Om Trine Hagen

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Trine Hagen has created 93 blog entries.

The dark shadow side of biomass cracks Ørsted's green exterior

The Danish energy giant, Ørsted, has come out with a resoundingly large deficit in 2023 with a total loss of 20,2 billion, and many investors are probably wondering whether the company is really robust enough and can withstand the storms of the global energy market.

An increasing net debt of DKK 47,4 billion also weighs down in a market where you no longer get extra tailwinds with low interest rates.

The state, which owns 50,1 percent of the share capital, has lost over a few hundred billion kroner from the falling share prices, but will the state throw extra money into the company when it will probably soon have to do a capital increase? CEO Mads Nipper is no longer so secure in the saddle, and the chairman of the board has just resigned.

The financial performance has been miserable in recent years, and it has not made it any easier that large planned projects for offshore wind have become significantly more expensive and have been shut down again.

In that sense, Ørsted is not just a victim of market forces and price inflation, which has affected the entire value chain, but also a victim of the lack of courage and initiative shown by the responsible politicians.

The Danish panic closing of the open-door scheme for offshore wind is an example, and in Europe it is far, far too slow to get new wind projects approved.

Worse is that it is given over globally 7.000 billion dollars in direct and indirect state support for fossil fuels, and the support has increased after the energy security crisis.

This creates deeply unfair competition in relation to energy companies that, like Ørsted, invest heavily in green energy solutions. The fossil subsidies should be phased out as soon as possible, because they fuel the global climate crisis.

Ørsted is in many ways a deeply likeable company that is a top green performer on a number of measuring points. And Corporate Knights voted Ørsted as the greenest of all the world's energy companies in January.

As Danes, we can be proud of that. Ørsted markets itself as a nature-positive company that makes green solutions and sets up wind farms for the sake of the climate.

The company would like to deliver a positive impact for biodiversity, and in collaboration with WWF, they are even developing 3D printed reefs for offshore wind turbines to do something good for the environment and the fish's spawning opportunities.

Their energy plan is full of positive words about wanting to increase green electrification, phasing out fossil fuels and accelerating green electricity.

Ørsted also has ambitious goals for a circular economy, they develop low-emission steel for wind turbines, they have a goal to drive only electric cars from 2025, and according to the annual report, the company has halved its CO2 emissions since 2021, and this is both in Scope 1 , 2 and 3.

From the outside, the green results are impressive. The company really deserves a lot of praise for the aforementioned green ambitions, and the main state shareholder and Danish society can be proud of all the areas where Ørsted really makes a green difference.

But Ørsted also has a dark shadow side, which drags it down. This is the company's large burning of solid wood biomass of approximately three million tonnes per year.

Ørsted is still the country's largest energy company within the burning of wood biomass. Biomass plants have largely replaced coal power plants, and over several years politicians have given billions in state subsidies to convert biomass into electricity, and today the burning of biomass accounts for approximately two thirds of all renewable energy in Denmark.

From that point of view, it can be said that Ørsted has acted as Danish politicians have wanted. But it just doesn't connect at all with the brand position that the company otherwise seeks to build up as a nature-positive and green front-runner company.

And it undermines the great efforts that the company's talented employees make to live up to the EU's green taxonomy and increasingly strict green reporting requirements.

If you really seriously want to make a difference for the sake of the climate, Mads Nipper and his management should systematically immediately launch a strategy to phase out biomass and instead install large industrial heat pumps powered by clean solar and wind power, with batteries and other forms of energy storage such as backup. Finally, the energy solution of the future.

In terms of energy efficiency, it will be far more efficient, because heat pumps powered by the sun and wind are several times more efficient than stoves that burn solid wood biomass.

In addition, the European Research Council has stated in a expert report, that burning biomass requires between 50-100 times more land area to produce the same amount of energy as from sun and wind.

Still, Ørsted is holding on to the old biomass plants, even though a plan for phasing them out should be drawn up today rather than tomorrow, before they reach the obsolescence deadlines in 10-20 years.

Over 20 years, emissions from a power plant burning with solid wood biomass will be almost equivalent to a coal-fired power plant, as the emission factor is far too high, and the company cannot "brand" it as sustainable.

94 percent of that biomass, that is fired in Ørsted's cogeneration plants is solid wood biomass, more than half of which is shipped in from the Baltics.

Some are also shipped all the way across the Atlantic Ocean from the USA, but this practice is described in Ørsted's annual reports as sustainable biomass. Yes, the company makes an effort to ensure that the wood comes from certified forestry, but the long supply chains with ships powered by diesel and logging in forests with diesel-powered machines is far from sustainable.

Worse is that you constantly remove a natural biological store in the forests, which otherwise sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere, and it takes many years before the forests grow back to suck as much CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Denmark's burning of solid biomass is currently behind a net emission of approx 15-16 million tonnes of CO2, where Ørsted has a very large responsibility. It is embarrassing that one of the world's leading green front-runner companies is not washing away the black stain soon.

But no, you fight tooth and nail to maintain the climate-damaging part of the company. With DKK 8,2 billion in state aid, Ørsted will build new energy-intensive CO2 capture facilities at the end of the chimney of the biomass plants in Avedøre and Asnæs, so that solid wood biomass can continue to be burned off in the furnaces.

One imagines that it helps to create a more resilient energy system and that it is green energy. But in terms of climate, it is completely black.

Worse is that it will backfire 20-30 years, before Ørsted's CO2 capture plant will have captured more CO2 than the biological stock in the forests, which has been removed by burning so much wood biomass.

On top of that, Ørsted must not only ship millions of tons of wood biomass in from the Baltics and North America on diesel- or LNG-powered ships to keep the furnaces running, but then the captured CO2 will be shipped with LNG-powered ships all the way to the Norwegian west coast, where it must be pumped into large warehouses under the seabed.

It is a system with a large waste of energy and climate-damaging effects in several stages, but this is a real Ørsted story. And you can hardly believe your eyes.

When will top management take the plunge and cut this unsustainable part of the business? The focus should be Ørsted's strong future vision of building a world powered by clean green energy and regenerating nature and biodiversity. The burning of solid wood biomass does not.

The comment was also brought to the Alting on 9 February 2024.

By |2024-02-29T10:57:37+01:0020. February 2024|Comment|Comments closed to Biomass's dark shadow side cracks appear in Ørsted's green exterior
READ MORE

Speed ​​up green business policy

If we do not invest purposefully and strategically in new green technologies and solutions, we are looking into a future with high additional costs to patch up the climate damage. But how do we approach the challenges?

In 2023, global temperatures increased by 1,48 degrees Celsius, and we are about to blow up the UN's Paris Agreement in a dangerous way. Climate change is a systemic risk. Our entire way of consuming and producing must be rethought. If we do not invest purposefully and strategically in new green technologies and solutions, we are looking into a future with high additional costs to patch up the climate damage. So how is the challenge approached?

Before Christmas, the SVM government set aside 1 billion DKK for green technology support. It's a cautious start. But below 0,04 per thousand of GDP suggests as a tailor in hell in a climate crisis, which the government calls the greatest challenge of our generation. One should invest at least 2-3 percent of GDP, assesses leading economists such as Nicholas Stern. Globally, the current policy has set us off course 2,5-2,9 degrees Celsius, and it can cost over 2 percent of our annual prosperity in 2030 and increasing to almost 8 per cent. in 2050. We can show timely care through proactive and far-sighted investments.

Many private investors and foundations are tripping to get the capital out to breed, but the state should also speed up via far-sighted regulations, green public procurement and strategic business support. The state does not lack money to pursue a green business policy. But the government has used a good part of the discretionary space for tax cuts, which drive consumption even higher. But there are no incentives for green and sustainable behavior among consumers and companies, and the share of green taxes in GDP has more than halved since 2007.

In the last few years, the government has issued green bonds that have paid off 23,9 billion. DKK in the treasury. They must be invested wisely, but unfortunately this is not always the case. From 2021-27 is given over 19 billion DKK. in support of biogas plants around the country. The sector is greatly oversized, and this year it receives over a third of the total climate and energy support – more than solar, wind and energy efficiency improvements combined. The biogas support gives extra air to an industrialized agriculture with over 200 million animals, but the number must decrease in order to reach the climate goals and reduce nitrogen emissions. The politicians should rather give more support to the plant-based, organic and regenerative agriculture of the future, which can bring Danish food production within the planetary limits.

Green business support can contribute to solving the climate and biodiversity crises, but one should be careful not to make the green transition unnecessarily expensive by listening to a little too clever lobbyists. One example is CO2 capture and storage, where politicians have set aside DKK 38,7 billion. DKK. It is an uncertain investment in a expensive, immature and inefficient technology, which is difficult to scale. Rather than capturing CO2 at the end of the chimney, one should invest in technological innovation that can remove the cause of the problem. 8,2 billion DKK state support for CO2 capture at Ørsted's biomass plant provides a lock-in for burning wood that could otherwise be used much better - e.g. in construction. Today, wood energy is exempt from climate taxes, and from 2022-2027 the state will give up 4,3 billion DKK. for power plants that produce electricity from burnt biomass. You remove a biological CO2 store in the forests, and the power plants' burning of wood biomass emits 15-16 million tons of CO2 per year. It is foolish to give government support to it.

There is a clean alternative. HOFOR will now buy 10 large industrial heat pumps, which can cover 25-30 per cent. of Copenhagen's heat consumption. It is the future. The state should therefore not support CO2 capture at the Amager plant. HOFOR should rather install 40 heat pumps and set up more solar cells, wind turbines and batteries to cover power consumption. The heat supply of the future should be electric, because the heat pumps are 3-5 times more efficient in terms of energy than the incinerators, but as long as the state provides support for biomass burning and, on top of that, provides state support for CO2 capture at the end of the chimney, Denmark will end up in a dead end.

We should focus on green technologies that can be scaled quickly, have high added value and can be mass industrialized. Rather support industrial heat pumps, wind turbine nacelles or energy efficiency improvements, where Danish companies have top skills, than throw billions at new CO2 capture plants or CO2 pipelines. We are in the middle of an energy revolution, where the fast and agile are winning. Solar, wind and batteries are modular technologies where prices are lowered through mass industrialization and standardized processes. The price of solar cells and batteries has fallen by 80 per cent. in ten years. Landvind has become 57 per cent. cheaper and offshore wind 73 per cent. Solar and wind energy follow Wright's Law, and the price of solar panels drops by about 28 percent every time the number of solar panels doubles globally. For the wind turbines, the price drop is 15 per cent. per doubling.

Today, solar cells and onshore wind are cheaper than fossil fuels on lifetime costs. It is now cheaper for society to stop all fossil investments and patchwork solutions to the old energy system and make a rapid acceleration to a 100 per cent. renewable energy system.

Thanks to targeted business support and attractive incentives, the foundation was laid for the later market boom for solar cells and wind turbines. An innovative ecosystem was built that was scaled globally. Now China is doing it with solar cells, batteries and electric cars, while we in Europe fell asleep in the years when market liberal dogma, technology-neutral blindness and fiscal prudence reigned. We must learn from the great successes of business history.

Harvard professor Michael E. Porter wrote 34 years ago in his major work on the competitive advantages of nations that the state can play a key role through high standards, targeted research support, strategic public procurement and targeted business support for the maturation of critical technologies. A mission-driven and strategic business policy can stimulate the development of innovative ecosystems and ensure fierce competition between many companies that can scale up the new green solutions.

It was there when we in Denmark laid the foundation for the wind adventure. But that is not the case in relation to CO2 capture. Similarly, building a hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen pipelines to Germany is unlikely to be profitable. Transporting small and volatile hydrogen molecules over long distances is extremely expensive and demanding, and there are major safety risks. It will be far more economical and efficient to spend the money on expanding the transmission network. Then more green electrons can be sent from Danish wind turbines to Germany, where they can then produce the hydrogen locally for their chemical and fertilizer factories.

A number of lobbyists are trying to entice the politicians, but the global hydrogen bubble risks bursting. The large energy losses in hydrogen production and transport mean that there is far greater potential in full electrification of even heavy industries. Innovative cement and steel manufacturers are developing electrolysis-based processes. If the solutions are scaled, they will eat a part of the hyped hydrogen market.

We should invest much more in expanding our common electricity grid, but shift the main bill for the expansion of the electricity grid away from renewable energy producers and onto fossil energy sources. Remove all tripwires for solar and wind power and geothermal heat. Invest more in energy storage, battery technology and fuel cells, electrolysis and turbocharge the market for heat pumps, energy saving technologies and other cost-effective solutions that can quickly scale in a mass market and deliver big climate impacts in the next few years. Without rapid acceleration with scalable green technologies, we will be too late to solve the climate crisis.

The chronicle was published in Berlingske on 5 February 2024.

By |2024-02-13T12:19:56+01:007. February 2024|Chronic|Comments closed to Speed ​​up green business policy
READ MORE

Time to tame the hype about biochar as agriculture's climate solution 

The government places great reliance on technological solutions in its climate policy, even if the effect is not always good enough. It is important that the upcoming action plan for brown biorefining looks at how much biochar and pyrolysis can actually contribute to the green transition in 2030, and does not end up being another romance with technological solutions.

In 2021, a broad gathering of the parliamentary parties entered into an "Agreement on the green transformation of Danish agriculture". The agreement must ensure that agriculture can meet the climate objectives. In the agreement, a number of development initiatives are being worked on to ensure technical reduction potentials for DKK 5 million. tonnes of CO2e out of the 8 million tonnes of CO2e to be reduced in the entire forestry and agricultural sector in 20301. One of these development initiatives is support for brown biorefining, which the parties to the agreement have assessed can contribute to storing 2 million tonnes of CO2e in agricultural land in 2030.
Brown biorefining mainly consists of the pyrolysis technology. During pyrolysis, a biomass, for example straw or sewage sludge, is heated under oxygen-free conditions, with which an energy-containing gas or oil is produced, and a part of the biomass, called biochar, is charred. Biochar can be spread on fields, where it forms a relatively stable CO2 store. In this way, biochar can help to ensure that agriculture can live up to its climate obligations.

It sounds very good, but realistically it will be very difficult to make it a reality before 2030. In Denmark, we only have one full-scale pyrolysis plant, which is being established, while the Danish Energy Agency has estimated that it must be built and commissioned between 80 and 370 pyrolysis plants by 2030 to reach the target2. There is therefore a long way to go before the technology can contribute 2 million. tonnes of CO2e. The Climate Council has previously assessed that there is a high risk associated with pyrolysis as a climate change agent3. The long-term effect of biochar on soil, drinking water and food production in the fields has not yet been investigated either.

In addition, one of the major problems with pyrolysis is that we have a limited amount of biomass that can be put into the pyrolysis plants with climatic advantages. According to the Energy Agency, the Danish biomass base consists of, among other things, of straw, animal manure, fiber residues from biogas plants, sewage sludge and wood from Danish forests and wood waste4. It is important that residual products are used that have a short rotting time, as e.g. wood and wood waste, which has a long rotting time, will have a worse climate effect when it is pyrolysed.

We must use biomass for many different functions when we move away from using fossil oil for our products. Straw is, for example, in demand for feed, biogas and other energy, it can be used as a building material, but also has a soil-improving and CO2-storing effect if it is allowed to remain on the field. Wood is in demand for, among other things, construction, packaging, the clothing industry and the energy sector, but neither straw nor wood are unlimited resources. It is therefore important that we use biomass where it provides the greatest benefit - and not blindly pour it into pyrolysis plants.

Denmark's consumption of wood for energy is already three times higher than what the UN climate panel considers to be sustainable and two-thirds of the wood is imported5. For this reason alone, it is important to avoid further imports of biomass from abroad – including especially wood. In addition, increased imports of biomass effectively pass the climate bill onto the exporting countries. If wood is cut in other countries and exported to Denmark, it will count negatively in the exporting country's climate statement. It cannot be a sustainable solution to achieve Denmark's climate goals.

Pyrolysis is not in itself an unwise technology, but it is important that we do not hinge our climate action on a technology that may not be able to deliver the necessary CO2 reductions in time. But what should we do instead?

If a tax is placed on wood energy that corresponds to the climate impact, we will quickly achieve a significant climate effect. The current tax exemption distorts the market, and makes burning wood more attractive than other, less climate-damaging forms of energy.

Another solution worth focusing on is afforestation. The government's foundation states a goal to establish 250.000 ha of forest in Denmark. Forests can function as a natural CO2 storage, which can simultaneously increase biodiversity and function as a nitrogen input. In addition, a quick announcement about and implementation of the announced climate tax on agriculture could contribute to faster restructuring of the sector.

In other words, the government and our politicians have to be realistic with the means of action that are invested in, so that we are sure of being able to reach the climate goals for 2030, and so that we use our biomass where it makes the most sense.

The debate article was published in Klimamonitor on 26 January 2024.

By |2024-06-27T10:02:29+01:005. February 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to Time to tame the hype about biochar as agriculture's climate solution 
READ MORE

It is common sense to tax climate-damaging food and production

The objectives for the climate are quite tangible. The agreement on the green transformation of Danish agriculture states that the agricultural and forestry sector must reduce CO2e emissions by 55-65 per cent. in 2030. The Climate Act states that, overall, Denmark must not emit greenhouse gases by 2050 at the latest. The current government will go further and reach it in 2045. But agriculture's CO2e emissions have largely been unchanged for the past 15 years.

The world's climate challenges must be solved. But so must our domestic natural crisis. Today, we cultivate so much of the land that traditional habitat types and native species die out – there is simply no room for them. At the same time, we find pesticides in the drinking water, just as nitrogen and phosphorus from the fields threaten the aquatic environment. In the fall, we saw it worst oxygen loss in 20 years with dead, barren seabeds as a result.

In order to meet the challenges, it is crucial that agriculture undergoes an in-depth green transition. Two decisive elements must go hand in hand: the production of more climate-friendly and fewer climate-damaging foods as well as a change in consumption patterns, where we as consumers prioritize climate-friendly foods. The political negotiations on a tax will start soon, and it is important that an agreement is reached that can solve the challenges.

The tax model that is ultimately agreed upon should ensure a real change in what, how and where we produce - for example fewer production animals in favor of more vegetables and pulses, wetting of the low-lying soils and larger natural areas.

A climate tax on agricultural production makes it attractive for the individual farmer to change his production in a climate-friendly direction. This applies regardless of whether the food is sold abroad or in Denmark. However, for the price of food, tax on production does not necessarily mean much. A production tax of DKK 750/ton CO2e will according to the think tank Concito only mean a price increase for Danish-produced beef of approx. 4 per cent. This corresponds to around DKK 2 for a pack of minced beef and will probably not change our eating habits much.

Therefore, there must also be a tax on climate-damaging foods, so that we shift consumption to more climate-friendly foods. The consumption tax also applies to imported food, which is otherwise not affected by a tax on Danish production. Such a tax will help to increase the demand for the climate-friendly foods, of which agriculture must adapt to produce more.

We decide for ourselves what we want to eat. But we must recognize that society today bears a large part of the costs of negative environmental and climate impacts, which are not included in the price of e.g. climate-heavy foods. A tax will change that dynamic and ensure that it is the polluter who pays.

The best tax model therefore combines a tax on production with a consumption tax on the most climate-damaging foods.

By |2024-10-30T13:49:37+01:001. February 2024|OP-ED|Comments closed to It is common sense to tax climate-damaging food and production
READ MORE

This is what an ambitious climate tax for agriculture looks like

A climate tax on agriculture is one of the major points of contention in Danish politics, and the decision on how the tax should be composed has just been postponed again. Therefore, the Green Transition Denmark presents a proposal for a tax model which supports an in-depth green transformation of the profession and ensures that Denmark can live up to its national and international obligations.

Current Danish agricultural production emits greenhouse gases and nutrients far beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. But it is possible to reverse the situation and create a balanced agriculture that operates within the planetary boundaries and still plays an important role in producing food for the growing world population. Green Transition Denmark therefore comes with a strong call to the government to introduce a high and uniform climate tax for agriculture, and that an in-depth structural restructuring of the industry is also tackled.

"If we are to operate agriculture within the planetary boundaries, we need to change the structural conditions in the sector, including particularly the large-scale intensive animal production. Broadly speaking, we must produce more plant-based foods, less intensively and give more space to nature and biodiversity,” says Niklas Jørgensen, senior advisor at the Green Transition Denmark.

Green Transition Denmark therefore recommends that a high, uniform climate tax be introduced on agricultural production with a built-in floor deduction for parts of the profession. The tax on production must be combined with a consumption tax on the most climate-damaging goods, which must shift demand to climate-friendly food, so that the transformation of agriculture is supported. At the same time, the consumption tax will reduce the competitive advantage that will be for imported goods as a result of a tax only on Danish production.

Furthermore, the transformation of agriculture should be supported by returning the proceeds from the production tax to the profession. This can be in the form of advice and support for restructuring production, or as support for investing in and implementing recognized and well-documented climate and environmental technologies.

"It is important that an ambitious climate tax is introduced on agriculture, which ensures that Denmark can live up to the national and international agreements, we have entered into. At the same time, it is important that the profession is developed so that we continue to be an agricultural country – but with a markedly greener sign," says Niklas Jørgensen and continues:

"Our model for a climate tax on agriculture ensures exactly this. Just as it pushes our spending habits, because there will be a tax on the most climate-damaging foods.”

By |2024-06-27T10:06:07+01:001. February 2024|Press release|Comments closed to This is what an ambitious climate tax for agriculture looks like
READ MORE

Drop CO2 capture at Amagerværket and focus on energy from the sun and wind

Viewpoint by Erik Tang, published in Ing/Gridtech 12 January 2024.

Hofor has recently been allowed to spend DKK 50 million on preparations participation at the Amagerværket in an upcoming tender, where the state will make available up to DKK 27 billion for CO2 capture and storage. 

Green Transition Denmark is generally skeptical about the extensive use of CCS as a climate measure. Previous trials with CCS have shown that it is an expensive technology, which has often had a significantly lower effect than expected.

Furthermore, there are many indications that it is cheaper to eliminate many of the emissions that the government considers difficult to avoid. RGO has therefore recommended the government and the parties behind the agreement, which will use a total of DKK 38 billion for CCUS, to take a pause for thought. Before contracting so much money, it would be wise to evaluate the experiences from the CCS plants that Ørsted has received subsidies for, as well as a large number of international projects. 

Let the polluters pay for their climate impact
Both the Climate Council and several reports from the Danish Energy Agency have emphasized that the use of wood for energy affects the climate. Popularly, carbon bound in wood is moved from the forests into the atmosphere as CO2 when wood is burned. 

Denmark's global climate impact - Global reporting 2023 (GA23): Denmark's consumption of solid biomass fuels - focus on wood pellets and wood chips. Illustration: Danish Energy Agency 2023.

The figure shows the climate impact over time of approximately half of the Danish consumption of wood biomass for energy, totaling approximately 130 petajoules in 2021.   

Despite the significant climate impact from wood energy, its use is not subject to any type of tax. Electricity production from wood even receives considerable support, although it only has a noticeably lower climate impact than coal and natural gas in the fairly long term. 

In recent years, the EU's quota system has resulted in high prices for CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, and the tax exemption has therefore driven wood energy consumption even higher. The gas crisis has even caused a number of district heating plants to build new, wood-fired heating plants.

The climate impact of wood energy is registered according to UNFCCC rules as a storage loss in the so-called LULUCF accounts, and the loss is transferred in Denmark directly to the climate accounts. The state is responsible for fulfilling Denmark's LULUCF obligations in relation to the EU and the reduction target of 70 percent in 2030. 

And the accounting practice described thereby means that the state is footing the climate bill from the energy companies' consumption of Danish wood. Two-thirds of Danish consumption is imported, and here the countries of origin are responsible for Danish emissions.

RGO and Concito have long recommended that polluters pay for their climate burden by imposing climate taxes on wood energy. This will most likely mean that wood energy will be replaced quite quickly with electricity production from the sun and wind as well as heat from electricity-driven heat pumps, which have a significantly lower climate impact. 

Stopping the use of Danish waste wood for energy from 2026 can provide roughly as large improvements in the climate account for 2030 as the government's CCS programme.

 

A slow and ineffective method
Copenhagen Municipality hopes that a CCS plant at Amagerværket can deliver negative emissions, as a significant contribution to meeting the municipality's climate goals for 2035. The government has also emphasized the need for negative emissions to offset emissions that are considered very difficult or expensive to reduce .

However, CCS on wood-fired energy plants such as the Amager plant is an inefficient and slow method of delivering negative emissions. This is illustrated in the figure below: 

 

A CCS capture efficiency of 65% incl. uncaptured emissions from the transport of wood chips and a half-life for wood in nature of 12½ years, corresponding to a mix of waste wood and log wood. The figure is based on an annual consumption of wood chips of 1 million. h/year*
Illustration: RGO's calculations.

The reason is that the storage loss in the forests has long been greater than the geologically stored amount of CO2. The wood/CO2 storage in the forest is popularly said to have moved underground with a loss to the atmosphere of approximately 30 percent along the way. 

The negative emissions – and positive climate effects – are achieved solely by energy utilization avoiding later emissions from the natural decay of wood waste out in the forests, or by new trees planted on cleared areas absorbing CO2. 

But as you can see, it takes a very long time. As late as 2050, the negative emissions amount to only 7 percent of the geologically stored amount. 

Many assume that significantly higher capture efficiency can be achieved – the Danish Energy Agency's Technology Catalog assumes 90 percent without taking into account emissions from transport. However, CCS trials to date have shown that more than 70 percent capture efficiency has rarely been achieved in practice. In addition, emissions from the transport of wood to energy plants must be added. 

Wait for American start-up
A CCS plant on a waste incinerator will result in significantly greater negative emissions per unit of biomass burned. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the alternative for this biomass will, for the time being, be burning under any circumstances. 

In the long term, however, significant parts of the organic waste will be sorted out and used for biogas, where considerable amounts of CO2 are already captured by purification to natural gas quality. If the government and the parties to the agreement insist on the establishment of CCS plants, however, waste incineration should be prioritized before wood-fired energy plants.

Aalborg Portland seems to be another candidate for a CCUS grant. Here too, RGO recommends a pause for thought: An American start-up, Sublime, is testing a new process for cement production, which either completely avoids CO2 formation or separates CO2 so that it is easy to transport and store. 

The new process may solve a serious financial handicap for Aalborg Portland, which has wetter raw materials than other cement producers in the EU. This results in greater energy consumption and CO2 emissions – and thereby higher costs for quota purchases and CO2 capture. 

Sublime manufactures cement in an aqueous environment – ​​by electrolysis of calcium-containing raw materials – and they themselves expect that the costs will eventually reach the level of traditional cement production without CO2 capture. 

 

By |2024-09-02T09:48:43+01:0022 January 2024|OP-ED|0 Comments
READ MORE

Here are three approaches that can speed up the installation of onshore wind turbines and solar cells in Denmark

Today, far too much time is spent on good green projects being sent back and forth for years between state authorities, municipalities and appeals boards. This makes the transition unnecessarily expensive and slows down the green transition.

The "Renewable energy alliance - together for green power on land" therefore proposes a green case processing guarantee, where it must take a maximum of one year to get a decision on a project about the construction of wind or solar energy on land.

The green transition is in uncertain times with high costs and great competition, at the same time as the countries of the world confirmed to each other at COP28 the need to triple the world's renewable energy by 2030. The goal is important, because without it we cannot get green power in the electric cars, in our heat and for the green fuels of the future.

Here, onshore wind turbines and solar cells are a crucial tool, because they can be built quickly and are relatively cheaper than other technologies. But things are going much too slowly in Denmark today.

Too long processing time
South of the border, we see evidence that it can go much faster. While Denmark took down more onshore wind turbines in 2023 than were installed, Germany had 1,6 GW of new onshore wind installed in the first half of 2023, which was an increase of 35 percent. compared to the same period in 2022.

This was done by streamlining the approval processes and by giving renewable energy priority in planning. Now they are moving forward to reduce the steps in the approval procedures.

In Denmark, the picture is different. Today, there are applications for almost 5 GW of onshore wind that are pending in municipal Denmark. However, there is a big difference in how the applications are processed in the municipalities, so there are approx. 98 different ways to apply for a greener power project.

Three grips
Fortunately, there are places where it succeeds. In Thyborøn Sydhavn, Lemvig Municipality has succeeded in completing the permit process in 264 days. But can we also reduce the case processing to 12 months in the rest of Denmark? We think so, and here we want to point to three measures.

Firstly, there must be clear guidance on unclear environmental regulations, which today throw applications between municipalities, authorities and appeals boards.

Renewable energy and nature conservation are not mutually exclusive, but neither is helped by the fact that the rules on environmental assessments are so complicated that different administrations do not agree on the interpretation. Clear and specific instructions will make it easier for both the municipalities and the developers, as it will remove confusion and reduce errors.

Secondly, the municipalities must be supported in the processing of cases. In many cases, it is not the lack of the will, but the hands to handle the case that is lacking.

This is particularly a challenge for municipalities that are geographically large but small in terms of population. If renewable energy on land is to quadruple, as a broad majority in the Danish Parliament has decided, it will require that many more applications be processed. The task must be prioritized in the municipalities, and perhaps the state will even have to help.

With the recently concluded agreement on energy parks, the state is helping the municipalities with case processing. But why only speed up within the energy parks when there are applications for almost 5 GW of onshore wind on municipal desks? Let the travel team for renewable energy, which has already been reduced, help with concrete case processing.

Thirdly, the complaint processes must be made more efficient. If a complaint is made about the living conditions of a single species during the construction of renewable energy, it must of course be dealt with in the complaints system. But it is unsustainable for the entire assessment of the environmental consequences to be started from scratch.

If a project has been consulted once, a complaint about one part of the application shall not mean that the project must be fully reconsidered. It's a waste of effort and time.

With these three measures, we believe in a faster setup of wind and solar in Denmark, so that we can once again wear the green leader's jersey. And like all good New Year's resolutions: Get started early and stick to the goal of tightening up the bureaucracy.

In this way, 2024 can be a turning point for the set-up of renewable energy in Denmark.

The debate article was published in Børsen Bæredygtig on 22 January 2024 and written by Jens Dahlstrøm Iversen, Green Transition Denmark, Camilla Holbech, Green Power Denmark, Flemming Nør-Pedersen, Agriculture & Food, Ulrich Bang, Danish Business, Anders Frandsen, Danish Skovforening, Morten Dyrholm, Vestas, Ulf Lund, Norlys, Anders Dolmer, BeGreen, Joachim Steenstrup, Eurowind Energy, Thomas Beck Sørensen, European Energy, Andreas Nøhr Vestergaard, Momentum Energy Projects, Nicolai Zarganis, Andel and Jacob Bundgaard, NRGI.

By |2024-01-22T14:15:50+01:0022 January 2024|OP-ED|0 Comments
READ MORE

It is too early to plan infrastructure for the transport of piped CO2

It is far too early to start planning a national infrastructure for piped transport of CO2 in Denmark. 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.

Therefore, the Council for the Green Transition has written a consultation response in which we recommend that the 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 establishing a larger infrastructure is an economically sustainable and cost-effective path compared to investments in and scaling up other green technologies.

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.

By |2024-01-26T13:57:30+01:0018 January 2024|Hearing response|0 Comments
READ MORE

We have to get rid of the gas boilers - regardless of what gas they fire with

In the Climate Agreement for green electricity and heat from 2022, the political ambition is that "from 2035 there will no longer be homes in Denmark that are heated by gas boilers". The agreement states that a planned shutdown or conversion of the gas distribution network will support a faster phasing out of gas for space heating.

The national gas distribution company Evida was ordered to make a map of areas where gas distribution to private residential roads could be closed. In autumn 2023, the long-awaited report came. In the report, it is expected that there will be 121.000 private customers left with gas boilers in 2035. This means that over the next 11 years, you will only get rid of just over half of the remaining 309.000 gas boilers. If the gas distribution network is maintained, it will be the most expensive solution in terms of society, company and user finances, because in 2035 there will thus be residential streets with triple energy supply in the form of gas, district heating and heat pumps.

Another political ambition from the Climate Agreement was that there should be 2030% green gas in Denmark by 100 at the latest. However, we see a risk that this could encourage a postponement of the ambition to get gas out of space heating. Therefore, with this post, we will focus on the production of 100% green gas not means that there must be gas for heating in 2035.

The climate agreement refers to biogas as a green, climate-neutral gas, and it is biogas in particular that must supply green gas to the grid in 2030. In the summer of 2022, Danish-produced biogas covered 25% of Danish gas consumption. In 2023, it was 45% of gas consumption.

Biogas var economically advantageous to use for heating last winter because gas prices were very high due to the war in Ukraine. But we do not believe that biogas should be used for individual heating in the future – it is too precious an energy source to be used for heating individual homes, where there are other cheaper alternatives.

Biogas has its right to exist in the Danish energy system and must instead be used in places where there are no alternatives. When the Danish gas grid once contains 100% green gas, it must only be used for "cooking" production in business, as a component in the complex energy system of the future, for peak and reserve load in heat production - and if there is a surplus of green gas, it is part of the European gas network.

Biogas production is currently supported with approx. 4 billion kroner annually and is estimated to cost DKK 2020 billion in the period from 2030-43. kroner. If state subsidies are removed and the remaining 121.000 gas customers in 2035 (according to Evida's report) have to pay the real costs for 100% green gas, the user economy will be very high. At the same time, the remaining gas customers must also pay for the operating costs of the gas network via network charges. So, from a consumer economic perspective, in the future you will not want to continue to be one of the few remaining gas customers who have to pay the operating costs of the gas network via network charges.

In addition, we must remember that we cannot look at the Danish gas network, gas consumption and gas production in isolation. Our gas network is not Danish but European. In the same way as with the mains. Therefore, a goal of 100% green gas in Denmark is more of an expression that we want to produce as much green gas as we consume.

In fact, a large part of the certificates for the biogas are sold to German industry, which among other things uses LNG gas. Of course, this does not mean that the biogas will be used directly in the German industry in question, but a surplus of green gas after 2030 will actually mean that green gas will physically replace fossil gas in European industry. From a displacement perspective, it is extra important to phase out gas for heating where there are alternatives, so that Danish biogas production actually displaces fossil gas used by our neighbours.

In general, we believe that in the coming time all the initiatives that were set in motion due to the energy crisis and that are contained in the Climate Agreement from 2022 must be protected. They must not be softened, postponed or dropped to the ground by e.g. . to stare blindly at gas for space heating in the future as the most expensive solution when there are other good, economical alternatives available. It is deeply problematic if the biogas ends up extending the life of the gas stoves in Danish homes by 121.000 gas stoves after 2035.  

We would instead recommend one automatic goodbye and thank you scheme for natural gas. There is a need to tighten the screws so that the right decisions can be made and we can get rid of gas stove. We are not far from the target in Denmark compared to many other European countries, so we should make an effort now, rather than loosen the screw and still have gas for space heating in the future.

 

We look forward to the recommendations from the NEKST group, which will help accelerate the phasing out of gas for heating and roll out the alternatives with a safe hand. This is what NEKST was created for during the energy crisis, and which must show us the way in an uncertain future for the global energy markets.

The debate article was published in Klimamonitor on 11 January 2024 and written by Søren Magnussen, senior consultant at Dansk Fjernvarme and Julie Abrahams, senior advisor at the Green Transition Denmark.

By |2024-01-26T13:46:37+01:0011 January 2024|OP-ED|0 Comments
READ MORE

Let 2024 be the year when the government drops the distractions of the green transition – such as the hydrogen pipeline to Germany and CO2 capture

 

We already have 95 percent of the technologies needed to transition the whole of Denmark away from the fossil energy system. They are far cheaper to operate, far more energy efficient and can strengthen Denmark's long-term competitiveness.

It has never been more urgent to invest in the green and clean technologies that can free us from fossil fuels. Because climate change is strongly exacerbated during 2023 with global average temperatures of 1,48 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level.

It should be a no-brainer to invest in green technologies, which can also create many new jobs and lower the energy bills of companies and Danes for many years to come.

On lifetime costs, solar and wind energy are already cheaper than fossil fuels. The past ten years the price per megawatt-hour of onshore wind has fallen by 57 percent, offshore wind by 73 percent and solar cells and batteries have fallen by 80 percent. There are only bad arguments for postponing the green transformation of the energy sector.

The mystery just is, why do we have a majority government and a parliament that does not put everything into scaling these technologies up quickly?

There are indications that there have been many other distractions, such as talk of a hydrogen pipeline to Germany, a new CO2 capture infrastructure or CO2 capture facilities at biomass plants and cement factories.

This is what the government spends the vast majority of money, administrative resources and energy on putting into the lake. More than DKK 2 billion has been set aside for CO38 capture alone, and before Christmas the majority of the Danish Parliament set aside a billion DKK to provide state industrial support, which may very well be used for Power-to-X or to co-finance the hydrogen pipeline to Germany, which the climate minister and industry lobbyists dream of.

In the Green Transition Denmark, we are warm supporters of new, green technologies, but the state and companies should invest wisely and focus on promoting technologies that can be quickly scaled and deliver major climate effects in the next few years.
Instead of throwing state aid at CO2 capture, CO2 pipelines or hydrogen pipes to Germany, a significant change of course is needed in Danish climate and energy policy here in 2024. Put all political power into creating the right incentives for energy-efficient technologies, much faster expansion of solar and wind energy and massive expansion of the electricity grid.

Why? If we make an effort, it is actually possible to build a 100 percent renewable supply for all of Denmark's energy consumption in 2035-2040, and in the next five years we could increase sevenfold with solar and onshore wind if the government didn't snort so much and cut all the tripwires over.

For example, let the municipalities earn ten cents per kilowatt-hour of solar and wind energy produced, as Vestas' CEO, Henrik Andersen, have suggested, then it will turbocharge development and provide strong local incentives to move.

At the same time, give the Danes greater freedom to produce solar and wind energy into the grid without expensive extra bills, so that we can accelerate the green transition and get enough green power for the electric cars, heat pumps and stoves and preferably in local energy communities.

My New Year's appeal to the government is this: You should get the whole country ready for the green electrical revolution, which will be the backbone of production Denmark in the future, and which will enable a 100 percent electrification of the heat supply, of industry, of road transport, of ferry traffic and, in not too many years, also domestic aviation .

In terms of purely energy economics, it is three to five times more efficient to produce green electrons and let them do the work directly in all machines than to throw fossil energy or wood biomass into power plants or combustion engines, where enormous amounts of energy are wasted in the conversion from firewood to work.

Free the market from the bureaucratic stumbling blocks, so that we can turbocharge the large offshore wind projects that must produce enough green power for the power-to-x plants that are planned along the coasts.

The market players must be obliged to deliver on biodiversity and environmental considerations, and society must have its share in the gains of a simple profit-sharing model. Just call it an open-door 2.0 system, where the best and fastest must be allowed to compete on the highest common denominator.

The state must not be greedy for revenue, but set strict environmental requirements in the renewable energy zones, and then the market must scale quickly.

The government should also make it cheaper and easier to install heat pumps, connect solar cells to the grid and support more energy renovations. And stop harmful government subsidies for biomass plants that burn wood and emit millions of tons of CO2 every year.

The support for the biogas plants should be reduced and instead go to energy renovations, so that we can save energy rather than creating an artificial oversizing of green gas and of Danish agriculture.

There are so many solutions that can accelerate the green transition away from fossil fuels. The state can play an important role in business policy via better framework conditions and targeted support schemes that promote rapid scaling.

Which brings me back to the hydrogen tube. Here, the state should leave it to the market players to cover the entire bill. In purely financial terms, it is doubtful that it will be a profitable investment for the next several years – despite many hyped forecasts from industry lobbyists.

It is uncertain whether there will be an increasing demand for hydrogen in the future. On a global level, up to 120 million tonnes of hydrogen or hydrogen in connection with other gases are produced today. 42 percent of it is used in refineries to remove sulfur from gasoline and diesel (limiting acid rain), 37 percent is used to make fertilizers, and the rest is used to make methanol, chemicals, plastics and in industrial processes.

But fossil road transport will be phased out in the next 15-20 years, because the mobility of the future will be powered by electricity. In terms of climate and environment, there are good reasons to reduce the consumption of chemicals and plastics, and here new biosolutions can be developed. Today, there is less than a million tonnes of green hydrogen, and it is expensive and difficult to scale as quickly as supporters hope.

The green hydrogen must over time replace fossil hydrogen, but it is better to introduce extra high CO2 taxes or fossil taxes than to give direct state support to PtX factories. It is also hardly wise to spend the state's money on hydrogen pipes, because it is quite uncertain whether there is an economy in transporting Danish green hydrogen to Germany. It will be cheaper to produce green hydrogen in Spain and North Africa than in Denmark.

Green hydrogen may play a role as an energy store in the renewable energy sector of the future, but its use must be dosed for the most profitable purposes, such as e-ammonia and e-fuels for ships and aviation, as there are large energy losses both in production and transportation. So Danish PtX factories have plenty to do with delivering on it.

On the other hand, many can of the heavy industries – also in the Ruhr area – are electrified and manage without hydrogen. Even within steel and cement, a new generation of innovative companies is on its way to disrupt the fossil processes, so that they will probably only demand hydrogen to a limited extent.

It is not simple and cheap to transport hydrogen over long distances. It cannot simply be sent via existing natural gas pipes without significant extra investment.

Hydrogen is an extremely small and volatile molecule that is difficult to store. It is also very corrosive, so it can penetrate even steel pipes. The risk of leakage is greater than when transporting natural gas, and if the hydrogen flows out, it is not only highly explosive, but also harmful to the climate.

A study published in Nature estimates the warming to be more than 11 times as harmful to the climate as CO2 seen over 100 years. Other studies have shown that hydrogen over 20 years can be between 19-38 times more harmful than CO2. The need for strict safety measures is obvious, but it will also increase the risk profile and the costs of building long hydrogen pipes.

Seen from a socio-economic perspective, it would be wiser to invest in much faster expansion of the electricity transmission network, so that we can send the electrons across regions and national borders more quickly.

A hydrogen pipeline to Germany is a distraction from what should be the first priority for Denmark. In terms of climate, it would be better to invest in energy efficiency improvements, solar and wind energy, batteries and a rapid expansion of the electricity grid.

By |2024-01-26T13:50:14+01:0010 January 2024|Comment|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