The Sustainable Carbon Problem for E-fuels

Assist CleanTechnica’s work by way of a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

Why we nonetheless want carbon, how a lot is sustainable, and the way ought to we transfer it round?

Why will we nonetheless must seize carbon for the longer term inexperienced transport system?

To realize its net-zero goal by 2050, Europe should decarbonise all of its transport sector. Whereas direct electrification is quickly scaling within the highway sector, sectors such aviation and delivery stay more durable to impress and proceed to depend on energy-dense fuels. For these sectors, e-fuels are one of many most popular choices accessible. However not all e-fuels are produced the identical means and never all carbon sources are eligible as sustainable beneath EU guidelines.

What are the various kinds of e-fuels?

Within the aviation sector, the flagship e-fuel is e-kerosene, typically termed e-SAF, which will be blended into fossil jet gas and used immediately into present plane engines. Producing e-kerosene requires giant portions of inexperienced hydrogen and a gradual provide of CO?. For every ton of inexperienced hydrogen required, round 8 tonnes of CO? are wanted.

Transport has extra e-fuels choices accessible. Two e-fuels choices are e-methanol and e-ammonia. Whereas the latter is carbon-free, e-methanol is a carbon-based gas, like e-kerosene, requiring round 7 tonnes of CO? per tonne of inexperienced hydrogen.

Why does the supply of carbon matter?

In carbon-based fuels, the CO? turns into embedded within the gas molecule and is launched again into the ambiance when combusted. In contrast to different CO? utilisations, e-fuels don’t retailer carbon quickly. They solely delay its launch. The EU RFNBO guidelines accurately issue on this, with all fossil CO? turning into ineligible from 2041 (with a deadline already from 2036 for carbon from fossil energy technology), obliging e-fuels producers to show in the direction of sustainable carbon sources.

This leaves solely two long-term choices:

1. Direct Air Seize (DAC): refers back to the seize of CO? that’s immediately current within the ambiance.
2. Sustainable biogenic CO2: refers back to the seize of CO? from sustainable biomass-based processes, resembling pulp and paper mills.

Within the brief and mid-term, biogenic CO? is the best and most cost-effective CO? choice. DAC might be important within the long-term however at the moment the expertise can not but provide the volumes required at economically viable value.

What’s the availability of biogenic CO2 for e-fuels within the brief to medium time period?

Europe has a various set of biogenic CO? sources however just some are actually sustainable for e-fuel manufacturing. The ERM report commissioned by T&E identifies 92 Mt per yr of sustainable and accessible biogenic CO? in Europe in 2022. ‘Sustainable’ excludes bioethanol fermentation and biomass energy vegetation that depend on unsustainable feedstocks. Sustainable sources embody amongst others, pulp and paper mills, energy-from-waste, and biogas upgrading vegetation.

As proven within the graph under, the sustainable biogenic CO? availability in Europe is greater than sufficient to produce first of a form e-kerosene and e-methanol initiatives, which require round 300 kt per yr of CO? every.

Are e-fuels the one sector needing biogenic CO?? What different calls for for CCU or CCS?

However e-fuels will not be the one sector in search of biogenic CO?. The identical carbon streams are being focused by everlasting carbon storage initiatives, particularly Bioenergy with Carbon Seize and Storage (BECCS), in addition to different CCU makes use of in chemical substances, plastics and concrete. By 2050, mixed CCUS demand for biogenic CO? may rise effectively past right this moment’s 92 Mt of sustainable, accessible provide, that means not everybody will get the carbon they want. With sustainable biogenic CO? each restricted and more and more contested, T&E argues that the EU ought to prioritise its utilization and therefore, cease selling BECCS based mostly on burning biomass for energy and as a substitute be sure these scarce carbon sources go to sustainable makes use of like e-fuels manufacturing.

The chart under exhibits that by 2050, the overall CCUS demand for biogenic CO₂ ranges from 140 Mt CO₂ within the minimal demand situation to ~400 Mt CO₂ per yr in a excessive demand situation. With the 92 Mt of sustainable, accessible biogenic CO₂ in Europe, even the minimal demand case already exceeds provide.Finally, DAC will have to be scaled as much as meet demand for carbon utilisation and storage, and e-fuels might want to flip in the direction of DAC to be scalable.

entry these biogenic carbon sources?

The problem is that e-fuel vegetation will not be at all times situated subsequent to biogenic CO? emitters.

4 transport modes are thought-about to move biogenic CO?, specifically pipelines, rail, vans, and delivery.

• Pipelines are probably the most environment friendly choice for big, regular flows. Nevertheless, deliberate CO? pipelines are closely concentrated across the North Sea, leaving main biogenic sources in Finland, Sweden, Slovakia and Central/Japanese Europe unconnected.

• Rail is a cheap choice for the everyday e-fuel plant scale, with round 300 kt per yr over medium distances (round 300 km).

• Trucking can assist mixture smaller, high-purity volumes (e.g., from biogas vegetation) within the early years.

• Transport might play a task for big coastal hubs.

Transporting CO? through pipeline, rail, ship or truck might be important because the volumes of e-fuels enhance. Our examine exhibits that whereas 60% of introduced initiatives are inside 100 km of accessible biogenic CO?, the remaining are farther away. Planning CO? transport is essential. With correct planning and assured third-party entry, this CO? could possibly be made accessible to e-fuel producers, serving to join giant untapped volumes to future vegetation.

What’s the most cost-effective method to transport CO2?

Our examine exhibits that there isn’t any single preferable method to transport CO?. The most suitable choice will depend on the move charge and distance from the biogenic CO?supply to the e-fuel plant.

As proven within the desk under, for big, regular flows over shorter distances, pipelines are probably the most cost-effective answer, with transport prices under €50 per tonne of CO?. For a typical e-fuels plant dealing with bigger volumes, a couple of hundred thousand tonnes per yr over a couple of hundred kilometres, rail will be aggressive, costing round 67 EUR per tonne for 300 kt over 300 km. Ships are probably the most cost-effective choice for transporting CO?, however solely over lengthy distances and with a excessive move charge in giant coastal hubs. General our findings present that transporting biogenic CO?, even over longer distances, provides solely lower than 10% to the manufacturing value of e-fuels.

What’s the EU planning on CO2 transport and what are T&E’s major coverage suggestions?

In mild of the 2040 local weather goal, the EU has began to underscore the necessity for CCUS to satisfy the EU 2050 local weather aims and therefore to plan the event of aggressive markets and transportation infrastructure for CO₂. As a part of this, the Fee is engaged on a brand new CO? transportation infrastructure and market laws.

This framework ought to map the place sustainable biogenic CO? is obtainable and the place e-fuel vegetation are deliberate, assure honest third-party entry to pipelines and different CO? transport modes, and create a clear, aggressive market fairly than monopoly networks. Completed proper, this laws could make CO? infrastructure an enabler for e-fuels and different sustainable makes use of of biogenic carbon, as a substitute of a instrument that primarily locks in fossil emissions

Additional studying

Try T&E’s newest examine on transporting CO₂.

Article from T&E.