Tag Archives: green
Land Owners Warned Of ‘Pitfalls’ As Values Strengthen
Farmland continues to rise in value according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and, with a slow upswing in the economy, greater pressure will be brought to bear on those who own farmland to release it for development. “The attraction of disposing of parcels of ground for development is bound to increase as land values continue to rise, and many farmers and farm businesses will have land covered by option agreements with developers waiting to move,” said Mike Harrison, Partner in the Landed Estates and Rural Business Group of Saffery Champness. “Our concern is with those who intend to sell not only being totally aware of exactly what they are selling and the terms of that disposal, but also who actually owns the property in the first place. “Particularly where farms have expanded over time, and comprise a number of different businesses or structures, then the owners of the land and those who operate their business over it may be different and such differences may only come to light at the time of disposal. In addition the tax treatment of the sale may vary depending on the type of structure in which it is held, for example whether the disposal will be taxed at 10 per cent or more likely 28 per cent.” While many farm businesses will have everything well thought through, properly structured and the consequences taken into account, others will not, and such a process can open the inevitable can of worms. There are many pressures on getting the ‘vehicle’ going forward right – whether joint venture, option agreement or promotion agreement for example – and an assumption made over the ownership of the land in question. It may not be until both parties are well into proceedings that the consequences of such a sale become apparent. Mike Harrison also said that with the RICS survey predicting continued future strengthening of farmland prices the same applies for farms wishing to expand and to buy neighbouring land should it become available. He says: Any purchase requires careful thought in terms of the entity that will take ownership of that asset, and the consequences particularly in the longer term, of its retention or future disposal. Agricultural land prices in the south are outstripping the national average, with non-farming investors helping push the market along and to the south of the M3 and M4 corridors. Richard Liddiard, head of farm agency for national property consultancy Carter Jonas based in Newbury, says that while the national average price per acre for arable rose to £8,193 and pasture to £6,689 the strength of the market in Berkshire and Hampshire has driven values far above that level with arable regularly achieving £10,000 per acre and pasture £8,000. The larger difference between the two land types in this region illustrates the emphasis on arable crops rather than livestock farming. The strength of commercial farmland demand is not broad-based. Indeed, surveyors note that farmers in the main are discriminating in favour of large, top quality, neighbouring plots with as small a residential component as possible. As such, there is considerable price dispersion, even in the same areas; plots that are smaller and of lower soil quality are attracting much less interest and achieving lower average per acre prices. Looking forward, surveyors are very optimistic about commercial farmland price prospects over the next 12 months. Meanwhile, price expectations in the residential arena, whilst relatively modest, have turned positive for the first time since H2 2010. This may reflect developments in the broader national housing market. “We have seen some exceptional transactions during H1 of 2013 with the larger sales being dealt with ‘off market’ showing the strength of land as a safe haven and hedge against economic ills,” Richard Liddiard from Carter Jonas. “Whilst the UK economy is showing the green shoots of recovery I am still of the opinion that we are at the peak of the market for average or less well equiped farms. This will indicate that the best in class will still rise in value and be keenly sought after by the non-farming investors who are seeking the safe haven status and IHT tax advantages that land offers. We are also seeing more farms in the market and there are some holdings that are sticking particularly if they are overpriced or do not have strong local demand to push the values higher.” Continue reading
EPA Launches New Online Mapping Tool for Environmental Impact Statements
An important step in the development of any bioenergy production facility inside the U.S. is the completion of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Mandated by the U.S. government and many states, EISs must be submitted to the regulatory bodies that either give the project a green light or reject the proposal. Knowing which companies and organizations that have submitted EIAs offers bioenergy insiders a broad assessment of the environmental precedents across locations where projects are being developed. Continue reading
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
