High Fossil Fuel Costs Real ‘Driver’ Behind Bioenergy Industry
Michael Weedon addresses delegates at 5th International Bioenergy Conference at Civic Centre
Prince George, BC – The Executive Director of the BC Bioenergy Network says an environmental drive and commitment to shift to renewable energy sources is good, but the economics have to work for the shift away from fossil fuels to really gain traction.
Speaking to delegates at the 5th Annual International Bioenergy Conference underway at the Prince George Civic Centre, Michael Weedon says, fossil fuel costs have been relatively low until about the last 10-years and, as a result, biomass resources have been largely wasted. He says we’re now becoming smarter and using them, but he believes that’s because it now makes economic sense to do so.
Weedon, the conference Co-Chair, says the concept of ‘Energy Return on Energy Invested’ becomes central to understanding the dynamic factors that will lead to bioenergy becoming more competitive.
He says the concept developed by Prince George-based energy consultant, CJ Peter Associates Engineering, looks at energy in versus energy out in oil production:
- in 1930, one barrel of oil generated 100 barrels
- in 2011, one barrel of oil generated 14 barrels of conventional oil
- at the Alberta Oil Sands, one barrel of oil generates six barrels at the extraction level
- to get that market in China (ie. proposed Northern Gateway Project), one barrel of oil in would generate 2.41 barrels out
Weedon says the point is,"If our incremental marginal oils are going to come from the oil sands and we’re running out of the conventional, easy-to-source stuff, we’ve got a permanent doubling of costs."
Weedon feels this is a game-changer, "We’ve seen that bio-refining technologies that have been on the shelf for 60-years are now being developed and deployed and we’ve got a ton of people working on new things – new research, new development, new and scientific discoveries underway."
He concludes that we’re in the start of an energy revolution and that BC, with all its biomass resources, is well-poised to take advantage of, "but only if we do it in a sustainable and responsible development way – replanting those forests as we utilize them is essential."
Comments
“at the Alberta Oil Sands, one barrel of oil generates six barrels at the extraction level”
And …..”to get that market in China (ie. proposed Northern Gateway Project), one barrel of oil in would generate 2.41 barrels out”
I wonder what Enbridge has to say about that …..
“replanting those forests as we utilize them is essential.”
The understatement of the century!!
There will be a push to put in more and more fast growing plantations with a 20 to 30 years cycle if not less …. even plant over rangeland and find other feed for cattle …..
A domino effect of price increases for lumber, pulp, beef, milk, etc.
…….. all because we are dumb enough not to have gone to alternate energy sources before the stupid notion of going to biomass energy production to the extent that we could go when in dire straits (great band … LOL)
Does anyone ever play these scenarios through …. CJ Peter Associates … have you started on this yet to tell the clean energy advocates that this enrgy may not be a panacea? ….. or if it is, show us the proof …
Of course the cost fossil fuel drives the bio-energy market. Great to relate the relationship of a barrel of oil to generate X number of barrels but how about the cost per heating unit. At present it seems only gov’t financed projects like UNBC’s bio-energy gasifier and the city of PG’s stack gas economizer attached to Lakeland mills thermal oil energy system are the kind of projects happening simply because private industry requires a payback on investment.
Other countries are investigating and building MSW gasification plants yet in Canada we continue to land fill MSW.
Maybe we should all buy or build a clone of an imbert gasifier that were used in WWII to power automobiles and heat homes.
What do you consider alternate energy sources?
Thorium could be the energy of the future. Google it.
My mother used to warn me about anything with “ium” in it.
Alternate as in other than fossil fuels … anything that is sustainable for thousands of years without reducing the world population below the current population.
This continent was “discovered” by Europeans using wind power, for instance, at a time when wind and water power were sources for mechanical milling.
I think you should read this about wind power. I know you have a bias, but read it anyhow. A very expensive inefficient unreliable source of power. Spain 69 billion of their dept is from solar and wind which netted them nothing.
Oh by the way the earth was very close to a shortage of CO2. Plant food you know. No plants, no us.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/08/time-to-terminate-big-wind-subsidies/
What is MSW?
M = municipal
S = solid
W = waste …
We just flare the methane and do nothing with the rest ….. instead of landfill, most of it can be burned at very high temperatures.
On needs enough throughput to make it economically viable ….
Another one of those cases which is dependent on the price of oil and natural gas.
Why invest in biofuels?? Everyone knows the money, real big money, will be in fresh water. :-) isn’t biofuel just another word for firewood?
“isn’t biofuel just another word for firewood” …. seems that way in Canada at the moment … ethanol is a biofuel but we do not seem to hear too much about that in BC.
Here is an interesting article from a a few years ago.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/03/25/ethanol-from-biomass-a-sustainable-option
The summary statement.
“If ethanol is going to be mandated into our fuel supply, we will be far better off utilizing waste biomass instead of grain. The energy balance is more favorable for cellulosic ethanol, and it is projected to have the potential to compete with gasoline without the need for subsidies. However, due to our very high per capita energy usage, we are kidding ourselves to think that we can meet our needs with renewable energy unless we reduce our consumption.”
I think the last sentence is bang on. There is no single option at the moment. Multiple approaches are required, which is relatively normal when one looks at change.
Comments for this article are closed.