Tag Archives: chat
Burning Issues: Is Biomass A Viable Energy Alternative?
by Kim Bryan 24 June 2013 It is clear that for biomass to be part of a zero-carbon energy future, strict safeguards need to be in place to ensure that only sustainable sourcing occurs. Kim Bryan Can biomass help meet the UK’s energy demands? The Centre for Alternative Technology ’s Kim Bryan investigates… As the world’s supply of fossil fuels dwindles, the search for alternative energy sources is vital. Biomass is one such energy source that is being touted as a good alternative to conventional fossil fuels. However, it is not without considerable opposition from those who argue that biomass could do more harm than good in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass is energy created from the burning of biological materials such as plants and non-living things such as biodegradable waste. Anything that is alive or was alive a short time ago can be categorised under biomass, therefore trees, crops, animal and plant waste are all included. The attraction of biomass in the fight against climate change is that it is carbon neutral. Unlike the fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal, which when burnt add to the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the CO 2 that biomass produces when ignited is absorbed from the atmosphere by the crops used to make it, and so the net atmospheric amount is not increased. Currently in the UK there are 20 dedicated biomass power plants that are producing a total of 1,092MW from a variety of sources including poultry waste and woody biomass. There are around another 30 at planning stage with a combined capacity of 5,000MW. Given that 1MW can sustain 1,000 homes for an hour, that is a significant contribution to the UK energy mix. However like many energy sources, it is also controversial, as there are both advantages and disadvantages. Potential impacts of biomass In recent years numerous organisations have issued warnings about the potential impacts of the mass production of biomass. UK-based organisation Biofuelwatch is currently protesting against plans by Drax power station in Yorkshire to convert half of their coal-fired power station to run on biomass. Whilst in practice this sounds like a green idea, “highly biodiverse forests in North America are already being clear cut to make wood pellets for UK power stations. This will only get worse as the industry expands.” Biofuelwatch say that communities in South Africa are already losing access to land and water because biodiverse grasslands are being destroyed for monoculture tree plantations, some of which supply Drax. Drax has the capability to produce 12.5 per cent of its output from renewable and sustainable biomass – the equivalent output of over 700 wind turbines. Drax says that ‘burning biomass at this level saves over two and a half million tonnes of CO 2 each year.’ Wood has always served as a fuel source for fires and ovens; however, technological advances mean that burning biomass can produce energy for everything from a power plant to an engine. Advantages The advantages are that burning biomass is said to be carbon neutral, in that by growing and then burning it there is no creation of additional carbon monoxide. Biomass products are abundant and renewable; since they come from living sources and life is cyclical, these products potentially never run out, so long as there is something living on earth and someone is there to turn that living thing’s components and waste products into energy. Another benefit of biomass is that we can use waste and thus reduce landfill to produce energy. However there are concerns that incinerating household waste depresses recycling and wastes resources, releases greenhouse gasses, and is often forced through against strong public opposition. Instead of promoting zero waste, incinerators rely on material for feedstock that should be recycled or composted. Incinerators create toxic emissions and hazardous ash, and therefore pose significant health risks. ‘Strict safeguards need to be in place’ It is clear that for biomass to be part of a zero-carbon energy future, strict safeguards need to be in place to ensure that only sustainable sourcing occurs. Otherwise, as the Centre for Alternative Technology’s Freya Stanley-Price points out: “We are getting rid of one environmental problem and replacing it with another.” Friends of the Earth suggest a number of measures that include keeping the scale of biomass to the size of domestically available resources, using anaerobic digestion for the treatment of food and animal waste and focusing biomass use close to production. In addition, there must be a joined-up, integrated approach to energy planning that considers the most efficient use of any energy generated and looks forward to managing energy demand. “There are many things that have to be carefully considered and weighed when determining if biomass energy is a viable alternative energy source,” Stanley-Price says. “In a zero-carbon future we must make sustainable use of trees as fuel, and replant them as we harvest them – creating a continuous carbon cycle. Growing our own fuel also creates jobs and is ideal for strong, local economies.” Kim Bryan Media Officer Centre for Alternative Technology www.cat.org.uk [This article was originally published on 10 th June 2013 as part of Science Omega Review UK 02] Read more: http://www.scienceom…s#ixzz2XEj6LkRu Continue reading
‘Climate Bomb’ Warning Over China Coolant Release
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c273ab0-dbe4-11e2-8853-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2X7AUUxXp By Kathrin Hille in Beijing A “climate bomb” of potent greenhouse gases 15,000 times more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide is set to be released by some of the world’s leading producers of refrigerants following a ban on climate credits. The companies, the majority of them in China, argue that a ban on trading of climate credits for the incineration of HFC-23 makes it no longer financially viable to destroy the gas, which is a byproduct of a substance used in air conditioners and refrigerators. A warning by the Environmental Investigation Agency in a report to be released on Monday will raise the pressure on China to ban such gases and end economic incentives for their production in multilateral talks. Some 19 factories – 11 in China – making HCFC-22 have been receiving climate credits under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism for installing and operating incinerators to burn HFC-23 that is created during the manufacturing process, instead of venting it into the atmosphere. Facilities in developing countries can sell emission reduction credits to buyers in developed countries to allow the latter to meet their targets under the Kyoto protocol. However, the European Emissions Trading Scheme, the world’s largest carbon market, banned trading in those credits last month after finding that the financial incentive drove companies to produce more HFC-23 instead of curbing it. Other climate exchanges have said they will follow, causing substantial revenue streams for the producers to dry up. The EIA said an investigation had shown that most of China’s non-CDM facilities were emitting HFC-23 already. “If all of these facilities [under the CDM] join China’s non-CDM and vent their HFC-23, they will set off a climate bomb emitting more than 2bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions by 2020,” it said. People involved in the sector in China said this was likely to happen. “If there is no more funding, the CDM plants could start venting as well,” Mei Shengfang, deputy secretary-general of the China Association of Fluorine and Silicone Industry, said. He added that authorities were considering offering support. An executive at China Fluoro Technology, one of the largest Chinese CDM plants, said: “Our company is still incinerating the HFC-23 now. If the money is used up, we can stop incineration. We can’t go on doing this, we can’t afford it and we have no duty to do it.” Releasing HFC-23 into the atmosphere is not illegal. China has been blocking proposals for a ban as part of multilateral talks under the Montreal Protocol to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, which continue on Monday in Bangkok. China raised hopes this month when President Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama of the US said at a summit that they had agreed to work together to reduce the production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons. “This is a reversal of China’s attitude, and all eyes are on China now to see if it’s for real,” said Alexander von Bismarck, executive director at EIA. Additional reporting by Li Wan Continue reading
Farms And Estates Need To Look At Implications Of HMRC Partnership Tax Clamp Down
17 June 2013 by Andrew Shirley Chatting to accountants Roythornes and Chaverys at last week’s Cereals event, the next looming tax issue for farms and estates seems to be the use of partnerships. As mentioned in my Budget blog, Chancellor George Osborne threatened a closer look at partnerships earlier this year. Typically, this was the kind of promise you knew he’d keep and HMRC has just released a consultation document inviting comments on its proposals, which it plans to introduce on 6 April 2014. Although HMRC says its changes will not impact on the use of partnerships for genuine business reasons, not everybody will have the same view on what constitutes a genuine business reason. While farming partnerships may not attract quite as much scrutiny as the likes of Google, it is probably worth any businesses involving a partnership, particularly where one or more of the partners is a company or trust, taking professional advice on the potential impact of the planned changes. The two areas the consultation looks at are: Disguised employment: an LLP member who works for the LLP on terms that are tantamount to employment. Profit and loss allocation schemes: members of LLPs and other partnerships where the members of the partnership consist of members who are chargeable to income tax and others who are not, but only where it is reasonable to assume that: • A main purpose of the partnership profit-sharing arrangements is to secure an income tax advantage for any person; or • A main purpose of arrangements in force is to allocate a partnership loss to a partner with a view to that partner obtaining a reduction in tax liability by way of income tax reliefs or capital gains relief. Profit and loss allocation schemes also cover tax-motivated arrangements whereby one partner transfers profits to another as a result of a revised allocation of profits in return for payment that is not taxed as income. Those wishing to respond to the consultation document have until 9 August 2013 to do so. Read the full HMRC consultation Continue reading
