Biomass Harvesting, Transportation and Logistics - Bioeconomy ...

bioeconomyconference.org

Biomass Harvesting, Transportation and Logistics - Bioeconomy ...

Biomass Harvesting,

Transportation and Logistics

Stuart Birrell

Dan Froberg

Mark Dilts

Ben Schlesser

Graduate Students

Iowa State University

Funding Support

U.S. Department of Energy

under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-PS07-01ID14039

U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Energy

under grant number NRCS 68-3A75-4-137.

Deere and Company

9/5/2006 1


• Economical Biorefinery Capacity

– for 2000 ton/day

– Delivery cost $ 35 / dry ton

Biorefinery Capacity

• Capacity Required

– 6950 square miles, Average Travel Distance 40 miles*

• 30% Corn acreage, 50% farmer participation

– Storage Capacity (300 days)

• 1,200 million lbs

• 109m cubic feet (Density 11 lbs/cubic feet)

• 2500 acre.ft (100 acres by 25 ft high)

Transportation

– Bio-refinery delivery

• 53 ft truck, 50,000lb Tare

• 80 trucks per day (year round delivery)

• 320 trucks per day (3 month harvest/delivery window)

– Field Harvest Transportation

• 3 ton/acre, 8 acres/hr, 10 hours day,

• 10 truck loads day (assuming weight limit, i.e. 11-14 lbs/cubic foot)

• 40 truck loads day (raw density 3-4 lbs/cubic foot)

*Assessment of options for the collection, handling, and transport of corn stover. 2002. R.D. Perlack and A.F. Turhollow, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

9/5/2006 2


Harvesting Systems:

• Stover Harvest Systems:

– Conventional, multi-pass forage harvest systems

• Conventional Forage Harvesters or balers

– Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System

• low-cost whole plant harvester that can be used independent of

a combine.

– Single Pass Harvesting, Dual Stream Harvesting System

• Based on conventional harvester with two harvest streams,

Grain and Biomass

9/5/2006 3


Single Pass, Combined Stream

Harvesting System:

System Advantages:

•Producer Machinery Cost

• Less Overall Complexity

• Tractor Mounted or Pull-type Field

Unit

•Densification, Transportation and

Logistics

• Single combined stream of higher

density (6-8 lb/ft 3 ).

• Single set of equipment required to

transport material which simplifies

logistics

•Could reduce harvest costs

–Modified Claas Corn Head

– as a low-cost whole plant

harvester

– combine stream with cob and

chopped stover

9/5/2006 4


Single Pass, Combined Stream

Harvesting System:

System Disadvantages:

•Specialized Machine required for

Biomass Harvest.

• capital costs are not spread.

•Grain Quality and Accountability

• Grain quality, grain drying and grain loss

• Departure from the conventional corn

harvesting and marketing system.

• Loss of control of grain ownership and

marketing.

•Equipment for separation and processing

• Additional stationary threshing and

separation equipment

• Extremely high capacity required at

facilities

• Storage of combined stream may be

difficult

Modified Corn Head

Low-cost whole plant harvester

Combined stream, cob/stover

9/5/2006 5


System Advantages:

•Producer Machinery Cost

• Utilizes multi-use conventional harvest

machinery

• Capital costs of machinery spread over

different crops and production

enterprises

•Grain Quality and Marketing

• Conventional Grain harvesting and

threshing in the field.

• No stationary threshing capacity

required at facilities.

Single Pass, Dual Stream

Harvesting System:

•Producer retains control of

ownership and marketing of the

grain

• Ability to market two products

independently.

–Based on conventional combine

–two harvest streams,

–threshed grain

–chopped corn stover.

9/5/2006 6


System Disadvantages:

Single Pass, Dual Stream

Harvesting System:

•Producer Machinery Cost

• High cost combine harvester.

•Densification, Transportation and

Logistics

• Two different harvest streams, requiring

dual logistical and transportation systems

• Very low density stover stream (3-4 lb/ft 3 )

Transportation is volume limited increasing

costs

–Based on conventional combine

–two harvest streams,

–threshed grain

–chopped corn stover.

9/5/2006 7


Present Prototype Development

• Develop single pass grain/stover harvesting system

– Multi-pass conventional forage harvest systems already developed but has

contamination issues

• Stover flow

– Header → Combine → Chopper → Blower/Thrower → Wagon

• Header Improvement

– Material feeding

• Rear chopper design

– Consistently size material to 2 inches or less

– Compare shear cutting to flail cutting

– Limited interference with standard grain harvest

– Simple conversion from grain/stover to grain only harvest

9/5/2006 8


Proposed Shear Chopper

(direct replacement for STS combine’s conventional flail chopper)

9/5/2006 9


Research Summary

• Development and evaluation of two chopper designs

• Evaluate different headers designs

• Performance evaluation of designs

– Field capacity

– Particle size reduction

– Power consumption

• Performance evaluation of combine harvest prototypes

– Field capacity

– Percent stover removal

– Grain loss measurements

• Identification of machine productivity limiting factors

9/5/2006 10


Comparison of Transportation Logistics:

Single Pass, Combined Stream Harvesting System versus

Single Pass, Dual Stream Harvesting

• Model Assumption:

– Base case 1000 acres

– 150 bushel/acre corn

– 4 ton/acre stover yield:

– Total number of trucks

• Weight limited capacity

(11 lb/ft 3 )

• Volume limited (lower

bulk density)

• Single Pass Combined

Stream Harvesting

Systems

– 500 truck loads.

• Single Pass, Dual Stream

Harvesting Systems

(grain, stover)

– 750 truck loads.

Number of Loads

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Truckloads for 1000 Acres

Grain Loads

Stover Loads

Combined Stream

Total Bi-Stream

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Yield of Stover

9/5/2006 11


Economic Analysis of

Corn Stover Harvest Systems

• Evaluate and Compare

– Harvest Systems

• Single Pass, Combine Stream

• Single Pass, Dual Stream

• With/Without Onboard Storage

Transportation systems

• Tractor Based

• Semi-truck

• Review in Terms of Net Profit

– Whole Crop Basis

– Account for Timeliness Costs

9/5/2006 12


Economic Model

Select Cost Parameters

Model Parameters

Hourly Labor Rate ($/hr)

Interest Rate (%/yr)

Off-road Fuel Cost ($/gal)

Road Fuel Cost ($/gal)

Lubrication Cost (% of Fuel Cost)

Housing, Tax. Ins. (% of purchase)

Semi Truck Cost of Tags and Permits ($/yr)

Pre-Harvest Production Costs ($/ac)

Value

10.00

6.00

1.20

1.90

15.00

2.00

1000.00

370.00

9/5/2006 13


Harvest Parameters

Grain Yield (bu/ac)

Grain Moisture (% wb)

Stover Yield (dry ton/ac)

Stover Moisture (% wb)

Stover Bulk Density (lb/ft 3 dry)

Stover Shipping Distance (mile)

Stover Value ($/dry ton)

Combined Bulk Density (lb/ft 3 dry)

Economic Model

Select Harvest Parameters

Combined Stover Moisture Content (% wb)

Value

155

Semi Truck Grain Shipping Distance (mile)

7

Grain Value ($/bu) # 2.52

18

2.8

35

3.5

7.0

35.00

35

8.0

9/5/2006 14


Base Results of Model

Total Net Profit for Whole Crop Harvest

Net Profit for Whole Crop Harvest

Net Profit ($/acre)

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

-20.00

-40.00

-60.00

-80.00

-100.00

-120.00

CT on Combine, Tractor

CT on Combine, Semi

SS on Combine, Tractor

SS on Combine, Semi

CT on Tractor, Tractor

CT on Tractor, Semi

SS on Tractor, Tractor

SS on Tractor, Semi

Grain Harvest Only

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Distance (miles)

9/5/2006 15


Economic Model Conclusions

• Comparative Costs ($/dry ton) at 5 miles

– Single pass $10 to $16 per ton,

– Baling $9.3 to $18 per ton

• 11 mile Shipping Distance

– Increase in net returns over grain only

• 25 mile Shipping Distance

– All stover harvest systems lower net returns than grain only

• 30 mile Shipping Distance Not Feasible

– All stover harvest systems have net loss

– 10 Operators

9/5/2006 16


Field Tests of Four

Corn Stover Harvest Scenarios

R.L. Hoskinson, D.L. Karlen, S.J. Birrell, C.W. Radtke, W. W. Wilhelm

Idaho National Laboratory, USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory,

Iowa State University, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit

Objectives:

–Four different harvest systems

• Conventional Harvest

• Top 50% Removal

• Bottom 50% Removal

• 100% Removal

–Evaluation of plant nutrients removal

and the potential impact soil quality

indicators

–potential ethanol production from the

various stover fractions.

Figure 1. The 100% stover removal.

Figure 2. The 50% top stover removal.

9/5/2006 17


Grain and Stover Yields

for four Harvest Scenarios

Harvest scenario

high-cut top

MC

%

11.2

Grain

Wet Dry

--- ton ac -1 ---

5.3 4.7

MC

%

19.6

Stover

Wet Dry

--- ton ac -1 ---

2.7 2.2

high-cut bottom

---

---

---

63.9

2.1

0.8

low cut

12.1

5.1

4.5

33.8

4.5

3.0

normal cut

11.8

4.9

4.3

23.7

2.9

2.3

9/5/2006 18


N, P, and K replacement costs associated with

four corn stover harvest scenarios

Nitrogen

Phosphates

Potassium

Total

Harvest Scenario

Lb/ac

$/ac

Lb/ac

$/ac

Lb/ac

$/ac

$/ac

high-cut top

30.6

11.16

3.4

2.34

30.5

9.75

23.34

high-cut bottom

12.3

4.53

0.9

0.62

29.9

9.55

14.69

low cut

42.0

15.46

3.7

2.52

38.9

12.42

30.40

normal cut

37.5

13.78

3.6

2.45

30.6

9.77

26.01

a

Average for fertilizer N, P, and K at Walton, NE, Kelly, IA and Boone, IA in March 2006.

Nitrogen cost $0.328 lb -1

Phosphate cost $0.615 lb -1

Potassium cost $0.284 lb -1

9/5/2006 19


Theoretical ethanol yields with

four corn stover harvest scenarios.

Harvest scenario

high-cut top

high-cut bottom

low cut

normal cut

theoretical theoretical theoretical

C6 yield C5 yield total yield

--------- gal ton -1 Dry Basis ---------

69 47 116

75 41 116

73 46 118

69 48 117

C6 EtOH C5 EtOH Total EtOH

------------ gal ac -1 -------------

136 92 228

53 28 81

197 124 321

143 98 241

9/5/2006 20


Field Tests of Four

Corn Stover Harvest Scenarios

R.L. Hoskinson, D.L. Karlen, S.J. Birrell, C.W. Radtke, W. W. Wilhelm

Idaho National Laboratory, USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory,

Iowa State University, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research Unit

Conclusions: (The preliminary results)

–harvesting at the normal height would probably provide

the crop residue projected from long-term yield records

and typical harvest indices

– The macro-nutrient replacement value for the normal

harvest scenario under our conditions

• $57.36 ha -1 ($23.21 acre -1 ) or

• $11.27 Mg -1 ($10.22 ton -1 ).

Harvesting the lower portion of the stalk is not

recommended

• little dry matter,

• slow harvest efficiency,

• increase nutrient replacement costs,

• decrease surface cover and erosion protection

Harvesting the bottom portion of the stalks would also

produce a inferior feedstock

• excessive water content

• increased transportation and storage costs

• minimal improvement on ethanol yield,

• soil contamination may cause problems in the biorefinery.

Figure 1. The 100% stover removal.

Figure 2. The 50% top stover removal.

9/5/2006 21


Soil Image of Four

Corn Stover Harvest Scenarios

• Conventional Harvest

• Top 50% Removal

• Bottom 50% Removal

• 100% Removal

(Spring)

9/5/2006 22

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines