Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE OF CONTENTSList of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iiiList of Tables .................................................................................................................................. vList of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ viiList of Conversions ...................................................................................................................... viii1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 91.1. Project Background and Scope ....................................................................................... 91.2. Tasks ............................................................................................................................... 91.3. Organization of the Report ............................................................................................ 112. Task 1: Woodshed delineation and supply/market analysis for GRU, JEA, and TAL ......... 132.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 132.2. Methods......................................................................................................................... 142.2.1. Description and physical availability of resources ............................................... 142.2.2. Cost assumptions .................................................................................................. 192.2.3. Haul time calculations and woodshed delineation ................................................ 232.2.4. Price impacts on pulpwood ................................................................................... 242.2.5. Other competing demands .................................................................................... 252.2.6. Supply curve construction ..................................................................................... 262.3. Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 272.3.1. Scenario #1: “Without competing demand” .......................................................... 272.3.2. Scenario #2: “With competing demand” ............................................................... 272.3.3. Scenario #3: “With price competition” ................................................................. 302.3.4. Scenario #4: “With price competition, 25% pulpwood” ...................................... 302.3.5. Scenario #5: “One-hour haul radius with price competition” ............................... 302.3.6. Scenario #6: “With competing demand, doubling diesel costs” ........................... 312.4. Results of the five scenarios ......................................................................................... 322.4.1. GRU Deerhaven facility ....................................................................................... 322.4.2. JEA Brandy Branch facility .................................................................................. 442.4.3. TAL Hopkins facility ............................................................................................ 562.4.4. General results ...................................................................................................... 682.5. Economic impacts (by Drs. Alan Hodges and Mohammad Rahmani) ......................... 703. Task 2: Sustainability impacts from land-use change ........................................................... 743.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 743.2. Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 743.2.1. Base case scenario to 2040 ................................................................................... 753.2.2. Conservative case scenario to 2040 ...................................................................... 773.3. Results ........................................................................................................................... 803.3.1. GRU ...................................................................................................................... 803.3.2. JEA ........................................................................................................................ 833.3.3. TAL Hopkins facility ............................................................................................ 863.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 884. Task 3: Transportation impacts for Deerhaven ..................................................................... 894.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 89i
4.2. Scenario A: Delivered to remote site by truck, processed, and transported to Deerhavenby truck ..................................................................................................................................... 894.3. Scenario B: <strong>Biomass</strong> delivered to remote site by truck, processed at site, and deliveredto Deerhaven by rail. ................................................................................................................. 934.4. Scenario C: <strong>Biomass</strong> directly delivered to Deerhaven by truck. ................................. 955. Task 4: CO 2 Emissions from harvest, process, and transportation of woody biomass ......... 985.1. Background ................................................................................................................... 985.2. Literature review ........................................................................................................... 995.3. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1026. Combined resource availability .......................................................................................... 1047. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 1158. Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 1219. References ........................................................................................................................... 122ii
Page 3: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors acknowl
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$3
Page 28 and 29: 10.65 TBtu/year required to meet de
Page 30 and 31: haul time category in each county,
Page 32 and 33: Figure 9. TAL Hopkins two-hour one-
Page 34 and 35: Figure 11. GRU, JEA, and TAL woodsh
Page 36 and 37: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearRecover
Page 38 and 39: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearrecover
Page 40 and 41: Table 6. Results for scenario #3,
Page 46 and 47: 6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 48 and 49: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 50 and 51: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 54 and 55:
Table 13. Results for scenario #4,
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 60 and 61:
Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74:
Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76:
Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77 and 78:
3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 79 and 80:
under this scenario are expected to
Page 81 and 82:
acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84:
3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86:
5.004.504.003.50$/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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?