Collect logging driftwood and recycle it into wood pellets for biomass generation fuel.
I'm not sure what happens with the logging driftwod that is washed up on the BC shorelines but this could be collected and turned into useful biomass fuel.
Vicki Morell commented
Wood-fueled Biomass Power Plants and CO2 Emissions
Wood fuelled biomass energy is worse than fossil fuels for carbon dioxide emissions and similar for air pollutants. It threatens forests, rivers, and air quality and will worsen global warming impacts. Wood fuelled biomass burning is a false solution to our energy and environmental problems that diverts attention and resources from truly clean energy sources such as solar, geothermal, appropriately located and scaled wind and hydro, and most importantly conservation and efficiency.
Contrary to industry claims, wood burning biomass energy does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it increases them. Wood burning biomass power plants emit about 50% more carbon per unit of energy than coal.
Is wood a sustainable source of renewable energy?
Burning trees for energy is not a truly sustainable renewable energy because burning trees for energy emits pollutants at higher or similar to fossil fuels depending on the pollutant, and emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than any other fuel source, including coal. Increasing air pollution levels and emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere is unsustainable. In addition, the large increases in logging needed to fuel wood burning will have a serious negative impacts on forest ecosystems and detrimental impact on wildlife.
In reference to wood burning and "carbon neutrality", let's set the record straight. Here it is explained in a simple way! Most tress have lifespans measured in the hundreds of years, and some live thousands of years. Additionally, when a tree dies, it decays slowly. So, the carbon released when a tree is burned in minutes needs to be compared to carbon that otherwise remains sequestered for the tree's lifespan and decay period, as well the carbon that would have been sequestered had the tree been allowed to continue growing.
When you a burn the tree, you release all carbon instantly. And then what do you do? You stuff another tree in the stove and burn it and release more carbon. You release in a matter of minutes, carbon that the tree sequestered over many decades or centuries. Carbon dioxide levels will increase even if cutting equals growth rates, because those forests would otherwise increase and help absorb carbon dioxide.
Burning forests versus letting them continue to grow as they are today is not “carbon-neutral” or a"carbon-offset" or "renewable". Nor is it “clean” heat.
Additionally, trees in general do not just rot as claimed by some biomass proponents, only the dead ones do. Most trees that will be used for biomass are living, green trees which are not rotting; they are instead actively absorbing carbon and cleaning the air.
Great idea, but it appears that burning driftwood releases dioxins - see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AJFMN7ZneYkJ:www.motherearthnews.com/Ask-Our-Experts/Modern-Homesteading/Why-Not-To-Burn-Driftwood.aspx+burning+driftwood+toxins&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca