Tag Archives: energy
Maturing The Bulk Market
By Anna Austin | July 16, 2013 PELLET EXPRESS: Sandri has four dedicated wood pellet delivery trucks that service about 100 customers. PHOTO: SANDRI References to chicken-or-egg scenarios are very common within many of the bioenergy industry sectors, and the bulk domestic pellet market is no exception. While producers are eager to expand capacity, distributors desire to grow their businesses, and system manufacturers are dedicated to absorbing a bigger piece of the residential and industrial heating market pie, the industry remains in pursuit of a catalyst to foster this growth. The collective industry perspective suggests that catalyst is many more installations of central heating systems, but that is not as clear cut a solution as it seems. The industry needs to ready itself to assure customers of a headache-free, rewarding experience, so it’s also a question of which part of the supply chain should make the first moves and necessary investments. Costs All Around Jonathan Kahn, CEO of Geneva Wood Fuels in Strong, Mich., says his 80,000-ton mill does a few bulk deliveries to some locations—for example, 35 tons to a school or hospital—but overall, bulk delivery activity is very minimal. “The reality is that there are very few of those types of customers.” More people are heating with wood pellet stoves these days, he points out, but there are very few people who have invested in central heating systems, the initial capital costs of which are usually the deterrent. Along with the cost of the system is a storage silo and mechanical delivery system, in most cases, all together costing a typical homeowner between $8,000 and $15,000, plus the cost of a few deliveries per year (about 10 tons total) to keep their silo full. While that number seems huge, most will see a payback in just a few years. “In the old days, it was a big deal to go from a wall unit to central air conditioning, and this is a similar type of decision,” says Kahn. “In certain parts of the country, pellets are half the price of oil, on a Btu-equivalent basis. Someone willing to make the investment could probably have a payback in three to five years.” In the West, most homes that utilize pellets have freestanding pellet stoves or fireplace inserts, so the convenience of having pellets delivered to residences probably doesn’t play a monetary role at this point, or help justify cost, according to Western Oregon Wood Pellet owner Chris Sharron. Pellet fuel is sold at all kinds of retailers these days, including grocery stores, and consumers are making weekly trips to these stores anyway, he says. “Therefore, there’s no decrease in convenience, nor increase in cost, in picking up some bagged fuel during that trip.” On the wholesaler side of the equation, a new pellet truck can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000, according to Kahn, and to make many deliveries in one run, the truck and trailer has to have a 20 to 30 ton capacity. “If it’s in a neighborhood, that size of a truck might be too big—you can’t have that going into someone’s driveway—so you have to have an 8 to 10 ton truck going out and making these deliveries,” he says. Additionally, silos can cost anywhere from $100,000 to $150,000. On the producer side, Sharron says due to highly competitive merchandising amongst retailers—such as Home Depot, Lowe’s and Walmart—retail prices for pellet fuel are currently fairly low. “Since WOW delivers truckload quantities (average 26 tons per load) direct to the individual store, the delivery cost per ton is [relatively low],” he says. “In contrast, the cost to deliver smaller quantities of bulk pellets directly to a residence is high. This is exacerbated in the West because of low population densities, and especially because there isn’t much urban use of pellet fuel, due to highly developed natural gas infrastructure. So there would not be much, if any, savings relative to direct delivery to the consumer.” One might think there would be a cost savings to producers for bulk versus bagged fuel, due to the eliminated cost of packaging, but for most pellet manufacturers employing automated packaging systems, the cost of packaging is also relatively low, Sharron says. “Therefore, although there might be a savings, it wouldn’t be significant—maybe somewhere in the $10 per ton range (the bag cost itself).” Aside from cost, another factor that comes into play for bulk consumers is fuel availability. “One can’t go to Lowe’s and buy bulk pellets, and they definitely don’t want to buy 200 bags of pellets to open and dump in their silo,” points out Kahn. “This is when an equipment distributor should be able to say, ‘We have a relationship with this mill, or several, so don’t worry, we’ll take care of getting them delivered.’ That’s a way make it a complete experience for the customer.” Such relationships—between system providers, pellet wholesalers and producer— may be key to making the whole bulk market model work. Market Model Since manufacturers, for the most part, don’t want to be doing pellet deliveries—with the exception of large industrial orders—the model the industry is trying to create is similar to the model that the heating and propane industry developed following World War II, according to Charlie Niebling, who served as general manager for New England Wood Pellet for seven years and is now employed with Innovative Natural Resource Solutions. “That’s where you have central fuel depots where pellets are shipped in, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of wholesale retail distributors that manage the logistics of getting the fuel from the central location out into the landscape where the customer is,” he says. New England Wood Pellet began the process of launching the bulk delivery market back in 2003. “We were the only one doing it then,” Niebling says. “Somebody had to take the plunge, make the investment, and get something going.” The company worked to build a small clientele for the next several years, but ultimately wanted to focus on pellet production and not distribution. Niebling says since then, the industry has been slowly and steadily working to create a network of authorized distributors who invest in the satellite storage depots and delivery trucks. “We don’t give them exclusive territories because we want to foster some degree of competition, but also because there can’t be three or four businesses right now top of each other, because there isn’t enough market [demand],” he says. He points out that the industry consists of multiple different types companies that are dependent on each other—pellet manufacturers, distributors and heating system providers—but typically, there isn’t common ownership. One exception to that is Sandri, a bulk pellet distributor and heating system supplier, which bought New England Wood Pellet’s commercial pellet boiler business Propel in 2010. At the time, Jake Goodyear, Sandri vice president of operations, was an employee at NEWP, but moved to Sandri with the sale of Propel. He says for a company like Sandri, it hasn’t been too difficult to expand its capabilities to bulk pellet deliveries. “Sandri has been in oil delivery for 60 years, so it’s totally normal for us to deliver fuel, to pick it up from somewhere and deliver it to the end customer.” Sandri has four dedicated vehicles that deliver to around 100 customers, the majority being commercial, and schools constitute the single largest customer. While industry growth has increased during the past couple of years, Goodyear says it’s been almost entirely subsidy driven. “It’s been a very difficult environment in which to sell new, high-capital cost technology, just because of the economic times,” he says. “There have been some subsidies available that have helped the business grow, mostly state-level, but our industry did get some stimulus funds as well.” Even for a fairly large fuel distributor like Sandri, making a $250,000 investment in a delivery vehicle to try to grow a market around it doesn’t make much financial sense. “We have to get a lot of these [systems] installed before there’s a reliable supply available,” says Goodyear. So what may be the best tactic to grow the market, thus justifying investments? Looking Ahead As is the case with other technologies, there are always early adapters who decide to switch to something new, simply because they believe it’s the right thing to do. “Not necessarily because they’re going to save money, and for the first five years, that was the customer base,” explains Niebling. “In 2008, when energy prices went through the roof, we saw a lot of interest from other people who were primarily focused on saving money, especially heating oil and propane people…the recession took a lot of wind out of that market development for two reasons—the energy crisis came down as dramatically, and people didn’t have the money for the upfront capital costs, which are very high compared to oil or natural gas systems.” As Goodyear pointed out, the Recovery Act funded some installations, Niebling says, emphasizing the importance of tax credits to jump start the market, especially the passage of the recently introduced Btu Act. Goodyear says one of the biggest problems today is that there just isn’t a lot of knowledge of the existence of pellet heating systems. “It will take much more than going around and knocking on doors…the industry needs to do more to promote itself and raise awareness of the existence and benefits of biomass heating, and pellet central heating, in particular.” He agrees with Niebling on making the case to legislators that funding installations would be a worthy use of state or federal dollars, and would help alleviate the chicken-or-egg issue. “If you have the volume, the costs are going to come down rapidly. The same scenario happened for solar, when significant state and federal subsidies greased the skid and got the volumes up, so the manufacturing costs came down, hence end user costs. European countries have seen success in using incentives, as well as public promotion and strict mandates/laws. “For example, Denmark passed a law making it illegal to install a fossil heating system if one lives within an area that has access to district heating,” says Niebling. “In Austria, you can’t build a new building with a fossil fuel heating system. While we can’t do those things in the U.S., because it’s totally against our political tradition and culture, and those mandates would never get off the ground, we can certainly do the incentives.” Sharron notes that he believes there will always be a bagged fuel market, even if bulk delivery takes off. “Many pellet stove users initially bought the stove to save money on their heating costs,” he says. “Many of these people live paycheck-to-paycheck and can afford, relative to cash flow, to buy bags of pellets as they need them, but they cannot afford to have a 1-ton-plus bin filled all at once.” Aside from commercial and industrial opportunities, growing the bulk market has to begin with homeowners making the investment in pellet burning systems, thus increasing and geographically concentrating demand, Sharron concludes. “From an investment standpoint, this will make it easier to pencil for everyone. The fuel is already available, and at a very competitive price versus most alternative, even if the consumer has to go pick it up themselves in bagged form. Cost and convenience can only improve with increased demand and consumption, therefore, home delivery of bulk fuel is likely to develop. When that day arrives, the consumer will enjoy the best of both worlds, relative to cost and convenience.” For now, however, the industry will continue to prime itself for when the market develops—while advocating itself to lawmakers and educating the public—and the companies working to make it happen will likely continue to take the necessary risks, even if it isn’t yet lucrative, or even profitable. “I don’t think anyone’s making any money distributing bulk pellet fuel right now, there just isn’t enough density of demand anywhere,” says Niebling. Small successes are being achieved however, in some places with the right landscape, such as Maine. “Several companies there have taken some risks, and we’re slowly seeing development of the infrastructure,” Kahn adds. “We’re talking hundreds of thousands of potential candidates in Maine alone—the potential is huge.” Author: Anna Simet Managing Editor, Biomass Magazine asimet@bbiinternational.com 701-751-2756 Continue reading
Short-Term Solution For Troubled Emissions Trading Scheme
Joanne O’Dea, Science|Business MEPs say putting a price on pollution will encourage innovation in clean technologies and buy time for much-needed reform Turning around a vote from April, the European Parliament has voted to boost the price of carbon by taking 900 million permits off the table in an attempt to rescue the EU’s flailing emissions trading system (ETS). A surplus of approximately 2 billion allowances in the system, the result of oversupply and a fall in industrial activity, has caused the price of carbon to plummet from €29 per tonne in July 2008 to a record low of €2.63 after April’s “no” vote. With such low prices, the ETS risks failing to achieve its purpose of incentivising investment in green innovation. Matthias Groote, German MEP responsible for steering the reform through the Parliament, said “We shall not let the ETS be the victim of short-term concerns.” Europe should not be too quick to discard the scheme, he said, at a time where “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.” Putting a plaster on an open wound Launched in 2005, the ETS places a ceiling on the overall carbon emissions of more than 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 31 countries. National governments sell permits by auction to businesses, who can then sell on permits they do not use. The limited quantity should secure the permits’ value and deliver 2.8 billion tonnes of carbon reductions by 2020, but rock-bottom prices have jeopardised these aims. Groote concedes the move to withhold permits, described as “backloading”, is only a short-term measure to “[buy] time to stabilise carbon price and thereby the entire ETS.” A more “in-depth debate on restructuring measures that account for the present economic situation, including low carbon prices,” is still needed, he said. MEPs amended the Commission’s original proposal to specify that such intervention in the market can only be done once and under exceptional circumstances. An impact assessment must be completed to ascertain that the move will not create a “significant risk” of companies relocating outside the EU. Groote said the vote was “The best deal possible”, bringing certainty to the markets and saving the EU from missing its carbon reduction targets. His positivity was reflected in the markets, with prices jumping approximately thirteen percent to €4.86 a tonne after the vote. Spurring innovation Low carbon prices is not the only challenge faced by policy-makers, and questions have also been raised as to the scheme’s true effectiveness. In their paper, “ Environmental Policy and Directed Technological Change: Evidence from the European carbon market ”, Raphael Calel and Antoine Dechezlepretre, London School of Economics found the ETS has increased low-carbon innovation among regulated firms by as much as ten per cent, while not crowding out patenting for other technologies. While this is promising, it exists only on a small scale, as ETS-firms represent only ten per cent of low-carbon innovation across Europe. The ETS thus accounts for only a one per cent increase in European low-carbon patenting compared to a counterfactual scenario, said the paper. While ETS companies are responding to the scheme and adopting low-carbon technologies, the effect “Looks to nearly vanish when considered in relation to the overall pace and direction of technological change”, say Calel and Dechezlepretre. “For this reason, the Scheme in its current form might not be providing the economy-wide incentives necessary to bring about low-carbon technological change on a larger scale.” Long-term solution UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Davey said legislation “should come out by the end of the year to deliver structural reform to the ETS.” Letting the system fail is not an option for Davey, saying “the ETS is the most cost effective tool we have”. Without it, he said, “Europe will likely revert to a disjointed and fragmented array of national measures which will be far more expensive for industry and consumers alike.” Long-term options include setting a minimum price for C02 or removing permits entirely, not simply postponing them. Environmental NGO Greenpeace calls on the European Commission to put forward a proposal for removing 2.2 billion allowances from the scheme before 2020, and to table a concrete post-2020 climate and energy proposal. “This should include an EU domestic carbon emissions target for 2030 of at least fifty five per cent compared to 1990 levels, a renewables target and an energy efficiency target. As long as EU decision-makers fail to put in place an effective scheme, national governments must fill the gap with national coal and carbon taxation schemes,” said the statement. Next Steps The next step will be for the Council – representing national governments – to take a decision on the reform. An increase to the price of carbon may be a difficult sell for those member states still reliant on coal but Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Action, is optimistic that an agreement can be reached, saying “The sooner, the better, so that we can move on to the structural reform of the ETS as soon as possible.” Continue reading
AfDB Continues To Support Low-Carbon Development Pathways For Africa
By: SEM Contributor on July 13, 2013. AfDB, co-organizer of the 5th Africa Carbon Forum in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire TUNIS, Tunisia, July 11, 2013/ – For the fifth time the African Development Bank ( http://www.afdb.org ) was a co-organizer of the Africa Carbon Forum (ACF) along with UN agencies, the World Bank and the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). This important forum was held from July 3-5, 2013 in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Given the challenges of the current carbon market, ACF reflected on how the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and other mitigation and financing mechanisms have performed to date ad discussed how those mechanisms could continue to be successfully applied on the African continent. As the premier financing and development institution for Africa, committed to promoting viable financing solutions for climate-friendly development on the continent, the AfDB strongly supports the continuation and the scaling up of those mechanisms. Over 400 participants took part in the three-day program opened by Daniel Kablan Duncan, Prime Minister of Côte d’Ivoire, who expressed his support for low carbon development as a viable option for his country. “To date Africa has the lowest number of registered CDM projects representing a little more than two percent of the overall registered CDM projects worldwide and is not sufficient,” said Kurt Lonsway, Manager of the Energy, Environment and Climate Change Department at the African Development Bank. He added: “We hope that continuation and strengthening of CDM will facilitate the participation of many more on the continent.” During the first Plenary Session on CDM: Achievements and Lessons Learned; The Future of the Mechanism moderated by Lonsway, he polled the audience twice on whether they felt that the CDM had a future in Africa. Just over half were positive demonstrating that important improvements will be required to reduce transaction costs and simplify requirements for African countries to access the mechanism. The AfDB has embarked on an ambitious program at powering a low-carbon pathway in Africa. Through the Energy, Environment and Climate Change Department, the Bank serves as a platform to deliver advisory services necessary to mobilize transformative environment and climate finance, including helping countries and project gain access to carbon markets. Funds channeled through financing windows such as the Climate Investments Funds (CIF), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a recently created Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa (SEFA), the first phase of African Carbon Support Programme (ACSP), and the new Africa Hub of the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SE4ALL) are directly invested to support the transport, communications, agriculture, water and energy sectors. The goal is to ensure that climate finance effectively reaches the continent and is tailored to Africa’s needs. During the 5th Africa Carbon Forum, the latest developments of the regulatory framework, including possible new market-based mechanisms to enhance the cost-effectiveness of climate mitigation actions, were discussed and debated. Diverse mitigation instruments such as domestic cap-and-trade, low-emission development strategies and nationally appropriate mitigation actions were highlighted. The Forum also stressed the growing interest in low-carbon development finance opportunities and the commitment of the development partners to support them on the continent. Distributed by the African Press Organization on behalf of the African Development Bank (AfDB). Continue reading