Quyen Do

Category: 2022 (page 1 of 2)

March 7, 2023

Why efficiency first?

It has become commonplace in recent years, also among politicians: energy efficiency is our first fuel, and: energy efficiency first [i]. The three most important things we can do to combat climate change are to save energy, save more energy, and save even more energy.


But is that still correct? By the end of last year, I was asked the question [ii]: did you change your mind about something, last year? This is my response:


Let’s be honest, saving energy has brought us a lot. In many Western countries, total energy use is barely growing or even falling. This can largely be attributed to energy efficiency improvement: the growth of our economic activity is offset by the fact that all our devices and processes are becoming increasingly efficient. What has worked particularly well is setting standards for the energy consumption of all kinds of new stuff: electric appliances, lamps, homes, cars, and electric motors. To give a striking example: a refrigerator that is bought now has an electricity consumption that is about a quarter of a comparable refrigerator at the beginning of this century. There is little to be seen on the outside of the fridge, but behind the refrigerator door, a quiet revolution has taken place. What is going less well is the improvement of existing things: think of existing buildings, and of existing industrial installations. They all have a long lifespan, from several decades to more than a century. Improvement of the existing through retrofit is possible but proceeds slowly. The pace of the energetic renovation of homes provides a striking example. The rate of renovation rarely exceeds 1% per year in most countries. That does not help to achieve a fast energy transition. The International Energy Agency (IEA) also emphasizes the lack of progress. The rate of energy efficiency improvement is not even half of what it should be to meet ambitious climate targets [iii].


I myself have always strongly emphasized the importance of energy saving from a scientific point of view. Around 1990 I was one of the first to compile a database, with an exhaustive quantitative overview of all possibilities for energy efficiency improvement, showing that the potential is enormous. And when I moved from Utrecht to Delft as a professor in 2014, in my inaugural address I focused on ‘the neglected side of the energy system’: the demand side, and emphasized the vast opportunities for energy efficiency improvement [iv].


That is why I have always wholeheartedly supported the above slogans, such as ‘energy efficiency first’. But what struck me was one of the outcomes of the latest report by the UN’s scientific climate panel, the IPCC. In the report, we have provided an exhaustive overview of all options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in 2030. And guess what? Although all options for energy saving in buildings, transport and industry are important, wind energy, solar energy, and stopping deforestation, for example, are – each in their own right – about as important as all those energy savings together [v]. The important role of solar energy and wind energy is particularly striking. The mantra has always been: save first, then make the remaining energy more sustainable, but that logic is no longer there. This of course is related mainly to the sharply reduced costs of solar energy and wind energy. We must quickly continue scaling up those energy sources, and we certainly cannot wait for energy-efficiency-first!


Should we then stop promoting energy efficiency? I’m certainly not there. We should anyway continue to set energy efficiency standards for appliances, homes, etc., and expand and tighten those. But at the same time, we should ask ourselves whether the policies that we have been pursuing so far for existing buildings and industrial installations are effective. Everything we have done now in terms of subsidies, knowledge transfer, voluntary agreements, and carbon taxes, is good. But I think we should go a step further and also here use regulatory instruments: setting requirements for the efficiency of buildings and industrial processes. In practice, this means: for buildings, set a maximum energy consumption per square meter, and for industrial processes set a maximum for the energy consumption per tonne of product.

February 12, 2023

We’re getting to 2 degrees

GEEN CATEGORIEWhat global temperature increase are we heading to? Many are pessimistic about this and expect that we are heading for 3 °C by the end of this century. In this blog, I want the make the point that 2 °C is a much more likely outcome – thanks to a mechanism agreed upon in the Paris Agreement.

A while ago, the journal Nature [1] held a survey among the lead authors of one of the recent IPCC reports, the one on the physical science of climate change (Working Group I). The outcome is depicted below. Most IPCC authors expect that we will end up at 3 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, just a few are a bit more optimistic:

Earlier this year, I asked the same question to a group of followers on Twitter with an interest in science and I got about the same result [2]. I do not know what is the background of the respondees’ expectations. Most likely it is based on the many estimates of the impact of the Paris agreement. With some variation, the research into the impact of all the Paris-related commitments came to the conclusion that the combined effect of all commitments would be about 3 °C [3][4].

But this overlooks one important element in the Paris Agreement: the so-called ratchet mechanism. While the Paris Agreement was forged, the negotiators already acknowledged that the total of pledges by the countries was not sufficient. Therefore, it was agreed that every five years countries would be invited to present a new pledge (called Nationally Determined Contribution in the UNFCCC jargon). Each new pledge should be a progression compared to the previous one. There is no way back – therefore the name ratchet mechanism.

The question is of course whether this mechanism really works. The first test was at the Glasgow climate conference in November 2021 – postponed by one year because of Covid-19. And: yes, it worked. Many countries have updated their pledges and come with higher ambitions for 2030; these include China, the USA, Japan, and the European Union. Moreover, these countries and many others have submitted pledges for the phase-out of net greenhouse gas emissions (or just CO2) in 2050 or 2060.

Do all these enhanced pledges make a difference? Also here, the answer is a clear yes, according to the analysis by Climate Action Tracker:

2015
Paris Agreement [5]		 2030 pledges 2.7 °C
2021
Glasgow Pact [6]		 2030 pledges

2030 pledges
+ net-zero pledges		 2.4 °C

2.1 °C
optimistic interpretation: 1.8 °C

Obviously, if all the countries would live up to their pledges, we are heading rather to 2 °C than to 3 °C by the end of this century. The analysis by Climate Action Tracker is confirmed by a publication in Nature earlier this year: full implementation of all the pledges would lead to limiting global warming to 1.9 – 2.0 °C [7].

The final question is of course: will the countries live up to their pledges? Also here, the historic developments over the past 6 years give way to some optimism. Climate Action Tracker not only assesses the impact of pledges but also the impact of concrete policies. Whereas in 2015, they estimated that actual policies would lead to a temperature increase of 3.6 °C, in their current assessment this has dropped to 2.7 °C. There clearly is a substantial lag between pledges and policy implementation on the ground, but at least we also see substantial progress here.

So, taking it all together: step-by-step we are moving towards pledges and associated policies that will bring us closer to a maximum temperature rise of 2 °C. Don’t interpret this as “we’re done!” Actually getting there will still require a lot of effort for all governments, all companies, and actually all of us in the coming decades.

A global temperature increase of 2 °C is a lot better than 3 °C. However, there is also wide agreement now that the climate change impacts will be still a lot worse at 2 °C than at 1.5 °C. And can we achieve that latter target? As we have shown in the latest IPCC report, the window to reach 1.5 °C is rapidly closing. Whereas reaching 2 °C could be considered a likely outcome of the current progression of international climate action, this step-by-step approach seems just not fast enough for reaching the 1.5 C target. How to get to a 1.5 °C pathway should therefore be the top issue at the table at the next climate conference in Sharm El Sheikh next November.

The ratchet gear on the photograph was found on a steamshovel build around the time of WW1. Photo credit: Pete Muller.

[1] J. Tollefson: Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations can rein in global warming, Nature 599(2021)22-24.

[2] In January I was operating the Twitter account NL_Wetenschap for a week. The Dutch-language account has over 20,000 followers, with presumably a more than average interest in science. I asked the same question as in the Nature article [1]. The response was as follows.

[3] J. Rogelj, M. den Elzen, N. Höhne, T. Fransen, H. Fekete, H. Winkler, R. Schaeffer, F. Sha, K. Riahi, M. Meinshausen: Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C, Nature 534(2016)631-639.

[4] All temperatures mentioned in this blog are compared to pre-industrial levels. Only mid-range numbers are given, but all numbers show uncertainty, especially due to the uncertainty in the reaction of the climate system to the increased presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[5] J. Gütschow, L. Jeffery, R. Alexander, B. Hare, M. Schaeffer, M. Rocha, N. Höhne, H. Fekete, P. van Breevoort, K. Blok: INDCs lower projected warming to 2.7°C – significant progress but still above 2°, Climate Action Tracker, 2015, available here.

[6] See, the “thermometer” on the website of Climate Action Tracker, with link to the methodology section.

[7] M. Meinshausen, J. Lewis, C. McGlade, J. Gütschow, Z. Nicholls, R. Burdon, L. Cozzi, B. Hackmann: Realisation of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C, Nature 604(2022)304-309.

July 29, 2022

Climate policy for whom?

The costs of a stringent climate policy will probably be much lower than what the energy models currently suggest.

This is due to “technological learning” that occurs as soon as a technology is applied on a large scale. This phenomenon is best known in the sustainable energy world, where the worldwide upscaling of wind and solar energy has resulted in the availability of electricity from these sources at cost prices of 2 – 5 cents per kilowatt hour, often lower than the cost of conventional generation, in many places around the world . The same effect also occurs for all kinds of energy-saving applications, such as high-efficiency boilers, energy-saving lamps and efficient household appliances [1].

We see this, for example, in the price of double glazing: although the current high-efficiency glazing is almost a factor of 3 better than conventional double glazing, the price is hardly higher. There is often no cost difference anymore and the most used product turns out to be the cheapest. All this probably means that the costs of energy and climate policy will be much lower than currently calculated with the energy models.


The best way to limit the costs of energy and climate policy for low-income households is to let them fully participate in energy saving and the application of sustainable energy.

Many measures, such as the usual insulation measures, the use of efficient household appliances, the use of LED lamps and nowadays also the installation of solar panels, lead to lower costs for households. A substantial number of households still do not make sufficient use of these options, for various reasons. These include, lack of knowledge, lack of investment capital or simply the fact that they live in a rented house. This may apply most often to low-income households. The best thing to do for this group is to ensure that they benefit from the cost benefits associated with the application of energy saving and renewable energy, e.g. through an ambitious insulation program for social housing, stringent energy efficiency standards for household appliances and support with the financing of, for example, insulation and solar energy.

March 15, 2022

Northern Vietnam’s desperate power shortage

 

 

It was the first time in nearly 10 years. After 8 p.m. on June 4, he received a message from his manager saying he would not have to come for work the next day since a power cut was scheduled for 5 a.m. to 5 p.m.

He said many colleagues at the Yen Phong Industrial Park in the province and the Thang Long Industrial Park in Hanoi have been given alternate days off for the same reason.

In many places in the north, businesses are having to suspend production because of power outages.

Recent evenings at Hoan Kiem Lake, the heart of the capital city, have been likened to “Earth Hour” days as early as lighting for flower gardens, sidewalks and around the lake is turned off at 7 or 8 p.m.

The area at the intersection of Trang Tien – Dinh Tien Hoang streets, Hoan Kiem District, Hanoi, in the evening is dark because street lights and billboards are turned off. Photo by VnExpress/Ngoc Thanh

Turning off lights to save electricity has become the norm in Hanoi and many other cities and provinces on the recommendation of state utility Vietnam Electricity (EVN).

Street lights are partially switched off while electricity is completely cut off in many residential areas.

Power utilities were forced into emergency load shedding in some places in Hanoi and northern provinces this month to ensure the safety of the system.

The Bac Giang Province would reduce electricity for daily use to prioritize industrial production from June 6, Le Anh Duong, chairman of its People’s Committee, said at a meeting with businesses.

Do Thi Lan, deputy head of the National Assembly’s Committee for Social Affairs, said on the sidelines of a session on June 5: “The power cut is not just for one or two hours but also both during the day and night, and so it seriously affects people’s lives and the socioeconomic situation.

“Such an electricity shortage is very worrying.”

The hot season has just begun, and the economy is recovering, but many businesses still lack orders and some production and business areas continue to languish, she said.

In April, EVN had warned the north could face electricity shortages equivalent to 1,600-4,900 megawatts during the summer.

At a government press conference on June 4, Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Do Thang Hai said shortages were already upon the north, and affected both industrial production and daily life.

Tran Viet Hoa, director of the industry ministry’s Electricity Regulatory Authority, said on June 7 that the availability in the northern region, including imports, was only 17,500-17,900 MW equivalent, or 59.2% of installed capacity.

Demand is currently at 20,000 MW and could increase to 23,500-24,000 MW due to the hot weather, he said.

“The north’s electricity system faces a risk of shortage most times of the day.”

50% of the lights on Hanoi’s Long Bien Bridge are turned off and so people depend on the lights in their vehicles to move. Photo by VnExpress

‘Hot spot’ in the north

The spike in electricity consumption due to the heat wave is the main reason cited by the ministry of Industry and Trade and EVN for the current shortages.

The average electricity demand in the country in May was nearly 820 million kilowatt-hours a day, or more than 20% higher than in April.

On May 19 it was nearly 924 million kWh, 10.5% higher than a year earlier.

In Hanoi, where there have been regular power outages in many areas since early June, consumption spiked last month and early this month.

The Hanoi Power Corporation said the average consumption in May had been more than 75.4 million kWh, up 22.5% from April. As of June 4 the average consumption reached at nearly 88.5 million kWh.

But supply has been well short.

Power in the north is mainly derived from hydroelectric and thermal plants.

But hydropower production, which accounted for 43% of supply as of May, has slumped due to extreme weather which has dries up large reservoirs.

Their average production has halved from last year to 12-15% of total supply.

By the end of May they only had enough water to generate 1.23 billion kWh of electricity, enough for four days’ consumption based on the peak demand of 313.6 million kWh on May 22.

As of June 3 the dams at the Lai Chau, Hua Na, Thac Ba, Son La, Tuyen Quang plants only had enough water to generate electricity for 0.4-0.9 days.

At Lai Chau and Son La, among Vietnam’ largest plants, water in the dams has gone below the dead storage level, a major operational risk.

In all 11 plants have shut down, summarily taking 5,000 MW out of the grid.

Another reason for the power shortage is that some coal-fired power plants, which account for 48% of the electricity supply in the north, have reduced capacity or encountered problems.

As of June 1 units at nine plants, Pha Lai 1 and 2, Cam Pha, Vung Ang 1, Nghi Son 2 BOT, Mao Khe, Quang Ninh, Thang Long, and Son Dong, had problems after operating continuously in hot weather for a long time.

Unit 1 at the Nghi Son 2 BOT project is expected to be repaired by mid-July, according to Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Dang Hoang An.

The total capacity of the nine units has been reduced by some 4,200 MW.

Not just because of the heat

For many years the north has not added new plants though a shortage has long been forecast, and so the culprit is not just the weather and mishaps, according to analysts.

It is the region with the highest growth in demand in the country, 9.3% a year in 2016-20 adding up to nearly 6,000 MW.

But the annual growth in generation in the period has only been 4.7%, reaching 4,600 MW.

In the central and southern regions, the growth in power generation capacity has been many times higher than demand.

Construction of most new large power plants in the north such as Na Duong I, Hai Phong III and Cam Pha III has been tardy due to issues related to project formulation, investor selection, raising capital, and site clearance, giving rise to the specter of power shortages until 2025.

This is acknowledged by the ministry of Industry and Trade in its report to the government on the National Power Development Plan VIII.

This puts great pressure on the inter-regional transmission network, increasing losses and risks, it added.

EVN’s plants account for more than 38% of the country’s supply, with the rest coming from plants belonging to Vietnam Oil and Gas Group, Vietnam National Coal and Mineral Industries Group, some BOT facilities, and privately owned renewable sources.

According to Bui Van Thinh, chairman of the Binh Thuan Wind and Solar Energy Association, the National Power Development Plan VII has not been strictly adhered to, with many plants belonging to companies like PVN and TKV not being built due to various reasons, leading to a threat of shortages.

A number of plants such as Na Duong II, Cam Pha III, Hai Phong III, the gas-electricity project chain Block B O Mon, Ca Voi Xanh, and Son My LNG are behind schedule.

Earlier this year the Thai Binh II thermal power plant entered commercial operation after more than a decade of delays.

In its first phase of operation, it is running at only 75% of capacity as technical adjustments are carried out.

Transmission capacity is also an issue, which puts more pressure on supply in the north.

In the revised National Power Development Plan VII, the ministry acknowledged that the operation of power grids faces many difficulties.

In some areas 220-kV and 110-kV power grids are overloaded, posing risks.

Most transmission projects are one or two years behind schedule due to issues mainly related to compensation and site clearance.

It takes several years to build a transmission grid, but only three to six months to build a renewable power plant, and so a mismatch in capacity is inevitable.

Workers from the Long Bien Power Company in Hanoi prepare to handle power grid problems 

The irrational distribution of power plants – for instance, concentrating wind and solar power projects in the central region where electricity demand is low and in the south — also causes regional supply-demand imbalance, affecting the inter-regional transmission network.

According to the ministry, most renewable energy developers and provincial authorities pay attention only to their local power grids and lack an overall view of the regional power system.

Local congestion occurs as a result, reducing renewable energy supply at some point, it said.

Currently the 500-kV north-south transmission line is operating at its peak capacity of 2,500 MW. Sometimes it even operates above this threshold to carry electricity to the north.

Stopgap and long-term solutions

At present, in addition to fully tapping domestic power sources, including renewables, Vietnam is also buying 10-12 million kWh per day from China and Laos.

According to the ministry, the imports account for only 2.7% of the daily demand of 445-450 million kWh in the north.

The ministry and EVN have called on domestic and commercial users to conserve electricity during the hot season, but this is hardly a solution for the long run.

According to experts, speeding up work on power generation and grid projects is an urgent requirement.

The National Power Development Plan VIII has just been approved by the government after nearly six years of drafting and revisions. It will serve as the basis for these projects.

Normally, it takes several years to plan and implement power projects, and so authorities need to speed them up to avoid being dependent on the weather, energy expert Dao Nhat Dinh said.

According to legislator Do Thi Lan, the action plan for the electricity plan is still under development, and the Ministry of Industry and Trade needs to speed it up.

Workers repair a transformer at an apartment block in Hanoi

“I suggest the Government makes a comprehensive re-evaluation of strategic plans for ensuring supply of electricity for industrial production and socioeconomic development, and adopts specific solutions to overcome the electricity shortage.

“There must also be a response to climate change and other unusual, extreme weather situations.”

The power plan sets a target of 2,600 MW of rooftop solar power not linked to the grid and thus serving only households by 2030.

The north can generate solar energy for some 1,000 hours a year, mainly in the dry season.

“The mechanism for this (solar power) needs to be clear to avoid overdevelopment while encouraging households to invest in it,” Dinh, the energy expert, said.

While waiting for solutions, many businesses are forced to adjust their plans, shifting production from peak hours to off-peak hours, even nights.

But Hoang Trung Dung, director of the Additives and Petroleum Products Joint Stock Company in Hanoi’s Gia Lam District, said: “We agree with the need to conserve electricity, but cutting off power for industrial production is not a reasonable solution.”

 
« Older posts