitions beyond fuel cells are ambitions in the future

Focusing on bringing Hydrogen to the market, refuelling stations for fuel cell vehicles can also be a building out to being a source at Sea Ports and Airports to build out hydrogen or derivatives.

Then the big ones for Industrial Green Hydrogen Solutions

The P2P, P2X and P2M are opening up as diverse markets for Hydrogen as decarbonization initiatives “kick-in” and cost-competitive hydrogen to existing fuels (H2$/kg decreases markets open up).

These possible markets are seen by Plug Power in Stationary Energy Storage, Off-Grid Applications for P2P, and Ammonia, Steel,  Chemicals forming the P2X markets where alternatives need to find technology and fuel replacement application solutions, and finally, P2M of a rapidly growing fuel cell market for Electric Vehicles globally.

Plug Power also sees Data Centres, Micro Grids for Energy Storage ideal for applying green hydrogen. It turns them all green or carbon-free. No issue there.

The Hydrogen Markets potential is huge.

Some estimates put the size of Green Hydrogen at a $200 billion addressable market. There are even larger numbers I have seen.

Yet Electrolyzers are going to be the key for delivering to this potential.

Like the Smart Phone for Apple, the Electrolyzer( read Show me the Electrolyzer)  is the catalyst for the whole Energy System.

The price of H2 determines each market entry point. As Wind and Solar continue to gain scale and forces reductions in energy prices, the renewable presence across all energy sectors brings the potential for significant hydrogen to be added into the renewable mix. The triggering in prices depends on each market, but for hydrogen needed to be converted as a viable, sustainable fuel alternative that needs to get to Euro 2.50/kg and at real scale towards Euro 1.75/kg are the target points example, here in Europe.

The input cost, be this electricity, wind and solar need to keep falling to work with Hydrogen solutions to be competitive. Clearly, to achieve green hydrogen, Plug Powers end focus point, the conversion to Hydrogen needs a highly competitive Electrolyzer in price and what it can produce as output.

Plug Power is committed to the proton exchange membrane (PEM) for its electrolyzer solutions as this is where by using green electricity, from Wind or Solar to electrolyzer water into hydrogen offers a carbon-free alternative.

This PEM Electrolyzer solution applies electricity to water, splits water and oxygen to separate for the final fuel need of hydrogen. Most hydrogen today is from steam reforming methods by natural gas or coal and carry very significant carbon emission footprints. Other Electrolyzer solutions are fossil fuel-driven.

Solving the PEM Electrolyzer to be able to scale at a commercially attractive price (affordability) so it can be applied to all the Hydrogen markets is the Smart Phone equivalent in the Energy sector. A real solution to the energy transition.

individual electrolyzer units, called stacks need to become increasingly efficient to process one gigawatt of electrolysis per year.

Today that efficiency of electrolyzers is still really at a “pilot ramping up learning scale”stage,  with tens of megawatts per stack. Technology needs to change away from stacks or stacks need to get into in the range of hundreds of megawatts each by 2025, and eventually move to even larger units.

The next decade will see the evolution of technology and engineering to bring scale to the Electrolyzer. The companies equipped to invest in the research and development will be the new Wind equivalents like today’s Vesta or Gamesa.

Plug Power is building a PEM Giga factory but so are many others building their hydrogen presence. It is not the manufacturing of Electrolyzers per se,  it is the technology breakthrough needed to scale these. Has Plug Power got the necessary “technical and scientific chops” to deliver breakthrough solutions?

This technology breakthrough on the Electrolyzer is my point of concern for Plug Power.

They are going the stack route by simply working on increasing stacks based on existing, proven solutions. Still, I wonder, without any great detailed technical understanding from my side, if they have the answer to scaling hydrogen outputs away from simply stack building? Or are they simply just increasing the existing stacks? That will not work for the sheer amount of hydrogen needed globally.

Source Plug Power

They are investing in a new PEM Technology Center that will focus on the parts of an Electrolyzer but is this application of thinking in stacks being locked into the existing “seen” solution? I feel so, but time will tell.

Source. Plug Power Symposium Presentation September 2020

Competing with the Industrial Solution Giants

For me Siemens or ThyssenKrupp as two Industrial solution giants, both known for their industrial-scale solutions. At present they are more likely to find the abilities internally for technology breakthrough, and greater understanding for larger-scale industrial application in segments such as P2P, P2X and P2M as they both have the known capabilities and competencies that the Energy Industries have come to rely upon and trust.

The move to a Mature Energy solution provider is Plug Powers major challenge.

Plug Power’s difference is it has focused on specific segments where existing solutions of Electrolyzer output for Hydrogen works to build fuel cell capabilities. To think big industrial scale for being the solution provider for Iron and Steel, Chemicals or any of the worlds huge industry plants is a totally different ball game. Can they? I feel not in their present form or organizational design.

Will we be seeing a Nokia and Apple transformation moment? 

If Plug Power sees itself as the leader in the deployment of green hydrogen solutions (present vision statement), then I can relate to this if it focuses on Fuel Cells only, but I struggle on the greater green hydrogen potentials where the Power-to- X as the bigger prize.

Will Plug Power stay with Fuel Cells, and Green Hydrogen solutions (electrolyzer sized to this market segment) or will they venture into the huge Hydrogen market that industrial solutions give. The Electrolyzer thinking needs a giant step change for Plug Power. Still, why not?

Like Apple, it is all about visions, imagination, determination, focus, application and bringing together the technology and manufacturing solutions together in groundbreaking solutions and strategic partnerships,  at a point of time access to money and gaining financial market sentiment.

Plug Power is focused exclusively on Green Hydrogen, it has a fighting chance through imaginative partnerships and staged focus points.

Both Siemens Energy and Thyssenkrupp have “wicked” legacy in their present energy solution portfolio’s. As established large Energy solution providers, with a huge legacy of past Energy Solutions, can they be agile enough, inventive enough or able to plough the money into green hydrogen and PEM Electrolyzers in a dedicated fashion? Plug Power possibly can, but it is a bigger, more demanding stretch than their current plans or resources to compete in engineering, technology and application understanding.

Visions come and go, a new one needs to be articulated by Plug Power now.

Yet all things change within a few short months. In listening to Plug Powers CEO, Andy Marsh where he outlined their vision last September in their symposium, it already seems really inadequate to what has happened to them in these past few months. Forging new global or regional partnerships can radically change the positioning.

Plug Power needs a rapid update of its vision now.

Why? Plug Power raised $1 billion in bought equity to fund its plan to complete the first US-wide networked green hydrogen production facilities to supply fuel-cell products. The capital raised with Morgan Stanley gave Plug Power total cash post-closing balance to $1.7 billion.

Plug Power is well funded for its next rapid expansion from recent announcements.

Early this year (2021) Plug Power raised $1.5 billion from South Korea’s SK Group to enter the Asian market. SK Group is the third-largest company in South Korea. It has formed a strategic partnership to accelerate the hydrogen economy in South Korea and the plans to have six million fuel cell electric vehicles and 1,200 refilling stations in place by 2040. 

SK Group liked the Plug Power turnkey solution for using green clean hydrogen. That injection of $1.5 billion gives 9.9% stake in the fuel cell provider as part of this partnership to reach Asian markets.

To quote Andy March, the Plug Power CEO ” “SK Group has an established strategy for building out the hydrogen economy in South Korea and beyond,”. He goes on to say “The current relationship with SK Group offers immediate strategic benefits to Plug Power to accelerate its expansion into Asian markets – and is intended to result in a formal joint venture (JV) by 2022.”

Combined with the already outlined plans for Europe detailed in that September Symposium Plug Power are accelerating their Fuel Cell core business of EMobility and Material Handling significantly, why beyond market expectation.

The market sentiment is high for Plug Power, now they need to deliver

The market reaction was not just the significant jump in Plug Power share, but it still struggles to make profits due to its recent expansion plans and inability to scale to meet demand.

Market valuations, comparing apples with pears or are we?

Presently Plug Power market value is $24.9 billion, bigger than utility giants like PG&E Corp and Consolidated Edison Inc.  Remarkably Plug Power was worth about $1 billion (Bloomberg) a year ago!.

Siemens Energy recently spun off from Siemens AG and has a present market worth of Euro 24.2 billion or $29.4 billion at the time of writing. Still, the market believes it is trading well below its true market value.

Today the market valuations for Plug Power looks high, and the Siemens Energy seem low.

The pulling away point comes in managing the portfolio, and the energy focuses each has. Plug Power is exclusively focused on green hydrogen solutions and fuel cells. Siemens has a diverse portfolio of past, present and future energy solutions. Gas-Power generation and grid transmissions make up over 50% of the portfolio.

Hydrogen will be the accelerator, as it is the renewable clean energy future and the markets are focusing on this energy transition as where the “smart energy money” goes. The one that focuses on hydrogen seen by the market is where the money is going.

Market sentiment can change overnight.

If Siemens has a PEM Electrolyzer solution covering all green hydrogen demands from fuel cells, networks of hydrogen needs, and industrial solutions, it pulls away from its current market valuation.

If Plug Power pulls its “smartphone” equivalent of its Electrolyzer solutions out of its portfolio hat, it continues towards that suggested positioning offered by Jim Cramer of being “free to become a large energy company.”

Will it? It is all to play for, for both. Scale, technology innovation and scope of renewable offering makes the difference

2021 is the big scaling year for Plug Power

2020 has been an amazing year for Plug Power, maybe moving towards scale in Hydrogen and the solutions but the sheer scale of its task to come is the challenges it sets itself in 2021 for the next five years.

The present ones articulated by Andy March, the CEO, back in September 2020, need to be less visionary and aspiration to attract the finance. It needs to switch to a roadmap on focused execution.

It needs to extend out in why its Plug Power turnkey solution for using green clean hydrogen is proving highly attractive to its future relationships and partnerships to grow the business.

Plug Power in my mind can hit real scale but…..

 This will be determined by its detailed roadmap and its portfolio resolutions and progress with its clarity on its market focus on solutions (fuel cells vs industrial, for example). This is the biggest call Plug Power will be making this year. Sizing up to market sentiment and expectations. A really major shift for the top management to outline succinctly.

To realize that ambition of being both a leader in fuel cell technology and green hydrogen and the bigger scope of green hydrogen beyond fuel cells, it has eluded too is the call needed.

The building blocks to drive growth need a sharper clarity now that raising equity, possibly beyond internal expectations has taken place.

Watch Plug Power with growing interest, I am even more than in the past

**Note: the announcement between Groupe Renault and Plug Power added later in the day of posting this and parts of the post relating to Electrolyzers was updated or corrected on 14th January 2021.

The post Are we seeing the Apple of Hydrogen in Plug Power? first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Being restricted, not able to travel has its benefits, you gain more time to climb into your own reading, research or passions. For me, this has been my “Energy Transition” year.

The sheer amount of articles, reports or webinars around all aspects of energy have been partly overwhelming but significant in their reference and knowledge gaining. This intensity of purpose towards the energy transition has given me an enormous boost in its understanding.

When I reflect back on this 2020 year, recognising the needs to make a significant energy change has really gained a very high awareness.

2020 advanced the commitment to the shift from fossil fuel to renewables that has real momentum in the coming years. 2021 will be the breakthrough year where the energy transition has the unstoppable forces happening.

Let me summarize my top six energy developments that built-in 2020 that have given a potentially lasting momentum to the energy transition that will, in my opinion, have a real impact in 2021. Plus my seventh one, a personal one, boosted my energy understanding and confirmed a growing recognition by others’ of my contributions.

Firstly, let’s look at my top six energy enablers to significantly impact the energy transition that is being undertaken. Each will have a massive impact on 2021.

ONE – We are entering the autumn of fossil-fuel generation

Coal, Oil and Gas are really on the ropes, fighting to stay relevant against the onslaught of renewables. Coal is on its way out that is for sure, the early retirements of dozens of coal plants in 2020.

Global coal consumption was such way down due to Covid-19 and renewables’ pace. Growing positioning has become far more competitive and offers real confirmation that renewables can bridge much of the energy demand.

Gas is not so far behind. The scrapping of plans to replace coal with gas and opt for clear energy portfolios and cancelled previously planned pipelines are among the issues that are putting huge pressure on the Gas Turbine business.

Power generation will be the major battlefield in 2021 to see if the “interim” argument, the bridge, takes hold or the longer-term one, of going straight for renewables wins.

The issue of a legacy for investing in Gas Turbines that have a life of thirty years or more of normally useful lifetime returns is at risk. They could quickly become stranded assets or wrongly positions in the new energy designed a system where renewables are more central.

I feel early retirement debates and required decisions to not invest in fossil fuel generation will dominate 2021. Fossil fuel-fired generation is heading for a very tough year in 2021.

TWO – The commitment to Carbon Neutrality

The commitments of both China and now the incoming US administrations recommitting to the Paris Agreement is highly significant. The whole raft of more vigorous policies, support programs and regulatory measures to tackle the CO2 emissions and the increased “drumbeat” to decarbonization will become much louder in 2021. Governments really need to “drive” change.

The continued push to carbon-free electricity is happening at an increasing rate, with the application and acceleration of clean energy technologies, and the power grids to manage and run increasingly on zero-carbon power. The energy system is being argumented with increased sector coupling management, and increase storage alternatives will be one of the top investment focus in 2021. Decarbonizing is central to all we do.

THREE.- The Race towards Hydrogen at Scale requires lower cost points.

For me, hydrogen became the big talking point of 2020. We have been deluged with Hydrogen opinions, suggested options and so much advice on how and when this “hydrogen economy” emerges into one that gives real commercial scale. Hydrogen is moving towards the alternative energy source to solve the harder-to-abate areas, bridge the wind and solar variability, and provide transport fuel alternatives in power-to-x solutions.

Green hydrogen is the place to get to, as quickly as possible. What needs to be announced in 2021 is significant breakthroughs in electrolyzer technology that can significantly upscale volume and show the promise of rapid cost reduction. The scaling trajectory will have a similar pathway that solar and wind took to get to the point where they are today where costs are required to fall dramatically to gain acceptance and adoption.

The disruptive technology breakthroughs for green hydrogen need to be delivered in 2021 to kick-start the Hydrogen revolution.

In 2021 the Hydrogen Council has to make some hard decisions. Does it continue to back all Hydrogen shades (grey, blue, green) or shape its memberships focus to one and only one Hydrogen choice, that of Green hydrogen?  Green Hydrogen is generated by the different renewables and technology solutions available; mostly solar, hydro, and wind feeding into electrolyzers.

Investment decisions and technology clarity need to be fully determined on Hydrogen Those decision and clear pathways for Hydrogen need to be nailed down in 2021. 

FOUR – The focus will shift further to reducing Greenhouse Gases in 2021

The transport industry, aviation, and shipping need to make definite inroads to find their fuel alternatives in 2021. There are options, but a winner or two needs to emergy and the industries consolidate behind these.

Methane Gas has to be given much sharper attention too, and that continues to push the oil and gas industries into getting their emissions in real shape. All greenhouse emissions in building, in industry, in transport need to be “forced” to act by Government edict and have clear time commitments to make the necessary changes to clean energy.

Bans on Gas Vehicles needs even more legislation incentive, the two or so decades needs shortening, so the laggards in the car industry finally get the incentive to commit.

2021 will see Gas Emissions becoming central to policy and which technological breakthroughs being determined as the ones to put the investment capital behind.

The one really grey area for me is translating all the talk of carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) into real compelling and globally commercial solutions. If they can’t see the shift to decarbonization through renewables and green hydrogen, all the political, technological, and industry solution providers combined weight behind them to provide commercially viable CCUS solutions with blue hydrogen takes increasing hold on future energy designs. CCUS needs to have clear, scalable and proven solutions.

FIVE – Getting our Storage, Battery and Grids capable of delivering Electricity Stability

As we recognize the largescale deployment of energy storage, this has the real potential of overturning any business as usual for any electricity market needs. If it is to satisfy instantaneous demand, smooth out discrepancies between generation and loads, provide flexibility in load shifting and position both batteries and storage as the ancillary service for managing all the present and future options in power generation and consumption self-consumption.

As batteries and storage costs continue to fall and the amount of energy these can store will shift the economics of power across the grid,  displacing and disrupting plants and grids in their design, flexibility, and capabilities. Storage will upend many industry structures.

Storage system design will take a more central role, where lithium-ion, ölead-acid, flow-cells and other emerging technologies will optimise value to the needs on hand. Storage is recognized as giving two critical aspects of any energy transition, resilience and insurance to manage stability and fluctuations.

Energy storage and battery hold a critical part of the future, and 2021 will see these energy-storage systems become broader solution sets, not one-off positioning. They will become an integrated design feature, and this will emerge in 2021.

SIX– The Financial Energy Commitment Year of 2021 needs to be substantial

Financial institutions and Banks are finally making their move. Banks always want risk certainty, and they have really struggled over the investments at scale in emerging technology or alternative fuel solutions. The pretence (no other word for this, in my opinion) of their deep commitment to the energy transition has been lacking.

Banks and Financial Institutions should be “called out” and recognize their pivotal role in ‘forcing’ reducing carbon intensity as primary investors. They need to move with greater intent and purpose away from fossil fuel-related investments to renewable ones and resolve to back pioneering technologies in greater ways.

The boom of investment return needs to be seen, where Government Economic policy sends that powerful signal to the markets to commit in deeper, sustaining ways. We need to get past piecemeal or pilot projects to assess risk over a protracted time, we need bolder investment visions in investments in clean energy solutions.

Banks need to reorganize their portfolio of energy investments in radically different ways. Taking carbon intensity reduction as the core investment focus does begin to regroup individual segments in a new way of evaluation. 2021

Banks and Financial Institutions in 2021 need to finally come off the fence of backing both fossil fuel and renewables and make this reduced carbon intensity central to their investment decisions going forward.

SEVEN – My seventh one is my own deliverables in 2020 that I believe will build-out and lead to a significant “return” in 2021 for all who want to engage.

This reflection of my 2020 will be in my opening post of 2021, entitled “restating my energy purpose”.

My best of Energy Wishes to you in 2021. Let’s search for synergies and making connections that are mutual and rewarding.

The post Energy Progress- the best of 2020 leads to a great 2021. first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Adapted Image: IRENA

We are at the point where “the rubber hits the road” or in Green Hydrogen’s case “the water needs to turn into H2 at scale and real value” and for that to happen it needs a massive commitment across so much that is work-in-progress today.

So much of where we are in Hydrogen is more of a promise theory or intent, than a reality. We need to moderate our rhetoric and provide realism before we completely overhype the green hydrogen. Impatience and growing frustration might kill off the hydrogen solution (again).

We need to massively be able to scale out solutions like the electrolyzer. We need to radically bring down existing production costs through different technology applications and design. We have to build a dedicated infrastructure and create real sustaining market demand. Today producing hydrogen means possible energy losses on the alternative.

We need to build the business case of Hydrogens value as the alternative to fossil fuel is a task-driven by the necessary policy change, customers willing to buy and replace their existing energy systems and suppliers able to offer the guarantees that any hydrogen replacement can work in demanding, more flexible conditions and offer affordability, sustainability, is effective and efficient beyond the existing solutions.

Oh, yes, to cap this all off it has to be at competitive prices to today’s energy sources. Or alternative solutions will need to be found, such as Nuclear perhaps.  I mean not much of a challenge to switch away from fossil fuels is it?Lets state the intent: the energy transformation requires a major shift in electricity generation from fossil fuels to renewable sources like solar and wind, greater energy efficiency and the widespread electrification of energy uses from cars to heating and cooling in buildings.

Not all sectors or industries can easily make the switch from fossil fuels to electricity. Hard-to-electrify (and therefore hard-to-abate) sectors include steel, cement, chemicals, long-haul road transport, maritime shipping and aviation all need imaginative and cost-effective alternatives to the existing solutions.

In a recent report “Green Hydrogen, a guide to policymaking” released by IRENA this month you are hit by a real dose of present reality.

Green hydrogen can provide that vital link between extending and sustaining renewable electricity generation (VRE) and provide solutions to those hard-to-electrify sectors.

We know Hydrogen is, without doubt, a suitable energy carrier and also for applications remote from electricity grid dependency. Also, Hydrogen can provide a high energy density, it can serve as a feedstock for chemical reactions and is well-positioned to produce a range of synthetic fuels and feedstocks to complete much of the energy transition.

Yet the barriers we face today are formidable to realize Hydrogen’s promise, picking up on the part of this report from IRENA.

Green hydrogen is regarded as the ultimate goal, but it needs to overcome the following barriers.

1. Green hydrogen has high production costs, and adopting green hydrogen technologies is presently expensive. To offer hydrogen vehicles with fuel cells and hydrogen tanks costs at least 1.5 to 2 times more than the fossil fuel counterparts at least. Synthetic fuels for aviation are presently eight times more expensive. Transport costs are equally at an economic disadvantage.
2. There is a lack of dedicated infrastructure. We only have 5,000 KM of hydrogen transmission pipelines compared to 3 million km for natural gas. There are presently only about 470 refuelling stations. We still are debating how and where to position our hydrogen sources and can it economically and safely can be transported.
3.  The energy losses are significant. About 30-35% of the energy used to produce hydrogen through electrolysis is lost (IRENA). To convert hydrogen to other carriers such as ammonia can result in 13-25% energy loss and transporting hydrogen requires additional energy inputs, estimated at 10-12% of the hydrogen itself. Using hydrogen in fuel cells can lead to additional 40-50% energy losses. Then you have the higher the energy losses, the more renewable electricity capacity will be needed. Can wind and solar satisfy both the global supply chain of electrification and simultaneously build a green hydrogen economy to solve the harder-to-abate challenges, for example?
4. Today Hydrogen has a lack of Value Recognition. We have no green hydrogen market, no green steel industry, no green shipping fuels and still according to IRENA, basically no valuation of the lower GHG emissions that green hydrogen can deliver. Hydrogen today is not counted in official energy statistics of total final energy consumption. There are no internationally recognized ways of differentiating grey, blue or green hydrogen. We lack clear targets or incentives to promote the use of green hydrogen. We are totally inhibiting many downstream uses of green hydrogen.
5. The critical need to ensure sustainability. Knowing an electric grid is only connected to renewables gives us the chance of green hydrogen. If fossil fuels are within the mix, any associated CO2 will need to be factored in when considering what hydrogen is being produced. The reality is fossil fuels will be in the hydrogen mix for some time to come and does this become a barrier, a taxing question and national emission debates. How can we ensure that grid-connected electrolyzer does deliver hydrogen with, at least, minimum emissions? Is this the case for the pursuit of green and blue hydrogen solutions setting out to capture all of the majority of the CO2

Realizing the true potential of green hydrogen is a long, dedicated journey, it needs to have a plan that is coordinated. Delivering green hydrogen needs international collaboration, it needs aligning standards, and it needs clear financing infrastructure to be staged along its “greening” journey.

Expectations for Hydrogen to significantly contribute to the Energy Transition are 5 to 10 years away. It is how we put the time between now and then will make or break Hydrogen as the viable, perhaps only sensible solution. Yet we must be realistic, grounded and highly focused on the significant challenges to be overcome.

We do need to face reality, dampen down the present hype around hydrogen and roll up our collective sleeves to tackle a highly complex set of challenges, we do need this dose of reality.

The post A Massive Dose of Hydrogen Reality first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

The pressure to stop new Coal investment is building- is that really good?

Threats & Pressures for reducing CO2 emissions

What can’t be ignored in all this action to stop coal, again to quote from the IEA report:

Steelmaking today will “kill” the Energy Transition if we do not find new innovative processes.

As the IEA report states ” New steelmaking processes are critical, but there is no one right answer”

Deep emission reductions are simply not achievable without innovation in technologies for near-zero emissions steelmaking.

Are we stopping innovation if the known Energy Providers continue to withdraw from their coal associations?

Finding a more thoughtful sustainable pathway.

The post Coal, Steelmaking and Asia first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.