The magazine for energy professionals
March 2021 – open access articles The following articles are taken from Energy World magazine’s March 2021 edition for promotional purposes. For full access to the magazine, become a member of the Energy Institute by visiting www.energyinst.org/join
Research & development
ENERGY SYSTEM TRANSITION
Research priorities – what do we need to know? E veryone knows – or everyone who’s been paying attention knows – that we need to transform the way we use energy, not just in the UK, but all across the world. We cannot continue the unabated burning of fossil fuels, but we still need access to energy that meets society’s needs. To a large extent, we already have the technologies required and some choices among them, but what costs do they each have, monetary and otherwise? How do we minimise adverse impacts and ensure continued political and societal support for the transition? How do we make decisions about what to do and when to do it? I am one of seven Co-Directors of the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), a collaboration involving 20 universities and around 100 researchers investigating key issues affecting the transition of the UK’s energy system. This article is not the result of a systematic survey such as InnovateUK carries out to inform its periodic Energy Innovation Needs Assessment. Instead, drawing on insights from colleagues, I outline my own perspective on research priorities. Energy demand Heat in buildings Perhaps the UK’s single biggest energy system challenge lies in the decarbonisation of heat. This is graphically shown in Figure 1 where not only the magnitude of demand but also its huge seasonal variability are evident. The challenge is vast but can be reduced by being more efficient in our use of energy. New techniques in the construction of buildings can make a dramatic difference to energy efficiency; however, they are expensive and can be difficult to get right when being installed. Improvements to materials and methods can make the retrofitting of insulation cheaper and less disruptive. In locations with high heat demand, heat network investment can be worthwhile and aid a more efficient use of heat. However, these energy efficiency improvements need to be allied with low carbon sources of heat. 14 Energy World | March 2021
An essential foundation of any programme to transform the UK energy system is to identify what we don’t yet fully understand about both the current situation and the scope for change. UKERC’s Keith Bell surveys priorities for R&D.
Inside an HVDC station – much of the scale up of offshore electricity network capacity is expected to use high-voltage direct current technology Photo: Shutterstock
The high coefficient of performance of electric heat pumps makes them attractive when electricity supply is low-carbon, but exactly how they are deployed depends on the heat source and on how the heat is to be distributed. Industrial scale heat pumps are now starting to exploit water sources such as rivers or sewage, and flood water in disused mineworkings might also be potential sources or stores of heat. Heat networks – between buildings or within them – can be operated at different temperatures with different efficiencies. Progress in refrigerant development can allow existing ‘wet’ systems in buildings – radiators – to be used at similar temperatures to those used with gas boilers, avoiding replacement with larger radiators working at lower temperatures. If not, hybrid systems might be needed, which adds to the capital cost and occupies more space. Heat pumps are not the only option, we might continue to use gaseous fuels provided they cause no carbon emissions. Hydrogen is one option – it can be manufactured
from reformation of methane provided the resulting carbon dioxide is capture and stored. Work has been ongoing to prove the safety of hydrogen boilers and hobs, but consumer acceptability is yet to be proven. The new H100 project in Fife promises to help with that but more work is needed. A further important area of research in respect of buildings is the verification that measures to transform their use of energy is effective. In particular, to what extent does actual performance match the modelling? Easy but accurate ways of establishing this are going to be ever more important to verify compliance with standards and that government incentives are producing the intended results. Transport Unless always connected to an energy network, such as via overhead lines, all transportation vehicles must carry a store of energy. This must have sufficient energy capacity and power rating and be lightweight. Significant progress has been made in decreasing the cost of batteries to the point where, small and medium sized plug-in battery electric vehicles are almost cost-competitive with internal combustion engine vehicles. Further cost reductions and increases in performance will help allay range anxiety. There are strong incentives for industry globally to invest but there remain manufacturing challenges, not least in the supply of different materials. Work is ongoing to find effective alternatives. For heavier vehicles that require more energy, it’s not clear that batteries would be the best option. Does hydrogen represent hype or hope? Whether using compressed hydrogen in fuel cells on buses or lorries, or ammonia in engines on ships, it’s becoming ever more hopeful that the technologies will soon become a commercial reality. For air travel, however, reduction in the associated global warming remains a major challenge. We need to better understand the need for mobility across different segments of society; how can it be reduced? That question is
Improvements to materials and methods can make the retrofitting of insulation cheaper and Research & development less disruptive. In locations with high heat demand, heat network investment and promises, aid a reductions it habitually from 496 gCO /kWh in 2012 can to 193be worthwhile A vitally though that might be because, in gCO /kWh in 2019. However, to more efficient use of heat. important However, these energy needweto benever allied Britain, at least, have had a achieve netefficiency zero across the improvements whole programme of delivering reactors of economy, the carbon intensity of with low carbon sources of‘system heat. issue’ is electricity needs to be zero or even, similar designs.
now starting to be asked, prompted in part by the growth in working from home and the notion of a ‘20 minute neighbourhood.’ The Scottish Government’s update to its Climate Change Plan promised to reduce total car-km in Scotland by 20% by 2030, though the full set of policies to achieve this is yet to be defined.
2
2
the availability Use of methane in electricity through use of bioenergy with of knowledge generation is also possible, provided carbon capture and storage (CCS), The high coefficient of performance heat makes them attractive it is associated with when CCS. In being negative. This pumps requires continued and skills to of electric both schedulable and persistent, it growth in use of renewables where deliver the electricity supply is low-carbon, but exactlycosthow theyofare depends on thetoheat offers an alternative nuclear reductions winddeployed and solar energy power, though the case starting for either have been significant in recent heat pumps source and on how the heat is to be distributed. Industrial scale are now transition – how would be enhanced by a capability years. Industry operate flexibly, in response to For further the costs in to Many industrialwater processes are large such willas thisrivers be to exploit sources or sewage, andreductions, flood water disused mineworkings demand, something that is of manufacture, construction and users of energy. Resource efficiency ensured for all might also be potential sources or stores of maintenance heat. of ever larger offshore unproven for generation with CCS – optimising designs to use less the necessary and has been done only to a limited wind turbines need to be reduced. material and materials with lower roles: extent with nuclear reactors. However, we may soon be reaching embodies emissions – and energy Commercial confidence in the practical howoperated large efficiency, can reduce the energy technicians,or within Heat networks – between buildings them –limits canofbe at different temperatures single turbines can be, though novel electricity production with CCS in required. Switching from fossil fuels engineers, Britain also needs to ‘wet’ be established. multi-rotordevelopment designs are worth can allow with different efficiencies. Progress in refrigerant existing will be necessary if carbon dioxide lawyers, project Across the five scenarios outlined exploring, along with ways of is not captured and stored. This systemsa particular in buildings – toetcbe used at similar temperatures to those with gas managers in its advice used on the 6th carbon reducing the intrusiveness of represents challenge–inradiators the Climate Change onshore wind farms. boilers, avoiding replacement with larger radiators working at lower budget, temperatures. If not, Committee suggests that between Enough schedulable, persistent 124 and 324 TWh of hydrogen sources of electricity arecost essential to occupies hybrid systems might be needed which, adds to the capital and more space.will
processes using high temperatures. Hydrogen combustion would appear to be the closest substitute but plant using hydrogen is not yet generally commercially ready.
meeting demand in what is called ‘Dunkelflaute’ in Germany: relatively
be produced in the UK in 2050. This production must be low-carbon.
Daily energy use in Great Britain (GWh)
4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1/1/2015
1/1/2016
Total gas demand (GWh)
1/1/2017
1/1/2018
Total electricity demand (GWh)
1/1/2019
1/1/2020
Total transport demand (GWh)
Figure 1. Britain’s energy carriers by volume: gas, electricity and transport fuels Figure courtesy of Dr Grant Wilson, University of Birmingham; data from National Grid, Elexon, and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
Figure 1. Britain’s energy carriers by volume: gas, electricity and transport fuels Figureifcourtesy ofperiods Birmingham; data from National Although reformation of methane cold, dark, still lasting Moreover, the hydrogen isof Dr Grant Wilson, University perhaps many days with little wind currently appears to be the cheapest manufactured using electricity, why Grid, Elexon, and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy method even with CCS, work is need or solar production. not use electricity directly? Cost-effective high temperature electrical plant needs to be developed and brought to full maturity.
Nuclear’s ‘24/7’ operation means that it potentially has a role though many energy economists are sceptical, mainly due to costs and that most existing projects in Europe are behind schedule. There is currently little evidence that the sector will deliver the cost
to improve the carbon capture rates. The alternative method – electrolysis – will be lower-carbon when the electricity supply is decarbonised and offers the potential for cost reductions through improved designs and manufacturing and new materials.
Heat pumps are not the only option, we might continue to use gaseous fuels provided they cause no carbon emissions. Hydrogen is one option – it can be manufactured from reformation of methane provided the resulting carbon dioxide is capture and stored. Work has
Energy supply The carbon intensity of electricity production in the UK has fallen
Energy World | March 2021 15
2
Research & development
Moreover, there will be periods when the available electric power far exceeds demand: will the market signals be strong enough to motivate investment in electrolysers to utilise it, even if they are not operating all the time? Hydrogen could be stored and then used in industry, transport and, potentially, in providing heat to buildings. However, it might also be used in combined cycle turbines in providing a schedulable and flexible source of electricity for which the inter-seasonal storage alternatives are currently few. The scale of the energy resource around Britain’s coast suggests a need for continued research to make floating wind turbines and tidal and wave generators viable options. System issues There has been much talk of the need for the future energy system to be developed in a whole systems way that takes proper account of alternative options for supply and use of energy and the coupling between different sectors. However, in an institutionally fragmented system in which governance arrangements are complex, and even single vectors such as gas and electricity have many different companies involved in sourcing, trading and transferring energy, the means by which that can be achieved are unclear. Among the things to be decided is the basis for decision making on, for example, the future of the gas network. After upgrading as part of the long-running iron mains replacement programme, the gas distribution network will be technically capable of carrying 100% hydrogen, but what will the demand for hydrogen be and how will a switch-over be achieved while minimising disruption? Massive growth in the energy carried on the electricity network is expected. The peak power flow can be somewhat reduced by flexibility, but the commercial and practical means of enabling it are currently immature. Moreover, energy retailers and network operators will need to develop advanced means of deciphering large volumes of data and the inherent system uncertainty to make optimal use of flexible demand, generation and storage across the network. Much of the huge scale-up in offshore network capacity will use high voltage direct current (HVDC) technology that has rarely been interconnected. The energy produced offshore needs to be brought to shore in ways that minimise environmental impacts. The methods and regulatory 16 Energy World | March 2021
Those that seek magic bullets to solve the climate crisis should be aware that technological innovations typically take decades to come to fruition
frameworks to resolve the many tensions among different stakeholders are yet to be defined. HVDC makes use of power electronic converters that are increasingly ubiquitous on the electricity system, from small power supplies on computers to drives on electric trains. They are extremely flexible and their fast responses can help mitigate impacts of system disturbances. Exactly how the control software is written is confidential to the manufacturers, yet these devices are all connected to the same power system and interact in ways that are currently little understood and will become ever more important. Appropriate commercial arrangements are required to incentivise investment in new energy production and network assets, the facilities to enable flexibility and the frameworks to utilise them optimally. Reduction in energy-related emissions to date has been achieved almost without people noticing. There was recognition in the Climate Assembly convened last year that banning the sale of combustion engine cars and the conversion of heating systems are necessary but will be disruptive. Energy users will expect some choice about how their buildings are heated, but how will that be informed and exercised when major investment decisions, such as whether or not to develop hydrogen supplies or district heating, will affect the options available? A vitally important ‘system issue’ is the availability of knowledge and skills to deliver the energy transition. How will this be ensured for all the necessary roles – technicians, engineers, lawyers, project managers and so on – and how will public bodies’, companies’ and individuals’ efforts combine to deliver it most effectively? The responses of organisations and individuals to different commercial and regulatory arrangements are very difficult to foresee ahead of implementation, making decisions subject to significant uncertainty. Analytical approaches such as agent-based modelling might provide some insights. As a minimum, they need to be calibrated using ‘backcasts’ – reproducing the past – but, as we have seen with epidemiological models, they need to use many assumptions. Randomised control trials are difficult to do while providing consumer protection; often, the best that can be achieved is to carry out qualitative research on different actors’ motivations as a trial proceeds, and to use the
evidence gained to refine commercial and regulatory frameworks. The foundations of innovation Much has been written about innovation timelines and how to take ideas through the ‘valley of death’ to commercial viability. Those that seek magic bullets to solve the climate crisis should be aware that technological innovations typically take decades to come to fruition. A number of innovation areas are attracting significant private investment worldwide, eg batteries and new photovoltaic materials, where commercially valuable intellectual property is being developed, often in partnership with universities. However, almost all technological innovations have depended on some degree of public support, from education of the researchers to direct grants for R&D work. Public support to bring innovations through the last stages to commercial viability can be part of industrial policy and can help to create jobs within a green economy. Moreover, energy-related innovation is not solely about taking products or services to commercial viability. The history of innovation has shown that public investment can develop public goods – ideas that can be accessed and used by many parties to share benefit. There are system issues to be addressed in the energy transition – questions of decision making between options, about keeping options alive and the timing of investment, around societal preferences and impacts, and how to ensure stable operation of complex interactions. All parties affected by the energy system depend on gaining knowledge about the risks and opportunities associated with the system itself. That knowledge is not commodifiable or easily traded, but is essential. It will be needed to inform business models, regulatory frameworks and political decisions. The processes to gain knowledge must be well-defined and use of it well-considered if access to energy is to be reliable and affordable and public support for the transition is to be maintained. l Keith Bell is a Co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre and a Professor at the University of Strathclyde. Thanks to colleagues for wide-ranging and interesting discussions, in particular collaborators at UKERC. Special thanks to Christian Brand for the ‘hype or hope’ line and to Jessica Bays for help with editing.
Leading in energy management The world is crying out for energy efficiency. It’s the first fuel of economic development and the skilled professionals who know how to realise its benefits are leading the global low carbon transition. Whatever your job title, whatever your business or organisation, if you want to help drive forward these transformational efforts, the EI is here to support you every step of the way.
•
Market leading training
•
Professional recognition
•
Engagement tools
•
Online resources
All Level 1 and Level 2 training is available online
Explore our resources – visit www.energy-inst.org/energy EM General April 2020.indd 1
02/11/2020 11:46:44
SECR online training course A 5-hour online CPD training package designed to introduce the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting (SECR) legislation and cover the compliance and reporting requirements for quoted companies, unquoted companies and LLPs including a report checklist and a template. Modules: 1: Introduction to SECR 2: Environmental Reporting Basics 3: Complying with SECR in Practice 4: SECR Mandatory Reporting 5: Optional Reporting
From only £169.00
www.energy-inst.org/SECR SECR ad August 2020.indd 1
02/11/2020 11:40:09
Research & development
GEOENGINEERING
Do we need climate interventions?
W
hen the Philippines’ Mount Pinatubo erupted on 15 June, 1991 it spewed a cataclysmic cloud of rock, ash and gas 35 km into the air. Debris was found as far away as the Indian Ocean. While larger particles fell out of the sky fairly rapidly, sulfate aerosols lingered in the stratosphere – preventing solar energy from reaching the Earth’s surface as normal. It’s now believed that the eruption cooled the planet by around 0.5°C for more than a year. In an age of accelerated global heating, it’s little wonder that scientists are interested in finding ways to mimic Pinatubo’s cooling effect. Spraying aerosols The concept of geoengineering – or deliberate intervention in the Earth’s climate systems – has existed for decades. But it hasn’t resembled anything close to a credible scientific proposition until recently. This summer, Harvard researchers plan to launch a test balloon over northern Sweden in
18 Energy World | March 2021
Geoengineering sounds like the stuff of science fiction. But the longer meaningful emissions reductions are delayed, the more likely it is that we’ll reach for radical – and risky – climate solutions. Jennifer Johnson evaluates the options. the first stage of an experiment that would inject radiationreflecting particles into the stratosphere. The flight is not the experiment itself, but a trial of its equipment without the release of any particles. If the initiative eventually wins the approval of an independent advisory committee, the Harvard team will release a small amount of calcium carbonate at a height of 20 km into the atmosphere. The aim is to create a 'perturbed air mass' that measures about 1 km in length and 100 m in diameter. The team behind the experiment hopes to improve scientific knowledge of
Scientists have proposed using marine cloud brightening to protect delicate ocean ecosystems from marine heatwaves
stratospheric aerosol physics and chemistry relevant to solar geoengineering. They’re not creating a blueprint for the large-scale release of reflective particles into the atmosphere so much as trying to understand the mechanics of doing so. In February, several Swedish environmental groups, including Greenpeace Sweden and Friends of the Earth Sweden, wrote to the country’s government and the Swedish Space Corporation to oppose this summer’s test balloon flight. In letters seen by the Guardian newspaper, the campaigners warned that the test could mark the first step towards the use of a potentially 'dangerous, unpredictable and unmanageable' technology. Similar arguments have been made in opposition to geoengineering initiatives in the past. Detractors have long warned that solar geoengineering of the kind proposed by the Harvard researchers could change the planet beyond recognition. Environmentalists also worry that placing our faith in far-off tech fixes could stall action on emissions today. But if the only alternative is runaway climate change, spraying aerosols into the atmosphere could increasingly seem like a rational course of action. Reflecting sunlight Geoengineering techniques are usually divided into two categories: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The former is concerned with reflecting sunlight back into space, while the latter is focused on capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases. There are two SRM methods currently in the earliest stages of research and development. One of them is stratospheric aerosol injection – the tactic proposed by the Harvard team – and the other is known as marine cloud brightening (MCB). Scientists in Australia carried out the first outdoor MCB experiment at the Great Barrier Reef in March 2020. Earlier that year, the reef had undergone its most severe mass coral bleaching event to date, impacting the full length of the 2,300 km marine ecosystem. It’s thought that MCB, which involves spraying sea salt particles into ocean clouds to help them reflect more sunlight, could lessen the severity of coral bleaching during marine heat waves.
Research & development
In the experiment, a modified turbine fitted with 100 highpressure nozzles was fixed to the back of a boat, which sprayed trillions of tiny salt crystals into the air above the reef. The team behind the project, led by researchers from the Sydney Institute of Marine Science and Southern Cross University, tested the technology at one-tenth of the scale they’re eventually aiming for. By next year, they hope to have their technology ready at full scale – meaning that they’re able to brighten clouds across a 20-by-20 km area. It’s not yet known whether MCB could alter rainfall patterns over land or sea, though scientists will also study these risks as the project evolves. However, the project’s leader, Dr Daniel Harrison of Southern Cross University, has emphasised that MCB is no replacement for much-needed emissions reductions. ‘Cloud brightening could potentially protect the entire Great Barrier Reef from coral bleaching in a relatively costeffective way, buying precious time for longer-term climate change mitigation to lower the stress on this irreplaceable ecosystem,’ he said in a statement last April. Many researchers involved in geoengineering believe that their techniques should only be deployed to buy time for the planet to decarbonise. This is the stated aim of the Arctic Ice Project, a California-based initiative that claims to be ‘the most studied ice restoration effort in the world’. Started by Stanford University lecturer Leslie Ann-Field, the project is setting out to prove that a strategically-deployed layer of silica can improve the reflectivity of Arctic sea ice, thereby staving off dangerous melting while the global economy decarbonises. The Arctic Ice Project is testing its materials and solutions on ice at two sites, one in Alaska and one in Minnesota. If all goes to plan – and it can be proven that the small, powder-like silica beads are safe – Field hopes to distribute them strategically across vulnerable areas of the Arctic. In an interview with the BBC last year, she called the project ‘the backup plan I hoped we’d never need’. Understanding criticisms Climate advocacy groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), are broadly opposed to pursuing geoengineering, as they believe it presents ecological, moral and geopolitical concerns. However, EDF’s official policy position states that engaging
in transparent, small-scale field research to understand the implications of SRM techniques is ‘prudent’. The organisation also calls for governance regimes to be put in place with the very first experiments of this kind. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund-UK have also voiced their cautious support for small-scale research in recent years. Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has laid out its own criteria for small-scale atmospheric experiments. It stipulates that funding for any SRM activities must come exclusively from entities that ‘support mitigation and adaptation as the first-line solutions to climate change’ and that SRM research priorities must be agreed in collaboration with stakeholders in climate-vulnerable nations. The wider scientific community has been similarly cautious in its rhetoric on geoengineering. In its landmark 2018 Special Report on 1.5°C, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged that stratospheric aerosol injection could ‘theoretically’ be effective in reducing temperatures. But in its Summary for Policymakers, which presents the report’s key findings, the group wrote that SRM methods: ‘face large uncertainties and knowledge gaps as well as substantial risks and institutional and social constraints to deployment related to governance, ethics, and impacts on sustainable development’. Ultimately, the hazards – and the potential benefits – of SRM have not yet been adequately explored through science. Whether they ever should be is an ongoing point of debate. Some critics worry about the so-called ‘moral hazard’ effect, in which funding research into geoengineering prevents policymakers from taking greenhouse gas mitigation seriously. Others are concerned that if a global-scale project were undertaken, and then geopolitical conditions conspired to halt it in-progress, temperatures could rapidly rebound to the detriment of ecosystems. There’s no doubt that policymakers will have to answer some highly consequential questions about geoengineering in the near future. Namely, do we have too much to lose to fund SRM, with all its potential knock-on effects? And when do we have nothing left to lose?
Some critics worry about the so-called ‘moral hazard’ effect, in which funding research into geoengineering prevents policymakers from taking greenhouse gas mitigation seriously
Carbon dioxide removal The issue of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is somewhat less controversial than SRM. This is because there’s a strong consensus around the fact that accumulated CO2 will have to be removed from the atmosphere, in addition to emissions abatement measures. The concept of CDR has also attracted a great deal of attention in recent months, thanks largely to the intervention of high-profile tech giants. In February, Tesla founder Elon Musk revealed he would offer a $100mn prize for the best carbon removal technology. The four-year competition invites inventors to create and demonstrate ‘solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans’ with the ability to scale ‘to gigatonne levels’. Any ‘carbon negative’ solution is eligible to enter the competition – from direct air capture technologies to nature-based CO2 sequestration methods. Just a few days prior to Musk’s announcement, Microsoft said its climate fund would invest in the Swiss direct air capture (DAC) firm
CO2 removal methods There are numerous theoretical options for carbon dioxide removal, most of which have only been tested on a limited scale – if at all. Here are some of the most popular suggestions, and the challenges associated with them. Afforestation – tree planting on a global scale is a politically popular option, though it will come with landuse challenges. For instance, planting trees on arable land could reduce food supplies. The threat of disease and destruction also make forests unreliable long-term carbon stores. Biochar – adding a charcoal-like material to soil can prevent plant matter from breaking down and releasing CO2, meaning that it’s essentially locked up in the soil. However, more research is needed to determine this method’s logistical viability on a global scale. BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage can, in theory, offer net carbon removals. CO2 is drawn down when biomass is grown, and technology could capture and store the resulting emissions when it is burned to create energy. The use of waste feedstocks would help to allay land-use concerns, though careful lifecycle accounting is needed to ensure projects are genuinely negative emissions overall. Ocean afforestation – similar to terrestrial afforestation, this proposal would involve growing kelp and other microalgae, which are highly efficient stores of carbon. One 2019 study suggested farming seaweed on an industrial scale before harvesting it and sinking it in the deep ocean, where carbon could be stored indefinitely. However, more research on seaweed’s CO2 sequestration potential is needed before such projects can be pursued.
Energy World | March 2021 19
Research & development
Climeworks. More specifically, it will offer backing to the company’s existing project in Iceland, which uses fans to capture carbon from the air before pumping it into the ground for long-term storage. In some cases, Climeworks also sells
concentrated CO2 to beverage companies and other industrial users. Microsoft’s investment comes as part of its plan to reach ‘negative’ emissions by 2030. DAC advocates argue that using machines to ‘scrub’ CO2 from the
The proposed delivery system for Harvard’s stratospheric aerosol injection experiment. Image: Harvard University
air is a highly-efficient approach to CDR. This is because other proposed removal methods, such as afforestation or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), require large amounts of land. But this is not to say that DAC is without its drawbacks. It’s presently very expensive and highly energy intensive. One study, published in 2019 in the journal Nature Communications found that if DAC were deployed around the world, it could require up to 25% of the global energy supply by the end of this century. Considering the challenges associated with geoengineering methods, be they SRM or CDR techniques, it’s clear that rapid CO2 emission abatement is still the preferred way forward. But given that emissions remain stubbornly high today, it’s understandable that scientists want to prepare for all eventual outcomes. As such, it seems important to study and understand the consequences of geoengineering – well before radical climate intervention becomes a foregone conclusion. l
Who says your energy expert is an expert? RPEC is the Register of Professional Energy Consultants, managed by the Energy Institute. RPEC consultants have a proven track record of providing effective energy assessment and reliable advice, translating into real savings and opportunities for businesses large and small. Everyone on RPEC is also approved to act as an ESOS Lead Assessor. Because the emphasis is on high standards and integrity, there is a Code of Conduct, a customer guarantee, and annual checks. Our online database can be searched by location, experience in your sector and areas of expertise, so you can find the best fit for your organisation.
Minimising energy costs is important, right? But how do you know you’re getting the best advice? That you’ll save money, not waste your time? If only you could get honest expert advice, someone to show you what to do, perhaps even manage it for you.
Search the RPEC database at www.energy-inst.org/rpec RPEC ad 2019 - new branding.indd 1
20/06/2019 11:41:09
EnergyAware The EI’s online staff-awareness tool EnergyAware is an innovative 30-minute online tool designed to raise staff awareness of energy efficiency in the workplace. Certificated by the Energy Institute, EnergyAware will help your organisation demonstrate its commitment to efficiency while reducing both its energy costs and carbon footprint.
www.energy-inst.org/energy-aware EnergyAware - Dec.indd 1
02/11/2020 12:06:13
Research and development
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Tomorrow’s renewable ambitions depend on today’s innovations
Patent filings can tell you a lot about which markets and technologies are likely to propel the energy transition forward. Georgina Ainscow, Andrew Carridge and Duncan Nevett, partners at Reddie & Grose, analyse recent developments.
T
he call to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions grows louder every year, and the need for clean energy technology has never been greater. It’s clear that the way in which we consume and produce energy is unsustainable. The UK is aiming to reduce all its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to net zero by 2050. This means that any emissions produced in the UK must be balanced by measures to offset an equivalent amount of GHGs, such as planting trees or capturing and storing carbon. Achieving net zero requires radical changes to not only the ways in which we supply energy but also our usage habits. According to the IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives 2020 report, more than a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve net zero by 2050 will stem from
22 Energy World | March 2021
technologies that are not commercially available today. So, what are the emerging technologies that could get us there faster? And how can the companies working to innovate in renewables use intellectual property protection to generate the breakthroughs that will help us reach net zero?
Climeworks, a Swiss-based CCUS start-up, holds several patents on its direct air capture technology Photo: Climeworks
Assessing the landscape Renewables’ share of UK electricity generation increased to 37% in 2019 – a record high – with 119 TWh electricity generated from renewable sources. However, this is no reason to become complacent. A report from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) indicated that the UK must be running on 50% renewable energy by 2030 to set it on a cost-effective path to achieving net zero by 2050. That’s quite the jump and emphasises the need for
breakthroughs in the near term. According to the IEA, rapid progress towards net zero depends on faster innovation in four key technologies: electrification, hydrogen, biofuels and carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). However, the report also finds that after a strong decade of growth in the number of lowcarbon technology patents being filed, there has been a notable decline since 2011. It’s true that patents offer an insight into the research activities that are generating innovation and commercial value, though the decline since 2011 could have occurred for a number of reasons. Among them are high production costs, technologies reaching maturity, or companies focusing on other areas of green technology not picked up by the report. What the patent landscape does show is a crowded market, and it seems unlikely that one single company will be able to provide the ‘silver bullet’ to crack the renewable energy conundrum. Instead, the path to net zero could largely be paved by many
Research and development
incremental contributions that will unlock further innovations. Companies with robust patent filing programmes will be able to commercialise their technological breakthroughs and invest in further innovation. Easing into electrification One of the central tenets of the move towards net zero is the electrification of the world economy. Between 1990 and 2019 global annual electricity demand grew on average by 3% per annum. In the IEA report, increased electrification of end-use sector is set to account for approximately 30% of the annual carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions in 2070. A significant portion of these reductions are due to come from the transport sector, largely thanks to the expected uptake of electric vehicles (EVs). First, in light vehicles such as cars, and later in heavy duty-vehicles such as buses and trucks. Global electricity systems must become more flexible to cope with increased electrification. Unless the necessary steps are taken, the widespread expansion of EV fleets could result in EV charging increasing the peak of daily loads. In the building sector, growth in the use of electricity for space heating or cooling through heat pumps in buildings could also increase peak loads. Green hydrogen – produced by electrolysis using renewable energy sources, could be the answer – providing a means for storing energy to overcome variability in renewable energy supply. The transport sector is traditionally reliant on fossil fuels. So, reducing CO2 emissions in this area will be vital in reaching net-zero. When it comes to powering the engine of an EV, there are two viable approaches – large batteries that can be charged with electricity from the grid, or smaller batteries that are constantly charged by fuel cells. While Tesla CEO Elon Musk is sceptical of hydrogen fuel cell batteries, Toyota and General Motors have placed their bets on both technologies, building significant patent portfolios in both large batteries and fuel cells. Hydrogen fuel cells are much lighter than large batteries. In fact, the adoption of hydrogen fuel cells could even allow for the electrification of transport forms where excess weight is undesirable, such as commercial aviation. From a patent perspective, filing numbers related to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have increased 400%
CCUS for mitigating climate change is a relatively new field, with 95% of all patents being filed in the last ten years
in the last ten years. At just a 20% increase in the same amount of time, fuel cells are outshone by the number of patents filed for battery technologies. However, fuel cell filings are steadily increasing. To date, the companies with the largest fuel cell patent portfolios are car manufacturers, with the largest number of patents being filed by Toyota, Hyundai, Nissan and Honda. This also illustrates that East Asia has dominated the market in this area. If BEVs are to truly help us on the path to net zero, a solution will need to be found for the significant amount of GHG emissions that result from the extraction of raw materials needed for batteries. At the very least, there will need to be advancements in recycling methods. As it stands, fuel cells are currently the cleanest overall option. So, it’s not unlikely that hydrogen fuel cells will become more widespread in the future. Harnessing the potential of CO2 CCUS technologies involve capturing CO2 from fuel combustion or industrial processes and recycling it for further usage. CCUS for mitigating climate change is a relatively new field, with 95% of all patents being filed in the last ten years. In fact, CCUS recently hit the headlines when Elon Musk offered a $100mn prize for the development of technology that can most effectively capture carbon emissions. According to the IEA report, CCUS is set to account for 15% of cumulative emissions savings by 2070. The success of CCUS as part of a decarbonisation strategy depends on the commercial availability of technologies at various stages of the process. An additional factor is the development of CO2 storage and transport networks. For CCUS to be successful, multiple components need to be in sync for the removal or capture of CO2 from the atmosphere (followed by its utilisation or storage). CO2 is currently used commercially in a multitude of ways, including in the production of carbonated drinks and urea, which is used for nitrogen-based fertilisers. Other use-cases are emerging, such as in building materials, and feedstocks for synthetic fuels. Many of the major players in CCUS have recognised the importance of patent filing when it comes to encouraging innovation. One such company is Lanzatech, which has developed technology for turning CO2 into a feedstock opportunity. The company aims to one day reduce global CO2
emissions by 10%. Lanzatech wants to create a circular carbon economy by recycling carbon from industrial off-gases, effectively converting pollution into fuels and chemicals using bacteria. These fuels and chemicals can then be used as aviation fuel or to create synthetic materials. The IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario anticipates that biofuels will reach around 10% of aviation fuel demand by 2030, and close to 20% by 2040. Whilst Lanzatech is making breakthroughs in CCUS and partnering with the likes of Virgin Atlantic to develop jet fuel from carbon waste gases, they are able to leverage their intellectual property to generate revenue. Enabled by a comprehensive patent portfolio, they are able to licence their technology to customers who may then implement the circular economy in their supply chain and product offering. This is an example of how a strong patent portfolio can be a significant asset when it comes to generating revenue, which in turn can be used to fund further technological developments and ease these innovations into the mainstream. Across the CCUS sector, many other companies are also seeing the benefits of utilising patents to foster a climate of continuous innovation. Climeworks, a Swissbased CCUS start-up, holds several patents on its direct air capture technology. Its intellectual property was integral in helping them to secure one of the largest ever investments into direct air capture, totalling $110mn in 2020. The way forward The transition to net zero won’t happen overnight. However, it’s clear from the patent landscape that companies are seeing the value in patent filing strategies to effectively exploit their research and innovation. It’s also clear that patents have a role to play in commercialising innovation in areas where the technology is yet to be proven. In these ways, companies with robust patent-filing systems are helping push forward the technological innovation that will get us to net zero by 2050 – and ensuring that other companies in the sector can build on their innovations. l Georgina Ainscow, Andrew Carridge & Duncan Nevett, are partners at Reddie and Grose, a specialist intellectual property law firm, www.reddie.co.uk
Energy World | March 2021 23
