Tag Archives: emissions
UK Power Stations To Carry On Burning Wood, Spelling Uncertainty For Emissions
06 Sep 2013, 12:10 Robin Webster The government hasn’t turned away from plans to generate increasing amounts of electricity by burning biomass, despite introducing new restrictions to its subsidies. Burning plants, trees and crops in power stations instead of coal or gas is an important part of the government’s plans to switch to greener sources of electricity. In 2011, it suggested the sector could grow by nine per cent a year, accounting for about one-fifth of the total amount of renewable power the country sources by 2020. Controversy recently blew up after NGOs claimed that far from being a renewable source of power, burning trees in power stations could even more carbon-polluting than coal. The renewables industry hit back, accusing green groups of ” scaremongering ” on the issue. But then government put in place new limits on subsidies for biomass power stations. It also introduced sustainability criteria for biomass, under which biomass burnt in power stations should emit 72 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the grid average by the end of the decade. So does this mean the government’s lost enthusiasm for bioenergy? Not really. Subsidies still good First up, the subsidy cut is pretty limited in scale. Specifically, the government has set a 400 megawatt cap on the amount of new biomass plants it is prepared to subsidise under its old subsidy system, known as Renewables Obligation Certificates . Under its new system – Contracts for Difference – it says it won’t subsidise new-build biomass at all, unless it also puts in place a combined heat and power system (CHP) as well. But the subsidy cut doesn’t apply to coal-fired power stations – like Drax power station , Eggborough , Ironbridge or Alcan Lynemouth – that want to convert to burn biomass instead. The government has promised it will keep subsidising these power stations up until 2027. Figures from a Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) report indicate converted power stations could be burning between 15 and 25 million tonnes of biomass by 2017. Industry group Back Biomass told us in May it expects Drax power station to burn seven million tonnes of biomass and Eggborough around eight million every year. The comparable figure for the UK’s annual wood harvest is five million tonnes , so that would mean burning a lot of wood. Back Biomass told Carbon Brief this week: “The biomass industry has enjoyed a strong underpinning in legislation, regulatory measures and Government support. DECC has reassured stakeholders recently that it remains committed to biomass in the energy mix.” It says the government’s promise to continue to subsidise biomass conversions has given “much needed confidence” to investors in the sector. DECC tells us it will be publishing a new renewable energy roadmap this Autumn, which will include revised projections for how much energy it expects to get from different sources. Maybe it will contain surprises, but there seem to be few grounds for assuming a big reduction in biomass power. Greenhouse gas emissions and the mystery of the missing calculator If biomass is going to retain a significant stake in the UK energy mix, questions will continue about whether or not it can be counted as a low carbon fuel source. Some research indicates that because it takes such a long time for trees to grow back, burning whole trees could release even more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. A draft ‘carbon calculator’, developed by DECC and leaked by NGOs in March , appeared to agree. The preliminary results suggested biomass generation produces more emissions than burning coal in five out of the twelve scenarios tested. The NGOs were criticised for leaking the calculator. Back Biomass pointed out that the calculator was still in development phase and would change. And DECC’s chief scientist, David Mackay, wrote to green groups to protest at the release of the findings before they were finalised. Meanwhile, the calculator’s official launch has been delayed. What’s more, according to the NGOs, the government’s new sustainability standards fail to take the findings of DECC’s calculator into account – because they don’t factor in the carbon emissions associated with burning trees. Kenneth Richter from environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth says: “The government’s sustainability criteria are near-meaningless as they ignore the most critical issue: The carbon methodology fails to distinguish between those biomass pathways that result in real emission savings and those that result in higher emissions than fossil fuels as DECC’s own research has shown.” The government says it won’t make any further changes to its carbon accounting methodology until 2027. So if there are any problems with it, it’s going to be a while before they get changed. We put these points to DECC, but didn’t get a response. How much biomass will the UK burn in the future? Arguments over burning biomass and greenhouse gas emissions are complicated . The analysis that biomass could be ‘more polluting than coal’ is based on the assumption that whole trees are burnt in power stations. But the biomass industry argues this is an unrealistic option . It says by-products from forestry like sawdust, bark and thinnings will be used instead, which would be much less polluting. Campaigners disagree. Last week NGOs in the USA released a report arguing demand for biomass in Europe is driving deforestation in North Carolina. Whatever the truth, it appears we’re still planning to burn quite a lot of biomass – a good deal of it wood – in power stations over the next few years. And quite what that means for greenhouse gas emissions remains an important, and unanswered, question. Continue reading
MEPs Approve Proposals To Reduce Biofuels Emissions
Influential Environment Committee backs cap on crop-based fuels and moves to include indirect emissions in EU directives By Will Nichols 11 Jul 2013 EU parliamentarians have approved proposals to limit the contribution of conventional biofuels toward its green transport targets, in a move producers labelled “complex and ineffective”. MEPs in the influential Environment Committee (ENVI) voted 43-26 – with one abstention – to set a cap for fuels made from food crops at 5.5 per cent and include emissions arising from indirect land use change (ILUC) factors such as clearing of forests, wetlands or grasslands in the Renewable Energy Directive and the Fuel Quality Directive when calculating official emissions impacts. The commission had already proposed a five per cent cap, roughly equating to current levels, but the EU Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) said last month this should be raised to 6.5 per cent and recommended ILUC factors not be included until the methodology for measuring indirect emissions is more reliable . The cap is designed to accelerate the development of so-called second-generation biofuels, which derive from materials such as waste, agricultural residues or algae, which in theory do not compete with food production but have yet to reach industrial levels of production. The Committee approved proposals that such advanced biofuels should account for at least two per cent of overall consumption by 2020 and, to boost the market share of electric vehicles , electricity produced from renewable sources should also account for two per cent. Green groups have blamed biofuel production for rising food prices and point to a number of research papers that suggest ILUC emissions mean that some forms of biofuel, particular biodiesel made from palm or soybean oil, are worse for the environment than the petrol and diesel fuels they are designed to replace. However, producers argue the science around ILUC calculations is still in its infancy and that the EU should not undermine a £14bn industry on such a premise. Moreover, they argue there is a real threat the EU will not be able to meet its goal of using 10 per cent green energy in transport by 2020 by effectively ruling out 80 per cent of EU biofuels, and warn that by changing the goal posts the move could deter investors in next-generation fuels. Kåre Riis Nielsen, director of European affairs at Danish company Novozymes, which manufacturers enzymes for both first- and second-generation producers, branded the proposals “a complex and ineffective package”. He said the proposals in the ITRE report would be a better way of promoting the best performing biofuels while addressing ILUC issues in a “practical manner”. “Limiting the share of conventional biofuels to 5.5 per cent prevents further growth of the industry and ignores the strong contribution conventional ethanol makes to decarbonise the transport sector even when ILUC is accounted for,” Nielsen said in a statement. “The ENVI Committee has ignored the opinions provided by other Parliamentary Committees… that recommended a more balanced approach allowing conventional biofuels to develop sustainably while incentivising further innovative advanced biofuels. “Today’s vote fails to provide the needed long-term and stable policy framework for industry and investors and would jeopardise the future of best performing biofuels including advanced biofuels industry.” Kenneth Richter, biofuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth, gave the measures a cautious welcome, but argued that they represented a “timid step” when bolder action was required. “The introduction of ILUC factors is an important decision to ensure that only biofuels that benefit the climate are being supported,” he said. “But it’s disappointing that the committee has not set a trajectory for phasing out the use of food for fuel, but instead chose to cap it at a level that is even higher than current use. “It’s crucial that when the parliament’s plenary votes in September, it must not further water down the current proposal.” Giuseppe Nastasi of ClientEarth, was equally circumspect, arguing a five per cent cap is still too high to prevent ILUC emissions, “Moreover, MEPs voted to subsidise some advanced biofuels made from environmentally dangerous materials such as industrial and municipal waste (with the exception of a few waste streams), plus forestry and agricultural residues whose use endangers biodiversity and soil fertility,” he added. “This will have to be corrected by Parliament on 10th September.” However, Nusa Urbancic, clean fuels manager at campaign group Transport & Environment, said the proposals would promote the production of “genuinely emissions reducing transport fuels” including advanced biofuels and renewable electricity for electric vehicles. “It is encouraging to see that MEPs in charge of protecting our environment finally addressed the elephant in the room by fully accounting for indirect emissions in the EU biofuels policy. This vote will pave the way for truly sustainable transport fuels, which actually reduce emissions , as of 2020,” she said. “The full European Parliament now needs to uphold in September the science-based decision made by the Environment Committee. Otherwise, public support worth at least €10bn a year will continue to be wasted on harmful biofuels that in many cases pollute twice as much as conventional fuels.” Continue reading
Breath Of Life For Europe’s Emissions Scheme
Whether Europe can truly fix its broken emissions trading system remains to be seen, but for now, at least, it isn’t prepared to see the thing die. Instituted in 2005, the Emissions Trading System was intended as a key mechanism for driving down the amount of CO2 that EU countries were spewing into the atmosphere. The idea was that over time, the ceiling would gradually be lowered, in the process allowing market forces to find the best emissions-reducing mechanisms as companies traded permits to release greenhouse gases. But then the Great Recession happened. Slow economic growth (and even retraction) since 2008 has left Europe awash in carbon allowances, with prices too low to incentivize investment in low-carbon technologies. Still, by passing the fix the EU parliament avoided virtually abandoning the system. “Across all continents, Europe’s experience of a market-based system for reducing CO2 emissions is being considered, and seen as a credible option, as most recently in China. We shall not let the ETS be the victim of short-term concerns. Structural reform of our Emissions Trading System will follow to ensure it remains the cornerstone of EU’s climate policy.” Continue reading
