Biomass to Bioenergy Life Cycle Analysis -

Feedstocks

CORRIM

Elaine Oneil, University of Washington

Leonard R Johnson, University of Idaho

Bruce Lippke, University of Washington

CORRIM Biofuels Research

• Gasification

• Pyrolysis

• Bioconversion

Ethanol

Pyrolysis Oil

Research objectives

Identify the most common harvest systems used for biomass recovery

Identify costs for those systems

Conduct the LCI of the most common systems by feedstock type

Use the LCI data as input into models for fermentation, pyrolysis, and gasification processing options

Scope of Study – Feedstocks & Locations

Residues from Conventional Logging Operations (Inland Northwest)

Material from Early Thinning of Forest Stands (South East)

Short Rotation Woody Crop (SRWC)

(willow in North East)

Most Common Scenarios in Two Regions

Grinding Landing Residue in

the Inland West

Whole Tree Chipping Thinned

Material in the Southeast

ASSUMPTIONS

Inland West Case Study: Recovery of

Landing Residues after Harvest on --

Moist-Cold Forests on State or Private Land

Gentle Slopes

Primary Product

Harvested

Total Residue

Generated Residue Recovered

Cu Ft / Acre Bone Dry Ton / Acre Bone Dry Ton / Acre

3732 32.17 14.48

Chip Van Access to the Landing is a Major

Issue

Many Logging Roads do

not Support the Turning

Radius needed by Trucks

with Chip Vans

Three Recovery Options

Grind and Haul Residue from Log

Landing

Grind Residue at Log Landing,

Shuttle to Reload Point, and Haul

Haul Loose Landing Residue to

Central Landing for Grinding and

Hauling

Shuttling Loose Residue:

Impacted by Solid Volume Factor of

Residue Materials

Roundwood 0.68

Chips and Hog Fuel 0.44

Loose Residue 0.18

Southeast Harvest Scenario Phase I of CORRIM developed three management intensities for

Southeast pine forests

The Mid Intensity, Mid site index option included one thinning at

stand age 17

The thinned material was chipped into biomass rather than

allocated to pulpwood

SE Whole Tree Chipping with 90 mile haul

Merchantable

Stem Volume

Residue Stem

Volume Crown Volume

Total Potential

Volume

896 198 400 1572

Cubic Feet / Acre

Total Residue Recovered

Residue

37.38 Bone Dry Ton / Acre 19.25

Cost to Landing Cost with Hauling

$ 17.23 Dollars / Bone Dry Ton $ 44.17

Fuel to Landing Fuel with Hauling

1.069 Gallons / Bone Dry Ton 3.889

RESULTS

Cost Comparison of Three Recovery Options with 90 mile haul

Recovery of Landing Residue

Grind at

Landing

Grind and

Shuttle

Shuttle Loose

Residue

Sawlog Volume 3,732 3,732 3,732 Cubic Feet / Acre

Total Residue 32.17 32.17 32.17 Bone Dry Ton / Acre

Recovered Residue 14.48 14.48 14.48 Bone Dry Ton / Acre

% Residue Recovered 45.0% 45.0% 45.0%

System Costs

Stump to $ 231.10 $ 436.30 $ 465.09 Dollars per Acre

Long Haul Truck $ 15.96 $ 30.13 $ 32.12 Dollars / BDT

Hauling - Long Haul Tk 90 88 88 Miles

Truck to $ 308.02 $ 248.71 $ 247.86 Dollars per Acre

Mill $ 21.27 $ 17.18 $ 17.12 Dollars / BDT

Total Cost $ 539.12 $ 685.01 $ 712.95 Dollars per Acre

$ 37.24 $ 47.31 $ 49.24 Dollars / BDT

Carbon Removed and Retained

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

Removed ThroughPrimary Product Harvest

Removed ThroughBiomass Recovery

Residual Left on Site

Po

un

ds

pe

r A

cre

of

Car

bo

n

Carbon Removed and Retained on Site Pounds / Acre for Inland Moist Forests

Roots, Inland

Crown, Inland

Stem + Bark, Inland

Carbon Removed and Retained

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Removed ThroughPrimary Product Harvest

Removed ThroughBiomass Recovery

Residual Left on Site

Po

un

ds

pe

r A

cre

of

Car

bo

n

Carbon Removed and Retained on Site Pounds / Acre for Southeast Site

Roots, Southeast

Crown, Southeast

Stem + Bark, Southeast

Emissions to the Air: Fossil Based CO and CO2

0.00E+00

2.00E+01

4.00E+01

6.00E+01

8.00E+01

1.00E+02

1.20E+02

1.40E+02

1.60E+02

1.80E+02

Southeast WholeTree Removal

Grind at Landing Grind and Shuttle Shuttle LooseResidue

Piling andBurning Slash

Emis

sio

ns

in P

ou

nd

s p

er B

on

e D

ry T

on

of

Rec

ove

red

Res

idu

e

Emissions in Pounds per Bone Dry Ton of Fossil Based CO and CO2 to the Air from Residue Recovery

Operations and Pile Burning

CO, fossil

CO2, fossil

Emissions to the Air: Biogenic CO and CO2

CO, biogenic, 66

CO2, biogenic, 3138

0.00E+00

5.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.50E+03

2.00E+03

2.50E+03

3.00E+03

3.50E+03

Southeast WholeTree Removal

Grind at Landing Grind and Shuttle Shuttle LooseResidue

Piling and BurningSlash

Po

un

ds

per

Bo

ne

Dry

To

n R

eco

vere

d R

esi

du

e

Emissions in Pounds per Bone Dry Ton of Biogenic CO and CO2 to the Air from Residue Recovery Operations and Pile Burning

Selected Air Emissions including Piling and

Burning Slash

0.00E+00

2.00E+00

4.00E+00

6.00E+00

8.00E+00

1.00E+01

1.20E+01

1.40E+01

1.60E+01

Po

un

ds

per

Bo

ne

Dry

To

n o

f R

eco

vere

d R

esi

du

e

Emissions per Bone Dry Ton of Selected Elements to the Air from Residue Recovery Operations and Pile Burning

Southeast Whole Tree Removal

Grind at Landing

Grind and Shuttle

Shuttle Loose Residue

Piling and Burning Slash

Conclusions

While the feedstock footprint is small compared to processing

emissions, costs and accessibility will be a significant factor in

determining supply

The choice of recovery system has a significant impact on emissions

The option of burning residues in-situ generates more emissions

than recovery

Sensitivity analysis is needed to determine recovery volumes as a

function of economic, ecological, and technological limits

Acknowledgement

Financial Support from USFS-FPL is greatly appreciated; the Department of Energy is funding extensions to many more alternatives with regional stratification

www.corrim.org

Thank you!