Refine
Year of Publication
Document Type
- Peer-Reviewed Article (15)
- Report (12)
- Conference Object (8)
- Working Paper (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (43) (remove)
The Port of Rotterdam is an important industrial cluster mainly comprising of oil refining, chemical manufacturing and power and steam generation. In 2015, the area accounted for 18 % of the Netherlands' total CO2 emissions. The Port of Rotterdam Authority is aware that the port's economy is heavily exposed to future global and EU decarbonization policies, as the bulk of its activities focuses on trading, handling, converting and using fossil fuels. Based on a study for the Port Authority, our paper explores possible pathways of how the industrial cluster can keep its strong market position in Europe and still reduce its CO2 emissions by 98 % by 2050. The "Biomass and CCS" scenario assumes that large amounts of biomass can be supplied sustainably and will be used in the port for power generation as well as for feedstock for refineries and the chemical industry. Fischer-Tropsch fuel generation plays an important role in this scenario, allowing the port to become a key cluster for the production of synthetic fuels and feedstocks in Western Europe. The "Closed Carbon Cycle" scenario assumes that renewables-based electricity will be used at the port to supply heat and hydrogen for the synthetic generation of feedstock for the chemical industry. The carbon required for the chemicals will stem from recycled waste. Technologies particularly needed in this scenario are water electrolysis and gasification or pyrolysis to capture carbon from waste, as well as technologies for the production of base chemicals from syngas. The paper compares both scenarios with regard to their respective technological choices and infrastructural changes. The scenarios’ particular opportunities and challenges are also discussed. Using possible future pathways of a major European petrochemical cluster as an example, the paper illustrates options for deep decarbonisation of energy intensive industries in the EU and beyond.
As part of this dissertation, a categorisation of the social costs of electricity supply is suggested. The following three main cost categories are differentiated: plant-level costs, system costs and external costs. Different types of costs are allocated to these categories and are examined and quantified (to the extent possible) for several power generation technologies. The limits of monetizing certain types of costs are also discussed. In a further step, and based on a large number of empirical studies, individual factors that have had a significant influence on the development of plant-level costs in the past, are identified and categorized. Finally, based on an online survey conducted among energy modellers, the dissertation examines to what extent the identified relevant types of costs and cost-influencing factors are taken into account in different types of energy models.
Germany and Japan have both gained substantial experience with hydrogen production and applications, albeit with focus on different sectors. They also share similar drivers for hydrogen development and, of course, similar technical and economic opportunities and challenges. However, there also are relevant differences in the policy priorities and approaches.
Notwithstanding differing emphases and patterns, the two countries share three main drivers for hydrogen development and deployment: climate mitigation and other environmental goals, energy supply diversification, and technological leadership. In this context, hydrogen has been identified by the German and the Japanese governments during the Energy Policy Dialogue as having potential for closer cooperation.
The authors of this study provide an overview of demand-side deployment by sector (residential, transport, industry, power generation and power-to-x) for both countries, as well as of their hydrogen policy debates, key institutions, R&D programs and demonstration projects. They also present a short survey on relevant international platforms and initiatives in which Japan and Germany participate.
On the basis of a meta-analysis of the role of hydrogen in 18 long-term energy system scenarios for Germany and 12 scenarios for Japan, this study draws conclusions on the possible role of hydrogen in the long term energy policy debates of both countries. Subsequently, the authors discuss sustainability criteria and certification schemes for clean hydrogen, compare the greenhouse gas intensity of different hydrogen supply chains and provide a data-based analysis to identify countries which could become important suppliers of clean hydrogen.
The Paris Agreement introduces long-term strategies as an instrument to inform progressively more ambitious emission reduction objectives, while holding development goals paramount in the context of national circumstances. In the lead up to the twenty-first Conference of the Parties, the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project developed mid-century low-emission pathways for 16 countries, based on an innovative pathway design framework. In this Perspective, we describe this framework and show how it can support the development of sectorally and technologically detailed, policy-relevant and country-driven strategies consistent with the Paris Agreement climate goal. We also discuss how this framework can be used to engage stakeholder input and buy-in; design implementation policy packages; reveal necessary technological, financial and institutional enabling conditions; and support global stocktaking and increasing of ambition.
Phasing out coal in the German energy sector : interdependencies, challenges and potential solutions
(2019)
Relevant aspects of the options and requirements for reducing and phasing out coal-fired power generation have been under debate for several years. This process has produced a range of strategies, analyses and arguments, outlining how coal use in the energy sector could be reduced and phased out in the planned time frame, and determining structural policy measures suitable to support this. This Coal Report studies the existing analyses and provides an overview of the state of debate. It is intended to provide information on facts and contexts, present the advantages and disadvantages of individual courses of action, and reveal the respective scientific backgrounds. It strives to take a scientific and independent approach, and present facts in concise language, making it easy to follow for readers who are not experts in the field, without excessive abridgements or provocative statements.
The Port of Rotterdam is an important industrial cluster, comprising mainly oil refining, chemical production and power generation. In 2016, the port's industry accounted for 19% of the Netherlands' total CO2 emissions. The Port of Rotterdam Authority is aware that the cluster is heavily exposed to future decarbonisation policies, as most of its activities focus on trading, handling, converting and using fossil fuels. Based on a study for the Port Authority using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, our article explores three pathways whereby the port's industry can maintain its strong position while significantly reducing its CO2 emissions and related risks by 2050. The pathways differ in terms of the EU's assumed climate change mitigation ambitions and the key technological choices made by the cluster's companies. The focus of the paper is on identifying key risks associated with each scenario and ways in which these could be mitigated.
This paper analyses and compares industry sector transformation strategies as envisioned in recent German, European and global deep decarbonisation scenarios.
The first part of the paper identifies and categorises ten key strategies for deep emission reductions in the industry sector. These ten key strategies are energy efficiency, direct electrification, use of climateneutral hydrogen and/or synthetic fuels, use of biomass, use of CCS, use of CCU, increases in material efficiency, circular economy, material substitution and end-use demand reductions. The second part of the paper presents a meta-analysis of selected scenarios, focusing on the question of which scenario relies to what extent on the respective mitigation strategies.
The key findings of the meta-analysis are discussed, with an emphasis on identifying those strategies that are commonly pursued in all or the vast majority of the scenarios and those strategies that are only pursued in a limited number of the scenarios. Possible reasons for differences in the choice of strategies are investigated.
The paper concludes by deriving key insights from the analysis, including identifying the main uncertainties that are still apparent with regard to the future steps necessary to achieve deep emission reductions in the industry sector and how future research can address these uncertainties.
Roadmaps for India's energy future foresee that coal power will continue to play a considerable role until the middle of the 21st century. Among other options, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being considered as a potential technology for decarbonising the power sector. Consequently, it is important to quantify the relative benefits and trade-offs of coal-CCS in comparison to its competing renewable power sources from multiple sustainability perspectives. In this paper, we assess coal-CCS pathways in India up to 2050 and compare coal-CCS with conventional coal, solar PV and wind power sources through an integrated assessment approach coupled with a nexus perspective (energy-cost-climate-water nexus). Our levelized costs assessment reveals that coal-CCS is expensive and significant cost reductions would be needed for CCS to compete in the Indian power market. In addition, although carbon pricing could make coal-CCS competitive in relation to conventional coal power plants, it cannot influence the lack of competitiveness of coal-CCS with respect to renewables. From a climate perspective, CCS can significantly reduce the life cycle GHG emissions of conventional coal power plants, but renewables are better positioned than coal-CCS if the goal is ambitious climate change mitigation. Our water footprint assessment reveals that coal-CCS consumes an enormous volume of water resources in comparison to conventional coal and, in particular, to renewables. To conclude, our findings highlight that coal-CCS not only suffers from typical new technology development related challenges - such as a lack of technical potential assessments and necessary support infrastructure, and high costs - but also from severe resource constraints (especially water) in an era of global warming and the competition from outperforming renewable power sources. Our study, therefore, adds a considerable level of techno-economic and environmental nexus specificity to the current debate about coal-based large-scale CCS and the low carbon energy transition in emerging and developing economies in the Global South.
This report was prepared by the Wuppertal Institute in cooperation with the German Economic Institute as part of the SCI4climate.NRW project. The report aims to shed light on the possible phenomenon that the availability and costs of "green" energy sources may become a relevant location factor for basic materials produced in a climate-neutral manner in the future.
For this purpose, we introduce the term "Renewables Pull". We define Renewables Pull as the initially hypothetical phenomenon of a shift of industrial production from one region to another as a result of different marginal costs of renewable energies (or of secondary energy sources or feedstocks based on renewable energies).
Shifts in industrial production in the sense of Renewables Pull can in principle be caused by differences in the stringency of climate policies in different countries, as in the case of Carbon Leakage. Unlike Carbon Leakage, however, Renewables Pull can also occur if similarly ambitious climate policies are implemented in different countries. This is because Renewables Pull is primarily determined by differences in the costs and availability of renewable energies. In addition, Renewables Pull can also be triggered by cost reductions of renewable energies and by changing preferences on the demand side towards climate-friendly products. Another important difference to Carbon Leakage is that the Renewables Pull effect does not necessarily counteract climate policy.
Similar to Carbon Leakage, it is to be expected that Renewables Pull could become relevant primarily for very energy-intensive products in basic materials industries. In these sectors (e.g. in the steel or chemical industry), there is also the possibility that relocations of specific energy-intensive parts of the production process could trigger domino effects. As a result, large parts of the value chains previously existing in a country or region could also be subjected to an (indirect) Renewables Pull effect.
For the federal state of NRW, in which the basic materials industry plays an important role, the possible emergence of Renewables Pull is associated with significant challenges as climate policy in Germany, the EU and also worldwide is expected to become more ambitious in the future.
This report aims to enable and initiate a deeper analysis of the potential future developments and challenges associated with the Renewables Pull effect. Thus, in the final chapter of the report, several research questions are formulated that can be answered in the further course of the SCI4climate.NRW project as well as in other research projects.
The basic materials industries are a cornerstone of Europe's economic prosperity, increasing gross value added and providing around 2 million high-quality jobs. But they are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite efficiency improvements, emissions from these industries were mostly constant for several years prior to the Covid-19 crisis and today account for 20 per cent of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.
A central question is therefore: How can the basic material industries in the EU become climate-neutral by 2050 while maintaining a strong position in a highly competitive global market? And how can these industries help the EU reach the higher 2030 climate target - a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of at least 55 per cent relative to 1990 levels?
In the EU policy debate on the European Green Deal, many suppose that the basic materials industries can do little to achieve deep cuts in emissions by 2030. Beyond improvements to the efficiency of existing technologies, they assume that no further innovations will be feasible within that period. This study takes a different view. It shows that a more ambitious approach involving the early implementation of key low-carbon technologies and a Clean Industry Package is not just possible, but in fact necessary to safeguard global competitiveness.