The Archaea chart below summarizes one of the strong positives we have discussed for a while: renewable natural gas (RNG) demand is likely to outstrip supply in the long term. Using RNG is a quick fix for many processes, and too many people are likely relying on availability against a challenging supply backdrop. Large landfills and dairy farms are likely to be tapped for RNG, and many of the smaller opportunities will also work if they are logistically well placed. But at the same time, you have investments to lower the amount of waste moving into landfills, and there are also pressures on the dairy and beef farmers to reduce the methane produced. We are very bullish on the RNG producers as we believe that their products will be in short supply, and as long as they are not exposed to input cost inflation, they should see strong margins. In addition to Archaea, Gevo announced earnings yesterday and discussed the successful start-up of its (relatively small) RNG project in Iowa.
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.
Gevo is racking up the agreements to produce sustainable fuels, announcing deals with Chevron, Axens, and now ADM since September. Our view on the need for sustainable aviation fuel is that everyone building will likely be capital constrained relative to the potential demand – this is also true for sustainable diesel and gasoline, which is relevant given that the EIA sees the conventional light vehicle stock peaking globally as late as 2038 (this is not inconsistent with other estimates we have seen) see chart below.
Companies are being encouraged/forced to produce climate plans by ever more focused shareholders many of whom only have a passing understanding of how some of the companies operate and how they might best set a course to lower emissions and otherwise be better stewards of the environment. The pretty graphic by Covestro below likely looks much better than the data and ambition behind it really are. This is not necessarily meant as a criticism of Covestro, but the company like many others is being challenged to explain a very complex, process, and engineering-heavy set of options to an audience not really qualified to understand them – pictures with circles are easier.
The Engine No1 headline and the Chevron headline are not necessarily the right way to think about the challenges for Chevron and whether or not the challenges are just really beginning for ExxonMobil. The Engine No 1 approach to ExxonMobil was not ESG focused and hit on a larger issue of very poor shareholder returns, with ESG/Climate only one-line item on a list. What Engine No 1 is doing now, is focusing more specifically on climate, and ExxonMobil is likely as large a target as Chevron on this basis. Last week in our Sunday report, we commented on how good the Chevron Gevo deal was for Gevo, but that it did not move the needle for Chevron. Chevron, ExxonMobil, and others are aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, mostly from waste and vegetable oils until the Gevo agreement, and there is another headline today about Chevron pursuing CCS opportunities with Enterprise and the chart below discusses a green hydrogen plan for Chevron. All of these initiatives do not sum to something that investors will take note of for any of these companies yet, and while they might be important building blocks towards a net-zero future, larger tangible investments are probably needed to get any investor buy-in. In the meantime, the activists have a lot of room to work.
The decarbonization of the airline industry remains a hot topic. The energy density issue shown in the exhibit below is a correct assessment of why commercial aviation faces a challenge to transition to electric power. Not only is the energy density too low - which restricts weight/range - but electric power can only turn things, and propellor-based flying has speed limitations relative to jets. The announcements from the airlines to date on electric power have focused on low capacity short-haul opportunities. With this in mind and as noted in the article headlining of the exhibit below, electric power is not the only decarbonizing option for airlines. Hydrogen is the very long-term future - Airbus is saying not before 2050, but in the meantime, the push should be for low carbon or carbon-neutral biofuels. These are essentially plug-in fuels that are identical to current aviation fuel but made either from waste oils or from carbohydrates. Many of the oil majors are working on waste oil or vegetable oil-based processes, especially in California where the LCFS credit helps pay for the conversion, and companies like Gevo and Aemetis are working on carbohydrate-based routes through fermentation. If the carbohydrate, corn in the case of Gevo, is sourced from sustainable agriculture the carbon values of the fuel can be very low and potentially zero or negative through the life cycle. The airlines are going to have to pay up for the low carbon fuel if they want to bid the fuel away from the high credit markets like California diesel and gasoline, but this route could decarbonize the airlines significantly and relatively quickly with the right pricing structure and enough capital.
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 coverage of the IEA study continues with lots of opinions, which is a good sign as it means that the work is being taken seriously.