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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.3.5 Fuel consumption Sugar System Typically, harvester fuel usage is expressed as fuel used, divided by the total tonnes cut over an extended period. A potentially more useful approach is to calculate fuel efficiency as the harvester operates. However, simple calculations of estimated operating fuel consumption versus pour rate result in very low fuel usage figures per tonne harvested, which the industry would consider nonsensically low. The discrepancy is primarily because of the percentage of time the engine is operating but the harvester is not actually processing cane, e.g. when turning at ends of rows, waiting for haulouts with the engine operating etc. The engine size of harvesters has increased from about 240 Hp (176 kW) in the early 1990’s up to 375 Hp (275 kW) in today’s models. The high power availability and hence high fuel usage demand high productivity. This translates into high machine pour rates. In addition, high parasitic losses (e.g. cooling losses, component no load power consumption) reduce overall machine efficiency. Improved machine component-crop interaction (e.g. improved feeding) and minimising weight can reduce the need for high power requirements. The field efficiency or the time sugarcane harvesters are actually processing cane is about 50% of the engine operating hours. Further data on field efficiency is can be found in Section 2.4.3 When turning at ends of rows or for short waits for haulouts, operators typically maintain the engine at full power setting, and throttle back for extended periods when waiting for bins etc. Clearly, factors such as row length, haulout waiting time and a range of external factors dramatically impact on fuel consumption/tonne harvested. Instantaneous fuel consumption allows realistic estimates of relative fuel consumption as key factors such as harvesting mode (burnt, green, shredding and whole-crop) crop size and pour rates change. Willcox et al. (2004) measured the average harvester fuel usage under green cane and burnt cane conditions in the Maryborough, Mackay and Ingham regions in Queensland over a two year period. They measured total fuel used per day and divided it by the total tonnes cut for the day. Table 2.5 shows the effect of crop yield on harvester fuel usage for green and burnt cane conditions. Harvesting crops green consume about 40% more fuel per tonne than harvesting burnt cane due to material processing and cleaning. Whole-of-crop harvesting fuel consumption estimates are about 15-20% higher than required for burnt cane. The increased power to the choppers and basecutters is compensated for by the reduced power for the extractors (Norris et al. 2000). NSWSMC has measured fuel usage of 0.89 L/tonne to 1.19 L/tonne in NSW two-year-old crops (M Inderbitzin pers com 2010). Table 2.5 Effect of yield on harvester fuel use (Willcox 2004) Crop Size Fuel use Fuel Use T/Ha Green Cane Burnt Cane 53
L/T L/T 60 0.97 0.71 80 0.92 0.66 100 0.84 0.61 120 0.77 0.56 140 0.69 0.51 Mallee System The fuel consumption of the mallee harvester under normal harvesting conditions is not as yet known. 2.3.6 Discussion The quality of cut is very important in sugarcane harvesting. It is similarly important in the context of harvesting mallee to avoid stump damage by the saw and maintain chipper performance. The bulk density of the product produced is an important performance consideration for efficient transport. The bulk density of sugarcane can range from 380kg/m 3 for burnt cane to as low as 200kg/m 3 for whole-of-crop. The bulk density of chipped mallee is about 350kg/m 3 to 400kg/m 3 . This should be verified across a range of operating and crop conditions in future harvester performance evaluations. Cane supply quality (high extraneous matter) and post-harvest sucrose losses are intrinsically linked with low sugar recovery during sugar processing. The elevator pour rate in the Australian sugar industry is around 100-150 tonne/hr in green cane. This reduces to about 60-80 tonne/hr delivered. The prototype mallee harvester has achieved a continuous pour rate of around 35 green tonne/hr under trial conditions. The fuel consumption of the mallee harvester should be measured to provide further data on harvesting performance and costs. A harvester capable of a pour rate above 60 green tonnes/hr is likely to have about 500 kW of installed power, so fuel efficiency is expected to be much less than for cane because the specific energy of chipping is relatively high. Chipper efficiency will be the topic of future research. Table 2.6 Harvester performance comparison Parameter Sugarcane Harvester Prototype Mallee Harvester Pour Rate 100 green t/hr* 35 green t/hr Product Bulk Density 250kgt/m 3 400 kg/m 3 Fuel Consumption 0.9-0.1.2 L per whole-crop tonne Unknown *Elevator pour rate 54
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: Table 2.4 EM levels in cane supply
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?