Nuclear power has been around for some time. By itself, this power generation is almost carbon-free. 

However, disasters like Tsjernobyl and Fukushima exposed the risks of nuclear power generation, which can be categorized as having a small chance of occurring but a very large long-term impact on the environment and society.

Leon

The German government has finally made good on its promise to complete the so-called &lsquo;atomausstieg&rsquo; or decommissioning of the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany. Europe&rsquo;s biggest economy is therefore no longer running on any nuclear power and will fully commit to renewable and other low-carbon technologies to power the country. Interestingly, at almost the same time the newest nuclear reactor in Europe, the Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, has come online for commercial production. This seems quite contradictory l and I felt the need to share my thoughts on the place of nuclear power in the energy transition.
Nuclear power has been around for some time. The clear benefit of being able to produce large amounts of heat (and thus power) with small amounts of fuel and low waste was quickly realized and harnessed. Currently, a very large fleet of nuclear power stations exists around the world. By itself, this power generation is almost carbon-free. However, disasters like Tsjernobyl and Fukushima exposed the risks of nuclear power generation, which can be categorized as having a small chance of occurring (only 2 major incidents in over 80 years) but a very large long-term impact on the environment and society. Therefore, the trend was to wind down nuclear power generation in most regions, with some notable exceptions in particular emerging economies like China, Russia, India and Bangladesh.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The steady emergency of the energy transition, and thus the addition of intermittent energy sources like solar and wind to a statically designed grid, has reversed this discussion somewhat. You could argue that anchoring the energy system with a base of steady low-carbon nuclear power is a good thing and actually helps to overcome some of the intermittent and storage challenges we are facing now. On top of that, the energy crisis caused by the Ukraine war also exposed the weakness of over-reliance on energy sources controlled by other states (natural gas imports from Russia) and refocused the discussion on domestic nuclear power. Currently, there is a clear trend of plans to add nuclear generation, particularly in Asia.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Having said all that, I still think that the German government is mostly right. Despite all these notable advantages and the current upward trend, I would still argue that nuclear will not have a major advantage and place in the energy transition. There are a few simple reasons for that:
<h2>Current energy costs</h2>
Although Nuclear power is steady in costs, it is still significantly higher than renewables like solar and wind. The latest levelized costs reported by Lazard states that nuclear power generation costs are between 4 and 6 times higher than solar and wind. This includes costs for the storage of energy for solar and wind.&nbsp;
<img style="display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/6082c406065f7d914c2382dcedc6016d041cdb21.png?" alt="Levelized cost of energy comparison" />
Source: Lazard
<h2>Complexity</h2>
Building and operating a nuclear power plant is very complex. Even the most recent addition to the European fleet in Finland was delayed by 18 years before coming online. It also reported a significant budget overrun and was plagued with all kinds of technical issues. 
Another system in the UK has similar problems and the completion date is constantly being pushed ahead. Simply put, it is very hard and costly to build a safe nuclear power plant. Compare this with setting up solar, wind and biogas systems and those are a breeze to build.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>Energy security&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>
Proponents of nuclear often point to the energy security angle. However, this is slightly flawed as, at least in Europe, most nuclear fuel comes from abroad as well. Countries like Kazakhstan are major suppliers but also Canada and the US. That is not in itself a problem but the characterization that nuclear is immune to geopolitical instability is simply not true.
<h2>Safety&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>
Nuclear power is safe but if something happens, it causes significant damage over a very long period. In addition, there is still no satisfactory long-term solution for storing nuclear waste. A significant amount is being processed and made safe but there is still a portion that needs to be stored for thousands of years. Again, compare this with other renewables that do not have this risk profile at all and are relatively easy to install and operate.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Simply put, nuclear power has some major drawbacks in terms of price, complexity and safety that will not change soon. Compared to other readily available renewables it simply makes no sense to add new generation capacity. Also, unless you compromise on the safety aspects, it will take decades to build a single reactor. The world will have moved on significantly by then and have even more cheap renewables in place. So the perceived benefit is gone by then. And yes, the spent fuel could be used for nuclear fusion but that is also at least 30 years away.&nbsp;
My advice would be to keep what you have, but not to invest any further in nuclear power but instead focus on actual renewables, storage and grid flexibility. That is cheaper, less complex and gives us low-carbon energy much quicker!
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

To nuclear or not to nuclear?

There is ample evidence that we need to significantly reduce our GHG emissions to stave off potentially disastrous climate change. Evidence of this can already be seen in unusual dryness/wetness and high/low temperatures for the time of year. I genuinely believe nobody wants this to happen. But that does not make it easy to deal with the changing behavior, technology and growth outlook that this entails. A clear example of this is the discussion surrounding the heat pump that was recently started with a report by the Dutch National Environmental Database Foundation (NMD).

For almost everybody, it is pretty clear that our current energy system and economy need to decarbonize. There is ample evidence that we need to significantly reduce our GHG emissions to stave off potentially disastrous climate change. Evidence of this can already be seen in unusual dryness/wetness and high/low temperatures for the time of year. I genuinely believe nobody wants this to happen. But that does not make it easy to deal with the changing behavior, technology and growth outlook that this entails. A clear example of this is the discussion surrounding the heat pump that was recently started with a report by the Dutch National Environmental Database Foundation (NMD). Basically, this report stated that a heat pump is much more polluting than anybody previously thought.
This fact got taken up by a lot of people and organizations as evidence that even the prized sustainable option of the heat pump is not ‘clean’ and we should therefore go back to burning natural gas in our homes or just wait until other options like nuclear fusion are available to solve all our problems. I understand this reaction to a certain extent. We are used to specific technologies and use cases in our homes such as a natural gas boiler. These are especially prevalent in regions where natural gas was, or is, the dominant fuel like in the Netherlands, UK and Germany. Being told that we need to electrify and that this entails installing a quite expensive and bulky heat pump can be hard to digest for some, especially if it is perceived as top-down. Any evidence stating that this might potentially not be the best solution is then taken up immediately to justify waiting and not changing.
But let’s examine this claim a little further. Just a simple analysis of the workings of a heat pump compared to a natural gas boiler makes it clear that a significant CO2 reduction is just a fact. A heat pump extracts energy from its surroundings and upgrades this to useful heat with electricity. It does this with an efficiency coefficient between 3 to 5, thus generating 3 to 5 units of useful energy (heat) with 1 unit of energy input (electricity). A natural gas-fired boiler will convert 1 unit of energy input (natural gas) into 1 unit of useful energy (heat). So even if you power the heat pump completely with fossil fuel electricity, you are still more efficient by a factor of 2 or more and thus less polluting than with natural gas. Furthermore, the heat pump can be powered with renewable electricity, of which we currently have a significant share that is fast rising, while the natural gas boiler can only be powered by biomethane or hydrogen, of which we have very little and none at all at the moment. So a heat pump has a very real possibility of achieving zero emissions in the near future, which in fact it comes closer to every year, compared to the continued use of natural gas boilers.
But that is not the heart of the calculation by the NMD. The main reason why the environmental impact is high stems from the use of materials in the production process. The calculations used are giving this a factor of 11 times more impact compared to the use of materials for manufacturing a natural gas boiler, giving it a ‘weight’ of 16-37% in the Dutch new building code. This frankly makes no sense because it would mean that the materials of the heat pump used in the new building code would be the equivalent of 16-37% of the actual weight of the total building. A heat pump is a heavy machine and bulkier than a gas-fired boiler but this is simply not true. It may also use a little bit more electronics (and thus heavy and rare earth metals) in comparison but by no means is this significantly more than a normal natural gas boiler. The reason the NMD arrives at this conclusion is by assuming that the coolant used in the heat pumps is not disposed of properly and ends up completely in the environment. And because the calculations do not take into account the evident (and not denied) environmental benefit of using a heat pump as opposed to a boiler, all the negative effects of the coolant give rise to a bad score.
By itself, the coolant is indeed a quite powerful greenhouse gas. The older coolant (R410a) is 2000 times more powerful than CO2, while the newer standard used like R32 is 675 times more powerful. The future use of propane will limit this negative effect further to only 3. The study calculates completely with this R410a and, thus, the most negative case.
But is the use of even the most ‘polluting’ coolant really a problem? Not exactly. Of course, we should be careful with the use of resources and materials and enable the best possible recycling practices. This is also completely possible for heat pumps and specifically the coolant, as is now also the case with refrigerators and freezers. Assuming it all ends up in the environment is quite a stretch at best. But even if you assume the worst-case scenario, it pales in comparison with the gains over a lifetime of using a heat pump. When taking this into account, 90% of the benefit is during use. More importantly, the heat pump can be completely zero emission in a decade or so, which is very much debatable for a gas-fired boiler. So a heat pump still remains a very sustainable option to heat your home!
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@divewithchuck?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Charles Black</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/F7HGqkkMYAU?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>

The Bumpy Road to Decarbonization: The Heat Pump Discussion

The cut off of natural gas flows from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine last year brought about a huge rise in natural gas prices. Governments were scrambling to secure alternative supplies. Ideally renewable and domestically. So the question was asked ‘what are the sustainable alternatives for natural gas right now’? and the answer was ‘only biomethane’.

Recently I noticed a sharp increase in interest in the biomethane and biogas sector. It seems that interest is piquing amongst investors, policy makers and companies for this, in my humble opinion, somewhat neglected sustainable fuel. So what is causing this and is it deserved?
As a short recap; biogas is a fuel that is derived from biomass sources. There are basically two ways to generate biogas, either through anaerobic digestion (AD) or through gasification. AD is most commonly used and works with bacteria converting wet biomass, like manure, to biogas which contains 60% methane and 40% CO2. Biogas can be used to generate electricity and heat directly or be converted to biomethane which entails upgrading the raw biogas to the natural gas standard. Biomethane can be used to inject into the natural gas grid or for transportation fuels like bio-LNG or bio-CNG.
Currently there are thousands of biogas plants in operation across Europe and globally and the sector has been quietly growing for decades. Some of the key characteristics of the sector as a whole are the relatively small plants, remoteness of operations (often at farmers), constrained biomass streams and dependency on financial and policy support. Before the tragic invasion of Ukraine natural gas and power prices were always lower than the cost of biogas electricity or biomethane. In addition, it seemed that a massive scale up of these by definition scattered systems would be complicated and there were questions about the sustainability of the fuel since the produced CO2 is released again in the atmosphere and energy crops are required to boost the biogas output. Also, the sector suffered from chronic under investment due to volatility of policy support. All told it had its place in the energy transition but in the minds of most politicians and business it would have remained small.
But then everything changed. The cut off of natural gas flows from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine last year brought about a huge rise in natural gas prices. Governments were scrambling to secure alternative supplies. Ideally renewable and domestically. So the question was asked ‘what are the sustainable alternatives for natural gas right now’? and the answer was ‘only biomethane’. Hydrogen has a huge potential to be a scalable solution for especially heavy industry and transport but it is not yet here. The same applies to other more exotic renewable molecules like DME, Ammonia or syngas.
This realization has hit home hard in my opinion. The elephant in the room is that if we had had a higher penetration of renewables at the start of this period we would not have had the same dependency and volatility in the pricing. With lightning speed the EU managed to reduce the dependency on Russian supplies and install new LNG terminals to get natural gas into the market. But this is not helping the climate targets, only securing energy for the short term. The launch of REPowerEU recognized this and provided a great stepping stone for biomethane to become more mainstream as a sustainable molecule, setting the target to 35 billion cubic meters (BCM) by 2030. A huge step up from the current 4-5 BCM and implying a massive acceleration.
Is this position and subsequent target deserved? I think It is. Although perhaps a slow starter, biogas has a lot of advantages and fits very well in the current energy transition pathway. According to Guidehouse and the European Biogas Association, there is enough biomass available to have 41 BCM of biomethane by 2030. This could increase to 151 BCM by 2050, combining gasification and anaerobic digestion. Coupled with the expected reduction of the natural gas demand due to increased electrification, biomethane can become the dominant molecule and account for almost all remaining gas demand by 2050. This is even without any potential Hydrogen supply.
Also price wise we are at a good level. Guidehouse calculated the cost of generating biomethane is between 55-110 euro per MWh. Compared to a current natural gas price of around 60 euro per MWh we are already in the neighborhood economically. With taking into account the current high ETS price the overall cost is already lower than natural gas.
And when you count other advantages like less dependency on imports outside the EU, job generation, digestate valorization (as fertilizer replacement) and supply of biogenic CO2, the benefits far outway the costs. Generating between 60 and 168 euros per MWh of value makes the case for biomethane even more attractive.
In conclusion, it is great news and well deserved that biogas and biomethane are back in the spotlight. It is proven technology that can be deployed domestically right away. It has been more costly than natural gas but this is changing and adding all other benefits it is clearly one of the most cost effective green molecules there is. Larger players like Shell and ENGIE are entering the market making it possible to scale even more quickly. My modest prediction will be that biomethane still has a long successful road ahead.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Cover photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/ko/@jkoblitz?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Julia Koblitz</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/JJkwsqNv4d0?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​ </h6>

Biomethane to the rescue!?

Hydrogen has a very large potential to aid decarbonization of the global energy mix. In the case of Africa hydrogen is less about decarbonization of the domestic energy mix (Africa already has a very low GHG contribution) but more about harnessing the vast resources and to leapfrog towards high GDP growth in a net zero and sustainable way.

Looking into the opportunities of Hydrogen in Africa for a project I am preparing, I felt the need to summarize some of my thoughts in this blog post. It is very interesting to read about the potential outlook in publications from the African Development Bank and European Investment Bank.
Hydrogen has a very large potential to aid decarbonization of the global energy mix. In the case of Africa hydrogen is less about decarbonization of the domestic energy mix (Africa already has a very low GHG contribution) but more about harnessing the vast resources and to leapfrog towards high GDP growth in a net zero and sustainable way:
<ul><li>Securing energy for domestic and trade use to fuel development.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Ensuring this energy is zero emission and renewable.</li></ul>
Hydrogen, mostly green but also blue or even brown, could fuel this development and ensure Africa a place in a growing market that is just starting. As opposed to the current fossil fuel era, that is mostly dominated by the northern hemisphere, Western and Middle East companies, and countries.
Africa has massive, underutilized resources such as solar, wind and hydro power. It has the space to accommodate renewable electricity at a very large scale which is needed to create high hydrogen production. In addition, some countries like Mozambique have huge natural gas deposits which in combination with carbon capture and storage can also be used for the production of blue hydrogen. This combination can create low-cost low carbon hydrogen in various colors for domestic use and development as well as international trade.
It is already clear that for example Europe will not be able to domestically produce all the demand for renewable energy. Low-cost hydrogen in the form of ammonia or directly by pipeline can be transported to Europe for use in heavy industry and transport. Africa has excellent transportation links or has the potential to build these. Creating a revenue stream to aid further development and economic growth, without adding to the carbon budget of the world. And in addition, decarbonize domestic energy use as well.
Essentially Africa is in an excellent position to be at the forefront of establishing a hydrogen economy, supplemented by other renewable energy applications and electrification.
Massive investments have been announced in Namibia, South Africa, Kenya and North Africa with projects totaling tens of billions USD. Pipelines for example in South Africa to transport hydrogen to industrial clusters and harbors for transport. Namibia announced a very large hydrolyzer project of 2 gigawatts production. All these projects are of course in the planning stage but it indicates the importance and potential of hydrogen as a market.
In addition, large budgets have been promised following COP26 for South Africa (8.5 billion USD) for accelerating the energy transition of which hydrogen is a significant part. The availability of this budget can be a game changer for South Africa and kickstart homegrown domestic renewable energy technologies and companies that produce, store and use hydrogen in various forms. The abundant availability of minerals and rare earth metals as well can be a powerful tool for battery production and fuel cell technology. Access to these materials is already becoming a prerequisite for companies like Tesla and Northvolt to establish mega factories in certain locations. South Africa and Africa as a whole has this availability.
Of course the technology is not always completely proven thus it is essential to choose the correct and most appropriate ones for Africa. And despite the abundant financial commitments made obtaining specific finance for projects can be challenging. But this also creates opportunities. African countries should continue to focus on this and:
<ul><li>Create collaborative innovation platforms to strengthen research and the development of sustainable technologies that can be easily maintainable from Africa to continuously improve the competitiveness of the sector.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Build the hydrogen energy infrastructure to support H2 production and efficient storage, transport and refueling facilities.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Communicate the value of green hydrogen and promote its use in the productive sectors.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Establish or improve the legal frameworks for hydrogen to support the whole value chain.</li></ul>
The global race for hydrogen is on and South Africa has an excellent position to succeed in this race.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

You can’t miss it!

Leon Stille

Leon Stille

To nuclear or not to nuclear?

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?