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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Forced to make financial concessions in the implementation of the cogeneration plant, preliminary trials indicated that it would be feasible for the mill to handle the whole crop with a relatively minor reduction in performance (i.e. recoverable sugar). The experience in practice was significantly different with a higher percentage of unrecoverable sugar losses and significantly lower crushing rate. Similarly preliminary trials had indicated that bulk densities could be achieved so that multi-lift bins could reach their mass limits (i.e. 22.5 tonnes). In practice bin weights were between 15 – 18 tonnes. Sunshine sugar is currently investigating the development of a trash separation plant and methods to increase the bulk density of cane bins through whole of crop harvesting. Cane supply arrangements: The NSW Sugar Milling Cooperative has a 5 year contract / cane supply agreement known as a Memorandum of Agreement. The price growers receive reflects the raw sugar price (which is influenced by the local sale of raw sugar for refinement) and other adjustments / returns from ownership of milling operations. Potential disputes between the distribution of funds between the miller and the grower is somewhat minimised through the cooperative ownership of the mills. Transport Overview: Cane supply is transported to the mill from or near farm by multi-lift bins and semitrailers. In 2007 a new road transport system was implemented to facilitate whole of crop harvesting. This included super trailers and super sized multi-lift bins (90 cubic metre capacity) fitted with autotarping systems. Since the implementation of the new transport system the mill has reverted back from whole of crop harvesting due to processing issues discussed. A key factor determining the overall feasibility of the initiative was the increased transport costs due to maximum bin weights of 15-18 tonnes (compared to mass limits of 22.5 tonnes) that could be achieved. Road Transport Trucks (source: Sunshine Sugar) Ownership: Sunshine Sugar leases a fleet of 31 trucks (13 trucks service Broadwater Mill) that primarily operate during the sugarcane harvest season. The cooperative effectively owns (i.e. will have ownership of trailers and bins at the end of the current transport contract) and maintains the multi-lift bins and multi-lift semitrailers used for transporting sugarcane to the mill. Given transport equipment is utilised over a period of 6 months (June – November), to better utilise this equipment during the non crushing period is being investigated. Options include the local handling of wood based biomass material. Logistics: The crushing rate of the mill is adjusted continuously to match the supply of cane delivered to the mill. Trucks are managed and coordinated from the mill via a computerised scheduling system (FREDD). An optimum delivery schedule equates to an average return interval of trucks every 52 minutes. The logistics surrounding transport and cane supply are primarily based on time over distance. Where additional woodchip has been sourced locally better efficiencies have been achieved 135
with super size multi-lift bins over B-double trailers. Harvesting Overview: . In NSW crops are generally harvested every 2 years. Harvesters and haul out equipment is setup for extremely wet weather harvesting conditions (see below). The NSW sugarcane industry claim to have highly efficient harvesting systems. Sugarcane harvesters cut and load into infield transporters (haul outs) which transport cane to pads on or near the farm and either tip or elevate cane into Multi-lift bins. These bins are then transported to the mill by road There are currently 4 harvesting cooperatives in the Broadwater mill area which operates 7 harvesters. The harvesting sector in NSW has undergone significant rationalisation in recent times with harvesters cutting in excess of 80,000 tonnes per year compared to an industry average of less than 40,000 tonnes. The sector recognises that further rationalisation is achievable with an optimum of 100,000 tonnes per harvester (per year) targeted to maintain cost competitiveness. Harvester & Buggy (source: Sunshine Sugar) Transferring cane from buggy to bin for transport by road (source: Sunshine Sugar) Ownership: Harvesting is conducted by grower owned harvesting cooperatives / partnerships. Each harvesting co-op is managed by an operations manager who is responsible for general management of the harvesting equipment including repairs, maintenance and replacement. The operations manager also oversees the daily harvesting operations. The harvesting cooperative is operated as a single sustainable business unit. Payment and Costs: Harvesting is contracted on the basis of a fixed price per tonne of cane delivered to multi-lift transport bins located on / near the farm. Some increase in harvesting costs may be negotiated on an individual basis where harvesting costs are likely to be significantly more than the basic fixed cost. Typical examples include fields that are poorly presented for mechanical harvesting such as short rows, narrow and difficult to navigate headlands. Penalties / Performance Criteria: There are no criteria in place for assessing cane quality and harvester performance (and therefore no penalties). There is however a bonus / penalty scheme based on appropriate bin weights. Growing Overview: The NSW sugar industry largely comprises of small privately owned farming enterprises with an average size of 60 Ha. Each farm harvests around half the cultivated area every year given the majority of the NSW sugar industry operates on a two year cropping cycle. Three quarters of the region’s farms yield less than 5,000 tonnes per year, the balance between 5,000 and 15,000 tonnes, with only a handful of farms producing more than 15,000 tonnes annually (Sunshine Sugar, 2005). 136
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 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: Sugar Industry Illustrative Example
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?