Biomass Resource Assessment Part I - Gainesville Regional Utilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.004.504.003.50$/MMBtu3.002.502.001.501.000.502005 Without Competing Demand2005 With Competing DemandBase Projections in 2040Conservative Projections in 20400.000 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20TBtu/yrFigure 26. Comparison of scenario #1: “Without competing demand”, scenario #2: “Withcompeting demand” and base case and conservative case projections to 2040 for the JEA BrandyBranch facility.85
3.3.3. TAL Hopkins facilityTable 31. Results for the base case projection to 2040 for the TAL Hopkins facility.Cumulative<strong>Resource</strong>/haul time categoryDry tonsrecoverableTBtu/yearRecoverableTBtu/yearrecoverablePrice($/MMBtu)Urban wood, 0-15 min. 2,817 0.04 0.04 0.62Urban wood, 15-30 min. 13,413 0.20 0.24 0.81Urban wood, 30-45 min. 15,930 0.24 0.48 0.99Urban wood, 45-60 min. 8,618 0.13 0.61 1.18Urban wood, 60-75 min. 8,450 0.13 0.73 1.36Urban wood, 75-90 min. 10,346 0.15 0.89 1.55Urban wood, 90-105 min. 13,130 0.20 1.09 1.73Urban wood, 105-120 min. 19,044 0.28 1.37 1.92Logging residues, 0-15 min. 3,994 0.06 1.43 2.60Longleaf restoration, 0-15 min. 1,950 0.03 1.46 2.71Logging residues, 15-30 min. 22,037 0.34 1.80 2.77Longleaf restoration, 15-30 min. 10,281 0.15 1.96 2.89Logging residues, 30-45 min. 47,079 0.73 2.69 2.94Longleaf restoration, 30-45 min. 23,409 0.35 3.04 3.07Logging residues, 45-60 min. 73,693 1.15 4.19 3.12Longleaf restoration, 45-60 min. 34,917 0.52 4.71 3.25Logging residues, 60-75 min. 116,108 1.81 6.52 3.29Longleaf restoration, 60-75 min. 33,289 0.50 7.02 3.43Logging residues, 75-90 min. 151,878 2.37 9.39 3.46Longleaf restoration, 75-90 min. 27,918 0.42 9.81 3.60Logging residues, 90-105 min. 154,269 2.40 12.21 3.64Pulpwood, 0-15 min. 20,591 0.33 12.54 3.72Longleaf restoration, 90-105 min. 26,874 0.40 12.95 3.78Logging residues, 105-120 min. 139,314 2.17 15.12 3.81Pulpwood, 15-30 min. 110,239 1.78 16.90 3.88Longleaf restoration, 105-120 min. 29,934 0.45 17.35 3.96Pulpwood, 30-45 min. 216,063 3.49 20.84 4.04Pulpwood, 45-60 min. 311,023 5.02 25.86 4.20Pulpwood, 60-75 min. 508,936 8.22 34.08 4.35Pulpwood, 75-90 min. 705,438 11.40 45.48 4.51Pulpwood, 90-105 min. 739,429 11.94 57.42 4.67Pulpwood, 105-120 min. 651,425 10.52 67.95 4.8386
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$/MMBtu3.002.001.001: W
Page 66: Table 19. Results for scenario #4,
Page 71 and 72: 2.4.4. General resultsIt is difficu
Page 73 and 74: Table 22. Yield, acreage required,
Page 75 and 76: Table 25. Capital construction outp
Page 77 and 78: 3. TASK 2: SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS F
Page 79 and 80: under this scenario are expected to
Page 81 and 82: acres in 1995 to 8.5 MM acres in 20
Page 83 and 84: 3.3. RESULTS3.3.1. GRUTable 27. Res
Page 85 and 86: 5.004.504.003.50$/MMBtu3.002.502.00
Page 87: Table 30. Results for the conservat
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?