ENERGY & RESOURCES Archives

August 6, 2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Decarbonization of Steel Industry: A Rocky Road Ahead

1.4kviews

Continuously rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emission is a leading cause of climate change which is considered to be one of the most pressing issues the world is facing today. Being one of the biggest contributors to CO2 emission, steel industry has garnered wide-spread criticism over the years. Several alternatives to conventional steelmaking process have been developed in an effort to reduce CO2 emission, however, the question is whether the producers of this shining grey alloy are ready to face the challenges in implementation of cleaner technologies.

Steel industry strives to move towards a low-carbon future

Global crude steel production increased from 1,808.6 million tons in 2018 to 1,869.9 million tons in 2019, registering 3.4% year-on-year growth. World Steel Association indicated that, on average for 2018, for every ton of steel produced, 1.82 tons of CO2 were emitted. In the same year, steelmaking accounted for 7% of the total CO2 emissions globally.

UN Paris agreement on climate change, inked in 2015, outlines a global framework to ensure global temperatures do not rise above 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. To align with the goals set out in the Paris agreement, the steel industry will be required to reduce its CO2 emissions by 65% by 2050, as compared to 2014 emission levels.

Leading steel producers along with other stakeholders in the value chain, including automotive giants, banking and financial institutions, raw materials suppliers, and environmental organizations, came together in 2016 to establish ResponsibleSteel, an initiative to develop global standards and certification program aimed at reducing carbon emission in the steelmaking process and improve sustainability. Besides ArcelorMittal, the biggest steel producer in the world and one of the founding members of the ResponsibleSteel initiative, other steel producers such as Aperam, BlueScope Steel, Outokumpu, VAMA, and Voestalpine have also joined the initiative.

Alternative technologies to reduce CO2 emission at every stage of steelmaking process

Steel is produced either from iron ore or scrap. Conventionally, ore-based steel is produced in blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) which is undoubtedly the most carbon-intensive steelmaking process. This is because BF-BOF route uses coking coal as reducing agent as well as source of energy. World Steel Association indicated that, in 2018, coal accounted for about 90% of a BF-BOF’s energy input, while 7% energy input came from electricity, and remaining from natural gas and other sources. Overall, for every ton of steel produced through BF-BOF route, about 2.3 tons of CO2 is emitted.

To reduce CO2 emission in BF-BOF route, it has been proposed to substitute coking coal with biofuel. Biofuel is also carbon-based but it does not contribute to greenhouse gases upon combustion. Hence, its impact on the environment is comparatively lower. By using biofuels in BF-BOF, the CO2 emissions can be almost halved.

Moreover, combining BOF route with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology can also help to reduce CO2 emission

by almost 60%. CCS technology allows to capture the CO2 emissions produced from the use of fossil fuels in steelmaking process, thus preventing the CO2 from entering the atmosphere. CCS technologies are quite advanced and can be retrofitted with the existing infrastructure used for BF-BOF production processes.

Direct reduced iron (DRI) is another steelmaking technology in which the metal is reduced directly from the ore in solid state without the need to melt it. DRI route generally uses natural gas as reducing agent, which reduces the carbon emission by about 50% as compared to BF-BOF route. About 5% of the global steel production is done through DRI route.

Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) is a dominant technology used to produce recycled steel from scrap. EAF are smaller and less expensive than BF-BOF. Moreover, in case of EAF route, coking coal is not consumed as a reducing agent, and thus the CO2 emission is much lower. Further, as per World Steel Association estimates, in 2018, for EAF route, electricity was the main source of energy accounting for 50% of the total energy input, followed by natural gas which accounted for 38% of energy input. In the same year, coal represented only for 11% of the total energy input for EAF route. EAF emits only about 0.4 ton of CO2 per ton of steel produced. The CO2 emission can be further reduced in the EAF route by using zero-carbon sources for electricity.

There are a few other technologies which are still in the research phase, but have the potential to provide a breakthrough in future. For instance, research is ongoing on use of hydrogen in place of coking coal, as reaction of hydrogen with the iron ore generates water vapor as a by-product instead of CO2. Several leading steel companies including SSAB, ArcelorMittal, and Thyssenkrupp Steel are exploring and conducting feasibility studies to test this new concept. Another technology being explored involves reduction of iron ore through direct electrolysis at temperatures of about 1,600 degrees Celsius. This technology is already being widely used in aluminum production, but it is still in early phase of research for steel production.

Challenges in implementation

Eco-friendly steelmaking process is technically achievable but there are several challenges in implementation at commercial scale. Thus, steel industry lacks the incentive to adopt environment-friendly low-carbon technologies in the current business environment.

Even though a number of alternatives to BF-BOF route have been developed for ore-based steel production, about 95% of the ore-based steel is still being produced through BF-BOF route. The industry has been making constant efforts to make changes and improvement in BF-BOF process with a view to reduce carbon emissions. For instance, the replacing of coking coal with biofuel in BF-BOF route is a mature technology, but feasibility to implement this on large-scale depends on availability of biofuel, which varies from region to region. Thus, countries such as Brazil that have large biofuel resources have commercial-scale biofuel-based BF-BOF steel production, but it is not feasible for countries that do not have sufficient biofuel resources.

Similarly, DRI technology uses mainly natural gas as input and as the natural gas availability varies significantly from region to region, the feasibility of implementing DRI technology depends on the location.

CCS seems to be a promising alternative but it demands a large investment in construction of infrastructure for storage and transportation of CO2. A study released by Global Carbon Capture and Storage Initiative (GCCSI) in 2017 indicated that costs for capturing CO2 from steel furnaces could be estimated around US$65-US$70 per ton of CO2. For steel producers operating on competitive margins, this is a significant cost; thus, they seek strong incentives or policy reforms from their governments to support their investment in CCS. At present, only a handful of countries including, the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and Denmark have CCS-specific policies and these policies vary significantly from country to country. Since steel is a globally traded commodity, the difference in government policies and framework may impact the competitiveness of the steel producers. Thus, lack of global regulatory framework for CCS is a major barrier in wide-scale implementation of the technology.

Scrap-based steel produced using EAF technology accounts for over one-fourth of the total global steel production and it is less carbon-intensive than ore-based steel. Hence, in order to keep the CO2 emissions in check, it is essential to increase the contribution of scrap-based steel in fulfilling the overall steel demand. But the quality of recycled steel is low compared to primary steel produced directly from iron ore, which makes it unsuitable for some specific applications such as construction. Moreover, steel scrap generally has high copper content which becomes problematic during the recycling process because it causes cracks. Application of such type of recycled steel is extremely limited. In order to give a boost to production of recycled steel over ore-based steel, it is important to overcome these downcycling problems.

EOS Perspective

While there are several challenges in implementation of alternative technologies in steelmaking process to reduce CO2 emission, steel producers are under pressure to act in wake of rising carbon prices. 86% of the industry’s production comes under the purview of existing or planned carbon pricing markets.

A study published in July 2019 by CDP, a non-profit environmental advocacy group, pointed out that the world’s 20 largest publicly-listed steel companies, which together account for over 30% of the global steel production, could suffer an average loss of 14% if the carbon price rise to US$100 by 2040. The report also indicated that about 60% of the companies have set some target for carbon emission reduction, of which, target of only two companies align with the Paris agreement goals. The 20 companies under study are expected to cumulatively reduce the CO2 emissions by less than 50% by 2050, which is much less than the target of 65% reduction in CO2 emission required to meet the Paris agreement goals. This clearly shows that the steel producers are underprepared to align with the global climate change goals. The need of the hour is to embrace radical technology changes, but high cost, limited resources, and lack of unified and global policy framework are the main barriers disincentivizing the steel industry to move towards low carbon future.

However, with the support of the governments, technology innovators, and other stakeholders, some steel giants are working on several green initiatives to reduce the CO2 emissions. Most pilot projects are concentrated in Europe, as companies in this region are receiving immense support from the European Commission in view of its goal to make EU carbon neutral by 2050. The table highlights key projects undertaken by the leading steel companies to move towards low-carbon future.

Currency Conversion as on 26 March:
€1 = US$1.10
SEK1 = US$0.10

July 22, 2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Nigerian Power Woes Cripple Businesses

1.5kviews

Achieving efficient generation and distribution of electricity in Nigeria has over the years remained a sore point and a major threat to growth of the economy. Poor electricity supply has serious consequences for the businesses in the country, with several existing companies struggling to maintain profitability and new players shying away from entering the market. The government has undertaken several measures, including transferring majority of the power infrastructure from government to private hands, however, it has not managed to improve the situation. Ambitious policies and agreements with multinational energy companies might just be the key to solve Nigeria’s energy problems.

Nigeria is considered most abundant in natural reserves and is the largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa. The country has the potential to generate about 11,000-12,000 MW of electric power from existing plants. Despite this, Nigeria is only able to generate about 4,000 MW on most days, which is less than one-third of what is required to provide for its more than 190 million citizens.

According to a 2014 World Bank survey, about 27% of Nigerian businesses identified electricity as the main hurdle in doing business. Also, IMF estimated per capita electricity production in Nigeria to be less than 25% of that of the Sub-Saharan Africa average. The gap between the electricity generation capacity and demand in the country is a result of poorly maintained electricity generation facilities and very little investment in new power plants as well as an outdated transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Government action or lack thereof

Nigeria’s power sector has suffered from mismanagement and corruption for many years. Since Nigeria’s independence from the British rule in 1960, the government set up a heavily subsidized grid, which was subject to high level of corruption and was never able to generate enough profits to finance new power plants or upgrade the transmission and distribution network to meet the needs of the growing population. In addition to its inability to upgrade, the electricity sector suffers from a huge range of issues, ranging from leakages in power transmission and distribution, to lack of maintenance, to theft and vandalism.

In an effort to combat the country’s energy poverty, the government liberalized the power sector in the early 2001 in hope to attract foreign investments. However, the plan didn’t work as expected. Instead, privatization increased corruption as the political members tried to appoint political allies and family members to head the new distribution companies.

According to a 2018 publication by the Istituto Affari Internazionali, an Italian non-profit think tank, Nigeria has been steadily generating 4,000 MW/h since 2005, with no increase in output over the past decade. This is costing the Nigerian economy a great deal as businesses and industries suffer due to regular power outages. Moreover, as per a 2018 estimate by A2EI (a Berlin-based collaborative R&D platform in the solar off-grid industry), Nigerians spend NGN4.3 billion (US$12 million) annually on small gasoline generators, of which NGN2.9 billion (US$ 8 million) is spent on fuel.

Nigeria’s energy poverty affecting businesses across industries and sizes

Manufacturing and trading industry

Poor electricity supply is affecting the manufacturing industry in an immense way. A typical Nigerian factory experiences power outage or voltage fluctuations approximately eight to ten times a week, with each power outage lasting about two hours. This adds to the cost of production through lost material, damaged products, and restarting the factory equipment. This makes the manufacturing business unattractive to investors since the overhead costs are high, return is low, and the business environment is largely uncertain.

To combat the power issue, companies depend on diesel generators for power backup, however, this significantly adds to the cost of the product, which in turn affects the competitiveness of the business since whatever is produced in the country is more expensive when compared with production costs in other regions.

In addition to electricity shortage, prices and availability of fuel for operating the generators also impact businesses. While small business generators are powered by price-capped gasoline, the larger generators that power big businesses, apartment complexes, and big homes can only be run on diesel, which in turn is volatile with regards to pricing and supply.

According to a market intelligence firm based in Lagos, SBM Intelligence, diesel is among the top three cost heads for many Nigerian firms. Moreover, with the price of diesel also being volatile, many businesses operate with a constant risk of increasing overhead cost, which may result in reduction in output, downsizing, or even business closure. This was seen in May 2015 when Nigeria was hit by fuel scarcity, which caused many traders and businesses to shut shop as they could not afford diesel for their generators.

One business sector most impacted by Nigeria’s energy poverty is the perishable food sector. Nigeria’s fuel scarcity in 2015, caused the loss of approximately NGN10 million (US$27,000) worth of food items. Similarly, as per members of the Ajeromi Frozen Foods Market Association in Lagos, a severe bout of power outage in March 2016 resulted in the decay (and thereby loss) of frozen food worth NGN20 million (US$55,000) in just five days.

Apart from this, small businesses are also severely impacted by Nigeria’s power shortage. Most small shops cannot afford complete generator back up and therefore suffer with limited working hours and sub-par working conditions. For the ones that can afford a generator, the cost of it is very high, squeezing out profits from their already limited setup. For instance, a small tailor shop with a daily income of about NGN4,000 (US$11) spends close to NGN3,000 (US$8.2) daily on fueling their generator to keep the business going, highlighting the disproportionately high cost of electricity to run a small business in the country.

According to a market intelligence firm based in Lagos, SBM Intelligence, diesel is among the top three cost heads for many Nigerian firms. Moreover, with the price of diesel also being volatile, many businesses operate with a constant risk of increasing overhead cost, which may result in reduction in output, downsizing, or even business closure.

Technology sector

Nigeria’s tech industry accords for approximately 14% of the Nigeria’s GDP in 2019 and is poised to be the next frontier for growth. However, constant power outages have become a serious problem for the booming sector. Most tech companies operate around the clock to provide a 24*7 service to their customers, however, in Nigeria, most app companies operate for only 8-9 hours a day as they cannot sustain generator costs for the entire 24 hours. This impacts the quality of service provided.

As per Chris Oyeniyi, owner of a smartphone app called KariGo, electricity cost (including generator cost) on a monthly basis is about US$800 for the bare minimum number of operating hours. The same electricity bill would be around US$100 if the public power grid was dependable. This hampers growth for tech start-ups, which have to allocate significant amount of their funds towards power supply instead of using them for expanding, both in terms of scale and staff.

In an attempt to overcome this challenge, several technology start-ups prefer to work in co-working spaces that allow them to pool their electricity bills. This concept is becoming very popular in the country, however, despite this, generator costs remain very high to provide around the clock services.

In addition to the high costs, technology firms also operate with a constant risk of losing all their digital work (that is not backed up) or hampering important software updates in case of a sudden blackout.

According to a survey of 93 Nigerian tech start-ups by the Center for Global Development conducted in 2019, 57% of start-ups found power outages to be one of the biggest challenges for their business. Moreover, one-third of the firms surveyed reported losing more than 20% of their sales due to power outages.

Other sectors

Just like the manufacturing and technology sector, most of the other industries are also impacted by irregular power supply and thereby rely on large generators to run their operations. This puts additional cost pressures on the business.

In 2019, Temi Popoola, the West Africa chief executive of investment bank Renaissance Capital, stated that diesel accounts for approximately 20-30% of banks’ operating expenses in Nigeria, which is significantly higher compared with other developing countries.

The telecom sector is also vulnerable to the power outages faced by the country. In 2015, MTN, a telecom giant, stated that it spends approximately NGN8 billion (US$22 million) annually on diesel to keep its network online. This is a huge cost and accounts for about 60% of its operating costs. Due to such heavy operating costs, the company is forced to focus more on sustaining its day-to-day activities rather than investing in any other area such as expanding its network.

The road ahead

Currently there does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel for Nigeria’s power woes. With high level of corruption paralyzing the sector and limited amount of new private investment, the sector is in a state of limbo.

Moreover, there are constant disagreements between the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Company (NBET) and the private power generating companies, which further impact electricity supply. Recently, in September 2019, another issue came into the light, when NBET directed all thermal electricity generation companies (GenCos) to pay an administrative charge. To oppose this, the GenCos have threatened to shut down power production and supply and argued that there is no policy directive to that effect by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC). The two sides have not managed to reach any consensus as of now. However, such additional charges will further put financial pressure on already struggling GenCos, who have largely failed to improve their generation levels due to lack of capital for maintenance and operation. This will further negatively impact the already dismal grid supply levels.

Nigeria is dealing with another legal dispute over a hydro power project with a proposed capacity of 3,050 MW. In 2003, the Nigerian government awarded the build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract to a local company, Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited (SPTCL) and followed it up with signing a general project execution agreement with the company in November 2012. However, simultaneously, the government also awarded the bid to execute the hydro project to a JV between China Gezhouba Group Corporation of China (CGGCC) and China Geo-Engineering Group Corporation (CGGC) in 2006.

Moreover, in 2017, it signed another engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract with Sinohhydro Corporation of China, CGGCC and CGGC to form a joint venture but excluded SPTCL from the agreement. Following this SPTCL filed a legal suit against the federal government and its Chinese partners at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris for breaching the contract. The government risks approximately US$2.3 million in fines in this legal tussle. Moreover, the Chinese government refused to provide the required funding for the project (US$5.8 billion) until the legal dispute is settled. Thus, the project is on hold until any legal solution is reached.

However, that being said, the Nigerian government is ambitiously trying to revive the country’s electricity sector. In 2017, the government developed a National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan, under which it aims to achieve 30,000 MW electricity by 2030, with renewable energy accounting for 30% of the overall energy mix (9,000 MW). The government plans to adopt ‘The Sustainable Energy for All Action Agenda’ (SE4ALL), which is a UN initiative to support sustainable energy in Africa, with targets of 90% Nigerians having access to electricity by 2030.

To this effect, in May 2019, Central Bank of Nigeria announced the disbursement of NGN120.2 billion (US$330 million) to different distribution companies, power generating companies, service providers, and gas companies in order to improve their liquidity situation. Furthermore, in 2018, the government secured a loan of US$485 million from the World Bank to upgrade the country’s electricity transmission network and infrastructure and is currently in talks about a US$2.5 billion additional loan to uplift the power sector.

The government has also signed a six year power deal with the German energy giant Siemens, with an aim to generate a minimum of 25,000 MW of electricity by 2025. As a part of this deal, Siemens will work alongside the Transmission Company of Nigeria to achieve 7,000 MW and 11,000 MW of reliable power supply by 2021 and 2023, respectively. Thus in addition to building new generation capacity, the government is also focusing on improving supply from the existing grids, which has been stagnant at around 4,000 MW over more than a decade.

Moreover, the country’s energy sector is receiving significant support from international bodies such as PowerAfrica, which is a wing of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Over the past few years, PowerAfrica has been assisting the government in agreements on solar projects that help Nigeria in diversifying its energy mix. In 2015, PowerAfrica supported Nigeria’s first private IPP Project (the Azura Edo Project) to reach financial close in 2015. It also assisted it in securing a US$50 million investment by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). The Azura plant (the first project initiated by Azura power) became operational in 2018 with 461 MW capacity. It is the first phase of the 1,500 MW IPP (Independent Power Project) facility that is being developed in Nigeria. In December 2019, Africa50 (a pan-Africa infrastructure investment platform) expressed its plans to invest in the Azura power plant.

Growing private investments, international support, and supportive government policies as well as investment may just lift up the Nigerian electricity sector, which has been in dire need for reform over several decades.

In 2017, the Nigerian government developed a National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan, under which it aims to achieve 30,000 MW electricity by 2030, with renewable energy accounting for 30% of the overall energy mix (9,000 MW).

EOS Perspective

As per the International Centre for Investigative Reporting (ICIR), the Nigerian government has spent approximately NGN1.164 trillion (US$3.2 billion) on the power sector during 2011-2018 without any significant improvement in energy supply. Poor power supply has been crippling the country for many decades now.

Large businesses, especially in the technology sector, could help boost the economy but like any other business, they require electricity to run successfully. Nigeria lacks the basic business environment at the moment. Moreover, ongoing issues with the private generation players further hamper the sectors growth and performance.

Recently, the government has made several moves in the right direction (especially with regards to investment in renewable energy sources), but it is too early to comment if they could solve Nigeria’s decades-long energy problem. Moreover, the real issue is not about investment levels or government policies, but about the implementation of these initiatives. As seen previously at the time of privatization of the sector, the government failed to uplift the sector as it was plagued by corruption, favoritism, and bureaucracy.

Similarly, the government adopted a policy in 2010 called Vision 20:20, wherein it aimed to be featured in the top 20 economies globally by 2020. Within the power sector, Vision 20:20 aimed to increase generation capacity to 20,000 MW by 2015 and 35,000 MW by 2020. However, it failed to make significant investments or incentivize private players to invest in the sector and failed miserably in its goals. If the same is repeated now, the result will not be very different.

The government’s plans can only be implemented if there is substantial transformation of the entire sector, with the private sector participating equally in the upliftment. The government needs to provide significant financial incentives for new power projects and must also restructure the distribution companies to improve liquidity. Lastly it must counter the corruption and bureaucracy seeped into the sector and ensure that generating companies receive complete and timely cost-reflective tariff from the government. While these measures are difficult to achieve, they are the only way the sector can see any respite in the coming years.

March 4, 2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

The EU Green Deal – Good on Paper but Is That Enough?

745views

The EU, which has always been ahead of the curve in tackling climate change and ensuring emission control, has rolled out a new EU Green Deal in December 2019. The Green Deal is the most ambitious environmental policy devised by the EU and encompasses several targets and policy measures that will require a complete overhaul in how business across sectors is currently done in the region.

In the beginning of December 2019, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, unveiled a suite of policies known as the EU New Green Deal and called it Europe’s ‘man on the moon moment’. EU’s Green Deal is aimed at decarbonizing the economy and encompasses a host of policy measures including a plan to ensure EU reaches net-zero emissions by 2050.

To this effect, it has also increased its carbon emission reduction targets from 40% to 55% for 2030. This is the ubiquitous goal for the Commission and all its measures and policies are to be aligned to achieve this objective. Thus, the EU Commission is expected to review and align laws and regulations, such as the Renewable Energy Directive, Energy Efficiency Directive, and Emissions Trading Directive among many others, over the next couple of years to ensure that they are tuned to support the ambitious climate goals. Moreover, taxation will also be aligned with climate objectives to ensure effectiveness.

Policy measures

In order to achieve this objective of carbon neutrality, the EU Commission is focusing on energy efficiency since the production and use of energy across the EU states accounts for 75% of EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The EU member states are revising their energy and climate plans to ensure higher dependence on renewable sources (especially offshore wind energy production) and phasing out coal and gas-based energy. Moreover, the Commission has also guided member states to review and update their energy infrastructure to ensure the use of innovative and energy-efficient technologies such as smart grids and hydrogen networks.

The Commission is also working towards adopting a new EU industrial strategy along with a new circular economy action plan. The plan will focus on decarbonizing and modernizing several energy-intensive industries, such as steel, chemicals, and cement. It will also include a ‘sustainable product policy’ that will prioritize reducing and reusing materials before recycling them. Moreover, while the circular economy action plan will be applied across all sectors, it will be most relevant for resource-intensive sectors such as textiles, construction, electronics, and plastics.

The plan will focus on fostering new business models that drive sustainable use of resources, set regulations and minimum standards to prevent environmentally harmful products from being sold in EU markets, as well as set a regulatory framework to ensure that all packaging in the EU is reusable or recyclable in an economically viable manner by 2030. In addition to this, the Commission aims at achieving ‘clean steelmaking’ by 2030 by using hydrogen for the process and introduce new legislation by 2020 to ensure that all batteries are reusable and recyclable.

Understanding that construction, use, and renovation of buildings account for a significant part (about 40%) of energy consumed in the EU, the Commission aims at improving energy efficiency in this sector by focusing on more frequent renovations. A quicker renovation rate helps improve the energy performance of buildings and is effective in lowering energy bills and reducing energy poverty. Currently, the annual renovation rate of buildings in the EU states ranges between 0.4% and 1.2%. However, the Commission is looking to at least double the renovation rate to reach its energy efficiency and climate objectives.

In addition to this, the Commission is also working towards curbing carbon emissions from transportation, which accounts for about 25% of EU’s total greenhouse gas emissions. In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the current transport emission levels would be needed to be cut down by about 90%. To attain this, the Commission has planned for significant investment in boosting electric vehicles and plans to deploy 1 million public recharging stations across the EU states by 2025. Moreover, in July 2021, the Commission plans to revise the legislation on CO₂emission performance standards for cars and vans to achieve its target of zero-emission mobility by 2025.

With regards to commercial transport, the EU Commission aims at pushing automated and digitized multimodal transport. It aims at shifting 75% of inland freight currently carried by road to rail and inland waterways. Moreover, it aims at deploying smart traffic management systems and sustainable mobility services that will facilitate a reduction in congestion and pollution.

The Commission also plans to align agriculture and food production with its climate goals. To this effect, the Commission is expected to present a ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy in spring 2020, which aims to introduce and strengthen policies in the agriculture and fisheries space so that they are well equipped to tackle climate change and preserve biodiversity. As per the Commission’s new proposal, 40% of the agricultural policy’s budget and 30% of the maritime fisheries fund within the EU 2021-2027 budget will contribute to climate action and objectives. In addition to this, the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy aims at significantly reducing the use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics and in turn increase the area under organic farming.

In addition to agriculture, the EU Commission also aims at preserving and restoring biodiversity. To this effect, the Commission will present a new ‘Biodiversity Strategy’ by March 2020, which will be shared at the UN Biodiversity Summit to be held in China in October 2020. The biodiversity strategy is expected to be brought to action in 2021 and will cover measures aimed to address the key drivers of biodiversity loss such as soil and water pollution. The policy will also encompass a new EU forest strategy that will focus on afforestation, forest preservation, and restoration, which in turn will increase CO₂ absorption and aid EU’s ambitious climate goals.

Lastly, the EU Commission plans to reach a ‘pollution-free environment’ by 2050. For this purpose, it plans to review and revise measures that monitor pollution from large industrial installations. Moreover, to ensure a toxic-free environment, the Commission will present a sustainable chemicals strategy that will protect the environment (and citizens) against hazardous chemicals and encourage innovation for the development of safe and sustainable alternatives.

Global trade

The EU’s Green Deal is ambitious, with measures in place to achieve this goal. However, the economic bloc cannot realize this goal in isolation. To get other countries to act on climate change and also prevent the influx of cheaper imports from countries that do not have similar strict policies on carbon emissions, the EU plans to propose a border adjustment carbon tax. This carbon tax is expected to be introduced by 2021 with an initial focus on industries such as steel, cement, and aluminum. The tax may hamper imports from the USA and China as well as smaller countries that cannot afford such climate-based policy measures. However, there is still some ambiguity regarding the tax as it may breach WTO rules, which require equal treatment for similar products, whether domestic or international.

Investment

To achieve this arduous goal, the EU will require a significant amount of additional investment. For starters, the Commission will require additional investment of about EUR260 billion (~US$288 billion) per annum only to achieve the 2030 goal (of reducing carbon emissions by 55%). This is about 1.5% of the EU’s 2018 GDP. Thus it is safe to assume that the investment required for achieving zero emissions by 2050 will be much higher.

The magnitude of the investment requirement will call for participation from both the public and private sector. To achieve this, the commission will present a Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, which will help meet the additional funding needs. The Plan will provide dedicated financing to support sustainable projects in addition to building a proposal for an improved regulatory framework. The commission has also proposed to dedicate at least 25% of the EU’s long-term budget towards achieving climate-based objectives. Moreover, the European Investment Bank (EIB), which has about EUR550 billion funds in its balance sheet, has also pledged to increase its lending towards green projects, thereby becoming a climate bank of sorts. While EIB is already in the process to phase out financing fossil fuel dependent projects by 2021, the bank aims for 50% of its financing to go towards green projects by 2025 (up from 28% in 2019).

In order to ensure an easy and fair transition to climate neutrality, the Commission plans to mobilize a EUR100 billion fund to help regions most dependent on fossil fuels or carbon-intensive sectors. The fund, also called the ‘Just Transition Mechanism’ fund will be funded from the EU’s regional policy budget as well as the EIB. The fund will be used primarily to support and protect citizens most vulnerable to the transition by providing access to re-skilling programs, technical assistance, jobs in new sectors, or energy-efficient housing.

Moreover, the Horizon Europe research and innovation program will also contribute to the Green Deal. As per a new agreement between the EU members in May 2019, 35% of the EUR 100 billion (US$110 billion) research budget for 2021-2027 will be used for funding clean tech and climate-related projects.

With regards to the private sector participating in this green transition, the commission will present a Green Financing Strategy in Q3 2020, which is expected to incentivize the private sector to invest in sustainable and green projects.

To this effect the Commission has created a classification system that for the first time defines what is considered as ‘green projects’ or ‘sustainable economic activities’. This classification is also termed as the ‘green list’ or ‘taxonomy’. This will help redirect private and public capital to projects that are actually sustainable and in turn help the transition to climate neutrality and prohibit ‘greenwashing’, i.e. the practice of marketing financial products as ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ when actually they do not meet basic environmental standards.

Moreover, it will be made mandatory for companies and financial institutions to provide full disclosure on their climate and environmental impact to clearly lay out how their portfolio stands with regards to the set taxonomy criteria. This is expected to not only increase the transparency of the financial markets but also steer more private investments towards financing an economy that is aligned towards a green transition.

The Taxonomy Criteria

The EU Commission set out a basic framework to define what can be termed as a sustainable economic activity. It sets out six environmental objectives and four requirements that need to be complied with in order to make it to the green list.

Six objectives are as follows:

1. Climate change mitigation

2. Climate change adaptation

3. Sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources

4. Transition to a circular economy

5. Pollution prevention and control

6. Protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems

Four requirements that need to be met to qualify are as follows:

1. Must provide a substantial contribution to at least one of the six environmental objectives

2. Must not provide ‘any significant harm’ to any of the other environmental objectives

3. Must have compliance with robust and science-based technical screening criteria

4. Must have compliance with minimum social and governance safeguards

While this provides a general framework, detailed rules and thresholds along with a list of sustainable economic activities will be assessed and developed based on recommendations from a ‘Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance’, which is advising the European Commission on this matter.

EOS Perspective

The Green Deal makes EU the world’s largest economic bloc to adopt such ambitious measures that aim to cease or offset all emissions created by them by mid-century. As per climate scientists, this is necessary to ensure that global temperatures do not rise by more than 1.5-2˚C above the 1990 levels.

While these goals sound promising, they are rarely achieved because they are usually not binding. However, in this case the commission announced that the net-zero emission target would be made legally binding. While that does make achieving the Green Deal objectives more promising, many experts still remain skeptical about the bloc’s capability to achieve it. This is given the fact that the EU has failed to meet 29 (out of 35) environmental and climate targets for 2020. These include energy savings, air, water, and soil pollution, etc.

Moreover, the plan can only be achieved if the EU Council, Commission, and the Parliament, come together and work in tandem and in a timely manner and also work individually with member states to ensure guidelines are converted into actions. For instance, currently CO₂are taxed at different levels across member states (EUR 112 (US$123) per ton in Sweden, EUR 45 (US$50) per ton in France and tax-exempt in Germany). To get all member states to agree at a common point and have a pan-EU strategy is a difficult task. Thus, while the EU has devised an all-encompassing strategy and dedicated significant funds to the same, results will only materialize if there is inclusive and credible implementation of the plans.

In addition to this, there is also some criticism of the policy at a global level, with some nations indicating that it has more to do with protectionism rather than climate goals, owing to its policy on border adjustment carbon tax. Since the EU has more measures and flexibility to cut emissions in its own region, it creates an unfair disadvantage for its trade partners (some of who are still in the developing stage and cannot afford such measures). Moreover, given the technical and political complexities of the carbon tax (with regards to WTO and other trade treaties), it is unlikely that it will be implemented before 2024, which is when the current President Ursula von der Leyen’s term gets over. This will further make its implementation dicey.

However, all being said, the EU Green Deal is a policy in the right direction. With the blueprints being laid down, now it all depends on the implementation. While few measures may be difficult to achieve, there is a lot of unanimous backing for green finance. An increasing number of investors is moving away from ‘brown’ assets towards climate-friendly investments. Irrespective of the outcome or success of the Green Deal, green investments are definitely the future. Thus companies, both within the EU as well as globally, must look at innovating their processes as well as products/services to align them with climate goals to lure both public and private funding in the long run.

February 13, 2020by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Is Sustainability Just Another Buzzword in Food Packaging Industry?

350views

Sustainable food packaging has recently received an increased attention within the food & beverage sector. Most players try to make sure not to miss any chance of communicating their concern over plastic waste to the general public, showcasing their initiatives taken to curb the waste. Are such initiatives taken out of actual concern or are they just a move to position the brands right in the ‘environmentally-concerned’ market?

It is assumed that packaging is considered sustainable, if it meets three criteria of sustainability. First, it should be economically viable for the consumers as well as the manufacturers. Second, it should be socially acceptable in terms of ease of use, transporting, sorting, and storing. Most importantly, third, the packaging must be eco-friendly through the use of materials that are responsibly-sourced and reusable/recyclable, to reduce the environmental impact of the packaging.

Change fueled by multiple triggers

Food and beverage (F&B) and related packaging industry players have been under a growing pressure to be more transparent and to introduce changes to the way food products are packaged. Considering that a significant share of non-sustainable, non-biodegradable waste, especially plastic, comes from food industry, improving the packaging and transitioning to more eco-friendly solutions is becoming imperative, rather than optional, for increasing number of F&B companies.

At the same time, the pressure to reduce waste and protect the environment from non-biodegradable substances is creating new opportunities for the packaging materials producers and for F&B companies with regards to more relevant brand positioning in this highly competitive industry.

While a lot has been changing in the packaging sphere under the heat from environmentalists and legal requirements introduced by regulators, the role of an aware consumer exerting pressure through product scrutiny and shopping choices should not be underestimated in this process.

According to a report published in April 2019 by Globalwebindex, a market research company, there has been a rise in the number of consumers globally who are willing to pay more for eco-friendly/sustainable products (including their packaging), from 49% in 2011 to 57% in 2018. Consumer awareness is growing fast thanks to governments’ initiatives, educational media, and activists’ social media efforts, all of which have triggered an increased sense of responsibility amongst many consumers, who start to understand the importance of switching to eco-friendly and sustainable packaging.

Increasingly, consumer awareness is going beyond just passive understanding and translates into actions which have a real power to change F&B sector’s approach to food packaging. Consumers vote with their spending dollars and exert pressure by switching their loyalty to other brands, both of which approaches appear to be quite effective. According to the same survey by Globalwebindex, 61% of consumers are likely to switch from their currently-used brands to more environmentally-friendly ones if the latter score better on the environmental friendliness front. This shows that F&B companies really do need to re-think their product and packaging choices and start putting money and effort in sustainable solutions, if not from real concern over the environment, then for retaining consumer trust and maintaining brand values.

Big F&B brands appear to show initiative

The increased scrutiny over F&B companies’ packaging choices has already started bringing some results. Several major players are looking to invest in transforming their packaging materials to sustainable ones. Despite the challenges in bringing innovations into packaging materials and designs, and altering their supply chain, several F&B players are claiming to strive for their sustainability goals. Some claims may surely be genuine but some could possibly be a strategy to get the ‘sustainable company’ tag to stand out from the competition in the F&B industry.

Understandably, players are very vocal about their initiatives targeted at improving their eco-friendly standing to appeal to the environmentally-concerned consumers. F&B brands such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, Nestle, to name a few, have already announced time-bound plans to revolutionize their packaging models.

For example, in January 2018, the beverage giant Coca-Cola announced a goal to collect and recycle the equivalent of every bottle it sells globally by 2030. The company with its bottling partners started an initiative with a plan called “World Without Waste” that is focused on entire packaging cycle from designing and manufacturing of bottles to their recycling. For the execution of this plan, the company plans to educate the public on what, how, and where to recycle, teaming up with local communities, NGOs, industry peers, and consumers. Furthermore, under the plan of “World Without Waste”, the company aspires to create packaging from at least 50% recycled materials by 2030 and continue pursuing the goal to make all consumer packaging 100% recyclable by 2025.

In addition to this, in October 2019, Coca-Cola European Partners (CCEP), the largest independent Coca-Cola bottler, announced it would switch the carriers on its multipacks from shrink wrap to paperboard to reduce packaging waste. The company claims that with this switch it will remove about 4,000 metric tons of single-use plastic per year from its current supply chain. The paperboard packaging is planned to be certified from either the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC). Similarly, in January 2019, Coca-Cola packaging partner, Coca-Cola Amatil Australia, announced to cease the distribution of single-use plastic straws and stirrers, and distribute biodegradable Forest Stewardship Council accredited recyclable paper straws.

According to a report by Packaging Gateway, Coca-Cola claims to have made 88% of the consumer packaging recyclable, while its packaging used 30% of recycled material by the end of 2018. Also, about 58% of the equivalent of bottles and cans introduced by the company into the developed markets were refilled, collected, or recycled during 2018. Overall, the company’s recover and recycle rate was said to be 56% in 2018 as compared to 59% during 2017 or 61% in 2014. This proves that with growing sales, Coca-Cola’s efforts might not make as much impact as the company would want the public to think.

Nevertheless, the company is undertaking further initiatives to improve its environmental score. It committed to invest US$15 million in Circulate Capital, an investment management firm dedicated to incubating and financing companies and infrastructure that work upon curbing the plastic waste thrown into the oceans. Further plans of the company include increasing the use of recycled plastic in Australia by 2020.

In another example, PepsiCo also talks about becoming an environment-friendly company, announcing to use 25% of recycled content in its plastic packaging by 2025. In order to meet its target, in September 2018, the company announced its participation in the World Economic Forum’s Global Plastic Action Partnership (GPAP). The partnership focuses on stakeholders located in coastal economies, such as those in Southeast Asia, and its purpose is to help businesses, communities, and local governments redesign waste management to create circular models that include collecting waste and recycling or composting it to reduce waste streams to the oceans or landfills.

PepsiCo also announced other targets for improved sustainability to be achieved by 2025. These include to re-design all of its packaging to be recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable, to reduce virgin plastic content by 35% across its beverage portfolio, and to amp up investment to increase recycling rates in key markets.

Apart from individual targets, another initiative was also launched in October 2019 jointly by a few beverage players. As reported by a publishing firm, William Reed, three beverage companies, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper, announced their partnership with World Wildlife Fund, The Recycling Partnership, and Closed Loop Partners under the “Every Bottle Back” initiative. This initiative, starting in late 2020, will include investment of US$100 million and will focus on sorting, processing, and collecting discarded plastic bottles in four US regions. The initiative also targets to educate consumers that PET bottles are 100% recyclable, easily remade into new plastic, bottles, shirts, shoes, coats, park benches, and playground equipment, by introducing pack label messaging.

Smaller players are emerging with packaging innovations

The pressure to embrace sustainable packaging is even greater for smaller and mid-size F&B companies, if they want to stay relevant to the customers, grasp their attention, and grow own market share. Smaller players in the industry seem to understand this and have proven to be more agile in introducing new products that focus on organic ingredients with sustainable packaging, while challenging big brands’ prices.

For example, in March 2016, Alter Eco Foods, a San Francisco-based chocolate-centric, healthy indulgence, and sustainability-oriented food brand, launched the first stand-up pouch made from renewable plant-based materials, designed for storing quinoa grain. This innovative pouch named “Gone 4 Good”, is not meant to be recycled but to be thrown in a composting bin where it will disintegrate within three to six months. Made from eucalyptus and breech trees for the exterior and compostable resin called “Matter-Bi” for the interior, the pouch has several green certifications. Apart from this, in early 2019, the company also transitioned its chocolate truffles packaging from non-recyclable plastic pouch to a recyclable paper box and claims to be looking for solutions to replace its current plastic Coconut Cluster pouch, since it is yet not recyclable or compostable. The company is determined to make all its products packed in 100% recyclable or compostable packaging by December 2020.

Another player, B.O.S.S. Food, a Texas-based nutrition bar company, started selling its premium nutrition bars in compostable wrappers made by TIPA (an Israel-based compostable packaging company) in 2017, focusing on ensuring the products’ packaging is environmentally safe. TIPA’s packaging is a bio-based blend with all the properties of normal plastic but is certified for both home and industrial composting through OK Compost mark by the TUV institute. The packaging also complies with food contact regulations in Europe and the USA.

Similarly, a UK-based beverage company named Earlybirds launched a 100% plant-based packaging for its breakfast drinks – bottles and lids made from sustainable sugarcane, over the span of two months of September and October 2019. The launch made the packaging 100% compostable as per EU biodegradability standards. The company’s advertisements claim that, under the right conditions, the bottle will breakdown in twelve weeks and it can be thrown in food waste bin and then composted at an industrial composter, reducing it back to soil. The company is the first in the UK to launch sustainable packaging for beverages.

These are just a few of several smaller F&B companies, which are focusing on bringing new packaging solutions to improve their rating as environment-friendly companies in the eyes of consumers. The initiatives are worth the effort, even though players face quite a few challenges in embracing sustainable packaging over traditional packaging.

Such challenges include higher costs, choosing the right material for packaging that must comply with the standards of environmental safety, as well sustaining the quality of the food product. It is estimated that the companies are required to spend nearly 25% more on the sustainable packaging than on the traditional packaging. This higher cost is attributed to major shifts in supply chain, including (but not limited to) procuring the raw material for packaging to collecting the used packaging for recycling. Another major factor contributing to higher costs of sustainable packaging is the R&D expenses that must be borne by the companies. The solutions still require a lot of research, as there are still very few commonly-used technologies and packaging products, thus a lot of players need to invent them. The companies need to invest considerable sums in developing an environment-friendly packaging material that is viable for their food product to sustain throughout the supply chain as well as shelf life, and (equally importantly) has the aesthetic appeal to grab the consumer’s attention.

But despite being smaller in size and having to deal with challenges, companies such as Alter Eco, B.O.S.S. Food, or Earlybirds have been investing extensively in R&D, a fact that resulted in several of them coming out with better and innovative packaging solutions. In fact, at times, smaller scale of operations works to these players’ advantage, as they do not have the constraint of having to convert the existing large-scale traditional packaging lines to ones suited to deliver new format or feature of packaging. Therefore, many efforts undertaken by smaller players seem to be converted into tangible solutions and launched more quickly and easily, also giving the companies a great marketing advantage over large F&B brands.

EOS Perspective

With the rise in awareness about plastic waste and environment safety among consumers, along with regulations formulated by governments across many countries to curb plastic waste, it has become paramount for F&B companies to enter the path of sustainability. At the same time, sustainability is becoming an important element of many companies’ marketing strategy to get ahead of the competition (or, increasingly, not to stay behind other players). The latter reason alone makes it no longer a matter of choice for F&B companies whether to keep assuring the public about efforts undertaken towards improving own sustainability rating across the supply chain.

Certainly, it is doubtful whether all these F&B companies are capable of actually achieving the claimed sustainability. On the one hand, there is a doubt if the scale of their efforts is relevant enough to bring about an actual change and not remain just a PR tool. On the other hand, the doubts seem to be really justified considering the challenges associated with achieving true sustainability goals.

The challenges range across many aspects. These include the complexity of the required changes in the supply chain, which involve both radical and incremental change, from manufacturers to users, owing to alterations in packaging materials and designs.

Another major challenge is the higher cost associated with changing the packaging materials from plastics to renewable or compostable materials. This starts with the development of the right product’s packaging material to ensure stable and long shelf life, and safe transportation with minimal waste, all of which is particularly challenging when dealing with food products. The costs and complexity of the task is further increased by the responsibility of creating an infrastructure for recycling of the packaging materials and taking the onus of collecting and recycling the packaging of own products, if not directly then through well-planned network of third-party entities.

Considering the complexity of these challenges and the high cost of going up the sustainability ladder, many F&B companies are likely to not be able (or to not want to) work towards full sustainability across their supply chain. In the midst of the growing pressure to meet the sustainability criterion, it is possible that some of the players might quietly opt for less sustainable solutions or stick to only those changes that are most visible to the consumer’s eye.

September 12, 2019by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Beverage Industry in Troubled Waters, Attempting Conservation Efforts

5.6kviews

Water is a finite resource, which is becoming constrained with the growing population and climate change. It is a vital component in production of beverages, both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. From growing raw materials (such as wheat or barley) for beverages, through product development, till the production process, water is indispensable at each step. The beverage industry has come to realize that water scarcity could tremendously impact businesses, forcing them to reassess water management strategies and tap into efficient conservation measures.

Water covers around 70% of the earth’s surface and only 3% is available as freshwater, which can be used for various commercial and non-commercial activities. Unfortunately, this quantity of water is inadequate for growing population and thriving businesses using this resource without considering its limited availability. According to WWF, an international NGO for preservation of wilderness and nature, two-thirds of the world’s population may face water shortage by 2025, with demand for water exceeding supply by 40% by 2030.

Beverage production is highly water-intensive, with water being used at each step across the value chain. According to Water Footprint Network, it takes at least 70 liters of water to produce 0.5 liter of soda, 74 liters of water for a glass of 0.25 liter of beer, and 132 liters of water for a cup of 0.125 liter of coffee. Water footprint for beverage companies is evidently high, and this can be mitigated by implementing water management technologies across the value chain, from farming to beverage production.

Water scarcity posing challenges for beverage producers

Water stress is a pressing problem for all beverage industry players, causing various operational challenges that are impacting business operations.

Opposition to water extraction from natural resources

California suffered a searing seven year drought that ended in 2017. Distress from water scarcity impacted communities, as well as companies operating in the region. For instance, Nestlé, a Swiss multinational food and beverage company, faced opposition from local communities and criticism from conservationists for extracting large quantities of water from Californian springs even during the drought-stricken years.

These events impacted Nestlé’s operations and eventually, succumbing to the pressure, Nestlé invested US$7 million in conservation projects across five of its bottling plants in California in 2017. The projects focused primarily on reducing the amount of water used in filtration process while simultaneously maintaining hygiene of the processing plant. Only after consistent water conservation efforts, Nestlé was granted a three-year permit by US Forest Service in 2018 to extract water within the limit of 8.5 million gallons annually from Californian springs.

Similarly to Nestlé, Coca-Cola faced opposition from local communities in India resulting in closures of two of its bottling plants located in the states of Kerala (in 2004) and Uttar Pradesh (in 2014), due to extensive water extraction from local resources. In order to sustain operations, Coca-Cola announced plans to invest about US$5 billion between 2012 and 2020 to help replenish groundwater in India, allowing the company to also use water for beverage production.

Water shortage impacting business operations

According to global survey of 600 companies by Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), water scarcity and stricter environmental regulations cost businesses around US$14 billion in 2016. Many companies agreed that water-related issues have affected their businesses directly or indirectly.

For instance, severe droughts in Southeast Brazil in 2014 and 2015 disrupted water supply in the area, limiting production capacity and disturbing operations of Danone, a French multinational food and beverage corporation. As a result the company suffered sales loss of ~US$6 million in 2015.

Not only Danone was affected. As Brazil is one of the world’s leading coffee producers, limited availability of water for irrigation due to the drought, crop production in the region took a hit. Eventually, the situation threatened supply, which led to higher raw material prices for coffee manufacturers. One of the producers that felt the repercussions was J.M. Smucker, an American producer of food and beverages, reported a net loss of US$90.3 million in 2015 due to higher coffee bean prices in Brazil.

Tapping into innovations to reduce water consumption

Water risk for beverage companies highly depends on external factors, such as water quality and availability either through natural resources or municipal bodies. Industry players have very little control over the external factors but can regulate water usage in their internal manufacturing operations to reduce consumption.

Recycling water using zero water technology

Beverage companies are collaborating with technology providers to incorporate innovative water recycling methods.

For instance, in 2014, Nestlé collaborated with Veolia Group (a French company providing water, waste, and energy management solutions) and GEA Group (a German food processing technology firm), to introduce Cero Agua (zero water) technology across dairy production plant in Lagos de Moreno, Mexico. Using the technology, the factory does not have to rely on external water sources. Instead, it recycles and reuses the waste fluid extracted from milk – Nestlé extracts 1ml of water from every 1.6ml of milk. The treated water is used in non-food production applications such as cooling, irrigating the gardens, and cleaning, thus, eliminating the need to depend on external water sources. The company has invested around US$15 million to introduce zero water technology in the plant.

With the help of this technology Nestlé claims to have saved 168 million liters of water in the first year of implementation, reducing water consumption by more than 50%. Zero water technology has been rolled out across its other diary factories located in water-stressed areas of South Africa, India, China, to list a few.

Moreover, between 2004 and 2014, Nestlé claims it was able to reduce water consumption globally by one third and by 50% across its Mexican plants.

Onsite wastewater treatment

Brewing companies are not far from adopting technologies to reduce water footprint. Waste water treatment is one of the effective ways to reuse water and several brewing companies have jumped on the bandwagon to conserve water using this approach.

Since 2014, Lagunitas Brewing Company, a subsidiary of Heineken, has been using EcoVolt membrane bioreactor, a wastewater treatment technology that removes up to 90% pollutants from water so that it can be reused onsite for cleaning purposes. Using this solution, the company has reduced its water footprint by approximately 40%.

In 2016, Bear Republic Brewing Company, a brewery based in California, invested US$4 million in a waste water treatment system that uses electrically active microbes to purify wastewater, which helps the brewery to recycle about 25% of water that it uses to clean factory equipment.

Furthermore, in 2015, a Boston-based craft brewer, Harpoon Brewery, collaborated with Desalitech, a US-based water treatment company, to produce beer made from treated Charles River water. Desalitech uses its ReFlex Reverse Osmosis systems to purify the river water and has been able to recover 93% of the treated river water to brew beer.

Innovative farming techniques

Farming is highly water-intensive and sustainable beverage production can only be achieved if water consumption is cut down during farming. Hence, companies are employing various water management solutions to check water utilization during farming.

In 2014, Anheuser-Busch, an American brewing company installed six AgriMets, a network of agricultural weather stations, in Idaho to provide farmers with real-time weather and crop water use data. Using AgriMet data, growers can monitor rainfall and soil conditions, which helps them to cut down on the amount of water required in irrigation and decide when to irrigate. This ensures efficient use of water across the fields.

Further, for improving water management, the company is employing various seeding and harvesting techniques – for instance, it plants and harvests winter barley earlier in the year, resulting in 30% higher crop yield and 40% lower water usage.

PepsiCo and Coco-Cola have been promoting drip irrigation (a type of irrigation system where water is allowed to drip slowly to the roots minimizing evaporation) in water-scarce Indian states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Haryana, among others. Coca-Cola started with drip irrigation project in 2008 with 27 farmers covering 13.5 hectares of agricultural land in India, which expanded to over 513 drip irrigation systems installed, stretching across 256.5 hectares of agricultural land by 2011. Drip irrigation leads to significant water conservation, with an average saving of 1200 kiloliter/ hectare of water for a cropping cycle of 110 days/hectare (an agricultural cycle comprising activities related to the growth and harvest of crops). Additionally, savings on account of electricity, fertilizers, and pesticides are estimated at about US$ 29/hectare/year.

EOS Perspective

For decades, water has been regarded as free commodity in processing and manufacturing environments, but this notion is beginning to change with growing awareness about water scarcity. Limited availability of water puts pressure on industrial activities and often pushes operational costs of beverage companies up. Availability of water is likely to get worse in the future, which could jeopardize operations of food and beverage companies unless the crisis is treated as a priority.

The solution to water scarcity lies in the hands of businesses as much as the governments of various countries. Water management requires stringent policies by the governments to better regulate the use of groundwater or natural resources for irrigation. The governments also need to implement efficient wastewater management and recycling technologies to conserve water. Countries such as Singapore have undertaken water recycling and management measures, but unfortunately such examples are relatively scarce in other parts of the world, with most conservation efforts being implemented only by large food and beverage companies. It is time that the governments as well as all industry players (including small-to-mid sized companies) wake up to the challenges that lie ahead owing to water stress.

Solutions to water scarcity do not always need to be expensive. Small-to-mid sized companies could start with small and inexpensive measures such as installing flow meters or leak detection systems, measuring water usage at each step and setting short and long term goals to reduce consumption across those processes.

Other measures could be to reduce water consumption across most water intensive processes, such as cleaning, which typically accounts for 60% of a beverage plant’s total water consumption. Water could be replaced with dry ice to manually wash equipment or it can be physically cleaned using vacuum systems or high-pressure hoses that can be used to move debris.

Nonetheless, sustainable water management efforts by large beverage companies have resulted in lowering of operational costs, improvement in quality of final products, and in building better brand perception among customers. These strategic advantages could motivate all industry players to reduce water footprint and play their part as responsible water users.

August 22, 2019by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Australia Puts Its Power behind Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Plants

886views

Australia, as most countries across the globe, is increasing its focus towards renewable energy for future sustainability. These initiatives are faced with the inherent challenge in the renewable energy development – intermittency of supply, i.e. the fact that the supply is not continuously available (e.g. sunlight or wind) and it cannot be modulated according to demand. To tackle this, power companies and the Australian government are making significant investments in pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) plants. These plants facilitate the storing of energy when supply is high but demand is low, so that it can be used when demand supersedes supply levels. Currently, several PHES projects are under assessment and development in Australia.

In 2015, the Australian government set renewable energy targets of 33,000 GWh in large-scale generation, equaling to about 23.5% of Australia’s total electricity generation by 2020. The ongoing pace of new and upcoming solar and wind power projects during 2017, 2018, and 2019 has ensured that the targets set under the Renewable Energy Targets (RET) scheme are met. Moreover, if the current rate of renewable installations continues, Australia is on track to achieve 50% renewable electricity by 2025 and 100% by early 2030’s.

To make renewable energy more sustainable, the government is looking at storage options for solar and wind energy. Solar and wind energy are inherently intermittent in nature. This means that energy can be harnessed based on availability of these resources and not based on the demand at a certain time. This makes renewable energy supply less predictable and dependable in comparison with fossil fuel-based energy.

This is where pumped hydro energy storage can prove useful. PHES plants can store renewable energy on a large scale within the electrical power grid. Fundamentally, PHES plants work in a similar way as regular hydro energy plants, wherein water flows from a higher reservoir to a lower reservoir, generating electricity by spinning the turbines. However, the key difference in case of a PHES plant is that in case when more energy is being produced than the current demand level, the plant uses the spare energy to pump the water back from the lower reservoir to the higher reservoir, thereby making it available again to generate power when the demand rises.

PHES stations are all the more beneficial when integrated with renewable energy generating grids. Since it is difficult to ascertain how much energy will be produced through wind and solar at a given time, pumped hydro energy storage helps balance it in accordance to the demand levels. When wind and solar grids produce more energy than currently required, the excess energy can be used to push the water uphill in the integrated PHES plant, which can be used later when energy produced through renewables is lower than the demand levels. Thanks to this, these plants act as energy-storing batteries.

PHES stations are all the more beneficial when integrated with renewable energy generating grids. Since it is difficult to ascertain how much energy will be produced through wind and solar at a given time, pumped hydro energy storage helps balance it in accordance to the demand levels.

PHES projects across Australia

Owing to these benefits, Australia is extensively exploring this technology. It is estimated that the country is looking to add about 363 GWh of new pumped hydro energy storage capacity, through nine projects that are under consideration and development. In addition to this, there are several other projects that are at initial stages of assessment and do not have a specified capacity yet. As per experts, Australia needs about 450 GWh of storage to support a 100% renewable electricity grid. Some of the most prominent PHES projects in Australia include Snowy 2.0, Marinus Link Project (Battery of the Nation), and Kidston project.

Snowy 2.0

Snowy 2.0 (an expansion of the 70-year-old Snowy Hydro scheme) is the largest energy storage project in Australia, with capacity of 2,000 MW. The plant will offer 350 GWh of pumped storage. The project, which is to be developed and operated by Snowy Hydro (an Australia-based electricity generation and retailing company), is estimated to cost US$2.8-4.2 billion (AU$4-6 billion) and is expected to commence operations by 2024. It has received US$1 billion (AU$1.38 billion) in federal funding.

Moreover, it has partnered with large global technology companies, such as Germany-based Voith Group, which has been contracted to supply the electrical and mechanical components such as the reversible pump turbines and variable-speed pump turbines to be used in the storage hydro power plant.

Marinus Link Project (Battery of the Nation Project)

The Marinus Link Project is a part of Tasmania’s Battery of the Nation program, under which a second interconnector will be built across the Bass Strait. This high voltage interconnector will ensure smooth supply of hydro power to Australia’s mainland. Tasmania has huge potential for wind and hydro electricity generation and an initial assessment by state-owned Hydro Tasmania (Tasmania’s largest electricity generator) indicates that the state has 14 potential sites for PHES plants, with a cumulative capacity of 4,800 MW.

The project is expected to cost US$0.9-1.2 billion (AU$1.3-1.7 billion) for the 600 MW capacity interconnector link or US$1.3-2.2 billion (AU$1.9-3.2 billion) for the 1,200 MW capacity link. The Australian government has provided US$39 million (AU$56 million) in federal funding to help fast-track the interconnector, while the Tasmanian government has committed about US$21 million (AU$30 million) to support the feasibility assessment of three shortlisted pumped hydro energy storage sites in north-western Tasmania.

The interconnector, which is expected to deliver 2,500 MW of renewable hydro power along with 16 GWh of storage to Tasmania and Victoria is expected to be completed by 2025 and reach economic feasibility by early 2030s.

Kidston Pumped Hydro Project

Another project that is gaining significant traction is the Kidston pumped hydro energy project, which is a 250 MW project (2 GWh of pumped storage) in northern Queensland, and is proposed by Genex Power. It is estimated to be completed by 2022.

The Kidston project will also be integrated with an already built 50 MW solar farm. It will help store solar energy when it is in surplus and release it back to generate more electricity when solar energy cannot be harnessed.

Genex Power plans to build another 270 MW solar plant and 150 MW of wind energy capacity over a phased period. In June 2018, the company’s pumped hydro project secured about US$358 million (AU$516 million) in concessional loans from the federal government’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF).

Moreover, in December 2018, Genex Power signed a deal with EnergyAustralia (Australia’s third-largest power company, owned by Hong Kong’s CLP Holdings), giving exclusive rights to the latter to negotiate an off-take agreement for Kidston’s (solar plus pumped hydro) output, encompassing an option to buy 50% stake in the PHES component. Under the term sheet of the agreement, EnergyAustralia will have exclusive rights to negotiate, finalize, and execute a long-term purchase agreement with Genex, however the contract currently is non-binding and is subject to a number of conditions.

In addition to these, there are several other projects that are currently in the feasibility or development stage. In May 2018, Delta Electricity, an Australian electricity generation company, received development approval from the South Australian government for a 230 MW Goat Hill pumped hydro project. Altura Group (Australia-based renewable energy project developer and advisor) has been hired as the project developer. The project is expected to cost about US$284 million (AU$410 million) and the South Australian government has committed about US$3.3 million (AU$4.7 million) to facilitate final project development. The project is expected to be completed by late 2020.

Another such project is EnergyAustralia’s Cultana Pumped Hydro Energy Project, which is the first sea water pumped hydro energy storage project in Australia. The project will have a capacity of 225 MW. In 2018, it received US$0.35 million (AU$0.5 million) funding from ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) to support the US$5.6 million (AU$8 million) feasibility study. The project is currently undergoing feasibility studies and concept development and, if approved, it is expected to be completed by 2023.

Similarly, in April 2019, Australian utility company, AGL Energy, unveiled plans to build a 250 MW pumped hydro energy storage facility in South Australia’s Adelaide Hills region. While the company has received the right to develop, own, and operate the plant, the project is currently under assessment. If approved, the project is expected to be completed by 2024.

PHES projects and their viability

Large sums of investment into PHES projects by private companies as well as the federal government indicate its criticality in the overall transition of Australia’s energy grid to include a larger share of renewable sources. Moreover, several coal-based energy plants are retiring in Australia in the near future, which will further create an opportunity for renewables with storage options to replace the current form of generation. As per experts, the cost of energy from wind and solar combined with storage (from either pumped hydro or other form of batteries) will be lower than generation from new coal or natural gas plants post the retirement of existing coal and gas plants. This further makes the case for huge investments in pumped hydro energy storage.

As per experts, the cost of energy from wind and solar combined with storage (from either pumped hydro or other form of batteries) will be lower than generation from new coal or natural gas plants post the retirement of existing coal and gas plants. This further makes the case for huge investments in pumped hydro energy storage.

However, apart from PHES plants, there are other forms of storage as well. These primarily comprise of lithium-ion batteries. One example of such a battery is Tesla’s Hornsdale Power Reserve Battery. It is located in Narien Range (South Australia), was constructed in December 2017, and has a storage capacity of 129 MWh. However, these batteries are not a direct competitor/substitute for PHES plants, as they are usually smaller projects than pumped hydro energy storage plants and have a relatively shorter life as well. Moreover, pumped hydro energy storage is a more cost-effective way of storing energy, when compared with lithium-ion batteries.

Investments in PHES projects are significantly higher, when compared with lithium-ion batteries. This makes these projects long-term in nature, especially with regards to return on investments. These projects have a lifespan of about 90-100 years (and are highly capital intensive), whereas lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of 10-15 years.

Therefore, the government is being fairly cautious about commissioning PHES projects at the moment. In fact, all of the current projects under review may not be commissioned considering their economic viability. PHES plants need a revenue of about US$139,000 (AU$200,000) per MW per year to be economically viable. While this can be achieved in the long run when there is higher electricity volatility owing to greater dependency on renewables (after the coal generators have retired), currently this cost cannot be justified as electricity volatility is lower with coal and natural gas generation. Moreover, different political parties have a different take on Australia’s energy mix. Thereby, the boost provided to the PHES sector with respect to cheap financing and subsidies will depend on the political party in power, which in turn will affect the economic viability and profitability of pumped hydro energy storage plants.

Moreover, new technologies are being developed at lightning speed, which may further affect the uptake for PHES plants. One such emerging technology is concentrating solar power, in which solar energy is stored in molten salt. This technology can provide several hours of storage and can also act as a baseload power plant. However, currently, this technology is much more expensive when compared with pumped hydro energy storage technology. At the same time, with growing focus on renewables globally, there are always possibilities of new technologies that solve the energy volatility problem in a most cost-effective and efficient manner.

EOS Perspective

Pumped hydro energy storage plants seem to surely have a secure place for themselves in Australia’s energy grid in the long run. With coal and natural gas generators retiring, there will be an increasing push for renewables to fill in their shoes. Renewable energy needs storage options that are stable and effective. PHES plants developed today will be operating for the next century providing a good base for Australia to move to a 100% renewable energy when it is ready. While investments in these projects run high, several large energy players in the Australian market are looking for investment opportunities in this form of storage as they believe it will play a critical role in Australia’s energy grid in the coming years.

However, most of the works regarding PHES plants is currently on paper, with majority of the projects still at the stage of seeking financing. The project closest to completion currently is the Kidston Project, which also failed to secure a confirmed off-take agreement (i.e., pre-contracted purchase agreement) with EnergyAustralia and had to settle for an agreement to negotiate an off-take based on the fulfillment of a few conditions. This hints towards a cautious approach adopted by large utility players when it comes to investing in pumped hydro energy storage projects. With utility players, such as EnergyAustralia, claiming that before committing to huge investments in this space, they would like clarity and stability in the national energy policy (that includes an emission trajectory), a lot falls into the government’s keenness to support renewable energy in the future. While it may seem like things are moving in that direction, a stronger emission policy or a higher renewable target is likely needed for matters to gain momentum.

March 26, 2019by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Commentary: How USA Can Deal with Its Waste Crisis

679views

It is not often that one can hear that a US$100 billion industry is in tatters, however, this is currently the reality in case of the US recycling industry. For years, the USA has been dependent on waste exports, to countries such as China, India, and Korea. However, that dependence has now placed the USA in a very difficult position, as the implementation of National Sword policy by China, the largest export destination for US waste, amidst the China-USA trade disputes, resulted in waste exports coming to a virtual halt since the start of 2018.

With waste generation growing, the USA has been left scrambling to look for alternative destinations for its waste, the largest being India, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, albeit none of them capable of completely compensating for waste exports to China. Recently, in March 2019, India also banned imports of plastic waste, eliminating another major avenue through which the USA could get rid of its trash.

US dependence on exports for waste recycling meant that the development of domestic recycling facilities has been neglected. The country’s domestic waste recycling sector is now incapable of handling the ever-increasing waste, a major chunk of which ends up in landfills, creating other environment and health-related problems.

However, where there are challenges, there are opportunities as well. We look at what challenges the USA currently faces, and how the recycling industry is trying to adapt and come up with potential solutions to the country’s waste problem.

USA’s linear model left recycling industry unprepared

Traditionally, US municipals have depended on external companies to dispose their waste. Most disposal companies follow a linear model, under which they collect the municipal waste and then segregate it for further processing (with majority of it previously being exported to China). This dependence on waste exports led to limited investments in developing or expanding the domestic recycling infrastructure, which the country has been left to rue in the wake of the waste import ban imposed by China and India.

Limited capacities have put extra burden on the system. Moreover, elimination of revenue from scrap sales to China puts additional economic pressure on waste processors. As a result, many waste collection agencies have either suspended waste pickup or raised prices to dispose of waste. Municipals too have to bear greater economic burden. Cities, which were earlier paid for their waste, are now being charged significant amounts for hauling waste.

Current waste disposal process is not up to the mark

Another key challenge is the lack of sorting at source, i.e. at the household level. Due to consumer’s preference, the USA follows a single-stream recycling system, where all recyclables are collected in the same receptacle. With no segregation happening at this stage of waste collection, the processor is responsible for sorting different type of materials for recycling.

However, the lack of capacity and established infrastructure makes it difficult and expensive to sort these waste materials, resulting in most of the waste being discarded, either ending up at an incineration facility or a landfill, which are much more cost-effective compared with recycling. Currently, only 10% of plastic waste generated in the USA is recycled, while 75% of it is discarded in landfills (remaining 15% being incinerated to form electricity – but that too has its critics due to the pollution caused).

Recycling companies invest to boost processing capabilities

Impacted by the loss of the key buyer and facing own limited capacities, several smaller recycling companies reliant on exports to China have shut down their operations, while several other recyclers have been forced to reassess market strategy from exports to processing.

Several recycling companies have already started investing to develop their domestic waste processing and collection infrastructure. As an example, Waste Management, a US-based waste disposal and recycling services provider, invested more than US$110 million in 2018 alone in developing additional processing capacity, acquiring new technologies, and boosting waste collection infrastructure.

Robotic technology is likely to witness more investment

With limited capacities and waste production growing, there is a need to improve the overall efficiency of waste sorting and recycling process. Companies across Europe and Asia Pacific have been researching and developing trash robots (also called “trashbots”) capable of collecting, sorting, and recycling waste and other scrap materials.

The trend is now catching up in the USA as well. Waste Management has already installed a waste sorting robot at one of its material recycling facilities, and plans to install three more robots in 2019. The company is also planning to install additional screeners and optical sorters at its facilities.

New opportunities are emerging in plastic waste recycling

With a significant focus on promoting sustainability, several other companies also see recycling as a promising business opportunity, thereby driving investment in recycling infrastructure. GDB International, a US-based company selling plastic scrap to international markets, was impacted by the Chinese import ban, and decided to invest in developing its own recycling capabilities. The company plans to recycle plastic scrap domestically, and sell recycled plastic pellets to plastic product manufacturers within the USA and abroad.

EOS Perspective

Chinese and Indian waste import bans have jolted the US recycling industry as a whole, pressing it to search for a solution to its swelling problem. The industry is witnessing problems which question the entire structure of the industry and challenge companies to reconsider their commonly utilized business model – shifting from a linear model to a circular economy.

The most obvious solution for the US recycling industry, in the short term, is to consider alternative waste destinations, such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, to share the waste burden. However, since none of these markets are developed enough to sustain over a long term, this solution, at best, can be considered a temporary fix.

The government needs to take several initiatives to lay a strong foundation for a revamped recycling industry, such as banning or restricting the use of hard-to-recycle plastics (including single-use plastics such as straws and disposable spoons), and laying down strict guidelines for sorting of waste already at the household level, which will improve the efficiency and costs associated with the recycling process.

A coalition of plastics players and other industry groups is lobbying for provision of funds by the US government, an investment of US$500 million, to help develop local waste management systems. If disbursed, these investments will enable development of the recycling industry until it becomes self-sufficient in handling domestic waste. Once this happens, the costs of disposing and processing waste are also likely to reduce.

In the long run, significant private investments in building domestic recycling capacities will be required to effectively address the ever-increasing waste. Excess waste, which was earlier exported to China and India, offers a sustainable source of raw materials to justify these investments in developing the recycling infrastructure. Furthermore, increasing focus on sustainability is driving a demand for recycled raw materials. Development of downstream recycling and processing capabilities can also enable recycling companies to tap this lucrative business opportunity. Partnerships with end users are likely to open further revenue stream.

While private investments in recycling infrastructure have started flowing in and the rate is expected to pick up, these investments will take time before the added capacities actually become operational. The success of these investments, however, will depend on how effectively the US government is able to execute initiatives to aid growth of domestic recycling industry.

February 22, 2018by EOS Intelligence EOS Intelligence No Comments

Infographic: Dwindling Honey Bee Colonies: Impact and Remedial Measures

1.9kviews

Pollination is critical for crop production and honey bees are an integral part of it, performing 80% of pollination globally. Unfortunately, for the past ten years or so, the world has been witnessing massive disappearance of bees, primarily in the USA and Europe, where the annual hive losses are now 30% or higher. Disruption in bee population is largely driven by the use of harmful agricultural chemicals, climate change, and habitat loss.

Depletion of bee population will not only disrupt ecosystems, but will also cause major global food production problems. In countries such as the USA, pollination is responsible for production of at least 90 types of commercial crops, which contribute 15-30% of an average American’s diet.

Disruption in bee populations has already driven up the prices of some food items that are heavily dependent on bees for pollination on a large scale. Besides the agricultural sector, the economic brunt of vanishing bees will also be witnessed by industries using beeswax and honey as raw materials, for instance by the consumer products sector.

Nevertheless, efforts are being made by governments, particularly in the USA and Europe, to develop strategies to preserve the pollinators. Other countries are acknowledging the problem too, for instance scientists in Japan have developed robot bees to pick up some of the pollination slack but the effectiveness of such replacement technologies is yet to seen.

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Who We Are

Connect With Us

Work With EOS

Steel industry strives to move towards a low-carbon future

Alternative technologies to reduce CO2 emission at every stage of steelmaking process

Challenges in implementation

EOS Perspective

Government action or lack thereof

Nigeria’s energy poverty affecting businesses across industries and sizes

Manufacturing and trading industry

Technology sector

Other sectors

The road ahead

In 2017, the Nigerian government developed a National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plan, under which it aims to achieve 30,000 MW electricity by 2030, with renewable energy accounting for 30% of the overall energy mix (9,000 MW).

EOS Perspective

Policy measures

Global trade

Investment

EOS Perspective

Change fueled by multiple triggers

Big F&B brands appear to show initiative

Smaller players are emerging with packaging innovations

EOS Perspective

Water scarcity posing challenges for beverage producers

Opposition to water extraction from natural resources

Water shortage impacting business operations

Tapping into innovations to reduce water consumption

Recycling water using zero water technology

Onsite wastewater treatment

Innovative farming techniques

EOS Perspective

PHES stations are all the more beneficial when integrated with renewable energy generating grids. Since it is difficult to ascertain how much energy will be produced through wind and solar at a given time, pumped hydro energy storage helps balance it in accordance to the demand levels.

PHES projects across Australia

Snowy 2.0

Marinus Link Project (Battery of the Nation Project)

Kidston Pumped Hydro Project

PHES projects and their viability

EOS Perspective

USA’s linear model left recycling industry unprepared

Current waste disposal process is not up to the mark

Recycling companies invest to boost processing capabilities

Robotic technology is likely to witness more investment

New opportunities are emerging in plastic waste recycling

EOS Perspective