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.

With so much change in fuel sources, the power generation sector has some significant challenges to tackle

The pressure to reduce the concentration of Co2 in the atmosphere is driving a significant change in power generation management.

The combined forces of a growing source of cheaper fuel generation from renewables (solar and wind), the continuing high levels of global Co2 attributed to fossil fuel combustion above 40% of all global emissions need further change.  Along with the continued, increasing demand for electricity as heat sources in buildings or factories are being replaced from fossil burning to electricity-driven heat pumps, and other equipment for greater efficiency, the power generation industry is arguable undergoing a sea-change on the creation and dispatching of energy.

Emission reductions are needed across all sectors.

It will be a ‘combination effect’ of coal-to-gas switching, deployment of new generation gas-fired power plants designed for hydrogen within the fuel mix and plenty of opportunities for upgrades to existing gas-fired plants.

The impact of generation through wind and solar is pointing to a future of electric or clean energy. There are also pushes for reducing power sector emissions by upgrading the transmission grids, building in storage and looking for more at reducing individual electricity consumption by for more demand-side energy management.

Demand-side energy sometimes called the first fuel or the fuel you don’t need to use, is looked at in terms of electrical intensity through more efficient methods and solutions. As appliances, LED lighting and energy-conserving measures are deployed close to or at the final consumption points of buildings or final production plants.

The proportion of electricity in final energy dramatically shifts from 19% to a technically maximum 65% of our needs. This includes the adoption of heat pumps in buildings. Electric vehicles become the vehicle of choice, and induction stoves replace many of the unhealthy cooking methods we have today (coal, wood, charcoal etc.).

The further potential for electrification, 35% of final energy, depends on breakthrough innovation in processes and fuel conversions to generate higher heat. These include Shipping, Aviation and certain high intense heat industry processes of Chemicals, Cement, Iron & Steel.

With transport having Co2 emissions running at 25%, Buildings 9% and Industry at 26%, the source of energy, its ability to perform and what it entails in changes is a massive set of individual challenges.

Today all of the Power Generation providers are looking hard at adjusting their fuel sources to accommodate (rapidly) increasing renewable alternatives. Still, the vast majority of invested assets in fossil fuel generation need to be managed as a bridge into the future. Natural Gas will be needed for the next thirty to forty years or even longer.

To modify existing plants or determine future power generation purchases, the three key points driving the thinking are 1) increase operational efficiency, 2) improve ramp rate and 3) improve reliability.

Then you have a wish list of rather objectives that need to be worked upon with OEM providers. These include adjustments and wishes into 4) improved availability, 5) increased power output on demand, 6) extend plant lifespan, and 7)improve fuel flexibility, interchanging fuels.

There is also a constant need to keep extending and securing 8) health and safety, 9) reduce cyber vulnerabilities, 10) Reduce Co2 emissions through new technology applications (CCUS), 11) Reduce other harmful gases of methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases and 12) through digitalization and other efficiency methods improve and maintain stability and maintenance.

All of these forming the wish list of power generation providers are tough, even in stable fuel markets. Still, with price/ demand volatility and the continued march of renewables and the demands for green energy, this is a very challenging set of times.

The positive point is the power industry has the technical capability and a complementary suite of solutions; if the long-term goal fixes on decarbonization with renewables and supported and complemented by natural gas power as its core strategy intent, it can manage the energy transition.

To shape power generation needs global and local understanding. Collaboration, building in increased flexibility, determining the tactics to meet the existing and future conditions and making the right power generation investments give optimization and adaptability in rapidly changing market conditions.

Conditions that are influenced by changing regulations, the balance between managing stable fuel supply and intermittency of renewables, the shift from public to private ownership, a need for cross border collaboration and exchanges and the climate pressures and commitment made locally and globally.

The post Planning concurrent shifts in Power Generation first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

I recently viewed a Power Generation survey conducted a year or so back and found it valuable to motivate change. It was centred on the Middle East Power Generation sector and conducted by Siemens to help them understand future power generation’s underlying trends.

This Siemens survey had as the main question to the survey: “Which trends do you think are currently having the biggest impact on the power generation sector in your region“.

Now in reading this, we have to recognize this is the Middle East with an abundance of oil and gas, but are the trends similar for other regions of the world? The responses I would suggest are certainly reflecting a global movement; the ranking orders might vary. They bring out the opportunities and challenges all power generation is going through presently, I would think.

So in the Middle East, the top three trends that were having the biggest impact were felt to be:

1. The power /gas market liberalization
2. Changing customer expectations
3. Environmental regulation and New emission standards

Then the next three impactful trends

• Decentralization of power generation systems
• Demand growth and urbanization
• Privatization of generation and distribution assets

Followed by these shifts taking place

• The lower range of oil price
• Growth in renewable power generation
• Digitalization of process and operations
• Emerging technology disruption (i.e. battery storage)

Other observations from this report

One area is the increasing priority of digitalization, looking to overcome or bridge the trend impacts. This will come in the form of 1) improving customer data collection and analysis, 2) process automation, 3) virtual power plant (VPP) for management of distributed energy sources, 4) modelling digital asset performance management through greater connected IoT, digital twins etc.

As digitalization grows as part of the solutions, an increased focus on 1) Cybersecurity, 2) the increased use of Artificial intelligence, and 3) Blockchain are all prioritized.

I don’t see these challenges and trends as different for all those involved in power generation globally as they grapple with a changing generation mix but are nicely summarized.

What I draw from this ranking of trends let me offer the following views.

It is the external factors of liberalization, changing expectations and standards that drive the power generation’s underlying changes.

If changes were not “forced”, then we would have no or slow change. The shift in thinking about managing power generation is then triggered, of considering new business models or ways to undertake business, then recognising the impacts driving the actual changes (oil to renewables, digitalization and alternative technologies).

The report states that it seems to be one of optimism as privatization gathers. This gives opportunities to open up a more flexible business model as deregulation continues, and options to build a business become more driven by market and consumer trends.

There is a shift taking place from the combination of an increased pace of regulatory change, raising expectations and demands for flexibility in pricing and energy choices by the final consumer, energy security of supply, and growing competition are all raising the potential for different business models and generation options to explore.

The opening up of previously monopolistic positions does recognize competition will come in different forms. This incentivises the incumbent to focus more on cost and performance, driving down operating costs and finding new ways to manage changing market expectations.

Change can be very uncomfortable for the incumbent.

It is always interesting as “market forces” shift optimism—a feeling of a new lease of life changes to one where change takes on harder meaning.

Eventually, what emerges when you undertake to change is that it suddenly requires different perspectives at the different stages of any change based on how markets’ open up and eventually take hold.

I found it a good prompting report for reflecting on important trends in Power Generation.

The post Shaping the Power Generation sector first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.

Currently, renewables are the fastest-growing source of new power generation capacity and meet increased demand for electricity.

This renewable growth, expected to continue well into the future, is a combination of a growing public awareness of climate change issues, the realization that the continued scale of cost declines provides cheaper generation, continued advances in solar and wind technologies, and favourable policies have provided this dramatic shift.

I will be looking across power generation in a series of posts in the coming weeks- so taking this as my opening post.

Is this renewable shift enough on its own to manage the future Power Generation needs?

Wind and solar are still under ten per cent of global generation. However, in the last year of enforced shutdowns, imposed covid-related measures, renewables’ strength grew in its use as it offered increased flexibility to manage power generation differently.

Renewables are being constantly tested and validated in different energy demand needs. They are increasingly becoming a well-established part of the energy power generating mix. We must also remember the renewable that still contributes the most is hydropower, and we are only just at the beginning of tidal power. The whole renewable story for power generation is gathering increased momentum.

Predictions into the future between now and 2040 indicate a 3X increase in wind and a 6X increase in solar installed capacity. As we “tap into” water generation power, we combine the three natural available and abundant resources of the sun, wind and water we have available to us on this planet.

Dealing with well-entrenched power generators is going to be slow, painful, and needed.

Between the wind and solar, 75% of global net capacity additions up to 2040 will be in these renewables, so where does this leave those traditional power generators based on fossil fuel? The easy answer is still very well entrenched and in place.

Coal and current Gas plants have 30 to 40 years of productive life and can be extended and upgraded in selective core ways and replacement parts. The power generation mix of managing the existing and blending in the new will become critical to the energy transition’s success.

We will not see the dramatic shifts many expect away from fossil fuels but a planned transition over many years. Renewables will only be around par with coal and gas power even in 2040 unless the need to accelerate climate change determines more dramatic decarbonization changes. The change in power generation takes years and decades to translate and shift.

We are witnessing a shift from coal to gas in many regions. China and India’s position is radically different due to still relatively “young” investments in coal generating electricity in these countries. Coal still accounts for 40% of electricity generation and will remain that way for some decades to come.

Will decarbonization force the pace of change?

The acceleration of renewables alongside gas power can be the force to change the trajectory for climate change. The managing of gas power generation is going to be crucial in this decade to manage. Gas generation is continuing to advance the technologies for low or near zero-carbon power generation.

The future mix is dependent on the known variants we have today and often governed by the decisions made locally. These include resource availability, the current infrastructure, the existing policy positioning and the concerns over stability and security to meet the power demand are critical factors in the power generation mix.

In many ways, renewables, where an abundance of wind and sun can be providing electricity directly or can combine through water and hydrogen production, offers the very best solution path. Storage becomes critical to renewable advancement as well, but a different view expands upon at another time.

Using an alternative fuel can offset gas or compliment gas through both technologies to generate gas and hydrogen in the same gas turbine or blend them into a current or future pipeline.

Gas power is becoming positioned as a backbone where it co-exists alongside the continued advancement of wind and solar alternatives. As it dramatically reduces carbon emissions, this combination will be a significant pathway for advancing and accelerating coal assets’ retirement.

The continued abundance of affordable natural gas drives a coal-to-gas switch as this switch can reduce Co2 by half.

We do have the tools to do the job of shifting Power Generation.

The fuel mix needs to have far more climate change impact in existing and future decisions for future investment in coal, gas, or renewable options. No question, today the power industry does have at its disposal the tools to do the job of making an energy transition to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions today and in the immediate future.

The question is not taking the technology solutions available simply on their own standalone merits but to build out complex power generation pathways that have this ‘pathway’ to decarbonize in each country and region at a growing scale that meets net-zero emissions by 2050.

The story we need to build in power generation is the scales, multiple choices, the breadth of options over transparent timelines and offer the technological depth of logic, economics and consideration to many local dependencies and national concern df energy security.

Use the Low or near zero-carbon Power Generation mix constantly in the future.

For decades to come, we will have power generation providers offer a suite of complementary solutions. The importance of balancing renewables based on the sun, wind and water, with gas-fired, nuclear, and smart grid and digital technologies is essential to get right.

We need clear decarbonization pathways, constant replacing the existing infrastructure and energy power generation systems. The replacements need to demonstrate the decarbonization way, consistently and aggressively reducing the dependence of high fossil fuel power generating capacity.

The need is to change today’s unacceptable greenhouse gas emissions levels dramatically. Still, realistically this will be a site, region and country step-by-step approach needing an organized and systematic process of designing the decarbonization pathway in each change.

We need to be alert and challenge vigorously when the desired power generation results planned to be installed only to extend existing power generation. Today we all very aware of all the known consequences. Regretfully they are far too often driven by political motivation or narrow considerations.

Be alert, defend and always have justified Power Generation that does not have renewables at its core is important.

Any future addition of new high GHG emissions by Power Generation needs questioning. Each plan needs to provide a decarbonization pathway in carbon capturing or the progressive moves towards renewable alternatives.

The power industry must frame the climate challenge and solution pathway into any future investment justification for any new, or renewing or even extend the life of existing fossil power generating assets. This pathway should be part of any investment decision.

There needs to be a clear recognition that any transition to a zero-carbon future needs “fuel solution” bridges. Investing in natural gas solutions over the next ten to twenty years is required to maintain and support the energy demands.

It is the technical solution and decarbonized pathway surrounding the investment that needs a deeper evaluation. Renewables will continue to attract far higher investments, but total generation capacity needs a mix of power generation solutions in the foreseeable future to ensure the stability of demand.

Decisions need to clarify and justify any investment position that does not provide carbon capture or zero-carbon power generation as central.

Any investments that fail on this transparency of not clarifying the decarbonization pathway must be publicly challenged and questioned by the investors. It is surely unacceptable with all the power generation options available when we are in this race to decarbonize.

It is down to the good judgement of making sound investment decisions based on decarbonizing what we have and finding balanced solutions that have an end goal of zero-carbon in the next thirty to forty years at the latest.

The post Carefully managing and resolving Power Generation first appeared on Innovating the Energy Transition.