Redefining Energy - TECH

• 54. Decarbonizing the High Seas - IMO’s Billion-Dollar Bet (2/2)

  In this episode (2/2), Michael Barnard concludes his conversation with Tristan Smith, a leading voice in maritime decarbonization and professor at the UCL Energy Institute, to unpack the tangled web of choices, regulations, and constraints facing the shipping industry as it attempts to cut emissions. From dual-fuel ships and synthetic fuels to compliance markets and long-term infrastructure investment, our conversation covered the broad terrain that policymakers, shippers, and fuel producers are all trying to navigate—with varying degrees of alignment and clarity.The core challenge, as Tristan makes clear, is the uncertainty. Despite rhetoric about decarbonization, the shipping industry remains paralyzed by confusion over which fuel pathways will ultimately dominate. LNG got a big early lead, with over half of dual-fuel ships opting for it before the IMO's revised climate strategy took hold. But now? Stakeholders are stuck in a feedback loop: shipbuilders hesitate to commit without clarity on fuel availability, and fuel suppliers can’t scale up without clear demand signals. Hydrogen and synthetic fuels are still expensive and energy-intensive. Methanol offers potential but with its own limitations. Even advanced biofuels are subject to competing demands, especially from aviation. The result? Fleet choices made today could lock in constraints that ripple out for decades.We dove into the IMO’s recent regulatory shift, a surprisingly muscular move for a UN body. The new rules focus not just on emissions, but on the carbon intensity of the fuels ships burn. GHG Fuel Intensity (GFI) targets are now baked in, with meaningful penalties: ships that fail to comply will pay fines starting at $100 per ton of CO₂, with funds used to accelerate zero- and near-zero-emission fuel development and assist lower-income countries with energy transitions. It's not a symbolic gesture. Modeling suggests the system could generate $11–12 billion annually in the first three years alone, creating a $33–36 billion fund for global maritime decarbonization. For once, there’s a stick and a pot of carrots.Tristan stressed the importance of early action. Ships being built now will still be in service by 2050, and port infrastructure decisions last even longer. Regulatory clarity today means the excuses are drying up. Planning needs to happen now to avoid locking in fossil dependency for another generation. The regulation also means that even if the industry’s fuel mix is uncertain, the cost of carbon is not. That changes investment calculus across the board, from ship design to bunker fuel contracts.We also touched on the equity angle. If global shipping decarbonization happens only in the wealthiest ports, it undermines the whole effort. The transition must include support for infrastructure, workforce training, and technology deployment in lower-income nations. Otherwise, we're just pushing emissions and economic pain offshore—literally.This conversation reinforced what I’ve argued for years: while aviation drags its feet and road transport electrifies at speed, shipping sits in the middle—finally regulated, still confused, and facing real opportunity. The IMO’s climate strategy isn’t perfect, but it’s real, binding, and globally coordinated. It’s a serious signal to a sector long stuck in the waiting room of decarbonization. Now the countdown has started.      

  --------  

  39:23

  --------

  39:23
• 53. Decarbonizing the High Seas - IMO’s Billion-Dollar Bet (1/2)

  In Episode 53 of Redefining Energy TECH, Host Michael Barnard speaks with Tristan Smith, a prominent expert in maritime decarbonization and professor at the University College London Energy Institute. Tristan shares his insights, beginning with an overview of maritime shipping, which accounts for approximately 1 gigaton of CO₂ equivalent annually, making it responsible for about 2-3% of global emissions. Crucially, the regulatory oversight for these emissions sits largely with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) due to the nature of international shipping occurring beyond national jurisdictions.Our conversation moves through the historical context of the IMO, tracing its evolution from a safety standards body established post-Titanic disaster to an organization now deeply involved in global climate policy. Historically, the IMO faced significant challenges in progressing climate regulations due to entrenched disagreements between developed and developing countries around responsibilities. The Paris Agreement in 2015, alongside persistent advocacy from smaller nations like the Marshall Islands, notably shifted this dynamic, leading to the adoption of the IMO’s initial climate strategy in 2018.We delve into recent regulatory developments, including the unprecedented IMO vote initiated by Saudi Arabia, resulting in a decisive 63-to-16 vote (with around 29 abstentions) mandating progressive reductions in greenhouse gas intensity for ships over the next 25 years. The regulation sets clear fines for non-compliance—$380 per ton for exceeding the highest threshold and $100 per ton for mid-level breaches—ultimately requiring ships to achieve a 65% reduction in emissions intensity by 2040.The discussion highlights the role of Emissions Control Areas (ECAs), established initially to curb SOx and NOx emissions in sensitive regions like the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and North America, effectively serving as early tests for broader international regulations. Additionally, we critically examine LNG’s journey from a touted solution for reducing SOx and NOx emissions to its complicated position as a potential climate liability due to significant methane emissions both onboard and upstream. Norway’s influential promotion of LNG and subsequent studies, such as those by the International Council on Clean Transportation, underline these complexities. Finally, Tristan emphasizes the future challenges facing maritime decarbonization, notably the risk of technological lock-in with LNG and the powerful role of the oil and gas industry within the maritime sector. We also explore the shifting political landscape as global fossil fuel transportation—currently 40% of maritime tonnage along with another declining 15% for raw iron ore—faces inevitable structural declines, promising profound implications for industry dynamics and global decarbonization efforts.

  --------  

  45:03

  --------

  45:03
• 52. The Hydrogen Titanic (2/2)

  In this episode of Redefining Energy Tech, host Michael Barnard concludes his conversation (See Ep51 for part 1/2) with Dr. Joseph Romm about the uncomfortable truths behind hydrogen's persistent hype. Romm—physicist, climate policy expert, and author of The Hype About Hydrogen—lays out a detailed indictment of hydrogen’s role in the energy transition and the vested interests keeping it afloat. As the 20th anniversary edition of his book hits shelves this Earth Day, he’s doubling down on his central message: hydrogen is the wrong answer to the right problem.We begin by unpacking why oil and gas companies are so enamored with hydrogen. It’s not about climate—it’s about preserving infrastructure and revenue streams. These companies already produce and move hydrogen, mostly for refining heavy, dirty oil. Green hydrogen, despite its green sheen, still fits their business model. But Romm doesn’t buy it. He notes that the economics don’t work. Carbon capture projects like Sleipner and Norway’s Northern Lights are prohibitively expensive and under-deliver. And if we actually tried to build out a CO₂ pipeline network big enough to matter? We’d need something as vast and capital-intensive as the entire global oil distribution system—for just a slice of the emissions problem.Romm argues hydrogen may have a future in niche industrial applications, but as a general-purpose energy carrier, it's fatally flawed. It leaks, it’s explosive, and it’s staggeringly inefficient. Producing green hydrogen wastes half the renewable electricity, liquefying it wastes another 40%, and every transfer step leaks at least 1%. The total system leakage can reach 10%, and that’s not just waste—it’s warming. While hydrogen isn’t a greenhouse gas itself, it prolongs methane’s atmospheric lifespan. Its 20-year global warming potential? Around 35—an eye-opener for anyone counting climate impact in decades, not centuries.The safety issues alone should give pause. Hydrogen ignites invisibly, has an explosive range far wider than natural gas, and can’t be odorized for fuel cells. Industrial users need massive safety zones, spark-proof gear, and constant ventilation. That’s not something we want coursing through urban refuelling infrastructure.Romm also skewers the geopolitical assumptions baked into Europe’s hydrogen plans—especially proposals to convert African renewables into hydrogen for export. He calls it what it is: 21st-century energy colonialism. Far better, he says, for Africa to use that clean energy locally to power homes, industry, and prosperity directly through electrification.Ultimately, Romm is clear: if the world is serious about climate, it needs to stop chasing the hydrogen mirage. We should electrify as much as we can, as fast as we can. The rest is delay, marketing spin, and stranded asset risk.His updated book, The Hype About Hydrogen, is available on Amazon this Earth Day—April 22. If you're still clinging to the idea that hydrogen will save the energy transition, this conversation might just change your mind.    

  --------  

  37:59

  --------

  37:59
• 51. The Hydrogen Titanic (1/2)

  In this episode of Redefining Energy Tech, host Michael Barnard sat down with Dr. Joseph Romm—physicist, energy policy veteran, and author of The Hype About Hydrogen—to pull back the curtain on hydrogen’s persistent mystique. Romm isn’t new to the debate. Back in the early 2000s, he was among the first to publicly challenge the logic of hydrogen as a viable energy carrier. Now, twenty years later, he’s back with a completely rewritten edition of his book, just in time for Earth Day, and the message hasn’t changed: the hydrogen hype is still hype.What makes Romm’s critique so compelling is his history. He once supported hydrogen research while in the Clinton-era Department of Energy, betting on Sandia Labs’ onboard gasoline reformers. But that hope dissolved under the weight of technical reality. In 2003, as the Bush administration rolled out its $1.3 billion hydrogen initiative, Romm published the first edition of The Hype About Hydrogen, drawing a stark contrast between hydrogen’s theoretical promise and its practical inefficiency. The fundamental math hasn’t budged. Hydrogen production, storage, transport, and conversion wastes up to 80% of the original renewable electricity. Batteries? They waste closer to 20%.Fast forward to today, and hydrogen is once again being paraded as a climate solution, this time with a new coat of green paint. But Romm’s updated research shows the same miscalculations baked into the models of the IEA, CSIRO, and even PIK—institutions that projected green hydrogen prices based on wildly optimistic learning curves. Hydrogen didn’t follow the same cost trajectory as solar or batteries. In fact, between 2020 and 2024, the cost of electrolyzers increased by 40%—a staggering reversal of expectations that should have set off alarm bells across boardrooms and ministries.We also tackled the real-world energy transition playing out in China. While Western nations argue over tariffs and watch supply chains buckle, China is installing 350 gigawatts of solar and wind in a single year—ten times its nuclear additions—and prioritizing direct electrification over hydrogen. It’s not just policy rhetoric; it’s industrial reality.This divergence is becoming painfully clear in the transport sector. European advisors have publicly declared hydrogen “dead for trucks,” pointing instead to the obvious solution: battery-electric vehicles and megawatt-scale charging infrastructure. The market is responding. Companies trying to straddle both hydrogen and battery bets—Van Hool, Quantron, Nikola—are struggling or collapsing. Romm calls this “narrative disarticulation”—an elegant way of saying that serious people are quietly walking away from the hydrogen dream.His final warning is unequivocal: investing in hydrogen based on outdated assumptions is a recipe for stranded assets and political distraction. Industry’s call to support “dirty hydrogen now, clean later” isn’t just a bait-and-switch—it’s a carbon trap dressed up in green branding. If we’re serious about climate, it’s time to let go of the hydrogen mirage and double down on what we know works: clean, efficient electrification.Want to rethink your assumptions on hydrogen? This is the episode to listen to.

  --------  

  36:47

  --------

  36:47
• 50. Geothermal: Drilling for Decarbonization (2/2)

  Simon Todd is back with Michael Barnard for part 2/2, and this time he’s drilling deeper—both literally and figuratively. In this second round, the Managing Director of Causeway Energies walks us through the hard tech and hard truths of geothermal energy, especially as it applies to the UK and Ireland. What emerges is a grounded, brutally realistic look at where geothermal works, where it doesn’t, and how to separate serious solutions from science fiction. We kick off with the cross-pollination of oil and gas tech into geothermal—rotary PDC bits, custom drilling muds, and all the bruised geology that comes with punching into granite. The oil patch may be sunsetting, but its tools are still getting a second act. Todd highlights how firms like Fervo are making surgical improvements to geothermal drilling by leveraging fracking's dirty tricks for clean heat, aiming to stimulate natural fractures in hot granite. It's technically elegant, but there’s a catch: the economics are still brutal. EGS systems might sound great on paper, but $150–$250 per megawatt-hour isn’t going to win against wind or solar anytime soon. Todd doesn’t sugarcoat it. The question isn’t if Fervo’s system works—it’s whether it can keep working at nameplate for 25 years straight.He then turns to the UK and Ireland's own geothermal potential. Unlike the flashy volcanic zones of the western U.S. or Iceland, we’re working with Hot Sedimentary Aquifers and radiogenic granites. The geology is less forgiving, but far from useless. Causeway’s bet is on moderate-depth wells—500 to 1,500 meters—which fall into what Todd calls the "Goldilocks zone": hot enough to matter, shallow enough to stay affordable.And this is where Todd really breaks from the crowd. Forget chasing deep geothermal megaprojects with 5 km drill strings and power plant dreams. Causeway Energies has pivoted to something far more practical: industrial heat. About half of emissions are tied to heating, most of it well below 100°C. Modern high-temperature heat pumps—some hitting 150°C—make pairing geothermal with industrial facilities like breweries and hospitals an obvious win. The kicker? These systems offer round-trip efficiencies that embarrass hydrogen and electrify sectors gas can’t reach.One technology worth highlighting here is the Standing Column Well—basically a turbocharged hybrid of open and closed-loop systems that’s 3 to 5 times more thermally potent than your average ground loop. It thrives in fractured aquifers that aren’t fit for drinking water, dodging some of the regulatory red tape. And with a century’s worth of oil and gas borehole data lying around, Causeway has a treasure map to the best locations.Simon Todd isn't pitching geothermal as a silver bullet. He’s carving out a niche: targeted, replicable, cost-effective solutions for decarbonizing industrial heat. It’s not glamorous. It’s not headline-grabbing. But it works. And in the climate transition, that might just be the most disruptive idea of all.Follow the podcast to hear more from the people actually building the energy future, not just imagining it      

  --------  

  55:55

  --------

  55:55

Fler podcasts i Teknologi

Trendiga poddar i Teknologi

Om Redefining Energy - TECH