They’ve been taking a lot of hog fuel from Isle Pierre since Lakeland has been down. Every mill produces a different quality of hog fuel with some more fine or more chunky than others and some with more sawdust in it and other with more bark… so I’m sure they will have more data soon as well on the difference the quality of the hog fuel makes… it would be interesting to know the difference in quality as it relates to an energy system between the pine beetle wood as opposed to the heavier balsam IMO.

So please explain the green method of delivering this fuel to our green university? Is it horse and wagon? So the next step to becoming more green is to only except green students that don’t drive cars? Tell their instructors to bus to work?

Eagle has a good point, it will be interesting to see the difference between the hog quality. I am suprised the system is diverse enough to use 5% moisture pellets annd still operate within the expectations of 35% moisture hog. Makes me think the difference in hog might not be that measurable. I think this is interesting and exciting research that may well be noted on a global scale.

Finally the conference is addressing the question of how effective is bioenergy, especially the various types of end products, with respect to carbon mitigation. I have said from day one on this site that as far as I am concerned, Mother Nature does not distinguish between one carbon atom and another. It is still a carbon atom and any one in a CO2 molecule have the same effect as a greenhouse gas.

Dr. Elaine Oneil will be speaking this afternoon with respect to the question: “Bioenergy: Carbon Neutral or not?”

Here is an article on a report she co-authored.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122143356.htm
Carbon mitigation uses wood for buildings first, bioenergy second. The premise is that the bioenergy comes from the waste material of producing wood for building material.

And here is what they say about ethanol from wood.

“They considered two ways of producing ethanol from woody biomass — gasification and fermentation — and used what’s called life cycle analysis to tally all the environmental effects of gathering, processing and using the resulting fuels. Ethanol from woody biomass emits less greenhouse gas than an equivalent amount of gasoline, between 70 percent and a little over 100 percent less.

“How much of a reduction depends on the process. Achieving slightly more than a 100 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is possible, for example, using a fermentation process that both produces ethanol and generates enough electricity to offset the fossil fuel used in the fermentation process.”

It goes on:

“In contrast, producing and using corn ethanol to displace gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions 22 percent on average, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s fact sheet “Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use.”

“While biofuels from woody biomass are carbon friendly, Lippke cautions that the U.S. should not use tax breaks or other incentives that inadvertently divert wood to bioenergy that is better used for long-lived building materials and furniture.”

The actual paper can be downloaded here:
http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/2/4/861/pdf

How green is the manufacture of pellets? That part seems to have been left out. Green uni, I think its more about grant seeking trying to ride the GHG, Co2 climate change fraud before the money runs out.
Study how to burn wood waste cleanly, okay, but leave the other green, GHG, BS out.

There is science and then there is climate science.

The climate is not doing anything it hasen’t done before, but hey if you can scam it for taxpayer money, what the Hell.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/the-longest-most-high-resolution-most-inconvenient-paleoclimate-data-that-hasnt-been-published/

wattsupwiththat is an SNL parody ….. ;-)

I will say one thing, as a unicersity, UNBC needs to be careful it stays credible and true to scientific research. Mixing campus facility operations iwth politics with science is a delicate balance for anyone to handle, even universities.

So, I would like the program they are undergoing to be looked at from a totally integrated fashion. If they are not going to get into the Carbon debate then fine. BUT they are playuing it as a green card as well, so they owe it to us to show us the whole suite of cards that go to makeup the carbon mitigation program since that is the key driver, if not the only driver.

Gus with your comment I can see you have never checked into the site or others like it, so sad. If you are a fan of SNL again so sad. You do know that so called man caused globull warming is based on one tree in the Russian north. Since the doomsayers have been yelling about climatic events for years now, show me the evidence outside natural variation in climate that has never happened before.

http://climateaudit.org/—care to refute

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/—care to refute

http://www.friendsofscience.org/— care to refute

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/—care to refute

These four are Canadian are the main dragon slayers of the IPCC pepetuated scam.

Like I said, there is science then there is climate science.

Seamutt ….. you are flogging a dead issue with me. We have been over this once before. I will say it one more time, we differ on the opinion.

You think it is not anthropogenic ….

I think that there is not enough evidence either way …….

And, most importantly, most of the action taken as a result to be on the safe side is also helping us to reduce the dependence on fossil fuel, thus extending the amount of time we have to switch over whenever that time comes by developing alternate fuels…….

I like to err on the side of risk reduction ….. it is the nature of me personally and it is the nature of the work I do … work on reducing risk …..

Finally, you absolutely do not know me, obviously …… I check out as many points of view on a topic as I can …..

In this particula case it is totally moot to me because it will be left to those who follow me in this world to see who, if anyone, was right …… In fact, it may never be provable one way or another since the variables are so many and so complex.

This is how it works.

When the City uses 365 trucks of hog fuel for their Community Energy System, that used to be trucked to the Intercontinental Pulp mill, they claim that they have reduced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 80MT, per annum.

When the same type of hog fuel is trucked to the University to run their biomass plant, from Lakeland, or now from Isle Pierre, or some other mill, there is no mention of the additional greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere.

In addition the City would have you beleive that the loss of hog fuel to Intercontinental Pulp would not be sourced from somewhere else. Of course it would.

These people use numbers that allow them to spend tax dollars, and build projects that in effect have little or no effect on anything. None of their number can stand up under close scrutiny.

“nofrakkingconsensus”

Good name …. if we do not have consensus on something, then do we:

1. simply go ahead and do what we please ….

2. tread carefully and take it one at a time with controlled observation to see what we can learn ….

3. do nothing and let the stuff sit until we know more about the risks ……

4. see if there are other option we haqve missed so far and may be open to us?

Palopu, to me the part of the equation which includes transportation of the feedstock into the green equation has to be separated as a variable which can change over time.

In fact, an approximation can be made for hauling distance and likely should include the type of vehicles used and even the routes travelled since they can vary in stop and go distribution.

There should be annual records which include all the data for both CO2 emission from which fuel type as well as other emissions from the point of view of air quality within the PG airshed. So, a haul from Isle Pierre will affect the PG airshed for only part of the run and will have further distance but less stop and go operation thus work more efficiently.

Part of my point Gus is that the Pulp Mill will source the hog fuel from another source if the hog they were using, was used for the Community Energy System. This could come from Isle Pierre, or Bear Lake, or Dunkley or Carrier Lumber. Depending on the source the trucks would go through Pr George , and thus there would be no reduction in emissions.

For the City to suggest that the Energy System would reduce trucking by 80mt per year is disengenuous, and cannot be backed up by facts.

In fact when this scenario was pointed out to them at a public meeting they seemed confused, and in fact a few Council Members did not have a clue, as to what was being discussed.

This of course may all be moot, because of the fire at Lakeland. We are now faced with being the proud owners of a community energy system, that does not have a means to produce hot water. In fact we will be supplying the hot water from the gas back up plant at 2nd and George St.,

If Lakeland does not rebuild, how will this energy system go forward, especially since its major selling point, was the reduction in the amount of natural gas being burnt by City buildings. Will we now burn more gas, the same, or less.

The return on investment was marginal over an 18/20 year period. Will there now be no return????

Has anyone noticed that the City is very quiet on this issue??.

Bull. It is difficult to believe that there is a net reduction in emissions of particulate by burning hog fuel or wood pellets, compared to natural gas.
Look at the big picture, include all the energy of any kind involved in producing and delivering the wood product to the plant that consumes it. What about the carbon footprint that is so in vogue?
What about having to have redundancy in natural gas fired heating equipment to take over the heating work if the wood is not available? What is done with the ashes? Are they not delivered to the landfill?
This “bio-energy” thing is just a fad.
metalman.

“a few Council Members did not have a clue, as to what was being discussed.”

And this is supposed to surprise me or anyone else … LOL …. they are just people who have other primary interests and cannot spend time to delve into every single thing.

With the computers in front of them now, they no longer have to toss a coin in their lap as to how they should vote ….. ;-)

Non performance is in the contract between the City and Lakeland.

They are likely negotiating based on the contract and the conditions which Lakeland now finds itself in.

Here are the clauses with respect to the City able to operate the Lakeland plant
—————————————-

6.1 Entitlement of City to Operate Facility – During any period in which:

(a) the supply of thermal energy by Lakeland under Article 2 has been suspended for more than twenty (20) business days; and

(b) such suspension of supply is not attributable to:

(i) any default by the City of this Agreement;

(ii) a Forced Outage of, or defect in, the DES Plant; or

(iii) any loss of, damage to or malfunction in the Lakeland Energy Plant which is being diligently remedied by Lakeland, the City and its duly appointed representatives and consultants may, upon one business day’s notice to Lakeland, enter upon the Lakeland Lands and take any steps reasonably required to operate the Lakeland Energy Plant to the extent necessary to restore such supply. Such steps shall include using any wood residue located on the Lakeland Lands to fire Lakeland’s boiler and, if such wood reside is insufficient, importing and using the City’s own wood residue.

7.1 Default – If any Party (in this Article, the “Defaulting Party”) defaults in the performance or observance of any of its obligations under this Agreement, such event shall constitute a “Default” by such Party.

7.2 Remedies for Default – If a Default occurs, the Party not in Default (in this Article, the “Non-Defaulting Party”) may do one or more of the following:

(a) pursue any remedy available in law or equity (it being acknowledged by both Parties that specific performance, injunctive relief and other equitable remedies are reasonable in the circumstances);

(b) take any action in its own or in the name of the Defaulting Party as may necessarily and reasonably be required to cure the Default, in which event all payments, costs and expenses reasonably incurred in relation to the Default shall be payable by the Defaulting Party to the Non-Defaulting Party upon demand;

(c) terminate this Agreement by notice to the Defaulting Party, if the Default is not cured by the Defaulting Party within thirty (30) days of receiving notice from the Non-Defaulting Party specifying such Default and requiring the Defaulting Party to cure such Default; provided that if such Default is of a nature that reasonably requires more than thirty (30) days to cure, is capable of being fully cured within a reasonable time, and the Defaulting Party diligently proceeds with effecting such cure and actually cures such Default within a reasonable time, then the Non-Defaulting Party shall not be entitled to terminate the Agreement in respect thereof; or

(d) waive the Default; provided however that any waiver of a particular Default shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent or continuing Default.

I would hope that given the circumstances of the default that the CIty has some compassion and is allowing for more time than other circumstances would have resulted in.

Of course, there should be insurance in place which would cover any agreements which the company committed to and pay out resulting damages the company has to pay to its clients.

At the same time the City has to mitigate its damages.

I suspect that there would be a **Force Majeure** clause in the contract that would allow Lakeland to get out of the contract because of the fire.

So Gus you are alright in wasting 100’s of billions on a falsified science.