The Sumatran rhino is now officially extinct in Malaysia, with the death of the last known specimen.
The 25-year-old female named Iman died on Saturday on the island of Borneo, officials say. She had cancer.
Malaysia’s last male Sumatran rhino died in May this year.
The Sumatran rhino once roamed across Asia, but has now almost disappeared from the wild, with fewer than 100 animals believed to exist. The species is now critically endangered.
Iman died at 17:35 local time (09:35 GMT) on Saturday, Malaysia’s officials said.
“Its death was a natural one, and the immediate cause has been categorised as shock,” Sabah State Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Christine Liew is quoted as saying.
“Iman was given the very best care and attention since her capture in March 2014 right up to the moment she passed,” she added.
Sumatran rhinos have been hard hit by poaching and habitat loss, but the biggest threat facing the species today is the fragmented nature of their populations.
Efforts to breed the species in Malaysia have so far failed.
Facts about the Sumatran rhino
Five rhino species can be found today, two in Africa and three in Asia
The Asian species include the Sumatran rhino, Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, which is the smallest living rhino species
The animal is closely related to the woolly rhinoceros, which became extinct about 10,000 years ago
No more than 100 Sumatran rhinos remain in the wild (some estimates put the number as low as 30), scattered on the islands of Sumatra, Indonesia
The WMO report looks at concentrations of warming gases in the atmosphere rather than just emissions.
The difference between the two is that emissions refer to the amount of gases that go up into the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels, such as burning coal for electricity and from deforestation.
Concentrations are what’s left in the air after a complex series of interactions between the atmosphere, the oceans, the forests and the land. About a quarter of all carbon emissions are absorbed by the seas, and a similar amount by land and trees.
Using data from monitoring stations in the Arctic and all over the world, researchers say that in 2018 concentrations of CO2 reached 407.8 parts per million (ppm), up from 405.5ppm a year previously.
This increase was above the average for the last 10 years and is 147% of the “pre-industrial” level in 1750.
The WMO also records concentrations of other warming gases, including methane and nitrous oxide. About 40% of the methane emitted into the air comes from natural sources, such as wetlands, with 60% from human activities, including cattle farming, rice cultivation and landfill dumps.
Methane is now at 259% of the pre-industrial level and the increase seen over the past year was higher than both the previous annual rate and the average over the past 10 years.
Nitrous oxide is emitted from natural and human sources, including from the oceans and from fertiliser-use in farming. According to the WMO, it is now at 123% of the levels that existed in 1750.
Last year’s increase in concentrations of the gas, which can also harm the ozone layer, was bigger than the previous 12 months and higher than the average of the past decade.
What concerns scientists is the overall warming impact of all these increasing concentrations. Known as total radiative forcing, this effect has increased by 43% since 1990, and is not showing any indication of stopping.
Image copyright:GETTY IMAGES
“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement on climate change,” said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas.
“We need to translate the commitments into action and increase the level of ambition for the sake of the future welfare of mankind,” he added.
“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago. Back then, the temperature was 2-3C warmer, sea level was 10-20m higher than now,” said Mr Taalas.
The UN Environment Programme will report shortly on the gap between what actions countries are taking to cut carbon and what needs to be done to keep under the temperature targets agreed in the Paris climate pact.
Preliminary findings from this study, published during the UN Secretary General’s special climate summit last September, indicated that emissions continued to rise during 2018.
Both reports will help inform delegates from almost 200 countries who will meet in Madrid next week for COP25, the annual round of international climate talks.
Hot on the heels of the World Meteorological Organization’s report on greenhouse gas concentrations, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) has published its regular snapshot of how the world is doing in cutting levels of these pollutants.
The emissions gap report looks at the difference between how much carbon needs to be cut to avoid dangerous warming – and where we are likely to end up with the promises that countries have currently committed to, in the Paris climate agreement.
The UN assessment is fairly blunt. “The summary findings are bleak,” it says. “Countries collectively failed to stop the growth in global greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that deeper and faster cuts are now required.”
The report says that emissions have gone up by 1.5% per year in the last decade. In 2018, the total reached 55 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent. This is putting the Earth on course to experience a temperature rise of 3.2C by the end of this century.
How years compare with the 20th Century average
2019is on course to be in the top three warmest years
Source: NOAA
Just last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that allowing temperatures to rise more than 1.5 degrees this century would have hugely damaging effects for human, plant and animal life across the planet.
This report says that to keep this target alive, the world needs to cut emissions by 7.6% every year for the next 10 years.
“Our collective failure to act early and hard on climate change means we now must deliver deep cuts to emissions – over 7% each year, if we break it down evenly over the next decade,” said Inger Andersen, Unep’s executive director.
The report pays particular attention to the actions of the richest countries. The group of the 20 wealthiest (G20) are responsible for 78% of all emissions. But so far, only the EU, the UK, Italy and France have committed to long-term net zero targets.
Image copyright: GETTY IMAGES
Seven G20 members need to take more action to achieve their current promises. These include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, South Africa and the US.
For example, Brazil’s plans were recently revised, “reflecting the recent trend towards increased deforestation”.
Three countries – India, Russia and Turkey – are all on track to over-achieve their plans by 15% but the authors of the report say this is because the targets they set themselves were too low in the first place.
For three others – Argentina, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia – the researchers are uncertain as to whether they are meeting their targets or not.
Image copyright: GETTY IMAGES
That leaves China, the EU and Mexico as three countries or regions that are set to meet their promises or nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as they are called, with their current policies.
Without serious upgrades to most countries’ plans, the UN says the 1.5C target will be missed by a significant amount.
“We need quick wins to reduce emissions as much as possible in 2020, then stronger NDCs to kick-start the major transformations of economies and societies,” says Inger Anderson.
“We need to catch up on the years in which we procrastinated,” she added. “If we don’t do this, the 1.5C goal will be out of reach before 2030.”
The report outlines some specific actions for different countries in the G20.
Image copyright: GETTY IMAGES
So for Argentina it’s recommended that they work harder to shift the public towards widespread use of public transport in big cities. China is urged to ban all new coal-fired power plants, something that recent research casts doubt on.
The biggest focus of action is the energy system. To get a sense of the massive scale of change that is needed, the study says the world will have to spend up to $3.8 trillion per year, every year between 2020 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5C target.
The impression that time is running short is reinforced by the report – and UN negotiators gearing up to meet in Madrid next week at COP25 are feeling the pressure to increase their ambitions on carbon.
“This is a new and stark reminder by the Unep that we cannot delay climate action any longer,” said Teresa Ribera, Spain’s minister for the ecological transition.
“We need it at every level, by every national and subnational government, and by the rest of the economic and civil society actors. We urgently need to align with the Paris Agreement objectives and elevate climate ambition.
“It would be incomprehensible if countries who are committed to the United Nations system and multilateralism did not acknowledge that part of this commitment requires further climate action. Otherwise, there will only be more suffering, pain, and injustice.”
Governments around the world are looking to boost renewable energy capacity as they race to cut their reliance on fossil fuels. But one of the big questions they face is how to keep the lights on when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Australia’s answer is to build a giant underground hydropower plant beneath a national park.
The $3.1 billion Snowy 2.0 project – so called because it’s located in the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales – will use water flowing between two reservoirs to generate 10% of the nation’s energy needs at peak times and when renewables are offline.
Image: Snowy Hydro
Water will stream through 27 kilometres of tunnels from the Tantangara Dam to the Talbingo Reservoir 700 metres below, while passing through a power plant 1 kilometre beneath the surface. The turbines will be reversible so they can pump the water back uphill when demand is low, using wind energy.
Known as a pumped hydro scheme, the project is designed to work like a giant battery – storing water energy that can be released as electricity to the grid with a notice of just 90 seconds. It’s hoped the plant will provide energy storage of 175 hours, enough to power 3 million homes for a week.
“Snowy 2.0 will provide the storage and on-demand generation needed to balance the growth of wind and solar power and the retirement of Australia’s ageing fleet of thermal power stations,” says Snowy Hydro Chief Executive Paul Broad. “In short, it will keep our energy system secure and keep the lights on.”
The first power produced from Snowy 2.0 is expected to flow into the national grid in late 2024.
Image: Snowy Hydro
A sensitive issue
The project is controversial, not least because of its planned location – the Kosciuszko National Park. Named after the nation’s highest mainland peak, the 2,228 metre Mount Kosciuszko, the park is a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.
Critics question the reliability of the project’s cost estimates and its ability to fulfil its claimed potential output. They say it is unlikely to be finished on time and ask if the money would be better spent on conventional battery storage.
Snowy Hydro, the company behind the project, refutes these claims and says it will deliver on time and to budget. It says any environmental impact will be limited to just 100 hectares of the 674,000 hectare park – and the project is expected to create 5,000 new jobs.
Hydro upgrade
Snowy Hydro 2.0 builds on the original Snowy Hydro project, which marks its 70th anniversary this year. It grew out of a scheme to alleviate the effects of droughts in the continent’s interior by storing water from the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Snowy and Tumut rivers.
Work began on the first Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme in 1949. The $564 million project was completed in 1974 and includes seven power stations, 16 major dams, 145 kilometres of interconnected tunnels and 80 kilometres of aqueducts.
The government says the new project is essential to Australia’s transition to renewable energy sources. Currently, almost two-thirds of the country’s electricity is generated by coal-fired plants. Together coal and gas account for 85% of the nation’s power generation.
The latest Fostering Effective Energy Transition report from the World Economic Forum ranks Australia 43rd out of 115 countries in terms of the performance of its energy system and its readiness for transition to clean energy.
Energy consumption, in all its many forms, enables everything from how we live, eat and move, to how we work and communicate. Greater energy use is also needed to end poverty and boost incomes around the world. That’s why the UN SDG7 to reach “access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all” by 2030 is a wonderful vision.
The UN’s goal is especially salient across Africa where nearly all people live in energy poverty – energy is too costly, too unreliable or simply unavailable. Yet confusion over what is meant by “affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern” when it comes to energy is hampering progress against poverty and short-changing hundreds of millions of Africans.
Here are the five big mistakes we are currently making:
1. Access: equating it with just household electricity
The main indicator for tracking SDG7 is the number of electrified homes. The goal to reach 100% is a worthy objective: every person on the planet deserves to have lighting and electrical appliances at home. Yet residential electricity accounts for only about 5% of global energy consumption and one-quarter of the world’s electricity. The vast majority of energy is used in industry, commerce, agriculture and transportation, so we’re only tracking one tiny slice of the energy pie. That’s why basic household access cannot solve energy poverty.
2. Modern: a target so low it’s meaningless
The International Energy Agency, the global standard-setting body, defines modern access as 50 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per year in rural settings. This is pathetic; it’s barely enough power to run lights for a few hours per day and to charge a cell phone. It cannot power a TV, a fridge or a stove, nor is it anywhere close to enough power for an air conditioner. In other words, our definition of modern energy is in no way modern.
Even when energy is targeted to business or what economists call productive use, modern is also poorly defined. Many actors investing in energy for income generation focus on micro-cottage industries, such as sewing machines or lights for corner shops, not the power needed to run a factory, a data centre or a cold storage facility. Such efforts, when they work, are mitigating the worst effects of extreme poverty, not creating the conditions for economic transformation and growth. An example: promoting solar blowers for blacksmiths. While applying new tools to a low productivity technology from the Middle Ages might bring incremental benefits, if we’re still talking about blacksmith efficiency in a decade, we will know we have failed to provide truly modern energy or to end poverty.
3. Affordable and reliable: forgetting what industry really cares about
Ghana is an energy-access success according to SDG7: its access rate is already at 85% and the country should approach universal access soon. However, if you asked a typical Ghanaian business owner about the power sector, they would say it’s a disaster. Outages are so common they have a phrase for it (“dumsor”) and tariffs are now $0.23/kWh, among the world’s highest prices for electricity. Nearby Nigeria has far lower prices at $0.07/kWh, but firms report needing to use generators nearly 60% of the time when the cost is more than $0.35/kWh. How are companies in Ghana and Nigeria supposed to compete with Vietnam, where power is $0.07/kWh and reliability is about 99%?
SDG7 specifies affordable and reliable but makes no attempt to track either. The Energy for Growth Hub convened academic and business experts to propose rectifying this oversight by creating a new metric: the reliability-adjusted cost of electricity (RACE). It captures the effective prices paid for electricity by a typical firm that also has to self-generate when grid power is out. RACE enables countries to more accurately compare themselves to competitors and to set improvement targets, hopefully incentivizing power investments that unleash job creation.
Global energy access and security in 2016
4. All: locking in extreme inequality
The notion that providing everyone with a little bit of electricity is success ignores the vast chasm of global energy inequality. An average American will use 50 kWh in less than a day and a half, but this amount is supposed to last a person in Kenya or Nigeria a whole year. In fact, no high-income country in the world consumes less than an average of 4,000 kWh per person per year. The US uses more than 12,000, while Ghana is at 350 and Nigeria is under 150. The gaps are so extreme that the office buildings along K Street in downtown Washington DC use more power than the nation of Liberia and the entire country of Senegal uses less electricity than Californians use playing video games.
Reaching the SDG7’s goal of modern energy for all means refusing to accept that poor people must be satisfied with energy crumbs. Thinking small on energy consigns hundreds of millions to poverty.
There are no low energy, rich countries
5. Sustainability: flipping what Africans actually need
For many, sustainability simply means promoting solar and wind. But this conflates ends and means. Renewable energy will play a huge role in Africa’s future energy mix, especially as technologies improve and prices drop. But the goal should not be to deploy one favoured technological solution. Compare this to transport: bicycles are cheap, clean and efficient ways to get around, but they are useless at hauling cargo; a modern transportation system has different solutions for different needs – the same is true for energy.
What about climate change? Africa’s power sector isn’t a factor in global emissions mitigation, nor will it be any time soon: the continent’s total electricity consumption (~500 tWh) was only about half the amount of last year’s global growth (~900 tWh). The energy-climate nexus in Africa is indeed critical but it’s mostly about adaptation.
Sustainability in Africa means equipping vulnerable countries to cope with extreme weather events, rising temperatures and severe drought. Resilience requires steel and concrete for hardened infrastructure, cold storage and air conditioning, and pumped irrigation and desalination for freshwater. These are all energy-intensive technologies. The effects of climate change require Africa to use more energy, not less.
Sustainable Development Goal 7
The ultimate goal of global development is to raise incomes and enable every person on the planet to have a fair shot at fulfilling their creative and human potential. This isn’t possible when people live in energy poverty. Modern energy systems that can deliver cheap and dependable power at scale can drive higher living standards, productivity growth, and economic transformation.
Declaring success with light bulbs and a solar-powered sewing machine is selling billions of people short. The UN was right in calling for affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. We can only achieve the vision of ending energy poverty if we stay true to what each of these lofty words entails.
Todd Moss, Founder and Executive Director, Energy for Growth Hub
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.
This statistic indicates the huge unmet demand for electricity that still exists in India. Add to this the fact that we are the fastest-growing large economy, and we may be looking at having to double our energy output by 2030 in order to sustain this pace of growth. While this calls for steps to augment the power sector’s capacity, we can ill afford to go down the traditional carbon-spewing fossil fuel-driven growth path.
Globally there is now an increased awareness of the havoc that climate change and rising pollution can cause. Every country must cut back its carbon emission levels and India is no exception. Loking ahead, therefore, renewable energy emerges as an obvious alternative. India must strive to transform its energy mix and ensure that a majority of the additional capacity comes from renewable sources. It has been estimated that renewable energy will very soon become cheaper than that derived from fossil sources, which also enhances its importance to a developing economy like ours in which affordability and last-mile access are major issues.
While the last 4 years have seen India’s renewable energy capacity grow appreciably, we need to take some concrete steps to keep up this momentum. Most importantly, we must ensure better grid management so that it can absorb more renewable energy while overcoming the key challenge of its intermittent nature. The truth is that intermittency will emerge as a real concern once renewable energy starts to account for a greater share of the overall supply, and we have some time before that becomes a reality. Here is a five-point action plan that will help us best harness the potential of renewable energy in India in the days ahead:
1) Promote hybridization of solar and wind energy and build ancillary markets
The synergy in a hybrid wind and solar plant will help reduce variability in power generation. Hybrid projects would also have much higher capacity utilization factors, thus practically eliminating the intermittency challenge. Such projects have the additional benefit of reducing the costs associated with the sharing of transmission lines. Ancillary markets will provide backup services that smooth out the variable nature of energy supply. Germany now has enough storage capacity to cover the needs of 6.3 million people to support its grid infrastructure while we do not have any. There are tremendous opportunities for improvement in this one area alone
2) Build enhanced evacuation infrastructure
We need greater investment in high-voltage transmission lines to transport bulk energy over vast distances quickly and efficiently from power-rich to power-scarce states. This is all the more important in a scenario where storage solutions are not well developed
3) Invest in digitalization
There is huge potential for advanced software solutions that can optimize grid-level operations besides impacting consumer behaviour. The creation of demand response programmes, for example, can prod industries to shift their loads to times during the day when more energy is available on the grid. This, in effect, reduces peak demand. Demand response programmes will not be cost burdens on renewables and are, in fact, proven business models in themselves.
4) Develop battery storage solutions
As battery storage costs continue to fall precipitously, they will become an increasingly important tool for managing the fluctuating pattern of renewable energy generation. Grid operators can store electricity generated from renewable projects in large battery systems in low-demand situations, and then promptly release that electricity into the grid when demand increases.
5) Turnaround the distribution companies
Nearly a quarter of electricity generated is lost in transmission because India’s distribution companies (known here as discoms) use outdated infrastructure, resulting in line faults and leakages, as well as undersized and over-utilized transformers. Weak monitoring and sloppy maintenance standards lead to frequent power theft through hooking and tapping. Not surprisingly, this results in our discoms suffering from poor economic health, which is further accentuated by their inability to collect dues from their customers in a timely fashion. This sets off a negative ripple effect in the entire electricity value chain. Immediate reforms are needed to revitalize the discoms – privatization and greater autonomy may be the answer. There is a dire need to invest in upgraded infrastructure and to formulate an action plan to enhance revenue collection.
Today, the criticality of renewable energy cannot be overemphasized given that it balances the three crucial goals of the Indian economy: rapid pace of growth, tackling pollution and meeting our global commitments on climate change. Not surprisingly, the sector has been at the centre of policy attention and the Indian government has been focusing on several enablers to help unleash its full potential. However, far from being complacent, we need to identify the areas where the sector is still deficient or needs support and address those gaps at the earliest opportunity through strategic interventions as outlined above. We owe our children a greener and safer planet, and a booming renewable energy sector will go a long way in helping us realize this vision.
Sumant Sinha, Chairman and Managing Director, ReNew Power
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.
Almost half of the European Union’s (EU) 28 member states have already hit, or are close to hitting, their 2020 renewable energy targets.
But despite this, there has been a gradual slow-down in the rate of renewable energy use across the EU, and some member states have a lot of ground to make up this year.
Those that are already top of the class are: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania, Romania and Sweden. Hot on their heels are Austria, Greece and Latvia, who look certain to hit their targets.
Image: Eurostat
It is unlikely to come as a surprise to hear that the Nordics are well-represented among the strongest performers; Sweden came top with 54.5% of its energy coming from renewable sources. That was a long way ahead of the second-placed country, Finland, with 41% – followed by Latvia with 39% and Denmark with 35.8%. Despite its strong performance, Latvia is yet to hit its target but is only around 1% away.
Bringing up the rear, the Netherlands is the furthest away from its goal – 7.4 percentage points (pp) away from its 2020 objective. France is next (6.7 pp), followed by Ireland (5.3 pp) and the UK (4.8 pp).
Reductions in fossil fuel use per year, 2016 Image: EEA
But while the overall share of renewables being used to meet the energy needs of EU member states has doubled since 2005, the rate of adoption is slowing down. If that trend continues it could cause several member states, and possibly the whole EU, to miss its 2030 target of at least 32% renewable contribution to energy consumption.
The share of renewables increased by an average of 5.5% per year between 2005 and 2015. But that rate of growth decreased by 0.2 percentage points in 2016 and by 0.3 percentage points in 2017 when compared with the 2005-2015 pace of change. This was mostly due to an increase in the total amount of energy consumed – put simply, renewables weren’t able to keep up with demand – and the European Environment Agency is calling for more investment and more ambitious infrastructure projects.
Headline investment figures don’t always tell the whole story Image: Bloomberg NEF
Last year, global investment in renewables like wind and solar energy, along with energy tech such as smart meters, topped $332 billion. But that was a decrease of 8% on the previous year. The biggest player in the clean energy sector for 2018 was China, which invested around $100 billion – a 32% drop on the 2017 figure. There was also a 53% decline in China’s ongoing investment in solar power, prompted by the withdrawal of generous subsidy rates.
Despite that falling trend in investment, there are some positive trends in the clean energy world. Falling costs have been an influence on the overall level of spending, with cost-per-unit falling while the number of installations has risen. Although there was a 24% drop in global solar spending in 2018, solar installation capacity hit 109 gigawatts in 2018, up from 99 gigawatts the previous year, according to Bloomberg.
Global energy demand is expected to grow in the coming decades. The question is how to produce the energy the world will need while also protecting species and habitats and curbing global warming. The World Economic Forum’s System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Energy explores ways to tackle that conundrum including through innovation, partnerships between the public and private sectors, and effective policies that support solar, wind and other clean energy sources.
As the world responds to climate change, energy systems are evolving, and fast. The past 10 years have seen the rise (and dramatic cost reduction) of renewables such as wind and solar, to the extent that they are no longer considered ‘alternative’ energy.
What will be the next big thing as we shift to a low-carbon future? So far, indications point towards hydrogen.
The combustion of hydrogen with oxygen produces water as its only byproduct, a better result than fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas, which produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Hydrogen can be used directly as fuel in power generation and other heat applications, and can be blended with natural gas in pipeline networks. In particular, hydrogen used with fuel cells (a device that converts chemical potential energy into electrical energy) is most promising for heavy duty transport applications (such as trucks, rail, and ships) and industrial applications that require both electricity and heat.
The Hydrogen Council, a global initiative of energy, transport and industry companies, envisages that by 2050 hydrogen may power more than 400 million passenger cars worldwide and up to 20 million trucks and 5 million buses. It expects hydrogen technologies to provide 18% of the world’s total energy needs by that time, with the annual sales generated from the hydrogen fuel cell market reaching $2.5 trillion and creating 30 million jobs globally. The broader “hydrogen economy” could be much larger.
Image: Hydrogen Council
However, before this can happen, energy industries have to answer one crucial question: Where will all this hydrogen be coming from?
Currently more than 95% of the world’s hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels such as natural gas via the steam methane reforming process. Unfortunately, this is a carbon intensive process, with emissions of seven kilograms (kg) of CO2 on average when producing one kg of hydrogen. The steam methane reforming process can be coupled with carbon capture and storage technology to cut CO2 emissions but the cost of producing hydrogen carbon capture and storage is about 45% higher. And the cost of CO2 avoidance is also high, at about €70 per ton. This is not financially viable and would require technological breakthroughs in carbon capture and storage to become a sustainable solution.
As an alternative, hydrogen can also be produced by electrolysis, which uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, using zero-carbon and low-cost renewable energy. Hydrogen produced from renewable electricity also could facilitate the integration of high levels of variable renewable energy into the energy system by using surplus renewable output for electrolysis, storing hydrogen for long periods of time, then using hydrogen to produce electricity in fuel cells.
This overall cycle is somewhat similar to pumped hydropower storage in terms of the ability for long-term storage and time-shifting of renewable output. The oxygen produced by electrolysis also has market value for industrial and medical applications (it is important to keep in mind that for each kg of hydrogen produced there are eight kilograms of oxygen produced). Developing countries can maximize the development of their renewable energy potential by participating in the global hydrogen economy.
The world needs pioneers who are willing to take the lead and bear the cost of “first movers” for hydrogen energy, just like Germany did for solar photovoltaic technology. In Japan, as part of its “3E+S” (energy security, economic efficiency and environmental protection, plus safety) energy policy, the government formulated the world’s first 21st century hydrogen strategy in December 2017, with the aim of establishing a “hydrogen economy” by 2050.
The hydrogen economy is premised on the use of hydrogen as a fuel, particularly for electricity production and hydrogen vehicles; and using hydrogen for long-term energy storage and for the long-distance transportation of low-carbon energy. The key to achieving such a hydrogen economy is to bring the cost of hydrogen down from more than $10 per kg to about $2 per kg, which would then be competitive with natural gas.
Developing countries would be the big winners from the move toward a hydrogen economy. First, on the supply side, developing countries could tap their renewable energy resources to produce hydrogen and export it to other countries, as is already done with liquefied natural gas.
For example, renewable energy (including hydropower, wind, biomass and solar) in Laos may represent a potential of about 50 gigawatts (GW). The country and its neighbors need about 20 GW to meet their electricity demand, so the unused renewable energy potential could be used to produce hydrogen with zero CO2 emissions. So potentially, Laos could become a significant exporter of renewable energy through the hydrogen supply chain.
Second, on the demand side, developing countries could start using hydrogen technologies in specific areas. For example, fuel cell vehicles can be charged fully with hydrogen within five minutes for a driving range of 500 kilometers and more, with zero CO2, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxide emissions.
In recent years, due to transmission bottlenecks, China has been curtailing its renewable energy (wind, solar and hydro) power generation by about 100 terawatt hours annually. This curtailed energy output could be used to produce about 1.5 million tons of hydrogen, enough to power about 10 million hydrogen-based fuel cell cars for one year. This avoids about 30 million tons of CO2 emissions. In line with national air quality objectives, The Asian Development Bank has supported fuel cell buses in Zhangjiakou City in Hebei Province, the site of next Winter Olympic Games.
What are the next steps? Development finance institutions such as ADB can do more by supporting its members in five specific ways:
1. Share information on hydrogen energy so policy makers and industry players are aware of the latest trends and technologies
2. Help governments to develop a strategy, roadmap and regulatory framework for hydrogen energy development
3. Enhance the carbon trading platform to cover the extra cost of fossil fuel-based hydrogen production with carbon capture and storage
4. Pilot hydrogen technologies and business models for scaling up
5. Finance hydrogen energy projects, including production, transportation and distribution infrastructure, as well as market applications.
Adopting these initiatives will make developing countries “hydrogen ready”. For the good of the environment and the development of new and dynamic industries, the world is undergoing a low carbon energy transformation. No country should be left behind.
Yongping Zhai, Chief of Energy Sector Group, Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department, Asian Development Bank
South Korea is vying to win the race to create the first hydrogen-powered society. It wants to build three hydrogen-powered cities by 2022 as it positions itself as a leader in the green technology.
The plan will see the cities use hydrogen as the fuel for cooling, heating, electricity and transportation. Consultation on where the three cities will be located is under way.
The test cities will use a hydrogen-powered transportation system, including buses and personal cars. Hydrogen charging stations will be available in bus stations and parking spaces.
The hydrogen pilot city plan unveiled by the South Korean Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Image: FuelCellsWorks
The strategy is part of a wider vision to power 10% of the country’s cities, counties and towns by hydrogen by 2030, growing to 30% by 2040.
This includes drastic increases in the numbers of hydrogen-powered vehicles and charging points in the next three years. The government has earmarked money to subsidize these vehicles and charging infrastructure.
The Moon Jae-in administration is set to spend around $18 billion dollars on hydrogen car sales and refuelling stations from 2018 to 2022. Image: Reuters
The fuel of the future?
Countries including Germany, Japan and China are also looking to a future hydrogen society, with a number of Asian car manufacturers including Hyundai, Toyota and Honda sinking resources into creating a range of hydrogen-powered cars.
With fuel cell vehicles – or FCVs – generally offering greater range and faster refueling times than electric vehicles, there is great hope that they will accelerate the transition to cleaner vehicles.
But challenges remain with the technology. Although some FCVs are now on the market, for many the cost remains prohibitive and they have some way to go before they become mainstream.
And while the output from hydrogen-powered cars is certainly clean – they only produce water as a by-product – at the moment they are not necessarily as clean as they may first seem. Producing the hydrogen itself is an energy-intensive process, not necessarily powered by renewable sources.
The other major caveat is hydrogen’s explosive nature, which is still causing safety concerns. Earlier this year an explosion of a hydrogen storage tank at one of South Korea’s government research projects killed two people and injured others.
Storage of the gas requires a lot of infrastructure, and despite government incentives to support development, until hydrogen becomes more widespread private investors can still struggle to turn a profit.
On the road to the first hydrogen society
But none of these challenges are necessarily insurmountable. And as nations around the world look to limit global warming, hydrogen may be key in the fundamental shift required in our energy system.
Seven key roles hydrogen can play in the clean energy transition, according to McKinsey. Image: McKinsey & Company
Consultants McKinsey & Company envisage hydrogen transforming our energy and decarbonizing systems in seven key ways. And it is likely that FCVs will pave the way.
Globally governments are investing around $850 million annually in hydrogen, McKinsey’s 2017 report says, but much more investment is still required to reach scale and lower costs.
Stranded polar bears, mining disasters, oil spills. These are the common portrayals of environmental risk in the Arctic. But there’s a less-familiar threat to the pristine Arctic environment that demands our attention, too – the growing prevalence of marine litter, and specifically plastic pollution.
Plastics have seemingly inundated every corner of the world. More than three-quarters of all the plastic ever produced is now estimated to be in landfills or littering the environment, in the form of bottles, single-use packaging and fishing and aquaculture gear, and some is finding its way to the Arctic. High concentrations of microplastic particles have been detected in Arctic ice, with a good deal of it suspected to have originated outside of the region. This plastic is polluting delicate ecosystems and may even threaten human health. And while there may be less plastic debris in the Arctic than in other parts of the world – such as the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch – the problem is growing, with global implications.
Cumulative global plastic waste generation and disposal (in million metric tons). Solid lines show historical data from 1950 to 2015; dashed lines show projections of historical trends to 2050. Image: ScienceAdvances
A global conveyor belt
Given the relatively small human population in the area, research suggests the bulk of plastic pollution in the Arctic may not be generated locally, and instead was carried there by currents from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. While plastic debris was not found in most Arctic surface water, plastic pieces (hundreds of thousands per square kilometre) had accumulated in the northernmost and easternmost areas of the Greenland Sea and Barents Sea, suggesting these areas serve as accumulation points for a global “plastic conveyor belt”. Scientists expect this pollution to increase in the Arctic and around the world due to growing volumes of plastic production, use and disposal over the coming decades. Some have even suggested the Barents Sea could become a sixth global “Garbage Patch.”
What are the potential repercussions?
Plastic pollution poses serious ecological and economic threats to what is still a relatively pristine Arctic environment. Research shows even very small organisms like zooplankton can ingest plastic fibres, which may affect the amount of natural prey they consume and reduce reproduction rates. There is a general concern plastics and their associated chemicals have the potential to bioaccumulate up the food chain, which might ultimately affect any human who eats seafood. Plastic pollution could also harm local economies in the Arctic by deterring the now-burgeoning regional tourism, and by undercutting the livelihoods of local fishers and hunters who have relied on a healthy marine ecosystem for centuries. The economic impact may also extend well beyond the Arctic. According to a study published in 2017, more than half of the total volume of aquaculture products in the European Union, mainly Atlantic salmon from Norway, originates in the Arctic.
Image: Springer Nature via UN Environment
What can be done about it?
Earlier this year, the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum, identified plastic pollution as one of its top issues to address over the next two years.
“We place a strong emphasis on efforts to improve stewardship of plastic waste and thus reduce the input of plastics into the Arctic Marine Environment,” said Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, Iceland’s Foreign Minister and current chair of the Arctic Council.
“We hope that by the end of the Icelandic Chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May 2021, we will have adopted an ambitious regional plan of action on marine litter and plastics in the Arctic.”
Iceland’s Arctic Council chairmanship is co-hosting a workshop in October 2019 to enable policymakers and experts to begin developing a framework for tackling Arctic plastic pollution. The workshop will be held in collaboration with Harvard Kennedy School and the Wilson Center.
While contributions at the local level will be crucial – such as stricter regulations governing plastics use, advocacy and awareness campaigns and clean-up efforts – there is a broader need to incentivize change among major global players including the European Union, the United States, India and China, as well as multinational companies.
The World Economic Forum’s newly-updated Arctic Transformation Map now explores how environmental degradation, including plastic pollution in the Arctic, is linked to a diverse array of issues around the world, demonstrating both the complexity and breadth of the problem – and the need for a solution.
Ultimately, the Arctic nations’ ability to lead by example will be essential for establishing credibility and inspiring others to act to prevent the Arctic becoming a global trash bin – with potentially significant consequences for the planet.
Halla Hrund Logadottir, Co-Founder and Co-Director, Arctic Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Katie Segal, Research Assistant, Arctic Initiative and Louis Bacon Environmental Leadership Student Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.
