Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

More documents

Recommendations

Info

There is little published data on road transport costs of sugarcane. Data provided by industry indicates that the average cost of transporting cane to the mill in NSW is about $5.00 to $7.00 per tonne. The trucking distances are relatively short with an average trucking distance from pad to mill in NSW about 27 km one way. In the Broadwater mill region the longest trip would be about 100 km one way. Mallee System Due to the geographic spread of mallee plantings, the average trucking distance to the processing plant would be in excess of 100km. It is assumed that with development of the industry and greater concentration of the resource with new planting, the average distance will decrease, but for several years the industry will need to begin operations with the longer transport horizon. Yu et al. (2009) estimated a road transport rate of woody chips of approximately $0.10 per green tonne per km which was confirmed by several professional truck drivers in the wheatbelt for their modelling. Recent communication with grain transport companies have confirmed 2011 prices in the range of $0.10 to $0.12 per tonne per kilometre for distances in excess of 100km one way. An important characteristic of grain transport is that the road trains do not normally need to be broken up for loading or unloading, so terminal times are short. The product most like whole tree biomass, wood chip, is an expensive product to transport compared to grain. The industry standard cost is $0.17 to $0.18 per tonne per kilometre for pulp wood chip and the difference from grain is due to the terminal time imposed upon wood chip transport by other characteristics of the supply chain and historical factors. Loading of chip trucks at the roadside is typically done by the chipper, as shown in Figure 3.14, and a large chipper normally takes about 40-50 minutes to load a road train. Because the chipper is the most expensive machine in the system (commonly about $800 per hour), there is often a small queue of trucks at the chipper to ensure it is operating as continuously as possible. Unloading over the rear by tipping or walking floors is the industry standard for wood chip and the delivery points at ports are all set up for rear discharge trailers. Tipping can be either tipping trailers or whole-truck tippers. No transport contractor is able to adopt side tipping because there are no suitable side-delivery pits – a similar situation to that noted in relation to the sugar mills in NSW in section 3.3.1. With two trailers, observations at a number of sites confirm that uncoupling and reassembling road trains, plus separate tipping of each trailer, takes about 40 minutes. Shorter times can be achieved with whole truck tippers if there is an attendant on hand to assist in uncoupling/recoupling the rear trailer, but this system can only be justified by high volumes of deliveries, for example at a chip export port facility. In the case of mallee, margins will be relatively small, so chasing cost savings of only $2-$3 per tonne is important, and there is the opportunity to start with a blank slate and avoid historical constraints. Side loading is essential and if a containerised system is adopted this should be achievable with swing-lift trailers. Unloading by side tipping should also be feasible with the same swing-lift mechanism but it is essential that any biomass receival point be equipped with ramps and pits suitable for side-tip deliveries. This does not exclude rear-tip deliveries at the same facilities. Assuming short terminal times of 20 minutes each for loading and unloading, and referring to actual contract prices from a range of transport operators, estimates have been modelled and are presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 Costs of road transport of mallee biomass with side loading and unloading 97
Road distance one way < 20 km 70 km 140 km Radial distance from destination 15 km 50 km 100 km Cost per green tonne $5 $10 $15 3.3.5 Discussion A practical and economic road transport configuration will need to be developed for the mallee system. Compatibility with the infield system and unloading systems will need to be considered. Actual costs of road transport of mallee are unknown and estimates have been made based upon actual contract costs from a range of sources. Product bulk density will need to be maximised to minimise road transport costs, but if the biomass is not agitated, it is anticipated that bulk density will be sufficient to achieve full mass loads. The value of mallee biomass is low and it cannot sustain the high transport costs observed in wood chip transport operations. 3.4 Transport Performance 3.4.1 Losses Sugar System The losses from infield transport is predominantly that lost as spillage either from misalignment between the harvester and haulout, overtopping of the bin when full and spillage during transfer of product from the infield haulout to the mill transport bin (road or rail). There is limited data on the volume of losses from these processes. However, a number of side tipping trailers do have an apron which is lowered onto the rail bin during unloading to funnel material and minimise spillage during transfer. Mallee System Losses will be minimal if a system without bin-to-bin tipping is implemented. Misalignment of the harvester and haulout will see some losses, and strong wind may see some loss of finer fractions of the biomass. Making the harvester and possibly the haulouts autosteer will enable operators to concentrate on the relative positions of the machinery and alignment of the harvester chute. 3.4.2 Real-time monitoring systems Sugar System Performance monitoring of cane haulouts is very minimal. It is limited to condition analysis of the mechanical components such as the engine and hydraulic circuitry of the power plant. For example engine hours, engine speed, oil temp and hydraulic oil level, temperature. However, the capability of performance monitoring is increasing in tractor drawn machines with the advances in tractor electronic monitoring systems. 98
Page 1 and 2:
Sustainable Biomass Supply Chain fo
Page 3 and 4:
Foreword This report provides an as
Page 5 and 6:
include business development (new p
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgments The authors would l
Page 9 and 10:
4.1 Product Options and Supply Chai
Page 11 and 12:
Table 4.2 Assessment of current val
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3.4 Tracked rigid self-prope
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary What the report i
Page 17 and 18:
• Biomass production potential of
Page 19 and 20:
• As the Industry expands, the mo
Page 21 and 22:
Harvesting, transport and storage s
Page 23 and 24:
Biomass processing, supply chain pl
Page 25 and 26:
Key barriers to biomass industries
Page 27 and 28:
Crop-Biomass Production Production
Page 29 and 30:
Figure 1.1 The cropping and pasture
Page 31 and 32:
Table 1.1 Mallee species used for p
Page 33 and 34:
1.1.4 Growth Cycle Mallee System Ma
Page 35 and 36:
northern New South Wales (where it
Page 37 and 38:
Almost 80% of the industry now cuts
Page 39 and 40:
Bark has relatively high ash but as
Page 41 and 42:
Carbon sinks Planting of mallees to
Page 43 and 44:
Table 1.5(a) State Land area devote
Page 45 and 46:
out the fluctuations in farm income
Page 47 and 48:
Mallee system Most of the mallee bi
Page 49 and 50:
inconclusive result may have been d
Page 51 and 52:
For a sustainable woody crop indust
Page 53 and 54:
changed significantly since they we
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 2.2 Biosystems Engineering p
Page 57 and 58:
Whole-of-crop harvesting represents
Page 59 and 60:
During the last decade the harvesti
Page 61 and 62:
single row, as this would improve t
Page 63 and 64:
2.2.2.2 Weight Sugar System The Aus
Page 65 and 66:
Table 2.1 Harvester Comparison Tabl
Page 67 and 68:
The quality of cut may be less impo
Page 69 and 70: ate than a 170 tonne/ha crop of sta
Page 71 and 72: Dry Leaf 6.1 - 3.5 17.0 58.9 53.2 T
Page 73 and 74: Bulk density will be a key consider
Page 75 and 76: Table 2.4 EM levels in cane supply
Page 77 and 78: L/T L/T 60 0.97 0.71 80 0.92 0.66 1
Page 79 and 80: Total 7.5-26 16.5 Mallee System The
Page 81 and 82: • waiting for mill delivery of em
Page 83 and 84: perhaps at 10 - 20 km intervals. Th
Page 85 and 86: transport arrangements, harvest gro
Page 87 and 88: contractors and growers, and the fa
Page 89 and 90: experience of the sugar industry wi
Page 91 and 92: Table 2.11 Alternative harvest paym
Page 93 and 94: onto the harvester. BR+F still send
Page 95 and 96: Repairs and maintenance 2.10 Capita
Page 97 and 98: Figure 2.14 and Table 2.14 describe
Page 99 and 100: Sichter et al. (2005)), harvest and
Page 101 and 102: Transport efficiencies may be possi
Page 103 and 104: 3. Transport and Storage Systems Tr
Page 105 and 106: same time, the potential problems o
Page 107 and 108: Figure 3.3 Articulated self-propell
Page 109 and 110: • The harvester will not have any
Page 111 and 112: Figure 3.7 Gross mass compared with
Page 113 and 114: external factors dramatically impac
Page 115 and 116: Figure 3.11 The effect of haulout t
Page 117 and 118: 3.3 Road Transport 3.3.1 Configurat
Page 119: Figure 3.15 shows an example of the
Page 123 and 124: Haul distance is largely outside th
Page 125 and 126: 3.6 Recommendations The nature of t
Page 127 and 128: • The strategy offered lower tota
Page 129 and 130: sugarcane billets are such that wit
Page 131 and 132: • Transfer the whole tree product
Page 133 and 134: Figure 4.5(b) Energy balance of con
Page 135 and 136: 2010). Table 4.2 presents a summary
Page 137 and 138: 4.4.2 Activated charcoal Activated
Page 139 and 140: Nett Product Value ($/t) $475.00 $
Page 141 and 142: Table 4.9 presents an estimation of
Page 143 and 144: • Oil from leaf @ $2/kg • Synth
Page 145 and 146: • The mallee oil would be extract
Page 147 and 148: 5. Industry and Business Structures
Page 149 and 150: is conducted into tariff levels on
Page 151 and 152: Bx is % brix in first expressed jui
Page 153 and 154: Hildebrand (2002) estimated that th
Page 155 and 156: also has a flow on effect to the sp
Page 157 and 158: Sugar Industry Illustrative Example
Page 159 and 160: with super size multi-lift bins ove
Page 161 and 162: farmer vs. harvester) is the next l
Page 163 and 164: 6. Supply Chain Planning and Manage
Page 165 and 166: Figure 6.1 Building blocks of the s
Page 167 and 168: weighed against the costs of operat
Page 169 and 170: • There is close contact between
Page 171 and 172:
6.4 Planning, Management Tools and
Page 173 and 174:
• Harvest and transport logistics
Page 175 and 176:
interface. The system allows users
Page 177 and 178:
Case Study 6.2 - Model Application
Page 179 and 180:
Relationships between sectors and p
Page 181 and 182:
7. Supply Chain Modelling and Econo
Page 183 and 184:
It was assumed that there was a fif
Page 185 and 186:
Table 7.2 Scenario two capital equi
Page 187 and 188:
Table 7.4 Fuel burn rates harvester
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 7.5 Effect of capital equipm
Page 191 and 192:
Figure 7.7 Effect of annual tonnes
Page 193 and 194:
30 1.8 7.0 12.3 17.5 50 1.1 4.3 7.6
Page 195 and 196:
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 197 and 198:
Biomass bulk density has a large im
Page 199 and 200:
Vehicles used for infield haulout w
Page 201 and 202:
This can be compared with harvest a
Page 203 and 204:
While diversification can add value
Page 205 and 206:
Appendix 1: Comparative Assessment
Page 207 and 208:
and transport conditions. Billet le
Page 209 and 210:
that cane production is the most pr
Page 211 and 212:
on sugar only, other proceeds (mola
Page 213 and 214:
References Agnew, J 2002. A Partici
Page 215 and 216:
Enecon 2001. Integrated Tree Proces
Page 217 and 218:
Keating, BA, Antony, G, Brennan, LE
Page 219 and 220:
Ridge, DR and Linedale, AL, 1997. T
Page 221:
Willcox, T, Hussey, B, Chapple, D a
show all

Download (4Mb) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern Queensland

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?