In the exhibit below, we see another chart that we find unhelpful when looking at the path to net-zero or something close. It is not an either/or game with fossil fuels and renewables. Those promoting this idea are setting impossible goals for the renewable industries, which will keep severe upward pressure on all energy costs. Wood Mackenzie may not mean what is implied in the chart below but taken at face value it suggests that more pressure will be placed on an underfunded materials market to supply an underfunded renewable power market, in which any opportunity to use decarbonized fossil fuels will be frowned upon. It would be good to see an analysis of how much global power could be generated from decarbonized natural gas and how much pressure that would take off the renewable industries.
The CCS spending chart below is quite detailed, but shows the limited amount of spending in 2021 and 2022 and may underestimate the amount of seismic spending needed, especially in the US, as companies prepare permit applications. We do not expect to see much spending in the US before mid-decade beyond permit applications. However, as we discuss in today’s ESG and Climate report, should the API proposed carbon tax, or something similar, be additive to the 45Q tax credit, we could see a step-change in CCS when/if the tax is approved. The tax on its own is likely not enough to drive decarbonizing investment, but when added to 45Q it could be a specific trigger for CCS investment, and we could see a step-change in the second half of the decade. This might involve large-scale blue hydrogen production, especially on the Gulf Coast to decarbonize the refining and chemical industries.
There was a very strong focus at the WPC on the need for carbon pricing in the US to facilitate investment decisions around many initiatives focused on carbon abatement. The consensus was very much that a carbon price – so a cap and trade system like they have in Europe – was the best mechanism, and far more likely to drive action and limit inflation than a carbon tax. This is something that we broadly agree with but the US is a bit late to the game and the right caps need to be set so that CO2 prices don’t languish at very low levels for years, as they did in Europe. Jim Fitterling of Dow was somewhat provocative in his comments around nuclear power, but we see this as part of a broader initiative aimed at getting a serious dialogue moving around how we make the practical steps needed to drive carbon lower. Nuclear power provides stable baseload and is carbon-free – a small modular nuclear reactor could generate enough steam and enough power to drive the decarbonization of major chemical complexes – one investment for example could transform one of the larger Dow sites. If we are going to get to net-zero targets without nuclear, we need much more progressive policies – especially around carbon pricing – which is likely the direction that Dow would like to take the discussion.
There should be little doubt that the US has a significant opportunity to decarbonize through CCS and if the US has a carbon value close to the level in Europe today we would be seeing investments announced almost weekly. While permitting would cause some significant lead time between announcement and construction/operation, the other uncertainty might be how best to capture the CO2. In its earnings release yesterday, CF talked about purifying CO2 streams at its two large Urea plants on the Gulf Coast, such that the CO2 would be ready to sequester, but the Urea process creates a relatively concentrated stream of CO2 and that makes separation much easier. For others, the better route might be hydrogen investments – driven by the relative ease of capturing the CO2, especially if it is part of the process design. If this route is more economic, the net new investment would be substantial, not just for the SMR, ATR, or fuel cell hydrogen generators, but also for the infrastructure and oxygen capacity for any ATR investment. This seems like a no-brainer bi-partisan opportunity for the US as there is broad support for CCS but incentives need to be higher. For more on this topic see our ESG and Climate research.
We view the hydrogen tax credit discussed in today's daily report as potentially very harmful, as it could give life to projects that will further increase demand on a renewable energy industry that has finite limits to its rate of growth. The credit could encourage inherently uneconomic projects – even with a longer-term “abundant power” view. If the incentives are used to back clean rather than green projects it would make more sense as blue hydrogen could be produced in very large quantities without breaking the bank and would allow constrained renewable power investments to focus on other harder to decarbonize power needs. If the hydrogen subsidy could be added to the 45Q sequestration credit we would likely see a wave of blue hydrogen investments in the US – primarily aimed at decarbonizing industrial applications and refining.
The linked Covestro headline from today's ESG & Climate report is a reminder that the chemicals and polymer makers are dealing with more than just recycling and product lifecycle management. Customers are equally focused on the carbon footprint of the products they buy and the green hydrogen move by Covestro (assuming that affordable green hydrogen is possible) would replace hydrogen made from fossil fuels and replace other fuels for heat in some cases. Germany has some considerable issues with decarbonizing, as the blue hydrogen route will be challenging in a country that will likely not allow onshore CCS. Covestro and others may have little choice but to buy green hydrogen and/or green power, even if supplies come up short of plan and costs are higher as a result. This is a good illustration of why we believe that the right policies in the US could drive some additional competitive edge while meeting climate objectives. Cheap hydrocarbons coupled with cheap CCS may only be matched in some parts of the Middle East.
There are a handful of “renewable” headlines in today's daily report, and it is probably worthwhile discussing the differences. First; the linked Gevo RNG announcement is likely one of several RNG projects that we will see come online in 2022, as there are a number of farm-based RNG projects underway in the US and other parts of the world. The Gevo facility is based on farm manure and is expected to produce 355,000 MMBtu of RNG per year. As such it is not large, and all of the farm-based projects are small in the larger context of the natural gas markets. However, when focused on decarbonizing a specific product or process this RNG can be very important. Our take on the market is that there will likely be more demand for RNG than supply, as several companies are looking for RNG to make proposed investments make sense from a “green” perspective (Monolith would be a good example). This suggests that it will be better to be a seller than a buyer longer-term.
The first chart below has been included in a similar form in prior work and is a good summary of what is needed to decarbonize the LNG market to the greatest degree possible. There is a lot of resistance to the idea of endorsing natural gas as a transition fuel, but so many developed and developing countries need natural gas – often in the form of LNG – to displace or avoid (additional) coal use. If the LNG industry does not start to pursue the paths suggested in the exhibit, and reasonably quickly, it will stand very little chance of winning, or perhaps surviving, a PR battle that is very much stacked against it.
In our ESG and Climate report tomorrow we are focusing on the very wide range of carbon prices and the structures of the various emission reduction incentive schemes, with a focus on what it does to the competitive landscape within the impacted markets. For example, with the government subsidy being offered to BASF and Air Liquide for the CCS project in Antwerp, some level of competitive edge will be granted to the companies, because similar subsidies might not be available to others. Last week we discussed the very wide range of potential carbon abatement costs for companies in the same business, driven by technology and geography. If we add to that the potential for some projects to attract subsidies, while others do not, we change the landscape of the competitive playing field. Could we, for example, see BASF shutter production in Germany, where abatement costs are high, and move more manufacturing to Antwerp – something likely to be very unpopular with the German government and trade unions. This is more problematic in Europe because of the open trade policy. For Germany to give the same benefit that BASF has at Antwerp to chemical manufacturers in Germany could be prohibitively expensive given the much higher inland costs of CCS in Europe, assuming any permits would be issued. Alternatives to CCS, such as the electrification of industrial heating processes or the use of hydrogen as fuel might be equally expensive. We see some of the select European subsidies possibly causing discord between the member states.
It is interesting to watch the pivot between recycled versus virgin polymer to the carbon footprint of the various options as outlined in the chart below. We are assuming that the numbers in the chart are averages as there is a sizeable range for everything. As we note in today's daily report, ethylene feedstock will impact the carbon footprint of ethylene and consequently, the footprint of polyethylene – HDPE made from ethane based ethylene in the US where the ethylene producer is recycling hydrogen back into the furnaces, will have a much lower carbon footprint than HDPE made from naphtha based ethylene in Europe, for example. On the recycling side, there will also be a range based on transportation costs for collection and sorting and then distribution to a customer.