This year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) Risk Report focused its attention on the consequences of increasing social inequalities as well as climate and environmental conditions. It emphasises that the pandemic, particularly the way it has been managed, has contributed to increased inequalities between countries and social classes and has led to increased tensions within and across national borders.

Difficulties build support around climate and the environment

The report points to unemployment, inflation, unstable global supply chains, increasing protectionism and geopolitical unrest as examples of these tensions.  This situation makes it more difficult to build support for the coordinated measures needed to tackle major social issues such as climate and environmental change. These areas (social unrest and climate/environmental change) make up the top eight factors of the WEF’s Global Risk Factors for the world economy. The results are based on assessments from almost 1,000 international experts.

CCS and CDR are viewed as key measures

Within the field of climate change, the WEF points out that the lack of international cooperation on this issue will lead to ever-increasing tensions between countries and economic sectors. Political inaction on climate challenges will also lead to worsened climate impacts and require an even greater section of society to tackle the consequences experienced. A political desire to “ease the burden” on business life and civil society will be necessary to secure support for climate initiatives, but may also lead to a slowing down of transition that is needed. The report points out that countries with a significant dependence on fossil fuel-based energy have more to lose from the transition to renewable energy and because of this may be less willing to innovate. CCS and CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) are viewed as key measures for achieving climate goals, but may also end up being adopted in a way that results in “greenwashing” and weakens the structural transition that fossil fuel-based industries need to implement. The WEF points out that any route to a zero carbon emissions society will in all likelihood be quite “disorderly”.

Mitigation measures

Many governments have introduced mitigation measures such as tax and duty relief or price caps on energy bills – targeted specifically at those citizens vulnerable to “energy poverty”. Increased energy costs are mostly being driven by higher gas prices.

The spot price of natural gas in the UK in January was 3-4x that of the average price of the years before 2020, and energy prices have mostly followed the same trend. At the same time, gas and coal energy production has remained high over the last few months and has contributed to pressure on the carbon price, which was nearing €90 in January. However, many have pointed out that what we experienced this winter is not just being driven by short-term market fluctuations, but by long-term trends that will lead to higher global energy prices. Individual analysts have also pointed out that this development will keep driving up the carbon price and it could reach up to €150 by 2030.

The EU’s monetary policy must adapt to a new reality

In a talk held in January by the European Central Bank (ECB), it was pointed out that the energy transition that now stands before the EU will result in higher energy prices in general, and that the EU’s monetary policy must adapt to a new reality. The ECB indicates that in conjunction with high energy and carbon prices, the EU must also increase its investment in the green transition and that it must do this while protecting the most vulnerable groups in society.

It emphasises that monetary policy must be set in such a way that it prevents price increases on energy goods leading to higher inflation rates that will once again weaken the EU’s ability to achieve its societal goals. The talk stressed that, in addition to tax income from duties on carbon intensive goods from abroad (CBAM), revenues from the Emissions Trading Scheme and other taxes on emissions will increase from €14 billion in 2019, to €86 billion per year over the period 2026-2030. According to the ECB, taxes on carbon emissions will, therefore, contribute to reduced investments in fossil fuel-based energy and reduced dependence on imports over time, while also strengthening economic activity within the EU, maintaining domestic demand and leading to increased employment.

The German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck (The Greens), presented a status report in January on how well Germany is doing in terms of its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Germany is losing its pace

The report concludes that over the last few years, Germany has lost its pace of development, and that its average reduction in greenhouse gases must increase from 15 million tonnes of CO₂e per year to around 40 million tonnes per year up to 2030. It further states that accelerating the expansion of renewable energy and the removal of existing barriers for them is an “absolute priority”.

Two percent for wind energy production

A statutory goal that two percent of Germany’s land should be dedicated to land-based wind energy production was also announced. It is clear that the pace of decarbonisation in the manufacturing sector also needs to increase. It states that the German government will facilitate the use of contracts for difference in order to make environmentally friendly investments profitable and to provide predictability for manufacturing. Concrete measures suggested emphasise reforming the European Emissions Trading Scheme; the rapid expansion of renewable energy and of the German energy grid, as well as hydrogen production. The report also states that German authorities have no plans to lend support to the production or use of blue hydrogen.

Different forums of discussion

Energy types are essentially only entered into the taxonomy for a transitionary period in order to legitimise their role in achieving the 2050 climate goals. The content of the proposal has been known for some time and the debate has reached far and wide with clear dividing lines between countries and industries. Germany and other coal-dependent countries have pushed to include gas, but want to exclude nuclear energy, whilst France, for example, has pushed to include nuclear energy as well. Austria is one of the countries that has spoken out vehemently against both.

CCS comes into play

The European Commission has set a requirement that direct emissions from natural gas cannot exceed 270 g CO2e/kWh (a new gas-fired power plant produces c. 400 g CO2e/kWh). It also requires that any new gas-fired power plant must replace a coal-fired power plant and must also be completed before 2031. CCS will clearly be a necessary measure in meeting these emission restrictions. The European Parliament and individual member states will now debate the regulation and have four months to approve or reject the proposal.

Trouble for natural gas and nuclear energy: Disputes over the EU taxonomy

The European Commission recently presented its long-awaited regulatory proposal as to how natural gas and nuclear energy should be treated in the EU taxonomy for sustainable finance activities.

Different forums of discussion

Energy types are essentially only entered into the taxonomy for a transitionary period in order to legitimise their role in achieving the 2050 climate goals. The content of the proposal has been known for some time and the debate has reached far and wide with clear dividing lines between countries and industries. Germany and other coal-dependent countries have pushed to include gas, but want to exclude nuclear energy, whilst France, for example, has pushed to include nuclear energy as well. Austria is one of the countries that has spoken out vehemently against both.

CCS comes into play

The European Commission has set a requirement that direct emissions from natural gas cannot exceed 270 g CO2e/kWh (a new gas-fired power plant produces c. 400 g CO2e/kWh). It also requires that any new gas-fired power plant must replace a coal-fired power plant and must also be completed before 2031. CCS will clearly be a necessary measure in meeting these emission restrictions. The European Parliament and individual member states will now debate the regulation and have four months to approve or reject the proposal.

The German government: Germany will have to drastically switch gears to achieve its climate goals

 The German Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, Robert Habeck (The Greens), presented a status report in January on how well Germany is doing in terms of its goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Germany is losing its pace

The report concludes that over the last few years, Germany has lost its pace of development, and that its average reduction in greenhouse gases must increase from 15 million tonnes of CO2e per year to around 40 million tonnes per year up to 2030. It further states that accelerating the expansion of renewable energy and the removal of existing barriers for them is an “absolute priority”.

Two percent for wind energy production

A statutory goal that two percent of Germany’s land should be dedicated to land-based wind energy production was also announced. It is clear that the pace of decarbonisation in the manufacturing sector also needs to increase. It states that the German government will facilitate the use of contracts for difference in order to make environmentally friendly investments profitable and to provide predictability for manufacturing. Concrete measures suggested emphasise reforming the European Emissions Trading Scheme; the rapid expansion of renewable energy and of the German energy grid, as well as hydrogen production. The report also states that German authorities have no plans to lend support to the production or use of blue hydrogen.

Pressure in the energy markets; energy prices, carbon emissions and carbon prices increasing – but for how long?

The high energy prices experienced in Europe this winter have led to challenges across different industries and created a general pressure on prices across the economy, which has been felt by many people.

Mitigation measures

Many governments have introduced mitigation measures such as tax and duty relief or price caps on energy bills – targeted specifically at those citizens vulnerable to “energy poverty”. Increased energy costs are mostly being driven by higher gas prices.

The spot price of natural gas in the UK in January was 3-4x that of the average price of the years before 2020, and energy prices have mostly followed the same trend. At the same time, gas and coal energy production has remained high over the last few months and has contributed to pressure on the carbon price, which was nearing €90 in January. However, many have pointed out that what we experienced this winter is not just being driven by short-term market fluctuations, but by long-term trends that will lead to higher global energy prices. Individual analysts have also pointed out that this development will keep driving up the carbon price and it could reach up to €150 by 2030.

The EU’s monetary policy must adapt to a new reality

In a talk held in January by the European Central Bank (ECB), it was pointed out that the energy transition that now stands before the EU will result in higher energy prices in general, and that the EU’s monetary policy must adapt to a new reality. The ECB indicates that in conjunction with high energy and carbon prices, the EU must also increase its investment in the green transition and that it must do this while protecting the most vulnerable groups in society.

It emphasises that monetary policy must be set in such a way that it prevents price increases on energy goods leading to higher inflation rates that will once again weaken the EU’s ability to achieve its societal goals. The talk stressed that, in addition to tax income from duties on carbon intensive goods from abroad (CBAM), revenues from the Emissions Trading Scheme and other taxes on emissions will increase from €14 billion in 2019, to €86 billion per year over the period 2026-2030. According to the ECB, taxes on carbon emissions will, therefore, contribute to reduced investments in fossil fuel-based energy and reduced dependence on imports over time, while also strengthening economic activity within the EU, maintaining domestic demand and leading to increased employment.

The WEF Global Risks Report 2022: increased social inequality and a disorderly approach to climate challenges

This year’s World Economic Forum (WEF) Risk Report focused its attention on the consequences of increasing social inequalities as well as climate and environmental conditions. It emphasises that the pandemic, particularly the way it has been managed, has contributed to increased inequalities between countries and social classes and has led to increased tensions within and across national borders.

Difficulties build support around climate and the environment

The report points to unemployment, inflation, unstable global supply chains, increasing protectionism and geopolitical unrest as examples of these tensions.  This situation makes it more difficult to build support for the coordinated measures needed to tackle major social issues such as climate and environmental change. These areas (social unrest and climate/environmental change) make up the top eight factors of the WEF’s Global Risk Factors for the world economy. The results are based on assessments from almost 1,000 international experts.

CCS and CDR are viewed as key measures

Within the field of climate change, the WEF points out that the lack of international cooperation on this issue will lead to ever-increasing tensions between countries and economic sectors. Political inaction on climate challenges will also lead to worsened climate impacts and require an even greater section of society to tackle the consequences experienced. A political desire to “ease the burden” on business life and civil society will be necessary to secure support for climate initiatives, but may also lead to a slowing down of transition that is needed. The report points out that countries with a significant dependence on fossil fuel-based energy have more to lose from the transition to renewable energy and because of this may be less willing to innovate. CCS and CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) are viewed as key measures for achieving climate goals, but may also end up being adopted in a way that results in “greenwashing” and weakens the structural transition that fossil fuel-based industries need to implement. The WEF points out that any route to a zero carbon emissions society will in all likelihood be quite “disorderly”.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office criticises the Department of Energy for poor financial management of CCS projects

 In a report published in December, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided information on investigations into DoE funding allocations and follow-up of nine large CCS demonstration projects.

$1.1 billion in support

In total, the DoE awarded $1.1 billion in support over the period 2009-17. Of the projects supported, six were linked to power generation ($684 million) and three to industrial processes ($438 million). Of the power generation projects, only one was successfully completed (Petra Nova), but even this was closed down in 2020 after only three years in operation.

Of the industry projects, two were completed (Air Products, Texas and Archer Daniels, Illinois). The GAO has two recommendations:

• that the DoE improve its project selection and negotiation processes and
• that they be more consistent in their follow-up of projects with regards to their scope, timelines and budgets.

The recommendations were particularly aimed at flaws in the DoE’s selection of coal-fired energy projects that they believe were rushed and not completed according to proper regulations. This also covered the assessment of market related conditions to do with the prospects of coal vs. natural gas. According to the GAO, this led to substantial extra costs for taxpayers.

Denmark stumps up cash for CCS   

Just before Christmas, the Danish government got a majority in the Folketing to support the development of a CCS market that could be up and running from 2025.

Funds of up to DKK 16 billion

A total of up to DKK 16 billion is planned to be made available with an ambition of capturing and storing 0.4 million tonnes of CO₂ from 2025, and 0.9 million tonnes from 2030. This agreement also opens the door for CO₂ to be used for synthetic fuel production. The first announcement of funds is expected to take place this year.

Heavy industry and Combined Heat and Power Plants that burn waste are pointed to as relevant potential applicants.

Facts

• A timetable for the capture, transport and storage of carbon is the second part of the overall strategy for carbon capture and storage. The first part came in June.
• The Danish Climate Agreement for Energy and Industry 2020 allows for the establishment of a pool of funds of up to DKK 16 billion in two funding waves for the development of carbon capture, transport, storage.
• In the short-term, funds are available to CO₂ emitters interested in carbon storage and transport etc., and who take responsibility for documenting their CO₂ reductions.
• The Agreement paves the way for the implementation of CO₂ reductions of 0.4 tonnes per year from 2025.
• It is supplemented by a range of long-term initiatives, which will lead to a market-based rollout of CCS in Denmark, by introducing taxes and expenditure on emissions purchases, for example.
• The agreement is also focussed on strengthening global CCS through EU regulation and promoting Denmark as a European carbon storage hub.
• In June, the Danish government and a large number of others agreed to the plan and timetable for introducing carbon storage. This is the first step in Denmark’s overall CCS strategy. DKK 210 million was set aside for GEUS to survey potential carbon storage sites.
• The timetable for carbon capture, transport and storage is a supplement to the green sub-agreement of the Finance Act 2022 agreed on by the Danish Social Liberal Party, the Socialist People’s Party, the Red-Green Alliance, The Alternative and the Christian Democrats, with DKK 2.5 billion set aside for a carbon capture funding pool. It is expected to lead to CO₂ reductions of 0.5 tonnes per year from 2025.

---

The Environmental Analysis is prepared by Gassnova’s analysis team.

Text: TCM

Bridging the gap 

TCM is advancing carbon capture for a cleaner and greener future, by bridging the gap between technology developers, science and industrial application of CO₂ technologies. The main objective of TCM is to test, verify and demonstrate different technologies related to cost-efficient and industrial scale CO₂ capture. Moreover, we provide advisory services to carbon capture projects. Our goal is to facilitate the advancement of carbon capture technology for mass deployment across industries. We are an important part of Norway’s contribution to mitigate climate change.  

 

Follow us in the anniversary year 

Throughout the anniversary year, we will describe important events and projects since the start in 2012, and show films that better than words explain why we are so proud of the company and its business. We will also interview people wo played an important role in the establishment and construction of TCM, and who have contributed to the implementation of test campaigns that have given technology suppliers and research environments important knowledge on how to capture CO₂ with the best possible effect and the greatest possible safety at the lowest possible cost. 

We hope you follow us on the exiting journey through TCM’s history. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

From being expensive and dangerous, to being warmly welcomed

As usual, the viewpoint of the individual, including their basic assumptions, is crucial for the conclusions they arrive at. Over the years, industrial CDR (such as Bio CCS and DACCS) has been warned against as a costly or dangerous ‘distraction’, to becoming increasingly welcomed and is now frequently mentioned as a requirement for achieving climate goals. This is similar to the change in opinion over time around CCS. Before 2020, while the EU’s climate goal was an 80-95% reduction in greenhouse gasses by 2050 compared to 1990, there were many industrial organisations that strongly believed that CCS would not be needed before 2050. But since an ever increasing share of the global economy is now subject to a goal of net-zero emissions (now: 80%), the public discourse has changed dramatically in a short space of time – on CCS, CCU and CDR. That said, it cannot be guaranteed that any industrial CDR will be fit for purpose. The laws of physics, limited natural resources and the need to be profitable will continue to limit what can be realistically achieved. 

The strategy under development could include a goal of 5Mt CO₂ stored each year through industrial CDR

One important development worthy of mention is the EU strategy currently in preparation which could include a goal of 5Mt CO₂ stored each year through industrial CDR. During COP26 in November, the USA announced an initiative to remove 1 Gt CO₂ from the atmosphere (CDR) at a cost of less than $100/tonne by 2050. And in November the Swedish Energy Agency delivered its recommendation to the Swedish government of a support system to remove up to 2 million tonnes of CO₂ per year fro the atmosphere through Bio CCS by 2030.

In November, the IEA released its updated assessment on the status of DACCS and also recently published an article with recommendations as to how member nations could realise the potential BECCS represents. In their ‘Net Zero 2050’ scenario, the IEA says of DACCS that close to 90 Mt CO₂ per year will need to be extracted by 2030. According to the IEA, one of the steps that public authorities can take to promote a market for CDR is to buy CO₂ reductions directly from businesses offering it.

 

Text: TCM DA

Shah succeeds Robert Henricks, who has been acting Managing Director since September 2021.

– We are happy that Shah has agreed to lead TCM. He has solid professional background and broad experience from leading demanding projects with CO₂ capture, says Chairman of TCM’s Company Meeting, Svein Ingar Semb. Semb represents Gassnova SF, which on behalf of the Norwegian state has a stake in TCM of 73.9 percent. Equinor, Shell and TotalEnergies are TCM’s other owners, who agree with the promotion of Shah.

Looking forward to getting started

– TCM is the world’s largest and most flexible test center for verification of CO₂ capture technologies, and a leading competence center in the field. I take on the leadership with humility, energy and great joy. We have a lot of excting tasks ahead of us in the development of technologies that contribute to reduce climate emissions, says Muhammad Ismail Shah.

Shah holds a Bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Engineering an Technology in Peshawar, Pakistan. He also has a Master’s degree in oil and gas engineering from Aalborg University, Denmark. Shah started his professional career in 2008 with projects for the conversion of biomass to transport fuel. In 2011, he was hired as a technology consultant at Gassnova, and five years later seconded to TCM.

In addition to participating in the management of test projects for CO₂ capture technologies at Mongstad, Shah has also written a number of research-based publications on the topic.

Muhammad Ismail Shah is married, has four children and lives in Alversund in Alver municipality.

Acting CEO Robert Henricks returns to his role as Operating Officer at TCM. – It has been a demanding period of great activity at TCM under Henrick’s leadership, at the same time as an ongoing pandemic. We thank him for his excellent efforts, says Svein Ingar Semb.

About TCM

TCM is advancing carbon capture for a cleaner and greener future, by bridging the gap between technology developers, science and industrial application of CO₂ technologies. The main objective of TCM is to test, verify and demonstrate different technologies related to cost-efficient and industrial scale CO₂ capture.

TCM also offers advisory services for carbon capture projects. The aim is to facilitate the spread of carbon capture technology in varous industries. Technology Centre Mongstad is thus an important part of Norway’s contribution to the fight against climate change.

Historic reductions in the cost of renewable energy are greater than predicted

Essential to understanding the results of the analysis is the emphasis it places on the historic cost reductions in renewable energy (wind/solar + battery) being greater than predicted in most of the analysis models (‘integrated assessment model’) that are used internationally. That the IEA and others have systematically underestimated the reduction in cost of renewable energy in trend projection analyses matches with a range of experiences in the sector.

However, the conclusions drawn in the article are easy to understand

The value of CCS is more stable when it is employed in areas that are less exposed to competition from renewable energy – such as from process-related emissions (i.e. cement works) and carbon negative solutions (BECCS and DACCS). ‘Value’ here means the marginal reduction of societal costs provided by a climate initiative compared with not adopting the initiative. The value of CCS is less stable when CCS is used in combination with fossil fuel-based energy as it is in direct competition with renewable energy – such as gas power with CCS and blue hydrogen production. In these areas, the value of CCS is reduced by between 61% and 96% compared with what the authors believe to be more normal assumptions about the cost development of renewable energy. 

Should contribute to significant reductions in emissions up to 2050

The supported projects must be particularly innovative and act as major contributions to significant reductions in emissions up to 2050. The Fund aims to support a wide range of technologies, industries and geographical locations in the EU. The projects selected this time around had profiles in industries regarded as ‘hard-to-abate’, and where the project itself will result in significant reductions in emissions. 

4/7 projects incorporate CCS as a part of their solutions

6 out of 7 projects feature a large element of renewable energy or a transition from fossil to renewable energy. 4 out of 7 incorporate CCS as a part of their solution. 5 out of 7 were based in Northern and Western Europe, with none in Central and Eastern Europe. 3 of the projects include elements on the production/use of hydrogen, such as the Swedish HYBRIT project using green hydrogen for steel production. One project involves capturing biogenic CO₂ (CCU) from waste for use in chemicals and biofuels. Announcement no. 2 from the Fund is ongoing, with a €1.5 billion pot. 

The CCS Environmental Analysis is prepared by Gassnova’s analysis team.