Combining slash bundling with in-woods grinding operations
Combining slash bundling with in-woods grinding operations
Combining slash bundling with in-woods grinding operations
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2004). Forest <strong>operations</strong> have the potential to supply 368 million dry tons of woody biomass<br />
annually (Perlack et al. 2005). The annual available biomass <strong>in</strong> California was estimated at 26.8<br />
million dry tons (Tiangco et al. 2005). Prescribed burn<strong>in</strong>g has long been the preferred method of<br />
dispos<strong>in</strong>g of forest biomass, but mechanical removal of biomass is becom<strong>in</strong>g more popular due<br />
to <strong>in</strong>creased restrictions on open field burn<strong>in</strong>g, or <strong>in</strong> areas like the wildland urban <strong>in</strong>terface<br />
(WUI) where burn<strong>in</strong>g is not an option.<br />
Forest residues are often not utilized because collection and transportation costs are greater than<br />
the market value of the materials (Withycombe 1982). Lack of research <strong>in</strong> this field has made<br />
harvest<strong>in</strong>g and transportation costs are notoriously difficult to estimate because there are critical<br />
gaps <strong>in</strong> the data and methods for predict<strong>in</strong>g costs (Rummer et al. 2008).<br />
New, more efficient harvest<strong>in</strong>g equipment like energy wood harvesters could reduce the<br />
associated process<strong>in</strong>g costs <strong>with</strong> their <strong>in</strong>creased productivity. These mach<strong>in</strong>es compact and<br />
bundle woody biomass <strong>in</strong>to log-shaped bundles, and could produce up to 40 half-ton bundles per<br />
hour <strong>with</strong> a production cost of $16 per dry ton (Rummer et al. 2004). Quantify<strong>in</strong>g costs and<br />
productivities of these new systems for biomass recovery from northern California will aid land<br />
managers <strong>in</strong> the plann<strong>in</strong>g and execution of cost-effective biomass supply for energy.<br />
The overall objective of this project was to determ<strong>in</strong>e the operational cost and performance of a<br />
biomass collection and densification system, called <strong>slash</strong> bundler, <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>with</strong> a<br />
centralized gr<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g operation. Important variables, such as haul<strong>in</strong>g distance and moisture<br />
contents, were itemized to understand their effects on productivity of collection and<br />
transportation. In particular, <strong>slash</strong> piles were characterized to evaluate the effect of <strong>slash</strong> type on<br />
productivity, based on arrangement and size of <strong>slash</strong> materials.<br />
Methodology<br />
Study site and system description<br />
The study was conducted <strong>in</strong> three clearcut harvest<strong>in</strong>g sites <strong>in</strong> northern California, rang<strong>in</strong>g from<br />
17 to 32 acres. The vegetation at each site varied but was generally dom<strong>in</strong>ated by second growth<br />
redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) <strong>with</strong> an average tree<br />
age of 60 years. The three sites had an average tree diameter at breast height (DBH) rang<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from 20-22 <strong>in</strong>ches, and ground slopes ranged from 0 to 30 percent. The stands were harvested<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g a ground-based shovel logg<strong>in</strong>g system. There were many <strong>slash</strong> pile types <strong>in</strong> terms of size<br />
and arrangement present across these sites (Fig. 1). A forester work<strong>in</strong>g for the land owner<br />
suggested these sites were expected to yield anywhere from 50-75 tons/ac of <strong>slash</strong> from clearcut<br />
<strong>operations</strong> (Alcorn 2008).