The magazine for energy professionals
June 2021 – open access articles The following articles are taken from Energy World magazine’s June 2021 edition for promotional purposes. For full access to the magazine, become a member of the Energy Institute by visiting www.energyinst.org/join
Transport
MARITIME INDUSTRY
Is hydrogen the key enabler for low-carbon shipping?
R
eliable, clean, and affordable alternative fuels will be the main enablers of the decarbonisation of shipping. With the strong correlation between seaborne trade and GDP growth, decoupling transport emissions from GDP is one of the largest challenges facing the maritime industry today. Significant progress has been made since the International Maritime Organization (IMO) published its long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy with a view of 2030 and 2050 milestones. But, despite the advent of new vessel technology and operational measures, these factors are not enough to accomplish the required reductions in GHG emissions from shipping. There is a clear need for low and zero-carbon fuels. In addition to the long-term GHG reduction strategy, the IMO has recently introduced two short-term measures, the EEXI and CII, which make the use of low and zero-carbon fuels a critical component of shipping in the near term. So how is a change in marine fuels implemented? Paradigm shift Utilising such fuels for propulsion requires a large investment and major changes to a typical ship that has a lifetime of approximately 30 years. If a ship adopts a new technology to reduce its environmental impact, the decision must consider the environmental benefits during the entire operational lifetime of the vessel.
18 Energy World | June 2021
There are compelling reasons to believe that hydrogen could unlock a low-carbon future for the maritime sector. But significant logistical questions remain to be answered, writes Sotirios Mamalis of the American Bureau of Shipping.
In late 2019, Kawasaki Heavy Industries introduced the first liquefied hydrogen carrier Photo: Kawasaki Heavy Industries
From a shipowner’s perspective, the economic reality of using alternative fuels is of paramount importance, because this directly impacts the profitability of a vessel. From a fuel provider’s perspective, technical concerns are the priority. For authorities and governments, economic factors are most important, because they dictate the number of subsidies needed for introducing alternative fuels for marine use. Using a low or zero-carbon fuel will require either a holistic rethink of vessel design at the new building stage, or extensive retrofits of existing vessels. In both cases, the equipment required for fuel containment and storage, fuel supply and power generation systems necessitate considerable investment. Analysing these investments helps shipowners to balance the economic and environmental factors and inform their decisions for their future fleet. An additional economic factor is the price of alternative fuels themselves, which is expected to decrease as the production of such fuels is scaled up. Transporting hydrogen Hydrogen and ammonia are the two fuels expected to offer the most
benefits to the decarbonisation of shipping, since they have zero carbon content and can be produced using renewable sources. The potential for hydrogen to offer zero-emission power generation and propulsion has made it very attractive for multiple applications. Countries such as Japan and South Korea have already published their hydrogen economy roadmaps showing their ambitious goals. Japan aims to commercialise hydrogen power generation, along with international hydrogen supply chains, and reduce the unit cost of hydrogen power generation to $0.16/kWh by 2030. Meanwhile, South Korea is projected to develop a hydrogen market of over $24bn by 2030 to deploy 15 GW of utility-scale and 2.1 GW of commercial and residential fuel cells by 2040. The European Union hydrogen strategy estimates up to $570 bn of investment, with Germany, Spain, and France leading the way. Similar initiatives are expected to be announced by many other countries and governments in the following years. The wide adoption of hydrogen as a fuel for stationary power generation, automotive, marine and aviation applications will create the opportunity for the marine sector to carry hydrogen as cargo and support the global supply chain from the production to the consumption sites. However, this opportunity comes with some challenges, primarily associated with the design and construction of Liquefied Hydrogen Carriers (LHC), the development of port site facilities for hydrogen liquefaction and loading, as well as facilities for hydrogen unloading and storage at the destination terminals. In late 2019, Kawasaki Heavy Industries introduced the first LHC, capable of carrying 1,250 m3 of hydrogen over a range of nearly 5,000 nautical miles from Australia to Japan. The vessel uses a vacuuminsulated double-shell cargo tank capable of storing hydrogen at -253°C and a diesel-electric propulsion system. Kawasaki also partnered with the Port of Hastings in Victoria,
Transport
Australia to develop the required hydrogen liquefaction and loading facilities, and developed the unloading terminal in Kobe, Japan. Due to the low volumetric energy density of hydrogen under standard conditions, the need for efficient storage of this fuel is high. Hydrogen can be produced from many different sources, utilising conventional or renewable energies, which determine the cost of the fuel to the end user, as well as its lifecycle carbon footprint. Hydrogen can be produced from fossil fuels and biomass, or from water, or from a combination of the two. In terms of energy usage, the present-day energy used globally to produce hydrogen is about 275 Mtoe, which corresponds to 2% of the world energy demand, according to the IEA. Natural gas is the primary source of hydrogen production – this ‘grey’ hydrogen accounts for 75% of the global total – and is used widely in the ammonia and methanol industries. The second-largest source of hydrogen production is coal (23%), which is dominant in China. The remaining 2% of global hydrogen production is based on oil and electric power. However, the most interesting future option is the production of green hydrogen through electrolysis of water using fully renewable energy. The availability and low cost of coal and natural gas makes the production of brown and grey hydrogen more economical in the near-term. The cost of brown and grey hydrogen ranges between $1 and $4 per kg, whereas green hydrogen currently ranges between $6 and $8 per kg. The cost of producing green hydrogen since 2015 has fallen by about 50%, and this trend is expected to continue up to 2030 and beyond, as the projects focused on deploying renewable energy for hydrogen production increase. Hydrogen hubs using a combination of wind, solar and wave energy to lower the cost of production are expected to appear with the deployment of proven technology. Reducing the cost of green hydrogen to $2 per kg or less can make it competitive for use in the marine sector. The heating value of hydrogen is the highest among all candidate marine fuels at 120 MJ/kg. However, its energy density per unit of volume, even when liquefied, is significantly lower than that of distillates. Compressed hydrogen at 700 bar has only about 15% of the energy density of diesel, and therefore storing the same amount of energy onboard requires tanks
Compressed hydrogen at 700 bar has only about 15% of the energy density of diesel, and therefore storing the same amount of energy onboard requires tanks about seven times larger
about seven times larger. This means that compressed or liquefied storage of pure hydrogen may be practical only for small ships that have frequent access to bunkering stations. Finding the right form The deep-sea fleet may need a different medium to serve as a hydrogen carrier, such as ammonia or liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHCs), to limit significant loss of cargo space. Ammonia has higher energy density than hydrogen, which reduces the need for larger tanks, but its advantages need to be weighted against the energy losses and additional equipment required for conversion to hydrogen before it is used in the engines or fuel cells. Alternatively, ammonia can be used directly as a liquid fuel in engines, rather than in use as a hydrogen carrier. Reducing the size of the tanks needed for hydrogen storage is an active research area. In addition, hydrogen storage in solid-state materials such as metal and chemical hydrides, is in the very early stages of development. This could enable higher density of hydrogen to be stored at atmospheric pressure. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) recently completed a study on green hydrogen bunkering infrastructure for trans-Pacific container shipping that offers zero carbon lifecycle emissions. It investigated the potential to develop liquefied hydrogen storage and bunkering infrastructure at multiple locations from the west coast of the US and Canada and the Aleutian Islands all the way to Japan, South Korea and China. By analysing 2015 operations, they found that the associated ports would need to supply 730,000 tonnes of hydrogen annually to fuel all the container ships trading in this corridor. This number corresponds to about 1% of the hydrogen used in the industrial sector worldwide in 2019. The ICCT study was based on using 2,500 m3 cryogenic spherical tanks for onsite hydrogen storage. Based on the bunkering needs of different ports along the Pacific Rim, they estimated the required number of tanks to range from three in East South Korea to 39 in San Pedro Bay – corresponding to less than 1% of the area used in the port in every case. Such studies prove the technical feasibility of hydrogen as cargo and marine fuel and pave the way to strategic planning of the required infrastructure across the globe. While the cost of bunkering
facilities is expected to be higher than that of LNG facilities (primarily because of the higher cryogenic storage requirement of liquid hydrogen and the material required for tanks, pipes, and seals) the main cost components are the storage and bunker vessels. These need to be scaled based on the number of ships serviced. Onsite availability of hydrogen would be needed for small ports, given the lower flows and high cost of dedicated hydrogen pipelines. However, ship and infrastructure costs are a relatively small fraction of total shipping costs over a typical 15–20-year lifespan, with the fuel cost being the primary factor. From a technology transition perspective, ammonia is expected to be used sooner than hydrogen, primarily because of its higher volumetric energy density and simpler containment and storage systems, which make the economic proposition of ammonia more attractive. However, the production pathways of hydrogen and ammonia are related, therefore the scale up of production facilities will benefit the economics of both fuels. Also, storing hydrogen or ammonia onboard a vessel enables the use of fuel cells for power generation. Short-sea vessels can benefit from fuel cell technology and transition to electric propulsion with the addition of batteries, which can enable partial zero-emissions operation. Deep-sea vessels are expected to adopt hydrogen later than short-sea vessels when the fuel storage methods are sufficiently developed to enable effective utilisation of the space onboard. Developing the hydrogen economy is seen in energy and transport sectors as the potential long-term objective to provide a sustainable and clean future. Ship owners, ports and regulatory institutions like the IMO will have to make strategic choices on which methods of hydrogen storage are used in shipping. The transition to hydrogen requires its production from clean renewable sources to reduce or eliminate its lifecycle environmental footprint, and the deployment of novel fuel storage methods for effective space utilisation onboard the vessels. Hydrogen is an important part of our clean and secure energy future, and a significant contributor to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the marine sector. l Sotirios Mamalis is the Manager, Sustainability, Fuels and Technology, at the American Bureau of Shipping, https://ww2. eagle.org/en.html Energy World | June 2021 19
Transport
ELECTRIC VEHICLES
From petrol stations to charging stations
The availability, or lack, of public charging stations will have a strong influence over the global take up of electric vehicles – especially in urban areas. Jennifer Johnson looks at whether charging logistics can match up with electric ambitions.
W
London could need as many as 4,000 rapid charging points by 2025. Photo: Osprey 24 Energy World | June 2021
ith sales of electric vehicles (EVs) on the rise – and battery prices continuing to fall – it’s safe to say that the future of mobility is electric. Across the world, policymakers are increasingly willing to legislate for the end of the internal combustion engine. Even the US, which has the highest number of cars per capita of any major economy, is newly embracing the shift away from petrol-powered vehicles. President Joe Biden’s $2tn infrastructure and jobs plan, announced in late March, notably includes $174bn in support for EVs. The funds will help to modify factories for electric vehicle production and strengthen domestic supply chains, as well as supporting the installation of 500,000 EV charging stations in the next 10 years. Biden’s plan seems ambitious in light of the fact that only around 2% of cars in the US are currently powered by electricity – but whether they are enough to help the country meet
its emissions targets is another matter. Germany, by way of comparison, is aiming to install 1mn EV charging stations by 2030. Charging concerns The tricky logistics of charging appear to be putting US car buyers off of EVs for the moment. Data from YouGov released last year showed that only 21% of Americans likely to buy a vehicle in the next year would consider a fully-electric model. Hybrids didn’t fare much better, with 31% of respondents saying they’d consider purchasing one. The top deterrents cited were charging time (21%) and the hassle of charging (20%) – though 17% of respondents said that an outright lack of charging stations was a factor. The transition to electric mobility could be a bumpy one if incentives for manufacturing and buying EVs fail to align with the speed of the rollout of charging infrastructure. This potential imbalance isn’t unique to the United States, either. In a report
released earlier this year, UK think tank Policy Exchange said that the annual rate at which charge points are being installed in the UK must increase from 7,000 to 35,000 over the next decade. Any slower, and the country may not be able to meet demand for charging when new combustion-engine vehicles are banned in 2030. To stimulate growth, Policy Exchange recommended that the government launches competitive tenders for charging point networks in places that are underserved. This process, the report’s authors say, is similar to the auctions for offshore wind farms that made the industry such a success in the UK. However, significant uncertainty remains over how many EV charge points should be considered ‘adequate’ in a given area – and the answer depends on local factors, including the availability of home charging. Local solutions In a working paper on urban charging infrastructure released last August, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) noted that housing stock plays a strong role in determining how many public charge points are needed. Cities with more residents in multi-unit homes will naturally need more public charging stations than cities with lots of singlefamily houses and access to private home charging. According to the ICCT, metropolitan regions in the Netherlands have the highest levels of charging availability and the lowest ratios of electric vehicles per public charger – somewhere between two and seven. More than one third of Dutch residents live in multi-dwelling or apartment-style housing without access to home charging. This has resulted in demand for public charging from vehicle owners – and local governments have obliged. Amsterdam was the first Dutch city to build out curbside EV charge points, in partnership with power firm Nuon, and its model has subsequently been replicated in Rotterdam and Utrecht. After the initial rollout, drivers in Amsterdam were given the option of requesting a new public charge point online, with Nuon subsequently assessing whether it’s needed. Considerations include the location of the nearest existing charge points and the occupancy rate of other nearby charging stations. Ultimately, Amsterdam
Transport
City Council gets to decide whether to install a new charge point. Successful as this scheme has been, the ICCT report also notes that Dutch cities with large numbers of apartment dwellers also have lower rates of car ownership, meaning that the charge point per vehicle ratio is inherently low. Outside of the Netherlands, major cities like London and New York have turned their attention toward installing hubs with multiple fast-charging stations. As of the start of this year, London had over 500 rapid vehicle charging points – primarily designed for use by commercial vehicles – and 5,500 residential charge points. But the city’s public sector, and its private sector partners, are going to have to speed installations up if they hope to achieve net zero emissions by 2030. The Mayor’s own Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Delivery Plan estimates that by 2025, London could need as many as 4,000 rapid charging points and 48,000 residential chargers. New York City is currently in the process of expanding its own fast-charging network. The City set aside $10bn to install rapid chargers, which can charge an EV in just 30 minutes, in all of its
BloombergNEF recently predicted that electric cars and vans will be cheaper than petrol or diesel alternatives across Europe by 2027, as battery costs continue to fall, production increases and new vehicle designs are developed
boroughs. Officials aimed to have 50 such fast-charging stations put in place by the end of last year. Rapid charging makes sense for densely-populated areas, as a single fast charger can serve many more vehicles than a slower one. But the greater the power on offer, the higher the price of a charger will be. Municipal authorities will have to weigh up the cost and utility of rapid charge points when allocating resources to their charging networks. Public versus private charging Important as public charging availability is, home charging remains the most cost-effective option for powering up an EV. An investigation by the UK’s What Car? magazine found that using the country’s fastest EV chargers can cost around seven times more than charging at home. While governments plan their public charging networks, they should also consider offering incentives to encourage drivers to charge at home. The ICCT cites the example of Oslo, which discovered it was less expensive to provide financial help for home charging infrastructure than it was to heavily subsidise additional public charging. The city
channelled its resources toward multi-unit dwellings – offering a grant to cover 20% of the total costs of installing adequate charging. The city provided assistance for some 16,000 private schemes in 2018. Norway is renowned for subsiding the costs of both buying and running an EV – the vehicles are exempt from both purchase tax and VAT, and drivers pay half price tolls and parking fees. As a result, nearly 70% of the cars sold in the country last year were powered by electricity. Research group BloombergNEF recently predicted that electric cars and vans will be cheaper than petrol or diesel alternatives across Europe by 2027, as battery costs continue to fall, production increases and new vehicle designs are developed. The study also predicted battery electric cars and vans could account for all new European sales by 2035, if policymakers increase carbon dioxide emissions targets and commit to a faster rollout of charging points. As costs fall, the case for buying an EV gets stronger. But this must ultimately be matched by the convenience of running one. l
6 October 2021, virtual conference
This conference will provide insight into how businesses and countries are making net zero into a reality. Speakers include: •
Brian Denvir, European Energy Markets Lead, Google
•
John Holland-Kaye, Chief Executive Officer, Heathrow Airport
•
Michael Lewis FEI, Chief Executive, EON UK
•
Tristan Zipfel, Strategy and Analysis Director, EDF Renewables
•
Anja-Isabel Dotzenrath, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), RWE Renewables
•
Lynne McDonald, Programme Manager - Distribution System Operator (DSO) Readiness, UK Power Networks
•
Benjamin Kott, CEO, Lightsource Labs
•
Fintan Slye FEI, Director UK System Operation, National Grid ESO
www..energy-inst.org/powering-net-zero Powering net zero June.indd 1
Engage
Network
Represent 19/05/2021 12:52:10
Buildings
REGULATION AND STANDARDS
Towards a UK future homes standard E arlier this year, the government published its response to its 2019 consultation on changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) and Part F (ventilation) of the Building Regulations – confirming uplifted standards to improve the energy efficiency of new homes. The government’s response confirms that it will implement an interim change from June 2022 which requires new homes to deliver carbon dioxide (CO2) savings of 31% compared to current standards through a combination of lowcarbon heating and increased fabric standards. This is a significant step-change for new-build developments and paves the way for the more ambitious requirements of the Future Homes Standard 2025 – which is set to require new homes to produce 75%–80% fewer carbon emissions compared to current standards. Zero-carbon ready homes by 2025 The government is set to introduce the new Future Homes Standard in 2025 which will require CO2 emissions produced by new homes to be 75–80% lower than those built to current requirements. This forms part of the government’s strategy to improve energy efficiency in buildings – which is required in order to meet the net zero target. Although the technical detail of the Future Homes Standard is not yet certain, it is clear that, from 2025, new homes will be required to be future-proofed with low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency. Homes will need to be ‘zero-carbon ready’, meaning that no retrofit work will be necessary to enable them to become zero-carbon as the electricity grid continues to decarbonise. That means no home built under the Future Homes Standard will be reliant on fossil fuels. A full technical consultation is planned for spring 2023, which will develop the draft building specification set out in the consultation and provide further technical detail, draft guidance and an impact assessment for implementation. 36 Energy World | June 2021
The UK government has started to indicate steps to be taken on the way to a comprehensive new standard for the energy performance of homes. Here, energy lawyer Megan Coulton looks at upcoming changes to Building Regulations to deliver zero-carbon ready homes by 2025.
‘Fabric plus technology’ from 2022 In the mean time, and to ease the step up to the Future Homes Standard, the government is introducing an interim uplift in standards from 2022 (the 2021 Part L Uplift) which will mean new homes will go some way to meeting the expected 2025 standard. This does mean that further refurbishment will be required in order for those homes to be zerocarbon ready but, notionally, new homes built from 2022 will be better equipped to make the transition. The consultation identified two options for the interim uplift: Option 1 (Future Homes Fabric) proposed a 20% reduction in carbon emissions compared to current standards and Option 2 (Fabric plus technology) proposed a 31% reduction in carbon emissions compared to current standards. The consultation response confirms that the 2021 Part L Uplift will introduce Option 2 as a stepping-stone to the Future Homes Standard. This is the preferred option because it represents a
Image: iStock
meaningful and achievable interim increase to the energy efficiency standards of new homes. It has also been designed to encourage the use of low-carbon heating in new homes (rather than fossil fuels) in order for the market to develop the supply chains and skills that will be necessary to deliver the more radical Future Homes Standard. The government recognises that there is unlikely to be a one-sizefits-all solution to the implementation of low-carbon heating technologies, but it has identified that heat pumps are likely to become the primary source of heating for new homes under the Future Homes Standard. There is also an important role for heat networks – which are expected to be utilised for new buildings in towns and cities in order to capitalise on large-scale renewable and recovered heat sources. The challenge for the heat network industry is navigating the technical and financial implications of decarbonising existing networks led by gas or CHP in time so that new buildings can be connected and meet the new energy efficiency levels. The government has also decided on a revised package of performance metrics which will ensure a ‘fabric first’ approach. The driver for this is that the Future Homes Standard cannot rely on grid decarbonisation to achieve a reduction in emissions and that improving airtightness and reducing building consumption are key. The new four-part performance metrics are: •
primary energy target;
•
CO2 emissions target;
•
fabric energy efficiency target; and
•
minimum standards for fabric and fixed building services.
That means that CO2 emissions will no longer be used as the primary performance metric for new homes. This is because in recent years the UK’s electricity grid has decarbonised and so CO2 emissions have and will become a less effective measure of the energy performance of buildings (because it will be unclear whether a home performs well under this metric because it is energy efficient or because the grid has decarbonised). The primary energy metric will instead provide a measure of energy use in dwellings and take account of the upstream energy uses (in order
Buildings
to ensure energy efficiency but also that the nation’s resources are being utilised effectively). As part of the four-part performance metric, the Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES) has been retained – which is likely to be a relief to many that raised concerns about its proposed removal. That means that the government will continue to set minimum U-values for the thermal elements within the Approved Document. The government’s consultation document further puts carbon reductions into perspective by setting out that the target for a typical semi-detached home built to the indicative Future Homes Standard is 3.6 kgCO2/m2/year, compared to 16 kg under the current standards and 11 kg under the 2021 Part L Uplift. No change to local planning authority powers (yet) The Planning and Energy Act 2008 currently allows planning authorities to require energy efficiency standards for new homes that exceed the requirements of the Building Regulations. While this has allowed some planning authorities to push more ambitious targets, the government proposed that these rights are removed, in order to
provide a more consistent approach. The government has confirmed that new planning reforms will clarify the longer-term roles of local planning authorities but to provide certainty for now, it will not amend the Planning and Energy Act 2008. This means that local authorities will retain powers to set local energy efficiency standards for new homes. Transitional arrangements The government’s response confirms that the 2021 Part L Uplift will apply to individual buildings (not across development sites as was the case previously) and that transitional arrangements will apply only for a 12 month period. For transitional arrangements to apply to an individual building, developers will need to both submit a building/initial notice or deposited plans by June 2022; and commence work on each individual building by June 2023. The impact of this is that housebuilders cannot lock-in building regulations at the point of commencement of an entire development (which has been the case up until now). Save for where transitional arrangements apply, individual buildings will be subject to the new regulations at the time work commences. This creates new
Although the technical detail is not yet certain, it is clear that, from 2025, new homes will be required to be futureproofed with low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency
issues for phased developments, as different building regulations may apply over the build programme – but ensures that homes built as part of large-scale development meet the energy efficiency requirements in force at the time they are built. Timeline for implementation The government has indicated that the new Part L and F will be published in December 2021 and will come into force in June 2022. Following that, a full technical specification for the Future Homes Standard will be consulted on in 2023 and legislation tabled in 2024, ahead of full implementation in 2025. The government has also published the second part to this consultation – The Future Buildings Standard – which focuses on changes to Parts L and F of the Building Regulations for nondomestic buildings, new standards to address overheating in new residential properties, and new standards for renovations. Part two of the interim consultation closed on 13 April this year. ● Megan Coulton is an Associate at Trowers & Hamlins LLP
Presented by:
21 - 23 November 2021, Virtual Conference
This week will bring two conferences focusing on HSE and sustainability, to deliver essential learning, sharing of international good practice to organisations across the energy industry, drawing on the century-long expertise of the Energy Institute.
More information at www.energy-inst.org/middle-east-forum Host Partner:
Silver Sponsor:
Middle East ad - MAY.indd 1
The HSE Forum is endorsed by:
Silver Sponsor:
The Sustainability Forum is endorsed by:
Silver Sponsor:
EI Knowledge Partner:
Regional Associate Partner:
Silver Sponsor:
19/05/2021 12:36:16
