Burn Trees to Light Homes?
Europe imports BC wood pellets to create 'bioenergy.' Here, it's not so easy.
Up in smoke: logging waste, wasted.
[Editor's note: Colleen Kimmett has been travelling B.C.'s north looking at the changing timber economy there. This is the first of her reports.]
Burn wood waste to make energy. It's a great way to use all that dead beetle wood in B.C., and compared to burning coal, adds far less carbon to the global warming equation. That's what you'll hear from top politicians like Minister of Forests Rich Coleman -- so why isn't B.C. burning up the biofuels track?
A closer look at the industry in this province reveals we are exporting most of our wood fuel pellets to Europe rather than using them to produce energy here. One ambitious attempt to inject millions of bioenergy dollars and hundreds of related jobs into the Prince George area foundered with a key backer complaining about government and First Nations red tape. And all that beetle wood may not be the ideal biofuel after all, when compared to other, dwindling, sources of wood waste.
In other words, the road to bioenergy success in B.C. is a complicated route. And a good place to begin the journey is by sitting down with John Swaan, founder of Pacific BioEnergy Corporation.
Feeding on scraps
Swaan likens the wood pellet producers in British Columbia to the "bottom-feeders" of the forestry industry.
It may not sound like a positive label, especially coming from a man recently hired to boost the wood pellet's profile in Canada.
Yet minutes into our interview over a cup of coffee at a Prince George restaurant, Swaan proudly compares the pellet sector to a lowly crustacean trawling for scraps.
"We add value to what we feed on," he says with a smile. "Like lobsters."
John Swaan founded Pacific BioEnergy in 1994 and is credited with opening up the B.C. pellet market to European buyers. Two years ago he took the role of executive director of the Wood Pellet Association of Canada.
Brothers Rob and Jim own Pinnacle Pellet, with plants in Quesnel and Williams Lake.
Wood pellet producers have existed as a secondary industry in this province for more than two decades, using the wood waste -- sawdust and shavings -- from sawmills.
Thanks to an ample supply of this ideal feedstock, perfect for pellets because it's easily accessible and relatively low in moisture content, the industry has been able to grow despite a small and scattered domestic market for the product.
Today, British Columbia exports more than 900,000 tonnes of pellets per year to Europe. That's one-tenth of the world's supply, more than 75 per cent of Canada's total pellet exports and still only a fraction of what we could be producing.
"There has been little to no competition for the fibre that we basically have been relying on," says Swaan. "There is still one million and a half tonnes of sawmill residue that is finding its way into 23 beehive burners across the province."
Wasted opportunities
According to inventory analyses there is an enormous amount of useable biomass going to waste in the entire forestry industry, not just mills, representing enough energy to meet at least 30 per cent of our current fossil fuel demands.
Bioenergy is now on the provincial government's radar, being touted as a way to help achieve domestic clean energy goals and, better yet, make use of all that mountain pine beetle wood.
Special harvesting licenses guarantee a secure feedstock supply for bioenergy producers, and BC Hydro's February 2008 call for bioenergy guarantees a market for it.
"Energy production is an innovative way to use mountain pine beetle-damaged timber," Forests and Range Minister Rich Coleman said when BC Hydro announced its first call for power.
"It helps to recover the value of the dead wood and creates a viable energy opportunity."
Expensive harvest
However, researchers say beetle-killed wood is just about the least appealing feedstock for bioenergy producers, and now some in forestry and bioenergy are concerned this "great energy opportunity," will only create a bidding war for existing wood waste while hard-to-reach pine stands continue to rot.
"Bioenergy works quite well if you're using residuals from a sawmill," says Brad Stennes, an economist with the Pacific Forestry Centre.
"But if you're going to go out and harvest the beetle killed timber, it's just a costly way to do it."
In 2006 Stennes and researcher Alec McBeath co-authored a report on bionenergy options for trees killed by mountain pine beetle in B.C.
The report estimated it would cost $100 per tonne to produce wood pellets from these dead and dying stands.
This figure was based on a 2003 Swedish study that analyzed the costs of running an industrial pellet plant ($43.94 per tonne converted to 2002 Canadian dollars), plus all of the aggregate costs of harvesting and logging lodgepole pine from the Prince George region ($65.88 per tonne).
"The full costs to access, harvest, transport and return a stand to production completely dissipate the delivered fibre value for energy," concluded the report.
Sifting millions of hectares
Harvesting wood for bioenergy isn't simply a matter of scooping it all up and throwing it in a boiler. Think about collecting firewood. It's wise to be choosy, searching the forest for the dry pieces of wood that are easier to carry and better to burn.
Now, imagine doing this across 9.1 million hectares, the combined area of the Prince George and Quesnel timber supply areas.
In 2004 the Ministry of Forests and Range issued a tender for five beetle-lumber salvage licenses in these areas, permitting an annual allowable cut of 1.25 million cubic meters of timber and requiring the construction or expansion of timber processing facilities that produce something other than dimension softwood lumber.
A North Vancouver engineering firm called C.H. Anderson and Associates partnered with a Stockholm-based biofuel and bioenergy company, TallOil AB, to successfully bid on four of these five licenses, giving them the right to harvest 10.5 million cubic meters of beetle-affected wood over a 10 year period.
In January 2005 the companies announced they would invest $110 million to build four industrial wood pellet plants that would service mostly European thermal power plants, a venture projected to provide 640 jobs in B.C.
False start
Before any work was started, C.H. Anderson bought back its technology and pulled out of the deal.
"From our point of view, we had to go on to other things," said Clay Anderson, the company's president, citing government delays and slow negotiations with First Nations as the main problems that cost the project short-term financing.
Anderson claims his firm found a way around the economic hurdle of harvesting. He wouldn't divulge details of the technology, but says it has to do with accessing "a totally different timber product."
Renewed attempt
In January of this year, Pinnacle Pellet and Pioneer Family Timber Products announced it has purchased the tree harvesting licenses from TallOil, and ground broke two weeks ago on a new pellet plant about 80 kilometres south of Prince George.
Leroy Reitsma, the vice-president of Pinnacle, was tight-lipped about the project, other than to say his approach is different from Anderson's.
"The predecessors were very big on making announcements," says Reitsma. "We're very quietly going about our business."
He did say their plan to deal with the volume will be a combination of pelletization and power production, and says Pinnacle will be getting material from the Dunkley sawmill as well.
As mills close, supply shrinks
Although Dunkley is still pumping out waste to be transformed into pellets, other mills and the people employed by them haven't been so lucky.
In the past year, 34 sawmills in the province have closed permanently or indefinitely, resulting in 10,000 job losses.
Bioenergy: A Primer
Bioenergy is any renewable energy made from biological sources, or biomass. Examples: a woodstove or campfire.
Biofuel is biomass that has been processed to make a gas, liquid or solid fuel. Wood can be processed to make all three.
Although fast-growing tree species can be grown specifically for bioenergy, typically the biomass associated with forestry is waste from logging, silviculture and wood processing activities.
Sources of forest biomass in BC include black liquor, a liquid byproduct of the pulping process. Most pulp mills already use it in boilers and can produce electricity that exceeds internal energy demands. It can also be gasified to produce a methane biofuel.
Wood dust and shavings are the waste from sawmills and planing mills. This residue has been used as feedstock for pellet plants and is also still burned in beehive burners.
Slash piles are piles of wood debris left in the bush or on the side of the road after harvesting. They are typically burned, but can be used as feedstock for biofuels, or simply burned to capture heat and/or electricity.
The pellet process. Pellets can be made from white wood, bark and even needles. The key to pellet feedstock is ensuring that it's dry enough, because pellets must have a moisture content of below eight per cent.
Clean burning technology can meet environmental regulations and emissions standards, says Jamie Stephen of the UBC bioenergy and biofuel research group. "There is a huge difference between utilizing pellets in a new combustion system . . . and burning wood over an open fire." -- C.K.
Swaan acknowledges that this is a concern for the province's pellet producers.
"We still have a fairly significant surplus of unutilized sawmill residue . . . so it hasn't become a major issue for maintaining the current production capacities that we've got."
"It may have an influence on the new capacities that are being proposed or being considered," he adds.
Jamie Stephen, manager of the bioenergy and biofuel research group at the University of British Columbia, calls competition for feedstock "a very big thing."
"Whoever's using it will go after the low hanging fruit, which is going to be the mill residues, then the slash, then you might start getting into whole tree harvest," says Stephen.
"They [wood pellet producers] are using a waste feedstock," says Stephen, "If suddenly that has a much higher value in terms of electricity, you could use it straight up . . . essentially you might drive some of the pellet producers out of business because there would be massive competition for that feedstock."
Bidding for more bioenergy
BC Hydro's call for bioenergy is being phased in two steps. The first requested proposals for projects that don't require new forest tenure, or permission to harvest, use existing technology and can include mill wood waste, pulp mill residue, roadside residue (slash piles) and standing timber.
The second call, to be issued in July of this year, will be for projects that are not viable right now, technologically or economically.
In an e-mail, BC Hydro spokesperson Susan Danard wrote "BC Hydro has been working on an ongoing basis with government and industry to develop effective contract terms and to mitigate the potential impact of any projects on existing users of wood residual," and added that current bids will be assessed on how they impact existing residual wood users.
"The devil is in the details," says Swaan of how BC Hydro's bioenergy strategy will affect pellet producers. He's optimistic the industry will continue to grow, and that the carbon tax will help make B.C. a user of the fuel instead of just an exporter.
The success of the pellet sector in the province depends on it, says Stephen. In short, we need to think local.
"We're exporting 95 per cent of our production," he says.
"It doesn't make sense for us to export . . . when we could be using it here, essentially accomplishing those goals of clean energy, rural development and energy security."
Next week, Tyee reporter Colleen Kimmett examines the question of how to manage forests so wood producers and energy producers can benefit.
Related Tyee stories:
- Pine Beetle, Mr. Opportunity?
The bug brings floods, fires and talk of new economies. - Forestry Firms Burning Jobs
Why they'd rather torch timber than feed mills. - Selling Doomsday Debits
In BC's wasteful forest biz, carbon credits don't grow on trees.




10
Login or register to post comments
alda
3 years ago
Typical Canadiana
So typical of our "smart" thinking business leaders and politicians in this country not to evaluate this situation properly.
Ironically, we're building brand new coal-fired plants here in Alberta, meanwhile burning up energy to export something overseas -- while certainly not environmentally optimum as the article suggests-- that produces, at least, less greenhouse gases than what we're using ourselves.
It reminds me of the Bombardier TV adds that burn me to a crisp - bragging about how they're (subsidized by Canadian taxpayer money, of course) selling their trains to eco-wise countries all over the world - everywhere but here (in the mainstream, at least), in dum-dum land.
Not hardly a scrap of common sense to be found in this whole damn country, anymore, except by a few informed private citizens, activists, a handful of backbench politicians (Peter Julian is one), and an increasingly few scraggly academics and renegade journalists-- all of whom, have rotten eggs thrown in their faces on a daily basis by the rest.
Almighty Profit: The Alpha and the Omega of a wondrously brainless society.
rangergord
3 years ago
wood pellets
We really do need many more pellet mills in northern BC. This should have been started many years before now. I hope we do not start logging stands just for the biomass. It should be just part of the mix that adds value to timber stands. Instead of throwing away over 30% of every log we can extract value from it and charge more for the timber. And we can harvest all species rather cherry pick the conifers. This report shows that the cost of logging and hauling biomass to the mill is high. By localizing our efforts: keeping pellets close to home and burning them for energy here, not just in BC but in local communities transportation costs can be minimized. We should export some of our surpluses BUT we come first. Portable pellet mills could operate out in the bush where the wood is and further reduce costs. Forests could be treated silviculturally to enhance their value using the harvested biomass to pay the bill. The biggest boondoggle in the forest industry is the separation of logging and silviculture. Instead of sending hordes of students from the city to clean up the mess left behind by the loggers, insist that the loggers leave no mess at all and put silviculture as part of the harvesting process first and foremost.
clubofrome
3 years ago
Corn...
After 14 years of the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) devastating effects on the majority of Mexican farmers, Mexico’s food system now faces another serious threat: Genetically Modified (GM) corn. Illegally planted and unknowingly imported since the late nineties, GM corn has contaminated farms all over Mexico, threatening the livelihoods of small farmers, endangering consumer health, and putting at risk the incredible genetic diversity of native Mexican corn varieties.
For over a year now, farmers, scientists, and activists all over Mexico have been mobilizing to the banner “Sin maíz, no hay país“—Without corn, there is no country. A nationwide campaign bearing the same name has been organizing protests and rallies against the importation of GM corn and in support of maiz criollo, known in English as ‘indian corn’ or maize.
“If we lose our corn, we lose our sovereignty, our very dignity. We will depend on the U.S., we will have to buy their GM seeds. That will be slavery. Now, we’re no longer self-sufficient and there is no food security,” he said. “We have the responsibility to avoid the contamination by GM corn, to protect our communities.”
The principal biotechnology corporations doing business in Mexico are Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and Dow, but Monsanto is the key player both in Mexico and worldwide, owning 90% of GM seed patents globally, a business worth 8.6 billion dollars in 2007.
Monsanto became well known in Europe when in the late nineties a German judge made public a study performed by Monsanto on one of the GM corn varieties it was marketing in Europe at the time, MON810.
“The confidential report by Monsanto said that its lab rats had been harmed by its own seeds,” said Marielle. “They had problems in kidneys, liver and the nervous system and had eaten nothing but GM corn.”
In the US, a variety of GM corn made its way into the Taco Bell fast food chain and caused a scandal, forcing Aventis, the biotech company that made it, to recall its seed and burn its fields. The corn, known as Starlink, had been marketed as feed corn, after showing to have negative health results in humans.
clubofrome
3 years ago
More from GNN...
In Canada, Monsanto won a case in 2001 against Percy Schmeiser, a Saskachewan canola farmer whose field was contaminated by GM canola from a neighboring field.
“The court ruled that regardless of how Monsanto’s genetically-altered canola gets on a persons land, it’s the property of Monsanto. And even if it cross-pollinates into your crop, then your plant becomes the property of Monsanto,” said Schmeiser in a 2001 interview in England. “A farmer should always have the right to be able to use his own seed,” he added.
Although the judge ruled that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto, he is not yet free from their grasp. After hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and almost ten years since his fields were discovered to have been contaminated, Monsanto’s GM canola keeps popping up in Schmeiser’s fields—despite all of his efforts to rid them of it—cross-pollinating his crop and contaminating his seed.
According to Marielle, in the end everything comes down to patents.
“Everything is tied to the patents, they’re what’s at play. For farmers, they represent a threat to a common good—maize—with the inheritance of hundreds of generations of farmers and seven thousand years of maize agriculture in Mexico. 59 maize races with over 1200 identified varieties are cultivated here. There is a continuous diversification of maize that creates varieties adapted to every ecological niche,” she said.
Monsanto wants to control the national market of seeds and fertilizers, turning every farmer it can into a life-long client, and in the process effectively wiping out the genetic diversity of maize.
“It’s not just the ingression of a GM gene into the native maize varieties, but the fact that the gene is the private property of Monsanto, entering into a public good,” Marielle emphasized.
In reality, Monsanto’s efforts to market its GM corn varieties in Mexico have only just begun.
You can read the rest here...
http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/3540/Monsanto_Meets_Resistance_in_Mexico
clubofrome
3 years ago
Other headlines...
Recently noticed on the news stands... Food prices rising, people rioting, hoarding and fighting!!! Thats just fucking great! Ed DEak and others have tried to warn of these dangers to come, but still those to stupid to understand simple math sit on their asses and watch it all unfold according to CNN. The continued reporting of stupidity repeated every day, over and over is surely a sign of insanity! Criminally insane corporate mafia. Good luck everyone!
UnCivilizedEngineer
3 years ago
Interesting Stuff
I think clubofrome may have posted on the wrong thread...not seeing the GM Corn-beetle-kill biofuel connection...I digress.
On the actual topic it's funny to see people on this site supporting IPP activity in the biomass energy industry, yet fighting tooth-and-nail against [private] small hydropower. Let's compare/contrast:
Same
- both are private-sector
- both are considered clean power by Hydro
- both are renewable energy sources
- both can improve rural economies
Different
- biomass has no appreciable aquatic impact
- ROR is much cheaper (in most cases)
- ROR has no appreciable emissions
- ROR has much greater energy potential
The only sticking point I see is the aquatic impact, at least logic-wise. But clearly RoR has potential to offset GHG emissions at home and with our energy trading partners.
Does it make sense for Hydro to build wood-waste biomass energy themselves? No way - the forest industry is much better situated, and not many will argue this point. Is Hydro set up for building new water-based generation? No. They haven't built anything new in years, and have lost much of their design expertise to attrition. The Province has been 'giving away' forest rights to private interests for bottom dollar in perpetuity, so why is 'borrowing' the gravitational force of water flowing down a stream any different?
Please help me understand the fundamental difference here.
precipice
3 years ago
Bio Fuels
Colleen Kimmett is right, Biofuels is a complicated issue. In her otherwise well researched article she misses the most important point of all: Burning forests, beetle killed or not, is NOT carbon neutral. It contributes hugely to global warming.
I have attached a one pager on the issue. If any one wants I can provide reference for this material.
thank you
Dave Neads
Biofuels Discussion Document
prepared by
Dave Neads
March 25, 2008
Overview
A significant component of British Columbia's new energy policy calls for biomass burning to create new electricity. It is being described as carbon neutral, thereby reducing GHG emissions by replacing fossil fuels. Preparation for the implementation of this new policy is well underway. In June of 2008, B.C. Hydro is calling for proposals to increase electrical production through biomass to 1 GWH with the intent of issuing approvals as early as July, 2008. This initiative is coupled with detailed government analysis covering forest availability, economics and pricing.
Contrary to basic assumptions, biomass burning actually increases CO 2 emissions and is not carbon neutral in the short term, between now and 2040. Burning trees, beetle-killed or not, will release significant new amounts of CO2 annually for many decades before it can be resequestered. As well, the attendant consequences for biodiversity retention with the removal of so much forest for production of electricity will restrict adaptation strategies and erode biodiversity options.
The question regarding the approval of Biofuel infrastructure is parallel to the recent debate in the U.S. over licensing new coal plants before new regulations are in place. If we licence these Biofuel facilities, which are not carbon neutral and which produce more CO2 than the fossil fuel systems they replace, we will be introducing fixed, long term CO2 emitters into the B.C. energy grid. This is in direct opposition to the stated provincial policy reduction targets of 33% fewer emissions by 2020 measured against 2007 levels. Once these targets are legislated, increasing emissions will be contrary to legal requirements and counter to the recommendations of the IPCC and other world organizations.
For the rest of this article please contact me
precipice@xplornet.com
BLOG
http://chilcotin.wordpress.com
clubofrome
3 years ago
UCE
We tend to take what we here in the media as truth. Things like we need more power, to sustain our concepts of growth, when it's the concept of growth we should be challenging. The fact is we need less development, more conservation of resources and energy, and then we can consider phase out of old with new"green" tech. In the mean time, we should look at how were going to feed ourselves, because if we can't do that the rest is moot...
Gobal Warming, Climate Change, Carbon Credits, etc. seem to be the hogging the main stage, when they are 2 bit actors with relatively small parts to play in the coming tradgedy...
doggone
3 years ago
first time for me
Never flagged anyone here before but I do not come here for hair loss or viagra ads.
The topic? Oh yes! Biofuels - especially pelletized beetle Kill:
As I have observed forest practices in this province for the short 60 years available to me the normal "slash Burn" every fall season pounds out more carbon than any other possible use of waste wood. In dry seasons the forest simply takes it upon itself to combust.
If we leave the "Beetle Kill" on the stump it will combust - It is going to burn. Tell me I'm wrong but please give some readable reason why
I grew up in the Okanagan Valley of B.C. Evrybody had "sawdust burners" even on cooking stoves. The main furnace in the house I grew up in was fueled with "sawdust"
For those who do not understand combustion there are a couple of facts you can check:
1) eficient firing depends largely on exposed surface area of the fuel (pellets and "sawdust" are very good at providing exposed surface)
2) Whether you burn the slash in your house or off shore it will still contribute to the carbon and ash load in the atmosphere (the slash will be and is being burnt as we speak Do not kid yourself)
doggone
3 years ago
BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7327524.stm