Thomas Kiessling, the CTO of Siemens Smart Infrastructure, provided in a keynote at the Enlit Europe event, held in Milan between 30th November to 2nd December 2021 his thoughts on how to prepare as an Energy Company for significant disruption  He outlined in twenty-odd minutes keynote his transformation list to enable this with “All of us will go through disruption and opportunity.”

When anyone argues from the start of their keynote: “that no one would dispute that the energy sector is ripe for disruption, we have to go through profound change.” Then further adding, “there is a need to transform the systems radically“, you indeed start paying attention.

Kiessling said the industry “has entered a much greater degree of uncertainty. And uncertainty needs entrepreneurs; it needs trial and error, and it needs system-scale innovation.”

Emerging from the recent CoP26 held in Glasgow between 31st October to 12th November 2021, the push towards a net-zero future is the reality ahead. “After COP26, no one would dispute that the energy sector is ripe for disruption. We have to go through profound change.”

The CoP26 outcome calls for a fundamental, profound system change within the energy system and the global need for the whole energy community to cope with this net-zero need.

Kiessling cited a recent report from Boston Consulting and the German Federation of Industry, recognizes that no sector today is set up correctly for the change that needs to happen and argues this German perspective reflects across the Globe. He cited a doubling of electricity demand in the next 20 to 25 years, with a requirement of a tripling of the supply of PV and Wind firstly. “Each makes up part of a massive “collective” challenge.”

Kiessling suggests we are entering “a period of uncertainty.” and his view is uncertainty calls for Entrepreneurs as much ahead within the energy system changes ahead will have high levels of “trial and error.”

He calls for a regulatory framework to encourage flexibility and innovation and, at the same time, to ensure that production (of Electricity) needs to be secure, resilient and the supply significantly increased.

Various “asides” are provided throughout this review.

* I have provided some “asides” to clarify or explain as well to help put a further context for a broader reading community, as the keynote was given to an audience of energy experts. Some additional examples were sought from Thomas Kiessling following this keynote to illustrate his points, it makes this review longer, but it brings added value.

There are parallels with other significant industrial disruptions

Kiessling drew parallels with other industrial areas that have gone through similar and significant disruptions, such as telecommunications, factory automation and even data centres, stating there is a lot to learn from these examples.

• My aside here is that those industries did go through massive disruption. Perhaps the power grid can be considered the most complex system humanity ever built, as all our energy consumption is directly linked to power consumption. Equally, the electrical power grid has only added increased complexity over time.
• Second aside here: A major part of the energy transition is it is moving from a traditional vertically integrated hierarchy into a new form of operating within a more open “smart, intelligent grid” to enable an instantaneous, on all-the-time, safe, two-way passage, of information and energy needs will become a real game-changer. We can learn from other significant disruptions, but the energy transition is, for many, the most complex, operationally and technically demanding.

As Thomas Kiessling rightly points out in this keynote, combining operational technology, managing (differently) the physical assets and underlying technology is the set of things we need to manage together.

Preparing the Energy Company- a transformation approach

The primary point of his keynote was “how to prepare as an Energy Company” for the challenges ahead where a seven-fold increase in renewables with still the number one objective of having the security of supply and resilience within the system being paramount.

The structure of the keynote for Energy System Change

The keynote provided seven needs for transitional change.

Today as we transform our power generation into renewables, we face ageing powerlines, struggling to add capacity, a lack of (real-time) awareness, difficulties in controlling the voltage, especially at the grid edge.

Kiessling used specific examples of the needs in Electricity and the Grid Edge to underline the changes needed to be undertaken.

Firstly today, the need is to apply cutting edge technology.

Transition need one: The security of supply, resilience, and automation

Point One: Kiessling points out we will see less inertia and less short circuit power in the networks. There will need to be more sophisticated fault detection algorithms. Kiessling points out the likely need is to change the network protection architecture of the network itself. For example, the overcurrent and distance protection might need to be substituted by differential protections. AI technology will help to do this.

The good news here suggested by Thomas Kiessling is that AI and Analytics are well on their way to help in this transformation to control and operate the network in a “real-time” fashion. This shift in managing the system’s demands becomes a major transiting challenge.

• As an aside here: Historically, for example, in the U.S. power grid, inertia from conventional fossil, nuclear, and hydropower generators was abundant—and thus taken for granted in the planning and operations of the system. But as the grid evolves with increasing penetrations of inverter-based resources—e.g., wind, solar photovoltaics, and battery storage—that do not inherently provide inertia, questions have emerged about the need for inertia and its role in the future grid. Understanding the role of inertia requires understanding the interplay of inertia and these other services, particularly primary frequency response, which is derived mainly from relatively slow-responding mechanical systems.

Point two made here was shifting from static monitoring to a more dynamic setup. The present static load flow calculation to operate the network needs different thinking. As rotating masses are progressively removed, it will require different approaches with renewables towards a more dynamic data-driven environment.

• Aside here– examples provided later by Thomas Kiessling on issues that support this point two:
  • Static load flow calculation will not detect wide-area power swings, which might cause tripping of circuit breakers.
  • Such power swings might increase when rotating masses are decommissioned from the network.
  • Dynamic Stability Supervision is needed, typically using Phasor measure units.
  • There are promising technologies to detect upcoming dangerous situations early in a world of volatility.

Kiessling liked this, in an interesting comparison, to “resembling a patient-monitoring system during heart surgery” – one that was dynamic, self-healing and would evolve into a “system of systems”. This monitoring system needs to understand the system’s metrics in a real-time fashion to understand if dangerous situations are coming over the network to respond to these.

Point three– the need for self-healing networks. Closed-loop switching to help isolate and restore network segments in fast fashions and apply a very different total fault metric to this.

The need comes to the point of a system of systems for semi-autonomous parts of the network, driven by renewables can then manage themselves and contribute to the overhaul resilience of the network, so it becomes a “resilient, decentralized and autonomous system”.

• Aside here: This is taking the smart grid as a System of Systems (SOS) which moves towards operation independence of the elements, the ability to manage within a network the autonomy of these elements, as well as have an evolutionary development to retire at any time without causing an impact to other parts of the system, provide for emergent behaviour to meet the demands for a clean, economical and efficient way by all in the system design and finally allow for geographic distribution to be highly dispersed and linked through information exchange channels.

These transitions will need industry cooperation to mature these technologies and set all the energy systems up for the planned and expected growth.

As pointed out in the keynote- we all need to learn how to deal with data, and this is a cultural change where the need for data scientists, data lakes and IT/OT need to come together in new, radically different ways.

Transition need 2: Digitalization and Data

The challenge is validating and enriching the data to make it useable.

One example provided here is how Smart Meters are now going beyond just billing, but a deeper verification for providing data that increases the awareness of the network of power consumption, specifically on the grid edge. This shift enables improved metrics, planning and operational management for capacity planning, better aggregation insights, forecasting potential, ultimately improving the industry’s capital efficiencies and allowing the prosumer to participate.

Aside: Siemens re-launched their meter data management software EnergyIP at the Enlit Europe event, where its focus has a higher level of user-centricity and supporting customers to get ready for future changes to the energy system.  Links to the PRESS RELEASE and MORE information, taken from the Siemens website

Transition need 3: Innovation and proactivity

The use of power electronics, inverter-based resources will inform and stabilize the grid and protect the infrastructure.

• Aside here: Invertor-based resources including wind, solar and storage can quickly detect frequency deviations and respond to system imbalances. These “fast-frequency responses” can provide response rates faster than traditional mechanical responses from conventional generators, thereby reducing the need for inertia.

One example offered within the keynote was operating, simulating and monitoring islands (actual physical islands) as rotation free, here Siemens has several larger-scale projects around the world.

The massive opportunities here is to system scale innovation and reinvention, yet there are three fundamental issues to tackle

1. Inverters from different manufacturers require generic inverter models enabling standardization across the industry to achieve a rotator free network.
2. Challenge two: In larger transmission scenarios the inverters are located at a larger distance and this increases the risk of more weakly damped oscillations. Therefore, we need accurate simulation models and algorithms and present challenge
3. The issue of time-varying eigen modes is a challenge to be addressed. As the generation changes between conventional and inverter-based (or renewable) generation from hour to hour, the oscillatory behaviour of your power system will change, this requires an operator support system that continuously analyses the dynamics and if needed, the power system needs to adjust on the fly to secure N-1 failure security

In conclusion, to get to a rotation, free network in most countries calls for a system scale innovation for the energy community to work together to resolve and scale these specific challenges.

Transition need 4: Dealing with Cooperation at all levels

For example, TSOs and DSOs must cooperate more to cope with volatile inputs from renewables

Offered following the keynote to explain this cooperation point Kiessling gave a concrete example of how such cooperation can help speed progress to carbon-free networks:

With less and less TSO control of conventional power plants and rotating masses, the TSO’s mission to secure grid balance will be harder to achieve. This is because the TSO has no direct control over RES at the distribution grid. That’s where DSO comes into play. The DSO can react to TSO control signals, effectively providing ancillary services by aggregating DER and DSR This allows operators to reduce TSO side issues like redispatch, which has increased dramatically in some countries in recent years

In one of Siemens research projects cooperating with multiple TSOs / DSOs, this work has verified this works using real network data of TSOs, and are now working on deploying this with a number of TSOs

• Aside: Having clear definitions of data to be exchanged, recognizing network development in demand and generation forecasts, establishing the ancillary services, load shedding, and capacity markets will all need greater collaboration. Exchanging planning information, coordinating technical studies to assess constraints on the system, dealing with congestion management, having common grid user understanding and free exchanges on available network capacity, all needs listening and collaborating more in the new system needs.

Transition need 5: Standardization and scalability

The keynote comes back to evolving into this vision of a system of systems. The system will resemble more of a system of systems, where energy nodes will take autonomous decisions that contribute to overall grid stability, only possible with standardization among nano, Micro, distribution and transport grids.

• Aside Standardization matters because larger power systems will have many grid-forming inverters from different vendors. There is a need to harmonize cyber security standards so as to ensure a common level of cyber security for the entire, interconnected energy system and Cooperation between TSO and DSO for ancillary services and transport grid balance requires interconnection standards.

Transition need 6: Regulations for flexible investment plans

As pointed out by Thomas Kiessling we need a regulatory environment that builds digitalization into incentive frameworks. To build on this

We need to simplify data collection across the industry already at the point of asset registration and there need to be energy data best practices that are embraced by operators

To speed innovation, regulators should give grid infrastructure stakeholders (including equipment manufacturers) access to past operational data so they can model solutions. At present, the network operators often have a hard time getting innovation investments approved by regulators, even as research projects with part of the issues coming from digitalization investment, by nature, will lead to a certain amount of innovative trial and error, as is the case of every innovation

Such an investment is in competition with simply adding hardware assets most of the time with a fixed rate of asset capital return. The regulator and the DSO understand this process much better. One way to evolve this logic is to start looking at business outcomes

What is the asset base needed to deliver a given amount of energy? Capital efficiency incentives need to be introduced into the discussion. The flexibility to deploy Opex or Capex needs to be increased.

Here lies a cultural and transformational problem, as regulators have been “engrained” to approve and measure in a certain way, to apply known metrics or handed down-regulation requirements to safeguard energy.

You have to start with “what do we dare in the industry?”, “what do we focus upon?” and how can all involved in the energy transition collaborate, learn and work together.

Aside: that would be unique but will be necessary for all stakeholders within the Energy system

Transition need 7: Consumer/prosumer focus

It is forecasted that Distributed Energy Resources will grow sevenfold by 2030. At a changing grid edge, data is (simply) not there, to prove that investment or change.

In a further follow-up, due to limits of time within the keynote, the points were offered by Kiessling in a set of challenges to be addressed.

Today’s reality: DSOs often don’t know if authorizing the next EV charging stations leads to voltage band violations. The DSO might also curtail solar production expecting overvoltage events

This is not based on data at the point of potential under or over voltage, since that data is rarely available today. There is then risk and leading to a perception in the industry that parts of the network could actually carry twice the load without a problem, but due to lack of data the generation & load balance is kept well below the actual capacity

How can this be changed and what help within the evolving grid edge provide a change that allows for the transformation to take shape?

So, what if you could estimate the status of LV lines based on a combination of real-time data available typically at the substation level, plus meter data, even if you get that meter only once a day or periodically

Siemens is working with DSOs on pilots to use neural networks to estimate if and where voltage issues arise both on load and on the DER supply side.  These methods achieve better transparency, enabling the DSO to curtail less, and authorize more new loads like EV chargers

This information, combined with peak shaving, load shifting, storage systems to smooth out supply and demand, will go a long way to accommodate new loads and prosumer systems.

Thomas Kiessling’s suggestion is in the application of Neural Networks- “Achieving more informed decisions”

The possible solution to make changes in the Grid Edge is to use substation data alongside offline smart meters. That data can be extrapolated to identify hotspots and load needs and becomes a Network Grid Edge.

This approach avoids having more sensors on every meter or connecting point to save time and expense. It can be pushed out over time and experience to connect into the final energy-consuming point.

• Aside here: A neural network is likely to be a series of algorithms that endeavours to recognize underlying relationships in a set of data through a process that mimics the way the human brain operates or, in this case, the energy system. In this sense, neural networks refer to systems of neurons, either organic or artificial in nature. An artificial neuron receives a signal, then processes it and can signal neurons connected to it. The “signal” at a connection is a real number, and the output of each neuron is computed by some non-linear function of the sum of its inputs. The connections are called edges. Neurons and edges typically have a weight that adjusts as learning proceeds. Source (partly Wikipedia)

Achieving more informed decisions

This proposal made by Thomas Kiessling can provide a more apparent determination of the grid edge’s state and provide the state of the LV network for more informed decisions and (more targeted) capital investment.

So here, innovation and creative thinking are being applied to solve a current problem holding back the needed Grid Edge shift to the intelligent use of consumption and demand data. Insights gained will improve the knowledge on the network without deployment at scale, of sensors to provide an assessment of data close to demand.

• Aside: For me, the idea of the concept suggested, Neural Networks offers the potential to bring about change, bring data, AI, technology into the equation to accelerate the Grid Edge was the most intriguing point.

So, in the conclusion of Thomas Kiessling’s Keynote.

We are in a disruptive phase; Kiessling provided in his keynote a transformation list of needs to follow, specifically working through issues and challenges both in the transmission, distribution and Grid Edge networks. He gave many rich examples that are already shifting Energy and Grid Edge design. These offered radically different ways to manage the demand and supply, reflecting the changing nature of power generation, distribution and grid edge supply.

Thomas Kiessling’s final comment was we do need to “wrap our minds around it” to undergo such a disruptive time of profound system change. It is how the energy community comes together and finds ways to imagine, collaborate to learn and share.

I found the keynote stimulating, thoughtful and informative.

The post How to prepare as an Energy Company for significant disruption – Thomas Kiesslings Enlit Keynote first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

visual source dreamstime.com

Many of us have wish lists or resolutions as we get towards the end of one year and think about what we want out of next year.

So I decided to do a top of the mind wish list for the Energy Transition

Now we all can add to this but here are my nineteen wishes for kicking off 2022 in a focused way for the Energy Transition we all need to gather momentum, in really serious ways. Can you improve on this wish list?

Some of the ideas or thoughts are in the links provided. Happy holiday reading!

1. Let us stop talking “Net Zero” let’s make a new target of “Net Positive.” Net Positive is a way of doing business that puts back more into society, the environment and the global economy than it takes out.

2. Stop all the talking about Carbon Removal and show some real scaling progress on proving carbon removal is actually going to make a real impact.

3. The current technology talk is about “technology-ready” but let’s be honest 42 out of 48 technologies are not at scale, at all (IEA)

4. When are we going to have a decent set of debates, financial wizards are mandatory to be in the room, about having a clear derisking strategy and stranded asset assessment for each project that continues to promote anything but clean energy solutions’

5. Making real on all those Glasgow CoP26 pledges. Really?

6. Go way beyond the talk of mobilizing capital for the Energy Transaction with so many strings attached, and get our global institutions to turn on the “Clean Energy Tap” to mobilize industry, governments and all involved to break the old habits, and create the new habits of nothing but clean energy

7. Recognizing there are many developing countries in real need and energy dependency, that need support so the world, not our narrow, wrong thinking of just “our” country can simply survive.

8. Talking about the coal game- how are “we” going to seriously talk to India, China, Australia, South Africa and Brazil about digging and using coal? Stop buying products that are proven to be made within the extended supply chain with coal first (or gas or oil in later years)? Coal is Providing 37% of the world’s energy, coal is the single largest source of electricity generation globally. It is projected to remain the leading energy source into the 2030s, particularly because its use in India in China is still growing.  No mitigation without aid.

9. Do we develop clean air and product sanctions and apply them to those countries that keep ignoring science and the facts of the realities that are staring us all in the face from natural disasters?

10. How can we really have a visible supply chain that covers all scope, 1, 2 and 3 in real terms. not theoretical reporting? We do need what we are buying and what energy went into making and distributing it.

11. Methane emissions and the recent pledges were like the lottery prize pulled out of the CoP26 bag of goodies, was not the first prize, no one won that! Will we see pledges, promises and plans actually materialize next year to get greater global support here?

12. Is next year going to be the year Nuclear gets put back on the Energy considerations and the SMR makes good on all its talk and promise?

13. Everyone talks about the sustainability game. I think it is time to really call out the ones that talk about it, for shareholder leverage and those seriously making it a core need of their business- It needs to become embedded in all organizations objectives. Sustainable energy can be defined as a form of energy that can be utilized again and again without putting a source in danger of getting depleted, expired, or vanishing.

14. The cost of not collaborating, be it China and the USA, Russia and the EU is going to mess with any timescale of 2030 or even 2050. can we not find another way to collaborate on Energy in a world falling apart in one disaster after another or that lack of trust and collaboration we all need to have to turn this planet around?.

15. The inequality, injustices we have around Energy, in energy poverty or no basic security of electricity in developing countries, or they are not able to obtain clean energy solutions due to finance or political reasons, does need changing.

16. Not just “propose but dispose of” when it comes to money to make clean energy the only ‘currency’ of any energy project from 2022 onwards available to those that have scalable solutions, not more “bright ideas” that can quantify the capital investments.

17. As we enter 2022, we aim to have achieved a 45% decarbonized world by 2030, only EIGHT years away, why don’t we declare a climate emergency in 2022 and find scalable solutions that chase beyond this target?

18. Coal, gas and oil may be around for some time to come but let’s treat them as truly sunset fuels (oil and gas really?) that belong to the last century not this one in any future discussion, totally supporting the renewable push. Why not set a global standard so every dollar spent on coal, gas or oil is on a ratio of 1 to 5 for spending on renewables. Or, for every dollar of electricity generated by coal, oil and gas that is GIVEN UP, there is available 10 cents in fresh financing renewables and let the scaling effect on renewable costs also kick in.

19. Finally to stop talking about the Energy Transition and finally roll up our sleeves and get on with it. The pressure to perform and reduce our carbon emissions needs even more of real momentum in actual “deed”, not words!

So any other thoughts as we enter 2023, what would be your Number 20?

The post My energy wish list as we move towards 2022 first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Today, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a timely report on Cities and how critically important they are to achieve a net-zero world.

The report “Empowering Cities for a Net Zero Future” covers all aspects of the issues and challenges that Cities are facing on climate action.

The IEA states that “Cities are key to a net-zero emissions future where affordable and sustainable energy is accessible to all. The global population living in cities is expected to surge from 50% in 2021 to 70% in 2050. Cities today account for 70% of global CO₂ emissions and 75% of global energy use. But with size comes opportunity.”

The report covers a wide range of opportunities, challenges and policy solutions that can help city-level governments capture the significant value of efficient and smart digital energy systems, no matter their unique context by illustration, through more than 100 examples and case studies,

The report also provides actionable guidance on ways national governments can help cities overcome barriers to progress and accelerate clean energy transitions using digitalisation.

Let me summarize some of the main findings here:

Recognizing the importance of having Smart Cities
Smart cities represent an important opportunity to reduce energy consumption while meeting service demand, improving grid stability and improving the quality of life for all. It is the solutions being provided that can accelerate this need.

Next-generation energy systems are leveraging big data and applying digital technologies to collect and analyse data in real-time. Through this data management understanding, can manage city services more efficiently.

These solutions that are applying intelligence are transforming the energy landscape by creating new synergies to reduce emissions, improve energy efficiency and enhance resilience.

The need for digitalization in Cities is essential to any climate goals.

As pointed out by the IEA, today’s constantly evolving technology landscape creates new sources of rich data on air quality, energy consumption, geospatial information and traffic patterns, and new tools to manage that data. They can help cities make smarter, better-informed decisions, especially on sustainable urban planning and operations issues.

The concept of smart cities has expanded in recent years to include governance, access and inclusivity, economic and social innovation, and sustainability. Yet, to date, there is still no unified definition.

I like the OECD definition of smart cities as “cities that leverage digitalisation and engage stakeholders to improve people’s well-being and build more inclusive, sustainable and resilient societies”.

It is suggested in this OECD definition that digitalisation and digital innovation are not an end in itself, but rather aim to improve people’s lives to achieve greater inclusion, sustainability and resilience.

By synthesising these new information streams, they can help improve the operation and efficiency of energy systems and address challenges of equity and reliability, assuming that concerns over data access, providing privacy and security can be effectively managed.

Digital solutions and systems can be compelling in cities, where the high-density environment creates economies of scale, minimising the need for new infrastructure and creating new opportunities.

Digitalisation
can also help de-risk and encourage private investment in clean energy projects, creating new business opportunities and revenue streams, enabling innovative financing mechanisms and improving risk perception.

Increasing generation from distributed renewables, reducing the use of fossil fuel resources, and the electrification of transport and heating all require a broad portfolio of flexibility options, posing new challenges and creating new opportunities for the management of energy infrastructure.

Smart Controls
Digital solutions in buildings, such as smart sensors and controls for thermostats and lighting, can help consumers use energy more efficiently and unleash behavioural and lifestyle changes that lead to sustainable energy use.

Buildings equipped with new technologies can provide flexibility to support power system decarbonisation, security and resilience.

Managing Urban Transport more effectively.
Digital technologies transform the mobility landscape by improving energy efficiency, facilitating shifts to active and shared transport modes, improving public transport’s convenience and reliability, and more.

The electrification of transport and proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs) could enable greater integration of variable renewables via flexibility services such as smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services.

National, regional and local governments, as well as citizen-led initiatives, have an important role to play in incentivising and accelerating digitally enabled urban energy transitions.

Local governments are in a unique position to deliver on the net-zero agenda. The key is to strengthen the cooperation between local, regional and national governments to help meet shared objectives while advancing progress on equitable energy transitions.

The level of influence cities can have on energy systems

This report illustrates the wide range of opportunities, challenges and policy solutions that can help different levels of government capture the significant value of efficient, smart, digital energy systems, no matter their unique context.

As I mentioned, this report “Empowering Cities for a Net Zero Future” covers all aspects of the issues and challenges that Cities are facing on climate action.

All the different aspects in this report are well worth exploring in the of building out Smart Cities.

Well worth a read, in my opinion.

The post Empowering Cities for a Net Zero Future first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Making the energy transition unstoppable needs massive commitments of political, public, private, and societal determination.

Innovation will be at the core of all the changes we will be making in the energy transition, be they for the current interim goals of 2030 or the ultimate one of2050, in achieving a transformation to a future where we are getting towards net-zero global Co2 emissions by this mid-century

Here lies part of the problem today to believe we might achieve these net-zero targets our planet so desperately needs to achieve. Much of the solutions required have either not been invented, scaled, or even commercialized, so are we naive or realistic in 2030?

The reality is we have a chance by 2050, but the momentum of unstoppable change has to be in place by 2030; otherwise, to coin a phrase, “we are cooked.”

Any innovation, any transition needs to balance our urgent need to reverse the rapidly increasing temperatures with providing solutions that provide transformations that gives us new hope for the future-

To quote IRENA in a recent report of theirs.

“Energy transformation will drive economic transformation,” continued La Camera. “Energy transition is a daunting task but can bring unprecedented new possibilities to revitalise economies and lift people out of poverty.”

IRENA’s Outlook brings unique value as it also outlines the policy frameworks and financing structures necessary to advance a just and inclusive transition. Each country will define what is best for them. Still, collectively, we must ensure that all countries and regions can realise the benefits of the global energy transition for a resilient and more equitable world. We have the know-how, we have the tools, we need to act, and do so now.”

The return from undergoing the energy transition

To quote IRENA, by 2050, a total of USD 33 trillion of additional investment are required into efficiency, renewables, end-use electrification, power grids, flexibility, hydrogen and innovations. The benefits, however, greatly exceed the costs of investments.

When air pollution, human health and climate change externalities are factored in, the payback is even higher with every dollar spent on the energy transition adding benefits valued at between USD 2 and USD 5.5, in cumulative terms between USD 61 trillion and USD 164 trillion by the mid-century.

Innovation is core to the following big problems to resolve.

• We will need significant technology breakthroughs to resolve the present no cost-effective alternatives to move away from conventional energy technology. There are ideas, working prototypes or pilots, but converting the iron and steel, chemical or cement, or finding alternative sources for ammonia, ethylene, or other essential feedstocks, are significant challenges.
• The same is to provide aviation and maritime fuel solutions that overcome existing barriers and provide a global alternative. Tailoring to local solutions might be doable, same as short flights or regional shipping, but the fuel needed to be dense and highly efficient where distance is required.
• Then we need to look beyond existing energy solutions in storage, batteries, and electrolyzers, for example, to be of higher capacity and able to replace the existing solutions commercially. Solutions that, as they scale, become lower in cost and offer solutions that stimulate deployment
• There is a recognition and a call for new business models, but what happens to the incumbent, the vested interest, and the provision of “risk capital” to make these changes?  Can new actors break into traditional areas of energy across the energy system? Can renewable technologies achieve not just profitable scale-up but replace whole energy supply systems?
• Today our financing is built on traditional risk/return models. Still, these need to be very differently modelled, those invested rewarded and reflecting the shareholder returns required, be these public or private.
• These reviews for change go through sometimes very long due process. Then we have so many policy and regulatory guidances that are often caught in a real-time lag and a range of multiple stakeholder dilemmas issues to be addressed. How can that be altered to provide greater market access and growth incentives based on exploring and establishing alternatives?

So, in conclusion, at this point.  The reality is we are only just starting on the energy transition journey. This is a runners race. The whole energy journey is a marathon, made up of short technology sprints, middle distance commitments, and cross-country involvement.

We need technology invention and acceleration; we need to deploy smarter solutions based on information technology, research, and development that considers science, the environment, and the cost of deployments. We need fresh policy frameworks and market instruments.

The post Making the energy transition unstoppable requires innovation at its core first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Facing a climate that will become hotter, repressive and unpredictable is what we are all facing in the coming years. We have set ambitious targets to achieve the Paris Agreement as a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties (countries) at COP 21 in Paris on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate-neutral world by mid-century.

Reshaping the energy systems is a massive challenge

It is the massive challenge of reshaping the foundations of the energy industry in the coming years that will determine whether we achieve this. It is not looking promising as we are not taking the collective action that is so needed. That needs urgently changing.

I have written previously about decarbonization a few times. I laid out my Themes for decarbonizing, my agenda setting post as well as discussing a dizzy array of energy solutions to decarbonization and offering where the crucial role innovation must-have in the Energy System

The two sides of the decarbonization equation

This post expands out the decarbonization problem that each organization is presently facing, shown in the visual here (and above)

There are two sides to the energy equation on decarbonizing. The energy supply side and the energy demand-side prioritize and manage the decarbonization needed within any project evaluation, implementation, performance return, and financing issues.

We need to weigh up the needs, and the management must work through the issues to determine a decarbonization strategy. Setting not just the vision and commitment but establishing clear targets, unwavering support and clear budgets as the requisites of undergoing a journey of change.

Any decarbonization journey is full of uncertainty, and weighing up those needs in ambition and realisation is a balance but a necessity.

The overarching questions to think through are these

Is deep decarbonization possible? The level of investments will be substantial and require enormous changes to the energy system we have in place today.

Will the achievements provide more radical change, such as:

• Clean energy economic growth
• How we make, store, and use energy
• The potential of new services and design
• Unlocking a new age of electrification generation
• Cheaper energy alternatives

In many ways, the management needs to instil an innovative mantra with the following principles at its core.

“Our need is to keep pushing for discoveries, for experimentation, for demonstrating. We must nurture innovation, and we must continuously look for ways to facilitate its pathway and deliver on the changes that will bring us through this decarbonization journey together, as it is vitally important we contribute to making this happen.”

When we take the time to look around, we see a new energy system emerging to build our changes around.

These are some of the principal value drivers

• Energy will be far more distributed
• It will have more dynamic and flexible energy flows
• It will be low carbon in all solutions adopted
• The component of service orientation will rise
• Customer-centric thinking will dominate
• Value is further downstream to seek out and exploit
• It offers new business model options
• The emphasis is on the value within  how it is digitalized and data-driven
• Collaborations will be greater and more open in exchanges

Evaluation, where the opportunities for change derive from, is in energy-saving and emission reductions. Core issues to resolve need to cover the scope 1,2, and 3 emissions.

The demand side

• Replacing and renovating outdated equipment from basic upgrades to radical redesigns
• Managing in smarter ways to monitor, simulate and manage operations
• Electrifying and smart charging all of the sources of transport
• Extensively reviewing production and rethinking overall process flows

The supply-side

• The potential to generate “green” energy on-site through solar, wind and bioenergy.
• Shifting wherever possible to low-carbon heat in the efficiency and electrification.
• Actively engage in becoming a prosumer of energy to add fresh revenue and cost-saving opportunities.
• Making sure all electricity is sourced from sustainable renewable sources guarantees the origin of the energy consumed.
• The effective deployment of energy storage to optimize assets and power flows on all energy-consuming sites (factories, warehouses and offices)
• Finding holistic solutions that partner and optimize mutual energy needs and combine energy requirements in imaginative power supply contracts.

To undertake a decarbonization journey needs financing.

There is a growing level of alternative financial models to the traditional CAPEX investment. It is the ability to manage and utilize capital in the best ways, and the models are certainly out there. I recently was listening to and found it very useful and wrote about the options provided by Siemens here “Financing Decarbonization in Energy and Infrastructure“, which certainly opens up the thinking to evaluate the alternatives.

Decarbonization is critical to achieving, as are all reductions of harmful greenhouse gases. Across all energy users, we have to be far more conscious of the need to change, switch to sustainable renewables, and work through the understanding of the energy equation in demand and supply does begin to give a greater understanding of the challenges and opportunities.

Having a clear decarbonization strategy is a must to have.

The post Two sides of the Energy Equation first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Image sourced: IEA report The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions

An energy system powered by clean energy technologies differs profoundly from one fuelled by traditional hydrocarbon resources.

One real challenge is the impact on this energy transition that critical minerals will bring. These are new, different, perhaps more complex challenges to energy security. The shift to clean energy systems will bring potential new vulnerabilities.

The minerals needed for clean energy have huge questions over the availability and reliability of supply. There are a high concentration of production, long project development lead times, the worry over declining resource quality and growing scrutiny over environmental, social performance and climate risks.

These issues throw an increasing spotlight on supply sources and how critical mineral security can have far-reaching consequences throughout the energy system as we pivot towards a clean energy transition.

A significant report provided by the IEA in May 2021, “The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions“, offers an extensive review of this topic.

Summarizing many aspects from this IEA report

I want to summarize several points from the report here as critical mineral supply does really have an important part to play if we are going to achieve net-zero globally by 2050.

To achieve the Paris Agreement to stabilize the climate well below 2 C global temperature rise would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energies by 2040. An even faster transition to hit net-zero globally by 2050 would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today.

To quote from the IEA report :

“Which sectors do these increases come from? In climate-driven scenarios, mineral demand for EVs and battery storage use is a major force, growing at least thirty times to 2040. Lithium sees the fastest growth, with demand growing by over 40 times in the SDS by 2040, followed by graphite, cobalt and nickel (around 20-25 times).

The expansion of electricity networks means that copper demand for
power lines more than double over the same period.

The rise of low carbon power generation to meet climate goals also means a tripling of mineral demand from this sector by 2040. Wind takes the lead, bolstered by material-intensive offshore wind. Solar PV follows closely due to the sheer volume of capacity that is added.

Hydropower, biomass and nuclear make only minor contributions given their comparatively low mineral requirements. In other sectors, the rapid growth of hydrogen as an energy carrier underpins major growth in demand for nickel and zirconium for electrolysers (green hydrogen production) and platinum-group metals for fuel cells.”

As the IEA points out, demand trajectories are subject to large technology and policy uncertainties, but they analysed 11 alternative cases to understand the impacts.

Another significant point to consider here is the IEA’s report stated, “Today revenue from coal production is ten times larger than those from energy transition minerals. However, there is a rapid reversal of fortunes in a climate-driven scenario, as the combined revenues from energy transition minerals overtake those from coal well before 2040.”

So what are these critical minerals used by the different technologies we are deploying today or in the near future?

This report assesses the mineral requirements for a range of clean
energy technologies, including renewable power (solar photovoltaic
[PV], onshore and offshore wind, concentrating solar power, hydro,
geothermal and biomass), nuclear power, electricity networks
(transmission and distribution), electric vehicles, battery storage and
hydrogen (electrolysers and fuel cells).

The types of mineral resources used vary by technology. Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are crucial to battery performance, longevity and energy density. Rare earth elements are essential for permanent magnets that are vital for wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks need a huge amount of copper and aluminium, with copper being a cornerstone for all electricity-related technologies.

The demand for critical minerals will rise rapidly.

According to the IEA in a scenario that meets the Paris Agreement goals, clean energy technologies’ share of total demand rises significantly over the next two decades to over 40% for copper and rare earth elements, 60- 70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium. EVs and battery storage have already displaced consumer electronics to become the largest consumer of lithium and are set to take over from stainless steel as the largest end-user of nickel by 2040.

So the energy sector will emerge as a or will be a major force in mineral markets in the next decades.

The final cost structure of the finished product can be at risk

Raw materials are naturally a significant element in the cost structure of many of the clean energy technologies we plan to use

In Lithium-ion batteries, prices have significantly fallen in the last decade, but raw materials now account for 50-70% of total battery costs.

For example, in a possible scenario, what if both lithium and nickel prices doubled around the same time? Then this double “whammy”  would offset the anticipated cost reductions of doubling battery production capacity gained from technology learning and anticipated economies of scale. That would have major implications on prices for EV’s.

An interesting fact is a typical electric car requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car. Equally, an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired power plant raising potential vulnerability if the material supply has any pricing volatility and security of supplies.

Will the supplies be resilient and secure?

The reality is today that many of the energy transition minerals are more concentrated on a few countries than oil or natural gas supplies—that indicated real risks.

For lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements, the worlds top three producing nations control well over three-quarters of global output. In some cases, this is one single country. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the People’s Republic of China (China) are responsible for 70% and 60% of global production of cobalt and rare earth elements, respectively, in 2019.

China has a very high concentration for processing operations and has global refining shares of 35% for nickel, 50-70% for lithium and cobalt, and nearly 90% for rare earth elements.

The Chinese companies have been making substantial investments in overseas assets in Australia, Chile, the DRC and Indonesia to make for even more critical mineral control.

The decline in resource quality is becoming a growing concern as well.

One example mentioned in the IEA report was Chile, where the average copper ore grade has declined by 30% over the past 15 years. This extracting the metal content of lower-grade ores requires more energy, exerting upward pressure on production costs, greenhouse gas emissions and waste volumes.

This impact from poorer quality will add growing scrutiny on environmental and social performance. Consumers and investors are continuing to source the minerals in sustainable and responsible produced ways. Will they?

Increased mining in already highly stressed parts of the world of climate issues will add to higher water stress levels. Some areas or regions in Australia, China and Africa have extreme heat, and flooding gives greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies.

Reliability, affordability and sustainability for minerals become important to manage.

The IEA regards the risks to the reliability, affordability and sustainability of mineral supplies are manageable, but this will require greater focusing on these critical minerals, collaborations and policy co-ordinations.

The suggestion of recognizing mineral security in similar ways to how the world monitors and manages oil security as this critical mineral threat can have far-reaching consequences throughout the energy system if not globally managed.

The big difference will not be seen as “spikes in pump prices” but in how minerals as essential components for infrastructure and our energy transition will make it more expensive and delay the pathway to net-zero even more than we see today.

Four critical aspects that need  greater research and development innovation and investment in the future:

1) The searches to diversify sources of critical mineral supply need speeding up. The US has identified current supply dependences, especially on China, as a national security risk. In Europe, this equally applies.

2) Technology innovation on production needs to focus on more efficient extraction of materials, managing mining in different ways and to make sure the application of mining techniques is up to date and effective.

3) Technology for clean energy solutions needs to search for material substitution and alternatives. Ones that can be perhaps more environmentally developed or take a more holistic approach to entire energy systems to minimise energy loss, using digital technologies to manage finite resources and reduce processing across the entire energy chain.

4) An absolute need to ramp up recycling. Waste management needs to become a higher focus as volumes increase, incentivizing consumers and producers to look at recycling products that have reached the end of their operating lives, reduce the effect of throw-away societies, building more efficient collection and sorting activities and invest in an R&D emphasis on new recycling technologies that move way-beyond the cottage industry approach  or simply dumping and ignoring material recycling so often found today

In conclusion- great work, IEA, with this report.

The report by the IEA in May 2021, “The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions“, offers an extensive review of this topic and anyone interested, concerned or wish to understand issues that are critical to a successful energy transition should find time to read this report.

Mineral security will become a new variable in the energy transition, that is for sure.

*This summary has drawn from the report from the IEA as per the links shown. All rights reserved by IEA. The report reflects the views of the IEA Secretariat. The IEA makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, in respect of the publication’s contents

The post Will Critical Mineral Supplies Stop the Energy Transition? first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

Let’s discuss Nuclear in different ways than the present discussion has gone. Nuclear has been not given the debate it deserves. That needs changing in my view.

This is largely from the use of salt! Well, actually, small modular reactors offer a Nuclear future as part of our clean energy requirements.

I wrote a piece recently, “the Elephant that should be in the Energy Debate,” and it is largely because of the technology, safety and reality of what Nuclear offers in new approaches and designs that make it have a real place to be at the Energy Transition table.

Firstly what is a molten salt reactor (MSR)?

It is a class of nuclear fission reactors where the primary coolant and/or the fuel is a molten salt mixture. There are several different designs, all looking to bring small modular reactors (SMR) to market.

MSR has significant advantages over traditional nuclear reactors.

First, the MSR typically operates at or close to atmospheric pressure, rather than 75 to 150 times the atmospheric pressure used for LWRs, thereby reducing the containment structures’ needs and eliminating hydrogen as a source of explosion risk.

Equally, the MSR does not produce dangerous and radioactive fission gases under pressure; these are naturally absorbed into the molten salt. This smaller reactor and these differences provide a key benefit of removing the risks of contaminating large land areas.

The MSR can also operate at higher operating temperatures providing higher electricity-generation efficiency, allowing for a greater coupling benefit of having grid-storage facilities, potentially more economical hydrogen products, and some potential for process-heat opportunities.

So why are these not the future for any debate on Nuclear?

Let’s continue with the good news. The combination of offering a low-pressure system and a high boiling point greatly limits the chance of a containment explosion. The MSR doesn’t require massive cooling in dedicated water ponds or rivers; they can be placed anywhere and air-cooled.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

If the core were to overheat, the biggest and best safety feature is that a gravity-enabled passive shutdown system would send the heated, radiated salt into an underground containment chamber or drain tanks by simply gravity and turning off the reactor.

These MSRs still face several challenges. Relevant design challenges include the corrosivity of hot salts and the changing chemical composition of the salt as it is transmuted by reactor radiation.

There are quite naturally different bodies of concern about Nuclear in general. Its need for the future is in new evolving modular solutions. There is a long list of advantages and disadvantages to working through, but I leave these out of this post.

There are different approaches to molten salt reactors, all being investigated or tested at present. I have used to illustrate MSRs the visuals supplied by Seaborg Technologies to provide a clearer example of Molten Salt Reactors; they offer one concept of a few.

Also, Thorium-based energy is being significantly invested in still not well tested and does have some scenario’s still to be worked through in design, process and final operation.

Fusion power is in the future, a future rapidly coming into view without a doubt. It does have as much potential (or even more) to halt carbon emissions as other solutions more readily discussed. But as climate issues increase, we need to consider MSR and ones that seem to be ahead at present, the liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs)

I read up on Seaborg Technologies based in Denmark that their CMSR (compact molten salt reactor) is in design and further hypothesis validation. I have taken their excellent visuals to help describe and present Molten Salt reactors.

Without a doubt, Seaborg Technologies are motivated by the challenges of the need to address eliminating carbon dioxide and adding electricity through this solution.

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

The CMSR works with both fossil fuels and renewable energy sources. In either case, it generates a large amount of low-carbon energy. Another attractive feature is a novel liquid salt used as a neutron moderator: it acts as a catalyst to improve the efficiency of the fission chain reaction, reducing the size and cost of generating energy. Moreover, this moderator is not degraded by neutron irradiation – a challenge that has stalled previous attempts at commercializing the technology.

Liquid salt can be reprocessed, separating uranium and plutonium from fuel for reuse to produce waste that only needs 300 years of storage in nuclear cemeteries. So far, long-lived nuclear waste may need up to 300,000 years of storage.

The University of Idaho is looking for Nuclear Batteries.

Also, the US University of Idaho has announced they have verified a new process to speed up the development of the world’s first Molten Salt Nuclear Battery (MsNB). They claim this is a monumental step in the molten salt reactor design process. They envisage military bases, hospitals, and communities can gain reliable, secure, continuous energy from an MsNB as a small, distributed energy source, bringing autonomy to the users from reliance on more decentralised grids and energy supply.

The MsNB testing device uses ohmic heating to heat liquid via an electric current evenly. It acts as a reactor surrogate, mimicking the internal heat generation within a reactor through fission or splitting an atom’s nucleus. In the MsNB, the heat released during the ohmic heating testing process causes the molten salt fuel within the battery to rise in a central cylinder. Once at the top, the fuel moves to a heat exchanger, where it is cooled and falls back down the space between the inner and outer cylinders. This natural circulation eliminates the need for valves and pumps, improving the reliability and simplicity of the reactor design.

Presently, the University of Idaho is looking for a grant to validate and compete for an MsNB design up to manufacturing by a partner, Premier Technology.

Natrium Reactors, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett

In my recent post, “The Elephant that should be in more in the Energy Debate- Nuclear.”

I picked up on a recent announcement that 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.

What we see is that Small scale nuclear reactors are starting to be developed around the world.

We know Nuclear in its current power plant form is continuing to suffer heavy losses as renewables come online or are mostly scheduled to close. Globally, nuclear energy supplies 11% of electricity; it had come down from 17.6% back in 1996.

The cost of the building design, safety and maintenance of these traditionally designed Nuclear reactors are expensive and not flexible in their operation or management. If we move towards smaller modular, safer designs, Nuclear has the chance to become more competitive and attractive.

Are small modular reactors a new way forward for nuclear power?

There is a growing argument besides settling on a design for MSR they can be mass-manufactured at specialised facilities, transported more easily, and installed in remote locations where conventional power is not so feasible. They are compact and are a sound distributed energy solution. They cost significantly less than traditional large-scale reactors due to containment, leakage and environmental concerns. This becomes a way forward for many developing countries in the world.

Image and Concepts from Seaborg Technologies

Systems in design are integral, meaning the fuel, steam, and generator will be in one vessel, and the core’s own heat can drive the coolant flow, eliminating many pumps and moving parts that can fail. Each reactor will be self-contained.

Rolls-Royce in the UK are in a consortium for their Small Modular Reactor (SMR), but this is around a decade away from concept to scale.

If MSR’s can show cost and safety concerns are being addressed and can settle on limited standardised designs, mass manufacturing can give scale and cost reductions. Perhaps no different than solar& wind rapidly reduced costs, and now hydrogen is chasing that route, can MSR join them?

What is known is some of the big players in energy have attempted SMR solutions, including Westinghouse, giving up in 2014, and then Babcock and Wilcox folded theirs in 2017. In Russia, state-funded MSR had construction costs run over estimates four times this small-scale nuclear pathway has had and is having obstacles to moving from a hypothesis to reality. ( sources BBC future articles)

I think we need to get used to Nuclear being in the Energy Mix

At present, I am left with a great question raised in an article I was reading for this post, “How many renewables does it take to replace a nuclear plant.”

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

I think we will see an innovative combination of an advanced sodium fast reactor with energy storage, sited on utility sites, disused land, and old coal mines to give power security and jobs.

These energy combinations can allow the reactor to operate at a high capacity while simultaneously capturing and storing electricity and plugging into support the increased use of hydrogen, working alongside renewables.

The future design of energy systems will be modular, not based on one fuel or power generation but 8utilizing multiple options to be optimal in energy delivery and best pricing, and solution mix to customers.

We do need all the carbon-free power we can lay our hands upon.

We need carbon-free power, true zero, not clean power credits or fossil fuel and CCUS capture, giving us in the future carbon headaches or nothing but wind farms and solar farms stretching out over land and sea.

We need as many options for viable, alternative clean fuel, and that seems to be including Nuclear in my mind, sitting alongside green Hydrogen from Electrolysis, as equally primary sources of our clean energy needs, competing with Renewables, the current green flavours of this decade.

One last visual supplied by Seaborg Technologies needs some time to study

Visual Source: Seaborg Technologies

The 2030 decade is going to be Nuclear and Hydrogen time

As we face Nuclear closures worldwide, we need to evaluate and hopefully achieve a next-generation Nuclear solution, which seems to be based on small modular reactors based on the Molten Salt design.

We are rapidly gaining a real understanding of the need for a phenomenal range of clean energy solutions to displace Gas, oil, and coal totally. In my opinion, we must include another clean energy source, Nuclear.

We need to rapidly find solutions to phase out old Nuclear Plants and not extend them even further. We need to determine a new Nuclear policy that establishes small modular reactor designs. The approach through the molten salt reactors shows real promise to accelerate as that safer Nuclear option.

It is interesting; in the past Salt was always prized as a commodity. Now it is part of a clean energy solution.

*Sources for initial descriptions: Wikipedia/ Molten salt reactors and for Thorium-based energy

*Thanks to Seaborg Technologies, they got me really interested and excited about the landscape of tomorrow and how Nuclear has a real fit as and when the present technologies become commercialised in or by the 2030s.

*If there are any errors in descriptions or understanding, they are mine. In this research and investigation, I do not claim a depth of knowledge. This is only a “snapshot” to raise awareness and interest.

The post Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors- so what’s there not to like? 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.

Explicit Milestones within this report are staggering in implications

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released its most comprehensive report “Net Zero by 2050: a roadmap for the Global Energy Sector” on 18th May 2021.

The roadmap outlined underscores how pivotal this current decade is to ever reach net-zero by mid-century. In my opinion, it is the next three to five years that will determine this. If we fail to drive down emissions into a really sharp decline through a global political will we are in serious trouble.

It is only through strong and credible energy policies and significant investment into clean energy solutions we will get onto any pathway. If we fail to recognize the overwhelming needs to change we can say goodbye to 2050 as a net-zero target, then that will have colossal economic and climatic consequences.

The report by IEA lays out a viable pathway to building a global energy sector with net-zero emissions in 2050, but as they state this is a (really) narrow window and requires an unprecedented transformation in how energy is produced, transmitted and consumed.

They suggest “to have a fighting chance” to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 °C,   requires nothing short of a total transformation of the energy systems.

Milestones that are defined, clear and time-related.

The report sets out clear milestones- more than 400 in total, spanning all sectors and technologies. for what is needed to happen and, more importantly, when, to transform the global economy from one dominated by fossil fuels into one powered predominantly by renewable energy, such as solar and wind.

This “viable” pathway requires vast amounts of investments, innovation, skilful policy design and implementation, technology deployment, infrastructure building, international cooperation at a scale not imagined or seen to date and major efforts across multiple areas associated with such an energy transformation.

The roadmap outlines over 200 plus pages within the report is global in scope.

It does not attempt to tackle country or regional designs, those each have specific circumstances, history and their specific stages of designing a roadmap that works for them to get towards this 2050 net-zero goal.

There are no one-size-fits-all, as each country is at different economic development in its challenges, energy dependencies and ability to undertake such a radical transition.

Where this report goes beyond what we have had in the past is its specific milestones (major ones shown here) that are dramatic and staggering in how necessary these are to offer a “viable” roadmap.

There are staggering changes ahead of us.

There is no scope for new fossil fuel developments anywhere in the world to get on the right and only trajectory of achieving the net-zero goal by 2050.  Again, no scope!! Just think, no scope and what that means in Asia, in China, India, Japan, Australia or in the USA, rich in coal, oil and gas.

The world has known for many years  (in the 1980s, at least) the need to address climate change. The ability to turn observation and scientific evidence into getting the global community deadly serious about eliminating carbon emissions is only just getting serious. The 2015 Paris Agreement offered the foundations of global consensus and still, we are not on that track firmly enough.

Can we in less than 5 to 10 years turn this into that decisive moment?

I have serious doubts, I mean serious ones, but we must try. The IEA modelling made some sweeping assumptions, courtesy of IEEFA:

The new IEA modelling assumes:

• Clean energy investment trebles to US$5 trillion p.a. by 2030, accelerating global economic growth in the process;
• Energy efficiency needs to deliver a 4% annual improvement globally by 2030;
• Global installs of variable renewable energy (VRE) need to quadruple from 2020 levels to 1,020 gigawatts (GW) annually through to 2030;
• EVs need to rise from 5% of global new car sales to 60% by 2030, with new internal combustion engine (ICE) car sales ceasing entirely by 2035;
• Global battery production for EVs needs to increase fortyfold to 6,600GWh annually;
• Global investment in grid transmission and distribution needs to treble to US$820bn annually; and
• Methane emissions globally from fossil fuel supplies must reduce by 75% by 2030, assisted by independent satellite tracking and incumbent players’ belated efforts as transparency increases.

Critically, the IEA has stopped buying the fossil fuel industry smokescreens of offsets and unfeasible technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) when talking about the global energy sector’s efforts over this coming decade, suggesting it will play only an immaterial role.

This acknowledgement of only factoring in commercially proven and likely technologies should clear up one of the major issues of placing investments behind unproven technology to deliver this decade.

Future technology, beyond 2030 becomes a different horizon.

Yet to get to that we need immense momentum in the next ten or so years that drive down emissions and stop fossil fuel investments.

Beyond 2030 new technology needs to be coming on stream for breakthroughs in what we have today in the areas of advanced batteries, hydrogen, bioenergy, CCUS air capture and storage and the IEA suggest RD&D investments need to treble to US$90bn annually to get these solutions future-ready.

The future of 2050 in this reports prediction

Two-thirds of total energy globally will come from renewable energy by 2050- that is wind, solar, hydro, bioenergy and geothermal. The one that needs really addressing in this decade is Nuclear as a viable option but that has “perception” and acceptance by not just climate activists but the populous at large. and that is not a very easy one but its solution might be vital to have within the new energy mix.

In the foreword to this report, Dr Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the IEA he states:

“The world has a huge challenge ahead of it to move net-zero by 2050 from a narrow possibility to practical reality. Global carbon dioxide emissions are already rebounding sharply as economies recover from last year’s pandemic‐induced shock. It is past time for governments to act, and act decisively to accelerate the clean energy transformation”

The near-tern determines any hope for achieving the net-zero goals by 2050.

It is this near-term to even get onto a net-zero pathway it requires the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation for the next round of technology breakthroughs.

Am I optimistic, does this roadmap give me encouragement?

This report on a roadmap towards Net-Zero by 2050, is a must-read by anyone who wants to begin to understand their future.

Does the scenario spelt out in clear requirements what is needed, yes but…….

The “but” is if we can’t achieve a significant new set of global agreements, pledges and commitments at the November COP26 meeting in Glasgow, UK then what is deemed as a narrow window will close and 2050 will be a nightmare of climatic consequences because of the lack of decisive action and agreements needed now.

Decisions need to be made as to the impact are “collective ones”. The stance is these have to be fair, equitable and inclusive and here is where the politics kick in. and our political leadership needs to step up.

As the IEEFA states in their view of this report “IEA’s roadmap shows the global energy landscape is set to change profoundly, and at an unprecedented pace, as world leaders – governments, GSFI and corporates move to align with net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 1.5°C limit.

We live in exciting times. Get ready for exponential change in the global energy landscape!”

We need to move beyond hope and talk, otherwise, we lose the 2050 goal and then what happens?

The post A decade pivotal to a clean energy future. first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Credit Muhammad Muzamil, Unsplash

As we look across innovation for our energy transition solutions, let’s think a little more about social innovation. What is energy poverty? Why is this important to turn our innovative abilities towards resolving?

Energy poverty has no universal definition. Each country is at different levels of understanding. Here in Europe, I read a white paper by Schneider Electric, released in 2018, entitled “Overcoming poverty in Europe.”

There is no official definition of “energy poverty”, but to start somewhere, it can be described as the struggle to afford the ever-increasing cost of heating or lighting in homes or being able to cook food or heat water as a result of low income or bills that are too high. Energy poverty leads to suffering from the cold in winter and from the heat in summer.

This white paper suggests 40 plus million Europeans cannot adequately heat their homes and or in arrears on their energy bills. Over 16% of European households have abnormally high energy expenditure compared to income, and the overall numbers of Europeans there is 11% suffer from energy poverty.

It is estimated that between 50 to 125 million Europeans are affected, especially the elderly, single-parent families, unemployed or low-income households, and disabled people with chronic sickness.

These are shocking statistics just for Europe alone.

What are the same numbers in the USA or across the world in developing countries where so many do not have access to electricity and rely on wood or charcoal to cook or even heat their homes?

Thinking differently

Innovation is about change; it improves what we have or where we are, and what we face. It is always easy to think of energy improvements, technology acquisition, but what about those that fall out of the net?

Arguably you can raise the minimum wage level, lift income, and contain energy costs. But do these really get into the granularity of the solution needed to address energy poverty?

Where innovation can really kick in is resolving household energy efficiency. We all know of homes with leaking roofs, damp walls, floor or foundations or rot in window frames or infestation causing real deterioration of health, the environment, and conditions that so many people are facing.

What can be done in finding inventive solutions that can make a real difference? Not providing grants but linking improvement in homes with energy incentives. As so many of these homes are deemed “wasteful of energy, how can we change the low energy rating performance into a positive one in energy measurements?

Of course, energy cannot be solved by technology alone.

We need to think differently. Social innovation looks for appreciating and finding a deeper, shared and common understanding of how “others” live is realistically in this connected world, a problem we all need to address in imaginative new ways.

We need to think of society’s social fabric, apply social innovation, and find technology and business-related ideas that bring those suffering from energy poverty into our collective ecosystems. This can be through combining technology concepts addressing these specific energy poverty issues, supporting solutions in multiple ways, finding imaginative, innovative solutions, and bringing in philanthropy that is not just giving away but seeing “greater” return, lifting people out of this energy poverty,

The combination of health improvement by raising the conditions people find themselves makes for a more productive environment. The cost of mental disorders, poor health, stress, anxiety, and depression eventually cost society.

Social devaluation and low self-esteem ways down not just the person caught in this but the rising costs and burdens for the state, the local community, and public services. Imagine the cost of healthcare as a direct consequence of energy poverty.

What If?

What if we could find new innovative initiatives that create jobs, engage communities, and find new, exciting and pioneering business models that become thriving in micro-generating income, utilization and different payment models, based not just on money but a level of barter?

We can, of course, offer those “sweeping” regulation solutions that somehow lift some but seem not to get to the many that the funding was originally designed to help. We need to be pro-active, not reactive in what we do.

“After the event has occurred” is perhaps good to justify “payback”, but it is not what and where we should go, we need to find self-lifting solutions, self-organizing but within structures that reduce the cost of thousands of similar start-ups.

We need innovative solutions because they are universal and can be ramped up, applied, and offered improved solutions.

So, as we think about more innovation in the energy system, let’s not forget those in energy poverty and where communities, policies and energy providers can find imaginative solutions that stop the burden of debt recovery, (ever-rising) social costs and fragmented approaches.

The post Mobilizing Innovation around Energy Poverty first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.