sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

NZ industry burns the equivalent of 108 litres of petrol every second – that has to reduce to meet our carbon targets

Business / opinion
NZ industry burns the equivalent of 108 litres of petrol every second – that has to reduce to meet our carbon targets
pic
Getty Images.

By Timothy Gordon Walmsley & James K Carson*

New Zealand burns the equivalent of 108 litres of petrol every second in coal and natural gas to generate heat for industrial processes. This burning of fossil fuels for industrial heat generates 28% of New Zealand’s energy-related emissions.

Industry needs vast quantities of heat for a wide range of activities, including to process staple foods, to manufacture materials for building homes, and to produce packaging for everyday goods.

But it’s very clear that to achieve a net-zero carbon economy by 2050, we need to ramp up the use of renewable energy technology to generate industrial heat, instead of burning fossil fuels.

The government is using a carrot-and-stick approach to drive the transition to low-carbon and renewable energy. The “stick” requires industry to phase out coal boilers for low and medium temperature heat applications by 2037. New natural gas exploration has also effectively ended, which will lead to future decreases in gas supply.

The “carrot” is the Government Investment in Decarbonisation Initiatives fund. The results so far are significant, with industry turning to tried and true solutions: energy efficiency gains, biomass boilers, electrode boilers and heat pumps, sometimes combined with electrical or thermal batteries.

These technologies are clean and green, but they are also scalable to industrial needs. Let’s have a look at what these different options are.

4 options for industry

The first option – increasing energy efficiency – is where all industrial businesses should start their decarbonisation journeys. It reduces the need to supply heat in the first place. Minimising heat demand also means replacement boilers can have smaller capacities, reducing investment costs.

The second option is to use biomass boilers. Over the past couple of years, biomass boilers have been rolled out to several large industrial sites.

These boilers burn biofuels, usually a byproduct of the wood processing sector such as sawdust, wood chips and wood pellets, to generate the required steam and hot water for a site. Fonterra, for example, is currently building a new 30-megawatt biomass boiler at its Waitoa site.

Biomass boilers provide a like-for-like replacement for fossil fuel boilers. But their use is not straightforward. No one really knows what the future availability of low-cost biomass will be due to the rapid expansion of the market in recent years, uncertainty around biomass sources and increase in demand.

The third option is to use electrode boilers. These are cheap to install but they use electricity as the energy source. The cost of this heat is typically three times more expensive than from fossil fuels. Industry is also often exposed to the electricity spot market where price varies dramatically both daily and seasonally, which presents both a risk and opportunity.

Dairy manufacturer and supplier Open Country Dairy, aided by “smart control” technology from Simply Energy, recently installed an electrode boiler alongside its existing coal boiler. The electrode boiler turns off when the electricity price is high, shifting load to coal, and turns back on when the price is sufficiently low. This is a cost-effective solution but invariably an interim measure as coal phases out.

The fourth option – heat pumps – uses a different type of technology. On paper, industrial heat pumps have the potential to achieve over two to three times the performance levels of biomass or electrode boilers, although often at lower heating temperatures. Better performance means proportionately lower operating costs. Current heat pump technology can service heating up to about 90°C.

Meat processing sites like ANZCO and Silver Fern Farms, both near Christchurch, are using heat pumps to recover and upgrade waste heat from their chillers to generate the hot water they need. This is another smart way of using conventional technology.

In the future, we need heat pumps to far exceed 90°C to increase their applicability to a wider range of industrial site. In Europe, many current technology demonstration units can now provide heating up to 150°C using an HFO refrigerant (synthetic fluorinated greenhouse gases) or CO₂.

HFO refrigerants were positioned as the answer to ozone-depleting gases but recent research expresses concerns about them degrading into “forever chemicals” with serious implications for human and environmental health. The European Union now plans to rapidly phase out and ban their use by 2026.

MAN Energy Solutions, which has recently partnered with Fonterra, offers a CO₂ heat pump that can also generate hot water at 150°C at a heat-to-electricity-use performance ratio of nearly three. This means it only uses one third of the electricity to generate the same amount of heat as an electrode boiler.

These four options all have critical roles to play in decarbonising New Zealand industry. Different sites will demand different solutions that will often combine multiple approaches to achieve the most cost-efficient solution.

Need for local solutions

Traditionally, New Zealand has been an energy technology importer. However, high demand for cutting-edge boiler and heat pump technology in much larger markets in Europe and elsewhere could make it difficult for New Zealand businesses to access necessary plant and technical support without long wait times.

If we could develop and manufacture our own, we could provide customised solutions for New Zealand industry. Many of the associated “green” manufacturing jobs would also be located here at home.

Decarbonising industrial heat presents a massive challenge but also an opportunity. The challenge is to make the energy transition quickly enough to limit climate change while keeping the energy costs sufficiently low to stay in business.

As we make this transition, we also need a paradigm shift in attitude and ambition towards research, development and manufacturing pathways for advanced technology to maximise the benefit to New Zealand Inc.The Conversation


*Timothy Gordon Walmsley, Senior Lecturer in Process and Energy Engineering, University of Waikato and James K Carson, Associate Professor, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

34 Comments

Use current gas network for piped green Hydrogen produced from hydro/wind when excess capacity and stored. Requires new appliances so harder sell for domestic but great for industry. Some network pipes would need replacing/lining.

Of course the obvious thing is nuclear.....

 

Up
1

Can't - won't hold the hydrogen. Secondly, the energy loss is so great in the transition, that you're better using the electricity directly. Hydrogen is a red-herring, mostly hyped by the FF industry hoping to continue gas - somewhat like the vaping approach.

Nuclear is based on a finite resource, the disposal has never been solved (it's a legacy loaded onto almost every future human) and it only does electricity.

We need to change lifestyles. Massively. Yesterday.

Up
5

More uranium out there than mankind could ever use but you knew that. Just like you know you can get high temp process heat from nuclear (see link below).

"In addition, the technique can even use waste fibers for a greater cost savings and that analysis shows that seawater extraction could be competitive with land mining at present prices."

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514

“…nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy by only about 0.3 p per kWh. The expense of uranium extraction could be reduced by combining it with another use of seawater – for example, power-station cooling.”
https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_166.shtml

Up
4
Up
3

Suggest checking out Dr Simon Michaux: “Minerals and Materials Blindness” | The Great Simplification episode 19 

We can't build nuclear fast enough to keep up with current demand while other energy sources trail off, and even if we did, we would run out of high EROI energy to mine and refine the ore, and create and maintain spent fuel facilities without turning our planet into a radioactive wasteland.

Choices have to be made about what we value now and must keep investing in, or material and energy limits will make the choices for us

 

Up
5

If you are worried about lack of resources that last thing you would be doing is building resource intensive, intermittent, windmills, solar panels and their back up power stations. Nuclear is the most resource efficient energy source and you don't even need Congolese children to build them.. Can't build quick enough? France build 3.4 reactors a year at its peak in the 80's - multiple that over the planet and you will get your build. Remember the runaway global warming hypothesis is an existential threat and we are fighting on the front lines! Time to move to total war on CO2!

https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/figure202.png

Up
3

I don't know how the economics stack up, but sand batteries in silos can store surplus renewable energy as heat for industrial processes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61996520

 

Up
2

100% 

The whole supply chain + demographics needs to be taken into account. No one is building massive centralized gigawatt rated facilities in developed countries anymore with the associated red tape and compliance cost sucking vulture brigade attached adding 20 years to your project. France in the 80s was France in the 80s unless you have a time machine. You want your semi conductors? Get in line. 

Sure you get your cost per watt around the same but the timeframes get pushed out almost into generations. 

Low cost materially simple renewable de centralized generation supplemented by the same concept energy storage is the future in my opinion. For cost and resilience. 

Gigawatt centralized generation will be large corporate industrial ecosystems only, not really applicable in NZ. 

Up
1

Every one of the options outlined above will cost significantly more than the current use of fossil fuels. (If they are cheaper or about the same cost they would have already been done)That will put up the cost of operation which will increase prices. Are people prepared to pay the higher price?

Experience is they do not. Look at the outcry when the price of butter or cheese went up. Though it wasn't energy, look at the problems when eggs were no longer allowed to be supplied by caged birds.  And despite all the claims of low carbon premiums, the market price for commodities does not reflect that. 

Up
1

Chickens and a milking goat coming to a neighbours garden near you....

Up
0

Don't know about the milking goat but here in NP can't have chickens in a residential area unless your section is over about 1200m2 and/or of certain dimensions. Essentially impossible.

Up
0

Move down the coast a bit.

Plenty of chickens scratching around gardens here.

Up
0

For a long time, society has been unable to afford itself.

Part of the problem was choosing to 'value' energy in $$$$$.

That will reconcile, either through rampant inflation, belief-loss-driven collapse, or war.

Up
2

Did you not read the about the $10's of billions of dollars if we do nothing? Who is going to foot the bill for that? The taxpayer...

As always, prevention is better than cure.

Up
4

What about the $10's of billions of dollars if we do something.  That money spent is guaranteed (much to the globalists delight), global warming is not.  Nobody can prevent 'Climate Change'.

Up
0

I am guessing you are a paid shill for the oil and gas companies at this point. Global warming was predicted by all the companies paying you to troll anyway, just they didn't happen to release those findings to the public.  Maybe check out Venus to see what happens when there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Up
0

Did the French ever get their pebble bed reactor working?

Up
0

China's demonstration HTR-PM reaches full power

"HTRs have the highest operating temperatures of all existing reactor types, and are also the only reactors that can provide very high-temperature process heat. In the near future, HTRs could be used as a new generation of advanced reactors and a supplement to China's nuclear power, for small and medium-sized modular nuclear power generating units.

...The fuel has high inherent safety characteristics, and has been shown to remain intact and to continue to contain radioactivity at temperatures up to 1620°C - far higher than the temperatures that would be encountered even in extreme accident situations, according to the China Nuclear Energy Association."

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-s-demonstration-HTR-P…

Up
1

Interesting that it's helium cooled. Once we stop mining natural gas, the vast majority of the world's helium supply (caused by the radioactive decay of elements in the earth's crust) will be unrecoverable.

Up
0

It's probably using a closed loop so once you've filled it up you won't need to think about it again.

Up
2

Given NZ's long history of geothermal why was there no mention of this? Or nuclear? Given we are fighting on the front lines of climate change and it is our existential theat why are we not using all the tools in the toolbox? Or is the runaway global warmign hypothesis just a social engineering project - not an actual engineering project,

""The project will result in 8,2 MWe and ~44.000 tCO2e GHG emissions avoided per year including anticipated heat offtake and power sales. Eavor estimates that ~20.000 homes will be powered with clean energy harnessed from the Earth."

https://eavor-geretsried.de/en/eavor-loop-awarded-e916-million-grant-fr…

https://www.nzgeothermal.org.nz/geothermal-in-nz/geoheat/

Up
1

Profile, climates have been changing for 5 billion years here on earth, what is different?  True clean energy are fossil fuels, harnessed from the earth.  We just need to be more diligent in our consumption and from what I have witnessed in NZ, that ain't happening.

Up
0

Profile, climates have been changing for 5 billion years here on earth, what is different?  True clean energy are fossil fuels, harnessed from the earth.  We just need to be more diligent in our consumption and from what I have witnessed in NZ, that ain't happening.

Up
0

 Methanex has made methanol in NZ since 1985. A crucial ingredient in a vast number of common products. Replacing the industrial heat consumed round the clock for this manufacturing process is currently beyond technology. The climate polluting part of the process going to atmosphere needs replacing with a green option. There is a race against time occurring world wide to replace this part of these industrial processes. With enough time to retrofit these older plants to bring them into compliance to turn their methanol/ammonia/etc from brown to green. I would hate to see a situation where we shut down production here in NZ and the methanol demand created is made up in China using even more polluting coal. I wish them all well.

Up
5

The ETS pushes these processes off shore. NZ is poorer and the planet uses more coal. "Chinese private-sector firm Wanhua Chemical earlier this week started up a new coal-based methanol plant at Yantai in Shandong province.

The new plant has a nameplate capacity of 600,000 t/yr and can produce up to 670,000 t/yr of methanol.

Wanhua has mothballed its old, coal-based methanol plant with 200,000 t/yr capacity at the same site."

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2154656-china-wanhua-starts-up-new-c…

Up
2

they were given a large number of credits by the government. by the time they are used up, every other country will be paying as much if not more. And they only pay for carbon produced in the manufactering process , not for the product exported.  

Up
0

Ruapehu averages 1250 t / day of CO2 (figures from Geonet). - sometimes it's up as high a 2800t / DAY!

or half a million tons a year !!

Who do we send that bill to?

Is that our biggest CO2 emitter?

And we're worried about cow farts?

Up
3

Wouldn't it be more useful to consider what we can control?

As CO2(100) equivalent, ruminants emissions in NZ dwarf that by more than 10x

Up
5

And that thing parked in everyone's garage.

Up
4

For senior lecturers this is a bit of a light weight news article  -where is the serious research 

and more of the uber rich families that own many of these assets  - along with offshore individuals are laughing all the way to the bank as taxpayers again pick up the tab for the installation of new equipment. Small businesses of course fund the cost and miss out on the grants - its a joke except its not funny

and yes I know who owns AFFCO, Open Country Dairy, Westland milk, Synlait  etc etc and understand how politicians and bureaucrats get gamed

 

Up
0

You specialise in strawman put-downs, don't you?

This is a conversation-piece for mostly within-academia; not a Paper.

But any excuse to put it down, and by inference.....

The real problem - for them, you and me - is assessing what can be kept going. And what to discard. And what to new-build, in place of. They are in the right discussion-tent, in that light.

Up
3

I sometimes wonder how far we as a country could take our geothermal electricity production until we reach saturation. Currently we are limited to a maximum of >400 degrees C although research is underway to increase this. https://www.gns.cri.nz/research-projects/geothermal-the-next-generation….
I suppose once again we are hamstrung by electricity prices. Let’s make it a climate change investment and swing the money earmarked for Onslow and build base load capacity in geothermal. At least it is closer geographically to the end users.

Up
1

It would be interesting to know how much extra generation capacity we could get for $16 billion.

another option is interseasonal storage of heat / cold. 

 

Up
0

"Decarbonising industrial heat presents a massive challenge but also an opportunity"

Read massive huge cost which will screw dairy into the ground, if the ETS won't already do that in a few years.

What about the steelmaker in Akl  at Glenbrook? Will be affected by ETS and quite likely have to close down. I can see China rubbing their hands in glee.

Postpone net zero for another 25 years as a minimum and don't worry about Paris or Timbuktwo's emission goals that NZ have signed up to. They've turned to custard anyway.

Up
1