12-13 November 2001 – Edinburgh, United Kingdom
followed by internal Task 38 working sessions
14-16 November – Dunkeld, United Kingdom
Jointly organised by
Alice Hold Research Station
Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH
Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz
IEA Bioenergy is an international, collaborative research programme on Bioenergy to improve international cooperation and information exchange (www.ieabioenergy.com). The primary goal of IEA Bioenergy Task 38 (“Greenhouse Gas Balances of Biomass and Bioenergy Systems”) is to investigate all processes involved in the use of bioenergy and carbon sequestration systems, with the aim of assessing overall greenhouse gas balances and of aiding decision makers in selecting mitigation strategies. Participating countries are Australia, Austria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the USA. This Task follows on from the previous IEA Bioenergy Task 25.
This workshop is part of a series of workshops within Task 38, and the preceding Task 25, taking place on a regular basis.
The development of policy and underpinning research on bioenergy systems and vegetation-based carbon sinks aimed at reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has arrived at a crossroads. On the one hand, significant progress has been made in both the research and policy fields. A core of relevant research results is now available in the scientific literature, while many nations have begun to adopt policies at the national or local level to promote appropriate use of bioenergy and carbon sinks. In particular an important recent development has been the formal commitment by many nations to participate in the much-debated Kyoto Protocol. On the other hand, both researchers and policy informers now face the challenge of facilitating the translation of theory and scientific understanding into an effective, practical response. The objective of this workshop was, therefore, to provide a forum to:
The workshop summary will be available in short time. As soon as it is, the summary will be included at this place.
|Ausilio Bauen:||Biomass Energy, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Policy Integration in the UK|
|Doug Bradley:||“Struggling to make it work”- the Canadian Experience|
|Niels Heding:||Bioenergy – The Danish Case|
|Satu Helynen:||Success factors of bioenergy for GHG mitigation in Scandinavia|
|Paula R. Meijer:||Climate-Neutral Fuels for a sustainable Dutch energy supply system|
and Jinyue Yan:
|First Results from Research on Bioenergy with CO2 Capture and Sequestration|
|Kimberly Robertson:||Policy options for land use land-use change and forestry in New Zealand|
|Richard Tipper:||Experience from small scale integrated bioenergy and carbon sequestration projects|
Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, RSM building, Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BP, UK
Biomass has the potential to be a major contributor to the world primary energy mix for the supply of modern energy services. The extent to which biomass energy uptake will occur and its rate of uptake will depend on resource availability and associated economic and environmental constraints, as well as policy measures resulting from drivers such as the pressure to reduce GHG emissions and enhance energy independence.
Biomass may be used to provide a number of energy vectors through disparate fuel chains. Most of these will present benefits in terms of displacing and saving non-renewable energy sources, reducing GHG emissions and providing income diversification to farmers. However, the economic and environmental characteristics of the fuel chains and their ability to supply the energy vectors of the future may vary considerably. For example, biodiesel from oilseed rape may present some immediate benefits in terms of fossil fuel substitution, but its potential for integration with future energy vectors is likely to be limited, its potential for economic competitiveness also limited, and its environmental characteristics less favourable, especially if compared to woody energy crops for electricity and possibly liquid and gaseous fuels (e.g. ethanol and hydrogen).
Based on UK-specific calculations, the annual fossil carbon substitution per hectare of short rotation coppice (SRC) planted is estimated at 5.4 tC/ha if used to substitute coal for electricity and 1.9 tC/ha in the case of natural gas CCGT electricity. Furthermore, in the case of a SRC plantation with a 3 year rotation and average yield of 10 odt/(ha yr), the average standing stock over the lifetime of the plantation will be 15 odt/ha, corresponding to about 7.5 tC/ha. The annual fossil carbon substitution per hectare of oilseed rape planted is estimated at 0.28 tC/ha compared to diesel use. Also, annual arable crops will not result in significant associated above ground biomass carbon sinks. Both the effects on carbon substitution and carbon sinks need to be considered when addressing biomass fuel chains. The major driver behind the development of biomass energy will be the need to provide energy services at an affordable cost based on clean and low carbon energy vectors and technologies. Biomass, therefore will only become an important sustainable energy source in industrialised countries if it is able to supply the energy vectors demanded by modern energy services based on environmentally and economically sound fuel chains.
Biomass energy incentives must account for the environmental characteristics of the fuel chain i.e. from the production of the fuel through to the energy service provided. A variety of market-based mechanisms can be applied at different stages of the fuel chain to stimulate the uptake of biomass energy. In the case of energy crops, mechanisms need to be devised in greater synergy with energy and environmental policies that encourage farmers to grow viable biomass resources in a sustainable manner.
Domtar Inc., 1600 Scott St., Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Canada’s forest area, 418,000 sq. km, is larger than many countries. We are the world’s largest exporter of forest products, have been called the world’s breadbasket, and yet with seemingly endless biomass we do not have a solid basis for a biomass industry. Why?
We do have our success stories. In 1990-98 the forest industry increased it’s utilization of wood residue from 9.4 to 12.3 million BDT, or 65% of total residues, cutting its annual surplus in half. Some went to alternative wood products such as OSB, much was used as alternative fuel at sawmill and pulp mill sites to reduce costs. Examples include;
While the philosophy of biomass utilization is sound, investment depends totally on the anticipated rate of return of a project. There are pockets of surplus forest biomass available, but increasingly the pockets are smaller and further apart increasing the haul costs of the fuel. Also there are alternative higher value alternatives, such as OSB and MDF board that take remaining white wood. Generally good economics depend on a steam host, yet as pulp mills close down their wood rooms bark availability is found at the sawmills, which need little steam and power. Fundamental to a good biomass project is certainty of supply. Recent moves by the US lumber lobby have resulted in a 19.3% export duty, resulting in the shutting down of considerable sawmill capacity in Canada and sharp reduction in surplus biomass production. Recent changes in harvest rules require delimbing at the stump, which improve nutrients left there but make it more costly to access fibre from the forest floor. The price of alternative fossil fuels tend to be lower in Canada than Europe as we have considerable supply, and while our taxes on such fuels are high we do not have a carbon tax such as found in other jurisdictions. Low fossil fuel costs limit the benefits of the biomass alternative. Similarly the price of power tends to be lower in Canada, limiting returns on the revenue side.
Despite many economic drawbacks many projects proceed. Many more would do so with improved incentives.
Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Hoersholm Kongevej 11, DK-2970 Hoersholm, DENMARK
This article provides an overview of the Danish bioenergy sector. Since the mid-1980´s changing governments and parliamentary majorities in Denmark have persisted in the importance of an active energy policy with increased emphasis on a resource-based and environmentally responsible policy. By far the largest share of energy generated from renewable energy sources in Denmark comes from biomass. Three sources are discussed: Wood, straw and short-rotation forestry. Among those wood is ranked number one, straw number two and short rotation forestry is nearly insignificant.
VTT Energy, P.O.Box 1603, FIN-40101 Jyväskylä, FINLAND
In 2000, Finland covered 20 % of its primary energy demand with wood-based fuels (250 PJ) and about 11 % of the electricity consumption (8 TWh). Although the share of wood is highest within the industrialised countries, possibilities to increase the use of wood-based fuels are substantial. During the last five years about 100 district heating plants and 300 MWe of new, additional electricity production capacity, mainly combined heat and power (CHP), with wood-based fuels have started their operation in Finland. In Sweden, the use of wood-based fuels is even bigger, nearly 300 PJ, but its share of the primary energy is smaller. Wood fuels are used to a great extent for heat production because low-cost electricity based on hydro and nuclear power has been available in Sweden. During the last few years several CHP plants have been built also in Sweden. In Norway, the situation of wood fuels is similar to Sweden. In Denmark, where the forest area is small, straw is as an important biomass-based fuel as wood.
In Finland and Sweden, about 80 % of wood fuels are residues from paper, pulp and saw mills, such as black liquor, bark and saw dust. Residental use for heating is also important, especially in rural areas where farmers and landowners harvest wood fuels from their own forests. The fastest growing wood fuel in both countries has been forest chips from logging residues and small-sized trees. The integration of raw material and fuel procurement has lowered costs of forest chips significantly.
Bark from wood logs generated a waste problem when debarking was moved from forests to the wood yards of pulp and paper mills in the 1970s. The problem was solved by developing boilers that could utilise wet and non-homogenous biomass for energy production. In many cases, bark could not fully satisfy the steam demand of the mills, and boilers were built to use several fuels. Soon after that, the energy crisis gave an impulse to start the utilisation of another indigenous fuel, peat. Fluidised bed technology was tailored to fulfil the requirements of biomass-based fuels, often cofired with coal or oil. Research and development work has been carried out intensively and continuously since the 1970s to improve combustion and gasificition technology and CHP concepts for all capacities.
Sweden, Finland and Denmark have consistently strengthened the competitiveness of renewable fuels compared to fossil fuels by fuel taxes. Also subsidies to cover higher investment costs are provided to energy producers and also to private consumers. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and dependence on imported fossil fuels and also improved employment have been the background for financial incentives. Incentive mechanisms have been modified successfully during the last years due to the deregulation of Nordic energy markets.
NOVEM, Netherlands Agency for Energy and the Environment, PO Box 8242, NL-3503 RE Utrecht, NETHERLANDS
Climate-neutral fuels – like bio(m)ethanol, Fischer Tropsch diesel, synthetic natural gas or hydrogen – can contribute to the sustaining of the energy sector and to the reduction of climate changing emissions. This was one of the conclusions of an inventory phase (1998-2000) in the Netherlands, commission by the Ministries of Environment and Economic Affairs. The ministries decided to continue with a Fuel Chain Demonstration Phase from 2001 to 2008. In order to accelerate the market introduction of these fuels the whole chain, from production of the resources up to the utilisation of the fuels in the transport sector is to be demonstrated.
The lay-out of the Fuel Chain Demonstration phase is to achieve in a three-staged process the introduction of climate neutral fuels. Those climate neutral fuels (i) should have a significant CO2-reduction potential – both in market volume and as compared to the conventional alternative, (ii) should have low CO2-reduction costs, (iii) should be able to be introduced in the current infrastructure, (iv) should be prepared for new technological developments, and last but not least, (v) should be supported by industrial parties. In 2001 parties are invited to form alliances. In 2002 support will be given to the development of a blueprint of a demonstration project. In 2003 the realisation of a demonstration project can start, followed by several years of environmental performance monitoring. By the year 2010 these fuels should have been introduced to the market.
The fuel chain demonstration phase puts strong emphasis on the organisational collaboration between all parties that are relevant for realising a whole chain project. The supporting programme, executed by Novem, under commission of the Ministries of Environment, Economic Affairs and Transport, is a good example of Transition Management.
October 2001, various applications for subsidy have been submitted. Over thirty industrial parties have been involved in these applications. The proposals concentrate on the formation of alliances and show that there is a strong interest of industrial parties to start the development of these new climate neutral substitutes for diesel, gasoline and natural for utilisation the transport and natural gas sector in the Netherlands. The Dutch programme is a good example of Transition Management, involving all relevant stakeholders: industrial organisations, NGO’s, local and regional governments, R&D institutes and public awareness builders.
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology/Energy Processes, TR 50, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-100 44 Stockholm, SWEDEN
CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies that could prevent CO2 from fuel combustion entering the atmosphere are usually discussed in connection to fossil fuels, but they can be used in combination with biofuel utilisation as well. Even with very efficient CO2 removal in fossil fuel-based systems, there will always be net CO2 emissions due to parasitic energy consumption caused by the additional CCS processes. We show, on the other hand, using the case of energy recovery from spent cooking liquors in a chemical pulp mill as an example, that bioenergy systems with CCS enables energy utilisation with a clear negative CO2 balance. We further show that introducing CCS in systems for black liquor gasification (BLG) could help reduce the Swedish net CO2 emissions by over 6%. A major challenge for CO2-capture technology is to reduce the overall costs by lowering both energy penalties and capital requirements. Due to the lack of economic data for bioenergy with CO2 removal, we have used results from economic studies on fossil-based systems for guidance. For coal-based technologies, integrated gasifier combined cycles (IGCC) with CO2 removal from the fuel gas show lower CO2-removal costs than conventional coal-fired steam cycles with CO2 removal from flue gases. Natural gas-fired combined cycles with CO2 removal from flue gases show higher removal costs than both of these alternatives. If the coal in the coal-based alternatives were to be replaced with biofuels, the additional cost for CO2 removal would most likely be similar. Thus, in the short term, bioenergy with end-of-pipe scrubbing technology promises to be a cost-effective CCS option. Co-firing of biomass with coal would probably be a quick path for large-scale phasing in of biofuels in CCS schemes. Further technical development of biomass IGCC (BIGCC) is needed before it is possible to take advantage of the lower additional cost for CO2 removal in such systems. We discuss several reasons why BLG in chemical pulp mills is an interesting candidate for BIGCC with CCS, and report some figures on the global potential for CO2 reductions through this technology. We also present the first preliminary results from an economic assessment of CCS in systems for BLG. Finally, we raise some important questions that need to be answered to further evaluate the possibilities for CCS in BIGCC, and discuss important policy-related issues.
Forest Research, Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND
Under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels over the first commitment period. The Government has indicated that they will ratify a ‘ratifiable’ Kyoto Protocol in mid 2002. New Zealand emissions are predicted to be 50 Mt CO2 above 1990 levels over the first commitment period under a business as usual scenario. Energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy measures proposed by the Government could reduce this to 40 Mt. Under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand’s Kyoto Forest could generate substantial sink credits. It is estimated that at least 6 Mt/year of carbon or 110 Mt of CO2 will be sequestered over the first commitment period in New Zealand’s Kyoto forest. These credits could be used to offset New Zealand’s emissions and/or generate income through sale on the international market. The government has already agreed that all or most of the sink credits would be internationally tradable, and some proportion of the benefit of sink credits would go to those undertaking sink activities.
The Government is still in the process of deciding on domestic policy surrounding land use land-use change and forestry and carbon sinks. The major issues are who owns the carbon credits and who is responsible for emissions from harvesting and deforestation. Three main options for ownership and of sink credits and responsibility for emissions from forestry have been proposed. The government could retain all of the sink credits and sectoral obligations from Kyoto forests. The Government could devolve a proportion of sink credits and related obligations and retain a portion to hold or sell Land/forest rights owners could receive all sink credits and related obligations.
The government has identified five criteria and three overarching issues to be considered when deciding which policies to implement. The five criteria are economic efficiency, Equity, feasibility, environmental integrity and competitiveness. The three overarching issues are: who is responsible for managing emissions; division of responsibility for managing emissions between sectors and should market based policies be implemented prior to the first commitment period.
This paper outlines some of the benefits and issues associated with each of these options.
ECCM, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, U.K.
The so-called mechanisms for “clean development” and “joint implementation” described within the Kyoto Protocol and subsequently elaborated through international negotiation are supposed to provide a framework for projects in the land use and forestry sector to generate emission reduction credits that will have consistent, comparable and credible value. They are also supposed to stimulate investment in activities that promote sustainable development.
By reference to a number of pilot CDM and JI projects in Mexico, Scotland and India we shall demonstrate a number of potential hazards that could arise from the flexible mechanisms, including:
We shall propose tentative legal and accounting solutions for each of these problems.
Monday, 12 November 2001
Successful strategies for biomass-based GHG emissions reduction and mitigation: translating research into policy and implementation
A verifyer´s experience with biomass projects: success factors and pitfalls
Tuesday, 13 November 2001
The one-day field trip lead to 4 different sites in the region of Perthshire. We visited:
Wednesday, 14 November 2001
Interim results of country reports: Overview and general discussion
Joanneum Research, Austria
Discussion of individual countries: Australia, Canada, Croatia, Denmark and Finland
Discussion of individual countries (continued): Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA
GHG Balance of bioenergy systems based on integrated plantation forestry in North East New South Wales, Australia
State Forests NSW, Australia
GHG balances of actual bioenergy and carbon sequestration projects in Finland and Sweden
Leif Gustavsson1 and Kim Pingoud2
1Lund University, Sweden and 2VTT-Energy, Finland
Estimation of the Energy and GHG Balance of the Waipa sawmill in New Zealand
Forest Research, New Zealand
GHG implications of biomass trade (possible joint workshop and project with Task 35)
brief introduction by Andre Faaij
Utrecht University, Netherlands
Thursday, 15 November 2001
Small scale versus large scale bioenergy solutions in UK;
Bioenergy crops versus short rotation forests versus long rotation forests in UK;
Development of guidelines for agriculture and forestry in UK
Forest Research, U.K.
Biodiesel production in Croatia
Soil C implications of different biomass production systems
brief introduction by Annette Cowie1 and Bernhard Schlamadinger2
1State Forests NSW, Australia and 2Joanneum Research, Austria
Best practices in facilitating and implementing bioenergy and carbon sequestration systems
(Position Paper as an outcome of the Workshop on 12 November);
forum on policy considerations (incentives, projects, economics etc.) as appropriate
Discussion and definition of a possible EU proposal in the last call of the 5th Framework Programme (deadline 14 December 2001)
Friday, 16 November 2001
Photos can be found here.
|ARCANGELI, Catia||Forest Research||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, U.K.||+44 1420 22255||+44 1420 23450||catia.arcangeli@
|BALDWIN Miriam||Forest Research||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, U.K.||+44 1420 22255||+44 1420 23450||miriam.baldwin@
|BAUEN, Ausilio||Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology||RSM Building, Prince Consort Road, U.K.||+44 0207 574 9332||+44 0207 574 email@example.com|
|BELL, June||Forest Research||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, U.K.||+44 1420 22255||+44 1420 23450||june.bell@
|BRADLEY, Doug||Domtar Inc.||700-1600 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4N7, CANADA||+1 613 725 6854||+1 613 725 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|COLONNA, Nicola||ENEA||V. Anguillarese 301, S.M. Galeria 00060 Roma, ITALY||+39 6 3048 6381||+39 6 3048 email@example.com|
|CANNELL, Melvin||Centre for Ecology and Hyrology||Midlothian, Edinburgh, EH26 0QB, U.K.||+44 01 31 445 4343||+44 01 31 445 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|COWIE, Annette||State Forests New South Wales||P.O.Box 100, Beecroft, New South Wales 2119, AUSTRALIA||+612 9872 0138||+612 9872 email@example.com|
|DE MARCO, Alessandra||ENEA||V. Anguillarese 301, S.M. Galeria 00060 Roma, ITALY||+39 6 3048 3262||+39 6 3048 6721||alessandra.demarco@
|ENGLUND, Finn||Trätek, Swedish Inst. for Wood Tech. Res.||Box 5609, SE-11486 Stockholm, SWEDEN||+46 8762 1824||+46 8762 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|FAAIJ, Andre||Utrecht University||Padualaan 14, 3584 CH Utrecht, NETHERLANDS||+31 30 253 76 43||+31 30 253 76 email@example.com|
|FIJAN-PARLOV, Snjezana||EKONERG||Ulica grada Vucovara 37, HR-10000 Zagreb, CROATIA||+385 1 6322908||+385 1 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|GREGORY, Steve||Forestry Commission||231 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh, EH12 7AT, U.K.||+44 131 314 6392||+44 131 314 6392||steve.gregory@
|GUSTAVSSON, Leif||Lund University, Lund Institute of Technology||Gerdagatan 13, SE-223 62 Lund, SWEDEN||+46 46222 8641||+46 46222 8644||leif.gustavsson@
|HARPER, Ulma||Forest Enterprise||231 Corstorphine Road Edinburgh EH12 7AT, U.K.||+44 131 314 6246||ulma.harper@
|HEDING, Niels||Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute||Hoersholm Kongevej 11, DK 2970 Hoersholm, DENMARK||+45 45 763 200||+45 45 763 233||NIH@fsl.dk|
|HELYNEN, Satu||VTT Energy||P.O. Box 1603, Fin-40101 Jyväskylä, FINLAND||+358 14 67 2661||+385 14 67 2597||Satu.email@example.com|
|JAWETZ, Pinkas||Energy and Environmental Policy||P.O. Box 6297, New York, 10150-6297, U.S.A.||+1 212 535 2734||+1 212 535 9881||PJawetz.@aol.com|
|LUBRECHT, Irma||SGS||P.O. Box 200, NETHERLANDS||+31 181 693267||+31 181 693572||irma_lubrecht@
|KESSELS, John||CRL Energy Limited||PO Box 31-244, Lower Hut, NEW ZEALAND||+64 4 5703700||+64 4 5703701||J.Kessels@crl.co.nz|
|MATTHEWS, Robert||Forest Research||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, U.K.||+44 1420 22255||+44 1420 23450||robert.matthews@
|MEIJER, Paula||Novem||P.O.Box 8242, 3503 Re Utrecht, NETHERLANDS||+31 30 2393774||+31 30 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|MENCUCCINI, Maurizio||University of Edinburgh, IERM||Darwin Building, Mayfield Road, U.K.||+44 0131 6505432||+44 0131 6620478||m.mencuccini@
|MEULEMAN, B.||BTG Biomass Technology Group BV||Drienerlolaan 5, Enschede, NETHERLANDS||+31 53 4894488||+31 53 4894488||meuleman@
|MILNE, Ronald||Centre for Ecology and Hydrology||Bush Estate, Penicuik, EH26 0QB, U.K.||+44 131 445 4343||+44 131 445 email@example.com|
|MÖLLERSTEN, Kenneth||Royal Institute Of Technology, Departmetn of Chemical Engineering||KTH TR 50, SE-10044 Stockholm, SWEDEN||+46 8 790 6551||+46 8 723 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|OLMEDA-HODGE, Tanya||Country Land-owners´ Assoc. Cla||16 Belgrave Square, SW1X 8PQ London, U.K.||+44 0207 460 7923||+44 0207 235.4696||Tanyah@cla.org.uk|
|PINGOUD, Kim||VTT Energy||P.O. Box 1606, FIN-02044 VTT (Espoo), FINLAND||+358 9456 5074||+358 9456 email@example.com|
|READ, Peter||Massey University, Economics Department||Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, NEW ZEALAND||+64 6350 5972||+64 6350 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|RICHARDSON, Jim||IEA Bioenergy Task 31||1876 Saunderson Dr., Ottawa, Ontario, KIG 2C6 CANADA||+1 613 521 1995||+1 613 521 1997||j.richardson@
|ROBERTSON, Kimberly||Forest Research||Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, NEW ZEALAND||+64 7 343 5359||+64 7 343 5332||kimberly.robertson@
|RUSHTON, Kathryn||AEA Technology||Hanwell Didcot, Oxon. OXII OQJ, U.K.||+44 1235 433613||+44 1235 433727||kathryn.ruchton@
|SCHLAMADINGER, Bernhard||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1340||+43 316 876 91340||bernhard.schlamadinger@
|SCHWAIGER, Hannes||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 0316 876 1316||+43 0316 876 91316||hannes.schwaiger@
|TIPPER, Richard||ECCM||Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, U.K.||+44 0131 666 5070||+44 0131 666 email@example.com|
|TUBBY, Ian||Forest Research||Alice Holt Lodge, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, U.K.||+44 1420 22255||+44 1420 23653||Ian.Tubby@
|TURNBULL, Jane||Peninsula Energy Partners||64 Los Altos Square, Los Altos, CA 94022, U.S.A.||+1 650 559 1766||+1 650 559 1763||jaturnbu@
|WILLIAMS, Carl||Forum for the Future||Overseas House, 19-23 Ironmonger Row London EC1 3QN, U.K.||+44 020 7324 3620||+44 020 7324 3635||c.williams@
|WOESS-GALLASCH, Susanne||JOANNEUM RESEARCH||Elisabethstrasse 5, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA||+43 316 876 1330||+43 316 876 91330||susanne.woess@