Wolfgang Warnecke has an eye on the past, present and future of energy consumption by the transport sector. Shell’s chief scientist for mobility has almost 25 years of experience at the oil giant, where he also holds the position of senior technology manager for fuels innovation.
Warnecke, an expert in engine technology and automotive products, is clear about the challenges the world is facing in the second decade of the 21st century. He says: “First of all, it’s a very interesting time for anyone who is involved in the technology and the business of energy, because it’s clear from global population growth that the demand for energy is going to increase. The task for us is to provide all the energy that’s required in the future – especially driven by the emerging markets such as China.
“The question is: are we able to provide enough fuel, and different types of fuel, to enable mobility? There is also the pressure on transportation infrastructure to consider.”
An automotive engineer by background and based in Germany, Warnecke takes a view on future consumption of fossil fuels that most would find pragmatic but some unduly conservative. “What types of cars will we be driving in 20 years’ time?” he asks. “There will still be an essential share of combustion engines – even in new cars. I think there’s lots of potential in the gasoline engine and diesel engine, perhaps in mixed combustion cycles, but it will be a combustion engine. Why is that?
“It’s because we’ve seen in recent years the potential of the combustion engine. But most of these combustion engines in 20 years’ time will be combined with some kind of hybridisation.”
Warnecke adds that compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas for large trucks also offer potential, with perhaps a small share of electric cars for city driving, and some fuel-cell-powered vehicles. “But even in 20 years’ time I can’t see a long-range vehicle using these technologies that could be used to drive from London to Scotland. Or Hamburg to Munich. But there will be other forms of drivetrains: smart low-emission combustion engines combined with hybridisation or fuel cells, which is a very attractive combination of local smog reduction combined with long range if the hydrogen is accessible.”
It is the need to reduce smog that Warnecke believes is being ignored or confused with the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. With increasing urbanisation and creation of megacities – with populations of more than 10 million – local pollution is destined to become a big issue, he says. “The demand for energy in megacities is one aspect of the problem, but another is what kind of mobility is most appropriate to cope with emissions and smog. Local emissions and pollution are often confused by the non-expert with global emissions of greenhouse gases.
“If you look back 30 years the three-way catalyst was introduced along with unleaded fuel or the desulphurisation of diesel fuels. We’ve cleaned up the fuels to reduce pollution – but this did not tackle global emissions.
“On the other hand, if you talk about any kind of biofuel, they have an impact on global emissions reductions. But they do relatively little to reduce smog. I think that the smog-related issues play an important role next to the global climate change emissions, the carbon dioxide emissions.
“We had to provide the appropriate fuels for smog reduction. But it’s important to keep in mind the role that those fuels already play and the important role that they will do in the future.”
Back in the UK, Sam Cockerill, an engineer and graduate of the Sainsbury Management Fellows scheme, believes he can turn his company, Ensus, into one of the largest producers of biofuels in Europe. But the firm’s British plant, which makes bioethanol, is idle. Although Cockerill is convinced of the promise of the technology, he says the failure of government to implement European legislation on biofuels effectively is making the market uncompetitive for UK producers.
He explains: “We decided to shut the plant temporarily just until the back end of this crop year. This has been due to a pretty poor implementation and post-implementation of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) across a number of EU member states including the UK.”
The framework for all biofuel markets in Europe, the RED was meant to provide a level playing field for European biofuel producers and to ensure sustainable biofuels were being produced. But Cockerill says Ensus is being undercut by cheaper, less sustainable fuels from overseas.
He says: “Economically it’s better to have the plant stopped than running. It’s not a major disruption: when we restart the plant at the back end of the year, it will be from a position of strength in what’s going to be a much stronger market.
“In December the UK is committed to having the RED fully implemented. That’s going to have a big impact on our ability to compete fairly in the marketplace. We won’t have some of these biofuels that are being imported at the moment which don’t meet the RED requirements. The legislation should in theory stop unsustainable biofuels being part of the market – whether they are European or imported into Europe.
“The problem is that not much of that legislation has been put in place so what you have in the UK is plants like Ensus that are idle while bioethanol with much lower greenhouse gas savings is being imported from the US and subsidised at a price point that we can’t compete with. It’s less sustainable but it’s being preferentially ushered into the marketplace – which is clearly wrong.”
So what makes Ensus’s bioethanol sustainable? It’s a pertinent question given the doubts that have been raised over the ability of biofuels to help combat global warming. When used instead of petrol in a vehicle, the fuel cuts 70% of the greenhouse gases normally generated, which puts it among the front runners in bioethanol, according to Ensus. Further, 300,000 tonnes of CO2 generated in the fermentation process are captured at source and sent into the industrial supply chain (for use in greenhouses, for example).
As part of the biorefining process, a high-protein animal feed is also made at the plant, so reducing the requirement for imported soya from South America. Waste heat from a local power station is used to drive the biorefining process.
Cockerill says: “Before we take into account all of the benefits from animal feed and land use change, all of this process integration means we have an overall carbon footprint of 80-90% greenhouse gas savings when it comes to burning bioethanol in an engine instead of petrol.”
He adds that it is important to debate the merits of the various biofuels but that legislation should not lag behind the technology, impeding its development when it is sustainable. “Policy hasn’t been quick off the mark, so we’re left with this temporary situation where unsustainable ethanol is outcompeting the sustainable stuff.”
Given the decline in using land for agriculture in Europe and the increased yields enjoyed by farmers, it is not a question of having to hack forests down to make room for biofuel crops, he adds. “When the Soviet Union fell apart and the tractors rolled back to Mother Russia they left millions of hectares that is now covered in weeds. There is huge potential in Europe to bring some of that land back into production to reduce our dependence on imported soya beans and greenhouse-gas high imports. Biorefining is one way to take advantage of that. We can replace some of those South American soya beans coming into Europe and costing deforestation in the countries where they are produced.
“It really is a win-win opportunity but we need to get policy lined up to support this.”