Solar Aid is a charity that aims to provide people in developing countries with access to lighting (using LEDs) to communities that a) do not have access to the grid and b) cannot afford household sized solar panels. They describe their project as follows:-
“Just as mobile phones have revolutionised communications across Africa, leapfrogging the need for landlines, picosolar lights (aka small solar lights) are now helping to bring light and power to millions of people across the continent.
“While grid electrification is not going to reach most of rural sub-Saharan Africa in our lifetimes, the solar light revolution is taking place right now, helping light up millions of homes, which would otherwise be kept in the dark.
“The concept is simple: Small solar panels, which can be as small as the palm of your hand, convert sunlight into electricity. This in turn charges small batteries, which are used to power efficient LED lights…For the first time, families can stop using dangerous, polluting kerosene lamps and candles.” (1)
That many communities cannot even afford this form of lighting, is the reason that this charity looks to people like us to provide the money.
Developing countries have a growing need for energy but that should not be seen as an opportunity to promote fossil fuels – to do so traps those countries in the fossil fuel system. Rather these countries should be afforded the opportunity of developing systems that use clean renewable energy – wind and solar, electric vehicles, electric (or direct solar) cooking facilities etc.
“In the coming years most of the additional demand for new electricity will come from low- and middle-income countries; we have the opportunity now to ensure that much of the new power supply will be provided by low-carbon sources.” (1)
Such clean renewable energy will also be a) cheaper and b) afford the countries energy security as they will not be reliant on imported oil and gas – or even if they have indigenous supplies, not subject to the fluctuating prices for fossil fuels set by global markets.
For a report from this year’s IEA summit: “Participants at the Summit emphasised the importance of energy access and affordability as fundamental to national and international security. With nearly 700 million people worldwide still lacking electricity and over 2 billion without access to clean cooking, addressing energy poverty was highlighted throughout the Summit as a key challenge to overcome. Delegates acknowledged that affordability concerns are growing even in advanced economies, where low-income households are disproportionately affected by energy costs.” (2)
One of the low carbon products that Shell – and other companies – deal in are carbon credits. Shell presents these as part of a cascade to reduce emissions:-
Avoid creating emissions
Reduce emissions
Compensate for remaining emissions through the use of carbon credits as not all industries can decarbonise at the same rate, with heavy industry and transport often utilising carbon credits to achieve net-zero goals. We actively participate in carbon markets, and have a diverse portfolio of high-quality carbon credits to help our customers reduce their carbon footprint (1)
“Carbon credits essentially represent metric tons of carbon. Simply put, one carbon credit allows or offsets one metric ton of carbon emissions.
The carbon market is where carbon credits are bought and sold. There are two kinds of carbon markets: Compliance Carbon Markets (otherwise known as Regulatory Markets) and Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCM). While carbon credits for the compliance market are government regulated, carbon offsets for the VCM are not. That doesn’t mean that they’re not vetted – simply that they’re just verified by third parties…Third-party entities are non-profit organizations that ensure that customers receive what they are paying for. They measure the amount of carbon offset through an environmental project and interpret the data, giving any offset project with their seal a green light for approval.” (2)
There are three basic types of carbon credits:
Those from reduced emissions (typically energy efficiency measures)
Removed emissions (carbon capture and planting forests)
And avoided emissions (for example refraining from cutting down rainforests).(3)
Examples of the first can include capturing methane from landfill and agricultural waste and using g it as a biofuel. Or they might include providing disadvantaged families with more fuel efficient cooking or lighting equipment.
Example of the second might include reforestation, restoring peat bogs and wetlands.
Examples of the third might include making payments to farmers not to cut down prime forest but to maintain its carbon absorbing integrity, or paying for farmers to use methods such as no-till.
Shell is one of the biggest investors in carbon credits – these carbon credits are the main way in which they aim to achieve net zero by 2050. Shell can provide (at an appropriate price) their customers with carbon credits that, for example, match the carbon emissions of the fuel they buy from Shell.
The flaw seems to be that carbon credits are being used not to make good those ‘impossible to avoid’ carbon emissions such as in cement production, but as cover to allow the continued production of fossil fuels whose use can be avoided.
Yesterday I noted that natural gas (ie methane) produces less carbon dioxide when burnt than either coal or oil. Hydrogen, when that is burnt, produces no carbon dioxide only water. Is hydrogen the green fuel of the future?
Hydrogen is the simplest and most abundant element in Earth but it rarely exists as a gas, instead being found joined with other elements – eg with oxygen which produces water. It can occasionally be found underground but as there are seldom viable ways of extracting, scientists instead have developed ways of producing hydrogen gas artificially – depending on the process used, a number of artificial hydrogens are available, including grey hydrogen, blue hydrogen and green hydrogen.
Grey hydrogen is made using a process called steam reforming, which brings together natural gas and heated water in the form of steam. As well as hydrogen this process also produces carbon dioxide.
Blue hydrogen uses the same process, but aims to avoid the problem of carbon dioxide emissions by capturing the CO2. As reported previously CCS is costly and not necessarily that efficient.
Green hydrogen uses electricity to split water into its component elements of hydrogen and oxygen. This reaction does not produce CO2 but depending on the supply of the electricty, there may be carbon emissions that form part of the total production. The significant criteria would be the use of renewable electricity.
In Scotland Shell* has been partnering with others in the Acorn project which includes the production of blue hydrogen from natural gas with carbon dioxide being stored under the sea via disused pipelines. (1) This involves substantial investment, including government subsidises. The BBC has reported: “UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has confirmed that £200m will be provided to progress the Acorn Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) scheme in Aberdeenshire.” (2)
“The European Commission is facing calls to assess the climate impact of scores of proposed hydrogen projects after data revealed that 90 percent of them could be used to prolong the use of planet-warming natural gas. Companies operating Europe’s existing natural gas infrastructure are seeking to preserve the value of their assets by converting them to carry clean-burning hydrogen to power homes and industry in line with legally-binding climate targets.
“But the data compiled by Brussels-based research and advocacy group Food & Water Action Europe, and shared with DeSmog, shows that 57 percent of 147 hydrogen projects under consideration by the European Commission are designed to also carry natural gas, or “blue” hydrogen made from the fossil fuel. A further 33 percent of projects have failed to rule out carrying fossil-based hydrogen, or have no credible plans to source climate-friendly “green” hydrogen.”
““Greenwashing must be fought, especially when it comes to using public money.”” (3)
* Shell is, I think still involved with this project, but information is hard to come by. Shell did quietly withdraw from a similar on the Isle of Grain in Kent.
“Shell believes natural gas and LNG have a critical role to play in the energy transition by producing less carbon emissions than coal when used to generate electricity, helping to maintain grid stability as the share of renewable energy grows, increasingly powering transport and shipping, and providing energy security in the coming decades.” (1)
Is LNG really a green fuel?
Liquid natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been made into a liquid so that it can be more readily transported. The liquefaction process involves cooling the gas to -161oC (-259F). The process reduces it to 1/600th of its original un-liquified volume and to half the weight of water. This reduction in volume has made the storage, and the shipping over significant distances, an economic option. It does of course have to be kept at the required supercool temperature throughout. It is only when it is going to fed into the domestic gas grid that is returned to its gaseous state by warming.
Before the liquefaction became a practicable option, natural gas was typically used by consumers in the locality – in the UK our gas came from the North Sea. Now gas can be sourced from across the world and can be stored whilst buyers are found. Significant amounts of this gas is shale gas using fracking processes. The United States is the world’s largest producer of LNG, followed by Australia and Qatar. Russia despite the fall in demand from European customers, is the fourth largest producer with large reserves of has in Siberia.
LNG is 85-95% methane and when it is burnt produces water and carbon dioxide. And the proportion of carbon dioxide produced is 40% less carbon dioxide (CO2) than coal and 30% less than oil (1) allowing LNG to be marketed as a green fuel. However methane is a more harmful greenhouse gas as when it is released into the atmosphere it a greater impact than carbon dioxide in increasing global temperatures.
However the extraction process, especially by fracking, and leakage during the liquefaction and transportation process, gives rise to substantial leakage of methane. A report produced for the Society of Chemical Industry concluded that 66% of greenhouse gas emissions from LNG were released during these stages with only 34% released during the end-use combustion.(2)
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is one of the low carbon processes promoted by fossil fuel companies as a low carbon product. CCS involves three stages:-
Capturing the CO2 for storage – The CO2 is separated from other gases produced in industrial processes, such as those at coal and natural-gas-fired power generation plants, or steel or cement works..
Transport – The CO2 is compressed and transported via pipelines, road transport or ships to a site for storage.
Finally, the CO2 is injected into rock formations deep underground for permanent storage. (1)
CCS has been put forward as part of the global net zero ambition to tackle those industrial processes where it is difficult to reduce or remove carbon emissions – eg iron ore smelting, cement making and a small number of similar chemical manufacturing processes that unavoidably produce CO2 as a by-product.
However CCS is still a technology in its infancy and currently has a negligible impact on reducing carbon emissions globally. It is also expensive and does itself require additional energy inputs.
“[There are] 50 operational CCUS projects globally, with about 44 under construction and more than 500 in some stage of planning. Operational projects are capturing about 50 million metric tons of CO2 per year (MtCO2/yr). If all projects in development were complete, estimated total CCUS capacity would be between 416 and 520 MtCO2/yr, which is around 0.9%-1.1% of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions.” (1)
In the UK the Net Zero Teeside Power (NZT Power) project is being developed to capture the carbon emissions from a new gas-fired power station. The power station will be located in the Tees estuary and it’s CO2 will be stored under the North Sea. The 743MW power station will probably supply about 1 to 1.5% of the UK’s electricity needs. The carbon capture technologies to be used is Shell’s CANSOLV, a technology used previously for CCS at two coal fired power stations. It is an as-yet untried technology for gas power stations. Carbon Commentary comments further on this:-
“Typically, gas power stations emit an exhaust stream which is only about 3.5% CO2, a number far lower than most chemical processes and also well below the concentrations from a coal-fired power station. Capturing CO2 from a gas-fired power station is the most expensive way of reducing emissions from a static source.
“Assuming that the proposed NZT power station typically delivers electricity at an average price of £75 per MWh, the CCS will add between about 50% and about 100% to the cost of the power. The total bill to customers will range from about £112 to approximately £150 per MWh. These figures compared to costs of around £50 for onshore wind and solar.” (2)
CCS is clearly a developing technology but is surely one that is best reserved for decarbonising those manufacturing processes where there is no alternative solution and not as a means of allowing for the continued burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity when there are so many other carbon free options such as wind, solar and tidal.
If petrol, diesel and biodiesel fuels are incompatible with net zero carbon targets, how should transport be powered?
On the roads, electric vehicles (EVs or sometimes ZEVs) are one answer, and one favoured by many governments. With the stimulus of subsidies and legislation establishing an end date for the sale of combustion engine cars, EVs are gaining in popularity.
“The UK’s EV sector is gaining momentum, with pure electric cars capturing 21.8% of the market in May 2025. For the first five months of the year, EVs held a 20.9% share, falling short of the government’s 28% zero-emission vehicle mandate target. Including plug-in hybrids and petrol-electric hybrids, electrified vehicles accounted for 47.3% of all registrations last month. Meanwhile, petrol car sales dropped 12.5% year-on-year to 71,000 units, representing 47.5% of the market, while diesel sales fell 15.5% to 7,900 units, just 5.2% of total registrations.” (1)
Not only does the UK have a zero sales date for combustion driven cars of 2030, the UK also has a mandatory 45% emissions reduction target for trucks by the same date. Already electric trucks are being developed with ranges of 500km. (2)
“Sales of electric trucks increased 35% in 2023 compared to 2022, meaning that total sales of electric trucks surpassed electric buses for the first time, at around 54 000. China is the leading market for electric trucks, accounting for 70% of global sales in 2023, down from 85% in 2022. In Europe, electric truck sales increased almost threefold in 2023 to reach more than 10 000 (>1.5% sales share).” (3)
There would seem therefore to be a strong economic case for businesses to invest in electrical vehicles and associated infrastructure, rather than for businesses to be using their market power to relentlessly promote the continued use of combustion engines which are known to make a significant contribution to climate damaging greenhouse gas emissions.
Last year Shell paused work on its biofuel plant in the the Netherlands. This project was to have become one of Europe’s largest biofuel plants producing SAF and renewable diesel. Weak market conditions were apparently to blame (basically a situation where the global supply of biofuels exceeded current demand and producers wouldn’t or couldn’t reduce the prices to boost demand). At the same time BP also paused two biofuel projects in Germany and the U.S. (1)
One question to ask is how can funding be provided for long term projects when companies are focused on short term profits? Is this where governments should step in either with subsidies or with legislation that builds long term certainty around how energy needs are to be met? And if so, who is going to guide government policy – powerful fossil fuel companies or scientists?
Another question is whether alternative biofuels are the right solution for the need to reduce global carbon emissions? And are fossil fuel companies pursuing these alternative fuels that can be used interchangeably with fossil fuels, being used as a way of keeping the market for fossil fuels open?
Here it should be noted that Shell’s CEO, Wael Sawan, has stated that Shell’s current objective is to shift focus from renewables to high-profit oil and gas projects so that Shell can exploit the higher global oil and gas prices that still persist following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. (2)
Diesel – or petroleum diesel – is made from fossil fuels.
Biodiesel is a similar product which is made from plant based oils, animal fats and recycled cooking grease. Once treated using a process of ‘transesterification’ it can be mixed with regular diesel for use in combustion engines – it is not sufficiently similar chemically for use a complete substitute for petroleum diesel.
Renewable diesel or HVO (hydrotreated vegetable oil) is also made from plant and animals based fats, and waste oils using a process called ‘hydrotreating’. This diesel substitute closely mimics regular diesel and can be used as a direct replacement – ‘drop in’ – fuel for combustion engines.(1)
Again the issue that makes the sustainability of renewable diesel questionable is the available supply of plant and animals based fats and waste oil needed in its production. There is a risk that virgin forests in South America and Asia may be cleared to make way for soy and palm oil cultivation – as fuel crops – exacerbating the imbalance of CO2 emissions (virgin forests are net absorbers of carbon dioxide). Equally relying animal based fats (also known as tallow) that come from beef farming adds to the growing trend in deforestation to make way for grass and fodder crops. And, ironically for a product sold as sustainable, when demand for waste oil exceeds supply, the shortfall is made up by substituting virgin plant oil. (2)
Replacing fossil fuel diesel with plant based diesel does not provide a sustainable low carbon solution. Plants and animals are best farmed to provide food and not as a fuel source for energy.
Biogas is a mixture of methane, CO2 and other gases produced from plant and/or animal material via anaerobic digestion. It comprises between 45-75% methane by volume. Biogas can be used for cooking, heating and for electricity in biogas adapted power stations. Biogas can not as a direct substitute for natural gas. Biomethane on the other hand is nearly 100% methane and can be used to replace natural gas without changing the means of transmission or the end-user’s equipment.(1)
Biomethane is produced by upgrading biogas (ie removing the other gases by various means). Carbon dioxide produced as a byproduct can be used for industrial processes or combined with hydrogen to create more methane. At present biomethane represents about 0.1% of natural gas demand. (1)
The biomaterial used to produce both biogas and biomethane comes from the same sources as for SAF – ie waste material from farms and forestry work, solid municipal/ household waste (including food waste and packaging), recycled cooking fat ( I think MacDonald’s trucks advertise this), animal fat, virgin corn/soy/rapeseed/palm oil, sugar cane and beet, aide and other grains, grasses such as miscanthus, algae etc – and therefore has the same issues around the sufficiency of supply.
Should agricultural land be used to grow crops for provide biofuels or to provide food?
National Grid notes that “UK households, hospitality and food service, food manufacture, retail and wholesale sectors produce around 10 million tonnes of food waste per year. If this was all treated through anaerobic digestion, the industry could generate 11 TWh of biogas – enough to heat 830,000 homes – and cut emissions by 8.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, or 2% of the UK’s annual emissions.” (2) On the other hand, as 70% of that food waste was edible, would it have been better used feeding people? Equally given that it represents £22billion (3) would it not be better if the waste been avoided in the first place and the money used for home insulation or public transport?
The Green Tau 