25.12.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 2.14 and Table 2.14 describe the influence <strong>of</strong> annual tonnage per harvester (comparable to the<br />

cane industry group size) and harvester pour rate upon cost per tonne for biomass delivered to the<br />

field edge (that is, to the paddock landings).<br />

Figure 2.14<br />

Table 2.14<br />

The effect <strong>of</strong> harvester pour rate and annual tonnage per harvester upon cost <strong>of</strong><br />

biomass harvested and delivered to field edge<br />

Estimated costs <strong>of</strong> mallee harvesting, excluding pr<strong>of</strong>it and tax<br />

Estimated cost per green tonne 1<br />

Annual tonnage<br />

per harvester<br />

(green tonnes)<br />

Pour rate<br />

30 50 70<br />

30,000 30 22 19<br />

50,000 28 20 17<br />

70,000 26 19 15<br />

110,000 25 17 14<br />

150,000 24 16 13<br />

1 These estimates were based upon a total capex <strong>of</strong> $2.5 million for a harvester, two haulouts, and enough bins to handle the<br />

daily biomass production. The resource density was low, assumed to be two row belts at 225 metre spacings. No shunt truck<br />

costs have been included, and if logistics demand this additional transport step, another $3 (at >70,000 gt/y) to $4 (for low<br />

annual tonnages) per green tonne would apply to these these costs. Road transport costs are in addition to these costs,<br />

74

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!