Its Real – again

Posted on by co2land

That word ‘real’ has popped up again – and we must prepare to again endure the use of a synonym and have it portrayed as the truth. Perfect for politicians is the use of the word or term ‘real’ as it can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not guarantee an increased activity (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of activity!!). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; I have been true to my intent to act in good faith, and equally a review of my intent can happen when convenient. The issue with the word ‘real’ in this context is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

To put this in context in August 2012, Co2Land org wrote two stories that looked at the use of ‘real’ with implications for the Carbon Farming Initiative its legislation and regulations. In the Story

Time for a real review Posted on August 20, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs said:

‘Smart forms of research has found that customer service and sales skills are considered the least important when building a brand, and it would seem big brand and government know this very well. This might explain why any meaningful programs are explained in a way of the language of spin. For what is done would we not prefer to hear or feel that our policy makers value some measure of the actions and actively seek feedback from those that influence our lives at least every 6 to 12 months from a startup campaign. This view suggests government is a business – a business that must please its total stakeholder basis.

Why should this happen? Take a look at quotes taken from the writings of Laurissa Smith and Anna Vidot (www.abc.net.au ), on Monday, 20/08/2012, the story ‘Carbon farmers challenged by rigorous process’: “The guidelines which set out how they can make money from schemes like the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative are still being developed…It’s still sitting under consideration with the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee which is the committee tasked under the clean energy regulator to review the methodologies…So we hope that it’s going to become available for public interest by early 2013.” This is extremely frustrating when you consider the Department responsible made announcements of a body as set up for Carbon Offsets in June 2010.”

While numerous new methodologies are now approved – what holds true is that branded entities and those that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Friendly Program benefited, and most farmers that hoped to earn credits have not.

Then in the story Real, Additionality, RECs Posted on August 14, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs it was said:

“Observing CTi’s Carbon Offsets 2 day Masterclass offering, it occurred that a US based mob was on about getting real about ‘real’ carbon offsets. Curiosity led to checking out the reporting standard AS/NZS ISO 14064, finding it is silent on the word or term ‘real’ and completely avoids the topic of additionality, was fascinating given that you can’t even conceive of an offset without the concept of additionality!

CO2Land org now ponders: If ‘real’ cannot be a guarantee of a good project outcome. It follows that the use of the word or term ‘real’ can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not be seen as a guarantee of an increase in the carbon offset (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of carbon offsets). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; it was an act in good faith only. The issue with the word ‘real’ is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

This lead to thinking of the impact this has on the Carbon Farming Initiative as legislated when the Gold Standard and Carbon Fix require that projects be “real”, but no international standard could explain what they mean by using the terms”.

Then if you consider where ‘real’ is covered with a contrived definition and includes the concepts of completeness and accuracy in accounting, and leakage. It does so as no more than use ‘real’ as a synonym!

It would also appear that additionality is the next condition that might be the excuse that you cannot be real and CO2Land org looked a little harder (we don’t want this post to be no more than ‘hot air’) and found:

Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.

ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program

ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”

Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.

ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”

Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard -

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

ISO 14064-2 addresses ‘additionality’ with a general requirement and reference-out to the program rules (link = http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/ISO14064.html#Additionality).

Also http://ghginstitute.org/2012/01/25/how-do-you-explain-additionality/

 

Danger in oversimplifying energy savings – built environment

Posted on by co2land

When organizing energy procurement opportunities you can experience frustration with the need to use simplified language in order to tell your client how they will make the cost savings. The danger in presenting over simplified information is the data might be clearly shown the distortion of savings that may occur. However, the simplified information package cannot illustrate the effects when small but significant changes to operations, occupancy rates of building, seasonal variations, how government policy changes will impact on the cost equation.  What comes to mind immediately is the Carbon Price in government policy, and the opposition in Australia stating they will retrench that price – it then becomes important to consider how different energy retailers might treat it in the energy agreement – something very few thought about until recent times.

And, it appears universal that the common mistake in the information delivery is the over simplified explanations that can be interpreted as all actions the client takes is a linear function in terms of costs. When in reality the issue is the bigger the contract in terms of dollars the greater the impacts of what you do to affect energy used will affect your price paid for the total energy consumed.

Then we find we are not alone: It is common to make mistakes, and it all comes down to oversimplifying the estimates when presenting the cost savings.

When researching the phenomena it was found Lindsay Audin wrote  “Common Mistakes Made By Energy Managers” recently and we share much of his thoughts. So similar in fact, it is also what Co2Land org has been discussing with Ecoprofit Management (www.ecoprofitmanagement.com.au ). What we need to exercise care in is the data has a message, and to paraphrase into simplified information may miss very important part of that message:

1.    Beware of using averaged electricity rates. Customers in a tranche other than domestic tariffs will be rated for electricity charges for both how much electricity is used in terms of kilowatt-hours (kWh) and for how fast electricity is used in terms of kilowatts (kW) – The  “peak demand charge” and the variance of how fast you use electricity can be as much as 50% of a total bill change.

Note a) The danger in using averaged electricity rates as a simplify in estimating dollar savings from energy upgrades, is it is likely you might calculate an average electricity rate by dividing the total cost of electricity in a month by the kWh used in the same time period – therefore the rate includes the cost of peak demand in it.

Note b) Some upgrades to equipment may fail to reduce peak kW demand – examples are using motion sensors to control lighting needs and such measures will save kWh, but may fail to reduce peak kW demand because of changes to occupancy rates and timing of production loads changing to operational needs to be met. It also follows that controlled lighting might also only happen when the peak of energy use has already passed. In the case of motion sensors for lighting if they don’t cut peak demand, they won’t reduce the kW charge of the bill.

Note c) “This same problem arises with photovoltaic (PV) panels that generate power. A system rated (for example) at 100 kW will, at some point, provide that level of capacity – but not necessarily at a building’s peak time. Full PV output occurs when the sun is highest (between noon and 1 PM), unless the panels are mounted on a motorized platform that follows the sun. Commercial buildings usually peak between 3 and 5 PM, at which point PV output may have dropped considerably.” – Audin.

Note d) “Under a power purchasing agreement (PPA), a PV vendor owns the system and sells the output to the host customer at a small discount off the average utility price, typically for 15-20 years. Once again, that averaged price assumes all the PV power is being provided during the building’s peak. Studies have found that is often not the case. Depending on how much of one’s bill is for peak kW, the true value of the kWh from PV may be significantly lower than the vendor’s price.” – Audin.

Note e) It is then obvious that an averaged electric price overestimates dollar savings, and in all likelihood and unless there is data to prove otherwise, only savings based on the kWh can be assumed as a simple measure.

2.    Beware HVAC savings might not result from a lighting upgrade. Do not assume a watt for watt drop in cooling or assume a heating constant to replace the lamping output. It will not be a proportional saving of kWh in a linear fashion.

Note f) “Reducing lighting kWh cuts fixture heat output, but – for several reasons – that may not always translate into a proportional air conditioning (A/C) savings. For example, chillers run for only a portion of the year, while lighting is on most of the year. When lighting wattage is reduced in a room served by a constant volume air system containing electric reheat coils, a drop in cooling load may be made up – watt for watt – by an increase in reheat output. Not only will there be no cooling savings but even the kWh savings from the lighting upgrade may be negated.” – Audin.

Note g) “A 100% outside air system (e.g., serving a lab) may remove a significant portion of fixture ballast heat in its exhaust air instead of returning it to the cooling coil, thus mitigating some of the assumed A/C savings. If any of the upgraded light fixtures are outdoors or in uncooled spaces (e.g., stairwells, bathrooms, basements, mechanical rooms), their reduced heat output will never be seen by the A/C system. If, on the other hand, that reduced heat output necessitates an increase in winter heating through electric resistance baseboards, the net winter electric savings from the lighting upgrade may also be minimal.” – Audin.

3.    In Co2Land org’s mind the greater mistake is assuming maintenance savings will occur.  Repeated again and again are claims that new equipment will need less maintenance. It may be true, but in all likelihood it will have a cause and effect that might not be adequately assessed.  Consider this scenario: A new boiler is fitted with inverter technology and will require less maintenance. Staff will be cut because of this, or retrained, or reassigned elsewhere. But when maintenance is required of a harmonic distortion occurred the building’s maintenance budget will blow out and little or no actual measurable savings from new equipment will be reported. Admittedly it will most likely be in the preceding budget periods that this affect will show itself.

Note h) Research you case studies thoroughly, and do not assume marketing is telling the truth, the whole truth.

Our underlying message is to exercise caution when you try to explain with too little detail, and do not assume the other party is wanting you to explain all as a simplified explanation.  It might even pay to ask – can you make the time to understand all the implications?

Not selling – suburban transport EV dream.

Posted on by co2land

The evidence to date suggests the socio-economic structure of suburban life is partly to blame for car dependent suburbanites rejecting electric vehicles. It might also explain the lack of patronage for City of Sydney recharging facilities infrastructure. And, now we have a political bidding war for public infrastructure in Western Sydney it will be even more difficult, or more correctly a major barrier is being put up to suppress the EV market even more.

The reference to City of Sydney patronage can be read on a previous post – Posted on February 27, 2013 by co2land – ‘Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!’ In particular the quote  “the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.

When CO2Land org was researching the uptake of EV’s in suburbia it started with the premise of electric vehicles being a favoured solution, the dream technology is another way of putting it, and the best fit to solve our a families transport challenges and mitigate them from the economic and environmental impacts from oil dependence and how our lifestyles pose significant environmental threats. No such evidence exists that it will happen this way. The sales of EV’s are not happening as hoped, and the technology use indicates the problem occurs in a social context, and seemingly the discussion of electric vehicles has not included suburban social patterns among which electric vehicles might be adopted.

That said, someone else said, on 14 Feb 2013, we have looked deeper for the reasons and provided evidence . This was taken up by The Conversation and we quote “what Neil Sipe, Terry Li and I have assembled suggests the socio-economic structure of Australian suburbia, in combination with the distribution of public transport infrastructure, constitutes a major barrier to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, especially among the most car-dependent households.

Relying on electric vehicles as a solution to energy and environmental problems may perpetuate suburban social disadvantage in a period of economic and resource insecurity.

Australia’s five largest cities are the most car-dependent national set outside the United States. Our previous studies (Dodson and Sipe 2007; 2008 have shown that outer suburban residents, especially those with lower socio-economic capacity, are among those most exposed to the pressures of higher transport fuel prices.

Future transport fuel costs are likely to be even higher (currently oil is approximately US$100 per barrel). Unconventional oil sources such as shale or tar sands may be abundant, but they have much higher production costs than conventional light crude. Their current production boom is underpinned by expectations that global oil prices will remain high or increase further over the long term.

Higher oil prices and the need to constrain carbon emissions will likely lead to much higher transport fuel costs than have prevailed in the past decade.

Electric vehicles are often presented as the most likely way to resolve this transport conundrum. Australia’s 2012 Energy White Paper alludes to a transition to electric vehicles as the economy of conventional fuels wanes.

Much of the Energy White Paper and the rhetoric around electric vehicles assumes an unproblematic transition – consumers will change their behaviour in response to price pressures. There is little discussion of potential barriers and impediments to this comforting, convenient narrative.

It makes sense that households who are most car dependent and least able to afford higher fuel prices would be the most eager to switch to an electric car. But, it turns out, the social structure of Australian suburbia means these groups are poorly placed to lead such a transition.

In our study of Brisbane we created datasets linking vehicle fuel efficiency with household socio-economic status. In our analysis, high vehicle fuel efficiency, including hybrids, serves as a proxy for future electric vehicles. We linked motor vehicle registration data with the Green Vehicle dataset on fuel efficiency, plus travel and socio-economic data from the ABS Census.

Our analysis builds a rich picture of how the spatial distribution of vehicle efficiency intersects with suburban socio-spatial patterns, using Brisbane and Sydney as case studies.

We found that the average commuting distance increases with distance from the CBD while average fuel efficiency of vehicles declines. So outer suburban residents travel further, in less efficient vehicles, than more centrally situated households. Outer suburban residents are also likely to be on relatively lower incomes than those closer in.

The result is those living in the outer suburbs have relatively weaker socio-economic status but are paying more for transport. For example, one-third of the most disadvantaged suburbs in greater Brisbane also have the most energy-intensive motor vehicle use.

A socially equitable transition to highly fuel efficient or electric vehicles ought to favour those with the highest current exposure to high fuel prices. Yet our research finds it’s not likely to happen.

26 February 2013, Jogo Dodson, Associate Professor and Director, Urban Research Program at Griffith University “

CO2Land org still maintains it is the politics that drives community attitudes and where it may be immoral, it is not illegal. Thought of today – more politicians face charges with illegal activities each year than illegal immigrants! Source ABC.

No idle boast – helicopter parents not required

Posted on by co2land

We was good and brung up PROPER – according to me mum.

It is time to congratulate ALL WHO WERE BORN IN THE 1940′s, 50′s, 60′s and 70’s

They survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank Sherry while they carried us and lived in houses made of asbestos…

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese, bread and dripping, raw egg products, loads of bacon and processed meat, tuna from a can, and didn’t get tested for diabetes or cervical cancer.

Then after that trauma, they painted our baby cots with brightly coloured lead-based coatings. Even our toys were hazards.

We survived even though there was no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our pushbikes, we had no helmets or shoes, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking. If we were really privileged we would paddock bash in an old car – because someone had a dad that didn’t need the car anymore – they might even give you the petrol to put in it!

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags, and some cars had dicky seats – the boot opened to give an extra seat. Even the back of a ute was OK – but you had to be sensible and sit down around town.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a PET bottle.

Take away food was limited to fish and chips (not that cotton oil stuff either), no pizza shops, McDonalds , KFC, Subway or Nandos.

Even though all the shops closed at 6.00pm and by midday Saturday, and didn’t open on a Sunday, somehow we didn’t starve to death!

Sunday was special – the pub was family day – dad had to buy a meal for us to get a beer.

Going to the corner shop was a treat – they knew your name!

We shared one soft drink with four friends, even without a straw, from one bottle and NO ONE we know actually died from this.

We could collect old drink bottles and cash them in at the corner store and buy lollies or whatever like Bubble Gum.

We ate teacakes with icing on top, cupcakes with hundreds and thousands on top, white bread and real butter cut real thick, milk from the cow that left a white mark on your top lip from the thick cream, even milkshakes used sour milk with extra ladles of sirup because it tasted better, and we drank soft drinks with sugar in it, but we weren’t overweight because…….WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No though no one was able to reach us all day. And we were OK and loving it.

We would spend hours building our billy carts (go carts) out of old prams and then ride down the hill without brakes.  And, what about the brakes you might say, why did you need them you would say, building them wastes time, time you can have to have fun.  Just yell and everyone get out of your way!

We built tree houses and dens and played in river beds with matchbox cars.  We were allowed to cry if we lost one – so long as we had a good reason.

We did not have PlayStations, Nintendo Wii, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 999 channels on SKY channel, no video/DVD films, or colour smart TV, no mobile phones, no personal computers, no iPads, no Internet or Internet chat rooms………WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We even knew what the weather was like outside – by feeling it.

We fell out of trees, got cuts, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents – it was learning to go with the flow.

Only girls had pierced ears! But being cool was fine – like leaving your buttons undone on your shirt.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever. Good old Castor oil was yucky but did the job so mum said. Dad might argue a swig of home brew will fix that problem.  And grandpa would give you some grappa for the same reason. It worked all of it – I don’t have worms!

You could only buy Easter Eggs and Hot Cross Buns at Easter time….and you knew what it meant.

We were given air guns and slingshots (catapults) for our 10th birthdays, for pest control of course.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just yelled for them for them to come out.

Mum didn’t have to go to work to help dad make ends meet because we didn’t need to keep up with the Jones’s! Even though they lived in the street – we had our pride.

Not everyone made the rugby/football/cricket/netball team. Those who didn’t had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!! Getting into the team was based on MERIT

Our teachers used to hit us with canes and sand shoes (gym shoes) and throw the blackboard rubber at us, if they thought we weren’t concentrating … even six of the best could be seen as a correction effort to help you on your way to be a better citizen.

We can string sentences together and spell and have proper conversations because of a good, solid three R’s education.

Our parents would tell us to ask a stranger to help us cross the road.

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of – They actually sided with the law!

Our parents didn’t invent stupid names for their kids like ‘Kiora’ and ‘Blade’ and ‘Ridge’ and ‘Vanilla’ – not even ‘Tiger’ was used?

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL !

The local copper would clip us across the ears if we needed to learn respect, if we learnt from that we were going to be alright, if not – then we became problems and most probably ended up in the armed forces and welcomed back as hero’s.

When we grew up to thirteen , we were responsible – we made sure nobody else would get hurt if we were stupid – unless we was off our face – then some other responsible person would make sure your parents knew to kick your butt cause you we stupid – so you did not become a criminal while growing up.  But once you reached nineteen you better know you should know better.

Yeah, we were the lucky ones, a time when you had the luck to grow up as kids, before the bevy of lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

So now the question is: Should you be congratulated because of how brave your parents were? Would it be allowed today? Is that the real problem with kids today?

Why are we now so afraid to live our own lives, without being watched over all the time? Beware even reading this story is profiling you!

Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!

Posted on by co2land

The promise of electric cars is getting down to the power point. The promise of the dream technology solving our transport challenges is now best described as uneven! The problem might just be the socio-economic structure around us, and where the most car dependent households are distributed.

It seems at odds, that for instance, the City of Sydney is staunchly promoting a sustainable future, that the leading edge they wish to protect and serve with examples of what is the correct thing to do is also being meet with stern and robust opposition. If we put aside the concerns over the city’s trigeneration project and the claims and counterclaims. A very interesting story develops from an article published on http://www.drive.com.au under the heading “Not Selling”.

The story centres on the City of Sydney council having held a press event last week. The announcement being it had bought 10 Nissan Leaf electric cars, and it planned to buy 50 similar vehicles over the next few years. The story said “the event was supposed to be a shot in the arm for electric vehicles, which have barely registered a blip on the sales charts. But instead, it provided an insight into the failure of the Better Place electric vehicle-charging network”. Co2Land org is now very interested in the history of the Better Place network as Canberra and others also touted the wonderful concepts and the advantages of such a network.

What happened to the wonderful network at Sydney: Again, Drive.com published “In 2011, the City of Sydney put out a project to tender for 12 new electric car-charging stations – a perfect opportunity for Better Place to gain a foothold in Sydney. Better Place was considered, but ultimately the tender was won not by a multinational technology provider but a local electrician, who simply installed power points”.  It got down to there is no need for propriety displays and charge points – all based on subscription arrangements. What was needed according to the manager for strategy and assets at the council was 15-amp, 240-volt power points with a timer and flow meter. CO2Land org then though they already have them in most council owned caravan park around the country – interesting thought to think the old technology is suitable for the new, yet we were going to pay more without the need!

Council is also quoted as saying there is a lack of customers to even support installing the power points. The story continues to say after the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.  Oh dear, or is it still too dear?

OTE – it means in sales and marketing jobs

Posted on by co2land

What does OTE mean; in employment it usually means you will be paid a minimum hourly rate until you exceed a performance criteria.  Example: Salary $50k OTE $36k.  So if you are an entry level sales employee offered this arrangement – what questions and extra knowledge do you need when facing this situation?

First problem: Why is it so hard to get the information? Because most are enthusiastic and find an opportunity appealing – detail comes later.

Second problem: Am I being scammed or shamed or will I appear dumb to ask? Again it is hard to get the information, so you will satisfice that the details will come later.

Third problem: OTE $36k means minimum hourly rate being paid. In Australia that is what it is, and no obligation to pay you more without skills loading.

Fourth problem: The performance criteria need to be set at the time of interview, and you need to understand it. So ask – If I reach the target of 100% do I then get to $50k from that time on, or is my annual salary and components (super contributions etc.) adjusted including back pay? You then make the choice whether you are scammed, shamed or fair go given.

Fifth problem: The hurdle in the performance criteria. Ask the question – if I reach my 100% target this period, will the target be stepped up and to what extent will hurdles be put in my way? Expect to hear things like 120% next time and you keep you salary at $50k, fail and we may let you go.

Sixth problem: Are you strong enough? To survive in this type of arrangement you need to be strong in your resolve and never be happy with the level you are at in terms of potential, and your energy levels need to be high. Or you will be let go!

Why might you be confused, Consider some recent forum discussion:

———————————————————————–

The more common usage I have found relates to sales. OTE – On Target Earnings – The amount of your package including base and commission structure assuming you reach 100% of your objectives, that is the ‘at risk’ salary as part of a commission or other incentive programme.

Sometimes OTE is confused with – Ordinary Time Earnings – The amount you would be likely to earn in your total package prior to shift loading or overtime. Such as in a regular job like manufacturing, or clerical.

Yep, pretty much – $500 a week before tax. 

Most sales jobs have a structure where you could improve that by outperforming – 120% of objective results in double the commission payment.

OMG that’s low. 

I can’t seem to find a stable full time job (due to the fact that I am junior and don’t have much experience). I can’t afford to only do contract jobs which only last a few months and then I can’t find work for another 2 months or so. 
So I thought I would move into sales and marketing for now. Thats soo low compared to what I was getting.

If its a sales / marketing job, then OTE = on target earnings. That is the amount you can expect to earn if you are good at your job and can achieve anticipated sales objectives. 

If you are not good at your job and cannot meet sales targets, you wont make money and you will likely be let go.

e.g. an ad that says 120k+ OTE means that based on in place sales metrics, you will be able to make 120k per year gross if you can meet sales targets. Of this, 40k or so might be retainer, with the rest commission. If you aren’t a good sales person, don’t apply for a job with OTE.

———————————————————————–

Over to you – your choice!

Fit for Purpose – assumptions in MSW and WtE

Posted on by co2land

End to end solution for treating Metropolitan Sewage and Waste (MSW) is a hot topic, and very much in the fore of forums for 2013. So enthusiastic are the players it is very difficult to differentiate the fact from the ideals. Look and you will see a lot of justification and more than adequate presentation of the material. What is more difficult is to get a clear indication of the capability and improvements over current practices.

The culprit may be assumptions, and they are widely used under management scenarios. If we define assumptions as a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn. It might even be that as we rely more on big data an omission from the assumption can lead us to ignore the obvious. Take this example statement – Our machine can undercut all other in terms of power costs. Then if we find published a number of a competitors, but necessarily the same technology, we can quote that number and assume ours as similar or superior. Yet, as was said it is not the same technology.

Recently a post was read and it said in the US, under US Average Levelized Cost for Plants in the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 and 2010 and 2011, a typical generator running on Biomass has net requirement for a price of 11 c kWh to break even. Then came an assumption from the author that as these tables have no values for Advanced Plasma Conversion it is assumed a value of  $0.044/kwh is the value that you add for comparison. The difficulty is the published number for biomass is taken from experience and certain modeling under a list of data sources. The advanced plasma conversion unit was then part of a hypothetical assessment according to mathematical values that commence with an assumption, and will be correct until proven wrong. The fatal flaw in this is that facts are with the biomass and its testing included load scenarios and importantly it has a generator (that thing that produces electromotive force – electricity) attached. What is obscure is whether the Advanced Plasma Conversion unit is connected to a generator, or whether it needs one. For an investor this is a matter of concern, and for a professional in the industry it says embarrassing!

Another major issue is the maturity of the solutions put forward for you to make a project decision.  At program level you can take liberties and shuffle as you need to, at a project level on time and on budget can be you nemesis if you make the wrong assumptions – as said earlier – assumptions are a management scenario. CO2Land org assumes four scenarios are possible for waste handling solutions. It can be put forward to consider: Business as Usual, Gasification, and Pyrolysis, Plasma conversion.

  1. Business as usual (BAU) is an option fast running out, and in areas of rapid urbanization and rapid growing economies the time has already arrived that it cannot continue, not just because of the carbon issues but because it is an economic cost. This does not discount the importance of carbon, but indicated that developing countries needs the resource recovery as much as it is in need to develop.
  2. Gasification is an effective incineration tool, and innovations are proving to be effective in optimizing syngas recovery and returning additional products from the process for agriculture and raw material recovery.
  3. Pyrolysis is also an incineration tool, albeit at higher temperatures with the added benefit of being able to produce syncrude and chars to order. The process needs to be well managed to avoid the possibility of producing dioxins.
  4. Plasma conversion has been around for some years and has chequed history as an incineration method. Two particular issues have dogged the traditional designs. High and constant power requirement, and not being able to control temperature and ionizing across the plasma bed. Considerable claims are being made of advances in the technology. Confidence is continuing to grow on the refinement of the equipment and a number of sites across the world are being implemented.

The Cost benefit of each scenario indicates:

  • Point one is clear – the high cost of resource recovery weighs heavily when the budget is restricted for an authority and they would promote BAU until an incentive was put forward.
  • Point two and three are relevant and in more recent times the marrying of the two according to need is seeing this technology develop into a useful cost effective solution and should be the method of choice in most instances for the next 7 to 8 years.  By this it is meant it is the best technology to implement for most scenarios now and into the future in that time frame and it useful life for many more.  It also has an advantage of being complimentary to most commercial activities, and the ability to be scalable as required.  The strong point potential is to return a number of waste materials, especially plastics to virgin materials.
  • Point four will be the technology of the future; it has the potential (ideal) and the hopeful expect an almost unending product potential from this technology. The next generation is expected to be approved and producible in around 5 years. The scale of the projects required to cover the capital costs is the biggest limiting factor for future projects.

In more detail is this information the current Waste to Energy scenario suggests the difficulty is with the techno-commercial format. That comparing apples with apples may not be possible. An example is given by 
William G. Acker (http://www.ackerandassociates.com) where he looked for Advanced Plasma Conversion tables in the U.S. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 and 2010 and 2011. In these tables there are no values for Advanced Plasma Conversion. So he then said he must assume that what was claimed by another company representative was a value added to the values. He himself then assessed the closest estimate to which the technology is closest to be the figure for Biomass. This is not his definitive position, all he asks is someone to provide a value to share that is more accurate. However, in the mean time we make the assumption it must be correct until refuted

Then CO2Land org decides to ask a question in a forum on Waste to Energy (WtE): “Excuse the confusion, a lot of justification and adequate presentation of the material is provided. What is not clear is the capability from the production of an energy source to the actual electromagnetic force. In other words: what are the source, type and cost of the generator machine? Or, is your Plasma machine also a generator of electrical power in its own right without the need for other equipment?  The response: Good question!  The discussion then centres on whether matters were assumed or simply relayed on what was actually said on the capacity and nothing more.  Being that capability was not addressed is not the domain of the engineers for not giving you correct info, or how confidential agreement might stop you providing information. It may well be a simple case of the enquirers having no idea on what to ask. They do not ask because it was not obvious or lost in techno-commercial format of the communications.

In the quest for comparing apples to apples, and ignoring that baseline quotes may be flawed. To compare the possible in WtE from our view (to which we will assume you will be at odd. Information supplied illustrated:

A hearth gasifier with a reciprocating low Btu engine and conventional generator can be leased in Australia with an operating cost of 8.2cents per kilowatt-hours, with a 25,000 hours maintenance requirement. These costs are worked assuming a 1MW net unit and economies of scale suggest lower costs for larger units. If I combine the capability of the unit with a pyrolysis retort and produce syncrude and biochar, the offset pricing suggest a decrease in generation capacity will result, but the operating costs will settle at around 5 cents a kWh. The number will vary according to the feedstock quality.

Very recently an indicative quote that asked for capacity to handle MSW with1750 kcal as feedstock and input 300 tonnes per day for using advanced plasma conversion. What would be the project cost? The answer came back in the order of  $6.5m plus the cost of shredder activity and generator sets required – that is the cost to add capability is not in the cost mix.  The difficulty now is the assumption that must be made in the numbers.

In another example of a project where the project is not only proposed, is financed (and currently on hold to commence), is again supplied by William G Acker, of the MSW Plasma Gasification Facility for St. Lucie, Florida. This facility would use 686 ton per day of MSW and would produce 22 MW Gross and 18 MW Net of electricity. The installed cost came to $190,000,000. Amortized the project over 30 years with the Levelized Capital Cost alone (no maintenance cost, no labor cost etc.) comes to $0.0922 per kWh. If we add labor and maintenance costs the total may be ‘assumed’ to be around $0.14 per kWh. Then we must consider the money made for taking the waste off the hands of communities, or business that are paying to, landfill it we then could subtract around $0.03 per kWh from the operating cost resulting in $0.11 per kWh.

This results in CO2Land org asking: Will the actual plasma price to generate electricity please stand!  So we know without assumption forming the core costing criteria a project cost is capable of producing electricity for approximately 11 Cents per kWh, and the example hearth gasifier somewhere from 4.4 to 11 cents per kWh. Albeit other examples might swing wildly towards higher costs depending on the operating and technology vintage.  That said there is no doubt that given time and R&D plasma conversion in whatever form will be the way forward. In other examples plasma systems are doing OK for the job required, but academia and those in the industry say it is some way off being perfected and as efficient as it should be.

If we go back to the influence of assumptions the problem for the industry is that laboratory results and mathematical equations don’t often become reality, as not everything is scalable. In the mean time it is “danger danger, Will Robertson” as borrowed from ‘lost in space’ which was entertaining series a little while back. We also need to be fully aware of the smoke and mirrors approach that do a wonderful job with customers who are not normally that knowledgeable.

Another factor of our times is that despite each supplier wanting to win each job, they are fighting for funds within an economy where funds requiring $50M or more are highly competitive. In these instances those projects where the technology is still to be proven it will take second place to those known to do the job.

Evidence of uncertainty in the accuracy of a useful lifecycle may lead you to consider that you might want to lease the plant, it could be a lower risk in these times. The more popular in these circumstances are suggested as those that offer an operational lease rather than a financial risk.

We trust that has covered off on the choices – if you feel too much assumption is made or if you know better – please show yourself!