Tag Archives: chat
European Energy Policy and the EU Road Map till 2050
Fabrizio Barbaso 03/11/2013 BRUSSELS – Today, energy security is more complex than ever before. Europe imports more than a half (54% in 2010) of its energy. It is very vulnerable to the global security situation. At the heart of European energy policy is the EU Energy 2020 strategy. This requires the EU to reduce its GHG emissions by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990; to increase the share of renewable energy sources in our energy use to 20% – almost double what it is now (currently 13% of its final energy consumption comes from renewables); and to increase energy efficiency by one fifth, over the same period. The 2020 agenda has been a broad success. Member States, local authorities and individuals have embraced it. Renewable energy has boomed, even at a period of economic slowdown, renewable energy investment is growing and the majority of new power plants in the EU are now renewables based. Energy Efficiency has taken a major step forward. More and more domestic items are subject to energy design and labelling requirements. The new Energy Efficiency Directive makes new obligations for local authorities, builders and energy suppliers to improve the use of energy both in homes and businesses. The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan has helped technology development. Offshore wind, fuel cells, second generation biomass, solar and PV, geothermal, smart grids, Carbon dioxide capture and storage – these are just some of technologies given priority in EU initiatives and funding. The challenge is to keep this up, despite the economic and financial crises. On renewables, we are working hard to push the network links to integrate new renewable resources into existing grids. We have also to prevent subsidy schemes from overcompensation at a high cost by society. On energy efficiency, which traditionally gets less attention, we will have to take care that new economic growth does not lead to a rise in energy use. On greenhouse gas emissions, there are additional difficulties as low coal prices and low carbon prices are making the task of reducing emissions more challenging. But the target of 2020 will be reached. The EU has already achieved GHG reduction by more than 18% below 1990 levels. Even so, the low-carbon, or “green”, economy will not be complete by 2020. Nor even by 2030. It will take us at least another three decades. That is the lesson of our 2050 Energy Roadmap. This Roadmap, which is based on a number of different scenarios, tells us that a low-carbon energy economy is possible. It is necessary. It is affordable, but it will take time and effort. And we need to get the rest of the world onto the same path. After all, Europe now accounts for only around one eighth of global emissions, and our share is diminishing. Low carbon investors are now waiting for the EU to agree the political direction for post-2020, leading up to 2030. Looking ahead, what are the trends in European energy policy? First, as I have already mentioned, market integration and reform are gaining in urgency, as we seek to complete the internal energy market for energy. Second, there is more and more EU collaboration in energy infrastructure. The European Recovery Programme for Energy was able to rescue a number of projects which were threatened by the economic crisis. The Hungary Croatia gas interconnector was just one which is now completed, thanks to EU support. The Austria – Hungary power interconnector will also help this region. The Commission’s new list of Projects of Common Interest will help us focus our efforts on specific projects which will help security of supply, sustainability and the integration of all parts of the European market. New money will be available under the Connecting Europe Facility. The Commission has adopted just a few days ago a list of priority projects for the EU and the Ministerial Council tomorrow will do the same for the Energy Community. Third, our external energy policy is becoming stronger and more cohesive. We have seen the EU taking a lead in negotiating with Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan over access to gas reserves. And this summer we had an important step forward on our proposal for a Southern Corridor to link that region with Southern Europe with the agreement on the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), which should also play an important role as a key part of South-East Europe’s “Gas Ring”. Continue reading
Biofuel Seed Developer Ceres Looks To Cash In On 16 Years Of R&D
Ceres, which uses advanced plant breeding and biotechnology to make better seeds for biofuels, is working to commercialize its products. Ceres Chief Executive Richard W. Hamilton Richard W. Hamilton, Ceres’ chief executive, says the Thousand Oaks firm’s seeds are superior to those of competitors. (Ceres Inc. / November 3, 2013) By Ronald D. White November 3, 2013, 5:22 p.m. The road to a clean biofuels future is not easily traveled. Ceres Inc. in Thousand Oaks has some highly regarded science on its side as a producer of genetically modified seeds for crops used to make biofuels. Under the motto “Growing tomorrow’s fuel today,” Ceres has used advanced plant breeding and biotechnology to make better seeds for sophisticated versions of crops such as sweet sorghum, high-biomass sorghum, switch grass and miscanthus. Started in 1997 by a UCLA professor and his corporate partners with more than $50 million in private capital, Ceres makes seeds that can be converted into a new kind of ethanol using plant fibers instead of corn kernels or sugar cane. Ceres sells seeds and provides seeds for trials to ethanol mills, including some in Brazil, and to power producers, cellulosic biofuel companies and growers. It also has its own breeding center in central Brazil and on customers’ fields, but it doesn’t refine products into biofuels. Ceres has been and remains a research-and-development company, but it has reached that crucial stage in which it is working to commercialize its products. The company, which raised $74.75 million in its initial public offering last year, has been profitable in only three years: 2003, 2005 and 2006. Richard W. Hamilton, Ceres’ president and chief executive, is looking to better days ahead with what he touts as seeds superior to those of competitors. “From a competitive standpoint, for the second year now, our portfolio of products outperformed products from other seed companies,” he said in a conference call with analysts. “This is according to feedback from mill customers where comparable or side-by-side trials were available.” He would not otherwise comment, a Ceres spokesman said, because the company was in the process of planning for its release of fiscal fourth-quarter results this month. Hamilton joined the company in 1998 as chief financial officer, rising to chief executive in 2002 to replace Walter De Logi, who remained chairman. The Latest For the third quarter, which ended May 31, Ceres reported that it lost $9.3 million, a wider loss than the $8.4 million in the year-earlier quarter. Sales, though, rose to $1.4 million from $1.1 million. The company, which has 96 employees, also said it would cut 17 positions in a cost-saving move. On a more positive note, Ceres extended a joint market development agreement with Syngenta in Brazil, where Ceres has introduced its sweet and high-biomass sorghum varieties to some of that country’s ethanol mills. Ceres is providing seed and research support to the project. Brazil’s ethanol mills operate about 200 days a year, but the use of Ceres sweet sorghum could extend mill operations an additional 60 days a year. Accomplishments The science behind Ceres seeds is highly regarded; it involves a process similar to mapping the human genome, but Ceres was mapping the cellular level of plants. Ceres has 100 U.S. patents related to its research and an additional 200 pending in the U.S. and abroad. The crops have the commercial potential to be sturdier and more productive for biofuel production, analysts said. “These traits include high drought tolerance, high sugar content, nitrogen-use efficiency and increased biomass yields, among others,” Hamilton said. The company’s seeds have given it significant strengths, particularly in comparison with similar products from much larger competitors Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co., said research analyst Caleb Dorfman at Simmons & Co. International. “Since Ceres’ hybrids both outperformed competitors’ hybrids and demonstrated that sweet sorghum can be profitable when cultivated correctly, we believe a large-scale adoption of sweet sorghum is still likely,” Dorfman said. Challenges Even so, Dorfman said in a recent note to investors, “it has been a tough road for Ceres.” He pointed to “lackluster planting and harvest” last year and noted that the “high expectations for the 2013 harvest were crushed” when ethanol mills told Ceres that they would need another year of field trials before deciding whether to proceed with commercial-scale plantings. Ceres said it needs to reduce costs and preserve cash. The company had $37.4 million in cash and marketable securities on hand at the end of the third quarter. “While we continue to believe a capital raise is necessary,” Dorfman said, “these cuts could help delay a cash infusion until market conditions are more favorable.” The company didn’t get as much as it had hoped for in its February 2012 IPO. Originally seeking as much as $23 a share, Ceres ended up going public at $13. Shares have been hovering below $1.50 after hitting a 52-week low of $1.10 last summer. It gained 2 cents, or 1.4%, to $1.48 on Friday. Analysts Despite its challenges, Ceres still attracts some attention on Wall Street. Of seven analysts who regularly cover Ceres, two regard it as undervalued and rate it as a strong buy. Another analyst rates it as a buy for the same reason. Two analysts are hedging their bets and telling investors to hold their Ceres shares. Dorfman considers Ceres “overweight,” meaning he expects the stock to outperform competitors in the coming months. ron.white@latimes.com Continue reading
Sharing The Risks And Costs Of Biomass Crops
October 30, 2013 Farmers who grow corn and soybeans can take advantage of government price support programs and crop insurance, but similar programs are not available for those who grow biomass crops such as Miscanthus. A University of Illinois study recommends a framework for contracts between growers and biorefineries to help spell out expectations for sustainability practices and designate who will assume the risks and costs associated with these new perennial energy crops. “The current biomass market operates more along the lines of a take-it-or-leave-it contract, but in order to encourage enhanced participation and promote a more sustainable, stable biomass supply, a new kind of contract needs to be created,” said Jody Endres, a University of Illinois professor of energy and environmental law. Endres said that a good contract gives everyone more certainty. “Incomplete contracts are the hazard,” she said. “We need to develop contracts that nail down all of the details and are transparent about who’s taking on the risk and who’s paying for it. If we get these considerations into the contracts, those who finance this new biomass crop industry will have more certainty to invest.” The study identifies considerations that should be included in the framework for a biomass contract, including a control for moral hazard, risk incentive tradeoff, existing agricultural practices, and risk and management tools to make the industry more sustainable financially and environmentally. Endres said that if biorefineries receive money in the form of carbon credits for reducing pollution, incentives for farmers should be included in contracts because they are the ones who are bearing the risks associated with sustainability practices. “Suppose a sustainability contract lists that the default should be integrated pest management rather than application of traditional pesticides,” Endres said. “The farmer takes on some risk to provide a sustainable product, but the biorefinery gets carbon credit for those sustainable practices. This should be worked into the contract—that if the farmer assumes the risk of IPM as opposed to traditional pesticide options, there has to be some sort of up-front payment or incentive in the contract to account for this risk. Due to the power relationships in this industry, the onus is on the biorefinery to be the leader in developing contracts in this new landscape.” The perennial nature of biomass crops also makes developing contracts challenging. “We’re in a unique environment, and traditional agricultural contracting structures just don’t apply,” Endres said. “Crop insurance is not currently available for farmers who grow biomass crops so they take on additional risk. Likewise, landowners see high prices for traditional commodity crops and do not want to be locked into a multi-year contract with a lessee to grow a perennial biomass crop. It’s complicated.” Endres said that although sustainability requirements are important, having an adequate supply of biomass is important as well. “We’re trying to envision a future in which we have a lot of biomass and one way to secure that is to recognize all of the risks and costs, especially when it comes to sustainability practices. It’s unique, and we do not yet have contracts for this aspect of the industry,” she said. A newly forming biomass standards group, in which Endres holds a leadership role, is looking at how the value of sustainability practices can be measured at the watershed, eco-shed or air-shed level rather than on the scale of individual farms. Endres said that the working group will examine how to ensure that balance is achieved between producers and consumers of biomass, including through contracts. “I’m optimistic that it can be done,” she said. “Growers and refiners right now are concerned with the industry being financially sound.” “There’s also a real need for education in both developed and underdeveloped countries about biomass contracting,” Endres said. “We’re trying to shift the paradigm from traditional agriculture to something that’s more sustainable–and that takes knowledge. If we don’t have that knowledge here in the United States and we’re trying to draft contracts in our very developed system, how is this going to be rolled out in say, Africa, or other areas where the use of production contracts are much more rare, especially in the small farm context?” Continue reading