While longer-term use of oil and gas products is in Enterprise Products' best interest, it is nice to see someone else pushing the point that we have been making for more than a year – that there is not enough material out there, in the right locations, to meet the suggested clean energy goals. It is important that this becomes better understood and accepted by a broader group than just Enterprise and C-MACC, as we will not get the needed tack in strategy, priorities, and incentives if there is a broad reliance on renewable targets that will not be met – we focus on the IPCC report in tomorrow’s ESG and Climate report.
The two charts below today are interesting bedfellows as while one talks about yet more, likely impractical, hydrogen ambitions, the other talks about a possible solution.
One of the concerns that the IPCC has in its report issued this week is that things are not happening fast enough and the Ammonia analysis in the chart below would support this view. Most of the capacity addition comes post-2030 in large part because project planners cannot see a way to enough cheap power to generate the green hydrogen needed until that time. In our view, since COP26 the transition part of the energy transition has been overwhelmed by advocates of green technology and renewable pathways without much thought about how practical they might be today. Those suggesting transition options are being given very little airtime and as a consequence, we see broad hostility towards anything that is not truly green, regardless of whether the costs or time frames make any real sense. If we do not embrace bold transitionary steps including the use of hydrocarbons with aggressive abatement targets we will not meet any of the shorter-term goals that the IPCC highlights and we are putting hope in renewable and technology development which may come up short. Related to this we see the LNG dilemma in Europe, with the current and medium-term needs very apparent, but a reluctance to sign up for longer-term supply because of an expectation that if all things renewable come to pass, the LNG might not be needed. The Europeans will need to make the longer-term commitment if they are to persuade the US and other potential exporters to build new export terminals.
The Canadian targets highlighted below are ambitious and will likely not happen without the significant CCS projects planned for Alberta. The CCS opportunity will drive down energy and chemical (heavy industry) based emissions meaningfully and could also be the basis for new power generation capacity to allow the transport industry reductions that the country is looking for – either through EVs or hydrogen-based transport.
The back-end loading of the power projects for the US for 2022, as shown in the chart below leaves us somewhat skeptical concerning how much will come online this year. Supply chain problems and materials costs and availability are causing all sorts of problems with renewable power projects and installed capacity expectations for 2021 were too ambitious. We believe that companies are pushing projected start-ups later in the year to give them more of a chance of completion, but this creates the risk that they slip into 2023 or beyond. The most significant issue here is that as these plans get delayed, natural gas demand goes up, as one of the swing suppliers. This is fine as long as the US natural gas industry and shale oil industry is investing so that gas availability rises. Otherwise, we could see gas prices spike in the US next winter and another year where we use more coal than we expected. For more see this week's ESG and Climate report.
The steel analysis below is interesting because it is likely that a significant bifurcated market will develop for steel as the demand for green steel is likely to be significant, although probably not at any price, while there will also be a few opportunities to make low-cost green steel and the lucky few could make a lot of money. Anecdotally, we are helping a client look for the best use of what could be a substantial tranche of low-cost renewable power in a location that is not heavily populated, and consequently, there is a limited local demand for the power or anything you might make from it, such as hydrogen. Green steel has come up as possibly the best use of the power in a couple of conversations so far. This adds another wrinkle to the question of whether we can build renewable power fast enough – especially to meet some of the green hydrogen expectations. The challenge will be fending off potentially higher bidders for the power, and green steel is a real contender – more so if a reasonable premium can be gained in the market for the steel. See more in today's daily report.
Source: EIA – Today In Energy, March 2022
The IEA CO2 emissions data is not a surprise as it has been telegraphed for a while by several commentators that the world went backward in 2021. There were several causes, not least of which was an economy which, with the benefit of hindsight, was overstimulated, pushing up demand for resources in general, including energy. There has also been an overestimation of the rate of investment in renewable power, something which is finally gaining attention more generally, triggered by the energy supply fears that have emerged from the Russia/Ukraine conflict. It will take time to make the very large investments needed to abate the CO2 associated with industrial and consumer activity and there is no overnight fix. Accommodative policies are needed today for investments that will start a decline in emissions several years from now.
The Texas hydrogen hub is getting a lot of press and we also cover the idea in our ESG and Climate report today. We see this as not a lot more than intent today and would be surprised if any part of the project would be up and running, assuming it gets built at all, before the end of the decade. Green hydrogen economics do not (yet) make sense and some considerable efficiency learning curves need to emerge before any project could expect to make economic sense without significant subsidy. We have talked at length about the inflationary effects of material shortages and this is the core topic of our ESG report again today, where we suggest that a global recession may be the best thing for the renewable industry as it would slow other sectors' demand for critical materials. But the other wild card is renewable power demand, and how many industrial and materials companies along the Gulf Coast have their eyes on the same renewable power capacity to meet 2030 emission reduction goals. No one must buy renewable power today, because no one has 2022 emission goals. So, renewable power demand is likely understated and it is why the premium to buy renewable power in Texas today is quite low. Fast forward to 2030 – when promises have been made – and we will likely see demand spike and prices rise relative to conventionally generated power. This would materially impact the economics of the green hydrogen hub in Texas even if the electrolyzer costs could be reduced. Given the abundant pore space both onshore and offshore, blue hydrogen makes much more economic sense for Houston.
It is interesting to note both 3M and Michelin addressing water in their ESG narratives - Exhibits below. Water is not getting a lot of air time from the ESG crowd yet, but it is very much on our radar and we will publish our first water index in tomorrow’s ESG and Climate report.
The linked Siemens Gamesa news could not have been a more clear example of one of our key research themes of the last year – backlog up, suggesting strong demand for new wind power capacity – deliveries and profits down because of material shortages – price inflation and logistic issues. While the company is getting squeezed because of higher costs on contracts that have limited opportunity to pass through the cost, at the same time slide 8 of the earnings release deck shows that selling prices rose in fiscal 1Q 2022. This breaks a declining trend in pricing and one of the core assumptions behind many energy transition plans – that renewable power prices can keep falling. Onshore wind orders are falling, but offshore orders are rising – and these come with higher costs and the need for more materials as we showed in a chart in yesterday’s daily. The added costs burden of more offshore wind projects may only serve to tighten markets for materials further, leading to further increases in installed costs.