To put this in perspective: The role of hydrogen in the German energy system is extremely small. There are a couple of test plants, but that's about it.
Yeah, lately there have been a few calls for more investments in that area, some articles discussing a larger role in the future. But it's certainly not at the center of the debate. The headline seems heavily overblown.
Trains may be better candidates than cars. There are many non-electrified branch lines that currently run on diesel and you need far fewer gas stations that have to deal with hydrogen and all its problems.
Your wording is a bit funny, so let me clarify: That's an actual train line with actual passengers. More train lines will be converted from diesel to hydrogen soon.
I don't see a big hydrogen movement happening in Germany any time soon no matter what the wishful thinking on that is at BMW and elsewhere. What I do see is two of the three car manufacturers flooding the market with BEVs in the next five years. They've been a bit slow to catch up to Tesla but VW and Mercedes seem to be quite serious about ramping up production.
"BMW's answer is to commit to continue building gasoline and diesel engines"
Now imagine a charging point using more electricity than your avarage household.
The grid is not ready for this and upgrading it might not be the best option.
Also know that there is up to 50% loss of electricity when transporting over long distances (like from wind-farm to the city).
Last, but not least: charging large vehicles like busses or trucks take a long time (and a lot of energy) time that is paid for by the company.
Now look at hydrogen: Produced and stored at decentralized locations, distributed through existing infrastructure, available at existing gas stations: Less stress on the grid, shorter charging times. Produce it where and when is most beneficial, store and transport it to when and where it is required.
I could go on. And probably somebody could go on with a lot of counter points.
However, this just states that 'BEV are just better', as you stated, is just not as simple as just that.
We are in a mobility and energy transition: Nothing about this is going to be easy.
Full disclosure: I operate both a corridor of electric car chargers and a hydrogen fueling station in Europe.
The first search result I found  says an average of 6% among US states, broken down as 2% loss in high voltage transmission and 4% loss in local distribution. The spread among states is from 2.2% total loss to 13%, so even given that wind farms may not be sited as close or optimally as fossil fuel plants, your figure of 50% seems implausible.
The only time I need to use a fast charger is when I am on a long trip. Normal commuting, shopping, day trips, works perfectly well charging at home on a 230 V, 16 A circuit (Tesla S 70D).
I agree that there must be more fast chargers but municipalities should concentrate on making it practical for people who live in blocks of flats to charge overnight. Just put a couple of normal Schuko sockets on every lamppost with a simple network controlled contactor. Insist that all parking spaces have such a connector.
> Also know that there is up to 50% loss of electricity when transporting over long distances (like from wind-farm to the city).
This affects the cost of production of hydrogen just as much as it does the charging of batteries so what is the relevance?
Also great to hear you live in a home where you can actually park your car close enough to the building to have the luxury of charging it through your own infrastructure.
I too have these benefits, and, probably like you, I too drive a Tesla vehicle cheaply, thanks to tax incentives and company benefits.
Now let's look at the other 99% of the world:
If you look at the totals, the situation you describe won't hold up in a full electric future. The sum of the energy requirement for all miles driven, against the opportunity to upgrade the network to meet demand, especially in zones where cars usage is dense (cities) and room for net-expansion is difficult or extremely costly (cities).. there is a huge deficiency.
The transportable and storable nature of hydrogen might come as a solution.
Also, I mention the electricity loss on the network because this actually is not well known. This discussion would likely have started with 'with hydrogen, 50% is lost' if I hadn't mentioned it. That's a go-to counter argument for hydrogen, but one that we should not be focusing on.
Most likely there is internal company politics in many of these car companies which makes it hard to convert to BEV development, it will mean many people losing their jobs, factories closing, etc.
Tl;dr: appeals to authority work, even when there's previous proof the authority has no pants.
To get emission cuts back on track, the government announced in July that 20 new research laboratories will receive a total 100 million euros ($110 million) a year to test new hydrogen technologies for industrial-scale applications. Even more money is earmarked for labs in “structural change” regions, or those most affected by the nations’ shift.
I wonder how much money they have spent on it so far.
After the explosion in Oslo some of them are shut down until further notice due to rework.
The Germans sold their cheat-cars as long as they weren't detected and even now when their own children protest against the political practices regarding climate change they don't really do something serious about it.
The sad thing is that this could be as good as the world will come with combating climate change. Nice.
You mean “some German companies”.
> even now when their own children protest against the political practices regarding climate change they don't really do something serious about it.
Germany is one of the best player in Europe in this domain. The country has ~35% of its electricity generated from windmills and solar panel (average during the year) and it’s in very active development. The main critic from my point of view is the fact that the country renounced using nuclear power, but that’s what people in Germany were asking for.
Just look at the most recent European Parliament elections, the Green Party got more than 20% of German votes. I expect to see politics spending more of their time and budget focused on ecological and environmental issues in the future as a way to gain those votes.
Oh really? Germany held a referendum where the majority of "the people" voted against nuclear? I don't think so. There's no reliable way to know what "the people" really want other than a referendum IMO. I don't believe for a second that "we know" that this is what Germans wanted.
As far as I remember Merkel used the (German) emotions during the Fukushima nuclear disaster as an argument to shut down all German Nuclear reactors. The timing: the political campaigns for the next elections about 2 weeks later. The decision to close down Germany's nuclear plants was political. The votes on Merkel (her party) are not equal to German anti-nuclear votes. I don't agree that there is a way to know that "this is what the people wanted". Let's not pretend Germany is a direct democracy...
It's impressive that Germany got to 35 % renewable. It's CO2 emissions however have not gone down sufficiently to reach their 40 % reduction goal. In part because "renewable" doesn't mean "no CO2 emitted". Renewables still emit significantly more CO2 than nuclear plants do per generated unit of energy. Solar panels need to be produced, transported, installed and maintained, they are not recyclable, their lifetime is very limited (25 to 50 years efficient production). A similar thing goes on with wind. Renewables are also more deadly per TWH than nuclear. Even when counting all the disasters .
Compare France (a nuclear power generation country) to Germany and this all becomes very clear. France has one of the lowest consumer electricity prices in Europe. Germany has the second highest consumer electricity price in the world. Yet, France has significantly lower CO2 emissions per capita.
Also, the "wasted CO2 cost" of shutting down nuclear plants prematurely is not 0. Significant amounts of CO2 are produced during installing and "uninstalling" of nuclear power plants. If you close such a plant prematurely it means the tons of CO2 per generated TWH go up. Your clean nuclear plant all of a sudden becomes dirtier. I wasn't able to find or calculate how significant this is however.
The Germans couldn't even do that nasty political thing that France is doing even if they wanted to. That's how high their production price (and subsidies through taxes) are.
Hydrogen needs entirely separate refineries/production facilities, specialized transport vehicles and fuel stations, all of which must be built entirely from scratch and negate many of its efficiency benefits. A viable hydrogen vehicle market would likely need tens if not hundreds of billions in initial capital just to get off the ground and be self-sustaining; and even if such an effort was politically feasible why not put that money into BEVs where it will arguably do more good?
EDIT: forgot to link the article but I'm on my phone now. Some clever googling will find it for you if you're interested.
So it’s either:
1) more nuclear plants in Germany (lol)
2) increased German dependence on Russian natural gas (lol)
As we move towards more intermittent renewables, assuming the market remains intermittent, there's an entire new class of demand that's feasible.
Essentially anything that "only needs power sometime in the next week, can soak up a semi-arbitrary amount of power, and can start/stop quickly (ideally grid-controlled)."
I'd have no issues if a household or building's HVAC system, hot water system, electric car chargers ebbed and flowed their demand in response to supply.
E.g. when I turn on my dishwasher, I don't care if it holds for 2 hours and then runs because the winds are calm now, but expected to pickup in 2 hours.
I don't care if my hot water heater superheats water now because it's especially sunny or windy out.
I don't care if my electric car chargers over the course of 8 hours in the evening, instead of charging quickly now.
I don't care if my AC system makes the building a couple of degrees cooler now to thermal bank the excess supply before rates increase later.
You're essentially increasing the number of market participants a couple orders of magnitude, and the system and existing players semi-understandably balk.
On the other hand, without exposure to end users, the utility-driven pace of change is going to be glacial (by which I mean, we won't have glaciers anymore either).
I do feel like we should start billing on per-5-minute increments, then the responsiveness will come.
I think overnight we'll have a thousand startups selling devices that turn on/off your HVAC or car charger accordingly and save you money overall. Possibly even with a warmer home in winter or cooler home in summer, by being strategic.
Supply is managed at the ISO level (a grid subsection, like the entire California grid), not the individual consumer level. The ISO monitors the AC frequency of the grid, which varies with the imbalance of supply and demand. The ISO contracts with "spinning reserve" generators who supply power to the grid at low latencies when needed to meet demand, a service known as frequency regulation.
There are efforts underway to provide frequency regulation via demand control and battery storage instead of spinning reserves, which are typically Nat gas turbine powered.
Instead of spinning up a natgas turbine, why not let my water heater or car charger take a break as a part of the market?
There are some grid level implementations of this (install our thermostat that we can remotely turn off to get a 5% rebate), but these seem to work around the primary problem: we pay an average price for electricity, not the actual price.
And if it all works based on grid frequency, the system could even work offline: water heater sees frequency drop and takes a random break between 1 and 60 minutes.
Or variable-frequency drive AC drops 10% in intensity, or increases by x% when frequency is getting a little high.
Indeed, that's precisely what I meant by frequency regulation via demand control and batteries.
The problem I was thinking about was demand harmonics.
It's not unreasonable to envision a scenario where a large number of independent devices, acting in their own self interest, end up oscillating between on and off together. E.g. by using the same logic.
It seems like you need something approaching a parallelism primative to coordinate behavior. E.g. bid two steps in advance, find out if your bid was accepted one step in advance, then act.
Or is bidding in energy markets already complex enough to avoid that outcome?
Frequency regulation is, however, a relatively small amount of power, and the grid itself needing to run at a particular frequency is more the result of loads that rely on the grid frequency for timing (i.e. A/C electric motors in fans).
In the future the grid frequency could be allowed to vary much more if loads become resilient to frequency variations.
The bigger (in terms of total energy) issue is shifting load to match supply, or vice versa. That can be achieved with appliances that store energy in one form or another. One of the most interesting examples of this is generating ice with wind energy at night to be used for cooling during the day.
My car charger can interface with them, and do exactly what you suggest. In theory you "just" need smart controllers for the systems.
The idea is similar to 1980s "Storage heaters", which would use cheaper nighttime power; but using fossile electricity this is very inefficient and thus bad for the environment - when exclusively using excess regenerative energy that's different though. Same for AC.
The problem is when there is no excess energy for a long time; so I'd personally go with a hybrid system for heating (regenerative energy when available for a heat pump, local solar thermal energy for "base load" heating/warm water - not sure if fossil fuel for winter is necessary with that, but that depends on your climate).
I feel that electricity prices being cheap or negative is because very few actually get those prices (e.g. residential/commercial customers paying averaged rates when they shouldn't). Or transmission/distribution prices being averaged (which should also rise/lower with demand because capex upgrades are driven by peak users)
Most boilers and gas hobs are fine up to 10% hydrogen instead of 100% methane.
It's a good way to reduce the carbon footprint of heating by 10% (edit: after reading the message from aurelwu, this doesn't make sense, it won't reduce by 10, but by less than that), assuming the hydrogen has been produced in a reasonable way (excess solar and wind for instance).
No, in the end of the day it is a matter of efficiency, i.e. money. Hydrogen is just really inefficient in production, storage, and converting it back to energy. Unless this is solved (which I don't see) it cannot compete with batteries.
Using high temperature nuclear heat is not. You just need gas-cooled reactors that can make 900 to 1000 °C steam.
This company is making gas-cooled reactor in Canada and claim they can make competitive Hydrogen: https://usnc.com/FCM.html
The processes are different from electrolysis. From https://art.inl.gov/NGNP/NEAC%202010/INL_NGNP%20References/R...
"1. SI Process: A thermochemical process that incorporates: (1) endothermic decomposition of hydrogen iodide (HI) at about 450°C in the presence of a carbon catalyst to yield hydrogen and I2, (2) recycle of the iodine to a concurrent or countercurrent column reactor where it reacts exothermically at about 120°C with sulfur dioxide (SO2) via the Bunsen reaction to form hydriodic acid (HI) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), (3) gravimetric separation of the HI and H2SO4, and (4) thermal/catalytic decomposition of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to oxygen and SO2 at high temperature, up to 900°C, with the SO2 recycled back to the Bunsen reaction section. In the SI process, H2SO4 acts as oxygen carrier and HI as a hydrogen carrier.
2. HTSE Process: A ceramic electrolyte and electrode electrolysis process operating at up to 950°C. Water is the only reactant, and high temperatures allow for some of the energy required to split the steam (water) to be supplied as heat as opposed to electricity alone, as in LTE cells.
3. HyS Process: A hybrid process that produces hydrogen and oxygen in a polymer membrane based electrolysis cell operating at temperatures below 125°C. In the HyS process, SO2 is used to depolarize the cell and allow it to operate at lower voltages and hence higher efficiencies and current densities as compared to higher temperature electrolysis cells. Sulfuric acid is produced along with hydrogen in the cells, with the SO2 recycled from a sulfuric acid decomposer similar to that used in the SI process."
Nonetheless, on a longer timescale, hydrogen effectively becomes a roundabout instrument of space-, time- and demand-shifted energy storage, but potentially bulk-conveyable using portions of existing gas pipeline infrastructure. This compares favorably to batteries (which are heavy, solid, contain other commodities, and are non-bulk-conveyable in a comparable way), and other energy storage schemes (which are immobile or lack effective the distribution of work). It's broadly similar to hydrocarbon natgas and syngas, but without the direct release of carbon during actual combustion.
The hope in this effort to encourage progress and deployment of hydrogen-based technologies, infrastructure, and business models, and tolerate some short-term wastefulness to target a more favorable goal in the long term.
I have read that the meme that hydrogen is a good replacement for fossil petroleum mostly gained ground in the GW Bush era, in an attempt to appear to be taking green fuels seriously in a way that was actually friendly to petrochemical industry. It's not a coincidence that 1) Bush pushed the "hydrogen economy", and 2) hydrogen largely comes from fossil fuels.
A really, really good writeup here:
It's true that it's inefficient, but I'm curious as of how much inefficient it really it, because nuclear energy can be made abundant and cheap if you use electrolysis close to a nuclear plant.
(This may sound somewhat on-the-nose, but one of the biggest lessons 'hydrogen-gas-is-the-future' hype has to teach is just how useful hydrocarbons are compared to any other method of chemical hydrogen use.)
There's enough energy in the gas network today to power the world for a few days, seems like a great way to store excess renewable power.
Salt domes (commonly used to store large amounts of natural gas) might also be useful for hydrogen storage but would need to have their plumbing replaced.
The best way to store energy is in potential gravity energy. We should build these modules connected to the grid to buffer alot energy. Smart Grid etc.
Electric cars with smart grid implementation into them would also help alot.
Also these buffer hubs can even EARN MONEY. If they buy cheap electricity at daytime from solar, sell it at night for more.
It's an actual business case.
Those are most likely volume percent... methane/natural gas has 3x the energy density of hydrogen so it pretty much does not have any effect on emissions but is mostly a publicity stunt.
But what you say makes perfect sense, it all depends on how much energy we generate from the mix.
Is there any literature or numbers on the subjects I could read somewhere?
To show that its really by volume they usually talk about, here just 1 example:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f11/blending... ( first paragraph).
Using volume percent is not directly a dishonest way to talk about it as that is pretty common way to look at things when it comes to gas and gas distribution networks, however it conveniently gives the wrong impression to a lot of people about potential emission savings - originally myself included ;). A 50% hydrogen - 50% methane/natural gas (by volume) mix just reduces the carbon footprint by ~22% (while requiring lots of investments, for example into gas turbines which work well with such a gas mix, lots of other end users also would have trouble with that mix)
Can't find a proper reference, but one of the most efficient way to store energy is pumping water up and storing it there, in which case the efficiency is close to 90%, and the cost of storing large amounts of energy are low. Doing what you are proposing should have an efficiency below 50% - or more than 5 times worse -, without considering much higher energy storage costs.
90% efficiency: spend 100 joules to get 90 useful joules, wasting 10.
50% efficiency: spend 100 joules to get 50 useful joules, wasting 50.
You could say that 50% efficiency is five times more wasteful than 90%, but that doesn't strike me as a useful metric. More useful is to observe that spending 100 units of energy at 90% efficiency gets you roughly twice as much usable energy compared to 50% efficiency (9/5 = 1.8 times, to be precise).
A low efficiency solution with high storage capacity absolutely has a role in the transition to renewables.
Solar and wind are going to necessarily be overbuilt in terms of peak capacity. If you have enough to power your country on a relatively calm overcast day, what happens on a windy clear day?
What ever happened to ethanol anyway? It seemed like it was about to be a thing ~10 years ago -- a similar position to electric cars today -- and then it vanished without a trace. Did it die or was it murdered?
Corn ethanol is not a very good way to reduce co2 emissions. It only yields about 1.5 units of energy per unit of energy invested vs 7 for Brazilian sugar cane ethanol. In the US it's a farm subsidy program ( in Germany their big corn subsidy is turning it into methane). The reason you think it disappeared is that everyone now realizes it's justifications don't make sense but farm states are too important to take a subsidy away from.
Are you suggesting we spend resources to get CO2 out of the air and then burn them, releasing it again? We could capture it again (which is easier when there is a high concentration, such as at the exhaust of any such plant), but that seems like double the effort. You probably have a reason why this is a good idea or you wouldn't be suggesting it, so I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.
"Flex fuel" cars were very much a thing, mass production of ethanol as fuel was very much a thing, and it was supposedly at nearly price-parity with gasoline. No dreaming necessary. Something happened, though. Saudi oil price cuts? The great recession? Subsidy politics? Some combination of those? I'd love to hear from someone who knows more.
I have worked with hydrogen in school. And it's so funny how much details people forget which actually impact the WHOLE idea of hydrogen solutions.
I am sure it will never take off, just because it's already against the limits of the laws of nature. Unlike chemical batteries.
Also to store energy, most efficiënt and cheap way to store mass ammounts of energy is in gravity. Current applications have a back and forward efficiency (Charging/decharging) energy of 85%.
While hydrogen probably has a maximum of back and forward efficiency of maybe 20%-30%. While waisting the other 70%.
Please. Don't read hydrogen propaganda. Read implementations and read the math. And then do the math yourself instead of following the hype of fake hydrogen news.
You also have significant losses when you convert it back electricity/heat with fuel cells, or burning it.
> Oxygen is great for producing syngas
This is really interesting. I wonder how much this helps offset the losses mentioned above?
And then think about gravity energy storage which has an actual back and forward efficiency of 85%.
This is useful in remote locations (cell towers, villages, etc.) where a liquid oxygen tank would not be viable.
Just to clarify, when I say, "not cheap" I'm more or less referring to the energy costs and not the actual monetary costs. It's energy intensive to bring air down below −183 °C to liquify the oxygen out. When contemplating future energy sources, it's these round trip energy expenditures that are most important. Not to mention the infrastructure costs (liquid oxygen tanks, roads that can safely handle shipping, etc. aren't cheap either).
Does anyone think its a worthwhile competitor to BEVs for personal and commmercial use?
This sounds like a joke about the Hindenburg.
The world still needs hydrocarbons. They need to be made renewably. That might only be affordable when wind and solar is overproducing, ie we’re getting “free” energy. Producing those hydrocarbons solves a lot of problems, including balancing the power output from those renewable power plants
I’m not so sure about hydrogen specifically. It just doesn’t have great properties. It’s just that it’s pretty easy to make renewably. Making synthetic hydrocarbon gases is harder, but it helps capture CO2 (at least temporarily) and is more energy dense and versatile. We also have better hydrogen fuel cells, but that could also change with time. Besides, I think this article was mostly about burning gases.
I think this is a good direction for Germany.
But then they forget we got a huge factory here which has hydrogen as a byproduct. hahahaha Yeah. So it's wouldn't work somewhere else.
Also they added a small solar field which generates hydrogen for green hydrogen. It's just waisting so much potential solar energy.. It's sad.
It's just that some local company which sells equipment and gas equipment who persuaded the local government which have no single knowledge about hydrogen and just want to create a "GREEN IMAGE".
Hydrogen is NOT a green solution. It's just a myth.
My landlord said it was the energy corps that were against it. The tech is so simple that you could run it at your home with a small solar panel.
Don't know if he was right.
From memory, splitting water into Hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis, only to be converted back to electricity is very lossy. I believe that most hydrogen generated at industrial scale is derived from fossil fuels.
Storage is also very difficult. Hydrogen is so small it can squeeze through a lot of gaps, making it hard to contain. You probably have to store it at high pressure and at cryogenic temperatures.
Granted, using hydrogen produced that way isn't a win over just using natural gas.
Hydrogen does sound like an interesting option for countries that can't generate the power needed to generate hydrogen for power plant scale operations with green options like wind and solar. The hydrogen could be generated elsewhere and brought into the country or regions I suppose?
Just to rephrase your argument. I actually do understand the benefits of an EV, but you definitely give up some freedom with it. And charging infrastructure will most likely never reach the level gasoline infrastructure is at, simply because charging takes much longer than pumping liquid in a tank.
Further as mentioned in another answer, I would be legally unable to install a charger at home (even a non-fast-charging one).
We are years, if not decades, away that the EV charging infrastructure can compete for long-distance travel and I wouldn't switch before. (yes, I travel regularly over 500km one way)
Fueling stations don't have to offer this service. At least in Germany I had never had to wait more than 5minutes for a spot with over 50.000km on the road so far. And if a station seemed utterly full, the next one is less than 10km away. However, friends with a Tesla have complained over fully occupied charging spots during long distance travel. So your 30min bio break can need another 30min of waiting. 30min of charging vs 5min of filling up gas, still needs 6 times more capacity to support the same number of vehicles. Also a 30min breaks invites you to leave the vehicle and go for food/whatever, causing you to occupy the charging spot longer than needed.
Don't neglect that these Tesla Supercharger 3 stations are also expensive to build.
Don't get me wrong, I do want to switch to an EV, even just because of the nicer driving experience, but there are legitimate downsides to it (currently). Talking those away with optimism is nothing but marketing talk.
And yes, I agree, there are use szenarios where electric cars are not quite as comfortable as ICE vehicles. On the other side, if you drive a lot, the cost savings of an electric car could be significant and should be factored into the buying decision.
But many people don't. I travel more than 200km by car (range of my i3) only a few times a year. And for all those other days, having a charger at home is just soooo nice compared to having to frequently waste time at gas stations.
They just get home, stick it in the charger and in the morning go to work. That's literally IT. Also very low maintenance intervals.
For manyyyyy of these people there simply is no option to conveniently fast charge their electric vehile at home. No renter will want to invest in a pricy wallbox at a property that they don't own - even if the landlord would allow such a wallbox to be installed (most don't want any modifications to their building). And for the apartment/unit owners, a german court has decided that all the other unit owners must agree to such a wallbox being installed, so thats another obstacle.
This stuff doesn't just go away and I would suspect even politics would have trouble changing the law for this. There is a lot of supreme court control involved when it comes to property.
I live on the third floor of an apartment block. Am I supposed to throw a 30-meter extension cord down the balcony every evening?
The biggest blow of confidence in nuclear power was very likely Chernobyl in 1986. It made the German public realise what effort you have to put in to contain a nuclear disaster. Have a look a the locations of German reactors. And now imagine an exclusion zone around them and note the cities that are affected. It would spell economic disaster for the entire country. On top of that Germany isn't even remotely capable of commandeering the amount of man power the Soviets had to.
Now let's look at politics.
The government under Gerhard Schröder decided to phase out nuclear energy. The next government under Angela Merkel put a stop to the full phase out and issued an extension for existing plants in 2010 . In 2011 there was a "moratorium" that consisted of a reevaluation of existing plants with the possibility to close plants ahead of their extended time . This is the only political action taken after Fukushima. The ball had been rolling long before that.
Please don't believe the simplified, sensationalist recounts that are popular in the American media.
Hydrogen, in fact, if made by electrolysis from renewable energy, would be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear. That's because it would destroy the last, desperate argument the nuclear fans are making: that renewables cannot reach 100% due to occasional long windless/cloudy periods, and that batteries to tide over those periods would be too expensive. Batteries would be too expensive, but hydrogen burning turbines would not be.
[edit, better link]:
Renewables will be fine for Europe once all the heavy industry is gone.
If you mean 'started', then the Energiewende started around 2000 in Germany.
Whether the CO2 reduction are stalling for a few years is relatively unimportant for a project which has a horizon of 50 years.
CO2 reductions in Germany in 2017 were 0.5%. In 2018 around 4.5%...
2019 looks good so far. For electricity production the first half of 2019 has seen a CO2 reduction of 15% compared to the first half of 2018.