Economic Indicators. For a biomass co-firing retrofit or repowering project, the power utility has to consider the integration of the biomass supply chain and the impact of biomass utilisation in the business model. In most cases, there is a significant difference between the delivered fuel cost of coal and the biomass fuel under consideration. This is typically covered by the provision of additional financial support to the power production from biomass through a feed-in tariff scheme or the grant of green certificates. The level of support for bio-energy varies widely among EU members states support. and, in some cases, co-firing is not considered eligible for Within the DEBCO project, a simplified economic indicator was developed for the estimation of the biomass break-even price at the plant gate. This price is compared with typical or expected biomass prices in order to evaluate whether a particular biomass type can be considered as an economic option and whether it has the potential to generate additional revenue to the power plant to justify the capital investment involved in the conversion of the plant to biomass firing or co-firing. The calculations are performed on the basis that the coal power production set-up is economically neutral to the plant operator. The biomass break-even price is a function of three components: The baseline price, which consists of the price of coal replaced minus the annualised investment cost per unit of biomass fuel energy: p = p − α ⋅η C⋅RF ,
Economic Indicators. Domestic economic growth has been low for the last three decades, suffering from the end of phosphate revenue in 1979 which had accounted for roughly 80% of export earnings and 50% of government revenue. Per capita Gross Domestic product (GDP) was reduced by more than half between 1979 and 1981. While GDP per capita ranks amongst the lowest (2004 - €605), Gross National Product (GNP) is higher (2004 - €1,089) and thus use of this data presents a less pessimistic picture (table 2). Given Kiribati's limited domestic production ability, it must import nearly all of its essential foodstuffs and manufactured items, and it depends on external sources of income for financing. The situation of the balance of payments is worsening. A trust fund financed by phosphate earnings, the Revenue Equalization Reserve Fund (RERF), remains important providing interest and dividends used to balance the budget. In 2005 the economy recovered due to an increase in construction works (with a US$5.5 million (€4.4 million) sport complex with financing from Taiwan, and a US$7.2 million (€5.8 million) Fishing Centre on Kiritimati funded by Japanese government aid and Kaimaki (Association for Japanese Fishing Purse seiners)). The construction projects provided employment opportunities to a lot of I-Kiribati people. Table 2: Kiribati: Selected Macro-Economic Indicators Indicator Unit 2000 2001 2002 0000 0000 0000 (€) GNP A$’000 155,334 180,307 178,100 158,500 174,300 € 103,136,095 GDP A$’000 83,240 92,300 97,100 101,200 103,700 € 61,360,947 GDP Growth % 1.6 1.8 0.3 0 0.1 Per Cap. GDP A$ 985 1,063 1,124 1021 1,022 € 605 Per Cap. GNP A$ 1,838 2098 2038 1714 1841 € 1,089 Inflation % 0.40% 6.0% 3.2% 4.00% 2.30% 2.50% Total Exports A$’000 10,694 8,000 7,000 7,500 7,855 € 4,647,929 Total Imports A$’000 67,924 77,773 80,000 85,550 87,750 € 51,923,077 Balance of Pay. A$’000 -57,230 -68,773 -73,000 -78,050 -79,895 -€ 47,275,148 Sources: XX Xxxxxxxx / EC; Australian HC; Consultants
Economic Indicators. Norway has a small, open economy with a floating exchange rate. Norway has a sound macroeconomic policy framework which has underpinned the country’s strong economic performance in recent years. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s Human Development Index which measures quality of life based on longevity, education levels and GNP, rated Norway as highest in the world in these areas in 2004, followed by Sweden and Australia. Norway’s emergence as a major oil and gas producer in the mid-1970s transformed its economy. The petroleum sector accounts for 44 per cent of exports and 17 per cent of GDP. Norway’s per capita income is now one of the highest in the world due to the large influx of investment capital into its North Sea oil and gas fields and its substantial oil revenues. Revenue from taxes on oil and gas exports which are channelled into the Government Petroleum Fund and invested in overseas equity and bond markets (including in Australia). GDP growth in the mainland economy in 2006 is estimated by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) to have been around 2.6 per cent, and is expected to slow marginally in 2007 to 2.2 per cent before falling to 2.1 per cent in 2008. The latter is due to higher interest rates and an expected de-celeration in investment growth. Employment levels remain high in Norway. Unemployment is relatively low by international standards – being around 4.6 per cent in 2005, and is forecast to fall from 4.1 per cent in 2006 to 4.0 per cent in 2007. Norway’s inflation was forecast (EIU) to average 2.3 per cent in 2006 and possibly rising to 2.6 per cent in 2007. The Norwegian Government's main long-term challenge is regarded as the financing of pension obligations for its aging population. The general rate for VAT was raised to 25 per cent from 24 per cent on 1 July 2005.
Economic Indicators. Since 2011, Ghana has been classified as a low to middle-income country by the World Bank. Ghana is currently the third largest economy in the West African sub-region, and the sixth largest in Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2020). With the aim of creating employment, generating income, and reducing poverty, the country has undergone various economic transformations. The government is currently implementing the 2018-2021 National Medium- Term Development Programme (Teye, Badasu, & Xxxxxx, 2017). Prior to this, the country had implemented the Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS I: 2003-2005), the Ghana Poverty Reduction Strategy (GPRS II: 2006-2010), and the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda (GSGDA I: 2010-2013; GSGDA II 2014-2017)6. The growth of Ghana’s current economic foundation cannot be detached from the consequences of the 1983 Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) and the 1988 Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), supported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (MELR, 2015). The 6 For details, see IMF (2003; 2006). implementation of these programmes led to the removal of subsidies, trade liberalisation, and privatisation of state enterprises among other measures. Ghana’s current economic success could also partially be attributed to the economic transformation of SAPs (in areas such as increasing GNI and GDP, sharp decline in inflation and growing industrial capacity) despite the negative economic impacts that SAPs have also had. The Human Development Index (HDI) of the country has been improving over the years, increasing from an HDI value of 0.57 in 2013 to 0.611 in 2020, with a global ranking of 138 (UNDP: Human Development Reports , 2020). The GDP of Ghana has fluctuated between 2013 and 2019 (Table 4). Despite this, the country has witnessed an overall increase in GDP, from US$62.405 billion to US$66.984 billion between 2013 and 2019. The GDP per capita has risen significantly over the years, from US$1,841 in 2013 to US$2,223 in 2019, and further increased to US$2,226 in 2020. Ghana’s annual GDP growth rate was estimated at 8.1 percent in 2017, after which there was a decline in 2018 (representing 6.3 percent) and a slight increase in 2019 (representing 6.5 percent). The 2020 projection expects a further decline to 1.5 percent, which can partly be attributed to the global financial crisis related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Factors contributing to these developments include the production of crude oil, fallin...
Economic Indicators
