Bioenergy Benificial to Economic Development

Wednesday, June 09, 2010 09:30 AM

Prince George, B.C.- Bioenergy presents huge opportunities for economic development in communities. That is just one of the benefits of the bioenergy sector pointed out by Dana Hayden, Deputy Minister of Forestry in B.C. to the delegates attending the 4^th bioenergy conference in Prince George.

Hayden says bioenergy is particularly important to the forestry industry as wood fibre can be turned into many bio products such as electricity, fuel and heat, etc.. She says bioenergy also provides an opportunity for the forest industry to increase its profitability.

She says the bioenergy sector makes the best economics when it partners with the forest industry, “ forest companies understand how to harvest the wood, how to handle areas where trees have been harvested and the best use of the fibre.

The latest information indicates 16 million hectares of timber have been impacted by the mountain pine beetle, that is an area equal to Vancouver Island, five times over. The beetle has killed about 47% of the merchantable timber in B.C.

But there is some good news.

Hayden says the beetle epidemic is slowing, and that by 2016 65% of the merchantable trees will be dead. That may sound very gloom and doom, however, the Ministry of Forests says it is better than the 80% they had originally predicted. Hayden says the average shelf life is also much longer than first anticipated. The shelf life for attacked timber meant for sawlogs is 12 years after the tree has died. The average shelf life for bioenergy use is 20 years. “This is good news as it will give us more time and opportunity to use those trees.”

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 09:30 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Retired on June 9 2010 10:06 AM

Dont eat that Elmer its h****st.
Cheers

Posted by: theviewuphere on June 9 2010 1:04 PM

I for one would be willing to have it looked at here in Terrace. Come have a look, Aboriginal Co-generation, we have people, space, we are right on the CN mainline and you can feed the power into the new line up Highway 37.

Posted by: hood rich on June 9 2010 1:08 PM

energy prices need to be higher or a higher carbon tax to make bio fuels more viable. it is a good idea to subsidize the process for now tho. perhaps we can be a leader, tho Brazil is quite a ways ahead of us in this technology.

Posted by: Don Wilkins on June 9 2010 4:00 PM

Do we need to think huge? Why not have biomaterial generators mounted on trailers. You could move them in to an area that has a lot of available fiber material and a power line.

Connect to the power line and feed the power out into the line. The cost of shipping the fiber would be reduced and the less accumulated particles in the air.

When the fiber runs out just move the plant.

Posted by: seamutt on June 9 2010 6:25 PM

Carbon tax is just a scam, check this site for one http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Posted by: supertech on June 9 2010 10:01 PM

What's wrong with tunnels diverting river water through generators?? No dams, no fuss, no muss, no ice, very clean and we get to keep some prime farm land.

Posted by: gus on June 10 2010 12:18 PM

Something does not make sense with the numbers quoted. It states:

1. The beetle has killed about 47% of the merchantable timber in B.C.

Then it goes on:
2. by 2016 65% of the merchantable trees will be dead, and

3. it is better than the 80% they had originally predicted.

Do they mean merchantable pine trees or the entire mix of merchantable trees? If the latter, it does not make any sense. There are not that many pine trees that make up the forest stands in BC.

Posted by: gus on June 10 2010 12:51 PM

What it means then is that we have 20 years to use up the last of the trees that arte dying now. How many years do we have left to use the trees that are now dead? Hve we been using them at the rate that we need to use them or have they simply been standing waiting to be cut or to drop?

Where are the trees in relation to access that has been built?

What are the economics of removing the trees to provide to the users of the feedstock if the trees cannot be used for anything else?

When the trees have been removed by private enterprise, who will pay for replanting?

Will there be enough money in the process for the private company to do that as licensees typically do now for removing live trees?

Who has access to these dead trees?

What is the stumpage for dead trees?

In fact, will the government pay to have dead trees removed?

Over what period of time will plants built to process the dead trees have to operate in order to pay for the cost of the plant?

What will happen to the plants when we run out of dead trees?

Did anyone at the conference speak about such mundane economic and logistic factors which will inlfuence whether anything of any reasonable scale woll get done to actually get 90% of the dead trees out in the next 20 years?

Which plant is operating right now on 100% dead trees ans it was built for that purpose? If not 100%, how about 50%? 25%? 10%?

Who is chipping dead trees in the woods right now and where are the chips being sold/used?