Connect with us

Energy

A green ‘sea change’ as water transport makes its move

Published

on

‘Flying’ Seabubbles boat on a test run in Lake Geneva. © Axel Phélipon

All aboard! Europe’s ferry industry has set sail for an emissions-free future. It’s leading the eco-friendly revolution with electric and hydrogen-powered boats that are destined to make urban transport more sustainable.

In just a few months’ time, passengers in Stavanger, Norway, will be able to begin commuting on a revolutionary ferry that doesn’t produce any greenhouse gas emissions. Called Medstraum, which means both “to go with the flow” and “with electricity” in Norwegian, it will be the first high-speed vessel in the world that runs purely on electric power, replacing a diesel-powered ferry that currently shuttles people to surrounding islands.

If the trial goes well, similar vessels could soon operate in other cities too. ‘We’re in a very exciting period,’ said Mikal Dahle, a project manager at public transport company Kolumbus AS in Stavanger, Norway, and coordinator of the TrAM project which is developing the catamaran ferry. ‘We are now finalising the vessel and getting it ready.’

Medstraum is an example of the new and sustainable modes of transport set to transform urban mobility. In the EU, emissions from transport account for about 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions and are the main cause of air pollution in cities.

Furthermore, most people use roads to get around in urban areas where traffic jams have become a huge problem and cost an estimated €110 billion a year in Europe. ‘Waterways are underused for the time being and could be a great alternative,’ said Virginie Seurat, the VP at Seabubbles, a company developing a hydrogen-powered boat.

Our waterborne travel also needs to get a lot greener to meet the EU’s goal of reducing transport-related emissions by 90% by 2050. Existing high-speed craft, for example, are typically powered by fossil fuels and produce significant amounts of emissions.

‘It’s much more polluting to travel with (conventional) fast ferries compared to aeroplanes,’ noted Dahle. ‘A proper reduction in CO2 emissions is one of the main challenges for inshore vessels.’

Rethinking electric boat production

Dahle and his colleagues in the TrAM project are tackling this challenge with a novel design and production method for zero-emission electric vessels operating in coastal waters and inland waterways. Cost is still a barrier since these vessels are more expensive to build compared to those powered by diesel fuel, but the new approach should make them more affordable.

‘The goal is to establish and validate a methodology for the design and production of (electric) craft that reduces the overall cost by 25%,’ said Dahle. ‘We want to make it possible for a large market to invest in zero-emission vessels.’

Their new approach is based on modularisation, where a boat is divided into different functional parts, such as the hull and passenger section, which are in turn subdivided into individual components, like the batteries and electrical equipment in the energy module.

The idea is that a new vessel could be designed and built by piecing together pre-existing modules instead of starting from scratch, making the process more efficient and cost-effective. ‘Some (parts) are standardised, like the seats in the vessel, so we can pick out exactly what we need for a boat at relatively low cost since they are produced in certain volumes,’ explained Dahle. ‘Then we have other things that need to be adjusted for each vessel like the hull shape and the motors.’

Setting sail for new electric vessels

Medstraum is the first vessel being created using this approach, and aims to demonstrate its feasibility. Built from lightweight aluminium to reduce energy consumption will also allow the vessel to be easily recycled after use and contribute to the circular economy. The vessel will be able to carry around 150 passengers at speeds of up to 42 km/h and will make 16 round trips per day. The ferry’s electric battery will be charged each time it stops at Stavanger.

Dahle and his colleagues will use the same approach to develop two other boats. One will be designed to transport either passengers or goods on the River Thames in London, while the other will be used on inland waterways in Belgium and will therefore need to be adapted for different purposes and environments. The London craft will be required to travel at a higher speed and have a larger capacity than the Stavanger vessel, for example, while the boat to be used in Belgium will need to meet different rules and regulations. 

A ‘flying’ boat powered by hydrogen

City commuters could also soon use a ‘flying’ water taxi to get around thanks to another team aiming to lower the environmental impact of water transport. Seurat’s colleagues have developed the first zero-emission hydrofoil craft that glides above waves powered by a hydrogen fuel cell and battery as part of the Seabubbles project.

‘The idea is to offer citizens new solutions that are a step forward in terms of a green way of life,’ said Baptiste Arribe, the strategy director at Seabubbles in Annecy, France.

The futuristic-looking craft, which is made of composite fibres, can operate in two different modes and has been developed for waterways, lakes and marine zones. When travelling at less than 12 km/h, its hydrofoils are retracted and it navigates like a conventional vessel. However, at higher speeds its foils are deployed and the hull is lifted 60 centimetres above the water’s surface, which results in a smooth ride even in choppy waters. ‘People are excited about the passenger experience because there are zero waves and no noise,’ said Seurat.

The ‘flying’ mode has environmental advantages too. It uses 35% less energy compared to the conventional mode since gliding on the foils reduces the surface area of the boat immersed in water and hence the amount of friction.

Charging versus refuelling

When they developed the prototype, the team initially planned to power the craft with electricity produced from solar panels and hydropower. But they later decided to switch to hydrogen power since a boat could travel further on a full tank of the gas compared to a single charge. It would also take less time to refuel; a hydrogen top-up that takes just a few minutes allows the boat to run for about two and a half hours.

While the latest Seabubble boat still runs on electricity, it is generated by a hydrogen fuel cell. It also contains a battery that is charged by the fuel cell when the craft is cruising to provide extra power when needed, for example during acceleration. Artificial intelligence is used to optimise the use of energy between the battery and fuel cell to make the boat as energy efficient as possible. ‘We combine the avant-garde in energy and (the latest) technology with our control system,’ Seurat explained.

Constructing the first Seabubbles

The first Seabubble boats are currently being assembled at a shipyard on the shores of Lake Annecy in France. They will be available to European buyers in a few months’ time and later to the international market.

Able to carry up to 12 passengers, the vessels are of particular interest to private services for use as a shuttle for hotels located on the waterfront or as a quiet craft to take visitors around a nature reserve without disturbing wildlife.

While these vessels could also be used for public transport, cost remains a barrier. However, the EU’s commitment to supporting the large-scale deployment of clean hydrogen technologies by 2030 should make it easier to implement Seabubbles more widely. ‘In the beginning, we need the support of governments to create the overall hydrogen infrastructure,’ concluded Seurat. ‘Then everything will come together, and I think we will change the mobility field.’

Les recherches réalisées dans le cadre de cet article ont été financées par l’UE. Cet article a été publié initialement dans Horizon, le magazine de l’UE dédié à la recherche et à l’innovation.  

Continue Reading
Comments

Energy

How ASEAN should step up to accelerate sustainable energy within the region

Published

on

ASEAN is favored to be the 4th largest economy in the world by 2030 after showing impressive economic growth in the last decade. However, to reach that goal, ASEAN member states need to make sure that they can provide reliable access to energy to support industrial development. Unfortunately, as the region still imports 40% of its primary energy supply with fossil fuels becoming the largest share, the promise of ASEAN economic growth is currently at stake.

Over the years, ASEAN has been known for its heavily reliant on fossil fuels to meet domestic demand. ASEAN Center for Energy has reported that more than 80% of ASEAN’s energy mix in 2017 was fueled by fossil energy with oil accounting for 38,2% of total share and followed by gas (23.2%), and coal (22.3%). Vietnam and Indonesia, as the largest oil and coal producers respectively, have become important players for energy-importing countries such as Thailand, Philippines, and Malaysia. This long historic record on fossil consumption has posed a threat for Southeast Asia to become the slowest region in the world to shift to renewables.

But even so, it doesn’t mean that the ASEAN member states haven’t made any efforts at all. Vietnam might have shown the greatest accomplishment in accelerating the energy transition compared to other countries. Between 2016-2020, Vietnam has successfully doubled its production of renewables from 17.000 to over 35.000 megawatts. The rapid growth of solar panels in just four years has even made Vietnam become the third-largest solar market globally by 2020. Furthermore, ASEAN has also witnessed promising growth in the use of hydropower. Lao PDR, as traversed by The Greater Mekong, has powered 98.8% of its national electricity with hydropower generators in 2017. It even exports its energy to Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia through the transmission lines and is looking for expansion to Malaysia and Singapore, aiming to become Southeast Asia’s battery.

Seeing these potentials for sustainable energy deployment, the next question would be whether it is enough to push ASEAN to phase out the fossil fuel industry. Unfortunately, the same report from ASEAN Center for Energy has estimated that fossil fuel would still provide the majority of energy supply in 2040 even if ASEAN member states adopt a progressive scheme such as APAEC Targets Scenario. This is because energy security still presents a sensitive issue for Southeast Asia, where fossil fuels are perceived to be more reliable and cheaper than renewables. In consequence, while ASEAN will witness an enchantment of renewables in the following years, it will also see the growing trend in the use of clean coal technology, especially in major producer countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Even Vietnam, which is considered the most successful country in accelerating renewables, will continue to rely on coal due to such perception of fossil fuels. As long as fossil fuels are still reckoned to be the main asset  of energy security, ASEAN won’t go far with its transition.

The incapability of ASEAN member states to undertake adequate transition on their own, makes regional cooperation becomes crucial. So far, the two most noticeable cooperation that promotes energy interconnections within the region are ASEAN Power Grid (APG) and Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Program. APG has been run under APAEC since 1999 to facilitate cross-border electricity trade and enhance the integration of Member States’ power systems. To date, 7 of 16 power interconnection projects have been completed mainly in The Upper West System (or in the Greater Mekong Subregion) and The Lower West System which covered Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. However, most interconnection projects are still based on bilateral agreements and thus have no integrated regional power architecture. One program conducted on a multilateral basis is Lao PDR-Thailand-Malaysia-Singapore Power Integration Project (LTMS-PIP), yet the trading is still limited to a unidirectional flow of electricity. The energy cooperation under GMS also presents a similar problem where all projects still occur on bilateral deals.

Although bilateral cooperation carried out under APG and GMS has helped the member states to fulfill their domestic demand, implementing a more integrated power grid with a multilateral trading system will enhance the region’s energy security. This is because a regional power transmission grid with multilateral exchange offers more alternative resources and geographic diversification that will lower the systemic risks on renewables infrastructure. For example, countries with abundant clean energy like Lao PDR can transfer their hydropower to areas of deficit such as Malaysia and Singapore. Whilst, at the same time, surplus energy from one country can be sold to another through the power grid. This is where the multilateral trading regime becomes relevant to improve the accessibility and stability of energy consumption. Additionally, an interconnected power grid can also attract more investment as large-scale renewables will become more profitable.

It is therefore very timely for ASEAN to step up the game by accelerating the construction of an integrated power grid across the region. Without a strong commitment and sufficient transition, Southeast Asia’s economy could plummet by 11% by the end of the century. An integrated power grid might be the best possible scenario to prolong ASEAN’s economic growth in the future.

Continue Reading

Energy

The Insane Energy Policies of the Biden Administration

Published

on

With the projected loss of over 5 million barrels of oil a day due to sanctions against Russia, as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world faces an artificial energy crisis.  This crisis will throw the world’s economy into turmoil, and possibly throw the world into a prolonged economic slump. 

With the United States now relaxing sanctions against Venezuela in order to increase oil flow into the world energy market, and going hat in hand to the right wing Saudi Arabian government, the past policies of the United States are in a state of disarray.  By appealing to right wing governments in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, the Biden Administration is allowing these governments to benefit from the Russia-Ukraine War, and punishing the American people by refusing to develop the ample supplies of shale oil that is in the United States.

What is glaringly absent from the Biden Administration’s energy policies is ignoring, and refusing to allow oil companies to develop the massive oil shale deposits in the Green River Formation.   The Green River Formation contains up to 4.3 trillion barrels of shale oil, which could be easily developed, and at a cost far below the average cost of developing either the current shale oil fields or the normal method of extracting oil from other traditional oil fields.

With the Biden Administration freezing oil drilling on federal land, the energy policy by the Biden Administration is quite literally insane.

The Green River Formation

The Green River Formation is located at the Green River in western Colorado, eastern Utah, and southwestern Wyoming.

The energy resources of the Green River Formation are not a true oil, but a form of pre-oil called kerogen. Kerogen is insoluble in water and in other organic solvents such as benzene or alcohol. However, when the kerogen is heated under pressure it breaks down into recoverable gaseous and liquid substances resembling petroleum. It is possible to break down this substance into synthetic oil.

Unlike normal processes of extracting shale oil called fracking, a process called pyrolysis is used. Pyrolysis occurs in the absence or near absence of oxygen. The rate of pyrolysis increases with temperature. “Pyrolysis transforms organic materials into their gaseous components, a solid residue of carbon and ash, and a liquid called pyrolytic oil (or bio-oil). Pyrolysis has two primary methods for removing contaminants from a substance: destruction and removal.”

The Hydraulic Fracturing Method

Hydraulic fracturing is used to recover oil and natural gas in oil shale deposits, where traditional oil drilling methods are not capable of recovering the oil in the rock strata. Hydraulic fracturing is also known as “fracking.” In order to recover the oil using fracking, a well is drilled into the rock strata containing the recoverable oil and natural gas. Then water, sand, and chemicals are injected into the well under high water pressure to continue to fracture the rock strata.

This then forces the oil and natural gas out of the well and is recovered into holding containers for further processing.

A huge amount of water is used during the fracking process. This is called the water cost. In a normal fracking procedure, between 1.5 to 9.7 million gallons of water are used to complete the fracking process for just one well. The water used during fracking becomes too polluted to be able to be used for human consumption. While the water used in fracking can be treated to return it to a potable status, the cost of doing so is so high, that typically the contaminated water is pumped into an underground chamber and removed from the rainwater cycle.

The technology to develop the Green River Formation does not use typical fracturing methods, so the water cost for the extraction is minimal. Because of the dramatically lower water cost, the breakeven point for extracting the kerogen is much less than traditional fracking.

The Green River Formation is a national security issue

The economic and political consequences of Russia invading Ukraine are now becoming clear.

One of the more obvious consequences has been the rapid rise in the price of oil. As of June 13,  the spot price of oil was $121.60 a barrel. Despite pleas from the Biden administration to Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, the Saudis have refused to do so. The United Arab Emirates appears to be siding with the Saudis and have also declined to raise oil production.

The Saudis are unhappy with the Biden administration’s efforts to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal. They are also convinced that they have more in common with Russia in the current international environment. The Saudis are also angered by the pullback of support by the United States for its war in Yemen. This would appear to be the death knell of the agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia where the U.S. guaranteed the national security of Saudi Arabia, while the Saudis guaranteed a steady supply of oil.

With the world upended because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the need for Europe to have steady oil and natural gas supplies, it is essential that the United States tap its vast oil shale reserves in the Green River Formation. This would help stabilize the energy security of the United States and its European allies. It would also make the United States 100% energy secure and free the United States from the cauldron of Middle East politics.

It should be noted here that this type of action by the United States would not be adding to the use of fossil fuels in the world. The exploitation of the Green River Formation would simply be displacing the use of fossil fuels from other sources of oil.

The cost of extracting this energy source cannot be accurately estimated. However, since the current technology available consumes less water because of the volatilization of water effect, the water cost is minimal, and so the breakeven cost of extracting a barrel of oil is significantly less than conventional fracking methods.

Reuters has estimated that the breakeven point for shale oil produced by fracking is $50. As noted above, fracking has a high-water cost. Since the current technology has a much lower water cost, it can be safely estimated to have a breakeven point of between $25 to $35 per barrel. If economies of scale are used, the cost could fall to as low as $15 to $25 a barrel.

Continue Reading

Energy

Looking beyond the Energy Price Shock to China’s Low Carbon Transition

Published

on

st

Authors: Martin Raiser, Sebastian Eckardt

The conflict in Ukraine has caused a massive shock to the global economy. Crude oil prices in early March spiked to as high as $140 per barrel, levels that were last seen in 2008. While prices have since come down from these peaks, they remain elevated, fueling already high inflation and hurting consumers and economic growth worldwide. Faced with this shock, countries everywhere are reappraising priorities, putting resilience at front and center. A renewed emphasis on food and energy security has compelled governments to reintroduce fossil fuel subsidies and ramp up domestic oil, gas and coal production, seemingly placing efforts to curb climate change on the back burner.

These reactions are understandable. A tactical retreat in the short run may be the price to pay to maintain public support for the long-term goal. But the economic case for accelerated climate action remains as strong as ever. For a country such as China with the domestic policy space to act, there are three key reasons to stay the course on the low carbon transition and aim for an early peak in emissions.

First, accelerating the energy transition would strengthen Beijing’s resilience to the volatility of global fossil fuel prices by reducing its dependence on oil & gas imports. Last year alone, China imported fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – worth $ 365.7 billion – the equivalent of more than two percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). This dependence on fuel imports is exposing the economy to global commodity price fluctuations. In contrast, renewable energy is essentially a domestic resource, especially for China, which is a major producer of key renewable energy technologies from wind turbines to battery storage.

Secondly, while higher energy prices may boost the short-term global supply of fossil fuels, in the longer-term outlook, higher and more volatile energy prices will push incentives for energy importers to diversify away from fossil fuels. This will likely catalyze individual and global efforts to decarbonize energy systems, boosting global demand for low carbon technologies and alternative sources of energy. China has the technological capabilities to benefit by anticipating and getting ahead of this all-important global shift.

Additionally, rising energy prices would challenge China’s investment and industry-led growth model, reinforcing the case for accelerated structural changes and rebalancing. High prices will increase pressures on China’s economy to diversify away from traditional investments and heavy industries, including iron, steel and cement production, which account for a disproportionate share of the country’s GDP but face diminishing returns and low productivity growth. The slowdown in the domestic real estate sector is already pointing in this direction. Higher energy prices could galvanize the shift toward an innovation- and services-based economic growth model.

Even as policymakers remain focused on mitigating the economic and social impact of recent sharp changes in relative prices, there are measures they can take today to prepare for the low carbon transition and reduce its costs. For example, rising energy prices will create incentives for more sustainable business models, but only if investors believe they are here to stay. This is why credible long-term guidance on the intended trajectory of carbon pricing and other policies to decarbonize China’s economy is so important. This would help investors anticipate future price increases and help bring clean energy investments forward without any immediate need to regulate or raise the price of carbon. The current period of high energy prices is the moment to provide such forward guidance, as market price incentives are already pointing in the right direction.

Fiscal policy can complement the role of price signals by supporting the necessary economic adjustment rather than trying to slow it down. The prospect of additional government stimulus to boost growth could provide the financing for a wave of green investments, including in the build-out and integration of more renewable energy capacity. In agriculture, rising fertilizer prices should provide incentives to reduce excessive usage. However, this shift would be thwarted if input-based subsidies remain in place. Instead, farmers could be compensated for higher input prices with subsidies that are tied to a shift toward resilient production methods. Field studies reveal that chemical fertilizers can be effectively substituted with animal manure, reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions at no cost to yields. To realize such a shift, greater investment in agricultural extension is required. 

Finally, rising energy and food prices would hurt the poor and more vulnerable households the most. But rather than providing subsidies across the board, a more robust and targeted social safety net could protect the vulnerable populations in urban and rural areas. Offering such targeted protection could ensure price signals are not diluted but the structural changes necessary for the transition to a greener and more innovative growth model don’t come at the expense of rising poverty and social inequality.

While adding headwinds to the near-term economic outlook, the current energy price shock reinforces the case for accelerating China’s energy transition. Policymakers should keep their eyes on the long-term target and use this opportunity to prepare the ground.

(first published on CGTN via World Bank)

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending