Madaline Dunn attended the 2019 LowCVP Conference in London, at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, to find out more about the future of low-carbon and zero-emission vehicles and fuels, and what work needs to be done on the road to deliver the UK’s recent commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050
The conference began with an introductory welcome of members and delegates by Andy Eastlake, Managing Director at LowCVP, who set the tone for the day. He opened by inviting delegates to take part in interactive voting where they were asked their opinion on the current net-zero policy. A year on from the Road to Zero Strategy, which included targets to ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040, recent reports from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) have encouraged calls to bring the target forward. When asked, 40% of delegates voted to bring the target forward by 10 years.
[wlm_nonmember][…]
By subscribing you will benefit from:
- Operator & Supplier Profiles
- Face-to-Face Interviews
- Lastest News
- Test Drives and Reviews
- Legal Updates
- Route Focus
- Industry Insider Opinions
- Passenger Perspective
- Vehicle Launches
- and much more!
The question of the day which floated around the conference was: ‘Can electrification bring us to the net-zero target – or should the focus be directed on other low carbon fuels as a mosaic solution to deliver the ambition?’
Seeking to identify what needs to be done in order to achieve the net-zero ambition, a series of speakers presented on their perspectives.
‘We have chosen to fail’
The first speaker, Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change at the University of Manchester, drew attention to the serious lack of progress the UK has made in its efforts to reduce emissions. He highlighted that since the first CCC report in 1990, there has only been a 10% reduction in carbon emissions, a 0.4% reduction each year.
“We have chosen to fail. Absolute abject failure,” he said. Kevin talked of a generational displacement and made the point that the UK will be forced into relying on future generations resorting to drastic action, if we don’t start contributing to emissions reductions now. “It’s physics that matters, not the economy,” he stated.
Further to this, Kevin emphasised that even if a range of different measures were taken to deliver the budget, vehicle kilometres would need to be reduced by 40-60% to reach the target.
‘Transport is the easy bit’
Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Julia King, began her presentation in the same vein, underlining the lack of progress made in the transport sector since the first CCC report: “There has been very little progress,” she said. “The only progress was immediately following the recession.” She also drew attention to the fact that every other sector has reduced its emissions.
When looking at what is driving change, the Baroness praised the legislated response to the most recent CCC target report, amended to pursue a 100% reduction in emissions by 2050, but expressed the view that a 2030 switchover would be significantly better. To do this however, she noted that further government action was required, including the roll out of better infrastructure, like charging points for electric vehicles.
“In our analysis of the cost implications of the switchover, although there is a slightly higher cost initially,” she said, “it very rapidly saves us more money than a 2040 switch over – and that is of course because these are much more efficient vehicles, that use much less energy to power them.” She also stressed that transport sector leant itself more easily to transformation: “Transport is the easy bit when it comes to net-zero.”
The Baroness also stressed the importance of hydrogen, and further to this, said that the government must establish a market for this. In terms of priorities, she placed electrification first, hydrogen second and synthetic fuels third.
A holistic approach is required
Professor Neville Jackson, Chief Innovation and Technology Officer from Ricardo, was the next speaker, who asked for a holistic and coordinated approach to the climate crisis.
“Mitigating change is going to be a very significant challenge and it will involve disruption – there’s no way around it,” he said. “The most efficient use of renewable energy is always through battery electric vehicles, but we are likely to require other forms of energy in transport.”
Speaking about life cycle impacts and the issue of sustainability, Neville said: “We will require all sorts of investments in infrastructure, charging points, and focus on recycling and a circular economy.”
In contrast to Kevin, Neville said when it comes to the future of fuel and the real world: “Economics rules.”
“Zero carbon hydrogen looks like a good bet,” he said, and went on to state that low carbon fuels would also lead to further cost reductions and efficiency due to their compatibility with existing infrastructures.
Neville concluded that the country needs to continue to invest: “We should add fiscal policies to encourage low carbon, zero carbon and sustainable fuels in the transport market. That is probably the easiest way to introduce them in the first place.”
Behavioural change and a small minority
After the introductory presentations, delegates were asked to vote on what they thought needed prioritising when it came to the zero emissions. When given the option of electrification, decarbonising fuels, new technology, or behaviour, 36% of delegates voted for electrification, while a surprising 25% voted behaviour.
A question and answer session opened up to delegates highlighting more interesting perspectives. When asked if a 10-year target was possible, the panel varied in their responses.
Kevin Anderson said the issue is a lot simpler than it seems: “Primarily, most of the emissions come from a small percentage of the population,” he concluded. “Most people wouldn’t have to make radical changes in their lives.”
The Baroness agreed with 25% of delegates, saying that behavioural changes played a big role. “That’s why, when we talk about climate change, we assume modest behaviour change, and it is one of the reasons why all of our predictions are conservative and therefore actually doable.”
She went on to say that current predictions show that investment in new technologies for renewable fuels will increase affluency in the UK due to job production.
Another delegate asked: “Are we challenging ourselves unduly by referring to electric vehicles as zero emissions – they aren’t – is this part of the reason why we have polarised the discussion as either for or against?” The panel responded by stressing the importance of vocabulary.
The Baroness said: “We have to be careful to recognise any CO2 emissions to the atmosphere are a problem. Anything with tailpipe emissions and CO2 which can’t be captured, is a problem for society.”
Neville agreed and said: “We are in danger of confusing the public. We have to take them with us on this. The more they understand, the more they can make the right decisions.”
The big debate
Further developing upon these ideas, there was a debate – Adam Chase, Director at E4tech chaired a panel of Greg Archer, UK Director T&E, Phillipa Oldham, Head of National Network Programmes Advanced Propulsion Centre, Gaynor Hartnell, Head of Renewable Transport Fuels Renewable Energy Association, and Jo Coleman OBE, UK Energy Transition Manager Shell.
The question put to the panel was: ‘are low carbon fuels an unhelpful distraction for the drive for electrified road transport?’ Presenting first to the panel was Jeremy Tomkinson, CEO of NNFCC.
“My view is no, Biofuels are certainly not a distraction,” he said. “Decarbonisation is centred on biofuels. In some ways the rhetoric we hear about battery electric vehicles can itself be a distraction.” He went on to say that biofuels are the only way the UK can currently decarbonise both domestically and commercially.
Greg Archer challenged this expressing the view that with a population of 11bn by the end of the century, diets becoming more land intensive, and the need for millions of hectares of land for the bioeconomy, it would not be a sustainable future. He questioned that there would be enough land.
Jeremy responded by noting the solutions are based in circular economies, and that the sustainability of this bio-economy would rely upon repurposing waste.
“If we start to develop circular principles, we can reduce the amount of land required, because we can repurpose waste more,” he said.
Electric future
Dave Greenwood, Professor of Advanced Propulsion Systems and Director of Energy at Warwick Manufacturing Group spoke next, supporting battery electric vehicles as the long-term answer for a zero-carbon future.
He drew attention to the pace of technological evolution: “Over a 10-year period, batteries have come to 1/5th of the cost it was in 2010 and double the energy density,” Infrastructure can charge at 300kW.” Dave did note, however, that while technology is moving quickly, the shift will take time: “We can’t afford to wait and ignore fossil fuels in that period,” he said.
While he agreed with the Baroness that synthetic fuels and low carbon fuels have an important part to play, he said he was unconvinced about the role of hydrogen.”
What became clear was the need for consistent policy within Europe, as well as consistent treatment of consumers, with the right information supplied.
Jo Coleman, questioned Dave on the sustainability of electrification, raising the issue of unethical Cobalt mining in places such as Botswana. “We’re taking those materials out of batteries incredibly quickly,” said Dave. In 2010 1/3 of the active material in batteries was cobalt, Now it’s less than 5%.
“Cobalt is a problem because of the way it is mined in parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, but that’s not universal, and one thing were looking at is certification schemes so there is ethical mining. Manufacturers have an ability to demonstrate their sources.” He continued: “The economics of it are its more expensive to do it ethically.”
“Hydrogen is possible”
Amanda Lyne, Chair of UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association (HFCA) argued for hydrogen.
“The drive is not to electrify. It is about decarbonisation of the energy system,” she said. “To achieve net-zero we will have to achieve 100% decarbonisation in less than 30 years. We all know electric can’t do that. We need to stop wasting time and money pretending that it can.”
She, like others, drew attention to the important role the consumer plays within these changes and went on to raise the point that wholesale electrification requires radical behaviour change. “We need to be mindful that we need to take consumers with us, and we won’t achieve it if we ask them to sacrifice and radically change their behaviour.
“It’s going to take massive investment. Hydrogen doesn’t need that. Hydrogen is possible,” she continued. “We need to start spending money on hydrogen now.”
Greg questioned hydrogen’s ability to deliver on scale. Amanda replied: “There are plans to create systems to produce hydrogen well below the cost of diesel in less than 10 years.”
When hydrogen’s credibility as a renewable fuel was questioned, Amanda replied: “In the UK today every single hydrogen vehicle is being powered largely through electrolysis of some form, there is one location that doesn’t do that. We have tiny proportions, the introduction of buses and everything else is being planned with renewable in mind all the way through. If we had an effective renewable transport fuel obligation to help support that, there could be a lot more even in the next two years.”
The question of E10
The panel then went on to discuss E10 biofuel and whether it was a distraction. They varied widely in their views.
Jo Coleman responded: “Absolutely not. In terms of the urgency, it would enable transition so quickly.”
Phillipa Oldham agreed: “The cost of infrastructure is a stopping point, but by rolling out these low carbon fuels, we could use existing infrastructure for decarbonisation.”
Greg Archer said that investment in this area is nonsensical: “Investing in this area would mean expanding a market that you know you have to phase out,” he said. “It makes no sense to create a market only to dismantle it in 10 years’ time. E10 is a very good example of a policy you shouldn’t do because it is an unwanted distraction. It doesn’t move us in the direction we need to go. Whatever the solution, it is electromobility in its many forms that will be the future of our mobility systems.”
In the closing poll of the morning, when asked ‘are low carbon fuels including hydrogen a distraction from electrification?’ 9.8% of delegates voted yes, while 86% voted no.
The journey to zero emissions
In the afternoon Michael Ellis, Minister for Transport made a keynote address, discussing the current climate, plans for the future and what more needs to be done.
“The role that low carbon fuels will play in our journey to zero emissions road transport is incredibly important,” said Michael. “Last month, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s pledge to achieve a net zero greenhouse gas target by the year 2050. It is ambitious, however it’s entirely achievable as a target. It also requires a focused and coordinated response from all of us.”
The Minister said the focus required would be cross government and cross industry to: “Speed up innovation to support new and emerging technologies like greener fuel.” He noted that the LowCVP is integral to this.
“In 2018 the UK was the second largest market for ultra-low emission vehicles in the EU.
“Seeing those stats, we have to use that foothold to propel us forward. We want the UK to bolster its position as a global leader in ultra-low emission vehicle production. Not only the production but the design and the manufacturing of zero emission vehicles.”
Speaking about how the Government intends to support the transition to zero-emissions the Minister said: “This is why the government is providing £1.5bn to support further uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and develop a world class infrastructure network.
“Low carbon fuels will play a vital role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions for decades.”
Concerning the Government’s current measures to push forward the zero-emission target date the Minister said: “We have developed the Transport Energy Taskforce with LowCVP and published a strategy for renewable transport fuels in 2017. This built on the success of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Scheme – which saw the average greenhouse gas savings of biofuels increase from 46% in 2008/9 to 76% in 2017/18. It reduced CO2 emissions by 2.7m tonnes, equivalent to the emissions pumped out by 1.2m combustion engine powered cars.”
He also noted the Department for Transport’s (DfT) aim to publish a response to the call for evidence on E10.
“I am confident that the UK will seize the economic opportunities of Road to Zero. Our 15-year strategy for renewable fuels is also something that presents us with enormous positive economic opportunities.”
Biofuels and carbon challenge
The afternoon session, chaired by Jonathan Murray, Policy and Operations Director, LowCVP, saw further debate on the future of fuel. The question raised was “Should we be waiting for electrification or should we be using what’s available to us now?”
Aaron Berry, Deputy Head Low Carbon Fuels Division at Department for Transport (DfT) said: “Many of you will be familiar with the transport fuel obligation. We’ve had 10 years of carbon savings. It’s been a successful mechanism for getting biofuels onto the market that are cost effective.
“Now 4% of road fuels are renewable, equivalent to around one million vehicles off the road each year, and average greenhouse gas savings of 78% compared to petrol and diesel.”
Aaron talked about the introduction of the 2032 ‘no regrets’ set of targets that aim to meet our obligations to the Renewable Energy Directive. He noted that this should lead to a doubling of biofuel use over the next two years.
“The long-term target is to encourage investment,” he said. “That should leave us with around 7% of energy coming from biofuels in 2032. We’ve set a baseline, something future Ministers, policy officials and governments would not want to go back on.
“Over the next decade is when the carbon climate change challenge set for us becomes tougher.”
In terms of maximising the use of fuels Aaron said: “We had the Transport Energy Taskforce work on putting an evidence base together, looking at how we can get further in terms of meeting our targets, where we can put our fuels, and will there be feedstocks available.”
“We have the Renewable Energy Association (REA) doing work in terms of its bioenergy strategy,” he said. “The main point is, we need to put an evidence base in place if we’re going to go further in terms of first-generation fuels. Once this base is established, we need to look at the cost-effective policy options that we should be using to deliver more bio-fuels.”
Speaking on alternative fuels going forward he said: “E10 petrol has been in discussion for quite some time. Higher blends of low carbon diesels and biodiesels are another opportunity.”
Policy priority
In closing the conference both Rachel Solomon Williams, Head of Low Carbon Fuels DfT and Ian Constance, Chief Executive at Advanced Propulsion Centre discussed what they believe needs to be done in the coming years.
“Stepping back,” said Rachel, “Carbon is cumulatively building up in the atmosphere and the sooner we make changes, the sooner we can avoid a 2°c temperature rise.”
Speaking about which fuels should be chosen going forward she: “Should we do electricity or hydrogen? There isn’t a conflict between those.”
She noted however: “Our policy priority for the road sector, is electrification,” and stated: “While we are trying to electrify and trying to decide whether to do a hydrogen review network; we also need to decarbonise what is happening today. Let’s do everything.”
In contrast, Ian disagreed noting that the UK can’t ‘do everything’ in terms of energy, a view also held by Greg Archer: “We need to decisions now,” he said, “it’s difficult when there are so many moving parts.”
[/wlm_ismember]
