Decarbonization: it is not one size fits all

The decarbonization of our economy – or in fact more properly said, its deGHGization, since gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and indirectly nitrogen oxides through their role in the production of ozone are also potent GHG – will have in the decades to come a major impact on our activities and the way the different sectors work: mobility, certainly the most visible sector among all, as well as a major contributor; industries such as steel and cement, chemistry, and fertilizers; heating needs; and agriculture, including how our globally growing addiction to a certain category of proteins seems to add to the challenge, as digestive mishaps of cattle ultimately contribute to thermal forcing too...

Regarding mobility, multiple energy carriers will be used:

-?batteries – with the surrounding conditions in terms of fair labor and sustainability of resources, including circular economy and decarbonization of all processes involved

-?carbon-neutral fuels – fuels involving carbon at some point but with zero GHG impact on a LCA

-?no-carbon fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia, whether as e-fuels based on green electricity or other processes such as direct solar hydrogen generation

-?in a transition phase, any of the final products above although through the use of fossil sources whose GHG impact is mitigated thanks to capture or offset – essentially carbon dioxide, and methane leaks

The associated energy convertors would – in theory for any of these fuels, although proper adaptation is warranted – be any form of combustion engines or turbines, as well as fuel cells; with some strings attached to take care of pollutants that they may eventually produce: compounds that can be harmful to health such as HC, PM, and NOx

-?energy conversion at anything else than low temperature would invariably result in some nitrogen oxides production; thus, exonerating PEMFC and to a great extend SOFC, but conversely none of the internal combustion solutions, even with hydrogen as a fuel; requiring SCR treatment, with the precaution of not generating nitrous oxide at low temperature

-?PM would also be related to internal combustion, essentially in the case of carbon neutral fuels, although ammonia can likewise create ammonium nitrates; in theory, residues from lubricants could create a challenge in some cases

-?HC would derive from any carbon-based fuel

Moving to the main drivers for the selection of the optimal combination of the pair (carrier, converter) from the sole mobility “unit” standpoint – car, truck, ship, plane, rail if not electrified, construction equipment, motorcycle, rickshaw – those would be closely related to the convenience and practicality of the operations – safety, ease of replenishment of energy, and in an overwhelming way, energy density of the carrier, a hard point in comparison to fossil solutions; to the cost of both carrier and convertor; and to the efficiency of the conversion. Unless constraints such weight – for example in the case of planes– or extreme range – for planes as well as ships – would require otherwise, energy frugality to reduce energy production footprint would in general favor battery over any other solution; but many other factors, in particular the mix of energy chosen by a country; the intermittence in its energy production and the needs for storage this may imply; elements such as national energy independence and sovereignty; constraints in the distribution of energy; and very possibly the influence of lobbies are likely to introduce a fairly broad diversity across applications and regions.

Next, as far as the providers of these mobility solutions, from established OEM to startups, and their partners and suppliers: all of them come with their specific background, a mix of advantages and handicaps that they have to deal with and manage. Some will start from the very ground up, will have nothing to lose, could have the inspiration to design a shrewd strategy to develop the best technology by starting in a premium segment while simultaneous leveraging the cost benefits of the most sensitive element – the battery – by using mass production standard size cells; keeping then the company afloat and funded through stellar PR, ultimately cascading their approach down level by level to gain scale as the market develop in a positive, self-reinforcing feedback loop. Others will have a cash cow line of business - for example a legendary, successful pickups offer - that can finance the transition to electrification, in an evolution that conversely needs to be timed efficiently to let the goose with the golden eggs getting familiar with the new farmyard. Others yet will work out their own salvation unlocking value – read releasing cash – by partially spinning off / IPOing some of their divisions so they can more quickly fund and develop the elements of the needed transition; this approach has in fact been a darling this past couple of years in Germany, possibly a prudent move made consciously so activists would not come in to force these companies to do so in less friendly and optimal ways.

So here we are in this long chain that takes us downstream from the decarbonization of the economy, to the decarbonization of mobility, and as a necessity the decarbonization efforts of the mobility providers. Announcements in this space have now picked up a fairly good momentum, with every major move of one the competitors in the market prompting tabloid-like articles quick at predicting the demise of the other competitors. Certainly, as the players are moving their pieces in this chess game of planetary dimension, some may lock in more definite advantages that others; but few things are definitive yet.

For now, by simply looking at what might be the next pain point these players attempt to address and identifying what is the corresponding missing piece that could solve this part of the puzzle, insights can be gained on the most likely next moves – something both worth doing, and fun. But on this seemingly chaotic path in which common threads may appears as in a hologram, there is no one-size-fit all approach; beyond the variance and pink noise created by windows of opportunity rapidly opening and closing, each company and case is specific, and based on its context, ambitions, tolerance to risk, resources, and moreover, vision.