A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada

The burning of wood for bioenergy produces significant amounts of ash residue that requires disposal. We constructed a cost model to evaluate the unit costs of three ash disposal methods in the Canadian context: landfills owned and operated by the bioenergy facility, municipal landfills, and forest...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Canadian journal of forest research 2017-09, Vol.47 (9), p.1222-1231
Hauptverfasser: Hope, Emily S, McKenney, Daniel W, Allen, Darren J, Pedlar, John H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1231
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1222
container_title Canadian journal of forest research
container_volume 47
creator Hope, Emily S
McKenney, Daniel W
Allen, Darren J
Pedlar, John H
description The burning of wood for bioenergy produces significant amounts of ash residue that requires disposal. We constructed a cost model to evaluate the unit costs of three ash disposal methods in the Canadian context: landfills owned and operated by the bioenergy facility, municipal landfills, and forest site application. The model accounts for costs related to the pretreatment, transportation, and disposal of ash at a landfill or forest site. Model parameter values were assigned appropriate distributions (based on published literature and industry surveys), and Monte Carlo simulations were employed to produce a range of model outputs for each disposal option. Results indicate that existing landfills (if available for ash disposal) are likely the most cost-effective option (median value of $77 per tonne), although applying ash to a forest site is only ∼15%–20% more costly (median value of $92 per tonne). Indeed, the unit cost estimates across disposal options have considerable overlap. This suggests that close examination of firm-specific circumstances is highly warranted when choosing a disposal approach, even in the absence of accounting for potential environmental benefits associated with forest site disposal of ash.
doi_str_mv 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0524
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1942671044</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A503943026</galeid><sourcerecordid>A503943026</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-71c279561f3718d28e9af901ac083b8031c2e2dea39250ad913dac0b966928543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVkkFrGzEQRkVJIW7aa86iPfWgZCTtaldHY5I2EBJI0rOQtVpHZr3aaNYQ__tocQ4xGErQYUDz3jADHyHnHC44l_rSrdvEBHDFoBTFFzLjAmqmQFYnZAZQlKwEVZ2Sb4hrAJBKwoxczamLOFLb226HAWls6TJE3_u02rHVVO3oG2rxmTYBh4i2o3EYQ-yRhp4ustjY7-Rrazv0P97rGfl3ffW0-Mtu7__cLOa3zJWFHlnFnah0qXgrK143ovbathq4dVDLZQ0y971ovJValGAbzWWTe0utlBZ1Wcgz8ms_d0jxZetxNOu4TXl1NFwXQlUcig_UynbehL6NY7JuE9CZeQlSFxKEyhQ7Qu0v7mLv25C_D_ifR3g3hBfzEbo4AuXX-E1wR6f-PhAyM_rXcWW3iObm8eET7N0h-76ISxEx-dYMKWxs2hkOZoqLmeJipriYKS5Z4HuhTy559Da55_85b5tIvKw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1942671044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hope, Emily S ; McKenney, Daniel W ; Allen, Darren J ; Pedlar, John H</creator><creatorcontrib>Hope, Emily S ; McKenney, Daniel W ; Allen, Darren J ; Pedlar, John H</creatorcontrib><description>The burning of wood for bioenergy produces significant amounts of ash residue that requires disposal. We constructed a cost model to evaluate the unit costs of three ash disposal methods in the Canadian context: landfills owned and operated by the bioenergy facility, municipal landfills, and forest site application. The model accounts for costs related to the pretreatment, transportation, and disposal of ash at a landfill or forest site. Model parameter values were assigned appropriate distributions (based on published literature and industry surveys), and Monte Carlo simulations were employed to produce a range of model outputs for each disposal option. Results indicate that existing landfills (if available for ash disposal) are likely the most cost-effective option (median value of $77 per tonne), although applying ash to a forest site is only ∼15%–20% more costly (median value of $92 per tonne). Indeed, the unit cost estimates across disposal options have considerable overlap. This suggests that close examination of firm-specific circumstances is highly warranted when choosing a disposal approach, even in the absence of accounting for potential environmental benefits associated with forest site disposal of ash.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0045-5067</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1208-6037</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2016-0524</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ottawa: NRC Research Press</publisher><subject>Alternative energy ; Ash ; Ashes ; Biomass ; Burning ; Canada ; comparaison des coûts ; Computer simulation ; Construction costs ; Cost analysis ; cost comparison ; Cost estimates ; Electric power generation ; Environmental aspects ; forest application ; Forest dynamics ; Forests ; Landfill ; landfill disposal ; Landfills ; Monte Carlo simulation ; Municipal landfills ; Observations ; Pretreatment ; Renewable energy ; site d’enfouissement ; Studies ; Waste disposal ; Waste disposal sites ; Wood ; wood ash disposal ; élimination de la cendre de bois ; épandage en forêt</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of forest research, 2017-09, Vol.47 (9), p.1222-1231</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 NRC Research Press</rights><rights>Copyright Canadian Science Publishing NRC Research Press Sep 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-71c279561f3718d28e9af901ac083b8031c2e2dea39250ad913dac0b966928543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-71c279561f3718d28e9af901ac083b8031c2e2dea39250ad913dac0b966928543</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hope, Emily S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenney, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Darren J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedlar, John H</creatorcontrib><title>A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada</title><title>Canadian journal of forest research</title><description>The burning of wood for bioenergy produces significant amounts of ash residue that requires disposal. We constructed a cost model to evaluate the unit costs of three ash disposal methods in the Canadian context: landfills owned and operated by the bioenergy facility, municipal landfills, and forest site application. The model accounts for costs related to the pretreatment, transportation, and disposal of ash at a landfill or forest site. Model parameter values were assigned appropriate distributions (based on published literature and industry surveys), and Monte Carlo simulations were employed to produce a range of model outputs for each disposal option. Results indicate that existing landfills (if available for ash disposal) are likely the most cost-effective option (median value of $77 per tonne), although applying ash to a forest site is only ∼15%–20% more costly (median value of $92 per tonne). Indeed, the unit cost estimates across disposal options have considerable overlap. This suggests that close examination of firm-specific circumstances is highly warranted when choosing a disposal approach, even in the absence of accounting for potential environmental benefits associated with forest site disposal of ash.</description><subject>Alternative energy</subject><subject>Ash</subject><subject>Ashes</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Burning</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>comparaison des coûts</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Construction costs</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>cost comparison</subject><subject>Cost estimates</subject><subject>Electric power generation</subject><subject>Environmental aspects</subject><subject>forest application</subject><subject>Forest dynamics</subject><subject>Forests</subject><subject>Landfill</subject><subject>landfill disposal</subject><subject>Landfills</subject><subject>Monte Carlo simulation</subject><subject>Municipal landfills</subject><subject>Observations</subject><subject>Pretreatment</subject><subject>Renewable energy</subject><subject>site d’enfouissement</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Waste disposal</subject><subject>Waste disposal sites</subject><subject>Wood</subject><subject>wood ash disposal</subject><subject>élimination de la cendre de bois</subject><subject>épandage en forêt</subject><issn>0045-5067</issn><issn>1208-6037</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqVkkFrGzEQRkVJIW7aa86iPfWgZCTtaldHY5I2EBJI0rOQtVpHZr3aaNYQ__tocQ4xGErQYUDz3jADHyHnHC44l_rSrdvEBHDFoBTFFzLjAmqmQFYnZAZQlKwEVZ2Sb4hrAJBKwoxczamLOFLb226HAWls6TJE3_u02rHVVO3oG2rxmTYBh4i2o3EYQ-yRhp4ustjY7-Rrazv0P97rGfl3ffW0-Mtu7__cLOa3zJWFHlnFnah0qXgrK143ovbathq4dVDLZQ0y971ovJValGAbzWWTe0utlBZ1Wcgz8ms_d0jxZetxNOu4TXl1NFwXQlUcig_UynbehL6NY7JuE9CZeQlSFxKEyhQ7Qu0v7mLv25C_D_ifR3g3hBfzEbo4AuXX-E1wR6f-PhAyM_rXcWW3iObm8eET7N0h-76ISxEx-dYMKWxs2hkOZoqLmeJipriYKS5Z4HuhTy559Da55_85b5tIvKw</recordid><startdate>20170901</startdate><enddate>20170901</enddate><creator>Hope, Emily S</creator><creator>McKenney, Daniel W</creator><creator>Allen, Darren J</creator><creator>Pedlar, John H</creator><general>NRC Research Press</general><general>Canadian Science Publishing NRC Research Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170901</creationdate><title>A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada</title><author>Hope, Emily S ; McKenney, Daniel W ; Allen, Darren J ; Pedlar, John H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c549t-71c279561f3718d28e9af901ac083b8031c2e2dea39250ad913dac0b966928543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Alternative energy</topic><topic>Ash</topic><topic>Ashes</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Burning</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>comparaison des coûts</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Construction costs</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>cost comparison</topic><topic>Cost estimates</topic><topic>Electric power generation</topic><topic>Environmental aspects</topic><topic>forest application</topic><topic>Forest dynamics</topic><topic>Forests</topic><topic>Landfill</topic><topic>landfill disposal</topic><topic>Landfills</topic><topic>Monte Carlo simulation</topic><topic>Municipal landfills</topic><topic>Observations</topic><topic>Pretreatment</topic><topic>Renewable energy</topic><topic>site d’enfouissement</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Waste disposal</topic><topic>Waste disposal sites</topic><topic>Wood</topic><topic>wood ash disposal</topic><topic>élimination de la cendre de bois</topic><topic>épandage en forêt</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hope, Emily S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKenney, Daniel W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Darren J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedlar, John H</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of forest research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hope, Emily S</au><au>McKenney, Daniel W</au><au>Allen, Darren J</au><au>Pedlar, John H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of forest research</jtitle><date>2017-09-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1222</spage><epage>1231</epage><pages>1222-1231</pages><issn>0045-5067</issn><eissn>1208-6037</eissn><abstract>The burning of wood for bioenergy produces significant amounts of ash residue that requires disposal. We constructed a cost model to evaluate the unit costs of three ash disposal methods in the Canadian context: landfills owned and operated by the bioenergy facility, municipal landfills, and forest site application. The model accounts for costs related to the pretreatment, transportation, and disposal of ash at a landfill or forest site. Model parameter values were assigned appropriate distributions (based on published literature and industry surveys), and Monte Carlo simulations were employed to produce a range of model outputs for each disposal option. Results indicate that existing landfills (if available for ash disposal) are likely the most cost-effective option (median value of $77 per tonne), although applying ash to a forest site is only ∼15%–20% more costly (median value of $92 per tonne). Indeed, the unit cost estimates across disposal options have considerable overlap. This suggests that close examination of firm-specific circumstances is highly warranted when choosing a disposal approach, even in the absence of accounting for potential environmental benefits associated with forest site disposal of ash.</abstract><cop>Ottawa</cop><pub>NRC Research Press</pub><doi>10.1139/cjfr-2016-0524</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0045-5067
ispartof Canadian journal of forest research, 2017-09, Vol.47 (9), p.1222-1231
issn 0045-5067
1208-6037
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1942671044
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Alternative energy
Ash
Ashes
Biomass
Burning
Canada
comparaison des coûts
Computer simulation
Construction costs
Cost analysis
cost comparison
Cost estimates
Electric power generation
Environmental aspects
forest application
Forest dynamics
Forests
Landfill
landfill disposal
Landfills
Monte Carlo simulation
Municipal landfills
Observations
Pretreatment
Renewable energy
site d’enfouissement
Studies
Waste disposal
Waste disposal sites
Wood
wood ash disposal
élimination de la cendre de bois
épandage en forêt
title A cost analysis of bioenergy-generated ash disposal options in Canada
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T03%3A24%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20cost%20analysis%20of%20bioenergy-generated%20ash%20disposal%20options%20in%20Canada&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20forest%20research&rft.au=Hope,%20Emily%20S&rft.date=2017-09-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1222&rft.epage=1231&rft.pages=1222-1231&rft.issn=0045-5067&rft.eissn=1208-6037&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0524&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA503943026%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1942671044&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A503943026&rfr_iscdi=true