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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• The mallee biomass industry has opportunity to implement new optimised supply chain arrangements rather than optimising existing structures as was required in the sugar industry. • Harvest scheduling may not be as critical for mallee biomass since harvest to process delays will not compromise quality as much as in sugar and short term stockpiling is possible, however further research on storage losses is required. • Harvesting and transport costs are likely to be at the growers’ expense, either directly when a contractor is engaged by the farmers, or indirectly when the biomass value is determined by the biomass processor, who engages the harvest and transport contractor, and pays the farmers an amount for the standing mallee. • Mallee biomass processor companies are unlikely to be as engaged with crop production, harvesting and transport matters as sugar millers are in cane. • Multiple product streams from mallee biomass will introduce complexity into supply chain management requirements. Biomass processing, supply chain planning and economic and market consideration • Sugar mills have developed sophisticated sugar extraction processing capability over many years. New by-products and processing requirements are in many cases complementary to sugar extraction technologies. • The development of a viable industry based on mallee biomass cannot happen overnight or on the back of current products such as the boutique oil industry. A number of local options exist which can offer very attractive markets for limited production quantities. Such markets include local thermal for abattoirs and feed milling, and local electricity particularly for use by local industry where the cost of supply of sufficient capacity from the grid would be prohibitive. As the industry expands, most significant potential market will probably involve emerging technologies such as liquid fuels via pyrolysis. • The sugar value chain is well developed and has committed stakeholders who are fully dependant on one another. The bioenergy value chain is less developed and has competing supply products. • The sugar miller has good understanding of the producer’s needs and many sugar millers also have sugarcane growing operations which are used to manage supply risk particularly early in the harvest season when sucrose values are low and farmers are generally unwilling to supply cane. • Energy markets will generally see the biomass supply as a commodity and have no interest in becoming involved in supply chain planning and management. • The sugar industry growing sectors have some influence on price paid for cane (through their representing bodies (Canegrowers)) and in some regions are rewarded through the pricing mechanism for good quality cane. • In the mallee industry producers are likely to be price takers in the electrical energy market where price is determined by substitute products. In thermal energy markets, LPG is the preferred energy source due to high electrical transmission costs and poor conversion to heat energy. While these markets are more localised and moderate in size, larger margins in the thermal market allow mallee suppliers more room for negotiation. • There is no trading commercial representation of mallee producer interests. A mechanism to establish a market related price accounting for quality of mallee biomass will be important. • Better economies of scale are required for the mallee biomass industry through appropriate business structures such as cooperatives, joint ventures and consortia. Implications for relevant stakeholders Important overall implications include: • The development of a long term viable mallee biomass industry can be driven by actively targeting small but potentially highly profitable niche markets in the short term, and supporting these to further develop the technology envisaged for a larger scale industry. xviii
• As the Industry expands, the most significant potential markets will probably involve emerging technologies such as liquid fuels via pyrolysis. Initial process and oil extraction could be undertaken at nodal points, with “value added” product forwarded to the major centres. • Apart from continuing development of harvesting technology, the components in a full scale industry must be further developed. This will involve further analysis of potential product streams and the opportunities for maximising the synergies from the production of different products. • Block plantings close to a processor will be important for large scale industry development. • Mallee harvesting and transport costs are expected to be 3-4 times that for sugarcane. With increased production volumes and higher delivery rates this could drop to twice that of current sugarcane harvesting and transport costs. New field layouts and increased harvester performance need to be considered to reduce these costs. • There is a need for an intermediate entity to occupy the space between the grower and processor and make a business of a profitable supply chain. Neither the grower nor the processor has a real interest in the supply chain. • Long term contracts will be required to guarantee supply and attract appropriate investment in biomass production. • Accurate information on the distribution and availability of biomass material will need to be collated and maintained. These implications are discussed in greater detail in the recommendations below. Recommendations The participants in the mallee woody crop supply chain are many and varied. The key issues and recommendations provided in this report will assist all participants in realising a sustainable supply chain. An important next step will be implementation of appropriate recommendations to support implementation of a regional biomass supply chain. Opportunities for this include Narrogin (Western Australia), NSW as part of the Delta/Aurora research biomass project and Northern NSW as part of the NSW Sugar Milling cooperatives cogeneration initiative. Key Issues and recommendations for crop-biomass production and field layout are identified below. xix
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: • Biomass production potential of
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 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?