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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The “high value” products are potentially most useful in the “development” phase of an industry, however they will not be a significant component of an industry of the size envisaged. An example of a high value utilisation strategy for a limited industry size could include: • Harvest and post-harvest component separation. It is assumed that the leaf and twig material would be separated at the processing site. • Oil extraction from the leaf material, with a moderately low value of $4/kg for the extracted oil. • Solar drying of the leaf and twig material as a thin layer. • Utilisation of the woodchip and leaf material in a biomass furnace of appropriate design for process heat and electricity generation. The nominal value of the components could be: • Oil from leaf and twig @ $4/kg: This gives a value to the separated leaf and twig material of approximately $57/t freshweight, or approximately $34/t freshweight of the total material harvested (leaf & twig : 60% of weight). • Electricity, local ORC at grid displacement cost of $200/MW hr, giving a whole tree freshweight value of $90/ton, and assuming that the leaf component is being used and its moisture content has been reduced to no greater than fresh moisture content, and; • Local thermal (hot water & steam) for process applications: assuming only 40% of the energy in the waste heat streams is captured utilized (approximately 30% overall heat recovery and utilization), and that this heat displaces LPG, the value of the total product will be $60/t on a freshweight basis. The tree value for this scenario would be in the order of $185/t. While this may be possible in a small scale industry, this would not be considered a potential scenario for a larger industry. The cost pressures on an industry which attempts to expand will be significant because of reducing product values, however strategic combination of components, along with reductions in cost will clearly be the only viable strategy. A large scale operation in the future may involve: • Harvest and post-harvest separation of components at a nearby nodal point. • Oil extraction from the leaf, drying and densification of the leaf. • Transport of densified leaf and woodchip material separately to centralised facilities where processes such as the metallurgical charcoal and bio-crude of synthesised diesel are produced. Significantly, initial indications are that the technologies being developed for the production of synthesised diesel would appear to be suited for moderate size facilities which could be decentralised. If not, the model being investigated by the Sugar industry involves the production of bio-crude and transport this higher value product to major centralised facilities (Hobson, pers com, 2011). This scenario could result in gross product values in the order of: • Oil from leaf @ $2/kg $12/t freshweight (FW) on whole tree basis. • Metallurgical Charcoal $45/t, whole tree FW with solar drying of leaf, and: • Synthesised Diesel $46/t FW assuming 50% recovery of chemical energy in gas stream from the charcoal process. This would give a total feedstock value in the order of $103/t, with reduced oil recovery efficiency because of the production of metallurgical charcoal. Alternatively the local recovery of oil from leaf and twig material, followed by the utilisation of all feedstock for synthesised oil production, 119
• Oil from leaf @ $2/kg • Synthesised Diesel $12/t freshweight on whole tree basis. $94/t fresh weight of whole tree biomass. This scenario also indicates tree freshweight values in the order of $106/tonne, freshweight, this will however involve transport to major regional processing centres, and associated transport costs. A prerequisite requirement would be a reduction is harvesting costs relative to current anticipated values. Whilst the value of the oil extracted from the leaf material is low, considerations include: • The leaf and twig material has been processed through the harvester, and the only additional cost is the transport cost to a nodal point. • After processing (leaf separation and oil extraction) at a nodal point, the value of the leaf material is increased, and the product can be densified, e.g baled. • Separation of the leaf material on the harvester would result in a significant loss of woodchip product in the field, and this strategy is unlikely to give the highest overall returns. The use of woodchip as a co-fuel in coal fired power stations represents a single use, with relatively low value. It is difficult to envisage this being a major market for mallee, because of the inherent cost associated with transport of the product to site. Table 4.10 Summary of value of recoverable/deliverable components. Product: Product Value Tree Component Extraction Cost Product Value Product yield/ t Freshweight (FW) Value/t FW Co-product Value Mallee Oil $10.00 /kg Leaf & Twig $0.84 /kg $ 9.16 /kg 18 kg/t $165 Woodchip $2.00 /kg Leaf & Twig $0.84 /kg $ 1.16 /kg 18 kg/t $ 21 plus wet extracted leaf & twig Activated Charcoal $3.00 /kg woodchip $0.50 / kg $ 2.50 /kg 41 kg/t $103 App 80% of initial energy as heat + syngas Metalurgical Charcoal $198 /t whole tree $25.00 /t $173.00 /t 210 kg/t $ 36- $54 App 50% of initial energy as heat + syngas Bio Char (Industrial) Bio Char (Sequestration) $500 /t whole tree $25 /t $475.00 /t 290 kg/t $138 App 60% of initial energy as heat + syngas $50 /tCO2 whole tree $25 /t 158.33 /t 290 kg/t $46 App 60% of initial energy as heat + syngas Synthetic Diesel $0.90 $/l whole tree $0.20 /l $ 0.70 /l 134 l/t $94 Negligible Local Thermal (LPG) Local Thermal (Diesel) $19.15 $/GJ whole tree Relative Efficiency $23.81 $/GJ whole tree Relative Efficiency 75% $ 14.36 10.00 GJ/t $144 Negligible 85% $ 20.24 10.00 GJ/t $202 Grid Electricity $80 MWhr whole tree $72 /MW hr Local Grid $200 MW hr Whole tree $200 /MW hr 3.04 GJ/t $61 Negligible 2.02 GJ/t $90 120
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 and 120: Figure 3.15 shows an example of the
Page 121 and 122: Road distance one way < 20 km 70 km
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: Table 4.9 presents an estimation of
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?