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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10. Owing to long road transport distances (100km one way) multiple road trailers are required and side loading and side impact deterioration and the product to be produced will dictate allowable delivery delays. tipping appear essential. 12. The current harvester is limited by 11. Appropriate stockpiles will be required to balance supply with processor demand. This is linked to in field operation timing (eg 8hr/day), processor demand (eg available power which impacts pour rate a critical factor in the delivered biomass cost and future prototypes will need to address this. 365/24/7), mechanical failures, the available spare capacity in the supply chain, fire risk conditions in summer, wet weather and ground conditions, and availability of alternative biomass 13. Maneuverability, mobility and associated soil compaction issues will need to be considered in the selection of the tracked or wheeled configuration harvester and in-field transporters. material for the processor. 14. Transport efficiencies may be improved by 12. Biomass spoilage will be influenced by the biomass material itself (eg moisture, leaf content) and product required (eg eucalyptus oil vs bioenergy). This will be seasonally dependent. Product separation leaving residue materials such as bark and twigs behind in the paddock, however separation on the harvester has a low chance of success and will result in a more complex machine design and product losses in field. on delivery (eg chip vs leaves) would improve stockpile management and product differentiation. 15. Harvester pour rate has the largest impact on the cost of harvest and transport. Annual tonnage harvested also has a large effect on 13. Limited information is available on the the cost of harvest spatial distribution of mallee plantings. Some information has been captured in an access database and basic mapping, however this does not provide accurate information on harvestable mallee. 14. An efficient supply chain will not be a response to increasing deregulation or terms of trade but a prerequisite for a new industry. Sugar Industry Mallee Woody Crop Differences/Contrasts Key Issues and Recommendations Industry and Business Structures 1. Sugar industry growers, millers and hauliers are co-dependent and well integrated along supply chain. 2. Profit Centre of sugar industry is the mill supply area. Miller and Grower are jointly dependent on each other. Sugar content deteriorates quickly after harvest. Both miller and grower need to be profitable for economic sustainability. Miller seeks to ensure 1. Mallee industry supply chain is fragmented with growers who see Mallee as non-core business, harvesting contractor (market opportunity still to be justified), and Processor (Energy Company) who may not value Mallee as an important component of energy supply. 2. New commercial opportunities through Mallee production. No history or established relationships or rules of 1. Difficult to get integration along a fragmented supply chain with different “owners” for whom Mallee supply or processing may not be viewed as “core business”. Sugar industry developed around regulation. Rules to manage risk and manage industry participants. Recent deregulation for independent decision on supply contracts but based on a mature viable business structure. 1. Important to get organizations involved in Mallee supply chain to discuss and outline their vision and requirements. 2. The industry has the opportunity of a relatively clean slate to develop appropriate supply arrangements. The imbalance between the processor (established and powerful with alternative supply options) and the grower (for whom Mallee is a secondary income compared with wheat) is an issue. 185
that cane production is the most profitable crop to maximise supply. 3. Millers generally have “ownership” of cane transport via rail supply networks or contracted road transport. 4. Cane transport generally consists of single or limited number of operators ie one transport contract 5. Growers have ownership of harvesting operations via owner operator or contractor. Across industry this is over capitalised 6. Harvesting operations are controlled by the miller to maintain adequate supply ie limited storage potential 7. Harvesting and transport is dictated by cut to crush delay. 8. Costs for harvesting and transport are generally socialised i.e. no difference between farmers. The miller covers the cost of rail transport. A flat rate is charged per tonne. 9. Milling is highly sensitive to local cane supply. 10. The sugar industry developed from a very regulated industry. 11. Sugar industry is largely based around raw sugar production with recent efforts into whole cane harvesting for co-generation being unsuccessful. engagement 3. There is an expectation that harvesting and transport will be driven by third parties i.e. broker Mallee supply 4. Power generation companies do not have agricultural context. They do not want to have to deal with multiple farmer suppliers. 5. Industry based on large number of small resource owners will be complex to manage. 6. Mallee industry transport will be most likely road based. Possibly an existing prime mover contractor with specialised trailers, or transport and harvesting could be jointly owned, as is common in forestry systems. 7. Harvesting operations unlikely to be individual grower owned. If owned by processor or independent contractor best interests of farm production systems are not always met unless payment and penalty systems apply. Grower cooperative systems may provide better model. 8. Harvested Mallee may have greater storage periods and harvesting and processing may not be as sensitive as sugar to cut to process delays. 9. Traditional grain based and wood chip transport systems are costed on haulage distance and it is likely that mallee will be the same. 10. Limited understanding of seasonal production and source of supply. 11. Mallee is more likely to have multiple product streams. 2. Harvesting / Transport responsibilities need to be clarified in mallee. 3. Potentially multiple transport players depending on who takes responsibility ie grower vs energy company 4. Opportunity to implement optimised supply chain arrangements as opposed to optimising existing structures 5. Harvest scheduling may not be as critical for mallee since harvest to process delays will not compromise quality as much as in sugar and short term stockpiling is possible. 6. May be able to store the material longer before processing. Can’t store the whole-tree biomass for more than 4-5 days due to risk of spontaneous combustion. 7. Harvesting and transport costs will be at growers expense, either directly (contractor is engaged by the farmers), or indirectly (the biomass value is determined primarily by the biomass processor, who engages the harvest and transport contractor, and farmers are paid the remainder as stumpage for the standing mallee). 8. Energy companies don’t appear to be as engaged with crop production in mallee as sugar millers are in cane. 9. Potentially multiple product streams from Mallee, leading to conflicting handling requirements. 3. There is a catch 22 with farmers unlikely to plant mallee without a commercial incentive and processors unlikely to invest without a secure supply. 4. Need for an intermediate entity to occupy space between 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. 5. Processor is unlikely to purchase mallee production land or lease mallee strips due to focused business interests and complicated business arrangements. 6. Consideration needs to be given to the need for a growers’ commercial representative, similar to the role of the former Oil Mallee Company. 7. Streamlining harvest and transport costs will require coordination at processing end. 8. Single operator for harvesting and transport most likely. 9. The scale of the operation would initially be very small, a couple of harvesters. This increases the risk of supply breaks. 10. Seasonal Mallee supply will need to be accurately determined to manage harvesting and processing although daily scheduling may not be as sensitive as sugar. 11. Clarity of likely product streams and implications for cut to processing delay. 12. Industry development will be driven by who values the product most. 13. Energy companies will need to take an interest in farm based production issues, even though they are unlikely to be interested in trading in biomass. 14. Needs to be a large scale resource to build the business around into which small scale mallee producers can feed material. 15. Long term contracts may be required to guarantee supply and attract farmers to grow the biomass. 16. Need to understand different criteria for raw material handling depending on use. 17. Payment systems and business structures vary in sugar cane and provide a range of models from which a new mallee industry will 186
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 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 transport conditions. Billet le
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?