Category: Energy Production

By 2025, 1/3 of European nuclear power plants will be eligible for retirement

There are 171 nuclear reactors for the production of electricity in operation on the territory of 18 countries of Europe. There are currently 12 reactors under construction, and another 26 are in the planning phase

During the 1960s and 1970s, due to the accelerated development and improvement of nuclear technologies, there was an expansion of the construction of nuclear power plants in other countries as well. That trend stagnated after the accident in Chernobyl in 1986, as well as after the accident in Fukushima in 2011, due to concerns about the safety of existing reactors and the necessity of additional safety improvements – says Vladimir Janjić, assistant director and head of inspection at the Directorate for Radiation and Nuclear Safety and Security of Serbia.

According to the time of creation and the level of technological development, nuclear reactors can be divided into four generations. Some of the key attributes that characterize each generation are, among others, the safety and security of reactors, nuclear fuel and associated systems, economic efficiency, compatibility with the national energy grid, and the life cycle of nuclear fuel.

Most of the active reactors in Europe belong to the second generation

– Most of the reactors active today in Europe belong to the second generation. They were built during the seventh and eighth decades of the last century. Over time, safety and security systems and procedures have been constantly improved. This was done in accordance with stricter regulatory requirements and international standards. So we are talking about the so-called II+ generation of reactors. From the mid-1990s and during the following decade, the application and construction of generation III and III+ reactors began. The construction of the reactors itself has been further improved. As well as the technology of production and use of nuclear fuel, thermal efficiency and safety and security systems

The fourth generation of nuclear reactors is under development. It is expected to be ready for commercial use after 2030. Many countries are also considering the construction of small modular reactors. This technology is still in the stage of development and testing. However, it is considered to be the future of the further development of the nuclear industry. Most countries decide to purchase commercially available reactors and supporting systems from Russia (Rosatom), USA (Westinghouse), France (Framatome) or Canada (Candu Energy).

– In Europe, there are 171 nuclear reactors in operation that are used for the production of electricity, in 18 countries. France has 56, Russia 38, including the Asian part, Ukraine 15, Great Britain nine, Spain and Belgium seven each, Sweden and the Czech Republic six each, Finland five, Slovakia, Hungary and Switzerland four each, Germany three, Romania and Bulgaria each two, and one each is located in Belarus, Slovenia and the Netherlands. All these nuclear power plants generate from 20 to 25 percent of the total electricity production on European soil.

Twelwe reactors are currently under construction in Europe

Currently, 12 reactors are under construction. In Great Britain, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, France and Belarus. Another 26 reactors are in the planning phase: in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine, Great Britain. To date, a total of 118 nuclear reactors in Europe have reached the end of their useful lives. They have either already been dismantled or are in the process of being decommissioned.

The working cycle of currently active nuclear reactors is on average 50 years. Many countries deciding to extend their life, based on the comprehensive condition of systems and components, economic profitability and available capacities for electricity production. It is expected that the working life of the new generations of reactors will be longer than 60 years. That will also affect the economic profitability of the construction of nuclear power plants. It is estimated that by 2025, a third of the existing nuclear reactors in Europe will be at the end of their initially planned working life.

Certain countries, such as Italy and Lithuania, have permanently shut down all their nuclear power plants or plan to do so in the near future, such as Germany and Belgium. There are countries that build energy stability mainly on nuclear technology. They will do it by building new power plants or expanding current capacities. In Austria and Denmark, just like in Serbia, laws prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants are in force.

The biggest challenges as storing spent nuclear fuel are still unresolved

One of the main challenges of the nuclear industry is the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. It is estimated that around 7,000 cubic meters of high-level waste is generated annually in the EU. Most countries temporarily store spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste in surface facilities that require ongoing maintenance and monitoring. Finland is currently the only country that permanently disposes of its radioactive waste in underground geological repositories.

Alternative solutions, apart from reducing the total amount of radioactive waste, include the processing of spent nuclear fuel in order to extract unused uranium and plutonium. It can be reused for the same purposes. Currently, processing of spent nuclear fuel in Europe is carried out in France and Russia.

Collapse is inevitable… A view from Russia

The President of the United States in an address to the nation publicly acknowledged the fall of the American economy, blaming Russia for this. Collapse is inevitable…

US President Joe Biden warned his fellow citizens in a recent address to the nation that they would have to suffer for democracy in Ukraine.

At the same time, he deftly linked official inflation, gigantic by the standards of the United States, with the events taking place around Ukraine. Well, as always, only Russia is to blame for this.

A very strange explanation of the situation, given that the liberals assured us that the Russian economy is only a statistical error in the overall world economy. And, in general – since 2018, Apple Corporation alone is worth more than the entire Russian economy! If you are to believe these “evaluations”.

But the US government knows better. Since the average American has to suffer for democracy in Ukraine (through frenzied inflation and rising prices for everything), then let him suffer.

Russia’s actions really affect inflation in the United States regardless. That could lead to the collapse of not only their economy, but also to the collapse of the entire modern financial system. This is due to the fact that Russia has gained sovereignty and no longer sells its natural resources for almost free, especially energy. Something that was happening during the last decade of the last century. Arrival of Putin changed that situation.

In Russia today, too, high inflation, which is 8.7%. In the US, inflation is 7.5%. But there is one big difference: in Russia, inflation is in rubles, while in the US it is in dollars.

What does it mean?

Prices for goods are always rising with us, as there is inflation. But they grow in rubles, while in dollars they, on the contrary, fall.

  • For example, just yesterday the dollar exchange rate was 77 rubles, and today it costs 80 rubles.

That is, goods produced within Russia fell in price against the dollar.

Let’s take gasoline as an example.

In 2014, a liter of 95th gasoline cost 35 rubles, or 1 dollar (the dollar exchange rate was also 35 rubles then).

Today, a liter of AI-95 gasoline costs 53 rubles, that is, $0.69 at a dollar rate of 77 rubles (or $0.66 at a rate of 80 rubles).

By manipulating the ruble exchange rate, it is possible to minimize the damage from dollar inflation within the Russian economy. Another thing is that the real incomes of citizens will decline, but the economy will only develop and grow. That is why, even with high oil prices, the ruble still does not return to its previous values ​​​​of 50 or even 30 rubles per dollar. And this will not happen as long as the US economy (and with it the EU economy) is in crisis.

  • However, the crisis in the United States did not arise because of the situation in Ukraine, as Joe Biden talks about it. Ukraine is just a good excuse to divert the attention of US citizens from the really fundamental economic problems.

The United States, like no one else, knows how to manipulate inflation and dispel any threats and risks to its economy in the global financial system.

Their freshly printed candy wrappers are supplied by market demand and supply

US economists are very smart people. They have built an economic model in which the US economy will grow and develop in almost any circumstances. And if something goes wrong, you can always print more money and pour it into the economy. Like doping.

The worst nightmare for the US economy is the deficit generated by excessive inflation. And this can happen only in one case. It is when there is not enough goods in the world that the United States needs. And it cannot be bought for any money. Under such conditions the more dollars are printed, the more expensive the desired product will be, and the more expensive the product, the more inflation will be. And it goes in spiral.

Look at the US inflation chart:

US inflation chart. 
The modern Bretton Woods financial system based on the US dollar originated in 1945

1. 1951-1954: Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in Abadan (oil crisis)

2. Arab-Jewish war (oil crisis of 1973-1974)

3. Islamic revolution in Iran (oil crisis of 1979-1980)

4. The global financial crisis of 2008 (a lot of oil)

5. Present time (physically there is not enough oil).

The real cause of the inflation

The cause of inflation in the US is the global energy crisis. All statements that US inflation is a temporary event were based on the erroneous hope that demand for hydrocarbons would soon stabilize. Today, however, it has become clear that this will not happen. As a result, the States even had to unpack their strategic oil reserves and enter the world market with it. However, all this was in vain, as the price of oil is already approaching $100 per barrel. Price of oil started rising before Ukrainian crisis. It is true that current crisis is certainly making it even worse.

Such high inflation in the USA has not been seen for more than 42 years!

The world simply no longer has enough energy resources to meet all the needs of the world economy. Russia controls around 23% of energy exports in the entire world economy (oil, gas, coal, electricity). Any provocation of Russia will only raise energy prices.

The United States is well aware of this.. Without long-term access to resources, it is impossible to contain inflation, since energy is the basis for the production of any product and service. It seems that fracking is approaching its maximum. It probably already happened. Not to mention that energy acquired by that methodology is expensive. Only weak Russia would allow plundering of its resources as during Yeltsin era. All sanctions introduced by US and EU against Russia since 2014 simply failed.

US dollar is not only currency but commodity as well

Remember the times when the price of oil reached the mark of more than $140 per barrel? But even then there was no such inflation in the US. Why? It’s simple: oil can be arbitrarily expensive – the United States will always buy it and in any quantity. But what to do if there is no physical oil? Then the price is absolutely not important – it still will not be enough for everyone.

Importance of “petro-dollar”

How is oil (and most other goods) traded on international markets? Saudi Arabia has made agreement with US that all oil trading will be in US dollar. Other oil producers (including USSR) followed. That means that anyone with need to buy oil would have to pay it in US dollar. Many were forced to buy US dollar making it become some sort of a commodity. That is aloso one of the reasons of it being “reserve currency”.

US and the rest of the “west” relied od cheap energy and commodities to support their growth, high living standard and world domination. In their greed they “exported” manufacturing industries to developing countries (China being one of them some 20 years ago). That made American rich class even richer. It also deprived American government revenue from taxes. Accelerated development of the “third world” countries also means higher demand for energy and resources.

V.V. Putin, in a recent address to the people of Russia, during which recognition of the independence of the DPR and LPR was announced, confirmed what has been obvious for a long time – US sanctions are aimed at curbing the development of Russia. Nothing to do with democracy, human rights, ot any other reasons that CNN/BBC would like you to believe.

As long as there is government in Moscow that will not allow pillaging of Russian natural resources, there will be pressure through sanctions and attempts to surreound it with unfriendly regimes in their neighborhood. Prices of natural gas went through the roof not because of Russia using it as a weapon but because someone in EU decided to go “green” overnight. It failed miserably.

What is the Future of Hydrogen in Eurasia?

Hydrogen has become an energy project of the future for the European Union. The question is who will produce this resource? In all of Eurasia, only one state has at the moment a solid project for the development of a hydrogen industry. It is Russia.

PRODUCTION

The gas itself does not pose risks to the environment and to humans and is very widespread in the universe. Unfortunately, humanity does not yet have the possibilities for ”space mining”. So we have to find local sources. On Earth, hydrogen in gaseous form is not found in sufficient quantities. However, it can be extracted from other substances such as water through the process of electrolysis. At the industrial level, it seems that the majority will opt for syngas (synthetic gas) which is a mixture of hydrogen with carbon monoxide that is produced by steam heating natural gas. Subsequently hydrogen is separated. The downside is that CO is a polluting gas.

MAIN MARKETS

Germany, Japan, Russia and China are the main countries working on a hydrogen strategy and infrastructure. Of all this Russia has been talking for several years, more intensely since last year, about its role as a producer and exporter of hydrogen. The natural gas reserves it holds will help the Russian Federation to retain its place as an energy exporter for much of Eurasia.

Until a large-scale adoption of hydrogen there is a need to implement pilot projects. In this regard Germany, China and Russia are talking, designing and already testing in different measures, means of transportation that work with hydrogen. Yesterday, November 1st 2021 China announced the launch of local production of a hybrid locomotive. These will be used in the Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia. On a line that transports coal. Several countries in Europe have already presented hydrogen passenger trains. We have examples such as the one made by Alstom, hydrogen buses (in London), planes and ships. In Russia they have the Aurus Hydrogen car and the hydrogen train produced by Transmashholding (TMN).

Russia has little reason to adopt hydrogen on a large scale. For many decades their oil and natural gas reserves will remain more economically efficient. The Federation is expected to be the main element of energy stability for a ”green” European Union.

WHAT IS CHINA’S CHOICE?

China’s energy sector, however, is more complex. It will in future rely on renewable energies (wind, solar and hydro-power), ”classic” nuclear energy and thorium-based nuclear energy that it is experimenting with in Wuwei.

China is the world leader in the production and marketing of electric cars. For this reason it is actively working on the development of a new sodium-ion battery. The company CATL announced the entry into industrial production and the development of a production chain for such batteries by 2023. The chances of personal hydrogen cars being widely adopted in China are minimal in the coming years. The country has opted for another energy infrastructure in this regard.

In general, even in the European Union, they do not see a reliable hydrogen pump infrastructure in which ordinary users can power their personal cars. At the moment there are reasons for concern about the transport and storage of this highly flammable gas, more dangerous as diesel or gasoline.

It seems that some very powerful investors in Australia are also picking hydrogen as the fuel of the future. Needless to say that Australia is one of the leading exporters of LNG.

The concept of “green” hydrogen energy is increasingly being shattered by reality …

Today, the transition to carbon-free energy is considered to be a resolved issue. The general trend to improve the environmental friendliness of the economic activity of entire countries of the world has become the subject of numerous disputes, discussions and development of strategies for the transition to a new energy structure.

Europe (and the whole world as a whole) has chosen the transition to hydrogen energy as the most economically and energetically effective means of achieving climate neutrality in its countries by 2050.

In the energy strategies presented by Japan, South Korea, Russia and European countries, hydrogen is a universal energy carrier. It is intended to replace hydrocarbon fuels (oil, gas, coal) with an environmentally friendly and neutral gas with a high calorific value.

However, hydrogen energy has a significant problem (in addition to storage and transportation). The lack of free hydrogen deposits. Therefore, hydrogen is required to be produced. That is, to convert primary energy and primary resources into the production of hydrogen.

In other words, we must artificially create this energy carrier, moreover spending more energy on its production than we will receive from its use. And this, in turn, imposes a lot of restrictions on the use of primary energy. Firstly, it must be carbon-neutral, and secondly, powerful enough to provide not only the energy needs of mankind in primary energy, but also have a large reserve for the production of hydrogen and the transition to a hydrogen economy (as seen in Germany). Or to the hydrogen society (according to the Japanese version).

The basic concept for the use of hydrogen in Europe. 
Hydrogen is produced in electrolytic cells using renewable energy sources, as well as coal and gas stations. 
In addition, hydrogen and raw materials for its production (ammonia) are imported. 
The feedstock is processed into an additional volume of hydrogen, which is supplied to consumers through the existing gas pipelines (including together with natural gas).

Primary energy can be obtained in several ways:

  • burning traditional hydrocarbon raw materials (oil, gas, coal);
  • by using the physical processes of fission of an atomic nucleus (atomic energy);
  • using the potential of water masses in places of elevation differences (hydropower);
  • or using wind and solar energy (wind and solar energy);
  • using the thermal energy of the bowels of our planet (geothermal energy);
  • in the future, it is possible to use physical processes of fusion of nuclei of light elements (thermonuclear energy).

Since the hydrogen concept provides for the abandonment of hydrocarbon resources, it is impossible to use gas or coal to produce hydrogen – this will break the entire hydrogen concept.

However, new gas-fired power plants under construction in Germany have practically zero CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the technology of capturing associated greenhouse gases with their subsequent utilization. For example, the energy company “Uniper” in Germany has already built the world’s first coal-fired power plant that meets all European environmental standards.

Moreover, in spite of Germany’s policy of not using coal, a brand new 1100 MW Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant was launched in 2020, whose emissions are at the level of the most modern gas-fired power plants operating in Germany. The cost of this project amounted to almost 1.5 billion euros.

Kraftwerk Datteln 4 is the world’s first environmentally friendly coal-fired power plant. 
Germans do things ..

Yes, as amazing as it is, Germany has donated € 1.5 billion to a coal plant! Coal! But an environmentally friendly coal-fired power plant. And this is different – you need to understand.

Obviously, in the next 10 years, gas and even coal-fired power plants will become climate neutral, without harmful emissions into the atmosphere. And this is a fact.

The production of hydrogen as an energy carrier implies the use of renewable environmentally friendly raw materials – water, as well as renewable environmentally friendly sources of energy in the form of the sun, wind and the same hydropower.

The production of hydrogen by this method will be as natural for the Earth’s ecosystem as the water cycle in nature. This type of hydrogen has received the designation – “green”.

Today it is too expensive to mass-produce “green” hydrogen using solar and wind power plants. This trend will only get worse in the future. The thing is that the cost of raw materials in the form of rare earth metals, and just all other non-ferrous metals (for example, copper) is already breaking records due to high demand. Without them it is impossible to build a modern SPP and wind turbine.

Thus, spot prices for polycrystalline silicon increased by more than 20%. And the cost of producing polysilicon panels has grown exponentially since the beginning of 2021!

Therefore, conversations about the mass production of “green” hydrogen, faced with the harsh reality, began to subside on the sly. Simply because producing electricity at the same solar power plants is 3 times more profitable than producing the same amount of “green” hydrogen in energy equivalent.

Today, the production of “blue” hydrogen is 3-4 times more profitable than the production of “green”, even taking into account the carbon tax 

Realizing this, many would-be hydrogen producers have simply abandoned the mass production of green hydrogen. For example, Australia in its hydrogen strategy focuses on the production of “gray” hydrogen from coal with associated storage of CO2. Japan is already interested in the project.

The United Arab Emirates and Qatar will invest in the production of blue hydrogen.

And in the hydrogen strategies of Japan, South Korea and European countries, the point of self-sufficiency of their economies with the necessary amount of hydrogen is generally omitted.

In Germany, it is generally stated that Russia should supply them with hydrogen, so there should be no problems with the transition to a hydrogen economy by 2050 (see paragraph 38 of Germany’s hydrogen strategy).

In Russia, according to the hydrogen strategy, by 2024 the economic model of the hydrogen economy itself, with all its derivatives (production of methane-hydrogen mixtures; production of turbine units capable of operating on hydrogen; production of hydrogen transport) should be developed and substantiated. Gazprom is developing a technology for producing “blue” hydrogen. Rosatom is developing a technology for producing “yellow” hydrogen (electrolysis of water at nuclear power plants and the construction of a nuclear power plant for the direct production of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis).

Since 2010, Rosatom has been developing a technology for producing hydrogen using high-temperature gel nuclear reactors. 
The first such station should appear in 2030

Even old Europe is not so optimistic about green hydrogen anymore. Europe suddenly equated the ecological footprint of nuclear power plants in her 387-page study posted on the European Commission’s JRC SCIENCE FOR POLICY REPORT to the ecological footprint of wind and solar power plants.

This is because there is no other way to realize the mass and, most importantly, cheap production of “green” hydrogen, on which Europe relies heavily. Well, this somehow saves the very concept of environmentally friendly hydrogen.

However, in Russia, quite recently, the development of a project began, which is still able to revive the original concept of precisely “green” hydrogen. As the use of water and a renewable environmentally friendly source of energy. This project, worth more than $ 300 billion, will pay off in just 5 years. It will fully provide Europe with the necessary amount of “green” hydrogen. At the same time, Russia itself by 2050 will become the world’s largest producer of hydrogen of all “colors”. And 85% of the total world production of “green” hydrogen will be generated by Russian power plants.

One of the projects for the production of mass and cheap “green” hydrogen is the construction of a tidal power plant in the water area of ​​the Penzhinskaya Bay.

By
Alexey Kochetov

The Russian nuclear industry to switch to the development of new civilian power reactors

The license of Rostekhnadzor for the creation of the BREST-OD-300 power unit was issued to the Siberian Chemical Combine of Rosatom (Siberian Chemical Combine, Seversk, Tomsk Region)

Aleksandr Uvarov, editor-in-chief of the information portal on nuclear energy AtomInfo.ru, told RIA Novosti that “Construction of a new reactor is starting in Russia and thus a new,“ land ”direction of reactors with heavy metal coolant is being opened, which is still nowhere in civil nuclear power. has not been mastered in the world ”   He recalled that Russia is the only country with successful experience in operating heavy-metal cooled reactors used on a number of Soviet nuclear submarines.

The power unit with an installed electric capacity of 300 MW with the BREST-OD-300 reactor should become the key object of the experimental demonstration energy complex (ODEC), which is being built at the SGChK site within the framework of the strategic industrial project “Breakthrough”   In addition to the power unit, the ODEC includes a complex for the production of mixed uranium-plutonium nitride nuclear fuel for the BREST-OD-300 reactor, as well as a complex for the reprocessing of spent fuel.

The complex will make it possible to create a closed on-site nuclear fuel cycle, which will make it possible not only to generate electricity, but also to prepare new fuel from the fuel discharged from the reactor core. Earlier it was reported that the launch of the BREST-OD-300 reactor is scheduled for 2026. The BREST-OD-300 reactor is intended for practical confirmation of the main technical solutions laid down in lead-cooled reactor plants in a closed nuclear fuel cycle, and the main provisions of the inherent safety concept on which these decisions are based.

The features of the reactor make it possible to abandon large volumes of containment, a melt trap, a large volume of support systems, and also to reduce the safety class of non-reactor equipment.   Lead coolant has a number of advantages. First, it slows down neutrons a little, which is fundamentally important for the operation of “fast” reactors. In addition, lead has a high boiling point (about 1.8 thousand degrees Celsius), it is chemically inert in contact with water and air, and does not require high pressure in the coolant circuit.  

The combination of the properties of a heavy lead coolant and dense heat-conducting nitride fuel creates conditions for achieving full reproduction of nuclear “fuel” and excludes the most severe accidents – with an uncontrolled increase in power (as in Chernobyl) and loss of heat removal from the reactor core (as in Fukushima). This is the essence of the natural safety of the BREST-OD-300 reactor.   The integral design of the reactor plant makes it possible to localize coolant leaks in the reactor vessel volume and to exclude the dehydration of the core.

This excludes accidents requiring the evacuation of the population, and this actually means that the radiation safety of the environment is guaranteed not by technical means and methods, but by the very absence of activity above the already existing natural levels.

Why Rosatom’s new laid-down reactor is the safest in the world, and when will it enter series

Russian giant Rosatom is rightfully considered the world leader in nuclear energy and a number of other high-tech areas, as evidenced by an extensive portfolio of foreign orders

Rosatom was the first to master the serial production of the latest modern third generation fast breeder reactors. 

Now our concern has begun construction of the world’s first power unit of the next generation – the fourth.

A new power unit is being built in the city of Seversk in the Tomsk region. 

The installation was named Brest OD 300.

The new reactor operates on fast neutrons and has a lead coolant.

Rosatom considers this # type of reactor to be completely safe. Accidents like Chernobyl and the Fukushima disaster using the Brest reactor are excluded.

The new reactor was based on the principle of natural safety. 

Foreign competitors of Rosatom do not possess such technology and continue to build thermal neutron reactors in which water serves as a coolant.

The advantage of fast reactors is the ability to reuse spent nuclear fuel as new fuel, thereby achieving a closed cycle. 

In addition to being economical, fast reactors are safer than existing thermal reactors. The possibility of unpredictable and uncontrollable acceleration of neutrons is excluded, which is equivalent to the loss of the coolant. 

The risk of a parazirconium reaction that provoked the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant is also excluded. 

The work on the design of the fourth generation reactor has been carried out by Rosatom since 2010. Rosatom plans to commission the Brest power unit by the end of 2025.

One of the important advantages of the new reactor will be its ability to run on fuel # uranium 238, which is much cheaper and more widespread on our planet, in contrast to the rare uranium 235.

In the next few years, Rosatom plans to organize the serial production of the newest Brest reactors in Russia, and after 2030 start exporting them to foreign partners. 

A hydrogen economy is closer than you think

Shell, BP and Saudi Aramco are all actively exploring ways to transition to a hydrogen-mixed economy

By JOHN BALLANTINE

Hydrogen-mixed economy might be coming much sooner than expected. There are many factors contributing to that outcome – at least at the middle term of transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.

Tehran, 1943: Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Hosted by the young Shah Reza Pahlavi. Agree on plans for the two-front attack on Hitler while sketching out the east-west division of Europe.

Holding the meeting in Iran, with separate consultations with the shah, was no mistake. Gulf oil was a critical resource to the Allied war effort. Oil has flowed under the surface of political conflicts ever since.

Fast-forward to today, and political antagonists and energy players are again forging a messy path forward. This time focused on long-term energy transitions as disparate countries try to slow and eventually stop climate change.

The 2015 Paris Agreement was a groundbreaking diplomatic effort. 196 countries committed to prevent average temperatures from rising by more than 2 C (3.6 F), with an aim of less than 1.5 C (2.7 F). To meet that goal, scientists argue that fossil fuel use will have to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.

As the world’s population and economies grow, energy demand is expected to increase by as much as 50% over the next 30 years. Making the right long-term investments is crucial.

Different visions of the future

Energy companies and policymakers have widely different visions of that future. Their long-term scenarios show that most expect fossil fuel demand to remain steady for decades and possibly decline. However, many are also increasing their investments in cleaner technologies.

The International Energy Agency has a history of underestimating demand and clean energy. Forecasts that renewable energy will meet about one-third of the global energy demand by 2040 in its most optimistic scenario.

That would be in a world with higher carbon taxes and more wind power, solar power, electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage. Greener technologies may come close to keeping warming under 2 C, but not quite.

Exxon, on the other hand, forecasts a path dependent on a fossil fuel-based economy, with slower transitions to electric vehicles, steady demand for oil and gas, and a warmer world.

Exxon is also investing in carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. However, it believes oil and gas will provide half the global energy supply in 2040 and renewable energy will be less than one-fifth.

OPEC, whose members are among the most exposed to climate change and dependent upon oil and gas, also sees oil and gas dominating in the future. Nonetheless, several Gulf nations are also investing heavily in alternative technologies. – including nuclear, solar, wind and hydrogen.

BP proposes a more focused shift toward cleaner energy. Its “rapid scenario” forecasts flat energy demand and a more dramatic swing to renewables combined with a growing hydrogen economy. The company expects its own renewable energy to go from 2.5 gigawatts in 2019 to 50 GW by 2030. And it expect its oil production to fall by 40%.

Exploring hydrogen’s potential

Others are also exploring hydrogen’s potential. Much as with utilities’ shift from coal to natural gas, hydrogen may ease the transition to cleaner energy with enough investment.

Since this fuel is getting so much industry attention, let’s look more closely at its potential.

Hydrogen has the potential to fuel cars, buses and airplanes. It can heat buildings and serve as a base energy source to balance wind and solar power in our grids. Germany sees it as a potential substitute for hard-coal coke in making steel.

It also offers energy companies a future market using processes they know. It can be liquefied, stored, and transported through existing pipelines and LNG ships, with some modifications.

So far, however, hydrogen is not widely used as a clean-energy solution. First, it requires an upfront investment – including carbon capture capacity. It requires pipeline modifications, industrial boilers for heat rather than gas, and fuel cells for transportation. Plus policies that support the transition.

Second, for hydrogen to be “green,” the electricity grid has to have zero emissions.

Most of today’s hydrogen is made from natural gas and is known as “grey hydrogen.” It is produced using high-temperature steam to split hydrogen from carbon atoms into methane. Unless the separated carbon dioxide is stored or used, grey hydrogen results in the same amount of climate-warming CO2 as natural gas.

The hydrogen market is divided into grey, blue and green fields depending on how the fuel is produced. Image: Facebook

Gray, Blue and Green Hydrogen

“Blue hydrogen” uses the same process but captures the carbon dioxide and stores it so only around 10% of the CO2 is released into the atmosphere. “Green hydrogen” is produced using renewable electricity and electrolysis. It is twice as expensive as blue and dependent on the cost of electricity and available water.

Many electric utilities and energy companies, including Shell, BP and Saudi Aramco, are actively exploring a transition to a hydrogen-mixed economy, with a focus on blue hydrogen as an interim step.

Europe, with its dependence on imported natural gas and higher electricity costs, is setting ambitious net-zero energy targets. That will incorporate a mix of blue and green hydrogen coupled with wind, solar, nuclear and an integrated energy grid.

China, the world’s largest energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, is instead investing heavily in natural gas. Natural gas has about half the carbon dioxide emissions of coal – along with carbon capture and storage and a growing mix of solar and wind power.

Russia, the second-largest natural gas producer after the US, is expanding its gas production and exports to Asia. Some of that gas may end up as blue hydrogen.

Ramping up blue and green hydrogen as clean-energy solutions will require substantial investments and long-term modifications to energy infrastructure. In my view, it is not the magic bullet, but it may be an important step.

This story originally appeared on The Conversation website. To see the original, please click here.