Upload
becky-laplant
View
2.295
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Opportunities and challenges to biomass harvesting in Canada presented by Mark Ryans of FPInnovations, a Canadian forest policy and research institute.
Citation preview
www.fpinnovations.ca
Opportunities and challenges to biomass harvesting in Canada:An operational perspective
Mark Ryans, R.P.F.
FPInnovations - FericBlandin Foundation – OMNR Tour
May 15 2008Thunder Bay, ON
Outline
• What is FPInnovations?• Drivers for bioenergy• Biomass harvest/recovery methods
– Harvesting systems determine biomass opportunities– Key cost considerations
• Biomass volumes after harvesting• Summary
FERIC
FORIN
TEK
PAPR
ICA
N
FIB
RE
CEN
TRE
Toward an Integrated Innovation System
April 1, 2007
Federal GovernmentFederal Government
Industry – 400+ CompaniesIndustry – 400+ CompaniesProvincial GovernmentsProvincial GovernmentsShared Priorities, Shared Risks,Shared Priorities, Shared Risks,
Shared Benefits, and Shared CostsShared Benefits, and Shared Costs
FPInnovations Partnership
British ColumbiaAlbertaSaskatchewanManitoba OntarioQuébecNew BrunswickNova ScotiaNewfoundland &LabradorNorthwest TerritoriesYukon
Future Industry
Sustainable Forests
Commodity Wood Products
Commodity Pulps & Papers
Engineered Composites & SystemsSustainable Construction
Appearance Products
Value Added Pulps & Papers
‘Bioproducts’&Bioenergy
Now:
Future:
Market Value & ROI decreasing
Bolt-on PlantCo-products
FPInnovations Business Model
• Addresses Sector’s Value Chain
• Built on Partnerships
• Emphasis on Sector Transformation
• Focus on an Emerging Bioeconomy
Four Flagship Innovation Programs
Value Chain Optimization
Next GenerationBuilding and
Living Solutions
Next Generation Pulps & Papers
Bioenergy, Chemicals &
Advanced Bioproducts
Interest in forest feedstocks and bioenergy
Drivers: high energy costs (fossil
fuels and electricity), global warming issues
(carbon credits?) tight hog fuel supply, provincial government
programs to encourage better use of residues and under-utilized species
survival of the industry and northern communities
long-term potential of wood-to-liquid fuel conversion processes, pellets, etc.
Bioenergy is not new to Canadian forest operations
Traditional use of hog fuel and black liquor
Simple supply-chain infrastructure from source (sawmill) to CHP facility
Biomass harvesting operations currently providing feedstock for burning
Burning questions concerning forest feedstocks
• How much is available? – What is the sustainable supply? – To which businesses?
• How much does it cost?• What harvest and recovery systems are
available?• How can biomass quality be improved to suit
current and future uses?
Program Themes 2006-2010
Current uses
CHP at pulp and paper mill
Independent power producer
Pellets
Forest biomass sources
Harvest residues*
Under-utilized standing trees*
Sortyard/chipping terminal debris*
Early thinnings and “fire-smart” treatments
Non-commercial stands
Burnt and insect-killed stems (MPB)
Stumpwood
Energy plantations
*operational in Canada
Residues from different harvest systems:- Biomass types and location
• Harvest residues:– Roadside-stroke delimber (full-
tree)– Landing-DDC (full-tree)– In cutover – harvester (cut-to-
length)
The Nordic way
• Cut-to-length harvesting systems• Private land with small operating blocks (2
– 5 ha)• Three sources of biomass from the forest:
– Recovery of harvest residues within the cutover– Use of stumps– Harvest of small trees
The Nordic way
Key elements to their success:• National policy to promote forest biomass use• Concerted R&D programs • Biomass recovery and harvest systems
tailored to their resources and wood harvest systems
• Modernized CHP plants to optimize use of forest residues
• Guidelines/best practices are in place
CTL residue recovery systems
Cut-to-length harvesting: recovery of debris within the cutover• Bundling or forwarding loose debris
with roadside chipping
CTL systems: Residue bundlers/compactors
Continuous Batch
Compactor – Container system
CTL systems and Nordic practice:- mills tailored for biomass deliveries
Just in time deliveries, covered storage and conveyors Scaling, receiving and feedstock monitoring Large central crusher driven by an electric motor
Source: Hakkila, P. 2004. Tekes, Technology Program Report
6/2004.
Canadian residue recovery systems:- full-tree harvesting systems dominate
Delimber-debarker-chipper (DDC)
- white-wood chips to pulp mill
Stroke delimber or roadside processor
- tree lengths to sawmill
Recovery of roadside residues
Stroke delimber Delimber-debarker-chipper
Full-tree harvest residues:Low-hanging fruit?
• Already at roadside or landing• Paid for (?); spending money to get
rid of it• Location and condition of road• Level of contamination and moisture
content• Integration between conventional
harvest and residue recovery– Currently treated as waste
Key Cost Considerations:- feedstock cost is a key to competitiveness
• Delivered wood cost to mill is the single largest component of final product cost (40 to 60%)
• The delivered costs of forest-origin residues could be higher
Cost factors:- high transportation costs
• A Basic Problem: • Transporting a low-value, low bulk-density material with a high
moisture content over a long distance– Importance of maximizing payload through comminution and compaction
Photo Credit: Holman - John Deere (FERIC Winning Solutions 2006)
Delivered costs: – Eastern Canada, residues from roadside stroke-delimber
Pre-pilingComminution
Transport: - 120 km one-way, live-floor chip van
Other: - roads, supervision, overhead, maintenance, compliance, stumpage
*Cost estimates: FERIC BiOS model
Key Cost Considerations: - high transportation costs
• It may be more cost effective to convert the feedstock in the field and transport a denser fuel– Mobile/portable biorefinery or pellet plant
Advanced Biorefinery Inc.
Cost factors:- high comminution costs
High capital cost: $400 000 to $500 000 chipper ; $500 000 to $850 000 grinder with separate loader
Sensitive to contamination, truck scheduling and residue concentration
Low utilization, high fuel consumption Not designed for working at roadside
Disc chippers
Clean, well-prepared hardwood tops
Drum chippers
Truck or trailer-mounted versions
Larger infeed deck and opening Less sensitive to contaminants
than a disc chipper Potential use in hardwood and
softwood residues
Horizontal grinders
Trailer- and track-mounted models 450 – 735 kW recommended High fuel consumption Can handle various feedstocks
Biomass harvest and recovery systems
• Recovery systems for roadside debris
– Tracked and trailer-mounted horizontal grinders
– Hot system vs. cold-decked
Cost factors:- integration within existing management and harvesting operations
• Conventional harvest affects the cost and quality of the residue recovery operation– Concentrated vs. scattered debris, contaminates, roads and snow removal,
etc.
Cost and quality factors: - moisture content
• For CHP and most thermochemical processes, low moisture content is a major consideration
Firing Efficiency - Gas @ 300 F
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80
Moisture Content (%)
Effic
iency (%
)
Summer
Winter
Residue volumes after recovery - biomass flow
Merchantable (logging) Potentially available
Total biomass
Roadside slash Standing residuals Cutover slash
Silvicultural and ecological retention
Technical usability
Harvestable biomass
Forest-origin biomass sources- potential vs. recoverable volumes
Potentially Available
Technically Usable
Total Biomass
Economically Viable ?
Biomass yield varies by species
Single tree biomass: Black Spruce vs. Jack Pine (DBH: 26 cm, Ht: 18 m)
Ontario FRI: Sb90 Pj10 vs. Pj90 Sb10 (Site Class 2, 90% stocking, 100 yr)
17.5 ODT/ha* 7.7 ODT/ha*
Recoverable volume FERIC BiOS model
•Needles•37
•13%•Live Branches
•16•6%
•Stem Bark•21•8%
•Stem Wood•202•73%
•Dry Wt: 276 kg•Stem Bark
•15•6%
•Needles•13
•6%•Live Branches•10•4%
•Stem Wood•193•84%
•Dry Wt: 231 kg
Biomass recovery on full-tree site, Kapuskasing, ON Black spruce stand
Potentially available50.5 odt
Roadside slash32.6 odt
Standing residuals2.5 odt
Cutover slash15.5 odt
Recovered biomass25.2 odt
Biomass recovery on full-tree site, Kapuskasing, ONMixedwood stand (low hardwood utilization)
Potentially available131.0 ODt
Roadside slash40.5 ODt
Standing residuals47.8 ODt
Cutover slash42.7 ODt
Recovered biomass31.9 ODt
Future outlook: Greater need for forest-origin feedstocks
Wood chips
Chemicals
Sawmill residuals
Pulp
Emissions
Landfill solid waste
Effluent
Forest residues Fuels
Chemicals
Power
Pulp mill to forest biorefinery (Paprican Division)
Wood-to-liquid fuel/wood-to-power and heat processes become commercial reality
Other factors
• State of the industry and availability of capital• Wood-to-liquid fuel processes are still years
away• Current low value of forest residues that have
a low bulk density and high moisture content resulting in high delivered feedstock costs
• Capital costs for a small contractor to get into the business are very high– 50000 ODt contract requires over $2 million in capital costs
and another $2 million in operating costs– Sustain or create 11-12 jobs
Summary and opportunities
Bioproduct opportunities based on forest feedstocks will revolutionize the way we view and manage the forest– A new product stream from our woodlands
operations (reduced cost of all feedstocks)– Biomass harvesting can lead to actual
increases in current merchantable volumes– Silvicultural improvements through biomass
recovery can lead to a more valuable forest– Sustainable levels must be established
Summary and opportunities
Lots of biomass around but economically- viable volumes need to be established
Bioenergy/bioproduct opportunities will make us rethink our traditional approaches to harvesting
Biomass harvesting will create/sustain woodlands jobs
www.fpinnovations.ca
Questions?