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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

mallee harvester 750,000 10,000 0 10,000 200 hp tractor 213,800 81,800 0 10,000 200 hp tractor 213,800 81,800 0 10,000 shed 150,000 0 0 50,000 service vehicle + fuel trailer 50,000 5,000 0 10,000 rear tip trailer 0 0 0 10,000 rear tip trailer 0 0 0 10,000 Scenario Two: Tipper Bins Scenario two represents a moderate cost system and assumes dedicated 25 tonne capacity infield bins. These bins would haul to the road side and tip into the waiting road transport unit. These side tip bins would be towed behind a tractor, rather than the self-propelled unit shown in Figure 7.2, below. The advantage of this system is the dedicated infield transport units can be specialised for the conditions, with heavy duty axles, rims and tyres to better handle the adverse conditions. This scenario assumes that the 25 m 3 of loaded mallee chip, which will compact and ‘settle’ into the bin due to the vibrations during filling, will be able to be tipped successfully into a 25 m 3 road transport trailer. The tipper bins are additional capital to the road transport equipment and are fully accounted for in the harvest sector. Total system cost is $1,467,600 and is detailed in Table 7.2 Figure 7.2 Side-tip trailer 161
Table 7.2 Scenario two capital equipment Equipment description capital value salvage value equity anticipated use $ $ % hours mallee harvester 750,000 10,000 0 10,000 200 hp tractor 213,800 81,800 0 10,000 200 hp tractor 213,800 81,800 0 10,000 shed 150,000 0 0 50,000 service vehicle + fuel trailer 50,000 5,000 0 10,000 25 tonne side tip haul out 45,000 11,250 0 10,000 25 tonne side tip haul out 45,000 11,250 0 10,000 Scenario Three: Side-tip trailers Scenario three represents a high-efficiency high cost system that utilises modified 40-feet shipping containers and swing-lift or side-lift trailers. These 25 tonne capacity road-haul trailers are taken into the field and are filled directly from the harvester. These bins, represented in figure 7.3, are hauled in field behind a tractor and, once full, are hauled to and uncoupled at the nearest trafficable road. It is assumed that the uncoupling would take fifteen minutes. The containers are modified so that they unload from the side and the roof is open for loading. The container pins on one side of the trailer are modified so that they can pivot. The advantage of this system is unloading time at the factory: the swing-lift is attached to only one side of the container, the side chute on the container is opened and the whole container pivots and unloads at the side. Unloading times for this system would be in the order of fifteen minutes. End-tip trailers, which need to be uncoupled for unloading and then re-coupled, have unload times in the order of one hour. The road transport component already accounts for rear-tip trailers valued at $86 350 each. Thus the additional value of the swing-lift trailers, $89 650, is accounted for in the haul sector, plus the full value of two additional trailers. The total system cost is $1,948,900 and is detailed in Table 7.3 7.3.3 Other Operating Assumptions Elevator pour rate represents the tonnes of product flowing from the machine while it is continuously cutting. A target elevator pour rate of thirty tonnes per hour was used in all scenarios. However, this was varied in one sensitivity analysis using 10, 30, 50 and 70 tonnes per hour. These correspond, at the assumed plant yield of one 50kg tree every 2 metres, to ground speeds of 0.4, 1.2, 2.0 and 2.8 km/h respectively. Harvester cutting speed is assumed to be limited to 3 km/h. Time to turn from one belt into another is estimated using the belt spacing and a tractor acceleration of 0.01 m/s 2 and a maximum ground speed of 25 km/h. Harvesting is assumed to occur in a circuit pattern. It is assumed that two haulouts of twenty-five tonnes capacity are used in all scenarios. Fuel Burn rates, in litres per hour, are included in Figure 7.4. Fuel is costed at $1.40 per litre, which is exclusive of on-road tax. 162
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 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: It was assumed that there was a fif
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?