The survival package (part 1)
Accelerating the emissions reduction of one of the hard to abate sectors might look like an impossible task to accomplish. Given all the particularities of the industry, the survival package becomes as complex as it can get. In reality there is no silver bullet to attack the global warming issue, and like in the case of other industrial sectors, the luxury of choosing between an array of possibilities can affect the deployment timeline dramatically.
The chemical industry uses fuels in two ways, as energy used in the process and as feedstock. And it is an industry in a growth path, in 2030 it is expected that a third of the fuel growth demand will be generated by this industry. Therefore the criteria to decide on which investments are going to happen in the next years should be based not only in the traditional economics aspects but also take into consideration the GHG emissions mitigation impact.
Why is the later important or relevant? Although there is no legal obligation yet, many countries and companies have pledged to become carbon neutral by mid century, therefore investing in certain net zero technologies becomes the way forward. But investing in technologies that are not deployed at scale yet comes with uncertainties, and uncertainties may lead to delays if clear criteria’s are not in place. Moreover we are dealing with a complex industry with immense granularity, and with tailor made required solutions based on location, equipment technology, design and service life, etc.
What technical tools are there already to aim for net zero?
New processes innovation
What will be the share of each options in the long term solution package?
My back of the envelope calculation makes the electrification of heat and Power to X the bigger contributors to the change. Maximizing resource efficiency has a high potential as well, specially when we are able to bend the economical models from a linear to a circular approach, adopting design for recycling guidelines and improving the sorting and recycling capacities to increase efficiencies along the value chains.
Biomass and carbon capture will play a role, more modest perhaps and will become regional and local driven solutions, where their delopment is linked to the access to abundant feedstock.
A transformation of this magnitude cannot happen overnight, I am convinced that the regional and global trends and milestones will shape the size of the cake portions over time.
Is there a preferred option?
In my opinion, at this stage all options are worth to pursue and should be on the table, whether some are more appropriate for the transition period, following the debate of carbon lock-in, others should face the competition with food chain claims. But at every stage of the decarbonisation process whatever the challenge may be, it should be supported by data and standards that allow to make informed decisions.
There is so much we can foresee in 2022, process innovation keeps developing new ideas, which should contribute to the toolkit of options. This week I read about a development in chemical recycling that could be combined with capture carbon, killing two birds with one stone. The best combo will be an evolution of all the options included in the first roadmap.
