Max Åhman

A comparison of technologies for carbon neutral passenger transport

In this study, the use of energy carriers based on renewable energy sources in battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEVs), fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is compared regarding energy efficiency, emission and cost. There is the potential to double the primary energy compared with the current level by utilising vehicles with electric drivetrains. There is also major potential to increase the efficiency of conventional ICEVs. The energy and environmental cost of using a passenger car can be reduced by 50% solely by using improved ICEVs instead of ICEVs with current technical standard. All the studied vehicles with alternative powertrains (HEVs, FCEVs, and BPEVs) would have lower energy and environmental costs than the ICEV. The HEVs, FCEVs and BPEVs have, however, higher costs than the future methanol-fuelled ICEV, if the vehicle cost is added to the energy and environmental costs, even if significant cost reductions for key technologies such as fuel cells, batteries and fuel storages are assumed. The high-energy efficiency and low emissions of these vehicles cannot compensate for the high vehicle cost. The study indicates, however, that energy-efficiency improvements, combined with the use of renewable energy, would reduce the cost of CO) reduction by 40% compared with a strategy based on fuel substitution only. (Less)

Global climate policy and deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries

If we are to limit global warming to 2 °C, all sectors in all countries must reduce their emissions of GHGs to zero not later than 2060–2080. Zero-emission options have been less explored and are less developed in the energy-intensive basic materials industries than in other sectors. Current climate policies have not yet motivated major efforts to decarbonize this sector, and it has been largely protected from climate policy due to the perceived risks of carbon leakage and a focus on short-term reduction targets to 2020. We argue that the future global climate policy regime must develop along three interlinked and strategic lines to facilitate a deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries. First, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility must be reinterpreted to allow for a dialogue on fairness and the right to development in relation to industry. Second, a greater focus on the development, deployment and transfer of technology in this sector is called for. Third, the potential conflicts between current free trade regimes and motivated industrial policies for deep decarbonization must be resolved. One way forward is to revisit the idea of sectoral approaches with a broader scope, including not only emission reductions, but recognizing the full complexity of low-carbon transitions in energy-intensive industries. A new approach could engage industrial stakeholders, support technology research, development and demonstration and facilitate deployment through reducing the risk for investors. The Paris Agreement allows the idea of sectoral approaches to be revisited in the interests of reaching our common climate goals. Policy relevance Deep decarbonization of energy-intensive industries will be necessary to meet the 2 °C target. This requires major innovation efforts over a long period. Energy-intensive industries face unique challenges from both innovation and technical perspectives due to the large scale of facilities, the character of their global markets and the potentially high mitigation costs. This article addresses these challenges and discusses ways in which the global climate policy framework should be developed after the Paris Agreement to better support transformative change in the energy-intensive industries.

Decarbonising industry in the EU - climate, trade and industrial policy strategies

Decarbonizing society poses both threats and opportunities for the manufacturing industry. For the industry that manufactures end-user products, decarbonization presents a potential to innovate higher added value clean-tech products and to expand into new ‘green’ markets. For the energy intensive industry (EII), that produces mainly basic materials such as steel, cement, aluminium and basic plastics, the opportunities are less obvious and the challenges greater.

Free allocation in the 3rd EU ETS period: : assessing two manufacturing sectors

This article provides an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the harmonized benchmark-based allocation procedures by comparing two energy-intensive sectors with activities in three Member States. These sectors include the cement industry (CEI) and the pulp and paper industry (PPI) in the UK, Sweden, and France. Our results show that the new procedures are better suited for the more homogeneous CEI, in which the outcome of stricter allocation of emissions allowances is consistent between Member States. For the more heterogeneous PPI – in terms of its product portfolios, technical infrastructures, and fuel mixes – the allocation procedures lead to diverse outcomes. It is the lack of product benchmark curves, and the alternative use of benchmark values that are biased towards a fossil fuel-mix and are based on specific energy use rather than emission intensity, which leads to allocations to the PPI that do not represent the average performance of the top 10% of GHG-efficient installations. Another matter is that grandfathering is still present via the historically based production volumes. How to deal with structural change and provisions regarding capacity reductions and partial cessation is an issue that is highly relevant for the PPI but less so for the CEI. Policy relevance After an unprecedented amount of consultation with industrial associations and other stakeholders, a harmonized benchmark-based allocation methodology was introduced in the third trading period of the EU ETS. Establishing a reliable and robust benchmark methodology for free allocation that shields against high direct carbon costs, is perceived as fair and politically acceptable, and still incentivizes firms to take action, is a significant challenge. This article contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges in effectively applying harmonized rules in industrial sectors that are heterogeneous. This is essential for the debate on structural reformation of the EU ETS, and for sharing experiences with other emerging emissions trading systems in the world that also consider benchmark methodologies.