If any of us were asked what we know of Central Asia, perhaps we could say it’s a geographical region located in the heart of the Asian continent made up of several countries that emerged from the disintegration of the USSR. We might even be able to name some of them and even highlight the great ethnic and cultural diversity of the area, or its wealth of natural resources, especially natural gas and oil. But, above all, most of us are reminded of the importance of this region in history because of the Silk Road, an ancient trade network connecting East and West. What maybe few people know is the key role that this region now plays in the global energy landscape.
Understanding the reasons for this key role
Made up of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, the region, which is home to a population of over 70 million people, with projections to reach 90 million by 2050, is characterised by a diversity of landscapes, from high pastures and mountains to vast deserts and steppes, and several transboundary rivers, making the region independent in terms of water, energy and food. But the distribution of these resources, is not uniform; while the upstream countries – Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – are rich in water resources, the downstream countries – Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – are rich in hydrocarbons. Thus, after the collapse of the Soviet System and the emerge of borders between them, these countries face huge challenges in terms of economic and political development, as well as environmental challenges related to the management of their natural resources, mainly in the water use, both for energy generation and agricultural demands, between upstream and downstream countries (because if the first ones consume too much water, the latter do not get enough to meet their demands in the same way as the first ones did).
The great chance of small-scale hydroelectric power
Small hydropower is based on harnessing the kinetic energy of water, such as riverbeds, small waterfalls or irrigation canals, to generate electricity in a small hydropower plant. In the study region, small hydropower offers a great opportunity to take advantage of the presence of numerous rivers and streams to generate electricity in a sustainable and decentralised way, while providing local communities with an economic source of diversified energy generation. However, it is important to carefully assess the environmental and social impacts of each initiative in each of the countries in the region, as well as to ensure proper planning and management to avoid potential conflicts and ecological damage.
In recent years, the five Central Asian countries have been engaged in detailed studies to exploit their renewable energy sources, which is why small-scale hydropower feasibility studies have been carried out in the region with different results and implementations to date, rehabilitating dams or building new ones.
Bases on these studies, we can infer that Tajikistan and Turkmenistan show a large hydropower potential, but only a tiny fraction has been exploited to date. On the other hand, Uzbekistan faces challenges due to altered river flows, while Turkmenistan has only sparsely developed hydropower capacity. Kazakhstan is working to increase its renewable energy capacity, including hydropower. In summary, each country it’s implementing specific initiatives to harness its hydropower potential and improve its energy infrastructure, but they continue to face challenges related to the unequal distribution of water resources.
At CARTIF, though theHydro4U1project, we are supporting the region to address this huge challenge in order to ensure a sustainable supply of water, energy and food as well as to develop resilience to climate change, all aligned with the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To this end, we are developing a system dynamics model to study the Water-Food-Energy Nexus (WFE) interlinkages and assess how the implementation of certain policies will affect energy and water security and the climate (or the fight against climate change) in these countries. It should be noted that our main objective, apart from the mentioned above, is to maximise the production of renewable electricity through the deployment of small-scale hydroelectric power plants, always ensuring the first instance the coverage of the remaining water demands (population supply, food production, industrial, etc.), taking into account the different climate change scenarios that the scientific community is considering (SSP126, SSP245, SSP585) to see their impact on the availability of water resources.
A complex challenge that is yet to be achieved!
1 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation under grant agreement No 101022905
By essence is meant that which constitutes the nature of things, that which is permanent and unchanging in them. Essence means the unchanging characteristics that make a thing what it is and without which it wouldn´t be what it is.
The experience of 15 years working in a technology centre has allowed me to realise and appreciate the importance of keeping the essence for which the Technology Centres (TTCC from now on) are created.
TTCC as they are conceived are the hinges of innovation by opening and closing the opportunities of innovation systems and by having the mission to connect the other four actors of the systems: public administrations, reserach organisations, enterprises and society. As centres have such an important role to play in linking science and funding with competitiveness and value, a strong and clear long-term commitment is needed from all actors to achieve robust TTCC clusters in terms of size and availability of resources and infrastructures. Without going into who was the chicken or the egg first, there are numerous examples that demonstrate the link between the competitiveness and prosperity of regions and the existence of establishe TTCC that have been able to drive science towards their exploitation.
TTCC are those entities that should strive to seek collaboration to enhance the results and not for the generation of pure science; they are entities that acts as a lever to move the innovative culture of the regions, providing value and growth to society. They are entities that seek to transfer knwoledge generate impact. They are the key agents for the leveraging funds aimed at increasing business competitiviteness and, in short, they are agents that grease the innovation wheel so that it becomes a virtuous circle in the regions.
What should define and differentiate TTCC is the impact we generate in the industrial ecossytems to which we belong, an impact measure from an economic and social point of view. That is why a pure Technology Centre that preserves its essence must be able to incrementally influences and modify a technology and adapt it to the resolution of a problem. Therefore, TTCC must focus their sustainability and growth strategy on choosing which technology or technologies to act on in order to generate value. The most common tendency that distorts the role of a TC and distances it from its essence is to focus its strategy on a sector. The sector shouldn´t be the means but the end. There are no strategic sectors if there are technologies (otherwise we should be called sectoral centres, not technology centres)If you know and control a technology very well, you will have no obstacles to belong to the value chain of any sector and you can be excellent in technology and bring value to the ecosystems by implementing it, you can have the essence of a technology centre.
TTCC must find, defend and work to maintain our role within the industrial ecossytems to which we belong, but above all to maintain the essence for which we exist: to work for and behalf companies and society to generate value, sustainable growth and prosperity. In short, we must work to generate innovation because this is the only way to preserve our essence.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for all of us.
In the fight against climate change, technological innovations is one of our most powerful allies. One of the most promising and challenging areas in this regard is the transformation of carbon dioxide (CO2), a prevalent greenhouse gas, into useful raw materials for industry and transport. This approach not only promises to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but also opens the door to a circular economy where waste becomes a resource.
Challenges and opportunities of CO2 as raw materia for industry
CO2 is the main contributor to global warming, arising mainly from the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has unprecedented levels, making it imperative to find effective ways to reduce these emissions. Capturing and utilising of CO2 is a promising strategy, transforming this gas into valuable products, which could revolutionise sectors such as transport and manufacturing, significantly reducing our carbon footprint.
Converting CO2 into value-added products: key technologies to meet the challenge of decarbonisation of industry and economy
CO2 transformation into raw materials involves several methods, including electrochemistry, catalysis and biotechnology. These technologies aim to convert CO2 into fuels, plastics, building materials and other industrial chemicals, which basically fall into three types:
Biotechnology: based on biological fermentation processes with gas-liquid phase substrate. It uses genetically modified organisms, such as microalgae and bacteria, to absorb CO2 and convert it into biofuels an chemicals. This approach offers the potential for highly sustainable processes that can operate under ambient conditions.
Methanol
Electrochemical technology: based on the use of electrical energy and potential difference between two electrodes to reduce CO2 into value-added chemicals (e.g. methanol, formic acid, etc.) which can be used as e-fuel, H2-bearing green molecules, or chemical precursos for industrial use. The efficiency of these processes has improved significantly, but they still face challenges in terms of scalability and costs.
Chemical-catalytic processes: based on the use of catalysers to active and accelerate the chemical reaction and transformation of CO2 into value-added products (methane, methanol, dimethyl ether, ,etc.)Current research lines are exploring new catalysts that can operate at low temperatures and pressures, making the process more energy efficient and economically viable.
On the other hand, CO2 transformation faces technical, economic and regulatory hurdles. Energy efficiency, cost reduction and integration of these technologies into existing infrastructure are key challenges. In addition, a regulatory framework is required to promote investment in these technologies and the use of CO2 products.
Despite these challenges, the capture and uses of CO2 as a renewable carbon source and to contribute to the decarbonisation of industry and transport, offers an unprecedented opportunity to mitigate climate change and advance towards a more sustainable and circular economy. By turning a problem into a solution, we can unlock new pathways for environmental sustainability, technological innovation and economic growth. Collaboration between governments, industries and scientific communities will be essential to overcome these challenges and harness the potential of these technologies for a greener future.
R&D projects such as CO2SMOS, coordinated by CARTIF´s Biotechnology and Sustainable Chemistry area, aims to develop a set of innovative, scalable and directly applied technologies in the bio-based industries sector that will help to convert biogenic CO2 emissions into value-added chemicals for direct use in the synthesis of low carbon footprint material bioproducts. To this end,and integrated hybrid solution is proposed that combines innovative technologies and intensified electrochemical/catalytic conversion and precision fermentation processes, together with the use of renewable vector soruces such as green H2 and biomass. Key elements to achieve the indsutry´s goal of zero-emissions and climate neutrality.
Biogas as an energy source is becoming more and more popular, but what is biogas and how does it differ from natural gas? The difference is that natural gas is a fossil fuel, while biogenic gas is renewable.
Natural gas was formed millions of years ago, at the age of the dinosaurs, like oil or coal. The accumulation of plankton as well as animal and plant rests on the seabed, buried by layers of soil, caused it to be produced in anaerobic conditions, that is, without oxygen.
Biological bacteria decomposed the organic matter and the gases generated bubbled upwards, and where there was an impermeable layer, they accumulated, giving birth to gas pockets or reservoirs. It is therefore a finite resource; once it is exhausted, there will be no more to supply human energy demands.
Natural gas consists mainly of methane, ethane and carbon dioxide, although it usually has other components or impurities, so the energy is obtained by combustion, compared to other fossil fuels it is more efficient and cleaner in terms of emissions, although it depends on the impurities.
Biogenic gas is also produced by the decomposition of organic matter under the action of bacteria, in the absence of oxygen, which is why it is also called Biogenic Natural Gas, but in this case in a tank with controlled conditions of temperature and pressure.
But in biogenic gas, the organic matter used comes from by-products of farms, crops or industries, so it is a renewable energy. The composition of biogenic gas is similar, but with fewer impurities, as the quality is improved by upgrading, which is explained in this blog post.
Moreover, natural gas is thousands of kilometres away, but biogenic gas can be produced in small tanks for self-supply, e.g. on a farm, or on a large scale in a sewage treatment plant, and existing natural gas pipelines can be used.
It may seem to be all advantages, but this is not the case, which is why CARTIF organised the first meeting of the Community of Practice within the Horizon Europe CRONUS project on 20 March 2024.
The Communities of Practice consist of the grouping of different actors in the biogas sector, such as universities, research centres, producers or distributors, among others, and act as spokespersons for the sector for both citizens and administrations, assessing the strengths and weaknesses, facilities and barriers to the use of biogas in order to make responsible use throughout the value chain.
At this first meeting, three main challenges were addressed:
Raw materials
Technology
Regulations: Logistical, Productive, Social
THE FIRST CHALLENGE, RAW MATERIALS
In the first challenge, the issue of raw materials was addressed. At present, there are no problems in finding them, but there are problems in obtaining supplies, the question is: is this a logistical or quantity limit? In terms of accessibility, it is not as accessible in the mountains as it is on the plateau, and in terms of plant and supplier size.
There is also concern that, in the future, due to the law of supply and demand, both raw materials and transport will reach exorbitant prices. It is necessary to start regulating and organising the market to ensure a supply where the whole value chain benefits.
It is important to consider the methanogenic potential, i.e. how much gas a plant can produce with a given raw material, this determines its viability, therefore the raw materials must meet certain standards and heterogeneity all year round, in order to obtain a constant production, both in quality and quantity.
This leads to the question of the suitability of single or multiple feedstock feeding. In some cases, it is necessary to pre-treat these feedstocks and due to the technical complexity they are not cost-effective, so having flexibility in the use of feedstocks is an advantage.
The most worrying aspect is the injection into the grid. There are problems when it comes to incorporating the gas produced into the existing national distribution network, which in some cases favours the self-consumption of gas, but in others, the waste of this energy source is wasted.
It is a mature technology, but there is still innovation to be done, especially with the bacteria, points of improvement such as new strains are still being discovered, and they make the process and therefore its efficiency is much better known.
In the end, it is an investment, so it is necessary to conscientiously measure the risk and profitability vs. administrative and legal barriers, and although more and more people are opting for it, there would be more if there was a financial push with subsidies, but they would not be the basis of the product.
THE SECOND CHALLENGE, TECHNOLOGY
The second challenge was to know the opinions about the FP5 prototype that is being developed in CARTIF within the CRONUS project. That can be seen in this video.
The expert assistants pointed out that it competes directly with upgrading, so it may not be economically viable on a large scale, but for small plants, it is a good solution, as it does not need to undergo such a large purification process.
On the other hand, it needs a hydrolysis stage, which requires energy, but it is a self-sustainable process, so it is able to be self-sufficient. Technology must favour profitability, as money is always a constraint, both for development and production.
Its strong point was highlighted, which is that it can valorise and reduce the CO2 generated in the AD, obtaining a higher quality biomethane than through traditional processes, especially because cogeneration is more interesting than gas for sale.
As it is the first meeting only the laboratory prototype could be seen, so they perceived that there could be problems in the scaling in the electrodes, as they have to be larger, and there is no microbial electrolysis cell-assisted anaerobic digestion technology (MEC-AD) on the market, but CARTIF already commented that there are more options to integrate MEC-AD in the digester.
It also raised the possibility of problems with having to restart the plant, after a shutdown, which can be slow and complex, but it is a continuous system so it will not be so slow.
The Community is optimistic about CARTIF’s FP5 prototype and is looking forward to seeing its progress in the next calls for proposals.
THE THIRD CHALLENGE, REGULATION: LOGISTIC, PRODUCTIVE, SOCIAL
This challenge is where there was the greatest participation and unanimity. It seems that the Public Administration is not advancing as fast as biogenic gas is. One barrier is the processing time, which can take up to 3 years for project approval, to which environmental authorisations must be added, and the time dedicated to the plant’s engineering project.
This could be favoured with legislation that favours self-consumption, such as premiums or payments for the generation and sale of energy. It would be interesting to map waste production throughout the country.
In the case of Castilla y León, there is the obligation to become an authorised waste manager and limitations on the maximum distance allowed for the transport of digestate, as in the transport of slurry, which shows that the administration is prepared.
But the definition of waste needs to be revised, in order to revalorise by-products for use in anaerobic digestion and also the resulting digestate as it has many potential uses, such as stripping/scrubbing or crystallisation of struvite, which can even be considered as an environmentally friendly product, as fertiliser.
Raw materials, such as slurry, must be used responsibly due to the contamination of aquifers by nitrates, so the use for biogas generation is a solution for this waste, and the resulting digestate could be revalued as fertiliser or as an ingredient for compost.
The growing demand for biogas highlights the need for the modernisation of farms to increase their income from the sale of waste and reduce energy costs by using biogas.
On the other hand, there is a need for the Administration to update its technicians with specific training, since, when evaluating a project, there is no clarity in the criteria, standards and administrative procedures to be applied, and there are differences between technicians.
In short, more support is needed from the Administration, especially with the private companies that control the distribution networks and establish the technical and economic requirements for connection and injection into the network, resulting in abusive technical and economic conditions. The Community of Practice considers this barrier easy to remove.
There is a lack of dissemination and knowledge, which is why citizens associate it with bad smells, noisy lorry movements and a lack of safety, which is why the Community of Practice is doing a good job of disseminating and raising awareness in society of how biogenic gas works and the technology associated with it.
There are both urban and rural barriers, each with its own complexity, in addition to the fact that each Autonomous Community has its regulations in this regard, so each plant in each area must be approached individually, through conferences, citizen participation, a network of interaction with citizens in other areas that already have this technology in place, but above all with transparency.
The reality is that the development of biogenic gas will contribute to rural repopulation, job creation, as well as energy production and the development of the Circular Economy, which is a pending issue in the 2030 agenda.
A couple of weeks ago I participated in a meeting of companies working in the field of information and communication technologies applied to the energy sector. Among the participants were representatives of companies that develop solutions based on artificial intelligence, electricity distributors, oil companies looking for a new path, research centres, etc. A person from Red Eléctrica de España (REE) also participated.
At a certain point in the ensuing debate, this person from REE made a comment that left the other participants speechless for a few moments. She said something disturbing, something unexpected, something disconcerting. This person from REE said that in the not too distant future we will have to forget about the idea of electricity being available all hours of the year. In other words, a representative of REE, which is the backbone of the Spanish electricity system, told those of use present that in the not too distant future there will not be electricity for everyone all the time.
Some surprise was visible on the faces of those at the round table with her. Some tried to clarify her words by mentioning demand response, a service whereby consumers forgo electricity consumption in exchange for compensation, like the SRAD1 currently in place in Spain. But she made it clear that this was not what she meant and insisted on the literalness of her words: there will be no electricity for everyone all the thime. I listened to her from my chair in the second row and three questions came to my mind: why this is going to happen, how is it going to affect us and how could it be avoided or at least alleviated.
The reason why energy for everyone all the time may come to an end is the renunciation of the use of fossil fuels. The day that happens we will only have renewable energies; and we already know that these are intermittent energy sources and cannot be controlled at will. In some countries, which is not likely to be the case in Spain, they will only be able to partially solve this problem by using nuclear energy. At least as long as they have acces to uranium mines, but that is another story that will have to be told another time.
Imagine what everyday life would be like without a secure electricity supply. It would become a scarce commodity and the price would increase. The energy companie could buy up battery farms to guarantee supply to those consumers disposed to pay even more. Many industries would become uncompetitive and migrate to countries with greater security of supply. Neighbourhoods of wealthy people would emerge with their ownmeans of generation and storage, allowing them to isolate themselves from the electricity system and avoid the problem. Those who could not afford to supplement or isolate themselves on their own energy island would suffer a new type of energy poverty. And we must bear in mind that in the not too distant future, home heating will be electrified, so increased dependence on electricity will exarcebate the problem.
What can we do to avoid this situation from affecting us to the point where we can no longer have a fridge at home? Perhaps the answer lies in local energy solutions, energy efficiencyand intelligent energy use: generating electricity where it is used, not wasting energy, storing surplus energy, converting electrical energy into thermal energy and thermal energy into electrical energy, and managing energy use using advanced predicton, control and optimisation techniques (what some call artificial intelligence). What would be the optimal local environment: a neighbourhood, a city, a region? These local environments could be connected with their nearest neighbours to exchange surplus energy and perhaps move from a centralised electricity system to a chain of more or less self-sufficient energy islands. And I say more or less self-sufficient because the problem of large energy consumers, such as industries or data processing centres, those 21st century factories whose raw material is data, remains to be solved. Could SMRs (small modular reactors) be a solution for industrial parks in the not too distant future? Not in Spain, it seems. And it would also be necessary to solve the problem of those industrial processes that require temperatures that are not easy to reach without fossil fuels. It doesn´t seem that adaptating to a world without gas and oil is going to be easy, especially if we take into account that photovoltaic panels, wind turbines and batteries require a large use of energy (nowadays fossil) for their manufacture. Will those who advocate zero growth be right? Or will those who see in Mad Max´s Negociudad a reflection of what awaits us be right? At the moment we have people from REE sowing doubts about the security of supply in Spain.
CARTIF was born, like many other technology centres, in the heart of a university department. In our case, our General Director José R.Perán created it almost 30 years ago in the department of systems and automatic engineering of the School of Industrial Engineering of the Univesity of Valladolid.
The center is growing and evolving in terms of the knowledge acquired, the number of researches that form part of it, as well as the facilities it has at its disposal.
It was in 2008 when I joined CARTIF, and I found that the centre was inmersed in the process of implementing a Marketing Plan drawn up by experts in the field with the objective of selling the technologies and knowledge that the centre had at that time to companies identified in that plan. At that time, the centre had a market-oriented installed capacity of almost 50% of its resources. In other words, half of the staff was clearly focused on transfer. With this installed capacity, returns were approximately 40%, i.e. almost half of the centre´s income came from turnover from companies.
With the “big” marketing plan, CARTIF launches itself into the market, devoting even more resources to try to make transfer, but obtaining practically the same results… The centre´s growth was stagnating and the national public funding crisis was threatening back in 2011. The centre began to dedicate resources to the European Framework Programme, in view of the predicted shortage of nacional funds, becoming the main programme from 2017-2018, when the era of kick-offs, work packages and the anxiety that the officer would admit us to the deliverable began…CARTIF researches at that time only had in their heads infodays, deadlines and reports… The level of stress was increasing due to the demands of the justifications.
A few years later, on 13 March 2020 every person at CARTIF walked out the door witht our computers and screens. A state of alarm was to be proclaimed, we were in a worldwide coronavirus pandemic… Hospitals were collapsed, nursing homes were armoured, it was a global emergency. The market was crying out for help… The market was knocking at the door.
CARTIF uses all the knowledge and technologies at its disposal. It starts to manufacture the famous PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) for healthcare workers, to provide sterilisation equipment,… The researchers are proud, they want more, for the first time in a long time they don’t have to convince the market, they just have to offer what it asks for.
The centre clicks again after a period of confusion and the transfer culture that has always existed reappears, this time reinforced with the new deputy general manager, reminding us of what we are: the agent that responds to the calls, and not calls, of the market.
Because the technology centres are the agent that acts as a hinge between science and the market, we have to stop the erroneous tendency to generate and then transfer, which is typical of a research organisation. Technology centres must internalise our role as agents of innovation, making researches become technologists, think about the market and feel proud and happy to help the business fabric and also as a natural extension to society.
Because only this way… We will be happy!
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for all of us
