@Carol, yeap wood torrefaction is not the solution, but cheap biomass wastes are… imo..

PS 300 us$/t FOB usa/canada in 2012 will NEVER happen because enough supply from ukraine, finland, sweden, russia …. etc

We have already seen the massive and huge expansion of Tree-burning Biomass to Energy facilities across the EU and the US/Canada and beyond being built on the notion that the source material is environmentally sustainable and affordable. This is far from the truth. It takes at least 10 years for even the best quality Tree to come to fruition and be suitable for chopping down to be used for such events. And to make it worse the rate of replanting is unable to catch up. The UK is currently predicting that it will need 4 million tonnes per year of Tree Wood just to meet its current projections on Tree burning Energy facilities for 2013…and that is without the other six projects in the pipeline. So where is all this timber going to come from? Certainly according to Pre-Energy it will in part be supplied from the Northern Forests of Europe and the Arboreal Forests elsewhere. And consider the other companies in the EU such as RWE in Germany or ESB in Ireland or EDF in France and ENEL in Italy who are all jumping on the band-wagon for the same issue!

But wait a minute: now that the supply prices for such Tree based Biomass is forecasted to reach €350-00 per tonne from 2012 what then? Well we have already seen these being supplied from West Africa and SE Asia directly from the primordial forests and because they are cheaper than the northern forests the rush is there: but for how long? Even these Tree sources are being quoted at €300-00 per tonne at dock in West Africa. So what then is the consequences of this? Subsidies to make the Electricity and heat through the Renewables Obligation. Frankly this is all too encouraging for the so-called energy companies, and a nonsense.

For if it wasn’t the case then why is it that the various programmes in the UK at Port Talbot for Pre-Energy and in Anglesey in North Wales for an Aluminium Conglomerate and for the major Energy Companies Scottish/Southern Energy and EON etc see these only viable when they are subsidised to the hilt by the Renewable Obligations impetus. Why is it that this is being tested in the European Commission following the Commissions case against ALCOA in Sicily for the misuse of such subsidies as an illegal subsidy to the Mega-Corporations who in the past have only passed these huge so called Renewable Energy Subsidies directly back to the shareholders without even a whisper.

The sucker here is the Public and the purchaser of Electricity and Energy. The Public is totally fed up with this hype about Renewable Energy and the benefits it will give them in terms of Global Warming. No sorry employing subsidies like this may have that effect but the only beneficiaries are these mega corporations.

So the use of Torrefaction is in effect a ruse to the events sen in recent time and of little consequence to the overall benefits. The real issue is that it is again burning Trees to make Electricity at a cost which is marginally cheaper than other equal Tree burning energy facilities and whilst it may be able to extract more energy from the raw product it is faulted in both the wider environmental sphere and source material costs. And as tree wood values rise to €300-00 per tonne see how the economics stand up. And as the review of the misuse of the Renewable Obligation for Electrical Energy and Heat widens watch with interest the quick exit of these Energy Companies from the Market. Torrefaction is a ruse not the answer.