Om Julie Abrahams

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Julie Abrahams has created 640 blog entries.

Preserve more buildings and make construction more circular

In Copenhagen, Aarhus and other Danish cities, new concrete buildings are booming, and the infrastructure agreement will use DKK 161 billion. DKK from 2022-2035 to build new motorways and new infrastructure. The world of yesterday and business as usual is extended with concrete and asphalt into the future.

Have we understood the seriousness of the climate crisis? From Vejle to Esbjerg and Stevns you are already affected by the floods, and more wild weather awaits in the future if we do not change course. And it's urgent.

Denmark's share of global CO2-budget (200 gigatons of CO2) expires in 2029, if we focus on our national emissions, but if we look at the Danes' global consumption-based emissions, the budget is eaten up in 2026. This puts us under severe pressure to implement a significant change of course in all sectors. This also applies to the construction industry, which today stands behind it 31 per cent of Denmark's total resource consumption, and 40 per cent of all our waste.

Fortunately, large parts of the construction industry are demanding more and tougher legislation to the benefit of our climate, environment and resources. So perhaps the time is ripe for a fundamental change in the way we relate to the building stock in Denmark?

In May, a broad majority in the Folketing entered into an additional agreement that will lower the limit value for new buildings to 7,1 kg CO2e/m2/year in 2025 and to 5,8 kg in 2029. It is progress that the construction process is also counted against the limit value. But you still shoot way too high over the target. That way we won't win in the green Champions League. In fact, we need to get down to 0,3 kg in 2030, as can be seen from Reduction Roadmap 2.0, which over 630 companies and organizations support.

It is not enough to simply lower the limit values ​​for new construction. We also need to think more broadly and more holistically. The embedded energy and CO2-consumption during the entire use phase, renovations and demolition and transport after end of life should be counted. We should break with CO2-silo thinking. PFAS and other dangerous chemicals should be removed from construction, so that it becomes easier to reuse and recycle materials. If we are to create absolutely sustainable construction in the future, it must stay within all planetary limits and not just the 1,5 degree target in the UN agreement

There are absolute limits to how much more Denmark can build in the future. The big challenge in the coming years is to transform the existing building mass, to have building materials recycled many times and to reduce energy and resource consumption in all parts of the value chain.

In the Green Transition Denmark, we have carried out a thorough review of the many different laws and regulations that currently regulate construction. Our Report – Circular construction: From thought to political action - which was made with support from Realdania, shows a clear common denominator: In the Building Act, the Building Regulations, tax legislation, the Environmental Assessment Act, Construction Acts, the Planning Act and the Building Conservation Act, it is more the exception than the rule that demands are made for circularity and a lower consumption of resources.

In the case of public construction projects, the client is neither met with targets nor requirements to reduce the climate or resource footprint. In most construction laws, history repeats itself. And in the Public Procurement Act there is no requirement to promote new facilities with the lowest possible climate and resource impacts. The Ministry of Finance is pushing for total costs to be as low as possible, and economy trumps environment.

In Denmark, green taxes as a share of gross domestic product have fallen 2 per cent., where two decades ago they were up to 5 per cent. of GDP. We still tell each other nice stories about the green front runner nation, where the polluter pays, but we don't really appreciate nature, climate and the environment properly.

The tax system is not at all designed to support circular design, a lower consumption of resources, less new construction, more renovation, transformation and fewer square meters. The high price that the climate and the earth pay for the massive production and consumption of building materials is in no way reflected in the raw material tax, which today is as low as DKK 5,56 per m3, and which has only increased by DKK 1990 since the 0,56s. The raw material tax has not kept up with the price development. The same applies to the landfill tax, which is only DKK 475 per ton, which is why too many building materials that could well be reused or recycled are still deposited in Denmark. And there is a demolition deduction for depreciable commercial buildings, which leads to even more demolitions, where the building mass should be transformed instead.

In the tax legislation, there are strong incentives to build new and big. With the new property assessments, the land liability is set on the basis of the absolute best utilization of one's land - regardless of whether you per square meter has utilized its full potential or not. If you build new, you are exempt from paying property value tax for a period, while during renovation you have to pay full price - largely unaffected by how big or small the renovation is.

RGO's mapping shows that Danish legislation is full of stumbling blocks that need to be cut. The public authorities lack a clear mandate to prioritize circular solutions. In the Planning Act, there is no requirement that municipalities must include circularity or resource consumption in their municipal plans. But they should.

In addition, there should be a mandatory requirement that all new buildings and facilities positively affect nature, biodiversity and the climate, and that Danish buildings use recycled materials to a greater extent. Circular requirements should be incorporated into every corner of the legislation, so that reductions in climate and resource consumption seep through every small crack in the legislative foundation.

In RGO, we recommend that the politicians, in the upcoming revision of the building regulations, purposefully set circular requirements for improved lifespan, adaptability, design for separation and demolition, and set clear targets for recirculation of building materials. With all new building permits, the developer should be required to produce a circular action plan, and when people want to demolish existing detached houses, villas and commercial buildings, there should be a 'keep or explain' requirement. Often it is better to preserve and renovate many of the old buildings that deserve more life rather than being razed to the ground.

Danes' consumption of materials has increased by as much as 7 per cent. in the last decade, and every Dane consumes 25,3 tons of materials every year, shows Statistics Denmark's latest ten-year overview. This is significantly more than the 14,4 tonnes that an average EU citizen uses. Together with Luxembourg, we have the highest consumption footprint of the EU countries. Construction and construction - along with large imports of oil and wood biomass for burning - are helping to push the numbers sky high. By focusing on circular construction in all laws and regulations, we can significantly reduce material consumption.

We should learn from the best here. The EU's circular front-runner is the Netherlands, which has a goal of halving the consumption of all materials and resources by 2030. They recycle 24,5 per cent. of the virgin materials that enter the economy, where the figure in Denmark is only 4 per cent. - according to Circularity Gap Report. In the Netherlands, they work purposefully to create a circular economy, because they have understood that high energy and resource awareness is the key to future competitiveness.

The Netherlands builds twice as many square meters of housing as in Denmark per year, but the construction sector's resource consumption - measured per inhabitant – is only a quarter of what it is in Denmark. They have set a target of 100 per cent. recycling in the construction sector in 2030, and they will more than halve CO2- the imprint of concrete. Imagine if our new Minister of Social Affairs and Housing, Sophie Hæstorp Andersen, set a goal that we in Denmark should be as skilled as the Netherlands in making circular construction?

This chronicle was written by Bjarke Møller, director of the Green Transition Denmark and was published in Berlingske on 4 November 2024

By |2024-11-07T14:13:26+01:004 November 2024|Chronic|Comments closed to Preserve more buildings and make construction more circular
READ MORE

Pyrolysis rate is to sell the hide before the bear is shot

"It is positive that the government has listened to the concerns about biocoal's environmental impact and the uncertainty about the climate effect of pyrolysis. But the chain jumps off for me when the government plans to start distributing biochar before you have the answers to the investigations that have been started,” says Trine Langhede, Advisor for food and bioresources at the Green Transition Denmark.

"We do not know what environmentally hazardous substances may be in biochar, we do not know what the climate effect is, or what biochar will have in terms of long-term consequences for our environment and the food grown in the fields. Still, it is expected that we will produce biochar from 2027. It does not add up,” says Trine Langhede.

Climate potential of pyrolysis

If the expansion of the pyrolysis sector follows the historical development we saw from the biogas sector, then the climate potential from pyrolysis is only 0,1 million. tonnes of CO2 in 2030. In other words, one third of the greenhouse gas reductions pyrolysis must deliver according to the green tripartite in order to reach agriculture's climate goals in 2030.

"It will be expensive for society and our farmers if pyrolysis is not successful. Only from 2027 will we know what the climate effect of pyrolysis is. If agriculture does not have to change course until 2027, it will be an expensive and difficult process for our farmers if they are to meet the climate goals for 2030. We are in fact cheating the farmers by investing too early in pyrolysis,” says Trine Langhede, Advisor for food and bioresources in the Green Transition Denmark.

Imported wood must not be used in pyrolysis plants

The strategy emphasizes a great potential in imported wood for pyrolysis. Denmark already imports large amounts of wood for our energy system, which goes beyond the exporting country's climate account when they cut down forests for us. The strategy indirectly assumes that the exporting countries will accept that we spread the climate bill from Danish pyrolysis onto them, while we take the benefits.

"Imported wood has no place in a pyrolysis plant. It is naive to expect that other countries will sell large quantities of wood for profit in Denmark's climate accounting, while the exporting countries will lose a carbon store in their accounting. It does not make sense to make the fulfillment of our climate goals dependent on other countries selling us their wood,” says Trine Langhede, Advisor for food and bioresources at the Green Transition Denmark.

"In the pyrolysis strategy, the government has also calculated that Danish wood that would have been burned is 'free' in the climate accounting. Therefore, the calculation looks artificially good. But that is cheating the climate. Pyrolysis and biochar will only benefit the climate when overall lower emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are ensured. The Climate Ministry's calculation method does not ensure this,” says Trine Langhede.

Long-term potential

Green Transition Denmark is not opposed to the fact that pyrolysis can be a sensible climate technology in the long term, when environmental considerations and climate effects have been thoroughly investigated. But it is necessary to be realistic about what can be achieved by 2030.

"Although the storage of CO2 in biochar can remain in the ground for many centuries, there is a risk that we use pyrolysis as a solution to achieve the short-term climate goals, without considering the long-term consequences. In other words, we risk selling the skin before the bear is shot,” says Trine Langhede, Advisor for food and bioresources at the Green Transition Denmark.

The pyrolysis strategy calls for biochar to be distributed from 2027, but the field trials that have been initiated to assess the long-term environmental and agronomic effects of the deployment of biochar will not be completed until 2033, and studies of environmentally hazardous substances in biochar have been completed in 2025, while the method for calculating the climate effect of pyrolysis will not be completed until 2027.

By |2024-11-12T13:53:42+01:007. October 2024|Press release|Comments closed to Pyrolysis rate is to sell the hide before the bear is shot
READ MORE

The third party overlooks one important consideration

The green tripartite agreement marks a comprehensive change to our landscape, to say the least 390.000 hectares of agricultural land taken out of operation. With a change on that scale, it is crucial that all considerations are taken into account, which the agreement also bears the stamp of a part of the way. But the three parties overlook an important consideration in land use in the open country, namely the goal of quadrupling renewable energy (RE) on land by 2030.

Solar cells and wind turbines are often built on agricultural land. When so much agricultural land has to be taken out of service, it is crucial that renewable energy is included in the implementation of the green tripartite. This is not only a national objective, but also a matter of optimal land use. The renewable energy expansion must not become an obstacle to the implementation of the agreement, just as the implementation of the agreement must not hinder the renewable energy expansion either.

In fact, the expansion of green electricity can create better incentives for farmers to apply for the voluntary schemes in the green tripartite agreement. If the farmer can profit from renting, except for low-lying land or land where forests are to grow, to green energy installers, it can help both the climate, nature and the farmer's wallet.

Going forward, the demand for green electricity will grow dramatically. And the expansion of green energy in Denmark is going the wrong way right now. Therefore, we must promote coexistence between nature and renewable energy, so that we get a double climate benefit when taking out agricultural land through green tripartite. Emissions from agricultural land are slowed down, while the land is used to replace fossil energy with green energy.

So how do we do it?

Firstly, there are great opportunities to combine the removal of 250.000 hectares of land for new forest with the installation of green electricity. Wind turbines have a lifespan that roughly corresponds to how long it takes for a tree to grow up. Therefore, the windmills can spin, while small shoots become large oak trees. There is even the option of letting the wind turbines spin over the treetops in the new forest – as they do in Sweden. It then requires changes in parts of the Danish legislation, which currently prevents the installation of wind turbines in forests, of course with the necessary consideration for nature, bats and outdoor life.

Second, we should exploit the full potential of combining solar cells with the extraction of low-lying soils. This is already happening today, but the support schemes, including the KlimaLavbundsordningen, which are strengthened with green tripartite, do not enable the establishment of green electricity on the designated areas. We should change that.

Therefore, we hope that you, Jeppe Bruus, and the parties in the Folketinget will listen not just to us, but to the government's own National Energy Crisis Staff, which recommends planning according to multifunctional land use in order to get all considerations to go up. It cannot be done everywhere. But where it can, the parties of the Folketing in the negotiations and the implementation of the green tripartite must ensure the necessary framework that promotes the synergy between more nature and renewable energy, so that we ensure a greener Denmark all around.

This debate paper was written by Bjarke Møller, Director of the Green Transition Denmark and Ulrich Bang, Deputy Director of Climate, Energy and Environment in Danish Business and has been brought to the Alting for Energy and Supply on 7 October 2024.

By |2024-10-07T08:11:12+01:007. October 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to Treparten overlooks one important consideration
READ MORE

New calculation: Denmark can save money by phasing out oil, gas boilers and wood biomass faster

Denmark and the EU use energy in a way that exceeds several planetary boundaries. According to a new report 'Clean energy – within planetary limits in 2040' from the Green Transition Denmark, which will be published on Monday 30 September 2024, the heat supply in Denmark and the rest of Europe is still heavily dependent on the burning of fossil fuels and wood biomass.

The report emphasizes the need for full electrification of the heating sector and a faster phase-out of wood biomass to achieve an energy system within the planetary limits by 2040. And it shows that it will actually be cheaper for society and households to accelerate the green transition of the heating sector.

Calculations show that consumers can achieve lower heating bills until 2040 if district heating switches from wood biomass and natural gas to heat pumps and electric boilers. In this scenario, heat pumps will cover around 2/5 of the heating needs in Danish households.

“Heat pumps are not just more energy efficient than traditional heating methods. They are the key to reducing CO2 emissions. Overall, households will receive a positive gain of approx. 900 million DKK in 2040 if we replace the wood biomass and fossil fuels with electricity-powered solutions,” says Julie Bangsgaard Abrahams, senior advisor at the Green Transition Denmark.

“We have to realize that our current use of fossil energy and wood biomass is unsustainable. "The phasing out of oil and gas boilers is a critical necessity, and can be replaced relatively quickly with heat pumps or district heating, if the legislation requires it," she says.

Over 3,5 million tons of wood pellets and wood chips are imported to Denmark annually. This seizes large areas of forest which could have functioned as CO2 stores, or the wood could have been used in products such as furniture, new wooden constructions in construction, wooden packaging, bio-economic products etc. In addition, we still have hundreds of thousands of oil and gas boilers.

Heat pumps are 3-5 times as energy efficient as gas boilers or cogeneration plants that create heat by burning solid wood biomass. Denmark's annual burning of wood biomass leads to an immediate discharge of over 15 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, and the Green Transition Denmark therefore recommends that a tax should be introduced on all the biomass that is burned.

At the same time, RGO calls for the phasing out of state aid for producing electricity at biomass-fired power plants and not supporting CO2 capture at these plants.

About the report

The report 'Clean energy - within planetary limits in 2040' presents a thorough analysis of the Danish and European energy system and provides concrete solutions for how we achieve an energy system within planetary limits in 2040. The report will be published on 30 September 2024.

By |2025-02-06T13:16:48+01:0026. September 2024|Press release|Comments closed to New calculation: Denmark can save money by phasing out oil, gas boilers and wood biomass faster
READ MORE

It is time for politicians to demand circular construction

Construction and construction accounts for approximately one third of Denmark's total CO2emissions and at the same time the sector accounts for as much as 40 per cent. of the country's waste. We therefore have a resource consumption that is out of control, because the way we build today requires far more resources than we have available. This concerns both resources found on Danish soil such as sand, stone and gravel, but also iron, steel and aluminium, which we are dependent on being able to import from outside.

Great climate benefits and less dependence on resources

A circular restructuring of construction will lead to new ways of building – where the use of virgin materials is minimized, the lifespan of buildings is extended, and where building materials are most often reused or recycled. It will require us to radically change the way we think about construction, but the benefits are clear.

The climate burden will decrease if we start to recycle materials. For example the total climate impact from masonry made of recycled bricks is four times lower than the climate impact from conventional bricks. Similarly, recycling of concrete beams, steel beams, roof tiles and aluminum sheets has great climate reduction potential.

It will also make us less dependent on new raw materials, which is welcome in a world where there is already great pressure on global construction supply chains. For example the prices of iron and steel have exploded in recent years, so a circular restructuring of construction will make the Danish construction industry less vulnerable to rising prices and the battle for the earth's resources.

The circular conversion of construction does not only give Denmark a climate and resource benefit. It will also give us the opportunity to strengthen our competitiveness, create new market opportunities and jobs and ensure quality of life in the built environment.

The legislation is tense

In order for the circular changeover to gain air under its wings and become the new normal, legislation must be addressed. Although we have seen political initiatives and strategies such as the National Strategy for Sustainable Construction and the revision of the Building Regulations, there is still a long way to go. There are no clear requirements or objectives for circular construction, circular transformation, resource consumption, reuse or recycling of building materials. The building regulations, for example, do not contribute to promoting circularity, and tax legislation in several ways supports demolition and new construction rather than conservation and transformation.

If the politicians want to help ensure the future of Danish construction, they should work for a long-term and courageous political effort to change the construction industry towards circular practices.

Politicians must pave the way for a circular construction industry

A good place to start is to give the Building Regulations a circular overhaul by introducing requirements for lower material consumption, tightening the climate requirements and increasing the incentives to use circular solutions. In addition, the raw material tax should at least be doubled, so that the real climate and resource footprint of building materials is reflected in the price. And on the very large blade, a strategy must be drawn up that defines goals, initiatives and tools to ensure circular construction.

The barriers that stand in the way of the necessary restructuring of the building must be removed. This applies to both the low-hanging regulatory fruits, which in the short term can make it more attractive for the industry to choose a more circular path. But also to ensure long-term, ambitious objectives for circularity and resource consumption by implementing political reforms and necessary legislative changes.

It is time we move from thought to political action.

This debate article was published in Politiken's Byrummonitor on 17 September 2024 and was written by Bjarke Møller, director, Green Transition Denmark

On Wednesday 18 September we will hold the launch event: Circular construction − From thought to political action. Sign up here .

By |2024-09-17T07:41:50+01:0017. September 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to It is time for the politicians to set demands for circular construction
READ MORE

In Denmark, we depend on burning wood

It is stated in the SVM government foundation that 'Denmark must be a green pioneering country that sets and fulfills ambitious climate goals and climate efforts and in this way inspires other countries to follow suit.' But we in Denmark have not reached the goal of converting our society from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy. In fact, 54 percent of Denmark's total energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels – that is, oil, coal and gas. Another unpleasant truth is that a large part of renewable energy also consists of burning something.

Many people think of Denmark as a country with a lot of wind energy, but two-thirds of our renewable energy comes from burning biomass. This is mainly the burning of wood, but it is also the burning of biodegradable waste for the production of electricity and district heating, biogas for industry and heating and straw for district heating.

Consumption of wood burning

If we delve into the burning of wood, we primarily burn three different types of wood. These are wood pellets that are primarily used in cogeneration plants, where both electricity and heat are produced by burning the wood pellets in a boiler.

It is wood chips that are primarily used in district heating plants, where you burn the chips to heat up water for district heating. And then there is firewood that is used to light wood-burning stoves. This has major consequences for the aviation association, but for now I am dealing with burning wood pellets and wood chips at the works.

If we start by investigating where the wood comes from, it becomes clear that Denmark's consumption depends on imports. In fact, we import 95 percent of the wood pellets, one shows analysis from the Danish Energy Agency. In 2022, 16,5 percent of wood pellet imports came from the USA, 10 percent from Russia and around 40 percent from the Baltic countries. About half of wood chips are imported, while we get the other half from Danish forests.

Problematic level

The Danish consumption of wood has thus reached a level where other countries have to cut down their forests so that we can burn wood pellets and chips in Danish boilers. The UN's climate panel (IPCC) has estimated that there is 10 GJ of biomass available per year. world citizen. In Denmark, we use approx. 30 GJ, so the amount we burn is far from sustainable.

In the energy sector, the burning of biomass is considered CO2-neutral, and this is determined by international conventions in the EU and the UN. The climate impact is calculated in the LULUCF sector, so it is important to remember that there is a CO2 emission associated with burning wood. It actually takes decades for a newly planted forest to absorb the same amount of CO2 as the felled forest did. If the alternative was to leave the wood to rot in the forest rather than burning it, it could take between 40-100 years before the emissions could be compared. Wood takes decades to absorb CO2, which is released again in split seconds when we burn it.

Some may remember photosynthesis from biology in elementary school, where plants, and thus also wood, convert water and CO2 into oxygen and sugar. When we burn the wood again, there will be an immediate emission of CO2. And that CO2 is no different to that emitted by burning fossil fuels and is therefore also a greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from burning biomass have increased as we burn more in Denmark. Wood consumption has increased by 60% in the last 15 years and continues to rise.

It is problematic that burning wood has become Denmark's substitute for burning fossil fuels. Especially when it was presented as a transition fuel 12 years ago to get rid of coal. But now the time is different, so something should be done at Christiansborg to push for the phasing out.

CO2 tax is essential

In fact, a subsidy of 15 øre per kWh for electricity production by burning wood biomass and indirect support because biomass is exempt from energy and CO2 taxes, which distorts competition.

Instead, a CO2 tax on the burning of wood biomass should be introduced, so that it becomes less advantageous to burn it. In the first instance, we must have put a price on the CO2 emissions from burning wood, which requires an emission factor.

It can be difficult to agree on - research points to anything between 20 and 100 kg CO2/GJ, with the Climate Council proposing an emission factor for biomass of 39 kg CO2/GJ. But even a conservative emission factor will have a big impact.

We must stick to the fact that wood is a transitional fuel and get a political strategy that can ensure a real phasing out of wood biomass.

The strategy should contain initiatives that can ensure that no investment is made in new biomass plants. For example are there still heating plants that buy wood-chip boilers rather than heat pumps because they calculate in a conservative way. The strategy must also contain a phase-out plan for the existing biomass-fired plants.

It is absolutely essential that the strategy also contains incentives to leave some of the wood in the forest rather than burning it down. Denmark has the lowest level of dead wood in European forests, which greatly affects biodiversity.

This debate entry was published in Ingeniøren GridTech on 10 September 2024 and is written by Julie Abrahams, senior advisor, Green Transition Denmark

By |2024-09-11T13:22:54+01:0010. September 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to In Denmark, we depend on burning wood
READ MORE

Timely care when 13 mayors are concerned about closing the gas network

Danish District Heating and the Green Transition Denmark believe that it is an expression of timely care when the municipalities are now ready for a revision of the heating plans from energy crisis management with rapid roll-out of district heating to a more long-term approach to the structural challenges. This is how we can contribute to achieving the political objectives of phasing out gas for space heating by 2035 – which is the political ambition from the Agreement on green electricity and heat from June 2022.

Falling gas prices, higher capital investments and high interest rates means that the ambitions in the municipal heating plans are significantly challenged. Therefore, in the current situation, it does not make sense to continue the conversion with a sharp aim only to fully roll out the district heating before the random year 2028. We instead need long-term heating planning that can ensure that the gas completely disappears from the heating.

As it appears today, a large number of Danish homeowners keep their gas boilers, and thousands of homeowners even buy new boilers. We must therefore draw the line up in order to achieve the political objectives with a municipal heating planning 2.0, where the goal is to phase out gas before 2035. We believe that the Danish Energy Agency should as soon as possible draw up authorization for Evida, as a gas company, to send a notice of shutdown. But it should be the municipalities that plan areas for shutdown, and the state company Evida that can subsequently execute on the heating plans – the same workflow as we see with the district heating rollout.

At the same time, the Danish Energy Agency should work quickly to implement the EU directives, which allow the member states to shut down the gas network (fully or partially) as soon as possible. In the Netherlands and Germany, they are in the process of preparing the law, so you should lean towards them.

We hope that the climate, energy and supply minister will take the call to heart and not make the same excuse that the gas is green in 2029, as when a unified energy sector sent a call in May. We believe that, in principle, the municipalities should already now collaborate on a model for how the work with the decommissioning plans can look like and create a framework for the new heating planning. It is in fact our call that the municipalities should assess whether it would be relevant to look at a revision of the heating plans from 2022 to a long-term objective of phasing out gas by 2035 at the latest. The ambitious municipalities can start this work already this year with completion in 2025. After this, the municipalities can choose to send a letter to citizens about the expected development in the heat supply until 2035.

We see no reason for the municipalities to wait, as the purpose clause in the Heating Supply Act pretty much articulates the municipality's role: To promote the most socially economical, including environmentally friendly, use of energy for the heating of buildings and the supply of hot water and, within this framework, to reduce the energy supply's dependence on fossil fuels.

Seen from that perspective, the municipalities can just get started with the long-term heating plan with full phasing out of gas in 2035. Then the state and Evida must work in a parallel legal track that gives authority to fulfill the screenings of the municipal heating plans for the gas shutdown.

This debate article was published in Politiken's Climate Monitor on Friday 12 July and was written by Søren Magnussen, senior consultant, Danish District Heating and Julie Abrahams, senior advisor, Green Transition Denmark

By |2024-08-06T09:00:48+01:0012. July 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to Timely care when 13 mayors are concerned about closing the gas network
READ MORE

Acceleration of renewable energy without compromising on environmental considerations

Green Transition Denmark makes recommendations on how to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy on land without compromising on environmental considerations.

The need for clean, renewable energy is expected to increase sharply in the coming years. Even so, the expansion of renewable energy has almost come to a standstill, and virtually no new wind turbines have been set up on land in recent years. It takes an average of 4-6 years to get new land-based renewable energy projects approved in the EU.

At the same time, there is also considerable political concern that environmental approvals and consideration for nature and biodiversity are a major barrier to the roll-out of renewable energy projects. This concern must be addressed so that consideration for nature and biodiversity does not have to become a stumbling block for the roll-out of wind and solar.

It is not fruitful to set up the climate and biodiversity crises as competitors. One should not regard the two considerations as a zero-sum game where there can only be one winner. Because the crises are connected, and they must be solved together. If we are to turn the current loss of biodiversity into progress and at the same time ensure the green transition, there is a need for new legislation in the area.

Download the position paper further down the page and read our recommendations.

By |2024-02-06T14:26:08+01:0025 January 2024|Article|0 Comments
READ MORE

Pipeline transport of CO2

Consultation response to the Act on Pipeline Transport of CO2

Green Transition Denmark would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the bill.

We generally believe that it is far too early to start planning a national infrastructure for piped transport of CO2 in Denmark and to tie up financial and administrative resources in transporting large quantities of CO2 through pipes across the country. Green Transition Denmark has a number of reasons for recommending that the bill not be accepted.

It is stated in the comments to the bill that there is already a developed CCS market in Denmark, but it is far too premature to conclude this. There are a number of demonstration and pilot projects, business initiatives, but there is no real market or integrated value chain for CO2 capture, transport and storage. It may take many years before this has a realistic chance of becoming a reality.

It is claimed that the bill does not have direct climate or environmental consequences, but the installation of a large infrastructure with piping of CO2 will have a negative climate effect during construction, it will seize significant natural areas, and a negative effect on climate and environment during construction. There is an additional energy and material consumption associated with the installation of a new CO2 infrastructure, which should be taken into account in the assessment. Or as Rambøll has concluded in a memo for the Danish Energy Agency: The plan for the tender with geological storage of greenhouse gas emissions will "in itself involve energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Materials, construction work, transport and pumps in operation and later decommissioning of the facilities will directly and indirectly lead to the release of greenhouse gas emissions.”

It is also to be expected that the bill may place greater demands on the administration's time and resources. This is also recognized in the comments to the bill, where it is stated that the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Supply's costs will be increased by the proposed regulatory framework for Danish CO2 infrastructure. Carrying out accompanying supervision of the expanded CO2 infrastructure will also lead to increased costs, as the supervisory competence is proposed to be assigned to the Danish Energy Agency. These extra legal costs should ideally be paid by the operators and consortia that want to establish a CO2 infrastructure, so that they have to cover the full costs of the establishment, and therefore get extra incentives to make cost-effective solutions. But there is an additional risk in this process: that the authorities' limited administrative resources will be used to a greater extent to process new projects about CO2 infrastructure, where the administrative resources could be used much more effectively to ensure faster case processing for the construction of solar installations, wind turbines, industrial heat pumps and a necessary expansion of Denmark's dilapidated electricity grid. It is far more important to accelerate the transition to a renewable energy system and to electrify as much of society as possible so that the electrons can be transported faster than to use the limited resources to promote a future molecular transport that may not be cost-effective or profitable at all market conditions, let alone helpful in relation to reaching Denmark's climate goals.

In the bill, it is proposed that expropriations can be made to promote the laying of pipelines over land, and this can also seize significant administrative and financial resources that could be better used for other and more climate-efficient purposes. It must e.g. it is expected that there may also be local protests against more CO2 infrastructure, transport and storage, as has already been seen in Havnsø municipality, where local citizens feel insecure that there may be leakage from underground CO2 storages.

We note that the bill guarantees that EIA studies will be carried out in relation to establishment of pipelines, and that is good. But stricter safety measures should also be ensured during operation and when transporting CO2 by pipe over land. Piping in urban areas should be avoided as far as possible. There have been a few cases of leaks from CO2 pipelines abroad, and in high concentrations CO2 is dangerous for citizens and the environment in the local area, and it can lead to extra emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, it is important that the necessary resources are also set aside to supervise operators of the pipelines, and that the operators are given the duty to immediately warn local citizens and authorities in the event of leaks on pipelines.

In the bill § 29, subsection 1, 1st point it is proposed that, in decisions pursuant to § 28, representatives in the Energy Complaints Board, appointed on the recommendation of the Danish Industry and the Council of Agriculture, be replaced by 1 member with special expertise in the establishment and operation of gas-transporting pipelines and 1 member with special expertise in the environment.

Green Transition Denmark agrees that it is a good idea. It is important that the correct expertise is taken into consideration when handling appeals against decisions regarding pipeline installations for the transport of CO2.

General comments on the bill:

Green Transition Denmark is generally skeptical of the idea of ​​already opening up the establishment of a national infrastructure for CO2 transport via pipes. This can lead to a carbon lock-in, which i.a. can make it extra attractive for cogeneration plants, waste incineration plants, cement factories and other industrial companies to invest in CO2 capture plants, even where there are more climate-efficient green technologies that could have a much greater climate effect and contribute to a faster reduction of air pollution.

The previous international experiences with CO2 capture do not give reason to believe that the large scale-up will take place in the next 10 years, which could make it economically attractive or climate-wise meaningful to capture CO2 at point sources and then transport the CO2 over long distances and store it underground.

There are many different technological forms of CO2 capture under development around the world, but CO2 capture in biomass plants, waste incineration plants, cement plants and the energy-intensive industry is still very immature and has been difficult to scale up in a cost-effective way. The international CCS experience has so far been rather disappointing in relation to CO2 capture in industry and at power plants.

We are aware that the International Energy Agency and other players such as The Global CCS Institute is still in favor of CO2 capture, but we note at the same time that the head of the IEA, Fatih Birol, has started to tone down the expectations for how much CCS will come in the coming years. At the launch of the World Energy Outlook in October, he thus said that "CCS has been the story of a great disappointment."

Green Transition Denmark recommends that the state postpones the planned tenders for CO2 capture, transport and storage in 2024 and 2025. It is our assessment that it would be much better to take a break to think. See also our detailed note on the same subject.

The state runs a great risk for taxpayers' money if large public funds are tied up in developing an integrated value chain with state-supported CO2 capture facilities, pipeline transport and storage. And at the same time, you run the risk of tying up considerable administrative resources in realizing this project, which could have been used on other green technologies with a far greater and faster climate effect.

We note that the present bill on pipeline transport of CO2 does not provide direct access to state aid for the pipeline, as it is envisaged that this will be left to the operators, who themselves must obtain financing for the construction of the infrastructure. If a CO2 infrastructure is created, the full bill should be covered by the polluters, so that they have incentives to also reduce their pollution or to consider cost-effective alternatives to create CO2 capture, transport and storage. Any form of government support for CO2 capture, transport and storage should be avoided. It would be far better to introduce a higher CO2 tax that could give market players stronger incentives to promote effective and cost-conscious climate solutions.

The current bill should be seen in the context of the broad political settlement that was concluded on 20 September 2023, where the parties to the agreement agreed to hold two tender rounds in 2024 and 2025 for CO2 capture, transport and storage. These tenders can lead to the state anyway ending up giving direct or indirect support to consortia who want the state to cover some of the risk/bill by establishing pipelines to transport CO2. This should be avoided.

If private companies or consortia want to establish pipelines between CO2 capture facilities and e.g. CCUS plant, the Green Transition Denmark believes that it is important that the state does not provide money for this, either directly or indirectly. The total costs for construction, operation, maintenance and extra safety measures should be borne solely by the market and users. It should not be the state, because it should, in accordance with the Climate Act, choose the most cost-effective measures to ensure a reduction of Denmark's emission of greenhouse gases by 70 per cent. towards 2030. CO2 capture, transport and storage is one of the most expensive measures that can be chosen, and it is not cost-effective compared to the other green technological solutions available.

Furthermore, it can be stated that there is still some uncertainty as to whether CO2 capture at point sources will be effective. It is far from certain that you will be able to catch 3,2 million. tonnes in 2030, which a wide circle of the parties in the Danish Parliament have set as a target. There are real technical challenges that should not be ignored. The Danish Energy Agency calculates in their technology catalog that the capture efficiency is between 85-99 per cent. (on large biomass plants) or 90-99 per cent. at other facilities. In reality, international experience so far shows that the effectiveness is much lower. Only under completely optimal conditions and for very short periods can CO2 capture systems at point sources manage to remove between 75-90 per cent. of the CO2. But their downtime is far higher than what the Danish Energy Agency expects in their technology catalogue, and the real efficiency in capture plants around the world is in reality between 20-80 per cent. per year. You have to factor in operational disruptions and significant downtime when the capture plant is out of operation. Let us assume that in the course of a few years it succeeds in eliminating some of the childhood diseases, but this will hardly bring the average efficiency above 65-75 per cent.

In theory, transporting CO2 via pipes is cheaper than transporting it with trucks and ships, but the pipeline can only rest on its own if there is a larger scale in the overall CO2 capture in Denmark. And it's still a big if. No one yet knows whether Ørsted's state-supported capture facilities at the plants in Avedøre and Asnæs can capture the promised amount of CO2, no one knows whether Aalborg Portland's pilot project can ever be scaled up, and even if there are district heating plants and waste incinerators that hope to one day be able to capture CO2 for end of the chimney, it is highly uncertain whether there will be a market economic basis for betting on it in the long term. If the scaling does not take place, there is a risk that a great deal of time, energy and financial resources will be wasted on building a new CO2 infrastructure that will not be profitable under market conditions, and a lot of time and money will also be wasted in management along the way and case processing, which could be much better used to promote faster case processing and installation of renewable energy projects, heat pumps and energy-efficient technologies.

The plans to establish an integrated value chain for CO2 capture, transport and storage rest on the notion that it will be one among several important climate solutions. But there is reason to stop and take a more thorough pause for thought before committing significant financial and administrative resources to developing this carbon value chain. It can also be deeply problematic in relation to the climate to scale up too much and too quickly with CCS and the associated infrastructure.

It is particularly problematic if a future pipeline makes it cheaper for wood-fired CHP plants and district heating plants to invest in CO2 capture. This is absolutely not recommended, as it takes up to 30 years before CO2 capture on a combined heat and power plant with Danish wood can become net positive. See RGO's note on this for the specific calculation.

CO2 capture plants have a very large energy consumption, and in energy systems like the Danish one (where fossil fuels still make up 53 per cent of the gross energy consumption) the extra energy consumption will lead to increased CO2 emissions. The international climate panel, IPCC, estimates based on the research literature that CO2 capture plants cost 13-44 per cent. extra on the energy bill of the plants that install it. However, CO2 capture at biomass power plants consumes even more energy because it requires 25-55 per cent. extra energy than if the power plant did not capture CO2.

If this extra energy consumption is covered by fossil fuels or extra biomass combustion, more CO2 and methane gas are emitted in connection with the extraction, transport and use of these fuels. When you factor in these extra emissions, and add the energy costs associated with transporting, disposing and storing the captured CO2, the real efficiency of CO2 capture in some cases drops to between 0 and 25 percent. The extra bill can add up to several hundred kroner per tonnes of CO2. It is an energy bill that will ultimately end up with the citizens, and since the bill for electricity and heating relatively takes up the most in the household for the lowest incomes, it can also have a social impact.

Green Transition Denmark will not deny that CO2 capture may play a role in climate policy during the 2030-40s, but the state must not promote such a technology that has little prospects for solving climate problems in the short term and medium term.

At the same time, we call for a more thorough calculation of the broader climate and environmental costs associated with establishing an overall CO2 value chain from CO2 capture at industrial point sources, transport via pipes to CO2 storage on land and to of the sea These calculations should include financial opportunity costs in the form of alternative investment opportunities in competing climate solutions, such as additional installation of solar cell systems, wind turbines, heat pumps, electrification of heat supply, industry and transport, as well as energy-saving technologies that can provide a much greater, faster and safer climate effect per krone invested.

Green Transition Denmark believes that it is important to avoid an excessively large carbon lock-in for expensive infrastructure, which will trigger extra large climate bills. The large investment in the CO2 capture facilities and a rapid establishment of a new CO2 infrastructure can, in the worst case, lead to the preservation of fossil-based production and infrastructure and/or lead to the construction of new infrastructure to dispose of the captured CO2, which must be transported by trucks , ships and pipes to be stored underground or to be used in various CCUS subsidiary industries. The long pipelines and the permanent need for transport during disposal will impose additional costs on society, it will seize additional natural areas, and in the construction phase it may increase Denmark's energy and resource consumption instead of reducing it.

If the politicians still choose – despite all the objections mentioned above – to focus on the capture, transport and storage of CO2 on a larger scale, it is better if it happens locally in coastal areas, where the CO2 can be transported by ship and the captured CO2 can possibly be form part of a circuit where it is used for production at new Power-to-X factories, where e.g. e-kerosene for aviation. If appropriate, one must think business-politically about the development of special CO2 clusters, which, for example, trying in Fredericia. But a larger fixed CO2 infrastructure with pipelines throughout the country can end up being counterproductive, leading to extra CO2 emissions in the construction phase and leading to excessive investments in CO2 capture facilities in industry, power plants and incineration plants that should otherwise be invested in a green and energy-efficient conversion of all processes.

Therefore, the Green Transition Denmark recommends that the current bill be put on hold until 2030, so that there is time to make a thorough evaluation of the experiences from Ørsted's CCS plant and to assess whether the international experiences with CCS and the establishment of a larger infrastructure is an economically sustainable and cost-effective path compared to investing in and scaling up other green technologies.

By |2024-01-15T15:45:23+01:0020. December 2023|Hearing response|Comments closed for Pipeline transport of CO2
READ MORE

The government has chosen an extremely risky and expensive climate strategy by betting on CO₂ capture

A broad coalition of more or less green forces is pushing to invest wildly in CO₂ capture and storage. And the more profound reforms in climate and energy policy are postponed, the more the dream of CO₂ capture rises like hot air in the political landscape.

It happens in Denmark and in EU. A broad majority in the Folketing has so far set aside nothing less than DKK 38,7 billiononers for CO₂ capture, transport and storage (CCS). They call it a climate-related core technology, and they hope to catch 3,2 million tonnes of CO₂ per year from 2030. There is no shortage of big words, but CO₂ capture directly at power plants, cement factories and waste plants is a very expensive and immature technology that may not be able to deliver what supporters hope for.

We need a more serious and critical debate about CO₂ capture and storage, but dare the politicians adjust the course before 2024 and 2026 will distribute over DKK 26 billion in two new tender rounds?

Business interest organizations i The CCUS Alliance cheering from the sidelines that a new great Danish business adventure can be created that, measured in terms of earnings and jobs, can be as big as wind energy. It sounds tempting. But it looks more like hope as a strategy than realistic and cost-effective climate action.

Trapping is the last convulsions of the fossil age

I can kind of understand why people are cheering for CO₂ capture after many years of delayed and slow climate action. We are in the hottest year in modern times, and there are only six years to at least halve global greenhouse gas emissions. We are losing control of our future, global CO₂ emissions are rising in line with growing consumption of fossil fuels. And that makes many dream of a technological fix.

CO₂ capture and storage looks like too to become one of the big main themes at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai.

The fossil fuel industry and oil producing countries are strong advocates of CCS, and for the past several decades the oil and gas industry has captured CO₂, which has been profitable because it is used to shoot into depleted oil and gas fields to extract more more fossil fuels underground. It is the last convulsions of the fossil age, but seen in the light of accelerating global warming, it looks like a modern tragedy.

Fortunately, it is not this kind of CO₂ application that Danish politicians are planning for. Because they want CO₂ capture in the chimneys of heavy industry, biomass power plants and waste plants. They believe that these CO₂-heavy sectors need to have a treatment plant at the end of the chimney because they are difficult to remove the emissions from in other ways. But it is not at all certain.

Up against 99 percent of Europe's industry can be electrified, and even high-temperature processes of up to 1.500-2.000 degrees can be operated with green electricity. And in the US have an innovative cement factory demonstrated that high-quality cement in the Aalborg Portland class can be produced via electrolysis without using fossil fuels.

If you give catching a prominent role, it is an expression of defeat

The proponents of CO₂ capture and storage are so enamored with fixing the problems at the end of the chimney that they easily ignore solutions that can remove the causes earlier in the value chain. Furthermore, they have a blind spot in relation to the possibility of a massive electrification of industry. They often use the International Climate Panel as an alleged fig leaf and say that IPPC has advocated CO₂ capture as a necessary climate solution. Likewise the think tank CONCITO, for whom CCS looks like a kind of fetish.

"Technologies that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere, so-called negative emissions, will play an important role in the climate fight if the world is to succeed in complying with the Paris Agreement," claims CONCITO, who believes that Denmark should invest in much more CO₂ capture and storage in a very short time.

For several years, the think tank has advocated a both-and solution, where a significant expansion with wind power and solar cells is combined with a stronger focus on CCS. And now the think tank is pushing for even greater ambitions. Many climate-concerned citizens will probably fall for such arguments. And they may have heard that in six out of seven main scenarios the IPCC advocates more or less CCS. But in the most ambitious 1,5 degree scenario from the IPCC, CCS does not play a role. There are good reasons for that.

The IPPC strongly recommends that reductions be made on the demand side first: "Energy efficiency is a critical strategy in a net-zero transition and can promote clean electrification. Increasing energy efficiency can reduce the need for materials for the intensive energy supply, energy storage, CCU and CCS infrastructure and can limit the need to expand power plants and the transmission grid,' states the IPPC. They add that "CCU and CCS on a larger scale will also trigger an additional material requirement to build the associated infrastructure and energy to operate them, which in turn will reduce overall material and energy efficiency."

In the most ambitious climate scenario, it is to a greater extent nature-based solutions, such as afforestation and additional absorption of carbon in agricultural land and sea, that are emphasized, while the technological and chemical measures play a more marginal role.

IPPC reports expresses considerable skepticism towards CCS technologies in several places, which are described as pre-commercial and difficult to scale up. The IPPC clearly states that "more immediate reductions in emissions limit the need for CDR (to remove CO₂, red.)'.

Cut to the bone: The slower climate action is delivered and the greater the emission of greenhouse gases, the more the need for CO₂ capture increases in the future.

So when politicians and think tanks enthusiastically call for more and faster CO₂ capture, it is an expression of defeat. Because otherwise they would push much harder for the necessary energy savings and an accelerated expansion with solar and wind energy, which can push the fossil fuels out of our energy system faster and cheaper.

Instead, they have chosen a pale green, tepid strategy, where you do a bit of everything and thus end up becoming extremely dependent on CO₂ capture as a technological fix.

Fishing will increase Denmark's energy consumption when we need to reduce it

In the Green Transition Denmark, we have thoroughly investigated the previous international experiences with CO₂ capture at point sources, and they are quite discouraging. None of the facilities can reach the capture rates of 85-95 percent over a long period of time, which The Danish Energy Agency expect. They are rather down on 65-75 percent, and they are even lower when you include downtime, CO₂ effect during transport and storage and so on. The climate effect is therefore much lower than the supporters postulate.

Another serious problem is that CO₂ capture systems typically increase energy consumption at the plants 13-44 percent. That triggers a higher energy bill, and it's not a free lunch. This will make it more expensive to produce in Denmark, and higher energy bills end up with consumers. CO₂ capture will increase Denmark's energy consumption instead of reducing it.

53 percent of Denmark's gross energy consumption is still fossil fuels, so if more energy is used on CCS, it will all be slower to phase out fossil fuels in the rest of society.

Finally, the large investment in CO₂ capture is contrary to the Climate Act's requirement that we should choose the most cost-effective solutions. It will be cheaper, better and have a greater climate effect in the short term if, in the next few years, the state invests much more in energy efficiency improvements, clean renewable energy, heat pumps, a rapid expansion of the electricity grid, a systemic transformation with electrification of all sectors and increased afforestation. It will reduce the consumption of fossil fuels much faster and with greater certainty and reduce Denmark's CO₂ emissions.

This is also why we recommend that the government postpone the planned CCS tenders in 2024-25 and take a CCS thinking break until 2030. In the meantime, you should bet on the green technologies that already work, instead of betting the whole store on an immature one and pre-commercial technology such as CO₂ capture at point sources.

The debate entry was written by director Bjarke Møller and was published in Information on 10 November 2023

By |2023-12-14T13:36:52+01:0010 November 2023|OP-ED|0 Comments
READ MORE

Contact

Green Transition Denmark
Kompagnistræde 22, 3
1208 Copenhagen K
Denmark

CVR: 15428376

Find staff

Privacy Policy

info@rgo.dk

Support the green and sustainable transition

Disclaimer: This website has been translated using automated translation software powered by third-party services. We will continuously make efforts to improve the translations from Danish.

Do you want to follow our work?

A fast path to green knowledge!

Go to Top