Capturing carbon at Drax: Delivering jobs, clean growth and levelling up the Humber
Tag: BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage)
COP26: Will countries with the boldest climate policies reach their targets?
To tackle the climate crisis, global unity and collaboration are needed. This was in part the thinking behind the Paris Agreement. It set a clear, collective target negotiated at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference and signed the following year: to keep the increase in global average temperatures to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
In November 2021, COP26 will see many of the countries who first signed the Paris Agreement come together in Glasgow for the first ‘global stocktake’ of their environmental progress since its creation.
COP26 will take place at the SEC in Glasgow
Already delayed for a year as a result of the pandemic, COVID-19 and its effects on emissions is likely to be a key talking point. So too will progress towards not just the Paris Agreement goals but those of individual countries. Known as ‘National Determined Contributions’ (NDCs), these sit under the umbrella of the Paris Agreement goals and set out individual targets for individual countries.
With many countries still reeling from the effects of COVID-19, the question is: which countries are actually on track to meet them?
What are the goals?
The NDCs of each country represent its efforts and goals to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. These incorporate various targets, from decarbonisation and forestry to coastal preservation and financial aims.
While all countries need to reduce emissions to meet the Paris Agreement targets, not all have an equally sized task. The principle of differentiated responsibility acknowledges that countries have varying levels of emissions, capabilities and economic conditions.
The Universal Ecological Fund outlined the emissions breakdown of the top four emitters, showing that combined, they account for 56% of global greenhouse gas emissions. China is the largest emitter, responsible for 26.8%, followed by the US which contributes 13.1%. The European Union and its 28 member states account for nine per cent, while India is responsible for seven per cent of all emissions.
These nations have ambitious emissions goals, but are they on track to meet them?
China
Traffic jams in the rush hour in Shanghai Downtown, contribute to high emissions in China.
By 2030, China pledged to reach peak carbon dioxide (CO2), increase its non-fossil fuel share of energy supply to 20% and reduce the carbon intensity – the ratio between emissions of CO2 to the output of the economy – by 60% to 65% below 2005 levels.
COVID-19 has increased the uncertainty of the course of China’s emissions. Some projections show that emissions are likely to grow in the short term, before peaking and levelling out sometime between 2021 and 2025. However, according to the Climate Action Tracker it is also possible that China’s emissions have already peaked – specifically in 2019. China is expected to meet its non-fossil energy supply and carbon intensity pledges.
United States
The forecast for the second largest emitter, the US, has also been affected by the pandemic. Economic firm Rhodium Group has predicted that the US could see its emissions drop between 20% and 27% by 2025, meeting its target of reducing emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels.
However, President Trump’s rolling back of Obama-era climate policies and regulations, his support of fossil fuels and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (effective from as early as 4 November 2020), suggest any achievement may not be long-lasting.
The United States’ Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, does not include any direct support to clean energy development – something that could also change in 2021.
European Union
Carl Clayton, Head of BECCS at Drax, inspects pipework in the CCUS area of Drax Power Station
The European Union and its member states, then including the UK, pledged to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 – a target the Climate Action Tracker estimates will be achieved. In fact, the EU is on track to cut emissions by 58% by 2030.
This progress is in part a result of a large package of measures adopted in 2018. These accelerated the emissions reductions, including national coal phase-out plans, increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency. The package also introduced legally binding annual emission limits for each member state within which they can set individual targets to meet the common goal.
The UK has not yet released an updated, independent NDC. However, it has announced a £350 million package designed to cut emissions in heavy industry and drive economic recovery from COVID-19. This includes £139 million earmarked to scale up hydrogen production, as well as carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, such as bioenergy with carbon capture (BECCS) – essential technologies in achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and protecting industrial regions.
India
India, the fourth largest global emitter, is set to meet its pledge to reduce its emissions intensity by 33% to 35% below 2005 levels and increase the non-fossil share of power generation to 40% by 2030. What’s more, the Central Electricity Agency has reported that 64% of India’s power could come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030.
Wind turbines in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan, India
Along with increasingly renewable generation, the implementation of India’s National Smart Grid Mission aims to modernise and improve the efficiency of the country’s energy system.
It is promising that the world’s four largest emitters have plans in place and are making progress towards their decarbonisation goals. However, tackling climate change requires action from around the entire globe. In addition to NDCs, many countries have committed to, or have submitted statements of intent, to achieve net zero carbon emissions in the coming years.
Net zero target
| Country | Target Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Bhutan 🇧🇹 | Currently carbon negative (and aiming for carbon neutrality as it develops; pledged towards the Paris Agreement) | |
| Suriname 🇸🇷 | Currently carbon negative | |
| Denmark 🇩🇰 | 2050 | In law |
| France 🇫🇷 | 2050 | In law |
| Germany 🇩🇪 | 2050 | In law |
| Hungary 🇭🇺 | 2050 | In law |
| New Zealand 🇳🇿 | 2050 | In law |
| Scotland 🏴 | 2045 | In law |
| Sweden 🇸🇪 | 2045 | In law |
| United Kingdom 🇬🇧 | 2050 | In law |
| Bulgaria 🇧🇬 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Canada 🇨🇦 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Chile 🇨🇱 | 2050 | In policy |
| China 🇨🇳 | 2060 | Statement of intent |
| Costa Rica 🇨🇷 | 2050 | Submitted to the UN |
| EU 🇪🇺 | 2050 | Submitted to the UN |
| Fiji 🇫🇯 | 2050 | Submitted to the UN |
| Finland 🇫🇮 | 2035 | Coalition agreement |
| Iceland 🇮🇸 | 2040 | Policy Position |
| Ireland 🇮🇪 | 2050 | Coalition Agreement |
| Japan 🇯🇵 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Marshall Islands 🇲🇭 | 2050 | Pledged towards the Paris Agreement |
| Netherlands 🇳🇱 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Norway 🇳🇴 | 2050 in law, 2030 signal of intent | |
| Portugal 🇵🇹 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Singapore 🇸🇬 | As soon as viable in the second half of the century | Submitted to the UN |
| Slovakia 🇸🇰 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| South Africa 🇿🇦 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| South Korea 🇰🇷 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Spain 🇪🇸 | 2050 | Draft Law |
| Switzerland 🇨🇭 | 2050 | Policy Position |
| Uruguay 🇺🇾 | 2030 | Contribution to the Paris Agreement |
While the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted short-term plans, many see it as an opportunity to rejuvenate economies with sustainability in mind. COP26, as well as the global climate summit planned for December of this year, will likely see many countries lay out decarbonisation goals that benefit both people’s lives and the planet.
#COP26, as well as the UK/UN climate meeting planned for this December, will likely see many countries lay out decarbonisation goals that benefit both people’s lives and the planet. #COP26countdown ⏰ #COP26Ambition 🌍
— Drax (@DraxGroup) October 30, 2020
Building back better by supporting negative emissions technologies
Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer
Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP, Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
Rt Hon George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
Dear Chancellor, Secretaries of State,
Building back better by supporting negative emissions technologies
Today our organisations have launched a new coalition with a shared vision: to build back better as part of a sustainable and resilient recovery from Covid-19, by developing pioneering projects that can remove carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants from the atmosphere. Together, we represent hundreds of thousands of workers across some of the UK’s most critical industries, including aviation, energy and farming, each of which contribute billions of pounds each year to the economy.
A growing number of independent experts, including the Committee on Climate Change, Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering and the Electricity System Operator, have recognised the crucial role of ‘negative emissions’ or ‘greenhouse gas removal’ technologies in fighting the climate crisis. Whilst we should seek to decarbonise sectors such as aviation, heavy industry and agriculture as far as practically possible, due to technical or commercial barriers it is unlikely we will eliminate their greenhouse gas emissions completely. Negative emissions technologies are critical therefore to balancing out these residual emissions and ensuring we achieve Net Zero in a credible, cost effective and sustainable way.
As well as benefiting the environment, negative emissions technologies and projects can build back a cleaner, greener economy in the wake of Covid-19. The foundations for this are already being laid by our coalition’s members today.
For example:
- The National Farmers Union has set out a Net Zero vision for the agricultural sector whereby UK farmers harness the ability to capture carbon to create new income streams.
- The aviation industry through the Sustainable Aviation initiative has identified negative emissions projects, alongside other measures as sustainable jet fuel, as being crucial to greening the industry.
- In North Yorkshire, Drax is developing plans to combine sustainable biomass with carbon capture technology (BECCS) to create the world’s first carbon negative power station – supporting thousands of jobs in the process.
- In North East Lincolnshire, Velocys with the support of British Airways is developing the Altalto waste-to-jet fuel project that could produce negative-emission jet fuel once the Humber industrial cluster’s carbon capture and storage infrastructure is established.
- Finally, Carbon Engineering has announced a partnership with Pale Blue Dot Energy to deploy commercial-scale Direct Air Capture projects in the UK that would remove significant volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
With COP26 fast approaching, there is a real and compelling opportunity for the UK Government to demonstrate to the world it is taking a leadership position on negative emissions. Conversely if the UK does not act quickly, it could jeopardise the delivery of projects in the 2020s that can support innovation, learning by doing and the scale-up of negative emissions in the 2030s. It also risks Britain falling behind in the race to scale and commercialise these technologies, with a view to exporting them to other countries around the world to support their own decarbonisation efforts.
We therefore call on this Government, supported by your departments, to pursue the following ‘low regrets’ interventions to support this critical emerging industry:
- Adopt a clear, unambiguous commitment to supporting negative emissions in the 2020s and beyond. The last significant reference to negative emissions by Government was in the 2017 Clean Growth Strategy. Between now and the end of the year there is a window of opportunity for the Government to go further, reflecting the changed reality of a Net Zero world and the growing consensus on the need for negative emissions. A clear signal of intent would also give greater confidence to investors and developers in negative emissions projects, in the absence of a long-term strategy.
- Develop targeted policies to support viable negative emissions projects in the 2020s. In order to scale up in the 2030s at a pace compatible with the UK’s climate commitments, it is essential that Government works with industry to bring forward early projects in the 2020s that are viable and represent value for money. However, there is no marketplace or regulatory regime in the UK today that incentivises or rewards negative emissions, making financing projects extremely challenging. Dedicated policy frameworks and business models for solutions such as afforestation, BECCS and Direct Air Capture are therefore urgently needed.
- Seize the opportunity to make negative emissions a point of emphasis at COP26. The UK has already led the way at a global level by adopting Net Zero as a legally binding target. At COP26, the UK can showcase its further commitment to continuous innovation around the decarbonisation agenda by signposting the early actions it has taken to deploy negative emissions – which other countries will also need to meet their own zero carbon ambitions. This statement would be particularly powerful as it can be credibly supported by several pioneering projects already being undertaken by British businesses and research organisations in this space.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with each of you to discuss these points in further detail.
Yours,
The Coalition for Negative Emissions
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
View/download the letter as a PDF.
Could hydrogen power stations offer flexible electricity for a net zero future?
We’re familiar with using natural gas every day in heating homes, powering boilers and igniting stove tops. But this same natural gas – predominantly methane – is also one of the most important sources of electricity to the UK. In 2019 gas generation accounted for 39% of Great Britain’s electricity mix. But that could soon be changing.
Hydrogen, the super simple, super light element, can be a zero-carbon emissions source of fuel. While we’re used to seeing it in everyday in water (H2O), as a gas it has been tested as an alternative to methane in homes and as a fuel for vehicles.
Could it also replace natural gas in power stations and help keep the lights on?
The need for a new gas
Hydrogen fuel station
Natural gas has been the largest single source of electricity in Great Britain since around 2000 (aside from the period 2012-14 when coal made a resurgence due to high gas prices). The dominance of gas over coal is in part thanks to the abundant supply of it in the North Sea. Along with carbon pricing, domestic supply makes gas much cheaper than coal, and much cleaner, emitting as much as 60% less CO2 than the solid fossil fuel.
Added to this is the ability of gas power stations to start up, change their output and shut down very quickly to meet sudden shifts in electricity demand. This flexibility is helpful to support the growth of weather-dependant renewable sources of power such as wind or solar. The stability gas brings has helped the country decarbonise its power supply rapidly.
Hydrogen, on the other hand, can be an even cleaner fuel as it only releases water vapour and nitrous oxide when combusted in large gas turbines. This means it could offer a low- or zero-carbon, flexible alternative to natural gas that makes use of Great Britain’s existing gas infrastructure. But it’s not as simple as just switching fuels.
Switching gases
Some thermal power stations work by combusting a fuel, such as biomass or coal, in a boiler to generate intense heat that turns water into high-pressure steam which then spins a turbine. Gas turbines, however, are different.
Engineer works on a turbine at Drax Power Station
Instead of heating water into steam, a simple gas turbine blasts a mix of gas, plus air from the surrounding atmosphere, at high pressure into a combustion chamber, where a chemical reaction takes place – oxygen from the air continuously feeding a gas-powered flame. The high-pressure and hot gasses then spin a turbine. The reaction that takes place inside the combustion chamber is dependent on the chemical mix that enters it.
“Natural gas turbines have been tailored and optimised for their working conditions,” explains Richard Armstrong, Drax Lead Engineer.
“Hydrogen is a gas that burns in the same way as natural gas, but it burns at different temperatures, at different speeds and it requires different ratios of oxygen to get the most efficient combustion.”
Switching a power station from natural gas to hydrogen would take significant testing and refining to optimise every aspect of the process and ensure everything is safe. This would no doubt continue over years, subtly developing the engines over time to improve efficiency in a similar way to how natural gas combustion has evolved. But it’s certainly possible.
What may be trickier though is providing the supply of hydrogen necessary to power and balance the country’s electricity system.
Making hydrogen
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. But it’s very rare to find it on its own. Because it’s so atomically simple, it’s highly reactive and almost always found naturally bonded to other elements.
Water is the prime example: it’s made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, making it H2O. Hydrogen’s tendency to bond with everything means a pure stream of it, as would be needed in a power station, has to be produced rather than extracted from underground like natural gas.
Hydrogen as a gas at standard temperature and pressure is known by the symbol H2.
A power station would also need a lot more hydrogen than natural gas. By volume it would take three times as much hydrogen to produce the same amount of energy as would be needed with natural gas. However, because it is so light the hydrogen would still have a lower mass.
“A very large supply of hydrogen would be needed, which doesn’t exist in the UK at the moment,” says Rachel Grima, Research & Innovation Engineer at Drax. “So, at the same time as converting a power plant to hydrogen, you’d need to build a facility to produce it alongside it.”
One of the most established ways to produce hydrogen is through a process known as steam methane reforming. This applies high temperatures and pressure to natural gas to break down the methane (which makes up the majority of natural gas) into hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2).
The obvious problem with the process is it still emits CO2, meaning carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems are needed if it is to be carbon neutral.
Source: Zero Carbon Humber
“It’s almost like capturing the CO2 from natural gas before its combusted, rather than post-combustion,” explains Grima. “One of the advantages of this is that the CO2 is at a much higher concentration, which makes it much easier to capture than in flue gas when it is diluted with a lot of nitrogen.”
Using natural gas in the process produces what’s known as ‘grey hydrogen’, adding carbon capture to make the process carbon neutral is known as ‘blue hydrogen’ – but there are ways to make it with renewable energy sources too.
Electrolysis is already an established technology, where an electrical current is used to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen. This ‘green hydrogen’ cuts out the CO2 emissions that come from using natural gas. However, like charging an electric vehicle, the process is only carbon-neutral if the electricity powering it comes from zero carbon sources, such as nuclear, wind and solar.
It’s also possible to produce hydrogen from biomass. By putting biomass under high temperatures and adding a limited amount of oxygen (to prevent the biomass combusting) the biomass can be gasified, meaning it is turned into a mix of hydrogen and CO2. By using a sustainable biomass supply chain where forests absorb the equivalent of the CO2 emitted but where some fossil fuels are used within the supply chain, the process becomes low carbon.
Carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) Incubation Area, Drax Power Station
CCS can then be added to make it carbon negative overall, meaning more CO2 is captured and stored at forest level and in below-ground carbon storage than is emitted throughout its lifecycle. This form of ‘green hydrogen’ is known as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) hydrogen or negative emissions hydrogen.
There are plenty of options for making hydrogen, but doing it at the scale needed for power generation and ensuring it’s an affordable fuel is the real challenge. Then there is the issue of transporting and working with hydrogen.
“The difficulty is less in converting the UK’s gas power stations and turbines themselves. That’s a hurdle but most turbine manufacturers already in the process of developing solutions for this,” says Armstrong.
“The challenge is establishing a stable and consistent supply of hydrogen and the transmission network to get it to site.”
Working with the lightest known element
Today hydrogen is mainly transported by truck as either a gas or cooled down to minus-253 degrees Celsius, at which point it becomes a liquid (LH2). However, there is plenty of infrastructure already in place around the UK that could make transporting hydrogen significantly more efficient.
“The UK has a very advanced and comprehensive gas grid. A conversion to hydrogen would be more economic if you could repurpose the existing gas infrastructure,” says Hannah Steedman, Innovation Engineer at Drax.
“The most feasible way to feed a power station is through pipelines and a lot of work is underway to determine if the current natural gas network could be used for hydrogen.”
Hydrogen is different to natural gas in that it is a very small and highly reactive molecule, therefore it needs to be treated differently. For example, parts of the existing gas network are made of steel, a metal which hydrogen reacts with, causing what’s known as hydrogen embrittlement, which can lead to cracks and failures that could potentially allow gas to escape. There are also factors around safety and efficiency to consider.
Like natural gas, hydrogen is also odourless, meaning it would need to have an odourant added to it. Experimentation is underway to find out if mercaptan, the odourant added to natural gas to give it a sulphuric smell, is also compatible with hydrogen.
But for all the challenges that might come with switching to hydrogen, there are huge advantages.
The UK’s gas network – both power generation and domestic – must move away from fossil fuels if it is to stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, and for the country to reach net zero by 2050. While the process will not be as simple as switching gases, it creates an opportunity to upgrade the UK’s gas infrastructure – for power, in homes and even as a vehicle fuel.
Source: Zero Carbon Humber
It won’t happen overnight, but hydrogen is a proven energy fuel source. While it may take time to ramp up production to a scale which can meet demand, at a reasonable cost, transitioning to hydrogen is a chance to future-proof the gas systems that contributes so heavily to the UK’s stable power system.
What are negative emissions?
What are negative emissions?
In order to meet the long-term climate goals laid out in the Paris Agreement, there is a need to not only reduce the emission of harmful greenhouse gases into the air, but actively work to remove the excess carbon dioxide (CO2) currently in the atmosphere, and the CO2 that will continue to be emitted as economies work to decarbonise.
The process of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere is possible through negative emissions, where more CO2 is taken out than is being put into the atmosphere. Negative emissions can be achieved through a range of nature-based solutions or through man-made technologies designed to remove CO2 at scale.
What nature-based solutions exist to remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
One millennia-old way of achieving negative emissions is forests. Trees absorb carbon when they grow, either converting this to energy and releasing oxygen, or storing it over their lifetime. This makes forests important tools in limiting and potentially reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Planting new forests and regenerating forests has a positive effect on the health of the world as a result.
However, this can also go beyond forests on land. Vegetation underwater has the ability to absorb and store CO2, and seagrasses can in fact store up to twice as much carbon as forests on land – an approach to negative emissions called ‘blue carbon’.
Did you know?
Bhutan is the only carbon negative country in the world – its thick forests absorb three times the amount of CO2 the small country emits.
What man-made technologies can deliver negative emissions?
Many scientists and experts agree one of the most promising technologies to achieve negative emissions is bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This approach uses biomass – sourced from sustainably managed forests – to generate electricity. As the forests used to create biomass absorb CO2 while growing, the CO2 released when it is used as fuel is already accounted for, making the whole process low carbon.
By then capturing and storing any CO2 emitted (often in safe underground deposits), the process of electricity generation becomes carbon negative, as more carbon has been removed from the atmosphere than has been added.
Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) is an alternative technological solution in which CO2 is captured directly from the air and then transported to be stored or used. While this could hold huge potential, the technology is currently in its infancy, and requires substantial investment to make it a more widespread practice.
The process of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is known as negative emissions, because more CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere than added into it.
How much negative emissions are needed?
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, negative emissions technologies could be required to capture 20 billion tonnes of carbon annually to help prevent catastrophic changes in the climate between now and 2050.
Negative emissions fast facts
- Humans are currently moving carbon from the lithosphere (the crust of the earth) to the biosphere (where we live) at 100 times the rate of the natural carbon cycle
- There is enough sustainable biomass available to the UK to support BECCS to remove 51 megatonnes of CO2 every year by 2050, according to the Committee on Climate Change
- More companies are beginning to invest in negative emissions technologies, with Apple conserving mangroves, Stripe allocating $1 million annually to purchasing sequestered carbon, and Microsoft declaring it will be carbon negative by 2030
Go deeper
- Drax sets world-first ambition to become carbon negative by 2030
- Negative emissions and international climate goals: learning from and about mitigation scenarios
- Renewables revolution delivers a decade of decarbonisation
- The ups and downs of BECCS – where do we stand today?
- Negative emissions techniques and technologies you need to know about
- UK could become ‘net zero by 2050’ using negative emissions
What is carbon capture usage and storage?
What is carbon capture usage and storage?
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of trapping or collecting carbon emissions from a large-scale source – for example, a power station or factory – and then permanently storing them.
Carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) is where captured carbon dioxide (CO2) may be used, rather than stored, in other industrial processes or even in the manufacture of consumer products.
How is carbon captured?
Carbon can be captured either pre-combustion, where it is removed from fuels that emit carbon before the fuel is used, or post-combustion, where carbon is captured directly from the gases emitted once a fuel is burned.
Pre-combustion carbon capture involves solid fossil fuels being converted into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon dioxide under heat pressure. The separated CO2 is captured and transported to be stored or used.
Post-combustion carbon capture uses the addition of other materials (such as solvents) to separate the carbon from flue gases produced as a result of the fuel being burned. The isolated carbon is then transported (normally via pipeline) to be stored permanently – usually deep underground – or used for other purposes.
Carbon capture and storage traps and removes carbon dioxide from large sources and most of that CO2 is not released into the atmosphere.
What can the carbon be used for?
Once carbon is captured it can be stored permanently or used in a variety of different ways. For example, material including carbon nanofibres and bioplastics can be produced from captured carbon and used in products such as airplanes and bicycles, while several start-ups are developing methods of turning captured CO2 into animal feed.
Captured carbon can even assist in the large-scale production of hydrogen, which could be used as a carbon-neutral source of transport fuel or as an alternative to natural gas in power generation.
Where can carbon be stored?
Carbon can be stored in geological reserves, commonly naturally occurring underground rock formations such as unused natural gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, or ‘unmineable’ coal beds. The process of storage is referred to as sequestration.
The underground storage process means that the carbon can integrate into the earth through mineral storage, where the gas chemically reacts with the minerals in the rock formations and forms new, solid minerals that ensure it is permanently and safely stored.
Carbon injected into a saline aquifer dissolves into the water and descends to the bottom of the aquifer in a process called dissolution storage.
According to the Global CCS Institute, over 25 million tonnes of carbon captured from the power and industrial sectors was successfully and permanently stored in 2019 across sites in the USA, Norway and Brazil.
What are the benefits of carbon storage?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which traps heat in our atmosphere, and therefore contributes to global warming. By capturing and storing carbon, it is being taken out of the atmosphere, which reduces greenhouse gas levels and helps mitigate the effects of climate change.
Carbon capture fast facts
- CCUS is an affordable way to lower CO2 emissions – fighting climate change would cost 70% more without carbon capture technologies
- The largest carbon capture facility in the world is the Petra Nova plant in Texas, which has captured a total of 5 million tonnes of CO2, since opening in 2016
- Drax Power Station is trialling Europe’s biggest bioenergy carbon capture usage and storage project (BECCS), which could remove and capture more than 16 million tonnes of CO2 a year by the mid 2030s, delivering a huge amount of the negative emissions the UK needs to meet net zero
Go deeper
- Laying down the pathway to carbon capture in a net zero UK
- Why carbon capture could be the game-changer the world needs
- What can be made from captured carbon?
- Around the world in 22 carbon capture projects
- From steel to soil: how industries are capturing carbon
What is decarbonisation?
What is decarbonisation?
Decarbonisation is the term used for the process of removing or reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) output of a country’s economy. This is usually done by decreasing the amount of CO2 emitted across the active industries within that economy.
Why is decarbonisation important?
Currently, a wide range of sectors – industrial, residential and transport – run largely on fossil fuels, which means that their energy comes from the combustion of fuels like coal, oil or gas.
The CO2 emitted from using these fuels acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping in heat and contributing to global warming. By using alternative sources of energy, industries can reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere and can help to slow the effects of climate change.
Why target carbon dioxide?
There are numerous greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, however CO2 is the most prevalent. As of 2018, carbon levels are the highest they’ve been in 800,000 years.
The Paris Agreement was created to hold nations accountable in their efforts to decrease carbon emissions, with the central goal of ensuring that temperatures don’t rise 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial level.
With 195 current signatories, economies have begun to factor in the need for less investment in carbon, with the UK leading the G20 nations in decarbonising its economy in the 21st century.
How is decarbonisation carried out?
There are numerous energy technologies that aim to reduce emissions from industries, as well as those that work towards reducing carbon emissions from the atmosphere.
Decarbonisation has had the most progress in electricity generation because of the growth of renewable sources of power, such as wind turbines, solar panels and coal-to-biomass upgrades, meaning that homes and businesses don’t have to rely on fossil fuels. Other innovations, such as using batteries and allowing homes to generate and share their own power, can also lead to higher rates of decarbonisation. As the electricity itself is made cleaner, it therefore assists electricity users themselves to become cleaner in the process.
Other approaches, such as reforestation or carbon capture and storage, help to pull existing carbon from the air, to neutralise carbon output, or in some cases, help to make electricity generation – and even entire nations – carbon negative.
Alternative power options means that homes and businesses don’t have to rely on traditional carbon fuels.
What is the future of decarbonisation?
For decarbonisation to be more widely adopted as a method for combating climate change, there needs to be structural economical change, according to Deloitte Access Economics. Creating more room for decarbonisation through investing in alternative energies means that “there are a multitude of job-rich, shovel-ready, stimulus opportunities that also unlock long-term value”.
Decarbonisation fast facts
- A study by Carbon Brief in 2019 found that the UK’s carbon emissions have decreased by 38% since 1990, which is faster than any other major developed nation
- The UK has committed to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 by enshrining this goal as law, and announcing a £3 billion investment in low carbon technologies in 2019
- Currently, heavy industry (cement, steel and chemicals) and heavy-duty transport (mainly shipping and aviation) account for 30% of CO2 emissions, worldwide
- Energy consumption over a large range of sectors – including transport, heating, construction, and production – is the biggest source of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, providing 73% of global carbon output
- Iceland is the only nation to currently have 100% of its energy derived from natural sources, with 73% sourced from hydropower, and 27% coming from geothermal power
Go deeper
- 4 charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by countries and sectors
- 3 ways decarbonisation could change the world
- Maintaining electricity grid stability during rapid decarbonisation
- Slow burn? The long road to a zero emissions UK
- Drax to stop using coal well ahead of UK’s deadline
- Net zero: the UK’s contribution to stopping global warming
- Progress, impacts and outlook for transforming Britain’s energy system
Half year results for the six months ended 30 June 2020
RNS Number : 3978U
Drax Group PLC (Symbol: DRX)
| Six months ended 30 June | H1 2020 | H1 2019 |
|---|---|---|
| Key financial performance measures | ||
| Adjusted EBITDA (£ million) (1)(2) | 179 | 138 |
| Cash generated from operations (£ million) | 226 | 229 |
| Net debt (£ million) (3) | 792 | 924 |
| Interim dividend (pence per share) | 6.8 | 6.4 |
| Adjusted basic earnings per share (pence) (1) | 10.8 | 2 |
| Total financial performance measures | ||
| Coal obsolescence charges | -224 | - |
| Operating (loss) / profit (£ million) | -32 | 34 |
| (Loss) / profit before tax (£ million) | -61 | 4 |
| Basic (loss) / earnings per share (pence) | -14 | 1 |
Financial highlights
- Group Adjusted EBITDA up 30% to £179 million (H1 2019: £138 million)
- Includes estimated £44 million impact of Covid-19, principally in Customers SME business
- £34 million of capacity payments (H1 2019: nil) following re-establishment of the Capacity Market
- Strong biomass performance in both Pellet Production and Generation
- Strong cash generation and balance sheet
- £694 million of cash and total committed facilities
- Extended £125 million ESG CO2 emission-linked facility to 2025
- DBRS investment grade rating
- Sustainable and growing dividend
- Expected full year dividend up 7.5% to 17.1 pence per share (2019: 15.9 pence per share), subject to good operational performance and impact of Covid-19 being in line with current expectations
- Interim dividend of 6.8 pence per share (H1 2019: 6.4 pence per share) – 40% of full year
Biomass storage dome with conveyor in the foreground, Drax Power Station, North Yorkshire [Click to view/download]
Operational highlights
- Biomass self-supply – 9% reduction in cost, 15% increase in production and improved quality vs. H1 2019
- Generation – 11% of UK’s renewable electricity, strong operational performance and system support services
- Customers – lower demand and an increase in bad debt provisions, principally in SME business
Progressing plans to create a long-term future for sustainable biomass
- Targeting five million tonnes of self-supply at £50/MWh(4) by 2027 from expanded sources of sustainable biomass
- Plan for $64 million ($35/t, £13/MWh(4)) annual savings on 1.85Mt by 2022 vs. 2018 base
- Investment in new satellite plants in US Gulf – targeting 20% reduction in pellet cost versus current cost
- BECCS(5) – developing proven and emerging technology options for large-scale negative emissions
- End of coal operations – further reduction in CO2 emissions and lower cost operating model for biomass
Outlook
- Full year Adjusted EBITDA, inclusive of c.£60 million estimated impact of Covid-19, in line with market consensus
- Evaluating attractive investment options for biomass growth: cost reduction and capacity expansion
- Strong contracted power sales (2020–2022) 34TWh at £51.4/MWh and high proportion of non-commodity revenues
Will Gardiner, CEO of Drax Group said:
“With these robust half-year results, Drax is delivering for shareholders with an increased dividend while continuing to support our employees, communities and customers during the Covid-19 crisis.
Drax Group CEO Will Gardiner in the control room at Drax Power Station [Click to view/download]
“National Grid stated this week that the UK can’t reach net zero by 2050 without negative emissions from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. BECCS delivers for the environment and also provides an opportunity to create jobs and clean economic growth in the North and around the country.”
Operational review
Pellet Production – capacity expansion, improved quality and reduced cost
- Adjusted EBITDA up 213% to £25 million (H1 2019: £8 million)
- Pellet production up 15% to 0.75Mt (H1 2019: 0.65Mt) – impact of adverse weather in H1 2019
- Cost of production down nine per cent to $154/t(6) (H1 2019: $170/t(6))
- Reduction in fines (larger particle-sized dust) in each cargo
- Cost reduction plan – targeting $64 million ($35/t, £13/MWh(4)) annual savings on 1.85Mt by 2022 vs. 2018 base
- Expect to deliver $27 million of annual savings by end of 2020 – a saving of $18/t vs. 2018
- Greater use of low-cost fibre, LaSalle (improved rail infrastructure, woodyard and sawmill co-location) and relocation of HQ from Atlanta to Monroe
- Savings from projects to be delivered in 2020-2022
- 35Mt capacity expansion (LaSalle, Morehouse and Amite), increased use of low-cost fibre, improved logistics and other operational enhancements
- $40 million investment in three 40kt satellite plants in US Gulf – commissioning from 2021, potential for up to 0.5Mt
- Use of Drax infrastructure and sawmill residues – targeting 20% reduction in pellet cost versus current cost
Power lines and pylon above Cruachan Power Station, viewed from Ben Cruachan above [Click to view/download]
Power Generation – flexible, low-carbon and renewable generation
- Adjusted EBITDA up 45% to £214 million (H1 2019: £148 million)
- Limited impact from Covid-19 – strong contracted position provided protection from lower demand, reduction in ROC(7) prices offset by increased system support services
- £34 million of Capacity Market income (H1 2019: nil; £36 million in relation to H1 2019 subsequently recognised in H2 2019 following re-establishment of the Capacity Market)
- £54 million of Adjusted EBITDA from hydro and gas generation assets (H1 2019: £36 million)
- System support (Balancing Market, ancillary services and portfolio optimisation) up 8% to £66 million (H1 2019: £61 million)
- Good commercial availability across the portfolio – 91% (H1 2019: 87%)
- Covid-19 – business continuity plan in place to ensure safe and uninterrupted operations
- Biomass generation up 16% to 7.4TWh (H1 2019: 6.4TWh)
- Strong supply chain (impact of adverse weather in H1 2019) and record CfD availability (Q2 2020 – 99.5%)
- Pumped storage / hydro – excellent operational and system support performance
- Gas – excellent operational and system support performance, Damhead Creek planned outage underway
- Coal – 10% of output in H1 2020 – utilisation of coal stock before end of commercial generation (March 2021)
Customers – managing the impact of Covid-19 on SME business
- Adjusted EBITDA loss of £37 million (H1 2019: £9 million profit) inclusive of estimated £44 million impact of Covid-19 – reduced demand, MtM loss on pre-purchased power and increase in bad debt, principally in SME business
- Covid-19 – implemented work from home procedures to allow safe and continuous operations and customer support
- Good performance in Industrial and Commercial market – new contracts with large water companies providing five-year revenue visibility, while supporting the Group’s flexible, renewable and low-carbon proposition
- Monitoring and optimisation of portfolio to ensure alignment with strategy
Other financial information
- Total financial performance measures reflects £108 million MtM gain on derivative contracts, £224 million coal obsolescence charges and £10 million impact (£6 million adjusted impact) from UK Government’s reversal of previously announced corporation tax rate reduction resulting in revaluation of deferred tax asset and increased current tax charge
- Additional c.£25–£35 million for coal closure costs expected to be reported as exceptional item in H2 2020 when coal consultation process is further advanced
- Capital investment – continuing to invest in biomass strategy, some delay in investment due to Covid-19
- H1 2020: £78 million (H1 2019: £60 million)
- Full year expected investment £190–£210 million (was £230–£250 million), includes 0.35Mt expansion of existing pellet plants and $20 million initial investment in satellite plants ($40 million in total)
- Net debt of £792 million, including cash and cash equivalents of £482 million (31 December 2019: £404 million)
- Remain on track for around 2.0x net debt to Adjusted EBITDA by end of 2020
View complete half year report
View analyst presentation
Listen to webcast
View/download main image. Caption: LaSalle BioEnergy (centre) and co-located sawmill (right), Louisiana
Is Formula One on the road to a big clean-up?
On the eve of the new F1 season, the motor sport faces an existential dilemma. While the Covid-19 pandemic has inflicted huge uncertainty throughout 2020, environmental concerns continue to question its long-term viability.
The Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne has long been the curtain-raiser to eight months of gas-guzzling, decibel-deafening action on racetracks across the globe, contributing to a carbon footprint of 256,551 tonnes. Due to the season being delayed, the first race will now take place in Austria. But the focus on Australia has been sharpened by the New Year bushfires – visible evidence, say some scientists and environmentalists, of the climate crisis. This adds fuel to the fiery debate on Formula One’s perceived failure to take its environmental responsibilities seriously.
Koala bear on eucalyptus branch escaping from Australian bushfires in 2019 and 2020.
Significantly, it is not the cars doing 70 laps that generate most of F1’s emissions but the thousands of air miles covered by drivers, their teams, the media and spectators in getting to each race weekend:
| Activity | % of carbon footprint |
|---|---|
| 🚚 Logistics (road, air and sea freight) | 45% |
| 🛩 Personnel travel | 27.7% |
| 🏭 Factories and facilities | 19.3% |
| 🎤 Events | 7.3% |
| 🏎 Total F1 car emissions including all race and test mileage | 0.7% |
Carbon footprint of F1 in 2018, not including fans’ transport to races
But is a genuine shift in attitudes about to descend on the circuits of Monaco, Silverstone and Interlagos? Firstly, a raft of countries have announced plans to phase out petrol and diesel-powered engines between 2030 and 2050. This could force the hand of motorsport bosses who have long been accused of talking a good game but failing to act.
The sport recently announced a pledge to become carbon neutral by 2030 and in pursuit of this goal, it is looking to introduce two-stroke engines that run on synthetic fuel by the mid-2020s while current F1 hybrid engines will be replaced by a new specification of power unit from 2025 or 2026.
Max Verstappen, Formula One driver
Currently, under Article 19.4.4 of the FIA’s 2019 technical regulation for F1 a minimum of 5.75% of the fuel must comprise bio‐components. The sport wants to reach 100%, aiming for 10% in 2021 and a gradual subsequent increase.
Such developments could potentially seize upon the opportunities offered by companies pioneering the use of carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), such as Drax.
One of several ideas discussed to make the sport more sustainable has been capturing carbon that is then mixed with hydrogen from water to form liquid fuel. Such technology is in development and Drax is researching how carbon dioxide (CO2) can be used to produce fuels. Its innovation engineers recently met with Velocys, the fuels technology company, which plans to produce carbon negative fuels in the Humber.
Could F1 go electric?
While greener fuels are the most obvious way forward, there have been calls for alternative forms of energy to be used to power F1 cars. A hydrogen solution could be developed quickly but it would significantly increase the bulkiness and weight of cars. But what about electric?
Formula One race car
“Electric power is attractive, but it’s currently still quite difficult to scale that up,” Pat Symonds, Chief Technical Officer at Formula One, said in an interview. “With any of the technologies on the horizon at the moment an electric truck or an electric aircraft is not a particularly feasible product. So, there is still a case for having liquid hydrocarbon fuels in trucks and in aircraft. However, what we cannot do is carry on digging those out of the ground, we’re going to have to somehow synthesise them and that’s what we want Formula 1 to explore and hopefully to lead.”
Formula E set to challenge F1 dominance
Another driver of change looming larger in Formula One’s rear-view mirror is Formula E. While this fledgling sport’s claim to quieter cars may not appeal to the most hardened of petrol-head F1 fans, its credible narrative of boosting sustainability in each of the 12 cities that host its races is always a potential attraction to new generations of increasingly climate conscious young fans.
Take Formula E’s opening race in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the country’s most polluted city. The sport is a beneficiary of the kingdom’s aim to reduce its reliance oil and in the last six years, the Middle Eastern country has invested over $350 billion in renewable energy projects (mainly solar and wind).
Saudi Arabia Formula E grand prix. Credit: Courtesy of Formula E
As with all electric cars, there are challenges. Excess heat produced by electric motors is offset by reducing the performance of the car when it is too hot. A series of cooling systems using radiators and fluid in closed loops regulate temperatures to a satisfactory level.
Appealing to fans is critical for the sport’s prosperity. Sustainability credentials are a key strand but Formula E is going beyond that and looking to optimise raceday experience through features such as FanBoost. This is an online voting system where the three drivers voted as fans’ favourites get a five second power boost of 100kj which can provide serious assistance when a car overtakes.
Maybe this is just one innovation that F1 could learn from its much younger counterpart? Perhaps there is also a case for taking the best of what both have to offer – the cities, the cars and the technology – and merging into a single championship. Whatever lies ahead in the future, Formula One is aware of the need to change. It must do if it is to survive.
