Tag Archives: alternative
Biomass: Head To Head Debating Pros And Cons
Is biomass a viable part of the future energy mix, or is it part of the carbon emissions problem? Eoin Redahan asked two industry experts. Stewart Boyle (SB) runs the consultancy arm of South East Wood Fuels Duncan Law (DL) represents Biofuelwatch, an NGO that raises awareness of the negative impacts of industrial biofuels and bioenergy. Stewart Boyle The pro biomass perspective – SB I spent 18 months on research into the potential and reality of bio-energy in the UK. Its advantages are real, in that it provides versatility (offering heating, cooling, power generation, transport fuels and bio-chemicals), reliability (no problems with intermittency), and is sustainable and cost-effective. It could provide 10–20% of our energy by 2030–2040 – three times the output of nuclear power. Bio-energy is a critical renewable option in allowing the clear transition to lowcarbon hybrid vehicles, de-carbonising power and shifting to green gas. To achieve its potential we need a significant effort to educate, show how it offers an integrated energy solution, and argue head-on the bad science arguments being used against it. From a support position five years ago, many environmental NGOs now oppose biofuels, pure biopower and co-firing. One NGO, Biofuelwatch, says bio-energy leads to forest destruction – witness its attitudes on palm oil and kernels for biofuels – and suggests that Drax (the UK’s largest power station, which co-fires biomass) mostly uses old growth forest from North America. This is utter tosh and the Drax team should be applauded, not criticised, for its cradle-to-grave sustainability system. I spent a big chunk of my earlier life working for several NGOs. However, I think many are biased, use bad science and have lost the plot on bio-energy. Duncan Law The anti biomass perspective – DL Under the guise of renewable energy and carbon saving, burning wood in power stations is a massive growth industry in the UK right now. Huge old coal power stations such as Drax are getting UK Government subsidies to burn millions of tonnes of imported wood at 37% efficiency, but can only use good quality wood with low bark content – not pure forest wastes. Burning wood emits even more carbon than burning coal for a given amount of energy generated (especially when whole trees are used). Forests take up to a century to absorb as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned. So emissions will actually rise. The DECC now acknowledges that burning biomass in dedicated power stations offers poor-value carbon savings compared with wind power or even gas. Yet they offer huge subsidies. Current UK biomass burning plans are projected to demand nearly the entire global biomass trade by 2025. Most of it currently comes from the USA and Canada where biodiverse, old-growth forests are being clear felled and replaced with monoculture tree plantations. Biomass also produces more small particulate pollution than coal, which can have grave public health impacts. Minister Ed Davey, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said, ‘Making electricity from biomass based on imported wood is not a long-term answer to our energy needs – I am quite clear about that’. Biomass is not an answer. It pollutes, is costly, inefficient, does not contribute to UK energy security, damages biodiversity and forests, and makes climate change worse. SL: I disagree with virtually all of Duncan’s comments on bioenergy. Take the carbon debt issue – the supposed scientific basis of much NGO opposition. Duncan says, ‘Forests take up to a century to absorb as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned’. In my opinion, this is misleading. While cutting and then replacing a single tree or small stand of trees will take some time for the CO2 to be absorbed, guess what? Foresters know that. A well-managed forest has a wide range of trees – some mature and ready for felling, others in mid-growth and absorbing lots of CO2, plus newly planted trees. When DECC researchers looked at the issue, they concluded, ‘Providing forest stands are re-established as soon as they are clear-felled, overall carbon stocks in the forest are not reduced [no carbon debt is incurred]. Rather, a constant carbon stock is maintained over time.’ Using low-quality wood materials that have no competing uses, Drax clearly demonstrates substantial carbon savings of well over 70%. That Drax ‘mostly’ uses wood from clear-felled old growth forests is simply not true. Duncan references this from a single BBC radio programme, but any independent audit of Drax’s biomass materials would refute the suggestion. No one argues that co-firing is the end game. Other technologies are coming fast. It does, however, offer reliable, lower-cost carbon reductions quickly to gain momentum and investment into this and second-generation technologies. Arguing for perfection now in bio-energy will kill off key solutions to our climate crisis and invite in shale gas, nuclear and extreme oil. DL: Biofuelwatch has been working for seven years on this issue. We follow the plot of the bioenergy industry closely. To counter just one of Stewart’s specific assertions – Drax bases its optimistic 70% carbon savings from biomass on using ‘forest wastes that would simply be burnt in the forest’ (Paul Taylor, Drax Director). Freedom of Information evidence shows they can only use wood from slow growing trees that have a low bark content. Drax is using pellets from whole trees. Dogwood Alliance (a forest protection network) has documented clear-felling of old-growth forest for the energy industry. Peer-reviewed evidence shows that rates of global forest cover loss in southeast USA are among the highest globally. Conversion to tree plantations causes huge emissions. All this equals carbon debt. The impossibility of real sustainability assessment in the biomass industry is documented in a Biofuelwatch report. Vast Government subsidies and the Green Investment Bank loan to Drax extend the coalburning life of this plant by years. And the biomass will increase, not reduce, its real carbon emissions. Biomass is the easy option for the Government and industry to avoid a supply crunch and keep the lights on by using existing technologies. The vast ambitions of the bio-energy industry disregard unintended consequences. It is set to expand in a way that is dangerous and unsustainable. Biofuelwatch opposes big bioenergy because the impacts are unacceptably dangerous, both in terms of current carbon emissions and damage to the planet’s life support systems. It is a distraction from rethinking our demand and our energy systems for a real low-carbon future. Both speakers referred to different sources to back up their statements. For a full list of sources, visit our blog: materialsworld.tumblr.com What do you think? Which of the two speakers convinced you most? Are there any other important issues that should be addressed? Email or tweet us your comments at: materials.world@iom3.org or @materialsworld or if you are logged in, comment below. Author : Eoin Redahan Materials World Magazine, 01 Sep 2013 – See more at: http://www.iom3.org/…h.GbKH9FL2.dpuf Continue reading
Rubber Study Group Looks for Sustainability Plan
By Huileng Tan SINGAPORE — The Singapore-based International Rubber Study Group is embarking on an ambitious initiative to draw up a plan for the industry, much like what the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil did in the tropical oil seed industry. Courtesy of Lekshmi Nair Senior economist and statistician Lekshmi Nair, of the International Rubber Study Group, says what is needed “is commitment from all players in the supply chain” to end up with a sustainability plan. An overwhelming 85% of rubber production comes from small growers. That has meant that the fragmented industry has never come together to agree on a common set of sustainability standards. Natural rubber is a major tropical cash crop valued at more than US$30 billion annually. It has a long history of being cultivated for commercial uses. A boom in the last decade sent prices to record highs and spurred rapid new plantings outside of the traditional producing countries of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, which account for over two-thirds of the world’s natural rubber supply. With burgeoning demand from China fueling rapid planting in these new areas – such as Cambodia and Laos — environmentalists and scientists are increasingly voicing concern about the environmental impact of rubber plantations. While rubber trees are deemed to be green, because they absorb carbon, large tracts of planting will lead to habitat loss for birds, elephants, tigers and other wildlife in the region, and also disrupt water movement, they argue. Set up in 1944, the International Rubber Study Group is made up of more than 30-member governments, as well as producer groups and consumers such as tire companies. Now its members are trying to give it a new, important mission of trying to balance its commercial success while not being overly destructive of the environment. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was formed in 2004 in response to pressure from social and environmental groups to develop global standards for the entire palm oil supply chain. Plantation firms, such as Sime Darby Bhd and IOI Corporation Bhd, with estates larger than the city-state of Singapore, were first to adopt the standards and now account for the bulk of 8.2 million tons of eco-friendly palm oil produced annually. A key figure at the rubber study group’s sustainable project is senior economist and statistician Lekshmi Nair. She spoke to The Wall Street Journal about what the organization envisions for the industry. Excerpts follow: The Wall Street Journal : You are setting up a sustainable natural rubber action plan. Define sustainability. Lekshmi Nair: The definition of sustainability varies from different stakeholders, but, in general, sustainability means ensuring continuity of raw material so that it’s not disturbed. The mission of the sustainability initiative in rubber is to promote the economic, environmental and social sustainability in the production and use through dialogue and cooperation with all stakeholders along the supply chain. Now, there is an imbalance in that 85% of natural rubber production is coming straight from small growers while 70% of the consumers are from the tire sector. So we need commitment from both sides [in the form of a memorandum]. For the producers, natural rubber has the potential to generate a number of positive environmental benefits. Sustainability initiatives in rubber have positive impacts on the development policies of the producer economies. Promotion of sustainable production can enhance producers’ market entry and competitiveness in the growing new markets for sustainable products. For the consumers, the tire industry is by far the largest end-use market for natural rubber, with tire producers purchasing around 70% of total natural rubber placed on the global market. About 85% of natural rubber is produced by smallholders, whose decision to plant new trees and tap depends on opportunity cost. [Corporate Social Responsibility] is scaling up to include social as well as environment standards, with application of sustainability principles with regard to resource efficiency or purchase of raw materials [rubber]. So what we needed is commitment from all players in the supply chain to achieve objectives in this initiative in natural rubber. From the producer end, we have to take care of resource efficiency and the purchase of raw materials. This productivity in turn will ensure income for the small growers. For all major consumers, CSR is an issue. From the CSR point of view, the raw material that they are procuring must be shown to be sustainable, and one aspect of this is in its production. What are some of the sustainability criteria you are looking at? Other than improving productivity, we want to ensure natural rubber quality. Improving quality ensures enhancing productivity that certainly will increase income of predominantly small growers. If we looking at the emerging producing countries or African countries, you can see that the rubber they produce is filled with a lot of with impurities. In fact, you can say 50% is filled with sand or wood particles. Latex is collected in a cup attached to trees. So what small growers do is to collect the lumps and throw them to the ground, So contaminants will stick them. However, if small growers take some initiative to avoid these practices, they can avoid impurities at an early stage, which will save a lot of energy during processing. So it’s also beneficial from an environmental point of view. Bad quality rubber will require more energy for cleaning and will also produce more waste. Waste reduction can at start at the production stage. Natural rubber is known as a green product as the trees absorb carbon dioxide. What impact does large-scale cultivation of rubber as a cash crop have? Because of the demand for natural rubber, there is a lot of large-scale investment in emerging countries. One issue involves the use of forested versus degraded land. We encourage using degraded forest, and this initiative encourages this type of cultivation versus cutting down forested land. A comprehensive range of social issues, like land use shift, tenure rights, food security, are also within the? broader impact on large-scale investments. Also, when land is given for rubber cultivation, investors have to ensure food security for residents in the area first before they can cultivate a non-food crop like rubber. We need to ensure a balance between the two crops. First, we need to get commitment from all supply chain stakeholders so that the sustainability efforts become voluntary standards. Natural rubber is a commodity with a long history of being cultivated for profit. What took the industry so long to come up with these standards, which you are drawing up? Many of the established rubber growing countries do have initiatives and framework for enhancing small grower productivity through some form of sustainability efforts. But our project will involve multiple stakeholders, including governments and private individuals. At this stage, no civil society organizations [non-governmental organizations] are involved. We know there are some issues surrounding rubber, such as land rights and environmental issues. What is the state of the rubber industry now? Historically you’re looking at rubber as a colonial crop. It started as an organized plantation crop before government land ownership restrictions [to prevent individuals from accumulating too much land] saw it shift to being a small-holder crop. So that’s where the rubber is coming from now, and we need to reach out to these small growers. Other than CSR standards and image, what’s in it for consumers, like major tire makers and small holders? For commodities, there’s a boom and bust cycle. During the bust cycle, growers are withdrawing from this crop. But at the same time for consumers, they want need to keep the production line going, so they need to have an ensured quantity of rubber. Here, we need the consumers’ commitment to encourage small growers to stay with the cultivation of this crop. Sustainable prices are a concern for both producers and consumers. If the price is not sustainable, consumers may find it difficult to get their assured quantity from the producers because nobody can force the small growers to produce. They can do something else. Why not? There’s an opportunity for everybody and they are businessmen. What’s the next stage in the project? We hope to get all stakeholders commitment to this initiative [to sign a memorandum] by the next World Rubber Summit [likely in May of 2014 and held in Singapore] to get their commitment to certain standards. We hope to eventually get into a voluntary certification for sustainable natural rubber. Continue reading
Powering Ahead With Biomass
Biomass is often overlooked within the renewable energy sector, but is now emerging as a key player for many countries seeking cleaner ways to power their economy, Gosia Klimowicz reports. One emerging technology that could boost the biomass sector is a new, 40MW straw-fired localized biomass model by DP CleanTech and the Polish Energy Partners. Image:biomassenergy.gr With urbanisation accelerating across the world, the global demand for energy is set to double by 2035. Given the dwindling supply of fossil fuels, those countries which are abundant in renewable energy sources are finding themselves in a privileged position – particularly those rich with wind, hydro, or solar energy. However, from being an often overlooked energy resource, biomass may just become the game changer for some countries. In countries such as Poland, for example, biomass co-firing has emerged as one of the largest sources of renewable power. As part of their green energy initiatives, several local utilities – including PGE, Tauron and Enea – have upgraded their coal-fired installations to allow for burning biomass as well as coal. Under its new three-pack energy law, Poland has just concluded works on a new law on renewable energy sources, which covers electricity, gas and renewables. Legislators debated whether to increase the share of renewable energy in the power generation mix, which will drive reforms to the green certificates system, whilst at the same time limiting subsidies for biomass co-firing generators, as well as other renewables such as wind or photovoltaics. Green certificates – tradeable documents proving that certain electricity is generated using renewable energy sources – are part of Poland’s scheme to support the renewable energy market. Green certificate trading enables the industry players to generate additional profit from the production of renewable energy. Changes to this system would help to avoid last year’s market crash where prices plunged almost 70 per cent, caused by the oversupply of green certificates. This reform could also help lift the share of the energy mix using renewable sources to 15 per cent in 2020 to meet the European Union (EU) targets. This target has been scaled back from the initial target of 20 per cent, which was an ambitious target for a country heavily dependent on coal. “The new law seeks to adjust Poland’s renewables support mechanism to the changing conditions of the renewable energy market,” Piotr Czopek, renewable energy specialist at the Polish Ministry of Economy told Eco-Business. Poland presented its draft bill on renewable energy support in mid-August. The main legislation is expected to come into force by the end of the year, or at the latest by June next year. According to the Ministry, the current green certificates framework – which provides the same level of support for all technologies using alternative energy sources – has been one of the causes of excessive development of technologies which offer very little innovation. Specifically, this equal treatment of different technologies has led to a rapid growth of biomass co-firing in coal power plants. Whilst, 50 per cent of current Polish electricity from renewable energies is produced from biomass, almost a third comes from co-firing biomass in coal-fired power plants. However, this method of generating power has come under criticism by environmentalists who say that most co-firing coal power plants do not use the emerging waste heat – about 75 per cent of the electricity from biomass is produced without using it. Waste heat is a by-product of energy conversion processes, mostly discarded in cooling towers, ponds, the atmosphere, or discharged into the sewer. Recovering value from waste heat can be another major opportunity to lower energy costs, increase the productivity, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, Polish bioenergy experts have noted that Poland has been importing a huge amount of biomass in the past five years, when there is a vast amount of idle land, and waste agricultural streams which could be used for growing country’s own feedstock. They also state that the activities of large energy companies, which use biomass in order to receive compensation in the form of green certificates, have contributed to a considerable wastage of this resource. Nearly 30 per cent of the available biomass from agricultural waste weighing millions of tonnes is used for co firing, which is a highly inefficient use of the fuel. With more efficient technology and feedstock distribution, it is estimated that around 170,000 households could be heated with the same amount of biomass. Benefits and challenges of biomass co-firing Co-firing can be a cost-effective and relatively swift means of adding a renewable energy component, converting biomass to electricity by adding biomass as a partial substitute fuel in high-efficiency coal boilers. “ Provided the biomass is sourced sustainably, co-firing reduces emissions of carbon dioxide. Biomass also contains significantly less sulfur than most coal. This means that co-firing will reduce emissions of sulfurous gases such as sulfur dioxide that will then reduce acid rain.” Krzysztof Dragon, DP CleanTech “It incorporates environmental, socio-economic and strategy advantages”, says Krzysztof Dragon, vice president of clean energy solutions provider DP CleanTech. “For example, provided the biomass is sourced sustainably, co-firing reduces emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that can contribute to the global warming effect. Biomass also contains significantly less sulfur than most coal. This means that co-firing will reduce emissions of sulfurous gases such as sulfur dioxide that will then reduce acid rain.” Co-firing facilities are also less sensitive to seasonality in biomass fuel production as well as biomass availability and price. Power stations allows for greater flexibility in terms of the origin of the fuels, (for example from forestry, agriculture or municipal waste), as well as the ratio of each biomass fuel in the power mix. This is because it does not affect the fossil fuel load, which can still operate at 100 per cent. For many European countries, the promotion of co-firing is a key initial step for the development of sustainable biomass markets as well as for the creation of expertise on biomass handling and combustion. In Poland, biomass projects will continue to be supported through 2017, but the increasing number of projects has led to a large price hike for popular biomass feedstocks. Acting on such environmental and economic concerns, the government is cutting subsidies for biomass co-firing and the issuance of green certificates for co-incinerators. In response, the industry has come up with innovations that could boost the country’s biomass sector – without subsidies. One such solution is a new, localized biomass model conceptualized by DP CleanTech and the Polish Energy Partners. Currently under development, this optimized 30MW and 40MW straw-fired model will be more sustainable and energy-efficient. It will process most types of organic, carbon-containing feedstock without causing air pollution, greenhouse gases (GHG) and environmental harm. “It allows the co-firing of agricultural and forestry biomass, where agricultural waste can make up to 100 per cent of the power mix; and wood chips can constitute up to 80 per cent”, explained Piotr Maciołek, Industrial Energy Outsourcing Director, Polish Energy Partners. “This gives us a lot of flexibility in terms of location and availability of resources. In the future, we would like to build more power plants based on this model.” “ The new technology will significantly reduce the fuel consumption of biomass power plants, which leads to increased energy savings, improved cash flow and better return on investment. The project also features a special boiler design that will also minimize nitrogen oxide emissions, and an innovative feeding system that will handle both square and round bales. The new technology will significantly reduce the fuel consumption of biomass power plants, which leads to increased energy savings, improved cash flow and better return on investment. During the next two years, DP CleanTech will exclusively engineer, manufacture and commission the combustion boiler, fuel feeding and air system. The complete straw-fired power plant will be delivered to PEP in Winsko, in South West Poland. “The design is done, the location confirmed and we have all the approvals for construction. We are now waiting for the government’s decision regarding the new renewables bill. Without it, we won’t know all the economic parameters that we need in order proceed with works on the power plant,” said Mr Maciołek. Asia’s growing potential There is also significant potential for this biomass model in Asia, say private sector experts and academics. “ There is a lot of interest in biomass around the region but the main challenge is to make the business model work properly Dr Tong Yen Wah, National University of Singapore South East Asia has a huge need for distributed power generation and is also home to one third of the world’s usable biomass supply. However many countries still generate power through coal and expensive diesel fuel. Despite having vast waste streams such as rice husk, palm oil waste and wood chips, as well as strong government incentives for dedicated biomass plants around the 10MW range, they lack the infrastructure and resources to efficiently collect and transport biomass fuel. Perhaps by encouraging biomass co-firing as a cost effective first step for governments and utilities to meet renewables targets, the biomass industry will begin to better utilize waste streams and build a reliable fuel collection framework. With a more efficient fuel collection framework, the risk of disruption of fuel availability for small localized biomass power plants around the 10MW range is significantly reduced. Sales Manager at DP CleanTech, Jerome Le-Borgne said: “The incentives for dedicated 10MW plants in countries like Thailand and Philippines are very attractive and allow for fantastic profitability, because it is seen as a great solution for managing waste and providing distributed base load power to rural communities. However the number one challenge we are faced with is ‘bankability’ resulting from unpredictable fuel supplies”. According to Dr Tong Yen Wah, Assistant Professior at the Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, National University of Singapore (NUS), while biomass co-firing is the dominating technology in countries such as Korea and Japan, it is less developed in other Asian countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, which are rich in biomass feedstock. Dr Tong heads a few teams of researchers at NUS who are looking at different models to convert and transport biomass. “The models that we are currently exploring are also strongly focused on the logistics: either collecting the biomass or implementing a transportable technology to convert biomass into energy. We need to find a cost-efficient solution to the many logistical issues.” “There is a lot of interest in biomass around the region but the main challenge is to make the business model work properly,” he said. Clearly, the opportunities are there for biomass to become a much bigger contributor to the renewable energy sector in many countries, but its development will depend on several factors. Building certainty into fuel pricing and fuel supplies can be realised through a combination of government support, market reform, and innovation in logistics processes. However, the efficiency and flexibility of the technology to move along the development curve from co firing to stand alone biomass power plants is an equally critical factor in the development of the industry as a whole. Continue reading
