Fast-track decarbonisation in your factory with a low-cost, strategic approach to aging assets
Low carbon heat is a common challenge, affecting many decarbonisation plans. Heat decarbonisation typically achieves 50-70% of total site emissions reduction, so many 2030 goals will simply not be met without it.
We spoke with Verco’s Associate Director Athanasios Patsos about how this pressure has led to low carbon heat becoming a buzzword of sorts, and how manufacturers can respond to the demand for heat decarbonisation without risking financial faux pas.
Key takeaways from the conversation
2030 target deadlines will apply increasing pressure to act. With the majority of the low-hanging fruit and quick wins already exhausted, goals will likely be missed without some level of heat decarbonisation.
Don’t get caught in the vicious cycle of reactionary replacements. Make sure you know your qualified options ahead of time. This can help you avoid costly issues when something goes wrong and you need to act fast. Replacing like-for-like is often the worst thing you can do.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. When it comes to corporate, industrial or manufacturing organisations, the peculiarities of each site or installation heavily affect the decarbonisation approaches needed. A leading manufacturer benefitted from a designed solution which improves the heating distribution infrastructure, improving operating cost whilst adding storage to optimise capital cost and reliability.
The full conversation
Why has low carbon heat become such a buzzword for energy intensive businesses?
I think one of the main reasons it has become such a buzzword lately is that most of the ‘low-hanging fruit’ projects have already been picked – there are fewer easy projects available. Since many businesses have near-term science-based targets and 2030 goals, this puts them under pressure to deliver on their promises. They are unlikely to meet these targets without some level of heat decarbonisation.
Renewable electricity certificates and power purchase agreements (PPAs) are important tools when paired with electrification. However, market-based solutions for “green-gas” are risky in the continued absence of clear GHG accounting rules. Limited availability and the price of alternative low-carbon gases also present barriers to widespread adoption, as do concerns over biofuels creating upstream environmental problems.
Still, there’s hope. Technology availability is improving. For example, the range and availability of heat pumps is expanding, providing options for a wider range of industrial and manufacturing organisations and harder-to-abate sectors. In line with this, grid electrical infrastructure is getting better and investment in this area is increasing. More options are becoming accessible, coupled with the propagation of electrical and thermal energy storage.
Some businesses are getting trapped in a vicious cycle of having to replace short-term fossil fuel solutions every few years. How can they avoid this?
This problem often starts when a business encounters an urgent problem. Perhaps a boiler is failing, delaying production. It’s a high priority to get things back up and running. The urgent situation means that, instead of taking a step back and assessing possible replacement solutions, the business resorts to replacing the failed asset like-for-like. Sadly, this is often the worst thing you can do if you have decarbonisation targets to meet, because the asset is likely to need replacing again in a few years as part of your carbon reduction plan.
Advance planning really is the key here. I appreciate this isn’t always easy, but even making sure you know your qualified options a few months ahead can help you avoid costly issues. If your decarbonisation strategy is outlined and widely known, it can be referred to when an issue arises and used to stay ahead. That faulty boiler could be replaced with a new, low-carbon heat solution you were already planning to purchase, saving you money (and time) in the long run. Bolder “no-regret” options are always preferable to short-term solutions that only save you for a couple of years.
So, how would a business choose the right low carbon heat option for them? Is there such a thing as ‘the right option’?
In my experience, there is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to corporate, industrial or manufacturing organisations. The peculiarities of each site or installation heavily affect the decarbonisation approach needed.
Here at Verco, we have prepared a series of mini guides outlining the various options for heat decarbonisation. These are not exhaustive, but they address several solutions from biofuels through to electrification. They help businesses evaluate their applicability for their own circumstances, e.g. location or footprint, which can affect the availability and effectiveness of certain options. The latest of these guides explores heat storage, too.
The series is something I strongly encourage you to have a look at if this is a topic of interest for you.
Can you suggest a few efficient ways for businesses to make the most of low carbon heat opportunities without investing too much money and effort?
Low carbon heat is typically one of the last technical steps in decarbonising Scope 1 emissions, and it’s very contextual, so it’s hard to generalise. There really is no silver bullet.
However, in terms of low-cost and low-effort things to do if you’re interested in heat pumps and electrification, I’d recommend investigating the different options and working out the best ones for you in advance. One way to do this is to have a look at the Decision-making Tools we developed in partnership with the Renewable Thermal Collaborative. They are free to access and help guide you towards the best choice for your business.
Use the heat pump decision-making tools
I’d also recommend using recently completed audits to identify the energy efficiency quick wins that impact fossil fuel reduction. Regarding step-change reduction and/or technology roll-out, clients have found that an effective way to convince the business is to start with a pilot approach on best available techniques and couple with grant/funding options – we have helped organisations secure funding for innovative decarbonisation projects.
If you’re really looking to avoid expensive mistakes, I’d guide you to Verco’s Low Carbon Heat Blueprint service.
Tell us more about the Low Carbon Heat Blueprint. How can Verco directly help organisations choose the best options for heat decarbonisation?
This accelerates the decision-making process as it generates results in just 3-4 weeks and costs around 1/4 of a full-blown decarbonisation strategy.
The service essentially provides a blueprint of how to tackle the problem of low carbon heat. This is most effective when there is urgency, there is a lack of a robust long-term heat decarbonisation strategy and/or the business has not narrowed down its options.
As part of the service:
We help optimise the design of the current heat distribution processes, highlighting where there are short- and long-term opportunities and risks.
We help each client create a positive business case for decarbonisation and develop key selection criteria based on their constraints.
We suggest investment options, allowing them to lay the foundations for feasibility and engineering studies and, ultimately, positive action.
You benefit by:
- fast-tracking heat decarbonisation;
- avoiding carbon lock-in;
- building confidence that the solutions you choose are optimal for your operations;
- developing a credible project definition and investment case;
- laying a stepping stone to feasibility and engineering studies; and
- spending 1/4 of the cost of a full decarbonisation roadmap.
Find out more about the service
The Blueprint in action- a case study example
We have recently helped a manufacturer reach an optimal solution for an ageing heating asset by balancing carbon reduction, capital expenditure and operating cost, when upgrading much needed heating distribution infrastructure.
We approached this by looking at the demand for heat and opportunities to upgrade the heating distribution, also adding storage where needed to balance out peak demand. This meant lower capital costs and optimised sizing of equipment. The solution is consistent with the wider group’s carbon targets, improves reliability and avoids negative impacts on the bottom line.
