Tag Archives: european
Main Pellet Consumers In Europe
September 02, 2013• Source: EBA/IHB • Views: 249 Decrease text sizeIncrease text size The European Union recently published its annual biofuels report for 2013 with the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s Global Agricultural Information Network. The report identifies the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Belgium as the major users of wood pellets in the EU. Main Pellet Consumers (1,000 MT) Calendar Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 UK – – – 1,990 2,720 3,380 4,540 Denmark 993 1,200 1,400 1,720 2,350 2,400 2,500 Netherlands 705 912 912 913 1,290 1,710 2000 Sweden 1,715 1,850 1,920 2,280 1,880 1,700 650 Germany 600 900 1,050 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,600 Belgium 735 920 920 950 1,130 1,200 1,320 Total 6,028 7,021 9,000 11,400 13,000 14,300 16,000 Source: AEBIOM and Member State sector organisations, e = estimate EU FAS Posts Differences in consumption characterize the European pellet market, says the report. The market can be divided in three regions. Markets such as the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK are dominated by large – scale power plants. In Denmark and Sweden, pellets are used by power plants but also by households and by medium scale consumers using wood pellets for district heating. In Germany, Austria, Italy and France pellets are mainly used in small – scale private residential and industrial boilers for heating. The demand for industrial pellets depends primarily on EU Member State mandates and incentives, while the residential pellet market is driven by prices of alternative fuels. The UK, the Netherlands and Belgium are expected to be the main growth market for pellets, and also the most dependent on imports. The large scale use of wood pellets by the power plants in the UK and the Benelux countries is driven by the EU mandates for renewable energy use in 2020. The governments of these countries opted to fulfill their obligations mainly by the use of biomass for the generation of electricity. Recently, the UK Government enforced the Industrial Emissions Directive, which is expected to boost consumption further in 2013 and 2014. The Dutch Government will decide upon the national renewable energy policy in the second half of August. According the draft proposal, old power plants build in the eighties will have to be closed and biomass use will be capped at 25 PJ per year. Continue reading
Biomass Loopholes ‘Big Enough To Drive A Logging Truck Through’
Posted on 27 August 2013 by Tom Grimwood Green campaigners have attacked the revised sustainability criteria for the UK’s burgeoning biomass electricity industry. The Department of Energy and Climate and Change (DECC) says its “tough” new demands will mean biomass-fuelled generators must hit targets on how much carbon is emitted and whether enough trees have been replanted, with rules kicking in from April 2015. But the new rules have taken flak from several environmental groups. Biofuelwatch claimed most of the carbon emissions from biomass will be ignored because DECC’s sustainability criteria exclude things like ‘substiution’ emissions – the carbon cost of burning biomass which could have had other uses. The group said DECC relies on a number of “dubious” schemes to certify sustainability and described the Ofgem carbon calculator they use to tot up greenhouse emissions as “deeply flawed”. A spokesman for Biofuelwatch, Duncan Law said: “DECC is more concerned with ‘keeping the lights on’ using existing technology than with real carbon savings and environmental impact. It is heavily lobbied by the energy companies who stand to make hundreds of millions from burning hundreds of millions of tonnes of imported wood.” Greenpeace also attacked DECC’s failure to mention ‘carbon debt’. They quoted a report by the European Environment Agency which found that burning biomass can be actually be a high carbon source of energy if forests aren’t re-grown to pay the ‘carbon debt’ back. Dr Doug Parr, the Chief Scientist at Greepeace said: “The loopholes in these sustainability standards are big enough to drive a logging truck through. Having learnt nothing from the biofuels debacle, the Government has ignored the latest scientific research and produced standards that will take a potentially sustainable industry and transform it into one more way to greenwash environmental destruction.” But the Renewable Energy Association (REA) said these arguments are based on worst-case scenarios involving the burning of whole trees and unsustainable forest management, when the industry mainly relies on cheaper leftovers. REA Chief Executive Dr Nina Skorupska said: “These sustainability criteria ensure that the UK can reap the benefits of biomass, safe in the knowledge that it is making a real dent in our carbon emissions and that ecologically sensitive land is being protected.” Continue reading
Brazil And China Scramble For Agricultural Influence In Africa
Agriculture is central to Chinese and Brazilian development efforts – how trailblazing are their methods? Agricultural experts from China offer tips on rice planting to farmers in Dakar, Senegal. Photograph: Zheng Zheng/Xinhua[/color] China and Brazil have identified agriculture as central to their development efforts in Africa, confident in the belief that they can make valuable contributions based on their own agricultural success. China trumpets its ability to feed 20% of the world’s population on roughly 10% of the world’s arable land, while Brazil can boast of agribusiness-led commercial production of soya bean and ethanol as well as its promotion of smaller-scale farming. Last month, José Graziano da Silva, the director general of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, stressed the importance of south-south co-operation in advancing agricultural development in developing countries. “It is time for Latin America to increase its contribution to African development,” Graziano told African and Argentinian agriculture ministers in Buenos Aires, Argentina. What has been the experience of Brazil and China in agriculture in Africa; do they offer a new paradigm of south-south development co-operation? A collection of essays published last month by the Institute of Development Studies concludes that there is no single Chinese, Brazilian or African position. “China and Brazil have very different interests and priorities, and within these countries there are intense contests between different approaches, reflecting domestic political dynamics,” says the IDS bulletin China and Brazil in African Agriculture . “On the other hand, Africa’s 55 countries are hugely diverse, and any new development encounter arrives on the back of a very complex agrarian history and political economy.” The case of Brazil is particularly interesting, since it offers two distinct models. The first consists of large-scale farming for the production of soya and ethanol, backed by the ministry of agriculture, livestock and food supply, which describes itself as the ministry for agribusiness. The second emphasises integrated rural and social development in Brazil’s poorest regions through programmes designed to ensure the provision of technical support and credit for family farmers. Both approaches are evident in Africa. The ministry of agrarian development (MDA), a supporter of the family farm sector, has drawn on Brazil’s More Food programme, focusing on improving farmers’ access to equipment, machinery and agricultural technologies, including tractors, through the provision of concessional credit. Ghana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique have been given credit and signed a technical co-operation agreement. Shipping of machines and equipment will begin this year. The challenge, says the study, is to avoid subsidised technologies that end up benefiting wealthier farmers. At the other end of the spectrum is the involvement of agribusiness. In Ghana, for example, the Brazilian company Constran is building an ethanol plant, designated for export to Sweden, partly to get round European tariffs on Brazilian ethanol imports. So the $306m (£196m) project involves Brazilian technology and European investment in an African country. Competing visions such as these mirror Brazil’s complex agrarian economy, says the study, and the outcomes will depend on how African governments, farmers, entrepreneurs and civil society organisations absorb, shape and apply the models on offer. While Brazil is a new player in Africa, China has been involved in African agriculture for more than 40 years. Lila Buckley, senior researcher on China at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, writes that Chinese agriculture co-operation tends to be heavily technocratic, reflecting China’s own experience. It has established more than 40 agricultural demonstration centres on the continent and provides agricultural assistance combined with infrastructure development. The latter includes dam construction with technical training, the provision of inputs and storage facilities, and facilitating links between agricultural ministries and communities. While the Chinese official line is that China’s agricultural experience can be of benefit to Africa, Chinese NGOs have offered more critical perspectives. A project officer at a Chinese NGO told Buckley: ” Aid is supposed to help local people develop by introducing China’s experience. But people forget to ask whether this is appropriate or not. Chinese people don’t understand African history or the development situation.” There is also concern about the suitability of China’s intensive agriculture model, which has achieved increased food production but only at the cost of the heavy depletion of water and soil, intense fertiliser use – which causes high pollution – and heavy energy consumption. The emphasis on technology transfer above other factors also worries some experts. “The Gates foundation is spending $1bn on agriculture technology,” an agriculture policy adviser at the Chinese Academy of Science told Buckley. “But not all technology is necessarily useful for Africa. In China, rural development started with land tenure reform, not with technology.” Buckley notes that, despite rhetoric of mutual benefit, China has generally taken the lead in designing and implementing agriculture projects, with only passive participation from African partners. This has led to frustration on both sides and project failures, as in the case of the Xai-Xai irrigation scheme in Gaza province in Mozambique. When the scheme failed, one Chinese participant complained: “We are here to help farmers, but the farmers are not interested in agriculture.” Kojo Sebastian Amanor concludes that south-south co-operation – though frequently framed as path-breaking – builds upon pre-existing forms of international development, neoliberal frameworks, and the expansion of capital in Africa.[/font][/color] Continue reading
