Written By: Jennifer McDermott Associated Press View the original article here
As promised, President Donald Trump began reversing the country’s energy policies his first day in office with a spate of orders largely favoring oil, gas and coal. But there is one renewable energy that did find favor: geothermal.
Energy experts say that makes sense — geothermal energy makes electricity 24/7. Many people working in the field came from the oil and gas industry and they use much of the same technology for drilling wells. Trump strongly supports and gets support from the oil and gas industry. And there’s bipartisan support in Congress for geothermal.
“The embrace of advanced geothermal under this new administration, I’d say is not a giant surprise,” said Alex Kania, a managing director at Marathon Capital. “It’s reliable, it’s efficient, and frankly their ties to the more conventional forms of energy production, I think, is probably not lost on some people.”
Geothermal creates electricity cleanly by making steam from the Earth’s natural heat and using that steam to spin a turbine. It’s a climate solution because it reduces the need for traditional power plants that burn fossil fuels and cause climate change.
Trump declared an energy emergency on Monday, and included geothermal heat as one of the domestic energy resources that could help ensure a reliable, diversified and affordable supply of energy. Solar, wind and battery storage were omitted, and wind was singled out in a separate order with measures intended to slow it down.
“Geothermal is heating up and the Trump administration is going to empower the industry over the next four years to achieve its potential,” said Bryant Jones, executive director of the geothermal trade association, Geothermal Rising.
It’s a vibrant business right now.
New geothermal companies are adapting technology and practices from oil and gas to create steam from ubiquitous hot rock. That would make this kind of electricity possible in many more places. The Energy Department estimates the next generation of geothermal projects could provide some 90 gigawatts in the U.S. by 2050 — enough to power 65 million homes or more. Former Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm supported geothermal as a climate solution.
Trump’s pick for energy secretary, Chris Wright, is a fossil fuel executive who values geothermal, too. His company, Denver-based Liberty Energy, invested in Fervo Energy, a Houston-based geothermal company. Wright said at his confirmation hearing that he’s excited about geothermal as an “an enormous, abundant energy resource below everyone’s feet.”
Wright’s appointment is a clear signal that this administration will support geothermal, said Terra Rogers, a program director who focuses on the technology at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force.
“He’s well-informed of its risks and opportunities, and continues to be a strong advocate for what it could be,” Rogers said.
The United States is a world leader in electricity made from geothermal energy, but it still accounts for less than half a percent of the nation’s total large-scale generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The big states are California, Nevada, Utah, Hawaii, Oregon, Idaho and New Mexico, where reservoirs of steam, or very hot water, lie close to the surface.
In its first actions this week, the new administration also indicated support for nuclear power and removing obstacles to mining uranium, which can be refined into nuclear fuel. Like geothermal, nuclear power does not cause climate change. The executive order also backs hydropower.
Solar is the fastest-growing source of electricity generation in the United States.
Trump wants to increase production of oil and gas in order for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world, he says. He took aim at wind energy, temporarily halting offshore wind lease sales in federal waters and pausing federal approvals, permits and loans for projects both onshore and offshore.
Trump says wind turbines are horrible, only work with subsidies and are “many, many times” more expensive than natural gas. Offshore wind is one of the most expensive sources of new power generation, but onshore wind is cheaper than new natural gas plants, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
Jones, at Geothermal Rising, said the industry hopes the support for geothermal energy will lead to streamlined permitting, more federal research and tax credits to promote innovation.
Sage Geosystems in Houston is a geothermal company launched by former executives at oil and gas giant Shell. CEO Cindy Taff said it’s exciting to see more momentum building for geothermal. She hopes it will spur investment in large projects, including those that meet surging demand for electricity from data centers and artificial intelligence, and projects to make military facilities energy resilient.
If geothermal projects could multiply fast across the country, she said, it would bring the cost down, and that would be good for everyone.
“This could be the decade of geothermal,” Taff said.
Written by: Paul Gerke View the original article here
President Donald Trump has wasted no time following through on previous pledges to neuter clean energy legislation enacted by his predecessor and establish new policies that promote the burning of more fossil fuels under the guise of putting America first.
Amidst a spate of executive orders signed Monday, Trump halted the disbursement of all funding provided by the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), policies he calls the “Green New Scam.” He also cleared the way for drilling on federal lands to combat an “energy emergency” blamed on the previous administration, halted leasing and permitting for offshore wind projects, and restarted the process of withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty combatting climate change.
The IRA funding pipeline gets plugged
Per an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy,” Trump advises all federal agencies to immediately pause doling out IRA and IIJA funding including (but not limited to) money for electric vehicle charging stations made available through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program.
The new administration will review the processes, policies, and programs for issuing grants, loans, contracts, or any other financial disbursements of such appropriated funds for consistency with the law and a new energy policy outlined elsewhere in the order (detailed below). Within 90 days, all agency heads must submit a report to the Director of the National Economic Council (NEC) and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) detailing the findings of this review, including recommendations to enhance their alignment with the new America-first energy policy.
Although the order does not appear to apply to funding already allocated, which would be very difficult to recall, it’s apparent that not another cent will flow from IRA coffers until those directors sign off on how the money will be used. The order also instructs entities procuring goods and services, making decisions about leases, and efforting other arrangements tapping into federal funds to prioritize cost-effectiveness, American workers and businesses, and the sensible use of taxpayer money, to the greatest extent.
On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to rescind any unspent IRA funding, prompting federal agencies to rush billions of dollars out the door over the last few weeks before the new U.S. President was sworn in. During President Biden’s tenure, the landmark IRA and associated legislation poured hundreds of billions of dollars into clean energy, electric infrastructure, and other climate initiatives. The Department of Energy has committed to disbursing more than $170 billion in grants and loans for wind, solar, hydrogen, and electric vehicle projects and supporting a mishmash of new and novel technologies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently reported it had awarded 93% of the grant money received via the IRA.
America’s new energy policy
In the same executive order, Trump terminated Biden’s American Climate Corps, a New Deal-inspired jobs program to fight climate change, and ordered the EPA to consider eliminating the “social cost of carbon,” a metric used to estimate the potential economic damage caused by global warming and extreme weather. The benchmark has been previously used to establish environmental policies.
Trump also outlined a new national energy policy to “unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy and natural resources,” which is as follows:
It is the policy of the United States:
(a) to encourage energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader long into the future;
(b) to establish our position as the leading producer and processor of non-fuel minerals, including rare earth minerals, which will create jobs and prosperity at home, strengthen supply chains for the United States and its allies, and reduce the global influence of malign and adversarial states;
(c) to protect the United States’s economic and national security and military preparedness by ensuring that an abundant supply of reliable energy is readily accessible in every State and territory of the Nation;
(d) to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are grounded in clearly applicable law;
(e) to eliminate the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate” and promote true consumer choice, which is essential for economic growth and innovation, by removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access; by ensuring a level regulatory playing field for consumer choice in vehicles; by terminating, where appropriate, state emissions waivers that function to limit sales of gasoline-powered automobiles; and by considering the elimination of unfair subsidies and other ill-conceived government-imposed market distortions that favor EVs over other technologies and effectively mandate their purchase by individuals, private businesses, and government entities alike by rendering other types of vehicles unaffordable;
(f) to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries;
(g) to ensure that the global effects of a rule, regulation, or action shall, whenever evaluated, be reported separately from its domestic costs and benefits, in order to promote sound regulatory decision making and prioritize the interests of the American people;
(h) to guarantee that all executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide opportunity for public comment and rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis; and
(i) to ensure that no Federal funding be employed in a manner contrary to the principles outlined in this section, unless required by law.
Other energy orders
In his order declaring an “energy emergency,” Trump took thinly veiled potshots at renewables, suggesting their intermittency makes them inherently unreliable.
“A precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action. Without immediate remedy, this situation will dramatically deteriorate in the near future due to a high demand for energy and natural resources to power the next generation of technology,” reads part of the order. “The United States’ ability to remain at the forefront of technological innovation depends on a reliable supply of energy and the integrity of our Nation’s electrical grid. Our Nation’s current inadequate development of domestic energy resources leaves us vulnerable to hostile foreign actors and poses an imminent and growing threat to the United States’ prosperity and national security.”
The order determines the problems are most pronounced in the Northeast and on the West Coast, “where dangerous state and local policies jeopardize our nation’s core national defense and security needs, and devastate the prosperity of not only local residents but the entire United States population.” Those regions are classically associated with renewable energy, although Texas (which has gone red in 11 straight elections) is the new boomtown for clean tech. A slew of new solar, wind, and storage assets helped keep the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) grid stable this summer during record demand– a far cry from the year prior.
Trump also signed an executive order Monday that once again directed the United States to withdraw from the Paris Accord, a global climate agreement once championed by the U.S. that has the support of its closest allies. Trump abandoned the agreement in 2017 during his first term; Biden reversed course during his time in office. The pact allows countries to provide targets for emission reductions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Last month, the outgoing Biden administration set a goal to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% by 2035. The ambitious edict will almost certainly be disregarded by the Trump Administration.
Electreon is part of a new project that will equip a UPS facility in Detroit with wireless charging capabilities.
By: Jordyn Grzelewski View the original article here
Electreon
There may come a day when topping up your EV’s battery is as simple as driving down the road.
In the meantime, Israeli startup Electreon is making progress toward introducing wireless EV charging to what its leaders see as the best segment to lead the way on this emerging tech: commercial fleets.
The state of Michigan recently announced an expansion of its wireless charging partnership with Electreon to provide charging solutions to a UPS fleet in Detroit. As Tech Brew previously reported, Electreon started testing its tech on a quarter-mile portion of road on the Michigan Central campus in Detroit, with support from the state, about a year ago.
Electreon will integrate its charging tech into an electric van assembled by commercial EV manufacturer Xos, according to a news release, and the companies will install stationary, cable-free charging equipment at a UPS facility.
The project stakeholders said in the release that this deployment could help prove out wireless charging tech’s “potential to lower the total cost of ownership in the electrification of commercial truck fleets.”
“We’re excited to demonstrate how Electreon’s technology can optimize electric fleet usage and showcase the seamless integration of wireless charging into daily fleet operations, minimizing downtime and enabling charging across time and location,” Stefan Tongur, Electreon’s VP of business development for the US, said in a statement.
No wires needed: The idea behind wireless (or inductive) charging is essentially to make charging a forgettable experience: Drivers don’t have to worry about plugging in and can even boost their range on the go.
Stakeholders like Tongur also have noted advantages like potentially being able to reduce battery sizes—which make up a significant portion of the cost of EVs—because drivers wouldn’t need as much range if they’re able to charge while they’re literally on the road (the tech has skeptics, too, who point to challenges like the massive investment and coordination it would require to rebuild portions of roadways).
For Electreon’s pilot project in Detroit, copper coils were installed under the road surface. The coils attach to a receiver that’s built into the vehicle. A magnetic field enables the roadway to transfer electricity to the vehicle’s battery.
The project was touted as the first public wireless charging roadway in the country. The aim was to determine whether it’s feasible to equip public roads with wireless charging capabilities, as part of a five-year agreement the startup has with the state.
Tongur said at the time, though, that Electreon’s near-term focus would be on commercial applications of its technology until it’s scaled up enough to support projects that would serve the mass market.
“We’re not going to the private passenger cars yet, because fleets are predictable in their behavior of where they drive,” he told Tech Brew previously. “They represent for us a very good go-to-market segment. That might be buses, heavy-duty trucks, last-mile delivery vehicles, shuttles.”
Businesses and fleet operators face a different calculus than retail consumers about making the electric switch. It has to make financial sense from the jump and deliver total cost-of-ownership benefits, even as businesses navigate shifting regulations. Fleet operators also are heavily focused on factors like where and how they’ll charge EVs and which commercial EVs make the most sense for their businesses.
“By doing those kinds of target segments first and getting those users’ fleets on board, we’ll also get the vehicles on board,” Tongur told us earlier this year. “We get the policymakers on board. We get the DOTs on board. And then we can scale this” to other use cases.
Drivers in sunnier climes get could 7,400 free miles each year
(Image Credit: Mercedes-Benz)
Mercedes has unveiled a series of future innovations during workshops
Its ‘solar paint’ contains no rare earths and no toxic materials
Aerodynamic braking and power converters aim to improve EV efficiencies
The utopian dream of solar-powered motoring might not be so distant, as Mercedes-Benz recently opened the doors to some of its most forward-thinking engineering laboratories – and it turns out photovoltaic surfaces are very much on the agenda.
During a number of workshops in its home city of Stuttgart, Germany, Mercedes-Benz lifted the lid on how it has been working on a new kind of solar surface that could generate enough electricity for folks in sunnier climates to cover their daily commuting requirements.
According to the German marque, the ‘solar modules’ measure just five micrometers in thickness – significantly thinner than a human hair – and weigh just 50 grams per square meter. They can be applied to almost any substrate, with applications of future vehicles likely coming in the form of a “wafer-thin layer of paste” that will cover most of the body work.
Mercedes-Benz has past experience with solar panels and the impact they can have on the electric range of EVs, as the company’s record-breaking EQXX concept (the rolling lab that drove more than 620 miles on a single charge) used a small solar panel on the roof that added around 30km (18 miles) of additional range during one of its long distance record attempts.
But the breakthrough in photovoltaic surface treatments means much more of a vehicle could be covered, equating to a much greater increase in additional EV mileage.
No giant solar panels needed
(Image Credit: Mercedes-Benz)
Taking a fairly standard mid-sized SUV like the marque’s EQS as an example, Mercedes engineers claim the 11 square meter surface area and the 20% solar efficiencies of the technology would be enough to generate around 7,400-miles of motoring per year in somewhere sunny, like Los Angeles.
Nanoparticle-based paint would also allow 94% of the sun’s energy to pass through to the solar coating, meaning future EVs won’t necessarily have to look like giant solar panels.
Studying the daily driving habits of EV owners in Stuttgart, Germany, those close to the project found they cover an average of 52 kilometers (around 32 miles) a day. Around 62% of this distance would be covered using solar energy, the company says, despite the often poor weather conditions.
Again, if you live somewhere with plenty of excess sunshine, the ‘always-on’ nature of a photovoltaic surface means the vehicle could effectively be charging, even when parked.
As a result, LA owners could cover 100% of their driving distance on average by solar energy. Any surplus achieved could be fed directly into the home network via bidirectional charging, in theory.
Braking down inefficiencies
(Image Credit: Mercedes-Benz)
Alongside pondering the state of future cities and speeding up AI decisions with neuromorphic computing, Mercedes-Benz also touched on the fact that it is also working on an EV braking system that removes the need for standard discs, drums and pads.
Effectively ridding the world of harmful particles emitted in the form of brake dust, Mercedes’ innovation is integrated into the electric drive unit at the front or rear axle, negating the need for in-wheel brakes.
Not only would this be subject to minimal wear and take up less space, it would also mean the company could look at much lighter wheel and tyre combinations, reducing the overall mass of an EV, as well as exploring fully-enclosed rims for optimized aerodynamics, as openings for brake cooling would no longer be required.
Plus, the company’s research into electrical inverter systems could see the integration of micro-converters directly at battery-cell level, which would allow for greater control over individual cells.
It is complicated stuff, but it would result in more efficient battery performance, increased the longevity of battery pack lifespans and greater freedom when it comes to packaging – allowing engineers to use varying cell designs throughout the vehicle.
All of these advancements are still a long way from making production, but it is good to see Mercedes-Benz busy exploring innovations that offer its future customers real-world value.
Contributed by Dr. Brennan Gantner, CEO and co-founder of Skip Technology View the original article here
This article is part one of a two-part series addressing energy curtailment. Part two will be published later this week on Renewable Energy World.
New reports detailing the staggering waste of two-thirds of the energy generated in the USA have society scrambling to understand how. While electricity generation and transmission loss are hardly new, the rise of renewable energy (RE) sources has led to a staggering amount of energy that is literally thrown away- rendered unusable.
In 2022, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) curtailed 2.4 million megawatt hours (MWh) of utility-scale wind and solar output, a 63% increase from the amount of electricity curtailed in 2021, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). At wholesale costs, that’s millions of dollars of economic loss; At the current average end-user rate for electricity in California of $0.33/kWh, it’s $800 billion dollars lost.
Storage and timed release of electricity through the use of large-scale energy storage systems could cure the curtailment problem, reducing wasted clean power and potentially saving billions of dollars.
What is energy curtailment?
Large-scale energy use via the electrical grid is a finely balanced process. For decades, the state of California has suffered from rolling brownouts due to insufficient generation. Texas has seen similar problems from wholly different causes, with electricity generation failing at low temperatures, resulting in mass blackouts and more. And while underproducing energy, especially drastically compared to demand, is a life-threatening issue, overproducing energy can negatively impact the stability and longevity of the grid. Sufficient excess can cause everyday power surges but on much larger scales. This damages or destroys anything grid-tied: appliances, manufacturing, transformers, or minor electronics like phones and chargers. Even when equipment is not damaged, sufficient supply-demand imbalance, where supply outstrips demand, results in power being reflected back to the grid, to be lost as heat.
To walk the narrow line between under and over-production, US utilities use a bulk production method for primary generation supplemented by variable output and smaller fast spin-up plants to meet demand that varies by time-of-use (TOU). Historically, US bulk generation has been provided by coal. Coal plants have longer ramp-up and cooldown times, which makes them ideal for steady, bulk generation, while natural gas peaker plants have been used for on-demand generation during high TOU.
Coal has proven problematic in many ways. With massive carbon and sulfide output, coal plants generate potent greenhouse gasses and radioactive dust. More extreme weather effects due to climate change are being observed, thanks, in large part, to years of coal power plant output. Worse, coal pollution at every stage, from mining to burning, produces multiple adverse health conditions. From miners with lung disease to local residents receiving VERY large radiation doses, the economic costs of coal are staggering, let alone the humanitarian ones. Burning natural gas (methane with trace additives) is cleaner but still results in greenhouse gases. What’s needed are electricity production methods that don’t release CO2. Enter renewable energy (RE),
RE comes from natural processes that can be tapped without burning anything. The current market winner is solar energy, with wind and water trailing. Natural processes, however, occur sporadically, at times that often are not the same schedule as when society would like to use power. Solar, for example, is only available during the day. Turbines only produce power when the wind blows. Hydroelectricity from water can be more stable until a drought occurs, such as has been the case with Lake Mead, resulting in widespread power outages. Each RE source has drawbacks, but all share the same benefit: they don’t produce greenhouse gasses and perpetuate further climate change.
Why does curtailment happen?
Because the grid requires balancing supply and demand, every US grid runs a surplus whose size is determined by how well providers can forecast demand. Good forecasts result in small but real waste. Bad forecasts, however, result in either blackouts or massive waste. This excess power is the first type of curtailment, where power is supplied beyond the demand. Mitigating this at the grid scale is a complex process, often involving multiple agencies that are slow to act.
RE does not make curtailment any less of a problem. If anything, inherent RE variability exacerbates the complexity of matching supply to demand: solar peaks midday, wind peaks whenever the wind blows, but usage peaks when the workday ends, as workers return home, cook dinner, watch TV, and are generally awake after the sun sets. This typically results in TOU rate hikes. Usage also spikes in the late afternoon in locations that require cooling, like much of the southern US. On particularly warm days, when air conditioning is a life-saving necessity, the heat curve lags behind the illumination curve, so while the peak of solar energy production is midday, the heat peak is between 3 and 5 pm. Finally, usage peaks at night in locations that require heating. In particular, transitioning from local fossil fuel-burning heat sources in the northern part of the country to heat pumps, results in usage for heating peaking overnight into early morning.
Additionally, large amounts of California Independent System Operator (CAISO) curtailment are reported seasonally. Solar production ramps up through spring to peak in summer, but usage lags production. The seasonal variation in RE results in not a mismatch of hours, but potentially months.
A general solution is the same as for fossil fuels: produce exactly as much as needed for the worst-case scenario- that way, there’s always power. On average, a large excess of power is generated. This is the second form of curtailment, where (dirty) power is produced concurrent with RE production, and excess energy is discarded. This is how energy production in the US currently works because it is currently more cost-effective (in multiple ways) for excess energy to be curtailed instead of stored to average out over high-demand periods. Consider, for example, the case where external government subsidy makes wind and solar construction, functionally, free. Then, because storage would cost money, it’s cheaper to simply build sufficient wind and solar to always have power, curtailing what’s not needed.
Another type of curtailment occurs due to transmission infrastructure limitations. Transcontinental transmission wires can only transmit so much power. When too much is generated it’s often curtailed to prevent overloading transmission wires, which at sufficient power can melt them. The safety limits are set low and do not account for changing conditions. With proper monitoring, more energy could be transmitted on the same set of lines by taking conditions into account. Heimdall Power has launched a device that sits on transmission lines and feeds real-time information about conditions to centralized monitoring. Set to be tested in the US in 2025, it could allow 40% more power to be transmitted using existing wires.
What are the costs of curtailment?
While subsidies exist, it is not functionally free to construct RE generation. Curtailment happens in large part for economic reasons, though the cost is more complex than the materials and installation costs of storage methods. As cited in the introduction of this article, in 2022 the CAISO curtailed 2.4 million megawatt hours (MWh) of utility-scale wind and solar output, a 63% increase compared to electricity curtailed in 2021. At the average end-user rate for electricity in California of $0.33/kWh, that’s $800 billion dollars in loss.
Those costs aren’t necessarily economically real, but it’s a place to start. Assuming greater availability did not impact price, they can be compared to the costs to generate the wasted excess. In 2022, the average utility-scale solar installation cost per watt was $1.07, rising to $1.16 in the first quarter of 2023. Using these figures, the extra generation installation cost is:
These costs are decreasing, but the decrease is leveling off, with current wholesale costs as low as $30/MWh. The construction represents just the sunk costs in building additional generation, while the wholesale electricity rate represents what a market with an infinitely large demand for electricity absorbs if available. While neither of those is the case, the true economic value lost must be somewhere between.
New advances decrease these costs. Solar was not competitively priced until 15 years ago, and today solar electricity is among the cheapest available. It may ultimately be cheaper to overbuild energy production facilities should those costs prove cheaper than storage costs. Indeed, with the cost of Lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries approaching $100/kWh, it makes sense to consider alternative approaches to li-ion on cost.
Contributed by Dr. Brennan Gantner, CEO and co-founder of Skip Technology View the original article here
This article is part two of a two-part series addressing energy curtailment. Part one was published earlier this week on Renewable Energy World.
While a thought experiment involving the free construction of infinite wind energy generation capacity elucidates the economics of generation vs. curtailment, it sidesteps the problem of time-shifted generation vs. usage peaks. Wind may blow at any time, in any location, so a sufficiently large number of turbines could conceivably cover peak usage needs with large curtailment off-peak. Solar, however, is locked to overhead sunlight hours, so it cannot be harvested at all desired usage times, at least without very long-distance transmission, which represents a much larger problem. To convert to a renewable energy (RE) world, with large amounts of solar production, energy storage isn’t just an economic problem, it is fundamentally required.
Lithium (li)-ion storage is, currently, the dominant player in grid-scale energy storage, but there is insufficient capacity in current leading li-ion battery technology to supply the grid-scale storage necessary to accommodate even the current levels of RE generation. This supply side failure is a direct driver of curtailment in California and many other markets. Exploration of alternative solutions that offer to offset the resource restrictions that impact li-ion energy storage include pumped hydro (Lake Mead), electro-mechanical (Energy Vault), thermal (Ambri), and alternative electro-chemistries (Form, ESS Inc.), but always at a high economic or land-use cost. Many solutions are simply worse than lithium but are still being investigated due to the overwhelming necessity of storage for a functional RE grid.
Each of the above, including li-ion storage, comes at a higher cost in the current market than the costs resulting from curtailment. Again, this is a direct driver for why energy curtailment happens at large scales: it is simply cheaper, currently, to build more RE generation than it is to store large amounts of energy. As the above technologies reach developmental maturity, however, costs should fall quickly.
How can we better address curtailment in the future?
The next generation of energy storage is almost certainly going to be composed of many different storage solutions. Li-ion continues to come down in costs, and may eventually reach parity with generation costs. Without a huge breakthrough in the technology, however, it still presents many issues related to sourcing, mining, processing, and recycling the rare earth metal(s) involved. Solid-state batteries, just starting to appear on the market, are likely game-changing in many areas.
Moreover, much of the standard battery construction capacity for the foreseeable future is likely to be taken up in the transition from internal combustion vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs), where weight, size, and charge characteristics are incredibly important. These requirements make alternative solutions difficult to implement, as evinced by how long it took for electric vehicles to become commercially viable from initial inception. The first EV was created in 1828 by Hungarian Anyos Jedlik, meaning battery storage technology took almost 200 years to arrive at a commercially viable solution.
A cheaper storage model is clearly needed. Since the requirements for stationary energy storage are more relaxed, one likely option is cost-competitive alternative electro-chemistries. Among many working on this, Skip Tech is developing a high power density, high energy density, liquid system for long-duration energy storage (LDES). In comparison to traditional li-ion batteries, the electrolytic solution is not integrated into the structure of the system, but stored separately and passed through the power cells, where the energy stored in the electrolytic fluids can be extracted or stored by reversing the flow. Flow battery technologies, like the Skip Tech liquid battery, offer many advantages including the ability to customize the duration of storage separately from the amount of power delivered, and in some cases can even support “refueling” approaches, where the fuels used in the system are “charged” at one site and then are transported to the energy storage system, allowing “recharging” without direct grid connection.
A system in which the electrolytic “fuel” is removable can be operated in the more traditional manner of fossil fuel power plants by removing the fuel from the potential RE site and transporting it to an electricity-generating plant elsewhere. This, in turn, allows for the reuse of much of the existing infrastructure around fuel storage, transport, and usage. In particular, the US military has studied power usage and generation in the field and determined that it may be unfeasible to construct long-term, on-site RE generation equipment and facilities. Transitioning this existing high-usage system away from fossil fuels may require a fuel delivery system of much the same nature as existing infrastructure. Transitioning to an electrolytic fuel may be that solution: power can be captured elsewhere, such as wind farms in remote locations, stored in the electrolytic fuel, and transported in the same equipment used to transport fossil fuels today. It can then be extracted at the necessary location by a second set of reversible cells in operation much like a traditional power plant, at a steady power, amperage, voltage, and frequency output to better support existing systems that have come to rely on that stability.
The Skip Tech solutions target the key 10-hour duration market and can scale to higher and lower amounts of energy storage. They do so at a competitive price point (<$100/kWh) and with very long expected system lifetimes (20+ years). This same supply chain is replicable in other parts of the world. Their technological breakthrough, utilizing flowing fluid dynamic membranes rather than classical plastic (e.g. Nafion) membranes, solves the longstanding and key problem that has held back flow batteries from wide adoption. While doing so, it also opens up an electro-chemistry that was incompatible with prior membranes. In particular, Skip Tech can use hydrogen and bromine as the reaction couple, which has an incredibly simple reaction chemistry and very favorable reaction energetics.
The key technological innovation in the Skip Tech system lies in the reaction cell. Traditional flow batteries require a separator membrane to allow electron transport but prevent bulk material migration. Skip Tech has developed cells where traditional plastic membranes have been replaced by flowing liquid membranes formed from hydrobromic acid; the resulting system is a “liquid battery.” Liquid batteries hold the promise of greatly reduced costs and longer lifetimes, while also enabling the use of highly reactive chemicals that are not compatible with traditional membranes. Skip Tech is developing these systems into compact, LDES solutions, using hydrogen and bromine as the primary reactive elements. The hydrogen bromine (HBr) reaction has fast kinetics, leading to high power, typically a few kW/m2. It is also easily reversible, leading to high round trip efficiencies, typically >80% DC-DC. Bromine is readily stored in solution within hydrobromic acid, which leads to high energy densities. The hydrogen and bromine are stored in separate tanks, effectively eliminating self-discharge, and this energy storage solution is scalable to meet Department of Energy (DOE) long duration storage shot cost targets. HBr batteries can also operate at a wide range of environmental conditions, specifically in places where heat or cold require temperature regulation for li-ion batteries.
Based on conservative cost modeling, Skip Tech expects to achieve storage costs below $50/kWh in the long run, and levelized costs of storage below $0.05/kWh-cycle, where storage becomes cheaper than extra RE generation capacity. At their current design point, the capital cost of the power system, including labor, is CP =$396/kW ($33/kWh), while the capital cost of the energy system is CE =$56/kWh. These costs decrease further for longer duration systems (e.g., 24 hours of storage costs less per kWh than 12 hours).
Curtailment presents real economic costs that are measurable and additional ethical problems related to waste that are more difficult to quantify. Everyone can agree, however, it is better to produce in proportion to what we need, so long as the costs to do so are advantageous. To that end, we can decrease curtailment with investment in and exploration of new storage technologies to better match electricity generation with usage. This will bring the costs associated with storage down sufficiently so that it becomes more economically viable to store excess energy generation instead of simply wasting it freeing up resources we can devote to more and better pursuits and decreasing human impact on the climate. Thus, investment in storage technologies is a win for everyone.
By: Michele Bertilli View the original article here
Following bold policies that promoted reforestation and private conservation in the early 1980s and 1990s, Costa Rica succeeded in significantly increasing its forest cover, which also boosted its nature-based tourism industry.
But the rise of mass tourism, including cruise ships, are starting to bring in environmental damage, warn the early promoters of sustainable tourism, as the industry’s value is estimated to more than triple by 2032.
The experts recommend shifting from pursuing sustainability to a regenerative approach, integrating local communities in tourism supply chains, and redirecting profits from mass tourism to private conservation.
LIMÓN, Costa Rica — On board Jurgen Stein’s two-seat gyrocopter, tourists can see the rainforest like never before. From the sky, the Selva Bananito Reserve looks like an endless stretch of broccoli.
“We have 11 life zones. Almost 5% of the global biodiversity exists here,” Stein says, pointing at the reserve that’s part of the Bosque de las Madres biological corridor.
Nestled in the Talamanca Mountains in southeastern Costa Rica, his private reserve stretches to the fringe of La Amistad International Park, the largest nature reserve in Central America that straddles more than 400,000 hectares (162,000 acres) of the border region between Costa Rica and Panama. Stein’s own reserve, a more modest 1,700 hectares (4,200 acres), was inherited largely from his father, who purchased the area in 1974 for farming and logging. But Stein refused to continue clearing the forest, and instead turned 1,250 hectares (3,088 acres) into an ecological reserve in 1994, keeping only a third of the property devoted to farming.
Selva Bananito is home to birds such as the great jacamar (Jacamerops aureus), anteaters like the northern tamandua (Tamandua mexicana) and the silky anteater (Cyclopes didactylus), and the Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata). It also hosts jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor). “When my father was 90, I gave him the footprint of a jaguar and a photo of a puma looking at one of our trap cameras. He stared at the picture and cried the whole day,” Stein says.
Birds enthusiasts can explore Selva Bananito to spot some of the 300 species that have been identified on the Lodge’s property. Image by Michele Bertelli.
Soon after establishing his reserve, Stein realized that he needed more sources of income to make up for no longer being able to log. He and his sisters saw tourism as an alternative, and in 1995 they opened the reserve to visitors. Today, guests sleep in 11 cabins built with recycled wood in traditional Caribbean style, and enjoy hiking and horseback riding in the reserve or watching some of the 300 species of birds living here. The more adventurous can also rappel down a 24-meter (80-foot) waterfall or glide from tree to tree on zip lines. And they can fly with Stein over the forest.
Over the years, Stein has become a well-known figure in Costa Rica’s ecotourism industry, including serving as vice president of the National Chamber for Ecotourism (CANAECO) and sitting on the board of the Nature Reserves Network, which represents all of the country’s private reserves. If Costa Rica has achieved worldwide recognition, he says, it’s thanks to tourism.
Tourism and conservation go hand in hand
In Costa Rica, sustainable tourism became an essential driver of the economy in the early 1980s. “We could not compete with the beaches of Mexico and the Caribbean islands. But we realized that no one had our natural assets,” Costa Rican Tourism Minister William Rodriguez López tells Mongabay.
The country implemented several bold policies to showcase its standing as home to 6.5% of global biodiversity. In 1969, it began designating the first protected areas, reversing policies stretching back to the early 1800s that had favored forest-clearing agribusiness. These earlier policies promoting deforestation drove Costa Rica’s rainforest cover as a proportion of the country’s total land area to as low as 40% in 1987. In 1995, Costa Rica turned the tide and approved a new law banning any further changes in land use and implementing a payment for environmental services (PES) program to support private conservation efforts.
Under the PES scheme, farmers and landowners receive an economic incentive for taking care of their trees through practices such as reforestation or agroforestry. The program, is funded mainly through a national fuel tax and water charge, covers 1.3 million hectares (3.2 million acres), or about a quarter of Costa Rica’s land area, and has seen 6 million trees planted since 1997.
Together, these policies have proved successful: today, forests cover 57% of the country. According to the World Bank, Costa Rica is the first tropical country to have reversed deforestation.
Jurgen Stein points out the boundaries of the Selva Bananito Reserve from his two-seater gyrocopter. Image by Michele Bertelli.
Tourism has developed along the same trajectory: the number of foreign visitors has risen steadily; of the 2.7 million people coming to Costa Rica in 2023, 1.6 million, or about three in five, visited its protected areas. Tourism today accounts for 8.2% of GDP and 21.3% of the workforce, both direct and indirect, making it an essential part of the economy.
Over time, the tourism sector has implemented many measures toward greater sustainability. In the 1990s, the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (ICT) created a third-party certified label to guarantee the social and environmental sustainability of its hotels and other ventures. Businesses looking to be certified must meet a range of criteria, including measuring their carbon footprint.
But local ecotourism operators such as Stein say they fear this blessing could soon turn into a curse. “Costa Rica should keep growing the seed it planted many years ago, which attracted the tourists here. The same tourists that today asked me how is [it] possible that they saw trucks loaded with giant trees,” Stein says.
The threat of mass tourism
During his frequent flights over the rainforest, Stein has witnessed an increased presence of deforestation since the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020. He says he fears the subsequent economic crisis has pushed many local farmers toward illegal logging, damaging the country’s most precious asset. “It’s all for construction. Costa Rica is for sale. Ocean view, beachfront, whatever: we are selling our country to people who have money and want a second or third house,” Stein says.
In 2023, the public prosecutor’s office received 2,355 complaints of environmental crimes, most regarding damage to biodiversity, invasion of protected areas, violations of the forestry law, or illegal mining. Illegal logging is on the rise, especially in the country’s north, on its southern Pacific coast, and in Limón, the Caribbean coastal province where the Selva Bananito Reserve lies.
Guests of Selva Bananito can enjoy hiking, horse-riding and birdwatching. Image by Michele Bertelli.
Stein recalls flying to the border with Panama in March 2022 and spotting a track through the forest that he’d never seen before. “I flew over there again a week later, and I could already see a bulldozer and the timber,” he says. He sent the coordinates to the authorities, who subsequently arrested a group of loggers. But simply policing the damage after the fact isn’t enough, Stein says.
He notes that the farmer who allowed the logging on his land earned the equivalent of more than $100,000 for just a week of logging. For conserving the same amount of forest, he would have earned just over $3,000 in five years.
“Extraction and destruction bring more money than conservation,” Stein says.
His concerns are shared among several of the pioneers of sustainable tourism in the country. “Massive tourism is poisonous for eco-travelers,” says Glenn Jampol, chair of the Global Ecotourism Network (GEN) and owner of the Finca Rosa Blanca Coffee Farm & Inn. Jampol moved to Costa Rica from the U.S. after buying an old coffee farm. With his mother, they decided to restore the area and rent out a few bedrooms to pay for the work. And it was a success. National Geographic magazine selected Finca Rosa Blanca as one of its Unique Lodges of the World. Jampol’s coffee was also awarded the top prize for organic coffee at the World Coffee Challenge.
But Jampol says he’s worried that, by embracing mass tourism and cruise ships, Costa Rica could lose its competitive edge in the expanding sustainable tourism industry. GEN valued the global sustainable tourism market in 2022 at $3.3 trillion, and projects it could reach $11.4 trillion by 2032. “Many believe that the more tourists, the better. But it’s a lie,” Jampol says. “It is not about the price: it’s about the value, [about] an unforgettable experience. If we follow the [mass tourism] trend, we will lose all our edge.”
From sustainability to regeneration
Even the ICT, the national tourism institute, seems aware of the limits of the current model. “In a destination like Costa Rica, nature is the raw material to generate tourism. We cannot imagine growing infinitely,” says Tourism Minister Rodriguez López, adding the country’s success has been based on attracting higher-income visitors. Tourists spend an average of $1,746 and remain in the country for almost 13 nights. “We don’t want massive tourism like some other Caribbean islands, where they strive to receive 12 million tourists on an island that is smaller than our country. There is no degree of conservation there, and no sustainability by a long shot,” Rodriguez López says.
Yet, in 2022-2023, cruise ship arrivals set a new record, with Costa Rica welcoming around 350,000 visitors from 407 ships.
Glenn Jampol (far left) joins a group of visitors for a coffee tasting at Finca Rosa Blanca Coffee Farm & Inn. Image by Michele Bertelli.
“Cruise tourism is the worst social polluter: they eat everything on board, leave the garbage on the land, and work only with a couple of tour operators,” Jampol says. “We don’t want more tourism: we want better tourism.”
At the annual “Planet, People and Peace” conference organized by ecotourism association CANAECO in October 2023, many other operators voiced their concerns.
“Not everyone who lives in a touristic place is part of its value chain,” says Mario Socatelli, a consultant and speaker with more than 25 years of experience in the sector. Over his career, Socatelli has gone from managing sightseeing tour operators to flight companies. He was both a maker as well as a beneficiary of Costa Rica’s success, and he also recognizes the pitfalls.
“The World Tourism Organization estimates that the value chain of tourism covers 80% of a community, but 20% remains out of reach,” Socatelli tells Mongabay. According to him, Costa Rica should shift from pursuing sustainability to adopting a more integrated regenerative approach. “We don’t value ecosystemic services such as the importance of the biodiversity in the food production, the water generated in a protected area, the importance of a beautiful landscape,” he says.
The solution would be to integrate the whole community into the value chain of tourism. “It is not only about the product or the hotel, but also about the whole territory,” Socatelli says, citing successful examples of rural tourism in Colombia and Italy. He also says the country has no time to waste in finding the right balance between being a popular destination and preserving the ecosystem, because market trends are already changing.
In the meantime, Stein says he’d be satisfied simply by seeing some of the profits generated by mass tourism pouring down into his conservation efforts.
“A hundred and eighty thousand tourists on cruise boats dock in Limón every year,” he points out. “Couldn’t they give us 5% of their profits for the water that they receive [through our reserve]?”
Banner image: Nestled in the Talamanca Mountains in south-east Costa Rica, the Selva Bananito Reserve spans over 1,250 hectares (3,088 acres). Image by Michele Bertelli.
Intelligent floating infrastructure could make cruises more sustainable
Companies including Royal Caribbean Group and ELIRE Group are working to make cruises more sustainable with innovations such as floating infrastructure
Cruise holidays offer a unique blend of relaxation, exploration and fine dining, all without leaving your floating hotel.
The Cruise Lines International Association forecasts an impressive 35.7 million global passengers in 2024 and the global cruise market is more than US$8bn.
Alongside its expansion, the cruise industry faces significant environmental challenges.
Cruise ships produce significant air pollution and have large carbon footprints, considerably surpassing those of flying or driving.
A medium-sized cruise ship can discharge upwards of 1 billion gallons of untreated sewage into the ocean, threatening delicate marine ecosystems like coral reefs with irreversible damage.
The industry is trying to pivot towards greener practices, facilitated by innovative collaborations and pioneering technology.
Jason Liberty, President and CEO at Royal Caribbean Group, says: “As a cruise company, we know we’re only as vibrant as both the destinations we visit and the oceans we sail. That’s why our strategies extend from our ships to our shoreside operations as well.
Jason Liberty, President and CEO at Royal Caribbean Group
“From the tour operators we drive to pursue sustainability certifications to how we are intentionally diversifying our supplier base, with more local sourcing, we are focused on innovating across all aspects of our company, especially in our work to advance sustainability in the communities we visit.”
Amsterdam’s solution to cruising’s problems
In Amsterdam, the influx of 190 cruise ships per year brings a lot of tourists, but also poses serious environmental and residential challenges.
To combat this, the city has initiated plans to drastically reduce the number of cruise ships permitted to dock.
Amsterdam hosts more than 20 million tourists every year
By 2026, the limit will be set at 100, with a complete ban on cruise docking in the city centre envisioned by 2035.
A new terminal, situated 16 miles away, will serve future cruise ships, which from 2027 must employ onshore power instead of traditional oil-fired generators.
Lubomila Jordanova, Founder and CEO of Plan A and Co-Founder of the Greentech Alliance, says: “Amsterdam’s proactive measures reflect a commitment to creating a more sustainable and liveable city by tackling the dual issues of overtourism and pollution head-on.”
Lubomila Jordanova, Founder and CEO of Plan A and Co-Founder of the Greentech Alliance
How floating platforms could support sustainability
The concept of floating smart hubs presents a groundbreaking approach to enhancing cruise sustainability.
These floating infrastructures typically inflict minimal environmental harm compared to permanent port expansions, but current versions usually serve one purpose and are sunk after their useful life.
Smart Hubs offer cost-effective and sustainable long-term solutions with a lifespan of more than 30 years
The floating infrastructure market, set to reach US$18.5bn by 2030, could serve various industries, improving operational sustainability across the board.
ELIRE Group’s hexagonal Smart Hubs can be assembled or dismantled as necessary and aim to support cruising to become more sustainable.
Luke Jenkinson, Founder & Group CEO at ELIRE Group, explains: “The innovative engineering behind our Smart Hubs, combined with the versatility of a unique multi-modal hexagon design, allows for endless configurations tailored to specific cases and locations.
“These range from large coastal wind farm assembly setups to smaller last-mile midstream river cargo configurations to reduce CO₂ emissions.
Luke Jenkinson, Founder & Group CEO at ELIRE Group
“We conducted a study in partnership with an independent decarbonisation consulting company MH Tech and discovered that a network of SmartHubs in ten small regions across the Mediterranean including Malta, a location known for its congested roads, could save the equivalent of 10 million tonnes of CO₂ over a 10 year period.
“In addition, it can take 30% of HGV vehicles off the roads by enabling logistics via electric waterborne transport.”
How Royal Caribbean Group is becoming more sustainable
Royal Caribbean Group has not only committed to stringent sustainability targets but is also pioneering extensive research and technologies to reduce environmental impact.
As of 2023, the company is more than halfway towards its 2025 carbon intensity reduction goals and has diverted 87% of its waste from landfills.
Nick Rose, Vice President, Head of ESG at Royal Caribbean, says: “I am proud of the continued effort Royal Caribbean Group has made to protect our beautiful oceans and find unique ways to reach our communities.”
Nick Rose, Vice President, Head of ESG at Royal Caribbean
Royal Caribbean Group has created the first at-sea waste-to-energy systems and started construction on its first methanol-capable ship.
The company is committed to net zero and has partnered with companies including Mærsk and the WWF to develop new technologies and solutions.
By Victoria Corless View the original article here
A flash heating technique breaks down plastic waste and converts it to pure hydrogen and graphene with significantly less emissions and at a low cost.
As the impacts of the ongoing climate crisis and environmental challenges like pollution and ecosystem degradation become increasingly evident, the need for innovative solutions that address these complex issues on multiple fronts grows more urgent.
In a recent study published in Advanced Materials, researchers led by Boris Yakobson and James Tour from the Department of Materials Science and NanoEngineering at Rice University in the US are doing just this with a new technology that converts waste plastic into clean hydrogen gas and high-purity graphene without any carbon dioxide (CO2).
“What if we turned waste plastic into something much more valuable than recycled plastic while at the same time capturing the hydrogen that is locked inside?” asked Kevin Wyss, a chemist at SLB (formerly known as Schlumberger) who completed the project as part of his Ph.D. thesis.
This idea led to a transformative solution that not only mitigates environmental harm but also harnesses untapped value from problematic waste materials.
The desire for hydrogen
Hydrogen stands out as a clean and attractive fuel source due to its ability to yield substantial energy per unit weight while generating water as its sole byproduct.
“This is what makes it sustainable or ‘green’ compared to current gas, coal, or oil fuels, which emit lots of CO2,” said Wyss. “And unlike batteries or renewable power sources, hydrogen can be stored and re-fueled quickly without waiting hours to charge. For this reason, many automobile manufacturers are thinking about transitioning to hydrogen fuel.”
In 2021, the global consumption of hydrogen reached a staggering 94 million tonnes, and demand is projected to surge in the coming decade. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that, despite hydrogen’s reputation as a green fuel, the dominant method of hydrogen production still relies on fossil fuels through a process called steam-methane reforming, which is not only energy intensive, but results in CO2 emissions as a byproduct. “In fact, for every ton of hydrogen made industrially right now, 10-12 tons of CO2 are produced,” said Wyss.
An emerging alternative is to produce hydrogen gas through a process known as electrolysis, where water is split into its constituent elements using electricity. While the electricity source can be renewable, such as solar, wind, or geothermal energy, ensuring this remains a challenge. These processes also require additional materials, such as catalysts, and cost around $3-5 USD per kg of hydrogen, making it difficult to compete with the reforming process at ~$2 USD per kg.
“You can see why we need methods to produce hydrogen in an efficient and low-cost method that does not produce large amounts of CO2,” said Wyss.
The problem with plastics and hydrogen fuels
Wyss explained that the challenges posed by plastic waste pollution and low-carbon hydrogen production are problems that scientists have successfully addressed decades ago.
“In the case of plastic waste pollution, we know how to recycle plastics — the problem lies in the fact that recycling is so expensive, with the high costs of manually separating plastic types, washing the waste, and then re-melting the polymers,” he said. “As a result, recycled plastics often cost more than new plastics, so there is not an economic incentive to recycle and thus, pollution is still a problem decades later.
“In the case of hydrogen production, we know how to make hydrogen fuel without producing CO2, but is two to three times more expensive than methods that produce hydrogen with lots of CO2.”
Hence, the real challenge lies not in solving these problems, but rather finding ways to reduce the cost of their solutions — a challenge Wyss and his colleagues are tackling head on.
Flash Joule heating breaks down plastics
Their approach uses flash Joule heating, a cutting-edge technique for rapidly heating materials to extremely high temperatures. To achieve this, an electric current is run through a material that has electrical resistance, which swiftly converts the electricity into heat, achieving temperatures of thousands of Kelvins in mere seconds.
“We discharge current through the sample of plastic, with a small amount of added ash to make it conductive, and achieve temperatures up to 2,500°C within a tenth of a second, before the sample cools back down within a few seconds,” said Wyss. “This rapid heating reorganizes the chemical bonds in the plastic — the carbon atoms in the plastic convert to the [carbon-carbon] bonds of graphene, and the hydrogen atoms convert to H2 [gas].”
“This process upcycles the waste plastics with high efficiency using no catalyst or other solvents,” he continued. “Once our plastics have undergone the reaction, we also get pure, valuable graphene, used for strengthening cars, cement, or even making flexible electronics and touchscreens, and which currently has a value of $60,000-$200,000 per ton.”
Wyss says that his lab at Rice University has been working on flash Joule heating for the past five years, but their main focus was previously on making graphene from plastics. But he says that, after some time, they realized that many plastic polymers also contain atomic hydrogen. “If we end up with graphene, which is 100% pure carbon, where is all the atomic hydrogen locked in the plastic going?” he asked.
They therefore set about trapping and studying the volatile gases emitted during their flash Joule heating process, and to their surprise discovered they were liberating almost 93% of the atomic hydrogen and were able to recover up to 64% of it as pure hydrogen — yields that are comparable to current industrial methods that emit five to six times more CO2.
“Our method produces 84% less CO2 and greenhouse gases per ton of hydrogen produced, compared to the current popular industrial method of steam methane reforming, […] and uses less energy than current ‘green’ hydrogen production methods, such as electrolysis,” Wyss said.
Making an EarthShot
This aligns with the US Department of Energy’s EarthShot Initiative, modeled after the historic “Moonshot Challenge”, which aimed to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. Similarly, the EarthShot initiative seeks to mobilize resources and creativity to achieve ambitious environmental goals.
These goals are intended to be scalable, achievable, and designed to tackle critical issues related to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and other environmental crises. “The climate crisis calls for a different kind of moonshot,” they wrote on the website. “Energy Earthshots [such as the Hydrogen Shot] will accelerate breakthroughs of more abundant, affordable, and reliable clean energy solutions within the decade.”
The goal is to make 1kg of clean hydrogen cost $1 USD within the next decade, where clean hydrogen is defined as any that is produced with less then 4 kg of CO2 as a byproduct.
“Our research has shown that we can do that now, if the [flash Joule heating] process is scaled up, converting waste plastics into clean hydrogen and graphene,” said Wyss. “Currently, 95% of hydrogen produced globally results in 10-12 kg of CO2 being produced as a byproduct. Our process produces as little as 1.8 kg of CO2 per kg of hydrogen.”
Before this can happen, Wyss acknowledges that scale-up is still an issue. As hydrogen is a flammable gas, its safe capture and purification requires some careful planning and engineering. But Wyss is hopeful it can be done.
“A company named Universal Matter was started three years ago to scale-up the flash Joule heating process to make graphene,” Wyss said. “In that short time, [they have] scaled from gram-per-day levels to ton-per-day graphene production. So, we are very optimistic that this hydrogen production method can be similarly scaled successfully as the core principles are identical.”
Reference: Boris I. Yakobson, James M. Tour, et al., Synthesis of Clean Hydrogen Gas from Waste Plastic at Zero Net Cost, Advanced Materials (2023). DOI: 10.1002/adma.202306763
The United States is projected to generate 220 million tons of plastic waste in 2024, a 7.11% increase from 2021. Over a third of this waste is expected to be mishandled, contributing significantly to global plastic pollution. With only 19.8% of PET, HDPE, and PP plastics being recycled, the remainder often ends up in landfills, oceans, or incinerators.
The theoretical Plastic Overshoot Day for 2024 is set for this week, September 5, marking when plastic waste production surpasses the planet’s management capacity. A study by EA Earth Action identifies the top offenders in per capita waste generation:
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
The concept of converting plastic waste into hydrogen fuel offers a potential solution to both waste management and energy challenges. This process involves:
Collection
Sorting
Shredding
Pyrolysis
Steam reforming
Each step contributes to a cleaner planet while producing a valuable resource. Hydrogen fuel, a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, could aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that plastic waste is put to purposeful use.
Implementing such a system would require carefully designed infrastructure, stringent regulations, and public cooperation. While challenging, the impact on the environment, human health, and biodiversity warrants such an endeavor. Given that 94% of Americans are inclined to recycle plastics and limit single-use plastic, there is potential for such transformative systems to take root.1
Rice University Breakthrough
Researchers at Rice University have pioneered a easy to scale-up method to convert mixed plastic waste into high-yield hydrogen gas and graphene through rapid flash Joule heating. This breakthrough not only generates clean hydrogen but also creates valuable graphene.
Summary of How it Works and Benefits of Their Process:
Flash Joule heating is a process used to convert plastic waste into hydrogen gas and graphene.
The method rapidly heats plastic waste to high temperatures, causing hydrogen to vaporize and leaving behind graphene.
This process is scalable, low in complexity, and environmentally friendly.
The production of graphene helps offset the costs of hydrogen production, making it economically viable.
Flash Joule heating can produce high-value nanomaterials efficiently and at a low cost.
The process results in reduced carbon emissions compared to traditional methods.
It can synthesize various graphitic materials, such as holey and wrinkled graphene, which have increased surface areas for applications in energy storage and water purification.
The method demonstrates high yields of hydrogen gas from common consumer waste plastics.
Life-cycle assessments show this method releases less CO2 than most current hydrogen production methods.
The approach supports sustainable energy transitions and addresses plastic waste effectively.
Nanyang Technological University Innovation
NTU in Singapore has developed an energy-efficient method using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and a commercially available vanadium catalyst. This process operates at room temperature, drastically reducing the energy footprint compared to traditional heat-driven recycling methods.3
Combining these cutting-edge technologies into a unified system could yield significant environmental and economic benefits. By deploying LED-based pyrolysis followed by advanced steam reforming techniques, the process efficiency can be maximized while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions.
“Integrating these technologies into a circular economy framework, where waste is treated as a resource rather than a disposal problem, will also drive market acceptance and investment.”
This approach reduces the plastic burden on landfills and oceans, and addresses energy security issues by providing an alternative, sustainable fuel source.
Environmental and Economic Impact
Upcycling plastic waste into hydrogen fuel offers significant environmental and economic benefits. By diverting plastic waste from landfills and oceans, this process can mitigate:
Soil contamination
Leachate production
Marine pollution
The reduction in microplastics entering the food chain would have positive implications for both marine life and human health.
Economic Benefits
Creating and operating hydrogen production facilities from plastic waste would generate new jobs across various sectors, from engineering to facility management. The demand for specialized skills in pyrolysis, steam reforming, and hydrogen purification would foster new educational and vocational opportunities.
The shift to hydrogen fuel derived from plastic waste can offer a competitive edge in the face of increasing regulatory pressures to reduce carbon footprints and fluctuating fossil fuel prices. Advancements in technology promise to reduce the cost and energy requirements of hydrogen production, enhancing the feasibility and affordability of scaling up these processes.
In Summary, converting plastic waste into hydrogen and graphene offers a multitude of environmental benefits. This innovative process drastically reduces the amount of plastic ending up in landfills and oceans, where it can leach harmful substances into the ground and marine ecosystems.
By transforming plastic waste, not only is pollution minimized, but valuable graphene is produced, which can be used across various industries, from electronics to materials science. Furthermore, the hydrogen generated serves as a clean energy source, as it emits only water when used as fuel, contributing to a sustainable energy future. This water emission is so clean that some consider it drinkable, showcasing the immense potential of this technology to support environmental and energy goals.
Exploring the full potential of upcycling plastic waste into hydrogen fuel allows the United States to address both environmental sustainability and economic viability. With strategic investments, supportive regulations, and public engagement, this approach can mitigate plastic pollution, foster a circular economy, and position the nation on a sustainable path towards energy transition and environmental stewardship.
Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017;3(7):e1700782.
Wyss B, Luong DX, Tour JM. Recycling plastic waste into graphene and clean hydrogen. Carbon Energy. 2021;3(3):475-485.
Salehzadeh Einabad M, Dehghani H, Nagarajan D, et al. Light-driven plastic waste valorisation to hydrogen fuel and carbon nanomaterials. Nat Catal. 2022;5:706-716.
