RE: Research Topics

["Weststeijn, Andries" <Andries.Weststeijn@essent.nl>]

Dear Fred,

 

I fully recognize your step approach 1 through 4 (see below). Our company also considers options on a "more project specific basis".

 

However, it is just that for getting the most out of the exchange of views on this List, a company-based approach might not be the best way to go.

A) since true project finances will never be discussed in the public domain of this List.

B) since local financial conditions (your steps @First and @Second) differ so much from case to case and from region to region

 

That's why the more objective and perhaps more financially-neutral exchange of views on this List (including where to go from here with R&D) could take place under your step @Third.

 

If in any way I make the impression that I believe that finances don't matter and that technology is the name of the game: I know first hand that finances and technology go hand in hand for any commercial project.

But perhaps the question here is: how can we exchange views on this List re a desired string of developments -and mutually learn and benefit- without getting into region-specific discussions dominated by local financial plusses and minuses which strongly vary in time.

 

Partly my thoughts are with the substantial number of active and passive List-members in different corners of the world. But in fact what I am trying to say already is valid for something as close by as the differential in green stimulance regimes between States in the US, or between the US and Canada.

 

best regards,

Andries 

-----Original Message-----
From: FMurrl@aol.com [mailto:FMurrl@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 1:52 PM
To: Andries.Weststeijn@essent.nl; kchisholm@ca.inter.net; Harry.Parker@ttu.edu; Carefreeland@aol.com; anouk@shaw.ca
Cc: bioenergy@crest.org
Subject: Re: Research Topics

In a message dated 4/21/02 5:55:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Andries.Weststeijn@Essent.nl writes:

The thread started with a question on desirable R&D topics.

I would find it interesting to compare views of List-participants on a "ladder" of technology/fuel options, rated in order of becoming viable (one after another) if the competing reference price (of fossil fuels) goes up in time.
Like how straight cofiring of sawdust pellets will become viable before gasification of SRC (short rotation coppice) will become viable.

To discuss and compare options on a supra-regional scale (with which I mean, not under conditions of a singular country, even the US and Canada differ in this respect) one ought to eliminate the non-technology oriented financial conditions (taxes, subsidies, incentives etc), compare them  in a "stripped mode" (net), after when each can fill in his own regional financial peculiarities again.
After all, List-participants in Brazil, India, Australia, Scandinavia and North-America all have their own sets of regional rules.

What technology/fuel combinations will fly regionally will certainly depend on these regional financial conditions.
What's more, these conditions make or break it.
But I believe we can learn more back and forth on this List, if technology/fuel combinations are debated stripped for a change from regional financial conditions.

But it all depends on what the List participants want and are interested in.
For an internal US debate what I try to say has no relevance, I realize that.
But then, I know many US List-participants have a keen eye open for developments elsewhere, all the way down yonder.

Andries:

Thanks for this -- I had forgotten that we were trying to respond to a specific question for Anouk.

I approach the equation this way:

First, figure out what economic variables apply in the specific location, and then determine which renewable fuels and technologies have the most support from government in the form of financial incentives, including tax programs.

Second, see whether with the financial incentives, the fuels and technologies can be made to work. If the incentives have a specific life -- e.g., Section 29 in the US with a life through 2007 -- then, I can determine if a project can pay for itself during that time frame. The presence of incentives, even if they don't last forever, can significantly affect the "ladder" you described in your note.

Third, review the delivery systems that are available. With the problems of alkalinity and heavy metals and odor affecting some fuels, the delivery system is critical. We (actually, a sister company) have spent millions on a delivery system, that is just now going into demonstration, and we are keeping our fingers crossed that this slagging combustor works as we believe it will. The waste material coming out of the combustor is a fixed glass-like slag, which will landfill quite easily, due to its resistance to leaching.

Fourth, make it happen. Too many times we talk a good game and just don't get anything into service. Where we have grabbed the bull by the horns, and have actually done something, we have been very pleased. We expect to do the same with biomass, and hopefully our luck will hold.

I hasten to add that I am not saying that your approach is wrong. It is certainly a good thing to know what is the actual capital and operating costs of various renewable fuels and systems. It is just that we approach the question on a more project specific basis.

Fred Murrell
Biomass Development
Bradenton Florida USA