Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yearrecoverableCumulativeTBtu/yearrecoverablePrice($/MMBtu)Alachua Co. MSW 1.097 30.407 4.10Pulpwood, 90-105 min. 3.795 34.202 4.19Pulpwood, 105-120 min. 2.037 36.239 4.34Gilchrist Co. MSW 0.048 36.287 4.39Dixie Co. MSW 0.036 36.323 4.48Putnam Co. MSW 0.270 36.593 4.62Marion Co. MSW 1.346 37.939 4.64Lafayette Co. MSW 0.017 37.956 4.66Suwannee Co. MSW 0.129 38.085 4.73Hamilton Co. MSW 0.046 38.131 4.74Citrus Co. MSW 0.974 39.105 4.87Sumter Co. MSW 0.342 39.447 4.88Lake Co. MSW 1.016 40.463 5.09Lanier Co. MSW 0.105 40.568 5.09Lowndes Co. MSW 1.251 41.819 5.10Hernando Co. MSW 0.843 42.662 5.20Cook Co. MSW 0.208 42.870 5.33107
Table 39. Combined resources (resources identified in both Part I and Part II) for JEA assumingScenario #2: “With competing demand”, ranked from least to most expensive.Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yearrecoverableCumulativeTBtu/yearrecoverablePrice($/MMBtu)Urban wood, 0-15 min. 0.084 0.084 0.62Urban wood, 15-30 min. 0.350 0.433 0.81Urban wood, 30-45 min. 0.431 0.864 0.99Urban wood, 45-60 min. 0.204 1.069 1.18Urban wood, 60-75 min. 0.151 1.219 1.36Duval Co. Yard trash 1.265 2.484 1.49Urban wood, 75-90 min. 0.098 2.582 1.55Baker Co. Yard trash 0.031 2.613 1.61Nassau Co. Yard trash 0.005 2.618 1.63Union Co. Yard trash 0.018 2.636 1.65Bradford Co. Yard trash 0.039 2.675 1.68Urban wood, 90-105 min. 0.096 2.770 1.73Clay Co. Yard trash 0.176 2.946 1.77Duval Co. C&D Wood 0.961 3.907 1.78Columbia Co. Yard trash 0.022 3.929 1.81Duval Co. Tires 0.383 4.313 1.82Charlton Co. Yard trash 0.019 4.332 1.82Ware Co. Yard trash 0.057 4.389 1.82Baker Co. Tires 0.011 4.400 1.88Nassau Co. Tires 0.035 4.436 1.88Union Co. Tires 0.007 4.442 1.90Camden Co. Yard trash 0.096 4.538 1.90Bradford Co. Tires 0.007 4.545 1.91Urban wood, 105-120 min. 0.105 4.650 1.92Baker Co. C&D Wood 0.002 4.652 1.93St. Johns Co. Yard trash 0.232 4.884 1.94Nassau Co. C&D Wood 0.036 4.919 1.94Clay Co. Tires 0.098 5.017 1.96Union Co. C&D Wood 0.001 5.018 1.97Columbia Co. Tires 0.049 5.068 1.97Charlton Co. Tires 0.011 5.078 1.98Ware Co. Tires 0.032 5.110 1.98Brantley Co. Yard trash 0.030 5.140 1.99Bradford Co. C&D Wood 0.004 5.143 2.01Camden Co. Tires 0.053 5.197 2.02St. Johns Co. Tires 0.119 5.316 2.04Echols Co. Yard trash 0.009 5.325 2.04Brantley Co. Tires 0.016 5.341 2.06Echols Co. Tires 0.005 5.346 2.09Flagler Co. Yard trash 0.176 5.523 2.11Clinch Co. Yard trash 0.012 5.535 2.12Clay Co. C&D Wood 0.049 5.584 2.12Flagler Co. Tires 0.118 5.701 2.13Clinch Co. Tires 0.007 5.708 2.13108
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors acknowl
Page 5 and 6:
4.2. Scenario A: Delivered to remot
Page 7:
Figure 22. Projected softwood and h
Page 10 and 11:
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSB
Page 12 and 13:
1. INTRODUCTION1.1. Project Backgro
Page 14 and 15:
Task-3: Transportation. Transportat
Page 16 and 17:
2. TASK 1: WOODSHED DELINEATION AND
Page 18 and 19:
calculations for urban wood waste a
Page 20 and 21:
the current pulpwood harvests are a
Page 22 and 23:
2,0001,800Acres (thousands)1,6001,4
Page 24 and 25:
ton -1 ($17.38 green ton -1 ) for t
Page 26 and 27:
$ per million BTU, delivered$4.00$3
Page 28 and 29:
10.65 TBtu/year required to meet de
Page 30 and 31:
haul time category in each county,
Page 32 and 33:
Figure 9. TAL Hopkins two-hour one-
Page 34 and 35:
Figure 11. GRU, JEA, and TAL woodsh
Page 36 and 37:
Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearRecover
Page 38 and 39:
Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearrecover
Page 40 and 41:
Table 6. Results for scenario #3,
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 48 and 49:
Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 50 and 51:
Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 60 and 61: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 64 and 65: Table 18. Results for scenario #3,
Page 66: Table 19. Results for scenario #4,
Page 71 and 72: 2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74: Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76: Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77 and 78: 3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 79 and 80: under this scenario are expected to
Page 81 and 82: acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84: 3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86: 5.004.504.003.50$/MMBtu3.002.502.00
Page 87 and 88: Table 30. Results for the conservat
Page 89 and 90: 3.3.3. TAL Hopkins facilityTable 31
Page 91 and 92: 5.004.504.003.50$/MMBtu3.002.502.00
Page 93 and 94: For GRU most of these do not apply;
Page 95 and 96: Table 33. Concentration yard costs.
Page 97 and 98: location of the rail siding and the
Page 99 and 100: discussed, to get an idea of the pr
Page 101 and 102: 5. TASK 4: CO 2 EMISSIONS FROM HARV
Page 103 and 104: in fuel chips and the carbon in fue
Page 105 and 106: transporting coal. However, because
Page 107 and 108: 6. COMBINED RESOURCE AVAILABILITYPa
Page 109: Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yea
Page 113 and 114: Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yea
Page 119 and 120: OverstockedNatural Stands,0.16, 1%
Page 121 and 122: logging residues from 90% to 60% to
Page 123 and 124: ecommend that GRU, in coordination
Page 125: 9. REFERENCESBlack and Veach (2004)
show all

Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?