China Hydrogen Alliance seeks 100GW renewable capacity
China's state-backed industry group the China Hydrogen Alliance has unveiled an initiative calling for the building of 100GW of renewable hydrogen production capacity by 2030, in a country where only 4pc of its output was previously considered "green".
The Renewable Hydrogen 100 Initiative is short of firm details and the likely costs of such a large-scale undertaking, but calls on China to support the installation of 100GW of electrolysers to produce hydrogen, along with the renewable energy projects required to power them.
The initiative also urges China's industry sector to carry out research projects for the future use of hydrogen, creation of a "unified renewable hydrogen market", development of a renewable hydrogen policy partnering upstream and downstream enterprises, as well as the creation of global standards to "unblock" international renewable hydrogen investment and trade.
China is the world's largest producer of hydrogen, but most of it is brown hydrogen produced from fossil fuels, with coal accounting for 62pc of feedstock compared with 18pc globally. Only 4pc of China's hydrogen uses renewable-based electricity to convert water into oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis. The country produced more than 21mn t of hydrogen in 2019, out of 70mn t produced globally.
While coal remains the cheapest source of hydrogen it is also the most polluting, which is hardly in line with President Xi Jinping's previous pledge that Chinese emissions will peak "before 2030" and 2060 carbon neutrality target.
Projects are already under way in the country to clean up its hydrogen production profile. China's coal-focused Inner Mongolia region has laid out plans to develop seven wind and solar power projects that could produce almost 67,000 t/yr of hydrogen, as part of a push to raise output to 500,000 t/yr by 2025.
Chinese state-controlled oil firm Sinopec plans to build its first green hydrogen project in Inner Mongolia by next year, using renewables to produce 10,000 t/yr of green hydrogen. It produces 3.5mn t/yr of hydrogen, 14pc of China's total, mostly as a refinery by-product. Sinopec has already set a goal to become the largest hydrogen producer in China, with initial planned investment of about 30bn yuan ($4.6bn) in the sector in the next five years.
Related news posts
Canada furthers investment in GHG reductions
Canada furthers investment in GHG reductions
Houston, 18 April (Argus) — The Canadian government plans to have C$93bn ($67.5bn) in federal incentives up and running by the end of the year to spur developments in clean energy technology, hydrogen production, carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) along with a new tax credit for electric vehicle (EV) supply chains. The Canada Department of Finance, in its 2024 budget released on 16 April, said it expects to have the first planned investment tax credits (ITCs), for CCUS and renewable energy investments, in law before 1 June. The ITCs would be available for investments made generally within or before 2023 depending on the credit. The anticipated clean hydrogen ITC is also moving forward. It could provide 15-40pc of related eligible costs, with projects that produce the cleanest hydrogen set to receive the higher levels of support, along with other credits for equipment purchases and power-purchase agreements. The government is pursuing a new ITC for EV supply chains, meant to bolster in-country manufacturing and consumer adoption of EVs with a 10pc return on the cost of buildings used in vehicle assembly, battery production and related materials. The credit would build on the clean technology manufacturing ITC, which allows businesses to claim 30pc of the cost of new machinery and equipment. To bolster reductions in transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the government will also direct up to C$500mn ($363mn) in funding from the country's low-carbon fuel standard to support domestic biofuel production . Transportation is the second largest source of GHG emissions for the country, at 28pc, or 188mn metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent, in 2021. But the province of Alberta expressed disappointment at the pace of development of ITC support that could help companies affected by the country's move away from fossil fuels. "There was nothing around ammonia or hydrogen, and no updates on the CCUS ITCs that would actually spur on investment," Alberta finance minister Nate Horner said. The incentives are intended to help Canada achieve a 40-45pc reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, relative to 2005 levels. This would require a reduction in GHG emissions to about 439mn t/yr, while Canada's emissions totaled 670mn in 2021, according to the government's most recent inventory. The budget also details additional plans for the Canada Growth Fund's carbon contracts for a difference, which help decarbonize hard-to-abate industries. The government plans to add off-the-shelf contracts to its current offering of bespoke one-off contracts tailored to a specific enterprise to broaden the reach and GHG reductions of the program. These contracts incentivize businesses to invest in emissions reducing program or technology, such as CCUS, through the government providing a financial backstop to a project developer. The government and developer establish a "strike price" that carbon allowances would need to reach for a return on the investment, with the government paying the difference if the market price fails to increase. CGF signed its first contract under this program last year , with Calgary-based carbon capture and sequestration company Entropy and has around $6bn remaining to issue agreements. To stretch this funding further, the Canadian government intends for Environment and Climate Change Canada to work with provincial and territorial carbon markets to improve performance and potentially send stronger price signals to spur decarbonization. By Denise Cathey Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Australia’s Queensland legislates emissions targets
Australia’s Queensland legislates emissions targets
Sydney, 18 April (Argus) — Australia's Queensland state today approved two separate laws setting renewable energy and emissions reduction targets over the next decade, as it transitions away from a coal-fired dependent power generation system. Queensland set net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets of 30pc below 2005 levels by 2030, 75pc by 2035 and zero by 2050 under the Clean Economy Jobs Act, while theEnergy (Renewable Transformation and Jobs) Act sets renewable energy targets of 50pc by 2030, 70pc by 2032 and 80pc by 2035. The state is on track to surpass the 2030 emissions target, latest data show, as it achieved a 29pc reduction in 2021. Even though the share of renewables in the power mix last year was the lowest across Australia at 26.9pc, it has been increasing consistently since 2015 when it was 4.5pc, according to data from the National Electricity Market's OpenNem website. Coal-fired generation has been steadily falling, down to 42.9TWh or a 65.7pc share in 2023 from 52.9TWh or 83pc in 2018. Most of Queensland's coal-fired plants belong to state-owned utilities, which the previous Labor party-led government of Annastacia Palaszczuk indicated would stop burning coal by 2035 . The new Labor party premier Steven Miles disclosed the 75pc emissions reduction target by 2035 in his first speech as leader last December. The Energy Act locks in public ownership of electricity assets, ensuring that at least 54pc of power generation assets above 30MW remain under state control, as well as 100pc of all transmission and distribution assets and 100pc of so-called "deep storage" assets — pumped hydro plants with at least 1.5GW of capacity. The government will need to prepare and publish a public ownership strategy for the July 2025-June 2030 and July 2030-June 2035 periods. A fund totalling A$150mn ($97mn) will also be set up to ensure workers at existing state-owned coal-fired power plants and associated coal mines have access to new jobs and training or financial assistance during the transition. The Clean Economy Jobs Act sees the government receiving advice from an expert panel on the measures needed to reduce emissions. The government will need to develop and publish sector plans by the end of 2025 with annual progress reports to Queensland's parliament. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
US Gulf lowest-cost green ammonia in 2030: Report
US Gulf lowest-cost green ammonia in 2030: Report
New York, 16 April (Argus) — The US Gulf coast will likely be the lowest cost source of green ammonia to top global bunkering ports Singapore and Rotterdam by 2030, according to a study by independent non-profits Rocky Mountain Institute and the Global Maritime Forum. Green ammonia in Singapore is projected to be sourced from the US Gulf coast at $1,100/t, Chile at $1,850/t, Australia at $1,940/t, Namibia at $2,050/t and India at $2,090/t very low-sulphur fuel oil equivalent (VLSFOe) in 2030. Singapore is also projected to procure green methanol from the US Gulf coast at $1,330/t, China at $1,640/t, Australia at $2,610/t and Egypt at $2,810/t VLSFOe in 2030. The US Gulf coast would be cheaper for both Chinese bio-methanol and Egyptian or Australian e-methanol. But modeling suggests that competition could result in US methanol going to other ports, particularly in Europe, unless the Singaporean port ecosystem moves to proactively secure supply, says the study. In addition to space constraints imposed by its geography, Singapore has relatively poor wind and solar energy sources, which makes local production of green hydrogen-based-fuels expensive, says the study. Singapore locally produced green methanol and green ammonia are projected at $2,910/t and $2,800/t VLSFOe, respectively, in 2030, higher than imports, even when considering the extra transport costs. The study projects that fossil fuels would account for 47mn t VLSFOe, or 95pc of Singapore's marine fuel demand in 2030. The remaining 5pc will be allocated between green ammonia (about 1.89mn t VLSFOe) and green methanol (3.30mn t VLSFOe). Rotterdam to pull from US Gulf Green ammonia in Rotterdam is projected to be sourced from the US Gulf coast at $1,080/t, locally produced at $2,120/t, sourced from Spain at $2,150/t and from Brazil at $2,310/t. Rotterdam is also projected to procure green methanol from China at $1,830/t, Denmark at $2,060/t, locally produce it at $2,180/t and from Finland at $2,190/t VLSFOe, among other countries, but not the US Gulf coast . The study projects that fossil fuels would account for 8.1mn t VLSFOe, or 95pc of Rotterdam's marine fuel demand in 2030. The remaining 5pc will be allocated between green ammonia, at about 326,000t, and green methanol, at about 570,000t VLSFOe. Rotterdam has a good renewable energy potential, according to the study. But Rotterdam is also a significant industrial cluster and several of the industries in the port's hinterland are seeking to use hydrogen for decarbonisation. As such, the port is expected to import most of its green hydrogen-based fuel supply. Though US-produced green fuels are likely to be in high demand, Rotterdam can benefit from EU incentives for hydrogen imports, lower-emission fuel demand created by the EU emissions trading system and FuelEU Maritime. But the EU's draft Renewable Energy Directive could limit the potential for European ports like Rotterdam to import US green fuels. The draft requirements in the Directive disallow fuel from some projects that benefit from renewable electricity incentives, like the renewable energy production tax credit provided by the US's Inflation Reduction Act, after 2028. If these draft requirements are accepted in the final regulation, they could limit the window of opportunity for hydrogen imports from the US to Rotterdam to the period before 2028, says the study. By Stefka Wechsler Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth
Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth
New York, 16 April (Argus) — Randall Atkins is a founder and chief executive of metallurgical coal producer Ramaco Resources. He also has been involved in energy-related investment and financing activity for over 40 years. In this Q&A, edited for length and clarity, he discusses effects from the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse, his outlook for coal and the company's research projects. What effect has the Key bridge collapse and Port of Baltimore closing had on Ramaco and the US coal industry in general? Like most things of that tragic nature, it is going to take longer than everyone expects to actually solve the problem. I think where it is going to impact producers probably more is on the rails. There will be a need for...producers to rearrange stockpiles and to rearrange where they are going to try and ship, even at reduced levels. Particularly, CSX is going to have an immense logistical complexity to deal with over the near-term. We do not ship from Baltimore. We have not seen any problems, knock on wood, with our rail shipments post the incident. What are your long-term projections for metallurgical coal given expectations that low-volatile coal reserves will shrink in coming decades and the steel industry could be in oversupply? Low vol coal has traditionally been the highest priced coal and the dearest, if you will. High vol A coal has over the last few years grown in importance, and to the extent that there is any new increase in production in the US, it's high vol. What we perceive is that there is going to be a crowding in the high vol space. As a result, our increase in production is primarily in low vol. As far as the demand side is concerned, we do not believe that blast furnace steel demand is going to decline anytime soon. There's a lot of noise from the green community that hydrogen is going to replace coal in blast furnaces. We took some advice on that from the IEA…and when that question was posed (to IEA), the answer that was given was it would take about $1.5 trillion to build a pilot plant using hydrogen by 2035 and probably about another equal or greater sum to build a commercial facility by 2040. So, I don't lose a lot of sleep on the demand for coal for blast furnaces. What I do see shifting, however, is the US has held relatively steady at about 20mn short tons (18.1mn metric tonnes) of met coal demand over the last 10 to 15 years. The growth is clearly overseas, and the growth is clearly at the moment in Asia. When we started back in 2017, and 2018 was really our first year of production, we predominantly sold coal domestically; I think 80pc of our coal went to US steel mills. Now that is almost reversed. We're going to sell probably this year, 70pc overseas, and about a third or less domestically. With Europe moving towards electric arc furnace technology and significant new blast furnace capacity coming online in Asia, what kind of role will the US play as a coal supplier over the coming years? It is cheaper to use a blast furnace than electric arc. And the steel that they (Asian companies) mostly require is the heavier steel for cars and buildings and things of that nature. So, they have a bias towards blast furnace capacity. The US and Europe are very developed economies that are trying to go and wean away from coal, (while) the rest of the world is aggressively moving further into coal. People will shake their heads at the cost that European and American consumers will start to have to pay for that privilege. We see market growth is still there, but it's a different kind of growth. It will be more in the Asian markets, predominantly some in Europe, some in South America and Africa. The low vol coal demand in Asia is extremely strong because while they are able to buy high vol product from Australia very inexpensively, they do not have the low vol production. They need that to blend up to get the proper mix in their blast furnaces. There is a very good future for low vol, and that is the direction we are positioning ourselves. How confident is Ramaco about securing its investments in the longer run given the emphasis on ESG? What I see is sort of a dichotomy. In the thermal coal business, there's not a lot of investment in new mining there for the obvious reason that their customer base is declining. On the met side, it is a bit shortsighted from an investment standpoint because of the composition of the ownership of met coal companies. Virtually every major metallurgical coal producer except for us went through bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy proceedings. Their board composition became essentially distressed debt investors...Their interest was not developing a long-term coal company. Strategically their vision was: "How can we most quickly get money back out of that coal company?" We are certainly the only coal company that is doubling in size. We produced a little under 4mn st last year. We will be at about 4.5mn st this year. We can maybe go higher, depending upon the market. The market is not strong right now. The other issue (for coal producers) even when they weren't doing special dividends, is they've now shifted to doing large-scale share buybacks. You are starting to see the cost curve increase for most domestic coal producers. What you haven't seen, but I think you will probably find over the next probably 18 to 24 months, is you will begin to see depletion kick in. The amount of coal that they are able to produce from their existing operation will begin to decline. And that is strictly a result of not investing in new mine production. My approach was to kind of be a little bit of an outlier and then approach coal to products as an alternative use, certainly for thermal coal. And that, of course, brought us to rare earth (mineral extraction). Do you have funding for Ramaco's rare earth materials projects? Let me step back one step. We introduced the idea that we actually had rare earth (deposits) in May 2023….When we sent the samples to be tested, they tested them as if they were hard minerals. In other words, they did not combust off the organic material. What we have done since then, is we went back and we had samples that were probably 200-300 parts per million. From a commercial standpoint, we have kind of crossed the Rubicon that this is indeed sufficiently concentrated that it makes commercial sense. Now what we are doing is we are going through a process of further chemical analysis and testing to determine what is the best extraction and refinement technique. And the last point you raised was financing. We have a very nice growing mining metallurgical business, which can provide the funding to do whatever we want to do on rare earth. I am not too concerned about our financing capability. Any updates on your coal-to-carbon product projects ? We have looked at a number of different things with the national labs. We started looking at carbon fiber, which could be made from coal and we have got some patents around some very interesting processes. The areas that we are now focusing on...are using coal to make synthetic graphite. The other thing we are working on is using coal for direct air capture. We are considering going into a pilot phase sometime starting later this year with Oak Ridge National Laboratory on a synthetic graphite plant. As far as direct air capture, we probably have more work to do. We are also working on that with Oak Ridge. But I would hope that sometime by 2025, certainly 2026, we would perhaps have our first product, quote unquote, to be able to offer into the market. And it would be delightful if it was synthetic graphite. By Elena Vasilyeva Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more