How energy generation and mobility could work in the world of tomorrow - a look beyond the horizon.
The future of mobility and transportation in Germany, Europe and worldwide is a topic that is approached in Germany with a high level of emotion, a sometimes strong national focus and a sometimes very narrow view of technical options.
In particular, the focus on battery-electric solutions is strange and completely inadequate from a global perspective. The important synthetic fuels are completely ignored. The article is based on the keynote speech by Prof. Franz Josef Radermacher at the Ulm Talks last May and presents an unconventional, holistic approach to climate-neutral energy generation and mobility.
Climate nationalism
Electrolysers could become an important German export technologyGermanyis focusing too much on national goals in the fight against climate change (climate nationalism). However, these are of little relevance in a global context. This focus leads to unfavorable strategies, for example in the areas of green electricity, green hydrogen and synthetic fuels. All considerations are dominated by scarcity and excessive costs. Because people in Germany want to produce themselves what should be wisely imported. Just as 70% of energy is currently imported.
The issue of climate protection is extremely complex. GlobalCO2 emissions continue to grow. The Paris Agreement contains ambitious targets, but no corresponding obligations and measures. The negative momentum in the climate sector is the result of the understandable economic efforts of many poorer countries to catch up in terms of prosperity. China is leading the way, but as a result emits a third of globalCO2 emissions and continues to increase them. At the same time, the world's population is growing at a rapid pace. By 2050, around 2.5 billion people will be added to the world's population, which is equivalent to the population of Germany every year.
German and European climate policy pays little attention to these issues. We are primarily concerned with reducing our ownCO2 emissions. This is of little relevance to the global climate, but it takes up all our attention and enormous financial and intellectual resources. We are fully committed to electromobility, not to climate-neutral synthetic fuels for cars, including for the existing global fleet. Nuclear power is rejected across the board, as is the capture and use ofCO2 from industrial plants and coal-fired power stations.
reFuels and cost issues
There are around 1.3 billion vehicles with combustion engines on the road worldwide, the majority of which are used for individual mobility, with around 300 million vehicles being (heavy) trucks. It is to be expected that many more such vehicles will be added over the coming decades and that on average at least 1.5 billion combustion vehicles will be on the road, not least because of the continuing high population growth and widespread poverty and legitimate expectations of development. In Germany, there are currently around 47 million such vehicles, of which around 65% are petrol vehicles and around 35% are diesel vehicles. The total global emissions volume in this sector is around 5 billion tons ofCO2 per year. Emissions from airplanes and ships total perhaps a third of the emissions from vehicles with combustion engines. To achieve the 2 °C target, it would be very helpful if synthetic fuels, known as reFuels, could be used as an alternative to the status quo. Reasonably, these fuels should also generate tax revenue, as is the case today, because the road system has to be financed. Nevertheless, the costs should be able to remain below 2 euros per liter, then a switch to synthetic fuels would ultimately be a realistic option for all combustion engines on the planet.
Studies from the petroleum industry and many thematically related associations, such as in particular the "Frontier Study" and studies by the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), such as studies in the author's environment, which were mainly accompanied by leading figures from Global Energy Solutions e.V. and are based on a broad literature on the subject as well as on the author's own industrial experience, paint the following picture with regard to the cost situation:
In the world's major solar deserts, prices for green electricity of less than 2 cents per kWh can be achieved at the transfer point to electrolysis. In fact, prices today are already significantly lower in some cases. This results in a price for green hydrogen of around 1 euro per ton. Further processing of the green hydrogen into (green) methanol and transport to Germany results in a price per double liter (energetically equivalent to about 1 liter of gasoline) of about 1 euro. With further processing to methanol gasoline and the addition of all taxes paid today, the price remains below 2 euros per liter. If this fuel were to be accepted as climate-neutral for regulatory purposes, it would be in a sustainable order of magnitude in relation to the status quo, asCO2 taxes on these fuels should/would be waived. Above all, there would be no need to convert or replace the vehicles or replace the infrastructure.
This situation actually looks very promising. Cooperation between Africa and Europe, for example, would allow the European and African climate targets to be achieved comparatively cheaply, which neither of the players could achieve alone. In this context, attractive industrial policy prospects arise for Europe in a difficult environment that is increasingly determined by rivalries between the USA and China. However, the road ahead is a long one. The situation in Morocco is currently overshadowed by the conflict between southern Morocco and western Sahara.
Overall, it is proving difficult to implement the path described. Siemens Energy and Porsche are implementing the first project of this kind in Chile (Haru Oni project) with funding from the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology because the infrastructural conditions in Chile are better than in North Africa. The company Obrist from Vorarlberg is pursuing an approach with a vehicle that couples a methanol engine with a small battery. The methanol is produced in the Namibian desert in a climate-friendly way. Its use therefore removesCO2 from the atmosphere. The project was realized in Germany with funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. That is one side of the coin.
On the other hand, various private and social actors would rather push green projects locally than rely on global cooperation. The aim is to keep the money in the country and create new jobs. Where necessary, money should be injected, either directly by the state or by citizens, who should be forced to do so through regulation if necessary. Arguments against cooperation with partners in Africa include new colonialism, blocking a hoped-for energy transition in these countries, risks to our security of supply, etc. From the author's point of view, the "topic is missed". As is so often the case, we do not seem to be interested in how we deal with our partners, e.g. in North Africa, with regard to the global division of labor (see EEG as a non-tariff trade barrier). This attitude can still lead to many conflicts internationally. In contrast, the diverse potential of global cooperation is obviously completely underestimated.
The prices for hydrogen produced in Europe are around 1-1.50 euros per kg for fossil-based hydrogen. Direct reduction with such hydrogen is a competitive alternative to the current use of coke/coal in the steel sector. The so-called green variant (direct reduction with green hydrogen) costs 4-6 euros and more per kilogram of hydrogen in Germany. If you want to cover the resulting differential costs of 100 euros per tonne of steel (at 40 million tons of production in Germany per year) compared to today's costs of around 400 euros per tonne of steel, you are looking at 4 billion euros per year. According to current plans, the German hydrogen strategy will use subsidies totaling EUR 7 billion for the hydrogen ramp-up by 2030. Due to bottlenecks in green electricity, the corresponding green hydrogen cannot be produced in this quantity here in the foreseeable future, let alone be affordable. This path does not appear to be future-proof, either in terms of quantity or financing.
So if we rely on local renewable energy, we will have to do everything we can to prevent inefficiencies in the use of green electricity. This explains the massive rejection of reFuels/synthetic fuels by many political players in this environment. Their use should be prevented in particular because of the high conversion losses compared to the direct use of (green) electricity in electric cars. This is why all those promoting the use of reFuels in private transport are currently finding it difficult in Germany. They are confronted with the "absurd" argument of green hydrogen as the "champagne of the energy transition", although the scarcity leading to the "champagne" is itself created by regulation. The assessment would be completely different if reFuels were produced at suitable locations abroad, taking sustainability aspects into account. Or if, instead of green hydrogen, so-called blue hydrogen (production with gas, capture and compression ofCO2/CCS) were accepted as "green", which the author recommends.
Too little attention has so far been paid in many discussions to the fact that global cooperation is extremely important and that, through global cooperation, green electricity can be produced so cheaply that efficiency disadvantages are no longer significant and the end products, e.g. synthetic fuels, fall within the price dimensions of today's fossil fuels. We have to get there worldwide if we want to solve the climate problem. If the strategy is designed correctly, these efficiency problems will be resolved.
The key thesis here is this: We can only solve the global energy and climate problems if we have a third pillar, namely synthetic green fuels at sustainable prices in addition to green electricity and green hydrogen. By producing these internationally, we are taking advantage of a sensible international division of labor. As Germany, we will earn a lot of money with technology exports, e.g. electrolysers, as well as with CCU/CCS technology.
This is a good approach for us and for Europe. We should allow the production of green electricity, hydrogen and synthetic fuels to take place - indeed, we should want and actively promote it - where it is worthwhile, inexpensive and uncomplicated. Germany would benefit from choosing such a path, as would the world. This applies in particular to many developing and emerging countries and also has considerable positive potential with regard to tackling the population issue.
CO2 recycling
The path to reFuels described above includes another important dimension. Green methanol and methane are produced from green hydrogen via synthesis withCO2 and COrespectively . CO is obtained fromCO2. There are various ways of obtaining thisCO2. In the German debate, the obvious focus on local electricity solutions means thatCO2 from industrial processes that are not easy to electrify, such as lime and cement, will be used in particular. Due to the expected massive construction activity in many developing and emerging countries, especially Africa, there is great potential here. Biogenic material is viewed positively, but the author believes that it will be less and less available for this purpose in the future due to the increasing world population problems. Another (still very expensive) option is direct air capture. If the price of electricity in solar deserts at the transfer point for use moves towards 1 cent/kWh and if further significant cost reductions in the actual plants are achieved, this could become interesting. Perhaps prices below 50 euros per ton ofCO2 can be achieved, but that will take a very long time, if ever. The question also remains as to what will happen to theCO2 if the scope of Direct Air Capture continues to expand. Success would of course make it much easier to tackle the global climate issue and even reduce theCO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the long term. At the same time, this would result in an obvious upper limit for prices onCO2 emissions, which would save us the prices of many 100 euros that are sometimes discussed today and threaten our prosperity.
The author attaches great importance to another aspect that is sometimes vehemently opposed in the German debate. Namely, the apparently sensible and often relatively inexpensive solution of capturingCO2 on a large scale in industrial processes, e.g. in steel production and also in fossil power plants, and using it to produce synthetic fuels, for example. This, for example, with the obvious argument that every ton ofCO2avoided makessense. And if you saveCO2 insteel production that is subsequently released into the atmosphere when methanol gasoline is used in cars, you have at least halved the volume of emissions. Why? Instead of theCO2 emissions from steel production and theCO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels in cars, you only have (in terms of volume) the emissions from the combustion of reFuels, which correspond to the emissions in cars from fossil fuels. However, theseCO2 emissions are now theCO2 that would have previously been released into the atmosphere through steel production, but has now been captured in order to produce the reFuels. If the reFuels are of the climate-neutral gas type, they can be used directly for climate-neutral steel production. TheCO2 then remains in technical cycles and is no longer released into the atmosphere. This is called multiple recycling. With multiple recycling, which is a central element of the solution advocated here, it may be possible to achieve a reduction to 20% of the previousCO2 emissions.
A closed cycle can be organized in the manner indicated. We would then be standing on three legs and would have created a significantly improved starting point for solving the global energy and climate problems. It is important that this succeeds in such a way that the fossil fuel-based industries do not collapse economically.
Summary: "Standing on three legs" Green electricity
Over the last few decades, the possibilities for producing green electricity, i.e. renewable energy in the form of electricity, have greatly improved, especially through large installations of photovoltaic systems and large-scale onshore and offshore wind power. Of particular interest - also from a development perspective - are the potentials in the world's large solar deserts.
The world needs cheap, climate-friendly electricity in huge quantities if a climate catastrophe is to be prevented. The author calculates up to 400,000 TWh for the whole world in 2050. This takes into account the further growth of the world's population, the hoped-for further increase in prosperity (especially in poorer countries) and the lower energy efficiency in poorer countries. The energy losses when green electricity is converted into other forms of use (e.g. e-fuels) are also taken into account. Total electricity production in Germany, including electricity from coal, is currently around 700 TWh. The former German Federal Research Minister Anja Karliczek wanted to cover around 800 TWh of Germany's energy needs from green hydrogen by 2040. In this context, she presented the so-called Potential Atlas, which shows a potential for 165,000 TWh of green electricity per year in West Africa alone.
What does this mean? The international community should ensure that a lot of this green electricity is produced in the right places around the world and at a cost that is not much higher than the current costs of energy use in an international comparison.
Green hydrogen
Many applications require energy in a form that is not electrical and is also used independently of a pipeline system. Today, fossil fuels play a central role in this context, some of which are used to generate electricity, but also in a completely different form (e.g. as fuels). Green hydrogen, or more precisely low-carbon H2, opens up new options in this context. It has therefore always been clear and is becoming increasingly clear that green hydrogen is urgently needed in large quantities as a further component alongside green electricity. This is now also part of the German debate.
With this broadened view of the topic, the path to a new world of energy no longer stands on one leg (green electricity), but on two legs (green electricity and green hydrogen), whereby very large quantities of green electricity are required for the production of green hydrogen, not least because of the conversion losses (around 30%) compared to the direct use of green electricity. Green hydrogen is therefore a by-product of green electricity, which in particular is a great energy storage medium. Many applications require energy in a form other than electricity. This is where green hydrogen and its downstream products come into play.
From a German perspective, there is the problem that we cannot supply ourselves with either green electricity or green hydrogen - just as we cannot currently supply ourselves with fossil fuels locally. What's more, green hydrogen is far too expensive for us to be able to use it competitively worldwide. Politicians are addressing this problem in the German hydrogen strategy with funding programs for green hydrogen (e.g. H2 Global), but also with the promotion of a green "ramp-up" in Germany.
In the author's view, the debate on green hydrogen in Germany and Europe is still far too dominated by the unrealistic idea of some players that the renewable energy we use should largely be produced in Germany or Europe. We have neither the land nor the right amount of sunlight for this. Ultimately, it is hard to understand why people are so fixated on producing energy sources locally. After all, oil, gas and coal are also imported - to our own advantage, as our technology is exported in return.
Synthetic fuels (e-fuels)
However, green electricity and green hydrogen alone are not enough for a global climate-neutral future. With international production, transportation problems remain, which are serious in the case of hydrogen, especially when it comes to transport across large oceans. That is why we need a third pillar alongside green electricity and green hydrogen. This third pillar leads to e-fuels or reFuels (renewable fuels).
Due to the geographical and climatic conditions alone, we need this third component as an energy carrier in order to be able to store and transport the energy. Synthetic fuels, such as green methanol, green methane and green ammonia, are suitable for a wide range of applications and can be produced from green hydrogen. Various synthesis processes exist for this purpose. For example, there is the direct synthesis route and the Fischer-Tropsch line.
For various reasons, the author finds the direct synthesis of methanol and methane particularly attractive. Both substances are very good energy stores and comparatively easy to transport. The methanol route in particular opens up a wide range of applications. The green methane track - like the methanol track - leads towards gas applications, e.g. heating/cooling in houses or (coal) power plants, but also to the topics of steel and cement. The issue of heating/cooling in the climate sector is known to be of central importance and there are cleverer and, above all, cheaper solutions than concentrating exclusively on the expensive energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings, namely the use of climate-neutral synthetic heating oil.
Starting from methanol, the paths to synthetic gasoline, diesel, kerosene, marine fuel and heating oil are promising. It is these reFuels that will help to transform our civilization towards climate neutrality at an affordable cost. The recycling ofCO2 from industrial plants and power stations and theuse of CO2 for the production of synthetic fuels play a major role in this. This is a major advantage of the approach described here.
In particular, such reFuels offer a realistic option for moving the total number of vehicles with combustion engines worldwide towards climate neutrality. Individual mobility plays a central role here, as does individual heating and cooling. In the mobility sector, as mentioned above, we are talking about around 1.3 billion vehicles worldwide, which release a total of around 5 billion tonsof CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That is almost double theCO2 emissions within the EU.
Overall, the path described above is embedded in an environment that has been under development for decades, for which the term "methanol economy" is also used. Today, methanol (albeit in "black" form) is the second most frequently synthesized energy liquid in the world.
