Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>Resource</strong>/haul time categoryTBtu/yearrecoverableCumulativeTBtu/yearrecoverablePrice ($/MMBtu)Brooks Co. Yard trash 0.028 6.108 3.26Miller Co. Yard trash 0.010 6.119 3.26Seminole Co. Yard trash 0.016 6.134 3.26Logging residues, 60-75 min. 1.098 7.232 3.29Taylor Co. Yard trash 0.014 7.246 3.31Houston Co. Yard trash 0.012 7.258 3.31Franklin Co. Yard trash 0.023 7.281 3.32Baker Co. Yard trash 0.007 7.288 3.36Pulpwood, 15-30 min. 1.040 8.328 3.39Longleaf restoration, 60-75 min. 0.499 8.827 3.43Overstocked natural, 60-75 min. 0.150 8.977 3.43Overstocked plantation, 60-75 min. 0.150 9.128 3.43Early Co. Yard trash 0.021 9.148 3.44Logging residues, 75-90 min. 1.422 10.570 3.46Jackson Co. Yard trash 0.036 10.606 3.51Washington Co. Yard trash 0.006 10.611 3.51Pulpwood, 30-45 min. 2.052 12.663 3.55Holmes Co. Yard trash 0.003 12.666 3.57Longleaf restoration, 75-90 min. 0.419 13.085 3.60Overstocked natural, 75-90 min. 0.155 13.241 3.60Overstocked plantation, 75-90 min. 0.145 13.385 3.60Logging residues, 90-105 min. 1.444 14.829 3.64Pulpwood, 45-60 min. 2.965 17.794 3.71Lafayette Co. Yard trash 0.001 17.795 3.72Longleaf restoration, 90-105 min. 0.403 18.198 3.78Overstocked natural, 90-105 min. 0.144 18.342 3.78Overstocked plantation, 90-105 min. 0.297 18.639 3.78Logging residues, 105-120 min. 1.305 19.944 3.81Geneva Co. Yard trash 0.068 20.011 3.82Henry Co. Yard trash 0.011 20.022 3.85Pulpwood, 60-75 min. 4.804 24.826 3.87Longleaf restoration, 105-120 min. 0.449 25.275 3.96Overstocked natural, 105-120 min. 0.071 25.346 3.96Overstocked plantation, 105-120 min. 0.366 25.712 3.96Walton Co. Yard trash 0.013 25.725 4.00Pulpwood, 75-90 min. 6.591 32.317 4.03Calhoun Co. MSW 0.038 32.355 4.04Leon Co. MSW 1.525 33.880 4.12Pulpwood, 90-105 min. 6.904 40.784 4.19Gadsden Co. MSW 0.149 40.933 4.26Wakulla Co. MSW 0.074 41.007 4.26Pulpwood, 105-120 min. 6.112 47.119 4.34Grady Co. MSW 0.311 47.430 4.35Liberty Co. MSW 0.021 47.451 4.36Thomas Co. MSW 0.536 47.987 4.45Decatur Co. MSW 0.357 48.344 4.46Jefferson Co. MSW 0.078 48.422 4.58Madison Co. MSW 0.098 48.520 4.58113
<strong>Resource</strong>/haul time categoryTBtu/yearrecoverableCumulativeTBtu/yearrecoverablePrice ($/MMBtu)Mitchell Co. MSW 0.318 48.838 4.69Worth Co. MSW 0.279 49.117 4.72Colquitt Co. MSW 0.546 49.663 4.73Brooks Co. MSW 0.202 49.865 4.74Miller Co. MSW 0.076 49.941 4.74Seminole Co. MSW 0.113 50.054 4.74Taylor Co. MSW 0.046 50.100 4.78Houston Co. MSW 0.090 50.190 4.78Franklin Co. MSW 0.057 50.247 4.79Baker Co. MSW 0.052 50.299 4.83Early Co. MSW 0.149 50.448 4.89Jackson Co. MSW 0.244 50.692 4.95Washington Co. MSW 0.094 50.786 4.95Holmes Co. MSW 0.047 50.833 5.00Dougherty Co. MSW 1.128 51.961 5.01Geneva Co. MSW 0.490 52.451 5.21Henry Co. MSW 0.076 52.527 5.23Walton Co. MSW 0.462 52.989 5.36114
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:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66: Table 19. Results for scenario #4,
Page 69 and 70: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 71 and 72: 2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74: Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76: Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77 and 78: 3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 79 and 80: under this scenario are expected to
Page 81 and 82: acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84: 3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86: 5.004.504.003.50$/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 and 110: Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yea
Page 111 and 112: Table 39. Combined resources (resou
Page 113 and 114: Resource/haul time categoryTBtu/yea
Page 115: 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?