Loving the Alien: Why we don’t want Zero Carbon #3/3

Jan Mertens

For me, there are three pathways to get to de-fossilization, and probably a fourth. 

• The first is energy efficiency : can we do it with less energy. 
• The second is electrifying everything we can, not just our cars. 
• The third is hydrogen and e-fuels.

Often when you take the second step, the electrification step, you actually take the first step at the same time. If we electrify cars, that's actually three or four times more efficient than a fossil fuel or a gasoline car. And the same is true with heating, with heat pumps we can make gains in efficiency depending on the temperature, but around a factor of three. That’s where I do see the biggest quick wins right now. They may be quick, but they may not be so easy. It's not just technological, we have to think socially here, as well. It’s not like everyone can switch to heat pumps overnight. The people who will stay connected to the gas grid the longest are the ones living in rental properties, at best with a gas boiler and at worst a heating oil tank. We can’t say to those people "You have to install a heat pump now." First of all, those are mostly rental houses, which are not insulated, so it's already not really suitable for low-temperature heat, and therefore heat pumps. So, the social aspect should not be forgotten in this process. 

Karel Volckaert

No, no. That's one of the main observations we've made in a lot of these conversations thus far. Technologically, most people assure us that we're going to get there, or we should get there. The problem will lie elsewhere. Who actually has the key? Or who’s at the wheel? Or who’s coordinating that transition? Where does the drive come from, in your view?

Jan Mertens

I think we need to do it together, and I think that’s happening too little. 

I'll give an example around hydrogen in Europe. If you want to have the label of green hydrogen, and possibly get subsidies that are needed today in order to kickstart that market, the green electricity used to produce hydrogen by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, those have to match at the monthly level. So that basically means, if I produce 100 kilowatthours of green electricity this month, I get to make 60 kilowatthours of hydrogen (don’t forget I'm throwing away 40%) this month. Now from 2030 onwards, I think that should be match at the hour level. This means that the green electricity production must happen simultaneously with the hydrogen production. That makes business plans, for example, completely impossible. 

We have to think about this much more together, because ultimately, of course, that’s where we need to go. But in transition, we will have to be a little more tolerant to kick start that market. And I feel like there are so many of these regulatory rules today that are fine on their own as an ultimate goal, but that in the transition, may be preventing businesses or new technologies from breaking through.

Towards a 4th pathway

I think we need to add a fourth pathway now and bring it more and more into the debate. How can we still get that last 5% of CO2 out of the air ? Direct air capture, for example, is something we can improve a lot technologically. How can we properly restore forests or reforest or plant new forests? How could we use the oceans to store some of our CO2 in a sustainable way, without impact on biodiversity... Very little is known about that. Because it was actually a bit of a taboo in the past. 

I think we need to get rid of the taboo, and ask ourselves “How can we remove CO2 from the air?” So far, no one has lost any sleep over it. Now we’re seeing big companies jumping on it, but unfortunately for the wrong reasons, because they think then they won't have to do that 90, 95% reduction. I think we need to step away from that taboo, we have to work on it, we have to accelerate around that. But to be very clear: only for the last 5% emissions, not for the 95% . This is the fourth step that I will have to add to my discours.

Karel Volckaert

I saw one of your recent presentations that started with a quote from David Bowie: "Loving the alien”. Which alien should love?

Jan Mertens

The alien I'm referring to is actually CO2. We really need to no longer see CO2 as just a problem, but really as a resource. We will need CO2 for our third step, after efficiency, after electricity. We will need CO2 to make the molecules for our chemicals, for our plastics, for our planes, to store long-term energy between seasons, to fly planes over long distances. Unfortunately, I don't think we’ll be able to do it with the first two steps: energy efficiency and electrification. We’ll need that third step which refers to molecules, and CO2 will play a very important role in that, like hydrogen. Like hydrogen, as a raw material, as well. That's why, as a title, I’m not afraid to shock by saying: "Loving the alien" or how we should show CO2 our affection.

Sustainability is a combination of the environmental impact, the economics and the social impact. I’d like to go a bit further into Net Zero. I think that, consciously and subconsciously, there are a lot of different interpretations around this “Buzz word”. Even IPCC says: “ first and foremost, we actually have to reduce, stop emitting 90-95% of CO2 emissions. And the last portion of the 40 gigatons that we are emitting now, that last five gigatons, we may indeed have to offset those so we can get to net zero.’

Now, some companies interpret that differently. They commit to net zero, but instead of stopping to emit CO2, they offset and use negative emission technologies to continue selling or using fossil fuels. Direct air capture with CO2 Storage, planting forests, biochar, there are different technologies that allow them to take CO2 out of the air in such a way that they can actually continue to do what they’ve always done, making a lot of money by selling fossil fuels. 

And I think that's the danger in the term "net zero." I know there are discussions around stopping to use that term, because 95% emissions reduction is still the priority. And then offsetting those last 5%, or using negative emissions to get net zero.

Just saying net zero without actually knowing what that company, that area, that country’s strategy is, is it net zero? Is emission reduction included, yes or no? 

I don't think we need to decarbonize, because I don't think it's possible to live without carbon, without plastics, without chemicals, without wood, in our society. So, I don't think we should decarbonize. I do think we need to de-fossilize. We need to stop taking fossil resources out of the ground as much as possible. That's an important distinction and that is where CO2 and H2 will play a crucial role as resources, building blocks. 

A word by Jan Mertens

I had the great pleasure of talking in a podcast format which was rather new for me to Karel Volckaert, COO of Itinera which is a famous Belgian Think Tank. We talked about the energy transition and climate challenges in general. I really appreciated the open atmosphere in which the talk was held. The fact that no questions were discussed on beforehand and so no preparation was possible, lead to a spontaneous and informal talk which I hope you can sense in the English text below. In case you understand Dutch, the real podcast can be found here: 

The Future is the AND. Karel Volckaert spreekt met Jan Mertens, wetenschappelijk directeur Engie groep - Itinera Talks | Podcast on Spotify

Enjoy and do reach out in case you have comments!

Jan Mertens

Chief Science Officer ENGIE Research And Innovation

Professor at University of Ghent