Building sustainability becomes more and more a highlight for private buildings, especially office and commercial buildings, Denisa Diaconu, energy policy analyst and project manager at Energy Policy Group, told us. Public buildings can assume the role of a model, she told us, “and this can start even with schools since they capture public interest, which will increase awareness on the benefits of energy efficiency”.
More about the subject in this interview, on the occasion of the start of energy renovation works at the “Elie Radu” Technological High-School of Ploiești, an initiative of Energy Policy Group (EPG), through “Efficient Romania”, the largest private project of national interest dedicated to energy efficiency in buildings.
This executive summary provides a brief overview of the report “Assessment of current state, past experiences and potential for CCS deployment in the CEE region”, written as part of the CCS4CEE project.
In this study, EPG presents an in-depth analysis of the current context and opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. It also captures the opinions of stakeholders in 11 partner countries, including national authorities, academia, industry and NGOs.
CCS technologies could make a significant contribution to climate neutrality pathways in the CEE region, given the traditional reliance on industry with hard-to-abate emissions, such as steel, cement and chemicals. However, the discussion around CCS is relatively immature in CEE countries, and the legislative and financing frameworks are insufficient to promote the uptake of these complex and capital-intensive technologies. This executive summary presents the technical potential (emission sources and potential storage sites), the existence of research experience and practical know-how, and the legislative environment for CCS. It also briefly reviews the views of stakeholders engaged as part of the CCS4CEE project. Finally, it summarizes the social acceptance dimensions of CCS, including the positioning of institutions and the media – key components of any CCS project which should not be underestimated.
In this study, EPG brings together the work of project partners in Work Package 3 of the CCS4CEE project.
The resulting report is an in-depth analysis of the current context and opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region.
It also captures the opinions of stakeholders in 11 partner countries, including national authorities, academia, industry and NGOs.
CCS technologies could make a significant contribution to climate neutrality pathways in the CEE region, given the traditional reliance on industry with hard-to-abate emissions, such as steel, cement and chemicals. However, the discussion around CCS is relatively immature in CEE countries, and the legislative and financing frameworks are insufficient to promote the uptake of these complex and capital-intensive technologies. This report examines the technical potential (emission sources and potential storage sites), the existence of research experience and practical know-how, and the legislative environment for CCS. It also presents the views of stakeholders engaged as part of the CCS4CEE project, highlighting several industries that could take the lead on advancing CCS projects. Finally, it looks at the social acceptance dimensions of CCS, including the positioning of institutions and the media – key components of any CCS project which should not be underestimated.
Captarea și stocarea dioxidului de carbon (CCS) poate avea o contribuție importantă la decarbonarea economiei europene și române.
Pe lângă prezența la nivel național a unor actori industriali pentru care tehnologia CCS poate reprezenta o opțiune de decarbonare, România dispune de un potențial geologic notabil pentru stocarea de CO2, dar, la nivelul agendei guvernamentale, discuțiile legate de CCS/CCU au stagnat în ultimul deceniu.
În acest policy brief, evidențiem contextul actual și principalele obstacole în calea dezvoltării CCS în România, printre care se numără lipsa susținerii politice și instituționale și a unui cadru de reglementare adecvat. De asemenea, sunt propuse o serie de recomandări pentru avansarea proiectelor CCS, avansând o discuție nuanțată și echilibrată privind promovarea tehnologiilor CCS. Dezvoltarea proiectelor CCS nu trebuie să reprezinte un scop în sine, ci o măsură în cadrul general al obținerii neutralității climatice.
Acest raport prezintă o evaluare a contextului actual și a potențialului tehnologiilor de captare și stocare a carbonului (CCS) în România, condusă în cadrul proiectului CCS4CEE.
În acest raport, EPG prezintă rezultatele unei analize aprofundate a surselor de emisii și potențialului de stocare a dioxidului de carbon din România, alături de istoricul proiectelor CCS în România și o analiză a cadrului de reglementare.
Principalul mesaj al raportului este că tehnologiile CCS pot contribui la reducerea concentrației de CO2 din atmosferă, prin aplicarea lor la industrii cu emisii de proces dificil de eliminat, și totodată importante din punct de vedere economic pentru România (precum oțelul și cimentul). Cu toate acestea, cadrul de reglementare nu este adecvat pentru avansarea proiectelor CCS în România, iar un cadru de finanțare național accesibil acestor tip de proiecte lipsește. În general, părțile interesate implicate de EPG în proiectul CCS4CEE se arată în favoarea CCS, dar evidențiază și o serie de obstacole în calea proiectelor, printre care lipsa susținerii coerente din partea guvernului și nevoia unui cadru de reglementare fit for purpose. Nu în ultimul rând, dimensiunile de acceptare socială și instituțională trebuie considerate, iar proiectele CCS trebuie conduse în mod transparent, cu deplina informare și educare a publicului larg, mai ales a comunităților din jurul siturilor de stocare.
This report presents an evaluation of the current context and opportunities for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in Romania, written as part of the CCS4CEE project.
In this report, EPG presents the results of an in-depth analysis of emission sources and CO2 storage potential in Romania, alongside past projects and experience as well as an analysis of the legislative context.
he main message of the report is that CCS technologies can contribute to the reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration by implementation in industries with hard-to-abate process emissions – industries which are also economically significant for Romania, such as steel and cement. Nevertheless, Romania’s regulatory framework is not fit to enable CCS projects, and there is no national financing framework accessible for CCS projects. Generally, stakeholders engaged by EPG in the CCS4CEE project are favourable towards CCS, but highlight a number of challenges to project implementation, including the lack of coherent support from government and the need for a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework. Last but not least, the social and institutional acceptance dimensions of CCS projects must be considered, and these projects must be implemented with full transparency and an effort to educate and inform the public, particularly communities living around the potential storage sites.
This year’s edition touched upon how investments and financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development can be fostered through the economic recovery packages.
Natural gas is at the heart of a heated debate within the European Union (EU) over whether it should be included in the EU’s taxonomy classifying green investments[1]. Some member states consider its development necessary in order to limit the social and economic costs of their energy transition. This position is in line with that of the hydrocarbon industry, which plays a large economic role in states such as Poland or the Czech Republic via coal production and heavy industry. One common narrative mentions that transitioning from a coal-intensive energy mix to a carbon neutral one relying heavily on renewables without an intermediary transition via natural gas would be too costly financially and socially. Other member states, notably Western European and Nordic countries, reject this conception of natural gas as a “transition fuel” over fears that it will lead to greenhouse gas emissions incompatible with the EU’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2050[2].
Hydrogen, on the other hand, has benefited from a significant political momentum over the past years, leading to major commitments from the EU and its member states to develop clean hydrogen production and consumption[3][4][5]. These strategies share a common goal: on the one hand, electrifying and decarbonizing hydrogen production, and on the other hand using hydrogen as a way to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors of the European economy, such as transportation, heat-intensive industrial processes and feedstock as well as dispatchable electricity production. While this last end-use comes with a lower priority given the large losses induced by the re-electrification of hydrogen, could the take-off of green hydrogen spell the end of natural gas’ role in the energy sector’s transition towards a Paris Agreement-compatible mix? What would the costs, consequences, challenges and limits to this shift be? After assessing the incompatibility of natural gas with a swift and efficient energy transition, this paper argues that although it represents a meaningful asset in replacing fossil fuels in a number of cases, hydrogen cannot be considered a silver bullet enabling the achievement of the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
One of the main advantages of natural gas is its low environmental impact compared to coal, which some member states heavily rely on in their energy mix. Having an existing power plant shift its power source from coal to gas in order to produce electricity is technically feasible and, until recently, was largely driven by an economic rationale (more efficient new natural gas turbine technology, and until recently low natural gas prices)[6]. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), coal to gas switching has saved large amounts of GHG emissions over past years and helped increase air quality. Although a lot of coal-to-gas switching potential remains in some specific member states, natural gas still remains extremely carbon-intensive compared to renewable energy sources (RES)[7], especially if you also factor in methane emissions.
Natural gas has multiple other characteristics making it a facilitator of the energy transition. Its flexibility gives it the ability to balance the intermittency of some RES technologies, enhancing security of supply, while representing an affordable investment giving price visibility and stability to consumers. However, these advantages do not balance the risk of lock-in associated with the technology. Investments cycles in natural gas-based energy production are lengthy and thus represent significant greenhouse gas emissions over multiple decades that could end-up harming transition efforts on the medium and long-term despite the short-term advantages[8]. Beyond this environmental risk, financial risks are a raising concern for current and future gas-powered power plants. Over the past few years, an increasing number of projects have been abandoned or halted over the risk of becoming stranded assets if they had been pursued[9].
Against this background, hydrogen has a significant potential to replace natural gas in multiple end-uses in the energy mix. Since the discovery of industrial processes enabling its production on an industrial scale, hydrogen production has been and still is largely based on fossil fuels (coal and natural gas)[10]. However, an alternative, technologically mature solution – water electrolysis – enables hydrogen production based on water and electricity, which if produced from renewable sources creates “green hydrogen”. Other low-carbon solutions exist, including electrolysis from nuclear plants, resulting in “yellow” or “turquoise hydrogen” and conventional production from natural gas associated with carbon capture and storage, resulting in “blue hydrogen”[11].
Green hydrogen has the technical ability to replace natural gas’ role in the energy system with significant environmental gains. It can provide dispatchable electricity to compensate the variability of RES, be burnt to generate heat for households or industries with marginal adaptations to their installations and absorb excess renewable electricity production through power-to-gas. Hydrogen can also benefit from existing infrastructure dedicated to the transport and dispatch of natural gas by being injected in existing pipelines, limiting the risk of stranded assets in this case[12]. Moreover, hard-to-abate sectors, where electrification to benefit from renewable electrons is too technically complex or not cost-effective, could be effectively decarbonized by replacing their current hydrocarbon based primary energy source with limited adaptations to their processes. These notably include long-distance transport, heavy industry and the petrochemical sector[13].
Despite numerous significant advantages, giving a major role to hydrogen in the energy mix remains linked to significant challenges, starting with the cost of decarbonized hydrogen. Cost competitiveness compared to conventional hydrogen production and natural gas is a major challenge for green hydrogen to become a mainstream solution the way solar or wind have in the electricity sector[14]. Carbon pricing and learning curve of renewables could help the sector reach cost competitiveness, but time and resources would still be necessary to deploy new storage and transport infrastructure or adapt existing ones dedicated to fossil fuels[15].
The production of green hydrogen has also been the subject of questioning over its lack of efficiency in the use of renewable energy. Electrolysis and RES are mature technologies but using green or yellow hydrogen produced through electrolysis as a form of storage of renewable electricity is a largely inefficient process (the roundtrip efficiency of the process is estimated to be 40%)[16]. Blue hydrogen has also been under scrutiny by environmental protection associations on the basis that it relies on fossil natural gas, whose extraction is associated with major methane leaks[17]. These leaks are heavy contributors to global warming and are often unaccounted for in the greenhouse gas emissions of blue hydrogen. Moreover, this process relies on carbon capture and storage, a heavily criticized technology far from industrial maturity[18]. A recent scientific paper analysing the life-cycle emissions of blue hydrogen goes as far as saying that this technology would lead to more greenhouse gas emissions than the conventional burning of natural gas or hydrogen conventionally produced from natural gas[19].
Despite the EU deploying a major hydrogen strategy to decarbonize its energy system, with hundreds of billions of euros associated, widespread scepticism remains concerning the ability of this strategy to provide the expected results in terms of clean hydrogen production volumes. The development of the hydrogen supply chain (supply, demand and transport) remains unclear and the hypothesis that the hydrogen market will structure itself efficiently is unconvincing[20]. Furthermore, the EU has yet to define whether its green hydrogen production objectives will be fulfilled by relying on renewable energy production units included in the EU’s RES production target or whether additional capacity will be required.
Overall, hydrogen could be an efficient and significant contributor to the decarbonisation of the European energy mix in the relatively short run, alongside other solutions such as direct electrification, demand-side-management and other sources of renewable fuels. However, the environmental externalities associated with carbon capture and storage and natural gas when assessing the potential of blue hydrogen (notably by including methane emissions from the extraction of fossil gas) is just one of the many barriers and challenges that will need to be tackled before hydrogen can effectively contribute to the EU’s decarbonization strategy. While the pricing of these negative externalities – through the EU’s emission trading system for instance – could make electrification and green hydrogen the most relevant solutions for most if not all energy uses, the challenges associated with the hydrogen supply chain also need to be considered.
Moreover, giving hydrogen a major role in the energy transition could be associated with major cost rises for some energy users, implying that strategies favouring hydrogen production need a holistic approach taking into account the socio-economic consequences of this choice for end-users. Finally, a significant study of the market integration of hydrogen needs to be made in order to ensure the smooth commercialization and use of this promising energy source for the energy transition.
The main resource of Gorj County is represented by its inhabitants, hence any transformation plan should be centred on them, as they are both the driving force and the beneficiaries of any economic and social progress of their county. The transition towards a carbon-neutral economy, probably the main concern worldwide in the next few decades, requires a significant number of new jobs. That is why Gorj County can rebuild its local identity around the sustainable energy transition, contributing to the significant efforts required for investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency or clean transport, thus continuing to play a central role in the Romanian economy. Gorj County can thus shift from the county with the highest carbon dioxide emissions in Romania to a leading region in this sustainable transition.
This is a favourable moment for starting this transformational process for the county’s economy. Post-pandemic recovery, the funding made available across Europe especially for this purpose, but also the significant amounts that Romania has available for the energy transition, along with the commitment of central and local authorities to ensuring a just transition, create the first and, at the same time, a rare window of opportunity for reconfiguring the county’s economy. In supporting this approach, this study proposes a transition path which can ensure sustainable and diversified economic growth, attracting well-paid jobs and increasing the quality of life. For the transition of Gorj towards a sustainable county, this study proposes a series of short-, medium- and long-term objectives. The main immediate priority of the county authorities should therefore be to capitalise on the potential of renewable resources and renovate existing buildings. Renewable energy is the main decarbonisation vector of the European economy. The solar potential in Gorj County is above the national average and, consequently, must represent a priority in this endeavour. At the same time, the renovation of buildings to increase energy efficiency is another opportunity offered by the sustainable transition, with positive effects on the county’s economy, as well as on individual households, by reducing energy costs and improving living conditions.
As long-term objectives, Gorj County must attract as large a share as possible of the value chains for advanced energy technologies with a contribution to the decarbonisation process. It is worth mentioning that for the counties where coal mining and its use in the energy sector were the main object of activity, staying relevant in the operation of the national energy system is justified. By developing the proposed value chains, their role will remain relevant.
Following an analysis of the economic situation in the county and of its educational profile, the study identifies four value chains:
1. renewable energy and electricity grids;
2. energy efficiency in buildings and heat pumps;
3. batteries, components and infrastructure for electric vehicles;
4. “green” hydrogen-based technologies. The county’s competitive advantages are also presented as well as a few measures that could enhance them
Cluj example – In the summer of 2015, three heat waves were registered in Cluj-Napoca. As a result, an estimated potential loss of approximately reached almost 38.2 million EUR – Energy and Climate Policy
Utilizăm cookie-uri pentru a optimiza experiența de navigare și pentru a analiza traficul site-ului. În timp ce cookie-urile strict necesare sunt active permanent pentru a asigura funcționarea paginii, avem nevoie de consimțământul dumneavoastră pentru cookie-urile de analiză și marketing. Află mai multe: Politica de cookies / Politica de confidențialitate.
Funţionalităţi
Always active
"Stocarea tehnică sau accesul sunt strict necesare pentru scopul legitim de a permite utilizarea unui serviciu specific solicitat explicit de către abonat sau utilizator, sau pentru scopul unic de a efectua transmiterea unei comunicări printr-o rețea de comunicații electronice.
Preferinţe
Stocarea tehnică sau accesul sunt necesare pentru scopul legitim de a stoca preferințele care nu sunt solicitate de abonat sau utilizator.
Statistici
Stocarea tehnică sau accesul sunt folosite exclusiv pentru scopuri statistice.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
Stocarea tehnică sau accesul sunt necesare pentru crearea de profiluri de utilizator pentru a trimite publicitate sau pentru a urmări utilizatorul pe un site web sau pe mai multe site-uri.
