Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks
Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining bioproducts and biorefining, 2019-05, Vol.13 (3), p.514-534 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 534 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 514 |
container_title | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Sahoo, Kamalakanta Bilek, Edward Bergman, Richard Kizha, Anil R. Mani, Sudhagar |
description | Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops processing (BSTP), micro‐chipping, and screening, which are required to improve the feedstock's quality. Considering recent developments in technologies and BSTP to generate high‐quality feedstocks, economic models were developed in this study to estimate various forest‐residue logistics operational costs and to analyze the economics of delivering feedstocks to biomass conversion technology (BCT) sites near woods or power plants located far away in the form of chips, hog fuel, and bales. The results show that the cost of BSTP can vary between $30 and $82/ODMT (oven dry metric ton) based on the biomass sorting intensity. The most economical way to deliver forest residues was transporting processed stem‐wood from landings to near‐wood BCT sites and comminuting it into woodchips there (~$20/ODMT, assuming a one‐way (32 km) road distance and no cost of BSTP at landings). Grinding slash at the landing and transporting ground‐biomass (i.e., hog fuel) to a plant (< 22 km away) was more economical than transporting bales from landings and grinding at the plant. The economic feasibility of baling and BSTP requires a substantial productivity improvement or recognition and incorporation of benefits including reduced wildfire risk and improved forest health. High bulk density and strong shape of forest residues/slash bales compared to hog fuel may provide additional cost benefits during storage, for example through lower handling costs, which can be studied in the future. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bbb.1958 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1613336</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2218078825</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-7d805bae2a8840c46b78012b5019d240b276ba7a246859c6d31c105987c71bed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10LtOwzAUBmALgUQpSDyCBQtLwJc4dkZalYtUiQUkNst2HNUljdPYEcrGI_CMPAkuRWwsPh4-HZ3_B-Aco2uMELnRWl_jkokDMMElJRlGFB_-_fPXY3ASwhohVrCcTYBeGN_6jTNQtaoZgwvQ17D2vQ0RpsdVgw0wDF3XjNCslGuh76LzbYDRw6731WAstO1KtcZWXx-f20E1Lo6wtrYK0Zu3cAqOatUEe_Y7p-DlbvE8f8iWT_eP89tlZijjIuOVQEwrS5QQOTJ5oblAmGiGcFmRHGnCC624InkhWGmKimKDESsFNxxrW9EpuNjv9SE6GYyL1qxSutaaKHGBKaVFQpd7lE7fpmhRrv3Qp-hBEoIF4kIQltTVXpneh9DbWna926h-lBjJXc0y1Sx3NSea7em7a-z4r5Oz2ezHfwM64n7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2218078825</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Sahoo, Kamalakanta ; Bilek, Edward ; Bergman, Richard ; Kizha, Anil R. ; Mani, Sudhagar</creator><creatorcontrib>Sahoo, Kamalakanta ; Bilek, Edward ; Bergman, Richard ; Kizha, Anil R. ; Mani, Sudhagar ; Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><description>Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops processing (BSTP), micro‐chipping, and screening, which are required to improve the feedstock's quality. Considering recent developments in technologies and BSTP to generate high‐quality feedstocks, economic models were developed in this study to estimate various forest‐residue logistics operational costs and to analyze the economics of delivering feedstocks to biomass conversion technology (BCT) sites near woods or power plants located far away in the form of chips, hog fuel, and bales. The results show that the cost of BSTP can vary between $30 and $82/ODMT (oven dry metric ton) based on the biomass sorting intensity. The most economical way to deliver forest residues was transporting processed stem‐wood from landings to near‐wood BCT sites and comminuting it into woodchips there (~$20/ODMT, assuming a one‐way (32 km) road distance and no cost of BSTP at landings). Grinding slash at the landing and transporting ground‐biomass (i.e., hog fuel) to a plant (< 22 km away) was more economical than transporting bales from landings and grinding at the plant. The economic feasibility of baling and BSTP requires a substantial productivity improvement or recognition and incorporation of benefits including reduced wildfire risk and improved forest health. High bulk density and strong shape of forest residues/slash bales compared to hog fuel may provide additional cost benefits during storage, for example through lower handling costs, which can be studied in the future. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-104X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-1031</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bbb.1958</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>Baling ; bioenergy ; Biologically grown products ; Biomass ; Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology ; Bulk density ; Chip formation ; Chipping ; Comminution ; Cost benefit analysis ; Costs ; Drying ovens ; Econometric models ; Economic analysis ; Economic feasibility ; Economic models ; Economics ; Electric power generation ; Energy & Fuels ; Feasibility studies ; Forest residues ; Forests ; Fuels ; Grinding ; Handling ; Health risks ; Industry ; Landing statistics ; Logging ; Logistics ; Operating costs ; Organic chemistry ; Power plants ; Quality ; Raw materials ; Renewable energy ; Residues ; Storage ; Supply chains ; Wildfires ; Wood</subject><ispartof>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2019-05, Vol.13 (3), p.514-534</ispartof><rights>2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</rights><rights>2019 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-7d805bae2a8840c46b78012b5019d240b276ba7a246859c6d31c105987c71bed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-7d805bae2a8840c46b78012b5019d240b276ba7a246859c6d31c105987c71bed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbbb.1958$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbbb.1958$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1613336$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sahoo, Kamalakanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilek, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergman, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kizha, Anil R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Sudhagar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><title>Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks</title><title>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</title><description>Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops processing (BSTP), micro‐chipping, and screening, which are required to improve the feedstock's quality. Considering recent developments in technologies and BSTP to generate high‐quality feedstocks, economic models were developed in this study to estimate various forest‐residue logistics operational costs and to analyze the economics of delivering feedstocks to biomass conversion technology (BCT) sites near woods or power plants located far away in the form of chips, hog fuel, and bales. The results show that the cost of BSTP can vary between $30 and $82/ODMT (oven dry metric ton) based on the biomass sorting intensity. The most economical way to deliver forest residues was transporting processed stem‐wood from landings to near‐wood BCT sites and comminuting it into woodchips there (~$20/ODMT, assuming a one‐way (32 km) road distance and no cost of BSTP at landings). Grinding slash at the landing and transporting ground‐biomass (i.e., hog fuel) to a plant (< 22 km away) was more economical than transporting bales from landings and grinding at the plant. The economic feasibility of baling and BSTP requires a substantial productivity improvement or recognition and incorporation of benefits including reduced wildfire risk and improved forest health. High bulk density and strong shape of forest residues/slash bales compared to hog fuel may provide additional cost benefits during storage, for example through lower handling costs, which can be studied in the future. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</description><subject>Baling</subject><subject>bioenergy</subject><subject>Biologically grown products</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology</subject><subject>Bulk density</subject><subject>Chip formation</subject><subject>Chipping</subject><subject>Comminution</subject><subject>Cost benefit analysis</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Drying ovens</subject><subject>Econometric models</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economic feasibility</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Electric power generation</subject><subject>Energy & Fuels</subject><subject>Feasibility studies</subject><subject>Forest residues</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Fuels</subject><subject>Grinding</subject><subject>Handling</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Industry</subject><subject>Landing statistics</subject><subject>Logging</subject><subject>Logistics</subject><subject>Operating costs</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Power plants</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Raw materials</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>Residues</subject><subject>Storage</subject><subject>Supply chains</subject><subject>Wildfires</subject><subject>Wood</subject><issn>1932-104X</issn><issn>1932-1031</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10LtOwzAUBmALgUQpSDyCBQtLwJc4dkZalYtUiQUkNst2HNUljdPYEcrGI_CMPAkuRWwsPh4-HZ3_B-Aco2uMELnRWl_jkokDMMElJRlGFB_-_fPXY3ASwhohVrCcTYBeGN_6jTNQtaoZgwvQ17D2vQ0RpsdVgw0wDF3XjNCslGuh76LzbYDRw6731WAstO1KtcZWXx-f20E1Lo6wtrYK0Zu3cAqOatUEe_Y7p-DlbvE8f8iWT_eP89tlZijjIuOVQEwrS5QQOTJ5oblAmGiGcFmRHGnCC624InkhWGmKimKDESsFNxxrW9EpuNjv9SE6GYyL1qxSutaaKHGBKaVFQpd7lE7fpmhRrv3Qp-hBEoIF4kIQltTVXpneh9DbWna926h-lBjJXc0y1Sx3NSea7em7a-z4r5Oz2ezHfwM64n7w</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Sahoo, Kamalakanta</creator><creator>Bilek, Edward</creator><creator>Bergman, Richard</creator><creator>Kizha, Anil R.</creator><creator>Mani, Sudhagar</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks</title><author>Sahoo, Kamalakanta ; Bilek, Edward ; Bergman, Richard ; Kizha, Anil R. ; Mani, Sudhagar</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-7d805bae2a8840c46b78012b5019d240b276ba7a246859c6d31c105987c71bed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Baling</topic><topic>bioenergy</topic><topic>Biologically grown products</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology</topic><topic>Bulk density</topic><topic>Chip formation</topic><topic>Chipping</topic><topic>Comminution</topic><topic>Cost benefit analysis</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Drying ovens</topic><topic>Econometric models</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economic feasibility</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Electric power generation</topic><topic>Energy & Fuels</topic><topic>Feasibility studies</topic><topic>Forest residues</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Fuels</topic><topic>Grinding</topic><topic>Handling</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Industry</topic><topic>Landing statistics</topic><topic>Logging</topic><topic>Logistics</topic><topic>Operating costs</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Power plants</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Raw materials</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>Residues</topic><topic>Storage</topic><topic>Supply chains</topic><topic>Wildfires</topic><topic>Wood</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sahoo, Kamalakanta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilek, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bergman, Richard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kizha, Anil R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mani, Sudhagar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA (United States)</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sahoo, Kamalakanta</au><au>Bilek, Edward</au><au>Bergman, Richard</au><au>Kizha, Anil R.</au><au>Mani, Sudhagar</au><aucorp>Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, CA (United States)</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks</atitle><jtitle>Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining</jtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>514</spage><epage>534</epage><pages>514-534</pages><issn>1932-104X</issn><eissn>1932-1031</eissn><abstract>Woody biomass feedstock that is both high quality and low cost has become increasingly important for the bioenergy and bioproducts industries. Logging generates forest residues – low‐quality feedstock – and additional operations that also incur additional costs, such as biomass sorting and treetops processing (BSTP), micro‐chipping, and screening, which are required to improve the feedstock's quality. Considering recent developments in technologies and BSTP to generate high‐quality feedstocks, economic models were developed in this study to estimate various forest‐residue logistics operational costs and to analyze the economics of delivering feedstocks to biomass conversion technology (BCT) sites near woods or power plants located far away in the form of chips, hog fuel, and bales. The results show that the cost of BSTP can vary between $30 and $82/ODMT (oven dry metric ton) based on the biomass sorting intensity. The most economical way to deliver forest residues was transporting processed stem‐wood from landings to near‐wood BCT sites and comminuting it into woodchips there (~$20/ODMT, assuming a one‐way (32 km) road distance and no cost of BSTP at landings). Grinding slash at the landing and transporting ground‐biomass (i.e., hog fuel) to a plant (< 22 km away) was more economical than transporting bales from landings and grinding at the plant. The economic feasibility of baling and BSTP requires a substantial productivity improvement or recognition and incorporation of benefits including reduced wildfire risk and improved forest health. High bulk density and strong shape of forest residues/slash bales compared to hog fuel may provide additional cost benefits during storage, for example through lower handling costs, which can be studied in the future. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/bbb.1958</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-104X |
ispartof | Biofuels, bioproducts and biorefining, 2019-05, Vol.13 (3), p.514-534 |
issn | 1932-104X 1932-1031 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1613336 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Baling bioenergy Biologically grown products Biomass Biotechnology & Applied Microbiology Bulk density Chip formation Chipping Comminution Cost benefit analysis Costs Drying ovens Econometric models Economic analysis Economic feasibility Economic models Economics Electric power generation Energy & Fuels Feasibility studies Forest residues Forests Fuels Grinding Handling Health risks Industry Landing statistics Logging Logistics Operating costs Organic chemistry Power plants Quality Raw materials Renewable energy Residues Storage Supply chains Wildfires Wood |
title | Economic analysis of forest residues supply chain options to produce enhanced‐quality feedstocks |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T12%3A53%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Economic%20analysis%20of%20forest%20residues%20supply%20chain%20options%20to%20produce%20enhanced%E2%80%90quality%20feedstocks&rft.jtitle=Biofuels,%20bioproducts%20and%20biorefining&rft.au=Sahoo,%20Kamalakanta&rft.aucorp=Humboldt%20State%20Univ.,%20Arcata,%20CA%20(United%20States)&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=514&rft.epage=534&rft.pages=514-534&rft.issn=1932-104X&rft.eissn=1932-1031&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bbb.1958&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_osti_%3E2218078825%3C/proquest_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2218078825&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |