Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Task-3: Transportation. Transportation options for biomass delivery will influence totaldelivered costs of biomass feedstocks. Intermodal freight options may be designed to alleviatetraffic and potentially to store off-site biomass supplies at satellite receiving points. We willassess the potential effects of intermodal freight moves on resource quantity and cost. Scenarioswill include biomass a) delivered to remote site by truck, processed at site, and transported toDeerhaven by truck; b) delivered to remote site by truck, processed, and transported toDeerhaven by rail; and c) trucked to Deerhaven, processed and used. We will tabulate ourassumptions so GRU can conduct a separate analysis to include local rail freight costs.Task-4: CO 2 emissions from harvest, process, and transportation of woody biomass.The combustion of sustainably produced biomass is CO 2 neutral, because biomass burned isequal to the amount of biomass regrown over time. However, the overall use of biomass forenergy is not CO 2 neutral because, as with conventional energy, fossil fuel is used in theproduction of the feedstock. Research to date generally suggests that net energy ratios, and thusCO 2 intensity, of biomass is competitive with other energy sources. We will a) conduct aliterature review to assess the CO 2 intensity of the production of biomass for energy, and b)estimate CO 2 emissions that would be generated from the production, harvest, processing, andtransportation of urban wood waste, logging residues, and forest products. Given this is a shorttermproject, this study will not include field measurements or a full life cycle analysis, but ratherwill make calculations based on available literature and familiarity with fuel (diesel) use inbiomass production and delivery operations.1.3. Organization of the Report<strong>Part</strong> I of this report is divided into seven main chapters. Chapter 1 presents the introductionand background to this study. Chapters 2 through 5 are dedicated to Tasks 1 through 4,respectively. Chapter 2 presents the background, methods, scenarios, and results for Task 1:Woodshed delineation and supply/market analysis for GRU, JEA, and TAL. This chapterpresents results of the base case scenarios, which are expanded on in subsequent chapters. Forexample, Chapter 3 is dedicated to Task 2: Sustainability impacts from land-use change, whichextends the methodology and results from Chapter 2 to make future projections. Similarly,Chapter 4 expands the analysis to focus on Task 3: Transportation impacts for Deerhaven.Chapter 5 is a review of literature to evaluate Task 4: CO 2 emissions from the harvest, process,11
and transportation of woody biomass. In Chapter 6, the results from different scenarios arecombined with MSW resources identified in comparable scenarios from <strong>Part</strong> II of this report toconstruct combined resource supply curves. Summary, conclusions, and recommendations arepresented in Chapter 7. The bibliography and appendices follow in Chapters 8 and 9,respectively.12
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 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$3
Page 28 and 29: 10.65 TBtu/year required to meet de
Page 30 and 31: haul time category in each county,
Page 32 and 33: Figure 9. TAL Hopkins two-hour one-
Page 34 and 35: Figure 11. GRU, JEA, and TAL woodsh
Page 36 and 37: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearRecover
Page 38 and 39: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearrecover
Page 40 and 41: Table 6. Results for scenario #3,
Page 46 and 47: 6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 48 and 49: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 58 and 59: 6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 64 and 65:
Table 18. Results for scenario #3,
Page 66:
Table 19. Results for scenario #4,
Page 69 and 70:
Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 71 and 72:
2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74:
Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76:
Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77 and 78:
3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 79 and 80:
under this scenario are expected to
Page 81 and 82:
acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84:
3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86:
5.004.504.003.50$/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:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
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?