Author: Liu Ke, Foreign Academician of the Australian National Academy of Engineering and Dean of the School of Innovation and Entrepreneurship of southern university of science and technology
After China's energy structure is completely changed, electric vehicles are likely to promote carbon neutrality, otherwise the blind expansion of electric vehicles is to increase rather than reduce carbon emissions.
Carbon neutrality is hot, and everyone is talking about it, but not many people are actually doing research on this aspect. Once I met a friend who said that we are now specifically studying how to measure the carbon dioxide emissions of various units and companies in the future, which is a big industry. I said he was a laborer who hurt his money. In fact, on the one hand, carbon neutrality is a macro problem; on the other hand, looking at a city's carbon emissions, you can look at it systematically, such as how many tens of thousands of tons of coal, how many tens of thousands of tons of natural gas, how many tens of thousands of tons of oil are consumed in Shenzhen, each multiplied by a coefficient, the carbon dioxide emissions come out, so that the carbon emissions calculated basically account for 92% of the actual emissions.
Let me start with some data and facts
According to statistics, in 2020, China's carbon dioxide emissions are about 10.3 billion tons (about 10.2 billion tons to 10.8 billion tons, I chose 103 this intermediate number), of which coal, oil, natural gas emissions reached 9.5 billion tons, the other part is a variety of small, such as biogas, biomass, and some other emissions. So, about 92 percent of emissions are produced by these three. Measure any company, any unit, any system, and count these three accurately. The state has statistics on all three and does not require additional measurements. In 2020, China's total coal consumption is about 3.6 billion tons, which translates into about 2.8 billion tons of standard coal, and each ton of standard coal is multiplied by a coefficient to show that coal emits about 7.35 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. In 2020, China's oil consumption will be converted into 900 million tons of standard coal and emit 1.54 billion tons of carbon dioxide; natural gas consumption will be converted into 400 million tons of standard coal and 600 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions; and the three combined will be 9.5 billion tons. 10.3 billion tons divided by 1.4 billion people, about 7.4 tons per capita, an average of 22 tons of carbon dioxide per year for a family of three, which is a daily figure. How to say it? If carbon dioxide is converted into a product, 22 tons of raw materials will produce 22 tons of products, which company can consume these 22 tons of things a year?
Everyone says that carbon neutrality is easy, such as using air conditioning every day, driving a car, etc. are related to carbon, and every person and every small step can contribute to carbon neutrality, but the task of completing carbon neutrality is still very arduous and a long process. Because of the visible future, we cannot lack these three fossil energy sources. Although wind energy, solar energy, carbon dioxide into chemicals, CCS (carbon capture and storage), CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage), and improving energy efficiency will all contribute to carbon reduction to a greater or lesser extent, and are worth encouraging exploration and implementation, the proportion of carbon dioxide reduction for daily emissions is quite limited.
How can we achieve carbon neutrality in this case? This is what I would like to discuss with you further.
Myths about carbon neutrality
At present, the public has certain limitations on the challenge and cognition of carbon neutrality, believing that a single technical route or technological breakthrough can solve the problem of carbon neutrality, so there are often several misunderstandings:
The first misconception is that wind and solar are cheaper than thermal power, so solar and wind can completely replace thermal power to achieve carbon neutrality. This sentence is only 1/5 to 1/6. Because there are 8760 hours a year, and China's solar energy generation hours vary from place to place, ranging from 1300 hours to 2000 hours, there are few areas that exceed 2000 hours, with an average of about 1700 hours; that is to say, solar energy is about 1/5–1/6 of the time period is cheaper than thermal power; and in other 4/5-5/6 time periods, if you want to store electricity, its cost will be much higher than thermal power. Wind energy generation time is slightly longer than solar energy every year, it is about 2000 hours, but electricity needs 24 hours to supply, can not say that a power plant is only for one or two thousand hours a year, because we can not say that there is electricity when there is a sun and wind, and there is no sun and no wind when there is power outage. Solar and wind energy are cheaper, but the biggest problem is non-stable power supply.
It is undeniable that China's wind and solar energy has developed for nearly four decades and has made great achievements, and we pay a high tribute to the scientists who have contributed to this field. But to this day, wind and solar power are still a drop in the bucket compared to coal power. Taking 2019 as an example, the combined total power generation of wind and solar energy in the country is equivalent to 192 million tons of standard coal power generation, while China's annual coal consumption is about 2.2 billion tons of coal, equivalent to 1.8-19 billion tons of standard coal, that is, wind and solar energy can only account for about 10% of coal power.
Moreover, the concept of battery storage in the power grid is very dangerous. It is estimated that the world's current five-year battery production capacity can only meet the power of The three-day power outage in Tokyo. If we have 4/5 or 6 of the time to rely on battery storage, this is unimaginable. Moreover, the world does not have so much cobalt and lithium, and it is impossible for us to build so many batteries. In this case, the problem of curtailment of light and wind is very serious, because the grid can only accommodate 15% of the unstable power supply. The electricity generated by wind and solar energy cannot be fully absorbed by the power grid. If we continue to increase wind energy and solar energy, and at the same time, the problem of large-scale energy storage cannot be solved, and we can only abandon more.
There are two reasons for abandoning light and wind in China, one is technical factors, that is, because solar energy, wind energy is unpredictable, the power grid is less than 15% can be accommodated, more than 15% can not be accommodated, this is a big technical problem, until now it is not easy to solve; the second is the mechanism factor, the existence of local protectionism may allow places for various reasons not to use wind power, photovoltaics, hydropower. The mechanism problem can be solved in the context of the central government's vigorous promotion of "carbon neutrality", but the technical problem is not easy to solve.
Therefore, solar and wind energy need to be vigorously developed, but at present, the cost of electricity storage is still high, and it is still impossible to replace fossil energy power generation in the foreseeable future.
The second misconception is that people think that there is a magic large-scale power storage technology, that if energy storage technology advances, wind and solar energy can completely replace thermal power. This hypothesis is too big, because since the invention of the lead-acid battery for more than a hundred years, human beings have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on research and development funds to study energy storage, which can be increased from 90 kWh / m3 of lead-acid batteries to 260 kWh / m3 of Tesla today, and the energy density of batteries has not been revolutionized fundamentally. You know, gasoline is 8600 kWh / m3. At the same time, the cheapest large-scale GW (billion watts of installed power generation capacity) level of electricity storage to date is the pumped storage technology that was invented more than 100 years ago.
Breakthroughs in science and technology are not impossible, but only discoveries can be known. It is impossible to predict tomorrow's discoveries today. I often give the example of the invention of the gunpowder, which was invented nearly a thousand years after the invention of gunpowder. The mechanical principle of the gun is actually very simple, but if you say that after the invention of gunpowder, you can predict that the gun will definitely be invented, which is outrageously wrong. This reminds us that when formulating any strategy, we must not assume that there will be a breakthrough in the future. Our strategy must be based on an existing, proven, realistic technical route.
The progress of different industries is not the same, the computer industry has Moore's Law, so many years have indeed developed rapidly, but the energy industry has not yet found a similar law like Moore's Law, "carbon neutrality" must choose a realistic and feasible route to advance.
One joke is that Bill Gates told boeing president that if technology in the aircraft industry were advancing as fast as computers, everyone could now fly airplanes without driving. The president of Boeing said, If my technology were the same as yours, no one in the world would dare to fly, because computers would crash at every turn. Therefore, let's not think that one industry is developing rapidly, and other industries are the same. The energy industry is an industry that constantly throws money but technological progress is slow. In the future, there will definitely be new inventions in energy storage technology, and we encourage the innovation and development of energy storage technology, but we must be cautious when formulating strategic goals, and do not assume that this thing exists when it is not invented.
The third misconception is that some people think that we can convert carbon dioxide into a variety of chemicals, such as plastic wrap, cosmetics, and so on. These must be able to be transformed, to make money, to be able to do, but these can not solve the problem of carbon dioxide. Rough estimates show that a family of three emits an average of 22 tons of carbon a year, but a family cannot consume more than 20 tons a year.
On the other hand, only about 13 percent of the world's oil produces all of our petrochemicals, and about 87 percent of the remaining oil is burned. If the world's chemicals are made of carbon dioxide, it will only solve the carbon neutrality problem of 13%. Therefore, chemicals made from carbon dioxide on a large scale do not have carbon reduction value. The contribution of carbon dioxide to other chemicals to carbon reduction is quite limited.
Therefore, convert carbon dioxide into any chemical, if you can make money, you can do it, but if you can't make money, don't use the concept of "carbon neutrality" to take state subsidies. I could offend a lot of people, especially in the corporate world. But we scientists have to tell the facts and speak with the numbers. I've also been to a lot of forums on carbon neutrality, and a lot of times even some economists are talking about it, and there's no concept of numbers, only a rough generalization, saying that this way can reduce carbon, that can reduce carbon, but there is no concept of how much to reduce. You can't blame them for this, interlaced like a mountain.
The fourth misconception is that carbon dioxide can be captured and utilized in large quantities. Using CCUS technology, the carbon dioxide emitted in the production process is captured and purified, and then put into the new production process for recycling or storage. In theory, large-scale capture of carbon dioxide can be achieved. Now everyone says that the carbon dioxide is separated in the power plant, and after the separation is completed, it can be used to flood the oil and bury it, and so on. So let's see, in the next ten years, China's entire carbon dioxide flooding consumption is about 6 million tons, and our annual emissions are 10.3 billion tons. And the stage of oil flooding is that part of the carbon dioxide enters the ground, and a part of it will follow the oil out, it is not a complete burial.
I buried the carbon in the ground, which I did at GE before I returned home. Coal and water and oxygen are converted into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and hydrogen is burned to generate water vapor, and carbon dioxide is hit underground. We did a demonstration project, which cost $2.8 billion and involved hundreds of PhDs, and spent 7 years, and the demonstration was of environmental significance, and the factory has been running in the United States so far, but it is not economical. After we completed this project, we found that this is the most complex industrial system since GE's inception. Don't look at the whole GE can produce aircraft engines, medical equipment, nuclear magnetic resonance, CT, etc., including the Three Gorges Water Conservancy Project equipment and the locomotive of the Qinghai-Tibet Line, etc., but the most complex set of systems since GE's establishment is the "zero pollution thermal power plant" we made at that time, but the cost is too high.
Before I returned to China, I communicated with the general manager of GE at the time, and he also mentioned in a speech that the problem of carbon dioxide would be solved through coal-free coal-fired power plants in the future, but after the speech, he came down and told me, don't look at what I said at the meeting, it is better to really do it than dry nuclear energy, nuclear energy is much cheaper than zero-pollution thermal power plants. Of course, the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident had not yet occurred, and nuclear energy could do it. France now has nearly 70 percent nuclear energy, and has been doing it for decades. But after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident, the world is improving the safety factor of nuclear energy, and every time this safety factor is raised in the later stage, the cost increases a lot.
Carbon neutrality is not only a technical issue, but also a comprehensive issue of balanced economic and social development. Now in the power plant to separate carbon dioxide, after the separation to the ground can do oil flooding and burial of this road, in the place where oil can be changed, there is a little economic benefit, China's Xinjiang and other places have a similar carbon dioxide flooding project. The cost of this piece is the cost of separating the carbon dioxide, we calculated, let's say the cost of playing it is 30 US dollars a ton, of which 20 US dollars is to separate the carbon dioxide from the entire exhaust gas into pure carbon dioxide, 5 US dollars is to transport, and the other 5 US dollars is to compress it into the ground. Separation is the core and the cost is the greatest. Under the current technical means, the cost of relying on CCUS to deal with it is very high, and the role is limited, of course, this may also be a carbon neutrality guarantee technology.
In fact, everything I just talked about, such as wind and solar energy, contributes to carbon neutrality, and each of us should do it, but no matter how you do it in today's technology, the contribution to carbon neutrality is limited. Of course, this does not mean that everyone should not do it, and every one of us can work hard, after all, it will accumulate into a lot.
The fifth misconception is that carbon neutrality can be achieved by significantly reducing carbon emissions in industrial processes and product use through improved energy efficiency. Energy efficiency will always improve, and improving energy efficiency is also the right one, and it is the lowest cost carbon reduction route in the world. But I often ask, in the two decades since joining the WTO, has our country's energy efficiency increased or decreased? We've improved our energy efficiency a lot, but has the total amount of carbon emissions increased or decreased? Add more. I remember that China's oil consumption in 2000 was about 2.0 billion tons, in 2010 it was about 400 million tons, and by last year it was 750 million tons.
I do energy, and you can see the changes in society as a whole from the data changes in energy. Before we joined the WTO, there was a very important figure, China's coal production is about 1.2 billion tons, basically self-produced and sold, exports a little, but very little. As a result, in just 12 years to 2012, it soared from 1.2 billion tons to 3.6 billion tons, which is a daily volume, and of course accompanied by carbon emissions. How should this be interpreted? The only interpretation is that china has joined the WTO, and the world's market has opened up to China. Of course, our large amount of real estate construction during this period was also a factor. The consumption of coal indicates the consumption of electricity, and the consumption of electricity indicates the degree of industrialization. Energy efficiency has certainly improved a lot during this period, but energy efficiency alone will not solve the problem of carbon neutrality. Therefore, improving energy efficiency is an important means of carbon reduction, but as long as fossil energy is still used, the contribution of energy efficiency to carbon neutrality is also very limited, improving energy efficiency is indeed the lowest cost way to reduce carbon emissions, and it is also the most important priority, but there is a realistic consideration that can not rely on energy efficiency improvement alone to achieve carbon neutrality.
The sixth misconception is that electric vehicles can reduce carbon emissions. Some time ago, I talked about the "History and Future of Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Energy" in the NetEase Open Class, and there were about 100,000 people across the country watching, and many leaders discussed this problem with me after reading it: Why do we want to develop electric vehicles? Quite simply, mainly because China doesn't have enough oil, we import 73% of our oil; and there is the problem of smog.
We don't have enough oil and hope for our excess power generation capacity, so it is good to develop electric vehicles. Because the power plant normally has 8760 hours a year, but we actually use less than 4,000 hours, which is a huge waste of assets. And after all, electric vehicles can reduce local pollution, such as a lot of electricity consumption in the eastern region is generated in the western Xinjiang and other places, pollution is emitted in the western Xinjiang and other places, not in the eastern region. However, in the case of carbon emissions analysis throughout the life cycle, there is little impact on global climate change.
Why can't electric vehicles completely solve the problem of carbon neutrality? Only after China's energy structure is completely changed can electric vehicles be regarded as clean energy and carbon neutral. If the energy structure does not change, 67% of the power grid is still coal power, then the blind expansion of electric vehicles is to increase carbon emissions, not reduce carbon emissions, you can do the math. Electric vehicles can only be considered clean energy when the energy structure and the majority of the power grid are composed of renewable energy.
Everyone has been talking about a question, saying that how to solve the problem of energy security after the Strait of Malacca is sealed? But this thing you have to think carefully about, relying on the power grid can not be solved. Because the grid is the most vulnerable thing in modern warfare. Oil can be distributed everywhere, can be divided into ten thousand points to hide, fried an oil depot, others can also be used. But a city's power grid has only one distribution center station, and the security of the grid is also very important.
Sometimes, energy policies and carbon policies can't do something high-cost regardless of cost because they assume that war will happen and others beat me. First, fighting a war is a small probability event, and second, it is really up to a country's comprehensive capabilities such as sea control and air supremacy at that time, rather than relying on an electric vehicle to solve the problem.