Tag Archives: alternative
Malaysia Eyes Region’s First Commercial Biomass-Ethanol Plant
http://www.thestar.c…0&h=413&crop=1 BINTULU: Malaysia may set up the first commercial-scale biomass ethanol plant in the region, following a memorandum of understanding to conduct a detailed feasibility study was signed between a consortium led by the Bintulu-based Hock Lee Group and international bio-tech company Beta Renewables. Agensi Inovasi Malaysia, which announced the agreement, said the development was in line with the government’s vision for biomass owners to be involved in downstream high-value activities through forging smart partnerships, rather than selling their biomass resources as a commodity. The feasibility study came about as a result of the National Biomass Strategy 2020 initiatives by Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM), which wants to position the country as the region’s leader in biomass-based downstream activities. The expectation is that the plant – should it materialise – will be a catalyst for a biomass-based industry cluster with a wide range of new industries like bio-fuels, bio-energy and bio-chemicals. “Such a cluster is expected to increase the state’s GDP as well as create high-value jobs by attracting high-value partnerships with local companies that will also benefit local SMEs, smallholders and local communities,” AIM said. According to the agency, it was working closely with the Sarawak Yek Siew Liong while Beta Renewables was represented by its business development director for Asia Pacific, Peirlugi Picciotti. The Hock Lee Group is a private Bintulu-based corporation with interests in property development and hospitality, and also owns the Xcel petrol retail chain in Sarawak, while Beta Renewables is an Italian-Danish-American joint venture that owns the patented PROESA technology for the conversion of non-food cellulosic biomass into ethanol. Last year, Beta Renewables successfully completed the commissioning and start-up of the world’s first commercial scale (60,000 tons of ethanol capacity) biomass-to-ethanol plant in Crescentino, Italy. Continue reading
World Energy Consumption To Grow By 56 Percent Between 2010 And 2040
iea News | CIOL Bureau WASHNGTON, USA: The International Energy Outlook 2013 (IEO2013) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040. Total world energy use rises from 524 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2010 to 630 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 820 quadrillion Btu in 2040. Much of the growth in energy consumption occurs in countries outside the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), known as non-OECD, where demand is driven by strong, long-term economic growth. Energy use in non-OECD countries increases by 90 percent; in OECD countries, the increase is 17 percent. The IEO2013 Reference case does not incorporate prospective legislation or policies that might affect energy markets. Renewable energy and nuclear power are the world’s fastest-growing energy sources, each increasing by 2.5 percent per year. However, fossil fuels continue to supply almost 80 percent of world energy use through 2040. Natural gas is the fastest-growing fossil fuel in the outlook. Global natural gas consumption increases by 1.7 percent per year. Increasing supplies of tight gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane support growth in projected worldwide natural gas use. Coal use grows faster than petroleum and other liquid fuel use until after 2030, mostly because of increases in China’s consumption of coal and tepid growth in liquids demand attributed to slow growth in the OECD regions and high sustained oil prices. The industrial sector continues to account for the largest share of delivered energy consumption; the world industrial sector still consumes over half of global delivered energy in 2040. Given current policies and regulations limiting fossil fuel use, worldwide energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rise from about 31 billion metric tons in 2010 to 36 billion metric tons in 2020 and then to 45 billion metric tons in 2040, a 46-percent increase. World economic background The world is still recovering from the effects of the 2008-2009 global recession. As these effects continue to be felt, many unresolved economic issues add to the uncertainty associated with this year’s long-term assessment of world energy markets. Currently, there is wide variation in the economic performance of different countries and regions around the world. Among the more mature OECD regions, the pace of growth varies but generally is slow in comparison with the emerging economies of the non-OECD regions. In the United States and Europe, short- and long-term debt issues remain largely unresolved and are key sources of uncertainty for future growth. Economic recovery in the United States has been weaker than the recoveries from past recessions, although expansion is continuing. In contrast, many European countries fell back into recession in 2012, and the regionss economic performance has continued to lag. Japan, whose economy had been sluggish before the devastating earthquake in March 2011, is recovering from its third recession in 3 years. Questions about the timing and extent of a return to operation for Japan’s nuclear power generators compound the uncertainty surrounding its energy outlook. In contrast to the OECD nations, developing non-OECD economies, particularly in non-OECD Asia, have led the global recovery from the 2008-2009 recession. China and India have been among the world’s fastest growing economies for the past two decades. From 1990 to 2010, China’s economy grew by an average of 10.4 percent per year and India’s by 6.4 percent per year. Although economic growth in the two countries remained strong through the global recession, both slowed in 2012 to rates much lower than analysts had predicted at the start of the year. In 2012, real GDP in China increased by 7.2 percent, its lowest annual growth rate in 20 years. India’s real GDP growth slowed to 5.5 percent in 2012. The world’s real gross domestic product (GDP, expressed in purchasing power parity terms) rises by an average of 3.6 percent per year from 2010 to 2040. The fastest rates of growth are projected for the emerging, non-OECD regions, where combined GDP increases by 4.7 percent per year. In the OECD regions, GDP grows at a much slower rate of 2.1 percent per year over the projection, owing to more mature economies and slow or declining population growth trends. The strong growth in non-OECD GDP drives the fast-paced growth in future energy consumption projected for these nations. Continue reading
EU’s Carbon Pricing Strategy Takes A Potentially Fatal Hit
Posted by Anthony Harrington , July 29, 2013 If you believe that global warming is the biggest catastrophe and economic disaster coming our way, then attempts to retrofit measures to contain CO2 emissions onto a global industrial base that has evolved largely without regard to emissions (other than as pollution) is a hugely important task. Finding a way of putting a price on carbon is the obvious route to go. The EU set itself up to be the global leader in creating mechanisms for carbon pricing but its emissions trading scheme, which has been copied by a number of countries, including Australia, South Korea and some Chinese provinces, is now in disarray. A vote by the European Parliament in April effectively holed the EU’s carbon pricing scheme below the waterline, to quote a recent article in The Economist . There are basically two ways to get industry to reduce its carbon emissions . You can mandate it by law, in a command-and-control manner, using the power of the state to force compliance, with massive fines and even prison as the ultimate sanctions for non compliance. Or you can set a cap-and-trade policy and leave it to the market, which is what the EU has done. Under a cap-and-trade approach you set limits to the emissions of the heaviest producers and then allocates or auctions carbon credits to cover production up to the limit. Firms that manage to reduce their emissions below the limit will have surplus credits that they can sell to other companies. By lowering the limit over time, the government can bear down on emissions, gradually reducing them over time, while trading in carbon credits creates a true, market based per-tonne price for carbon. That, at least, is the theory. What the EU did not count on when it set up the scheme back in 2005 was that advanced markets would suffer a global financial crash which would lead to years of no-to-very-low growth. This resulted naturally in falling emissions and so to surplus numbers of credits washing about in what was supposed to be a limited-supply market. It is now obvious that the EU handed out far too many carbon allowances from day one, back in 2005, and every year since, to the point where, according to The Economist , there is now a surplus of about 1.5 to 2 billion tonnes of carbon allowances in the system, causing the price per tonne to drop from twenty euros in 2011 to just five euros a tonne in 2013. The EU’s solution to this was a plan to withdraw some 900 million tonnes of carbon allowances off the market, with the idea of reintroducing them at some unspecified point in the future when the price per tonne of carbon had firmed up. The idea was dubbed “backloading” by the EU. Constraining supply has always been a good way of driving up price and since the whole market is artificially created there is probably no logical reason why the EU shouldn’t be able to tinker with the scheme to firm up prices. But the EU needed the European Parliament’s approval to put this scheme into action and on 13 April 2013 the European Parliament rejected the idea. The price of carbon sank like a stone, bottoming at under 3 euros. Since the International Energy Agency is warning that the price of carbon needs to be at least fifty euros to be effective in moving power generation companies away from coal to gas and renewable sources, this does not look hopeful for the EU’s best lever against global warming. There is now a serious question mark over the future of emissions trading schemes generally, which is not particularly helpful for California, which introduced its cap-and-trade scheme in January 2013 . The Californian scheme raised far less, by way of auctioning of carbon credits, than State authorities had anticipated and the tribulations of the EU scheme will not go unnoticed. Australia had been planning to link its cap-and-trade scheme to the EU’s scheme, creating an international trading market in carbon allowances, but that too, now looks rather unappealing. Right now the EU’s ETS scheme looks like no more than a rather useless additional “green” tax which the power companies simply pass on to the consumer. As a behaviour changing mechanism, it is dead in the water until and unless the EU finds a way of shoring up the price. Unfortunately for the EU no one actually wants carbon in the way that they want gold. The market is entirely artificial and carbon allowances, as a tradable asset class have just given a graphic illustration of what is meant by “political risk”. Continue reading
