Clear Full Forecast

BioEnergy: Buzz or Evolution?

By 250 News

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 02:31 PM

Dr. Fernando Preto, talks about potential for Bioenergy   (photo opinion250 staff)

Since the day the forest industry learned there was a limited shelf life for mountain pine beetle trees, there has been a push to diversify the economy of not only Prince George, but all northern communities which have many of their eggs in the same wood fiber basket.

Enter BioEnergy. 

Energy produced through the burning of biofuels.  Already in Canada, 6% of all energy used comes from biomass energy. 80% of the bioenergy is being used in the pulp and paper industry, the remaining 20 % is being used to heat our homes.

Canada already produces 200 million litres of bioethanol from grain products, and 200 million litres a year of biodiesel from waste fats and oils.   Dr. Fernando Preto says that production level isn’t astounding, but “It is a start”.  Preto is  the Group Leader for Biomass Conversion in Natural Resources Canada’s CANMET Energy Technology Centre in Ottawa.  He was the guest speaker at a  Prince George Chamber of Commerce luncheon.

The buzz for Prince George has been the development of pellets for which there is a growing demand and market. The problem says Preto, is that there is no fiscal incentive to use this type of fuel, and cost is a major concern “The cost of converting the wood to bio mass energy has to be cost effective,” right now he says, the cost difference  is too close to make it cost effective to  switch to bio-mass.  “There would have to be some sort of incentive, whether it is financial or a carbon credit, something, otherwise the cost of the energy will be too high.” 

Will Government be willing to offer some incentive?  “Your guess is as good as mine” says Preto. 

Right now, pellets are being produced with the residue from sawmills, but market demand for dimensional lumber and plywood means that supply of residue may be difficult to obtain. “You have to have some other value added process so the costs are low”

Preto says there are also challenges for transportation fuels “ If we are looking for transportation fuels we need to look somewhere else.  By the year 2025  we could be producing 4 billion litres of ethanol from grain, but that is only 5% of the  Canadian fuel demand and to create that 4 billion litres, we used 20% of all the grain produced in Canada, doesn’t really sound very promising.”

Preto says “I think there is a lot of opportunity but I wouldn't think of harvesting it just for energy.  I  think you have to look at other things.  For example, the pellet industry works right now here because  they get their wood from sawmills which is a residue.  So if you can harvest the pine  for another use first, and have  energy  as well then you're o.k, but you have to have some higher value  added thing you are going for.  Just  doing  it for energy is more expensive."

Preto  says there is a huge potential including using portable  machines on site that can turn wood waste into a  biofuel oil.  The transportation problems are then reduced. "There is huge potential but it will take a little bit of investment and some dedication.”


Previous Story - Next Story



Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

No big surprises here. In other words they will log as many beetle killed trees as possible over the short term, and the balance will rot in the ground. In fact they have started to plant spruce trees in stands of pine, supposedly because spruce require some shade to grow, but more likely it gets rid of the need to log the beetle kill.

If there are a few lumber mills shut down in this area, then there will be a shortage of sawdust and hog fuel, it will be at this time that the pulp mills will flex their muscles and get the majority of the available hog fuel. This will create a problem for the pellet people.

For your information although most pellets are forwarded oveseas for fuel, a large part of this product has been sent into the United States to various horse farms, and racing academys and it is used in the horse stalls. Apparently it works much better than shavings or sawdust, in soaking up urine and other by products of oats. The problem again is the high transportation costs. By the time you ship a truckload to Kentucky you make a very small profit.
The pellet plant is a goner anyway, Jo Graber's group will see to that.
"Right now, pellets are being produced with the residue from sawmills, but market demand for dimensional lumber and plywood means that supply of residue may be difficult to obtain. “You have to have some other value added process so the costs are low”"

A few others have already mentioned that on here in previous discussions about this. It it not rocket science.

Bulding a pellet plant at this time is a very risky business IMO. Neither cheap feedstock nor the continued blessing of the world as a "green" energy source are guaranteed.

We must remember that unless the pellets are used in a process such as an incomplete combustion process, they spew out CO2. They might be cleaner burning in special burners than chopped wood with respect to particulates, but they put out the same amount of CO2, no mater how they are burned if combustion is allowed to go to completion.
CO2 hysteria come on OWL it is a scam. This chasing CO2 is only taking money away from other real envirmental concerns. Gore, Susuki and others are making big money off this scam. Antartica and Greenland are getting colder not warmer. The only threat Polar Bears are under is in Greenland where there is unrestricted hunting. Parts of Australia have had some of the coldest weather in a couple of decades.

Yes there is global warming because we are still warming up from the last ice age. The average rate of rise in temperature has not changed for millennia. There is no proof of a recent guick rise.

Do some simple searches on the internet, lots of information. Ask yourself why there is no debate on so called greenhouse gas co2 before we spend millions billions and trillons for nothing. There is no debate because there is hudge money to be made chasing co2. Al Gore will not debate, why is that. In 2006 his energy bill for his mansion in Nashville was $30.000!

A person usually does lots of research before buying a house or car. Then why do they take an actor or ex-politicians word at face value? Would you take a salesman at his word? I now this rant is off topic but I am concerned about the money being diverted into the CO2 swindle.