Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.2.1. Base case scenario to 2040The SFRA base case scenario represents the best estimate (at the time of publication) oftimberland use changes given various demand and supply assumptions. Of all the southernstates, Florida is projected to have the largest decline in overall timberland on a percentage basis.In this scenario, the area of private timberland in northern and central Florida is projected todecline 13.4%, from 11.4 MM or million acres in 1995 to 9.8 MM acres in 2040 (Figure 20).The actual 2005 FIA data for northern and central Florida show total private timberland area tobe 10.8 MM acres vs. the scenario projection of 11.1 MM acres in 2005. Also in this scenario,the area in pine plantations is expected to increase 61% from 4.3 MM acres in 1995 to 6.9 MMacres by 2040. The recent 2005 FIA data indicate pine plantations on private lands to be 4.5 MMacres vs. the scenario projection of 4.6 MM acres in 2005. It should be noted that FIA data arecollected over several years and there is a delay between data collection and reporting.Therefore, these comparisons should be interpreted with this in mind.1210Acres (million)864Lowland HardwoodsUpland HardwoodsOak PineNatural PinePlanted Pine20199519982001200420072010201320162019Year2022202520282031203420372040Figure 20. Projected area of private timberland in northern and central Florida by managementtype under the base case SFRA scenario to 2040.Because pine plantations are more commercially productive than other forest land uses, coupledwith expectations of improved growth rates on plantations, the estimates of removals in Florida75
under this scenario are expected to rise significantly over the projection period (Figure 21), eventhough the total area of timberland has declined. These removal projections are for all softwoodsor hardwoods, and do not distinguish between product time (e.g., pulpwood vs. sawtimber).Softwood removals are projected to increase 130% from 1995 to 2040. Hardwood removals areprojected to increase 62.8%. Projections on the availability of logging residues are assumedproportional to the removal projection data. Note that growth exceeds removals for softwoodsthrough 2040, and to 2020 for hardwoods, indicating increasing softwood and hardwood timberinventories. Hardwood inventories begin to decline for hardwoods after 2020.161412Million Dry Tons10864Softwood RemovalsSoftwood GrowthHardwood RemovalsHardwood Growth201995200020052010201520202025203020352040YearFigure 21. Projected softwood and hardwood growth and removals on private land under thebase case SFRA scenario to 2040.Finally, the SFRA makes price projections under both scenarios (Figure 22). Prices areprojected to increase significantly in real terms under the base case scenario (the conservativecase is discussed below). The SFRA does not distinguish between different timber products,other than by softwoods or hardwoods. The price is a composite product price. Prices areprojected to rise 1.16% per year for softwoods and 1.38% per year for hardwoods. The removal76
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$3
Page 28 and 29: 10.65 TBtu/year required to meet de
Page 30 and 31: haul time category in each county,
Page 32 and 33: Figure 9. TAL Hopkins two-hour one-
Page 34 and 35: Figure 11. GRU, JEA, and TAL woodsh
Page 36 and 37: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearRecover
Page 38 and 39: Dry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearrecover
Page 40 and 41: Table 6. Results for scenario #3,
Page 46 and 47: 6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 48 and 49: Resource/haul time categoryDry tons
Page 58 and 59: 6.005.004.00$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 66: Table 19. Results for scenario #4,
Page 71 and 72: 2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74: Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76: Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77: 3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 81 and 82: acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84: 3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86: 5.004.504.003.50$/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 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?