DOCSLIB.ORG

Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers DOE/EE-0288 Leading by example, saving energy and Biomass Cofiring in Coal-Fired Boilers taxpayer dollars Using this time-tested fuel-switching technique in existing federal boilers in federal facilities helps to reduce operating costs, increase the use of renewable energy, and enhance our energy security Executive Summary To help the nation use more domestic fuels and renewable energy technologies—and increase our energy security—the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) in the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, assists government agencies in developing biomass energy projects. As part of that assistance, FEMP has prepared this Federal Technology Alert on biomass cofiring technologies. This publication was prepared to help federal energy and facility managers make informed decisions about using biomass cofiring in existing coal-fired boilers at their facilities. The term “biomass” refers to materials derived from plant matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. These materials, grown using energy from sunlight, can be renewable energy sources for fueling many of today’s energy needs. The most common types of biomass that are available at potentially attractive prices for energy use at federal facilities are waste wood and wastepaper. The boiler plant at the Department of Energy’s One of the most attractive and easily implemented biomass energy technologies is cofiring Savannah River Site co- fires coal and biomass. with coal in existing coal-fired boilers. In biomass cofiring, biomass can substitute for up to 20% of the coal used in the boiler. The biomass and coal are combusted simultaneously. When it is used as a supplemental fuel in an existing coal boiler, biomass can provide the following benefits: lower fuel costs, avoidance of landfills and their associated costs, and reductions in sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and greenhouse-gas emissions. Other benefits, such as decreases in flue gas opacity, have also been documented. Biomass cofiring is one of many energy- and cost-saving technologies to emerge as feasible for federal facilities in the past 20 years. Cofiring is a proven technology; it is also proving to be life-cycle cost-effective in terms of installation cost and net present value at several federal sites. Energy-Saving Mechanism Biomass cofiring projects do not reduce a boiler’s total energy input requirement. In fact, in a properly implemented cofiring application, the efficiency of the boiler will be the same as it was in the coal-only operation. However, cofiring projects do replace a portion of the non- renewable fuel—coal—with a renewable fuel—biomass. Cost-Saving Mechanisms Overall production cost savings can be achieved by replacing coal with inexpensive biomass fuel sources—e.g., clean wood waste and waste paper. Typically, biomass fuel supplies should cost at least 20% less, on a thermal basis, than coal supplies before a cofiring project can be economically attractive. U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/ and Renewable Energy No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without Bringing you a prosperous future where energy prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory. Federal Technology Alert Payback periods are typically To make economical use of captive investment of $850,000 was between one and eight years, wood waste materials—primarily required, resulting in a simple and annual cost savings could bark and wood chips that are payback period for the project range from $60,000 to $110,000 unsuitable for making paper—the of less than four years. The net for an average-size federal boiler. U.S. pulp and paper industry has present value of the project, These savings depend on the cofired wood with coal for evaluated over a 10-year analysis availability of low-cost biomass decades. Cofiring is a standard period, is about $1.1 million. feedstocks. However, at larger- mode of operation in that indus- Test burns at SRS have shown that than-average facilities, and at try, where biomass fuels provide the present stoker boiler fuel han- facilities that can avoid disposal more than 50% of the total fuel dling equipment required no costs by using self-generated input. Spurred by a need to reduce modification to fire the biomass/ biomass fuel sources, annual fuel and operating costs, and coal mixture successfully. No fuel- cost savings could be signifi- potential future needs to reduce feeding problems were experi- cantly higher. greenhouse gas emissions, an enced, and no increases in main- increasing number of industrial- tenance are expected to be needed Application and utility-scale boilers outside at the steam plant. Steam plant the pulp and paper industry are Biomass cofiring can be applied personnel have been supportive being evaluated for use in cofiring only at facilities with existing of the project. Emissions measure- applications. coal-fired boilers. The best oppor- ments made during initial testing tunities for economically attrac- showed level or reduced emissions tive cofiring are at coal-fired facili- Case Study Summary for all eight measured pollutants, ties where all or most of the fol- The U.S. Department of Energy’s and sulfur emissions are expected lowing conditions apply: (1) coal (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) to be reduced by 20%. Opacity prices are high; (2) annual coal in Aiken, South Carolina, has levels also decreased significantly. usage is significant; (3) local or installed equipment to produce The project will result in a reduc- facility-generated supplies of bio- “alternate fuel,” or AF, cubes from tion of about 2,240 tons per year mass are abundant; (4) local land- shredded office paper and finely in coal usage at the facility. fill tipping fees are high, which chipped wood waste. After a series means it is costly to dispose of of successful test burns have been Implementation Barriers biomass; and (5) plant staff and completed to demonstrate accept- For utility-scale power generation management are highly motivated able combustion, emissions, and projects, acquiring steady, year- to implement the project success- performance of the boiler and fuel round supplies of large quantities fully. As a rule, boilers producing processing and handling systems, of low-cost biomass can be diffi- less than 35,000 pounds per hour cofiring was expected to begin in cult. But where supplies are avail- (lb/hr) of steam are too small to 2003 on a regular basis. The bio- able, there are several advantages be used in an economically attrac- mass cubes offset about 20% of to using biomass for cofiring opera- tive cofiring project. the coal used in the facility’s two tions at federal facilities. For exam- traveling-grate stoker boilers. The ple, federal coal-fired boilers are Field Experiences project should result in annual coal typically much smaller than cost savings of about $112,000. Cofiring biomass and coal is a time- utility-scale boilers, and they tested fuel-switching strategy that Cost savings associated with avoid- are most often used for space is particularly well suited to a ing incineration or landfill disposal heating and process heat appli- stoker boiler, the type most often of office waste paper and scrap cations. Thus, they do not have found at coal-fired federal facili- wood from on-site construction utility-scale fuel requirements. ties. However, cofiring has been activities will total about $172,000 In addition, federal boilers needed successfully demonstrated and per year. Net annual savings from for space heating typically operate practiced in all types of coal the project, after subtracting the primarily during winter months. boilers, including pulverized- $30,000 per year needed to oper- During summer months, waste coal boilers, cyclones, stokers, ate the AF cubing facility, will be wood is often sent to the mulch and fluidized beds. about $254,000. An initial capital Federal Technology Alert market, which makes the wood • Economics is the driving factor. energy efficiency and renewable unavailable for use as fuel. Thus, Project economics largely deter- energy projects. Projects can be federal coal-fired boilers could mine whether a cofiring proj- funded through Energy Savings become an attractive winter mar- ect will be implemented. Performance Contracts (ESPCs), ket for local wood processors. This Selecting sites where waste Utility Energy Services Contracts, has been one of the driving fac- wood supplies have already or appropriations. Among these tors behind a cofiring demonstra- been identified will reduce resources is a Technology-Specific tion at the Iron City Brewery overall costs. Larger facilities “Super ESPC” for Biomass and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. with high capacity factors— Alternative Methane Fuels (BAMF), those that operate at high loads which facilitates the use of bio- These are some of the major policy year-round—can utilize more mass and alternative methane and economic issues and barriers biomass and will realize fuels to reduce federal energy con- associated with implementing greater annual cost savings, sumption, energy costs, or both. biomass cofiring projects at assuming that wood supplies federal sites: are obtained at a discount in Through the BAMF Super ESPC, FEMP enables federal facilities • Permit modifications may be comparison to coal. This will to obtain the energy- and cost- required. Permit requirements also reduce payback periods. savings benefits of biomass and vary from site to site, but alternative methane fuels at no modifications to existing Conclusion up-front cost to the facility. More emissions permits, even for DOE FEMP, with the support of information about FEMP and limited-term demonstration staff at the DOE National Labor- BAMF Super ESPC contacts and projects, may be required for atories and Regional Offices, offers contract awardees is provided in cofiring projects.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trends in Electricity Prices During the Transition Away from Coal by William B
    May 2021 | Vol. 10 / No. 10 PRICES AND SPENDING Trends in electricity prices during the transition away from coal By William B. McClain The electric power sector of the United States has undergone several major shifts since the deregulation of wholesale electricity markets began in the 1990s. One interesting shift is the transition away from coal-powered plants toward a greater mix of natural gas and renewable sources. This transition has been spurred by three major factors: rising costs of prepared coal for use in power generation, a significant expansion of economical domestic natural gas production coupled with a corresponding decline in prices, and rapid advances in technology for renewable power generation.1 The transition from coal, which included the early retirement of coal plants, has affected major price-determining factors within the electric power sector such as operation and maintenance costs, 1 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS capital investment, and fuel costs. Through these effects, the decline of coal as the primary fuel source in American electricity production has affected both wholesale and retail electricity prices. Identifying specific price effects from the transition away from coal is challenging; however the producer price indexes (PPIs) for electric power can be used to compare general trends in price development across generator types and regions, and can be used to learn valuable insights into the early effects of fuel switching in the electric power sector from coal to natural gas and renewable sources. The PPI program measures the average change in prices for industries based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Basics: the Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day
    Biomass Basics: The Facts About Bioenergy 1 We Rely on Energy Every Day Energy is essential in our daily lives. We use it to fuel our cars, grow our food, heat our homes, and run our businesses. Most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels like petroleum, coal, and natural gas. These fuels provide the energy that we need today, but there are several reasons why we are developing sustainable alternatives. 2 We are running out of fossil fuels Fossil fuels take millions of years to form within the Earth. Once we use up our reserves of fossil fuels, we will be out in the cold - literally - unless we find other fuel sources. Bioenergy, or energy derived from biomass, is a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels because it can be produced from renewable sources, such as plants and waste, that can be continuously replenished. Fossil fuels, such as petroleum, need to be imported from other countries Some fossil fuels are found in the United States but not enough to meet all of our energy needs. In 2014, 27% of the petroleum consumed in the United States was imported from other countries, leaving the nation’s supply of oil vulnerable to global trends. When it is hard to buy enough oil, the price can increase significantly and reduce our supply of gasoline – affecting our national security. Because energy is extremely important to our economy, it is better to produce energy in the United States so that it will always be available when we need it. Use of fossil fuels can be harmful to humans and the environment When fossil fuels are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Exco55 P1 a Global Operational Status of Co-Firing Biomass And
    Global operational status on cofiring biomass and waste with coal Experience with different cofiring concepts and fuels Jaap Koppejan1, Larry Baxter2, 1 Project manager Bioenergy systems, TNO-MEP, PO Box 342, 7300 AH Apeldoorn, Netherlands, phone +31 55 5493167, fax +31 55 5493287, email [email protected] 2 Professor Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84601, USA, phone: +1 (801) 422-8616, fax: +1 (801) 422-0151, email [email protected] 1. Primary motivations for biomass-coal cofiring One means of reducing the environmental impacts of fossil fuel combustion is to increase the fraction of renewable and sustainable energy in the national energy supply. Renewable energy technologies have, however, struggled to compete in open electricity supply markets with fossil energy, due to their low efficiencies, high costs, and the high technical and financial risks. The result is that they usually require the introduction of subsidies or other financial instruments to support their implementation. The co-firing of biomass with the coal in traditional coal-fired boilers makes use of the large investment and extensive infrastructure associated with the existing fossil-fuel-based power systems, while requiring only a relatively modest capital investment, typically up to $50-$300 per kW of biomass capacity. [i]. These costs compare very favorably with any other available renewable energy option1. Worldwide, each percent of coal that is substituted with biomass in all coal fired power plants results in a biomass capacity of 8 GWe, and a reduction of approx. 60 Mton of CO2. At a typical cofiring ratio of 5% on energy basis, this would correspond with a global potential of approx.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecotaxes: a Comparative Study of India and China
    Ecotaxes: A Comparative Study of India and China Rajat Verma ISBN 978-81-7791-209-8 © 2016, Copyright Reserved The Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) is engaged in interdisciplinary research in analytical and applied areas of the social sciences, encompassing diverse aspects of development. ISEC works with central, state and local governments as well as international agencies by undertaking systematic studies of resource potential, identifying factors influencing growth and examining measures for reducing poverty. The thrust areas of research include state and local economic policies, issues relating to sociological and demographic transition, environmental issues and fiscal, administrative and political decentralization and governance. It pursues fruitful contacts with other institutions and scholars devoted to social science research through collaborative research programmes, seminars, etc. The Working Paper Series provides an opportunity for ISEC faculty, visiting fellows and PhD scholars to discuss their ideas and research work before publication and to get feedback from their peer group. Papers selected for publication in the series present empirical analyses and generally deal with wider issues of public policy at a sectoral, regional or national level. These working papers undergo review but typically do not present final research results, and constitute works in progress. ECOTAXES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDIA AND CHINA1 Rajat Verma2 Abstract This paper attempts to compare various forms of ecotaxes adopted by India and China in order to reduce their carbon emissions by 2020 and to address other environmental issues. The study contributes to the literature by giving a comprehensive definition of ecotaxes and using it to analyse the status of these taxes in India and China.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase-Out 2020: Monitoring Europe's Fossil Fuel Subsidies
    Phase-out 2020 Monitoring Europe’s fossil fuel subsidies Ipek Gençsü, Maeve McLynn, Matthias Runkel, Markus Trilling, Laurie van der Burg, Leah Worrall, Shelagh Whitley, and Florian Zerzawy September 2017 Report partners ODI is the UK’s leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe is Europe’s largest coalition working on climate and energy issues. Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As copyright holders, ODI and Overseas Development Institute CAN Europe request due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For 203 Blackfriars Road CAN Europe online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. London SE1 8NJ Rue d’Edimbourg 26 The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not Tel +44 (0)20 7922 0300 1050 Brussels, Belgium necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Tel: +32 (0) 28944670 www.odi.org www.caneurope.org © Overseas Development Institute and CAN Europe 2017. This work is licensed [email protected] [email protected] under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). Cover photo: Oil refinery in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany – Ralf Vetterle (CC0 creative commons license). 2 Report Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for support and advice on the report from: Dave Jones of Sandbag UK, Colin Roche of Friends of the Earth Europe, Andrew Scott and Sejal Patel of the Overseas Development Institute, Helena Wright of E3G, and Andrew Murphy of Transport & Environment, and Alex Doukas of Oil Change International.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience of Indirect Cofiring of Biomass and Coal
    Experience of indirect cofiring of biomass and coal Rohan Fernando CCC/64 October 2002 Copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre ISBN 92-9029-370-9 Abstract There has been increasing interest in the use of biomass for power generation in recent years. The principal reason for this is that the use of biomass can significantly reduce net CO2 emissions. Other advantages of utilising biomass are that it diversifies the power plant’s fuel portfolio, it can lead to reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions and that such use can help to dispose of a solid waste. There are some disadvantages of firing biomass which relate to its supply, transportation and composition and these can be reduced if the biomass is cofired with coal. Cofiring can be direct, where the biomass and coal are fired in the same boiler, or indirect, where the combustion or gasification of biomass occurs in a separate unit. This report concentrates on indirect cofiring which is taken to mean technologies in which the ash from the coal and biomass are kept separate. Direct cofiring is relatively straightforward but can lead to several technical concerns. Indirect cofiring incurs greater costs and is particularly suitable for biomass containing troublesome components or when the quality of the ash is of importance. Indirect cofiring is less common than direct cofiring. The report discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of direct and indirect cofiring. It then describes the following plants which indirectly cofire biomass: Aabenraa in Denmark, Amergas in the Netherlands, Avedøre 2 in Denmark, Kymijärvi in Finland, Zeltweg in Austria and Västerås in Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Characteristics
    CCTR Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research COAL CHARACTERISTICS CCTR Basic Facts File # 8 Brian H. Bowen, Marty W. Irwin The Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University CCTR, Potter Center, 500 Central Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022 http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/CCTR/ Email: [email protected] October 2008 1 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL FORMATION As geological processes apply pressure to peat over time, it is transformed successively into different types of coal Source: Kentucky Geological Survey http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/images/peatcoal.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm&h=354&w=579&sz= 20&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=NavOy9_5HD07pM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoal%2Bphotos%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX 2 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL ANALYSIS Elemental analysis of coal gives empirical formulas such as: C137H97O9NS for Bituminous Coal C240H90O4NS for high-grade Anthracite Coal is divided into 4 ranks: (1) Anthracite (2) Bituminous (3) Sub-bituminous (4) Lignite Source: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4929705428518&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE8 3 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR BITUMINOUS COAL Bituminous Coal: Great pressure results in the creation of bituminous, or “soft” coal. This is the type most commonly used for electric power generation in the U.S. It has a higher heating value than either lignite or sub-bituminous, but less than that of anthracite. Bituminous coal
    [Show full text]
  • COAL Mines Minerals and Energy
    VIRGINIA DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES omlnE Virginia Departm nt of COAL Mines Minerals and Energy In 2012, Virginia produced approximately 19 million short tons of coal, worth an estimated $2.1 billion dollars. Although this number represents a significant decline from the 1990 peak of 4 7 million tons, 1 Virginia still ranks 14 h in U.S. Coal production. NATURE OF COAL Coal is a combustible organic rock composed principally of consolidated and chemically altered vegetal remains. Geologic processes, working over vast spans of time, compressed and altered decaying plant material which resulted in an increase of the percentage of carbon. With increasing heat and pressure, different ranks of coal can occur: lignite (the softest), subbituminous, bituminous, and anthracite (the hardest). Upon close examination, some coals have bright, shiny bands of varying thickness that alternate with duller bands, whereas other coals show no banding. This horizontal layering reflects the initial accumulation of the organic rich materials. Bright Figure 1. Bituminus coal. layers (vitrinite) consist primarily of woody cellwall materials, while the dull layers ( exinite) consist primarily of the most resistant plant remains, such as At the time in Earth's history when the Appalachian spores and cuticles of leaves and rootlets. These coals were accumulating, the Atlantic Ocean had not organic portions of coal are categorized as macerals, yet formed. What was to become the North American the various types of coalified plant material. Banded continent was situated near the equator, slowly coals are referred to as attrital or splint coal types, drifting northward. This large mountainous landmass whereas the non-banded coals are cannel and/or was east of our present-day East Coast and a vast, boghead coal types.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydroelectric Power -- What Is It? It=S a Form of Energy … a Renewable Resource
    INTRODUCTION Hydroelectric Power -- what is it? It=s a form of energy … a renewable resource. Hydropower provides about 96 percent of the renewable energy in the United States. Other renewable resources include geothermal, wave power, tidal power, wind power, and solar power. Hydroelectric powerplants do not use up resources to create electricity nor do they pollute the air, land, or water, as other powerplants may. Hydroelectric power has played an important part in the development of this Nation's electric power industry. Both small and large hydroelectric power developments were instrumental in the early expansion of the electric power industry. Hydroelectric power comes from flowing water … winter and spring runoff from mountain streams and clear lakes. Water, when it is falling by the force of gravity, can be used to turn turbines and generators that produce electricity. Hydroelectric power is important to our Nation. Growing populations and modern technologies require vast amounts of electricity for creating, building, and expanding. In the 1920's, hydroelectric plants supplied as much as 40 percent of the electric energy produced. Although the amount of energy produced by this means has steadily increased, the amount produced by other types of powerplants has increased at a faster rate and hydroelectric power presently supplies about 10 percent of the electrical generating capacity of the United States. Hydropower is an essential contributor in the national power grid because of its ability to respond quickly to rapidly varying loads or system disturbances, which base load plants with steam systems powered by combustion or nuclear processes cannot accommodate. Reclamation=s 58 powerplants throughout the Western United States produce an average of 42 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) per year, enough to meet the residential needs of more than 14 million people.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2019
    Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2020 Rank Mine Name / Operating Company Mine Type State Production (short tons) 1 North Antelope Rochelle Mine / Peabody Powder River Mining LLC Surface Wyoming 66,111,840 2 Black Thunder / Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Surface Wyoming 50,188,766 3 Antelope Coal Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 19,809,826 4 Freedom Mine / The Coteau Properties Company Surface North Dakota 12,592,297 5 Eagle Butte Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 12,303,698 6 Caballo Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 11,626,318 7 Belle Ayr Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 11,174,953 8 Kosse Strip / Luminant Mining Company LLC Surface Texas 10,104,901 9 Cordero Rojo Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 9,773,845 10 Buckskin Mine / Buckskin Mining Company Surface Wyoming 9,699,282 11 Spring Creek Coal Company / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Montana 9,513,255 12 Rawhide Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 9,494,090 13 River View Mine / River View Coal LLC Underground Kentucky 9,412,068 14 Marshall County Mine / Marshall County Coal Resources Underground West Virginia 8,854,604 15 Bailey Mine / Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company Underground Pennsylvania 8,668,477 16 Falkirk Mine / Falkirk Mining Company Surface North Dakota 7,261,161 17 Mc#1 Mine / M-Class Mining LLC Underground Illinois 7,196,444 18 Tunnel Ridge Mine / Tunnel Ridge, LLC Underground West Virginia 6,756,696 19 Lively Grove Mine / Prairie State Generating Company
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Recent Progress in Reform of Inefficient Fossil-Fuel Subsidies That Encourage Wasteful Consumption
    UPDATE ON RECENT PROGRESS IN REFORM OF INEFFICIENT FOSSIL-FUEL SUBSIDIES THAT ENCOURAGE WASTEFUL CONSUMPTION Contribution by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to the G20 Energy Transitions Working Group in consultation with: International Energy Forum (IEF), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the World Bank 2nd Energy Transitions Working Group Meeting Toyama, 18-19 April 2019 Update on Recent Progress in Reform of Inefficient Fossil-Fuel Subsidies that Encourage Wasteful Consumption This document, as well as any data and any map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. This update does not necessarily express the views of the G20 countries or of the IEA, IEF, OECD, OPEC and the World Bank or their member countries. The G20 countries, IEA, IEF, OECD, OPEC and the World Bank assume no liability or responsibility whatsoever for the use of data or analyses contained in this document, and nothing herein shall be construed as interpreting or modifying any legal obligations under any intergovernmental agreement, treaty, law or other text, or as expressing any legal opinion or as having probative legal value in any proceeding. Please cite this publication as: OECD/IEA (2019), "Update on recent progress in reform of inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption", https://oecd.org/fossil-fuels/publication/OECD-IEA-G20-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Reform-Update-2019.pdf │ 3 Summary This report discusses recent trends and developments in the reform of inefficient fossil- fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption, within the G20 and beyond.
    [Show full text]
  • Allianz Statement on Coal-Based Business Models
    www.allianz.com STATEMENT ON COAL -BA SED BUSINESS MODELS MAY 2021 Effective as of July 1st 2021 A. RATIONALE The burning of thermal coal 1 for energy is the single largest contributor to human-induced global temperature increase, accounting for about one third of the more than 1°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels already observed. 2 The necessary greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction entails that fossil-fuel based energy generation will have to be drastically reduced in the coming decades. With coal being the fuel with the highest CO 2 emissions in relation to its energy content, no new coal projects should be built and existing coal needs to be stringently phased-out. The most recent energy system models require an accelerated transition in developed economies including phase outs of most thermal coal assets by 2030 in most global regions and a full phase out globally by 2040. Allianz is committed to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. 3 To drive this transition, Allianz has set ambitious climate and environmental targets, and collaborates with international organizations, companies and civil society. Allianz is a founding member of the UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance 4 and participates in the Energy Transitions Commission 5, Climate Action 100+ 6 as well as The Investor Agenda 7. 1 Thermal coal refers to the use of coal in power generation as well as the mining of the thermal coal. It does not apply to metallurgical coal or coal utilized in the production of steel or cement as there are yet no commercially viable alternatives at scale; we also expect that the latter might benefit from carbon capture & sequestration technologies.
    [Show full text]