Modeling Biomass Collection and Woods Processing Life-Cycle Analysis*

Abstract

A deterministic spreadsheet model developed in an earlier Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) project that calculates cost, fuel, and chemical outputs of forest management and harvesting activities was modified to include logic for systems used to recover forest residue. Two illustrative biomass recovery systems with variations were modeled. A system to recover residues after whole-tree harvesting operations was applied to a representative forest stand in the Inland West. Whole-tree chipping in an early thinning was applied to a representative forest stand in the Southeast United States. Emission factors and life-cycle outputs were developed for the systems through the SimaPro v7.3 model using one if its environmental impact methodologies called TRACI2. Most environmental outputs, including global warming potential, had a direct relationship to fuel consumption of the recovery systems. These outputs were subsequently used as inputs to life-cycle analysis in biofuel conversion facilities. Fuel consumption for recovery of residues from the log landing was 8.10, 12.0, and 16.0 liters per bone dry metric ton (BDmT) at haul distances of 48, 97, and 145 km, respectively. Corresponding fuel consumption for whole-tree chipping and hauling at these distances was 10.5, 16.0, and 21.5 liters/ BDmT. Shuttling ground residue from the landing for reload and a subsequent long haul of 145 km increased fuel consumption 32 percent over the residue recovery base case. Shuttling loose residue for centralized processing with a long haul distance of 145 km increases fuel consumption by 86 percent over recovery directly from the landing.

A Forest-to-Product Biomass Supply Chain in the Pacific Northwest, USA: A Multi-Product Approach

“…Basic processing technology and utilization costs are described in table 5. Utilization rates for processing equipment are assumed highest for BCT operations (stable supply and controlled environment) and lowest for distributed in-woods landing locations (frequent movement and less efficient) based on previous studies (Anderson et al, 2012;Johnson et al, 2012;ZamoraCristales et al, 2015).…”

“…Biomass processing, conversion and transportation technologies, methods and limitations are generally well known (e.g., Anderson et al, 2012;Johnson et al, 2012;Bisson et al, 2016). Typically, supply chain options center around differing locations for processing biomass whether that is at the landing, at a centralized location, or at an industrial conversion faculty.…”

“…Typically, supply chain options center around differing locations for processing biomass whether that is at the landing, at a centralized location, or at an industrial conversion faculty. Johnson et al (2012) highlighted the different potential transportation options when collecting biomass. They illustrate the concept that material can be processed at the landing, a central landing or handled loose and moved to a conversion site for processing.…”

Subregional Comparison for Forest- to-Product Biomass Supply Chains on the Pacific West Coast, USA

“…Residuals are assumed to be sorted into loglike material (tops) and branches. These governing supply chain options are well studied (e.g., Anderson et al, 2012;Johnson et al, 2012;Bisson et al, 2016) with the model's specific supply chain discussed in Berry and Sessions (2018b).…”

The Economics of Biomass Logistics and Conversion Facility Mobility: An Oregon Case Study

“…Biomass extraction operations involve the comminution of material in the woods (at the landing), at a central in woods-facility or its shipment directly to a conversion facility. Biomass processing, conversion and transportation technologies, methods and limitations are generally well known with a number of studies analyzing these different supply chain options (Anderson et al, 2012;Zamora-Cristales et al, 2013;Johnson et al 2012;Wolfsmayr and Rauch, 2014). Other studies and proposed methods for forest biomass operations include the use of hook-lift trucks, dump trucks, as well as baling and bundling (Rawlings et al, 2004;Harrill and Han, 2010;Kash and Dodson 2010;Bisson et al, 2015;ZamoraCristales et al, 2015).…”