Tag Archives: industry
Turning Waste Into Energy
Aug. 8, 2013, 1:32 p.m. A new direction in fuel? Image source: www.gizmodo.com.au New Forests and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (“CEFC”) have announced they have jointly executed a collaboration agreement to finance new bioenergy and biofuel developments. The new investments could include combined heat and power projects or renewable fuels projects featuring biodiesel or syngas associated with forestry investments in regional Australia. New Forests has invested in extensive forestry plantations in Australia, and the agreement may support establishment of new domestic markets for hardwood and softwood timber as well as traditional forestry and sawmill waste products. Under the collaboration agreement, New Forests will seek to develop commercially-oriented investment opportunities in renewable energy that complement regional forest sectors. New Forests’ managing director, David Brand, said, “This is an opportunity to diversify Australian markets for timber, turn waste material into energy, and create new jobs and investment in rural Australia. We see biomass based energy and liquid fuels as an area of substantial potential for growth, and an opportunity that could rival the size of traditional timber markets in the next ten or 20 years.” CEFC CEO, Oliver Yates, said “This is an excellent demonstration of how the CEFC can work with the forestry industry to enable bioenergy projects that will fulfil the potential for the industry to convert its waste products into a valuable renewable energy source. Investment in bioenergy can help reduce carbon emissions, lessen the reliance on traditional electricity and has the potential to boost productivity through reduced energy and operating costs.” Bioenergy presently provides 0.9 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation, but the Clean Energy Council estimates that this has the potential to increase six-fold by 2020 with the right support in place. “Linking Australia’s very significant forestry resources and skills and enhancing these through new clean energy technologies utilising cellulosic biomass will build a new industry of national value”, Mr Yates added. New Forests’ investments already include 375,000 hectares of land and timber plantation assets in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia and Timberlink Australia, with two softwood sawmills located in Tasmania and South Australia. Many of these plantations were established under managed investment schemes and now need concerted effort to develop markets and infrastructure. “Market development is a key part of the work that needs to be done to reposition Australia’s plantation forestry sector for the future,” Mr Brand said. “As an Australian business we seek to achieve excellent returns for investors, and innovation is a key part of that work,” he said. The collaboration agreement is open to any projects brought forward by New Forests that meet the CEFC investment criteria. New Forests has identified a bioenergy plant in the Green Triangle alongside the Tarpeena sawmill as an immediate priority, as well as an assessment of the potential to use hardwood plantations for bioenergy and biofuel production at other locations. www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au Continue reading
Are Subsidies for Bioenergy Necessary?
By Kolby Hoagland | August 02, 2013 When subsidies are discussed in the media there is often a negative connotation behind their assessment. Politicians face constant scrutiny for approving “government handouts” that are alleged to be unnecessary and wasteful. The bioenergy sector has numerous subsidies that it utilizes to better compete with the fossil fuel sector, which have a far longer run as mature industries and also receive considerable subsidies of their own . Today’s DataPoints looks at what happens when a subsidy is removed, reinstated… removed again, and reinstated again and that might give us insight into their need for the healthy growth of our industry. Over the last four years, the biodiesel industry has experienced an intermittently implamented $1 dollar per gallon blender’s tax credit from the federal government to that is meant to spark growth. In spite of the on again/ off again incentive, the biodiesel industry remains relatively healthy, even eclipsing the one billion gallons per year production mandate set by the EPA . The chart below shows monthly biodiesel production in the U.S. from Jan of 2009 to May of this year with the periods that the blender’s credit was allowed lapse. After the credit was first allowed to lapse in 2010, production decreased considerably and remained low. During the second lapse in 2012, production was up and down even reaching production milestones. There is not a clear trend on whether the subsidy is necessary from this simple analysis. To better understand the production swings and how much they were caused by the expiration of the subsidy, I reached out to Ron Kotrba from Biodiesel Magazine . Ron explained that 2010 was a complex time for biodiesel markets not only because of the lapse in the credit. The delayed implementation of RFS2, which did not occur until mid-2010, and the 2009 enactment of import tariffs by the EU caused further disruption to U.S. production beyond the loss of the federal credit during 2010. The reaction by producers to the loss of the credit in 2012 further supports the notion that the credit alone does not kill or keep the industry alive. During this second lapse of the credit in 2012, biodiesel production rose to record setting heights, peaking at 100 million gallons in May, a monthly level only reached three times previously. Production levels in 2010 and 2012, while the credit had lapsed, were not similar enough to draw illuminate conclusions of the potential need for the credit to keep the biodiesel industry alive. There is little doubt that the biodiesel blender’s $1 per gallon tax credit and other bioenergy subsidies spur production. Yet, whether the subsidy is needed for the survival of the industry is far more complex in its answer given the numerous influences on energy markets. However, if we look to the fossil fuel sector to help us anwer whether subsidies for bioenergy are necessary, the answer is inherently ‘yes,’ subsidies should be a permanent part of the funding structure for the long-term health and growth of the bioenergy industry. Continue reading
Bloomberg-EDF analysis: Mandates Plus Markets Could Make Airlines’ Emissions Goals Readily Affordable
By ANNIE PETSONK | BIO | Published: AUGUST 1, 2013 The aviation industry can affordably meet and beat its goal of halting carbon emissions growth from 2020 if it uses high-quality, low-cost carbon offsets, according to a new analysis from Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) . Airlines’ goal of “carbon-neutral growth from 2020” could be so readily affordable that governments justifiably could hold airlines to a much tighter emissions target. Image source Our analysis comes on the heels of a consolidated industry call for the governments of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to commit, at their next triennial Septe mber meeting, to adopt a mandatory global program to limit aviation’s carbon pollution by 2016 at the latest. While forecasts are inherently uncertain, best estimates indicate that while new technologies, operations and infrastructure can help industry dampen emissions growth, substantial increases in aviation emissions are likely after 2020. Consequently, to meet their proposed mandatory goal of “carbon-neutral growth from 2020,” it is very likely that airlines will need some kind of carbon offsetting mechanism . An offset mechanism that limits credit supply to high-quality carbon units currently available and expected to come on-line in the future, could let airlines meet their emissions target at very modest cost. If governments adopt tough criteria ensuring that offsets represent real reductions in net carbon emissions, and if industry moves swiftly to capture those carbon units, the costs to airlines could be quite low – e.g., less than 0.5% of projected total international airline revenue in 2015 , and less than a third of the fees airlines collected last year for checked bags, legroom and snacks. In the current round of talks, the aviation industry is asking governments to mandate caps on airlines’ emissions at 2020 levels. Our analysis finds that a well-designed, high-integrity carbon offset program would make carbon-neutral growth from 2020 so affordable, that governments justifiably could hold airlines to a much tighter emissions target. That could mean putting back on the table a target the industry had proposed several years ago , namely cutting emissions 50% by 2050. As my report co-author, Bloomberg New Energy Finance chief economist Guy Turner, said : These findings show that the international aviation sector can control its CO2 emissions easily and cheaply by using market based mechanisms. The relatively small cost and ability to pass any costs through into ticket prices, should encourage the international aviation sector to accelerate and deepen its emission reduction pledges. More ambitious emission reductions now look much more doable, than mere stabilization from 2020. Our analysis offers context to the costs of such a global market-based mechanism using offsets with strong environmental integrity, which the aviation industry called on ICAO last month to adopt to keep the industry’s net emissions stable from 2020 on. Such an offset program would allow the airlines to meet their emissions targets by both making emissions cuts within the aviation sector, and drawing on offsets that represent real emission cuts in other sectors. Blog-exclusive addendum: effect on ticket prices A well-designed global offset program, using high-quality offsets that represent real reductions in emissions, could add only a few dollars to a typical international fare: From Paris (CDG) to Beijing (PEK): $1.90 – $3.00 From Paris (CDG) to Delhi (DEL): $1.50-$2.30 From Paris (CDG) to Cape Town (CPT): $2.40-$3.70 From Paris (CDG) to Buenos Aires (EZE): $2.70-$4.30 From New York (JFK) to Buenos Aires (EZE): $2.10-$3.20 Read more in our press release and the full BNEF-EDF analysis, Carbon-Neutral Growth for Aviation: At What Price? – See more at: http://blogs.edf.org…h.LWzQqdaa.dpuf Continue reading
