In the first picture below we see another schematic that shows how different options for polymer recycling could work together. We have suggested a more complex site than the one in the chart as there will be opportunities to recycle some polymers into non-like-for-like applications such as roadbed modification and other durable applications. In addition, there may be a better return in waste to energy versus chemical recycling and that may be an alternative or an add-on. This sort of complex site is what we believe LyondellBasell could be looking at for the Houston refinery site. An integrated waste treatment facility that optimizes that use for each tranche of the waste stream could improve the overall investment returns. In the second picture below we show our version of what a comprehensive waste recycling operation should look like. See more on recycling!
Given the lead time to get some of the emission abatement projects in place – whether it be renewable power or hydrogen with carbon capture – many of the 2030 goals that we see, like the LyondellBasell chart below – are likely to be just that – plans for 2030, with not much in the years in between. We see very little CCS coming online in the US over the next 5 years because of permitting and because of the lead time for any large hydrogen or power project that might be associated with the CCS. Not too many companies seem interested in cleaning up existing CO2 streams and are more interested in building alternative capacity that generates easier to capture CO2 – such as hydrogen from an ATR. These are expensive and long lead-time projects. LyondellBasell, ExxonMobil, Dow, and others might meet their 2030 targets but it might all happen in 2029/30.
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.
2022 is the year in which the rubber will need to meet the road for many of the chemical and other material and industrial companies who have made 2030 emission pledges. In the Dow release yesterday, the company used the call as an opportunity to remind investors about the Canada investment and tie that into the 2030 emission goals. We note LyondellBasell’s 30% emission reduction goal by 2030 and like others, LyondellBasell will not be able to get there without substantial investment. LyondellBasell and others do not necessarily have to spend in 2022 (neither does Dow), but unless there are some concrete plans by the end of the year stakeholders will likely start to question whether the emission goals are real. We suspect that most companies are trying to work out whether investments in hydrogen (likely blue hydrogen because of the volumes needed) are a better solution than trying to capture CO2 from a natural gas furnace. Any large hydrogen investment with associated CCS will take 5-6 years from concept to production. Like Dow, we would expect others to focus emission-reduction investments in countries/states that have a clear value on CO2. See today's daily report for more.
It is interesting to contrast Linde and LyondellBasell with Air Products and Dow. Air Products and Dow have transitioned away from the more generic messaging around broad objectives, and while they still have them, have started talking about concrete plans and spending aimed at lowering carbon emissions. Dow has a project on the books that will lower the emissions of existing capacity while Air Products is talking about greenfield low carbon investments at this point. Many of the commentators and climate activists are calling for concrete plans as opposed to broad objectives and we suspect that most of the narrative will move that way across energy and materials.
As we discussed in yesterday’s ESG and Climate report, the SEC has some challenges ahead, not just because there are high hopes that it will start mandating a change in terms of disclosure accuracy and consistency, as well as fund definition, but also because, as yet, it does not have the mandate to do so. All eyes are on the regional regulators, in the US, Europe, and other countries to police what is the wild west of reporting. The E piece of ESG is the major challenge and it is where corporates and fund managers alike are dealing with issues and measures that are likely very different company by company within a sector, let alone between the sectors themselves – it is far more complex and harder to analyze than, for example, board diversity.
The exhibit below summarizes well one of the primary concerns that we have with some of the very ambitious goals for decarbonizing power grids, EV introduction, the further electrification of industry, and hydrogen. While the solar module price increase does not look that significant (yet), to put it in context, solar module prices have collapsed from over $1.80 per watt in 2010 to below $0.20 in 2020, and many of the expectations around cheap hydrogen require the cost to keep falling. The bigger concern is the polysilicon price, which is up 160% this year, good for the polysilicon producers like Wacker (see the headline here), but bad for the solar module producers, who are seeing major margin squeezes, especially given the rise in copper and silver as well this year. The raw material pressure should drive further increases in solar module pricing and while the higher margins for polysilicon will likely drive expansion investment, the metals are harder to call, given the ESG views on mining. We remain firmly of the view that raw material availability and price inflation, as well as module and wind turbine manufacturing capacity, will be the rate-determining constraint in terms of the growth in renewable power and this is why we question all of the near-term cheap power and cheap hydrogen goals that are being suggested by potential producers and government agencies.
The Dow, LyondellBasell, Nova, Closed Loop Partners announcement yesterday is worth some thoughts. Closed Loop Partners is a PE company focused on funding recycling opportunities, but by its nature, it is relatively risk-averse as it has return goals to meet for its investors – to date its investments have been low-hanging fruit and niche in nature, but steps in the right direction nonetheless. The investment from the majors perhaps gives Closed Loop some wiggle room to look at projects that are less of a sure thing and maybe require a leap of faith on untested technologies or at least technologies untested at scale – primarily in sorting and identifying polymers and cleaning. We would still expect each project to be small, simply because access to the clean and easily sorted polyethylene and polypropylene in the US is limited by very poor standards of recycling and the vast proportion of unrecyclable polymer that ends up in a waste stream. If the group can find locations with significant supply, it might be wise to build pyrolysis at the same site to deal with everything that cannot be recycled. Our hope for this investment is that it is not simply an ESG PR opportunity for the polymer producers and that it does the following:
We talked a little about recycled polymer pricing in our ESG and Climate report yesterday. Recycled polymer pricing is rising relative to virgin polymer pricing (see chart below) and is likely to continue to rise unless hydrocarbon prices push virgin resins materially higher. Demand for recycled polymer is growing quickly and more quickly than supply, and we expect this to be reflected in an increased premium, barring more raw material inflation. Recycling is a fixed cost business – each step has a well-understood cost and companies are innovating to try and lower the cost of each step, but as so many different stakeholders are in the chain, it is a complex problem. One of the reasons why see the LyondellBasell/Suez venture works in The Netherlands is because Suez controls the waste in a region where recycling compliance at the household level is high. Despite this, it has taken a couple of years to get to the volumes needed to make the venture adequately profitable – mostly ensuring enough pure recycled polyethylene and polypropylene makes it to the facility. If polymer buyers are willing to cover the full cost of recycling in terms of the prices they are willing to pay, more material will become available – if LyondellBasell/Suez can demonstrate that they can make money when all the stars are aligned, it will likely encourage them to work with other municipalities in other parts of Europe (first) to see if they can replicate what they are doing now. In our view, all of the other advertised recycling programs are very small, very focused on niche applications, and don’t move the needle.