Can Nuclear Power Propel Maritime into a Zero-Emission Era? Maersk to Explore Nuclear for Ships

Jennifer L
-
0
Can Nuclear Power Propel Maritime into a Zero-Emission Era? Maersk to Explore Nuclear for Ships

Nuclear energy is emerging as a potential game-changer for the maritime shipping industry, which currently relies heavily on fossil fuels. With global shipping responsible for nearly 3% of greenhouse gas emissions, there’s a pressing need to explore cleaner energy alternatives. And the integration of nuclear power into the maritime shipping industry is gaining momentum as a promising solution to achieve zero-emission shipping.

Danish shipping giant Maersk has joined forces with Lloyd’s Register (LR) and UK-based Core Power to explore the potential for nuclear-powered container shipping in Europe. This collaboration represents a significant step in the maritime industry’s efforts to decarbonize.

Teaming Up for Nuclear-Powered Shipping

The study will focus on the feasibility of using a fourth-generation nuclear reactor for powering container ships. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, these small and mass-produced reactors are designed to consume less nuclear fuel while being less powerful. The partnership will evaluate the necessary regulatory frameworks and safety requirements to operate nuclear-powered vessels in European waters.

Maersk’s head of fleet technology, Ole Graa Jakobsen, acknowledged the challenges associated with nuclear power while also noting that if these challenges can be overcome, nuclear power could become a viable decarbonization option for the logistics industry within the next 10 to 15 years.

Nick Brown, CEO, Lloyd’s Register, remarkably highlighted the role of nuclear in the maritime industry saying that:

“A multi-fuel pathway to decarbonising the maritime industry is crucial to ensuring we as an industry meet the IMO’s emission reduction targets and nuclear propulsion shows signs of playing a key role in this energy transition.”

Core Power’s CEO, Mikal Bøe, echoed Brown’s sentiment noting that “there’s no net zero without nuclear.”

The maritime sector has been increasingly considering nuclear fuel as a potential solution to reduce its carbon footprint. A survey conducted by the International Chamber of Shipping in May 2022 highlighted growing interest in nuclear-powered commercial ships, with some experts predicting their viability within the next decade.

The collaboration between Maersk, LR, and Core Power signals a forward-looking approach to addressing the environmental impact of shipping.

Advanced Nuclear Reactors: The Next Frontier in Maritime Decarbonization

Nuclear power has a long history of use in naval vessels since the 1950s, and its application in commercial maritime shipping is being revisited due to the urgent need for decarbonization. The U.S. is exploring the potential of marinized nuclear reactors to replace aging fleets and meet the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) target of a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

Among various types of nuclear energy technologies available, SMRs (small modular reactors) are particularly appealing for maritime applications due to their compact size and enhanced safety features.

SMRs are smaller and more flexible than traditional nuclear reactors, making them suitable for installation on ships. SMRs could provide ships with a steady supply of power, enabling them to travel long distances without the need for frequent refueling stops. This could be especially beneficial for large cargo ships and icebreakers operating in remote areas.

MSRs, a type of SMR, offer even greater potential with their ability to operate on various fuel cycles, including thorium, and provide extended refueling intervals.

Countries like the U.S., South Korea, and Denmark are at the forefront of developing these reactors for maritime use. For instance, Denmark’s Seaborg Technologies is working on a compact Gen-IV molten fluoride salt reactor with a 12-year refueling cycle, aiming for deployment on floating power plants.

Why Nuclear Power Could be the Key

One of the most compelling reasons to consider nuclear energy for maritime shipping is its potential to reduce GHG emissions. Nuclear-powered ships do not emit carbon dioxide during operation, unlike conventional ships that burn fossil fuels. More notably, nuclear generates 4x less carbon emission than solar farms.

Additionally, nuclear energy produces minimal waste compared to fossil fuels, and advances in waste management have made it safer and more manageable.

Moreover, nuclear energy offers a high level of energy security and independence for ships. Unlike fossil fuels, which are subject to price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions, nuclear fuel is abundant and can be sourced from multiple countries.

However, while the potential of nuclear-powered ships is significant, there are challenges related to regulatory approval, public perception, and the high initial costs of reactor development. Still, countries like Russia, China, and the U.S. are making strides in overcoming these hurdles.

Russia, for example, already operates nuclear-powered icebreakers and floating power plants, demonstrating the feasibility of nuclear technology in harsh marine environments​.

In the U.S., the adoption of nuclear power in maritime shipping could revitalize the domestic fleet, particularly under the Jones Act. The regulation mandates that goods transported between U.S. ports must be carried on U.S.-built and operated ships.

Could Nuclear Power Revolutionize Shipping?

The development of SMRs and advances in nuclear technology are making it increasingly feasible for commercial vessels to be powered by nuclear energy. However, careful consideration of safety, regulatory, and public perception issues will be crucial as the industry moves forward.

In conclusion, nuclear energy presents a promising opportunity for the maritime shipping industry to reduce its environmental impact and increase energy security. While there are still many challenges to overcome, the potential benefits make it an option worth exploring.

With continued research and development, as well as the establishment of appropriate regulatory frameworks, nuclear-powered commercial shipping could become a reality in the coming decades.

Altman-Backed Company Opens Biggest US Direct Air Capture Plant

Jennifer L
-
0
Altman-Backed Company Opens Biggest US Direct Air Capture Plant

A direct air capture (DAC) company, Heimdal Inc., inaugurated its first plant on August 13 in Oklahoma, marking a significant milestone in the carbon capture industry. The Bantam plant, located near Shidler on the Osage Nation Reservation, is now the largest operational DAC facility in the United States. 

The plant is designed to capture over 5,000 tons of CO2 annually. This capacity makes it the second-largest DAC plant globally, just behind the one operated by Heirloom Carbon Technologies in California.

The captured carbon dioxide is used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a method of extracting more oil from existing wells. This makes Heimdal’s approach distinct from other carbon capture companies that focus on storing the CO2 underground.

A Swift Success: From Blueprint to Operation

The company’s achievement comes less than a year after Heimdal announced its plans for the Bantam plant. The Altman-backed startup has ambitious goals, with plans for a second, much larger facility that will capture one megaton of CO2 per year. This plant is expected to come online by 2026.


Heimdal’s Direct Air Capture (DAC) process removes CO2 from the atmosphere using an approach that leverages natural minerals. The process starts by heating quarried limestone, which releases calcium oxide. This calcium oxide is then exposed to air, where it acts as a sorbent to capture CO2. 

After the CO2 is absorbed, the material is heated again to release the captured CO2. It can then be either stored or utilized for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR).

The key innovation in Heimdal’s process is the use of readily available materials and existing industrial technologies. This approach allows for a more cost-effective and scalable solution. 

The DAC company has focused on optimizing this process to achieve a cost of capture below $200 per ton of CO2. This focus on cutting down costs makes Heimdal competitive with other carbon removal methods.

Unlike rivals such as Heirloom Carbon Technologies and Climeworks AG, which avoid using captured CO2 for EOR, Heimdal embraces this practice, supported by prominent investors like Sam Altman and Marc Benioff.

Pioneering a Cost-Effective Pathway to Carbon Capture

Heimdal’s approach is distinct in its combination of simplicity and effectiveness. It is leveraging the natural properties of limestone to create a viable pathway for large-scale carbon capture. By using materials that are widely available and technologies that are already in use in other industries, Heimdal aims to scale its operations quickly and contribute to global efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

The startup CEO, Marcus Lima, remarked:

“Our focus has always been on getting things done first, and we are thrilled to share the results of that effort faster than thought possible and more affordably than ever achieved up until now.”

Heimdal’s rapid progress has been enabled by its use of widely available “off-the-shelf” materials. The startup is also employing an approach that prioritizes speed and affordability over immediate net carbon capture efficiency. For instance, until federal permits are obtained for permanent CO2 storage, the captured CO2 will be used for enhanced oil recovery, and the plant will temporarily rely on natural gas to power its operations.

The company is exploring the potential of sequestering CO2 permanently in underground wells, pending regulatory approval. It is also considering switching to electric kilns in the future.

The Broader DAC Landscape in the U.S.

The Bantam plant is part of a broader trend in the U.S. where over a dozen companies are entering the DAC market. This trend is spurred by federal tax incentives and growing corporate demand for carbon offsets. 

Notably, Occidental Petroleum Corp. is also set to launch a commercial DAC operation in Texas in mid-2025. The facility boasts an initial capacity of 500,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. BlackRock has committed $550 million to invest in Occidental Petroleum’s DAC project in Ector County, Texas.

These DAC projects represent a significant step forward for carbon removal technology, which is seen crucial in fighting climate change. The International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasizes the importance of scaling up DAC to achieve global net zero emissions.

The technology’s ability to directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere offers a potential solution for decarbonizing industries that are difficult to electrify or reduce emissions by other means.

DAC net zero emissions

Heimdal’s direct air capture plant represents a significant step forward in the U.S. carbon capture landscape. It demonstrates the viability of DAC technology and setting the stage for future large-scale operations.

Copper Price Is Rising Back Up Amid Union Strike at BHP’s Escondida Mine

Jennifer L
-
0
Copper Price Is Rising Back Up Amid Union Strike at BHP’s Escondida Mine

Copper prices rose on Wednesday due to optimism surrounding potential U.S. interest rate cuts and the impact of a strike at the Escondida mine in Chile, the world’s largest copper mine. 

Factors Driving Copper’s Price Revival

The 3-month copper contract on the London Metal Exchange increased by 0.8% to $9,026 per metric ton. This is a turn-around from the previous month’s price dropping to below the $9,000/ton threshold.

This reflects market excitement over the possibility that the U.S. Federal Reserve might shift its focus from controlling inflation to promoting economic growth. Such expectation is fueled by weaker-than-expected U.S. producer price data, which has led investors to anticipate that cooling inflation could prompt rate cuts.

The U.S. dollar index, which fell to a one-week low, also supported copper prices by making the dollar-denominated metal more affordable for buyers using other currencies. 

However, gains in copper were tempered by ongoing concerns about the Chinese economy. Recent data showing that bank lending in China in July was the lowest in nearly 15 years has intensified fears of a prolonged economic downturn. This could negatively affect industrial activity and demand for metals.

Notably, a powerful workers’ union’s strike at BHP’s Escondida mine in Chile has further bolstered copper prices. The strikers aim for a bigger share of the profits from the largest copper mine in the world.

What Fuels the Copper Mine’s Unrest? 

The strike raises the prospect of disrupted production at a mine that produced almost 5% of the world’s copper output. This strike history is marked by significant disruptions, such as the 44-day strike in 2017, which led to a spike in global copper prices after BHP declared “force majeure.” 

The term indicates the company couldn’t fulfill its contracts due to the strike’s impact. Similar disruptions occurred in 2006, 2011, and 2015, with the union’s actions consistently affecting production and prices.

Three key factors enhance the union’s bargaining power: 

  1. It represents 61% of Escondida’s workforce, 
  2. Has substantial financial reserves to support workers during strikes, and 
  3. Is protected by Chilean law, which prevents the company from replacing striking workers. 

These reasons give the union considerable leverage in negotiations. The union, Sindicato Nro. 1, controls nearly all frontline workers at Escondida, including essential machine operators, drivers, and technicians. 

BHP has attempted to restart talks, but the union rejected the latest offer, although it has indicated a willingness to resume discussions. The company has a contingency plan that allows non-unionized workers to continue operations, but the extent to which production is maintained still needs to be clarified.

A key point of contention is the union’s demand for 1% of the mine’s shareholder dividends to be distributed to workers, estimated to be around $35,000 per worker.

In 2021, the union made a similar demand, but an agreement was ultimately reached that provided workers with a bonus of approximately $23,000, along with nearly $4,000 in overtime bonuses.

BHP has currently offered a bonus of $28,900, but the union is holding out for a better deal.

How Could the Strike Affect Copper Prices?

The strike’s impact on copper prices has been limited so far, mainly due to weak demand from China and hopes for a quick resolution. However, the situation could escalate if the strike continues. 

Since copper price reached record highs in May at LME, it has been dropping as shown below. 

copper price July 2024

Remarkably, market sentiment shows a bullish forecast for the red metal, with an expected trading range to go beyond $4.10/pound. According to Trading Economics estimates, copper prices could trade at $4.14/pound at the end of the quarter. 

As negotiations between BHP and the union continue, the outcome will significantly impact global copper markets, depending on the strike’s duration and severity. This situation highlights the critical importance of mining in the global copper supply chain. Nearly 90% of the world’s copper comes from mines rather than recycled scrap.

In addition to copper, other base metals also saw gains. LME aluminum price rose by 1.2% to $2,360.50 per ton, zinc climbed by 1.5% to $2,727.50, lead advanced by 0.9% to $2,008, and tin increased by 0.9% to $31,470. However, nickel prices dipped slightly, by 0.1%, to $16,300 per ton.

The ongoing strike and potential shifts in U.S. monetary policy could play pivotal roles in shaping the global copper market’s trajectory in the coming weeks. Investors and stakeholders will be closely watching the developments, particularly as copper remains a critical component to reach the world’s net zero goal.

Record-Breaking $225M World Bank Bond Funds Amazon Reforestation

Saptakee S
-
0
Record-Breaking $225M World Bank Bond Funds Amazon Reforestation

The World Bank, through its leading arm, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), has issued a 9-year bond worth USD 225 million. This bond supports carbon removal by funding reforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest.

Unlocking the World Bank’s Carbon Removal Bond

Jorge Familiar, Vice President and Treasurer, World Bank, noted,

“A variety of partners and financing tools are needed to support the Amazon and help the people there pursue better livelihoods, protect its incredible biodiversity, and safeguard its global role in mitigating climate change.”

Notably, this is the largest bond issued by the World Bank to date, directly linked to reforestation efforts in the Amazon and promising fantastic returns. As mentioned in the press release, investors will earn a return through a fixed coupon and a variable component tied to Carbon Removal Units (CRUs). Additionally, the reforestation projects in Brazil will generate these credits.

Furthermore, investors hail this bond as unique. This means it connects their financial returns to actual carbon removal, unlike previous bonds tied to carbon credit sales from emission avoidance.

The key feature of this bond is that ~ USD 36 million will support Mombak, a Brazilian company. Mombak will use the funds to reforest land in the Amazon with native trees, boosting biodiversity and supporting local communities. This bond introduces an innovative approach to mobilizing private capital for reforestation finance.

Their Carbon Credits Boost Global Markets

Last year, the World Bank unveiled its plans to expand high-integrity global carbon markets, helping 15 countries generate income by preserving their forests. To name a few, Chile, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Indonesia were the participating countries. The bank expects these nations to generate over 24 million carbon credits in a year, potentially earning up to $2.5 billion by 2028.

The initiative is led by the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), focusing on environmental and social integrity. Since 2018, the FCPF has pioneered carbon-crediting systems, ensuring credits are unique, measurable, and permanent. Third parties rigorously monitor and verify these credits based on World Bank standard.

Can this Bond Bring High Returns and Save the Amazon Rainforest?

Jorge Familiar has been assertive of this historic transaction. He believes it demonstrates eagerness of private investors to link their financial returns to positive outcomes in the Amazon. Additionally, the promising returns signal rising interest in this structure and the growth of supported sectors.

Essentially, the bond is 100% protected, ensuring investors’ money is safe. The USD 225 million raised will fund the World Bank’s global sustainable development efforts. Instead of receiving full regular interest payments, investors will allow a portion to support Mombak’s reforestation projects through a deal with its hedge partner HSBC. Moreover, these projects align with the World Bank’s goals in the Amazon but are not funded by IBRD loans.

The Carbon Removal Units (CRUs) generated by these projects will be sold, and a share of the revenue will be paid to bondholders as CRU Linked Interest. In addition, investors will receive a guaranteed minimum interest payment. If the projects succeed as expected, bondholders could earn more compared to similar World Bank bonds.

Greg Guyett, CEO of Global Banking & Markets, HSBC commented,

“We are pleased to work alongside the World Bank on this innovative bond which aims to support the reforestation of thousands of hectares of the Brazilian Amazon rainforest. We are committed to helping our clients fund sustainable development projects that make a difference in the climate challenge.  It was a privilege for HSBC to structure the transaction and act as sole lead manager on the World Bank’s largest-ever outcome bond issuance to date.”

Bolstering Investors’ Confidence

Prominent investment partners include Mackenzie Investments. T Rowe Price, Nuveen, Rathbone Ethical Bond Fund, and Velliv.

Investors consider this bond to have the potential for attractive financial returns with measurable positive impacts. They expect significant benefits through carbon removal, biodiversity enhancement, and job creation.

Hadiza Djataou, Vice President, Portfolio Manager, Fixed Income, Mackenzie Investments has significantly remarked,

“This transaction, in partnership with Mombak, offers a landmark opportunity in nature positive investment while supporting land stewardship principles. We believe the bond’s unique structure will prove to be both a strong investment and a catalyst for further innovation in the sustainable fixed-income market.“ 

Decoding World Bank’s Interest in Brazil

GHG emissions in Brazil surpassed 2.3 billion MtCO₂e in 2022, a decline of over 8% in comparison to the previous year. The country’s climate-aligned investments are expected to total $2-3 trillion by 2050. Brazil’s latest climate report predicted this.

Amazon rainforest brazilSource: Brazil 2024 Climate Report

Interestingly, AP news revealed that in 2022, Amazon trees held 56.8 billion MtCO₂e, making the Amazon a huge carbon sink. However, climate experts have shown a red flag over the ongoing deforestation that could shift the Amazon from a carbon sink to a carbon source. This is one of the reasons why Brazil has become a hot spot for environment preservation activities, particularly the Amazon rainforest.

Speaking of Brazil, the World Bank’s connection with the country is not something new. In 2022, it analyzed how Brazil could meet its climate goals and backed innovative projects. It included a whopping US$ 500 million Climate Finance Solution. This initiative aimed to expand sustainability-linked finance and help the private sector access the carbon credit market.

The World Bank announced the Amazon reforestation bond on June 14. They initially left the exact principal value undecided but have now confirmed it.

BHP, Rio Tinto and Qantas Funnel US$53 Million Into a Carbon Credit Fund

Jennifer L
-
0
BHP, Rio Tinto and Qantas Funnel US$53 Million Into a Carbon Credit Fund

Industry giants, BHP, Rio Tinto and Qantas, will invest A$80 million (USD$53 million) in Silva Capital’s Silva Carbon Origination Fund, the first close from these foundation investors. The fund is designed to offer access to large-scale, high-integrity carbon credits from nature-based projects in Australia focused on reforestation and sustainable agriculture. 

Silva Capital, a joint venture between Roc Partners and C6 Investment Management, focuses on developing high-integrity carbon abatement projects to produce Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). The Silva Carbon Origination Fund is their first venture. The fund targets mixed-use agricultural and environmental planting projects across Australia to produce ACCUs at a large scale.

Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) are issued by the Australian government’s $3 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) to support the country’s goal of reducing carbon emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2030.

The ERF primarily grants credits to projects focused on deforestation prevention, native forest regeneration, and methane collection from landfills. These credits can be sold to the government or companies aiming to meet their emissions reduction targets. High-emission industries, such as mining and aviation, are increasingly purchasing carbon credits to offset their environmental impact.

Rio Tinto is Leveraging Carbon Credits For Its Decarbonization Goals

Jonathon McCarthy, Rio Tinto’s Chief Decarbonisation Officer, emphasized the company’s commitment to decarbonizing its operations. He noted that the investment in the Silva Carbon Origination Fund will help meet compliance obligations through high-integrity carbon credits.

Rio Tinto aims to retire 3.5 million carbon credits annually by 2030, covering 10% of its baseline emissions. This increased focus on the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) supports its 2030 climate goals, especially after acknowledging it may miss 2025 decarbonization targets.

Rio Tinto 2030 emissions reduction pathway

In 2023, its Scope 1 and 2 emissions were stable at 32.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), with Scope 3 emissions at 578 million tCO2e. Rio Tinto plans to increase carbon credit procurement to 1.7 million tCO2e by year’s end and commit 500,000 hectares to NBS by 2025.  

For 2024, Rio Tinto has allocated an estimated $750 million for decarbonization efforts, including capital and operational expenditures, offsets, and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). However, the company has revised its total expenditure estimate for meeting its 2030 climate targets, reducing it from $7.5 billion to $5-6 billion.

The company expects to increase its carbon credit procurement, mainly through Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs).

What Role Do Carbon Credits Play in BHP’s Emission Reduction?

Graham Winkelman, BHP’s Vice President of Climate, remarked that while BHP is actively pursuing structural greenhouse gas emission reductions from its operations, carbon credits will play a role in achieving its decarbonization targets.

The world’s largest mining company, expects its carbon emissions to grow in the short term and acknowledges the need for rapid technological solutions and carbon credits to meet its 2050 net zero goal.

While on track for its 2030 emissions reduction target, BHP admits achieving net zero by 2050 will be challenging. The company aims for a 30% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 but does not include Scope 3 emissions, which involve its customers’ emissions, like those from steelmakers.

To achieve its 2030 decarbonization goals, BHP plans to invest $4 billion, with the majority directed toward reducing diesel use in haul trucks, electricity, and gas emissions. Diesel accounts for about 50% of the company’s pollution, while methane contributes over 14% of its operational greenhouse gas emissions.

BHP carbon offset credit use cases
From BHP Report

The ACCUs will also help the mining giant in meeting compliance obligations under the Safeguard Mechanism Act.

Why Qantas is Investing in the Silva Carbon Origination Fund

Qantas’ investment in the Silva Carbon Origination Fund will aid in meeting its climate targets by securing high-quality, nature-based carbon credits. 

The airline is financing its investment through its Climate Fund, a A$400 million initiative established last year to support the company’s decarbonization efforts. The fund will also boost the Australian carbon credit market, offering social and economic benefits to local communities.

Andrew Parker, Qantas’ Chief Sustainability Officer, emphasized that high-integrity carbon offsets will be crucial for hard-to-abate sectors like aviation. He further said that:

“We expect the demand for carbon offsets to continue to grow into the future and it’s going to take partnerships across industries to enhance the overall availability of high-quality, high-integrity carbon credits.”

This move builds on Qantas’ broader climate efforts, including its recent investments in the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Financing Alliance (SAFFA) and a Queensland biofuel production facility in partnership with Jet Zero Australia and LanzaJet.

The Focus of The Carbon Fund

The fund’s strategy includes investing in agricultural land to develop large-scale carbon sequestration projects by reforesting cleared areas while maintaining the land’s productivity for farming. These projects integrate robust carbon credit methodologies, enhance farming activities for local communities, and promote habitat restoration and biodiversity protection.

Silva Capital Co-Managing Director, Brad Mytton, highlighted that sustainable agriculture is central to the fund’s investment strategy. He noted that the Silva Carbon Origination Fund aims to create a portfolio of mixed farming land with significant canopy cover, producing a large volume of high-integrity carbon credits. Mytton further stated that:

“The Fund has been designed to appeal to both corporate investors seeking to access carbon credits and institutional investors seeking portfolio diversification…”

Backed by industry heavyweights, the Silva Carbon Origination Fund could play a pivotal role in advancing Australia’s carbon credit market and supporting the nation’s ambitious climate goals.

Why Standards Matter: The CRSI’s Role in the Carbon Removal Boom

Jennifer L
-
0
Why Standards Matter: The CRSI’s Role in the Carbon Removal Boom

As companies increasingly adopt carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies to achieve their sustainability and climate targets, the need for rigorous oversight and standards has become more pressing. To address this, the newly launched Carbon Removal Standards Initiative (CRSI) seeks to develop and promote effective standards for carbon sequestration efforts. 

The initiative emerges amidst a backdrop of significant investment in CDR by major tech companies and growing concerns about the credibility of these technologies.

The Push for Carbon Removal Credibility: What’s at Stake?

Carbon removal emerges as a crucial element in combating climate change, particularly as businesses strive to meet net zero goals. Despite its importance, the industry faces significant challenges in scaling up to meet future needs.

The Carbon Removal Standards Initiative is designed to fill a critical gap in the current landscape of carbon removal technologies. With CDR encompassing a range of methods—such as industrial facilities that filter CO2 from the air or seawater—there is a risk that these technologies may not deliver the promised environmental benefits. 

For instance, while industrial-scale CDR facilities can sound promising, they often require substantial energy inputs. Plus, the captured carbon could potentially be used to produce more fossil fuels, undermining the intended climate benefits.

The lack of standardized oversight raises concerns about the effectiveness of these carbon removal methods. This is where the new CDR initiative comes in.

The CRSI, led by Anu Khan, former science and innovation director at climate NGO Carbon180, seeks to address the growing need for rigorous standards in CDR. As an independent nonprofit, it seeks to bolster the credibility and effectiveness of CDR efforts by providing technical assistance and capacity building specifically around quantification standards. Its work is founded on these three essential realizations:

  1. Carbon removal is a public good.
  2. Carbon removal supply and demand will be policy-driven. 
  3. Solutions will fit into a range of regulated industries, from agriculture and mining to construction and waste management.

Instead of creating its own guidelines, CRSI focuses on providing technical assistance to entities working on carbon removal policies. 

The Role of CSRI in the CDR Industry

One key feature of CRSI is its commitment to being a nonprofit organization that does not accept corporate donations or rely on the sale of carbon credits from CDR projects. This independence is to ensure that CRSI can provide unbiased, reliable guidance on carbon removal standards. 

According to Anu Khan:

“I think it’s a really promising conversation… But for all of these policies, we need to make sure that they are actually measurably, quantifiably drawing down carbon.”

This perspective reflects a growing recognition that carbon removal efforts must be independently validated to ensure genuine climate benefits. Such a much-needed standard becomes more crucial with the increasing involvement of major tech companies and investment groups in CDR. 

Tech giants, including Alphabet (Google), Meta, Microsoft, Shopify, Stripe, and more are investing heavily in these initiatives. They’ve launched Frontier which connects CDR projects with interested buyers. These efforts highlight the market’s growing demand for credible carbon offsets. 

Current CDR Industry Status

Currently, the carbon removal sector is still developing, with limited uptake among companies. Of nearly 6,000 businesses with Science-Based Targets, only 32 have purchased carbon removal credits in 2023. 

However, in the same period, the number of carbon removal credits sold surged dramatically, increasing 650%. According to CDR.fyi, a public benefit corporation, credit sales jumped from 800,000 tonnes at the end of 2022 to over 5.2 million tonnes by the end of 2023. This rise in activity culminated in more than $2.1 billion in carbon credit purchases for the year.

Forecast CDR Demand

For long-term carbon removal projections, the lowest estimates suggest that billions of tonnes will be required by 2050. According to BCG’s analysis, the carbon removal market will be driven primarily by voluntary demand from large corporations. They project that demand for durable carbon removal will range from 40 to 200 million tonnes per year by 2030, with a market value between $10 billion and $40 billion. 

By 2040, demand could rise to 80 to 870 million tonnes per year, translating to a market value of $20 billion to $135 billion.

BCG carbon removal credit demand projection 2030-2040

In the high scenario, demand could reach 200 to 870 million tonnes per year by 2030 to 2040, with a market value of $40 billion to $135 billion. These projections underscore the significant investment and scaling efforts needed to meet future carbon removal requirements.

When it comes to prices, the averages per method worldwide in 2022 and 2023 are as follows, according to Statista. 

carbon removal credits price 2022 and 2023

2024 and Beyond: What’s Next for Carbon Removal?

Reflecting on 2023’s breakout year for carbon removal, it’s evident that 2024 is poised for even greater achievements. Policymakers are starting to catch up with the rapid development of carbon removal technologies. 

The European Union, for example, is working on the first certification framework specifically for carbon removal technologies. Meanwhile, CRSI’s efforts represent a critical step in creating a foundation for evaluating and regulating these emerging methods.

The surge in market momentum and demand for high-quality carbon credits, combined with supportive policies and the rise of innovative startups, sets the stage for yet another groundbreaking year ahead in carbon removal. As the industry grows, Carbon Removal Standards Initiative’s role will be vital in ensuring that these technologies contribute effectively to climate goals. 

Kronos and Yasheng Partnership: Revolutionizing Power with Nickel-63 Nuclear Battery

Saptakee S
-
0
Kronos and Yasheng Partnership: Revolutionizing Power with Nickel-63 Nuclear Battery

In a major development in the nuclear sector, Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. and Yasheng Group have strategically partnered to create and file a patent for an innovative small nuclear battery—Nickel-63. This battery is expected to offer an extended lifespan of up to 50 years. The collaboration targets key energy storage challenges in areas such as remote sensing, space exploration, medical devices, and military applications.

What is a Nickel-63 Battery?

A nuclear or an atomic battery converts a radioactive isotope into electrical energy through its decomposition. These batteries can last for several decades, providing a long-term solution for energy storage. By decomposing radioactive materials, they generate substantial energy while minimizing waste.

Scientists believe that nuclear batteries are reliable, lightweight, highly efficient, and economically sustainable. Specifically, the Nickel-63 battery will convert energy produced from the beta decay of the radioactive isotope Nickel-63 into electrical power. It will be encased in a robust radiation-shielding case to prevent leakage and feature a thermal management system to stabilize its operation, ensuring environmental safety and mitigating potential radioactive hazards.

Unlocking the Kronos and Yasheng Agreement

Kronos Advanced Technologies, headquartered in West Virginia, specializes in air movement and purification technology used in automotive, aviation, healthcare, and transportation sectors. Yasheng Group, a U.S. holding company, has joint ventures in agriculture, biotech, blockchain, and mining, operating in the U.S., China, and the Philippines. Yasheng is expanding globally through growth, mergers, and acquisitions in the eco-agriculture industry.

Agreement Details:

  • Patent Filing and Costs: Yasheng Group will handle the patent filing for the nuclear battery in China, while Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. will manage the filing in North America. Each company will cover the filing costs in their respective regions.
  • Royalties: Both companies will share profits from this groundbreaking technology. Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. will receive 10% of the royalties generated by Yasheng Group in China, while Yasheng Group will receive 10% of the royalties from Kronos Advanced Technologies Inc. in North America.

The Impact of Nickel-63 Nuclear Batteries on Next-Gen Power

Nickel-63 nuclear batteries hold significant potential across various industries due to their long-lasting power and unique features. In the medical field, they are ideal for powering implantable devices like pacemakers, artificial hearts, and cochlear implants, where frequent battery replacements are impractical.

In aerospace and defense, these batteries are well-suited for long-duration space missions and satellite operations due to their durability and minimal maintenance requirements. They are also perfect for remote sensors and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, providing continuous monitoring and data collection in remote or challenging conditions.

Although still in development, Nickel-63 batteries have the potential to transform consumer electronics by potentially eliminating the need for recharging devices like smartphones and laptops. Notably, Kronos and Yasheng Group have targeted all these applications in their collaboration.

The Rise of Nuclear Power Batteries in a Net Zero Future

Industries are increasingly drawn to nuclear batteries for their reliability, endurance, and sustainability. As the world shifts toward net-zero goals, government regulations focus on reducing energy waste and environmental pollution. Nuclear batteries’ ability to reduce waste and lower greenhouse gas emissions positions them as a key player in the energy market.

Experts predict that demand for these batteries will grow as the industry transitions from electrochemical to nuclear technology. This trend is expected to drive significant growth in the nuclear battery market. Most importantly, these batteries could play a critical role in decarbonizing global electricity systems and mitigate impact of climate change.

According to Expert Market Research, the global nuclear battery market is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 8.7% to 9.1% from 2024 to 2032. This growth is driven by advancements in nuclear technology, increased adoption of electric and hybrid vehicles, and the rising demand for long-lasting power sources across industries such as medical, aerospace, and remote sensing.

Image: Nuclear Battery Market Share (%) by Region (2019-2031)

nuclear battery

source: cognitivemarketresearch

Key market players in nuclear batteries include Exide Technologies, Tesla Energy, Thermo PV, Vattenfall, American Elements, Marlow Energy Group, Curtiss-Wright Nuclear, City Labs, Inc., Luminous Power Technologies, etc.

Interestingly, earlier this year, Betavolt, a Chinese startup announced the development of nickel-63 battery, promising power for 50 years without recharging or maintenance. It claimed that its nuclear battery is “the world’s first to miniaturize atomic energy in a module smaller than a coin.” Media reports state that the battery is currently undergoing pilot testing and is expected to be mass-produced for use in phones and drones.

Overall, if Kronos and Yasheng partnership succeed, it could be a game changer for nuclear battery technology.

Canada’s Steel and Aluminum Industries Demand Tariffs to Block Chinese Dumping

Jennifer L
-
0
Canada’s Steel and Aluminum Industries Demand Tariffs to Block Chinese Dumping

Canada’s steel and aluminum industries are sounding the alarm over what they describe as an “existential threat” while urging the federal government to align with the United States and Mexico in imposing tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum to prevent market dumping. This plea comes amid growing concerns that Canada could become a conduit for Chinese products circumventing American and Mexican tariffs.

Why Canada’s Steel and Aluminum Industries Raise The Alarm

Canada currently produces primary aluminum—rather than recycled aluminum—at eight smelters located in Quebec and one in Kitimat, British Columbia. These facilities are owned by three major companies: Alcoa, Aluminerie Alouette, and Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto also operates an alumina refinery in Vaudreuil, Quebec. 

The Canadian aluminum industry produces a wide range of products, including doors, windows, house siding, beverage cans, foil products, cooking utensils, and electrical wiring.

As of 2022, Canada ranked as the world’s 4th-largest producer of primary aluminum, following China, India, and Russia. The North American country produced about 3.0 million tonnes of primary aluminum in 2022, which accounts for about 4.4 percent of global production. In contrast, China alone produces more than half of the world’s aluminum. 

A notable advantage of Canada’s aluminum industry is its lower carbon footprint compared to other major producers, thanks to its reliance on renewable energy sources, particularly hydroelectric power.

In 2023, Canada’s smelter production of aluminum was estimated at around 3 million metric tons as seen below. Throughout the observed period, Canada’s aluminum production volume remained relatively stable. The country’s peak production occurred in both 2016 and 2017, when it reached 3.2 million metric tons. 

Canada aluminum smelter production 2023

How Significant Is Canada’s Aluminum Production and Export Market?

Canada is the world’s second-largest exporter of aluminum, with aluminum product exports totaling $18.2 billion in 2022. The United States is the primary market for these Canadian exports, making it a crucial partner in the aluminum trade. This close trade relationship underscores the importance of maintaining strong economic ties and competitive advantages in the aluminum industry.

However, the recent actions of the U.S. government of imposing tariffs on China imports spurred the industry’s interest to do the same. 

Catherine Cobden, President and CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association (CSPA), emphasized the urgency of the issue during a press conference in Ottawa. She stressed the need for Canada to act in concert with its North American trade partners under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

“We can’t be the only CUSMA country that is not taking this serious action,” Cobden stated, highlighting the critical nature of the moment for Canada’s steel industry.

  • The CSPA represents 13 steel companies, including major players like Stelco, Algoma Steel Inc., and Rio Tinto.

In late July, Aluminum Alloy Ingot prices dropped across key regions. In the U.S., higher inventories and weaker demand in automotive and construction sectors led to a decline. Germany saw similar drops due to reduced manufacturing activity. In China, prices fell due to increased domestic production and slower demand, with domestic brands outperforming foreign competitors in the automotive industry.

The Canadian industry leaders’ call to action follows the U.S. government’s May announcement of a 25% tariff increase on Chinese steel and aluminum. Additionally, the U.S. has imposed higher tariffs on other Chinese products, including electric vehicles (EVs), semiconductors, critical minerals, and batteries. 

In response, Mexico, in July, introduced a 10% tariff on aluminum and a 25% tariff on steel not produced within Mexico, in collaboration with the U.S. These measures aim to prevent Chinese producers from bypassing tariffs through Mexican trade routes.

The Implications of Urging Tariffs on Chinese Imports

The CSPA and the Aluminium Association of Canada are advocating for a 25% tariff on all Chinese steel products and most aluminum products entering Canada. This would mirror the recent U.S. decision to impose tariffs on 289 different Chinese steel and aluminum imports. Cobden stressed the urgency of the situation, warning that failure to act could result in job losses and hinder economic growth and investment in Canada’s steel and aluminum industries.

The concern now is that Canada could become a “back door” for Chinese steel and aluminum entering North America, undermining the protective measures taken by the U.S. and Mexico. This potential loophole has prompted Canadian industry leaders to push for similar tariffs to safeguard domestic jobs and industries.

What more Jean Simard, President and CEO of the Aluminium Association of Canada noted that:

”China’s metal is seven times more carbon-intensive than Canada’s.”

Thus, Simard said that allowing Chinese steel and aluminum into Canada would increase the country’s carbon footprint and undermine efforts to promote sustainable industrial practices. He called on the government to act swiftly to protect Canadian jobs, technology investments, and the environment.

What Are The Consequences of No Action?

The potential consequences of failing to impose tariffs are stark. Over 760,000 tonnes of Chinese steel entered the American market in 2023, with similar amounts the previous year. These volumes are 20% higher than the current amount of Chinese steel entering Canada annually. Industry leaders fear that any Chinese steel diverted from the U.S. market due to tariffs could flood the Canadian market, further eroding the domestic steel and aluminum industries.

The CSPA and Aluminium Association of Canada are urging the federal government to act quickly and decisively. They warn that any delay could lead to a further decline in the Canadian steel and aluminum industries, with long-term consequences for employment, economic growth, and Canada’s position in the global market.

As the government considers its next steps, industry leaders are making it clear that urgent action is needed to protect Canada’s steel and aluminum sectors from the growing threat of Chinese overcapacity.

Kamala Harris Surges Ahead of Trump on Climate and Energy Policies, Survey Shows

Jennifer L
-
0
Kamala Harris Surges Ahead of Trump on Climate and Energy Policies, Survey Shows

As the presidential election approaches, many are wondering how does Vice President Kalama Harris’ climate and energy record compare to Donald Trumps.

A recent survey by Climate Power and Data for Progress reveals that Vice President Kamala Harris holds a significant advantage over former President Donald Trump on climate and energy issues, a key factor as the presidential election draws near. This data underscores the stark contrast between the candidates’ approaches, particularly among young voters, who are expected to play a crucial role in determining the outcome.

Voters Prioritize Clean Energy and Climate Action

The survey results indicate that nearly 70% of voters believe the next president should continue investing in clean energy manufacturing, a view that cuts across party lines. Half of Republican voters, two-thirds of Independents, and 71% of young voters aged 18-34 support this stance. This overwhelming consensus highlights the growing importance of clean energy in the political landscape.

Kamala Harris to invest in clean energy manufacturing voters said

When voters were explicitly asked about Harris as the presumptive Democratic nominee, 62% expressed that she should continue these investments to enhance the climate initiatives started under the Biden-Harris administration. This level of support suggests that Harris’ commitment to clean energy is resonating strongly with the electorate.

Harris’ Climate Record Garners Strong Support

Kamala Harris’ track record on climate issues has earned her widespread support among voters. As Vice President, Harris has been a significant but often unsung force in advancing climate policy. Her behind-the-scenes advocacy has been crucial in shaping major environmental legislation.

In early 2024, Harris championed a $20 billion investment in green banks to cut pollution, an idea she supported since her Senate tenure in 2020. She also endorsed higher unionization rates for clean energy workers, leading to climate law provisions that provide bonuses for projects with prevailing wages.

During her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris advocated for electric vehicle incentives for low- and middle-income families. This push resulted in the climate law offering up to $7,500 off new electric vehicles and $4,000 off used ones.

Harris’s commitment to environmental justice dates back to her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, where she established California’s first environmental crimes unit. As California’s attorney general in 2011, she filed a lawsuit against polluting cargo terminals, leading to a settlement to protect affected communities.

 This approach influenced the federal climate law, which includes $3 billion to reduce port pollution and over $40 billion for disadvantaged communities, marking the largest environmental justice investment in U.S. history.

Additionally, Harris’s influence extended to the bipartisan infrastructure package. This included $5 billion for electric school buses—a policy she introduced in 2019—and $15 billion for replacing lead pipes.

The Results Speak 

The Data for Progress survey tested voter reactions to eight of Harris’ key climate actions, and a majority supported each one. Notably, 72% of voters back her efforts to strengthen the Clean Air and Water Acts, legislate to replace 100% of lead pipes, and introduce the first-ever limits on harmful “forever chemicals” in drinking water.

Kamala Harris record and actions on climate

Furthermore, 69% of voters approve of Harris’ decision to take an oil company to court for potential criminal violations following an oil pipeline spill that polluted coastal waters. This strong backing reflects a public desire for accountability in environmental protection.

Additionally, 68% of voters favor Harris’ clean energy plan, which has created over 300,000 new jobs across the U.S. This support highlights the economic benefits of transitioning to clean energy, an issue that resonates with voters across the political spectrum.

Voters Prefer Harris’ Climate and Energy Policies Over Trump’s

When asked to compare the energy and climate policies of Harris and Trump, voters showed a clear preference for Harris’ approach. By a 12-point margin, voters favor Harris’ focus on expanding clean energy to lower costs for families and boost American manufacturing while protecting communities’ access to clean air and water. This margin is even larger among key demographics, including Independents (+17 points) and young voters (+22 points), indicating strong support for Harris’ vision for the future.

Harris platform on energy and climate policy is better than trump

Harris’ edge over Trump is further emphasized when voters are presented with a comparison of each candidate’s approach to the oil and gas industry.

By a 22-point margin, voters prefer Harris’ record of holding oil and gas companies accountable for profiteering and gouging Americans at the pump, over Trump’s record of offering large tax breaks and financial incentives to the fossil fuel industry. This issue is particularly salient among Independents, who favor Harris’ approach by a 2-to-1 ratio (57% to 29%).

In another comparison, 56% of voters agree more with Harris’ approach to the oil and gas industry and pollution. This draws on her experience as a district attorney going after polluters.

Only 38% agree more with Trump’s stated intention to aggressively expand drilling while downplaying the threat of climate change. This contrast is especially pronounced among young voters, with nearly 7 in 10 voters aged 18-34 siding with Harris.

Voters Support Continuing Biden-Harris Climate Progress

The survey also reveals a clear preference among voters for continuing the clean energy and climate progress made by the Biden-Harris administration. When voters were asked to choose between the climate platforms of Harris and Trump, a majority expressed support for the following: 

  • expanding clean energy, 
  • strengthening pollution protections, and 
  • holding big oil and gas companies accountable. 

This support remained strong even when the candidates’ names were explicitly attached to their respective platforms. This suggests that Harris’ climate and energy policies have broad appeal.

Overall, the survey underscores Harris’ significant advantage over Trump on climate and energy issues, particularly among Independents and young voters. With less than 100 days until the election, Harris’ commitment to clean energy and holding polluters accountable appears to be resonating strongly with the electorate. 

Carbon Credits vs. Carbon Offsets

Simon H
-
0
Carbon Credits vs. Carbon Offsets

Carbon Credits vs. Carbon Offsets: What’s the Difference?

At their core, both carbon credits and carbon offsets are accounting mechanisms. They provide a way to balance the scales of pollution. The big idea behind credits and offsets is that since CO2 is the same gas anywhere in the world, it doesn’t matter where emissions reduction happen.

For both consumers and companies, it makes financial sense to reduce emissions where it is cheapest and easiest to do so, even if that does not involve their own operations.

Offset and Credit Similarities

At the simplest level, a carbon credit or offset represents a reduction in or removal of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that compensates for CO2 emitted somewhere else. The instruments do have two major attributes in common:

  • One carbon credit or offset equals one tonne of carbon emissions.
  • Once a carbon credit or offset is purchased and the CO2 is emitted, that credit is “retired” and cannot be sold or used again.

Carbon Offsets and Carbon Credits Defined

While the terms “carbon credits” and “carbon offsets” are often used interchangeably, they refer to two distinct products that serve two different purposes. Before you begin purchasing either, it’s important to understand the difference between the two and which one will help you meet your goals. Here is a broad definition of the terms:

  • Carbon offset: A removal of GHGs from the atmosphere.
  • Carbon credit: A reduction in GHGs released into the atmosphere.

To help visualize the difference, imagine a water supply polluted by a nearby chemical plant. A “chemical offset” would mean pulling chemicals out of the water to help purify it. A “chemical credit” would mean paying another chemical company to release fewer chemicals into the water, so the overall level of pollution stays the same. Clear as mud? Great.

A Carbon Offset and Carbon Credit Primer*

Let’s dive a bit deeper into these products one at a time. Creating a carbon offset involves a fancy term we call “carbon sequestration.” Recall how a judge can order a jury to be sequestered—meaning they have to be sealed off from the outside world.

It works the same way with carbon: offsets involves CO2 emissions pulled out of the atmosphere and locked away for a period of time.

There is a growing list of ways to do this, including planting forests, blasting rock into tiny pieces, storing carbon in manufactured devices, capturing methane gas at a landfill, and the holy grail of carbon sequestration: using sophisticated technology to turn CO2 emissions into a usable product.

Carbon offsets are produced by independent companies that pull CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. The offsets are then sold to companies that emit (or have emitted) CO2. In a sense, offset-producing companies are directly funded by those companies that emit GHGs.

Carbon credits, on the other hand, are generally “created” by the government. Governments limit the amount of GHGs organizations can emit by placing a cap on them—a specific number of tons of CO2 the company can emit. Each of those tons are referred to as a carbon credit.

Companies comply with that cap by reducing the emissions produced in their operations through improving energy efficiency or switching to renewable energy sources. An organization that brings its overall emissions below what is required by law can sell the excess credits to businesses that are unable or unwilling to cut their own emissions to become compliant.

There are a few other ways to produce carbon credits. For more detail, see our article on carbon credits.

The Two Carbon Markets

There’s one more important distinction between carbon credits and carbon offsets:

Mandatory schemes limiting the amount of GHG emissions grew in number. And with them, a fragmented carbon compliance market is developing. For example, the EU has an Emissions Trading System (ETS) that enables companies to buy carbon credits from other companies.

California runs its own cap-and-trade program. Nine other states on the eastern seaboard have formed their own cap-and-trade conglomerate, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

The voluntary carbon market (think: offsets) is much smaller than the compliance market, but expected to grow much bigger in the coming years. It is open to individuals, companies, and other organizations that want to reduce or eliminate their carbon footprint, but are not necessarily required to by law.

Consumers can purchase offsets for emissions from a specific high-emission activity. An example would be a long flight. Or they can buy offsets on a regular basis to eliminate their ongoing carbon footprint.

Do I Need Carbon Offsets or Carbon Credits?

Now that you know their differences and what they have in common, here’s how carbon credits and carbon offsets work in the grand, global scheme of emissions reduction.

The government is putting heavy caps on GHG emissions, meaning that companies will have to reconfigure operations to reduce emissions as much as possible. Those that cannot be eliminated will have to be accounted for through the purchase of carbon credits. Ambitious organizations, corporations, and people can purchase carbon offsets to nullify previous emissions or to reach net zero.

So which do you need? If you’re a corporation, the answer is likely “both”—but it all depends on your business goals. If you’re a consumer, carbon credits are likely unavailable to you. But you can do your part by purchasing carbon offsets.

Returning to the illustration from earlier, our vital, global goal is to both stop dumping chemicals into the metaphorical water supply, and to purify the existing water supply over time. In other words, we need to both drastically reduce CO2 emissions. And then we work to remove the CO2 currently in the atmosphere if we want to materially reduce pollution.

*Note: See our in-depth articles on carbon credits and carbon offsets for a closer look at how they work.

 

1...789...137Page 8 of 137